Метафора в українській термінології вторинного права ЄС: порівняльне дослідження

Abstract

У статті досліджено метафоричні терміни та термінологічні словосполучення, які містять метафоричні компоненти. У центрі уваги знаходяться українські відповідники англомовних термінів, використаних в офіційних актах вторинного права ЄС. Для порівняльного аналізу було обрано термінологічний матеріал англійської, італійської, німецької, польскої та словацької мов. Показано, що під час перекладу метафоричних термінів можуть відбуватися такі процеси: 1) збереження метафори; 2) заміна іншою метафорою; 3) деметафоризація; 4) додаткова метафоризація термінів або компонентів термінологічних словосполучень. У виняткових випадках під час перекладу може виникати пряме запозичення, гібридний термін та термін-пояснення.

Background. Some English-language terms of EU secondary law contain metaphorical components. Their translation poses difficulties when the target language lacks such a metaphor, or when the metaphor exists but is not used as a term. In this area of Ukrainian specialized translation, the problem of rendering metaphor has not yet been sufficiently addressed. The present study offers a comparative analysis of equivalents of metaphorical terms based on Ukrainian translations and official EU acts drafted in other languages. Purpose. The purpose of the article is to analyze the translation of metaphorical terms of EU secondary law into Ukrainian. The purpose of the article defines the following tasks: to identify equivalents of metaphorical terms of EU secondary law in different languages; to single out convergent and divergent translation strategies; to determine the impact of metaphor on the emergence of terminological variation in the Ukrainian language; to raise scholarly interest in metaphor within legal terminology. Methods. The study employs the comparative method. Ukrainian terms used in translations of EU acts are compared with their equivalents primarily in English, as well as in Italian, German, Polish, Slovak, and other languages. The comparative method is also applied from an intralingual perspective: where more than one equivalent coexists in Ukrainian, a comparative analysis is carried out at the level of definitions and usage, including a micro-diachronic perspective. Procedures of translation analysis and structural-semantic analysis are also employed. Results. The study demonstrates that adherence to the principle of interlingual consistency of EU terminology is often impossible due to the presence, on the one hand, of metaphorical terms in the English version of EU law and, on the other hand, the absence of their full equivalents in other languages. To render metaphorical terms, Ukrainian translators adopt different translation procedures, resulting in 1) preservation of the metaphor; 2) replacement with another metaphor; 3) metaphor neutralization; 4) additional metaphorization. Moreover, across different languages, the equivalents include direct borrowings, hybrid terms, and explanatory terms. From a micro-diachronic perspective, significant variability in Ukrainian terminology has been identified. Conclusions and prospects. The translation strategies identified in the article confirm that translating metaphor is a multifactorial decision-making process. Further in-depth research based on Ukrainian-language material is required, particularly with regard to the cognitive and cultural aspects of this process. Metaphorical terminology should take up more space in terminological verification during the translation of EU acts and should be grounded in scientifically substantiated and standardized principles.