Literary translation

In short, translation is functional interaction of language and to study this process we should study both the interacting elements and the rules of interaction.

While translating one must keep in view typological characteristics of both the languages and remember that the same idea may be expressed lexically in one of them and grammatically in the other.

One of the main demands upon a person translating any text is that he should be well acquainted with its subject matter. If all these principles are taken into consideration there will be no danger of so-called "literal" translation, which means a word-for-word translation. This type of translation with all its seeming accuracy ignores both linguistic and extralinguistic factors discussed above. It leads to preserving the meanings of separate words and at the same time it distorts the meaning of the whole text, thus often creates an undesirable comic effect.

Also we can distinguish between literary and informative translation, on the one hand, and between written and oral translation (or interpretation), on the other hand.

In this work it is considered literary translation. Literary translation deals with literary texts, for example, works of fiction or poetry whose main function is to make an emotional or aesthetic impression upon the reader. Their communicative value depends, first and foremost, on their artistic quality and the translator’s primary task is to reproduce this quality in translation.

Literary works are known to fall into a number of genres. Literary translations may subdivide in the same way, as each genre calls for a specific artistic means to impress the reader. Translators of prose, poetry or plays have their own problems. Each of these forms of literary activities comprises a number subgenres and the translator may specialize in one or some of them in accordance with his talents and experience. The particular tasks inherent in the translation of literary works of each genre are more literary than linguistic. The great challenge to the translator is to combine the maximum equivalence and the high literary merit.

All branches of the theory of translation are concerned with important aspects of the translator’s work and constitute a body of theoretical thought of indisputable practical value.  

2.2 Context and its role in literary translation

 

The meaning of equivalents practically does not depend on the context, so to translate them literary one should merely look them up in a dictionary. The demand to consult dictionaries is essential. No guesswork is allowed in translation. It is much more difficult to translate those words of SL which are characterized by partial correspondence to the words of TL. Such words are mostly polysemantic. That is why in order to translate them correctly it is necessary first of all to state which particular meaning of such a word is realized in the utterance. The most reliable indicator in this case is the context in which the word is used.

They usually differentiate, as it has been mentioned above, between linguistic context and extralinguistic context (or context of situation). Linguistic context in its turn is subdivided into narrow (context of a phrase or a sentence) and wide (utterance-length context or sometimes context of the whole text). Very often the meaning of a word is revealed in the minimum context, i.e. in a phrase ("green" – зеленый, юный, незрелый, etc., but there is no problem in translating the phrase "green trees" - "зеленые деревья" or "green years" - "юные годы"). However, there are such cases when we need at least a sentence to see what the word means, e.g. "I'll be sitting in the 3rd carriage from the front of the train" - "Я буду в третьем вагоне от начала поезда". The whole sentence is necessary here to understand the meaning of the word "carriage" and to choose the variant "вагон" but not "экипаж, повозка". Sometimes linguistic context is closely connected with extralinguistic factors. 

So literary translation of any word begins with contextual analysis of its meaning after which it becomes possible to choose correctly the corresponding word of TL. All types of context can help to identify the meaning of words in SL characterized by partial correspondence to the words of TL, as well as the meaning of words that do not correspond to any words of TL. Literary translation of the latter group causes many difficulties and requires special means. 

2.3 Literary translation of words having no correspondence in target language. 

There are several ways of translating such words. The simplest way is to transcribe them (lobby - лобби, lump - ламп, etc.). This method is widely used for rendering personal names, place names, titles, etc

Sometimes transliteration is used for the same purpose, but transcription is preferable because it renders the original sound-form of the word, while transliteration is based upon its graphical presentation (for example, two ways of rendering the name of Shakespeare in Russian: its transcription is Шекспир while its transliteration is Схакесneape). It is evident that for the purposes of oral communication it is necessary to know the sound-form of the names, so with the growth of contacts between the countries transliteration is being gradually ousted by transcription. Those names which have already been rendered by means of transliteration are now traditionally used in this form (King George - король Георг, not король Джордж) and there is no need to change them. Such names should not be translated anew, they have their translated equivalents. However, in translating those names which have no equivalents, it is preferable to use transcription. Being a very good way of rendering proper names, transcription is not very convenient for translating notional words. Substitution of the Russian sounds for the English ones does not make the English word understandable for the Russian readers. The words "драгстор" or "ламп" are hardly more informative for them than the original "drugstore" or "lump". That is why transcription is often combined with footnotes or explanations introduced into the text by the translator. As soon as the new word is thus explained it can be freely used in the text in its transcribed form. 

It is necessary to remember that explanations and footnotes contain additional information which is not expressed directly in the original text and is introduced by the translator. So it demands great knowledge on the part of the translator. The next method of translating words having no correspondence in TL is based on approximate rendering of the notion. It can be described as "translation on the analogy". If a word in SL expresses some notion that has no name in TL it is necessary to look for some analogous, similar (though not identical) notion in TL. E.g.: if we are not translating a cookery book but a story or a novel it is quite possible to translate the Russian "кисель" as "jelly", though actually they are different things (they use starch for "кисель" and gelatin for jelly). 

The last way out of the difficulty caused by lack of correspondence between words of SL and TL is the so-called descriptive translation. In this case the meaning of one word in SL is rendered by a group of words in TL ("spacewalk" - "выход в открытый космос", "районирование "division into districts", etc.).

So above wre odered some ways of translating words that have no direct lexical correspondences in TL. They all have certain drawbacks and their use is limited both by linguistic and extralinguistic factors (explanations make the text too long and sometimes clumsy, analogues are not always accurate enough, etc.). However, proper combination of these means makes it possible to translate any literary text rendering all the necessary information. When choosing the means of translating it is also important to keep in view stylistic characteristics of the text itself and of different words in both the languages. Special attention should be paid to peculiarities of word combinability in TL, which may differ greatly from that of SL.

 

2.4 Culture-Specific Items in Literary Translation

 

Since the concept of culture is essential to understanding the implications for literary translation and culture-specific items in translation, many translation theorists have dealt with the definition of culture. In 1984 Larson defines culture as "a complex of beliefs, attitudes, values, and rules which a group of people share". He notes that the translator needs to understand beliefs, attitudes, values, and the rules of the SL audience in order to adequately understand the ST and adequately translate it for people who have a different set of beliefs, attitudes, values, and rules. In 1998, Newmark remarks that culture is "the way of life and its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular language as its means of expression". Here, he asserts that each language group has its own culturally specific features.

Schmitt in 1999 maintains that culture is composed of "everything that a person should know, be able to feel and to do, in order to succeed in behaving and acting in an environment like somebody from this environment". The process of transmitting cultural elements through literary translation is a complicated and vital task. Culture is a complex collection of experiences which condition daily life. It includes history, social structure, religion, traditional customs and everyday usage. This is difficult to comprehend completely. In 1997, Shuttleworth argues that cultural translation is a term used to refer to those types of translation which act as a tool for cross-cultural or anthropological research. He believes that cultural translation is sensitive to cultural and linguistic factors and takes different forms:

Such sensitivity might take the form either of presenting TL recipients with a transparent text which informs them about elements of the source culture, or of finding target items which may in some way be considered to be culturally "equivalent" to the ST items they are translating. 

According to Nida and Taber, cultural translation is "a translation in which the content of the message is changed to conform to the receptor culture in some way, and/or in which information is introduced which is not linguistically implicit in the original".In the context of Bible translation, Nida and Taber state that a cultural translation is one in which additions are made which cannot be directly derived from the original ST wording. Thus, these additions might take the form of ideas culturally foreign to ST or elements which are simply included to provide necessary background information.

In 1964, Nida lists four basic factors which make communication possible and, therefore, make possible the translation of a message from one language and culture to another. These are:

1) the similarity of mental processes of all people,

2) similarity of somatic reactions (similar physical responses to emotional stimulus),

3) the range of common cultural experience, and

4) the capacity for adjustment to the behavioral patterns of other.

In addition to Nida, Larson observes that all meaning is culturally conditioned and the response to a given text is also culturally conditioned. Therefore, each society will interpret a message in terms of its own culture:

The receptor audience will decode the translation in terms of his own culture and experience, not in terms of the culture and experience of the author and audience of the original document. The translator then must help the receptor audience understand the content and intent of the source document by translating with both cultures in mind.  

Indeed, one of the most difficult problems in translating literary texts is found in the differences between cultures. People of a given culture look at things from their own perspective. Larson notes that "different cultures have different focuses. Some societies are more technical and others less technical." This difference is reflected in the amount of vocabulary which is available to talk about a particular topic. Larson adds that there may also be both "technical and non-technical" vocabulary to talk about the same thing within a given society. Therefore, if the SL text originates from a highly technical society it may be much more difficult to translate it into the language of a nontechnical society. However, in the case of similar cultures the conditions are not the same:

When the cultures are similar, there is less difficulty in translating. This is because both languages will probably have terms that are more or less equivalent for the various aspects of the culture. When the cultures are very different, it is often difficult to find equivalent lexical items. 

Thus, a translator who uses a cultural approach is simply recognizing that each language contains elements which are derived from its culture, that every text is anchored in a specific culture, and that conventions of text production and reception vary from culture to culture. Awareness of such issues can at times make it more appropriate to think of translation as a process which occurs between cultures rather than simply between languages. Most 'cultural words', according to Newmark, are easy to detect since they are associated with a particular language and cannot be literally translated. However, many cultural customs are described in ordinary language, where literal translation would distort the meaning and thus the translation "may include an appropriate descriptive-functional equivalent".

Newmark also introduced 'cultural word' which the readership is unlikely to understand and the translation strategies for this kind of concept depend on the particular text-type, requirements of the readership and client and importance of the cultural word in the text. Baker refers to such cultural words and concedes that the SL words may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture. She points out that the concept in question may be "abstract or concrete, it may relate to a religious belief, a social custom, or even a type of food." Baker then, calls such concepts 'culture-specific items'. Nord uses the term 'cultureme' to refer to these culture specific items. He defines cultureme as "a cultural phenomenon that is present in culture X but not present (in the same way) in culture Y". Gambier also refers to such concepts as 'culture-specific references' and asserts that they connote different aspects of life:

Culture-specific references connoting different aspects of everyday life such as education, politics, history, art, institutions, legal systems, units of measurement, place names, foods and drinks, sports and national pastimes, as experienced in different countries and nations of the world. 

Gambier acknowledges that the culture-specific category "contains sixty clips divided into six sub-groups" which included examples of references to the system, food and measurements, sport, institutions, famous people and events, and finally the legal system. Newmark asserts that a few general considerations govern the translation of all cultural words. First, the ultimate consideration should be recognition of the cultural achievements referred to in the SL text, and respect for all foreign countries and their cultures. Two translation procedures which are at opposite ends of the scale are normally available; transference, which usually in literary texts, offers local color and atmosphere, and in specialist texts enables the readership to identify the referent in other texts without difficulty. However, transference, though it is brief and concise, blocks comprehension, it emphasizes the culture and excludes the message, does not communicate; some would say it is not a translation procedure at all.

At the other end, there is componential analysis, the most accurate translation procedure, which excludes the culture and highlights the message. Componential analysis is based on a component common to the SL and TL to which one can add the extra contextual distinguishing components. Inevitably, a componential analysis is not as economical and has not the pragmatic impact of the original. Lastly, the translator of a cultural word, which is always less context-bound than ordinary language, has to bear in mind both the motivation and the cultural specialist and linguistic level of readership. The point in regard to the systematic way of translating a literary text is that "in each period of time the degree of loyalty with regard to interpretation and translation of literary texts varies regarding the three points of author, reader, and the text." Therefore, the literary translator has to know well the critical approaches as well as their underlying structure.

 

2.5 Literary Translation And Literary Translators

 

Literary translation is clearly of paramount importance for the European project. The intense exchanges that have been going on for centuries are the glue that binds  together this cultural entity called ‘Europe’. Written texts play a crucial role in these exchanges, because, as the Dutch sociologist Abram de Swaan points out, it is in their literature (in the broad sense of ‘written tradition’) that living cultures store their capital: in order to understand another culture, you have to read its books. Literary translation is therefore a fundamental requisite for key European concepts such as ‘cultural diversity’ and ‘intercultural dialogue’. In the words of Umberto Eco: ‘The language of Europe is translation.’

Current EU policy gives serious consideration to literary translation, but not to literary translators. Each year, EU grants of some €2 million are awarded to concrete translation projects. This funding goes to the publishers, not to the creators. In an ideal market system, in which commissioned work was remunerated according to the artists’ level of education, the quality of their work and the amount of time invested, this kind of economic subsidy for publishers would of course be profitable to the whole sector, translators included.

But the fact is, the market model does  not work. Literary translators have a particularly weak market position, if any at all. This is due mainly to the invisibility which is almost inherent in the act of translation: in a translated work, it is hard to identify the translator’s personal artistic contribution, and, as long as the public remains unaware of that contribution, translators have no symbolic capital with which to enter the market as ‘cultural entrepreneurs’. This problem is aggravated by the age-old tradition of literary translation as a hobby for cultured people with time on their hands: there is no quality control, and remuneration was never a major consideration until quite recently (1970s), when the booming book market created a 2need for professional literary translators. And so, although under the terms of copyright law translators are considered as creators of original works of literature and, as such, enjoy the same status as authors, in the everyday practice of publishing they are still regarded as more or less  interchangeable. Translators are important transmitters of culture, but the nature of their work means that the market treats them as mere drudges; they are the last item in the budget. 

This is confirmed by CEATL’s recent survey of literary translators’ working conditions in 23 European countries: in  20 out of these 23 countries, literary translators’ average purchasing power is less than 60% of the per capita purchasing power standard (PPS), and in 14 countries it is not even 50% of PPS. The difference between the income of translators and that of other artists is that literary translators normally work on commission: they are paid to do a job, but their fee does not even come close to that of a plumber or a carpenter. In some countries a royalty system exists in addition to the basic fees, but percentages are so low that earnings from royalties are generally negligible. 

The impact of poor working conditions and remuneration on translation quality is of course huge. Literary translators have to work under enormous pressure of time in order to make a living. Not surprisingly,  CEATL’s survey shows that translators’ average annual output is much higher in countries where the fees are lower and where there is no system of grants to literary translators; in the country with the highest grant budget, The Netherlands, translators’ average annual output is the lowest of all European countries. Something is definitely rotten in the state of

Literary Translation, but the European Commission does not really seem to be aware of the problem. Indeed, the ‘fixed rates’ for translation grants to publishers, recently established by the EACEA (Executive  Agency for Culture, Education and Audiovisual), show a complete ignorance of the situation on the ground.

If Europe wants to promote the concepts of cultural diversity and cultural exchange as the core of European citizenship, measures need to be put in place to guarantee the quality of this exchange. Literary translation is not just any art form, it is the art form that embodies and facilitates European cultural unity: it is our cultural infrastructure. Therefore, literature should not be forced to compete with other 3cultural projects in a non-sectoral Culture Programme, as is the case in the current Culture 2007-2013 programme, but should have its own earmarked budget, as it did

in the Ariane programme and under Culture 2000-2006. Policy should be focused on raising the visibility of literary translators, strengthening their  social and economic position, stimulating their mobility (which is essential to their work), and enabling them to improve their skills, increase their knowledge and stay in touch with the living culture of which they are the ambassadors.

Special attention should be paid to the translation centre system, which is a relatively low-cost but highly effective way of achieving some of the above goals. Many European countries now have one or two  such centres, a number of which are grouped in the RECIT network. During their stay, translators can work on their translations (sometimes in consultation with ‘their’ authors), do research in libraries, exchange knowledge and experience with colleagues from other countries, and immerse themselves in the language and culture from which they translate. Between 2000 and 2006, the RECIT-affiliated translation centres applied annually to the

European Commission for one-year grants, which they were almost always awarded (from the earmarked literature budget, representing 9% of the total European culture budget). Ironically, in spite of the Commission’s increased awareness of matters concerning cultural diversity and intercultural exchange, the translators’ centres have much more difficulty obtaining funds under the current Culture Programme, where they have to compete for subsidies with other art forms – which is a problem because the centres are not projects, and thus are not fashionable or ‘sexy’: they need structural funding to be able to continue their work on a regular basis.

In short, a European Union in which translation plays such a fundamental role, both culturally and financially, should be more willing and better placed than any other institution to provide ongoing support for literary translation. CEATL, as the main interlocutor in the field, is prepared to work with the European authorities to achieve this.   
 
CHAPTER III. PHILOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF LINGUISTIC DIFFICULTIES IN LITERARY TRANSLATION

 
 
3.1 Literary translation of specifically English grammatical forms and constructions. 

To translate English grammatical forms and constructions one should not necessarily look for the same forms and constructions in Russian – as it was mentioned, there may be none. Nevertheless, it is always possible to translate them adequately since it is not the form itself but its meaning and function in the sentence that should be rendered in literary translation. That is why translation of any such unit should begin with its semantic and functional analysis. It can be illustrated with the problem of rendering the definite and indefinite articles. Unless articles have some special role in the sentence or some additional meaning, they are not translated at all - they are merely omitted. However, there are cases when articles are used to mark the rheme of the sentence. Sometimes, besides their usual meaning of definiteness or indefiniteness articles have some additional meaning, e.g., the indefinite article used with personal names has the meaning "some, a certain", showing that someone is unknown to the speaker. Such meaning should be rendered by corresponding means of the Russian language: "a Mrs. Smith" "некая миссис Смит, какая-то миссис Смит". The indefinite article may also coincide in its meaning either with the pronoun "one" ("I remember a friend of mine buying a couple of cheeses..." -"Я помню, как один мой приятель. . .") There are many more meanings which the article may combine with its main grammatical function. In this respect translation of articles does not differ from translation of other words - first its meaning should be analyzed and then a proper word of TL can be chosen. The same is true of prepositions and conjunctions. It is most important to remember that even such a "simple" conjunction as "and" has at least 10 different meanings; in different contexts it may correspond to the Russian "a" ("they stayed at home, and we left" - "они остались дома, а мы ушли"), "неужели" ("And you did it?" - "Неужели Вы это сделали ?"), etc. Speaking of conjunctions, it should also be mentioned that besides their main function (connecting and introducing different clauses and parts of the sentence) they enter idiomatic constructions the meaning of which cannot be guessed: it should be known or looked up in the dictionary (“ if anything" - "если уж на то пошло, во всяком случае, как бы то ни было"). One and the same preposition is also translated differently in different constructions and contexts. As for the so-called notional parts of speech, they may differ in SL and TL in the set of syntactic functions that they fulfill in the sentence. That is why translation should always be based on a thorough syntactic analysis since it is not the grammatical form itself but rather its function in the sentence that predetermines the way of translation. For example, before translating an infinitive it is necessary to state its role in the sentence - to see if it functions as a subject, object, attribute, or adverbial modifier, etc. If it is an adverbial modifier, it is essential to see its type - an adverbial modifier of purpose, of result, of attendant circumstances, etc. After this functional and semantic analysis it is possible to render the infinitive into Russian using any part of speech in the corresponding function (or changing the structure of the sentence in order to express the same idea according to the norms of TL). It is impossible to warn a beginner against all possible difficulties. However, it seems reasonable to point out some English constructions that are most likely to cause trouble. Most frequent among them are the so-calledabsolute constructions. There are two main difficulties in dealing with them: first of all they are not always easy to recognize and besides they do not correspond to any particular construction of the Russian language. Based on secondary predication, these constructions usually express some additional thought, something that happens in connection with the main action, but still "outside" it. It is often hard to say if the construction indicates time or cause of the main action - it may indicate them indiscriminately.