scholarly journals The Corpus of Russian Translations of Social and Political Works of the Eighteenth Century

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 20-31
Author(s):  
Sergey Polskoy ◽  
Vladislav Rjéoutski
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Imperial Period ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Editorial Work ◽  
Historical Semantics ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Concepts ◽  
Political Works ◽  
The Russian Language

The project that has been carried out at the German Historical Institute in Moscow since 2016 continues the engagement of the Institute in the development of the history of concepts in Russia. The previous project, “The History of Concepts and Historical Semantics,” which was led by Ingrid Schierle and Denis Sdvizkov (both research fellows at the German Historical Institute in Moscow at the time), was undertaken between 2008-2014. It consisted of a series of conferences and resulted in several publications; namely, two volumes devoted to the history of key concepts in the Russian imperial period. However, the main focus of the current project is on translation as a laboratory of the Russian language of “civil sciences.” The project is being coordinated by Sergey Polskoy (Higher School of Economics, Moscow) and Vladislav Rjéoutski (German Historical Institute in Moscow). In addition, the editorial work on the database is being carried out by Evgenii Kushkov (Higher School of Economics, Moscow), with Vadim Popov (GHI Moscow) also being responsible for statistics and the visualization of the results of the project.  

Temporal comparisons, historical semantics of interaction and ‘post-war consensus’ in British Parliament: Studying time references in a deliberative environment

2021 ◽  
pp. 0961463X2110212
Author(s):  
Kirill Postoutenko ◽  
Olga Sabelfeld
Keyword(s):  
House Of Commons ◽  
Temporal Semantics ◽  
Sociopolitical Environment ◽  
Social Time ◽  
Semantics And Pragmatics ◽  
Historical Semantics ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Concepts ◽  
The Government ◽  
Post War

This article aims to demonstrate that the transition from the mainstream narrative to the interactional history of concepts promises tangible benefits for scholars of social time in general and temporal comparisons in particular. It is shown that the traditionally close alignment of narration with the production of historical consciousness at various levels hinders the study of time as a semantic variable perpetually contested, amended and upheld across society. Alternatively, the references to time made in public settings, allowing for more or less instant reactions (turn-taking) as well as expression of dissenting opinions (stance-taking), offer a much more representative palette of temporal semantics and pragmatics in a given sociopolitical environment. In a particularly intriguing case, the essentially deliberative venue where contestation is supported by both institutional arrangements and political reasons (British House of Commons) is put to test under circumstances commonly known as ‘the post-war consensus’ – the unspoken convention directing opposing political parties to suspend stance-taking regarding the past actions of the government during WWII, its immediate aftermath and its future prospects. As a reliable indicator of this arrangement, the contestation of temporal comparisons between relevant pasts and futures is tested in oppositions reflecting party allegiances (Conservatives vs. Labour vs. Liberals) and executive functions (government vs. opposition) between 1946 and 1952. It is shown that, notwithstanding the prevalence of non-contested statements aimed at preserving interactional coherence and pragmatic functionality of the setting, the moderately active contestation of the adversary’s temporal comparisons in the House of Commons at that time helped all parties, albeit to a different degree, to shape their own political and institutional roles as well as to delegitimize their respective adversaries.

scholarly journals Translations of Cicero in Lomonosov’s A Brief Guide to Eloquence

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Smirnova
Keyword(s):  
Eighteenth Century ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Original Text ◽  
European Literature ◽  
Translation Techniques ◽  
Word Translation ◽  
The Russian Language

This article examines Mikhail V. Lomonosov’s translation techniques and idiolect in his A Brief Guide to Eloquence (1748), with most of the examples being translated fragments of European literature. A comparison of the translated fragments from Cicero (the author analyses 82 excerpts from the antique orator’s works) with Lomonosov’s own Latin texts makes it possible to see some features of Lomonosov’s translation techniques. Except for the translated fragments included in the textbook on rhetoric, some of Cicero’s works were entirely translated into Russian in the eighteenth century. The author also compares Lomonosov’s translated fragments from Cicero (Cic. Leg. Man., Cat., Arch., Har. resp., etc.) with translations by K. Kondratovich, which were released twenty years after those by Lomonosov. The aim of the research is to show the peculiarities of Lomonosov’s translations, resulting both from the specifics of his translation techniques and the task of these texts as examples of Russian eloquence. The comparative method allows the author to conclude that Lomonosov managed to adequately convey the content and form in his translations and to recreate the style while closely adhering to the original – all this convinced him that the Russian language ‘stands out among all the languages of Europe in its grandeur and richness’. In Lomonosov’s translation techniques, there is a tendency for word-by-word translation and an attempt to preserve the Latin syntax; there is also a noticeable tendency to replace specific ancient culture-specific concepts with modern ones (a principle dating back to humanistic translations into Latin and vulgar languages). The translator’s adherence to the original is of practical importance for historians of literature and allows us to determine when the original text was taken from textbooks on rhetoric.

scholarly journals UKRAINIAN OIKONYMS MOTIVATED BY PLANT NAMES: STRUCTURAL, WORD-FORMATION AND MORPHOLOGICAL PECULIARITIES

2020 ◽  
pp. 21-39
Author(s):  
Maksym Bondarenko
Keyword(s):  
Word Formation ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
The Other ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Plant Names ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Current List

The article analyzes structural, word-formation and morphological peculiarities of Ukrainian oikonyms motivated by plant names. The conducted research of fixed in the «History of Cities and Villages of the Ukrainian SSR» and «Administrative and Territorial System of Ukraine» for 2019 (current list of Ukrainian oikonyms) confirmed the opinion of many linguists that the most productive way of creating names of settlements is the suffixation, on the other hand, far fewer units are formed with the help of compounding and prefixation. The following groups were distinguished on the basis of the analysis of oikonym-phrases formed from plant names: oikonym-phrase in which the noun is motivated by the plant name and the adjective indicates colour; oikonym-phrases in which one of the components is in the most cases an adjective motivated by plant name, and the main noun is one of the types of landscape, etc. We have considered some interesting oikonym-phrases which occur in all regions of Ukraine, for example, с. Кисла Дубина, с. Красні Лози, с. Мокра Рокитна etc. Some of the names of settlements have been significantly influenced by the Russian language, especially at the morphological level.

scholarly journals Turkisms in one of the early Russian translations of the 18th century

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-201
Author(s):  
Alexander I. Sokolov ◽  
◽  
Irina A. Malysheva ◽  
Keyword(s):  
18Th Century ◽  
Russian Language ◽  
Italian Version ◽  
Italian Translation ◽  
European Languages ◽  
Compound Nouns ◽  
Turkic Languages ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Russian Language ◽  
Made In

The article considers Turkic borrowings in the Russian language at the beginning of the 18th century. The material of the study was a translation of the 17th century treatise “The History of the Present State of the Ottoman Empire” written by the English diplomat Paul Ricaut and translated into a number of European languages. The Russian translation was done by P.A.Tolstoy from the Italian version in 1702–1714 and published as “The Turkish Monarchy” in 1741. The study presents the methods of phonetic (orthographic) and morphological adaptation of Turkisms by comparing a typographical manuscript for typesetting with edits (made in 1725) and the printed text. The article aims at comparing the usage of borrowings with their forms in the Italian version of the treatise and in the Polish translation since the latter, apparently, was used in the process of typographical editing of the Russian text. A number ofdistorted forms of Turkisms that appeared in the Russian “Monarchy” as a result of the mechanical transfer of typos from the Italian translation were revealed. It has been established that the translation of compound nouns identified in the Turkic languages as izafet constructions was mainly a copying of their forms from the Italian translation. Most of the Turkisms in “The Turkish Monarchy” are exoticisms, but likely relevant for the Russian reader of the 18th century. Hence, the principles of including exoticisms in the “Dictionary of the Russian Language of the 18th Century” require clarification because a number of Turkisms denoting confessional concepts in modern Russian are part of active vocabulary.

scholarly journals The prose works of Antonio Machado in Russia

2021 ◽  
pp. 39-45
Author(s):  
Yuliya Aleksandrovna Grunina ◽  
Ekaterina Dmitrievna Terentieva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Language ◽  
Antonio Machado ◽  
Literary Heritage ◽  
Russian Literary ◽  
History Of ◽  
Fundamental Research ◽  
History Of Translation ◽  
Historical Methods ◽  
The Russian Language

The subject of this research is the history of translation the prose works of the remarkable Spanish poet, writer and publicist Antonio Machado into the Russian language. The object of this research is the translations of his prose works into the Russian languages conducted primarily in the last quarter of the XX century. The article employs biographical, descriptive, and cultural-historical methods. Special attention is given to Spanish translators I. Y. Tynyanov and V. S. Stolbov, whose names in the Russian literary space are closely related with the history of translation of the works of the prose writer and publicist Antonio Machado. The scientific novelty lies in the detailed description of A. Machado's prose, as well as detailed chronology of the emergence of translations of his prose into the Russian language. The relevance of this article substantiated by the absence of comprehensive analysis of the translations of A. Machado's prose works in the Russian Spanish studies. The prose works of A. Machado are also poorly studied in the Russian literary studies. The main conclusions consists in determination of the contribution of Russian translators to familiarization of the Russian-speaking audience with prose works of the Spanish author, as well as the need for further fundamental research of the entire literary heritage of Antonio Machado.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document