Loss and Compensation in Literary Translation

About the author:

Abstract:

Literary translation is a field of study, in which there is a large number of debatable issues and opposing opinions, including transformation of the original text in the translation process, the relationship between the original and the translation, the interpreter’s personality and style, and the criteria for assessing the quality of translation. The purpose of this article is to study the theoretical issue of losses inevitable in the process of translation, on the one hand, and methods of their compensation, on the other hand. To achieve this goal, the works of national and foreign linguists devoted to the study of these problems were analysed. The research was based on the novel by the French writer K. Pancol “A Man at a Distance” and its translation into Russian, performed by Maria Blinkina-Melnik. Both books were published in 2002. The translation of this novel into Russian contains the material relevant for the research, it allows us to trace the individual approach of the translator to solving the difficulties constantly arising in the process of translation. Transformations of omission and compensation used by the translator make us think about the reasons for the selected translation decisions, their effectiveness and possible alternative versions of the translation. Practical analysis revealed discrepancies between the text of the original and its translation, due to the peculiar translator’s interpretation of the novel, the heterogeneity of languages, and the socio-cultural differences between the two countries: France and Russia. The study showed that, contrary to the interpreter’s aspiration to achieve the best translation in terms of quality, as much as possible to preserve its content and ideological and aesthetic value, he is always doomed, according to U. Eco, to say “almost the same thing” in his version of translation.

References:

1. Barkhudarov L. S. 1975. Yazyk i perevod [Language and translation]. Moscow: International Relations. 
2. Vinogradov V. S. 2004. Perevod: Obshchiye i leksicheskiye voprosy: Uchebnoye posobiye [Translation: General and Lexical Questions: Textbook]. Moscow: KDU. 
3. Garbovsky N. K. 2004. Teoriya perevoda [Theory of Translation]. Moscow: Publishing House of Moscow University. 
4. Komissarov V. N. 2004. Sovremennoye perevodovedeniye [Modern Translation Studies]. Moscow: ETS. 
5. Lotman Yu. M. 2016. Struktura khudozhestvennogo teksta. Analiz poeticheskogo teksta [Structure of the Literary Text. Analysis of the Poetic Text]. Saint Petersburg: Azbuka, Azbuka-Atticus. 
6. Pankol K. 2002. Muzhchina na rasstoyanii [A Man at a Distance]. Moscow: Publisher MontPress. 
7. Chukovsky K. I. 2014. Vysokoye iskusstvo. Printsipy khudozhestvennogo perevoda [High Art. Principles of Literary Translation]. Saint Petersburg: Azbuka.
8. Eco U. 2015. Skazat’ pochti to zhe samoye. Opyty o perevode [Saying Almost the Same Thing: Experiences in translation]. Moscow: AST: CORPUS. 
9. Yakovleva M. A. 2008. K voprosu o klassifikatsii razlichnykh vidov kompensatsii [On the Classification of Various Types of Compensation]. Questions of Philological Sciences, no 44 (33)., pp. 46-51.
10. Guidère M. 2008. La communication multilingue. Bruxelles: Groupe De Boeck.
11. Oustinoff M. 2011. Traduire et communiquer à l’heure de la mondialisation. Paris: CNRS editions.
12. Pancol K. 2002. Un homme à distance. Paris: Editions Albin Michel S. A.
13. Rastier F. 2006. La traduction: interprétation et genèse du sens. In: Marianne Lederer et Centre de recherche en traductologie (Paris), dir. Le Sens entraduction, pp. 37-49. Caen: Lettres modernes Minard.