Петровский Артур Владимирович
This paper is dedicated to the life and work of Artur Vladimirovich Petrovsky (1924-2006), a well-known Soviet/Russian psychologist. It illuminates his theoretical views on personality and group activity, in particular, the three-factor model of 'significant other', the concept of personalisation, and the stratometric concept of groups and collectives. His empirical works analysing the phenomena and characteristics of activity-mediated relations are described as well.
The article discusses one argument in favor of descriptive theory of reference of proper names against the theory of direct reference which appeals to a famous example of the ship of Theseus. The author defends the latter theory by means of distinguishing the object of direct reference and its principles of individuation. The argument is discussed with reference to the works of H. Chandler, L. Linsky, S. Kripke, N. Salmon and other theorists.
The article is focused on the subjec-matter of activity mediation of interpersonal relationships. In contrast with functional-role and personal-emotional ones it is determined by orientation of people's activity towards "universal "I" and by logic of the "object". Levels-layers of intragroup relationships determined by the goal of collaborative activity, personal-business relationships, private emotional-personal relationships are described. The reasons for qualitative difference between activity-mediated relationships in a collectivity and activity-mediated relationships in a corporation as well as the potential of activity-mediated relationships to "warm up" private emotional relationships in a group are analyzed. Phenomena and peculiarities in life of a group revealed by the author of activity mediation theory are related to categories of transactional analysis and the other systems of counseling psychology. That gives the way to the special - personological - approach to the further research.
The paper revisits the topic elaborated in the earlier Translation Studies serial issue and suggests a diachronic approach towards reference in the interlanguage translation from within the psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics perspectives. Reference viewed as the universal steering mechanism behind the translation process per se is believed to enable the translator's mental operations. This fact was implicitly evidenced in the respective notes by antique texts' translators who extensively reflected on their rendering of those texts into modern languages, including Russian. Source-text analysis against target language texts favored the translators' viewpoint on intricate and referentially opaque text-reality relations whereby such reality overlaps irreality comprising coexisting human beings with imaginary characters, mythical heroes, as well as real-life and fabled objects and events reflected in the source-language texts generated in high antiquity.
This article features issues related to the inherent structure of legal texts in its relation to the text-internal mechanisms specific for these texts. In particular, the analysis is centered around a legal texts’ propensity to ‘avoid’ pronominal deictic elements, as well as other deixis ordinarily employed for text generation. Legal texts perception is deemed dependent on referencing practiced by the reader. Accents are placed on the ontological difference immanent for texts of law; such difference stipulates their distinction from regular and, thus expected, textual patters; this quality being characterized by minimized elliptical constructions and extended endophoric reference links.
Legal Translation In The Law Terminology Coreference Perspective
The article revisits a sustainable phenomenon inherent in languages for special purposes (domain-specific sublanguages) – multiple nomination of concepts exemplified by the legalese and correlating with cognitive representations of domain-specific knowledge. This phenomenon profiles an obvious problem area in special translation theory. Synonymy is treated in line with Yu.D. Aprecian’s concept whereby lexical units are regarded as semantically related if and when they appear referentially identical, i.e. co-referential. Co-reference gives rise to complexities in perceiving and comprehending legal texts in English–Russian translation. An interdisciplinary paradigm is applied for singling out an earmarked direction within the modern Translation Studies – Domain-Specific Translatology. A new name to once customary ‘special translation theory’ draws translation researchers to focus on profound studying of professional translation/interpreting across domain-specific fields, i.e. expert communication area, with the view of analyzing problems aggravated by the terminological co-reference available both in the source-language and target-language as well.