Article.
Mariia Orobinska, Liubov Bezkorovaina DOI 10.31558/1815-3070.2018.36.10 УДК
801.7 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF JAMES
JOYCE’S “GIACOMO JOYCE” AND ITS TRANSLATION У статті наведено результати компаративного аналізу
твору Джеймса Джойса «Джакомо Джойс» та його перекладу на російську мову,
виконаного Н.О. Кіасашвілі, з огляду на парадигматичну організацію текстів
та їхню глибину (параметру, що відображає складність та варіативність
сприйняття тексту). Дослідження проведено у рамках функціонального підходу. Ключові слова: глибина тексту, парадигматичний
аналіз, функціональна лінгвістика, постмодернізм, порівняльний аналіз. There
are many criteria for estimation the translation quality (clarity, accuracy of
phraseological expressions translation, a degree of a translation and original
text semantic proximity, a presence of mistakes that distort the semantic
content of an original text, a presence of mistakes that distort stylistic
features of an original text, semantic fidelity, saving and recreation of
original pragmatic aspect in translation and etc. (Komissarov). Nevertheless
this analysis apparatus is not sufficient. The majority of the criteria appeal
to formal features, others are quite subjective. There
two terms functioning parallel in modern linguistics “translation equivalence”
(Nida & Taber; Komissarov; Pym and etc.) and “translation adequacy”
(Vinogradov; Breus and etc.). Alexandra
Milostivaya and Irina Makhova state, that “equivalence is the condition of
translation”, so “the aim is to determine this condition specifying its essence
and what is supposed to be preserved in translation” (Milostivaya and Makhova
37). Still
there is no comprehensive apparatus for translation quality estimation, based
on comparing perception models. Such means of estimation may be a textual
depth, a text feature that characterizes text perception complicity and
variety. The
purpose of this study is to determine translation equivalence in terms of
textual depth. For
achieving the purpose original James Joyce’s “Giacomo Joyce” text and
N.A. Kiasashvili translation of this text were analyzed in terms of their
paradigmatic organization and textual depth. A
recipient's consciousness connects the text and the reality during the process
of text perception, i.e the verbal images system (reflections of the word forms
in the person’s consciousness) and "objective" images system (images
of reality phenomena and situations) are connected. Language laws regulate the
system of verbal images. This system has a syntagmatic character that reflects
the linear principle of the text disposition in the act of reception. Verbal
images generate "objective" images on the conceptual level (level of
thinking). The connections between these images are paradigmatic and the text
understanding determines them. The system of "objective" images can
be considered as a conceptual paradigm, and the system that generates a
conceptual paradigm is a verbal paradigm. The degree of "discrepancy"
of links on the verbal and conceptual levels determines the degree of text understanding
complexity and considered to be its depth (Stepanchenko “Poeticheskiy iazik
Sergeia Esenina (analiz leksiki)”). Let
us compare two word combinations: “a
burning needleprick stings of bees”and “a burning needleprick stings of eyes”.
In the first word combination “a burning needleprick stings of bees”, the links
between the verbal images are established on the basis of a regular
lexico-grammatical model. The corresponding "objective" images can
also link to one another directly, such a connection does not contradict the
recipient's perception of the surrounding reality (bees have needlericks and
they can sting). In this case, the system of "objective" images is
combined with a system of verbal images. In the sentence "a burning needleprick stings of eyes", the links between
the verbal images are established on the basis of a regular lexico-grammatical
model, the words are arranged in a linear sequence. But the corresponding
"objective" images cannot be directly related to each other. Such a
connection is contrary to the recipient's ideas about the world (eyes do not
have needlericks and they cannot sting). Additional association links are
necessary to understand this word combination. In this case, the connections of
objective images system do not coincide with the connections of the verbal
images system. Thus the first word combination is characterized by a more
profound depth. The
textual depth may be a characteristic of both a separate text and an individual
style. The textual depth is an unvalued text category, because it characterizes
the text in terms of the complexity of its perception, but it does not estimate
the aesthetic value of the work. The
complex of paradigm characteristics influences the textual depth (paradigm
composition, paradigm relevance, paradigm function, paradigm configuration,
paradigm mode of expression and connections between paradigms). The
main paradigms of James Joyce “Giacomo Joyce” are the following: - BELOVED,
that includes paradigms ILLUSORY (“A pale
face”, “The long eyelids beat and lift”, “a burning needleprick stings”, etc.)
, FRAGILITY (“a brief syllable”, “A brief
laugh” , “A brief beat of the eyelids”, “A flower given by her to my daughter”,
etc.), CORPOREALITY (“heavy odorous
furs”, “Cobweb handwriting”, “traced long and fine”, “with quiet disdain and
resignation”, “She never blows her nose”, etc.), YOUTH (“a young person of quality”, “frail
blue-veined child”, “She follows her mother”, etc.). The paradigms ILLUSORY
and FRAGILITY oppose the paradigm CORPORELITY. They form an antinomy that is
not solved within the framework of “Giacomo Joyce”. - ENAMORED
(“I launch forth on an easy wave”,”The
wave is spent”, “Papa and the girls”, etc.). Besides, the paradigm is
formed with paradigms BETRAYAL (“Easy
now, Jamesy!”, “Did you never walk the streets of Dublin at night sobbing
another name?”, etc.) and PASSION (“A
dark wave of sense”, “again and again and again”, “Mine eyes fail in darkness,
mine eyes fail, / Mine eyes fail in darkness, love”, “Again”, “No more”, “Dark
love”, “dark longing”, “Darkness.” “This heart is sore and sad”, “Crossed in
love?”, “these words were spoken softly”, etc.). These
paradigms generate the image of Giacomo which is seemed to be James Joyce’s
alter-ego. Richard Ellmann consider that “Joyce allows no doubt that the hero
is to be identified with himself” (Ellmann “Introduction”, 12) - NATURE (“Pure
air”, “silence”, “the upland road and hoofs”, “Pure air on the upland road”,
“Trieste is waking rawly”, etc.). - ANTAGONIST (“The
old man's face”,”handsome”, “flushed”, “with strongly Jewish features”, etc.). - PASSION (“She
raises her arms in an effort”, “hook at the nape”, “her neck a gown of black
veiling”, “She moves backwards towards me”, “mutely”, “I raise my arms to help
her”, “her arms fall”, “websoft edges of her gown”, “drawing them out to hook”,
“I see”, “the opening of the black veil”, “her lithe body”, etc.). - ROUTINE
(“tepid speech” “Swedenborg”, “the
pseudo-Areopagite”, “Miguel de Molinos”, “Joachim Abbas”, “Her classmate”,
“retwisting her twisted body”, etc.). The
main paradigms of N.A. Kiasashvili translation of James Joyce’s “Giacomo
Joyce” are the following: - BELOVED (“Бледное лицо”, “в ореоле пахучих
мехов”, “Движения ее
застенчивы и нервны”, “Она смотрит в
лорнет”, “вздох”, “Смех”, “Взлет ресниц”, “Паутинный почерк”, “удлиненные и
изящные буквы, надменные и покорные”, “знатная молодая особа”, “Длинные ресницы взлетают”, “жгучее острие иглы”, “в бархате глаз жалит и дрожит”, and a paradigm FRAGILITY (“Холодная хрупкая рука”, “Хрупкий подарок”, “хрупкая дарительница”,
“хрупкий прозрачный ребенок”) and YOUTH (“Юная всадница”, “Гедда!”, “Гедда Габлер!”, etc.). In the translation
original paradigm CORPORELITY dissolves in the paradigms REALITY and PASSION.
Let us compare the original fragment and its translation: “The
wings of her drooping hat shadow her false smile. Shadows streak her falsely
smiling face, smitten by the hot creamy light, grey wheyhued shadows under the
jawbones, streaks of eggyolk yellow on the moistened brow, rancid yellow humour
lurking within the softened pulp of the eyes.” A determiner “her” allows to
correlate the fragment with the paradigm BELOVED. “Опущенные крылья шляпы
затеняют лживую улыбку. Тени бегут по лживой улыбке, по лицу, опаленному
горячим молочным светом, сизые, цвета сыворотки тени под скулами,
желточно-желтые тени на влажном лбу, прогоркло-желчная усмешка в сощуренных
глазах.” There is no category of determiners in the Russian
language, and there is no sense in the repetition of the possessive pronoun “её”, so it’s
omitted. But due to this omission the connection between the fragment and the
elements of the paradigm BELOVED is lost. In Russian translation this fragment
correlates with elements of the paradigm ROUTINE. - PASSION (“Глаза во тьме не видят ничего, любовь моя”, “Юбка, приподнятая быстрым
движением колена”; “белое кружево – кайма нижней юбки, приподнятой выше
дозволенного”, “тончайшая паутина чулка”, “Темная любовь”, “темное томление”,
“Сердце томится и тоскует”, “нежные, как паутинка, края платья”, “гибкое
гладкое голое тело”, “по изящным из гладкого, отшлифованного серебра ягодицам”,
“Пальцы холодные легкие ласковые....”, “Прикосновение, прикосновение”, “из тьмы
желания”, etc.). Original
paradigms CORPORELITY, ENAMORED and PASSION are united in the translation. - ROUTINE (“классная подруга”, “Высокие каблучки”, “по гулким каменным ступенькам”,
“Холод в замке”, “вздернутые кольчуги”, “грубые железные фонари”, “над извивами
витых башенных лестниц”, “Быстро постукивающие каблучки”, “звонкий и пустой
звук”, “подворотнях темных улиц у реки”, “глаза распутниц”, “прелюбодеев”,
“Низко надвинутые шапки”, “наглухо застегнутые куртки”, “Чистый воздух”, “на
горной дороге”, “хмурый солнечный свет”, “Красавчик”, “с постели жены любовника
своей жены”, “тишина на горной дороге”, “топот копыт”, etc.). This paradigm
is quantitatively extended in the translation than in the original text. The
paradigms composition is a system of verbal images that generates a system of
objective images on a mental level. If there is a logical connection between
units of text paradigms (the composition of a verbal paradigm is logically
homogeneous), then the depth of the text will be less profound than if the
connection between elements of the paradigms is associative (the paradigm
composition is logically heterogeneous). The composition of a paradigm can be
motivated by text (verbal images may be combined into a paradigm just in this
context) or due to an extra-textual reality (verbal images may be combined
outside the text framework). E.g. the elements of the paradigm ENAMORED (“I launch forth on an easy wave”,”The wave
is spent”, “Papa and the girls”, “May I be there to see!” “rush out of the
tobacco-shop”, “call her name”, “my jumbled words of lessons”, “hours” and
etc.) cannot be connected outside the text frame, thus the paradigm composition
is motivated by the text. This is a feature of the majority of the text paradigms.
There is no logical connection between the paradigm elements (e.g. the logical
connection between paradigm elements ”The
wave is spent”, “call her name”, “hours” cannot established), so the
paradigm is logically heterogeneous. The
translation has the same characteristics of the paradigm composition of the
text, e.g. the elements of the paradigm BELOVED (“Кто?”, “Движения ее застенчивы и нервны”, “Она смотрит в лорнет”, “Да”, “вздох”, “Смех” and etc.)
cannot be united out of the text framework. Thus the paradigm is logically
heterogeneous and motivated with the text. However
there are some differences. The composition of some bordering paradigms is
logically homogeneous in the original text (e.g. ROUTINE (“under the moon”, “The city sleeps”, “Under the arches in the dark
streets”, “near the river”, “the tomb of her people”, “black stone”, etc.),
but they are heterogeneous ones in the translation (e.g. ROUTINE
(“обходительность”, “доброта”, “старческая немощь”, “Призраки в зеркале”,
“голос”,
“зеленовато-желтые лимоны”, “рубиновые вишни”). The
degree of the paradigm relevance is the degree of the paradigm importance for
the text understanding. The degree of relevance of paradigms differs from
hypoactual (paradigm has insignificant relevance) to hyperactual (paradigms
dominate in texts, reducing the importance of other paradigms; their
functioning predetermines the functioning of other paradigms). The idea of a
text in which a hyperactual paradigm functions is frequently connected to the
function of this paradigm. The textual depth of texts which the hyperactual
paradigms function in is less profound in comparison with the texts in which
hypoactual paradigms function (Stepanchenko et al. 42). Two
hyperactual paradigms (PASSION and ILLUSORY) function in the text under
consideration. These paradigms form the main conflict of the text. Enamored
Giacomo Joyce (James Joyce’s alter ego) cannot achieve his Beloved (so called
“dark lady” (Ellmann “Introduction” 8) because of her illusory. “In the course
of these shifting perspectives, Joyce unfolds the paradigm of unsatisfied love
as it takes hold of the no longer young” (Ellmann “Introduction” 16). The story
contains the failed attempt of seduction. It was called a “seduction piece’ by
Vicky Mahaffey (Mahaffey 197). Thus the main conflict is based on the
antagonism of the paradigms of PASSION and ILLUSORY. The main hero fails in his
attempts due to his beloved’s illusion nature (Orobinska 121). The
text translation has the same feature. The main conflict of the composition is
based on the opposition of two paradigms PASSION and ROUTINE (which the
elements of the original paradigm ILLUSORRY dissolves in). Depending
on the number of functions performed, the paradigms may be monofunctional
(performing one function in the text) and polyfunctional (performing several
functions in the text). The number of functions performed by the paradigm is
directly proportional to the textual depth. The paradigm can be divided into
projective (forming image) and conceptual (defining the concept). The
conceptual function of the paradigm increases the textual depth (Stepanchenko et al. 43). The
majority of the text paradigms perform just one function (so they may be called
monofunctional). E.g. the paradigm BETRAYAL (“Easy now, Jamesy!”, “Did you never walk the streets of Dublin at night
sobbing another name?”, “Aber das ist eine Schweinerei!”, “Belluomo rises from
the bed of his wife's lover's wife”, ‘the busy housewife is astir, sloe-eyed”,
“a saucer of acetic acid in her hand”, etc.) generates the concept
“infidelity” and in this way it performs a conceptual function as the majority
of text paradigms. We may observe the same situation in the translation (the
paradigm BELOVED (“Бледное лицо”, “в ореоле пахучих мехов”, “Движения ее
застенчивы и нервны”, “Она смотрит в лорнет”, “вздох”, “Смех”, “Взлет ресниц”,
“Паутинный почерк”, “удлиненные и изящные буквы, надменные и покорные”) is
aimed to form the concept “infidelity”). The
paradigms configuration is the relationship between separate paradigms. It
determines the features of their unification into the hyperparadigm of the
whole text (Stepanchenko, “O konfigurazii paradigmaticheskikh struktur poetichieskogo
teksta (na materiale stikhotvorieniy S. Esenina)” 329). Texts whose
paradigms are connected by relationships that are analogous to parataxis
(paradigms complement each other in the composition of hyperparadigms, form an
open conceptual series (unconditional paradigms configuration)), apparently,
have a lesser depth in comparison with the texts whose paradigms are united by
relationships that are analogous to hypotaxis (conditional paradigms
configuration) (Stepanchenko et al.
49). The
paradigms configurations of James Joyce’s “Giacomo Joyce” and
N.A. Kiasashvili translation are unconditional. The paradigms are united
by relationships that are similar to parataxis in the hyperparadigm of the
text. They create an open conceptual series. The
connection of paradigms in the text may be established on the language level
(lexical and grammatical links) and on the mental level (associative and
logical connections), and also on both levels simultaneously. Texts, whose
paradigms connection is established on the mental level, have extended depth
(Stepanchenko et al. 50). The
paradigms of the original text are united on the both language and mental
levels. E.g. paradigms ILLUSORY and CORPOREALITY oppose one another in the
framework of one syntagma (“A pale face
surrounded by heavy odorous furs”). The paradigms ENAMORED, BELOVED and
PASSION are united with paradigms ROUTINE and NATURE. E.g. “Moving mists on the hill as I look upward from night and mud. Hanging
mists over the damp trees. A light in the upper room. She is dressing to go to
the play”. In this abstract elements of the paradigms ROUTINE (“A light”, “the upper room”) and NATURE
(“Moving mists”, “on the hill”, “night”,
“mud”, “Hanging mists”, “the damp trees”) unite paradigms ENAMORED and
BELOVED with associative and logical means. The nature and surrounding word
reflect the relationships of the main hero and heroine that are covered with
“mist” and “illusory”. The paradigms of the translation are connected
only on mental level. The paradigms are connected with logical and associative
means. Original
James Joyce’s text was determined to have the following paradigmatic
organization of the text: motivated with the text, logically heterogeneous,
hyperactual, monofunctional, conceptual paradigms that are united on both
language and mental levels. The paradigms configuration is unconditional. N.A. Kiasashvili
translation has the following paradigmatic organization of the text: motivated
with the text, logically heterogeneous, hyperactual, monofunctional, conceptual
paradigms that are united on mental level. The paradigms configuration is
unconditional. The
main differences between the paradigmatic organization of analyzed texts and
textual depth are caused by different language structure (English is an analytical
language and Russian is a synthetic one). Functioning
of determiners is one of the English language features. There is no such
morphological category in Russian. Presence or absence of determiners influence
the process of text perception greatly. Let us compare: “The
wings of her drooping hat shadow her false smile. Shadows streak her falsely
smiling face, smitten by the hot creamy light, grey wheyhued shadows under the
jawbones, streaks of eggyolk yellow on the moistened brow, rancid yellow humour
lurking within the softened pulp of the eyes.” A determiner “her” allows to
correlate the fragment with the paradigm BELOVED. “Опущенные крылья шляпы затеняют
лживую улыбку. Тени бегут по лживой улыбке, по лицу, опаленному горячим
молочным светом, сизые, цвета сыворотки тени под скулами, желточно-желтые тени
на влажном лбу, прогоркло-желчная усмешка в сощуренных глазах.” There
no category of determiners in the Russian language, and there is no sense in
the repetition of the possessive pronoun “ее”, so it’s
omitted. But due to this omission the connection between the fragment and the
elements of the paradigm BELOVED is lost. In the Russian translation this
fragment correlates with elements of the paradigm ROUTINE. The
same situation may be observed in the next example: “The
lady goes apace, apace, apace.....” A determiner “the” indicates that this lady
is not just a lady at the street, but a main character of the essay. It leads
to including the fragment to the paradigm BELOVED. “Дама идет быстро, быстро,
быстро.....” The translation of the fragment is included to the
paradigm ROUTINE, because there is nothing that indicates the relation between
the fragment and the paradigm BELOVED. It
does not just reorganize the paradigmatic division of the text, but influences
the whole paradigmatic organization. The paradigms are connected on both
language and mental levels in the original text, but there are just logical and
associative links between the paradigms in the translation. In
the original James Joyce’s text the paradigms BELOVED and ROUTINE are connected
lexically in the following syntagma: “Great bows on her slim bronze shoes:
spurs of a pampered fowl”. The possessive pronoun “her” connects two paradigms.
But it doesn’t occur in the translated text: “Огромные банты на изящных бальных туфельках: шпоры изнеженной птицы”. Logical
connection should be established to correlate the paradigms during the
perception of the text translated into Russian. It makes the process of
perception harder and increases the variability of the text understanding. Thus
textual depth may be a mean of estimation translation quality, determining
differences in understanding that depend on languages features and the quality
of a translator’s work.
The
research prospects are a comparative analysis of the Russian and English
languages structures in terms of texts paradigmatic organization and textual
depth, determination of the languages differences that influences a process of
perception.
References.
Breus,
Evgeniy. “The Theory and Practice of Translation (English-Russian)”. Moscow:
RAO Publishing. 2003. Print. Ellmann,
Richard. “Introduction. Giacomo Joyce”. London: Farber and Faber, 1968. Print. Komissarov,
Vilen. “Teoria perevoda (lingvisticheskie aspekty) (Translation theory
(linguistic aspects)”. Moscow: Vischaia schkola. 1990. Print. Mahaffey, Vicki. “Joyce’s Shorter Works”. Ed.
Derek Attridge. The Cambridge Companion to James Joyce. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.185-211. Print. Milostivaya,
Alexandra, and Makhova, Irina. “Achieving communicative equivalence: space-time
text organization peculiarities in stream of consciousness novels of James
Joyce in German and Russian translations”.
Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities Vol. IX, No. 1
(2017): 36–45. Print. Nida,
Eugene, and Taber, Charles. “The Theory and Practice of Translation”. Leiden:
E. J. Brill. 1982. Print. Orobinska,
Mariia. “Textual depth as a characteristic feature of James Joyce’s “Giacomo
Joyce”. Linguistic Studies № 35 (2018):
119–122. Print. Pym,
Anthony.” Natural and Directional Equivalence in Theories of Translation”. Target, № 19:2 (2007): 271–294. Stepanchenko,
Ivan “Poeticheskiy iazik Sergeia Esenina (analiz leksiki)” (Sergey Esenin’s
poetic language (the lexicon analysis). Kharkiv: KhSPU, 1991. Print. Stepanchenko,
Ivan, Miroshnichienko, Mariia, Nesterenko, Kseniia, Piekharieva Mariia and
Prosianik, Oksana Paradigmatichieskiy analiz lieksiki poetichieskogo
proizviedieniia (Paradigmatic analysis of poetic work). Kyiv: Ukrajnske
vydavnitstvo, 2014. Print. Stepanchenko,
Ivan. “O konfiguratsii paradigmaticheskikh struktur poetichieskogo teksta (na
materiale stikhotvorieniy S. Esenina) (About poetic text paradigmatic
structures configuration (based on S. Esenin poems)”. Filologichni studii (Philological studies) (2009): 328-339. Print. Vinogradov,
Venedict “An Introduction to Translation Studies”. Moscow: RAO Publishing,
2001.
Надійшла до
редакції 24 жовтня 2018 року.
|