THE PROBLEM OF TRANSLATING REALIA: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF TWO ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF BULGAKOV'S THE MASTER AND MARGARITA

Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia

D

S

L

C

C

L

LINGUE PER LA COMUNICAZIONE NELL

’

THE PROBLEM OF TRANSLATING REALIA:

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF TWO ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF BULGAKOV'S

THE MASTER AND MARGARITA

Prova finale di:

Aliaksandra Schensnovich Relatore:

Marc Silver Correlatore:

Franco Nasi

Anno Accademico 2015−2016

ABSTRACT

Il presente lavoro presenta un‘analisi dei Realia russi e sovietici nelle due traduzioni in inglese de ―Il Maestro e Magherita‖ di Mikhail Bulgakov, tradotti da Michael Glenny per Harvill Press (1967) e da Richard Pevear e Larissa Volokhonsky per Penguin Books (1997).

Il quadro teorico di riferimento (in primo luogo Vlakhov e Florin 1980, Koller 1979 e Belobrovtseva 2007) insieme all‘analisi qualitativa degli esempi selezionati manualmente e al ricorso a dizionari bilingue e monolingue per l‘inglese e il russo ha permesso di classificare i Realia ed evidenziare le differenze fra le strategie traduttive adottate nelle due traduzioni in questione. La traduzione di Glenny (1967) infatti appare più orientata al testo d‘arrivo, mentre quella di Pevear e Volokhonsky (1997) presenta più tratti del testo di partenza. Le differenze nei due approcci alla traduzione oltre alle preferenze individuali dei traduttori sono dovute principalmente alla distanza temporale fra i testi e al contesto storico- culturale in cui la traduzione ha avuto luogo, vale a dire durante e dopo la Guerra fredda.

Inoltre, i risultati del presente studio dimostrano che non esiste un procedimento unico per tradurre i Realia. Calco, omissione, esplicitazione nelle note a piè di pagina, generalizzazione (iperonimo), parafrasi sono i procedimenti traduttivi più frequenti nel caso dei Realia ne ―Il Maestro e Margherita‖.

ABSTRACT

In the present thesis we analyse Russian and Soviet realia based on examples that have been manually gathered from two English translations of Bulgakov‘s The Master and Margarita, translated by Michael Glenny for Harvill Press (1967) e by Richard Pevear e Larissa Volokhonsky for Penguin Books (1997). A qualitative analysis of the examples was carried mainly based on the works of Vlakhov and Florin (1980), Koller (1979) and Belobrovtseva (2007) and the information from English and Russian monolingual and bilingual dictionaries. Thus, a series of Russian and Soviet realia has been chosen from the source text and differences in translation strategies between the two given translations have been pointed out. Glenny‘s translation (1967) is a more target-text oriented translation, whereas the translation by Pevear and Volokhonsky (1997) reflects more of the source text traits.

Differences between the two translations are due to different time frames and overall historical context in which the translations were made, namely during and after the Cold War. Moreover, the analysis demonstrates that translation procedures for realia vary on a case by case basis. The most frequent translation procedures for realia in The Master and Margarita are calquing, omission, explicitation in the footnotes, generalization (hyperonym) and descriptive translation.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...

CHAPTER 1

1.1. Different definitions of the term realia ... 9

1.2. Realia in Western and Eastern translation studies ... 15

2. Classification of realia ... 17

2.1. Vlakhov and Florin‘s classification ... 17

2.2. Summary table... 21

CHAPTER 2

2. Factors to consider before translating ... 26

3. Translation procedures ... 29

CHAPTER 3

1.1. Multidimensionality of the original text ... 33

1.2. Stylistic features of the original text ... 37

2. Translations of The Master and Margarita in English ... 42

2.1. Mikhail Glenny‘s version ... 42

2.2. R. Pevear and L.Volokhonsky‘s version ... 43

CHAPTER 4

1.1. Russian geographic realia ... 47

1.2. Russian ethnographic (art and culture) realia ... 49

1.3. Russian religious realia ... 53

2. Soviet realia ... 55

2.1. Soviet ethnographic (everyday life) realia ... 55

2.2. Soviet socio-political realia ... 60

2.3. Soviet communicative conventions (appellatives) ... 65

3. Author-coined realia ... 67

3.1. Names of social and public organizations ... 67

3.2. Proper names ... 71

CONCLUSIONS ...

REFERENCES ...

7

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present thesis is to analyse the linguistic phenomenon of realia in translation.

For this purpose we have chosen two translations of a famous Russian novel The Master and Margarita made by Michael Glenny (1967) e by Richard Pevear e Larissa Volokhonsky (1997). The reasons we have decided to work with this particular novel are first and foremost its abundance in Soviet and Russian realia, as well as its peculiar stylistic characteristics and the intricate plot that triggers curiosity both in Russian and Western readers.

Realia or culture-bound terms are elements that refer to a cultural and historical reality in a text. This makes realia an interesting topic for translation studies, together with the challenge that the translator faces. The problem of expressing realia is crucial for the translator of literary works, since they are encountered frequently in literary texts. It should be pointed out that our aim is not to criticize single translation strategies but rather analyse the target texts as a whole and verify the consistency of a particular translation strategy.

Chapter 1 concentrates on the definition and the classification of realia. The most complete study on culture-bound items has been done so far by two Bulgarian linguists Serghei Vlakhov and Sider Florin. Therefore, we are going to adopt the definition suggested by them in the book ―Untranslatable in translation‖ (Vlakhov, 1980: 47). We are going to discuss various characteristics of culture-bound elements and will point out the differences in usage of the term realia in Western and Eastern translation studies. As a second step, we concentrate on the detailed classification of cultural terms proposed by S. Vlakhov and S.

Florin (1980: 47-79). They divide realia in three large groups: socio-political, geographic and ethnographic, and distinguish them further in various subcategories. This division is going to help us structure the thesis and categorize Russian and Soviet realia in The Master and Margarita.

Translation strategies for realia in literary texts will be discussed in Chapter 2.

Factors that have to be considered before translating culture-bound terms are also the object of the present Chapter. The summary of translation procedures by S. Vlakhov and S. Florin (1980: 79-104) and Werner Koller (1979: 232-236) will lay the ground for analysing the translation strategies of the novel The Master and Margarita.

In Chapter 3 we are going to describe the peculiarities of The Master and Margarita from the translation perspective and provide examples of realia encountered in the text. The

8 novel was first printed in 1966-1967 and is unique for its structure and stylistic characteristics. First, we are going to concentrate on the description of Russian society under Stalin and analyse some Russian and Soviet realia that reflect the mentality and the way of life of that epoch. Then we shall provide a brief introduction to the two translations of The Master and Margarita that we have chosen for our analyses. The first translation was done by Michael Glenny in 1967 for Harvill Press and the second translation was done by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky in 1997 for Penguin Books. We will see in what ways the two translations reflect the prevalent views on translation theory and the individual translators‘ choices, each in their own timeframe.

In Chapter 4 we are going to analyse the following categories of realia, based on the classification of realia by Vlakhov and Florin (1980): Russian geographic, ethnographic, religious and historical realia; Soviet ethnographic and socio-political realia; appellatives (such as grazhdanin/ citizen and tovarish/comrade); author-coined realia (names of social and public organizations, proper names). Finally, we will take a look at the most important aspects of the two translations, their stylistic characteristics and translation strategies.

9

Chapter 1

REALIA OR CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS IN TRANSLATION STUDIES

1. The notion of realia

1.1. Different definitions of the term realia

The word realia comes from Latin realia, neuter plural of reālis, meaning actual, real. In his monograph ―Manuale del traduttore. Guida pratica con glossario‖ Bruno Osimo (1998) provides the following definition of realia:

Termine latino che significa letteralmente ―cose, oggetti reali‖. Elementi della realtà quotidiana presenti in un testo e spesso tipici della cultura della LP. Tradurre i realia significa tradurre un elemento culturale , non linguistico […]

The major difficulty in defining realia consists in the fact that this notion has been borrowed from other disciplines, such as educational science, philosophy, sociology and has been adopted by translation theory in order to define words and phrases that designate objects and concepts linked to a particular culture. English dictionaries refer to realia in relation to resources that enhance the educational process. Thus, the Cambridge online dictionary defines it as ―real objects or pieces of writing, used to help teach students in a class‖. (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/realia) The Reference dictionary online, however, adds another meaning, pointing out to its philosophical nature:

realia /riˈeɪ li ə, -ˈæl i ə, reɪˈɑ li ə/

1. Education. objects, as coins, tools, etc., used by a teacher to illustrate everyday living.

2. Philosophy. things that are real. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realia)

Thus, realia are elements, ideas, procedures associated with a particular culture and way of life. As will be discussed further, the word realia does not have a fixed definition in translation theory. The translation of realia or culture-specific items is mainly referred to in relation to a literary genre. Since realia are the elements that can express cultural patterns vividly and special local colours, they are intrinsic in the first place to literary texts.

One of the questions that arises while defining realia is whether they are to be considered only as specific terms, ―lexical gaps‖ or whether they as well include connotative

10 elements and the cultural baggage the expression carries. In her monograph ―Understanding cultures through their key words‖ Anna Wierzbicka (1997) provides the following examples of a series of Russian concepts trying to describe their meaning and the ideas that are triggered by the semantics of the expression:

[…] contemplating some other untranslatable Russian words like istina (roughly ‗higher truth‘), dusa (‗soul,‘ seen as a person‘s spiritual, moral, and emotional core and as an internal theatre where a person‘s moral and emotional life goes on); podlec (‗base person who inspires contempt‘), merzavec (‗base person who inspires disgust‘), negodjaj (‗base person who inspires indignation‘) […] (Wierzbicka, 1997: 3)

From the examples above we can notice that the paradigm that a specific word or expression can trigger in a native speaker‘s mind is often significantly broader than a single word or collocation. The meaning of the word realia itself points to the fact that realia are closely related to extralinguistic reality. The main theories of translation converge on the view that the meaning of words from different languages in most cases don't utterly match because they reflect particular ways of thinking of a given society and therefore provide clues to understanding cultures. Thus, a translator should pay attention to the extralinguistic background information that accompanies a culture-bound term and, where necessary, makes it implicit for the target language reader.

Thus, culture-bound terms may refer to objects, cultural phenomena, traditional or historical elements of a particular country or community. They may as well serve as a reference not only to objects, but also to notions and concepts that are unfamiliar or do not exist in another culture, such as moral, intellectual, artistic values of a particular culture and its mentality.

There is a very close link between the life of a society and the lexicon of the language spoken by it. This applies in equal measure to the outer and inner aspects of life. […] Most important, what applies to material culture and to social rituals and institutions applies also to people‘s values, ideals, and attitudes and to their ways of thinking about the world and our life in it. (Wierzbiska, 1997: 1,2)

Another question that inevitably arises is whether realia are to be considered the signifier or the concept behind it. In order to avoid confusion in translation theory it has been agreed to distinguish between two meanings of the notion realia: on the one hand, realia are seen as objects linked to history, culture, economy or everything that is related to culture and, on the other hand, there are realia as signifiers or lexical units.

In 1980 Sergei Vlakhov and Sider Florin, two Bulgarian linguists, published the book

―Untranslatable in translation‖. The whole text is dedicated to the problem of translating

11 realia, words naming nationally-specific traits, or culture-bound terms. According to Vlakhov and Florin, realia do not have immediate equivalents in other languages and are, therefore, hardly translatable by common means requiring a specific approach. Published only in Bulgarian and Russian, their study on realia was left out of Western translation theory. The scholars suggest their definition of the term and in the present thesis we are going to use the word realia in the sense that is given to it by Vlakhov and Florin (1980), although, suffice it to say, there is no established definition of the term in translation studies.

В нашем понимании это слова (и словосочетания), называющие объекты, характерные для жизни (быта, культуры, социального и исторического развития) одного народа и чуждые другому; будучи носителями национального и/или исторического колорита, они, как правило, не имеют точных соответствий (эквивалентов) в других языках, а, следовательно, не поддаются переводу ―на общих основаниях‖, требуя особого подхода. (Vlakhov and Florin, 1980: 47)

It is our understanding that realia are words (and phrases), which refer to the objects, typical of one nation‘s life (everyday life, culture, social and historical development) and unrelated to another nation. Since such terms are carriers of national and/or historical colours, they in general do not have precise correspondence (equivalents) in other languages and, therefore, cannot be translated ―on equal bases‖, thus requiring a particular approach. (Vlakhov and Florin, 1980: 47)

In their work the scholars make a clear distinction between the word realia that refer to material objects of a given culture and the notion adopted in translation studies that defines culture-specific elements. They put forward a statement that realia is a word and not the object or reference that it points to. Vlakhov and Florin suggest their own understanding of realia as ―a special category of means of expression‖ (1980:18) and point out that realia can be single words, as well as abbreviations, phrases, idioms or in general such collocations of words that can be considered semantically as a single word, e.g. Komsomol, the Third Reich, The House of Representatives, be up with the lark, hit the nail on the head etc.

Summarizing all the above based on Vlakhov and Florin‘s approach (1980) we can distinguish the following main features of realia:

i. Absence of equivalence

Realia more often than not do not have equivalents in other extralinguistic realities.

In this regard Anna Wierzbicka mentions language universals as opposed to culture-specific terms.

12 If the meanings of ALL words were-culture-specific, then cultural differences could not be explored at all. The hypothesis of linguistic relativity makes sense only if it is combined with a well thought out hypothesis of linguistic universality: only well-established linguistic universals can provide a valid basis for comparing conceptual systems entrenched in different languages and for elucidating the meanings which are encoded in some languages (or language) but not in others. (Wierzbicka, 1997: 22)

Thus, any language comprises universal and culture-specific elements. Culture- specific elements reflect the uniqueness of a single culture and lack a precise correspondence with the elements in other languages. It is where the translation void occurs that the translator‘s attention is particularly drawn.

ii. National and historical overtones

Vlakhov and Florin (1980) emphasize the importance of time and space in approaching the translation of realia. In this sense, the meaning of a culturally bound term is highly linked to a particular time and place in which the term appeared and, before translating it into another language, the term should be put into a larger context. The task of the translator is among others to try to preserve national and historical traits of realia in the target text by analysing the culture-specific elements in the source text and redefining their place in the target context.

В плане содержания отличительной по сравнению с другими словами чертой реалии является характер ее предметного содержания, т.е. тесная связь референта – обозначаемого реалией предмета, понятия, явления – с народом (страной), племенем или, реже, с другой социальной сообщностью, с одной стороны, и историческим отрезком времени с другой; отсюда соответствующий национальный (местный) и/или исторический колорит. (Vlakhov and Florin, 1980: 30)

From the point of view of the content, one of the characteristic traits of realia, in comparison to other words, is a close link of the object to which it is referred, with a particular nation (country), culture or community on the one hand, and with a particular historical timeline, on the other hand. That is why realia are carriers of national (local) and/or historical colours.

(Vlakhov and Florin, 1980: 30)

Returning to the definition of realia, we should mention that the boundaries of culture-specific terms are, nonetheless, not always clear. Loanwords and calques, for instance, such as tsunami, rendezvous or flea market (from French marché aux puces) are no longer unfamiliar to the international readership.

Vlakhov and Florin (1980: 33) mention that the so-called situational realia are particularly hard to be classified. Under situational realia the scholars mean different elements that reflect the reality and extend their meaning further than single words:

13 descriptions, entire text passages, as well as different literal, cultural, mythological, historical hints, allusions and references. In the following example, taken from the novel The Master and Margarita, the translators Pevear and Volokhonsky opted for the explicitation of the word Solovki in the footnote, whereas Michael Glenny expanded the translation right in the text. Both strategies, from our point of view, are appropriate, since leaving a simple transliteration of the term would probably not cause any associations in the target reader, and the intention of the writer would remain unnoticed.

―– Взять бы этого Канта, да за такие доказательства года на три в Соловки! – совершенно неожиданно бухнул Иван Николаевич.‖ (Bulgakov, 16)

'Kant ought to be arrested and given three years in Solovki asylum for that "proof" of his! ' Ivan Nikolayich burst out completely unexpectedly. (Glenny, 1967: 7)

They ought to take this Kant and give him a three-year stretch in Solovki ²² for such proofs!‘ Ivan Nikolaevich plumped quite unexpectedly. […]

22 Solovki: A casual name for the ‗Solovetsky Special Purpose Camps‘ located on the site of a former monastery on the Solovetsky Islands in the White Sea. (Pevear, 1997: 24)

All in all we can say that the question whether a particular lexical unit in a given context is to be considered realia and whether therefore it requires a particular approach in translating has to be solved case by case. This is where all extralinguistic knowledge and intuition of the translator turn out to be extremely useful.

Though, on the other hand, in some cases words that are linked to a particular culture are meant to express a larger semantic meaning, a hyperonym, such as for instance vodka or whisky may simply stand for a strong alcoholic drink, and may lose their link to a particular culture. In the following example from The Master and Margarita, in the version of Pevear and Volokhonsky, the woman at the stand ‗Beer and Soft Drinks‘ is supposed to serve seltzer, whereas in the translation by Michael Glenny the woman in the kiosk „Beer and Minerals‟ sells lemonade.

Попав в тень чуть зеленеющих лип, писатели первым долгом бросились к пестро раскрашенной будочке с надписью «Пиво и воды». […]

– Дайте нарзану, – попросил Берлиоз.

– Нарзану нету, – ответила женщина в будочке и почему-то обиделась. (Bulgakov, 10)

Reaching the shade of the budding lime trees, the two writers went straight to a gaily-painted kiosk labeled 'Beer and Minerals'. […]

'A glass of lemonade, please,' said Berlioz.

'There isn't any,' replied the woman in the kiosk. For some reason the request seemed to offend her.

(Glenny, 4)

14 Once in the shade of the barely greening lindens, the writers dashed first thing to a brightly painted stand with the sign: ‗Beer and Soft Drinks.‘ […]

‗Give us seltzer,‘ Berlioz asked.

‗There is no seltzer,‘ the woman in the stand said, and for some reason became offended. (Pevear, 18)

In the original text the two characters ask for narzan, a beverage with the following meaning:

Narzan: culinary mineral water. E.g.: …the gassy alkaline water, called Narzan, which is sold all over Russia… (Kabakchi, 2002: 242)

Seltzer is a nearer equivalent for narzan than lemonade. Nonetheless, the context does not require such a precision in translation since the point is to show that even on such a hot day there is no refreshing beverage available. As Belobrovceva and Kul'jus put it in their comments on the novel, ―the case when there is no refreshing ―нарзану‖ (‗Narzan‘) in such hot weather serves as introduction to an extremely relevant topic for M. Bulgakov – no prerequisites for normal life‖. (Belobrovceva, 2007:154)

To sum up, in a broad sense realia can be an object, a thing but also a process, a phenomenon that exist in real life and is linked to a particular culture. In this sense, the term realia is used to refer to objects and concepts, which are found in a particular source culture but not in a particular target culture. In a narrow sense, limited to translation studies, realia are lexical units, words and phrases which refer to the objects, typical of a particular community, nation, culture.

15 1.2. Realia in Western and Eastern translation studies

The word realia is hardly ever used in English-language translation studies, presumably because of the fact that originally it was a plural noun, which brings confusion in its usage.

Instead a variety of terms, such as culture-bound items, cultural terms, culture-specific elements, culture-markers, extralinguistic cultural reference are used. The following definition of culture-bound terms is provided in one of the English-language handbooks that summarize key terms in translation studies:

These are terms or expressions referring to elements or concepts that are closely associated with a certain language and culture, e.g. sarong in Malay, tortilla or siesta in Spanish, five o‘

clock tea in English and other terms referring to geography, traditions, institutions and technologies (a synonym for ‗culture-bound terms‘ that is perhaps most common in some non-English speaking countries is realia). (Palumbo, 2009: 33)

The Italian language refers to culture-bound terms as culturemi and the word realia, though present in some dictionaries does not refer to the translation studies.

realia /re'alja/ (re·a·lia) s.m.pl., lat. [lat. Mediev. Realia propr. ―cose reali‖] 1 pedag., oggetto di uso comune usato nella didattica per la comprensione di concetti, vocaboli e sim. 2 filol., lett., tutto ciò che si oppone alla sfera del poetico e dell'immaginario 3 ling., in lessicografia, insieme di figure e immagini che spiegano il significato di un termine, di un concetto. (Tullio de Mauro, 2000)

In his monograph ―Manuale del traduttore. Guida pratica con glossario‖ Bruno Osimo (1998) provides the following definition of realia:

Termine latino che significa letteralmente ―cose, oggetti reali‖. Elementi della realtà quotidiana presenti in un testo e spesso tipici della cultura della LP. Tradurre i realia significa tradurre un elemento culturale , non linguistico […]

In Eastern European Translation Studies, as well as the German-language school of translation, on the contrary, the notion of realia is accepted and largely used in relation to the problems in translation. As Werner Koller put it, Realien are:

Ausdrücken und Namen für Sachverhalte politischer, institutioneller, sozio-kultureller, geographischer Art, die spezifisch sind für bestimmte Länder. (Koller, 1979: 232)

Expressions and names for facts of the political, institutional, socio-cultural, geographic kind that are specific to a given country. (Koller, 1979: 232)

16 The most indepth work on realia belongs to two Bulgarian scholars Vlakhov and Florin (1980). According to Vlakhov and Florin (1980) the notion of realia was first used in linguistics in the 1950s, when the first difficulties in translation of peculiar elements intrinsic to a particular culture arose. In the 1970s attention goes to the notion of equivalence. In that period realia or cultural terms are identified as lexical gaps or terms with zero equivalence. The concept of equivalence is one of the most controversial topics in translation studies. Some scholars refuse to accept its validity and usefulness, others see in it a helpful device in teaching translation theory. Eugene Nida, who developed the dynamic- equivalence Bible-translation theory, was one of the first scholars to mention the problem of cultural-bound terms in translation. Together with Nida and Taber (1982), Werner Koller (1979), a German linguist and translation theorist, argues that without the concept of equivalence translation would not be possible. The question of translatability and various types of equivalence will be addressed further in the third section of the present chapter.

Finally, in the late 1980s and 1990s the accent shifts and cultural aspects of translation come to the foreground. Translation theories speak of the so-called ―cultural turn‖ (Bassnett and Lefevere, 1990). Thus, the question of addressing cultural peculiarities of the original work arises and the translator focuses more on transmitting a particular cultural flavour linked to the environment where the original work was created. The two translations of The Master and Margarita that we are going to analyse were created in 1967 by Michael Glenny and in 1997 by Pevear and Volokhonsky and reflect much of the prevalent views on translation of the two timeframes.

17 2. Classification of realia

2.1. Vlakhov and Florin’s classification

Vlakhov and Florin (1980) divide all culture-specific terms in three large groups: political and social realia, geographic realia and ethnographic realia. They then divide them into subcategories: administrative, political and social institutions, military realia, everyday life, work, art and culture; geographic objects and places, names of endemic species. Their classification is based on the connotative meaning of realia, that is to say, the local (national, regional) and temporal (historical) flavour of culture-bound terms. The four following factors were taken into consideration to divide them into categories and subcategories:

i. semantic field

ii. place (national and linguistic traits) iii. time (both diachronic and synchronic) iv. translation strategies

The division based on place, time and translation strategies do not contradict the semantic based division, but rather approach culture-specific terms from a different perspective. Below we are going to summarize Vlakhov and Florin‘s classification based on the first three factors, while translation strategies for realia will be discussed further on in the third section.

i. Semantic division:

a) Geographic realia

─ names of physical geographic and meteorological objects, e.g. steppe, prairie, fiord, tornado

─ geographic objects linked to human activity, e.g. polder (a tract of low land reclaimed from a body of water, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polder), aryk (a relatively small aqueduct in Central Asia supporting agriculture, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryk)

─ names of endemic species, e.g. kiwi, sequoia

18 In some cases it is hard to distinguish geographic realia from terms, and each case of translation needs an individual approach. A series of issues have to be taken into consideration: the degree of ―familiarity‖ and ―diffusion‖ of the word, as well as of the object (its reference), national colour and context of the text, the degree of ―importance‖ of the word in context.

b) Ethnographic realia

─ everyday life: food, beverage etc (pie, cheburek, koumiss); recreational facilities (taverna, sauna, terme); clothes (kimono, toga, sombrero); dwellings, furniture, kitchen and other utensils (wigwam, igloo, amphora); means of transport and drivers (rickshaw, troika, pirogue, cabman); other words (shag, sanatorium);

─ work: professions (carabinieri, concierge); utensile (machete, boomerang, lasso);

organisations (kolkhoz, rancho);

─ art and culture: music and dances (tarantella, blues, kozachok); musical instruments (balalaika, castanets); folklore (saga, rune); theatre (commedia dell‟arte, harlequin); other arts and objects (ikebana, origami); performers (troubadour, minstrel); rites and ceremonies (communion, Maslenitsa); holidays, games (Easter, Hanukkah, cricket); myths (Santa Claus, werewolf, vampire); cults (shaman, synagogue); calendar (Indian summer, Cinco de Mayo);

─ ethnical objects: ethnomyms (Basques, kazakhs); joky or offensive nicknames (Buggsy, Fritz, Redskin);

─ measure units and currency: measure units (pound, quarter, yard); currency (ruble, kopek, franc); currency nicknames (buck, swissy, sterling);

─ socio-political realia: administrative units (canton, county, province); other inhabited areas (steading, favela, bidonville); details of inhabited areas (promenade, arrondissement); political organizations (agora, duma, Knesset); authority representatives (tsar, chancellor, pharaoh); political activity and people engaged in it (bolshevik, the tories, Ku Klux Klan); national and public movements and their representatives (partisan, slavophil); social phenomena and their representatives (lobbying, tiffosi, stiliaga, hippie);

titles, degrees, appellations (lord, prince, sir, madam, bachelor); social organizations (registry office, chamber of commerce); educational and cultural organizations (college,

19 lyceum, campus); social stratification and castes (untouchables, samurai, brahman); signs and symbols (swastika, union jack, the star of David)

- military realia: mass military units (cohort, legion, phalanx); weapon (arquebus, katyusha); armour (helmet, mail armour); people engaged in military service (cuirassier, ataman).

Somewhat close to the categorization of realia by Vlakhov and Florin is Newmark‘s classification. In is his monograph ―A textbook of translation‖, Peter Newmark (1988) discusses the translation of cultural words, linking it to the cultural way of life and its manifestations in a given community. The scholar elaborates Nida‘s (1982) ideas on translation suggesting the following classification or realia: ecology (flora, fauna, winds, plains, hills); material culture/ artefacts (food, clothes, houses and towns, transport); social culture (work and leisure); organisations, customs, activities, procedures, concepts;

gestures and habits.

ii. Place based division

All realia can be divided according to the ―nationality‖ of the object nominated by realia and according to the languages involved in translation (national, regional, international, local, micro-realia, internal and external realia). Vlakhov and Florin (1980) distinguish:

─ realia examined within the boundaries of one language:

national (samovar, a metal urn used especially by Russians for heating water to make tea);

local (Senner, Swiss alpine herdsmen and dairymen); micro-realia (Karlukovo, for Sofia citizens in Bulgaria may mean a madhouse because of the vicinity of psychiatric hospitals to that location); international (cowboy, sputnik); regional (sovietisms such as kolhoz, bolchevik)

─ realia examined within the boundaries of a couple of languages:

internal (a word that belongs to one of the given languages, e.g. the word fiord in the Norwegian language) and external (e.g. the word fiord as a loan in Russian and Italian

20 iii. Time based division

According to Vlakhov and Florin (1980), all realia can be divided into contemporary and historical in relation to the timeframe they are being used in. However, there are some interesting issues concerning realia that are caused by the factor of time.

First of all, the status of realia can change in time. Some items of the specialized language become realia, while some realia can become part of the technical lexis. Curious is the case of sputnik .

In the Russian language sputnik originally meant ―companion‖ (Ožegov, 2012).

Then, it extended its original meaning to astrological, to ―satellite‖ and became a vivid example realia, signifying ―any of a series of earth-orbiting satellites launched by the Soviet Union beginning in 1957‖ (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Sputnik)

Second, a lot of realia can be considered in their historical context without discarding their national roots. Glasnost and perestroika, for example, are both historical and national realia.

Third, the entrance of foreign realia in the language usually occurs gradually, although in case of special political and historical events, such as revolutions, riots and in case of a rapidly growing exchange among nations it can occur in short lapses of time.

(e.g. Taliban, Hezbollah, burka).

The last feature of realia is that very often they enter the target language through literature. They can be introduced by the writer, as well as through translations of cultural artifacts, such as books, films (La Dolce Vita), through translations of myths, idiomatic expressions from Greek mythology (Minotaur's Labyrinth, the Golden Fleece).

21 2.2 Summary table

The following table summarizes the categories of realia, suggested by Vlakhov and Florin (1980). We are going to base our categorization of the Soviet and Russian realia in The Master and Margarita partly on this classification.

Geographic realia:

- geographic and meteorological physical objects;

- geographic objects linked to human activity;

- names of endemic species Ethnographic realia:

- everyday life (food, clothes, houses, means of transport, products);

- work (professions, working places, tools, instruments);

- art and culture (music, dances, mystical and fictional representations, holidays, religions, ethnic objects)

- units of measure and currency Political and social realia:

- administrative territorial units;

- administrative bodies and charges;

- institutions and symbols of social and political life (political organizations and parties, political groups, appellation and titles, governmental systems, educational system, social classes);

- military realia

In general we can conclude that realia are words or phrases that define:

─ objects, concepts and situations that do not exist in the experience of the target language speaking communities;

─ objects that are intrinsic to the material and spiritual culture of a particular nation or community (national dishes, clothes, shoes, etc.);

─ political institutions and social events characteristic of a particular nation.

22

Chapter 2

TRANSLATION STRATEGIES FOR REALIA IN LITERARY TEXTS

1. The problem of translatability and zero equivalence

Equivalence is ―the term used to refer to the relationship existing between a translation and the original text‖. (Palumbo, 2009: 42) It can also be considered as a relationship of

―sameness‖ or ―similarity‖. The linguistically oriented approach that was prevalent in the 1960s made equivalence its principal object of study. Rather than assuming that there are certain transfer norms between languages, scholars following these approaches adopt the idea that the choice of equivalents depends on ―socio-cultural norms, literary conventions and other factors having to do with the presuppositions regarding relevance and the nature of the end-product‖ (2009: 42).

The problem of expressing extralinguistic reality by means of realia and other linguistic elements is one of the most discussed in translation theory and is crucial for the translator of literary works. It embraces a whole set of heterogeneous elements, such as cultural background knowledge of the target text reader in comparison to that of the native speaker, literary and linguistic issues and the problem of translatability and equivalence.

Scholars have generally expressed, so far, a whole set of ideas around the question of untranslatability. It is usually demonstrated in relationship to single words or phrases which can be understood completely only in the cultural context in which they are used.

John Catford (1965), for instance, distinguishes two types of untranslatability:

linguistic and cultural. He argues that linguistic untranslatability is due to differences between the source language and the target language, whereas cultural untranslatability is due to the fact that an object or a situational element, relevant for the source language text, is absent in the target language culture. The scholar suggests considering how the word democracy is present in the vocabulary of many languages, although it may relate to different political situations. The reader therefore might have a concept of the term based on his or her own cultural surroundings. However, it is often the context that helps the reader to choose the appropriate meaning.

Similarly, another translation specialist Anton Popovič (1980) distinguishes two types of untranslatability. The first is defined as a purely linguistic situation, in which the

23 linguistic elements of the original cannot be replaced adequately in the target text, as a consequence of a lack of denotation or connotation (e.g. the Portuguese concept of saudade). The second type, according to the scholar, is a situation where the relation between the creative subject and its linguistic expression in the original does not find an adequate linguistic expression in the translation (e.g. Raven master at the Tower of London).

Thus, different theories regarding translatability have been put forward, from complete translatability to the assumption that no element could ever be completely translated into another language. In the present thesis, however, we are going to adopt the idea of relative translatability between languages. The three following considerations are there to confirm the abovementioned statement.

First of all, any translation can be considered as a work of art itself, since every text is original and distinctive, and so is the translation of another text. As Antoine Berman puts it:

But isn‘t a translation‘s purpose not only to ―render‖ the original, to be its ―double‖ (thus confirming its secondariness), but to become, to be, a work [oeuvre] as well, a legitimate work? […] When it achieves this double purpose, a translation becomes a ―new original‖.

(Berman, 1995: 30)

Second, realia or culture-bound items are rarely encountered in an isolated context, but rather are used in the context of the text as a whole unit. The communication occurs in the frame of the text and not in single words. Thus, the misunderstanding of a particular word or expression in an isolated context may not necessarily mean that this is going to be equally misunderstood in the space of the text.

Finally, cultural differences between different nations or communities may not be as significant as we are used to imagining them, and therefore are not an obstacle to translation.

[...] all peoples share far more cultural similarities than is usually thought to be the case.

What binds people together is much greater than what separates them. In adjustments to the physical environment, in the organization of society, in dealing with crucial stages of life (birth, puberty, marriage, and death), in the development of elaborate ritual and symbolism, and in a drive for aesthetic expression (whether in decorating masks or in refining poetic forms), people are amazingly alike. Because of all this, translating can be undertaken with the expectation of communicative effectiveness. (Waard/ Nida, 1986:43)

Surely, to some extent a lack of lexical equivalence, concerning some areas of life, is unavoidable. National or local flavour may often fade or be lost in translation. Nonetheless, in this thesis we are not going to claim that realia as a rule are untranslatable, because of lack of equivalence.

24 The question of equivalence has been observed by scholars from many perspectives.

Nida and Taber (1982), for instance, focus on equivalence rather than identity and make a distinction between formal and dynamic equivalence.

The translator must strive for equivalence rather than identity. In a sense this is just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conservation of the form of the utterance, but it reinforces the need for radical alteration of a phrase […] (Nida, 1982:

134)

Another well-known dichotomy is that of Juliane House: covert and overt types of translation. A covert translation is an implicit translation that aims at reproducing the function of the source text. It ―enjoys the status of an original source text in the target culture‖. (House, 1997: 69) Typical examples of a covert translation are the texts of scientific and economic nature. An overt translation is one that presents the text explicitly as a translation. According to House, literary texts in particular belong to such type, since they transmit a general message and, at the same time, are clearly source-culture specific. With these types of texts, a direct correspondence to the original text function is not possible and the task of the translator should be that of facilitating the access to the cultural world of the original for the target reader.

Generally speaking, it is always the translator‘s choice of whether to reduce or even erase the cultural or foreign flavour of the original or whether to try to mediate it to target readers, since there are no right or wrong approaches to the translation, as long as the decision is justified by the context. In fact foreignisation or moving the target reader towards the source language author and domestication or moving the source language text towards the target reader is a question of values and practices the translator abides by.

The terms ―domestication‖ and ―foreignization‖ indicate fundamentally ethical attitudes towards a foreign text and culture, ethical effects produced by the choice of a text for translation and by the strategy devised to translate it […] Those values (values in the receiving situation at a particular historical moment) must always be reconstructed, whether by the translator or by the translation scholar, and the reconstruction must start with patterns of linguistic usage, literary and cultural traditions, and translation practices that have become traditional or conventional because of repeated and widespread use over time. (Venuti, 2008: 19)

As to the question of equivalence, the two terms coined by Eugene Nida, formal and dynamic equivalence, can be understood as word-for-word translation and sense-for-sense translation. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the form and content of the message

25 itself. The translator is concerned that the message in the target language should match as closely as possible different elements in the source text. Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, deals with the naturalness of expression, and tries to place the message in the context of the target language culture. In this sense Nida‘s idea of dynamic equivalence also considers the pragmatics of the text. Thus, the translator should translate in such a way that the effect of the translation on the target reader is as close as possible to the effect of the source text on the source reader.

A detailed treatment of equivalence‘s aspects can be characterized can be found in Koller (1979), where various types of equivalence are identified. The scholar prefers to use the term Äquivalenzrelation or equivalence relations between the two texts. Among all the types of equivalence Eins-zu-Null-Entsprechungen or zero equivalence is frequent in case of realia and is, therefore, relevant for this particular study. We could also speak about lexical gaps or semantic voids. The task of the translator is to bridge such gaps.

However, equivalence in Nida‘s and Koller‘s works should be seen not in absolute but in relative terms.

In gleicher Weise, wie das Verstehen eines Textes nie absolut sein kann, sondern immer nur relativ und veranderlich, ist auch die Ubersetzbarkeit eines Textes immer relativ. […] Diese Relativitat hangt aber nicht mit der Ubersetzung qua Ubersetzung zusammen, sondern mit den Bedingungen und Faktoren des Verstehens von Texten uberhaupt. (Koller, 1979: 178) In the same way, as the process of understanding a text can never be absolute, but always only relative and versatile, the translatability of a text is also always relative. […] However, such relativity is not connected directly to the translation but rather to the conditions and factors which enable the understanding of the text in general. (Koller, 1979: 178)

In his work Werner Koller (1979: 186) points out that the relation between the language, thoughts and reality is dynamic and languages, as well as their speakers, are creative. Such creativity expresses itself particularly in the process of translating the lexical gaps. According to the scholar, translatability therefore is not only relative but also progressive, since the more a language can be translated, the more its level of translatability rises.

Thus, on the one hand, we can have an adaptation of the source text to the target language context and culture, and, on the other hand, a transfer of culture-specific elements of the original into the target text. The problems arise especially when a cultural gap is large and the target reader has to make an effort to comprehend the meaning of a realia. The task of the translator is to facilitate such process of comprehension, choosing among different

26 translation strategies. Foreignisation of the translation may in some cases enrich the target language by bringing in it new expressions, both linguistically and stylistically. In this regard, translations can modify and renew stylistic and linguistic norms of the target language.

2. Factors to consider before translating

A few general considerations govern the translation of all culture-bound expressions. This means the translator should determine its place in the given context, the intention of the author and what methods he uses to make the connotative meaning of the given element understandable for the reader. A translator should also remember that by using an element of realia, the author does not always intend to make the readers focus on it. The preference therefore has to go to the pragmatic and aesthetic nature of culture-bound elements.

As to the translation of realia, Newmark (1988: 96) distinguishes two opposite translation procedures. He refers to the first as transference, which, mostly in literary texts,

―offers local colour and atmosphere, enables the readership to identify the referent - particularly a name or a concept - without difficulty‖. This procedure, however, according to Newmark does not facilitate comprehension of the text, but rather blocks it by emphasizing the culture and not the message. The second one is componential analyses. It, on the other hand, disregards the cultural peculiarities and highlights the message. It is called componential analyses because there is a component common to both languages, e.g.

the Russian word dacha translated as ―summer residence‖ receives additional description

―summer‖, which is already embodied in the word dacha. This procedure seems to be the most efficient, nonetheless Newmark points out that it is not economical and does not have the pragmatic effect of the original.

In general, a translator might have difficulties in translating realia because of the lack of extralinguistic or encyclopaedic knowledge or unawareness of the realia present in the original. One might, furthermore, have to deal with a situation when the meaning of the words has changed since the publication of the original text.

The translator, however, should not be looking constantly for realia in every single word, but rather be aware that a challenge might crop up in the text. Before starting translation, it is, therefore, necessary to identify the realia included in the source text. Most cultural elements are easy to identify, since they are associated with a particular language and cannot be translated literally. Other cultural elements, such as idiomatic expressions,

27 are less easier to detect. Their literal translation would distort the meaning and a descriptive- functional equivalent might be more appropriate, although the translator should always be aware of the overall context. In this regard Lia Bazzanini (2011) mentions an interesting example of the translation of a Russian idiomatic expression ―Любишь кататься - люби и саночки возить‖ (If you like to sled – you have to like to drag the sledge) into Italian. She states:

Un revisore in un romanzo di Saltykov-Ščedrin ha proposto di sostituirlo con il proverbio

―Hai voluto la bicicletta? Adesso pedala!‖ […] sostituzione inopportuna perché sarebbe stato un anacronismo inserire una bicicletta in un'epoca in cui, non essendo ancora diffusa, non poteva certo essere divenuta proverbiale. (Bazzanini, 2011: 87)

Most often it is foreign realia, unfamiliar to the target language that need to be processed thoroughly by the reader. As for the national realia, they do not require any kind of processing. Similarly, international realia do not require much effort to make them understandable, since the reader is supposed to have a certain idea about their national origin due to their dissemination.

The criteria that enable the minimum loss and the maximum pragmatic communication during the translation of culture-bound words are the following:

i. Textual genre/ purpose of the text/ function of the translation

The choice of different translation strategies depend a lot on the textual genre and on the function of the translation, when commercial and sociocultural considerations come into play. In this regard cultural substitutions in comedy subtitles and in translation of a classical novel would be very different. However, the literary genre can include elements of other genres, such as for instance those of scientific and technical texts. Various techniques are employed for the translation of culture-bound terms, depending on the frequency and contextual importance of realia in the original.

ii. Characteristics of realia (familiarity, stylistic features etc.)

The graphics, morphology or phonetics of realia and their potential adaptation to the target language may create some difficulty for the translator.

Будучи чужими, они нередко могут представлять трудность для переводчика своей формой, лексическими, фонетическими и морфологическими особенностями, возможностями словообразования и сочетаемостью, а также механизмом заимствования и своим поведением в качестве заимствованных слов. (Vlakhov, 1980:

18)

28 Foreign realia can frequently represent difficulty for a translator because of their form, lexical, phonetic and morphological characteristics, their word-formation possibilities and collocation with other words, as well as their behaviour as loan-words. (Vlakhov, 1980: 18) iii. Peculiar features of the source and the target languages, e.g. the ability to form

neologisms, word formation rules

Vlakhov and Florin (1980) mention the crucial role the translator plays in enriching or impoverishing the target language.

Переводчик, как и писатель, учавствует в обогащении (или обеднении) языка, на который он переводит. Даже, пожалуй, больше, чем писатель, потому что многие иностранные слова, прежде чем укрепиться в языке и попасть в словарь, проходят через переводы. (Vlakhov, 1980:22)

Translators, as well as writers, participate in enriching (or impoverishing) the language into which they translate. We would say they do it even to a greater extent than writers because before many foreign words consolidate in the language and get into vocabularies they first pass through translations. (Vlakhov, 1980:22)

iv. Target text readers

The motivational and cultural, technical and linguistic level of readership should as well be taken into consideration. Berman puts it in the following way:

Summarising the translation of cultural words and institutional terms, I suggest that here, more than in any other translation problems, the most appropriate solution depends not so much on the collocations or the linguistic or situational context […] as on the readership (of whom the three types - expert, educated and uninformed - will usually require three different translations) […] (Berman, 1995: 54)

Newmark as well emphasizes the importance of considering the kind of readership, the text is translated for.

Within the limits of comprehension, the more that is transferred and the less that is translated, then the closer the sophisticated reader can get to the sense of the original […] A translator's basic job is to translate and then, if he finds his translation inadequate, to help the reader to move a little nearer to the meaning. (Newmark, 1988: 101)

v. Redundancy of the context itself

In some cases realia, even though unfamiliar to the target reader, may become explicit due to the surrounding context or the space of the whole text that makes it intuitively clear.

29 Considering all the above mentioned factors, in the next section we are going to analyse translation procedures for realia or culture-bound terms in literary texts.

3. Translation procedures

The variety of procedures that scholars have suggested in to express realia in another language is wide. Some strategies involve ―foreignising‖ the translation, others deal with a

―domesticating‖ strategy. Thus, some terms become loanwords, with transliteration if necessary, e.g. Wunderkind from German or samovar from Russian. Others are translated by calque, e.g. English flea market from French marché aux puces. In other cases a functional equivalent may be of service, e.g. the English idiom It's pouring (with rain) cannot be translated word-for-word into German, but rather as Es regnet in Strömen (It rains in streams), or the source language expression may be provided with a short explanation, e.g.

the Times translated into Italian as il quotidiano the Times.

Piotr Kwiecínski (2001:157), a Polish translation theorist, has summarized all the procedures for translating culture-bound terms into four basic strategies:

i. ―exoticising procedures‖ (Falafel, burka)

ii. ―rich explicatory procedures‖ (hot cotechino sausage) iii. ―recognised exoticism‖ (Charles the Great, Charlemagne)

iv. ―assimilative procedures‖ or close functional equivalents (French premier minister is a cultural equivalent for prime minister, although in practice their function may be very different).

A more detailed analyses of translation procedures for realia in literary texts was suggested by Vlakhov and Florin (1980: 79-104). The scholars advocate the untranslatability of culture-bound terms and conclude that the translator is left with two options: either transcription or substitution. They mention two major difficulties in translation of realia.

The first one is absence of the lexical analogue in the target language because of the lack of the object or concept in the target language culture. The second difficulty is transmitting the connotation of realia along with its denotative meaning. According to Vlakhov and Florin (1986: 89) the procedures for the translation of realia are the following:

i. Creating a semantic neologism

30 This strategy comprises the formation of loanwords, calques or semi-calques, assimilation or adjustment of calques to the morphosyntactic structure of the target language. It allows the introduction of realia into the target language through maintaining its semantic features as much as possible. (skyscraper - le gratte-ciel).

By semi-calque, a part of word is borrowed and the final result consists of elements of both the target and source languages (Third Reich, Russian State Duma). The method of calquing is common as well in translating proverbs. Calques and semi- calques are quite frequent strategies of translation, but they may still sound exotic to the target readers.

ii. Approximate translation by using hyponyms

Approximate translation is another widely used method. It is based on using a functional equivalent of realia (Palestine for the Promised Land or Japan for the Land of the Rising Sun). Hyponymic translation, or the method of generalization, introduces a general concept instead of a concrete one and is mainly used when a culture-bound term is completely unfamiliar to the target reader. Thus, the element of realia is expressed by another concept that has a broader meaning (e.g. the Sejm of the Republic of Poland translated as the Polish parliament).

iii. Use of functional equivalents or meaning-based translation

In order to maintain the pragmatics of the text in the target language an unfamiliar object or concept may be substituted with a familiar one to the target reader. We have already mentioned the method of cultural translation (Nida, 1982: 199), when a cultural analogue is substituted for the original realia item.

iv. Explicitation or descriptive translation

Descriptive translation involves using a relatively culture-free generic term or classifier with various descriptions of the term (e.g. lemon tea, tea with milk or biscuits).

31 Another set of strategies for translating realia is the one suggested by Koller (1979:

232-235). He identifies five procedures for bridging the lexical gaps or translating zero- equivalent terms:

i. Direct transfer of the source-text word in italics or quotation marks:

─ without changing the word (e.g. English expressions joint venture, public relations in the German language)

─ altering the spelling according to the phonetic or morphological rules of the target language (e.g. English performance - die Performanz in the German language; English recycling – recyclage in the French language).

In case of transliteration, a word used in the source text is introduced into the target language via graphic form of the target language. The strategy of transcription implies using graphic units of the target language in order to obtain the phonetic resemblance to the source language expression (croissant, ноу-хау Russian for know- how). Translators tend to use transcription quite often, however, the use of this method depends on the dissemination of realia, whether it is known to the target reader or not.

ii. Calque or literal word-for-word translation (e.g. data processing – Datenverarbeitung in German)

A lot of personal and geographic proper names are transferred directly in the target language, or conventional forms of expression are used (Aristoteles - Aristotle, Schwarzwald - Black forest).

iii. Using an expression with a similar meaning in the target language (e.g. German expressions Offentlichkeitsarbeit, Kontaktpflege, Werbung, Propaganda for the English public relations)

iv. Paraphrase, gloss, notes

This strategy consists in the addition of a text-external explanation, a footnote or a glossary. It is often assumed that a footnote distracts the reader‘s attention, especially