Dyachkov Alexey Vasilevich
Кандидат психологических наук, Head of the Foreign Languages Department, Novosibirsk State University of Architecture, Design and Arts, d.Aleksey@ngs.ru, Novosibirsk


The problem and the goal. The special psychological characteristics of an individual have already been studying for a long time. Their influence on the development of language abilities (LA) in general, and on the ability to learn foreign languages in particular, has been studied quite well. LA themselves, are also studied in detail. LA variability is shown, their components are defined and their typology is developed. However, the possibility of influence of interpreter’s psychological characteristics, like belonging to Special-Human Types of Higher Nervous Activity (SHT HNA) i.e. «artistic», «thinking» and «medium» identified by I.P. Pavlov, on the results of a translation haven’t been studied enough yet. The goal of the article is to show the necessity of taking into account these interpreter’s individual psychological characteristics when translating from one language into another (from English into Russian and vice versa ), and to find out a possibility of their influence on the choice of the dominant idea of the translation. An empirical study presenting research of 170 testees was conducted. Some authorial linguistic experimental techniques which reveal individual specificity of interpreter’s activity («Authorial Analysis of the Associative Experiment» and «Character Description») along with already tested methods for diagnosing SHT HNA (M.N.Borisova method) were used in this study. The results of the study. It is proved that individuals belonging to different HNA types use fundamentally different ways of working with foreign textual material. «Dominant ideas of translation» (communicative and culture or linguistic) characterizing the distinctive and psychological specificity of types of translation are highlighted.
special human types of HNA, dominant idea of translation, «artistic type», «thinking type», translating, interpreter

1. Barkhudarov, L. S., 1975. Language and translation. Mosсow: International Relations Publ., 240 p. (In Russ.)
2. Beresneva, N. I., Dubrovskaya, L. A., Ovchinnikova, L. G., 1995. Associations of children from six to ten years old (associative meaning of the word in ontogenesis). Perm, 128 p. (In Russ.)
3. Bolshunova, N. Ya., 1980. The ratio of signaling systems and individual features of the regulation of cognitive and sensorimotor actions. Questions of psychology, 5, pp. 121–126. (In Russ.)
4. Borisova, M. N., 1956. Method of determining the ratio of the first and second signaling systems. Typological features of higher nervous activity of a man. Moscow: Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR Publ., pp. 307–332. (In Russ.)
5. Vorobyova, T. I., 2015. Formation of professional competencies in the process of learning a foreign language in a technical college. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 1, pp. 57–61. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
6. Demina, E. V., 2009. Individual and psychological features of human abilities. Cand. Sci. (Psychol.). Novosibirsk: NSPU Publ., 29 p. (In Russ.)
7. Dyachkov, A. V., 2018. Individual and typological peculiarities of translating activity as a manifestation of language abilities (based on English language). Moscow: RUDN Publ., 24 p. (In Russ.)
8. Ildutova, O. N., 2014. Teaching of scientific and professional speech in a foreign language for students of physical specialties. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 3, pp. 130–133. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
9. Kabardov, M. K., 2001. Communicative and cognitive components of language abilities (Individual and typological approach). Moscow, 52 p. (In Russ.)
10. Komissarov, V. N., 1990. Theory of Translation (linguistic aspects). Moskow: Higher School Publ., 253 p. (In Russ.)
11. Moskvina, O. V., 2015. Modern technology of teaching a foreign language in the Japanese school. Siberian Pedagogical Journal, 6, pp. 163–167. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
12. Pavlov, I. P., 1951–1952. Full composition of writings. In 6 vols., Moscow–Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR Publ., Vol. 3, part 2, 439 p. (In Russ.)
13. Popelysheva, E. V., Puzakov, A. V., 2010. The essence of the notion of «dominant of translation». Hermes: scientific scholar. Sat: issue. Saransk: Mordov. University Publ., pp. 60–63. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.)
14. Retzker, Ya. I., 1950. On natural correspondences in the translation into the native language. Questions of the theory of the methodology of educational translation. Moscow: Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR Publ., pp. 156–183. (In Russ.)
15. Torop, P., 1995. Total translation. Tartu: Scientific search Publ, 256 p. (In Russ.)
16. Trachenko, O. P., 1998. Cognitive abilities of people depending on the type of hemispheric dominance. 1st International Memory Conference of A. S. Luria. Moscow: RPO Publ., pp. 114–117. (In Russ.)
17. Chomsky, N., 1972. Aspects of the theory of syntax: transl. Moscow: Moscow State University Publ., 260 p. (In Russ.)
18. Newmark, P., 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press Publ., 352 p. (In Eng.)