THE ANSWER TO THE RIDDLE OF THE SPHINX: TRANSLATOR’S NOTES ON CHARLES PEIRCE’S FUNDAMENTAL CATEGORIES IN HIS “A GUESS AT THE RIDDLE” AND THE NATIVE UKRAINIAN TERMINOLOGY OF SEMIOTICS
The problem of the Ukrainian semiotic metalanguage still remains a subject of controversy for those who are interested in the scholarly heritage of the greatest and an extraordinarily prolifi c American philosopher, logician (mathematical and general) and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 –...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Ivan Franko National University of Lviv
2024-01-01
|
| Series: | Іноземна філологія |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://publications.lnu.edu.ua/collections/index.php/foreighnphilology/article/view/4202 |
| Summary: | The problem of the Ukrainian semiotic metalanguage still remains a subject of controversy for those who
are interested in the scholarly heritage of the greatest and an extraordinarily prolifi c American philosopher,
logician (mathematical and general) and semiotician Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 – 1914). In the course of
his polymathic researches he created numerous terminological neologisms. The latter are most commonly
rendered into Ukrainian applying transliteration. Peirce was extremely fond of placing things into groups
of three, of trichotomies, and of triadic relations. His theory of signs is also based on his ʻtriadism’. The
article discusses the interpretation of the fundamental categories of Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness
as presented in Peirceʼs work “A Guess at the Riddle” and focuses on the challenges of rendering these and
other important terminological units of Peircean semiotics into Ukrainian. The article contains excerpts
from the above mentioned Peirce’s work translated into Ukrainian by the author of this paper and the issues
of translating Peircean neologisms are approached with the aim of revealing logic in the management of
semiotic realities and specifi cally the logic of constructing diff erent Ukrainian equivalents. The lack of the
generally accepted tradition of translating semiotic terms brings to life many terminological variants used
by diff erent Ukrainian scholars and translators. The present paper reviews some terminological variants used
by Ukrainian semioticians and seeks to provide arguments to support the necessity of selecting Ukrainian
equivalents using the native stock of morphemes instead of applying transliteration of the original English
terms. Following this line of thought, the author suggests her options for rendering such key semiotic terms
as Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness, representation and determination, representamen and interpretant and
some others and claims that the suggested approach is justifi ed and can ensure the adequacy of the translation
and the unifi cation of the Ukrainian terminology of semiotics. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0320-2372 2078-2373 |