Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Handling Stylistic Features in Translating from Russian to English: the Case of Tolstoy, Dostoevsky and Chekhov

Introduction

translation context tolstoy chekhov

Translation is an activity inherently connected with language. Our understanding of translation, therefore, hangs on our understanding of language. Linguistic investigation began with Ferdinand de Saussure's pioneering work, which was later named `structuralism'. Prior to this, translation was not subject to academic investigation, let alone systematic study. Rather, it was not thought to exist separately from language or scholarly activity. Together with linguistics, stylistics did not really exist before the twentieth century, having been part by the two-thousand-year-old traditional discipline of rhetoric. We will cover the prerequisite theory and provide a framework that we will use for comparison of translations.

This paper aims to fill the gap that exists in translation surveys. Most speakers of English learn about and read Russian literature in translation. Therefore, good translations are of utmost importance. Student translators that translate to and from both language will also find this study interesting. They will learn more about the transformations that occur in translation.

Limitations of the study

The study does not attempt to engage with the entire canon of Russian Literature. We limited the selection to three authors: Chekhov, Tolstoy and Dostoevsky. The decision to take short stories is explained by size considerations, as well as by the availability of numerous translations. We do not intend to exhaustively list every stylistic peculiarity employed by the authors or translators but instead focus on the most conspicuous textual features and the most challenging (e.g. repetition, author's coinages, opposition et cetera).

Aim

This study aims to compare the translations and assess the degree of accuracy. It will also illustrate how minor, subtle choices may affect translation and change the reader's perception. To do so, we will present a detailed pre- and post-translation analysis with a commentary. Using the data from translation analysis, this study will also offer suggestions and practical techniques and recommendations readily usable by student translators. We will demonstrate that formal equivalence (word-for-word) is unsuitable for serious translations and do more harm than good, rendering the text incomprehensible. We will argue that a careful balance is necessary between fidelity and idiomaticity.

Objectives

1. To provide insight into the relevant theory, highlight essential concepts and introduce the methodology

2. To make a short introduction to the text, highlight the potential challenges

3. To compare the translations

4. To analyse the results and offer recommendations and techniques

Structure

This paper is divided into two chapters. The first chapter will cover the theoretical foundation of this paper. It will offer a short introduction into translation and translation theory and present the current status of the field. Next, it will introduce essential, widely agreed-upon concepts and basic methodology. In the second chapter, we will briefly introduce the texts and offer background information on the history of their translation into English. We will present the challenges that the texts present, analyse them. Then, we will compare the translations, provide a lengthy commentary and, afterwards, conclude whether the translations are adequate and highlight the most difficult challenges.

1. Theoretical chapter

1.1 Translation theory and practice

Before embarking on this study, it is important to understand the interplay between theoretical research and practical experience that translators actually rely on in their work. The key terms around which the entire fields revolves have quite successfully escaped precise and universally accepted definitions and have been understood in a number of ways. The lack of relevance and acceptance is pithily expressed in Gutt ( 2000) who reveals that `there is a vast body of literature on translation', but `the volume of the literature is not necessarily indicative of the degree of understanding reached'. Earlier, Malmkjжr (1991) summarised the practical outcomes achieved by the field by revealing that most books on translation, whether practical or not, are typically presented in the form of some translation and linguistic theory plus insights from other disciplines and explanations how translators can take advantage of them. Equally pessimistic, albeit commenting on the state of affairs in a sister field, stylistics, in his seminal La stylistique est morte, vive la stylistique Lecercle (1993) laments on the state of stylistics, highlighting the apparent discrepancy and abundance of various theories and their apparent failure to achieve widespread acceptance. In a way, the problem of applicability that seemingly plagues translation theory does not escape its sister field, stylistics. Defending stylistics, Simpson (2004) tends to disagree and makes the point that stylistics is alive and well and is increasingly becoming more popular among university student departments. However, this does not explain the fact that a large number of recent theories has largely dismissed stylistics or relegated it to a very small role as (Boase-Beier, 2011) observes.

Therefore, not only there is uncertainty in the field as to the relevancy of translation theory itself, but translation theorists themselves do not view stylistics as a separate field to be taken into account. This does not prevent stylistics from being useful. Nobody would doubt that style is important for translation. One does not translate a legal document as one would translate an informal conversation in an instant messaging chat. The term itself and the field that studies it, together with stylistic features, have been quite nebulous, to say the least. However, it should be said that it has never stopped anybody from translating or understanding. As such, the concepts `style', `stylistic feature' and `stylistics' are necessary to explain.

We will use the concept of `style' (focusing on the author's style) and `stylistic features' extensively. The term style can embody a multitude of concepts depending on the field of study, and as Wales (2011) points out, it is elusive nature (as much as the entire field) has contributed to the difficulty of definition. It is important to understand that it is immediately conspicuous in a large majority of situations. For instance, a text written in legal English is immediately discernible from an informal conversation in an instant messaging chat. The former would be characterised by an abundance of semi-archaic functional words such as `therein', or `therefrom', while the latter would feature contractions, the use of slang and other informal paraphernalia.

For our purposes, we will define style as the sum of all stylistic features that the given text has. It does necessarily make it unique, but it has the important property of making a text stand apart from texts belonging to other categories (e.g. legal documents vs informal conversations) or all other. The term stylistic feature refers to the particular elements of the text that create the distinctive, perceived manner of expression, such as rigid and clichйd expressions seen in legal texts, or figures of speech (metaphor, metonymy) found in literary language.

Regarding the status of theory (both stylistics and translation theory), it is important to understand that both `arrived quite late on the scene'. Linguistics (to be exact, structuralist linguistics) began with the pioneering research of Ferdinand de Saussure at the beginning of the twentieth century. Prior to this, translation was viewed as part of scholarly activity (Barslund, 2011). Consequently, translation studies have also not existed and have not been given linguistic treatment. Stylistics began to evolve later in the 1960s (Malmkjжr, 2011). From this, we may infer that style, having never been subject to systemic investigation under the auspices of its own discipline, was handled more or less transparently in translation. It may explain why recent translation theories have failed to acknowledge stylistics or subsumed it as a larger part of the context. The erroneous perception that linguistics has taken a largely structuralist approach also fuels the apparent disconnect (Boase-Beier, 2011).

The precise definition of stylistics, which for most purposes has style as the object of its study, is also slippery: it may simply mean `the study of style' (Wales, 2011) or be understood within a particular framework, i.e. linguistic as in Barry (2002) that gives `a critical approach that uses the method and findings of linguistics in the analysis of literary texts'; or `a method of textual interpretation in which primacy of place is assigned to language' (Simpson, 2004). Boase-Beier (2006), observes that recently stylistics has lost its linguistic `confinement' and is increasingly being viewed together with other aspects such as voice, culture, foreigners et cetera. Some critics take this formally and overstress the importance of linguistical treatment. Fowler (1986) is a typical example. He criticises the use of non-linguistic jargon and calls on for using objective grammatical terms for description. In line with this argument, Barry (2002) provides compelling reasons for this approach, citing several advantages of linguistic treatment versus conventional `close-reading'. The point of stylistics, he argues, is to `provide hard data to support existing intuitions about a literary work'. In this sleight of hand, Barry simultaneously decouples style from the interpretation and implicitly suggests that such a relationship must exist and be necessarily universal. So, it makes one wonder what data is precisely `hard' enough, given the variety of approaches (structuralist, generative, cognitive) existing.

Straying too much into cultural criticism would decouple style from its linguistic background. Straying too much into linguistics will water down style to general linguistic theory, subsuming it under this or that grammar. It is clear that it is best to keep a balanced approach when handling style.

1.2 Essential concepts in translation

Undeterred by the lack of a universally agreed upon theory of translation, there are several concepts commonly accepted held as important by all translators. One is equivalence (Kenny, 2009). An important contribution to the field was Nida's conceptualisation of it. Since its introduction, there have been numerous models of equivalence, but Nida's two-partite model (formal and dynamic) has remained the most influent. Among others, Catford (1965) emphasised the referential function of the language, and Toury (1995) saw equivalence in a more inclusive vein, also comprising historiographic and cultural aspects. Eco (2000) famously lambasted this concept as meaningless and too elusive, going against his own admission that while perfect translation is formally impossible, `people translate'. More importantly, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been influential in linguistics and translation theory for its wide-reaching impact on translation. Its basic premise (Koerner, 1992) is that language directly affects one's world-view, meaning that translators also have to mediate the differences between the source and recipient world-views. Although this has not been a secret to anybody in the field since sooner or later, any translator will have to deal with words or concepts that lack equivalents. Translation theories attempt to fill this gap and provide systematic treatment for problems that translators face in their work.

Apart from the theoretical inquiry into specific concepts pertaining to translation theory, the notion of `principles of translation' has been influential, historically. The English poet John Dryden was the first person to outline clear principles of translation (Robinson, 2014). According to Barslund (2011), translation has centred on finding a balance between three important concepts (all introduced by Dryden):

· Metaphrase (verbum pro verbo, word for word translation, now known as literal translation).

· Paraphrase (meaning for meaning).

· Imitation (or paraphrase).

Despite Dryden's recognised primacy as translation theorist, it was articulated much earlier by Jйrome (the translator of the Latin Bible, Vulgate) in his letter to Pammachius that admonished against literal translation; he argued that literal translation would make the result appear `uncouth'; and even treacherous to the meaning (Kelly 1974). This did not stop famous authors from ignoring this admonition and (contrary to Eco's admission) declaring the literal approach as the only sensible way, exemplified by Nabokov's principles of translation (1964), first outlined in Eugene Onegin. He went on to sacrifice rhythm, cadence, melody for uncompromising literalness.

The question now looming on the surface is “Is theory necessary?” and if yes, “Will theory make me a better translator?”. Both may be answered variously. Above, we have seen that translation theory and stylistics are both very late developments in connection with the history of literary and translation itself. At least, the theory is something that should not be plainly dismissed since ignoring the developments made in those respective fields would be ignorant. Certainly, translators have been well off without any theory for many centuries and still work still happen to get by just fine.

Nevertheless, it does mean that learning theory will not help a prospective translator -- quite the contrary. We find the best argument for recognising theory in Boase-Beier (2006) that suggests a descriptive, rather than prescriptive approach; and, that theoretical background may inform the translator of the features that he may not have noticed otherwise. It is, in our opinion, a sound approach that is decidedly practical. We also believe that Malmkjжr's (1991) observation still holds and this work will not escape his characterisation, given the status of the field. Now, it is clear that an eclectic approach enables us to maintain a balance between theory and practice. Following Eco, we definitely believe that translation is possible. In the next chapter, we will consider which concepts and ideas we will use in this work.

1.3 Practical methodology and Russian tradition

The Russian tradition has maintained a descriptive approach to translation, understanding translation as a process that can be the subject of systematic investigation (Komissarov, 2009). The descriptive approach favoured by Russian theorists focuses on the practical aspects of translation, seeking to identify regular features common to all acts of translation. As Komissarov notes, the main method of research used is the comparative analysis of source and target texts. In the Russian tradition, the golden age of translation was in the 19^th century. The language was greatly enriched by the importing of classics and contemporary literary works into the Russian language.

Tjulenev (2004) identified four criteria that may be regarded as minimally representing the text. The criteria are as follows:

1. A translation should be accurate: it should convey the meaning contained in the source text.

2. A translation should convey the intent of the author, i.e. the pragmatic aspect.

3. A translation should reproduce the tone and, at the least, the most significant stylistic features of the original text.

4. A translation should convey the author's viewpoint regarding the subject matter; noting that this is a safeguard against the translator's meddling with the author's viewpoint.

He notes that the criteria above are in no way limited to the four presented above and that they may be extended as necessary to accommodate for other types of texts. We will mostly focus on points 1 and 3 in evaluating translations. Tjulenev definition of translation (`a translation represents the original by means of another language') agrees well with Eco's sentiment that a translation has to be practical. It is obvious that simple sentences translate well between languages. Echoing Eco, we will keep it practical and use the method favoured by Russian theorists, that is comparing translations. For each author, it will consist of the following: a short pre-translation analysis (intended to highlight the main difficulties), comparison of translations and a conclusion.

2. Analysis of translations

2.1 Material and Methodology

To explain why we picked short stories as material for translation, we will need to provide some historical background. Certainly, the juggernaut of Russian literature is the novel. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky have become internationally renowned for works of this kind, spanning multiple volumes and achieving unparalleled depth. Russian literature traces its origins to the tenth century, beginning with the introduction of Christianity to the Kievan Rus' (Moser, 1992). Judging by international readership, it had achieved its highest stage of development in the 19^th century. Although the perspective of a Russian-speaking reader is quite different from that of an English-speaking. Pushkin is still awarded supreme greatness; Russians consider him the national poet and the genius that shaped the national language (C. Kelly, 2001). Because he did not write any `large-scale' novels, except Eugene Onegin, and that his calling was mostly verse, he did not become the household name for readers outside Russia. Although, certainly his influence and role are tersely subsumed in the modern laudatory motto, still current as of to our ears, that `Pushkin is our all'. That might be true for most Russians, but Kelly astutely notes that Pushkin did not forage into many genres and the greatest contribution to the world's literature has been psychological novels. Names such as Dostoevsky and Tolstoy have become world-renowned and now occupy the bookshelf reserved for the greats: Dante, Goethe, Shakespeare, Moliиre. Transcending national boundaries, the works of these two writers became world literature.

The pioneering translator to introduce the broad canon of Russian literature to English-speaking audiences was Constance Garnett (Moser, 1992). Her translations, whilst might seem outdated by now, have set the standard and remained widely in print, accessible to large audiences. They are in the public domain. The importance of these translations have been, albeit lambastingly, pithily recognised by such a great figure as Joseph Brodsky, who famously quipped that “The reason English-speaking readers can barely tell the difference between Tolstoy and Dostoevsky is that they aren't reading the prose of either one. They're reading Constance Garnett.” Although Constance Garnett translations have been reported as being accurate, in the next chapter, we prove that this is often not the case. Besides blurring the line between individual authors, her translations are often inconsistent and careless.

For this study, we picked three works:

1. The Death of Ivan Ilyich by Leo Tolstoy.

2. Concerning Love by Anton Chekhov.

3. The Dream of a Ridiculous Man by Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Before we shortly introduce the works themselves, we feel it important to explicate the preference for Oxford World Classics' (OWC) editions and the importance of analysing them. It has been widely recognised for quality translations and editorial excellence. We decided to resort to short stories since it is clearly not feasible to make a large-scale translation comparison of large works such as novels. Another important point was that Chekhov did not write longer works. His translations came relatively late after his life (France, 2000), perhaps, making him less known than other Russian writers. His stories are generally published in collections.

Regarding the choice of titles, The Death of Ivan Ilyich and The Dream of a Ridiculous Man are similar in their existential tone and purpose, but very different in diction. Both stories are known are widely read in the West (C. Kelly, 2001). We picked Concerning Love because of its modest size (comparable to The Dream of a Ridiculous Man) and because we could pit it against an older translation by Ronald Hingley.

Nabokov hailed The Death of Ivan Ilyich as the most `sophisticated, artistic and perfect' achievement in his collected Lectures on Literature (1980). One of Tolstoy's widely recognised masterpieces, it depicts the life of a prosperous bureaucrat in 19^th century Russia. Untroubled by philosophical qualms, he goes on to live his life and suffers from a painful terminal illness, during which he ruminates about death and meaning of life.

For Tolstoy, we picked three recent translations. We will benchmark the remaining two against Nicolas Pasternak Slater (2015). The other two are by Wilks et al. (2008) and by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (2009, further referred to as P&V).

Concerning Love is a typical Chekhovian story. It is witty and ambivalent: not happy or sad. As the name implies, it is a tale of love, but with an intricate twist. The protagonist rant's mirror the quandaries he faces in his own life. What is especially intriguing is that it is achieved by a very subtle detail, which, unfortunately, gets lost in translation.

Garnett was the pioneering translator and was the principal translator of a 13-volume edition of Chekhov that began publication in 1916 (France, 2000). Nabokov remarked that Chekhov's work suffered in translation. But he said this in the 1960s. We will cover two translations, one recent by Rosamund Bartlett (2008/2004) and an older one by Ronald Hingley (dating back to 1965). Ronald Hingley is the translator for the Oxford Chekhov series, and as such, reflects the status of the translation as influential (France, 2000). We have not analysed Garnett's translations for this author due to the fact that France also notes that she `makes elementary linguistic mistakes', which will be very evident in her Dostoevsky's translation in the chapter following Chekhov. He, however, indicates that she was close to original -- dubious, considering how far removed Dostoevsky was.

The Dream of a Ridiculous Man is a late existentialist short story by Fyodor Dostoevsky. The name is descriptive: it is a frantic rant of a man struggling with the thought of whether life is worth living. The narration is set in the first perso, and it is particularly challenging to render the sense of desperation that short, punchy lines lend. The tempestuous streak of deliberation marks the climax of the novella, typical of Dostoevsky's longer narrative works.

For this story, the primary translation used is by Alan Myers (reissue 2009/original publication 1995) against which we will benchmark three other translations. A pioneering translation by Constance Garnett which is in public domain, a recent translation by P&V (1997) and an old, out-of-print translation by Andrew R. MacAndrew (1961), which is particularly curious because it does not even to attempt to preserve the author's style. France (2000) observes that Garnett has a tendency to normalise, echoing the statements by the renowned Russian writers, Nabokov and Brodsky. He notes that Myers' translation is the best among others; we will see whether it is indeed so and analyse what has made enabled its success.

It is intriguing to delve deep into the text to see the actual translator at work. Even a couple of opening paragraph already reveals some of the choices made by the translator. An important note to make is that, with the exception of Constance Garnett, most translations considered here have been done well into the 20^th century. As such, some degree of modernising is inevitable: expressions peculiar to 19^th century Russian will be lost. Worth mentioning is that Garnett's style has been dubbed `timeless' (France, 2000), but we will illustrate that despite this quality, modernising is not something to fear.

Hingley and Bartlett are particularly interesting because they represent two traditions: domestication and foreignisation. Eco (2000) suggests that making the book look too English might cause the text to represent the feeling of the speak or the degree of familiarity. Most translations of Russian texts into English limit the degree of domestication and rarely if ever, omit patronymics and Russian names. From our selection of translations, only Hingley domesticates the names. In fact, a `definitive' translation of War and Peace made by Louise and Aylmer Maude of War has recently got a revamp in 2010 with one of the editor's aims was to restore the Russian name conventions. Eco argues that domestication is permissible when a translation would fail to convey the pragmatic aspect otherwise; if a reference made in the source text would be incomprehensible to the target audience and offers various solutions. Elsewhere, it indicates that along the `fidelity - idiomaticity' spectrum, the translator has chosen the latter, whilst it is common knowledge that this conundrum is not easily resolved.

We will cover the most conspicuous challenges potentially facing the translators in the pre-translation analysis chapters, previewing how well translators coped with them. Next, we select several contexts that illustrate these challenges and compare translations to see how well they represent the text. Each translation comparison is followed by a section that contains observations and a listing of the most problematic issues.

2.2 The Case of Tolstoy

Pre-Translation Analysis

At first glance, Tolstoy's prose appears straightforward. But idiosyncratic and pleonastic language frequently complicates understanding for translators. He was also fond of repetition (as will be apparent below); albeit his style is exemplarily plain. In a letter to F.F. Tischenko dated 11 February 1886, he admonishes against `superfluous epithets and frills that leave a vapid impression'. Charmingly and going contrary to his own admonition, he does happen to invent many phrases, some of which have entered common parlance. Translators treat this trait in a number of different ways as we will see shortly. In fact, we had to leave out the conjunction from the quote itself and merge two words into one, omitting the characteristic pleonastic touch. He was also keen to stack up several clauses by coordinating conjunctions, which might not sound so brilliant in English. As will be seen in the examples below, Slater's translation re-works this with clever use of anaphoric and epiphoric pronouns.

Another critical consideration is idiosyncratic language and unique collocations coined by the author. These expressions leave a particular `fuzzy' feel when reading. Keeping a keen eye on detail and a good ear (suggesting the translation is an art, still) help find such coinages.

Comparison of Translations

The first excerpt will open a series of arguments against a literalist approach, which has numerous significant drawbacks. We will illustrate how it necessarily captures the author's idiosyncratic style but fails to communicate it to the reader by making it meaningful due to overwhelming literalness and the `sinking ship' effect created by blindly following the syntax of the original, significantly marring the translation.

As most sensible translators do, Slater and Wilks et al. both go for dynamic equivalence, carefully translating detail and producing quite idiomatic English. The first few lines reveal a deeper sensitivity shown by Slater. He reproduces the semantic opposition and author's choice of punctuation by using `but' instead of `and' that would suggest a more light-hearted feel to this situation. Further on, Slater does not slavishly follow the syntax of the original as P&V do, which in the first line do not yield a better translation and fail to create an opposition. The phrase `визит соболезнования' struck me as unusual; indeed, the Russian national corpus indicates that Tolstoy first employed it. Here, thanks to the gracious literalist approach adopted by P&V, it does get preserved and rendered literally, as visit of condolence, which appears to be idiomatic, as Google Ngram shows, being more frequent in the 19<sup>th</sup> century and gradually falling into disuse well into the 20<sup>th</sup> century. The same data, however, shows that this might be a calqued expression from English or French which Tolstoy knew since it appears somewhat frequent 19<sup>th</sup> century English, again. In a way, it made a round-about trip. It might have been a right choice in Slater and Biggs, replacing the conventional `to express condolences'; and it would have conveyed the author's individual touch better. Otherwise, it does not mar the translation in any other way; in this comparison, it clearly wins.

Excerpt 1 (emphasis in bold mine)

«Каково, умер; а я вот нет», подумал или почувствовал каждый. Близкие же знакомые, такн азываемые друзья Ивана Ильича, при этом подумали невольно и о том, что теперь им надобно исполнить очень скучные обязанности приличия и поехать на панихиду и к вдове с визитом соболезнования
`There you have it. He's dead, and I'm not' was what everyone thought or felt. But his closest acquaintances, Ivan Ilyich's so-called friends, couldn't help thinking that they would now have to fulfil some tedious social obligations such as attending the funeral and calling on the widow to express their condolences. [Slater]
`So there it is, he's dead, but I'm not', everyone thought or felt. But at the same time, Ivan Ilyich's close acquaintances, his so-called friends, could not help thinking that they would no have to fuilfill their very tedious social obligations and attend the funeral service, as well as calling on the window to express their condolences. [Wilks et al.]
“You see, he's dead, and I'm not,” each of them thought or felt. Close acquaintances, Ivan Ilyich's so-called friends, involuntarily thought as well that it would now be necessary for them to fulfill the very boring obligations of decency and go to the funeral service and to the widow on a visit of condolence. [P&V]

In the second chapter, another metaphor requires special consideration. It was also first used by Tolstoy. The meaning is quite dense, so it is surprising to find that both Wilks et al. and Slater carefully render it as sinecure, a word which is rarely if ever, used in spoken or literary Russian. The substitution here is not only permissible but welcome. P&V, again, render the metaphor literally and thus blur the divide between the author's idiosyncratic language and common, literary (if we could say that) parlance.

Excerpt 2 (emphasis in bold mine)

Старший делал такую же карьеру, как и отец, только по другому министерству, и уж близко подходил к тому служебному возрасту, при котором получается эта инерция жалованья.
The eldest had carved out the same career as his father but in a different ministry, and was now near to achieving the kind of seniority that confers sinecure status. [Wilk et al.]
The eldest had followed the same career as his father, but in a different ministry, was already close to that stage in his service at which one enters a well-paid seniority that confers sinecure status. [Slater]
The eldest had made the same sort of career as his father, only in a different ministry, and was already drawing near that age in the service at which this salaried inertia is attained. [P&V]

Another tipping point for translators is the pleonastic emphasis that Tolstoy sometimes employs. A characteristic example is Past History (literal rendition). To handle this and make the translation idiomatic, it might be necessary to shift the timeframe appropriately. Both Wilks et al. and P&V went for the literal translation. Slater eliminates the redundancy, on the other hand, and simply employs the past perfect tense, adding `up to this point' that is made clear by the next sentence which uses the simple past. He retained the cadence of narration, by keeping the conjunction and adding the epiphoric pronoun `one'. Wilks et al. blur the clear distinction of timeframes by using the past perfect tense in both examples.

Excerpt 3

Прошедшая история жизни Ивана Ильича была самая простая и обыкновенная и самая ужасная. Иван Ильич умер 45-ти лет, членом Судебной Палаты.
The past history of Ivan Ilyich's life had been straightforward, ordinary and dreadful in the extreme. Ivan Ilyich had died at forty-five, a member of the Court of Justice. [Wilks et al.]
The life of Ivan Ilyich up to this point had been a most simple and ordinary one, and a most terrible one. Ivan Ilyich died at the age of forty-five, a member of the Law Court. [Slater]
The Past History of Ivan Ilyich's life was most simple and ordinary and most terrible. Ivan Ilyich died at the age of forty-five, a member of the Court of Law. [P&V]

Tolstoy is a careful stylist, as Nabokov observes. As such, it might seem extraneous at first glance, but it often marks the foregrounding of the theme. Russian is more tolerant of large sentences, linked by commas and containing adverbial clauses. For English translations, this syntactic loquacity poses apparent difficulties.

Whether to break into separate constituent sentences or leave as it is, impinging readability -- is an important, but difficult choice. Looking closely at the excerpts below, it is immediately evident that the same root мертвец is repeated four times, even made into an adverb, which the corpus also shows to be Tolstoy's coinage. The theme of the dead man is thus intensified, accentuating the imminent fear of death present in everyone (see the previous series of excerpts). Such repetitions are not incidental, and they focus the reader's attention, even if by virtue of using a nonce adverb. Wilks et al. invents `dead weight' and decides to leave out the adverbial, whilst Slater translates literally as `corpse-like way', transferring the adverbial into English and preserving Tolstoy's characteristic touch. Unfortunately, Wilks et al. attempts to re-build the cadence and does not manage to do very well: the thrice-repeated linking `and' has the whole thought swelling since the caesura after the first conjunction causes the flow to halt screechingly and then continue in a new beat. This kind of bump that the reader has just rolled is a dramatic shortcoming that might have the reader believe that the author was somewhat clumsy to stack on sentences in this manner. But not Tolstoy. The stacking effect in the original is much more natural and smoother, leaving an air of gravity.

To represent this, Slater goes on to use run-on sentences which appear more natural even if on the verge of grammaticality, translating it with anaphoras (not present in the original), but compensating by joining the clauses asyndetically and finishing off with a semi-colon, thus preserving the slow diction and immediacy, as if spoken orally, right now. P&V invent an unwieldy and putrid `dead-man fashion', which taken apart from brazen awkwardness (e.g. compare with `men's fashion'), when put into the complete replication of the original syntax, has the sentence appear as a motley collection of strung-up phrases, linked by commas, ultimately betraying the intent and style.

Excerpt 4 (emphasis in bold mine)

Мертвец лежал, как всегда лежат мертвецы, особенно тяжело, по-мертвецки утонувши окоченевшими членами в подстилке гроба, с навсегда согнувшеюся головой на подушке, и выставлял, как всегда выставляют мертвецы, свой желтый восковой лоб с взлизами на ввалившихся висках и торчащий нос, как бы надавивший на верхнюю губу.
The dead man lay as all dead men lie, unusually heavy with his dead weight, with rigid limbs sinking into the soft lining of the coffin and his head bowed for eternity on the pillow, and he displayed what dead people always display, a waxen yellow forehead (with bald patches over his hollow temples) and a protruding nose that seemed to be pressing down hard on his upper lip. [Wilks et al.]
The dead man lay, as dead men always lie, in a very heavy, corpse-like way, his stiff limbs sinking into the coffin's upholstery, his head forever bent forward on the pillow; displaying, as dead men always do, his waxen-yellow forehead, with bald patches on his sunken eye-brows, and a projecting nose that seemed to press on his upper lip. [Slater]
The dead man lay, as dead men always lie, with a peculiar heaviness, dead-man fashion, his stiffened limbs sunk into the lining of the coffin, his forever bent head on the pillow, displaying, as dead men always do, his yellow, waxen forehead with the hair brushed forward on his sunken temples, and his thrust-out nose, as if pressing down on his upper lip. [P&V]

At first glance, Wilks et al. appear to have preserved Tolstoy's style. Consider how Tolstoy uses enumeration to convey the protagonist's willingness to accept anything if only it provided him with the necessary funds. The first sentence is pretty straightforward, and most translations cope with it well, except P&V going for the slightly more formal solicit and opting for the unidiomatic purpose, whereas aim (found in other two) would have been a much better choice. Wilks et al. are consistent in rendering job, whereas two other translations have post which is more accurate. That enumeration is conspicuous, but it is easy to gloss it over. Wilks et al. is somewhat close, but interrupts the enumeration with another proposition and removes the antithesis and the end with the semicolon. Slater does it much better with the semicolon placement and no interruption in the enumeration. P&V does not experiment with punctuation and simply replicates the syntax of the original, resulting in an acceptable version.

Excerpt 5 (emphasis in bold mine)

Он ехал за одним: выпросить место в пять тысяч жалованья. Он уже не держался никакого министерства, направления или рода деятельности. Ему нужно только было место, место с пятью тысячами, по администрации, по банкам, по железным дорогам, по учреждениям императрицы Марии, даже таможни, но непременно пять тысяч и непременно выйти из министерства, где не умели оценить его.
He went with one aim in mind: to get himself a position that would bring in five thousand a year. By now he had no allegiance to any particular ministry, faction or function. All he needed was a job, a job that would bring in five thousand a year, in administration, in one of the banks, with the railways, in one of the charitable institutions set up by the Dowager Empress Maria, even in the customs service; all that mattered was five thousand a year and an immediate transfer from the ministry where he was so undervalued. [Wilks et al.]
He went with a single aim: to get himself a post with a salary of five thousand roubles. He was no longer set on any particular ministry, or direction, or type of work. All he needed was a post--a post with a salary of five thousand; in the administration, or the banks, or the railways, or Empress Maria's institutions, or even the customs department; but it had to be five thousand roubles, and he had to leave the ministry where they had failed to appreciate him. [Slater]
He went with one purpose: to solicit a post with a salary of five thousand. He no longer adhered to any ministry, tendency, or kind of activity. He only needed a post, a post with five thousand, in the administration, in a bank, in the railways, in the Empress Maria's institutions, even in customs, but he had to have five thousand and to leave the ministry where they had not known how to appreciate him. [P&V]

In this dialogue in the fifth chapter, we will show how important it is to preserve the little details that we frequently gloss over. First, it is curious that a literal approach does not mean a consistent approach; versts are turned into miles (which should not happen). Another thing is that the tone is lost and no attempt is made at all to preserve it: phrases with ellipses become straightforward declarations. And an extraneous admission is inserted because точно is translated really, instead of the direct `really', found in Slater only. Wilks et al. -- in comparison to other translations -- follow a sort of middle course. They attempt to replicate the stylistic peculiarities of the original, but it is clear that it is nowhere as thorough as Slater. An attempt to preserve the phrases with ellipses is made, but it falls short because the ellipses are lost in `dropped' since they went for `dropped something' which is correct, literally. We can argue that it was not so important whether the protagonist dropped or knocked over something, the key intent here is to show his failing health condition and growing concern of his wife--this is the focus. Looking at Slater, we can see that he is consistent in that he does not replicate the syntax completely, retaining the cadence.

What is more, he does convey the focus very well by employing synonyms. He inserts knock over, versus the literal dropped something and then preserves the ellipsis (which P&V omitted and Wilks et al. lost) by inserting upset which means precisely the same as knock over. This does not imply that Wilks et al. is an inadequate translation, but we see clearly that Tolstoy's emphasis is not preserved (and a part of his style is, therefore, lost), but it is Slater, who succeeds in conveying all stylistic features in this passage.

Excerpt 6 (emphasis in bold mine)

-- Что ты? -- Ничего. Уронил нечаянно. Она вышла, принесла свечу. Он лежал, тяжело и быстро-быстро дыша, как человек, который пробежал версту, остановившимися глазами глядя на нее. -- Что ты, Jean? -- Ниче...го. У...ро...нил. -- «Что же говорить. Она не поймет», -- думал он. Она точно не поняла. Она подняла, зажгла ему свечу и поспешно ушла: ей надо было проводить гостью.
`What's the matter?' `Nothing. I just dropped something.' She went out and came back with a candle. He lay there, puffing and panting heavily like a man who has just run a mile. His eyes settled on her. `What's the matter, Jean?' `No-thing. I ... dropped it.' (`No use talking to her. She won't understand,' he thought.) And she didn't. She picked up the candle and lit it for him, then she hurried out of the room to say goodnight to another guest. [Wilks et al.]
“What's up?” “Nothing. I knocked it over by accident.” She went out and brought in a candle. He was lying there, panting heavily, like a man who has just run a verst. He stared fixedly at her. `What is it, Jean?' `No … thing. I up… set it.' (`What's the point of telling her? She won't understand,' he thought.) And she really didn't understand. She picked up the bedside table, lit his candle for him, and hurried out to see another lady to the door. [Slater]
“What's the matter?” “Nothing. I tipped it over by accident.” She went out and came back with a candle. He was lying there, breathing heavily and very rapidly, like a man who has run a mile, looking at her with a fixed gaze. “What's the matter, Jean?” “Nothing. I tipped it over.” (“No use talking. She won't understand,” he thought.) In fact, she did not understand. She picked up the night table, lit the candle, and left hastily: she had to see off a lady guest. [P&V]

Greater awareness of cadence (that is, the natural flow of speech and emphasis) seems to be vital in translating Tolstoy. The opening paragraph in the seventh chapter demonstrates that Slater is consistent in his rendition of cadence. He shifts the reason and again uses a semicolon to make a longer pause than a comma, making the reader stop on imperceptibly (participles are framed in commas in Russian) as the Russian reader would. Above all is also better than most importantly, subtly implying that there was an enumeration (i.e. above all people listed); the subordinate clause is translated as a question posed (with a colon), more sensitively than Wilks et al., again. Slater is also extremely accurate with words; oppression (Wilks et al.) does not fit here.

Excerpt 7

Как это сделалось на третьем месяце болезни Ивана Ильича, нельзя было сказать, потому что это делалось шаг за шагом, незаметно, но сделалось то, что и жена, и дочь, и сын его, и прислуга, и знакомые, и доктора, и, главное, он сам -- знали, что весь интерес в нем для других состоит только в том, скоро ли, наконец, он опростает место, освободит живых от стеснения, производимого его присутствием, и сам освободится от своих страданий.
How it came about in the third month of Ivan Ilyich's illness no one could have said, because it came on imperceptibly, by stages, but it happened that all of them -- his wife, and daughter, and son, and the servants, and their friends, and the doctors, and most importantly he himself -- everybody knew that the only interesting thing about him now was whether it would take him a long time to give up his place, finally release the living from the oppression caused by his presence, and himself be released from his suffering. [Wilks et al.]
How it came about it was impossible to say, because it happened gradually and imperceptibly; but in the third month of Ivan Ilyich's illness both his wife, and his daughter, and his son, and the servants, and their friends, and the doctors, and above all himself--everybody knew that the only thing that interested anyone else about him was the single question: how soon he would finally vacate his place, release the living from the constraints of his presence, and himself be released from his sufferings? [Slater]
HOW IT CAME about in the third month of Ivan Ilyich's illness it was impossible to say, because it came about step by step, imperceptibly, but what came about was that his wife, and daughter, and son, and the servants, and acquaintances, and the doctors, and, above all, he himself--knew that for others the whole interest in him consisted only in how soon he would finally vacate his place, free the living from the constraint caused by his presence, and be freed himself from his sufferings. [P&V]

Post-translation analysis

In this chapter, we analysed seven contexts from three different translations. What we found was that at first glance, Tolstoy's prose might appear uncomplicated, inattentive translations tarnish the verbal inventiveness. These details might seem minor, but the translation has to ferret them out and creatively translate so as not to spoil the impression. However, if we disregarded the form (style) of the text, most translations have fared well. In the seven contexts, the most challenging issues were:

1. Translating subtle detail (punctuation, ellipsis).

2. Extra emphasis.

3. Rendering cadence and rhythm.

4. Preserving the distinction between authorial language and literary parlance (critical).

5. Narrowing the sense appropriately.

The translators understood the text well. P&V is consistently literalist and inconsistently thorough at that. The slippery slope of a literal translation makes it impossible to render the distinction between the author's parlance and common literary knowledge. More so, critical stylistic nuances also get lost in a replica of the original syntax. France, in The Oxford Guide to English Literature in Translation (2000) remarks that their translations are readable, superior to Garnett and balanced (that is, between formal and dynamic equivalence). We tend to disagree and have convincingly shown above that this is not the case.

In comparison, Wilks et al. are much better by virtue of not being overly literal. They, however, sometimes narrow down too much inappropriately. Slater is superior in all respects. Not only does he succeed in navigating the subtle challenges that the text poses, but he also manages to be consistent and elegant, producing a readable and idiomatic text. In this regard, we can confirm France's evaluation and state that this translation is indeed the best.

2.3 The Case of Chekhov

Pre-Translation introduction and analysis

A keen eye to detail is essential when translating short stories, and even more so when translating Chekhov, whose style, as Nabokov notes, is witty and vivid in detail. Also partly owing to the fact that he never took himself to write long works. Chekhov frequently uses colloquial language and proverbs, which are naturally challenging to translate. It is exactly in the right place and at the right time, prompting the potential translators to search for viable alternatives.

Comparison of Translations

Speaking of the plot, at the end of the story, we learn that the protagonist's lamentation does find understanding among his interlocutors. At the apex of his romance, they (the protagonist and his love) face a quandary--whether to ditch everything and run away or leave--a to be or not to be moment. In the end, Chekhov makes it clear that his account was an exaggeration. But, on closer observation, we see that it is self-referential, and the quality of the translation makes it more or less opaque to the reader. Nabokov predicted this quite right, and these minor details (but very important) do indeed get lost in translation. We will explicate in greater detail.

Excerpt 1 (emphasis mine)

Мы, русские, порядочные люди, питаем пристрастие к этим вопросам, остающимся без разрешения. Обыкновенно любовь поэтизируют, украшают ее розами, соловьями, мы же, русские, украшаем нашу любовь этими роковыми вопросами, и притом выбираем из них самые неинтересные.

Подобные документы

• Text analysis in translation

  Systematic framework for external analysis. Audience, medium and place of communication. The relevance of the dimension of time and text function. General considerations on the concept of style. Intratextual factors in translation text analysis.
  
  курс лекций [71,2 K], добавлен 23.07.2009
  

• Transfer features of newspaper texts

  Types of translation theory. Definition of equivalence in translation, the different concept; formal correspondence and dynamic equivalence. The usage of different levels of translation in literature texts. Examples translation of newspaper texts.
  
  курсовая работа [37,6 K], добавлен 14.03.2013
  

• The difficulties of rendering alliteration, assonance, rhythm and rhyme in a translation of literary works

  A brief and general review of translation theory. Ambiguity of the process of translation. Alliteration in poetry and in rhetoric. Definitions and main specifications of stylistic devices. The problems of literary translation from English into Kazakh.
  
  курсовая работа [34,6 K], добавлен 25.02.2014
  

• The peculiarities of the translation English maritime terms into Ukrainian language

  Consideration of the problem of the translation of the texts of the maritime industry. An analysis of modern English marine terms, the peculiarities of the use of these techniques in the translation of marine concepts from English into Ukrainian.
  
  статья [37,5 K], добавлен 24.04.2018
  

• The peculiarities in texts of business documents

  The peculiarities in texts of business documents, problems of their translation, interpretation and analysis of essential clauses. The main features of formal English as the language of business papers: stylistic, grammatical and lexical peculiarities.
  
  дипломная работа [70,2 K], добавлен 05.07.2011
  

• Main types of translation

  Analysis the machine translation failures, the completeness, accuracy and adequacy translation. Studying the equivalence levels theory, lexical and grammatical transformations. Characteristic of modern, tradition types of poetry and literary translation.
  
  методичка [463,5 K], добавлен 18.01.2012
  

• Lingual-Stylistic Peculiarities of Poetic Works of English Romanticism

  General View of Romanticism. Life, works and Heritage of the Romantic Poets. Stylistic analysis of Lord Byron’s works "Destruction of Sennacherib", "Prometheus", "Darkness", of Shelly’s works "Adonais", of Wordsworth’s work "A Fact and Imagination".
  
  курсовая работа [56,5 K], добавлен 30.10.2014
  

• English Predicate and its Translation Properties into Uzbek

  Constituent analyses of the sentence. Complication of predicate and types of complications. The link-verbs in English and their translation into Uzbek and Russian. Transitivity of verbs and the problems of translating them into Uzbek, Russian languages.
  
  дипломная работа [295,6 K], добавлен 21.07.2009
  

• Problems in translation of music press headlines

  To determine the adequacy of the translation model, from difficulties in headline trаnslаtion of music articles. Identification peculiarities of english music press headlines. Translation analysis of music press headlines from english into russian.
  
  дипломная работа [602,6 K], добавлен 05.07.2011
  

• Theoretical and methodological aspects of translation

  Translation has a polysemantic nature. Translation as a notion and subject. The importance of translating and interpreting in modern society. Translation in teaching of foreign languages. Descriptive and Antonymic Translating: concept and value.
  
  реферат [26,9 K], добавлен 05.08.2010
  

• главная
• рубрики
• по алфавиту
• вернуться в начало страницы
• вернуться к началу текста
• вернуться к подобным работам