J. Balčikonio vertimų pragmatika ir stilistika

LIETUVIŲ KALBOS SANDAROS TYRINĖJIMAI LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI, XXVI (1987) RŪTA MARCINKEVIČIENĖ THE PRAGMATICS AND STYLISTICS OF J. BALČIKONIS’S TRANSLATIONS Translations can be examined from various perspectives: literary, linguistic, psychological, and social. Which perspective a translation critic chooses depends on which features of translation interest them. However, the choice of an approach to translation analysis may be dictated not only by the critic’s aims but also by the translation itself, or by one or several of its more prominent tendencies. J. Balčikonis’s translations could be studied with regard to translation and the norms of literary language, adequacy, their effect on the reader, and other matters, but one feature of his translations stands out most clearly: pragmatics, which also encompasses the aforementioned aspects of evaluation. All of J. Balčikonis’s works are interesting in this respect, but we have limited ourselves to one of his later translations—Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels. This book was not chosen at random: it is more adapted than his other translations and, moreover, was translated by several translators and published several times. The first Lithuanian translation of Jonathan Swift’s novel appeared in 1924, by an unknown translator who gave only his initials—L. D.; in 1936, it was translated by P. Mašiotas. During the Soviet period, Gulliver’s Travels was translated twice: by S. Tomonis in 1947 and by J. Balčikonis in 1957. A second edition of P. Mašiotas’s translation appeared in 1975. We analyzed J. Balčikonis’s translation by comparing it with the original work and the translations by S. Tomonis and P. Mašiotas. From a pragmatic perspective, translation is examined in three ways: by considering whether the pragmatic meanings of words are conveyed (connotative, emotional, social, stylistic, expressive, functional, and other kinds of information carried by linguistic signs, as researchers have variously termed it), whether a particular pragmatic problem is solved correctly, or whether the adaptation of the translation is appropriate1. In the first case, when the translator’s entire attention is devoted to the pragmatic meanings of words, the translation does not depart from the original, since its aim is to convey the meanings of the original language’s pragmatic signs as adequately as possible. Yet every translation is by nature twofold. As the result of an interaction between two languages, it is directed toward the original; as an independent work in the target language, it is directed toward a particular recipient2. Often this duality does not become apparent because the non-linguistic, that is, communicative, situation does not conflict with the linguistic one—the transmission of pragmatic meanings. In other words, the translator is more concerned with the original work than with the reader. However, the translator may also have other aims that are not directly related to the primary aim of translation—adequacy. These additional aims wer- 1 Ambrasas-Sasnava K. Vertimo tyrinėjimai. – V., 1984, p. 75. 2 Комиссаров В. Н. Лингвистика перевода. – М., 1980, с. 109. 48 [The aims were] varied: propagandistic, didactic, pedagogical. A translator can redirect a work toward a particular group of readers, distinguished by social, professional, or age-related characteristics. He can also present readers with an evaluation of the author’s ideas and the events depicted. Often, the translator seeks to influence not only the audience but also the target language itself, steering it in a desired direction. Such an attitude toward translation and the tasks the translator sets for himself run counter to the purpose of translation. Thus, translation pragmatics, understood as the realization of additional aims not directly connected with the original work being translated, causes the translation to diverge from the original. In this case, the translator does not translate but creates anew, adapting to new circumstances and specific aims. And, as is well known, the aim determines the result of an activity. We learn how such a result—the translation of “Gulliver’s Travels” adapted by J. Balčikonis—was achieved by examining the translator’s aims and the means he used to achieve them. We learn about the translator’s aims from his choice of works to translate. For, besides Jonathan Swift and Jules Verne, J. Balčikonis translated mostly fairy tales: Arabic tales, those of Hauff, Perrault, Andersen, and the Brothers Grimm. He wanted children and young people to be able to read as many masterpieces of world literature as possible in Lithuanian, and to learn correct, beautiful Lithuanian from these books. Therefore, when translating, J. Balčikonis “... would seek the most Lithuanian, most folk-like expression. Quite often the translation diverged considerably from the original, because Balčikonis translated not words or sentences but the very thought, and wanted to convey it in such a way that not only educated people but also village children could understand”3. Thus, didactic, pedagogical, and educational motives prompted Balčikonis to undertake translations. And they were not the only motives. The translator worked most intensively at a time when Lithuanian literary language had not yet become established, when its norms fluctuated considerably and poor translations were steering the language in the wrong direction. Such circumstances required the translator to be a language norm-setter as well. Therefore, in translating, “... the main focus was not so much on conveying the original author’s individual linguistic and stylistic features as on ensuring that the language of the Lithuanian translation was simple, clear, vivid, folk-like, and correct. These translations were intended primarily to cultivate and standardize Lithuanian literary language and raise the level of language culture”4. J. Balčikonis sought to make his translations contribute to the stabilization of written-language norms and foster readers’ feel for lively, expressive language. This was the translator’s second aim, which determined the principal feature of his translations’ language—its folk character. His students recall that Balčikonis’s sole criterion for evaluating a translation was “whether people would say it that way.” For the translator, folk speech was a reliable measure for testing the norms of literary language. His translated fairy tales and other reading for young people, writes D. Urbas, were precisely what affirmed the link between bookish language and the living language of ordinary people5. Thus, standardizing the Lithuanian language and redirecting the book toward young readers were the two main aims that determined the character of the novel’s translation. 3 Pupkis A., Mažiulis V. Juozas Balčikonis. — Kn.: J. Balčikonis. Rinktiniai raštai. V., 1978, t. 1, p. 13. 4 Kruopas J., Ulvydas K. Įžymus lietuvių kalbininkas akademikas J. Balčikonis. — Kalbos kultūra, 1965, sąs. 8, p. 4. 5 Urbas D. Apie J. Balčikonio vertimus. — Kalbotyra, 1966, t. 14, p. 41. 49 The three Lithuanian versions of “Gulliver’s Travels” mentioned earlier differ greatly. S. Tomonis’s translation is detailed and, as far as the norms of the native language allow, very accurate and faithful to the original. The translator used external adaptation techniques—commentary—without changing the translated text. His aim was to introduce the educated reader to Swift’s political satire and to convey the author’s genre and style faithfully. This translation could conditionally be called literal, written in correct but excessively bookish language. P. Mašiotas’s translation is quite different; it was reissued with the designation “For younger school-age readers.” This translation briefly retells only the first two parts of the novel, omitting matters that are harder to understand. It would therefore be inaccurate to call P. Mašiotas’s work a translation. It is only a retelling of the novel’s plot for children, making no claim to represent the original in full. J. Balčikonis’s translation of “Gulliver’s Travels” occupies an intermediate position between these two translations. According to the annotation, it is intended for children of middle and upper school age. In the following discussion of the pragmatics and stylistics of the translated novel, we will compare it with the original and analyze the methods of adaptation according to linguistic levels. We will use S. Tomonis’s translation as a literal version. The rendering of English proper nouns—personal names and place names—best illustrates phonemic translation. Many of these were invented by the author and therefore have no established tradition of translation into Lithuanian. This allows greater freedom in choosing translation methods. S. Tomonis transliterates them, rendering long and complex names letter by letter in Lithuanian, adding endings only occasionally. J. Balčikonis transcribes proper nouns, replacing more difficult sound combinations with simpler ones. In the second part, Gulliver travels to Brobdinaga, rather than Brobdingnag, as in the original and S. Tomonis’s translation. The title of the fourth part differs especially markedly. Unlike his predecessor, J. Balčikonis was not satisfied either with transliterating the land of the Houyhnhnms or with transcribing this barely more readable word. He used a functional equivalent and named the land, whose inhabitants are horses, with a Lithuanian onomatopoeic form—Yagagų kraštas. Thus, in Balčikonis’s translation, proper nouns are Lithuanianized. The development of the language was a factor in this. Lithuanian norms changed considerably during the decade separating the translations. However, it was not only new requirements for translations that led to the transcription of proper nouns. The translator’s view of the intended readership also mattered greatly. J. Balčikonis Lithuanianizes not only proper nouns but also common nouns denoting units of measure and capacity, and objects of everyday life and warfare. Swift’s novel contains two kinds of realia: English and invented. J. Balčikonis recreates English realia, replacing them with Lithuanian equivalents or explaining them descriptively. Thus, instead of the “yards and inches,” “cables and leagues” transliterated in S. Tomonis’s translation, we find “siekstai” and “coliai,” “pėdos” and “mylios.” “Pinta” is replaced according to the situation (unfortunately, not consistently everywhere or always accurately) by either “stiklas” or “ketvirtis mūsų geriamo puodelio.” J. Balčikonis abandons the protocol-like precision characteristic of Jonathan Swift and renders detailed passages parodying travel descriptions in generalized form: e.g.: “... and about four yards from me, over against my right ear, I heard a knocking for above. 50 an hour, like that of people at work…“6 — „…about four yards away, level with my right ear, for more than an hour I heard hammering, as though people were working at something…“7 — „Near my ear there arose a rumbling, resembling the noise of working carpenters, and it continued for nearly an hour8. In this way, J. Balčikonis’s translation avoids realities incomprehensible to the reader—“yards”—but at the same time also loses the flashes of Jonathan Swift’s satire—the parody of scientific style. Another group of realia consists of products of the author’s imagination: exoticisms denoting elements of the everyday life, culture, religion, and customs of the countries visited by Gulliver. In the original novel, they are highlighted in italics, with explanations in English provided in parentheses. The novel’s translators proceed in a similar way. They do not “translate” the realia, but merely explain them, since these words perform not a nominative but a stylistic function in both the original and translated texts—they create local color. J. Balčikonis very judiciously avoids using international words. The original has “civilized,” “prognosis,” “jargon,” “exist,” “patient,” while he translates them as “enlightened,” “guess,” “a certain language,” “survives,” “sick person.” S. Tomonis retained the international words. In English, these words have already become assimilated into the neutral lexicon, whereas in Lithuanian they remain bookish. International words should also be avoided for another reason in translations intended for young people: their meanings are not always clear. When comparing the original with the translation, we find further lexical-semantic transformations. In many places J. Balčikonis makes descriptions or narratives more specific, replacing the abstract English nouns “cause,” “food,” and “people” with contextually appropriate synonyms: “anger,” “food and drink,” and “enemies.” Elsewhere, conversely, he replaces concrete words with abstract ones. The translator is particularly fond of the semantically broad word “thing,” used in place of “question,” “product,” “motive,” “reason,” and “image.” Although the aforementioned transformations—generalization and specification—are opposites, they serve the same purpose: to make the text more comprehensible and closer to the reader. The translator chose what to change, where, and how with a target readership well known to him in mind. Stylistic modification is also a common feature of J. Balčikonis’s translations. He replaces a neutral word in the original with a more expressive, vivid Lithuanian equivalent. This is especially characteristic of verbs. The words “crowd,” “fight,” “imprison,” “obstinate,” and “steal off” in the original are rendered as “jostled,” “scrapped,” “threw into prison,” “cruel,” and “made off,” rather than “gathered,” “fought,” “imprisoned,” “stubborn,” and “ran away.” Thus, J. Balčikonis favors emotionally connoted synonyms. Many pairs of English and Lithuanian synonyms differ less in expressiveness than in their association with different functional styles—in other words, not in expressive but in functional connotation. The direction of stylistic modification is always the same: J. Balčikonis translates English words that are neutral or more characteristic of written language into colloquial Lithuanian. S. Tomonis’s translation, which leans more toward bookish language, only heightens this contrast between the original and J. Balčikonis’s translation, for example: 6 Swift J. Gulliver’s Travels. — Moscow, 1973, p. 34. 7 Swift J. Guliverio kelionės / Vertė S. Tomonis. — K., 1947, p. 64. 8 Sviftas Dž. Guliverio kelionės / Vertė J. Balčikonis. — V., 1957, p. 16. 51 “... we labour under two mighty evils: a violent faction at home, and the danger of an invasion of a most potent enemy from abroad“9 — „...we have to contend with two great evils: to fight powerful internal enemies and prepare to repel an attack by a powerful enemy from abroad“10 — „...in reality, we are eaten up by two terrible diseases: within, by perpetual party squabbles, and from without, by the threat of a powerful enemy“11. J. Balčikonis’s translation could be called a double translation: Gulliver’s Travels has been translated not only from English into Lithuanian, but also from the written variety of that language into its spoken variety. The impression of vivid, flexible language is reinforced by figures of speech used where none can be found in the corresponding passage of the original, even with a lantern. In J. Balčikonis’s translation, Gulliver fights not “the enemies on the island of Blefuscu,” but “against the island of Blefuscu.” Here the meaning is transferred metonymically on the basis of spatial relations: from the people living on the island to the island itself. There are other examples of metonymic translation, particularly in naming cities by using body parts instead of their functions or qualities: “sight” is replaced by “eyes,” and “gentleness” by “a good heart.” In the original, the action is expressed in a single word—“wade,” “swim”—whereas the translation has “wade and wade,” “swim and swim.” The translation is also rich in litotes, periphrases of vivid words from the original, and metaphors. All these figures of speech make the language vivid and emotional. Moreover, “they allow things that are already clear to remain unstated in the text, thereby making the expression more concise”12. Comparisons, which J. Balčikonis adapted very substantially, deserve separate discussion. This is especially true of practical comparisons, in which two phenomena are directly compared in terms of quality or quantity. J. Balčikonis compares ropes no thicker “than ordinary English twine” to a rope harness, and “loaves the size of rifle bullets” to sparrows’ eggs. Such adaptation in translation is necessary, for what is the point of a comparison when the thing being compared with (the vehicle) is less familiar to the reader than the thing being compared (the tenor)? Thus, stylistic modification is a characteristic feature of J. Balčikonis’s translations. Here it is worth recalling translator D. Urbas’s view on the place of figures of speech in translation: “...the translator need not pedantically insist that every such stylistic device as an idiom, a joke, or a vivid word (...) must be placed in exactly the same position as in the original—that would be a mark of literalism and servility. What matters is the correspondence of the overall set of stylistic devices and their internal dialectical relationships”13. Of course, when comparing translations, we must consider not so much individual words, sentences, or paragraphs taken separately as the relationship between the two texts as a whole. Yet even when the original and the translations are assessed in this way, J. Balčikonis’s Lithuanian translation surpasses the original in its abundance of stylistic devices. 9 Swift J. Op. cit., p. 56. 10 Swift J. Gulliver’s Travels / Translated by S. Tomonis, p. 95. 11 Swift J. Gulliver’s Travels / Translated by J. Balčikonis, p. 42. 12 Župerka K. Lietuvių kalbos stilistika. — V., 1983, p. 68. 13 Urbas D. Op. cit., p. 43. 52 The syntax of the translation under consideration is also closer to the style of spoken language. J. Swift’s sentences are long, divided by semicolons into periods, whereas J. Balčikonis’s are shorter. The translator splits one sentence in the original into two, three, or even four, freely choosing which information to leave in the first sentence and which to move into the others. J. Balčikonis not only divides sentences but also changes English passive constructions into Lithuanian active ones, noun phrases into verbal ones, and impersonal sentences into personal ones. Sentences translated in this way are easy to read silently and aloud, and are easy to understand, remember, and retell. Syntactic transformations make J. Swift’s objective, calm narrative lively and dynamic. This impression is reinforced by the translator’s choice of the first person of narration instead of the third person used in the original. In this way, the translator creates an illusion of reality, so important for the young reader. J. Balčikonis omits many sentences altogether. Omissions in translations are generally a reprehensible practice. They swallow up much information and distort the work’s idea. What has been omitted from the translation under consideration, and why? J. Balčikonis does not convey to the reader those parts of the novel that depict the vices of life in England: infidelity, prostitution, and lying. He also omits descriptions of methods of treatment, Gulliver’s “natural needs,” and other episodes in which Swift disregards the rules of decency and his satire is crudely naturalistic. By omitting one passage or another, the translator expresses his attitude toward the things depicted and acts as a moralist. There have been many similar instances of adapting works in the history of translation. In our times, such alterations are permissible and necessary only when a book intended for adults is redirected to young people. In evaluating J. Balčikonis’s translation of Gulliver’s Travels, one should be guided not by the adequacy of the original and the translation, but by the translation’s pragmatic value as the principal criterion of evaluation. Thus, it is necessary to consider what the translator’s aims were and how successfully he managed to achieve them. The pragmatic value of Balčikonis’s translation is twofold: it consists of the adaptation of the work and its redirection to young people, as well as the correctness, simplicity, and folk character of the language of the translation. PRAGMATICS AND STYLISTICS OF J. BALČIKONIS’S TRANSLATIONS Summary This article examines the principles of translation adaptation through the example of J. Swift’s novel Gulliver’s Travels. The translator pursued two aims: to make the novel accessible to adolescents and to teach them figurative, folk-style colloquial language. Adaptation techniques are discussed at individual levels of language (phonetic, lexical, syntactic, and textual phenomena). Stylistic modification is analyzed as the principal method in J. Balčikonis’s translation practice. The author concludes that Balčikonis’s translation of Gulliver’s Travels is pragmatically adequate.