1943-1 (661229), страница 3
Текст из файла (страница 3)
Let’s suggest that a translator working at a novel about Indian life decides to use only means of his own language, without admitting strange realias and he substitutes pagoda for temple, sari for dress or national suit, akhoby he substitutes for man-launder, etc. As a result of such national coloring extermination specific Indian features of the novel will vanish: it will be possible to consider any place as a place of act or this place is neutral, uncolored, nameless country. This method leads to coloring losing that spoils very much any translation. The mark of this translation is bad.
But it is worse when a translator substitutes origin realias for realias from his own language. Doing it he also substitutes coloring of the translated work for a strange coloring. If we wear a Kazak in Bulgarian aba or anteria, tsarvulis, iamurluk, if we make him drink a wine from buklista and to eat banitsa, a reader will recognize a Sofian shope but not a Kazak.
And it will be the worst translation when a translator conveys original means of motley words of different coloring and when a mixture of realias takes place. For example, translated into Russia novel For Freedom by St. Dichev. A redactor substitutes Bulgarian, Turkish, Greek and other realias for regional and national realias of Soviet Union. Historical realias he substitutes for modern words. Therefore Bulgarian gadulka was turned into Ukraine bandura, gamurluk was turned into Caucasus burka, pastarma was described as dried meat and Bulgarian banitsa was conveyed as Russian pie. Several historical notions closely tied up with Bulgarian culture have totally lost their national content. As a result of such vicious attitude to the realias translation a reader gets unclear, contradictory notions about described reality; the novel loses its cognitive meaning and bright national coloring and considerable part of its literary merits. Here we speak about distortion of original images in the result of substitution of national and historical realias for not characteristic to it realias, in other words, about leading to analogisms and anachronisms in a text. Analogisms and anachronisms are realias that do not correspond to local and time surrounding of origin text.
For example, we face with the word guillotine in the Bulgarian translation of Sheakspear’s work: “Essex slowly mounted the guillotine.” The mistake is not very grave from temporal point of view. There already existed the machine for execution in XVI – XVII centuries in Italy and Scotland and also in France where Duke de Monmorancy was beheaded with the help of such machine. The mistake is that famous doctor Josef Ignak Giyoten invented his machine that got his name only 200 years later. Here we see the translator’s history unknowing. Of course, the word scaffold should be used there. We can see it from the context: “ He slowly mounted…” One can never mount the guillotine but only scaffold.
The reason of such mistakes regarding national and historical coloring is connected with author’s or translator’s personality, his unknowing of real facts and historical situation and sometimes their unknowing of some principal positions of theory translation, for example, about bad results of strange realia substitution for a realia from translator’s native language.
Conclusion.
In 1827 Goethe wrote that translating labor was and remains one of the most important and worthy matters connecting the entire universe together. These words characterize translator as creative person who carries works beyond the limits of one national culture and who serves to people giving these fruits of this culture, created in new language form or vice versa, including achievements of other nations in his national science and culture. It is one of the evidences of the huge human role of translation in the history of human civilization.
Every national culture solving its problems carries its contribution in treasuring house of literature creating something that belongs only to it, has significance for all nations and proves that there are not small or big nations or inferior languages.
Extending of national culture confines with the help of translation has a great positive and enriching influence on the language. It is true that together with the translation many new ideas, discoveries, notions and so on penetrate in the language and it leads to the appearance of new language elements and figurative meanings. This fact is very important while translating from literary language that is not fully developed. Therefore the literary language enriches figurative possibilities, national culture, and spiritual development of this nation. Creative beginning of translation is premise of creative attitude to native language, its source of faith in its possibilities and beauty. Concerning this point the translator also has another task to defend his native speech from borrowings-parasites that clog and make it ugly, from strange forms that artificially could crowd out its own national coloring.
The task and mission of the translator especially the translator of feature literature is defense of the riches and beauty of the native language, its unlimited abilities to convey all that is kept in the greatest masterpieces of world literature.
Translated literature can also be the indicator of condition, degree of development of national language. Poetical translation of Shakespeare’s works by Boris Pasternak that are very rich, refined and expressive in language might not appear if Russian language of his time remained on the same level of development. In this case concrete condition of our national language at the times of B. Pasternak can be put as condition and factor of development of poetical and translating talent and vice versa Pasternak's works are great contribution in the development of Russian language.
The level of translated literature, the quality of translation also assists to the development of national beginning in the literature of nation.
"National beginning of literature, - I. R. Beher wrote, - is defined with the fact of preservation, proceeding and creative development of other literatures. The choice of elements that adopt it from literature of other nations shows its own character and is judged if its indeed national originality no."
Список литературы
Влахов С., Флорин С. Непереводимое в переводе. Реалии. "Министерство Перевода". Сборник статей. 1969. М., "Советский писатель", 1970.
Лилова А. Введение в общую теорию перевода. "Высшая школа" М., 1985.
Бархударов Я. С., Рецкер Я. И. Курс лекций по теории перевода. М., Изд-во I МГПИПЯ, 1968.
Комиссаров В. Н. Слово о переводе. М., "Международные отношнния". 1973.
Комиссаров В., Рецкер Я., Тархов В. Пособие по переводу с английского языка на русский. Часть I М., Изд-во литературы на иностранных языках, 1960; Часть II М., "Высшая школа", 1965.
Левицкая Т.Р., Фитермян А. М. Пособие по переводу с английского языка на русский. М., "Высшая школа", 1973.
Толстой С.С, Основы перевода английского языка на русский, М., 2957.
Фёдоров А.В. Русские писатели и проблемы перевода. Л., 1960.
Левик В. "Мастерство перевода", М., 1959.
Гачечиладзе Т. Художественный перевод и литературные взаимосвязи. М., "Советский писатель", 1972.
Бархударов Л. С. Язык и перевод. М., 1975.
Комиссаров В. Н. Теория перевода. М., "Высшая школа", 1990.
Фёдоров А. В. Основы общей теории перевода. – М., 1983.
Швейцер А.Д. Теория перевода. – М., 1988.
Латышев Л.К. Курс перевода (эквивалентность перевода и способы её достижения). – М., 1981.
Для подготовки данной работы были использованы материалы с сайта http://www.monax.ru
![](https://s.studizba.com/z.php?f=/templates/si/i/noavatar.png&w=100&h=100&t=1"){kind=avatar}
