CC BY
1
Original article UDC 811.511.111
DOI 10.24147/2413-6182.2024.11(1)74-86
ISSN 2413-6182 eISSN 2658-4867
TRANSLATING RUSSIAN PRAGMATIC MARKERS INTO FINNISH: THE
ETO SAMOE CASE
N.A. Osmak
Herzen University (St. Petersburg, Russia)
Abstract: The paper is aimed at revealing and describing the translation options of pragmatic marker eto samoe into Finnish considering its functions in the text. The theoretical basis concerns works in the field of colloquialism, corpus linguistics, lexicology of the Russian and Finnish languages. The material for the analysis was the contexts found in the Russian-Finnish parallel corpus ParRus 2016, containing texts of Russian classical literature of the 19th and 20th centuries. At the first step, the functions of the unit eto samoe found in the contexts of the analyzed corpus are described (hesitation marker, navigation marker, function of hesitation and starting marker, function of hesitation and final marker). Next, translation options into Finnish are analyzed, including the use of one of the Finnish pragmatic markers, a contact verb or a deletion device, taking into account the correspondence of their functions and translation adequacy. The study shows that the most successful translation method is the use of a pragmatic marker, which in Finnish has the same functions as the unit being translated. The least successful option is to use the technique of omission, since in this case the speech portrait of the character is not fully reflected.
Key words: pragmatic marker, translation, hesitation pause, spoken discourse, Finnish language.
For citation:
Osmak, N.A. (2024), Translating Russian pragmatic markers into Finnish: the eto samoe case. Communication Studies (Russia), Vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 74-86. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2024.11(1).74-86.
About the author:
Osmak, Natalia Andreevna, PhD, Head of the Department of North European Languages
Corresponding author:
Postal address: 48, r. Moiki nab., St. Petersburg, 191186, Russia E-mail: nataliaosmak@herzen.spb.ru; Natalia.osmak@yandex.ru
© H.A. OcbMaK, 2024
Funding:
The research was supported by an internal grant of the Herzen University (project No. 1VG)
Conflict of interest:
The author declares no conflict of interest Received: November 15, 2023 Revised: November 30, 2023 Accepted: December 27, 2023
Introduction
Spoken discourse has been studied by linguists for a long time, however recently the discussion about such phenomena as grammaticalization and even "pragmaticalization" has become more vivid due to appearance of spontaneous speech corpora. The process of pragmaticalization is considered to be the loss of the original lexical and grammatical meaning and the acquisition of the pragmatic meaning, i.e. functional, meaning [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2021: 13]. Unlike grammaticalization, which tends to lead to syntactic integration, prag-maticalization involves quite often increased syntactic freedom, semantic-pragmatic scope, and optionality [Heine 2013: 1218].
The diversity of the functional and semantic potential of a word is most fully revealed when analyzing its use by a native speaker, which, in turn, indicates the need to develop such a direction of study as speech lexicography aiming "to describe modern everyday colloquial speech (i.e., oral spontaneous speech with maximum degree of naturalness in all the diversity of its functional units] and present the results of such a description in dictionaries, the vocabularies of which are specific uses of units of spontaneous speech (dictionaries not of words, but of word usage]" [Osmak 2014: 5]. The possibility of creating bilingual dictionaries within the framework of speech lexicography is of particular interest, as it would greatly improve the process of teaching foreign languages and facilitate the task of translators, including literary texts, which often represent imitation of spoken discourse. There one can find a wide variety of individual stylistic features of the speaker, for example, breaks, repetitions, verbalized hesitation pauses, vocalizations and pragmatic markers as well.
One of the principles of speech lexicography within one language is the reliance on corpus data, representing records of oral dialogic and polylogic spontaneous speech recorded in the most natural conditions. At the same time, it is obvious that such a lexicographic description can be carried out in several ways: through the description of the most frequent units of speech or through the analysis of individual lexico-semantic groups [Osmak 2014: 6]. Bilingual speech lexicography requires other material as its basis, however, the preser-
vation of the corpus approach will allow us to maintain the relevance of the conclusions regarding the translation options for certain units.
All this leads to the idea of the need to use parallel corpora as a support when compiling a lexicographic description, including pragmatic markers.
It is stated that discursive words, which are close to pragmatic markers, usually "do not have a denotation in the conventional sense; their meanings are not objective, so they can only be learned through their use" [Viktorova 2014: 10]. That's why they are often considered to be untranslatable.
The main purpose of the paper is to reveal the options for translating Russian pragmatic construction 'eto samoe' into Finnish, basing on the texts of the parallel Russian-Finnish corpus.
Russian Pragmatic Marker 'eto samoe' and its Functions: Literature Overview
According to N. Bogdanova-Beglarian [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2021], a pragmatic marker is a functional unit of spontaneous oral speech, which can be characterized by a high frequency of occurrence and is used unconsciously. Despite the fact that such units have long been the object of interest of linguistics, there is terminological variability in relation to this linguistic phenomenon. Some researches state that these speech units have various names due to various research foci, the list of possible variations including [Jucker, Ziv 1998]:
1. Discourse Markers;
2. Discourse Particles;
3. Pragmatic Markers;
4. Pragmatic Particle;
5. Pragmatic Expression;
6. Pragmatic Connective.
Another term used by linguists is (language] filler word or sound that interpolates the main message of the speaker [Duvall et al. 2014: 36]. Finnish linguistic studies also offer huge variety of terms, such as particles (partikkeli), discourse markers and discourse connectives [Jaaskelainen, Koivisto 2012; Duvallon, Peltola 2017].
Yet, in respect to terminology, we would rather agree with N. Bogda-nova-Beglarian [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2021: 14-15], drawing a number of distinctions between pragmatic markers and discourse markers:
1. Pragmatic markers are used unconsciously, while discursive markers are introduced into the text on purpose in order to structure it.
2. Pragmatic markers, unlike discursive markers, have practically no lexical/grammatical meaning and are outside the system of parts of speech.
3. Pragmatic markers are used only in oral speech and its stylizations in a literary text, while discourse markers are found in a written text as well.
4. Pragmatic markers demonstrate the speaker's attitude to the process of generating speech and its result, verbalizing all the difficulties, while dis-
course markers can structure the text or reflect the attitude of the speaker to the subject of speech.
5. Pragmatic markers, unlike DM, are practically outside the lexicographic fixation (especially bilingual], remain outside the scope of applied speech processing systems.
Taking these distinctions into account, in the present paper we are going to stick to the term pragmatic marker, most relevant for our research.
At the same time, there is a classification of these units based on their functions in spontaneous oral speech, according to which hesitation, reflection, delimiting, deictic, metacommunication, self-correction, xeno-indicators, rhythm-forming and substitute markers are distinguished [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2021: 28-33].
One of such pragmatic markers in Russian spontaneous speech is the construction 'eto samoe', which takes the 11th position in the frequency dictionary of pragmatic markers based on the material of the Sound Corpus of the Russian Language [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2021: 54]. It has been studied for a long time by researchers, focusing on such aspects as its functions in spontaneous speech [Bogdanova 2011], attempts of lexicographic description [Bogdanova-Beglarian 2021], translation options for Chinese [Xiaoli, Bogdanova-Beglarian 2023; Sun 2021a; Sun 2021b] and Serbian [Timotievich 2022], however, no similar studies have been conducted with regard to the Russian-Finnish language pair.
According to the "Dictionary of Pragmatic Markers" 'eto samoe' performs three main functions [Bogdanova-Beglarian: 435-458]1. The first one is hesitation marker, see the contexts below:
(1] A ona eto samoe ona govorit ne m-my ni odnogo pavlina ne nashli;
(2] Tanechka! *P bud' laska/*P eto samoe/sprosi u Anechki (441-442].
The second function is known as self-correction marker, for instance:
(3]yarkaya solnechnaya pogoda //govorit' mozhno? Tak byl yark.../ eto samoe/byl/iyul'skii den'/ vot/ nebo bylo chistym / bezoblachnym / solntse/ svetilo (441].
The last of the functions mentioned is delimiting, including beginning (example (4]], end (example (5]] and navigation (example (6]] markers:
(4] znaesh' / eto (:) samoe /*H sidyat na meste/znachit nado trebovat'/ da / zhaloby pisat';
(5] kak ty perevodish? # net/ ya ne mogu koroche (...) eto samoe;
(6] oi / kha-khaya chego-to /ya chego-to /ya chego-to zapomnila tol'ko konets // kak oni kota nakormili / eto samoe // on nachal/ eto samoe/ e-e nu eto / kak ego // e-e nu z... /zh.. / nu zharenoi svininoi//znachit/ okunyami// i on nachal valyat'po polu//katat'sya i valyat'sya po polu (437-439].
Thus, basing on the previous findings, we are able to move the research further and try to establish correlations between the functions of the 'eto
1 Further, after the examples (1]-(6], the numbers of the cited pages of this publication are indicated in parentheses.
samoe' pragmatic marker and its translation options, as well as to evaluate the translation decisions in respect to their adequacy.
Material and Methods
The data for the study was collected from the Russian-Finnish corpus known as the sub-corpus ParRus 2016 (http://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:lb-20140730173]1, which features Russian literary texts (classical literature & 20 th century] and their translations into Finnish aligned at the paragraph level. The corpus data mostly comprises translations into Finnish made in 1950-1980. The authors of project specify that their aim was to create a corpus suitable for translation research. This approach predetermined such fundamental principles as providing full texts, diachronic arrangement of the corpus (providing series of conducted translations] and defying the principle of representativeness since, for various reasons, important authors or works may be missing in the target language culture [Mikhailov, Härme 2015]. The corpus was created at the University of Tampere and distributed via FinCLARIN for academic use.
Results and Discussions
Functions of 'eto samoe' in Analyzed Data
In the indicated corpus, using the method of continuous sampling, we selected the contexts featuring 'eto samoe' as a pragmatic marker.
Due to the limited amount of material, only 9 contexts were found. Next, we analyzed the functions implemented by the marker in them. Almost all contexts represent 'eto samoe' as a hesitation marker (examples (7] and (8]]:
(7] A vdali, v kontse, zhdal by vopros: a sushchestvuet li voobshche eta shtuka, eto samoe... dazhe nelovko proiznesti... V obshchem, eta veshch', koto-raya lyubit temnotu, tainu i inoskazanie.
(8] Zakhromala. A khishchnik tut zhe i zakhodil nad nei, ne imeyushchei sil. Krugami. Ne dolzhno zhe propadat'... eto samoe... I vot my teper' ego zhdem. Dazhe s neterpeniem...
In some cases, the hesitation function is accompanied by additional ones. For example, the beginning or the end of turn The degree of expression of each of the functions may vary depending on the context:
(9] Nu, my... eto samoe... dedushka khotel poprobovat'... - nereshitel'no nachala mat'.
(10] Ty eto samoe... Skazhi mne. Beresh' krovat'? Ne boisya, klopov net.
In both contexts - (9] and (10] - 'eto samoe' marks both hesitation and the beginning of turn. However, in the 9th the hesitation function is enhanced by the use of another pragmatic marker 'nu' and the lexeme 'nereshitel'no' ('hesitantly']. The context (10] illustrates a different combination of properties, the turn opening being the dominant function and signaling hesitation being a supplementary one.
1 Further examples (7)-(20) are given by ParRus 2016.
The function of the end marker is realized formally due to the position of the marker at the end of the utterance. However, in this case, there is also a hesitation expression, see example (11]:
(11] - Kogda-to... Kogda sovsem ne dumal. Tut ili dumai, ili ver'... No, tovarishchi, u kazhdogo nakaplivaetsya opyt. I u menya, znachit, eto samoe...
The navigation marker function was also represented in the analyzed material, see context (12]:
(12] - Ved' vot schast'e, skazhi na milost'! veselo zasmeyalsya on. Tol'ko chto, eto samoe, znachit, podoshel k kustu i tol'ko chto stal rukoi tselit'sya, a on i zamolchal! Akh ty, pes lysyi! Zhdal, zhdal, pokeda opyat' zapoet, da tak i plyunul...
Translations Options for 'eto samoe'
After determining the main functions (see Fig.], we proceeded onto analyzing the translation decision in respect to the selected contexts. It was found that the most frequently used (33.3%] was translation with the help of marker 'tuota', for example:
(13] Ty eto samoe... Skazhi mne. Beresh' krovat'?Ne boisya, klopov net.
Tuota... Sano minulle, otatko sangyn ? Ala pelkaa, ei siina luteita ole.
(14] Ved' vot schast'e, skazhi na milost'! Veselo zasmeyalsya on. Tol'ko chto, eto samoe, znachit, podoshel k kustu i tol'ko chto stal rukoi tselit'sya, a on i zamolchal! Akh ty, pes lysyi!
Kyllapa pitikin olla onni, sanokaapa muuta! nauroi han iloisesti. Juuri kun, tuota, paasin pensaan viereen ja asetin kateni tahtaysasentoon, se ottaa ja vaikenee! Ah, sita kaljupaata veijaria!
(15] A gde zh u vas — material'nyi bazis? Ekonomika-to dolzhna byt', eto samoe... — ran'she? — Ran'she?
Missa meilla on aineellinen perusta? Talousperustanhan taytyy, tuota... tulla ensin? — Ensin?
■ Hesitation + beginning ■ Hesitation ■ End + hesitation ■ Navigation Functions of pragmatic marker 'eto samoe' in contexts of ParRus 2016
The second most frequent options (22.2% each] are the marker 'sitä' and omission, see examples (16] and (17):
(16) A vdali, v kontse, zhdal by vopros: a sushchestvuet li voobshche eta shtuka, eto samoe... dazhe nelovko proiznesti... V obshchem, eta veshch', koto-raya lyubit temnotu, tainu i inoskazanie?
Ja kaukana, lopussa, odottaisi kysymys: onko sita lainkaan olemassa,
sita... nolottaa lausuakin... Yleensa sita juttua joka rakastaa pimeytta, sal-aisuutta ja vertauksia?
(17) Ty ikh uzh ne trogai, kogda nachnesh'svoyu reviziyu. Khvatits nego, on ved' uzhe sidel. Za eto samoe - za Mendelya - Morgana. I tvoi brat, k tomu zhe, frontovik. Ladno?
Ala kajoa heihin, kun aloitat tarkastuksesi. Strigaljovin osalle riittaa, han on jo istunut. Mendelin ja Morganin tahden. Ja lisaksi teikalaisia rintamamiehia. Sovitaanko nain?
Finally, the third place (11,1%) is shared by two options: translation using the marker 'siis' and the verb form 'tiedattekos':
(18) Kogda-to... Kogda sovsem ne dumal. Tut ili dumai, ili ver'... No, tovar-ishchi, u kazhdogo nakaplivaetsya opyt. I u menya, znachit, eto samoe...
Joskus... Kun en ole ollenkaan ajatellut. Se on joko ajateltava tai uskottava. Mutta jokaisellehan kertyy kokemusta, toverit. Niinpa minullekin siis...
(19) Tol'ko, eto samoe, brattsy, dogonyayu ego, podkhozhu blizko, glyad'! a uzh eto ne vol, a Zhmenya. Svyat, svyat, svyat.
Mutta tiedattekos, veikkoset, kun saavutin sen ja menin lahemmaksi, niin nain, ettei se ollutkaan harka vaan Zmenja. Pyha, pyha, pyha!
Finnish pragmatic markers as translation options for 'eto samoe'
As mentioned earlier, the translation using a pragmatic marker 'tuota' was the most frequent option. In order to assess the degree of adequacy of this translation option, it is necessary to consider in more detail the functions of this unit in Finnish.
According to a comprehensive study carried out by Katri Priiki [Priiki 2021], the partitive form of the demonstrative pronoun, which results from the process of pragmaticalization, a general trend for Finnish pronouns, is often used as a particle (pragmatic marker), especially in everyday speech. Its main function is the indication of hesitation and word search. Moreover, it can be used at the beginning or end of turn, which corresponds to the functions of 'eto samoe' in contexts: hesitation and word search marker - see example 15, hesitation and the beginning of turn - see example (13). However, the same marker is used in the function of navigation marker (see example (14)), which also includes hesitation. This choice is justified, since 'tuota' sometimes indicates that the following action is not yet decided [Priiki 2021: 10] and the speaker needs time to structure the further utterance.
Less frequent usage of another pragmaticalized pronoun 'se' in partitive form ('sita') is to be explained by several reasons. Firstly, fully pragmatized occurrences of this form are rare in Finnish corpora data [Priiki 2021]. Sec-
ondly, it is mentioned that there is a certain connection between the usage of 'sita' in transitive clauses where verbs require the partitive case of object The same situation can be noticed in the following context:
(20] Zakhromala. A khishchnik tut zhe i zakhodil nad nei, ne imeyushchei sil. Krugami. Ne dolzhno zhe propadat'... eto samoe... I vot my teper' ego zhdem. Dazhe s neterpeniem...
Niin alkoi. Ja peto oli kohta sen jaljilla ja kavi kimppuun, kun sen voimat olivat jo menneet. Ei olisi pitanyt kadottaa... sita ... Ja nyt me odotamme hanta Jopa karsimattomasti.
The negative clause with the transitive verb 'kadottaa' ('to lose'] according to the Finnish language grammar requires the object in the partitive case. Since the hesitation pause occurs in the traditional position of the object (almost immediately after the verb], the subsequent marker seems to partially reflect the valence of the verb.
Another context where 'sita' is used (see example (16]] represents the situation where the choice of translation is also caused by the structure of the previous clause, where partitive form of pronoun 'se' is used in its general meaning of the subject. Obviously, the translator decided to use the same form, but in its particle function, not to overload the sentence with a variety of demonstrative pronouns.
The particle 'siis' can be considered a navigation marker [Paananen 2017] or precede highly emotional statements [Hakulinen 2015]. However, it can also be used at the end of utterance reflecting the idea of conclusion or result of conversation. The last fact corresponds to the function of 'eto samoe' in the context (see example (18]] where it represents the end of turn and emphasizes that it was a conversation about 'my' experience as well.
Other translation options
Another option mentioned in the analyzed contexts is 2nd person plural of the verb 'tietaa' ('to know'] - see example (19]. Despite the fact that it looks like verb form to introduce a question, it is claimed that this verb (especially the 2nd person single form] has some tendency to be pragmaticalized as forms 'kuule' ('listen'] and 'kato/katso' ('see'] [Suomalainen 2020]. In the Russian linguistic tradition, such units are called contact verbs and in some cases equivalents between two languages can be found ('kato' - '(po)smotri'] [Osmak 2021]. The main function of contact verbs is to attract attention and state the beginning of a turn [Grishina 2007], which corresponds to the possible function of 'eto samoe', although does not reflect to the full extent character's speech.
The last option which is offered by translators is omission - see example (17], which according to V. Komissarov [Komissarov 1973] is a legitimate translation technique, provided that the semantic equivalence is maintained. Usually this method is used in the situation of speech redundancy. However, in the literary texts pragmatic markers in the character's speech can show
his/her emotional state, define regional, professional and other social status. This makes it undesirable to use omission when translating pragmatic markers in literary text.
Conclusion
The conducted corpus analysis revealed several options for rendering the function of the pragmatic marker under discussion. The most successful option is to use the pragmatic marker characterized by the same function, comparable grammar freedom and, if possible, structure. For 'eto samoe' such an equivalent can be 'tuota'. Omission is a less commendable option, since it changes the author's intention regarding the speech portrait of the character.
The necessity of adequate translation of pragmatic markers is to be explained by several reasons. Firstly, they are important part of spontaneous speech and are often used in literary texts to create a unique character's speech as well as its image throughout the book. Secondly, pragmatic markers can be considered to be an integral part of speech culture and reflect the cultural mentality. Although they are often considered to be untranslatable, the conducted analysis showed that there are several ways to express the pragmatic marker function of one language in another.
Thus, we can we can conclude that the approach of speech lexicography, i.e. the focus on the functions language units carry out in speech, is highly relevant for both literature and translation research. Parallel corpora of literary or other types of texts, representing examples of oral speech should be used as material for such dictionaries. Further investigation may involve the expansion of the analyzed data, the search of translation options in Finnish for other Russian pragmatic markers as well as creating The Russian-Finnish Dictionary of Pragmatic Markers.
References
Bogdanova, N.V. (2011), ETO SAMOE: grammaticheskie formy i funktsionirovanie v spontannoi rechi [ETO SAMOE: grammar forms and functions in Russian spontaneous speech]. Proceedings of XL International Philology Conference, Vol. 24, St. Petersburg, Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg University publ., pp. 18-47. (in Russian).
Bogdanova-Beglarian, N.V. (ed.) (2021), Pragmaticheskie markery russkoi povsednev-noi rechi [Pragmatic Markers of Russian Everyday Speech], Dictionary-Monograph, St. Petersburg, Nestor-Istoriya publ., 520 p. (in Russian). Duvall, E., Robbins, A., Graham, T., Divett, S. (2014), Exploring filler words and their
impact. Schwa. Language & Linguistics, Vol. 11, pp. 35-49. Duvallon, O., Peltola, R. (2017), Deontic readings of the imperative through the prism of force dynamic relations: Permissive and preventive utterances with the discourse marker vaa(n) in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 120, pp. 17-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.005. Grishina, E.A. (2007), The spoken Russian markers (preliminary investigation of the Movie Subcorpus of the Russian National Corpus, www.ruscorpora.ru). Compu-
tational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies, Papers from the Annual International Conference "Dialogue" (2007), Moscow, Russian State University for the Humanities publ., pp. 147-156. (in Russian).
Hakulinen, A., Couper-Kuhlen, E. (2015), Insisting on 'my side': Siis-prefaced utterances in Finnish. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 75, pp. 111-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.009.
Heine, B. (2013), On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?. Linguistics, Vol. 51, iss. 6, pp. 1205-1247. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2013-0048.
Jääskeläinen, A., Koivisto, A. (2012), Konjunktio, partikkeli vai konnektiivi? [Conjuc-tion, particle or connective?]. Virittäjä, Vol. 4, pp. 591-601. (in Finnish).
Jucker, A.H., Ziv, Y. (1998), Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company, 363 p.
Komissarov, V.N. (1973), Slovo o perevode [Word of translation], a linguistic essay on translation, Moscow, Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenya publ., 215 p. (in Russian).
Mikhailov, M., Härme, J. (2015), Parallel'nye korpusa khudozhestvennykh tekstov v Tamperskom universitete [Parallel corpora of literary texts in Tampere university]. Russian Language Abroad, Spec. iss., pp. 16-19. (in Russian).
Osmak, N.A. (2021), More on the question of functions of verbs in Russian and Finnish spontaneous speech (based on usage of verbs katsoa and (po)smotret). Language Studies and Modern Humanities, Vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 54-61. DOI: 10.33910/2686-830X-2021-3-1-54-61. (in Russian).
Os'mak, N.A. (2014), Leksicheskie edinitsy povsednevnoi razgovornoi rechi: puti leksi-kograficheskogo opisaniya ikh funktsionirovaniya [Lexical units of everyday colloquial speech: ways of lexicographic description of their functioning], Author's abstract, St. Petersburg, 24 p. (in Russian).
Paananen, J. (2017), Kuinka lääkärit selittävät asiantuntijainformaatiota? Selittäminen vuorovaikutuksellisena, kielellisenä ja kehollisena toimintana monikulttuurisilla vastaanotoilla [How do doctors explain expert information? Explaining as an interactive, linguistic and bodily activity in multicultural receptions]. Puhe ja kieli, Vol. 37, iss. 3, pp. 119-144. DOI: 10.23997/pk.66755. (in Finnish).
Priiki, K. (2021), From Pronoun to Particle Finnish tuo 'that' and tuota 'well, erm'. Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 10, pp. 3-26.
Sun, Xiaoli (2021a), The ways of translating pragmatic marker eto samoe (based on the material of parallel Russian and Chinese literary texts). Communication Studies (Russia), Vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 323-332. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(2).323-332.
Sun, X. (2021b), On ways of translating Russian pragmatic markers into chinese (on the example of hesitative marker eto samoe). Bulletin of BSU. Philology, no. 1, pp. 33-40. DOI: 10.18101/2686-7095-2021-1-33-40. (in Russian).
Suomalainen, K. (2020), Tiedätkö - kysymyksestä kiteymäksi [Tiedätkö 'do you know' - from a question to a fixed expression]. Sananjalka, Vol. 62, pp. 33-53. DOI: 10.30673/sja.91103. (in Finnish).
Timotiievich, M. (2022), Russkii pragmaticheskii marker khezitatsionnogo poiska ETO SAMOE i sposoby ego perevoda na serbskii yazyk [Russian pragmatic marker of hesitation search ETO SAMOE and ways to translate it into Serbian]. Lomonosov-2022, Proceedings of the International Youth Scientific Forum, available at:
https://lomonosov-msu.ru/archive/Lomonosov_2022/data/25776/uid674572_c87 3b28ff0776d4dfaca7397caf9752c26342940.doc (accessed date: 15.07.2023). (in Russian).
Viktorova, E.Yu. (2014), Discursive words: uniformity in diversity. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philology. Journalism, Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 10-15. (in Russian).
Xiaoli S., Bogdanova-Beglarian N.V. (2023), Translating Russian Fiction into Chinese: The Specifics in Building Chains of Pragmatic Markers. Oriental Studies, Vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 211-221. DOI: 10.22162/2619-0990-2023-65-1-211-221. (in Russian).
Список литературы
Богданова Н.В. ЭТО САМОЕ: грамматические формы и функционирование в спонтанной речи // Материалы XL Международной филологической конференции, 23-25 марта 2011 г. СПб.: Филол. фак. СПбГУ, 2011. Вып. 24: Полевая лингвистика. Интегральное моделирование звуковой формы естественных языков. С. 18-47.
Викторова Е.Ю. Дискурсивные слова: единство в многообразии // Известия Саратовского университета. Новая серия. Серия: Филология. Журналистика. 2014. Т. 14, вып. 1. С. 10-15.
Гришина Е.А. О маркерах разговорной речи (предварительное исследование под-корпуса кино в Национальном корпусе русского языка) // Компьютерная лингвистика и интеллектуальные технологии: тр. междунар. конф. «Диалог 2007». М.: РГГУ, 2007. С. 147-156.
Комиссаров В.Н. Слово о переводе (очерк лингвистического учения о переводе). М.: Международные отношения, 1973. 215 с.
Михайлов М., Хярме Й. Параллельные корпуса художественных текстов в Тампер-ском университете // Русский язык за рубежом. 2015. Спец. вып. С. 16-19.
Осьмак Н.А. К вопросу о функционировании контактных глаголов в русской и финской спонтанной речи (на примере глаголов katsoa и (по)смотреть) // Исследование языка и современное гуманитарное знание. 2021. Т. 3, № 1. С. 54-61. DOI: 10.33910/2686-830X-2021-3-1-54-61.
Осьмак Н.А. Лексические единицы повседневной разговорной речи: пути лексикографического описания их функционирования: автореф. дис. ... канд. филол. наук. СПб., 2014. 24 с.
Прагматические маркеры русской повседневной речи: слов.-моногр. / под ред. Н.В. Богданова-Бегларян. СПб.: Нестор-История, 2021. 520 с.
Сунь Сяоли. Способы перевода прагматического маркера это самое (на материале параллельных русских и китайских текстов художественных произведений) // Коммуникативные исследования. 2021а. Т. 8. № 2. С. 323-332. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2021.8(2).323-332. (На англ. яз.).
Сунь С. О способах перевода на китайский язык русских прагматических маркеров (на примере маркера-хезитатива это самое) // Вестник Бурятского государственного университета. Филология. 2021б. Вып. 1. С. 33-40. DOI: 10.18101/2686-7095-2021-1-33-40.
Сяоли С., Богданова-Бегларян Н.В. Специфика построения цепочек прагматических маркеров при переводе русских художественных текстов на китайский язык // Oriental studies. 2023. Т. 16, № 1. С. 211-221. DOI: 10.22162/26190990-2023-65-1-211-221.
Тимотийевич М. Русский прагматический маркер хезитационного поиска ЭТО САМОЕ и способы его перевода на сербский язык // Ломоносов-2022: материалы Междунар. молодеж. науч. форума. URL: https://lomonosov-msu.ru/archive/Lomonosov_2022/data/25776/uid674572_c873b28ffD776d4dfaca 7397caf9752c26342940.doc (дата обращения: 15.07.2023).
Duvall E., Robbins A., Graham T., Divett S. Exploring filler words and their impact // Schwa. Language & Linguistics. 2014. Vol. 11. P. 35-49.
Duvallon O., Peltola R. Deontic readings of the imperative through the prism of force dynamic relations: Permissive and preventive utterances with the discourse marker vaa(n) in Finnish // Journal of Pragmatics. 2017. Vol. 120. P. 17-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.005.
Hakulinen A., Couper-Kuhlen E. Insisting on 'my side': Siis-prefaced utterances in Finnish // Journal of Pragmatics. 2015. Vol. 75. P. 111-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.10.009.
Heine B. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? // Linguistics. 2013. Vol. 51, iss. 6. P. 1205-1247. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2013-0048.
Jääskeläinen A., Koivisto A. Konjunktio, partikkeli vai konnektiivi? // Virittäjä. 2012. Vol. 4. P. 591-601.
Jucker A.H., Ziv Y. Discourse markers: Descriptions and theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. 363 p.
Paananen J. Kuinka lääkärit selittävät asiantuntijainformaatiota? Selittäminen vuorovaikutuksellisena, kielellisenä ja kehollisena toimintana monikulttuurisilla vastaanotoilla // Puhe ja kieli. 2017. Vol. 37, nr. 3. P. 119-144. DOI: 10.23997/pk.66755.
Priiki K. From Pronoun to Particle Finnish tuo 'that' and tuota 'well, erm' // Finno-Ugric Languages and Linguistics. 2021. Vol. 10. P. 3-26.
Suomalainen K. Tiedätkö - kysymyksestä kiteymäksi // Sananjalka. 2020. Vol. 62. P. 33-53. DOI: 10.30673/sja.91103.
Научная статья
ПЕРЕВОД ПРАГМАТИЧЕСКИХ МАРКЕРОВ РУССКОГО ЯЗЫКА НА ФИНСКИЙ (НА ПРИМЕРЕ ЕДИНИЦЫ ЭТО САМОЕ)
Н.А. Осьмак
Российский государственный педагогический университет им. А.И. Герцена (Санкт-Петербург, Россия)
Аннотация: Цель статьи заключается в выявлении и описании вариантов перевода прагматического маркера это самое на финский язык с учетом его функций в тексте. Теоретической базой выступают работы в области коллоквиа-листики, корпусной лингвистики, лексикологии русского и финского языков. Материалом для анализа послужили контексты, обнаруженные в русско-финском параллельном корпусе РаЛш 2016, содержащем тексты русской классической литературы XIX и XX вв. На первом этапе описываются функ-
ции единицы это самое, встречающиеся в контекстах анализируемого корпуса (маркер хезитации, навигационный маркер, функция хезитации и стартового маркера, функция хезитации и финального маркера). Далее анализируются варианты перевода на финский язык, включающие использование одного из финских прагматических маркеров, контактного глагола или приема опущения, с учетом соответствия их функций и переводческой адекватности. Исследование показывает, что наиболее удачным методом перевода является использование прагматического маркера, который в финском языке имеет те же функции, что и переводимая единица. Наименее удачным вариантом является использование приема опущения, поскольку в таком случае речевой портрет персонажа отражается не полностью.
Ключевые слова: прагматический маркер, перевод, пауза хезитации, устный дискурс, финский язык.
Для цитирования:
Осьмак Н.А. Перевод прагматических маркеров русского языка на финский (на примере единицы это самое) // Коммуникативные исследования. 2024. Т. 11. № 1. С. 74-86. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2024.11(1).74-86. (На англ. яз.).
Сведения об авторе:
Осьмак Наталья Андреевна, кандидат филологических наук, заведующий кафедрой языков Северной Европы
Контактная информация:
Почтовый адрес: 191186, Россия, Санкт-Петербург, наб. р. Мойки, 48 E-mail: nataliaosmak@herzen.spb.ru; Natalia.osmak@yandex.ru Финансирование:
Исследование выполнено за счет внутреннего гранта РГПУ им. А.И. Герцена (проект № 1ВГ)
Конфликт интересов:
Автор заявляет об отсутствии конфликта интересов Дата поступления статьи: 15.11.2023 Дата рецензирования: 30.11.2023 Дата принятия в печать: 27.12.2023
