Abstract
This article focuses on the ideological content and function of the prefaces that accompany the translations of foreign literature made in the Soviet Union. The aim of the article is to ...demonstrate how these translations use paratexts to comply with the target system’s ideological constraints. It shows how the ways in which the Soviet authorities used paratexts to manipulate representations of the author of the source text and the text itself reflect the power structures within the target system. The empirical investigation draws on a close lexical analysis of ideologemes in two prefaces that accompanied Soviet translations of Robert Burns’s poetry.
The White Guard, an epic narrative on the Russian Civil War, is also an urban novel based on the author’s personal experiences in Kiev during the tumultuous years of the Revolution and Civil War. ...Following the traditions established by F. Dostojevsky and I. Bunin, Bulgakov introduces the City, Kiev, not only as the setting of the novel, but as one of the main protagonists – one that changes, develops and takes part in the lives of the other protagonists. The city is thus transformed into a psychological dimension where the violence of war and the mental world of the characters are reflected onto the city itself. As intertextuality is one of the main characteristics of Bulgakov’s style, he employs numerous allusions to the Book of Revelation when describing the events in the novel and when constructing the image of the city. Following his typical ambivalence, Bulgakov depicts Kiev as a place of beauty, light, and happiness, similar to the New Jerusalem from the Revelation, and as a place of chaos, promiscuity, and violence, like that of the apocalyptic Babylon. The city is also divided into two zones: the Civil war zone, dangerous and violent, and a domestic zone, which represents safety, family and old prerevolutionary values. The novel has been translated into English three times: by Michael Glenny (1971), Marian Schwartz (2008) and Roger Cockrell (2012). This unique material offers thorough insight into translation shifts, not only from a synchronic, but also from a diachronic perspective. In our research, we focused on the translation strategies used when rendering apocalyptic allusions employed by the author to describe the City and assessed some of translation choices. We wonder if and to what extent the translators recognized and adequately transferred the original allusions and the ambivalent, apocalyptic and complex world of Bulgakov’s City.
Bulgakov’s novel The Master and Margarita (1966-1967), a highly complex and multi-levelled narrative, is a challenge for any translator. Because Bulgakov’s narrative has been translated into English ...seven times (twice by the same translator, Glenny), with the first two translations published in the same year, 1967, and the latest in 2008, the novel offers a unique insight into the analysis of translation shifts, not merely from a synchronic, but also from a diachronic perspective. The emphasis here is on the translation of historical realia, referred to as Sovietisms, and pertaining to items characteristic of Soviet discourse of the 1930s, word-formations of the non-standard “Soviet Russian.” Bulgakov’s language is sated with Soviet vocabulary which refers to various cultural and socio-political elements of Soviet reality. Sovietisms occur at various levels (lexical, syntactical, stylistic and rhetorical) and should be carefully translated as a significant characteristic of Bulgakov’s style. A complete domestication of Sovietisms may lead to a loss of a connotative meaning essential for understanding the context, while a foreignization of these terms which are most likely unknown to Western readers may disturb the fluency of reading. The purpose of the analysis, thus, is to illustrate the use of domesticating/foreignizing strategies employed by the translators and to assess the translation choices, considering that the target audience of English-speaking readers are most likely completely unfamiliar with most terms. The analysis employs theory on foreignizing and domesticating principles, as well as taxonomies suggested by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1989), Vlakhov and Florin (1980) and Aixelá (1996) as the grounds for the case study.
Roman F. M. Dostojevskega Bratje Karamazovi je bil v slovenščino preveden dvakrat. Leta 1929 ga je prvič prevedel Vladimir Levstik, leta 2010 pa je izšel posodobljen prevod Boruta Kraševca. Ta ...razprava sodi v širši kontekst ovrednotenja učinka posodobljenih prevodov z vidika rabe podomačitvenih in potujitvenih prevajalskih strategij ob prevajanju kulturnospecifičnih izrazov. Ob tem bomo preizkusili teorijo posodabljanja prevodov, t. i. hipotezo posodabljanja prevodov, ki vsak nadaljnji prevod interpretira kot poskus »izboljšanja« prejšnjega, pri čemer se pojem »izboljšanje« definira na podlagi stopnje ohranitve tujega v prevodu. Oba prevoda opazujemo na mikrobesedilni ravni, in sicer na ravni posamičnih besed, pri čemer nas zanima ustreznost prevoda kulturnospecifičnih detajlov.
Following Antoine Berman it would normally be assumed that the early translations of a given text will be more target-oriented and domesticating than later ones. To test this hypothesis, the extent ...to which retranslations approximate to the source text is examined in terms of how they deal with the type of of historical
realia
we refer to as ‘Sovietisms’. This comparative corpus analysis is based on English translations of Bulgakov's novella
The Heart of a Dog
by Michael Glenny (1968), Mirra Ginsburg (1968), Hugh Aplin (2005), Andrew Bromfield (2007), and Antonina W. Bouis (2016).
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, UL, UM, UPUK, ZRSKP
Pricujoca razprava se osredotoca na analizo Gradisnikovega prevoda romana Mojster in Margareta z vidika prevajanja kulturnospecificnih izrazov, znacilnih za sovjetsko okolje tridesetih let prejsnjega ...stoletja. Ena zelo opaznih lastnosti literarnega opusa Mihaila Bulgakova je namrec skladnost jezikovnega izrazja z vsebino. Mojster in Margareta je izrazito kulturnospecificno obarvano pripovedno delo, ki se odvija v razlicnih casovnih in prostorskih dimenzijah ter posledicno tudi v razlicnih jezikovnih svetovih: v izmisljenem mestu Jersalaim (Jeruzalem) v casu krizanja Jezusa Kristusa (t. i. jersalaimska pripoved) in v Moskvi v tridesetih letih prejsnjega stoletja (t. i. moskovska pripoved). Za govorico Moskovcanov je znacilno, da se sporazumevajo v nizjem pogovornem jeziku, prezetem z leksikalnimi posebnostmi nestandardne novotvorjene »sovjetske ruscine«, ki jih bomo v razpravi imenovali sovjetizmi. Pojem se nanasa na besedisce, vkljucno s kraticami in krajsavami, ki opisuje razlicne plati sovjetskega zivljenja (poklice, uradne ustanove, propagandna gesla itd.). Prisotnost sovjetizmov v Bulgakovovem romanu je povsem logicna, saj je zivel in ustvarjal v casu nastanka »sovjetske govorice« in jo je v svojih delih veckrat ironicno posnemal. Duhovito vpletanje sovjetskega diskurza v besedilno strukturo je nespregledljiva stalnica v vecini del pisateljevega ustvarjalnega vrha, v katerem je gradil razmisljanje, cutenje in izrazanje »homo sovetikusa« ter poudarjal ujetost posameznika v jezikovnih strukturah svojega casa. Kot zagovornik svobode izrazanja, predvsem umetniskega, se v svojih delih ironicno odziva na teznjo sovjetske oblasti, da bi ljudem odvzela pravico do svobode govora in osebnega nacina izrazanja ter jih prisilila k rabi okrnjenega, degradiranega jezika, ki je ubesedoval predvsem strah, malodusje in paranojo. Bulgakov je brez dvoma velik mojster situacijske ironije. Je pa tudi velik mojster vecplastne, sinteticne perspektive in posledicno vecplastnega jezikovnega ubesedovanja. V romanu je veliko primerov, ko je zgodovinsko-mitoloska realnost socasno ubesedena tako s knjiznim jezikom kot tudi z jezikom sovjetskega diskurza (npr. satana veckrat naslovijo z »drzavljan«; satanov sluzabnik, govoreci macek Behemot, zahteva od uradnika »pasport«). Ob tem Bulgakov besede (ali fraze) postavi v tak kontekst, kjer dobijo se dodatne pomene in velik prostor rezoniranja, ter ponazori za sovjetski jezikovni prostor znacilno »vpetost in ujetost v referencnost in denotat jezika « (Verc 2010: 129). Nekatere besede in fraze so zelo tezko prevedljive ali pa celo neprevedljive. Vcasih za sabo potegnejo cele prizore, ki so osrednjega pomena za interpretacijo romana. Naloga prevajalca je v takih primerih izjemno tezka. Cetudi se doloceno besedo ali pojem da ustrezno prevesti, ni nujno, da bo slovenski bralec razumel kontekst in dojel komicni smisel prizora, ki je v celoti odvisen od dejstva, da se sovjetski jezik pojavi v najmanj pricakovanih govornih situacijah. »Daca« je pocitniska hisa, ki so jo v sovjetskih casih dobili v uporabo le najbolj »zasluzni« strankarski privrzenci. Predstavljala je pomemben statusni simbol, ki ga je bil delezen strankarski in vojaski vrh ter nekateri priznani umetniki in literati. V omenjenem poglavju se literati, namesto da bi razpravljali o umetnosti, pritozujejo nad dejstvom, da so le nekateri upraviceni do uporabe »dace«, in se sprasujejo, po kaksnem kljucu so dobili to pravico. Opisani prizor potrjuje avtorjevo mojstrstvo, da vnovic ironicno in previdno, toda nedvoumno izrazi rezimsko kritiko, ki je pod pretvezo socializma in enakosti omogocila ekonomsko in druzbeno segregacijo. Prevod »literarna hisica« nekoliko degradira izvirni pomen, saj so bile »dace« zelo razkosno opremljene, kar je razvidno tudi iz teksta, ko eden od junakov omenja, da so »jedilnice opazene s hrastovino« (Gradisnik 2004: 61). V nadaljevanju pripovedi opazamo prevajalcevo nedoslednost, saj »daco« prevaja kot »vila«, »vil je samo dvaindvajset« (Gradisnik 2004: 61). Vecplastna in ambivalentna Bulgakovova poved, prepletena z mrezo intertekstualnih odnosov in ubesedena z razlicnimi jezikovnimi variantami, predstavlja za prevajalca stevilne izzive. Jezikovni vzorci, znacilni za sovjetsko govorico, imajo kljucno vlogo za razumevanje avtorjevih refleksij in predvsem avtorjeve ironije. Odpravljanje sovjetizmov bi pomenilo veliko poseganje v izvirnik in bi lahko odlocilno vplivalo na bralcevo recepcijo. Ze ob prvem branju prevoda je mogoce opaziti, da se Gradisnik v vecini primerov ozira na veljavne norme ciljnega sistema in sovjetizmov ne prevzema po izvirniku, temvec jih: (a) dobesedno prevede, (b) opise z obcim pojmom ali (c) nadomesti s pojmom, ki je ciljnim bralcem (domnevno) bolj domac. Grosma n (1997: 37) ugotavlja, da je lahko »prevod narejen z namenom, da bi v ciljnem knjizevnem sistemu ucinkoval tako kot izvirna besedila. Da bi dosegel ta namen, se ravna po sprejetih in trenutno veljavnih knjizevnih normativih in okusu ciljnih bralcev, ne meni se za odmike od izvirnika, ki jih terja tako prilagajanje ciljnim bralcem«. V nasprotju s prevajalskimi postopki, ki omogocajo, da prevod ucinkuje kot izvirno besedilo, se z direktno prevzetimi izrazi iz izhodiscnega besedila »v prevod prenese izvirnikov kolorit« (Mozeti c 1997: 234). Problem je v tem, da ta postopek terja od bralca dobro poznavanje tujejezicnega okolja in lahko ob pomanjkanju tega znanja otezi proces branja.
Abstract
This paper focuses on paratextual elements in the form of endnotes and footnotes in four annotated English
translations of Mikhail Bulgakov’s most famous novel,
The Master and Margarita
. ...The paper aims to analyze the
translators’ perception of the reader’s cultural knowledge, what the translators believe the audience might not know that they
consider important, and the translators’ ability to recognize Bulgakov’s allusions and references. The paper explores the thematic
categories and the content of the notes to evaluate how they introduce the readers to a different cultural environment and to what
extent the notes are helpful to the reader. The empirical section is based on an analysis of more than five hundred footnotes and
endnotes divided into thematic categories. The importance of notes in understanding translators’ decisions based on assumptions
about what may be unfamiliar to the target audience has been extensively researched (
Toledano-Buendia 2013
;
Landers 2001
;
Sanchez Ortiz 2015
;
Pellatt 2013
). No scholarly
attention has so far been paid to any paratextual material connected to the English translations of Bulgakov’s
The Master
and Margarita
, which is one of the most often retranslated works of fiction of Russian classics.
Mikhail Bulgakov’s novel The Master and Margarita, a highly complex and multi-levelled narrative, is a challenge for any translator. The emphasis in the current research is on the translation ...strategies used when translating culturally-specific elements, or historical realia, referred to as “Sovietisms,” in three English translations of the novel by Glenny (1967), Pevear and Volokhonsky (1997) and Aplin (2008). Sovietisms refer to items characteristic of the Soviet discourse of the 1930s: word-formations of the non-standard “Soviet Russian.” Bulgakov’s language is sated with Soviet vocabulary, which refers to various cultural and socio-political elements of Soviet reality. Sovietisms occur at various levels (lexical, syntactic, stylistic and rhetorical) and should be carefully translated as a significant characteristic of Bulgakov’s style. A complete domestication of Sovietisms may lead to a loss of a connotative meaning essential for understanding the context, while a foreignisation of these terms, which are most likely unknown to western readers, may disturb fluidity of reading and cause confusion. The purpose of this analysis, thus, is to illustrate the use of domesticating/foreignising strategies employed by Bulgakov’s translators and to assess the translation choices. The comparative analysis employs the taxonomies suggested by Vlakhov and Florin (1995) and Vinay and Darbelnet (1958/1989) as the grounds for the case study.
PDF
