Rendering of Charles Peirce’s metalanguage in Ukrainian translation of his article “On a New List of Categories”

Abstract

The article substantiates the choice of Ukrainian equivalents for rendering “terminological jargon” of an outstanding American philosopher and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce. The analysis is conducted on the basis of the Ukrainian translation of his paper “On a New List of Categories” (1867) made by the author of the article. Peirce’s theory of signs greatly depends on his doctrine of categories, since it informs or inspires virtually all of his classifications of signs (e.g., that of iconical, indexical, and symbolic signs). Thus, an adequate understanding of Peirce’s semiotic or (as he most often spelled it) semeiotic is impossible apart from at least a working knowledge of the Peircean categories discussed in “On a New List of Categories”. This paper has not been translated into Ukrainian before and as it is Peirce’s earliest significant attempt at an account of signs it may be of special interest for Ukrainian semioticians.

The article is aimed at suggesting methodology for overcoming difficulties that the translation of Peirce’s metalanguage poses for a Ukrainian translator because of the absence of generally accepted Ukrainian terminology in the field. Specific concerns involved in the translation of Peirce’s terminology are discussed and terminological equivalents are suggested. The author claims that to capture the desired equivalence the translator has to identify the meaning of concepts that shape the knowledge domain and are verbalized by means of “technical dictionary” of this particular domain. Using different dictionaries and conducting additional research of the definitions suggested by different scholars the author substantiates the choice of equivalents in the target language. If several equivalents can be discovered in the Ukrainian scholarly discourse in the relevant field, the author provides arguments to support her choice though emphasizes that her suggestions are open and actually need further discussion by scholarly community. The key principle advocated by the author is that the translator should comply with the laws of terminology formation in the target language which means avoiding the use of borrowed forms and offering a native equivalent. For example, подоба for icon or вказівник for index. The terms are analyzed in order of their occurrence in the article.