One of the key issues in recently exposition theories has been on whether transmutation should domesticate or foreignize the line of descent school text editionbookbookual amourual emergence. Venuti (1995) defines domesticating form as a re home handst of the linguistic and cultural contrariety of the foreign text with a text that is intelligible to the eastern United States wrangle reader. Foreignizing reading is delineate as a commen shity that indicates the linguistic and cultural differences of the text by disrupting the cultural codes that survive in the pit talking to. otherwise scholars, identical Tymoczko (1999), criticise this dichotomy by staining away that a transformation whitethorn be radic ally point to the source text in some respects, alone depart radically from the source text in other respects, thus denying the exisdecadece of the private polarity that describes the taste of a transmutation. I bring in chosen five bow comment arys of Lev Tolstoy?s Anna K benina for my paper. Dole (1886),Garnett (1901), Maude (1918), Edmonds (1954) and Pevear and Volokhonsky (2000). My main design has been to break unconnected the dealingship amongst earlier and latertranslations. Since modern incline terminology readers argon much(prenominal) familiar with Russianlanguage, literature and polish as well as with Tolstoy?s useing than the nineteenth hundredreaders were, theoretically speaking, translating Tolstoy in 2000 should be easier than itwas in 1886. In frankness each interpreter commemoratetle down had to choose between the adequatere vexation of Tolstoy?s text and the acceptableness of their translation for theircontemporary incline speaking consultations (the wrong described in Toury 1995) on asliding scale between audience and text. In a way, with the higher development of the artand scholarship of translation, the expectations of readers and critics grow, and adequaterepresentation of a text in a different language be brings more chal! lenging. My hypothesisis that literary translation evolves as an exploration of deeper and deeper layers of thesource text. In the present thesis I try to show how the tarradiddle of translation of AnnaK arnina into English reflects these different stages of evolution. One of the key issues in the recent translation theories has been on whether thetranslator should remain invisible. The margin invisibility describes the tip to which certain(prenominal) translation traditions remain the presence (i.e. intrusion, intervention) of thetranslator in the translation (Hatim 2001, 45). This term originated in the kit and boodle ofLawrence Venuti, himself a literary translator since the late 1970s. Venuti suggests that?invisibility? reveals itself in devil related phenomena:The ? put of parley?, that is, the translator?s use of language. In this paper I am way forbidden to explore the relationship between foreignization anddomestication in translations of Anna Karenina into English . Henry Gifford points come come out of the closet of the closet that ?Tolstoy?s readers in the English language are non greatly outnumbered by those who read him in Russian? (Gifford 1978, 17). there have been at least 10 translations of AnnaKarenina into English, covering over a cytosine of the history of literary translation. Gifford points out that with so many readers depending on the English translation for their companionship of a very important writer, the question of how to profane the farm his effect is quite as central immediately as that of how to represent Homer was for Matthew Arnold when he wrote his famous raise On Translating Homer (Ibid. 17.) It is therefore worth trying to work up certain parallels between successive translations of undefiled authors and successive translations of Russian classics. Venuti describes the history of translation guess as a set of ever-changing relationships between the translator?s actions and the concepts of equivalence and function. comparing is defined as a ? variable ! nonion ? of the radio have-to doe with between the trustworthy text and its translation and function is ?a variable notion? of how the sympathised text is connected to the receiving language and culture. (Venuti 2000b, 5). A diachronic study of translation history undoubtedly requires a stream classification. George Steiner (1975) believes that the full history of translation theory could be split up into four periods. The founder of the translation theory as a specific was a French improver Etienne Dolet, who was strangled and burned-out with his books, for adding the phrase rien du tout in Plato?s passage around what existed after death, which implied doubts round immortality. The translator mustiness(prenominal) fully agnise the sense and nitty-gritty of the accredited author,although he is at indecorum to clarify obscurities. The translator should have a perfect intimacy of both source language and tar relieve oneself language. The translator should eliminate the tendency to translate sublime scripture-for-word makes. The translator should use forms of row in common use. The translator should choose and station haggle appropriately to get the crystalize tone (Cit. Bassnett 1980, p.54). Dolet?s principles are imbibely domesticating, already in the outgrowth principle he gives translators the liberty to clarify obscurities in the original and make their texts clear for common readers. Gifford refers to Tolstoy?s repetitions as links in the system of linkings and points out that since the mountain chain is no stronger than its weakest link, the blurring of episodes pass on diminish the effect of the whole novel. By that he substance that ?when Tolstoy?s moral style is so spare, reduced to the basics essentials, something of the novel?s steady, stock-still obsessive preoccupation is lose should the translator retreat heretofore slightly from singleness of blind drunking? (Gifford 1978, 26-27). If a translator sees repetit ions as redundant, domesticating outline will be tor! educe the number of repetitions ?for the sake of a facile elegance? (Matlaw 1976, 736),which bathroom result in a leveling of register style. Foreignizing strategy will preserve therepetitions and produce a possibly little elegant language text. As May (1994, 59) pointsout, translators sometimes work to reflect peculiarities of certain characters? legal transfer intheir English prose, since those peculiarities institute to the readers? understanding of the character; but when the individualities of oral communication do not belong to a character, when they are fling a generalised sense of the narrating voice, then they often fade entirely in translation. Because of this kind of ?correction?, readers of Tolstoy?s works in English are less likely to advise the fundamental role repetition plays in Tolstoy?s make-up (Sankovitch)A hardly a(prenominal) object lessons of different translations:??However, I sire?t entertain with you,?? put forward the voice.? (Dole, 70)?? a ll in all the equivalent I adopt?t take for with you,? said the gentlewoman?s voice.? (Garnett, 69)?? each(prenominal) the same I don?t agree with you,? the lady was saying.? (Maude, v.1,69)??All the same I don?t agree with you,? said the lady?s voice.? (Edmonds,75)??I still don?t agree with you,? the lady?s voice said.? (Pevear, 62)In example a) the social organisation is changed in Garnett?s translation where shechanges the narrative boil down from grass to Dolly and therefore makes the reader focus onDolly?s happenings for womb-to-tomb than Tolstoy?s reader does. Dole changes the edifice inexample b) to Levin?s point of view and therefore misses the moment where locoweed seesLevin and includes him in her intimate life ? to which a minute sooner that he was stranger. besides Dole and Pevear keep Tolstoy?s twirl intact in example c). When Maudechanges ?said commode?s voice? for ?asked Kitty?, he destroys the narrative effect that showsLevin so absorbed in his thoug hts that he does not notice Kitty at the furnish unt! il shestarts speaking to him. Similarly, in example d) Maude does not preserve the effect ofVronsky hearing Anna?s voice but not macrocosm able to see her. He systematically changes theconstruction in these two sentences, not attempting equivalence with Tolstoy?s style. In a address language oriented translation adapting the text to the moral norms of the target culture could either involvem expurgation or, in a freer society, over-clarification, i.e. variant clear what was meant to be slightly clothed in the original. In a source language oriented translation the text is neither castrated nor over-clarified. Venuti shows that translator?s refusal to bowdlerise a text is a way of opposingdomesticating tendencies within the target culture. He does so, development the example of JohnNott, who in the 18th blow refused to omit definitive cozy references in Catullus?spoesy, explaining that(?) when an ancient classic is translated, and explained, the work may be considered as transforming a link in the chain of history: history should not be falsified, we ought therefore to translate him fairly; and when he gives us the adroitness of his own day, provided disgusting to our sensations, and repugnant to our natures they may sometimes shew, we must not endeavour to conceal, or gloss them over. (Cit. Venuti 1994, 85)thither are several(prenominal) shipway in which translators can bowdlerise a text: omittingreferences to sexual relations is by far the most common. Other shipway include using a more sluggish word (a euphemism) or replacing the original references to sexual relations with those grateful within the target culture. For instance, Walter Kelly commented in 1861 that when translating Tibullus?s dirge about homosexual love, he had been ?compelled to be unfaithful to the original with envision to gender? (Mason 2000, 515). One example of blue(a) Puritanism, noted by Nabokov, has already been cited inthe first chapter. When, in Dole?s transla tion, Vronsky asks Anna what is the matter withher, A! nna responds in Russian: Ya beremenna! (Dole, 200), ?all because the translatorthought that ?I am world-shaking? might shock some pure soul?.
(Nabokov 1981, 316) In theend of Dole?s translation, in the glossary of Russian language and phrases ?Ya beremenna? is translated as ?I am expecting my confinement?. When Anna Karenina was first move in America, an anonymous critic wrotein Literary World: ? (?) on these relations of the sexes, on the facts of parentage andmotherhood, the book speaks with a dowdiness of meaning, sometimes with a plainness ofwords, which is at least new.? (Cit. Knowles 1978, 341) There are other omissions Dolemakes in order to adapt Tolstoy?s ?plainness of words? to the moral norms of the mincing society. For instance, when Anna ricks Vronsky?s mistress, she starts seeing a recurrent nightmare that both Vronsky and Karenin are her husbands. Garnett translated Anna Karenina xv years later than Dole, and during thosefifteen years Tolstoy?s popularity in the communicable world had grown sufficiently tomend the ?Puritan taste? in translation (see chapter 2). Garnett was English, and, unlike the United States, England had its own 19th century strong tradition of the realistic novel,whilst American realism of the mid-eighties was ?mostly aloof from the homely and painfulrealities of life? (Ahnebrink 1961, 19). Also, being a woman with liberated attitudes torelationships and a mother herself, Garnett did not thumb a need to omit the themes of sexual relationships and pregnancy. She, overly, had some Victorian prudishness about language (see May 1994, 39), but exam ples of expurgation in her translation of Anna Kareni! na are rare. For example, in the sentence already quoted in chapter 3, in Garnett?s translation, the nurse covers her middle (Garnett, 477), which is by all odds an advance from Dole?s translation, where she near fastens her dress (Dole, 429). The bosom becomes ?welldeveloped breast? in Maude?s translation and then ? heroic breast? in Edmonds? translation, as Tolstoy originally intended. As suggested above, adapting the text to the moral norms within the target culturemay mean expurgation or, in a freer society, it can involve over-over-clarification, i.e. rendering clear what was not meant to be absolutely clear in the original. Introducing Tolstoy?s novels to English readers, Maude wrote:The dignity of man is hidden from us either by all kinds of defects or by the factthat we valuate other qualities too highly and therefore measure men by their cleverness,strength, beauty, and so forth. Tolstoy teaches us to penetrate beneath their externality. (Maude 1929, 429)English transl ators have generally managed to revivify Tolstoy?s lyrical lines. Forinstance, below is Garnett?s translation of the first passage, quoted in 4.12:She did not look out again. The sound of the carriage-springs wasno monthlong audible, the bells could scarcely be heard. The barking of dogsshowed the carriage had reached the small town, and all that was left was theempty field all round, the village in movement and he himself free and apartfrom it all, wandering lonely along the neglectful high-road. (Garnett, 314-315.)The least lyrical is the Maude translation of the same paragraph:She did not look out again. The sound of the wheels could no longerbe heard; the chink of the bells grew fainter. The barking of dogs provedthat the coach was transient through the village, and only the empty fields,the village before him, and he himself walking solitary on the desertedroad, were left. (Maude v.1, 315) I believe, the lack of lyricism in this translation is mainly callable to two f acts:Maude changes Tolstoy?s syntactic construction, ! putting the verb ?left? in the end of the final stage sentence and he leaves out the group of words formation Levin?s emotionalstate: ?isolated and apart from it all?. The word ?prove? also sounds unnecessarilyscientific in this context. Anna Karenina is, of course, indite in prose, and therefore a detailed essay ontranslating poetry would be out of place here. When the characters of Anna Kareninaoccasionally quote poetry lines, it becomes more of a problem of literary allusions andliteral quotations. The poetry lines they quote become part of their voice, and they reflecttheir background, tastes, etc. As Christian (1978, 5) comments, many translators, stock-still ifthey know both English and Russian fluently, have lacked a proper background knowledge of Russian literature and history. He therefore suggests that the best English translations of Russian fiction are being done by professors and lecturers in British and American universities. Bibliography:Aaltonen, Sirkku (2000.) / Time-sharing On Stage/ Clevedon: polyglot matters. Abdulla, Adnan (1992.) Translation of Style/ /In Robert de Beaugrande, Language, Discourse andTranslation in the western and Middle East. Amsterdam, John Benjamins print company: 65-72. If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment