Translation difficulties of stylistic devices in short stories by W. Maugham

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Contents

stylistic literature maugham expressive

Introduction

Chapter 1. Basic assumptions of stylistic devices in literature

1.1 Stylistic resources of language. Lexical and lexico-syntactical stylistic devices in fiction

1.2 Approaches to translating the expressive means in literature

Chapter 2. Translation difficulties of stylistic devices in short stories by William Somerset Maugham

2.1 Style of Maugham`s writing

2.2 The pragmatic analysis of the use of expressive means in Maugham`s short stories

Introduction

This Diploma Paper is the result of theoretical investigation and practical research of the topic “Translation difficulties of stylistic devices in short stories by William Somerset Maugham”.

Figurative language is the language which uses “figures of speech” - a way of saying something other than the literal meaning of the words. Figurative language departs from literal meaning to achieve a special effect or meaning. Figures of speech are of such importance that they must always occupy a prominent place in every treatise on style or criticism.

The purpose of fiction is to extend, broaden, deepen, enrich, and expand the consciousness and souls of the many readers who will experience many literary works over many years. Using different figures of speech, writers make their works accurate, vivid, and memorable. And such a great role is played by irony, epithets, repetition and phraseological units in the investigated within this Diploma Paper Somerset Maugham`s short stories. So, the Work is devoted to the study of his figurative language.

Thus, for choosing this topic there were several reasons. First of all, it was interesting to enlarge our knowledge in the sphere of English Literature. Second, we wanted to deepen study of the theme which was arisen during the lessons of Literature. And, finally, we have understood that closer acknowledgement with the figurative language in English literature and, namely, in W. Somerset Maugham`s short stories will help us in better understanding the other more complicated linguistic, stylistic and pragmatic problems.

The main aim of the Work is to analyse figurative use of words in W. S. Maugham`s short stories.

To achieve the aim set it was necessary to solve the following tasks:

To collect from Maugham`s narrative the set of sentences containing different stylistic devices: irony, epithets, repetition and phraseological units.

To study the theory on the topic and reveal the problems which were discussed in the theoretical sources.

To interpret the use of different figures of speech in Maugham`s short stories.

To reveal Somerset Maugham`s individual style of writing.

While conducting the research investigation the following research methods were used:

Analysis is the leading research method because it was used throughout the whole work. We used it working with the literary material under our investigation for the purpose to generalize some ideas and come to the conclusions.

Compact selection was used while working with literary sources to extract the necessary sample sentences.

Description is a scientific method which is used while completing the whole Work, both in its theoretical and practical parts for studying the material under investigation and counting its results.

Generalization as the method of investigation was used in each point of practical part for systematization the information presented within each point, and, of course in the Conclusion to present general conclusions on the entire Work.

Observation as the scientific research method that consists in collecting data about different behavours, relationships, activities, objects, etc. based on the observation guide was used in the theoretical part of the Work for collecting information for it.

The statistical method was used to join all the results from practical investigation for the purpose to express them in figures (percent).

Synthesis was used for mixture and combination of different ideas, viewpoints and styles.

Our pragmatic investigation of the figurative language of Somerset Maugham was conducted on the basis of the selected Maugham`s short stories.

The logics of investigation suggested us the following structure of the Work:

The Introduction includes the main goal and objectives of the investigation, the actuality of the topic and the motives for its choice.

Chapter I deals with the preliminaries of the stylistic devices in narrative, namely, irony, epithet, repetition and phraseological unit.

Chapter II deals with pragmatic investigation of the figurative use of words in Somerset Maugham`s short stories. The statistical results of investigation are also within this chapter.

The Conclusion contains the results of the pragmatic investigation on the topic under study.

Bibliography lists the material that helped the researcher in the overall study of the abovementioned problem and at to realize the objectives of investigation.

Appendix comprises different tables, schemes and diagrams which are essential on the investigated material.

Chapter I. Basic assumptions of stylistic devices in literature

Stylistic resources of language. Lexical and lexico-syntactical stylistic devices in fiction.

Words in literal expressions denote what they mean according to common or dictionary usage, while words in figurative expressions connote additional layers of meaning. When the human ear or eye receives the message, the mind must interpret the data to convert it into meaning. This involves the use of a cognitive framework which is made up of memories of all the possible meanings that might be available to apply to the particular words in their context. This set of memories will give prominence to the most common or literal meanings, but also suggest reasons for attributing different meanings. [23, 84]

Classical and traditional linguistics by some counts identified more than 250 different figures of speech. More recently, some have reduced the list to more manageable proportions; others have claimed to be able to classify all figurative language as either metaphor or metonymy. The most common of them are: accumulation, alliteration, anaphora, anticlimax, antithesis, apostrophe, climax, connotation, epithet, euphemism, example, hyperbole, irony, leitmotif, litotes, metaphor, metonymy, onomatopoeia, oxymoron, paradox, parallelism, periphrasis, personification, play on words, pun, rhetorical question, simile, symbol, synecdoche, understatement. [21, 212]

It has been customary to characterize literal as the antonym of figurative as if the two are in dialectical opposition. But this view is not sustainable. Each semiotic niche within a culture will reach agreement about the usual or actual meaning of words in common use. This will not be fixed but will change over time. Hence, for example, the original definition of wicked referred to behaviour that was immoral or sinful, but in some subcultures, the word now carries connotations of positive approval. So, when the audience begins to decode the incoming message, the literal meaning of the whole will be the one using the commonly-used meaning for each word. Word-for-word translation between two languages won't translate the understanding of the original. The full system of interpretation requires the application of a complex set of rules to place the provisional meanings allocated to the individual words into a full context in which all the available information, linguistic and nonlinguistic, will be applied to determine where the final translation will sit on the spectrum of meaning from literal to figurative. [27, 138]

Cognitive linguistics, in particular, may ultimately declare all distinction between literal and figurative language irrelevant. What gets called literal meaning is only a plausible default in minimally specified contexts. It is not clear that the notion `literal meaning' plays any privileged role in the on-line construction of meaning. The `literal meaning' is not a special form of meaning, as demonstrated by the example above; it is only the meaning the reader is most likely to assign to a word or phrase if he or she knows nothing about the context in which it is to be used. The writer or speaker describes something through the use of unusual comparisons, for effect, interest, and to make things clearer. The result of using this technique is the creation of interesting images. Figurative language is not intended to be interpreted in a literal sense. [34, 112]

It is well-known by now that among multiple functions of the word the main one is to denote, denotational meaning thus being the major semantic characteristic of the word.

Each type of intended substitution results in a stylistic device called also a trope.

Stylistic devices which are used in literature form two large classes:

lexical stylistic devices, and

lexico-syntactical stylistic devices. [19, 12]

The most frequently used, well known and elaborated among the lexical stylistic devices are: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, play on words, irony, epithet, hyperbole, understatement and oxymoron. Thus:

Epithet is a descriptive word or phrase added to or substituted for the name of a person or thing, highlighting a characteristic feature or quality.

E.g.: He's a proud, haughty, consequential, turned-nosed peacock. [37, 82]

Irony is a figure of speech which is a subtle from a humour which involves saying things that are not really meant.

E.g.: His head was always most valuable when he had lost it. [37, 91]

Hyperbole is a stylistic device in which emphasis is achieved through deliberate exaggeration.

E.g.: The girls were dressed to kill. [37, 88]

Metaphor is a figure of speech which involves an implied comparison between two relatively unlike things using a form of be. The comparison is not announced by like or as.

E.g.: She was handsome in a rather leonine way. Where this girl was a lioness, the other was a panther - lithe and quick. [37, 118]

Metonymy is a figure of speech in which an attribute of something is used to stand for the thing itself, such as “laurels” when it stands for “glory” or “brass” when it stands for “military officers”.

E.g.: She saw around her, clustered about the white tables, multitudes of violently red lips, powdered cheeks, cold, hard eyes, self-possessed arrogant faces, and insolent bosoms. [37, 119]

Oxymoron is a stylistic device the syntactic and semantic structures of which come to clashes.

E.g.: Sprinting towards the elevator he felt amazed at his own cowardly courage. [37, 194]

Play on words is a humorous use of words that involves a word or phrase that has more than one possible meaning.

E.g.: “Have you been seeing any spirits?” “Or taking any?” - added Bob Alien. [37, 204]

1.1 Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which the word for part of something is used to mean the whole, for example, “sail” for “boat,” or vice versa

E.g.: His mind was alert and people asked him to dinner not for old times' sake, but because he was worth his salt. [37, 288]

Understatement is a statement, or a way of expressing yourself, that is deliberately less forceful or dramatic than the subject would seem to justify or require.

E.g.: Her family is one aunt about a thousand years old. [37, 412]

The other large class of stylistic devices, as it was mentioned above, is lexico-syntactical stylistic devices which include the following most frequently used figures of speech: antithesis, climax, anticlimax, repetition, simile, litotes, periphrasis. Syntactical stylistic devices add logical, emotive, expressive information to the utterance regardless of lexical meanings of sentence components. There are certain structures though, whose emphasis depends not only on the arrangement of sentence members but also on the lexico-semantic aspect of the utterance. Thus: [1, 50]

Anticlimax is a figure of speech which expresses an ordinary or unsatisfying event that follows an increasingly exciting, dramatic, or unusual series of events or a period of increasing anticipation and excitement.

E.g.: We were all in аll tо one another, it was the morning of life, it was bliss, it was frenzy, it was everything else of that sort in the highest degree. [1, 52]

Antithesis is a figure of speech which denotes any active confrontation, emphasized co-occurrence of notions, really or presumably opposed by means of dictionary or contextual antonyms.

E.g.: Mrs. Nork had a large home and a small husband. [1, 52]

Climax is a figure of speech in which each next word combination (clause, sentence) is logically more important or emotionally stronger and more explicit.

E.g.: Like a well, like a vault, like a tomb, the prison had no knowledge of the brightness outside. [1, 55]

Litotes is a two-component structure in which two negations are joined to give a positive evaluation.

E.g.: It was not unnatural if Gilbert felt a certain embarrassment. [1, 138]

Periphrasis is a stylistic device which basically consists of using a roundabout form of expression instead of a simpler one, i.e. of using a more or less complicated syntactical structure instead of a word.

E.g.: His face was red, the back of his neck overflowed his collar and there had recently been published a second edition of his chin. [1, 211]

Repetition is a rhetoric device which consists in the simple repeating of a word, within a sentence or a poetical line, with no particular placement of the words, this is to make emphasis. This is such a common literary device that it is almost never even noted as a figure of speech.

E.g.: Today, as never before, the fates of men are so intimately linked

to one another that a disaster for one is a disaster for everybody. [1, 215]

Simile is a figure of speech which involves a direct comparison between two unlike things, usually with the words like or as.

E.g.: She has always been as live as a bird. [1, 329]

To sum up, it should be noted that appealing to the expressive means provides new ways of looking at the world. It always makes use of a comparison between different things. Figurative language compares two things that are different in enough ways. Literary language is a figurative one which uses a lot of different expressive stylistic devices among which are the following: anticlimax, antithesis, climax, epithet, hyperbole, irony, litotes, metaphor, metonymy, oxymoron, periphrasis, pun, repetition, simile, synecdoche, understatement. Stylistic devices add logical, emotive, expressive information to the utterance regardless of lexical meanings of sentence components.

1.2 Approaches to translating the expressive means in literature

Translation plays an important role in increasing awareness and understanding among diverse cultures and nations. Literary translations in particular help these different cultures reach a compromise. The increasing interest in the literature of other languages has required a more studious regard for the problems of literary translation. A translator deals with a text which involves linguistic, pragmatic and cultural elements. Such factors often pose problems to target readers. More often than not, translators pay more attention to linguistic and cultural elements than to the pragmatic aspects of a source text. Blatant disregard for these pragmatic features should result in pragmatic problems in the target text. Thus, the target text is doomed to a complete failure. Landers (2001: 7) argues that literary translation, at least in the English-speaking world, faces a difficulty that texts originally written in English do not: resistance by the public to reading literature in translation… In technical translation, for example, style is not a consideration so long as the informational content makes its way unaltered from SL to TL… In literary translation, the order of the cars - which is to say the style - can make the difference between a lively, highly readable translation and a stilted, rigid, and artificial rendering that strips the original of its artistic and aesthetic essence, even its very soul.

Literary translation is a type of translation which is distinguished from translation in general. A literary translation must reflect the imaginative, intellectual and intuitive writing of the author. In fact, literature is distinguished by its aesthetics. Little concern has been devoted to the aesthetics of literary translations because these translations are popularly perceived as unoriginal (Devy 1999: 183). Belhaag (1997: 20) summarizes the characteristics of literary translations: - expressive - connotative The Pragmatic Approach 3 - symbolic - focusing on both form and content - subjective - allowing multiple interpretation - timeless and universal - using special devices to `heighten' communicative effect - tendency to deviate from the language norms Moreover, literary translations must reflect all the literary features of the source text such as sound effects, morphophonemic selection of words, figures of speech …etc. (Riffaterre 1992: 204-205). Gutt (1991) stresses that in translating a literary work one should preserve the style of the original text. In accordance with Gutt, this wider, stylistic dimension of communication is, of course, of special interest to literary studies, and so it is not surprising that theorists concerned with literary translation have paid considerable attention to the preservation of the stylistic properties of texts" (1991: 123). A writer's style is known “from the words he chooses or the way he constructs his sentences” (1991: 123). According to Savory (1957), literal translation of a literary work does not reproduce the effect of the original. Because literature allows multiple interpretation, there should be freedom in literary translations to consider a wide range of implicatures. Thus, rendering the equivalent effect of the original requires freedom to explore different interpretations. That approach is meant to achieve relevance in translation (1991: 156-157).

Basically, translation consists of transferring the meaning of the source language into the target language. That process is done by changing the form of the first language to the form of the second language. Thus, it is meaning which is being transferred and must be held constant. But what type of meaning a translator should transfer! Generally, linguists distinguish different types of meaning. When it relates language to events, entities, etc., it is called referential / denotative meaning. When it relates language to the mental state of the speaker, it is called attitudinal / connotative / expressive meaning. If the extra-linguistic situation affects the interpretation of text, it is called contextual / functional / interpersonal / situational meaning (Crystal 1997: 237). Larson (1984: 36) adds organizational meaning to the list to refer to the grammatical structure of a text such as deictics, repetition, groupings, and information organization that form a coherent text. Any level in language has its own significance because it plays a role in the total meaning, e.g. phonetic, lexical, grammatical, semantic and pragmatic meanings. In semantics the word "mean" can be applied to words and sentences in the sense of `equivalent to' (Hurford and Heasley 1983: 3). In pragmatics it can be applied to speakers in the sense of "intend". This study is concerned with pragmatic meaning in literary translation. Pragmatic meaning is the utterance meaning or the speaker meaning as opposed to the sentence meaning. Grice (1975) distinguishes those two types of meaning as non-natural meaning and natural meaning (Levinson 1983: 16). The attention given to pragmatic facts and principles in the course of translation can enhance the understanding of the text and improve the quality of translation. A good translation is not simply concerned with transferring the propositional content of the source language text (SLT), but also with its other pragmatic features. The study focuses on such neglected aspects of translation as speech acts, presuppositions, implicatures, politeness and deictic expressions in literary translation. Those features will be explained below in a simple way. Abdel-Hafiz (2003: 230) stresses that ignoring such pragmatic problems may contort the translation and lessen the pleasure of the English reader. El-Zeini (1994: XVI) states that those pragmatic problems produce an inaccurate translation. She clarifies that the English reader's response is different from that of the Arab reader because of the different language systems of Arabic and English (1994: 45).

The main objective of a translation is to “communicate the meaning of the original accurately and clearly to the readers of translation” (Gutt 1991: 66). Meaning with all its various respects should be preserved. To judge the similarity of meaning a translator has to experience the target language text (TLT). S/he should acquire the sense of "the other meaning" (El-Shiyab et al 2000: 283). If there is vagueness in the target language text (TLT), s/he has the license to modify. Translation is defined as “a movement in the words used to make language along the context in which words or sentences are used" (2000: 283). That skill is called "the verbal art" according to (Bakhtin 1981) (2000: 283). A good translator should find a way in which the desired meaning can be expressed in the receptor language even if the TL form is different from the SL form. Darwish (1989) points out how meaning is conveyed to the target audience. He explains - following Catford (1965) - that meaning belongs to language and concepts belong to the mind. Thus, meaning cannot be translated unless we transfer concepts. Arabic meaning is translated into English meaning through transferring concepts. Concepts are universal. In addition to the pragmatic approach to translation there are other approaches to translation that may involve other aspects such as structural, cultural, functional etc. However, recent translation approaches can be divided into linguistics-based approaches and cultural approaches. On the one hand, linguistics-oriented approaches have been accused of being limited in their explanation because they do not consider the social cultural values in translation. They have been also criticized for being directed to specialist linguists. They are repressive (Venuti 1998: 1-26). Yet, Venuti does not suggest abandoning those approaches. Pragmatics is also criticized for its individualism and its idealism. “Individuals are not usually free to manipulate language to achieve their goals, but that they are constrained by social conventions” (Fairchlough 1989 cited in Cutting 2002: 119). On the other hand, cultural approaches highlight cultural differences between the source text and the target text. In fact, both linguistic and cultural studies of translation are important. “Translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions”(Toury 2000: 200).

The trend of unifying meaning is opposed by a cultural approach which has underscored the differences of languages and viewed translation as “a locus for the celebration of difference”(May 1994: 42). The cultural approach has stressed the cultural turn in translation (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990). Then, translation is defined as translating cultures not languages (Ivir 1987: 35; Pym 1992; Lefevere 1992; Even-Zohor 1990; Snell-Hornby 1990) (Tymoczko 1999: 21). In fact, translation is a complex entity, which involves a large number of variables other than reproduction of meaning. In this regard, in the process of translating a text the translator should know not only the languages involved, but also their cultures and rhetorical traditions (Enkvist 1991: 14-15). Being receiver and producer of text, the translator “has the double duty of perceiving the meaning potential of particular choices within the cultural and linguistic community of the source text and relaying the same potential, by suitable linguistic means, to a target readership” (Mason 1994: 23). Baker believes that “no approach, however sophisticated, can provide the answer to all the questions raised in the discipline” (2001: 280). She views the different approaches as “complementary rather than mutually exclusive”(2001: 280). Newmark (1982: 12) argues that “a general theory cannot propose a single method (e.g. dynamic equivalence), but must be concerned with the full range of text-types and their corresponding translation criteria, as well as the major variables involved”. Thus, the study does not present a general theory of translation. Rather, it introduces a pragmatic approach to translation. Different theories and models can be counted in the field of translation. Bell (1991: 23-24) distinguishes between the theory and the model. He shows that a theory explains a phenomenon and is communicated to others in the form of a model. A model is “an attempt at a description rather than an explanation” (1991: 26). The term "approach" might be more appropriate (1991: 27). Vinay and Darblent (1958: 84) recognize two types of translations:

1- Direct translations where the linguistic features of the SLT are replaced by their equivalents in the TLT, and 2- Oblique translations where complex methods are used to render certain stylistic effects. According to Jakobson (1959: 114) there are different kinds of translation. He differentiates three ways of interpreting a verbal sign: 1- Intralingual (rewording): a verbal sign is interpreted to another within the same language. 2- Interlingual (translation proper): a verbal sign is interpreted to another in a different language. 3- Intersemiotic (transmutation): a verbal sign is interpreted to a nonverbal sign. Nida (1976) distinguishes three theories of translation: 1-Philological (Belloc 1931, Cary and Jumpelt 1963, and Brower 1966) 2-Linguistic2 (Catford 1965) 3-Sociolinguistic (Nida and Taber 1969) Two centuries ago Tytler (1791) set up a series of do's and don'ts - which act as general laws of translation that teach translators what they ought and ought not to do (Bell 1991:10). Then, linguistics emerged with its descriptive type. According to Bell (1991:10), most translation theorists except Nida, Catford and few theorists follow the prescriptive thinking of the past. The sociolinguistic theory differs from the linguistic theory in that it adds a communicative dimension and a functional perspective to translation (Shaheen 1998: 27-28). According to Nida (1964b: 127), the nature of the message determines the types of translations. A translation depends on the degree of focus on the form or the content. Two types of translations are distinguished: 1- a formal equivalence translation in which the form and content of the original message is to be preserved, and 2- a dynamic equivalence translation which focuses on creating an equivalent effect in the TLT. Nida and Taber (1969: 12) direct the attention towards the receptor of the message not the form of the message. In other words, the relationship between the TL receptor and the message should be dynamic to be similar to the relationship between the original receptor and the message. According to Larson (1984), there are two types of translations: 1- form-based or literal translations which transmit the form of the SLT, and 2- meaning-based or idiomatic translations which “communicate the meaning of the SL text in the natural forms of the receptor language” (1984: 15). This type of translation has been developed by Beekman and Callow (1974) (Gutt 1991: 68). Then, Newmark (1988) presents a pair of terms: 1- a semantic translation in which the SLT semantic and syntactic structures are rendered in the TLT, and 2- a communicative translation which creates an equivalent effect in the receptor language. It seems that Nida's formal translation, Larson's literal translation and Newmark's semantic translation focus on the form of the text. Nevertheless, literal translation ignores context. Similarly, Nida's dynamic translation, Larson's idiomatic translation and Newmark's communicative translation seek one goal; that is, finding an equivalent effect. This fact has been affirmed by Gutt (1991: 68). Gutt finds that the dynamic translation resembles the idiomatic translation. Both convey the message of the original text to the receptor audience and are equivalent to the original text in a dynamic way. According to Neubert (1991: 17-26), four approaches of translation can be distinguished out of seven: 1- Linguistic 2- Communicative/functional 3-Psycholinguistic 4-Sociocultural Abdel-Hafiz (2003: 229) differentiates 3 approaches: 1- Linguistic 2- Pragmatic 3- Cultural Christiane Nord (1991: 72-73) adds two new terms: "documentary" vs. "instrumental" translations. Documentary translations preserve the original exoticizing flavor of the SLT. An instrumental translation conveys the SL message in a new communicative action in the TL. Nord's difference between documentary and instrumental translations has already been utilized by House (1981) when she differentiated between "overt" and "covert" translations. Literary translation is seen as a type of documentary translation (Nord 1991). By and large, types of translation are radically diverse but depend mainly on a central concept, that is, equivalence. Therefore, many translation theorists define translation in terms of equivalence relation; relation between the SLT and the TLT. The translator's objective and the text type determine the type of equivalence used in the process of translation. Equivalence is a relationship of equality between the SLT and the TLT. In fact, the concept is encompassed by vagueness. Historically, it was perceived in terms of accuracy and fidelity (Sager 1997: 25). Vinay and Darblent (2000) deal with the methods of creating equivalent texts (2000: 90). Jakobson (2000) also identifies equivalence as “the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguists” (2000: 114). As Hartman and Stork (1972) summarize the concept, "texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially), in respect of different levels of presentation (equivalent in respect of context, of semantics, of grammar, of lexis, etc.) and at different ranks (word-forword, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence)" (1972: 713 cited in Bell 1991: 6). With regard to equivalence, translation theorists range from proponents that define translation in terms of equivalence (Catford 1965; Nida and Taber 1969; Toury 1980; Pym 1992,1995; Koller 1995 cited in Kenny 2001: 77) to opponents that reject equivalence (Snell-Hornby 1988; Gentzler 1993 cited in Kenny 2001: 77). According to Sager (1997), pragmatic equivalence and functional equivalence are widely used in the recent time. Sager points out that pragmatic equivalence is used to modify the content (addition and reduction) while functional equivalence is used to preserve the purpose of the original; “a writer intention” and “a reader expectation”. Thus, both constitute a dynamic view of translation (1997: 32).

It is worth pausing for a moment to wonder which type of equivalence should be given priority. Translation theorists answered this question differently. Vinay and Darblent (1958) believe that if there is no synonymy in the bilingual dictionary, the translator has to resort to what they called “situational equivalence”; creating a new situation in the target context (Vinay and Darblent 2000: 91). Then, Jakobson (1959) introduces the term “equivalence in difference” (Jakobson 2000: 114). It depends on his semiotic approach to translation; it “involves two equivalent messages in two different codes” (2000: 114). Leonardi (2000: 3) notes that both (Vinay and Darblent 1958) and (Jokobson 1959) “recognize the limitations of a linguistic theory” because they licensed the use of non-linguistic methods such as loan-translation and neologisms. Nida (1964) introduces two types of equivalence: formal and dynamic; the former focuses on the form and content of the message while the latter on producing equivalent effect. Then, Catford (1965) differentiates between formal correspondence and textual equivalence. He offers “departures from formal correspondence” because of the grammatical and lexical shifts that occur at the different levels and in the different categories (Catford 2000: 143). Widdowson (1979) presents three types of equivalence: structural, semantic, and pragmatic. The first accounts for the formal similarity between surface forms of sentences. The second relates different surface forms to a common deep structure. The third relates surface forms to their communicative function (El Menoufy 1982: 238-252). Then, Newmark (1977) distinguishes a semantic equivalence from a communicative equivalence which concerns an equivalent effect on the TL reader. According to El Menoufy (1982: 243), it is useless to choose between semantic and communicative equivalence in translation because the translator first starts with the semantic (replacing in the TLT the invariant core of the SLT), then resorts to the communicative. According to Baker (1992: 5), equivalence is sought “for the sake of convenience”. A certain type of equivalence is given priority to other types in a certain situation. She comments, “the ultimate aim of a translator, in most cases, is to achieve a measure of equivalence at text level, rather than at word or phrase level”(1992: 112). She advocates textual equivalence. Baker emphasizes that the job of the translator is to be concerned with “communicating the overall meaning of a stretch of language” (1992: 10). Baker's view does not mean that equivalence at word level should not be sought in some contexts. But at the morpheme level there is no equivalence (Halliday 1967 cited in Newmark 1991: 67). The more a translator seeks equivalence at a higher level the more successful s/he is. One has to move from lower levels (micro levels) to higher levels (macro levels). That has been approved by Halliday (2001) and termed “a principle of hierarchy of values” (2001: 17 cited in Zequan 2004: 9). On the contrary, there is a recent trend that denies equivalence. It defines translation not in terms of equivalence, but in terms of difference. While equivalence works to reduce linguistic and cultural differences, this trend elevates the notion of difference between the original and the translation (cf. Venuti 1998).

Chapter 2. Translation difficulties of stylistic devices in short stories by William Somerset Maugham

2.1 Style of Maugham`s writing

William Somerset Maugham is one of the best known English writers of the 20th century. He was not only a novelist, but also a one of the most successful dramatist and short-story writers. Realistic portrayal of life, keen character observation, and interesting plots coupled with beautiful, expressive language, simple and lucid style, place Somerset Maugham on a level with the greatest English writers of the 20th century.

Maugham's skill in handling plot has been compared with the manner of Guy de Maupassant. His stories are told in clear, economical style with cynical or resigned undertone. The many short stories and books by W. Somerset Maugham contain a unique writing style. His writing style is simple yet it contains a complex and insightful opinion, and narrative. [33, 3]

Predictably, critics have focused on what is “traditional” in Maugham's writing - his handling of plot, surprise and suspense, his depiction of an exceptionally international, socially wide range of characters - and in the process have tended to miss what is original about it. Something still less often commented on in Maugham's work is his way of putting storytellers and the power of narrative into the foreground, repeatedly framing texts within texts. If he is not a modernist, he is, at least in this respect, a proto-postmodernist. [2, 32]

There is something quietly unassuming and gently diffident about Somerset Maugham's writing that must surely be a reflection of some sector of his soul, despite the public extravagance of that portion of his wildly eclectic life. But even then he realized the unfortunate tendency of success to corrupt the quietest of souls.

All Maugham's work, no matter how fictionalized or fabricated the details of any scene, character, or episode, seeks to convey the truth, whatever that might turn out to be, and no matter how painful it might finally be to tell it. Truth has consequences for the human mind that are as effective as any drug. The pattern of truth, indeed, carves a new perception that is as physical a change as any other. [8, 17]

Maugham`s breakthrough came only when he was able to accept his inadequacies as a writer. Once he had done that, Maugham observed, he could focus on cultivating his strengths.

In the end, Maugham`s style was plain; his insights were rarely profound. Yet in clear, economical prose, he could accurately describe the small details of the everyday world.

His short stories tell of odd, unusual and surprising experiences with dramatic, exciting intensity. His favorite method is narration through a third person, or indirect narration, which enables him to pass his remarks without apparent intrusion. [6, 288]

Maugham wrote with outstanding clarity and frankness in ways contemporary readers on the whole found easier to assimilate. True, it can be hard to get past some of the period- and class-based language he falls into. All this is confidently set out on the basis of thorough research, some of which must have been difficult to do. The materials are vast and widely scattered: Maugham's friendships were almost as many as his writings and few of those he knew, especially once he became famous, failed to record their own versions of him in letters and journals as well as published books. On the other hand, in a series of bonfires at Cap Ferrat, he destroyed all the evidence about himself that he could find while persuading many others to cooperate in the process and imposing strict terms on his literary executors. So although the story is often based on reliable sources, it inevitably also sometimes derives from third-hand anecdotes or from fiction, especially Maugham's own. The reader is not alerted to the differences, and, while some of them can be identified from the book endnotes, these references are patchy and incomplete. What reads like a thoroughly traditional, archive-based, cradle-to-grave biography in fact includes a good deal of gossip and speculation. [33, 48]

While, in part for legal reasons, he could be evasive about the specific ways in which his fiction used real life - especially, and often to their cost, real people - he was always open about how this operated in general terms.

For Maugham writing was the life he lived. Punctilious in ensuring that his guests at Cap Ferrat were well looked after, he was rich enough not to have to look after them himself and, having satisfied himself that each day had begun as everyone wanted, went up to the rooftop workroom which was the most important of his worlds. Maugham believed that there is a true harmony in the contradictions of mankind and that the normal is in reality the abnormal. [8, 22]

Many critics praised Maugham's clear-cut prose. At his best he is an incomparable story-teller. He writes with lucidity and almost ostentatious simplicity. Giving him his due for brilliance of style, a pointed ridicule of many social vices, such as snobbery, money-worship, pretence, self-interest, etc., the reader realizes, however, his cynical attitude to mankind. His ironical cynicism combined with a keen wit and power of observation affords him effective means of portraying English reality without shrinking before its seamy side. [30, 36]

To sum up, it should be noted that it is the rare writer who excels at all aspects of the craft. There are masterful stylists who, at bottom, have remarkably little to say. And there are vigorous thinkers whose sentences plod along like the lumbering steps of a draft horse. As Maugham has shown, becoming a better writer involves confronting readers` limitations - identifying those qualities that stubbornly resist all our efforts to improve them. But even more important is the next step: building on our strengths. Above all, this steady-eyed biography of an extraordinary, extravagant, generous and bitter artist will not only fascinate its readers but encourage some to go to his work for the first time.

2.2 The Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Expressive Means in Maugham`s

Short Stories.

For the purpose of writing this part of the Diploma Paper several kinds of expressive means were selected. Thus, epithets, irony, repetition and phraseological units are the most widely spread devices in Somerset Maugham`s short stories that is why they became the research material for the pragmatic investigation of the topic under study.

Размещено на Allbest.ru