普希金《阿兹鲁姆游记》英译方法的变化

IF 0.1 Q4 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Ksenia S. Alexandrova
{"title":"普希金《阿兹鲁姆游记》英译方法的变化","authors":"Ksenia S. Alexandrova","doi":"10.17223/15617793/480/1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author compares five English translations of Alexander Pushkin's A Journey to Arzrum that we know now. These are works made by Birgitta Ingemanson (1974), Ronald Wilks (1998), David and Ludmila Matthews (2003), Nicholas Pasternak Slater (2013), and Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (2016). Four of these translations (the latter ones) have not been included into the latest bibliography of English translations and studies of Pushkin's works (1999). The growing number of translations may indicate an increasing interest to A Journey to Arzrum. This study aims to detect the translators' strategies (the level of domestication or foreignization) and their approach to Pushkin's work; to mark the mistakes and inaccuracies, stylistic features, lexical and syntactic peculiarities of translations and differences between them and between them and the original text. The study also shows how the translators' approach to A Journey to Arzrum changed over time. By pointing out all these we can conclude which type of audience suits each translation most and what the general tendency is. In the article the author gives basic information about these translations and their authors and analyze the examples according to the following sections: formal distinctions and main difference in the approaches; toponyms and ethnonyms; exoticisms and direct speech; stylistic peculiarities of the translations (where the author analyzes bigger, complicated, most stylistically expressive fragments of the text and variations in translating names and titles, along with noting syntactic peculiarities). The majority of inaccuracies the author has found come from David and Ludmila Matthews' translation. At the same time this work is the easiest to perceive for broad (especially non-academic) audience or readers that are not well familiar with Russian and Caucasian culture of that period (foreign-language quotes are translated as well as many exoti-cisms etc.). The other translators tend to save accurately the specificities of Pushkin's text and local peculiarities. The author states that, in general, earlier translators chose domestication as a strategy while the later ones preferred foreignization. The highest degree of foreignization in addition to tendency towards maximal figurativeness of the text is observed in Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's version. The latter characteristic sometimes does not clearly match the lucidity of Pushkin's style. Birgitta Ingemanson with rare exceptions shows quite a good balance at this point in her translation. It is also interesting to mention that Nicholas Pasternak Slater tries to correct Pushkin's own inaccuracies. The author concludes that all the translations are done properly. Ingemanson's, Wilks', Pasternak Slater's and Pevear and Volokhonsky's versions are distinguished by a very accurate and thorough approach. However, Matthews' translation is good and unique in terms of accomplishing a specific purpose - being understandable by common readers. This way it serves to the popularization of A Journey to Arzrum among the English-speaking audience.","PeriodicalId":45402,"journal":{"name":"Tomsk State University Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The change of approach to English translations of Alexander Pushkin's A Journey to Arzrum\",\"authors\":\"Ksenia S. Alexandrova\",\"doi\":\"10.17223/15617793/480/1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The author compares five English translations of Alexander Pushkin's A Journey to Arzrum that we know now. These are works made by Birgitta Ingemanson (1974), Ronald Wilks (1998), David and Ludmila Matthews (2003), Nicholas Pasternak Slater (2013), and Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (2016). Four of these translations (the latter ones) have not been included into the latest bibliography of English translations and studies of Pushkin's works (1999). The growing number of translations may indicate an increasing interest to A Journey to Arzrum. This study aims to detect the translators' strategies (the level of domestication or foreignization) and their approach to Pushkin's work; to mark the mistakes and inaccuracies, stylistic features, lexical and syntactic peculiarities of translations and differences between them and between them and the original text. The study also shows how the translators' approach to A Journey to Arzrum changed over time. By pointing out all these we can conclude which type of audience suits each translation most and what the general tendency is. In the article the author gives basic information about these translations and their authors and analyze the examples according to the following sections: formal distinctions and main difference in the approaches; toponyms and ethnonyms; exoticisms and direct speech; stylistic peculiarities of the translations (where the author analyzes bigger, complicated, most stylistically expressive fragments of the text and variations in translating names and titles, along with noting syntactic peculiarities). The majority of inaccuracies the author has found come from David and Ludmila Matthews' translation. At the same time this work is the easiest to perceive for broad (especially non-academic) audience or readers that are not well familiar with Russian and Caucasian culture of that period (foreign-language quotes are translated as well as many exoti-cisms etc.). The other translators tend to save accurately the specificities of Pushkin's text and local peculiarities. The author states that, in general, earlier translators chose domestication as a strategy while the later ones preferred foreignization. The highest degree of foreignization in addition to tendency towards maximal figurativeness of the text is observed in Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's version. The latter characteristic sometimes does not clearly match the lucidity of Pushkin's style. Birgitta Ingemanson with rare exceptions shows quite a good balance at this point in her translation. It is also interesting to mention that Nicholas Pasternak Slater tries to correct Pushkin's own inaccuracies. The author concludes that all the translations are done properly. Ingemanson's, Wilks', Pasternak Slater's and Pevear and Volokhonsky's versions are distinguished by a very accurate and thorough approach. However, Matthews' translation is good and unique in terms of accomplishing a specific purpose - being understandable by common readers. This way it serves to the popularization of A Journey to Arzrum among the English-speaking audience.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45402,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tomsk State University Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tomsk State University Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/480/1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tomsk State University Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/480/1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作者比较了我们现在所知道的亚历山大·普希金的《阿兹鲁姆游记》的五种英译本。这些作品分别由Birgitta Ingemanson(1974)、Ronald Wilks(1998)、David and Ludmila Matthews(2003)、Nicholas Pasternak Slater(2013)和Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky(2016)创作。其中四个译本(后一个译本)没有被列入最新的普希金作品英译和研究书目(1999年)。越来越多的译本可能表明人们对《阿兹鲁姆之旅》越来越感兴趣。本研究旨在揭示译者对普希金作品的翻译策略(归化或异化)及其翻译方法;标出译文中的错误和不准确之处、文体特点、词汇和句法特点以及译文与原文之间的差异。该研究还显示了译者对《阿兹鲁姆游记》的翻译方法是如何随着时间的推移而变化的。通过指出所有这些,我们可以得出哪种类型的受众最适合每种翻译,以及总的趋势是什么。本文介绍了这些译本及其作者的基本情况,并从以下几个方面对译文进行了分析:形式上的区别和翻译方法上的主要区别;地名和民族名;外来语与直接引语;翻译的文体特点(作者分析更大、更复杂、最具文体表现力的文本片段和翻译姓名和头衔时的变化,同时注意句法特点)。作者发现的大部分不准确之处来自David and Ludmila Matthews的翻译。同时,对于广大的(尤其是非学术的)读者或不太熟悉那个时期的俄罗斯和高加索文化的读者来说,这部作品是最容易理解的(外语引用被翻译了,还有许多异国情调等)。其他译者倾向于准确地保留普希金文本的特殊性和地方特点。作者认为,一般来说,早期译者选择归化作为翻译策略,而后期译者选择异化作为翻译策略。在理查德·佩尔和拉里萨·沃洛康斯基的译本中,异化程度最高,并倾向于文本的最大形象化。后者的特点有时与普希金风格的清晰性并不明显匹配。在这一点上,Birgitta Ingemanson在她的翻译中表现出了很好的平衡。同样有趣的是,尼古拉斯·帕斯捷尔纳克·斯莱特试图纠正普希金自己的错误。作者的结论是,所有的翻译都是正确的。英格曼森的、威尔克斯的、帕斯捷尔纳克·斯莱特的、佩尔尔的和沃洛康斯基的版本的特点是方法非常准确和彻底。然而,马修斯的翻译在实现一个特定的目的——普通读者可以理解——方面是很好的和独特的。这样就有助于《阿兹鲁姆游记》在英语观众中的普及。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The change of approach to English translations of Alexander Pushkin's A Journey to Arzrum
The author compares five English translations of Alexander Pushkin's A Journey to Arzrum that we know now. These are works made by Birgitta Ingemanson (1974), Ronald Wilks (1998), David and Ludmila Matthews (2003), Nicholas Pasternak Slater (2013), and Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky (2016). Four of these translations (the latter ones) have not been included into the latest bibliography of English translations and studies of Pushkin's works (1999). The growing number of translations may indicate an increasing interest to A Journey to Arzrum. This study aims to detect the translators' strategies (the level of domestication or foreignization) and their approach to Pushkin's work; to mark the mistakes and inaccuracies, stylistic features, lexical and syntactic peculiarities of translations and differences between them and between them and the original text. The study also shows how the translators' approach to A Journey to Arzrum changed over time. By pointing out all these we can conclude which type of audience suits each translation most and what the general tendency is. In the article the author gives basic information about these translations and their authors and analyze the examples according to the following sections: formal distinctions and main difference in the approaches; toponyms and ethnonyms; exoticisms and direct speech; stylistic peculiarities of the translations (where the author analyzes bigger, complicated, most stylistically expressive fragments of the text and variations in translating names and titles, along with noting syntactic peculiarities). The majority of inaccuracies the author has found come from David and Ludmila Matthews' translation. At the same time this work is the easiest to perceive for broad (especially non-academic) audience or readers that are not well familiar with Russian and Caucasian culture of that period (foreign-language quotes are translated as well as many exoti-cisms etc.). The other translators tend to save accurately the specificities of Pushkin's text and local peculiarities. The author states that, in general, earlier translators chose domestication as a strategy while the later ones preferred foreignization. The highest degree of foreignization in addition to tendency towards maximal figurativeness of the text is observed in Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky's version. The latter characteristic sometimes does not clearly match the lucidity of Pushkin's style. Birgitta Ingemanson with rare exceptions shows quite a good balance at this point in her translation. It is also interesting to mention that Nicholas Pasternak Slater tries to correct Pushkin's own inaccuracies. The author concludes that all the translations are done properly. Ingemanson's, Wilks', Pasternak Slater's and Pevear and Volokhonsky's versions are distinguished by a very accurate and thorough approach. However, Matthews' translation is good and unique in terms of accomplishing a specific purpose - being understandable by common readers. This way it serves to the popularization of A Journey to Arzrum among the English-speaking audience.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Tomsk State University Journal
Tomsk State University Journal MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信