مطالب

В настоящей работе рассматриваются проблемы перевода персидско-таджикской философской лирики на русский язык, прежде всего, их лингвокультурологический аспект. Одной из причин, по которой перевод персидско-таджикской поэзии на русский язык представляет значительные трудности, является необходимость адекватной передачи культурно-этнических смыслов, содержащихся в антропонимах, географических, этнографических и общественно-политических реалиях, метафорах и символах, адекватное восприятие которых важно для правильного понимания смысла всего произведения. В статье приводятся примеры различных способов перевода таких единиц на русский язык – транскрипция, использование русскоязычного эквивалента, использование атрибутивных конструкций с уточняющими словами. В результате сопоставления различных вариантов перевода на русский язык делается вывод об оптимальных способах передачи заложенного в лирике смысла. Таким образом, при переводе персидско-таджикской поэзии необходимо осуществлять не только лексико-семантические, грамматические и синтаксические трансформации, но и реализовать передачу лингвоэтнической и лингвокультурологической информации. Иными словами, необходим не только подбор точных языковых средств, но и трансляция культурных, исторических и морально-этических сведений, содержащихся в исходном языке.

Le Vol d’Icare (1968) de Raymond Queneau est considéré comme la mise en œuvre de la déconstruction générique et celle de la refonte du genre romanesque. Queneau déstabilise dans ce roman les frontières génériques à de multiples niveaux: formel, langagier et diégétique. L’étude de ces aspects met en lumière les différents types de déconstruction présentés dans ce roman. On remarque qu’au niveau macrostructural (le niveau formel), le degré de liberté du romancier est considérable, tandis qu’au niveau microstructurel divisé en langagier et diégétique, la liberté de déconstruction est limitée en s’appuyant aux structures strictes et dures. Queneau, dans le processus de la remise en cause des genres traditionnels, ajoute une bonne dose ludique à son œuvre contre la pratique des auteurs du Nouveau roman qui entament cette déconstruction générique de manière sérieuse. Queneau est devenu un modèle pertinent, non seulement pour les oulipiens récents mais pour les autres écrivains hors de l’Oulipo.

Background: The issue of ethics in commercial relations between the buyer and the seller is highly significant and if there are no solutions to ethical problems in these areas, the continuation of this process will lead to a shake-up in trade and commercial communications from the lower layers that are consumers up to the upper layers that are major traders. The first articles on ethical issues were published in the 1960s and were mostly philosophical articles. In such an atmosphere, having a good understanding of consumerschr('39') ethical behaviors and the process of consumption includes several advantages. These benefits include helping managers in their decision making, providing a cognitive basis through analyzing consumer behavior, helping legislators, and regulators to lay down rules for the purchase and sale of goods and services, and ultimately for consumers in the decision-making process. The purpose of this study is to investigate ethics in the of sports consumer behavior. In fact, researchers have found that observing ethical issues in transactions not only from the seller and the marketerchr('39')s side, but also, from the consumerchr('39')s side is important. Conclusion: The results of the review of the research done on the relationship between ‎individual factors such as age, gender, religion, and moral intensity show that in most cases, ‎these variables have had an impact on ethical decision making. Therefore, further research in ‎this area should be made to clarify the certainty of these effects.‎

Background: “Organizational trauma" and "organizational ethics” are the key variables of interest to researchers in the field of organizational management. Therefore, the present study examined the relationship between organizational trauma and organizational ethics of staff in Urmia University and sought to determine whether organizational trauma has a significant relationship with organizational ethics. Method: This study is applied, from the perspective of purpose; and descriptive-correlational, from that of research design. A sample of 230 employees was randomly drawn out of 630 employees of Urmia University as the statistical population. The data was collected using two standard questionnaires of organizational trauma and organizational ethics, and analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Results: The results showed that organizational trauma can overshadow organizational ethics up to 33 percent. The path coefficient of organizational trauma and organizational ethics variables was measured to be 2.52, which is more than 1/96 at the error rate of 0.05. Conclusions: According to the statistical results, research hypothesis was confirmed, and it was concluded that organizational trauma has a significantly negative impact on organizational ethics.

Background: This article addressed one of the issues of research ethics that is called the nature of plagiarism coupled with involvement of intention. By definition, plagiarism is the attribution of others’ works to one’s own. This may be done intentionally and/or unintentionally. Some researchers believe that intention is not involved in the nature of plagiarism and an author who forgets to make references to the used sources has committed plagiarism since this forgetfulness has led to the attribution of others’ work to one’s own. In contrast, some experts call such a person a wrongdoer, not a plagiarist. Conclusion: By likening this problem to the issue of involvement of intention in telling a lie, the author separates two kinds of plagiarism: act-plagiarism and agent-plagiarism. The intention does not involve in the act-plagiarism (to be an act an instance of plagiarism), but it is involved in the agent-plagiarism (to call someone plagiarist). As a result, an author who forgets to make reference is not a plagiarist, but his/her act is an instance of plagiarism.