1887
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1598-7647
  • E-ISSN: 2451-909X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

L’appréciation d’une traduction dépend, comme celle du texte original, d’un ensemble de facteurs linguistiques, psychologiques et sociaux dont l’interaction est généralement difficile à appréhender. Dans un premier temps, cet article présente un modèle socio-cognitif intégrant ces facteurs, développé dans le champ de la communication écrite unilingue afin d’expliciter l’articulation des variables qui déterminent la perception de la valeur discursive.

Dans un second temps, il examine l’apport possible de ce modèle à certains problèmes de la traduction, d’abord en envisageant en théorie celle-ci comme un processus multifactoriel de transposition de la valeur des discours, puis en appliquant cette approche à l’analyse de cas de traductions perçues comme défaillantes.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/forum.15.2.02lab
2017-12-01
2019-08-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Austen, Jane & Amy Amstrong
    2012Pride and Prejudice. New York: Totally Bound Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Austen, Jane & Seth Graham Smith
    2009Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Philadelphie: Quirk books.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baddeley, Alan
    1992La mémoire humaine. Théorie et pratique. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    1999 “Perceptual symbol systems”. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22: 577–660
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Barthes, Roland
    1966 “Introduction à l’analyse structurale des récits”. Communications, 8 (8): 1–27. doi: 10.3406/comm.1966.1113
    https://doi.org/10.3406/comm.1966.1113 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bartlett, Elsa Jaffe
    1981Learning to write: Some cognitive and linguistic components. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bitgood, Stephen
    2006 “An analysis of visitor circulation: movement patterns and the general value principle”. Curator, 49(4): 463–475. doi: 10.1111/j.2151‑6952.2006.tb00237.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2151-6952.2006.tb00237.x [Google Scholar]
  8. 2011 “Social design in museums: the psychology of visitor studies”. Journal of Interpretation Research, 5(2): 31–45.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bitgood, Stephen , Stephany Dukes , & Layla Abbey
    2006 “Interest and effort as predictors of reading: A test of the general value principle”. Current Trends in Audience Research, 19/20: 5–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Blais, André , Elisabeth Gidengil , Neil Nevitte , & André Nadeau 2004 “Where does turnout decline come from?” European Journal of Political Research, 43: 221–236. doi: 10.1111/j.1475‑6765.2004.00152.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2004.00152.x [Google Scholar]
  11. Blyton, Enid
    2006Le club des cinq et le trésor de l’île. Paris: Hachette
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1962Le club des cinq et le trésor de l’île. Paris: Hachette
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1942Five on a Treasure Island. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bonin, Patrick , Alain Méot , Lydie Aubert , Nathalie Malardier , Paula Niedenthal , & Marie-Christine Capelle-Toczek
    2003 “Normes de concrétude, de valeur d’imagerie, de fréquence subjective et de valence émotionnelle pour 866 mots”. L’année psychologique, 103 (4): 655–694. doi: 10.3406/psy.2003.29658
    https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2003.29658 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bourdieu, Pierre
    1979La distinction: critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Minuit
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Bruner, Jerome
    1960The Process of Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Campbell, Maragaret C.
    1995 “When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: the importance of balancing benefits and investments”. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3): 225–254. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_02
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_02 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cauchard, Fabrice
    2008Empan perceptif en lecture et en recherche d’information dans un texte: influence des signaux visuels. Thèse de doctorat en psychologie cognitive. Toulouse: Université Toulouse-le-Mirail.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Charolles, Michel
    2011 “Cohérence et cohésion du discours”. In Klaus Hölker , & Carla Marello (Éds.), Dimensionen der Analyse Texten und Diskursivent – Dimensioni dell’analisi di testi e discoursi (153–173). Münster: Lit Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Cicéron
    Cicéron 1991Première Tusculane (Devant la mort). (Trad. D. Robert ). Paris: Arléa.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Coirier, Pierre , Daniel Gaonac’h , and Jean-Michel Passerault
    1996Psycholinguistique textuelle. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Daneman, Meredyth , & Murray Stainton
    1993 “The generation effect in reading and proofreading: Is it easier or harder to detect errors in one’s own writing?” Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5: 297–313. doi: 10.1007/BF01027393
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01027393 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dewey, John
    1913Interest and Effort in Education. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin. doi: 10.1037/14633‑000
    https://doi.org/10.1037/14633-000 [Google Scholar]
  24. Duault, Alain
    2012 “Lever de rideau: l’opéra, une passion?” In Bertrand Dermoncourt (Dir.) L’univers de l’opéra: oeuvres, scènes, compositeurs, interprètes. Paris: Robert Laffont.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Dunwoody, Sharon
    1996 “Science writing offers a model for critical thinking”. SEJournal, 6 (1): 1–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Durieux, Christine
    2009 Vers une théorie décisionnelle de la traduction. LISA, 7(3), p.350–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Engel, Pascal
    2007 “Belief and normativity”. Disputatio, II, 23: 179–205.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Faigley, Lester , & Stephen Witte
    1981 “Analyzing revision”. College Composition and Communication, 32(4): 400–414. doi: 10.2307/356602
    https://doi.org/10.2307/356602 [Google Scholar]
  29. Festinger, Leon
    1957A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fincher-Kiefer, Rebecca
    2001 “Perceptual components of situation models”. Memory & Cognition, 29(2): 336–343. doi: 10.3758/BF03194928
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194928 [Google Scholar]
  31. Flesch, Rudolf
    1949The art of readable writing. New York: Harper & Brothers.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Fletcher, Charles R.
    1981 “Short-term memory processes in text comprehension”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(5): 564–574. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90183‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90183-3 [Google Scholar]
  33. Flower, Linda S. , John R. Hayes , Linda Carey , Karen A. Schriver , & James Stratman
    1986 “Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision”. College Composition and Communication37(1): 16–55. doi: 10.2307/357381
    https://doi.org/10.2307/357381 [Google Scholar]
  34. Franck, Georg 1999 “Scientific communication – a vanity fair?” Science, 286: 53–55. doi: 10.1126/science.286.5437.53
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5437.53 [Google Scholar]
  35. Froeliger, Nicolas
    2010 “De la centralité du compromis en traduction et en traductologie”. In T. Milliaressi (Ed.) La traduction: de la linguistique à la didactique. Lille: Université de Lille III, 1–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gibson, Edward
    1998 “Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies”. Cognition, 681–76. doi: 10.1016/S0010‑0277(98)00034‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00034-1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldman, Susan R. , Richard M. Golden , & Paul van den Broek
    2007 “Why are computational models of text comprehension useful?” In Franz Schmalhofer , & Charles A. Perfetti . (Eds.), Higher-level language processes in the brain (27–51). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gordon, Peter C. , Randall Hendrick , & Marcus Johnson
    2001 “Memory interference during language processing”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 27(6): 1411–1423.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Graesser, Arthur C. , Keith K. Millis , & Rolf A. Zwaan
    1997 “Discourse comprehension”. Annual review of psychology. 48(1): 163–189. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.163 [Google Scholar]
  40. Graesser, Arthur C. , Murray Singer , & Tom Trabasso
    1994 “Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension”. Psychological Review, 101: 371–395. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.101.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  41. Grutman, Rainier
    2009 “Le virage social dans les études sur la traduction: une rupture sur fond de continuité”. Texte, revue de critique et de théorie littéraire, 45/46: 135–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Guillemin-Flescher, Jacqueline
    2003 “Théoriser la traduction”. Revue française de linguistique appliquée (8)2, 7–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hachette, Catulle
    1879Les poésies de Catulle. (Trad. E. Rostand). Paris: Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Hecht, Emmanuel
    2011 “Historique et haut de gamme”. L’Express, 3118 (1604 2011): 117.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hermans, Theo
    1996 “Norms and the determination of translation: A theoretical framework”. In Román Álvarez & Carmen África Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (24–51). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hidi, Suzanne
    1990 “Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning”. Review of educational research, 60(4): 549–571. doi: 10.3102/00346543060004549
    https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060004549 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2001 “Interest, reading, and learning: theoretical and practical considerations.” Educational Psychology Review, 13(3): 191–209. doi: 10.1023/A:1016667621114
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016667621114 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hidi, Suzanne , & William Baird
    1986 “Interestingness – a neglected variable in discourse processing”. Cognitive Science, 10(2): 179–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas
    1983Mental Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kintsch, Walter
    1998Comprehension; a paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, Ma: Cambridge University press.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kintsch, Walter , & Praful Mangalath
    2011 “The Construction of meaning. Topics in Cognitive Science, 3: 346–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2010.01107.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01107.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Labasse, Bertrand
    1999 “La lisibilité rédactionnelle: fondements et perspectives”. Communication & langages, 121: 86–103. doi: 10.3406/colan.1999.2951
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1999.2951 [Google Scholar]
  53. 2003Une dynamique de l’insignifiance; Les médias, les citoyens et la chose publique dans la « société de l’information ». Villeurbanne: Presses de l’Ecole nationale supérieure des sciences de l’information et des bibliothèques.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 2004 “Lisibilité et pertinence”. Études de Presse, 3: 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2008 “Modeling the communication of complexity in an information saturated society”, in Céline Beaudet , Pamela Grant-Russell & Doreen Starke-Meyerring (Éds), Research Communication in the Social and Human Sciences: From Dissemination to Public Engagement (pp.60–84). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Labasse, Bertrand 2012a “Structures narratives et congruence cognitive: cas du summary lead et de la pyramide inversée”. Rédactologie – Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing, 24 (1): 65–83.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2012b “Un trou noir dans la galaxie: la compétence opératoire dans les recherches en communication”. Canadian Journal of Media Studies, 10(2): 176–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2012c “Sexe, sang et physique des particules: le « sensationnalisme » est-il partout… ou nulle part?” Les Cahiers du Journalisme, 24: 114–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Labasse, B.
    2015 “Les déterminants cognitifs et sociaux de l’adéquation communicationnelle”. In Céline Beaudet & Véronique Rey (Eds.), Écriture expertes en question. Aix: Presses universitaires de Provence, 39–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Markowicz, André
    1985Le livre de Catulle. Paris: L’âge d’homme.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Martins, Daniel
    1993Les facteurs affectifs dans la compréhension et la mémorisation des textes. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. doi: 10.3917/puf.marti.1993.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.marti.1993.01 [Google Scholar]
  62. McKoon, Gail , & Roger Ratcliff
    1992 “Inference during reading”. Psychological Review, 99: 440–466. doi: 10.1037/0033‑295X.99.3.440
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440 [Google Scholar]
  63. Jeon, Mi-Yeon , & Annie Brisset
    2006 “La notion de culture dans les manuels de traduction: domaines allemand, anglais, coréen et français”. Meta: journal des traducteurs (51)2: 389–409. doi: 10.7202/013264ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/013264ar [Google Scholar]
  64. Mikk, Jaan
    2008 “Sentence length for revealing the cognitive load reversal effect in text comprehension”. Educational Studies, 34(2): 119–127. doi: 10.1080/03055690701811164
    https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701811164 [Google Scholar]
  65. Munsters, Wil
    1991La poétique du pittoresque en France de 1700 à 1830. Genève: Droz.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Nietzsche, Friedrich
    1990Par-delà le bien et le mal, in Œuvres (t. II). Paris: Robert Laffont.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Olivier, Séverine
    2007 “Lecture d’un “mauvais genre: le “roman sentimental”. In Laurence Rosier & Marie-Christine Pollet (Éds), Les mauvais genres en classe de français?: retour sur la question. Namur: Presses Universitaires de Namur, 55–68
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Paivio, Allan
    1991 “Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status”. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45: 255–287. doi: 10.1037/h0084295
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295 [Google Scholar]
  69. Parodi, Giovanni
    2007 “Reading-writing connections: Discourse-oriented research”. Reading and Writing, 20: 225–250. doi: 10.1007/s11145‑006‑9029‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9029-7 [Google Scholar]
  70. Pascal, Blaise
    1826Les pensées de Bl. Pascal, suivies d’une nouvelle table analytique. Paris: Lefèvre.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Quintilien
    Quintilien 1933Institution oratoire, Livres IV-VI. (Trad. Henri Bornecque ). Paris: Garnier.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Radvansky, Gabriel A. , Rolf A. Zwaan , Jacqueline M. Curiel , & David E. Copeland
    2001 “Situation models and aging”. Psychology and Aging, 16(1): 145–160. doi: 10.1037/0882‑7974.16.1.145
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.16.1.145 [Google Scholar]
  73. Richard, Jean-François
    1990Les activités mentales: comprendre, raisonner, trouver des solutions. Paris: A. Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Sadoski, Mark , & Allan Paivio
    2007 “Toward a unified theory of reading”. Scientific studies of reading, 11(4): 337–356. doi: 10.1080/10888430701530714
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430701530714 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sadoski, Mark , Ernest T. Goetz , & Maximo Rodriguez
    2000 “Engaging texts: Effects of concreteness on comprehensibility, interest, and recall in four text types”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1): 85–95. doi: 10.1037/0022‑0663.92.1.85
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.85 [Google Scholar]
  76. Sapiro, Gisèle
    2008 “Normes de traduction et contraintes sociales”. In Anthony Pym , Miriam Shlesinger & Daniel Simeoni (Eds.) Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing: 199–208. doi: 10.1075/btl.75.16sap
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.75.16sap [Google Scholar]
  77. Savin, Harris B. , & Ellen Perchonock
    1965 “Grammatical structure and the immediate recall of English sentences”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 4: 348–353. doi: 10.1016/S0022‑5371(65)80070‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(65)80070-6 [Google Scholar]
  78. Schank, Roger C. 1979 “Interestingness: controlling inferences”. Artificial Intelligence, 12: 273–297. doi: 10.1016/0004‑3702(79)90009‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(79)90009-2 [Google Scholar]
  79. Schäffner, Christina
    1998 “The concept of norms in translation studies”. Current Issues in Language and society, 5(1–2): 1–9. doi: 10.1080/13520529809615500
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13520529809615500 [Google Scholar]
  80. Schramm, Wilbur
    1954 “How communication works”. In Wilbur Schramm (Ed.), The process and effects of mass communication (3–26). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Schraw, Gregory , & Stephen Lehman
    2001 “Situational interest: a review of the literature and directions for future research”. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1): 23–52. doi: 10.1023/A:1009004801455
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009004801455 [Google Scholar]
  82. Seleskovitch, Danica
    1976 “Traduire: de l’expérience aux concepts”. Études de linguistique appliquée, 24: 64–91
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Shannon, Claude E. , & Warren Weaver
    1948The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Silvia, Paul J.
    2006Exploring the psychology of interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195158557.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195158557.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  85. Simon, Herbert
    1971 “Designing organizations for an information-rich world”. In M. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers, communications and the public interest (40–41). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Sperber, Dan , & Deirdre Wilson
    1989La pertinence. Paris: Editions de minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 1997 “Remarks on relevance theory and the social sciences”. Multilingua16: 145–151 doi: 10.1515/mult.1997.16.2‑3.145
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.1997.16.2-3.145 [Google Scholar]
  88. Thornton, Robert , Maryellen C. MacDonald , & Jennifer E. Arnold
    2000 “The concomitant effects of phrase length and informational content in sentence comprehension”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29: 195–203. doi: 10.1023/A:1005197012421
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005197012421 [Google Scholar]
  89. Tinker, Miles Albert
    1963Legibility of print. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Toury, Gideon
    1995Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  91. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus , & Walter Kintsch
    1983Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Vinay, Jean-Paul
    1975 “Regards sur l’évolution des théories de la traduction depuis vingt ans”. Meta: journal des traducteurs, 20 (1): 7–27. doi: 10.7202/004569ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/004569ar [Google Scholar]
  93. Whitney, Pau , Desiree Budd , Robert S. Bramucci , & Robert S. Crane
    1995 “On babies, bath water, and schemata: A reconsideration of top-down processes in comprehension”. Discourse Processes, 20: 135–166. doi: 10.1080/01638539509544935
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539509544935 [Google Scholar]
  94. Whitney, P. , Ritchie, B. G. , & Clark, M. B.
    1991 “Working-memory capacity and the use of elaborative inferences in text comprehension”. Discourse Processes, 14: 133–145. doi: 10.1080/01638539109544779
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539109544779 [Google Scholar]
  95. Wilson, Deirdre . & Sperber, Dan
    1992 “Ressemblance et communication”. In Daniel Andler (Ed.), Introduction aux sciences cognitives (219–238). Paris: Seuil.
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Zaid, Gabriel
    2005Bien trop de livres? Lire et publier à l’ère de l’abondance. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Zipf, George Kingsley
    1935The psycho-biology of language: an introduction to dynamic philology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Zwaan, Rolf A.
    1994 “Effect of genre expectations on text comprehension”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20(4): 920–933.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Zwaan, Rolf A. , & Gabriel A. Radvansky
    1998 “Situation models in language comprehension and memory”. Psychological bulletin, 123(2): 162–185. doi: 10.1037/0033‑2909.123.2.162
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/forum.15.2.02lab
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/forum.15.2.02lab
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error