The article examines the issues surrounding the translation and terminologization of the concept of “ostranenie” (defamiliarization), introduced by Viktor Shklovsky as a key concept of Russian Formalism. The study aims to identify the reasons for the existence of numerous equivalents for this term across various languages, to develop a scientific model for describing them, and to justify the choice of its Tajik equivalents. The methodological basis of the study comprises comparative analysis, historical-terminological analysis, and semantic analysis, as well as a comparison of English, German, Persian, and Tajik translations of the term. It is established that the diversity of translational solutions stems not from translator errors, but from the multilayered structure of the concept itself. A multi-level model of terminological equivalents is proposed for the first time, making it possible to explain the relationship between various translation equivalents at the semantic, functional, and translational levels. Based on this model, the use of the Tajik terms “oshnoizudoī” and “ajibsozī” is substantiated, and the scope of application for each is defined. The research findings can be applied in terminology studies, translation studies, literary theory, and research on Russian Formalism, as well as in the development of terminological dictionaries in the humanities.
ostranenie; oshnoizudoi; ajibsozi; terminological equivalents; multi-level model of terminological equivalents; term translation; terminology; Viktor Shklovsky; Russian Formalism; translation studies
1. Hegel, G. W. F. Phenomenology of Spirit. Translated by G. G. Shpet. Moscow: Nauka, 2000. 495 pp.
2. Qoimī, A. “Oshnoizudoī dar zabon [Defamiliarization in Language].” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Literary Studies, Language and Cultural Communication, 1394 [2015]. PP. 1-11.
3. Leichik, V. M. Terminology Studies: Subject, Methods, Structure. 4th ed. Moscow: Knizhnyi Dom “LIBROKOM”, 2009. 256 pp.
4. Marx, K. “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844.” In: Marx, K., Engels, F. Collected Works. 2nd ed. Vol. 42. Moscow: Politizdat, 1974. PP. 41-174.
5. Rezaei Haftodar, Gh., Nomdari, I., and Ahmadi, A. “Oshnoizudoī va naqshi on dar ofarinishi she'r [Defamiliarization and Its Role in the Creation of Poetry].” Persian Literature. 1392 [2013]. Vol. 5. No. 2. PP. 69-88.
6. Sufizoda, Shodmuhammad. “Zuhuri navi nazariyai adabiyot dar pazhuhishi Shafiei Kadkani [The Emergence of a New Theory of Literature in the Scholarship of Shafi‘i Kadkani].” Bulletin of the University of Languages. Series of Philology, Pedagogy and History. 2023. No. 3 (51). PP. 139-144.
7. Tavakkulī, H. “Hafez va oshnoizudoī dar qalamravi talmeh [Hafez and Defamiliarization in the Realm of Allusion].” Rhetorical Studies. 1392 [2013]. No. 7. PP. 7-26.
8. Tynianov, Yu. N. “On Literary Evolution.” In: Poetics. History of Literature. Cinema. Moscow: Nauka, 1977. PP. 270-281.
9. Shafiei Kadkani, Mohammad Reza. Rastokhezi Kalimot (Lectures on the Literary Theory of the Russian Formalists). Introduction, editing, commentary, notes and appendix by Shodmuhammad Sufizoda. Cyrillic transliteration, introduction, editing, commentary, notes and appendix by Sh. Sufizoda. Dushanbe: Fayz, 2023. 400 pp.
10.Shklovsky, V. B. “Art as Device.” In: Hamburgskii schet. St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 2016. PP. 11-24.
11.Eikhenbaum, Boris. “Nazariyai ‘ravishi suratgaroī’ [The Theory of Formalism].” Translated by Shodmuhammad Sufizoda. Adab. Dushanbe, 2019. No. 4. PP. 32-52.
12.Bal, M. Travelling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2002. 398 pp.
13.Berlina, A. “Victor Shklovsky's ‘Ostranenie’: On the Origin of ‘Defamiliarization’.” Poetics Today. 2015. Vol. 36. No. 1. PP. 151-168.
14.Brecht, B. Schriften zum Theater. 7th ed. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1967. 466 pp.
15.Cabré, M. T. Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1999. 248 pp.
16.Crawford, L. “Victor Shklovskij: Différance in Defamiliarization.” Comparative Literature. 1984. Vol. 36. No. 3. PP. 209-219.
17.Erlich, V. Russian Formalism: History, Doctrine. 3rd ed. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1981. 310 pp.
18.Gadamer, H.-G. Truth and Method. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Continuum, 1989. 601 pp.
19.Gunn, D. P. “Making Art Strange: A Commentary on Defamiliarization.” Journal of Literary Semantics. 2020. Vol. 49. No. 1. PP. 1-22.
20.Jakobson, R. “Linguistics and Poetics.” In: Style in Language. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press, 1960. PP. 350-377.
21.Kessler, F. “Ostranenie, On ‘Strangeness’ and the Moving Image: The History of a Concept.” Apparatus. 2021. No. 12.
22.Koselleck, R. Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. 317 pp.
23.Lachmann, R. “Die ‘Verfremdung’ und das ‘neue Sehen’ bei Viktor Šklovskij.” Poetica. 1970. Bd. 3. PP. 226-249.
24.Lemon, L. T., and Reis, M. J., eds. Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965. 232 pp.
25.Martin, E. “Alienation/Defamiliarisation/Estrangement (ostranenie).” In: Mrugalski, M., Schahadat, S., and Wutsdorff, I., eds. Central and Eastern European Literary Theory and the West. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2023. PP. 879-886. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110400304-046
26.Miall, D. S., and Kuiken, D. “Foregrounding, Defamiliarization, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories.” Poetics. 1994. Vol. 22. No. 5. PP. 389-407.
27.Mukařovský, J. “Standard Language and Poetic Language.” In: A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure and Style. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 1964. PP. 17-30.
28.Sher, B. Viktor Shklovsky: A Reader. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017. 480 pp.
29.Shklovsky, V. “Art as Technique.” In: Lemon, L. T., and Reis, M. J., eds. Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965. PP. 3-24.
30.Temmerman, R. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The Sociocognitive Approach. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000. 258 pp.
31.Van den Oever, A., ed. Ostrannenie: On “Strangeness” and the Moving Image. The History, Reception, and Relevance of a Concept. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010. 322 pp.