Файл: 9-1.doc

Translation of poetry is one of the most difficult and challenging tasks for every translator. Returning to Robert Frost’s definition, according to which “Poetry is what gets lost in translation”, we can say, that this statement could be considered as a truthful one to a certain extent because there is no one-to-one equivalent when comparing two languages. Even if the translators possess a profound knowledge in the source language they would not be able to create a replica of the original text.

In the theory of Translation Studies there are different approaches to the problems in this sphere of translation. Among the outstanding translators and translation theoristsJohn Dryden in his article “The Tree Types of Translation” spoke about the verbal copier of a poem, who “is encumbered with so many difficulties at once”, that he cannot get out of it. Describing verbal translation of a poem as something impossible he mentions, that the translators are “to consider, at the same type, the thought of his author, and his words, and to find out the counterpart to each in another language”being confined to the compass of numbers, and the slavery of rhyme. He approaches the claim of the Armenian prominent writer and translator, Eghishe Charents who is sure that a poem is to be translated by a poet. John Dryden writes about this “No man is capable of translating poetry besides a genius to that art”. He also adds, that the translator of poetry is to be the master of both of his author’s language and of his own.

Another theorist in TS, Friedrich Schleiermacher, highlights the importance of the sound in poetry as one of the major problems in translation and defines poetry as a work, ”where a most excellent and indeed higher meaning resides in the musical elements of language as they are manifested in rhythm”. According to him “whatever seems to have an impact on sound qualities and the fine-tuning of feeling and thus on the mimetic and musical accompaniment of speech- all this will have to be rendered by our translator”.

American poet, critic and translator Ezra Pound whose experience in poetry translations goes far beyond theory, believes that much depends on the translator. “He can show where the treasure lies, he can guide the reader in choice of what tongue is to be studied…”. He calls this as an “interpretive translator” of poetry. Parallel to it he offers “other sort” of translation, “where the translator is definitely making a new poem”. Thus there are two types of poetry translation, one which directly renders the thought of the author, and the second, which is based on the original, but transfuses some new spirit. Admittedly, if the translator succeeds in rendering both the form and the content, the translation is considered to be a successful one. This point of view has been sphere of investigation for Eugin Nida, professional linguist and Bible translator. He underlines the difference between prose and poetry highlighting the importance of form. “Only rarely can one reproduce both content and form in a translation, and hence in general the form is usually sacrificed for the sake of the content”. The translator of poetry aims at producing “on his reader an impression similar or nearly similar to that produced by the original”.* In fact “every poem is a poem within a poem; the poem of the idea and the poem of words” (Wallance Stevens). Without idea words are empty, without words idea is empty. The translator is to avoid of the emptiness.

Roman Jakobson writes in his article “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” about the possibility and impossibility of translation and defines poetry as “by definition untranslatable. Only creative transposition is possible”.

To sum up the theoretical approaches of the above mentioned people, it is admittedly clear, that poetry is the most difficult type of text and can be considered to be untranslatable. But if we have the vivid examples of successful translations of poetry, we can never claim that it is untranslatable. They also touched the problems like the freedom of the translator, which in our opinion is to be confronted. We can never refer to a rendering as a translation if it is just an original-based work. It must be close to the original as much as possible. This all can be reflected in the following diagram (1).

The diagram is in state of Y=X, where X stands for the translation, Y for the quality of the translation. The line a stands for the translation process which shares the right angle into two equal parts (45°) denoting that during his translation process the translator pays equal attention to the quality of his work and the idea of the original, trying not to go beyond the author’s words. The point O depicts the original work and the best and most successful translation. The two points coinside, because they are one and the same work in different languages. If the translation is far from O for 1 unit, then the quality of the translation reduces to 1 unit. Correspondingly if the translation goes far for 2 units, the quality reduces to 2, etc. To put poetry translation and its quality in a rough way, we use this materialistic and vivid way to depict it. But this does not give the idea what a translator should do. In reality, what should be preserved when translating poetry are the emotions, the invisible message of the poet, the uniqueness of the style in order to be reached the same effect in the target language as it is in the source. When talking about the translation of poetry we could not but mention some of the numerous problems encountered during this process.

Firstly, we would like to draw the attention to the form of a poem. This is probably the first thing that the reader notices before reading. The translator should try to be as closer to the original as he/she can. For example, if haiku has to be translated, the short meaningful and condensed form should be preserved, because an author chooses deliberately the form and the structure of the poem as an inseparable part of the overall message that should be transferred and sensed by the readers. Thus for instance sonnet (fourteen lines) cannot turn into a villanelle (five three-line tercets and a final four-line quatrain), or an elegy (a lament for the dead) into an ode (devoted to the praise or celebration). Types of poetry are also important. It is necessary for the translator to understand whether he/she deals with a narrative or a lyric poetry. Because the difference between them is huge. Narrative poems stress story and action, and lyric poems stress emotion and song.

The second matter to discuss is the shape of a poem. A pictogram is visually concrete and has special shape. For example Lewis Carrol’s “The mouse’s tale” taken from Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” is translated into Armenian with a shape of a tale of a mouse. And here the choice of the translator is commendable. The shape of poetry is also in its stanzas. The translator can invert the stanzaic form of a poem during the translation if it is not compulsory to keep. But it is better to translate from the couplet (a pair of linked verses) into a couplet, from a tercet (three successive lines bound by rhyme) into a tercet, from quatrain (a stanza of four lines) into a quatrain, from a quintain (a five line stanza) into a quintain, and from sestets (a six-line stanza) into a sestets, etc. (septet, octet, Spenserian, seven-, eight- and nin-line stanzas respectively)[2].

The third range of problems that occur while translating poetry are the nuances of word’s meaning. The translator can be confused in two ways. On the one hand he/she can find difficulties in understanding which from the numerous meanings of the word the author has used. On the other hand, he/she can be puzzled which equivalent from the target language to use. Emily Dickinson writes;

A word is dead
When it is said, 
Some day. 
I say it just
Begins to live
That day.

So the words must be under close examination of a translator. It is important to find out whether the word is used in its denotative, dictionary meaning or its connotative meaning, “which is the associated meanings that have built up around the word, or what the word connotes”[3]. Through the effects of the words the authors use in their poems they make an imagery. Poems include such details which trigger our memories, stimulate our feelings, and command our response. The ideas in poetry are important, but the real value of a poem consists in the words that work their magic by allowing us to approach a poem is similar to Francis’s “Catch” implies: expect to be surprised; stay on our toes; and concentrate on the delivery. This all is done by the words. Sometimes their meaning goes even far and reaches to the creation of some stylistic effects. Among them the most typical for poetry is metaphor. “It is metaphor, saying one thing and meaning another, saying one thing in terms of another, the pleasure of ulteriority. Poetry is simply made of metaphor”(Robert Frost, ”The Constant Symbol”). Another stylistic figures include hyperbole or exaggeration, synecdoche or using part to signify the whole, metonomy or substituting an attribute of a thing for the thing itself,personification, endowing inanimate objects or abstract concepts with animate characteristics or qualities, etc.

The problems accuring in the process of translation may be concerned with the different elements of poetry. We can learn to interpret, appreciate and translate poems by understanding their basic elements. The elements of a poem include a speaker whose voice we hear in it; its diction or selection of words, its syntax or order of those words; its imagery or details of sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch; its figurative language or nonliteral ways of expressing one thing in terms of another, such as symbol and metaphor; its sound effects, especially rhyme, assonance, and alliteration; its rhythm and meter or the pattern of accents we hear in the poem’s words, phrases, lines, and sentences, and its structure or formal pattern of organization.

We would like to discuss another matter causing a lot of problems in translating poetry, which is the grammatical difference between the languages. The grammatical rules compulsory for the prose are not obligatory for the poems or we could just say that the poets do not follow them strictly wherefore the translators are usually puzzled over such very creative works. Sometimes, the poets in their imaginativeness offer really unusual, striking, new and surprising works, which are difficult for translation. The translator should be combinative in order to transfer this novelty, hidden sense or specific grammatical structure. So as to clarify the situation we can pay attention to the second person pronoun and its usage. This transition in styles should be preserved in the target language because it carries the whole emotional and psychological world of a poet. For instance, the word “you” is sometimes difficult to translate. It can either be “¹áõ” or ”¸áõù”. In this case the translator must catch the intension of the author. Of course the grammatical shifts are possible in poetry translation, because here the translator aims at transmitting more the content. So any choice of the translator to change the grammatical form can be justified until it spoils the meaning.

Poetry has always been closely related to music. It “is an art of rhythm but is not primarily an effective means of communication like music”[4]. It, as well as being something that we see, is also something that we hear. “There remains even now a vibrant tradition of poetry being delivered orally or “recited”; and even the silent reading of poetry, if properly performed, should allow the lines to register on the mind’s ear.”[5] 

When speaking about the sound the first thing to mention is rhyme, which can be defined as the matching of final vowel or consonant sounds in two or more words. Thouth there are unrhymed poems, they give in in the point of view of their sound value. Robert Frost, who wrote traditional rhymed styles, growled that writing without rhyme is like “playing tennis with the net down”. It is a little strict, because many rhymed lines look and sound better in an unrhymed shape. In fact, sound is anything connected with sound cultivation including rhyme, rhythm, which refers the regular recurrence of the accent or stress in a poem, assonance or the repetition of vowel sounds, onomatopoeia, which implies that the word is made up to describe the sound,alliteration or the repetition of the same sounding letters, etc. A translator must try to maintain them in the translation. As Newmark (1981: 67) states, "In a significant text, semantic truth is cardinal [meaning is not more or less important, it is important!], whilst of the three aesthetic factors, sound (e.g. alliteration or rhyme) is likely to recede in importance -- rhyme is perhaps the most likely factor to "give" -- rhyming is difficult and artificial enough in one language, reproducing line is sometimes doubly so." In short, if the translation is faced with the condition where he should sacrifice one of the three factors, structure, metaphor, and sound, he should sacrifice the sound.

On the other hand, the translator should balance where the beauty of a poem really lies. If the beauty lies more on the sounds rather than on the meaning (semantic), the translator cannot ignore the sound factor.

The fourth thing that can cause problems in translation is the cultural differences. I would like again to refer to Osers’s article “Some Aspects of the Translation of Poetry”. A profound knowledge is necessary for the translation of idioms and phrases too, which are a product of the specific traditions and mentality in one’s country. Words or expressions that contain culturally-bound word(s) create certain problems. The socio-cultural problems exist in the phrases, clauses, or sentences containing word(s) related to the four major cultural categories, namely: ideas, behavior, product, and ecology (Said, 1994: 39). The "ideas" includes belief, values, and institution; "behavior" includes customs or habits, "products" includes art, music, and artifacts, and "ecology" includes flora, fauna, plains, winds, and weather.

In translating culturally-bound expressions, like in other expressions, a translator may apply one or some of the procedures: Literal translation, transference, naturalization, cultural equivalent, functional equivalent, description equivalent, classifier, componential analysis, deletion, couplets, note, addition, glosses, reduction, and synonymy. In literal translation, a translator does unit-to-unit translation. The translation unit may range from word to larger units such as phrase or clause.

He applies ’transference procedure’ if he converts the SL word directly into TL word by adjusting the alphabets (writing system) only. The result is ’loan word’. When he does not only adjust the alphabets, but also adjust it into the normal pronunciation of TL word, he applies naturalization.

In addition, the translator may find the cultural equivalent word of the SL or, if he cannot find one, neutralize or generalize the SL word to result ’functional equivalents’. When he modifies the SL word with description of form in the TL, the result is description equivalent. Sometimes a translator provides a generic or general or superordinate term for a TL word and the result in the TL is called classifier. And when he just supplies the near TL equivalent for the SL word, he uses synonymy.

In componential analysis procedure, the translator splits up a lexical unit into its sense components, often one-to-two, one-to-three, or -more translation. Moreover, a translator sometimes adds some information, whether he puts it in a bracket or in other clause or even footnote, or even deletes unimportant SL words in the translation to smooth the result for the reader.

These different procedures may be used at the same time. Such a procedure is called couplets. (For further discussion and examples of the procedures, see Said (1994: 25 - 28) and compare it with Newmark (1981: 30-32)).

The writer does not assert that one procedure is superior to the others. It depends on the situation. Considering the aesthetic and expressive functions a poem is carrying, a translator should try to find the cultural equivalent or the nearest equivalent (synonym) first before trying the other procedures.

The global context is also important. It includes the system of conditions under which the author has written, to whom the poem is directed or dedicated, and makes the author’s psychological situation explicit for the translator. If the poem contains a hidden irony towards somebody, than a translation must have it as well. Buy this of course depends on the content of its value.

Summarizing all these problems which are just a small part from the obstacles that the translators should overcome we realize how hard and difficult is the process of translation and how gifted, creative and knowledgeable should the translator be.

And he should have the same inspiration as the author has had when writing. As Plato states “the poet is the light and whinged holy thing, and there is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and reason is no longer in him…”[6]. The translator of a poem must equate the author, the artist and be inspirated from the poem. There are lots of translations of poetry which are not successful. The reason is:“nobody else can alive for you; nor can you be alive for anybody else. There is the artist’s responsibility and the most awful responsibility on earth. If you can take it, take it- and be. If you can’t, cheer up and go about other peaple’s business…” (e.e. cummings “Six Nonlectures” on the responsibility of art).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. “English Teaching FORUM”, volume 47, number 1, 2009.

2. “English Teaching FORUM”, volume 40, number 2, April 2002.

3. “English Teaching FORUM”, volume 41, number 3, July 2003.

4. John Dryden, 1680, The Three Types of Translation, in Translation Studies Reader, ed. by S. Gabrielyan, Yerevan: Sahak Partev, 2007.

5. Friedrich Shleiermacher,1813, On the Different Methods of Translating, in Translation Studies Reader, ed. by S. Gabrielyan, Yerevan: Sahak Partev, 2007.

Literary Approach to Translation Theory

In the 1970s a literary approach to translation theory began to emerge, partly as a response to the prescriptive linguistic theories that had monopolized thinking for the previous two decades. Key elements of this new literary approach are the writings of the Manipulation School; systems theories; and Gideon Toury’s descriptive translation studies (DTS), which tries to identify laws in translation, of which Itamar Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory (PS) forms a vital part (Nam Fung Chang). At the Leuven Conference in 1976, Even-Zohar presented a paper entitled “The Position of Translated Literature in the Literary Polysystem” where he considers the position of translated literature within the literary, cultural and historical contexts of the target culture. He does not advocate the study of individual translations, but rather views the body of translated works as a system working within and reacting to a literary system, which, in turn, is working within and reacting to the historical, social and cultural systems of the particular target audience. Therefore, there is a system within a system within a system i.e. the polysystem.

The notion of “system” does, perhaps, need some clarification at this point. Literature viewed as a system can be traced back to Russian Formalist thinking of the 1920s when Yury Tynjanov is credited with being the first person to describe literature in these terms (Hermans, 1999, 104). Translated literature itself is also considered to operate as a system in at least two ways – firstly in the way that the TL chooses works for translation, and secondly in the way translation methodology varies according to the influence of other systems (Munday, 2001 109). Even-Zohar himself emphasizes the fact that translated literature functions systemically: “I conceive of translated literature not only as an integral system within any literary polysystem but as an active system within it.” (1976, 200).

PS functions as a system on the level of a series of relationships between apparent opposites. These are:

- canonized (high) and non-canonized (low) forms, which opens the door for the consideration of detective and children’s stories and their role in translation

- centre and periphery

- primary (innovative) and secondary (stagnant) models

- ST and TT

- Translated and non-translated texts (Hermans, 1999, 42).

The key idea of PS is that there is a continual repositioning of genres in relation to each other, “a continual struggle for power between various interest groups” (Hermans, 1999, 42), which helps give rise to the dynamic nature of literature. If literature is to remain vibrant, it needs to be in a constant state of fluctuation, with established, canonized forms being constantly nudged and eventually replaced by newer, more innovative, peripheral models. Therefore, translated literature does not occupy a fixed position in a literary system because the system itself is in a constant state of change, although Even-Zohar proposes that the secondary position is really the normal position for translated literature (Munday, 2001, 110). However, even though change to the core comes from the peripheral, new literary forms, when translated literature occupies this position, it is generally perceived to be fairly conservative, working within the confines of the target culture.

Even-Zohar does insist that there are occasions when translated literature forms part of the nucleus, and it is then that the boundaries between translated and original literature begin to merge, being virtually indistinguishable from one another (Even-Zohar, 1976, 200). There are three possible scenarios when this may occur:

established literatures in order to fill the gaps that exist within its own system, due to it being unable to instantly create a wide range of text types and genres. Translated literature introduces features and techniques that did not previously exist, such as new poetic structures.

2) When a smaller nation is dominated by the culture of a larger nation it may rely on imported literature from the dominant culture in order to keep its literary system dynamic, as well as being possibly the only source available for the creation of new genres, for example Breton culture in Brittany may rely heavily on literary styles from France in order o fill the gaps that exist in its own literary system.

3) When there are turning points in literary history, such as when established forms lose popularity or when there is no existing model. This could conceivably be the role that Harry Potter occupies in Chinese Mandarin.

There are also occasions when translated literature can occupy both a central position and a peripheral position within a literary system.  This may occur when major social changes are taking place. Even-Zohar exemplifies this with the role of translated literature in Israel in the early 1900s when literature from Russian into Hebrew was more dominant than translations from English, German or Polish (Munday, 2001, 110; Even-Zohar, 1976, 202).

Having briefly discussed the theoretical workings of the polysystem approach, it now remains to be seen how it affects translation methodology.  Even-Zohar says that when a translated work occupies the central position, it is generally strong in itself and doesn’t need to conform to target culture conventions. The translator doesn’t try to adapt to TL models, staying close to the original ST. If the position of translated literature is weak, the reverse trend occurs. The translator tends to adopt more features from the target culture, so the translation becomes target culture dominant, often providing a less than satisfactory translation (Even-Zohar, 1976, 203-204; Munday, 2001, 110).

PS is important because it moves translation away from the traditional ST-TT linguistic comparisons of shift and equivalence towards the viewing of translation in a social, cultural and historical context. There is also a change from the study of individual texts as a systemic approach tries to uncover the universal laws and principles that govern translation.  It is also quite significant because it can be applied to other systems other than literary systems, such as television programming and politics, making the system itself universal.

PS has been widely criticized on a number of issues:

- Gentzler questions Even-Zohar’s objectivity, claims that the universal laws are too abstract, criticizes the level of input and the relevance of Russian Formalism, and states that little thought has been given to limitations placed on translation and texts (Munday, 2001, 111).

- Berman condemns Even-Zohar’s proposition that translated literature generally occupies a role of secondary importance in the target culture because “it downplays their creative and formative aspect” (Hermans, 1999, 154). Berman also thinks that translated literature remains a separate entity within the target culture.

- Susan Bassnett thinks that comments describing target literature as “young”, “weak”, “vacuum”, etc are highly subjective.  Subjectivity also dominates the definition as to what constitutes canonized and non-canonized literature. She questions the abstract nature of the theory which tends to neglect concrete examples while, at the same time, wondering whether the theory has progressed much beyond the ideas of Russian Formalism of the 1920s (Bassnett and Lefevere 1998: 127 in Hermans, 1999, 109).

- André Lefevere claims that Even-Zohar is presumptuous in his claim that the systems he describes actually exist, condemns the nature of the theory, and describes the terms “primary” and “secondary” as “superfluous” (Hermans, 1999, 125).

- Philippe Codde believes that PS has become outdated as other systemic theories are presented as alternatives (2003, 26).

- Theo Hermans argues against one of Even-Zohar’s most fundamental principles by saying that the target culture may not necessarily select the ST. He cites the example of the period of European colonization when France and England were seen to be “dumping literary items on a colonized population” (1999, 111). He also claims that the series of binary opposites that constitute the polysystem theory doesn’t take into account those factors that are not diametrically opposed.

While PS could be seen as offering an intellectual approach to translation, I believe that it remains far too abstract in its presentation because it does not provide concrete evidence, it does not venture into specifics, or offer functioning examples. No mention is made of the concept of overt and covert translations (this comes later), although Even-Zohar says that it is difficult to differentiate translated literature from original when placed in the central position.