УДК 81’255.4
Iryna Svider
(Kamianets-Podilsky Ivan Ohiienko National University)
THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENCE IN TRANSLATING VERSE
У статті розглядається проблема передачі цілісності змісту та формивіршованих творів. Звертається увага на концепт еквівалентності у процесі перекладу поезії.
Ключові слова: вірш, переклад, трансформація, концепт, еквівалентність.
The verse, as a work of fiction, has the most complex, well-formed structure and rules of writing, since its author aims to present his idea, translating it into a specific set of peculiarities of the organization of the poetry language.Each verse, like any artwork, is unique, and it is its clear and unchanging structure that distinguishes it from others. Conversion or change of the minimum unit of the structure of the verse will cause the violation of the rhythmic principle determined for this verse [7, p. 168].
Among the main scholars of poetry translation theory L. Barkhudarov, S. Goncharenko, V. Komisarova, L. Retzker, A. Fedorov, I. Alekseyev, P. Bech, M.Dudchenko, L. Kolomiets, A. Mishustin, O. Cherednychenko and othersare to be mentioned.As for foreign investigators we should point out P. Flynn, J. Jarniewicz, A. Lefevere, F. R. Jones, E. Honig. But, it is obvious that at the present stage of the development of translation studies still there is no holistic theory of translation of the verse, which would fully consider the specifics of poetry translation.
The aim of this article is to solve the complex issue of preserving the uniqueness of the poem in the translation process, thus the translation involves not just replacing the words of one language with another, but also the complete transformation of the structure of the verse.
Poetry translation may be defined as relaying poetry into another language. Poetry’s features can be sound-based, syntactic or structural or pragmatic in nature. Apart from transforming text, poetry translation also involves cognition, discourse, and action by and between human and textual actors in a physical and social setting.
Seeing genre as communication implies that poetry translation involves not only transforming text but also cognition, discourse, and action by and between human and textual actors in a physical and social setting [2]. Poetry translators are typically concerned to interpret a source poem’s layers of meaning, to relay this interpretation reliably, and/or to “create a poem in the target language which is readable and enjoyable in its own right, with merit as an independent, literary text” [9, p.23-24; 1, p. 25-26].
In poetry, however, surface semantics and underlying imagery are often so closely and complexly bound with linguistic form that it is notoriously difficult to interpret these relationships and reproduce them in a foreign-language text that meets Phillips’s quality demands. This has inspired a popular discourse of poetry translation as loss. Some lament the loss of source-text reproduction, as in Lefevere’s view that “most poetry translations are unsatisfactory renderings of the source text” because they fail to capture its totality [6, p. 99]. Others lament the loss of target-text quality, as in Robert Frost’s reputed saying that “poetry is what is lost in translation” [4]. E. Etkind emphasizes: “The art of poetry translation to a large extent is the art of allowing losses and making transformations. Without deciding on the loss and transformation, one can notbe engaged in martial art with foreign-language poetry. And the most important thing for the translator of poetry is to know in every concrete case, what kind of loss can be allowed and in which direction the text should be converted”[11, p. 68].
As the modern researcher in the poetry translation R. Tchaikovsky notes, the phenomenon of poetry possessing the properties of figurativeness, rhythmicity, delicacy, is the strongest complex or imaginative influence on the human psychics: the uniqueness of the structure of poetry works powerfully emotionally influences the reader, stimulates his imagination and creative energy [10]. At the same time, the aforecited features and advantages of poetry determine the need for more effective methods and techniques for the verse translation.
So, we encounter the impossibility of an ideal translation.In many cases, the translator donates a form for the sake of content, since the level of awareness of the translator of the personality and author’s picture of the world, reflected in the verse, depends on whether he can reproduce the mood that originated from the readers of the original. This phenomenon is tightly connected with the concept of equivalence.
Translation equivalence is a principal concept in Western translation theory. It is a constitutive feature and the guiding principle of translation. As Catford points out, “the central problem of translation-practice is that of finding TL equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence” [3, p.20]. Actually, since the fifties of the twentieth century, many translation theorists have involved and elaborated translation equivalence in their respective theories. However, the concept of translation equivalence is sometimes distorted, and, perhaps, this is why some people deny its validity and necessity. To argue for the necessity of translation equivalence, we should first clarify its features.
Philosophically speaking, there are no things that are absolutely identical. Nida expresses this view as follows: “There are no two stones alike, no flowers the same, and no two people who are identical. Although the structures of the DNA in the nucleus of their cells may be the same, such persons nevertheless differ as the result of certain developmental factors. No two sounds are ever exactly alike, and even the same person pronouncing the same words will never utter it in an absolutely identical manner” [8, p. 60].
As far as languages are concerned, there are no two absolute synonyms within one language. Quite naturally, no two words in any two languages are completely identical in meaning. As translation involves at least two languages and since each language has its own peculiarities in phonology, grammar, vocabulary, ways of denoting experiences and reflects different cultures, any translation involves a certain degree of loss or distortion of meaning of the source text[5]. That is to say, it is impossible to establish absolute identity between the source text and the target text. Therefore, we can say that equivalence in translation should not be approached as a search for sameness, but only as a kind of similarity or approximation, and this naturally indicates that it is possible to establish equivalence between the source text and the target text on different linguistic levels and on different degrees. In other words, different types of translation equivalence can be achieved between the source text and the target text such as phonetic equivalence, phonological equivalence, morphological equivalence, lexical equivalence, syntactical equivalence and semantic equivalence.
Equivalence in translation cannot be interpreted as identity in terms of its scientific sense. As we know, there are no words that have exactly the same meaning in one language. As far as the whole text is concerned, it is simply impossible to transfer all the message of the original text into the target text. This means that equivalence between the source text and the target text can be established on different levels and in different aspects. As one of the three principal concepts in Western translation theory, equivalence is a constitutive feature and the guiding principle of translation. Without equivalence of certain degrees or in certain aspects, the translated text cannot be regarded as a successful translation of the original text. In short, equivalence is of absolute necessity in and a basic requirement of translation.
Therefore the problem of the equivalence of the translation of poetic text is associated with a number of unsolved problems. This is a loss of the form of poetic text while preserving the lexical-semantic content and, conversely, the loss of the system of images of the original while preserving its form.
REFERENCES
- Boase-Beier J. Knowing and not knowing: style, intention and the translation of a Holocaust poem. Language and Literature. 2004. V. 13(1). P. 25–35.
- Buzelin H. Unexpected allies: how Latour’s network theory could complement Bourdieusian analyses in translation studies. Translator. 2005. V. 11(2). P. 193–218.
- Catford John C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: an Essay on Applied Linguistics. London : Oxford University Press, 1965. 110 p.
- Frost R. A Backward Look. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1964. P.29
- Le Meiyun. Linguistics and Theory of Translation. Journal of Foreign Languages, № 1989. P. 36-41.