Currently, translation studies is one of the actively developing areas of modern linguistics, characterized by anthropocentrism (the study of objects according to their role, purpose and functions for a person), expansionism (a tendency towards integration processes, which result in interdisciplinary research), neofunctionalism (integration of scientific disciplines to build theory of language use) and explanatory (the desire to explain phenomena from different points of view) (Kubryakova 1995).

The relevance of the study of scientific translation, one of the types of translation activities, is due to both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. Linguistic justification can be considered the need for further development of the theory of scientific translation, as well as the need to improve its methodology. An analysis of the problems of scientific translation reveals the lack of sufficient knowledge about the methods of translation of a special text. The study of the translation strategy of a scientific text will reveal its specifics and thereby optimize the translation process.

Extralinguistic factors include the progress of science, which entails the growth scientific publications requiring high-quality translation. Therefore, the more successfully the translation of a scientific text is carried out, the faster its objectification occurs in the foreign language community.

In modern translation studies, two trends are expressed in the study of the translation process, based on the type of text and the type of cognition:

1) the study of the translation of a scientific text in the aspect of traditional translation studies of a substitutive-transformational nature

Borisova 2001; Gorodetsky 1994; Dovbysh 2003; Evteev 2003; Emuzova 2004).

2) the study of the translation of a literary text in the aspect of modern cognitive-activity translation studies (Klyukanov 1999; Ruschakov 1997; Sorokin 1991; Sorokin 2003; Sorokin 2004; Fesenko 2002; Khairullin 1995).

The problems of theory and practice of literary translation are among those actively solved. This is explained by artistic creativity was the subject of research various sciences over the centuries, beginning with the writings of Aristotle. Thereby literary translation has rich theoretical and practical material.

Scientific translation, having taken shape in the middle of the 20th century, is a relatively “young” field of translation studies. Research in this direction is associated with tasks solved by terminology and stylistics - the sciences that study the scientific text and scientific creativity. Linguistic disciplines of the middle of the XX century. developed under the influence of the then dominant paradigm of knowledge-structuralism.

Within the framework of traditional translation studies (Barkhudarov 1975; Kade 1978; Komissarov 1973; Minyar-Beloruchev 1980; Naida 1978; Newmark 1988; Retsker 1974; Fedorov 1983; Schweitzer 1988;) two types of translation were studied: artistic and informative. The literary included the translation of works of fiction, the informative - the translation of scientific, technical and official business texts (Komissarov 1973). The problems of translating scientific and technical texts were mainly reduced to the difficulties of translating individual terms, to the transfer of their grammatical, lexical and syntactic features. The terms were interpreted as closed nomenclature units of a certain branch of science or technology. The difficulty in translating the term was to find a foreign equivalent (Minyar-Beloruchev 1980), which has the same stylistic coloring and genre as the original term (Fedorov 1983).

In modern translation studies, the study of scientific translation, delimited from technical, has not become widespread. The problems of translation of scientific and technical types of text are studied within the framework of a single scientific and technical direction, where translation is interpreted as a “terminological translation activity” (Gorodetsky 1994) or as a “process of choosing a translation equivalent” (Borisova 2000).

The nature of the technical and scientific text types and, accordingly, the types of translations are different (Alekseeva 2002i; Raie 1978; Torop 1982). So, K. Rice believes that the typology of texts that meets the requirements of translation is a prerequisite for an objective assessment of translations, since the original type of text determines the method and means of translation (Rais 1978). JI.M. Alekseeva believes that there are as many translation techniques as there are types of text and types of communication, since different types of text are understood by the translator in different ways (Alekseeva 2002i).

In the present study, the interpretation of the translation of a scientific text as a special type of translation is based on the general theories of language set forth in the works of W. von Humboldt (Humboldt 1984), Yu.M. Lotman (Lotman 1972; Lotman 1984), C.W. Morris (Morris 1998i), C.S. Pierce (Pierce 1998), A.A. Potebnya (Potebnya 1976; Potebnya 1990; Potebnya 1993), E. Sepira (Sepir 1993), G.G. Shpet (Shpet 2003), R. Jacobson (Jacobson 1985i). They determine the methodology of the dissertation research, allow us to consider the translation strategy of a scientific text in relation to the type of text and type of communication.

Problems of the scientific text are solved by L.M. Alekseeva (Alekseeva 1999, Alekseeva 20021, Alekseeva 2002, Alekseeva

2002h, Alekseeva 20 024, Alekseeva 2004i, Alekseeva 2004). In these works, the features of a scientific text that affect its understanding by a translator, and ways of translating special knowledge into a translated text are studied. The concept of scientific translation developed by L.M. Alekseeva, as well as the work of domestic and foreign researchers in the field of translation theory and cognitive science, served as the theoretical basis for the dissertation work.

The ongoing research is based on such concepts as the type of text, type of communication, thinking, cognition, understanding, personality, individual creativity, cognitive model, concept, etc., which determine the complex phenomenon of scientific translation. The translation of a scientific text is interpreted by us simultaneously as a linguistic and cognitive activity of a person, which is under the influence of various factors.

One of the main problems of translation of a scientific text is the method of translation of the original scientific knowledge, which determines the strategy for the translation of a scientific text and, as a result, affects the quality of the translated text. The concept of the translation strategy of a scientific text is based on the ideas of V.Z. Demyankov (Demyankov 20011), R. Karnapa (Sagpar 1992), I.E. Klyukanov (Klyukanov 1999), A.N. Kryukova (Kryukov 1989), E.S. Kubryakova (Kubryakova 2004), J. Lakoff (Lakoff 1988; Lakoff 1995), M.V. Nikitin (Nikitin 2003), M. Turner, J. Fauconnier (Turner, Fauconnier 1995; Turner, Fauconnier 2001), R. Schenk (Shank 1988) and others, related to the fact that this concept is due to the nature of the scientific type of text.

In the scientific type of text, two principles interact: rational-logical and figurative (Zheltukhina 2003). The first substantiates the solution of the problem of establishing relations between the components of the text and checking the mandatory truth of these relations, i.e. their verifiability.

The second is related to modeling, a freer activity associated with the search for rules, conditions and design possibilities.

The study of the translation of a scientific text based on these principles seems to be promising, since the translation of a scientific text is understood by us as a complex process involving linguistic, cognitive, communicative mechanisms that allow us to accurately recreate the original scientific knowledge in the translated text.

The purpose of the study is to identify the specifics of conceptualization in scientific translation and the possibility of considering it as a strategy for the translation of a scientific text. The study of the process of conceptualization in a scientific text is associated with the desire to confirm the fact that the translation of a scientific text is conditioned by the type of text and the type of communication.

The goal is to solve the following tasks:

Analyze the conditions and factors for choosing a scientific translation strategy;

Consider the reasons for choosing conceptualization as a strategy for the translation of a scientific text;

Determine the language means of expressing a scientific concept;

Conduct a comparative analysis of the originals and translations of a scientific text in order to identify cases of translation failures, as well as describe and classify translation errors;

Establish correspondence/discrepancy between the logical relationships underlying the conceptualization of the source and translated texts;

Show the effectiveness of choosing a conceptualization based on the types of logical relations as a possible strategy for the translation of a scientific text.

The object of the dissertation research is the linguistic ways of expressing a scientific concept in the original (IT) and translated texts (PT).

The subject of the study is the types of logical relationships between the key words expressing the scientific concept in the original and translated texts.

The study is based on the following hypothesis: the process of conceptualization in the translated text is similar to the process of conceptualization in the source text, built on a certain type of logical relations.

This assumption allows us to consider conceptualization as a factor in the translation strategy of a scientific text. Due to the fact that there is no direct way to detect concepts in a scientific text, we, following J. Lakoff and J. Fauconnier, consider it possible to apply the modeling method to detect them.

The scientific novelty of the ongoing research lies in the fact that for the first time conceptualization is considered as one of the possible strategies translation of scientific text. The paper attempts to prove that the reconstruction of the original process of conceptualization in the translated text ensures the success of the translation of a scientific text. The work uses new theoretical foundations of translation activity, different from the traditional ones.

The theoretical significance of the dissertation research lies in the fact that the work addresses issues that are important for the development of the theory of translation studies: studying the specifics of scientific translation, substantiating the need to use a special strategy for scientific translation based on conceptualization, identifying the dependence of translation errors on an incorrectly chosen translation strategy. In theoretical terms, it is important to refer to the concepts of a scientific text, scientific communication and conceptualization, which play an important role in developing the foundations of a strategy for the translation of a scientific text.

The practical significance of the work is seen in the possibility of using the results of the analysis in theoretical courses in translation studies, terminology, cognitive linguistics, lexicology, stylistics, rhetoric. The main provisions and conclusions regarding the choice of a scientific translation strategy can be applied in practical translation classes.

The research material was the original scientific monographs and articles in English and their translations into Russian: D.Crystal "English as a global language" (1997), D.Crystal " English language as global" (2001) (translated by N.V. Kuznetsova), N.Chomsky "Language and problems of knowledge" (1997), N.Chomsky "Language and problems of knowledge" (1999) (translated by I.M. Kobozeva, N. .Iskadze, A.A. Arefieva), M.Black "Metaphor" (1962), M.Black "Metaphor" (1990) (translated by M.A. Dmitrovskaya), D.Davidson "What metaphors mean" (1980), D. Davidson “What do metaphors mean” (1990) (translated by M.A. Dmitrovskaya), John R. Searle “Metaphor” (1980), J. Searle “Metaphor” (1990) (translated by V.V. Turovskaya), and See also originals of scientific articles in Russian and their translations into English: V.V. Nalimov "Science and Biosphere: An Experience of Comparing Two Systems" (1970), V.V. Nalimov Science and the biosphere. An attempt at a comparative study of the two systems” (1981), V.V. Nalimov “On a certain parallel between the Bohr complementarity principle and the metaphorical structure of ordinary language” (1976), V.V. Nalimov "On some parallels between the Bohr complementarity principle and the metaphoric structure of ordinary language" (1981), B.B. Nalimov "Sorrow for the Lost Integrity" (1979), V.V. Nalimov "The penetration of the humanities into other fields of knowledge" (1981) (translated by JI.P. Moshanskaya).

A total of 1053 pages of printed text were analyzed. 4258 contexts were subjected to a detailed analysis, obtained as a result of a continuous and targeted selection from the body of practical material.

Methods are determined by the purpose and objectives of the research. The main method of dissertation research is the method of comparative analysis. In the ongoing research, general scientific methods are used: methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison, classification, observation and description. In addition to general scientific methods, private methods are used: conceptual, textual, contextual types of analysis and modeling method.

The main provisions for defense:

1. Conceptualization as the basis of a scientific text determines the strategy of its translation. Modeling by the translator of the process of conceptualization of the source text is based on the identification of meaning-bearing supporting components of the text.

2. The logical relationships between the supporting words of the original scientific text are a kind of "marks", the totality of which corresponds to the mental model of this text.

3. Relationships between key words expressed in a scientific text with the help of basic words, explicatives and associatives are represented by the following types of logical relations: genus-species, species-generic, partitive, process-result and cause-effect relations.

4. There is an analogy between the types of logical relations in the source and translated texts. The conceptual space of the original scientific text, organized on the basis of logical relations, has such a property as integrity, the translation of which is mandatory in scientific translation.

5. Reconstruction of the original logical relations in the translated text ensures the success of the translation strategy of the scientific text. Incorrect translation by the translator of the initial types of logical relations leads to logical errors that distort the scientific knowledge contained in the original text.

Approbation of work. The main results of the study were discussed at international scientific conferences: "The Changing Language World" (Perm, 2001), "Language of Professional Communication" (Chelyabinsk, 2003), "English in a Multi-Cultural Community" (Izhevsk, 2005), "Vocabulary, lexicography, terminography in Russian, American and other cultures" (Ivanovo, 2005), "Problems of language functioning in different areas speech communication (on the 80th anniversary of Professor M.N. Kozhina)" (Perm, 2005), "Linguistics, translation and intercultural communication" (Yekaterinburg, 2005), at interuniversity scientific and practical conferences: "Linguistic / psycholinguistic problems of learning a second language ”(Perm, 2003), “Linguistic Consciousness and Text” (Perm, 2005) and at conferences of young scientists: “Problems of Philology” (Perm, 2003), “Problems of Philology and Teaching Philological Disciplines” (Perm, 2004). 11 papers have been published on the topic of the dissertation.

Work structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion and a list of references. The material is illustrated with sixteen tables and three figures.

CONCLUSIONS TO CHAPTER II

1. The main task of the methodology for analyzing the original scientific text was to identify conceptualization based on the types of logical relations. The following provisions are the methodological principles of scientific text analysis: 1) conceptualization as the basis of a scientific text is updated with the help of logical relations; 2) the types of logical relationships between key words are similar to the logical relationships between scientific concepts. The lack of the possibility of direct observation of the course of conceptualization determined the need to model this process on the basis of logical relationships.

2. A comparative analysis of scientific monographs, articles and their translations revealed two types of mistakes made by translators: replacing the original types of logical relations with other types and excluding the original logical relations from the translation. A comparative analysis of the monographs D.Crystal "English as a global language", N.Chomsky "Language and problems of knowledge" and their translations into Russian showed that the largest number of cases of incorrect translation of the original logical relations is associated with the incorrect transmission of species concepts (22, 9% in the monograph by D. Kristal, 16.1% in the monograph by N. Chomsky), which led to an unjustified increase in the level of theoreticality of the original text.

3. In both monographs, cases of incorrect translation of logical relations were revealed, expressed in the replacement of a specific concept by a generic one (6.9% in the monograph by D. Kristal, 12.1% in the monograph of N. Chomsky), as well as in the exclusion from the translation of the concept of the species ( 16% in the monograph by D. Kristal, 4% in the monograph by N. Chomsky). These facts indicate that the translators of monographs are "ahead" of the author's thought, trying to generalize the knowledge they have received. The generalization of the acquired knowledge led to a violation of the logic of the original text.

4. A comparative analysis of scientific articles and their translations into English and Russian revealed the following types of substitutions for logical relations:

Replacing the concept of species with the concept of genus;

The concept of the genus by the concept of the species;

The concept of the whole is the concept of a part;

Concepts of a part-whole by genus-species concepts;

Concepts of process by concept of result;

Exclusion from translation in the PT of the species, genus and part.

5. The greatest number of errors in the translation of scientific articles was made by translators during the translation of aspect ratios (62%). Errors in the translation of the original species relations resulted in an increase in the theoretical level of the original text and, as a result, a distortion of the original author's concept. The smallest number of translation errors was made in the translation of the concepts of part-whole (6%) and process-result (2%). The conducted comparative analysis of IT and PT proved the possibility of using the interpretation of logical relations as a factor in the methodology and strategy for the translation of a scientific text.

CONCLUSION

At the end of the 20th century, certain doubts about the possibilities of the equivalent translation strategy were established in the theory of translation studies. The reason for this is that the main principle of the development of translation studies, as well as linguistics in general, is anthropocentrism. Per recent times the concept of translation methods, including the translation of a scientific text, has changed significantly due to new principles of analysis that have updated and enriched the traditional concept of translation as a linguistic activity. Modern translation studies are in the process of transition from general translation strategies to particular methods of translation. This dissertation research is devoted to the study of conceptualization as the main typological property of a scientific text, which allows developing a strategy for the translation of a scientific type of text.

We tried to show that the study of the process of conceptualization in a scientific text is one of the possible ways to study the nature of a scientific text and develop, on this basis, a methodology and strategy for its translation. The translation strategy of a scientific text in the work is substantiated by linguistic, semiotic, cognitive and communicative factors. In the aspect of linguistics, the translation of a scientific text is a translation of logical relationships between key words (basic words, explicatives and associatives) that verbalize the author's concept. In the aspect of semiotics, the translation of a scientific text is characterized by the venative arrangement of certain types of sign, which makes it possible to reconstruct the course of the author's thought. In the cognitive aspect, the translation of a scientific text is a "rediscovery" by the translator of the author's concept by recreating the original cognitive model of knowledge. In the aspect of communication, the translation of a scientific text is a two-stage process of understanding and translating special knowledge.

One of the results of the study was the realization that, within the framework of translation theory, it became possible to present the translation of a scientific text not as a search for linguistic correspondences, but as a process of interpretation, understanding and reconstruction by the translator of the original author's knowledge model based on logical relationships between concepts.

The choice of the analysis of the logical relations underlying conceptualization as the main factor in the strategy of scientific translation is motivated by the fact that these relations exist objectively, are expressed explicitly, and therefore can serve as a kind of reference points and criteria for adequacy in the translation methodology. With all the richness of interpretations of a scientific text, the reproduction of logical relations seems to us mandatory. If you stand on given point view, then it is necessary to recognize that knowledge of the language does not dominate over individual consciousness in scientific translation. Its form and semantics do not allow the translator to fully overcome the conceptual barrier of a special text.

For a long time, the strategy of translation of a scientific text was based on the main principle - the identification of language equivalents. The concept of strategy, as well as some other categories of translation studies, was built mainly taking into account language difficulties. One of the widespread traditional ideas about the method of translation of a scientific text is that individual words - terms are recognized as the object of translation analysis. The property of the integrity of the scientific text and scientific knowledge was not taken into account by the researchers of translation.

The main task set before us in the study was to comprehensively substantiate the hypothesis about the analogous nature of conceptualization in IT and PT. The methodology of analysis and the entire logical mechanism for constructing the work were subordinated to the same task. A feature of the research methodology of conceptualization in the study is that the focus is on the integrity of the scientific text. The process of conceptualization that we are studying, which underlies the scientific text, meets the requirements of the logic of the development of scientific knowledge, since in each individual case the scientist sets himself the goal of verbalizing knowledge in such a way as to be understood and thereby objectify individual scientific knowledge.

The conducted comparative analysis of IT and PT proved the possibility of using the interpretation of logical relations as a factor in the translation strategy. Genus-species, species-generic, part-whole, process-result, cause-effect and subject-attribute relations were analyzed. In the course of the study, a corpus of translation errors made by translators was identified, their description and classification were carried out. It has been established that the largest number of cases of incorrect translation of the original logical relations is associated with the transmission of species concepts. Replacing the original specific concept with a generic one in the translated text (22.9% in the monograph by D. Kristal, 16.1% in the monograph by N. Khomsky, 62% in scientific articles) leads to an increase in the theoretical nature of the original scientific text, which distorts the original author's knowledge.

Translators of a scientific text generally make two types of errors: 1) replacing the original logical relations with others; 2) exclusion of the original logical relations from the translation. The most typical substitutions are: the replacement of the concept of a species by the concept of a genus, the concept of a genus by the concept of a species, the concept of the whole by the concept of a part, the concept of a part-whole by genus-species concepts, the concept of a process by the concept of a result. The most typical logical concepts, excluded by translators from translation into PT, are the concepts of species, genus, and part. The analysis of scientific texts showed that these types of errors lead to a distortion of the meaning of the original text, which is expressed in an increase or decrease in the level of theoreticality of the original scientific text.

In the course of a comparative analysis of IT and TP, cases of incorrect translation of the original logical relations were identified and analyzed, which is expressed in the following: 1) when the specific concept is replaced by a generic one, as well as when the original specific concept is excluded from the translation, the level of theoreticality of the TP increases; 2) when a generic concept is replaced by a specific one, as well as when the original specific concept is excluded from the translation, the level of theoreticality of the TP decreases. In the first case, the translator “outstrips” the author’s thought, trying to generalize the knowledge he has received, in the second case, the translator “thinks” for the author of the original, trying to specify the original meaning. In both cases, this leads to a distortion of the logic of the source text and the author's concept.

Based on the results of the study, it can be concluded that the leading role in the translation of a scientific text belongs to the successful translation of the results of conceptualization, which is based on the types of logical relations. Prospects for further research on translation may be the problem of choosing translation strategies in other types of translation.

1. Averbukh K.Ya. General theory of the term. - Ivanovo: Publishing house Ivan, state. un-ta, 2004. -252 p.

2. Aksenova G.N. Cognitive strategies of argumentative speech activity: Dissertation. . candida philol. Sciences. Barnaul, Altai State those. un-t.2003. - 192 p.

3. Alekseeva L.M. term and metaphor. Perm, Publishing house Perm. unta. 1998i.-250 p.

4. Alekseeva L.M. Metaphorization as a means of dialogic scientific text // Anthropocentric approach to language. Part I. Perm, Perm. un-t. 1998 -FROM. 89-120.

5. Alekseeva L.M. Stereotypical and individual in scientific metaphor // Stereotyping and creativity in the text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Perm, Perm. un-t. 1999. - S. 161-179.

6. Alekseeva L.M. Intellectuality versus informationality in the term. Current problems and thermal specialists TA termshographp. Abstracts of the supplementary international scientific conference // Kshv r.2000 2-4 fierce // Ukladach Z.U.Borisova. K.: KMUCA, 2000. - S. 136-137.

7. Alekseeva L.M. On the specifics of the translation of a scientific text // Stereotyping and creativity in the text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Perm, Perm. un-t. 2001.-S. 63-73.

8. Alekseeva L.M. Specificity of scientific translation: Proc. special course allowance. Perm, Perm. un-t. 2002i. - 125 p.

9. Alekseeva L.M. Metaphors we choose // With love for language. Moscow-Voronezh, Institute of Languages ​​RAS. Voronezh, Mrs. un-t. 2002 - S. 288-298.

10. Alekseeva L.M., Mishlanova S.L. Medical discourse: theoretical basis and principles of analysis. Perm, Publishing house Perm. university 2002z. - 200 s.

11. Alekseeva L.M. From "Traduce" to "Interpret" in scientific translation // Stereotyping and creativity in scientific translation: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Perm, Perm. un-t. 20024. - S. 78-91.

12. Alekseeva L.M. Anthropological factor in scientific translation // Bulletin of the Perm University. Foreign languages and literature. Linguistics and communication. Issue. 4. Perm, Perm. state unt. 20042. - S. 42-46.

13. Alekseeva L.M. The concept of an individual cognitive model of a scientific text // Stereotyping and creativity in the text: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific works. Issue. 9 (based on the materials of the International Scientific Conf.). - Perm, Perm. un-t. 2005i. pp. 4-10.

14. Alekseeva L.M. From transformational theories to translating personality // Interpretation. Understanding. Translation. M., St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University of Economics, 2005. - S. 28-43.

15. Anthropocentric approach to language: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr.: in 2 hours. Part II.-Perm, vocational school. 1998.-S. 103-193.

16. Aristotle. Analysts one and two. M., State publishing house of political literature. 1952. 438 p.

17. Aristotle. Works in four volumes, vol. 4. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Institute of Philosophy. -M., Publishing House "Thought". 1984. 890 p.

18. Askoldov S.A. Concept and word // Russian literature. From the theory of literature to the structure of the text. Anthology. M., Academy. 1997. -S. 267-279.

19. Babenko L.G. Philological analysis of the text. Fundamentals of theory, principles and aspects of analysis. M., Academic project. -Yekaterinburg, Business book. 2004. - 464 p.

20. Babenko L.G., Kazarin Yu.V. Workshop. M., Academic project. - Ekaterinburg, Business book. 2003. - 400 p.

21. Bazhenova E.A. Methods of explication and functions of someone else's speech in a scientific text // Functional varieties speech in the communicative aspect: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Perm, Perm. un-t. 1988.-S. 92-97.

22. Bazhenova E.A. Polytextuality of the scientific text // Stereotyping and creativity in the text. Perm, Perm. state un-t. 2000. - S. 66-90.

23. Bazhenova E.A. Reflexive structures in the scientific text // Stereotyping and creativity in the text. Perm, Perm. state un-t. 2002. - S. 164-185.

24. Bart R. From science to literature // Selected Works. Semiotics. Poetics. -M., Progress. 1994. S. 375-383.

25. Barkhudarov L.S. Language and translation. Issues of general and particular theory of translation. M., "International Relations". 1975. -239 p.

26. Bakhtin M.M. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. - M., Art. 1979. 423 p.

27. Bibikhin V.V. Word and event. M., Editorial URSS. 2001.-280 p.

28. Blakar R. Language as a tool social power// Language and modeling of social interaction. M., Progress. 1987. - S. 88-126.

29. Bogin G.I. Philological hermeneutics. Kalini, Kalinin state. un-t. 1982. - 86 p.

30. Bogin G.I. The model of linguistic personality in its relation to the varieties of texts: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . Dr. Philol. Sciences. D., 1984. -354 p.

31. Bogin G.I. Schemes of the reader's actions in understanding the text: A tutorial. Kalinin, KGU. 1989i. - 70 s.

32. Bogin G.I. Criticism of translation in the light of modern ideas about reflection // Translation as a process and result: language, culture, psychology: Sat. scientific tr. Kalinin, Kalinin, state. un-t. 19892. -S. 7-14.

33. Boldyrev N.N. Cognitive Semantics: Lecture Course in English Philology. Tambov, TGU Publishing House named after G. R. Derzhavin. Ed. 3rd, sr. 2002.- 123 p.

34. Borisova JI.M. Pragmatic aspects of the translation of text-forming speech actions in artistic discourse // Translation: language and culture: Materials of the international. scientific conf. Voronezh, TsChKI. 2000.-S. 20-21.

35. Brevdo I.F. Disambiguation mechanisms in a joke: Dis. . candida philol. Sciences. Tver, Publishing house Tver. state university 1999. -171 p.

36. Weinrich X. Linguistics of lies // Language and modeling of social interaction. M., Progress. 1987. - S. 44-88.

37. Vasiliev L.G. Translator in the communicative space // Translation as modeling and translation modeling: Sat. scientific tr. -Tver, TSU. 1991. -S. 25-32.

38. Vasiliev L.G. Linguistic aspects of understanding: Dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. Kaluga, Publishing House of Kaluga University. 1999. - 251 p.

39. Vezhbitskaya A. Language. Culture. Cognition. M., "Russian Dictionaries", 1996.-416 p.

40. Vernadsky V.I. Biosphere and noosphere. - M., Science. 1989. -258 p.

41. Vinokur G.O. Language culture. Essays on linguistic technology. M., Publishing house "Worker of education". 1925. - 215 p.

42. Volodina M.N. Cognitive-informational nature of the term. -M., Publishing House of Moscow State University. 2000. 128 p.

43. Volodina M.N. Information-conceptual status of the term and its cognitive-definitional significance // Scientific and technical terminology. Scientific-tech. abstract: Sat. materials of the 10th int. scientific conf. in treminology. Issue. 1. M., VNIIKI. 2004. -S. 15-16.

44. Vygotsky JI.C. Collected works in 6 volumes, v.2. Problems of general psychology. M., Pedagogy. 1982. - 504 p.

45. Vygotsky JI.C. Collected works in six volumes, v.6. scientific legacy. M., Pedagogy. 1984i. - 400 s.

46. ​​Vygotsky JI.C. Collected works in six volumes, v.4. -M., Pedagogy. 1984 432 p.

47. Wüster E. International language standardization in technology // History of domestic terminology. v.2. Directions and methods of terminological research. Book 2. M., Moscow Lyceum. 1999.-S. 202-220.

48. Gadamer G.G. Truth and Method: Fundamentals of Philosophical Hermeneutics. M., Progress. 1988. 699 p.

49. Galeeva H.JI. Parameters of the typology of literary texts in the activity theory of translation: Dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. - Tver, Publishing House of the Tver-th University. 1999. 396 p.

50. Galeeva N.JI. Dynamic factors of translation // Language subsystems: stability and movement: Sat. scientific tr. Tver, Tver. state unt. 2002.-S. 30-40.

51. Galkina O.V. Metaphor as a tool of cognition (on the material of terms-metaphors of a computer interface): Dis. . candida philol. Sciences. Tver, Publishing house Tver. state university 2004. - 141 p.

52. Hegel G.W.F. Science of logic. M., Publishing house "Thought". 1998.-1072 p.

53. Heisenberg V. Steps beyond the horizon. M., Progress. 1987. - 368s.

54. Gerd A.S. Formation of the terminological structure of the Russian biological text. D., Leningrad University Press. 1981. 112 p.

55. Glebova A.N. On some communicative aspects of scientific text translation // Translation: language and culture. Materials of the international scientific conf. Voronezh CCHKI. 2000. - S. 21-22.

56. Goncharova E.A. Text interpretation. German. M., Higher school. 2005. - 368 p.

57. Gorodetsky B.Yu. Terminology and translation studies // Translation and linguistics of the text: collection of articles. M., Higher school. 1994. S. 54-63.

58. Gorsky D.P. The question of abstraction and the formation of concepts. -M., Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1961. 351 p.

59. Gorsky D.P. Generalization and knowledge. M., Thought. 1985. -208 p.

60. Greimas A.Zh. Structural semantics: The search for a method. M., Academic project. 2004. -368 p.

61. Humboldt W. von Selected works on linguistics. M., Progress. 1984. - 397 p.

62. Humboldt W. von Linguistics and Philosophy of Culture. -M., Progress. 1985.-451 p.

63. Gusev S.S., Pukshansky B.Ya. Ordinary mindset. Structure and methods of organization. St. Petersburg, "Nauka". 1994 - 87

64. Dyck T.A. van language. Cognition. Communication. M., Progress. 1989.-312 p.

65. Dyck T.A. van, Kinch V. Strategies for understanding a connected text // New in foreign linguistics. Issue 23. Cognitive aspects of language.-M., Progress. 1988.-S. 153-211.

66. Dyck T.A. van, Kinch V. Macrostrategies // Language. Cognition. Communication. M., Progress. 1989. - S. 41 -93.

67. Demyankov V.Z. Concept and concept in fiction and scientific language // Questions of Philology. No. 1. M., 200li. - S. 35-47.

68. Demyankov V.Z. Linguistic interpretation of the text: universal and national (idio-ethnic strategies) // Language and culture: Facts and values: to the 70th anniversary of Yu.S. Stepanova. M., Languages Slavic culture. 2001 - S. 309-323.

69. Derrida J. Essay on the name. Moscow, Institute of Experimental Sociology. SPb. Aletheia. 1998. - 192 p.

70. Dianova G.A. Term and concept: problems of evolution. Moscow, Euroschool. 2000. - 184 p.

71. Dovbysh O.V. English financial terminology and problems of its translation into Russian (on the basis of annual financial reports of foreign companies): Dis. . candida philol. Sciences. M., Mosk. state oblaet, u.s. 2003. - 186 p.

72. Drozdova T.V. Representation of concepts in a scientific text (ordinary versus scientific) // Text and Discourse: Traditional and Cognitive-Functional Aspects of Research. Ryazan, Ryazan state. ped. un-t. 2002. - S. 124-128.

73. Drozdova T.V. Problems of understanding the scientific text (English-language economic texts). Astrakhan, Astrakhan. state those. un-t. Publishing house ASTU. 2003. - 224 p.

74. Davidson D. Truth and interpretation. M., Praxis. 2003. -448 p.

75. Evteev S.V. The problem of modeling the linguo-culturological context in the translation of a scientific text. Dis. . candida philol. Sciences. M., 2003. - 203 p.

76. Yeger G. Communicative and functional equivalence // Questions of the theory of translation in foreign linguistics: Sat. Art. M., International relations. 1978.-S. 137-157.

77. Eltsova L.F. The term in scientific communication // Scientific and technical terminology. Scientific and technical abstract collection. Issue. 2. M., VNIIKI. 2002. - S. 26-27.

78. Emuzova E.A. Intercultural communication in the field of science: Dis. . candida philol. Sciences. Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkarian state. un-t. 2004.-160 p.

79. Zheltukhina M.R. Tropological suggestiveness of mass media discourse: on the problem of the speech impact of tropes in the language of the media: Monograph. M., Institute of Linguistics RAS. - Volgograd, Publishing House of VF MUPC. 2003. - 656 p.

80. Zhinkin N.I. Speech as a conductor of information. M., Publishing house "Science". 1982. - 156 p.

81. Jolls K.K. Thought. Word. Metaphor. Problems of semantics in philosophical illumination. Kyiv, Naukovka Dumka. 1984. - 304 p.

82. Zadorina V.G. Linguistic mechanisms of conceptualization // Problems of Philology: Proceedings of Conf. young scientists and students (April 2002). Perm, Perm. un-t. 2003. - S. 44-45.

83. Zalevskaya A.A. Individual "knowledge base" and the problem of translation // Translation as a process and result: language, culture, psychology: Sat. scientific tr. Kalinin, Kalinin, state. un-t. 1989. - S. 29-35.

84. Zalevskaya A.A. Mechanisms of metaphorization and their consideration in order to model the author's projection of the text in translation // Translation as modeling and modeling of translation: Sat. scientific tr. Tver, TSU. 1991. -S. 69-82.

85. Zalevskaya A.A. Text and its understanding. Tver, Tver state. un-t. 2001. - 177 p.

86. Zalevskaya A.A. Some problems of the theory of text understanding // Questions of linguistics №3. 2002. S. 62-68.

87. Kade O. Problems of translation in the light of the theory of communication // Questions of the theory of translation in foreign linguistics: Sat. Art. M., International relations. 1978. - S. 69-91.

88. Kant I. Criticism of pure reason. M., Thought. 1994i. 591 p.

89. Kant I. Collected works in eight volumes, vol. 4. Prolegomomons. Fundamentals of the metaphysics of morals. Metaphysical principles of natural science. Critique of practical reason. Moscow, Choro Publishing House. 1994 -630 s.

90. Karasik V.I., Slyshkin G.G. Linguistic and cultural concept as a unit of research // Methodological problems of cognitive linguistics: Sat. scientific tr. Voronezh, VSU. 2001. - S. 75-80.

91. Karasik V.I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd, Change. 2002. - 777 p.

92. Karasik V.I. Aspects of linguistic personality // Problems of speech communication: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Saratov, Sarat Publishing House. unta. 2003.-S. 96-106.

93. Karaulov Yu.N. Russian language and linguistic personality. M., Publishing house "Science". 1987, - 263 p.

94. Kasevich V.B. Language structures and cognitive activity // Language and cognitive activity. M., Institute of Linguistics of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1989. - S. 8-18.

95. Cassirer E. The power of metaphor // Theory of metaphor. M., Progress. 1990. - S. 33-44.

96. Katsnelson S.D. The content of the word, meaning and designation. -M., Leningrad., Publishing house "Nauka". 1965. 108 p.

98. Kemerov V.E. Strategy // Modern Philosophical Dictionary. 2nd ed. London, Frankfurt, Paris, Luxembourg, Moscow, Minsk, Panprint. 1998. - S. 865-867.

99. Klimenko O.K. Typology of scientific text // Problems of text typology: Sat. scientific and analytical reviews M., 1984. - S. 96107.

100. Klyukanov I.E. Dynamics of intercultural communication: to the construction of a new conceptual apparatus: Dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. -Tver, Publishing house of the Tvers-go state. university 1999. 395 p.

101. Kozhina M.N. Comparative study of the scientific style and some trends in its development during the scientific and technological revolution // Language and Style scientific literature. M., "Science". 1977. - S. 9-25.

102. Kozhina M.N., Rychkova N.V. Expression of connectivity as a criterion for intra-style differentiation of scientific speech // Functional varieties of speech in the communicative aspect: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Perm, Perm. un-t. 1988. - S. 16-28.

103. Kozhina M.N. Essays on the history of the scientific style of the Russian literary language of the 18th-20th centuries. in 3 volumes // Development of the scientific style in the aspect of the functioning of language units of various levels, v.1. - Perm, Perm Publishing House. university 1994. part 1. 304 p.

104. Kozhina M.N., Chigovskaya Ya.I. Stylistic and textual status and interaction of the categories of retrospection and prospection in scientific speech // Stereotyping and creativity in the text: Sat. scientific tr. Perm, Perm. state un-t. 2001.-S. 118-157.

105. Kozhina M.N. Speech science and functional stylistics: questions of theory. Selected works. Perm, Perm. state un-t. PSI. PSSGK. 2002.-475 p.

106. Kolegaeva I. Text as a unit of scientific and artistic communication. Odessa, Redak. department, regional press department. 1991.-118s.

107. Komissarov V.N. A word about translation. M., "International Relations". 1973. -215p.

108. Komissarov V.N. Communicative Problems of Translation: Modern Paradigms // Translation and Communication. M., 1997. - S. 6-16.

109. Komlev N.G. Components of the content structure of the word. -M., Editorial URSS. 20031. 192 p.

110. Komlev N.G. Word in speech. denotative aspects. M., Editorial URSS. 2003 - 216 p.

111. Kopanev P.I. Questions of the history and theory of literary translation. Minsk, BGU Publishing House. 1972. - 295 p.

112. Kopanev P.I., Mogilenskikh N.P. On the development of particular theories of scientific and technical translation // Translation and text. Abstracts of reports for the zonal seminar February 9-10, 1989. Penza, 1989. - P. 37-39.

113. Kotyurova M.P. On the concept of connectivity and the means of its expression in Russian scientific speech // Language and style of scientific literature. -M., 1977.-S. 139-158.

114. Kotyurova M.P. On the evolution of the expression of the connectedness of speech in the scientific style XVIII-XIXbb. // Linguistic and stylistic features of the scientific text. -M., Publishing house "Science". 1981. S. 45-60.

115. Kotyurova M.P. Semantic structure of specific peripheral texts // Functional varieties of speech in the communicative aspect: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Perm, Perm. state un-t. 1988.-S. 4-16.

116. Krasavsky N.A. Emotional concepts in German and Russian linguistic cultures. Volgograd, "Change". 2001. - 495 p.

117. Krasnykh V.V. "Own" among "strangers": myth or reality? -M., ITDGK "Gnosis". 2003. 375 p.

118. Krivonosov A.T. Natural language and logic. Moscow-New York. Wickersham Printing Company. 1993. - 318 p.

119. Krizhanovskaya E.M. Communicative-pragmatic structure of the scientific text: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Perm, 2000.-18 p.

120. Croce B. Theory and history of historiography. M., School "Languages ​​of Russian culture". 1998. - 192 p.

121. Krymsky S.B. Scientific knowledge and principles of its transformation. Kyiv, "Naukova Dumka". 1974. 207 p.

122. Kryukov A.N. Translation as interpretation // Translation and interpretation of the text. M., 1988i. - S. 41-65.

123. Kryukov A.N. Understanding as a translation problem // Translation and interpretation of the text. M., 1988 - S. 65-76.

124. Kryukov A.N. Methodological foundations interpretative concept of translation: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. -M., 1989. -42 p.

125. Kryukov A.N. Interlingual communication and the problem of understanding // Translation and communication. M., 1997. - S. 73-83.

126. Kryukova N.F. Metaphorization and metaphoricity as parameters of reflective action in the production and reception of the text: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. -M., 2000. - 29 p.

127. Kubryakova E.S. The nominative aspect of speech activity. -M., "Science". 1986.- 158 p.

128. Kubryakova E.S. The role of word formation in the formation of a linguistic picture of the world // The role of the human factor in language: Language and picture of the world. M., 1988. Science. - 212 p.

129. Kubryakova E.S. Evolution of linguistic ideas in the second half of the 20th century (the experience of paradigm analysis) // Language and science of the end of the 20th century. -M., Ros. state humanit. un-t. 1995, pp. 144-238.

130. Kubryakova E.S. Language and knowledge: On the way to gaining knowledge about language: Parts of speech from a cognitive point of view. The role of language in the knowledge of the world. M., Languages ​​of Slavic culture, 2004. - 560 p.

131. Kudasova O.K. The role of stylistic device in the organization of scientific evaluation text // Language and style of scientific presentation. Linguistic research. M., Publishing house "Science". 1983. -S. 34-45.

132. Kukharenko V.A. Text categories in the original and translation of a literary prose work // Translation as a process and result: language, culture, psychology: Sat. scientific tr. Kalinin, Kalinin, state. un-t. 1989.-S. 14-23.

133. Catford JK Linguistic theory of translation // Questions of the theory of translation in foreign linguistics: Sat. Art. M., International relations. 1978. - S. 91-114.

134. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by // Theory of metaphors.-M., 1990. -S. 387-416.

135. Lakoff J. Thinking in the mirror of classifiers // New in foreign linguistics. Issue 23. Cognitive aspects of language. M., Progress. 1988.-S. 12-52.

136. Lakoff J. Cognitive modeling. From the book "Women, Fire and Dangerous Objects" // Language and Intellect. M., Progress. 1995.-S. 143-184.

137. Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. -M., Editorial URSS. 2004. 256 p.

138. Lapp L.M. On the emotionality of the scientific text // Functional varieties of speech in the communicative aspect: Interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Perm, Perm. state un-t. 1988. - S. 92-97.

139. Lapp L.M. Interpretation of the scientific text in the aspect of the "Speech subject" factor. Publishing house Irkut. university Irkutsk. 1990. - 218 p.

140. Leibniz G.W. New experiences about human mind. M-L., State. social economy. publishing house 1936.-484 p.

141. Leichik V.M. Features of terminology social sciences and spheres of its use // Language and style of scientific presentation. Linguistic research. M., Publishing house "Science". 1983. -S. 70-88.

142. Leichik V.M. Problematics of the terminological theory of the text // Stereotyping and creativity in the text. Perm, Perm. state un-t. 2002. -S. 63-78.

143. Lilova A. Introduction to the general theory of translation. M., Higher school. 1985.-256 p.

144. Likhachev D.S. Conceptosphere of the Russian language // IAN SLYA. 1983. V. 52. No. 1.- S. 3-9.

145. Lotman Yu.M. Analysis of the poetic text. The structure of the verse. - L., "Enlightenment". Leningrad branch. 1972.-271 p.

146. Lotman Yu.M. About the Semiosphere // Uch. Notes of the Tartu State University. Issue 641. Tartu, Tart. state un-t. 1984. - S. 5-23.

147. Lotman Yu.M. Inside the thinking worlds: human text - semiosphere - history. - M., Languages ​​of Russian culture. 1999. - 464 p.

148. Lotman Yu.M. Semiosphere. SPb. St. Petersburg, Art. 2001. - 703 p.

149. Luria A.R. Language and consciousness. M., Publishing house of Moscow State University. 1998. -336 p.

150. Lvovskaya Z.D. The role of extralinguistic sense actualizers in teaching the interpretation of a scientific text // Language and style of scientific presentation. Linguistic research. M., Publishing house "Science". 1983.-S. 195-21

151. McCormack E. Cognitive theory of metaphor // Theory of metaphor. -M., Progress. 1990. S. 358-387.

153. Manerko L.A. The language of modern technology: core and periphery. Monograph. Ryazan, RSPU im. S.A. Yesenin. 2000 - 140 s.

154. Manerko L.A. Fundamentals of conceptual integration of mental spaces // Text and Discourse: traditional and cognitive-functional aspects of research. Ryazan, Ryazan state. ped. unt. 2002.-S. 17-29.

155. Manerko L.A. Terminology in traditional and cognitive-communicative linguistics // Scientific and technical terminology.

156. Scientific and technical. essay. Sat. Proceedings of the 10th Intern. scientific conf. in treminology. Issue. 1. M., VNIIKI. 2004. S. 49-51.

157. Milovidov V.A. Text vs discourse: experience of epistemological analysis // Interpretation. Understanding. Translation: St. Petersburg. SPbGUEF publishing house. 2005.-S. 125-132.

158. Minyar-Beloruchev R.K. General theory of translation and interpretation. M., military publishing house. 1980. - 237 p.

159. Mishlanova SL. Metaphor in the medical text (based on Russian, German, English languages): Dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Perm, PSU. 1998. - 167 p.

160. Mishlanova SL. Metaphor in medical discourse. Perm, Publishing house Perm. university 2002. - 160 p.

161. Mishlanova SL. Permyakova T.M. Modern concept sphere: trends and perspectives // Stereotyping and creativity in the text: interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Perm, Perm. state un-t. 2004. -S. 351-359.

162. Morris C.W. Foundations of the theory of signs // Semiotics, v.1. -Blagoveshchensk, BGK im. A.I. Baudouin de Courtenay. 1998i. pp. 36-83

163. Morris C.W. Signs and actions // Semiotics, v.1. BGK im. A.I. Baudouin de Courtenay. -Blagoveshchensk, 19982. S. 116-127.

164. Motroshilova N.V. Hegel's path to the Science of Logic. Formation of the principles of consistency and historicism. - M., Publishing house "Nauka". 1984.-352 p.

165. Murzin JI. N. Language, text, culture // Human text-culture: Sat. scientific tr. - Ekaterinburg, JSC "Polygraphist". 1994. - S. 160169.

166. Naida Yu.A. To science to translate. Principles of Correspondence // Questions of the Theory of Translation in Foreign Linguistics: Sat. Art. M., International relations. 1978.-S. 114-137.

167. Nalimov V.V. Probabilistic model of language. M., "Nauka", 1979.- 272 p.

168. Nalimov V.V. I scatter my thoughts. On the road and at the crossroads. -M., Progress-Tradition. 2000. 344 p.

169. Nelyubin JI.JI. Explanatory translation dictionary. 3rd ed. M., Flint. The science. 2003. - 320 p.

170. Nikitin M.V. Course of linguistic semantics. St. Petersburg, Scientific Center for Dialogue Problems. 1997. - 760 p.

171. Nikitin M.V. Foundations of cognitive semantics. St. Petersburg. Publishing house RGPU them. A.I. Herzen. 2003. - 277 p.

172. Nikitina S.E. Cultural and linguistic picture of the world in the thesaurus description: Dis. in the form of scientific doc. M., Institute of Linguistics. 1999.-54 p.

173. Novikov A.I. Dominance and transposition in the process of translation // Problems of Applied Linguistics. Sat. scientific Art. M., 2001. -S. 74-79.

174. Ovchinnikova I.G. Associations and utterance: structure and semantics: A textbook for a special course. Perm, Perm. state un-t. 1994.- 124 p.

175. Ortega y Gasset X. Two great metaphors // Theory of Metaphor.- M., Progress. 1990. S. 68-82.

176. Autier-Revue J. Explicit and constitutive heterogeneity: to the problem of the Other in discourse // Quadrature of meaning. M., 1999. - S. 54-82.

177. Pavilenis R.I. The problem of meaning. M., Thought. 1983. - 286s.

178. Panfilov V.Z. Gnoseological aspects of philosophical problems of linguistics. M., "Science". 1982. - 287 p.

179. Translation in the modern world. M., All-Russian translation center. 2001. - 78 p.

180. Translation and linguistics of the text: Sat. Art. M., 1994. - 217 p.

181. Translation and imitation in the literatures of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. M., IMLI RAN. 2002. - 413 p.

182. Translation and translation studies. Conf. Bashkir, un. Ufa. Bashkir, Mrs. un-t. 1997. - 99 p.

183. Translation as a process and as a result: language, culture, psychology. Kaliningrad, KGU. 1989. - 123 p.

184. Piaget J. Psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance // Semiotics. Anthology. Ed. 2nd. M., Business book. 200li. -FROM. 98-110.

185. Piaget J. Schemes of action and language acquisition // Semiotics. Anthology. Ed. 2nd. M., Business book. 2001 - P.144-148.

186. Pierce C.S. Elements of logic. Grammatica speculativa // Semiotics, v.1. Blagoveshchensk, BGK im. A.I. Baudouin de Courtenay. 1998. -S. 149-206.

187. Plato. Essay in 3 volumes, v.1. M., Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Publishing house of social economy. liters. Thought. 1968. 622 p.

188. Polanyi M. Personal knowledge. Towards a post-critical philosophy. M., 1985. Progress. - 344 p.

189. Popova Z.D., Sternin I.A. Language and national consciousness. Questions of theory and methodology. Voronezh, Vor. state un-t. 2002. - 314 p.

190. Popper K. The logic of scientific research. M., Publishing house "Respublika". 2004. - 447 p.

191. Potebnya A.A. Aesthetics and poetics. M., Art. 1976. -614 p.

192. Potebnya A.A. theoretical poetics. M., Higher School. 1990.-342 p.

193. Potebnya A.A. Thought and language. Kyiv, SINTO. 1993. - 192 p.

194. Problems of speech communication: interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. - Saratov, Sarat Publishing House. university 2000. 184 p.

195. Raie K. Classification of texts and methods of translation // Questions of the theory of translation in foreign linguistics: Sat. Art. M., International relations. 1978. - S. 202-225.

196. Razumovsky O.S. Logic of conceptualization and theorization in the context of theory development // Conceptualization and meaning. - Novosibirsk, Science. Sib. dept. 1990.-S. 164-173.

197. Revzin I.I., Rozentsveig V.Yu. Fundamentals of general and machine translation. M., Higher School. 1963.-243 p.

198. Retsker Ya.I. Translation theory and translation practice. M., "International Relations". 1974. - 216 p.

199. Riker P. Metaphorical process as knowledge, imagination and sensation // Theory of metaphor. M., Progress. 1990i. - S. 416-435.

200. Riker P. Living metaphor // Theory of metaphor. M., Progress. 1990-S. 435-356.

201. Richard A. Philosophy of rhetoric // Theory of metaphor. M., Progress. 1990. - S. 44-48.

202. Rogovskaya E.E. Emotional dominant as a structure-forming component of the translation text: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Barnaul, 2004. - 19 p.

203. Rubinstein S.L. Being and consciousness. Man and the world: St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003.-512 p.

204. Ruschakov V.A. Foundations of translation and comparison of languages: Dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. St. Petersburg, Publishing House of St. Petersburg State. university 1997. - 506 p.

205. Ryabtseva N.K. Theory and Practice of Translation: Cognitive Aspect // Translation and Communication. M., Edition of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 1997. - S. 42-63.

206. Ryabtseva N.K. Scientific speech in English. Guide to scientific presentation. Dictionary of turnovers and compatibility of general scientific vocabulary. New dictionary-reference of the active type. M., Flint, Science. 2000. - 598 p.

207. Ryabtseva N.K. Linguistic modeling of natural intelligence and knowledge representation // Problems of applied linguistics. 2001. M., 2002. - S. 228-252.

208. Salimovsky V. A. Genres of speech in functional and stylistic coverage (scientific academic text). Perm, Publishing house Perm. university 2002. - 236 p.

209. Sedov A.I. The history of genetics, captured in the metaphors of its language: quantitative and structural analysis. General principles of analysis. Metaphorical terms // Problems of socio/psycho-linguistics and multilingualism. Issue. 1. M., Moscow Lyceum. 1997. - S. 35-48.

210. Selivanova E.A. Cognitive onomasiology. Kyiv, Publishing house of the Ukrainian phytosociological center. 2000. - 248 p.

211. Semenets O.E., Panasiev A.N. Translation history: account. allowance. - Kyiv, Publishing house at Kyiv, un-te, 1989. 296 p.

212. Semkina N.A. Concepts and their connections in the text // Text and Discourse: traditional and cognitive-functional aspects of research. - Ryazan, Ryazan state. ped. un-t. 2002, pp. 106-114.

213. Sapir E. Language and literature // Selected works on linguistics and cultural studies. M., 1993. - S. 195-203.

214. Serebrennikov B.A. Foreword // The role of the human factor in language: Language and picture of the world. -M., 1988. S. 5-12.

215. Skorokhodko E.F. Lshgvyutichsh bases of automation of the formal search - Kyiv, Naukova Dumka. 1970. 120 p.

216. Slavgorodskaya L.V. On the function of the addressee in scientific prose // Linguistic and stylistic features of the scientific text. - M., Publishing house "Nauka". 1981.-S. 93-103.

217. Slavgorodskaya L.V. On the logical coherence of oral scientific communication // Language and style of scientific presentation. Linguistic research. M., Publishing house "Science". 1983. - S. 34-45.

218. With love for language: Sat. scientific tr. dedicated to E.S. Kubryakova. M. Voronezh, Institute of Linguistics RAS, - Voronezh, state. un-t. 2002. - 492 p.

219. Solganik G.Ya., Dronyaeva T.S. The style of the modern Russian language and the culture of speech. 2nd ed. M., Academy. 2004. - 252 p.

220. Solovieva I.S. The dynamics of meaning in the activity of understanding the text // Language subsystems: stability and movement: Sat. scientific tr. Tver, TGU Publishing House. 2002. - S. 107-112.

221. Solomonik A. Philosophy of sign systems and language. Edition 2nd. M., Mn.: MEG. 2002. - 408 p.

222. Sorokin Yu.A. Intuition and Translation // Translation as Modeling and Modeling of Translation: Sat. scientific tr. Tver, Tver. state un-t. 1991.-S. 4-25.

223. Sorokin Yu.A. Literary translation and its fictitious reality // Compositional semantics. Materials of the third international school-seminar on cognitive linguistics. 18-20 Sept. 2002 Part I. - Tambov, Tambov, state. un-t. 2002, pp. 153-156.

224. Sorokin Yu.A. Translation studies: the status of a translator and psychohermeneutic procedures. M., ITDGK "Gnosis". 2003. - 160 p.

225. Sorokin Yu.A. Is there a literary translation? // Languages ​​and transnational problems. Proceedings of the 1st international scientific conference, v.2. Moscow-Tambov, 2004. - S. 225-230.

226. Saussure F. de Works on linguistics. M., Progress. 1977. -696 p.

227. Saussure F. de Notes on General Linguistics. M., Progress Publishing Group. 2000. - 280 p.

228. Social and human sciences. Patriotic and foreign literature. Ser. 6. Linguistics: RJ / RAS. INION. Center for Humanitarian Scientific Information. Research. Dep. Linguistics. M. 2003-ISNN 02026-2087, 0202-2133. 2003. No. 1. - 203 p.

229. Stepanov Yu.S. Constants: Dictionary of Russian Culture. Research experience M., "Languages ​​of Russian culture." 1997. - 824 p.

230. Stepanov Yu.S. Semiotics of concepts // Semiotics. Anthology edited by Yu.S. Stepanov. Ed. 2nd. M., "Business book". 2001. - S. 603-612.

231. Sternin I.A. Methodology for studying the structure of the concept // Methodological problems of cognitive linguistics. Voronezh, 2001. -S. 58-65.

232. Tatarinov V.A. History of domestic terminology. v.2. Directions and methods of terminological research. Book 2. M., Moscow Lyceum. 1999. - 311 p.

233. Text and discourse: traditional and cognitive-functional aspects of research: Sat. Art. Ryazan, Ryazan state. ped. University named after S.A. Yesenin. 2002. - 236 p.

234. Teliya V.N. Metaphorization and its role in creating a linguistic picture of the world // Metaphor in language and text. M., Science. 1988. S. 26-52.

235. Terminology Issue. 1-3. M., Moscow Lyceum. 1996. -186 p.

236. Translator's notebooks. M., Publishing House of the Institute of International Relations. 1963. - 112 p.

237. Troshina N.N. On the Status of Typological Research in Linguistic Text Theory // Problems of Text Typology: Sat. scientific and analytical reviews. M., 1984. - S. 4-32.

238. Ufimtseva A. A. Lexical meaning: The principle of semiological description of vocabulary. M., Editorial URSS, 2002. - 240 p.

239. Fedorov A.V. Basics general theory translation. M., Higher school. 1983. - 303 p.

240. Feyerabend P. Selected works on the methodology of science. M., Progress. 1986. - 544 p.

241. Fers J. R. Linguistic analysis and translation // Questions of the theory of translation in foreign linguistics: Sat. Art. M., International relations. 1978.-S. 25-36.

242. Fesenko T.A. Ethnomental world of man: experience of conceptual modeling: Dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. -M., Institute of Linguistics Ros. academician Sciences. 1999. 350 p.

243. Fesenko T.A. Conceptual foundations of translation: Proc. allowance. Tambov, Tambov Publishing House. university 2001. - 124 p.

244. Fesenko T.A. Translation in the mirror of cognitive science // With love for language. Sat. scientific tr. dedicated to E.S. Kubryakova. M. Voronezh, 2002. - S. 65-71.

245. Florensky P.A. The term // VYa. No. 1- M., Publishing house "Nauka". 1989.-S. 121-133.

246. Frumkina R.M. Linguist as a cognizing personality // Language and cognitive activity. M., Institute of Linguistics. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. 1989. - S. 52-57.

247. Frumkina R.M. Does modern linguistics have its own epistemology? // Language and science of the late 20th century: Sat. Art. M., All-Russian state. humanitarian university 1995. - S. 74-117.

248. Foucault M. Words and things. Archeology of the Humanities. M., Progress. 1977.-488 p.

249. Fundamental directions of modern American linguistics. Ed. A.A. Kibrika, I.M. Kobozeva, I.A. Sekerina. -M., Publishing House of the Moscow University. 1997. 455 p.

250. Khairullin V.I. Translation of a scientific text (linguoculturological aspect), method, manual. M., 1992. - 127 p.

251. Khairullin V.I. Linguocultural and cognitive aspects of translation: Dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. M., 1995. - 355 p.

252. Cheif WL Memory and verbalization of past experience // Text: aspects of the study of semantics, pragmatics and poetics. M., Editorial URSS. 2001.-342 p.

253. Chenki A. Introduction to the Theory of Cognitive Grammar by R. Langaker // Fundamental Directions of Modern American Linguistics. M., Publishing House of Moscow State University. 1997. - S. 358-359.

254. Chernyavskaya V.E. Intertextuality as a text-forming category in scientific communication (based on German language): Dis. . doc. philol. Sciences. St. Petersburg, 2000. - 352 p.

256. Chudinov A.P. Metaphorical modeling of reality in political narrative // ​​With love for language: Sat. scientific tr. M. - Voronezh, Institute of Linguistics RAS, - Voronezh, state. un-t.2002.-S. 298-310.

257. Shadrin V.I. "Translation Studies" vs. "Translation Studies" // Interpretation. Understanding. Translation. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of St. Petersburg State University of Economics, 2005. P. 43-48.

258. Shapochkin D.V. Cognitive aspects of political discourse (based on British, American and German public speeches): Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philology of sciences. Tyumen, 2005. - 21 p.

259. Schweitzer A.D. Translation theory. Status, problems, aspects. -M., Science. 1988.-214 p.

260. Shevtsova A.A. Metaphorization as a means of meaning formation in the text of a literary fairy tale: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Tver, 2004. - 19 p.

261. Shinkarenkova M.B. metaphorical modeling artistic world in the discourse of Russian rock poetry: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Yekaterinburg, 2005. - 24 p.

262. Shirinkina M.A. Secondary business text and its genre varieties: Abstract of the thesis. dis. . cand. philol. Sciences. Perm, 2001. - 19 p.

263. Shpet G.G. The internal form of the word (Etudes and variations on themes by Humboldt) 2nd ed., M., Editorial URSS. 2003. - 216 p.

264. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Selected works. M., Shk. Cult. Polit. 1995.-759 p.

265. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Philosophy. The science. Methodology. M., Shk. Cult. Politicians. 1997. - 656 p.

266. Shchedrovitsky G.P. Thinking-Understanding-Reflection. M., Heritage MMK. 2005. - 800 p.

267. Eco U. Missing structure. Introduction to semiology. -M., LLP TK Petropolis. 1998. 432 p.

268. Language, discourse and personality: interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. Tver, TSU. 199.-134 p.

269. Language and science of the late XX century. M., Ros. state humanit. un-t. 1995. -432 p.

270. Jacobson R. Speech communication // Selected works. M., Progress. 1985i.-p. 306-319.

271. Jacobson R. Language in relation to other communication systems // Selected Works. -M., Progress. 1985 pp. 319-331.

272. Jacobson R. On the linguistic aspects of translation // Selected Works. M., Progress. 1985z. - S. 361-369.

273. Alexeiva L., Vdovenko D. La conflictualite du texte scientifique et les problemes de traduction // Synergies Russie. Le pouvoir des mots. Revue de didactologie des langues-cultures. Numero 2. annee 2002. Gerflint. p. 117-125.

274. Carnap R. Empiricism, Semantics, and Ontology // The linguistic turn. University of Chicago Press. 1992. p. 84-112.

275. Fauconnier G. Qualification, roles and domains // Meaning and mental representaions. Indiana University Press. 1988. p. 61-79.

276. Figge U.L. Kognitiv orientierte Lexicographie // Semantik, Lexicographie und Computeranwendungen. Tubingen, 1996. p. 32-46.

277. Kant I. Kritik der reinen Vernunft. In achter Auflage Revidierty v. Dr. Theodor Valentner. Neunte Auflage Lepzig, Verlag der Durr "schen Buchhandlung. 1906. 769 p.

278. Khurshid A. Scientific texts and the evolution of knowledge the need for a critical framework? // Porta Scientiae I. Lingua specialis. Vaasa. The University of Vaasa. 2002. p. 123-134.

279. Lakoff G., Johnson G. Metaphors we live by. Chicago-London. 1980. 120 p.

280. Lyons J. Natural language and universal grammar. Essays in Linguistic Theory. Volume 1. Cambridge University Press. 1991. 290 p.

282. Newmark P. No global communication without translation // Translation today. Clevedon. buffalo. Toronto. Sydney. 2003.p. 55-67.

283. Nida A. Toward a science of Translating. CH. 2. Liden. 1964. 1861. P

284. Picht H. The Concept in Terminology: a unit of thought, knowledge or cognition? // Scientific and technical terminology. Scientific and technical abstract collection. Issue 2., M., 2002. 71 p.

285. Porta Scientiae I. Lingua specialis. Veera Puro-Aho. Vaasa., 2002. 118 p.

286. Smith V. The literal meaning of Lexical items. Some theoretical considerations on the semantics of complex and Transferred Nominals with special reference to Danish and Russian. Copenhagen. Working pages in LSP. 7-1999Y2000. 105p.

287. Shank R., Kass A. Knowledge representation in people and machines // Meaning and mental representaions. Indiana University Press. 1988. p. 181-199.

288. Surowaniec J. Theoretical foundations of Logopaedic Terminology. 1997. http://www.wsp.krakow.pl/-szydelko/slownik/index.htm.

289. Talmy L. The relation of Grammar to Cognition // Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Osten: Ed. by B. Rudzka-Osten, 1988. p. 162-205.

290. Turner M., Fauconnier G. Blending and grammar, 4th Int. Cognitive Linguistics Conf. 1995. http//www.wam.umd.edu/-mturn/.

291. Turner M., Fauconnier G. Principles of Conceptual Integration, 2nd Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language, 1996. http://www.wam.umd.edu/-mturn/.

292. Turner M., Fauconnier G. Conceptual intergartion Networks. Cognitive Science Society, Inc. Expanded web version 2001, 61 p. http://blending.stanford.edu.

293. Weissenhofer P. Conceptology in Terminology Theory, Semantics and Word-Formation. Vienna: TermNet, 1995. 270 p.1. DICTIONARIES

294. Concise Dictionary cognitive terms. Ed. Kubryakova E.S., Demyankova V.Z., Pankratsa Yu.G., Luzina L.G. M., Publishing house of Moscow State University. 1996.-245 p.

295. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. 17th ed. M., Russian language. 1985.-797 p.

296. Stylistic encyclopedic dictionary of the Russian language. Under. ed. M.N. Kozhina. M.: Flinta. The science. 2003. 696 p.

297. Dictionary of foreign words. M., Russian language. 1989. - 624 p.

298. Soviet encyclopedic dictionary. 2nd ed. M., Soviet Encyclopedia. 1984. - 1600 p.

299. Philosophical dictionary. 5th ed. M., Politizdat. 1986. - 590 p.

300. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M., INFRA-M. 1997.-576 p.

301. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. Harper Collins Publishers. 1993. 1703 p.

302. New Webster's Dictionary of the English Language. College Edition. Sur jeet Publications. Fourth Reprint. USA. 1988. 1824 p.

303. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford. new york. Oxford University Press. 1997. 410 p.

304. SOURCES OF LANGUAGE MATERIAL

305. Black M. Metaphor // Models and metaphors studies in language and philosophy, Itaca; London; Cornell University Press. 1962, p. 25-47.

306. Crystal D. English as a global language. Cambridge University Press. 1997. p. 202.

307. Chomsky N. Language and problems of knowledge. Massachusetts; London; England: The MIT Press Cambridge, 1997. p. 199.

308. Davidson D. What metaphors mean // Reference, truth and reality: Essay on the Philosophy of Language. London, 1980. p. 238-254.

309. Nalimov V.V. Science and the Biosphere. An attempt at a Comparative study of the two systems // Faces of Science. Philadelphia, Pa: ISI Press. 1981. p. 145-158.

310. Nalimov V.V. On some parallels between the Bohr Complementarity Principle and the Metaphoric Structure of Ordinary language // Faces of Science. Philadelphia, Pa: ISI Press. 1981. p. 139-143.

311. Nalimov V.V. The penetration of the humanities into other fields of knowledge//Faces of Science. Philadelphia, Pa: ISI Press. 1981. p. 199-209.

312. Searle John R. Metaphor // Metaphor and thought. Cambridge, 1980. p. 92-124.

313. Black M. Metaphor // Theory of metaphor. M., Progress. 1990. - S. 153-172.

314. Davidson D. What do metaphors mean // Theory of metaphor. M., Progress. 1990.-S. 173-193.

315. Crystal D. English as a global language. M., the whole world. 2001.-238 p.

316. Nalimov V.V. Science and the biosphere: the experience of comparing two systems // Priroda. 1970. No. 11. S. 55-63.

317. Nalimov V.V. On some parallel between Bohr's principle of complementarity and the metaphorical structure of ordinary language // The principle of complementarity and materialistic dialectics. M., 1976. -S. 121-123.

318. Nalimov V.V. Sorrow for the lost integrity // Knowledge is power. 1979. No. 5.-S. 21-23.

319. Searl J. Metaphor // Theory of metaphor. M., Progress. 1990.-S. 173-193.

320. Chomsky N. Language and problems of knowledge. - Blagoveshchensk, BGK im. A.I. Baudouin de Courtenay. 1999. 252 p.