WHY AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION IS HARMFUL FOR LANGUAGE, THINKING AND STABILITY OF GEOPOLITICAL CODE


Cite item

Abstract

The article discusses the problem of computer-translated texts being widely used by mass media. Because of editors’ striving for cost and time efficiency a lot of unedited or superficially edited machine-translated texts are published today. As a result people get accustomed to reading texts that violate basic rules of composition and textuality, so they stop feeling that such texts deviate from the norm and perceive them as regular. In this way a new usage is being gradually formed, contradicting standard norms of Russian grammar and combinability. This new usage leads to the erosion of the very notion of text as a structural and semantic whole. The absence of such basic categories as cohesion, coherence, logical and structural completeness gives the general readers the impression that a text is just an arbitrary collection of sentences united only by a common topical area. The article describes the destructive effect of these processes upon the mentality of native speakers, shows how they hamper the formation of a consistent conceptual and linguistic world-image. Since a nationally specific world-image is a basis of national culture, its erosion affects the stability of the national geopolitical code, of which the national language is an integral part. Therefore, linguistic safety of the country is directly involved. That is why it is necessary to specify the requirements to any translated text, irrespective of the way in which the translation was made, for it to be acceptable for mass publication either on-line or in press. It is necessary to develop and introduce a quality standard.

About the authors

O. V. Petrova

Linguistics University of Nizhny Novgorod

Author for correspondence.
Email: morenov@ssau.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7045-4310

Candidate of Philological Sciences, associate professor, professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of English and Translation

References

  1. Nord 2005 – Nord C. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005, 274 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7202/037160ar.
  2. Valgina 2003 – Valgina N.S. Teoriya teksta [Text theory]. M.: Logos, 2003, 173 p. Available at: http://yanko.lib.ru/books/language/ru%C2%E0%
  3. EB%E3%E8%ED%E0,%20%CD.%D1.%20%D2%
  4. E5%EE%F0%E8%FF%20%F2%E5%EA
  5. %F1%F2%E0.%20%CC%EE%F1%EA%E2%E0,%20%C
  6. B%EE%E3%EE%F1.%202003.%
  7. %D0%E0%F1%EF.%20(sl).pdf.
  8. [in Russian].
  9. Vorkachev 2011 – Vorkachev S.G. Rossiiskaya lingvokul’turnaya kontseptologiya: sovremennoe sostoyanie, problemy, vektor razvitiya [Russian linguocultural conceptology: present situation, problems, vector of development]. Izvestiya RAN. Seriya literatury i yazyka [The Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Studies in Literature and Language], 2011, Vol. 70, pp. 64–74. Available at: https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17042010
  10. [in Russian].
  11. Zhigalev, Ustinkin 2015 – Zhigalev B.A., Ustinkin S.V. Lingvisticheskaya bezopasnost’ kak faktor obespecheniya ustoichivogo razvitiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii [Linguistic security as a factor of ensuring the sustainable development of the Russian Federation]. Vlast’ [The Authority], 2015, no. 10, pp. 32–41. Available at: http://jour.isras.ru/index.php/vlast/article/view/3033 [in Russian].
  12. Zemskaya, Kachesova, Komissarova et. al. 2010 – Zemskaya Yu.N., Kachesova I.Yu., Komissarova L.M., Panchenko N.V., Chuvakin A.A. Teoriya teksta: uchebnoe posobie [Text theory: textbook]. M.: Flinta, Nauka, 2010, 132 p. Available at: http://linguistics-online.narod.ru/olderfiles/3/Zemskaya_Teoriya_teksta.pdf [in Russian].
  13. Petrova 2017 – Petrova O. V. Chto my delaem ne tak, ili pochemu studenty tak perevodyat [Where we are going wrong, or why our students translate the way they do]. In: Problemy teorii, praktiki i didactiki perevoda. Seriia «Yazyk. Kultura. Kommunikatsiia» [Problems of translation theory, practice and methods of teaching. Series «Language. Culture. Communication»], 2017, Vol. 2, Issue 20, pp. 88–95 [in Russian].
  14. Samigulina 2010 – Samigulina F.G. Kontseptual’naya kartina mira i spetsifika ee formirovaniya [Conceptual world-image and specific character of its formation]. Vestnik Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im.
  15. I. Kanta [IKBFU’s Vestnik], 2010, Issue 2, pp. 46–50. doi: 10.5922/2223-2095-2010-2-7 [in Russian].
  16. Sdobnikov 2015 – Sdobnikov V. V. Kommunikativnaya situatsiya kak osnova vybora strategii perevoda: dis. …
  17. d-ra filol. nauk [Communicative situation as a basis for choosing translation strategy: Doctoral thesis in Philology]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2015, 492 p. Available at: https://docplayer.ru/25802659-Kommunikativnaya-situaciya-kak-osnova-vybora-strategii-perevoda.html [in Russian].
  18. Trofimova 2012 – Trofimova G.N. Lingvisticheskaya bezopasnost’: k probleme tolkovaniya [Linguistic safety: interpretation aspect]. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya: Russkii i inostrannye yazyki i metodika ikh prepodavaniya [RUDN Journal of Russian and Foreign Languages Research and Teaching], 2012, no. 1, pp. 24–29. URL: http://rusexpert.ru/public/guild/18.pdf [in Russian].
  19. Khaleeva 2006 – Khaleeva I.I. Lingvisticheskaya bezopasnost’ Rossii [Linguistic safety of Russia]. Vestnik Rossiiskoi Akademii nauk [Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 2006, Vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 104–111. Available at: http://www.ras.ru/publishing/rasheraldrasherald_
  20. articleinfo.aspx?articleid=c9f9ef57-519e-46f5-addb-775075756896 [in Russian].

Copyright (c) 2019 Petrova O.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies