126

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

FILOLOGIJA 2013 (18) ISSN 1392-561X

Co­RRELATIo­N o­f CULTURAL ANd TRANSLATIo­N STUdIES IN THE PRo­CESS o­f LITERARY TRANSLATIo­N

Lo­Li­TA Pe­TRu­Li­o­NėŠiauliai University

lolitapetrulione@gmail.com

Key­words: literary translation, culture, cultural studies, culture-specific items, translation strategies.

In­troduction­Literatureisindispensiblefromlanguageandculture.Thereisasayingthatif

onewantstofindouthowpeoplelived,heshouldreadahistorybook,butifonewantstoknowhowpeoplefelt,whotheywere,heshouldstudytheirliterature.Lite-raryworksthatoriginatedinoneparticularcountryarereadandacceptedinadiffe-rentwaybynativepeopleandbyforeigners.

Thesecondhalfofthe20thcenturyisfamousforthedevelopmentofnewacade-micdisciplines.Thisphenomenonwasinducedbyseveralfactors:1)therapidchan-geanddevelopmentofthewholeworldrequirednewareasoflifetoberesearched;2)thenewleveloflifeandsocialconsciencedemandedtolookatwell-knownandwell-established issues fromdifferentangles;3) traditionaldisciplinesusing theirtraditionalmethodologycouldnotcopewithnewresearchproblemsaswellascer-tainproblemscouldnotbesolvedwithinthelimitsofasinglediscipline.Thelatterfactinfluencedtheemergenceofinterdisciplinaryapproachi.e.combinationoftwoormoreacademicfieldsintoonesinglediscipline.Thedevelopmentoftranslationstudiesandculturalstudieswhichbothareofparticularinterestofthisresearcharetypicalexamplesofthisphenomenon.Bassnettclaimsthat“BothTranslationStu-diesandCulturalStudiesareinterdisciplinaryfields,dialogicinnatureandinvolveprocessesofencodinganddecoding”(Bassnett2003,433).

Translationofliteratureiscloselyrelatedtoculturalstudiessinceculturalcon-textisveryimportantininterpretationofanyliterarypiece.Eventhoughtherearesomescientificstudieswhichanalyseaspecifictranslatedliteraryworkfromculturalperspective,thereisnoresearchwheretranslationsintotwotargetlanguages–Lithu-anianandRussian–areanalysed.

Withtherespecttothisproblematicissue,thepaperaimstodescribethecorre-lationbetweenculturalandtranslationstudiesaswellastoanalysetranslationstrate-giesforculture-specificitemsinliterarytranslation.

127

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Theprimary text is JoanneHarris’snovelThe Lollipop Shoes (2007)and itsLithuanian andRussian versions:Ledinukų bateliai, translated byEglėBielskytė(2009),andЛеденцовые туфельки, translatedbyIrinaTogoyeva(2010).

Thesecondarymaterialsconsistof theworksofAixela,Baker,Bassnett,Da-vies,Dimitriu,Leonavičienė,Newmark,andNida.

Culture an­d Lan­guage: In­terdisciplin­ary­ ApproachSinceancienttimesagreatnumberofphilosophers,linguists,sociologistsand

otherresearchershaveanalysedtheconceptofculture.Uptothemiddleofthe20th centuryculturewasstudiedwithin the limitsofseparatedisciplinesbutgraduallyithasdevelopedintoaseparateareaofstudies–culturalstudies.InthebookIntro-ducing Cultural Studies,Sardarnames themaincharacteristicsofculturalstudiesemphasisingtheunderstandingofcultureinall itscomplexformsaswellasana-lysingthesocialandpoliticalcontextinwhichculturemanifestsitself.Heclaimsthat“Culturalstudiesfunctionsbyborrowingfreelyfromsocialsciencedisciplinesandallbranchesofhumanitiesand thearts. Itadopts theoriesandmethodologiesfromsociology,anthropology,psychology,linguistics,literarycriticism,arttheory,musicology,philosophyandpoliticalscience.Almostanymethodfromtextualana-lysis,ethnographyandpsychoanalysistosurveyresearchcanbeusedtodoculturalstudies”(Sardar1999,7).Sardarprovidesanumberofdefinitions,startingfromtheoldestonegivenbytheBritishanthropologistTylorinthebookPrimitive Cultures,whichwaspublishedin1871.AccordingtoTylor,“Cultureisthatcomplexwholewhichincludesknowledge,belief,art,morals,law,customs,andothercapabilitiesandhabitsacquiredbymanasamemberofsociety”(citedinSardar1999).Theabun-dance of different definitions and interpretations of this concept reveals differenttheoriesofculturalunderstanding.LONGMAN Dictionary of Contemporary English definescultureasasetof“ideas,believesandcustomsthataresharedandacceptedinasociety”(LONGMAN2000).Thrivenistatesthatthenotionofculturemaybeca-tegorisedasfollows:habits,customsandtraditions,beliefsandfeelings,mythsandlegends,religiouselementsandgeographicalandenvironmentalelements(Thriveni2001).Furthermore,thisconceptincludesdistinctivespiritual,material,intellectualandemotionalfeaturesofaparticularsocietyorsocialgroup.Newmarkdefinescultu-reas“thewayoflifeanditsmanifestationsthatarepeculiartoacommunitythatusesaparticularlanguageasitsmeansofexpression”(Newmark1988,94).Sardaralsopaysattentiontotheambiguityoftheconceptofcultureandstatesthat“culturese-emstobe(almost)everythingandculturalstudiesthestudyof(almost)everything”(Sardar1998,5).Tosumup,alltheaforementionedcomponentsofculturecreateasystemthatasocietyusestocopewiththeirworldaswellaswitheachotherandtransmitsfromgenerationtogeneration.

WithreferencetoStaškevičiūtė’sresearch,cultureincludestheconceptofna-tionalidentity.Ramanauskasandhisco-authorsdescribethenationalidentityas“asetoffeaturesandpropertiesthatunitetherepresentativesofthenationwithinthe

128

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

nationandmakethenationtocertainextentdifferentfromtheothers”(citedinStaš-kevičiūtė2005,10).Inaddition,Grigasclaimsthatlanguagetakesakeyroleinthenation’ssenseofunityandgivesthenationtheabilitytoidentifywiththeculture(Grigas1995).AsPetrulionėputsit,“Language,beingapartofculture,isinfluencedandformedbytheculture”(Petrulionė2012,44).Bassnettstatesthat languageis“theheartwithinthebodyofculture”(citedinJames2001,8).Furthermore,everylanguagepossessesspecificwordsandphrasesforspecialkindsofculture-specificconcepts:events,customsorthings.FollowingWierzbicka,vocabularyofthelangua-geandlifestyleofthenationhasacloserelationshipbetweeneachother(Wierzbicka1997).Thestatementspresentedinthisparagraphallowsayingthatlanguageplaysaveryimportantroleandgivesthenationabilitytocommunicateasaunity.

Theconceptionofliteratureasareflectionofcultureandsociallifeistraditionalandcommonlyaccepted.However,recentscholarlydiscussionsrevealthatliteratureiscultureitselforatleastapartofculture.Thus,inadditiontoitsabilitytodescribeandreflectculturalandsociallives,literaturemakesasignificantimpactoncultureandsocietyitself.Toconclude,language,literatureandculturehasalwayscometo-getherandtheyallshouldconstituteanintegralpartofanyresearchinthefieldoftranslationstudies.

Cultural Tran­slation­The issueofcultural translationhasbeendiscussedbymanyLithuanianand

foreign scholars;however, there isno single term todefineculture-boundwords.Thefollowingtermsintranslationstudiesareusedinter-changeably:culture-speci-fic items(Davies2003),culture-specificconcepts(Baker1992),culturalconcepts(Davies2003),culturalwords(Newmark,1988),realia(Robinson1997,Leonavi-čienė2010),culture-boundphenomena(Robinson1997)orculture-boundelements(Hagfors2003).Consequently,thereisnosingledefinitionofculture-specificitems;however,forthisresearchAixela’sapproachappearstobethemostappropriate.Ashenotes,culture-specific items (CSI)are linguistic items thatcauseproblems fortranslation due to differences in cultural understanding (Aixela 1996). Petrulionėclaimsthat“Theyincludepropernouns,objects,customs,institutions,expressionsandalsoconceptsembodiedinthesourcetextthatdonotexistinthecultureofthetargetlanguagereadershiporareperceiveddifferently”(Petrulionė2012,44).

AccordingtoRobinson,sinceancientRometherehasbeenadiscussionhowtotransferculture-specificitemsofthesourcelanguagetextintothetargetlanguagetext(Robinson2003,186).Thehardestthingintranslationistofindrightequivalentsforwordswithculturalimplications.Kazakovapointsoutthattranslationismorecom-plicatedwhenthereisaconsiderabletemporalorspatialdistancebetweenthesourceandtargetcultures(Kazakova2004,102–104).Theselectionofanappropriatetran-slationmethodforCSIsdependsonvariousfactors,includingthecharacteristicsofthetargetreadership.AccordingtoJames,sourcelanguagereadershaveknowledgeaboutthespecificaspectsoftheirculturaltraitsandhistoricaleventsoftheirhome-

129

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

land,sothereisnodifficultyinunderstandingthewriter’sideas(James2001).Onthecontrary,targetlanguagereadersareusuallyintroducedtohistoryoftheforeigncountrybutdonothaveenoughcomprehensionaboutspecificculturalsituationsdescribedinthetext.Therefore,themaingoaloftranslatorsistogiveacompleteexplanationofwhatthewriterintendstoexpressusingaliennotionsincludingtheimplicitones.

CSIsareaveryspecificgroupofreferencesthatcausemanyproblemsintransla-tionandrequirefromtranslatorsbothlinguisticandculturalcompetencetoachieveequivalenceinmostifnotalllevelsofthetext.Toproducethetargettextofsimilarvalueasthatofthesourcetext,translatorscanemploydifferenttranslationstrategies.However,thereisnosingleopinionwhenandwhichtranslationstrategyshouldbeused.Inaddition,“differentspecialistsontranslationhavecomeupwithaconfusingvarietyof terms todescribestrategies”(Danytė2006,203).Forexample,HerveyandHigginsdescribingculturalissuesintranslationmention exoticism,culturalborro-wing,calque,communicativetranslationandculturaltransplantation(Hervey,Sandor1992).Aixeladividestranslationstrategiesintotwomajorgroups:conservationandsubstitution. Conservation includes repetition, orthographic adaptation, linguistic(non-cultural)translation,externalglossandintratextualgloss,whilesubstitutionin-volvessynonymy,limiteduniversalization,absoluteuniversalization,naturalization,deletionandautonomouscreation.Inaddition,henamesafewpotentialstrategies,forexample,compensation,dislocationandattenuation(Aixela1996).Newmarkad-vocatesforarangeoftranslationstrategieswithtransferenceandcomponentialana-lysisattheoppositeendsandculturalequivalent,neutralisation,literaltranslation,label, naturalisation, deletion, couplet, accepted standard translation, paraphrase,gloss,notesandclassifierinbetween(Newmark1998).Bakerreferstothefollowingstrategiesusedbyprofessionaltranslatorsindealingwithnon-equivalenceatwordle-vel(includingCSIs):translationbyamoregeneralword(superordinate),translationbyamoreneutral/lessexpressiveword,translationbyculturalsubstitution,transla-tionusingaloanwordorloanwordplusexplanation,translationbyparaphraseusingarelatedword,translationbyparaphraseusingunrelatedwords,translationbyomis-sion, and translation by illustration (Baker 1992). Leonavičienė in her numerousresearchestablishedfourmaintypesoftranslationstrategiesappliedbytranslatorswhichincludetransposition,adaptation(internalandexternal),explicittransferringofculturalmeaningandconversion(Leonavičienė2011).Daviesdiscussestransla-tion strategiesunder sevenheadings: preservation, addition,omission,globalization,localization,transformationsandcreation(Davies2003).AccordingtoDanytė,thesetranslationstrategies“havetheadvantageofbeingabstractandsimpleinformation”(Danytė2009,204).Takingintoaccountthelatterstatement,Davis’sclassificationisusedastheframeworkfordetailedanalysisoftranslationstrategiesprovidedinthefollowingparagraphs.Theoretical statementsare illustratedwith instancesselectedfromJoanneHarris’snovelLollipop Shoes,anditstranslationsintoLithuanianandRussianbyBielskytėandТоgoyeva.

130

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Itwouldberationaltoexplainthechoiceofthebook.First,JoanneHarrishaswonanumberofBritishandinternationalawardsandherbooksarepublishedinoverfortycountries.Shehaspublishedfifteenbooks(thirteennovelsandtwocollec-tionsofstories):The Evil Seed(1989),Sleep, Pale Sister(1993),Chocolat(1999),Blackberry Wine (2000),Five Quarters of the Orange (2001),Coastliners (2002),Holy Fools (2003),Gentlemen and Players (2005),The Lollipop Shoes (2007),Ru-nemarks(2007),Blueeyed Boy(2010),Runelight (2011),Peaches for Monsieur le Curé(2012)andA Cat, a Hat and a Piece of String (2012).IncooperationwithFranWardeshepublishedtwocookerybooksThe French Kitchen (2002)andThe French Market (2005).Inaddition,herstoriesalsofeaturedinvariouscompilations.Asitwaspreviouslymentioned,thisanalysisfocusesonHarris’sThe Lollipop Shoes, asequelofhermost famousbookChocolat,whichwasmadeintoanOscar-nomina-tedfilm.Second,culturalidentityplaysaveryimportantroleinthisbook.Theno-velwasoriginallywritteninEnglish,buttheactiontakesplaceinFrance.Besides,FrenchlifestyleisdescribedindetaillikeithasbeendonebyalocalcitizenwithoutanycontemptwhichissocommonfortheEnglishwhiletalkingabouttheFrench.Finally,thisnovelcanserveasaguidetoFrenchculturalandsociallifetoforeignreaders(sincedescriptionsofnationalfiestasandothereventsareabundant)withanassumptionthatculturalaspect inbothtranslationshavenotbeendistortedor toomuchdomesticated.

TheinstancesofCSIswerecompiledfromthreesources–theoriginalnovelanditstranslationsintoLithuanianandEnglish–andprovidedinTables1–5.Co-lumn1containstheordernumber,Column2presentsthesourceEnglishtext,Co-lumn3givesthetargettext,whetherLithuanianorRussianorboth,asanexampleofacertaintranslationstrategytobediscussedinthesubsequentparagraph(s),andColumn4isaddedonlyasareferencetothereadersofthisarticleiftheywanttofindouthowaspecificCSIistreatedinthesecondtargettext.TheauthorofthisarticledoesnotanalysetheinstancesinColumn4andonlyprovidesafewcommentsifthetwoexamplesfromColumn3andColumn4shouldbecontrastedforthepurposeofclarification.

The empiricalpartofthisresearchstartsfrom preservation­ whichisthefirsttran-slationstrategyinDavies’slist.According toher, it isusedwhen there isnocloseequivalentinthetargetlanguagesothattranslatorsdecide“tomaintainthesourcetextterminthetranslation”(Davies2003,73).Otherscholarsalsodiscussthisstra-tegybuttheyusedifferentterms.Baker(1992)callsittranslationusingaloanword,whileNewmark(1988)callsittransference;SchäffnerandWiesemann(2001)usethetermnaturalization,Aixela(1996)prefersrepetitionandLeonavičienė(2011)referstoitastransposition.Accordingtothesescholars,preservationisaprocedurewhenasourcelanguagewordistransferredintothetargettextinitsoriginalform.TheexamplesinthetablebelowillustratethestrategyofpreservationusedfortranslationofCSIs.

131

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Table1Examples of CSIs tran­slated usin­g the strategy­ of preservation­

No. Source text Example of preservation­ 2n­d target text for referen­ce1. Isitbecausewe’venever

boughtanythingattheGalleries Lafay­ette. (Harris2008,59)

Dėlto,kadmesniekadaniekoneperkameiš „Lafa-y­ette“ galerijų.(Bielskytė2010,58)

Илиэтопотомучтомыни-когданичегонепокупаемвгалерее Лафайет.(Тогоева2010,69)

2. Allofthemwearthesa-mescent(thisweekit’sAn­gel)> (Harris 2008,210)

Visos vienodai kvepia (šiąsavaitętai„An­gel“)>(Biels-kytė2010,219)

Все они душатся одними итемижедухами(наэтойне-делеэто«Ангел»)> (Тогое-ва2010,267)

3. <wearswell-worn clot-hes fromLa Redoute>(Harris2008,42)

<vilkėjodėvėtusdrabužiusiš„La Redoute“> (Bielsky-tė2010,41)

<одежда, довольно поно-шенная, явно выписана покаталогу «Ла Редут»> (То-гоева2010,49)

4. <whiletheapronedpatron­heldforthsomevolumeaboutsomeonecalledPaupaul>(Harris2008,19)

<apatron­вфартуке,склонившисьнадкаким-тогроссбухом,гневноразглагольствовал,чтонектопоимениПополь>(Тогоева2010,17)

<oprijuostępasirišęsšeimi-n­in­kasgarsiaipasakojoapiekažinką,varduPopolis>(Bielskytė2010,16)

Examples1and2inTable1arepropernouns,particularlyanameofthemostfamousdepartmentstoreinParis,Galleries Lafayette (1),andafragrancewhichispopular among youngwomen,Angel (2). In the target text they are provided inquotes,followingLithuanianrulesforsymbolictitles.SuchkindofCSIsisusuallypreservedintheLithuaniantranslationastheirmeaningscouldbeunderstoodwithinthecontext.Onthecontrary,thetitleofamail-ordercatalogueoranonlineshoppingwebsiteinExample3islittle-knowntomostLithuanianreaders,butthetranslator’schoiceofthisstrategyinpreferencetoadditionorotherscouldbeexplainedbyinsig-nificanceofthisCSIinthenovel.Additionalinformationisnotprovidedasitwouldbeunnecessaryandwoulddistractreaders’attentionfrommorerelevantCSIs.Dif-ferentapproachtothisCSIinRussiantranslationisexplainedunderTable2.TherearejustsinglecasesofpreservationfoundinRussiantranslationduetodifferencesbetweenCyrillicandLatinalphabets.Example4demonstrates the Italianway toaddressasuperior.ThewordpatroninExample4isunderstandabletoordinaryRus-sianreaders,butadditionallyitgivesaspeciallocalcolouringtothespeechofcha-racters.Theusageofthisstrategyenablesthereadertoidentifyawordoraconcept,andinliterarytextsofferslocalculturalatmosphere.

Addition­isthesecondDavies’strategy.Theadditionofalexicalelementintheprocessoftranslatingisusuallyused“whensimplepreservationoftheoriginalCSImayleadtoobscurity<…>,thetranslatormaydecidetokeeptheoriginalitembutsup-plementthetextwithwhateverinformationisjudgednecessary”(Davies2003,77).

132

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Twotypesofadditioncanbedistinguished:extratextualandintratextual.Extra-textualadditionmaybeusedincombinationwithothertranslationstrategies,espe-ciallywithpreservation,whentranslatorsconsider“itnecessarytooffersomeexpla-nationofthemeaningorimplicationsoftheCSI”(Aixela1996,62).Extratextualadditionmaybeofdifferenttypes:footnote(Aixela1996,Nida1964), endnote,glos-sary,commentary/translation inbracketsor italics (Aixela1996),note (Newmark1988),concludingremarks,foreword (Mikutytė2005).Thesecondtypeofaddition,intratextualaddition,happenswhenadditionalinformationisinserteddirectlyintothe text.AsAixela explains “the translators feel they canor should include theirglossasanindistinctpartofthetext,usuallysoasnottodisturbthereader’satten-tion”(Aixela1996,62).Theexamplesinthetablebelowaretheonesofaddition.

Table2Examples of CSIs tran­slated usin­g the strategy­ of addition­

No. Source text Example of addition­ 2n­d target text for referen­ce

1. <wears well-worn clot-hes from La Redoute>(Harris2008,42)

<одежда, довольно поно-шенная, явно выписана покаталогу «Ла Редут»>(То-гоева2010,41)

<vilkėjodėvėtusdrabužiusiš „La Redoute“> (Biels-kytė2010,49)

2. Plussatchels,iPods,mo-bilephones,tubesofun-derarmdeodorant, scho-olbooks> (Harris 2008,57).

O kur dar kuprinės, „iPod“ grotuvai,mobiliejitelefonai, dezodoranto flakonai, vado-vėliai>(Bielskytė2010,56).

<совсемиихшкавчика-мидляобуви,запаснымикомплектамиучебников,ранцами,мобильниками,флаконамисдезодоран-том>(Тогоева2010,67)

3. Books, clothes, furnitu-reandtherest,Igavetothe Croix Rouge(Harris2008,16).

Knygas, drabužius, baldusir visa kita atidaviau Croix Rouge* (Bielskytė2010,11)

*RaudonajamkryžiuiАеекниги,одежду,мебельи прочее передала вCroix Rouge*.(Тогоева2010,13)

* Красныйкрест.4. Shetellsmestoriesabout

Quetzalcoatl and Jesusando­siris (Harris2008,486)

<она рассказывает всякиеистории:оКецалькоатле,оХристе, обОсирисе* (То-гоева2010,615-616)* Осирис – в египетскоймифологиибогпроизводи-тельныхсилприродыиза-гробногомира.

<ji man pasakoja istorijasapieKecalkoatlį,Jėzų,o­zi-rį>(Bielskytė2010,504)

133

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

InExample1additionintheRussiantranslationisusedduetoadifferenceinthebackgroundknowledgeofsourcereadersandtargetreaders.Forthereadersofbothtargetlanguagesthetitleofamail-ordercatalogueoranonlineshoppingweb-siteLa Redoute or «Ла Редут» isnotwell-known,butonlytheRussiantranslatorusesthewordкаталогtoclarifythemeaning.Onthecontrary,Example2containsahouseholdnameof thepopulardeviceamong teenagersandcouldbeunderstoodwithouttheadditionalwordgrotuvas.IncolloquialspeechLithuaniansrefertothisgadgetasaipodas,i.e.,theyusephonologicaladaptationaswellasaddLithuanianinflections.

Themost significantnumberof additions inboth translationsof thenovel isextra-textualaddition. Inmajorityofcases it isusedwhen theword in the targettextispreservedinaforeignlanguageotherthanEnglishasitisseeninExample3.AlthoughCroix RougecanbetranslatedasRaudonasis kryž­ius and Красный крест respectively, since it is awell-known international humanitarianmovement, bothtranslatorsfollowingthesourcetextgivetheminFrench.ToleaveaCSIinitsorigi-nalformandtoexplainitinafootnoteisquitecommonfortheLithuaniantranslatorwhiletheRussianoneusesitmoreextensively.Shetendstoexplainanyculturalcon-ceptwhichmaypresentacertaindifficultytotheaveragetargetreader.AsitisseenfromExample4,thenameand‘functions’ofEgyptianDeityOsirisisexplainedindetaileventhoughamoreeducatedaudienceisexpectedtoknowthisinformation.

o­mission­ is theoppositephenomenon toaddition.According toArmalytė andPažūsis,intranslationthosewordsareomittedwhichmeaningsmightbeknownorunderstoodinthetextwithoutthemortoavoidrepetition(Armalytė,Pažūsis1990).Daviesclaimsthattheremaybemanyreasonsforsuchachoice:“Itmaysometimesbeanactofdesperationbyatranslatorwhocanfindnoadequatewayofconveyingtheoriginalmeaning(orpossiblyonewhosimplycannotinterprettheoriginalatall)oritmaybereasoneddecisionwherethetranslatorcouldhaveprovidedsomekindofparaphraseorequivalent,butdecidesnottobecausetheamountofeffortthisso-lutionwouldrequire,onbehalfofeitherthetranslatororthetranslation’sreaders,doesnotseemjustified”(Davies2003,80).Thistranslationstrategyisnotsooftenusedasonemaythink.AninsignificantnumberofomissionsintranslationdiscourseDimit-riuexplainsbytraditionalsourceorientedpositionsintranslationtheorypromotingthefundamentalvaluesoftrustandtruthintranslationandbynegativeconnotationofthistermidentifyingomissionwiththetranslator’sfailuretorenderthenecessarytranslationunit.(Dimitriu2004).Dimitriunamesanumberofreasonstojustifyomis-sionincludingitspositiveimpactonacceptabilityofatext(Dimitriu2004).Thisap-proachtowardsomissionencouragesnottotreatitnegativelyandtouseitinliterarytranslationswherenecessary.Thefollowingtableshowsexamplesofomission.

134

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Table3Examples of CSIs tran­slated usin­g the strategy­ of omission­

No. Source text Example of omission­ 2n­d target text for referen­ce

1. Plus satchels, iPods,mo-bilephones,tubesofunde-rarmdeodorant,schoolbo-oks>(Harris2008,57).

<со всеми их шкавчикамидля обуви, запасными ком-плектамиучебников,ранца-ми, мобильниками, флако-нами с дезодорантом> (То-гоева2010,67).

O kur dar kuprinės,„iPod“ grotuvai, mobi-liejitelefonai, dezodoran-to flakonai, vadovėliai>(Bielskytė,2010,56).

2. <theselittleshopsalongthewarrenofstreetsleadinguptheButedeMon­tmartre>(Harris2008,18)

В лабиринте улиц, протя-нувшихся по склонам Хол-ма, таких крошечных мага-зинчиков полным полно;>(Тогоева2010,16)

Mon­martrokalvąkylan-čiųgatveliųlabirintųdau-gybėtokiųkrautuvėlių>(Bielskytė2010,15)

3. <wished I hadn‘t calledtoherthatdayinfrontofthe cho­co­late­ri­e­. (Harris2008,67)

Пожалела, что окликнулаеёвтотдень,когдавпервыеувидела у нашей витрины.(Тогоева2010,81)

<pasigailėjau, kad anądieną prie šokoladin­ės ją pašaukiau. (Bielskytė2010,67)

Asitwasmentionedbefore,omissionisacomparablyrarethingintranslation,includingthetranslationsunderanalysis.Theword iPod inExample1 isomittedintheRussiantext.Ifitisnotamistranslation,wecanonlyguessthereasontouseomission.Toall likelihood, thewordмобильниками standsforbothwords iPods andmobile phones,asbotharemobiledevicesandverypopulargadgetsamongtheyoung.Examples2and3arenotinstancesof‘pure’omission.Example2couldbetreatedaspartialomissionbecausehalfoftheconceptthe Bute de Montmartreisre-tainedusingthewordХолмasapropernounwhilethereferencetotheexactplaceofitslocationMontmartre isomitted. However,thesurroundingcontextcausesnodoubtswhichhillthetalkisaboutasthestorytakesplaceinMontmartre.Thelastwordtoexamineis chocolaterieinExample3whichisomittedinthetargetRussiantext. Thetranslatorusesthemetonymicconceptвитринawhichisculturallyneut-ral,but,as in thepreviousexample,morespecific informationcouldberetrievedfromthecontext.Thus,alltheexamplesaboveshouldnotbetreatedastranslationfailuresbecauseomittedinformationiscompensatedintheprecedingorsubsequentsentences.

Thenextstrategytodiscussisglobalization­.Daviesdescribesitas“theprocessofreplacingculture-specificreferenceswithonesthataremoreneutralorgeneral,in the sense that they are accessible to audiences from awider range of culturalbackgrounds(Davies2003,83).Bakernamesthisstrategyastranslationbyamo-regeneralword(superordinate) (Baker1992),Newmarkrefers to thisstrategyasto functionalequivalent (Newmark1988)andAixelausesthetermuniversalization(Aixela1996).ExamplesofCSIswhichhavebeentranslatedusingthestrategyofglobalizationarepresentedinthetablebelow.

135

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Table4

Examples of CSIs tran­slated usin­g the strategy­ of globalization­

No. Source text Example of globalization­ 2n­d target text for referen­ce1. Thereisacleardis-

tinctionherebetweentheinhabitantsoftheButteandtherestofMontmartre.(Harris2008,31).

Labaiaiškiaijuntamasskirtu-mastarpkalvossenbuviųirkitųMonmartro gyventojų>(Bielskytė2010,29)

Существуетстрогоераз-граничениемеждужителя-миButte,тоестьвершиныХолма,ипрочихобитате-лейМонмартра.(Тогоева2010,34)

2. <returnedbyaroun-daboutroutetomybed-an­d-breakfast inlowerMontmartre>(Harris2008,74)

<aplinkiniais keliais grįžti įviešbučiokambarėlįžemuti-niameMonmartre>(Bielsky-tė2010,74)

<вернуласьвсвоюжал-куюквартирку – «ночлег и завтрак»–уподножияМонмартскогохолма>(То-гоева2010,89)

3. <thatdoesthemostwonderfulSai­nt Ho­-no­rés thissideofpara-dise>(Harris2008,62)

<гдеподаютсамыезаме-чательныевмирепирож-ные с кремом> (Тогоева2010,74)

<kurgaminapačiusnuosta-biausius Sai­nt Ho­no­rés* šiapusrojaus>(Bielskytė2010,62)*Pyragaitissukremoroželeirgarsiąjavyšniaantviršaus.ŠventasisOnorėyrakepėjųglobėjas.

4. Ifinishedmycoffeeandcroissan­tbythen.(Har-ris2008,19)

Jaubuvauišgėrusikavąirsu-valgiusi raguolį. (Bielskytė2010,16)

Ктомувремнияужепокон-чила с кофеикруассаном (Тогоева2010,17)

Theword ButeinExample1isapropernounwhichisusedsynonymicallywiththe Butte de MontmartreandnamesahillgivingitsnametothesurroundingdistrictinthenorthofParis,whereasthetargettextcontainsacommonnounkalva instead(nocapitalizingalloverthenovel).Inthiscase,thewordbutte issimplytranslatedintoLithuanian,andthewordkalvadefinesany naturalelevationofthe earth’ssur-face,smallerthanamountain.InExample2acollocationbed and breakfast,whichdefinesaveryspecificlodgingestablishment,istranslatedusingaverygeneralwordhotel(viešbutis).Thelatteronereferstoalmostanytypeofestablishmentwhichpro-videslodgingandmealsandotherservices,whereasbed and breakfastusuallyoffersonlyovernightaccommodationandbreakfast.Examples3and4containthenamesof traditionalFrenchpastries.Basedon thedefinitionprovidedby theLithuaniantranslator,St. HonoréisasmallcakedecoratedwithwhippedcreamandacherryanditisnamedfortheFrenchpatronsaintofbakersandpastrychefs.TheRussiantran-slatorgeneralizesthisconceptandusesawordcombinationпирожные с кремом whichisneitherculture-specificnordistinguishingfromanyotherpastrywithcreamfilling.CroissantinExample4isaveryrichflakycrescent-shapedrollwhichhasbeenknowninLithuanianformorethanadecade.However,thewordraguolis has

136

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

abroadermeaninginLithuanianandfirstassociationsarerelatedtoLithuaniantradi-tionalcakewhichisalsoknownasragaišis.Takingintoaccounttheimportanceoffooditemsinthenovelunderanalysistheothertranslationstrategiesshouldbecon-sideredbeforeapplyingtheglobalizationstrategyasthetranslationlosscanexceedtranslationgaininthiscase.

Localization­ is the strategywhich is opposed to globalization.According toDavies,itisused“toavoidlossofeffect”and“insteadofaimingfor“culture-free”desc-riptions,they(translators)maytrytoanchorareferencefirmlyinthecultureofthetargetaudience”(Davies2003,84).Aixela(1996)namesthisstrategyasnaturaliza-tion,Baker(1992)usesthetermculturalsubstitutionandNewmark(1988)prefersculturalequivalent.Accordingtothesescholars,thetargetconceptisnotalwaysac-curate,butitiswell-knowntointhetargetculture.Davis’sstrategyoflocalizationincludesawiderangeoftranslationmethods;therefore,itwouldbeconvenienttosubdividethisstrategyintohigherleveloflocalizationandlowerleveloflocaliza-tion.Thefirstone isdescribedabove,and thesecond includes transliterationandtranscriptionor,inNewark’swords,transferenceandnaturalization(Newmark1988).ExamplesofCSIswhichhavebeentranslatedusingthestrategyoflocalizationarepresentedinthetablebelow.

Table5Examples of CSIs tran­slated usin­g the strategy­ of localization­

No. Source text Example of localization­ 2n­d target text for referen­ce1. Windylate-Octobermor-

ning in Mon­tmartre. (Harris2008,17)

VėlyvasspaliorytasMon­-martre. (Bielskytė 2010,14)

<когдаветренымутромвконцеоктябрянаМонмарт-ре>(Тогоева2010,15)

2. A blue tin plate high uponthecornergavethena-meofthesquareasPlace des faux-Mon­n­ay­eurs. (Harris2008,18).

Antkampoaukštaiprikal-tojemėlynosskardoslente-lėje buvoužrašytas skveropavadinimas „fo Mon­e-jero aikštė“. (Bielskytė2010,13).

Голубаяжестянаявывескавысоконауглусообщала,чтоэтоместоназываетсяPlace des faux-Mon­n­ay­-eurs*. (Тогоева2010,16)* ПлощадьФальшивомо-нетчиков(фр.)

3. Nowadays I am Yan­n­e Charbon­n­eau> (Harris2008,32)

DabarašesuJan­a Šarbo-n­o>(Bielskytė2010,31)Теперь я стала Янной Шарбонно> (Тогоева2010,36)

4. <Rosette went on cryinguntil Epiphan­y­> (Harris2008,29)

<Rosetė ir toliauverkė, ikipatTrijų karalių>(Bielsky-tė2010,26)И Розетт продолжаланепрерывно плакать досамого Крещения> (То-гоева2010,31)

137

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Thetranslationstrategyoflocalizationiswidelyusedintranslationofpropernouns.Examples1and2inTable5presentthenamesofplaces.TranslationofMont-martrewhichisthehillaswellasthedistrictinthenorthofParisdoesnotcauseanydifficultiesbecauseitiswellknowntobothLithuanianandRussianreadersonthecontrarytoPlace des Faux-Monnayeurs whichislikelyanon-existingsite.Thelat-terwaslocalisedintheLithuaniantargettexttranslatingthewordplaceasaikštėandadaptingthesecondpartofthepropernametoLithuanianorthography.Phonologicaland/ororthographicaladaptationistheprevailingproceduretorenderthenamesofcharactersinbothtranslationsanditisevidentfromExample3.ThetranslationoftheaChristianfeastEpiphany asTrys karaliai and Крещение inExample4 couldserveasanexampleofculturalsubstitution,butnotofphonologicalororthographicaladap-tationlikethepreviousexamples.Eventhoughthisfeastcouldbecelebrateddiffe-rentlyintermsoftraditionsoreventhedatedependingonthebranchofChristianity,bothtranslatorsusetheestablishedlocaltranslationanddonotgointofurtherexpla-nations.ThetranslationstrategyoflocalizationisthedominatingoneintranslationsofCSIsinthenovelunderanalysisandtheusageofculturalequivalentsorthewordsadaptedtothephonological/grammatical/orthographicalnormsofthetargetlanguagearecomprehensibleforthetargetreader.

Daviesalsodistinguishesthestrategyoftran­sformation­s,whichoccurs“whe-rethemodificationofaCSIseemstogobeyondglobalizationorlocalization,andcouldbeseenasanalterationordistortionoftheoriginal”(Davies2003,86).Danytėclaimsthat“Lithuaniantranslatorsusetransformationmostofteninthecasesofme-aningfulnames”(Danytė2006,209).AccordingtoDavis,“Thedecisiontomodifythecontentofatextmaybeinfluencedbythetranslator’soreditor’sassessmentofthetargetaudience’sflexibility,toleranceandwillingnesstowrestlewithpossibleobscurity”(Davies2003,86).Besides,sheaddsthat“thedistinctionbetweenthiscategoryandsomeof theothers isnotclear” (Davies2003,86).Considering thelaststatement,thisstrategywillnotbediscussedinthisarticleascertaininstancesofpossibletransformationscouldbetreatedaslocalizationorglobalization,orevenasmistranslation.

ThelasttranslationstrategyintroducedbyDaviesiscreation­ “wheretranslatorshaveactuallycreatedCSIsnotpresentintheoriginaltext”(Davies2003,88).ThisstrategyisalsocommonlyusedtotransferthemeaningfulpropernounswhichwerenotfoundinthetranslationsofHarris’snovel.

Con­cludin­g RemarksThetheoreticalresearchshowedthatknowledge,beliefs,ideas,art,morals,law,

customs,traditions,habits,feelings,myths,legends,religiouselements,geographi-calandenvironmentalelementssharedandacceptedinasocietyarecomponentsofculturewhichisasystemthatasocietyusestocopewiththeirworldandwitheachotherandtransmitsfromgenerationtogeneration.

138

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Literaryworksinadditiontotheirabilitytodescribeandreflectculturalandso-ciallives,makeasignificantimpactoncultureandsocietyitself.Fromthisperspec-tive,themaingoaloftranslatorsistogiveacompleteexplanationofwhatthewriterintendstoexpressusingaliennotionsincludingtheimplicitones.

CSIsareaveryspecificgroupofreferencesthatcausemanyproblemsintransla-tionandrequirefromtranslatorsbothlinguisticandculturalcompetencetoachieveequivalenceinmostifnotalllevelsofthetext.Toproducethetargettextofsimilarvalueasthatofthesourcetext,translatorscanemploydifferenttranslationstrate-gies.ThemostpopularmeansoftranslatingCSIsinbothtargettextsistheusageofthestrategyoflocalization,particularlythelowerleveloflocalization:themajorpart of proper names is transcribed taking into account the phonemic aspect andapplyingLithuaniangrammarrulesandtheyare transcribed/ transliteratedin theRussianversion.TheusageofLithuanianorRussianequivalentorthehigherleveloflocalizationislesscommon.Additionasafootnoteisveryoftenusedtoexplainthewordsofnon-Englishorigin,usuallyFrench.Inthosecasesextratextualadditionisusedincombinationwiththestrategyofpreservation.Thesourcewordisrepeatedinthetargettextandexplainedinafootnote.IntheRussiantranslationfootnotesareusedmoreoften:thereare42footnotesintheLithuaniantextwhiletheRussiantextcontains62extratextualadditions.Thestrategyofpreservationaloneismoreoftenusedfortranslationofsymbolictitlesandthewordswhicharerepeatedintheirorigi-nalformarecommonlyplacedbetweeninvertedcommas.TherearejustsinglecasesofpreservationfoundintheRussiantranslationduetodifferencesbetweenCyrillicandLatinalphabets.Therewerejustafewcasesofomissionestablished;itconfirmstheexistingnegativeconnotationofthistermwithtranslators’failuretorenderthenecessarytranslationunit.Sometranslationstrategieswhichweredescribedinthisarticlewerenotestablishedinthetranslationsunderanalysis.Theseincludecreationandtransformations.

Tosumup,translationstudiesaswellasculturalstudiesareextremelyholisticdisciplines,whichcombineasignificantnumberoftheoriesandpracticestostudyculturalphenomena.Correlationbetweentranslationstudiesandculturalstudiesisofparticularinterestforfurtherresearch.

Referen­ces

AixelaJ.F.Culture-specificItemsinTranslation.Translation, Power, Subversion.AlvarezE.R.,VidalM.C.A.(eds.).Clevedon,Philadelphia:MultilingualMatters,1996.

ArmalytėO.,PažūsisL.Vertimo teorijos pradmenys.Vilnius:Vilniausuniversitetoleidykla,1990.

BakerM.In Other Words: A Course Book on Translation.London:Routledge,1992.BassnettS.TheTranslationTurninCulturalStudies.Translation.PetriliL.(ed.).Amster-

dam–NewYork:Rodopi,2003,433–449.DanytėM.LithuanianTranslationsofCanadianLiterature.TheTranslationofCulturalRea-

lia.Darbai ir dienos,45, Kaunas:VDUleidykla,2006,195–214.

139

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

DaviesE.E.AGoblinoraDirtyNose?TheTreatmentofCulture-SpecificReferences inTranslationsoftheHarryPotterBooks.The Translator,9(1),Manchester:St.JeromePublishing,2003,65–100.

DimitriuR.Omission inTranslation.Perspectives: Studies in Translatology,12 (3),NewYork,London:Routledge,2004,163–175.

GrigasR.Destiny of the Nation.Vilnius:Rosma,1995.HagforsI.TheTranslationofCulture-BoundElementsintoFinnishinthePost-WarPeriod.

Meta: The Translators’ Journal,48(1–2),Montreal:LesPressesdel’UniversitedeMon-treal,2003,115–127.

HerveyS.,HigginsI.Thinking Translation: A Course in Translation Method, French-Eng-lish.London:Routledge,1992.

JamesK.CulturalImplicationsforTranslation.Translation Journal.2001.http://accurapid.com.journal/19culture2.htm(April2011).

KazakovaT.Imagery in Translation.Rоstovn/D:Feniks,2004.LeonavičienėA.Vertimo atodangos: teorija ir praktika (prancū­zų-lietuvių kalba).Kaunas:Kauno

technologijosuniversitetas,2010.LeonavičienėA.Lietuviųkultūriniųtekstoreikšmiųinterpretacijairvertimas.Kalbų studijos,19.

Kaunas:Kaunotechnologijosuniversitetas,2010,39–45.Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.Harlow:Longman,2000.MikutytėJ.Realijų rū­šys ir vertimo bū­dai.Lietuvosliteratūrosvertėjųsąjunga.http://www.

llvs.lt/?recensions=29(April2011),2005.NewmarkP.A Textbook of Translation.NewYork:Prentice-HallInternational,1988.NidaE.Towards a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures In-

volved in Bible Translating.Leiden:E.J.Brill,1964.PetrulionėL.TranslationofCulture-SpecificItemsfromEnglishintoLithuanian:theCaseof

JoanneHarris’sNovels. Kalbų studijos,21.Kaunas:Kaunotechnologijosuniversitetas,2012,43–49.

RobinsonD.Becoming a Translator: An Accelerated Course.London:Routledge,1997.SardarZ.Introducing Cultural Studies.Cambridge:IconBooksLtd.,1999.SchäffnerC.,WiesemannU.Annotated Texts for Translation: Functionalist Approaches Il-

lustrated (English-German).Clevedon,Philadelphia:MultilingualMatters,2001.StaškevičiūtėD.Translation and Culture.MasterThesis.ŠiauliaiUniversity,2005.ThriveniC.CulturalElementsinTranslation.Translation Journal,6(1),2002.http://transla-

tionjournal.net/journal//19culture.htm(April2011).WierzbickaA.Understanding Cultures through their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish,

German, and Japanese.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1997.

Primary­ sources

HarrisJ.The Lollipop Shoes.London:BlackSwan,2008.HarrisJ.Ledinukųbateliai(translatedbyE.Bielskytė).Vilnius:Versusaureus,2010.Harris J. Леденцовыетуфельки (translatedbyI.Togoyeva).Москва:Эксмо,2010.

140

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

Lolita Petrulion­ė

KULTŪRo­S IR VERTIMo­ STUdIJŲ Ko­RELIACIJA LITERATŪRINIo­ VERTIMo­ PRo­CESE

San­trauka

Pagrin­din­iai žodžiai: literatū­rinis vertimas, kultū­ra, kultū­ros studijos, kultū­rinės reali-jos, vertimo strategijos.

Straipsnyjesiekiamaapibūdintikultūrosirvertimostudijųkoreliaciją,išanalizuotiverti-mostrategijas,taikomaskultūrinėmsrealijomsverstiliteratūriniuosetekstuose.Atskleidžia-mas tarpdisciplininisvertimostudijųpobūdis ir jų ryšyssukultūrosstudijomis,aptariamivertimoproblemųkeliantyskultūriniaikonceptai,kurieišvertėjopareikalaujanetiklingvis-tinės,betirkultūrinėskompetencijos.Siekdamipatirtikuomažiauvertimonuostoliųirišlai-kytioriginalotekstovertę,vertėjaituritaikytiįvairiasvertimostrategijas.PraktinėjetyrimodalyjepavyzdžiaisuskirstytiremiantisE.E.Daviesvertimostrategijųklasifikacija,skirian-čiaseptyniaskultūriniųrealijųvertimostrategijas.Taikultūrinėsrealijosišsaugojimas,pridė-jimas,praleidimas,globalizacija, lokalizacija,vertimo transformacija irkultūrinės realijossukūrimas.PavyzdžiaisurinktiišJoanneHarrisromano„TheLollipopShoes“ (2007)irjovertimųįlietuvių(„Ledinukųbateliai“,vert.EglėBielskytė(2009))irrusų(„Леденцовыетуфельки“, vert.IrinaTogojeva(2010))kalbas.Išanalizavusabuvertimusnustatyta,kadkul-tūrinėsrealijosdaugiausiaverčiamostaikant„žemesniolygio“lokalizacijosvertimostrategi-ją.Pridėjimostrategijaišnašosformayradažnaivartojamaaiškinantneanglųkalbosžodžius,dažniausiaiprancūziškus.Rusiškamevertimeišnašosnaudojamosdažniau.Išsaugojimostra-tegijadažnaitaikomaverčiantsimboliniuspavadinimus.Dėlskirtingųalfabetų–lotyniškojoirkirilikos–rusiškamevertimerastitikpavieniaiišsaugojimostrategijosatvejai.Buvonusta-tytitikkelipraleidimoatvejai,odviejųvertimostrategijųpavyzdžių,t.y.kultūrinėsrealijossukūrimoirtransformacijų,analizuojamuosevertimuosenerasta.

Lolita Petrulion­ė

Co­RRELATIo­N o­f CULTURAL ANd TRANSLATIo­N STUdIES IN THE PRo­CESS o­f LITERARY TRANSLATIo­N

Summary­

Key­words: literary translation, culture, cultural studies, culture-specific items, transla-tion strategies.

Thearticleaimstodescribethecorrelationbetweenculturalandtranslationstudiesaswellastoanalysetranslationstrategiesforculture-specificitemsinliterarytranslation.Thepaperexplorestheinterdisciplinarycharacteroftranslationstudiesanditsrelationwithcultu-ralstudies,describesculturalreferencesthatcausemanyproblemsintranslationandrequirefromtranslatorsbothlinguisticandculturalcompetence.Toproducethetargettextofsimilar

141

Filo

logij

a 201

3 (1

8)

valueasthatofthesourcetext,translatorsshouldemploydifferenttranslationstrategies.Da-vis’sclassificationoftranslationstrategiesisusedforthepracticalpartoftheresearchandalltheinstancesareanalysed undersevenheadings:preservation,addition,omission,globali-zation,localization,transformationsandcreation.TheexampleswerecompiledfromJoanneHarris’snovelThe Lollipop Shoes (2007)anditsLithuanianandRussianversions:Ledinukų bateliai,translatedbyEglėBielskytė(2009),andЛеденцовые туфельки, translatedbyIrinaТоgоyeva(2010).Thestudyresultshavedemonstratedthatthestrategyoflocalizationhasbeenusedinbothtextsmostoften,particularlythelowerleveloflocalization.Additionasafootnoteisveryoftenusedtoexplainthewordsofnon-Englishorigin,usuallyFrench.IntheRussiantranslationfootnotesareusedmoreoften.Thestrategyofpreservationaloneismoreoftenusedfortranslationofsymbolictitles.SinglecasesofpreservationintheRussiantranslationcanbeexplainedbydifferencesbetweenCyrillicandLatinalphabets.Therewerejustafewcasesofomissionfoundandtranslationstrategiesofcreationandtransformationswerenotestablishedatall.