https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/issue/feed Methis. Studia humaniora Estonica 2020-06-15T18:30:54+03:00 Marin Laak marin.laak@gmail.com Open Journal Systems <p><span style="font-size: small;">METHIS. STUDIA HUMANIORA ESTONICA on Tartu Ülikooli kultuuriteaduste ja kunstide instituudi j<span class="tabeltootajategrupeerimine1"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a </span></span>Eesti Kirjandusmuuseumi kultuuriloolise arhiivi ühisväljaanne, ilmumissagedusega kaks korda aastas (juuni ja detsember). Ajakiri on rahvusvahelise kolleegiumiga ja eelretsenseeritav</span></p> https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/article/view/16565 Ideoloogia tõlketeooria ja tõlkeloo dialoogis / Field of ideology in a dialogue between theory and history of translation 2020-06-15T18:30:54+03:00 Peeter Torop peeter.torop@ut.ee <p>Artikkel on pühendatud tõlketeooriat ja tõlkelugu ühendavale ideoloogia mõistele. Jälgitud on ideoloogia mõistevälja dünaamikat 21. sajandi tõlketeoorias ja tõlkeloos. Vaatluse all on tõlketeaduslikes käsiraamatutes loodud terminiväljade muutumist ideoloogia mõiste hägustumisest uute mõistete juurutamiseni. Artikkel osutab olukorrale tõlketeaduses, kus tõlketeoreetiline kirevus on nii suur, et tõlkeloolastel on raske nii metodoloogilist kui praktilist tuge leida. Samas osutab tõlketeooria areng üldisele mõttelaadi dünaamikale tõlkekultuuriga seoses ja selles toimuvaid protsesse on võimalik tõlkeloo analüüsimeetodite täiustamisel ära kasutada.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>If there is a wish to understand translation, it is necessary to consider all its aspects also from the point of view of ideology. The process of translation should be seen as a complex of interlinguistic, intralinguistic, and intersemiotic translations, on the one hand, and as a complex of linguistic, cultural, economic, and ideological activities, on the other hand. Translators work on the boundaries of languages, cultures, and societies, and position themselves between the poles of specificity and adaptation, in accordance with the strategies of their translational behaviour: they either preserve the otherness of the Other (foreignisation) or transform the Other into Self (domestication). By the same token, they cease to be simple mediators for, in a semiotic sense, they are capable of generating new languages to describe a foreign language, text, or culture, and renewing a culture or influencing a culture’s capacity for dialogue with other cultures as well as with itself. In this way, translators work not only with natural languages, but also with metalanguages, languages of description. As mediators between languages, translators are important creators of new metalanguages.</p> <p>Different parameters should be observed in the process of translation, among which economic and ideological aspects of translation hold the first place. In turn, these are associated with professional ethics or with the professional ethics of the translator. The practice of translation is even more complex, and the behaviour of translators and the quality of their work do not depend solely on their linguistic or literary abilities. The translator is simultaneously a mediator, a creator, a producer, a manager, a critic, as well as an ideologue. All of these roles constitute various aspects of cultural behaviour and can be correlated with the entire textual corpus of a culture. An actualisation of the various cultural and social roles of the translator reflects the general effort, made in analysis, to reach a complex understanding of the phenomenon of translation in the processes of culture.</p> <p>It is difficult to observe the issues of ideology and economics in isolation, since the concept of the market in itself combines both the local and the global aspects. The confluence of the economic and the ideological is especially characteristic of mass literature, and sholars studying the translation of the latter have been exploring, among other things, concepts such as collective translation (team translation), standardisation (of theme, language, style, size, weight), ignoring of authorial idiosyncrasies (the so-called sacredness of the author), commercial calculations (definite market, deadlines, no revision), selection of texts (reusability), the repeated publication of old translations (the recycling strategy), marketing strategies and pseudotranslations.</p> <p>The ideological issues arising in translation activities have gained significance both on an empirical and on a theoretical level. The very introduction of an author into a culture is an ideologically and politically coloured act, and the ideological aspect of translation activity is one of the factors involving translation within the process of the culture’s historical autocommunication. All in all, the historical identity of translation cannot be restricted to either the historical existence of translations, or to the history of translation. The history of translation is only one way of observing translation in time, as well as in ideological space. History of translation does have a significant influence on translation studies, but is simultaneously dependent on the latter as well, which is why the category of ideology is of major significance as concerns the notion of translation.</p> 2020-06-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/article/view/16566 Johannes Aavik ja vene kirjandus: biograafiline ja kultuurilis-ideoloogiline kontekst / Johannes Aavik and Russian Literature: Biographical, Cultural and Ideological Contexts 2020-06-15T18:30:52+03:00 Tatjana Stepaništševa tatjana.stepanishcheva@ut.ee <p>Johannes Aaviku ilukirjanduslikud tõlked täitsid tema jaoks eelkõige rahvuskeele uuendamise rolli, seetõttu jäid originaali stiil ning autori väljendusvahendid tema enda keeleuuenduste taustal tagaplaanile. Ent tõlgitavate teoste valik oli tingitud eluloolistest ning kultuurilis-ideelistest teguritest, mille rekonstrueerimine ongi siinse artikli uurimisobjektiks. Eesti ja vene kultuuri vahekorra spetsiifika 20. sajandi esimesel veerandil tingis Aaviku pöördumise nimelt vene kirjanduse retseptsiooni poole. Nagu artiklis näidatud, oli see komplitseeritud seostes tolleaegse kultuuri ja poliitilise olukorraga Eestis.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>This article examines Johannes Aavik’s relationship with Russian literature as a translator and as a reader. It provides a description of the general traits of Aavik’s literary translations: for Aavik, they served primarily as a tool for the renewal of his first language – Estonian, so he was less concerned with the style and poetics of the originals than with his own linguistic innovations. However, his selection of texts for translation was conditioned by biographical, cultural and ideological factors, which this article attempts to reconstruct. The specific relevance of the relationship of the Estonian and Russian cultures in the first quarter of the 20th century prompted Aavik to choose Russian literature. As the article demonstrates, this had complex ties with the cultural and political situation in Estonia at the time.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Aavik was highly critical of Estonian literature’s contemporary status and considered renewal of the literature to be one of the tasks of linguistic renewal. He was certain that his linguistic work and translations would set Estonian literature on the right path and contribute to the development of national self-consciousness. As part of Aavik’s linguistic utopia, he published the book series “Hirmu ja õuduse jutud” (<em>Tales of Fear and Terror</em>, 1914–1928) which included translations from various literatures, including Russian.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Aavik became familiar with Russian culture at the time of Estonia’s forced Russification when all schools had to adopt Russian as the language of instruction. After a short period of studying ancient languages at the University of Tartu, Aavik was obliged to continue his education at the Nizhyn Pedagogical Institute (Ukraine), which did not contribute to the development of his interest in Russian culture. To the contrary: in those years and in those following, he was most interested in French and Finnish culture, although he was also familiar with both classic and contemporary (modernist) Russian literature.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; After Estonia gained independence in 1920, the time arrived for a re-assessment of the national intelligentsia’s relationship with Russian culture. Aavik was consumed by his project of large-scale renewal of the Estonian language, and he saw literature in general as a tool for the promotion of his ideas. He loved thrillers and assumed that these would attract a mass readership – thus, he chose works by authors such as E.&nbsp;T.&nbsp;A.&nbsp;Hoffmann, Friedrich Schiller, Gustav Meyrink, Ambrose Bierce, Arthur Conan Doyle, Guy de Maupassant, Prosper Mérimée, Auguste Villiers de l’Isle-Adam, Juhani Aho and Rodolf Toepffer for translation and publication in the “Tales of Fear and Horror” series. The Russian authors included in the series were primarily classics such as Alexander Pushkin, Nikolay Gogol, Mikhail Lermontov, Ivan Turgenev, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and Aleksei Kuprin, but the texts chosen were not those traditionally represented in school curricula. The majority of the translations were done not by Aavik himself, but rather by his students (he taught at a school for several years), while Aavik was responsible for choosing the texts, editing the translations as per the programme of “linguistic renewal”, and preparing afterwords and commentaries.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This article examines in closer detail a translation made by Aavik himself and, in part, by his former classmate, the priest Vladimir Paivel – several fragments from Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s novel <em>Crime and Punishment</em>. It argues that Aavik’s translation does not fit into the classification of “domestication vs. foreignization” in translation, as the translator was mostly concerned with the linguistic and stylistic aspects of the Estonian text, not with the original. In the process of translation, the “language machine” (as Aavik termed it) reworked foreign material, making it “its own” – a part of its own mechanism. Thus, the national origin of literary material became a factor of little importance. This is especially notable in view of the fact that Aavik considered literature to have a direct link with political processes. He held the opinion that the level and main vectors of literary development served as indicators of the status of national sentiment and directly influenced the political life of the nation. The article provides numerous examples of such judgements which are first and foremost based on Russian material. Aavik saw a direct link between the work of Dostoyevsky and the formation of revolutionary sentiments in Russia, and between Russian modernist poetry and the social explosion in the late 1910s. It can be claimed that he considered Russian “literature-centredness” to be among the causes of the revolution. However, this did not keep Aavik from holding Ivan Turgenev’s literary work in the highest regard, and he even worked on translations of Turgenev in Tallinn during the Soviet occupation in 1942–1943, as well as in his later years of emigration in Sweden.</p> 2020-06-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/article/view/16567 Betti Alver Maksim Gorki „Lapsepõlve“ tõlkijana / Betti Alver as a Maksim Gorky’s “My Childhood” translator 2020-06-15T18:30:46+03:00 Maria Borovikova maria.borovikova@ut.ee <p>Artiklis vaadeldakse Maksim Gorki eestindusi nende ajaloolises kontekstis ja tuuakse välja põhimõttelised erinevused 20. sajandi alguse tõlgete ja varaste nõukogudeaegsete tõlgete vahel. Need erinevused on tingitud esiteks rahvusliku tõlketeooria kujunemisest Eestis 1920.–1930. aastatel, teisalt avaldas olulist mõju Gorki kirjanikustaatuse muutumine tuntud Euroopa kirjanikust nõukogude klassikuks. Betti Alveri tõlgitud Gorki „Lapsepõlve“ (1946) võrdlus tema abikaasa Heiti Talviku sama jutustuse esimese osa tõlkekatsetusega võimaldab detailselt jälgida uue tõlkekaanoni kujunemist Eestis.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>In 1946 the tenth anniversary of the death of Maxim Gorky was celebrated in the Soviet Union. A number of celebratory events were organised in Estonia in connection with this date, including the planned release of the first Soviet translations of Gorky’s works into Estonian. It was not <em>Mother</em> or some other “programmatic” work of Gorky’s that was chosen to serve as this representative translation, but, rather, his autobiographic trilogy (<em>My Childhood</em>, <em>In the World</em>, <em>My Universities</em>), which is most telling as regards the formation of an ideologically orthodox Soviet myth about Gorky in a new cultural space. The trilogy represented a sort of hagiography of the main Soviet writer, and it was meant to be accessible to any resident of the newly Soviet country in a language they could understand.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Betti Alver, who would later become one of Estonia’s most interesting and influential female poets, completed the translation of the entire trilogy. However, the original translation contract was signed not with Alver, but with her husband Heiti Talvik. Talvik, however, did not manage to finish the work on the translations due to his deportation to Siberia in May 1945, where he died, apparently in July 1947. The contract for <em>My Childhood</em> was renegotiated with Betti Alver –&nbsp;immediately after her husband’s deportation. Talvik had managed to translated only several pages of the first chapter of <em>My Childhood</em>.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; This article demonstrates in detail that Alver’s translation was not merely a continuation of her husband’s work, but, rather, assumed a particular personal meaning (which was especially important in a situation where she had no news of Talvik, and working on the translation was the only possible form of dialogue with him). Alver’s use of the work her husband completed testifies to the way in which she entered a unique “dialogue” with him: she did not discard that work, yet did not copy it either. Rather, she made some –&nbsp;not numerous, but meaningful&nbsp;– corrections. The article demonstrates the difference in the two translators’ strategies on the basis of those corrections.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The comparison of the two translations becomes even more interesting due to the fact that Talvik’s translation –&nbsp;despite the modest amount of his completed work – very clearly demonstrates his translation strategy. First and foremost, this lies in a commitment to high precision and literal translation –&nbsp;especially with regard to syntax and punctuation (Gorky uses a full arsenal of punctuation marks, and Talvik carefully preserves all his ellipses, semicolons and dashes, maintains the length of sentences and tries to retain the number and order of words to the extent possible). The second particularity of Talvik’s translation is the interiorisation of the source text by the receiving culture, which demonstrates his allegiance to the pre-Soviet tradition of the reception of Gorky in Estonian (Gorky was first translated into Estonian at the end of the 1890s; this article provides a short analysis of the very first translation, that of Gorky’s short story “Kirilka”,&nbsp;and demonstrates its main features, one of which is the translator’s attempt to translate the language of the main character, a Russian peasant woman, using Estonian dialectisms).</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Meanwhile, Betti Alver’s translation is characterised by opposite tendencies. First and foremost, she seeks to erase the gap that exists between the hero of the autobiography and the adult narrator, electing to use the narrator’s objective point of view. Such a strategy of translation was in line with the official, early-Soviet interpretation of Gorky’s autobiographical prose, which held that <em>My Childhood </em>was, first and foremost, a large-scale epic “about the oppressive horrors of life”, and the lyrical opening of the story was declared to be virtually absent. The analysis of specific examples provided in this article demonstrates the translator’s aspiration to smoothen and neutralise, rather than emphasise, the style of the source text. She sought to make the text to be understood more easily in the new culture and more convenient for the Estonian reader, which is especially evident in contrast with the preserved draft of Talvik’s translation –&nbsp;Talvik’s work was characterised by heightened attention to the stylistic experiments of the original. This article emphasises the fact that the change to a new translation paradigm took place literally during work on a single text. The confrontation of these two paradigms is visible in <em>My Childhood</em>: Talvik was still thinking within the framework of the Estonian translation culture in the 1920–30s, according to which the goal of translation was to enrich the readesr with the cultural particularities of the original, to educate them. Meanwhile, Alver’s work clearly belongs to a new era, in which the main task was not cultural enrichment, but, rather, the preservation of the Estonian language, even in translated texts.</p> <p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; At the same time, all of the tendencies noted in Alver’s translation also correspond to unvoiced attitudes in the theory of Soviet translation that was forming at the time: a “smooth”, homogenised style&nbsp;–&nbsp;without linguistic experimentation and meant to be convenient for the receiving culture – replaced literalism, which had been branded as a manifestation of formalism in translation. Such an approach also suited with the Soviet view of Gorky, which detached the work of the “Soviet classic” from Modernist culture with its linguistic experiments in prose, expressionism and subjectivism.</p> 2020-06-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/article/view/16568 Jutustajateksti muutlikkus Fjodor Dostojevski romaani „Vennad Karamazovid“ eestikeelsetes tõlgetes / Changeability of the narrator’s text in the Estonian translations of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov 2020-06-15T18:30:44+03:00 Lea Pild lea.pild@gmail.com <p>Käesolevas artiklis uuritakse kõrvutavalt originaaltekstiga Fjodor Dostojevski romaani „Vennad Karamazovid“ kahte eestikeelset tõlget, mille autoriteks on Aita Kurfeldt ja Virve Krimm. Analüüsi objektiks on jutustaja muutlik diskursus, mille eripära avaldub stiili ebaühtluses ehk muutlikkuses. Jutustaja „takerduval“ kõnel on romaanis oluline funktsioon, mis seisneb kaootilise, ebakindla kunstilise maailma loomises. Eestikeelseid tõlkeid vaadeldakse võrdluses lähtetekstiga mitmel mikrostilistilisel tasandil: kesksõnatarindid, sõnade ja sõnatüvede kordus, modaalsõnad, deminutiivid, fraseoloogilised üksused, grammatilistest normidest kõrvalekaldumine.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p class="text-regular" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; background: white;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; background: white;">The article studies two Estonian translations of Dostoyevsky’s novel <em>The Brothers Karamazov</em> by Aita Kurfeldt and Virve Krimm</span><span lang="EN-US" style="background: white;">, comparing them to the source text. <span style="color: black;">The tradition of translating Dostoyevsky’s works into Estonian has its beginning in the 20th century. It started with Johannes Aavik’s experimental translations and was continued by the classic of Estonian literature A.&nbsp;H.&nbsp;Tammsaare – in 1929, the first Estonian translation of <em>Crime and Punishment</em> appeared in the latter’s translation. In the 1930s, preparations </span>began in Estonia to <span style="color: black;">publish Dostoyevsky’s collected works in 15 volumes, and, as part of this initiative which involved several translators, the novel <em>The Brothers Karamazov</em> first appeared Estonian in Aita Kurfeldt’s translation (1939–1940). Kurfeldt’s translation was later edited and updated by Helle Tiisväli, and the new edition published by the Kupar publishing house in 2001. In the 21st century, the novel was translated for the second time and published by Varrak with an afterword by Peeter Torop in 2015–2016. The translator was Virve Krimm, a capable and talented translator who had already translated Dostoyevsky’s <em>Demons</em> as well as other books by classic Russian authors, e.g., Turgenev’s novel <em>Home of the Gentry</em>, his stories and prose poems; she had also been a co-translator of Tolstoy’s <em>War and Peace</em>. In Krimm’s obituary by the Translators’ Section of the Estonian Writers’ Union, her translation of <em>The Brothers Karamazov</em> was highly appreciated. Both translations were made during times free of the prescriptive norms of the Soviet regime. If ideological coercion in the narrower sense of the word (the authorities’ pressure on translators, editors and publishers) is considered, both translations can be regarded as expressions of the translators’ free choice – both were completed in free Estonia. </span></span></p> <p class="text-regular" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; background: white;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; background: white;">A conspicuous characteristic of Kurfeldt’s translation is her word-for-word reproduction of Dostoyevsky’s phrases or whole syntactic periods, preserving even the word order. The author of the later translation as well as the later editor of Kurfeldt’s translation have clearly tried to actively oppose Kurfeldt’s tendency towards literal translation. Still, the first translator’s “literal translation” cannot be claimed to be an indicator of dilettantism, as Kurfeldt’s attempts to copy Dostoyevsky’s syntax and even punctuation may be viewed as an essential effort to revive the narrator’s changeable, clumsy manner of speech in <em>The Brothers Karamazov</em>.</span></p> <p class="text-regular" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; background: white;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; background: white;">This article analyses the narrator’s transmutable discourse, the peculiarity of which is expressed in the inconsistent or unstable style, as well as its translations into Estonian. In the novel, the narrator’s inconsistent speech has an essential function which consists in creating a chaotic, unstable artistic world. Studies of Dostoyevsky’s poetics have often drawn attention to the peculiarity of the narrator’s style and tone in his works. Mikhail Bakhtin noted that the narrator’s word constantly fluctuates between two extremes – the dryly informative, recording word and the word depicting the character. The researchers who have followed or developed Bakhtin’s theoretical conception have also noted that such inconsistent and hesitant narration style approaches, or actually is, non-literary language. As Aage A.&nbsp;Hansen-Löve has shown, the spontaneous or chaotic manner of narration was characteristic of the vanguard or initial period of Russian realism, but it was also preserved in the movement during its later years. Dostoyevsky modelled the type of the “non-professional” narrator as early as in the 1840s. The speech of this narrator is knowingly “non-literary”. The writer’s “carelessness with words” has also been described and analysed in literary studies as a deliberate device realised at different levels of the narrative: in composition (e.g. the stylistic inconsistency in chapter headings), syntax, lexical paradigm, structure of phraseological expressions and deviations from language norms.</span></p> <p class="text-regular" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; background: white;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; background: white;">In this article, the Estonian translations are viewed in comparison with the source text on several microstylistic levels: participial constructions, repetition of words and word stems, modal words, diminutives, phraseological units, deviation from grammatical norms. The comparative analysis of the translations in the article does not attempt to characterise the translations in full, but only discusses the key tendencies in rendering the narrator’s unstable speech. The theoretical basis for the analysis derives from the virtual model of different translation types presented in Peeter Torop’s article “Tõlkeloo koostamise printsiibid” (“Principles of compiling translation history”, 1999).</span></p> <p class="text-regular" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; background: white;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; background: white;">In conclusion, it appears that Kurfeldt’s translation is a text dominated by an orientation towards the expressive plane of the source text. The word order in sentences, punctuation marks, modal words and their positions in the text are rendered exactly. Still, the translation is inconsistent at the microstylistic level: the translator tries to replace functional repetitions occuring in the text with synonyms, changes participial constructions into subordinate clauses, and presents participles as verbs in the third person; in a number of cases Kurfeldt also omits words and phrases. The edited translation has undergone essential changes in its turn – the editor has striven for stylistically correct, fluent, “proper” speech which sometimes remains rather far from the original.</span></p> <p class="text-regular" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; background: white;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; background: white;">Krimm’s translation has a considerably more complicated structure. Initially, it can be said that Krimm’s translation is oriented simultaneously towards the content plane of the source text, i.e. towards lexical and semantic precision, and sometimes also towards an equivalence with the rhythmic and intonational level of the expression plane of the original. Still, the precision of translating other levels of the expression plane of the original depends on the essentiality of the translated elements in the structure of the novel. Similarly to Kurfeldt, Krimm does not attempt to preserve diminutives, as these grammatical forms are not characteristic of the Estonian language. Thus, opting for an orientation mainly towards the expressive plane of the target text, Krimm continues many aspects of her personal tradition of translating Russian classics from the second half of the 20th century. Choosing the expression plane of the target text as a dominant was characteristic of many other Estonian translators in the Soviet period, as such a translation strategy compensated for the lack of political freedom. </span></p> <p class="text-regular" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; background: white;"><span lang="EN-US" style="color: black; background: white;">The conclusions of the article concern only the recreation of the narrator’s uneven speech in the Estonian translations of <em>The Brothers Karamazov</em> by Kurfeldt and Krimm and, at this stage, do not expand to encompass other layers of the complicated structure of Dostoyevsky’s novel in the texts by the two translators. The article serves as the beginning of a study: further, both translations could be viewed in a broader ideological context, considering the dependence of concrete translation solutions on the translation norms of the 1930s, the normative requirements for literary translation in the 21st century, problems of editing of translations, as well as aspects related to political, literary, linguistic, intermedial and other translation-related contexts.</span></p> 2020-06-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/article/view/16569 Autoritõlke teoreetilisest ja praktilisest väärtusest Jaan Kaplinski luuletuse "Valgus ei saagi vanaks" näitel / On the theoretical and practical significance of self-translation on the example of Jaan Kaplinski's poem "Light Does Not Get Old" 2020-06-15T18:30:42+03:00 Ekaterina Velmezova ekaterina.velmezova@unil.ch <p>Artikkel annab ülevaate, kuidas on tõlketeoorias käsitletud autoritõlget − kirjandusteose tõlget teise keelde, mille on teinud selle autor ise. Lähemalt vaadeldakse ühte leksikaal-semantilist aspekti Jaan Kaplinski luuletuse „Valgus ei saagi vanaks” (1984) autoritõlkes vene keelde. Autoritõlkes esinevad kõrvalekalded originaaltekstist võimaldavad lülitada tõlgitud teksti Jaan Kaplinski luuleloomingu laiemasse konteksti. Järeldusena rõhutatakse autoritõlke ja selle analüüsi väärtuse kahte tahku: see aitab kaasa nii tõlgitud teksti kui ka sama autori teoste laiema konteksti paremale mõistmisele, samuti selle autori tekstide tulevaste tõlgete suuremale adekvaatsusele.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The notion of self-translation (or translation by the author) is yet to be elaborated in translation studies. There are several reasons for this: in addition to the fact that, in spite of the apparent simplicity and obviousness of this concept, no established definition of self-translation exists that most researchers could rely upon, there is not much material for study as authors themselves do not often translate their own texts into other languages. Hence the immediate interest of cases of self-translation for researchers – indeed, there are many more studies devoted to analyses of specific cases of self-translation than there are general theoretical considerations concerning self-translation as such. There may also be a terminological confusion of several orders at once: should we consider a text translated by the author into another language as a translation (a kind of&nbsp;“ideal way” to recreate the original text in another language, because no one can know the original better than its author) or as a completely new text?&nbsp;In the latter case, the concept of literary bilingualism may be superimposed on the concept of self-translation. However, it is not the same thing: in the case of self-translation, there is an original text which is subsequently reproduced in another language; in the case of literary bilingualism there no such source text exists.</p> <p>One of the very few&nbsp;“classic” scholars of translation&nbsp;studies&nbsp;who wrote about self-translation was Aleksandr Finkel (1899−1968). Finkel noted that the translator and the translator-author face the same tasks and difficulties, but emphasised that in the case of self-translation, the resolution of these difficulties takes on a slightly different character. As the article shows, one can speak not only about the different manners of resolving the tasks and difficulties of translation when it is carried out by the author, but also about the particular value of self-translation and its importance for text analysis.</p> <p>In the light of some scholarly reflections on the notion of self-translation, the article discusses the lexical-semantic aspect of Jaan Kaplinski’s translation of his own poem “Valgus ei saagi vanaks” (“Light Does Not Get Old”, from the 1984 poetry collection&nbsp;<em>Tule tagasi helmemänd </em>[<em>Come Back, Amber Pine</em>]) into Russian. Kaplinski’s&nbsp;translation deviates significantly from the original&nbsp;text. Describing this&nbsp;translation in terms of its “deforming tendencies”, as they are formulated within the framework of Antoine Berman’s theory, the main changes in the Russian-language translation of this text in comparison with its Estonian-language original can be described as follows: (1) “ennoblement”, (2) “the destruction of underlying networks of signification”&nbsp;and (3)&nbsp;“clarification”. Deviations from the original text in Kaplinski’s self-translation that fall under the category of the third, “clarifying”, tendency, when the translator “clarifies” to the reader what may seem less than clear in the original, allow for an analysis of the poem that connects the lexical-semantic concept of “light” to the concept “(little) baby”.&nbsp;The lexical-semantic connecting of these two concepts, while absent from the original text, makes it possible to locate the translated text in the wider context of Kaplinski’s poetry. This connection is present in at least one more poem from&nbsp;<em>Come Back, Amber Pine</em>: “Mu laps äkki unustab nälja” (“My Child Suddenly Forgets About Hunger”). It makes sense, therefore, to preserve, and even strengthen, this connection when translating the text of “My Child Suddenly Forgets About Hunger”, into Russian, by translating the Estonian word&nbsp;<em>laps </em>not with the Russian&nbsp;<em>rebenok </em>(‘child’), but with the word&nbsp;<em>malysh </em>(‘baby, small child’). On the other hand, the importance of the&nbsp;lexical-semantic&nbsp;connection between “light” and “life” (newborn, baby, child – new life) in Kaplinski’s poems attracted almost immediate attention after the publication of&nbsp;<em>Come Back, Amber Pine</em>; for example, this is reflected in one of the first reviews of the book by Sirje Kiin.</p> <p>The article emphasises the importance of self-translation and its study in two ways. Firstly, self-translation can make explicit what was not obvious in the original text, thereby making it possible to fit the translated text into a wider context of the works by the same author, illuminating the implicit semantic connections present in the text, and thereby contributing to a better understanding of the&nbsp;original. Thus, the question of whether or not to apply certain concepts elaborated within the framework of translation studies (in particular, Berman’s concept of “deforming tendencies”) to the analysis of self-translations remains open. Secondly, analysing cases of self-translation makes it possible to produce more adequate future translations of other texts written by the same author.</p> 2020-06-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/article/view/16570 Draamateoste tõlkimise teooria ja reaalsus Anton Tšehhovi näidendi „Kirsiaed“ mõnede tõlgete analüüsi näitel / Translation theory and reality: The case of multiple translations of Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard into German 2020-06-15T18:30:39+03:00 Anna Pavlova anna.pavlova@gmx.de Larissa Naiditch larissa.naiditch@mail.huji.ac.il <p>Artiklis võrreldakse Vera Bischitzky, Rudolf Noelte, Thomas Braschi, ja Hans Polli Tšehhovi „Kirsiaia“ tõlkeid. Püstitatakse küsimus lavatõlke iseärasustest: selguse, häälduse mugavuse, süntaksi lihtsuse nõue. Mõnikord kasutatakse tõlgetes adaptsiooni, püüdes selgitada või eemaldada vaatajale arusaamatuid tekstielemente. Erisuguseid tõlkestrateegiaid illustreeritakse konkreetsete näidetega. Lahatakse vaadeldavate tekstide tõlkeprobleeme: idioomid, reaalid, mitteekvivalentne leksika, ja osutatakse tehtud tõlkeotsustele. Järeldatakse, et vaatamata laialdasele teoreetilisele tõlkealasele kirjandusele, mis soovitab rangelt hoida lahus „kirjandusliku ja lavatõlke“, on reaalsuses kõik põimunud, ning nn kirjanduslikud tõlked võivad vabalt kõlada (ja kõlavadki) lavalaudadel.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The article compares several translations of Chekhov’s comedy <em>The Cherry Orchard</em> into German. The translations discussed are made by Peter Urban, Vera Bischitzky, Rudolf Noelte, Thomas Brasch, and Hans Poll. The general theoretical question is raised whether special translations are required for the theatre: for example, if requirements such as clarity, easy pronouncability and simplicity of syntax, all together known as “scenicity”, are crucial in drama translation. The article demonstrates different translation strategies.</p> <p>The difficulties in translating the play can be summed up as follows: Chekhov creates speech peculiarities of each character of his play, depending on his or her social milieu, education, and individual characteristics. How to preserve these in translation? The language of the play contains indicators of its time (obsolete words and expressions). Does the translation need to render these? Transferring the realities of time and place is a task almost always facing the translator who, in this case, must choose the degree of modernity of the play’s language. The same applies to the translation of proverbs, sayings and quotes, as well as proper names, patronymics, diminutives like Dunyasha, etc. as foreign readers and audiences need not know that names such as Avdotya Fedorovna and Dunyasha can denote the same person, etc. How to treat citations, puns, jokes? Again, each translator resolves this issue in their own way.</p> <p>The translation by Rudolf Noelte, made for a radio play, borders on an adaptation: Nölte shortens the text noticeably; eliminates any references to realia such as kvas, Kharkov, Yaroslavl; rejects all patronymics, so that Lyubov Andreyevna becomes Frau Ranewskaya; erases nicknames and many meaningful or stylistically important expressions or even whole remarks from the text. He uses modern language. The translation of Peter Urban implies knowledge from the German audience that it need not have – for example, the awareness that Varya and Varvara Mikhailovna are the same person. Urban uses transliteration of realia, such as the name of the drink “kvas” or the address <em>mamochka</em> (‘mummy’). The translation is close to the original text, it is suitable for reading, but need not be understood by German theatre audiences as a lot of things may remain incomprehensible if this text is delivered on stage. Nevertheless, in the tradition of German translation criticism Chekhov’s texts in Urban’s translations are considered easily pronouncable, simple and clear, and are especially popular with stage directors. A similar approach to Chekhov’s text characterises Hans Walter Poll’s translation – just like Urban, he retains the realia, Russian toponyms, etc. The translation by Vera Bischitzky is even closer to Chekhov’s original than those of Urban and Poll. The translator strictly adheres to the principles of extreme accuracy and fidelity to the source and does not leave out or change anything; she usually opts for obsolete words and expressions typical of Chekhov’s time and uncommon today. It seems that she strictly follows the requirements for a “documentary translation”. She also explains words and names in comments. Her translation is even more readable than those by her predecessors and pursues not only literary, but also cultural and educational goals. From the point of view of scenicity, the best option of all the translations examined is that of Thomas Brasch. Almost without reducing or distorting the text, Brasch brings the original language closer to the modern audience by his use of vocabulary and colloquial syntax, and imitating dialogues. His sentences are shorter than those in Urban’ translation, and he often uses a nominative style to make the text clearer to the spectators.</p> <p>It is generally not known whether translators who translate “close to the text” of the original and provide comments on places unclear for the recipient always realise for what kind of audience their text is intended. It can be assumed that, translating the text of a play, they always have a theatrical production in mind. There is no information whether the translations by Bischitzky have been staged, but it is known that not only the translations of Brasch, who actually wrote for the stage, but also those by Urban and Poll have been recognised by stage directors. Noelte’s translation, that was intended for the stage, is more of an adaptation than a translation, and Brasch’s work is perhaps the only one among those considered that can be called a translation of Chekhov’s text made directly for the stage. <br>It can be concluded that, despite the extensive theoretical literature on translation that proposes a strict separation between the types of “literary translation” and “stage translation”, in real life everything is intertwined, and literary translations, such as the work by Urban or Poll, can be staged as well. Chekhov’s dramatic works are intended not only for being embodied on stage, but also for reading. The translator’s comments accompanying the text are valuable and contribute to the readers’ comprehension of it.</p> 2020-06-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/article/view/16571 Impeeriumi ideoloogia etnograafia keelde tõlkimise probleemist / The problem of translating imperial ideology into the language of ethnography 2020-06-15T18:30:36+03:00 Ljubov Kisseljova ljubov.kisseljova@ut.ee <p>Artiklis käsitletakse probleemi, kuidas Vene Geograafiaseltsi vaated, mis põhinesid Karl Ernst von Baeri etnograafilisel programmil, realiseerusid populaarses ja teaduslikus diskursuses, ning millist osa etendab etnograafilistes kirjeldustes poliitiline faktor. Mitmeköitelise teose „Maaliline Venemaa“ Baltikumi käsitleva teise köite teise osa näitel analüüsitakse impeeriumi ideoloogia peamiste postulaatide mõju piirkonna ajaloo ning põlisrahvaste kuvandi konstrueerimisele. Näidatakse, et autorid püüavad tõestada, nagu oleks piirkonna põhiprobleem Balti erikord, et kohalik elanikkond vihkab sakslasi ja vaatab lootusega Vene võimu poole. Selline tendents sobis täiesti vene 1860.−1870. aastate hoiakutega Balti küsimuses. Põhijäreldus on, et populaarne diskursus tingib etnograafilise käsitluse lihtsustamise ning ideologiseerimise.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The article views, in as great detail as possible, the history of creating the popular scientific ethnographic publication <em>North-Eastern Borderlands of Russia. The Baltic Region</em> (<em>Северо-Западные Окраины России. Прибалтийский край</em>, 1883) from the ethnographic series <em>Picturesque Russia </em>(<em>Живописная Россия</em>). Differently from Karsten Brüggemann (2018) who placed it in the broad context of 19th-century ethnographic publications, this article is less interested in the context and the general paradigm it blends with than in immanent text analysis, its pragmatics and sources. The author has set herself the task to examine how the book’s anonymous authors cope with the dilemma of academic and popular discourses; to which extent they manage to overcome the ideological and political setting of the era straddling the boundary between the epochs of Alexander II and Alexander III; how they implement the conditions of official imperial ideology – the loyalty of the subjects, the need for the acculturation of borderlands, the consolidation of a unified imperial nation. Therefore, a brief digression is made into the general features of imperial ideology.</p> <p>The beginning of the article describes how the publication reflected the general views of the Russian Geographical Society that should have become the patron of the publication. It is shown that Karl Ernst v. Baer’s article “On ethnographical studies in general and in Russia in particular” (“Об этнографических исследованиях вообще и в России в особенности”, 1846), which makes a clear distinction between the scientific and political tasks of ethnography, played a role in the formation of the concept of <em>Picturesque Russia</em>. The authors met the scholarly criteria in their selection of reliable information about the history of the Baltic provinces and their peoples and the new stage in the formation of the national mentality of Estonians and Latvians in the period of modernisation. The authors underscored how education influenced the gradual breakaway from the traditional lifestyle, creation of national cultural societies and periodicals, development of new literature in the local languages. They tried to present to the readers interesting digressions into the history of the region and its peoples, thus meeting the criterion of popularity.</p> <p>Simultaneously, the authors adhered to clear ideological principles: the territory of the Baltic provinces is a primordial “Russian” territory and must forever remain a part of the Russian Empire (the authors, naturally, could not imagine that the empire was not eternal). The indigenous peoples suffered greatly because of the German invasion in the 13th century and the long-time German rule that would follow; they hated Germans, strove for liberation from German domination and wanted to integrate into the Russian context. This attitude fully met the ideology and policy of the Russian authorities concerning the Russian acculturation of the region and gradual cancellation of the Baltic special order. One of the principles of the authors of the publication was to show the indigenous peoples’ support to such policy.</p> <p>The book about the Baltic provinces was published anonymously, and, until now, archive searches have not revealed the authors’ names. Analysis shows that the book is a compilation; the authors relied on many sources, which are listed in the current article. However, the lack of a single editor, heterogeneity of different parts of the book, and ideological engagement had a negative effect on the quality of the book. <em>Picturesque Russia</em>, which was planned as an extensive and very expensive project covering the history, geography and ethnography of the all regions of the Russian Empire did not prove as successful as its initiator, the renowned Russian published Maurycy Wolff, had expected. The bulky and heavy tomes did not sell well and did not get a serious response from Russian readers. Still, the books of this series, and <em>The Baltic Region</em> in particular, became sources for many popular publications of the time, including guidebooks on Russia not only in Russian, but also in German.</p> 2020-06-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c) https://ojs.utlib.ee/index.php/methis/article/view/16572 „Bukvalistide kukutamise“ alguse juurde: 1934. aasta / Towards the Description of the Beginning of “the Overthrow of the Literalists” 2020-06-15T18:30:33+03:00 Maria Malikova maria.e.malikova@gmail.com <p>Artiklis vaadeldakse eellugu nähtusele, mida Andrei Azov nimetas „bukvalistide kukutamiseks“ ning mis viis pooleks sajandiks nn nõukogude tõlkekoolkonna monopolini. Selle nähtuse algust näeme 1934. aastas, mil ilmusid ja said professionaalse arutelu objektiks silmapaistavate vene filoloog-tõlkijate Gustav Špeti ja Boriss Jarho novaatorlikud võõrapärastavad tõlked ja samal ajal seoses Nõukogude kirjanike esimese kongressiga leidis aset toores heteronoomia sissetung tõlkevälja ning tekkis sellest heteronoomiast kasu lõikav kriitiline diskursus. Olulisemate filoloog-tõlkijate hukkumine suure terrori ajal aitas kaasa kriitikute võidukäigule tõlkijate üle ja sealhulgas vene tõlkeajaloo retrospektiivsele moonutamisele, mida käesolev artikkel püüab parandada. Toetudes Lawrence Venuti tuntud teooriale võõrapärastavast ning kodustavast tõlkest, on seda dihhotoomiat diferentseeritud vastavalt nõukogude heteronoomsetele tingimustele.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>The article discusses the pre-history of what Andrey Azov famously called “the overthrow of the literalists”, and the beginning of the half-a-century domination of the “Soviet school of translation” in Russia. It aims to locate and scrutinise the moment when the previous translation trend, later pejoratively labelled as “literalism”, gave way to the “Soviet school”.</p> <p>In the post-war years, the Russian translators Evgeny Lann and Georgy Shengeli were subjected to harsh criticism as “literalists” by the literary critic, translator and translation theorist Ivan Kashkin. In the official history of Soviet translation as outlined in the <em>Literary Encyclopedia</em> (1968), they were presented as key figures of a translation trend, also labelled “formalist” and “technologically exact”, both post- and pre-war. This version of the history of Soviet translation, still resounding even in Azov’s study (2013), is strongly distorted and needs to be rewritten in a more analytical way. Primarily, the term “literalists”, that was used loosely and pejoratively at the time, can by no means serve as instrumental today. One of the most adequate self-labels of this trend in translation that had its heyday throughout the 1930s, notably in the activities of the <em>Academia</em> publishing house and the Commission for the Study of Literary Translation at the Moscow State Academy of Art Sciences (GAKhN), is “artistically scientific”. In order to describe the trend adequately it should be noted that the “nomination” of Lann and Shengeli as “literalists” and the main targets of post-war criticism owes primarily to the fact that the much more influential key figures of this “school”, mentioned in the <em>Literary Encyclopedia</em> (1934) as the “best present-day translators” – Mikhail Kuzmin, Adrian Pyotrovsky, Boris Yarkho, Mikhail Petrovsky – had either died (Kuzmin) or fallen victim to the great purges that hit also the GAKhNovites, including Gustav Shpet. Their names became unmentionable, while the translation projects and discussions of the 1930s associated with them could not be properly considered in translation histories. In order to reconstruct the true history of Soviet translation they have to be restored to their rightful place.</p> <p>The pivotal point that marked both the acme of the “artistically scientific” translation, as well as the beginning of its demise, was the year 1934. It famously saw the First All-Union Congress of Writers at which translation was declared not the “private domain of a couple of literary pedants, not the academic theme for a philologist’s thesis, but an affair of utmost state importance”. Integration of translation into Stalinist national politics (discussions at the Writers’ Congress were centred on the interests of Soviet nationalities and on praising the free translations made by poets) resulted in a drastic decline of autonomy in the field and in the competition between critics profiting from the heteronomy concerning who would define the true “Soviet translation” and thus have the power to judge. The brilliant samples of scientifically founded translations of classics that appeared in 1934 – Boris Yarkho’s rendition of the medieval romance <em>La Chanson de Roland</em> and Gustav Shpet’s new Russian Dickens and Shakespeare (both to become virtually erased from the history of Soviet translation later on) became the focal point of the dispute over what “Soviet translation” should be.</p> <p>The article reconstructs both Yarkho’s and Shpet’s philologically based translation premises and the conflicting reception of their work by fellow philologists and by politically motivated critics. The transcript of a 1934 discussion held after Evgeny Lann’s report on the principles of the new Dickens translations preserved in the archives clearly shows that, at the time, all discussants, including Kashkin, addressed not Lann but Shpet as the real source of these principles and that it was only after Shpet’s arrest and death that the spearhead of criticism was aimed at Lann (who, unlike Shpet, unfortunately lacked the philological and spiritual stamina and weight to confront it decisively). As for Yarkho’s attempt to invent a Russian poetic diction adequate for rendering French syllabic verse and the heterogeneous style of the medieval war epic, it was both daring and philologically grounded and had been highly praised as a model “Soviet translation” by major philologists working in the field of translation, e.g. Mikhail Alexeev, Alexander Smirnov and Rosalia Shor. At the same time, critics trying to speak in accordance with the political line would criticise it harshly, programmatically declaring their preference for the outdated free-verse translation into Russian made by de la Barthe.</p> <p>In the history of Soviet translation, the transition from the “artistically scientific” or, to use a more familiar term, foreignising trend that had been flourishing throughout the 1930s and given brilliant practical as well as theoretical results, to a domesticating, ahistorical “Soviet school” that lacked theoretical reflection was not a natural evolution. Instead, it constituted a brutal intrusion of heteronomy into the field of translation, the triumph of politically oriented literary critics over professional translators and philologists that was strongly facilitated by the fact that many of the latter were repressed and, consequently, their names and works were erased from the history of Soviet translation.</p> 2020-06-15T00:00:00+03:00 Copyright (c)