Precedent phenomena and problems of translation: some russian to english examples

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

PRECEDENT PHENOMENA AND PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATION: SOME RUSSIAN TO ENGLISH EXAMPLES

Raisa N.

Mikhail Z.

It is widely known that a language is not just a collection of words shaped phonetically and connected via grammatical rules; instead, a language also reflects plenty of cultural peculiarities of those who speak it. Sometimes a foreigner who has thoroughly learned Russian grammar and who, let us assume, knows 3000 words cannot guess the meaning of an elementary phrase, even though all the words in the phrase might be familiar to him. Quite often, this confusion happens because the phrase contains a cultural or historical reference unfamiliar to the non-native speaker. Such widespread phenomena are not only a characteristic feature of the Russian language, but of the majority of world languages. In a language, it is possible to recognize such clusters of words in which the meaning of the parts is not equal to the meaning of the whole phrase. In other words, such a cluster bears a code that is culturally specific. The code is likely to be known only to native speakers of the language, given they are possessors of the particular ethnic knowledge, which Herbert Clark defines as “common ground”.

A precedent phenomenon may act as one of the main means for phrase encoding. The usage of precedent phenomena is a characteristic feature of most languages, but in this paper we would like to give some examples of precedent phenomena of the Russian language and to focus on the problem of translation, in other words, problems of decoding cultural peculiarities of the language to non-native speakers.

The term “precedent text” was first used in the 1980s by the Russian linguist, Yuri Karaulov, in his work on lingual identity. He defined it as a special text 1) which is meaningful for an individual in cognitive or emotional spheres; 2) which is well-known to the wide milieu of the individual including his predecessors and contemporaries; and 3) the allusion to which is constant in the spoken discourse of the individual [Karaulov 1986:105].

Ten years later, three independent groups of Russian scholars published their works on the concept. In 1997 a series of academic articles and large scholarly works were issued by a group of linguists which included Viktoria Krasnykh, Dmitry Gudkov, Irina Zakharenko and D. Bagaeva. They further defined the term introduced by Karaulov, highlighting that precedent phenomena (henceforth PP) should be known to average members of an ethnic-cultural group. They assume that PP comprise a significant part of the cognitive database of the nation. This database reflects knowledge which is valuable and relevant to all language users as it determines their linguistic worldview. Krasnykh et al. also give the first classification of PP. They differentiate verbal and non-verbal PP. Among the verbal varieties they distinguish precedent texts, precedent situations, precedent names and precedent sayings. They also emphasize that behind each precedent phenomenon there is a certain invariant of understanding - a simplified signifier known to a vast majority of native speakers.

In 2000, the Russian linguist Gennady Slyshkin proposed a hypothesis that there exist precedent phenomena relevant to only a few people (for instance, family precedent phenomena or precedent phenomena of a student group). A good example illustrating Slyshkin's hypothesis is the story of an event which happened to a Russian-speaking family. In that family there was a small daughter who was decided to take chess lessons. Those chess lessons were given by a rather old gentleman who had false teeth. On account of that he would spit when he spoke, especially when he said the phrase “поставь пешку” which means “move a pawn”. The girl finally gave up chess lessons partly because of the phrase “поставь пешку”. Moreover, it became a precedent phenomenon for all members of the family. “Поставь пешку” was treated as something disgusting, and for the members of the family, referred to any inappropriate behavior. Thus, the colloquial phrase “Ну, что ты бабушка, прям как этот `поставь пешку'!” (Well, Grandma, you are just like that `move a pawn'!) bears a very peculiar and special meaning for people who share knowledge of the story, though for others the phrase makes no sense at all.

In his research, Slyshkin also notes that certain phrases may act as PP for a short period of time, that is, they might be unknown to the ancestors of an individual, and moreover, such PP may drop out of usage before the change of generation occurs (for example, a “precedent” advertisement or a joke) [Slyshkin 2000:29]. Thus, Slyshkin has widened Karaulov's definition. According to his view, by the term “precedent text” a lot of concepts may be understood, including idioms and proverbs which simply lost their connection with the “pre-text”.

Yet, another Russian scholar, Alla Evtyugina, gives her own definition of PP. Her view is based on assumptions of how PP work in a language system. She believes that the precedent text is a cultural sign which fulfills a special pragmatic function; it establishes relation between two texts, one of which is stored in the mutual memory of a cultural group. Her views are close to the theory of intertextuality which has first been coined by Julia Kristeva, though it has also been discussed by various other scholars, including Mikhail Bakhtin and Yuri Lotman. According to Evtyugina, PP fasten contemporary texts with those previously written. Relying on this assumption, one can regard literary discourse as a mirror in which all previously written texts are reflected by means of PP.

As this paper focuses on translation problems, we are going to regard PP in terms of cross-cultural communication. Therefore we understand precedent phenomena to be special language units which are able to allude to a certain cultural artifact. We believe that without an allusion to a story well-known within a certain group of people (it might be a single family or the population of a whole country) the effectiveness of precedent phenomena is impossible. For example, in the situation where a group of Russians gets lost because they are led astray by one member of their group, it is fair to call this person Ivan Susanin. The name, Ivan Susanin, has a specific meaning because it functions for Russians as a precedent phenomenon. This name refers to the Time of Troubles when a Russian peasant, Ivan Susanin, trapped a detachment of Polish soldiers who had been sent to kill the Russian tzar. Ivan Susanin led them into a forest, where they all died, since they could not find their way back. Therefore a person who is guilty of misleading might be derogatorily called Ivan Susanin. Yet, if you call such person by some other name, for example by one of ours, the phrase Ну, завел ты нас, Михаил Золотарев (Where did you bring us, Mikhail Zolotarev?) will have no encoded meaning, for like the group of Russians, this name, unfortunately (or fortunately), contains no cultural meaning. precedent translator emotional linguistic

We distinguish two types of PP. The first type is represented by PP which are formed from the elements of the artifact to which they allude. For example, if one utilizes a precedent phenomenon which alludes to a novel, the concept of the PP would be rendered precisely by the words of this particular novel. In other words, the novel (an artifact which is stored in the speaker's consciousness as a mental model) will be reduced to one phrase or one word which usually turns out to be its title. The second group consists of PP which are formed with the help of `ordinary' words but somehow manage to allude to the artifact (mainly here the form of the artifact is precisely preserved). For instance, the PP Модники и модницы объединяйтесь! (Fops and foppesses unite!) repeats the form of the well-known Marxist slogan: Пролетарии всех стран соединяйтесь! (Proletarians of all countries unite!).

PP pose a certain obstacle for the process of cross-cultural communication. Besides the traditional knowledge of grammar and vocabulary, additional knowledge of cultural peculiarities is required for a translator. Furthermore, the translator should be aware of what techniques can be applied in translation of culturally specific language units.

Having analyzed fictional novels and their translations from English into Russian and vice versa, we ascertained that there might be distinguished two main and rather popular methods of precedent phenomena translation. The first one is a descriptive method. According to this method, PP are translated literally (word-for-word), and a translator often provides recipients of a translation with a commentary, the function of which is to supply readers with background knowledge. The other method is substitution. A translator finds an appropriate equivalent of a precedent phenomenon in the target language. The equivalent usually has an expression plane different from the source-language precedent phenomenon. The main disadvantage of this method is that it does not render the lexical meaning of precedent phenomena, though it helps to preserve the function of the language unit. We assume that PP may fulfill various functions in speech, depending on their communicants' intentions. However, we believe that there is a function which is significant for choosing a translation technique. The usage of a precedent phenomenon is strongly dependent upon a word play, wherein a speaker using a precedent phenomenon alludes to a story without naming it directly and an addressee gets to solve the `riddle' in order to understand the meaning correctly [Rogozina 2010:74]. This function is often called ludic. The results of our analysis demonstrate that the substitution device allows translators to render the ludic function of PP. Moreover, when the ludic function is dominant, the method of substitution is most productive. The following abstract from Lewis Carroll Alice's Adventures in Wonderland illustrates this assumption.

In this abstract Lewis Carroll utilizes the English idiomatic expression `to grin like a Cheshire cat'. The duchess' train of thought is as follows: `all Cheshire cats grin - this cat is a Cheshire cat - therefore he must grin'. In translation this logic might be lost, as native Russian speakers are not aware of the English idiom. Boris Zakhoder, who uses the descriptive method, compensates for the loss by providing readers with commentary that explains the hidden meaning.

А вы знаете, кто такой Чеширский Кот? Одни ученые говорят, что на самом деле чеширский кот - это просто... сыр! В старину в Англии был такой сорт сыра - в виде улыбающейся кошачьей головы. А другие уверяют, что это - леопард, который был нарисован на вывеске трактира в Чешире (есть такое место в Англии). По-моему, кот все-таки больше похож на леопарда, чем на сыр. Хотя я могу и ошибиться. (Zakhoder 74).

Restoring the lost information, Zakhoder nevertheless fails to render the ludic function of the precedent phenomenon. On the other hand, Vladimir Nabokov uses the device of substitution. Appealing to Russian folkloric tradition he utilizes the first part of the proverb Не всё коту масленица, бывает и постный день. The translator makes his own syllogism based on this proverb: `Cats grin only on Butter Sunday - this cat is a special cat as every day is a Butter Sunday for him - therefore he grins all the time'. Thus Nabokov preserves the function of the precedent phenomenon (he renders the word play) though he sacrifices the content of the original.

In Russia, Zakhoder's translation was available and highly popular. Gradually the concept of `grinning Cheshire cats' has entered the Russian national cognitive database because of the provided commentary. Recent translations of Alice's Adventures (done by Leonid Yakhnin, for instance) in which the precedent phenomenon Cheshire cat is literally translated do not contain a commentary. It is likely that translators no longer find it necessary to explain the duchess' logic to a contemporary Russian reader.

From the example above, one can see how the device of substitution may render the ludic function of PP by changing the content of the original. In Nabokov's adaptation, one may still find the explanation of why the cat grins, but the difference is that the explanation is based on a folkloric tradition different from the one employed by the source text.

Particular linguistic peculiarities of PP underlie the mechanism of substitution. Russian linguists Vladimir Karasik and Gennady Slyshkin note that a precedent phenomenon renders a certain concept (they use the adjective `lingo-cultural' to characterize it [Karasik, Slyshkin 2001:75]) which has been formed in the database of an ethnic group because of the certain historical development and has been revealed in each language in its own peculiar way. Logically it is possible to assume that the same concept is formed in the database of another ethnic group, but the means of its revealing might be different. In other words, in two languages there might be two PP that reveal one concept, i.e. they have one content plane but different expression planes. Then, without appealing to the history of the target language, a translator may render the precedent phenomenon descriptively, that is, by offering commentary. Yet using this method the ludic function of a precedent phenomenon is lost. In order to preserve it, a translator has to find in the target language a precedent phenomenon which is close in its “conceptual” meaning to the precedent phenomenon in the source language. Hence, the translator is able to preserve the emotional effect that the PP creates. In other words, it would be beneficial if a translator could manage to find in English history a person who committed the same “blunder” as Ivan Susanin in Russian history, for instance.

Thus, the whole process of substitution may be summed up in the following stages: first, a translator has to take as an object of translation a concept but not the precedent phenomenon which reveals it. Second, at the level of `common ground' a translator has to find the same concept in the target language. Having found such a concept, a translator should look for a precedent phenomenon that reveals it. And finally, having found the appropriate equivalent, a translator has to introduce it skillfully, without disturbing the originality of the source text. The chosen precedent phenomenon will act as a hostile agent, which is why it depends upon the skills of the translator to intersperse the precedent phenomenon into the text while minimizing the level of disruption.

Works Cited

1. Clark, H.H. Using Language. Cambridge, 1996.

2. Караулов, Ю.Н. Русский язык и языковая личность. М., 1986.

3. Захаренко, И.В., Красных, В.В., Гудков, Д.Б., Багаева, Д.В. Прецедентное имя и прецедентное высказывание как символы прецедентных феноменов. М., 1997.

4. Слышкин, Г.Г. Лингвокультурные концепты прецедентных текстов в сознании и дискурсе. М., 2000.

5. Евтюгина, А.А. Функционирование прецедентных феноменов в политическом дискурсе российских СМИ. М., 2000.

6. Рогозина, Л.Е. О людической функции прецедентного имени (на материале французского языка). Новосибирск, 2010.

7. Карасик, В.И., Слышкин, Г.Г. Лингвокультурный концепт как единица исследования, Воронеж, 2001.

Texts Analyzed

1. Carroll - Lewis Carroll Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. М., 1979.

2. Nabokov - Льюис Кэрролл Аня в стране чудес в пер. Набокова, В. Ленинград, 1986.

3. Zakhoder - Льюис Кэрролл Приключения Алисы в стране чудес в пер. Заходера, Б. М., 1979.

4. Льюис Кэрролл Приключения Алисы в стране чудес в пер. Яхнина, Л. М., 2010.

Размещено на Allbest.ru