Леонтьева К.И. Семиотика текста vs. семиотика дискурса: к поиску адекватного эпистемологического основания теории художественного перевода

Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики. 2014. № 1 (38). С. 75-80. Семиотика дискурса как порождение постструктурализма предполагает отказ от классической эссенциалистской концепции чтения, центрированной на авторской интенции (семиотика текста) при параллельном признании смыслового динамизма (девиантности и вариативности) коммуникативных практик в качестве исходной эпистемологической презумпции. В статье на примере современных западных концепций перевода показано, почему и насколько эффективной может стать интеграция данной презумпции в российскую теорию художественного перевода. Russian Literary Translation Studies are mainly based on essentialist semiotics of text (structuralism), which presumes the meaning of a literary text to be stable and thus identical for its author and its recipient. As a result our theorists still adhere to the essentialist concept of equivalent or adequate translation centered on the author’s intention. A large part of Weste translation theorists, on the contrary, adhere to the so-called semiotics of discourse or interpretative semiotics (poststructuralism and deconstruction). This type of semiotics seems to be a more adequate episteme for Translation Studies, as it presumes meaning instability to be the essence of any communicative practice, translation not being an exception. A logical consequence of such nonessentialist presumption is recognition and legalization of meaning dynamics in translation (i.e. its variability, deviation, inferentiality and innovation), which in its tu is a logical consequence of a natural gap existing between unique discursive environments (a complex of different linguistic, extra-, pragma- and psycholinguistic factors), relevant for the author and the translator, which predetermine the process and the result of text creation and/or comprehension. From this point of view equivalence and adequacy in translation are actually impossible. This conclusion may help to resolve at last a long-drawn debate over the possibility of fidelity and invisibility of translator in literary translation.