© VEDA, Publishing House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences 2023 © Editors and authors 2023 © Cover design: Eva Máthé 2023 The publication was produced within the project VEGA 2/0166/19 Preklad ako súčasť dejín kultúrneho procesu III. Preklad a prekladanie – texty, osobnosti, inštitúcie v interdisciplinárnych a transdisciplinárnych vzťahoch/Translation as part of the cultural process history III. Translation and translating – texts, personalities, institutions in inter- and transdisciplinary relations at the Institute of World Literature SAS in cooperation with Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Institute of Slovak Literature SAS and Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra. ISBN 978-80-224-2015-0 DOI 10.31577/2023.9788022420150 VE DA , P u b li shi n g Ho us e o f t he Sl ova k Acad emy of Sci en ces Translation S tudies in Ukraine as an Integral Par t of the European Context M a r ti n D JOV ČO Š (Matej Bel Universit y in Banská Bystrica) I va na H O STOVÁ (In s ti t ute o f Sl ovak L iteratu re SA S) M á r ia KU S Á (In s ti t ute o f Wo r ld L itera tu re SA S) E m ília P E REZ (Constantine the Philosopher Universit y in Nitra) ( e ds .) B rat i sl a va 2023 We wo u ld s ince rel y li ke to expres s o ur e ndl es s grat itu de to o ur pee r revi ewe r s who m a de th is b oo k wha t it is. N a m el y C hri s to pher RU N D LE, D a nie le MO NT I CEL L I, Phi lipp HO FEN ED ER, Andrej ZAHO R ÁK, El e na CI PRI A NOVÁ , C inz ia G ia c inta SPIN ZI, S oňa HO D ÁKOVÁ, I r yna O D REK HI VSK A, Ľ ubi ca PL IEŠ OVSK Á , Ma r ia nna BAC HL ED OVÁ , Ma tej L A Š a nd Já n ŽIV Č Á K. We wo ul d be lo s t w itho u t yo ur prec i ou s ad vic e a nd c o mm ent s . TA BL E O F CON TE NT S Introduction 7 Acknowledgements 9 I. TH OUG HT S A N D RE F LE CT IO N S oughts on truth and translation 12 Andrew C he s ter m a n 18 Empirical translation history: tripping over Ukraine’s Executed Renaissance Antho ny Py m Translation – historicity – interpretative parallels Ka ta rí na Be dná rová 24 II . ON HIS TOR ICA L JU S TI CE IN TR AN S LAT IO N S T UDI E S Discovering erased discussion on translation method in Ukraine in 1927–1931 36 O le ks a ndr Kal nyc h enko Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses on translation studies from a historical perspective 63 L a da Kol om iyets Attachés of Ukrainian сulture in Estonia An ne La ng e 90 II I. O N ME THO DO LO GI CA L A S PE CT S OF T RA N S LATIO N Methodology of specialised translator and interpreter training in Ukraine Le o nid C her nova t y 102 Translation studies-specific methodological principles – an (un)intentionally neglected aspect of translation research? 113 V ia che s la v Ka raba n – A nna Ka ra ban Comparative studies of history, religion and translation: three disciplines at one liturgical crossroads 123 Tara s S hm ihe r I V. O N L IN G UI S T IC A S PE CT S OF TR AN S LATI ON Intersemiotics of translation 132 V ita l iy R ad c huk A stylistic dimension of literary translation Ol ena Du be nko 136 Omission and addition of fiction similes: cognitive translation analysis Al la M ar t yny uk – Elvi ra A k h me dova V. O N TR AUMA A N D MAN I PU LATI ON Übersetzung und Manipulation: Ukrainische Literatur in der DDR Ma ri a I va ny tska On the perspectives of translating the war literature of trauma N a ta lia Ka movnikova 144 160 173 Power in translation: a formative factor of reception and distribution and a deformative factor in conceptualisation of literature in Slovak translation, 1945–1970 181 Má ri a Kus á 6 INT RO DU CTIO N At dawn on 24 February 2022, the world awoke to the horror of the Russian aggression in Ukraine. The outbreak of war shocked people all over the world with its senselessness and cruelty. A war of such scale, taking place in the twenty-first century and on the European continent, cannot be perceived as anything other than a direct assault on core values of democracy, freedom, and human rights. In the light of the current situation, we decided to organise an event to support our friends and colleagues in Ukraine. The best weapon of academics is their voice, and we decided to use it. We found it our duty to help disseminate the knowledge about translation research in Ukraine and, by doing so, reinforce our deepest conviction that Ukraine shares European values and is – and has always been – an integral part of Europe. People have long been discussing the radical consequences of the Anthropocene, such as rapid climate change, intense technologization of human life, and constant warfare. Yet the vast majority of relatively well-off Europeans were spared the immediate effect of human wrongdoing until recently. There was a lack of awareness of large-scale world tragedies despite the fact that Europeans engaged in long devastating conflicts, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Syrian war, the ensuing refugee crisis, and the COVID-19 pandemic have changed the situation to a certain degree. The violence and inhumanity of Russia’s war in Ukraine, with hospitals under fire, innocent civilians mercilessly killed, and a possible threat of nuclear war, put a definitive end to the false feeling of security enjoyed by Europe since the Yugoslav wars. Thus, maintaining a friendly dialog with people around the world is now more important than ever to prevent further tragedies. Translation in all its forms is the key practice that can facilitate mutual understanding, which is vital if we are to hand down the planet to further generations in a habitable state. Among other disciplines, translation studies has been increasingly active in addressing the most complex problems of our planet. Since information flows are directly dependent on one’s location on the geopolitical map and are subject to market rules, many important studies conducted outside the main capital centres remain unknown in the international academic sphere despite the significant results and motivation of researchers. Nonetheless, thanks to scholars such as those who spoke at our conference and contributed to this volume, translation studies in Ukraine and the excellent research done at its universities both now and in the past have become more visible in recent decades. This volume is a collection of papers from the conference Translation Studies in Ukraine as an Integral Part of the European Context held in Bratislava on May 12–13, 2022. Our initial idea was to organise a one-day small seminar to talk about translation studies in Ukraine. However, as we distributed the information, we were overwhelmed by the positive response of international 7 INTRODUCTION academia. Our efforts were welcomed by both, scholars with immediate ties with Ukraine such as Oleksandr Kalnychenko, Lada Kolomiyets, Leonid Chernovaty, Viacheslav Karaban, Maksim Strikha, and numerous representatives from all major translation schools in Ukraine and also translation studies experts from all around the world: Anthony Pym, Andrew Chesterman, Brian James Baer, Susan Bassnett, Luc van Doorslaer, Daniele Monticelli, Christopher Rundle, Anne Lange, and Natalia Kamovnikova. Thirty-four people presented their papers and chaired sessions at the conference, and approximately one hundred participants attended the conference in hybrid format. The four thematic blocks included Translation and Power 1, Translation and Power 2, War and Conflict, and Critical Thinking and Activism in Translation Studies. We believe that the conference, as well as this volume, clearly demonstrate our shared attitude toward the events that are, unfortunately, still taking place right at EU borders. They also firmly assert that in difficult times translation scholars are able to unite and support a cause in which they believe. Our understanding of what translation entails makes us sensitive to core human values, which we stand to protect. This volume is divided into five thematic parts: Thoughts and Reflections; On Historical Justice in Translation Studies; On Methodological Aspects of Translation; On Linguistic Aspects of Translation; On Trauma and Manipulation. The sections open with papers by leading academics in the field of translation studies. It needs to be noted that some papers and essays are published in a form they were presented. For obvious reasons, our volume is ideologically motivated, but, regardless, we strive for objectivity. In times like these, it is difficult, if not impossible, to remain impartial. Therefore, all papers here must be interpreted in the historical context in which they were created. Martin Djovčoš (Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica, Slovakia) Ivana Hostová (Institute of Slovak Literature SAS, Slovakia) Mária Kusá (Institute of World Literature SAS, Slovakia) Emília Perez (Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovakia) 8 AC K NOW LE DGE ME NT S This book was not easy to prepare because many of our contributors still live in Ukraine or had to seek refuge in other countries. While we were working on this volume, Russia launched missile strikes against civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, with the goal of making the lives of common people unbearable. This book was made both because of the war and in spite of it. Though many scholars were under constant pressure, electricity and internet blackouts taking place regularly, they worked hard to make all changes suggested by our reviewers and editors. Our main gratitude goes to the contributors; we appreciate their work a lot. We would also like to thank all scholars who attended the Bratislava conference and took part in subsequent discussions. Our thanks also go to Pavol Šveda for his organisational and moral support. This book would never be possible without our peer reviewers from all around the world, who made this book what it is. Natalia Kamovnikova and Michael Dove have done a great job with language editing. They also provided us with many precious comments in the process of preparation; our thanks to them cannot be measured by words. We would also like to express our gratitude to Lukáš Bendík, who worked hard on the technical editing of the book. Yet our main thanks go to the brave people of Ukraine, who did not succumb to Russian aggression and have inspired the world with their courage. This book also owes its gratitude to the project VEGA 2/0166/19 Preklad ako súčasť dejín kultúrneho procesu III. Preklad a prekladanie – texty, osobnosti, inštitúcie v interdisciplinárnych a transdisciplinárnych vzťahoch/Translation as part of the cultural process history III. Translation and translating – texts, personalities, institutions in interand transdisciplinary relations, which helped us finance the publication of this book. 9 I. T H OU GH T S AND R EF LE CTI O NS TH OU GH T S O N T RU TH AN D T RA NS L AT IO N A n drew Ch es te r m a n When I was young, my parents would sometimes invite adult friends to eat with us. The first time anyone was invited, a certain ritual was often played out. My mother loved witty conversation and good discussions. When we got to coffee, there would be a pause. My mother would look the unsuspecting guest in the eye, and ask: “What is truth, do you think?” Some visitors were taken aback and did not quite know how to respond, but most of them were delighted to enter into debate, after their first surprise. I don’t remember their answers now, but I do recall that my mother would, at some point, confront them with the famous last lines of Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn”: Beauty is truth, truth beauty – that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. Do you agree, she wanted to know. I actually did not, and still do not, but then I probably didn’t know, and still don’t know, quite what Keats meant. The guests’ opinions were of course varied, and the conversation bubbled along with a mixture of wit and philosophical seriousness, branching off in different directions. “What is truth?” is certainly a fundamental question. It is even occasionally raised, or at least implied, in translation studies (TS). The British translation scholar Peter Newmark once wrote something that has stayed in my mind ever since I first read it, perhaps because of those childhood conversations round the dinner table. Newmark starts his book About translation (1991) with this sentence: “Translation is concerned with moral and with factual truth.” This is a huge claim, and opens many avenues to debate. For a start, of course, what do you mean by truth? In this context at least, Newmark does not say. The second sentence of the book is: “This truth can be effectively rendered only if it is grasped by the reader [i.e. the translator], and that is the purpose and the end of translation.” More questions arise: this truth? What is “the truth” of a text? Does a text (of whatever kind, in whatever medium) contain only a single truth? No, says Newmark elsewhere: in a later paper, on literary vs non-literary translation (2004), he suggests that there are several – in fact five – kinds of truth that are relevant to translation. He lists these: factual, aesthetic, allegorical, logical and linguistic truth. Some, he says, apply mainly to non-literary translation (factual truth) and some are more relevant to literary translation (aesthetic; allegorical, i.e. moral). However, it seems to me that he is using the word “truth” in several different ways here. Factual truth, for instance, seems to be what philosophers have defined in what is known as the correspondence 12 Thoughts on truth and translation theory of truth. Here, truth is understood as a relation – a correspondence – between a statement and the facts of reality. The statement “It is raining” is true if and only if it is indeed raining. This is the sense I will mostly be concerned with here. Moral truth, on the other hand, seems more like a metaphysical ideal. In the later paper I mentioned, Newmark (2004, 8) writes this: “translation, striving as it does to reveal the truth, to be in the first place accurate, can only be approximate at best, if it is seeking to reproduce the full meaning of the original.” This claim brings us to two of the endless debates in TS. 1) How best to define the translator’s fidelity (being true to what? or to whom? Both to something and to someone? With what priorities? What happens if there are clashing fidelities?). And 2) how to define the relation between source and target texts, a relation that we often call ‘equivalence’ (or at least what we used to call equivalence: for some scholars, the term seems to have lost some of its centrality these days). Equivalence can only rarely be said to mean identity, or total sameness; perhaps only in very short texts, or short items within a text. English three is exactly German drei, yes. But the longer the textual units that are being compared, and the more complex they are, the more approximate the relation becomes. I have previously argued (1996) that a better general term than sameness or identity would be similarity, precisely because this assumes approximation (note Newmark’s “approximate at best,“ above) and hence some difference. It allows for variation, for example between different translations of the same text – different acceptable translations, I mean. In this sense, it is a realistic conceptualization. But between any two things – even, say, translations and bananas – there can be an endless number of possible similarities, some close and some less close. I may see some, and you may see others, and I may not see yours, and you may not see mine... After all, similarity is a relation that is perceived, and different people can perceive phenomena differently. But if a translation is to be considered acceptable, there must be conditions on this similarity. Generally speaking, the nature and degree of similarity between source and target must be relevant to the context and the function of the text concerned. Getting back to truth, I think a special case of this relevance condition is that it rules out translations that lie about the source text. This requirement is presumably part of what Newmark meant by factual truth. For a translation to be acceptable, there normally must at least be a reasonable correspondence – say, a relevant semantic similarity – between the content of the original and that of the translation. This is surely obvious, at least most of the time (there are of course exceptional cases). But how can a translation lie? Let us first say that a lie, as opposed to a slip, involves an intention to deceive. If English three is translated as German sieben, this is probably not a true translation, but either a lie or a slip. A decent translator will correct a slip, if possible. In Harry Zohn’s classic English translation (1968) of Walter Benjamin’s essay Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers (“The Task of the Translator”) it has been noticed that at one point the translator has omitted to translate the negative word “nicht,” so that there is a sentence meaning exactly the opposite of the meaning of the original. But this is, I assume, not a lie, but a slip, actually quite a serious one, in the context, as it totally changes the semantics of the sentence. (There are also some other slips, noted, as this 13 I. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS one is, by Steven Rendall in his comments at the end of the Zohn translation that has been republished in Venuti’s collection of readings (2004).) Lies, then, are deliberate. We can also compare lies to bullshit. The moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt (2005) distinguishes bullshit from lying as follows. Bullshit shows that the speaker simply does not care about truth. The liar, on the other hand, is concerned with truth but wants to lead hearers away from it. If you are living in Germany in the 1930s, and hiding Jews in your attic, and the Nazi police ask you if you have seen any Jews around recently, I hope you would lie, and say “Nein.” This is not bullshit. The bullshitter is faking things. He simply does not care if what he says does not correspond to the way things really are. Think of Trump, claiming that he had won the 2020 election. So a lie is not a slip, and it is not the same as bullshit. (For a discussion of the broad sociocultural background of the “post-truth” trend, with its alternative facts, fake news, science denial and the “anything goes” attitude of some postmodernists, see McIntyre 2018.) Let’s come back to the correspondence theory of truth. In some kinds of translation – let us take non-literary translation – the factual truth relation is complicated by the fact that there are two correspondences at stake: that between target and source text, and that between the original text/utterance and what it refers to, what it describes. This means that translations can also contain lies that faithfully reproduce lies that are present in the original. In these cases, we might conclude that the translator is either faithful, telling the truth about what the source text said, or else uncritical, or maybe even unethical, in that (s)he is spreading a lie that was there in the original. In my proposed Hieronymic Oath concerning translator ethics (2001), I suggested, among other things, that translators could swear that their translations would not represent their source texts in “unfair ways”; this clause in the oath was intended to highlight the value of truth in translation. What might that mean in practice? What can translators do when faced with lies in the source text? Lies that show a clear lack of correspondence between the text and the reality it describes? Well, they can refuse to translate such a text, of course, but the price of this might be very high (loss of job, etc.). Are there other options? Perhaps a few. Consider a text, spoken or written, where a Russian speaker refers to the current war in Ukraine, in Russian, as a “special military operation.” I.e.: he says, or writes: spetsial’naya voennaya operatsiya. (I use Latin script, as I do not speak Russian). This is a lie, in that it is a deliberate distortion of the truth, like Lavrov’s assertion that “Russia has not attacked Ukraine.” What can a translator do? Here are some possibilities. 1) Translate literally, i.e. in English: special military operation. This allows readers to make up their own minds whether the description is appropriate or not – if they even think about it. 2) Translate the phrase literally, but add quotation marks: “special military operation.” This creates a slight distance between the translator and the source text. It puts the responsibility for the description more firmly on the shoulders of the source author. The quotation marks can indicate that this is indeed literally the phrase the speaker used in Russian, and the added punctuation may thus make the lie more easily recognised as a lie. This distancing option would hopefully alert readers to question the speaker’s description of the situation. 14 Thoughts on truth and translation 3) One might also add the original Russian within quotes, and then add a literal translation: e.g.: “a ‘spetsial’naya voennaya operatsiya,’ that is, special military operation.” This is what Pym (1992, 71, 76–82) has called double representation, with both source language and target language visible. This solution gives special prominence to the source-language item. 4) A fourth option could be called overt attribution, which also has a distancing effect. In translating a text concerning Lavrov’s recent statement that the situation is an inter-Ukrainian conflict, the translator might write: “what Lavrov described as the intra-Ukraine conflict.” Here is another example. A report on the Al Jazeera website reads: “In a sermon, Patriarch Kirill appeared to endorse Moscow’s so-called ‘special peacekeeping [sic!] operation’, as the war on Ukraine is officially called in Russia.” (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/28/patriarch-kirillputin-ally-faces-backlash) This is perhaps not a direct translation, but the overt attribution (“as the war on Ukraine is officially called in Russia”) suggests that the broadcasting station wants to distance itself from the term used within quotation marks, ”special peacekeeping operation.” (The “sic” in square brackets is my addition. Could a translator add a “sic”? Too risky?) 5) A fifth option is to translate the special operation phrase by using the word war, which would be an accurate, true description of the situation referred to. (This word is also used in the Al Jazeera sentence, notice. Curiously, the report also writes that Kirill only “appeared to endorse... Looks like they are trying to sit on the fence?) But the choice of the noun war would misrepresent the term used in the original text. And, more importantly, it would hide the fact that the original writer or speaker was lying about the true nature of the conflict, as he deliberately obscured the truth. This is a war. It is easy to observe that all these choices are in regular use. (Are they all “fair” representations?) Each option carries a risk. The literal choice risks going against an ethical translator’s own sense of justice, potentially causing the subjective stress of a bad conscience. The quotation choice risks censure and its consequences, such as, at least, loss of trust in the translator and/or loss of one’s job, if an authority notices and disapproves of the potential distancing effect of the added quotation marks. The double representation and attribution solutions carry a similar risk. The last choice, telling the truth, currently (May 2022) carries the risk of fifteen years in prison, for a translator in Russia at least. Within the possibilities of a translator’s circumstances, what determines the choice of translation solution in such cases is not only the skopos of the text plus the original writer’s and/or client’s intention, but also the telos of the translator (see Chesterman and Baker 2008). “Telos” is Aristotle’s word for something like a person’s ultimate goal or objective in life, and hence fundamental motivation for action. What are your highest values, your ideals? Action in accordance with these is action that matches your telos. Translators who support Putin and wish to spread his view of what is happening will presumably stick to his terminology and use “special military operation” with no quotes. But I think those whose telos is different would more likely choose a different solution, if they can. A lie, then, is a deliberate attempt to mislead people by presenting a non-truth (i.e. something that does not match up with reality, with “what is”) as if it were a truth. 15 I. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS We are back to our correspondence theory. But there is of course a problem here: some have argued that we cannot really perceive “what is,” things “as they are,” and so we can only rely on our perceptions of what seems to be reality. In response to this view, we can take a step back and speak not of the absolute “truth” of statements about how things are, but perhaps of their generally agreed and probable truthlikeness, or approximation to truth, based on the evidence available: a good working hypothesis of how some chunk of reality really is. And one can focus on the justifications of a given perception, and in particular the justification of the ways one tries to persuade others to agree, so that a consensus can arise. It is now, for instance, pretty much universally agreed, in the light of overwhelming empirical evidence, that the Earth is round, not flat, as was once believed. Focusing on justification recalls Plato’s famous definition of knowledge: justified true belief. Hugely debated of course, and much criticized. But I think the role of justification is central, in any claim to “know,” or indeed in saying that something is (factually) true. When I started studying at university, we had to read our weekly or fortnightly essays aloud to our tutor, in front of the other students in our group. This was always something of an ordeal. I remember one tutor who would interrupt an essay reading at once if there seemed to be no evidence for a claim made by the wretched student. “Substantiate or withdraw,” he would say, sternly, but often with a slight smile. That is, justify your claim, bring up the evidence or the logic on which it is based, or else back down, erase it. For instance, a statement is not necessarily true just because some scholar has made it. I have often urged my own students to beware of the expression “As X says.” It is a risky one: it normally implies that the speaker or writer agrees with X’s view, but it is no guarantee that what X said is true. What would you think of me if I said: “As Lavrov says, Russia has not attacked Ukraine”? Look for counter-evidence, I used to tell my students. And look in the research literature rather for claims that you disagree with, or that you at least doubt. As a seminar exercise, I would sometimes ask students to find some statement or opinion in the literature that they did not agree with, and write a paragraph explaining why they disagreed. After all, this is critical thinking. It begins with doubt – justified doubt. Without it, we may just believe everything we are told, lies or not. Which is what the brainwashers and fake-news peddlers want, of course. So for an ethical translator who wants to stay alive and out of prison, perhaps the challenge is to see whether some seeds of doubt can be sown in the translation of a text that clearly lies, so that readers are nudged to question what the translation tells them. To end on an encouraging note: I am pleased to inform you that at least for a few days earlier this year, the Helsinki city transport online route map showed a new name for the Russian embassy, standing in its spacious garden: Volodymyr Zelenskyy Park. And similarly, the street on which the embassy is located was temporarily given new street signs in both Finnish and Swedish (as is normal in bilingual Helsinki) and renamed Zelenskyinkatu/Zelenskyjsgatan. These are “lies” told for fun, for obvious ideological reasons, and are immediately recognised as such. No-one is led astray. When I was last there, many trees, street lights and shop windows near the Russian embassy displayed blue and yellow ribbons and flags. A few centimetres outside the 16 Thoughts on truth and translation embassy railings there was a large display of candles, flowers, statistics of victims on both sides, and texts against the war. A collection of multimedia messages, together expressing a moral truth. REF E RE NCE S Chesterman, Andrew. 1996. “On similarity.” Target 8, 1: 156–164. Chesterman, Andrew. 2001. “Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath.” The Translator 7, 2: 139–154. Chesterman, Andrew and Mona Baker. 2008. “Ethics of renarration. An interview with Mona Baker.” Cultus 1, 1: 10–33. Frankfurt, Harry. 2005. On bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press. McIntyre, Lee. 2018. Post-Truth. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press. Newmark, Peter. 1991. About translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Newmark, Peter. 2004. “Non-literary in the light of literary translation.” JoSTrans 1: 8–13. Pym, Anthony. 1992. Translation and Text Transfer. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Available online, with slightly different pagination, at: https://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/publications/TTT_2010.pdf. Last accessed 6.6.2022. Zohn, Harry. [1968] 2004. “The Task of the Translator” (Translation of Walter Benjamin’s “Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers”). In The Translation Studies Reader,ed. by Lawrence Venuti, 75–85. New York: Routledge. Available online at: https://complit.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/COL1000–Walter_Benjamin.pdf. Last accessed 6.6.2022. AB S TR AC T According to the correspondence theory of truth, a true statement is one that corresponds to the state of affairs it describes. A translation is usually assumed to be a true account of its source. But in non-fiction translation, two such relations are at stake: between the source text and the reality it describes, and between the source text and the target text. If a source text contains clear lies, a translator does have a few choices: five possible solution types are suggested, all of which carry risks. Some involve a distancing strategy: using quotation marks, double representation, and overt attribution. Keyword s: Truth. Translation. Lies. Ethics. Distancing. CO NTAC T D ETA IL S: Andrew Chesterman, Professor Emeritus University of Helsinki Department of Modern Languages PL.24 (Unioninkatu 24) 00014 Helsinki Finland amchesterman2@gmail.com 17 E MPIR ICAL TR A NS L AT IO N H IS TORY: TR IPPIN G OV E R U K R AIN E’ S EX EC U TE D RE N A IS SA NCE A n th ony P ym I occasionally write historiography as if it were a crime investigation: something is wrong; we seek clues and try to fit them together. Such is an incremental approach to the rhizomatic, as opposed to facile assumptions of systems, complexity, hegemony, languages, or nations, all of which certainly exist but are, I propose, to be encountered only when they affect the historiographical detective work. T he ca se o f t h e s to l e n t ra n sl at i o n so l u ti o n t y p e s My initial mission was to discover how similar typologies of translation solutions were produced in Montréal and Beijing at the same time and were published in the same year, in 1958. How could Loh Dianyang in China be doing more or less the same thing as Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet in Canada? The question arose when I was tracing the history of limited-term typologies, a particular idea for an histoire des idées or concept for Begriffsgeschichte. All of this is in Pym (2016), but here I just want to focus on the mysterious synchronicity. What could the connection have been? Loh Dianyang tellingly cited some Russian scholarship, specifically the Saint Petersburg Germanist Andrei Fedorov, who had been partly translated into Chinese just prior to 1958. Then I went back to Fedorov’s earlier works, in search of links. When I got to those earlier works, something seemed wrong. A 1927 paper by Fedorov stood out like a sore thumb in its analysis of how verse forms can be translated: Translation is not the reproduction of a work but the creation of something new – according to a model which gives rise to varying interpretation, a model which is not uniform but multifaceted. It is impossible to equate the two systems – translation and original – and not only because they are essentially unequal but also because we do not know the most equatable quantities. (Fedorov 1927/1974) Where could that have come from? The grand general claims are like fellow Formalists but some of it also sounds like Walter Benjamin (1923), although that possible history remains nebulous. And then, where did it lead after publication of the article in 1927? W here to l o o k? The latter question is the more interesting, since this same Fedorov was (and still is) regularly denounced by Russian translation scholars as proffering a restrictive formalist18 Empirical translation histor y: tripping over Ukraine’s Executed Renaissance linguistic approach to translation, to be opposed to the literary approach of Ivan Kashkin, an opposition that might be dated from the 1954 Congress of the Union of Soviet Writers. Thanks to that enormous bifurcation, tracing the ripples of that 1927 paper is not easy in Russian. For some time, it remained a minor dead-end in my to-do list. Then I came across Oleksandr Kal’nychenko’s 2011 article on “The Ukrainian History of Translation in the 1920s.” There I found mention of a 1927 paper by Volodymyr Derzhavyn, who was in part responding to Fedorov’s paper published in the same year, 1927. And some of that discussion concerned the way that translation solution types can be categorized, which was actually the problem that most excited me at the time (not that it provides much excitement to anyone else these days): A human language performs simultaneously (but in every particular case to various extents) three functions: communicative, cognitive and artistic, which are not predisposed to translation in the same degree. (Derzhavyn 1927, 44) Then around Derzhavyn, a short list of other names were involved in the same general discussion. But those names, I discovered, were writing about translation into Ukrainian, and were (sometimes?) writing in Ukrainian. “Nune,” I cried to my immediate guide to things eastern, “please help me with this.” “I can’t,” she replied. “It’s not Russian.” When you trip over an unexpected obstacle, you can only apologize for having looked the wrong way. So I wrote to Oleksandr Kal’nychenko. He very generously sent me a multi-page letter full of details and references, leading me in particular to the work of Oleksandr Finkel’, who worked very directly on the problem of solution types. This was getting somewhere! Soon I had a small, specific field of exchange and debate from 1927 to 1929, where Yuri Tynianov, Fedorov, Derzhavyn and Finkel’ were all publishing on translation, to some extent bouncing not just off each other but also across two languages: Russian and Ukrainian. Given my ignorance of the languages, much of that moment still remains obscure to me. That is why I am extremely grateful that Oleksandr Kal’nychenko is with us here today, that he and other experts have been able to present further details of that history, and that Brian Baer has talked about the work of Oleksandr Finkel’. A hidden history is being made better known. Tri p p i n g ove r wh a t l o o ke d l i ke a bl a n k sp a ce I gradually discovered what is now more widely known. Work on translation into Ukrainian was part and parcel of that language asserting national status – the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine was founded in 1918; Ukrainian was taught in schools; it was the language of operas performed in Kiev from 1926. Literary translation into that language assumed a social mission, building up a national literature. A national movement can stimulate work on translation. I also discovered that the space of Ukrainian translation studies disappeared abruptly in 1932–1933, when Stalinist ideology imposed Russian and the proponents of 19 I. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS Ukrainian cultural independence were sent to gulags or were otherwise silenced: Ukrainians call this the period of their “Executed Renaissance,” rozstriliane vidrodzhennia. eir place in the development of translation studies more or less disappeared from the official accounts written in Russian. S o mu s t we b e o n o n e si de o n ly ? To revisit that history is not to denigrate Russian scholars at all. Just this January I was working with the Russian Association of Translation Teachers, and I am always happy to discuss translation with anyone who shares that scholarly interest. And to revisit that history does not, for me, involve axiomatic praise for any particular national independence. What I want to retain is the international dimension of that discussion from 1927, not only between Russian and Ukrainian but also with the sources that the scholars were drawing on from other European languages, particularly French and German. The Ukrainian moment was indeed part of a transnational dialogue. B et t i n g o n hi dd e n l i n ks What most intrigues me, though, is a possibly secret history that I cannot prove – like the lines between photographs of “known associates” that clever detectives put up on a big board. In some of their work, Derzhavyn and Finkel’ cite the Swiss linguist Charles Bally, who did much to advance the cause of European stylistics. Bally connects not only with them but also with the Russian Viktor Vinogradov, with whom Fedorov had worked (he is named as one of Fedorov’s professors) and who was sent into internal exile in 1934 then returned to academic (and political) life after Stalin’s paper on linguistics in 1950. A certain line can thus be drawn from Bally to people around Fedorov, and then, through translation of Fedorov, to Beijing in 1958. And Bally, of course, was also the direct inspiration behind Vinay and Darbelnet, who wrote in Canada in 1958. QED. Why should anyone care about that? Stylistics does lend itself to exclusivity, to the illusion of a national identity expressed in language: Bally and his followers did buy into ideologies of a génie de la langue, which is part of exclusive nationalisms. That 20 Empirical translation histor y: tripping over Ukraine’s Executed Renaissance is its great risk. At the same time, though, stylistics is attached to the vitality of discourse, to involvement in dialogue, to motivation and to behaviour change – which is why Stalin, in 1913, had argued for the development of national cultures, including Ukrainian. A deep involvement in language can indeed help keep the earth beneath your feet, as Susan Bassnett has reminded us. Stylistics is correspondingly of an age where translation scholars, like those in Ukraine today, still liked languages, indeed revelled in them, piling up example after example, pointing translators to the adventures of a creative and engaged task. Messages can pass from translator to translator, with cultures standing between them, such that cultures transform messages – why see translators as the only transformers? Resistance is one way in which cultures do this, manifesting presence, not allowing simple passage across their territory. Po s t scri pt : On t r u th i n e ss i n n am e s The above lines were presented at the conference on “Translation Studies in Ukraine” held in Bratislava in May 2022. Following my presentation, Andrew Chesterman asked about truth, about the “truthiness” of historical facts, looking for an argument. As might befit a Monty Python sketch, I was not quite up for that argument – we were there for Ukrainians, after all, not for philosophical jousting. But Andrew insisted, so I think I replied: mine is a world of forces, claims, and resistance to forces, a world where truth will not win the day simply because it is true. I later mentioned that I see the aim of exchanges as being cooperation, not the objectivation of truth. And so Andrew and I passed calmly, likes ships in the night, until Oleksandr Kal’nychenko picked up a point of apparent truth and falsehood: in my visual presentation, the map you have just seen, I made a mistake in the spelling of “Derzhavyn,” which I had written as “Derzhavin.” If this was a mistake, then surely there must be something like truth and falsehood involved? The question is not quite as banal as my reply was in the moment: I am more than happy to correct the name, as a sign of respect for people, the language and the culture in which that “y” is correct. Indeed, one reason for my very presence in the conference was to express gratitude to Oleksandr Kal’nychenko, who had helped me considerably in my research on old networks and so deserved all due recognition now. But that was respect, homage, gratitude – traces of force and counterforce of one kind or another, not of truth. Out of personal gratitude, I am happy to use the name that best suits; I simply trust the informant and privilege cooperation. True story, not unrelated: My wife was stopped for an hour or so at passport control in Dubai while they investigated why, in their records, she was “Dolores” but in her current passport she is “Dolors.” What had happened to the missing “e”? Which of the names was true? In this case, I at least know what happened, although I don’t know the truth of any name. My wife’s passport used to say “Dolores” because that is a Spanish name, recorded in Spanish in her birth registry, at a time when Spain only had one official language – both in the fascist State and the Catholic religion of the day. “Dolors” is her name in Catalan, a language that became fully co-official in Catalonia in 1979. To use that name on her identity documents, she had to have an addendum made to the 21 I. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS original registry, then get a new birth certificate, then get a new passport and identity card. One could argue, of course, that in a Catalan-speaking family, “Dolors” was always her true name (actually “Maria Dolors,” since Hispanics never pass a chance to expand) such that “Dolores” simply marks the transitory imposition of an occupying foreign power. One could also argue, however, that the identity documents are part of speech acts produced and controlled by the state, performing an authorization that is quite independent of the individual’s linguistic preferences. There is more than one kind of truth at work – forces work in multiple directions. When I teach the sociolinguistics of variation, I start by getting students to write out all the names by which they are known, then the domains in which those names are used, and finally the values and power relations involved in each. That exercise is used precisely in order to get away from the notion that there is just one true referent for each name, and thus one true word for each thing, as if we had not advanced since Cratylus. Words create values when used in speech acts, and names are to be understood in terms of the acts in which they are used.1 I do not know if my wife’s missing “e” might have something to do with Volodymyr Derzhavyn’s birth in Saint Petersburg in 1899 and whatever power might have transcribed or authorized a name at that time. I do not know whether some variation crept in through a copyeditor’s attempt to homogenize the transcription of Cyrillic script in my book. I do not know if the Ukrainian struggle for independence had any resemblance with the situation of Catalonia, with respect to names or anything else. But the insistence on one form or another has value in itself, as an act of resistance, a reminder of difference, a claim to identity. And no further truth is required. RE F ERE NCE S Benjamin, Walter. 1923/2004. “The Task of the Translator.” In The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edition, ed. by Lawrence Venuti, trans. by Harry Zohn, 75–85. London: Routledge. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1927. “Проблема віршованого перекладу” [The problem of poetic translation]. Pluzhanyn 9, 10: 44–51. Fedorov, Andrei Venediktovich. 1927/1974. “Проблема стихотворного перевода” [Problems in the translation of poetry]. Poetika 2: 104–118. Trans. anonymously as “The problem of verse translation.” Linguistics 12, 137: 13–30. Kal’nychenko, Oleksandr. 2011. “A sketch of the Ukrainian history of translation of the 1920s.” In Between Cultures and Texts: Itineraries in Translation History, ed. by Theo Hermans, Antoine Chalvin, Anne Lange, and Daniele Monticelli, 255–267. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin: Peter Lang. Loh Dianyang. (陆 殿 扬 ). 1958. 英 汉 翻 译 的 理 论 与 技 巧 /Translation: Its Principles and Techniques. Beijing: Times Publishing. Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in translation history. Manchester: St Jerome. Pym, Anthony. 2016. Translation solutions for many languages – histories of a flawed dream. London: Bloomsbury. 1 This is no minor issue when doing translator history, especially in the medieval field. When confronting the many possible ways in which translators can be named and identified, by methodological recommendation is to reproduce the name that is put on the translation, in exactly that form and language (Pym 1998, 174–175). 22 Empirical translation histor y: tripping over Ukraine’s Executed Renaissance Stalin, Josef. 1913/1954. Marxism and the national question. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1958/1995. Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. Trans. by Juan C. Sager and Marie-Josée Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. AB S TR AC T A strange synchronicity appears in typologies of translation solutions that were produced in Montréal and Beijing in the same year, 1958. The genealogies behind the solutions can be traced by to the Swiss linguist Charles Bally, whose influence spread not only to Vinay and Darbelnet in Canada but also to a group of Ukrainian and Russian scholars working in the 1920s. Piecing together those connections from afar, one finds that work on translation into Ukrainian was part of the language asserting national status and building a national literature, and that the productive space of Ukrainian translation studies more or less went underground in 1932–1933. The historiographical difficulty of narrating that history is exemplified in the different ways a name can be written. Keywords: Translation history. Translation solution types. Volodymyr Derzhavyn. Names. Truth. CON TACT D ETAI L S: Anthony Pym, Professor of Translation Studies School of Languages and Linguistics Faculty of Arts The University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 Australia anthony.pym@unimelb.edu.au ORCID: 0000-0002-9440-0886 23 TR AN S LAT ION – H IS TO RIC I T Y – IN TE RPR E TAT IVE PAR AL LE LS * Ka ta r ín a Be dn á rová At the very beginning of the article, please allow me to greet all the Ukrainian colleagues – translation studies scholars, literary scholars, translators – and all the people in Ukraine who are exposed to the absurd, incomprehensible, but unfortunately very real violence and evil, and I would like to express our support for them. My contribution is a reflection on the literary text and translation, a reminder of familiar and obvious things that we may no longer perceive so sharply because they are covered up by many words, sometimes obscuring the true essence of the matter. The meaning of the sentence “In the beginning was the Word” – logos – is well known. Even if we omit the religious interpretation of “logos,” this word carries so many contents and meanings that it cannot be clearly translated into any language. A full equivalent is missing – logos means a word, a speech, a statement, a sense, a reason, a truth, an argument, etc. all of them at the same time. We have only an equivalent fragment with incompleteness and incompetence resulting from the co-text and context. From the word logos come suffixes -logie, -logy in different languages, and there are many derivatives. For several millennia, people have been shaped up by changing civilisations within the logosphere, the environment of an intentionally spoken and written word.1 The logosphere shapes man and man shapes the logosphere. The word creates speech, given to man at birth, and thanks to it he/she forms the specific image of the world. The word is translated and the images of the world meet, intertwine, and influence each other in a good way, but they also have a contrasting effect and contradict mutually. We are all very aware of the importance of translation. There is no need to argue about it. In many languages and cultures, translation was at the origin of literature: this was translation of sacred texts but also of other texts. In this context, the words of the French translatologist Henri Meschonnic may again be quoted because he developed this idea even more thoroughly: “Europe was born out of and in translation, Europe constituted itself only and solely in and through the translation,” adding in the same breath that it also constituted itself through obscuring, hiding, denying, or forgetting its “translational” origins (1999, 32–33). Europe was born out of translations * 1 This article was written in the framework of the project VEGA “Translation as part of the cultural process history III. Translation and translating – texts, personalities, institutions in inter- and transdisciplinary relations”. Olga Tokarczuk elaborated the oldest literary monument – the Sumerian myth of Inanna, known from several fragments. e authorship is attributed to the priestess of the god Nanmu Ennuduanna. Tokarczuk’s text was published under the title Anna v hrobkách sveta (Anna in the tombs of the world, Slovart 2008, trans. by Karol Chmel). 24 Tr a n s l a t i o n – h i s t o r i c i t y – i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p a r a l l e l s from Greek, as far as science and philosophy are concerned, and out of translations primarily from Hebrew and Aramaic, when it comes to the Bible. While we all understand the importance of the word, and therefore of translation and its functions, we do not always encounter such understandings in the broader cultural context. However, we can put it another way: the word, literature, and translation are phenomena that are too complex to achieve a consensus. Moreover, logos, literature, and translated literature are phenomena that every power is scared of. Every political power, every authoritarian society. Their possible subversive nature puts an army of censors on the alert. In the nineteenth century in Central Europe, double censorship was imposed by the state and the church. In Slovakia, we have experienced this several times in the twentieth century: in the period of the Slovak wartime state, during the period of Czechoslovak totalitarianism, especially in the 1950s, and during the period of normalisation in the 1970s. From a global perspective, according to most recent statistics compiled by human rights and freedom groups, 54% of the world’s population lives in countries with authoritarian regimes that restrict freedom of expression. ese people, intoxicated by propaganda and held hostage by rulers who resist democratic transparency, are deprived of civil liberties or have extremely limited access to them. On our planet, every second inhabitant has no right to speak.2 (Delisle 2012, 293) However, the word, literature, and translation literature have a self-preserving power as well, for the word cannot be easily destroyed and silenced, the word helps its bearer, the user, to survive. While the word, on the one hand, is capable of generating power, on the other hand, it is doomed to confront power, and there has probably never been a period in the modern history of humankind that has not called for the mobilization of this precious self-preserving quality of the word. The word dwells in the human mind; working with the word in the process of translation and beyond it helps us to focus and to keep the mind sane and alive in times of crisis. The word is a rescue, a refuge, but it is also an exclamation mark; and it can also be a wound. Let me remind you of a few names in memory of all those people who survived with the help of the literature, with the help of a word in the soul and in the mind, of their literary creations. It is in memory of all those people who survived difficult moments thanks to translation; in memory of all those, for whom translation was also forbidden and to whom friends and brave people lent their names, as we have seen both in the Slovak and Czech cultures of the common state of Czechoslovakia and in other cultures of the former “Soviet bloc.” The self-preserving power of the word in conditions of unfreedom and physical confinement can be illustrated by many examples. I would like to mention the probably less well-known Romanian essayist, literary critic, novelist, and translator 2 Selon les plus récentes statistiques compilées par des groupes de défense des droits et libertés, 54 % des citoyens dans le monde vivent dans des pays dont les régimes autoritaires briment la liberté d’expression. Leurs populations, anesthésiées par la propagande et prises en otage par des dirigeants réfractaires à la transparence démocratique, sont privées de leurs libertés civiles ou n’y ont accès que très partiellement. Sur la planète, un habitant sur deux n’a pas le droit de parole. 25 I. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS Nicolae Steinhardt (1912–1989), who was imprisoned for thirteen years for refusing to cooperate with the Ceaușescu regime. I would like to mention this case, although it is not directly related to translation. Steinhardt’s prison life was very turbulent: he secretly converted from Judaism to Orthodox Christianity, and after his release in 1964, he became a monk, joining the Rohia monastery in Marmaros. In the 1970s, he wrote his diary in several versions because part of it had been confiscated by the Securitates, the secret police, and he was afraid to lose more parts of the text. Eventually, the diary was exported to Paris, where it was published in French in 1991 under the title Le journal de la félicité (Diary of a happy destiny), a contemporary testimony and a political testament. Therein, Steinhardt writes about his prison life, how he underwent a spiritual rebirth and embraced suffering as a form of purification in the Christian understanding (for more details, see Vajdová and Páleníková and Kenderessy 2017, 398–399). In this regard, I must point out that during his years in prison Steinhardt recited literary texts from memory to empower both himself and his fellow prisoners. The Slovak literary critic, poet, and editor Móric Mittelmann-Dedinský (1914–1989), who was politically persecuted in 1949–1953, also worked on his translations in prison: he translated Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust, the works of Thomas Mann, Aleksandr Pushkin, and Doris Lessing. His translations of the two latter authors have not been published to this day; they are stored in the Literary Archive of the Slovak National Library (Bžoch 2015, 175–176). The “Song of Songs” was also translated in prison – by Ján Augustín Beňo3, a Slovak Salesian priest, imprisoned for several years after the liquidation of the Salesian order in 1950. Beňo’s translation was created in the jail in Valdice, where the translator allegedly came into possession of the literary magazine Slovenské pohľady, which contained a translation of the “Song of Songs” by the poet Ivan Kupec. Kupec presented the translation as an example of Palestinian love poetry.4 In protest against this presentation of the “Song of Songs,” Beňo spent two years translating it in prison and then another twenty years after his release. Beňo’s translation can be understood as an expression of defiance against political power, but it was also created as a polemical translation with a secular interpretation of the original text. Beňo emphasised the sacral nature of the text and interpreted it in this sense. The life we live shows us that a life spent translating is not only a working process, which includes playing with the text, its refinement, the joy of reading and interpreting, and the joy of creativity, it is not only the repayment of cultural debts, not even the manifestation of a literary event or an extraordinary cultural act. Under certain historical circumstances, a life of translation can take place in absurd settings. In 2015, the Slovak Ministry of Culture awarded the Pavol Országh Hviezdoslav Prize for the translation of Slovak literature into foreign languages to a Syrian translator, a doctor by profession, who had been working in the Syrian city of Homs since 1990. Ghias Mousli came to Slovakia from the war-torn Syria by a rather complicated route to 3 4 J.A. Beňo (1921–2006) published religious and philosophical texts and translations under various pseudonyms in samizdat editions and in the publishing house of the Slovak Institute of St. Cyril and Methodius in Rome. This translation has not been identified. 26 Tr a n s l a t i o n – h i s t o r i c i t y – i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p a r a l l e l s receive the prize only a year later, when the circumstances allowed him to do so. All of this happened at the time of the endless war in Syria. “Probably, I wouldn’t have come under different circumstances. But for being awarded the prize here in Slovakia, I felt obligated to come,” he said in an interview for the daily Sme (Ballová and Mousli 2016). He repeated these words in the historical hall of the Faculty of Arts of Comenius University. He told the assembly of gathering all copies of his Arabic translation of the Slovak novel The Millennial Bee by Peter Jaroš and taking them to the hospital for his wounded and sick patients to read in order to help them forget the horrors of war, at least for a while. I give them my translations, children are given especially fairy tales, such as “The Three Little Goats,” which was published two months ago in Egypt, or “Maxik” or “The Sparrow King.” ... They are excited about them. Basically, anything makes them happy. And I also give books to older children, to my friends and to my colleagues at work. Why would I keep books at home? (Ballová and Mousli 2016) He also talked about his work in the hospital and explained how he sat in his room at home and translated and how he almost lost his house during the bombing.5 I suppose there is no need for further comment. From the history of translation, we also know that war has swallowed up and ruined many unpublished manuscripts of translations, destroying many years of efforts of writers and translators. This happened during the First and the Second World War as well. For example, one of the lost manuscripts during the Second World War was the translation of Dante’s Divine Comedy by Karol Strmeň, an outstanding Slovak poet and translator who became a professor of Romance Studies at Cleveland State University after his emigration to the USA. The state of war both mobilizes and destroys the spirit, and culture fades. The events of the second decade of the twenty-first century have deeply affected all of us. Two events had a direct impact on us: the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. The war in Syria and other long-standing permanent world conflicts must still be remembered, however: even though they are geographically further away from us, they still concern us to a great degree. Thinking people demand an explanation of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. There is no doubt that we are standing on the threshold of a historical turning point that we cannot yet assess objectively and predict its consequences. Intuitively, but also consciously, we turn to the past, looking for connections and explanations. In the first case, the question of plague epidemics in history immediately began to arise. We began to ask how humankind coped with them; we wondered how it coped with the Spanish flu. The cultural environment, in which there were earlier, perhaps already forgotten translations available, reflected again on this event through them. We may mention the publication of the Czech translation of Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year (1772). This work is listed in book catalogues as a classic 5 Translations of Gh. Mousli into Arabic: P. Vilikovský Fleeting Snow, The Cruel Train Driver, The Story of a Real Man, texts by P. Rankov, V. Klimáček, L. Mňačko, J. Banáš, etc., from the latest translations the novella Scenario by E. Farkašová (2020). 27 I. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS of epidemic literature. The book tells the story of the Great Plague of London in 1665–66, from which one can draw remarkable parallels to the situation and the ways in which countries were coping with the pandemic in the present day. The Slovak translation of Jack London’s dystopian work The Scarlet Plague (in 2020 by Igor Otčenáš) was published very quickly. Political events affecting the lives of millions of people also bring to the surface and out of oblivion literatures associated with the affected region. If translations do not exist, feverish work on them begins. If there are older translations, they are republished. In this regard, I can mention the wave of interest in Czech and Slovak literature sparked by the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. At that time, an unprecedented wave of interest arose in Western Europe, spurred on by political attitudes. Today, we are increasingly interested in Ukrainian culture and literature, unfortunately for similar but much worse reasons. We are trying to make up for what we have missed, to reduce translation deficits, and to explain a culture, a country, and a people through literary texts and art. I would like to note how interesting it is to see the difference between the way that Ukrainian culture and literature are reflected in Slovakia and other countries, such as France. I am discovering new names, and I often ask myself critically why I did not know about many authors until now and when real contact with them will be possible. This concerns, for example, Andriy Zholdak, who was the artistic director of the Taras Shevchenko Theatre in Kharkiv in 2002–2005 and who stages theatre classics in an unusually new way, for example, in Romania. I am reading about the best hundred Ukrainian novels on French literary websites. Until now, I had no idea how many contemporary Ukrainian writers were being translated in France, and to what extent the French translation area is capable to respond with concrete translations. I am listening to the documentary series “Ukrajinská čítanka” (Ukrainian reader) on the Czech TV and cultural radio station Vltava. There are many other examples. However, historical events similar to current ones and their depiction in literature and translation, their reflection, can take us much further back in human history: for example, to the Greek philosopher Apollonius of Tyana (1st century AD) and to the plague epidemic in ancient Ephesus. In his biography of Apollonius, Flavius Philostratus mentions the case of the stoning of an old man in Ephesus. Apollonius convinced the Ephesians that the old man was the demon that caused the plague, thus turning him into a scapegoat. Upon stoning the old man, the plague disappeared, and the Ephesians returned to their duties. We can refer to the anthropological, sociological, and philosophical articles of the French anthropologist and philosopher René Girard (1923–2015) on the concept of the scapegoat and collective violence equating to collective innocence. I think this story needs no further explanation either. The analogy brings together two important historical events of modern world history. Literary texts convey both intentional and unintentional messages. Unintentional messages are those that we perceive as either literary parallels or parallels of the milestones in lives of societies and individuals. Through these parallels, we read and interpret literary texts. Various theories of translation define this property as the literary artefact potentiality, the open-endedness of literature, the incompleteness of the text, and so on. Many other concepts could describe this unmistakable feature of literature and its importance for translation. 28 Tr a n s l a t i o n – h i s t o r i c i t y – i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p a r a l l e l s When Ján Koška (1936–2006), a Slovak poet, translator, and literary comparatist, reflected on theoretical and conceptual issues of translation, he concluded that translation was an independent literary genre. His opinion was similar opinion to that of José Ortega y Gasset that the original was not the source in itself, but rather, the translator’s interpretation of the source work, referred to as the primary interpretation. (Ortega y Gasset 2013) The translation derives itself from this interpretation, which is the secondary interpretation consisting in the textual realisation. According to Koška, one of the key steps of interpretation is to understand the translated work through an interpretive parallel. This implies understanding through various life and cultural parallels as well as through familiar parallel worlds including the parallel worlds of the interpreter, his/her country, language, and culture that relate to the source work. The presence and urgency of an interpretive parallel is a condition of translation. Theories usually speak of the “uncovering-extracting-revealing” of meanings and contents already contained in the work, which are re-articulated in translation. However, Koška thinks about the “inserting-substituting-exchanging” of contents, senses, and meanings, and about the translator’s work within the new historical circumstances, conditions of life, and its perspectives that manifest themselves through the translator. According to Koška, translation “is not, apparently, the consistent unveiling of the essence of the original, but of a new horizon, which was in no way the initial horizon of the original, because it was not there at all” (1995, 16–17). Every literary work contains unpredictable potential meanings to be revealed in future. They cannot be foreseen by the author and are not encoded in the original work. Thus, primary interpretation opens up the translated works to new experiences unforeseen by the author. In this way, the translated text becomes an “analogy” or a “metaphor” of the source text (2001, 129). In fact, the translation always distances itself from the original rather than gets closer to it (1995, 17), because, according to Koška, to a certain extent translation is the process of exchange and insertion of new contents. This is possible due to the multiple meanings of the literary image. Koška concludes that interpretive parallels are generated by a “general interpretans” that inspires and directs the interpretation (1995, 17). Every era has its own, unmistakable general interpretans. I would like to mention here the poem “The Wind” (1924) by the Bulgarian poet Atanas Dalchev (1904–1978), on which Koška relied when formulating the concept of translation.6 The poem reads roughly as follows: Wildly darting in the dusk, He whirled through far and wide. He rocked my home like a mere boat and broke open all its doors. He punched down the old fence and hit my window even harder until the glass blew up into shards – and thus, he burst 6 Atanas Dalčev: Vietor – Strmhlavo rozbehnutý v šere / Rozsekol ostrým hvizdom diaľku, / Rozkýval môj dom ako bárku / A zvonka poroztváral dvere. // Starý plot päsťou tvrdou zmietol / Do okna búšil s novou silou / A sklo sa s treskotom roztrieštilo – / Dnu prevalil sa dravý vietor. // Ako smiech pomätenca bôľny / Tabule rinčia v jeho stopách / A ľady mračných horských opách / Do tváre priamo vdýchol mi. // A ďalej hádže, tlčie, láme, / Záclona – trofej veje v prázdne / A zo sviečky mi, ako blaznel, / Odniesol jak list žltý plameň. // Zatínam päste nemohúce, / Čakám ťa s kliatbou nenávisti, / Ničivý vietor, silný, istý, / Čo si mi na ľad zmenil srdce! 29 I. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS inside like a tide. Like a madman’s mournful laugh the panes clattered in his steps. And all the monstrous hillside clouds he then threw right into my face. On and on he tore and plundered ‘till only a curtain left – a lonely flag. As he wreaked havoc all night long, he even blew away my autumn candlelight. I clench my fists helplessly, always expecting you – with a curse. Oh, mighty, savage wind who turned my heart into ice!7 The poem was published in Slovak by Koška in 1970 and he commented on it as follows: I analysed my interpretation of the poem “The Wind” written by the Bulgarian author Atanas Dalchev in 1924. The translation was created between 1968 and1969. Although it was an almost literal translation, in the images of the uninvited destructive wind in my translation I recognized the common experience of the citizens of Czechoslovakia during and after August 1968 widely publicized by the media. In no other country or at no other time could this poem have been a picture of what it turned out to be.... The shocking experience of the so-called Prague Spring and its end is probably the general interpretans for all interpretations of foreign literatures after August 1968. (1997, 24) This experience and its consequences were so intense that they had an even greater impact on the reading and interpretation of the texts “between the lines.” Translation from foreign literatures often had the function of allegorical expression. Koška was a translator from Bulgarian literature and an expert in this field. He often wrote about translations from Bulgarian literature that dwelt upon the historical instances of the atrocities during the Ottoman rule and World War II, through which he could critically comment on the period of normalization in Czechoslovakia. A properly chosen interpretansprovided an opportunity to express the forbidden opinions through translation and to accentuate what resonated in the given reception situation. Koška sees literary translation as a holistic artistic process rather than a segmented semantic, linguistic, and stylistic operation. For him, the translation is a special kind of literary creation; it is “a play on the medium that seemingly speaks in the voices of the non-living and distant people in various indirect ways about our current times. It is an interpretation of voices addressed to a public circle of interested people” (1995, 15). The medium – the interpreter – re-creates the work and articulates its new meaning. Unfortunately, the poem “The Wind” acquires a new meaning now after almost a hundred years since Dalchev wrote it. In this sense, there is no doubt that the general interpretansof the first quarter of the twenty-first century are the two key events mentioned in the introduction: the pandemic and the epidemic of authoritarian madness, both of which were accounted for in many literary texts of the twentieth century. 7 English translation from Slovak language by Igor Tyšš. 30 Tr a n s l a t i o n – h i s t o r i c i t y – i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p a r a l l e l s In the reception situation of the twenty-first century, we are discovering that “an adequate representation of the current situation can be found in the more distant and even very distant past,” as Koška argues (1997, 22). “The original text [offers] a historicity that this source text had not foreseen a priori. To translate is to introduce a text into a temporal dimension different from that which was originally its own” (Le Blanc 2019, 83, qtd. in in Delisle 2022, 161).8 In the current reception situation, the importance and irreplaceability of translation is once again evident. It is a recurring situation, for in the modern world, there are ongoing conflicts that geographically look very distant, but are, in fact, very close. In this threatening situation, we are also aware of translation in the wider cultural space. We are getting new evidence that “new events change the content of literary works... Literature is like a prophecy about history and people, as it finds ‘its’ images in every period of time” (Koška 2002, 110). Translation is also a test of society’s tolerance for diversity of opinion and cultural pluralism. It is a certain way for an individual or a society to broaden its perspectives but under the condition that it is not afraid of otherness and difference, that it does not perceive it as a threat, but as a living source of mutual enrichment. A vision of the world that is not pluralistic, that is not open and welcoming, is an oppressive one and restricts the freedom of the individual. Translation proves that human beings, as much as societies, need others to define themselves, to move forward and sometimes even to be reborn. (Delisle 2012, 306)9 Translation can satisfy the need for knowing. In professional literary circles, new forms of literary engagement are now being discussed. These discussions are less about political engagement, but more of the responsibility of literature that should consciously serve as ethical reflection of the society and its history. In this way historicity would be embedded in literature and new ideas will be put into circulation, thus changing the world with the power of words. All of this is also necessary to produce relevant translations. Every culture should take such responsibility, balancing the asymmetry of cultures through translation, so that literature in the multicultural Europe does not have to come to the forefront only in times of political and human crisis. Translated by Zuzana Močková Lorková 8 9 Le texte originaire [offre] une historicité que le texte originel n’avait pas prévue a priori. Traduire, c’est introduire un texte dans une dimension temporelle différente de celle qui était d’abord la sienne. La traduction teste la tolérance des sociétés à la diversité d’opinions et au pluralisme culturel. Pour un individu ou une société, elle représente un moyen sûr d’élargir ses horizons, mais à la condition de ne pas avoir peur de l’Autre et de ses différences, de ne pas voir dans l’étranger une menace, mais une source vive d’enrichissement mutuel. Une vision du monde qui n’est pas pluraliste, c’est-à-dire ouverte et accueillante, est une vision oppressante qui brime les libertés individuelles. La traduction apporte la preuve que les êtres humains, tout comme les sociétés, ont besoin des autres pour se définir, progresser et parfois renaître. 31 I. THOUGHTS AND REFLECTIONS RE F ERE NCE S Ballová, Denisa, and Ghias Mousli. 2016. “Ghias Mousli: Svojim pacientom v Homse čítam básne od Milana Rúfusa” [Ghias Mousli: I read poems by Milan Rúfus to my patients in Homs]. Denník N. Accessed on June 18, 2022. https://dennikn.sk/332810/ghias-mouslisvojim-pacientom-homse-citam-basne-milana-rufusa/. Bžoch, Adam. 2015. “Dedinský-Mittelmann Móric.” In Slovník slovenských prekladateľov umeleckej literatúry. 20. storočie. I. [The dictionary of Slovak literary translators of the 20th century. I.], ed. by Oľga Kovačičová and Mária Kusá. Bratislava: Veda, vydavateľstvo SAV, ÚSvL SAV, 175–177. Dalčev, Atanas. 1970. Protivný vietor [The wind]. Trans. by Ján Koška. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ. Delisle, Jean. 2012. “Traduire en prison, un passe-temps carcéral, un remède contre l’intolérance” [Translating in prison, a prison pastime, a remedy for intolerance]. Quaderns. Revista de Traducció 19: 291–306. Delisle, Jean. 2022. Notions d’histoire de la traduction [The concepts of the history of translation]. Québec: Presse de l’Université Laval. Koška, Ján. 1995. „Okolnosti výrazu a preklad” [The circumstances of expression and translation]. Slovak Review 4, 1: 11–19. Koška, Ján. 1997. “Ako nepochopiť básnika (Autorský komunikát a text)” [On how not to understand a poet (Author’s communication and text)]. Slovak Review 6, 1: 19–26. Koška, Ján. 2001. “Originalita prekladu (Preklad ako literárny žáner)” [The originality of translation (Translation as a literary genre)]. Slovak Review 10, 2: 124–139. Koška, Ján. 2002. “Ktorý preklad je najlepší” [Which translation is the best].Slovak Review 11, 2: 105–116. Meschonnic, Henri. 1999. Poétique du traduire [The poetics of translation]. Lagrasse: Éditions Verdier. Ortega y Gasset, José. 2013. Misère et splendeur de la traduction [The misery and splendour of translation]. Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Vajdová, Libuša, Jana Páleníková, and Eva Kenderessy. 2017. Dejiny rumunskej literatúry [The history of Romanian literature]. Bratislava: AnaPress. AB S TR ACT The article deals with the relationship between historical events and their expression in the original and translation literature. It touches upon the cultural and social functions of translation in different periods during wars and totalitarian regimes. It gives examples of silenced writers and translators, in whose lives the word and translation had a self-preserving power. This article explains historicity and its expression in interpretive parallels through the theoretical concept of translation defined by J. Koška. According to him, translation in its process is a wholesome creative operation rather than series of segmented semantic, linguistic, and stylistic operations. Every literary work contains encoded future meanings that cannot be predicted. Through primary interpretation and general interpretans of time, new unpredictable experiences enter the translated works. Keywords: Translation. Historicity. Interpretive parallels. General interpretans. Censorship. Authoritarianism. 32 Tr a n s l a t i o n – h i s t o r i c i t y – i n t e r p r e t a t i v e p a r a l l e l s CO NTAC T D ETAI L S: Prof. PhDr. Katarína Bednárová, PhD. Faculty of Arts Department of Romance Studies Comenius University in Bratislava Gondova 2 811 02 Bratislava 1 Slovak Republic katarina.bednarova@uniba.sk & Institute of World Literature SAS Dúbravská cesta 9 841 04 Bratislava Slovak Republic katarina.bednarova@savba.sk ORCID: 0000-0001-9245-8841 33 II . O N H I S TOR I CA L JU S T I CE I N TR AN SL ATI ON S TU D I ES DIS COV E RI NG ER AS E D DIS C U S S IO N O N TR AN S LAT ION M ET HO D IN U K R AIN E I N 1927–1931 O lek s a n dr Ka lnyc h e nko In t ro du ct i o n The period of the late 1920s – early 1930s in Ukraine was characterized by rapid development in the field of translation. It was the time when hundreds of translations were made from dozens of languages, both living and dead. Many talented Ukrainian writers engaged in translation, and multi-volume editions of translated works began to appear (Heinrich Heine, Jack London, Guy de Maupassant, Anatole France, Nikolai Gogol1, Anton Chekhov, etc.) (e.g., Kalnychenko and Kolomiyets 2022). These years also saw the rise of Ukrainian translation thought as a scholarly and academic discipline, which covered translation history, translation theory, criticism, and didactics (Shmiher 2009). This is evidenced by 1) 2) 3) 4) 1 numerous theoretical essays on translation (see, for example, Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2011) and numerous reviews of translated books, which appeared monthly in Zhyttia i Revoliutsiia, Chervonyi Shliakh, Krytyka, and other journals (for instance, Volodymyr Derzhavyn alone published about forty reviews of translated literature in 1927–1931 (Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015); the foundation of the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education in Kyiv with a branch in Kharkiv on 31 May, 1930, for training highly qualified translators of scientific, technical and fiction literature at the university level (Protokoly 1930; Kolomiyets 2021; Kalnychenko and Kamovnikova 2020) and by the theoretical courses on general methodology of translation and on special methodology of translation delivered there in 1930–1933 by Mykhailo Kalynovych (1932) and Mykola Zerov (1932) (Dzhuhastrianska and Strikha 2015; Kolomiyets 2021); the publication of the first monograph on translation in Eastern Europe. It was entitled “Theory and Practice of Translation” and published in Ukrainian by Oleksander Finkel in Kharkiv in 1929. The monograph moved translation theory beyond the realm of literature; coining of the term perekladoznavstvo (lit.: “translation studies”) by Kalynovych and Zerov in their syllabi and their classification of translation studies as well as the recognition of “the history of translation studies” as a separate discipline (Kolomiyets 2020; Kolomiyets 2021; Shmiher 2021, 11). Furthermore, Serhiy Dlozhevsky (Dlozhevsky 1929, 31) articulated the object of translation studies stating that it “embodies the essence of deviations in a translation from the Ukrainian Mykola Hohol’. 36 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 original that are motivated by differences in the language, culture, or the translator’s subjective perception” (Shmiher 2021, 10). The appearance of Ukraine’s first purely theoretical works about translation was noticed by Hryhoriy Maifet at the beginning of 1928: The first step in this direction has already been made: I mean the article by V. Derzhavyn (#9–10 Pluzhanyn, 1927) entitled “e problem of verse translation” and his report (24 November 1927) at the plenary meeting of the Kharkiv literature department. The erudition and experience in scholarly work of the above-mentioned researcher allows us to hope for valuable effects; the published writings prove this best. The strictness of V. Derzhavyn’s requirements to a translator is very symptomatic of the upsurge of a great deal of interest in Ukrainian translation as well as in the quality of the translation itself. (85)2 The publication of the first works on translation theory in Ukraine was also acknowledged by Zerov in his essay “U spravi virshovanoho perekladu. Notatky” [On the case of verse translation. Notes]: A good sign for the future is that alongside practical work in the field of translated poetry we also have a theoretical interest in its problems. There are three articles relevant to this: “The problem of verse translation” by V.M. Derzhavyn, “An initiative” by Iuriy Savchenko (Pluzhanyn monthly, 1927, # 9–10, P. 44–50, 63–71) and “From Notes on the Theory of Translation” by Hr. Maifet (Krytyka monthly, 1928, vol. 3, P. 84–93). Some of the reviews, which in one way or another have touched on some theoretical issues (by V.M. Derzhavyn on Knyhospilka Publishers’ Pushkin, by О. Burghardt and by P.I. Tykhovskyi on Ulesko’s translation of Faust, and some others), should also be included here. (1928, 133) Among the distinctive features of the first fieen years of the Ukrainian translation tradition development after 1917, Hryhoriy Kochur points out that “along with the practice, the theory of translation was also developing – in quite a few essays and reviews, first of all by M. Zerov, but also by S. Rodzevych, P. Fylypovych, who raised many problems of translation” (1968, 94)3. In his review of the publication of Oleksander Finkel’s works on translation, the patriarch of modern translation studies in Ukraine Ilko Korunets states: From today’s point of view, one can hold that I. Kulyk, M. Zerov with his realistic views and demands with regard to poetic translation, and H. Maifet first stood at the origins of Ukrainian translation studies, as well as, undoubtedly, V. Derzhavyn, the most proficient and prolific reviewer of prosaic and poetic translations of the time. (2008, 189) 2 3 Unless otherwise noted all translations from the Ukrainian or Russian languages are by the present author. He deliberately quotes scholars from the 1920s extensively, retaining their terminology and style in his translation. Note that most of the pioneers’ names could not be mentioned in the 1960s. 37 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Describing the Ukrainian translation thinking of the time as “quite variegated” in his preface to the selected collection of Finkel’s works on translation, Vitalii Radchuk concludes that “theoretical foundations of translation methodology and criticism were the topic of the day,” because one had to have a “practical theory” (2007, 30). Seventeen years ago, Taras Shmiher (2005) in his paper on Derzhavyn pointed the underappreciation of the theoretical legacy of Derzhavyn, Zerov, Maifet and Finkel and their attempts to develop an integral and systematic approach to translation on the basis of critical reviews of the time. Since then, the situation has changed to a certain degree. Today, Ukrainian scholars are familiar with these works thanks to the recent reprints. Thus, it can be stated that a significant part of the theoretical heritage of Ukrainian translation scholars of the 1920s – early 1930s has been collected and returned to the domestic scholarship, although the task of its presentation to the international audience still remains. Vo l o dy my r De r zh a vy n on h o mo l o go u s (o r s t y l i zi ng ) an d a n a l og o us t ra n sl at i o n e discussion concerning the method in literary translation and –, in particular, in translation of verse, – began with the article “Problema virshovanoho perekladu” [e problem of verse translation] by Derzhavyn (1899–1964) published in Ukrainian in the Kharkiv monthly Pluzhanyn (1927).4 is was, as a matter of fact, the first purely theoretical Ukrainian article on translation. e article caused a heated debate, which to a considerable degree shaped the Ukrainian theory of translation. e participants of the discussion also included Maifet from Poltava, Zerov from Kyiv, Finkel from Kharkiv, and, to a lesser extent, Andrei Fedorov from Leningrad, Dmitrii Usov from Moscow, Yurii Savchenko from Kharkiv, and Dmytro Rudyk from Kyiv. As Anthony Pym noted (2016, 40), this article by Derzhavyn was a response to the Russian article “Problema stihotvornogo perevoda” by the young Fedorov (translated into English as “e Problem of Verse Translation,” published a little earlier in the same year ([1927], 74). Pym also remarked that Derzhavyn’s “text generally argues for a more foreignizing approach than one might gather from Fedorov” (2016, 40). In his article, Derzhavyn not only advocated stylizing translation or stylization-translation (pereklad-stylizatsiya), but also associated the functions of language with the types and purposes of translation. The idea that translation methods (technique, strategies) depend on the text-type and the purpose of translation were already contained in the embryonic form in Fedorov’s article, although it traces its origins back to Friedrich Schleiermacher ([1813] 2002). The idea that the method of translating is a correlate of the text-type is regularly attributed to the German translation scholar Katharina Reiss (Reiss ([1971] 2000, 24–47; Reiss and Vermeer 2014, 155–190).5 However, this idea was obviously 4 5 In 1927, Derzhavyn became a member of the Research Department of Literary Studies chaired by Oleksander Biletskyi at the Kharkiv Institute of Public Education (the name of Kharkiv University in 1921–1930) after writing a work The Problems of Literary Translation. No traces of this manuscript have been found so far, but the article “The Problem of Verse Translation” in the monthly Pluzhanyn probably contained its main points. Reiss based this idea on the findings of the German psychologist Karl Bühler (1934, English 1990). His reputed Organon model of the communicative act defined three language functions (the representation 38 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 expressed much earlier by Derzhavyn, who highlighted the phenomenon of artistic (literary) translation: A natural language simultaneously performs – in every case to a variable extent, though – three functions: communicative, cognitive, and artistic, which lend themselves to translation to a varying degree... This means that there are three types of translation: account6-translation (pereklad-vyklad), transcriptiontranslation (pereklad-transkriptsiya) (not used separately), and stylizationtranslation (pereklad-stylizatsiya),7 with only the latter being artistic to one degree or another, although it almost never exists in a pure form... (Derzhavyn 1927, 44–45; Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 50) Reflecting upon the artistic function of a word, Derzhavyn maintains that it should only be sought in its external and internal form, as did Oleksander Potebnia,8 and that the artistic function of language is manifested only in its sound structure, morphology, syntax, and lexis (to be understood historically, in relation to its etymology); and literary translation is an artistic translation in as much as it recreates these particular aspects of the work. The only question lies in the ways by which the conveyance of the external and internal forms of language is at all achievable. (Qtd. in Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 52) Derzhavyn immediately exacerbates the problem of the “artistry” of translation to the extreme, as he poses the questions on the most difficult aspect – the translation of poetry. He speaks about the transfer of metre, syntax (rhythmic and syntactic figures), poetic vocabulary, and the sonority of the original (rhymes and verbal instrumentation) and links them to the question of “artistic” translation in general: there is no principal difference whatsoever between the problem of poetic translation and that of artistic translation. The fact of a poetic metre as such does not create a specific language; it only compels the translator to perceive more vividly all features of poetic idiom possible in literary prose as well... so, basically, everything written below about poetic translation will deal with literary translation as a whole (with the exception of purely metrical issues). (Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 49) 6 7 8 function – Darstellungsfunktion, the expressive function – Ausdrucksfunktion, and the conative function – Appellfunktion, i.e., appealing function). Hence it distinguished between three basic text-types: a) informative (content-focused type); b) expressive (form-focused type); and c) operative (appeal-focused type), representing the persuasive function of language and assuming an extralinguistic outcome. Content rendering In his later works of the period, Derzhavyn called “foreignness”-oriented translations as “homologous” or “stylizing translations” and “nativeness”-oriented translations as “analogous” (Derzhavyn 1930c). The external form is the sound form of a sign. The internal form is a fragment of meaning immediately represented in the external form (Potebnia 1895/1993). 39 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Derzhavyn sees artistic translation as the kind of translation “that seeks to convey the artistic value of the original (rather than its ideological or psychological message), as well as the contemporary literary era permeating the original” and defines it as a “stylization-translation” (“pereklad-stylizatsiya”) (Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 58). Having addressed the individual features of the poetic text (phonetics, grammar, and vocabulary) and the ways in which they can be reproduced within another language, Derzhavyn, argues that it is necessary, first of all, to admit that literary translation (stylization- translation) should be, if possible, a literal one – not in the sense that every word of the source text should be translated separately, but in the sense that the artistic value of every sentence, word, grammatical or phonetic structure of the source, should, if possible, be embodied in the style of translation. Such a translation would be viewed by many as an extremely “exotic” one if not on the edge of a parody; even so, it always depends upon the translator’s stylistic tactfulness whether to retain the distinction between a parody and stylization or not; in any case, even a parody renders the artistic originality of the source better than flat literary clichés. As for the “exotic,” as a matter of course, an adequate translation of an exotic text (and we call “exotic” anything that in general terms is foreign to our own cultural consciousness) cannot escape stylistic exoticism. (Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 57) In the same work, Derzhavyn also lists the functions of literary translation: Translations of works of art are generally made with an aim to: 1) acquaint the readers with the content of foreign literature, which includes countless translations of bélles-léttres thrown into the book market every year without any claims to artistic value whatsoever; 2) develop and enrich one’s native literary language, in which case the content of the translated work becomes an object of literary imitation and, so to say, a pretext for the realization of the artistic potential of one’s mother tongue; this is a very important and culturally valuable kind of literary and language work, which, in fact, is not a translation per se, since it implies that the artistic aspect of the original is not recreated, but, on the contrary, is consistently replaced by another one – totally different!; 3) provide artistic translation in a narrow sense of the word, stylization-translation, which occurs comparatively rarely and requires a high level of literary and language competence from both the translator and the reader...Verse translation, which by definition is focused on the artistic aspect of the work, cannot be anything else but stylization: otherwise, it is no longer a translation, and can only be regarded as an independent poetic work. (Derzhavyn 1927, 47; Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 57–58) As we can see, Derzhavyn does not consider the second group of texts, i.e., imitation, as translations at all. In another work, Derzhavyn explains that stylization-translation (or homologous translation) applies only to classical works: 40 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 adequate reproduction... of the representative and historical specific weight of a classical work, which alone serves as an objective criterion of belonging of a certain literary work to the “classics of world literature,” requires, understandably, a genuine artistic translation, not an ‘informational and thematic one’; this latter is tolerable (not to say, desirable) in terms of their topical theme for our time, but devoid of a great artistic and social and historical representative weight (such as Remarque’s Im Westen nichts Neues [All quiet on the western front] and other examples of German pacifist “war novel” trendy nowadays). (1930a, 161) In this essay, Derzhavyn emphasizes the particular importance of reproducing the artistic style in translations from the “classics of world literature,” which are mostly devoid of actual purely ideological significance for the broad circles of modern readers. He argues that an accurate and adequate reproduction of the stylistic aspect of the original is a mandatory prerequisite for an appropriate translation of any classical piece of foreign literature, while works of secondary artistic value, but “more modern,” may acquire a certain relevance for the mass reader by their purely ideological features beyond their artistic traits, and in this case, they need less stylistic adequacy of translation (161). Derzhavyn championed homologous translation in several other essays on translation theory and practice, as well as in numerous reviews. Thus, in his review of the Ukrainian translation of Volume 1 of Gogol’s Works (Volume 1. Vechory na khutori pid Dykankoyu [Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka])9 Derzhavyn emphasized that a truly artistic translation can only be a stylizing one, that is, a translation that seeks to convey not only the content of the work – even if in all the finest subtlety – but also the stylistic aspect, e.g., the artistic peculiarities of the language. For this purpose, the translator has a right to depart from the “correct” literary language – the generally accepted norm – and, whenever he can, use less standard stylistic variants, including archaic ones. (Derzhavyn 1929b, 218–219; Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2011, 205) When Derzhavyn speaks of stylization-translation, he makes an emphasis on the orientation towards “foreignness” and strongly relates this orientation to the aesthetic value of translation. In his review of Iskusstvo perevoda [The art of translation] by Chukovskii and Fedorov, Zerov noted that Derzhavyn spoke about stylizationtranslation to emphasize the orientation towards “foreignness,” linking this orientation to the artistic value of the translation: A translation work can take one form or another depending on the translator’s stylistic orientation: for instance, the translator can modernize the original or archaize it; in search of more natural equivalents in his mother tongue, he can depart from the original so far as to give it an absolutely different national colouring; or, on the contrary, by sticking to specific features of the foreign 9 Under the general editorship of Ivan Lakyza and Pavlo Fylypovych and under the stylistic editorship of Andriy Nikovskyi. 41 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S language the translator can “barbarize” the translation – both in terms of vocabulary and syntax. Talking about “foreignness”-oriented translations and “nativeness”-oriented translations, Andrei Fedorov makes a reference to V. Derzhavyn’s article in Pluzhanyn (1927, issue 9) as well as to his classification of translations (analogous and homologous). ([1930] 2002, 766) In his turn, Andrei Fedorov states: “In his Ukrainian article ‘The Problem of Verse Translation’, V.N. Derzhavyn... establishes only two methods of translation, which he calls the analogous type (focus on the native language) and the (h)omologous type (focus on foreignness)” (Chukovskii and Fedorov 1930, 232). However, according to Finkel’s remark, Fedorov was inaccurate in indicating the source of the terms: There has been a slight misunderstanding: these terms do not appear in the mentioned article by Derzhavyn; as far as we know, they were used in an unpublished article, with which Fedorov had an opportunity to familiarize himself in manuscript, like us. But since these terms have been made public by A.V. Fedorov with the indication of their author, we consider it possible to use them in the future. (Finkel [1939] 2007c, 244) While generally praising Fedorov’s first works, Derzhavyn criticised him for advocating analogous translation in poetry: “Sound in Poetry Translation (Questions of Methodology and Phonetics)” by Andrei Fedorov (45–69) develops the principles expressed by the author in his previous essay “The Problem of Verse Translation” (Poetika II., 1927). Denying the possibility of adequate reproduction of both the metre and the euphony of the poem, the author suggests the functionally adequate (“analogous” in our terminology) reproduction of the sound form, and, as an exception, the exact reproduction of it, but in another semantic function (what we call “homologous” translation, or stylization, cf. “The Problem of Verse Translation” (Pluzhanyn, 1927, no. 9–10). The author’s train of thought is immaculate, and the cases of complete euphonic reproduction of the original in translation, which he has collected and cited in his classification, are in many ways exemplary. However, we cannot agree with his relatively high artistic appraisal of functionally adequate translation (in our opinion, it blurs the fundamental distinction between artistic translation and literary imitation) and with the fact that the author deals with the reproduction of euphony in separate verses, whereas it is not separate verses that should be reproduced, but the entire style. (Derzhavyn 1928b, 98) In his review of Fedorov’s chapter “Techniques and objectives of literary translation” in the book The Art of Translation co-authored by Chukovskii and Fedorov, Derzhavyn appreciates it as “a quite competent attempt at a systematic in-depth analysis of the main issues of the theory and technique of artistic translation,” which has analogues “neither in Russian, nor in Ukrainian scientific literature” and which “due to the theoretical consistency, erudition, and technical competence of the author deserves close attention on the part of every Soviet translator and critic.” The 42 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 Ukrainian scholar notes that Fedorov “distinguishes between three main types, or tendencies, of artistic translation: the ‘focus on the mother tongue,’ the ‘focus on the foreign language,’ and the ‘focus on the alignment’ ‘smoothing out’ specific national-linguistic features” (Derzhavyn 1930b; qtd. in Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 191). Further Derzhavyn expresses his disagreement: As the author himself [Fedorov] rightly states, the first of these three types of artistic translation corresponds to what we [Derzhavyn] call “analogous” translation, and the second one that we call “homologous” translation or “stylization” ... There is some doubt regarding the third type of artistic translation: it definitely exists as a type, but is it really a type of artistic translation rather than a non-literary translation? In our view, the “smoothing out” of the specific features of the original, without analogous and homologous reproduction, contradicts the notion of literary translation in general. (192) By the way, this opposition of the native language-centered strategy to the foreign language-centered approach correlates to a certain extent with domesticating vs. foreignizing strategies in Lawrence Venuti (1995). According to Derzhavyn, there were translations, in which the principle of stylization or homologous translation in Ukrainian was implemented systematically and with significant artistic success. These were the first two volumes of Mykola Hohol`s Works, published in 1929 and 1930 by Knyhospilka Co-operative Publishers10 (Derzhavyn, 1931).Other exemplary stylization-translations, in his opinion, were Salammbô by Gustave Flaubert in Rylsky’s translation (Knyhospilka, 1930), Madame Bovary by Flaubert in Oksana Bublyk-Hordon’s translation (Knyhospilka, 1930), Carmen by Prosper Mérimée in Borys Tkachenko’s translation (GDU, 1930), and the first volume by Anton Chekhov under the stylistic editorship of Rylsky (see reviews in Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015). Hr y ho r ii Ma i fet Derzhavyn’s report and his essay in Pluzhanyn were immediately responded to by Maifet (1903–1974) (1928), whose writings (reprinted in 2015) “give the first key to a full understanding of the discussion on stylization-translation and analogy-translation” (Shmiher 2017, 7). In a detailed review of the work of the American researcher Karl Scholz e Art of Translation (1918), Maifet compares the principles of translation declared by Scholz, whom he links to the numerous proponents of analogous translation, with Derzhavyn’s classification and principles. Maifet as a representative of the formal method in Ukraine supports Derzhavyn. He writes: V.M. Derzhavyn provides the following classification of translations: accounttranslation, transcription-translation (not used separately), and stylization10 The first volume was translated by A. Kharchenko, D. Revutsky, Maksym Rylsky, A. Nikovsky, M. Zerov, S. Tytarenko (Derzhavyn 1929b); the second volume was translated by S. Vilkhovy, A. Marchenko, M. Rylsky, A. Nikovsky (Derzhavyn 1931). 43 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S translation. This first type is also called analogous translation, and its principle was expressed by Zhukovskii: “The translator must himself stand in the place of the poet he translates, so that his translation has the same impression on foreigners as the original produces on his countrymen.”11 Derzhavyn very aptly questions if it really could be that Zhukovskii thought that his hexameter makes the same impression on the Russian reader as Homer’s hexameter on the Hellenes. (1928; quoted after Maifet 2017, 48) In his review of Oleksander Finkel’s book, Maifet points out the significance of Derzhavyn’s theory for Ukrainian translation and his increased requirements to the quality of translations: This theory is rooted in the author’s profound awareness of theoretical stylistics issues: apart from the practical side of the issue, he formulated the concept antithetical to the principles of translation-analogy... it is worth emphasizing the weight that Derzhavyn’s theory has in the history of Ukrainian post-revolutionary translation work: it is the weight of the extremely strict requirements to translation (M. Zerov comes to the same conclusion...), which cannot in any way be considered inappropriate: V. Derzhavyn appeared for the first time as a theorist not with separate remarks concerning translation-specific errors (as we meet them in the corresponding reviews) and not with the descriptions of different aspects of translation theory (as we have in Oleksander Finkel’s article “On translation” with its interesting clarification of the architectonics principle in respect of the original and translation), but with an entire concept, which could not but have theoretical weight. (1929, 65–66) My ko l a Z erov Zerov agrees with many of the points of both Derzhavyn’s article and Maifet’s article in his essay “On the Case of Verse Translation. Notes” (1928), which echoes Derzhavyn’s article in Pluzhanyn. Pointing out that these articles emerged rather under the influence of Russian theoretical literature than in connection with Ukrainian literary practice, Zerov emphasizes that both authors nonetheless borrow illustrations for their ideas from contemporary Ukrainian translated poetry, “getting involved in the discussion of its means, shortcomings and achievements” (134). Despite the fact that Zerov thinks some of the illustrations insufficient: for instance, he disagrees with Derzhavyn’s very high opinion of Faust in Mykola Ulezko’s translation. However, he thinks Derzhavyn’s contribution “into our current work” worthy of praise, stating that “the demanding severity of the requirements imposed on our translators should not scare us: it also testifies to our maturity” (135). Zerov agrees with the demand for a thorough understanding of the original, adding that “it 11 In Maifet’s article, the quote is given without citing the source, which we have not been able to find out. Cf. a similar passage from Zhukovskii: “But the main duty of the translator, to which all others are subject, is that they should try to produce the effect which the original produces everywhere in their translation” (Zhukovskii 2012, 314). 44 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 is not enough to understand the words themselves; one must feel the author’s viewpoint through them, understand his stylistic orientation, know of the circumstances in which this text was written and its place in the life and development of the author” (136). Zerov notes that the accuracy of translation “loses even the slightest clarity when it comes to the translation of verse. Our literary critics are aware of this” (137). As an example, he cites a quote from Savchenko’s article from the same monthly issue as Derzhavyn’s article about translations from Pavlo Tychyna into Russian: It would seem quite simple to formulate a definition of the principles of cultural [artistic?] translation by saying: it is accuracy, equivalence (!) with the original, but the very transfer by sounds and words of another language already suggests that such accuracy cannot be perfect, and therefore we must talk only about approximate accuracy in reproducing the various components of the artistic construction, both substantive and formal. (137) Anyone who has ever translated in verse, Zerov goes on to say, knows that sameness (totozhnist’) is impossible even in translations from closely related languages. Therefore, one usually speaks of the adequacy of translation when meaning the maximum correspondence to the content and stylistic features of the original. Derzhavyn is much more cautious when he writes that “[l]literary translation is normally required to be “adequate” to the original, that is, to correspond to its prominent stylistic features and reflect them in one way or another” (138). Yet every translator of poetry faces two dangers, Zerov continues: if one gives priority to content, one will not be able to convey the form in its entirety; and a focus on rhythmic or euphonic features means writing a new piece of poetry. There is only one solution: “do not talk about equivalence or even about the complete accuracy of the verse translation, lest the translator is left to rendering meticulously every detail of the original” (138). Based on this, Zerov states that he would be afraid to take the position of Derzhavyn, who in his article “The Problem of Verse Translation” writes that it is impossible to replicate the structure of a foreign language, but quite possible to produce something similar by successfully combining sound and grammatical material available in the native language. Therefore, Zerov adds: I believe that with such an attitude to the matter, the secondary tasks would overshadow the main transfer of what is the core, the basis of the work. In my opinion, it is around this core that the translator’s main efforts should be concentrated. Secondary details can remain in the shadows, even remain unreproduced. (138–139) Zerov then proves with examples the need for greater flexibility in transferring the “core” of the original work related to either its form or content: When translating Hugo, one cannot get past his spectacular syntax, his brilliant oratory; there cannot be an elementarily decent translation of Verlaine without 45 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S maximum attention to his phonetic devices, and the translator of Verhaeren would sign his own death warrant if he lost himself in the rich metaphoricity of the poet’s French text. (141) He suggests that we take a closer look at the desiderata expressed by literary scholars in the works cited and suggests that “everyone concerned about the development of our literary language should fully or partially accede to them” (141). First of all, he recommends that translators “navigate our lexical reserves to the best of their ability, distinguishing – to put it in an old-fashioned way – between the words of “high and low styles” and avoiding their disorderly, anti-artistic mishmash” (141). The second desire is “the translator’s fullest attention to the so-called tropes and figures of the original (metaphor, metonymy, paraphrases, and antonomasia)” (143). Yet, speaking of Derzhavyn’s requirement to preservation of all tropes and semantic figures, no matter how strange they might appear to contemporary readers, Zerov suspected the theorist would reconsider “if he were a practical translator, interested in his work being understood and well received by the reader” (143). The third desire concerns the transfer of the original’s metrical features: “the choice of verse metre should not be arbitrary and accidental, it should take into account our rhythmic flair, always seeking, however, to extend its limits” (145). The fourth is that the translator should not neglect the euphony of the original work and that this applies both to the so-called sound patterns (alliteration, assonance) and to rhyming, which in this case plays the most important role (145). Here he fully agrees with Derzhavyn’s article. In the fifth recommendation, Zerov diverges from Derzhavyn, believing that “the beauty (and hence the naturalness and fluency) of the native language cannot be inferior to anything” (146). It is noteworthy that in the syllabus for his 1932/33 lecture course “Special Methodology of Translation” prepared for the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education,12 Zerov recommended the term svoiemovnist (lit.: own-language-oriented) (1932). He introduced this term to denote the translator’s orientation towards the target language. His syllabus also speaks of chuzhomovnist (lit.: foreign-languageoriented) used “to denote the translator’s focus on the features of the original work, that is, it introduces organically national terminology instead of ‘analogous’ and ‘homologous’ translation” (Kolomiyets 2020, 143). Although Zerov’s other articles on the method of translation are outside the timeframe of the discussion and became known later, they clearly testify to his position. For example, in his 1934 article “Bryusov as a translator of Latin poets” published by Kochur in 1968 in Masterstvo perevoda, 1966 (1968), Zerov speaks approvingly of Valery Bryusov’s unfinished translation of Virgil’s Aeneid13 and his theoretical principles in general. Zerov mentions their “sharp protest against 12 13 The typewritten text of the syllabus remained unknown until Lada Kolomiyets found and identified it in the Archives of the Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur in the city of Irpin (Kyiv Oblast) and made it public in 2021 (Kolomiyets 2021). “Bryusov’s own achievements in his rendering of the Aeneid are indisputable and great, even if judged by the rigour of his own requirements,” “with great success he has satisfied the often-incompatible demands of ‘accurate’ rendering of ‘content’ and sound ‘form’” (quoted as in Zerov 2002, 1031). 46 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 mitigating the features of the original that look strange in the translation language environment” which indicated “a shift in his theoretical views of translation” (1030–1031). Thus, Zerov’s realism lies in the fact that translation cannot be exclusively foreign-language-focused. Translation cannot be purely homologous; analogous and homologous translations are only theoretical constructs for marking the extremes. Ivan Ku l y k Kulуk held the exact opposite view to Derzhavyn. He declared his ideas in his foreword to “The Anthology of American Poetry. 1855–1925” published in 1928, the same year when Maifet and Zerov published their articles (Kulyk 1928; qtd. in Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2011, 483–486). The anthology itself received mostly favourable reviews (by Oswald Burghardt, Derzhavyn, Oleksander Biletskyi). “I want to make a special mention of ‘The Anthology of Modern American Poetry’ compiled and translated by I. Kulyk, a book that will be of a special interest to the Russian reader who does not have a similar publication in Russian,” wrote Biletskyi in his survey of Ukrainian translated literature for the Russian readership (Beletskii, 1929, 91). As a responsible Bolshevik party official (at that time, he was Deputy Commissioner of the People’s Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the USSR to the government of Ukraine), Kulyk did not engage in any heated discussions of the method of translation, and the preface, apparently, did not imply any discussion. Finkel compares Kulyk’s views to the Romanticist approach and describes them as a new “principled interpretation of the tasks and duties of a modern translator” ([1929a] 2007a, 65). He also quotes Kulyk’s statements on the method of translation in his “Theory and Practice of Translation”: we could not, even willingly, remain mechanically impartial when translating. By accepting the originals in a certain way, in accordance with our world view, in the process of translation we involuntarily emphasise certain ideological points in them, not deliberately and thoughtfully, but rather the way we feel them. For a translator who belongs to a different class category would probably emphasize other aspects and properties of the original than we do. Besides, we have sometimes made deliberate attempts to adapt translations to the understanding and perception of them by the audience for which the book is intended. We had in mind that we were translating for a Ukrainian reader, a modern Soviet one at that [Soviet one is emphasised only by Finkel]. This forced us to make some deliberate changes in our translations compared to the originals. One cannot write in absolutely the same way for the American and Ukrainian readers, because these readers have different psychology and different interests in the perception of works of art, caused by the prevalence of different economic systems and the influence of different, opposite political factors and social systems. (Kulyk 1928, 36–37; Finkel [1929a] 2007a, 65–66) Kulyk refers to the dialogue Paradoxe sur le comédien by Denis Diderot, who said that “qui sait rendre parfaitement une scène de Shakespeare ne connaît pas le premier 47 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S accent de la déclamation d’une scène de Racine”14 (Diderot 1773, 4) and that “qu’en tout ouvrage... il y a deux sens distingués, tous les deux renfermés sous les mêmes signes, l’un à Londres, l’autre à Paris”15 (Diderot 1773, 4–5). He concludes by drawing an analogy: Similarly, poems by American poets, accurately translated, would have one meaning in New York and another in Kharkiv... e same work cannot be translated in exactly the same way in different eras. For the change of the historical epoch has brought about many changes to the character of language and individual expressions, as well as to the disposition to perceive and feel works of art. is is why, bearing in mind not the ethnographic but the social and artistic (and partly political) significance of the translation, we sometimes indulge in changing the metre of the original, its rhythm (for example, introducing elements of free verse into metre, etc.), and sometimes even replacing the images of the original with similar ones, yet with others, more understandable to our contemporary reader. (Kulyk 1928, 36–37; Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2011, 486) As for the changes in metre and rhythm, Kulyk was opposed by Derzhavyn in his review of the anthology: “No one will deny the fact that in a translation intended for a wide readership it is often necessary to modify the images of the original; but what serious considerations (except the impermissible facilitation of the translator’s labour) can demand changing metre and rhythm – in particular ‘to introduce elements of free verse to meter’ – this we are unable to decipher” (1928a; qtd. in Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 88). Derzhavyn disagreed with the widespread belief that a literary translation should be such that the reader would perceive it as an original work. He explained his disagreement with Kulyk by the fact that “more or less consistent implementation of this principle will often lead to the loss of specific features of the original and excessive ‘hyper-Ukrainianization’ of the whole style despite the foreign social and culturalhistorical themes of the work” (Derzhavyn 1931, 220; qtd. in Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 261). Derzhavyn makes his position clear in his review of Kulyk’s translation of P.G. Wodehouse’s Psmith, Journalist16 (1929a). Obviously, the stylistic aspect of such a work cannot be adequately reproduced in translation; the translator is left with one of two options – either to omit the linguistic exoticism, or to reproduce it conditionally. I.Yu. Kulyk decided to take the second path in this case; he consistently transfers all vulgarisms and idioms of the American colloquial language with corresponding (in terms of meaning) 14 15 16 An actor who knows how to render a Shakespearean scene perfectly does not know the first accent of a scene from Racine. In each work... there are two different meanings, both enclosed under the same signs – one in London, the other in Paris. The humour of Wodehouse's novel appears in stylistic comicality, in comic language and phraseology, which is achieved by a constant collision of literary language and “bookish” manner of speaking with the New York street jargon, very “colourful” and exotic enough for the average English reader. 48 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 Ukrainian vulgarisms, even those which he himself finds necessary to put in inverted commas... This also applies to various more or less sassy phraseological utterances, exclamations and interjections, hackneyed comparisons, and swear words. By unearthing appropriate Ukrainian non-literary or semi-literary sayings, roughly adequate in meaning to the American ones, the translator has demonstrated not only an excellent command of both languages, but also a masterly capacity for linguistic diversity... From their direct impression, the reader would probably think they were dealing with an original Ukrainian novel about the New York life by a knowledgeable novelist. It is very possible that the translator intended to create just such an impression. Basically, we think that this approach to literary translation is erroneous: trying to reproduce the specific stylistic features of the original, which – in fact – cannot be reproduced (the comic “local flavour” in the language), it leads in practice to stylistic grotesque, to the notorious mixture of “French with Nizhnyi Novhorod idiom,” and in this case – to the implausible use of specifically Ukrainian folk expressions by AngloAmerican gentlemen. (Derzhavyn, 1929a; qtd. in Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 151–152) Finkel expressed doubts that Kulyk’s principles would be able to cater to the proletarian poetry. He noted that “it contradicts the skills and principles of the nineteenth century,” that it “opens up the unlimited space to the arbitrariness of translators and the reduction of the translation to a series of paraphrases and rehashes,” and that “from the standpoint of the original “the best paraphrase is always worse than the worst translation” ([1929] 2007a, 66). Much more interesting, according to Finkel, are Kulyk’s arguments in favour of adapting works to a different audience. “It may be that Kulyk is on the right track, but it may also be that the essential way would be the way of careful selecting of foreign literature pieces and refusing to translate the unacceptable ones” (66). O lek sa n d(e )r F in ke l 17 While Derzhavyn and Maifet spoke in support of homologous (stylizing) translation, analogous translation was backed by Oleksander Finkel in his book “The Theory and Practice of Translation” published in Kharkiv (1929a)18. e first theoretical chapter of this book outlines the importance of translation in its cultural, historical, and literary aspects. It analyses the stylistic aspect of the translation problematics and the historical approaches to resolving it. It addresses the translation theories of Classicism and Romanticism to demonstrate that the key theoretical issues of translation are no abstractions, as they have been connected to the development of 17 18 Finkel’s name is often transcribed from Russian (Александр Моисеевич Финкель) as Aleksandr Finkel. (In the 1920s, his Ukrainian name was written as Олександер – Oleksander). The book was reprinted in 2007 in the collection of Finkel’s most important works on translation O. M. Finkel – zabutyi teoretyk ukrayinskoho perekladoznavstva: zbirka vybranych prats [Oleksandr Finkel, the forgotten theoretician of Ukrainian translation studies: collection of selected works]) (Chernovatyi et al. 2007). 49 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S philosophy and philology throughout centuries. For literary translation studies, in Kolomiyets’ opinion, Finkel’s concept of the dependence of translation method on the general poetic worldview of a certain literary school, in particular, the worldview of the Classicism and Romanticism schools, is especially valuable (2010, 151). He contributes to Batyushkov’s reasoning about the dependence of the theory of translation on the historical and cultural location of the translator in relation to the source text (Batyushkov 1920), that in addition to the relationship between the cultural levels of the languages – the source language and the target language – the nature of the latter also depends to a large extent on the literary views of the time (Finkel [1929a] 2007a, 63). For example, the age of Classicism is “a period of dominance of normative poetics, when absolute artistic values, immortal unsurpassed examples are believed in. In comparison with them, works taken for translation are of various degrees of perfection; depending on that degree, the translator is allowed to correct their imperfections and thus raise them to a higher artistic level” (Zerov 1929, 193; qtd. in Zerov 2002, 680). This is the way Zerov recounts the pages devoted to Classicism in his review to this book by Finkel. And when Сlassicism was replaced by Romanticism, with a completely different general, aesthetic, and literary outlook, we see how translators’ attitude towards their tasks immediately and completely changed. e emancipation of individuality, the great interest in national literatures, the discovery of new ways of creative writing – all these things bring new tasks for translators, very different from the views of Classicism... Here there is no longer an ideal to strive for and try to achieve. ere is a concrete work and a concrete author whose individuality must be maintained, even with all his or her mistakes and shortcomings. e principle of translation accuracy, the different interpretations of the term, the definition of the limits of accuracy, the correlation of different national languages and its consequences for the possibility and the quality of translation are the issues which interested Romantic theorists very much and which were either reconsidered or asked for the first time... Aer Romanticism, no new principled attitudes have been put forward. (Finkel [1929a] 2007a, 63–64) Starting with Tycho Mommsen’s classification of the division of translations into “styleless” and “strict or style-oriented translations,” Finkel goes on to the “Humboldt dilemma,” the “basic problem of all translation,” expressed by Wilhelm von Humboldt in a letter to August Schlegel of 23 July 1796.19 19 „Alles Übersetzen scheint mir schlechterdings ein Versuch zur Auflösung einer unmöglichen Aufgabe. Denn jeder Übersetzer muß immer an einer der beiden Klippen scheitern, sich entweder auf Kosten des Geschmacks und der Sprache seiner Nation zu genau an sein Original oder auf Kosten seines Originals zu sehr an die Eigentümlichkeit seiner Nation zu halten. Das Mittel hierzwischen ist nicht bloß schwer, sondern geradezu unmöglich.“ (Wilhelm von Humboldt in einem Brief an August Wilhelm von SCHLEGEL. Zitiert nach Werner Koller 1992: Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg/ Wiesbaden: Quelle und Meyer. Veraltete Rechtschreibung im Original) Finkel translated it into Ukrainian and then, later, into Russian. The translation of the quotation from Humboldt’s letter into Russian is often mistakenly attributed to A.V. Fedorov (see, e.g., Lysenkova and Tchaikovsky, 2017), although it belongs to О. Finkel and is cited in his 1939 article (Finkel 1939, 237). 50 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 All translation seems to me simply an attempt to solve an impossible task. Every translator is doomed to be done in by one of two stumbling blocks: he will either stay too close to the original, at the cost of taste and the language of his nation, or he will adhere too closely to the characteristics peculiar to his nation, at the cost of the original. The medium between the two is not only difficult, but downright impossible. (Blakesley 2014, 28; qtd. in Wilss, 1982, 35; Ukrainian translation belongs to Finkel [1929a] 2007a, 68) In Fedorov’s reformulation, “the translator is left either to use analogues on his own linguistic ground or to create an alien, unusual verbal form – such are the two devices possible to the translator” (Fedorov, 1927, 117; English 1974, 2820; emphasis Finkel in [1929a] 2007a, 68). This is another formulation of the choice between analogous and homologous translation. According to Finkel, the solution to this dilemma is the most serious and fundamental problem of translation, around which all debates and disagreements are centred. “As might be expected, opinions were divided over any one member of this dilemma, that is, some scholars held the primacy of alien stylistics, while others held the primacy of their own” (69). This is the answer to the question that Finkel asks: why do different translation methods are used by the same people in the same historical period. An excursion into the history of translation theory allows Finkel to conclude: We must admit that the views of Schleiermacher, Humboldt, and their supporters did not prevail. Later on, we see either extreme pessimism – the impossibility of translation at all – or a tendency to preserve the particularities of one’s language, i.e., the target language, and target culture. Only occasionally do we see a return to Humboldt’s principles. Something was tried in this direction by V. Bryusov.... V.N. Derzhavyn (page 44) approached this question from an exclusively theoretical side, endeavouring to establish the confines of the translation artistry. (70) However, as Finkel observes, the most common view is to preserve the characteristics of one’s own language and culture, i.e., to use analogies. He asserts that sticking to the primacy of one’s own style is a common feature of almost all nineteenth- and twentieth-century translators. It should be accentuated, however, that there is no complete opposition or mutual incompatibility between these two principles. If the extreme view is that “a literary translation should be, if possible, a literal one – not in the sense that every word of the source text should be translated separately, but in the sense that the artistic value of every sentence, word, grammatical or phonetic structure of the source, should, if possible, be embodied in the style of translation. Such a translation would be viewed by many as an extremely “exotic” one if not on the edge of a parody; ... an adequate translation of an exotic text ... cannot escape stylistic exoticism” (this is precisely the definition of stylization-translation), then 20 The translator of Fedorov’s work is not indicated. 51 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S there is no complete opposite of this view. There is only a more moderate position, according to which phenomena of a foreign culture and a different language structure should be replaced by phenomena normal for the culture and language of the translation. (72) Regarding the concept of, to whom his book was dedicated, Finkel claims that “the definition of literary translation as stylization-translation, which Derzhavyn demands, rotates in a vicious circle” (73). He argues that stylization is a phenomenon possible only within one national language: one may use the Ukrainian language of the XX century to stylize the language of the XVII century or use the means of one school of poetry to replace the means of another (parody is also stylization). But there is no way to stylize the Ukrainian language to make it sound not only like Chinese, but even like Russian or Polish: the result of this will be a clumsy Russified or Polonized language. (73) As it seemed to Finkel, this was the most powerful argument against homologous translation. But Vitalii Radchuk has reservations about this statement: if so, “would the style travel from one language to another?” (2007, 21). According to Finkel, the disadvantage inherent in translation-stylization in the understanding of Derzhavyn is ignoring the subject matter of the piece and the socio-cultural significance of the stylistic elements. The first requires from the translator more or less significant stylistic sacrifices for its preservation, due to which full and unconditional adequacy cannot be achieved in any way. The second – the socio-cultural side of stylistic elements – is even more reflected in their reproduction in a foreign language. ([1929a] 2007a, 73–74) The first papers on Finkel’s views were the reviews of “Theory and Practice of Translation.” Accordingly, Maifet writes about three dominants of the book. Firstly, it goes about its practical aim, “the translator, after all, does not have to do individual manipulations of the original, unfolded according to a certain schematic plan, but to be aware of it as an artistic whole, accordingly (as a whole) rendering in translation.” Secondly, he speaks about the distinct “emphasis on the stylistic moment which the translation is meant to reflect,” and thirdly, that “the book has no original concept, but only joins the theory of the so-called analogous translation, which has a large number of supporters in its ranks” (1929, 249). Asserting this, the reviewer writes, “one cannot but emphasize, firstly, the objectivity of the author, who is generally well aware of the trends of translation thought and carefully informs the reader about them (in Chapter IV of Part I); and secondly, the fact that this commitment is sufficiently (albeit tacitly) motivated by the departure from the classicist translation theory with its ideal of absolute beauty” (249). Maifet considers it necessary to add that “in adhering to the principles of the analogous translation, the author does it moderately and critically, taking due account of the moment of the so-called functionality of the author’s poetics” (250). The third dominant of the book also motivates the rejection of the 52 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 theory of stylisation-translation, of which Derzhavyn is a representative in Ukraine. Maifet also argues that in practice both O. Finkel and V. Derzhavyn draw essentially the same conclusion – that it is impossible to reproduce the original in its entirety and that certain stylistic “losses” are inevitable (in each specific case), but Derzhavyn’s work has the advantage of fundamentally substantiating these sacrifices and offering a certain semantic gradation of such sacrifices and the means of their compensation. (251) A f ter di scu ss i o n This debate on homologous or analogous translation, which began with the 1927 publications of Fedorov and Derzhavyn and ended with the last 1931 Derzhavyn’s reviews, was essentially about the choice between two possibilities. This choice was to be made between the orientation towards the original, with its language, its culture and its stylistic features, or the orientation towards the readers, with their language, their culture and their tastes because translation exists on the boundary of two languages, two cultures, two literary traditions, and two poetics. The disagreements concerned the method of translation, “the translator’s general orientation either towards ‘analogous’ translation or towards ‘stylizing’ (homologous) one,” in Derzhavyn’s terminology (Derzhavyn, 1930c; qtd. in Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2015, 183). In modern terms, it was about the “initial norm” of translation: “a translator may subject him-/herself either to the original text, with the norms it has realized, or to the norms active in the target culture, or, in that section of it which would host the end product,“ i.e., basic orientation towards the norms of the source-language text (“adequate translation”) or towards the norms of the target culture (“acceptability”) (Toury, 1980, 53ff.). These two possibilities were figuratively described as early as 1801 by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe in his letter dated 29 May 1801 to Thomas Holcroft, the English translator of his Hermann and Dorothea (qtd. in Kopelev 1973) and later on in his 1813 speech “Oration in Memory of Wieland, Our Noble Poet, Brother, and Friend” (Goethe 2002, 222). They were also and elaborately dwelt upon in 1813 by Friedrich Schleiermacher in his lecture “On the different methods of translating”: “Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him” (Schleiermacher 1992, 149 – English transl. by Lefevere).21 In the 1990s, the American translation theorist Lawrence Venuti called the translation “bringing the original source to the reader” (“analogous” in Derzhavyn’s terminology) a “domestication” and the translation “taking the reader back to the original source” (“homologous” or “stylizing,” in Derzhavyn’s terminology) – a “foreignization” (57), although Venuti’s notion of “domestication” is somewhat broader than stylization, i.e., following the form of the source material. According to Venuti, analyses of translations 21 Entweder der Uebersetzer läßt den Schriftsteller möglichst in Ruhe, und bewegt den Leser ihm entgegen; oder er läßt den Leser möglichst in Ruhe, und bewegt den Schriftsteller ihm entgegen (Schleiermacher 2002, 74). 53 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S and discourses on past translations show us alternative solutions and can offer equal power relations in the dialogue of cultures. A foreignizing strategy can mark the difference of a foreign-language text only if it allows for an opposing position to the domestic, challenging the literary canon, professional standards, and ethical norms in the target culture, leading to the borrowing of foreign-language cultural forms and the development of heterogeneous dialects and sociolects (57). e choice to foreignize or domesticate a foreign-language text, as Schleiermacher pointed out long ago, exists only for translators of literary texts, as opposed to technical translators, and among literary texts only for classical, significant, and canonical texts, as Derzhavyn argued (1930a). When the “new Soviet reader”-oriented approach, alien to Derzhavyn’s tastes, began to prevail and when the ideologization of norms (Witt 2013) set off, he no longer wrote articles on translation or reviews on translated books, being mainly engaged in translation and editorial work in addition to lecturing and research. Finkel, on the other hand, joined the campaign against “nationalism” in linguistics. Most of those who in one way or another took part in the discussion on analogous and homologous translation, which broke off with the last reviews of Derzhavyn in 1931, were forced out of translation research by the circumstances that were by no means connected with the nature of the translation. For example, Maifet was arrested on December 5, 1934, by the Poltava department of the NKVD and sentenced to ten years of labour camps. Zerov was dismissed from the university at the end of 1934 and arrested at the Pushkino railway station near Moscow on the night of April 27, 1935. On November 3, 1937, he was executed in the forest tract Sandarmokh in Karelia together with Pavlo Fylypovych, Valerian Pidmohylny, and many other representatives of the Ukrainian Executed Renaissance. In 1934, Kulyk was elected to chair the newly created Ukrainian SSR Union of Writers, but he was arrested in 1937 and sentenced to death by firing squad; on October 10, 1937, his sentence was carried out. Dmytro Rudyk was arrested in 1933 as a member of the “Western Ukraine” Union of revolutionary writers. The next year, Savchenko was arrested and exiled; his fate is unknown. Burghardt (Yuriy Klen), an ethnic German who had previously been granted citizenship of the Weimar Republic, left for Germany in 1932 after Rylskyi’s arrest in the late 1931. The works of these authors were consigned to oblivion, with the exception of Rylskyi, who was released from Lukyanivka prison a year later, and Finkel, who was not persecuted. Today, as Schmiher points out, “the setting of translation extremes which determines a particular translation strategy has established itself as one of the basic observations in translation studies” (2017, 7). The terms for translation extremes designations borrowed from the biological sciences –“homologous translation” and “analogous translation” – are forgotten, just as the discussion itself. It was Finkel who casually recalled the debates in 1939 (2007c, 244). An impressive testimony of this is the chapter by Yosyp Bahmut “The issues of translation theory in Ukraine during the Soviet period” (1957), in which only Finkel is mentioned in passing, but as an “obsolete” researcher (Shmiher 2021, 17). Another mention of this discussion appears in 1970 in an article by Iieremiia Aizenshtok dedicated to the memory of Finkel, a friend of his youth. Aizenshtok recalls those times and the friendly circle of young philologists: “We argued with each 54 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 other a lot, sometimes fiercely. Especially fierce were the disputes with V. Derzhavyn... Particularly for Finkel, Derzhavyn was an invariable object of polemics in regards to literary translation” (105). In the same article, Aizenshtok recalls the discussion about analogous and homologous translation: In the last months of 1927, there appeared an article by V. Derzhavyn, “The Problem of Verse Translation,” which was an extreme expression of translation formalism. The author of the article substantiated a “special” view of translation: literary translation, in his opinion, can exist either as stylizing translation, or as literal translation “not in the sense that every word of the source text should be translated separately, but in the sense that the artistic value of every sentence, word, grammatical or phonetic structure of the source, should, if possible, be embodied in the style of translation.” I remember that these demands for “literal translation” and “translation-stylization” caused not only furious indignation in our circle, but also a flood of parodic frolics, for which A.M. Finkel was especially inexhaustible. In line with the translation “principles” declared by Derzhavyn, he made several “stylized” and “verbatim” translations (with maximal approximation to the phonetic sounding of the original) of the poems by Maksym Rylskyi and Pavlo Tychyna. (105–106) Interestingly, the terms “homologous translation” and “analogous translation” would be used by James S. Holmes, the founding father of modern Western translation studies, who borrowed them, like Derzhavyn in his time, from biologists. By “homologous translation” he understood a translation of a source-text feature that seeks to preserve form at the expense of function; he used the term “analogous translation” to define a translation that preserves the function rather than the form (Holmes 1988, 85). The discussion about homologous and analogous translation that was going on in Ukraine in the late 1920s had also a certain resonance in Russia thanks to the effective participation of Fedorov and Usov, who gave accounts of Ukrainian ideas on translation in their writings. For instance, Usov corresponded with Derzhavyn and gave a talk on the problem of literary translation as interpreted by Derzhavyn at the State Academy of Arts Sciences in May, 1928. He also recommended Maifet and Finkel for reading in his programme on the theory and practice translation course at the Moscow Institute of New Languages (Usov 1934). Co n cl u si o n In the late 1920s and early 1930s, a significant number of Ukrainian scholars and literati shifted their professional interests (often forcedly) to the field of translation as translators, editors, authors of commentaries and prefaces, critics of translated works and, finally, as translation theorists. Collectively, they elaborated a new vision of the translator’s tasks and a philological understanding of translation as a special method of text hermeneutics and stylistic analysis, which consisted in the orientation towards the translated text and comparative linguistic issues. The outcome was the significant improvement of the quality of translation. Parallel to this, an alternative approach to 55 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S the method of translation was emerging in the predominantly Communist Party environment. Rather than focusing on the source text, it was oriented towards the mass Soviet readership and allowed for changes, omissions, and additions, especially in relation to the so-called “class-injurious” literature. As Schleiermacher maintained, the need for foreignizing translation develops only when knowledge of foreign languages and interest in the values of other nations spread in the enlightened circles ([1813] 2002). It is indisputable that circumstances in the Soviet Ukraine in the early 1930s were different. The emergence of philologically accurate (stylization, or homologous, foreign language-oriented) translation approach was abruptly terminated in the early 1930s in the wake of changes in national policy in the USSR and the abandonment of indigenization (or Ukrainization)22 policy (Plokhy 2017, 248–249). Non-Russian nationalism rather than Russian chauvinism was declared the main danger for the USSR. This gave rise to the subsequent switch of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)23 to national Bolshevism as an ideology of Stalinism (the emerging cult of personality, Russocentric traditions, and the development of a state-oriented patriotic ideology reminiscent of tsarist “great power” (Branderberger and Dubrovskiy 1998) and brought about the resulting changes in language and translation policies as well as the repression and extermination of many of its representatives. The regime openly interfered not only with the selection of works to be translated but also with the method of translation itself. Suspicion and hostility towards Ukrainian translation arose in official circles, culminating in slanderous publications, in which translators were accused of “nationalistic sabotage” (Kalnychenko and Kalnychenko 2020). Accusing the translators of deliberate subversive and counter-revolutionary activity caused a flood of re-translations and revisions (Kalnychenko and Zarubina 2017; Kolomiyets 2019). Alongside the encouragement of translating from Russian as a relay language, there arose the censorship policy of revising and rewriting previously published translations to make them as close as possible to the Russian language lexical and grammatical patterns (Kalnychenko and Kolomiyets 2022). The discussion showed that there was a diversity of views on the method of translation in the late 1920s. Derzhavyn and Maifet, supporters of homologous translation, on the one hand, and Kulyk who defended the opinion that a translator should focus on the reader, on the other hand, took extreme positions. Zerov’s position could be characterized as realistic and centrist, closer to Derzhavyn’s and Maifet’s, whereas Finkel’s centrist position is closer to Kulyk’s. The reviewed works of Derzhavyn, Maifet, Zerov, Finkel, and Kulyk on the development of the method of translation and the choice of orientation either towards the original language or the language of translation are important documents of the era that testify to the high level of development of Ukrainian translation. They remain relevant for those who are interested in the issues of translation and translation studies. 22 23 Ukrainization was a series of policies pursued by the Communist Party of Ukraine to enhance the national profile of the state and Party institutions and thus legitimize the Soviet rule in Ukrainian eyes. The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) was the name of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) in 1925–1952. 56 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 REF E RE NCE S Aizenshtok, Iieremiia. 1970. “A. M. Finkel – teoretik khudozhestvennogo perevoda” [A.M. Finkel as a theoretician of literary translation]. In Masterstvo perevoda, 1970. 7., ed. by Kornei Chukovskii, Agii Gatov, Zinaida Kul’manova, Vilgelm Levik, Maria Lorie, Simon Markish, Lev Ozerov, Vladimir Rossels, Pavel Toper, Boris Turganov, Olga Kholmskaya, Yurka Gavruk, Givi Gachechiladze, Hryhorii Kochur, Aleksander Kurtna, Levon Mkrtchian, and Efim Etkin, 91–120. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Bahmut, Yosyp. 1957.“Pytannia teorii perekladu na Ukraini za radianskyi chas” [The issues of translation theory in Ukraine during the Soviet period]. In Doslidzhennia z movoznavstva v Ukrainskii RCR za sorok rokiv, ed. by Ivan Bilodid et al. 122–147. Kyiv: Vyd-vo AN URSR. Batyushkov, Fedor. 1920.“Zadachi hudozhestvennyh perevodov” [The challenges of literary translations]. In Batyushkov, Fedor, Kornei Chukovskii, and Nikolai Gumilev. Printsipy khudozhestvennogo perevoda. St. Petersburg: Vsemirnaia literatura. Beletskiy, Aleksandr.1929. “Perevodnaia literatura na Ukraine” [Translated literature in Ukraine]. Krasnoie slovo 2: 87–96. Blakesley, Jacob. 2014. Modern Italian Poets: Translators of the Impossible. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Branderberger, David, and Aleksandr Dubrovskiy. 1998. “‘The people need a tsar’: The emergence of national Bolshevism as Stalinist ideology, 1931–1941.” Europe-Asia Studies, 5: 873–92. Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Berlin: G. Fischer. Chernovatyi, Leonid, Vyacheslav Karaban, Valerii Podminohin, Oleksandr Kalnychenko, and Vitalii Radchuk, eds. 2007. Oleksandr Finkel– zabutyi teoretyk ukrainskoho perekladoznavstva: Zbirka vybranykh prats [Oleksandr Finkel: The forgotten theorist of Ukrainian translation studies: a collection of selected works]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chukovskii, Kornei, and Andrei Fedorov. 1930. Iskusstvo perevoda [The art of translation]. Leningrad: Academia. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1928a. “Review on: Antolohiia amerykanskoii poezii, 1855–1925” [Anthology of American poetry, 1855–1925]. Krytyka.5: 185–187. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1928b. “Review on: Poetika. Sb. 4. [Poetics. Collection 4] L.: Academia.” Krytyka 7: 132–134. Reprint in Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Yuliana Poliakova, eds. 2015. Volodymyr Derzhavyn. Pro mystetstvo perekladu: statti ta retsenzii 1927–31 rokiv [Volodymyr Derzhavyn. On art of translation: Essays and reviews of 1927–31], 96–100. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1929a. “Review on: Vudhauz P. Psmit-zhurnalist / per. I. Yu. Kulyk. [Kharkiv]: DVU, 1928.” Krytyka 3: 142–144. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1929b. “Review on Hohol M. Works. V. 1.” Krytyka 7–8: 218–219. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1930a. “Nashi pereklady z zakhidnykh kliasykiv ta potreby suchasnoho chytacha” [Our translations from western classics and the requirements of our contemporary reader]. Chervonyi shliakh 10: 160–168. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1930b. “Review on Chukovskii, Korney, and Andrey Fedorov Iskusstvo perevoda.L.: Academia, 1930.” Krytyka 2: 139–142.Reprint in Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Yuliana Poliakova, eds. 2015, Voloymyr Derzhavyn. Pro mystetstvo perekladu: statti ta retsenzii 1927–31 rokiv [Volodymyr Derzhavyn. On art of translation: Essays and reviews of 1927–31], 187–192. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1930c. “Review on: Byron G. Mazeppa / Vilnyi per. D. Zahula. [Kharkiv]: DVU, 1929.” Krytyka 1: 132–136. Reprint in Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Yuliana Poliakova, eds. 2015. Volodymyr Derzhavyn. Pro mystetstvo perekladu: statti ta retsenzii 57 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S 1927–31 rokiv [Volodymyr Derzhavyn. On art of translation: Essays and reviews of 1927–31], 182–187. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1931. “Review on Hohol M. Works. V. 2.” Chervonyi shliakh 3: 218–221. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. [1927] 2015. “Problema virshovanoho perekladu” [The problem of verse translation]. Pluzhanyn 9–10: 44–51. Reprint in Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Yuliana Poliakova, eds. 2015. Volodymyr Derzhavyn. Pro mystetstvo perekladu: statti ta retsenzii 1927–31 rokiv [Volodymyr Derzhavyn. On art of translation: Essays and reviews of 1927–31], 48–58. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Diderot, Denis. 1773. Paradoxe sur le comédien. Accessed on August 27, 2022. http://biblioteka.kijowski.pl/diderot%20 denis/paradoxe.pdf. Dzhuhastrianska, Yuliia, and Maksym Strikha. 2015. “Vazhlyva pamyatka z istorii ukrainskoho perekladoznavstva” [An important document from the history of Ukrainian translation studies]. In Novyi Protey ed. by Oleksandr Kalnychenko, 133–135. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. 2002. From “Oration in Memory of Wieland, Our Noble Poet, Brother, and Friend.” In Robinson, Douglas, Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche, 222. London and New York: Routledge. Fedorov, Andrei. 1927. “Problema stikhotvornogo perevoda” [e problem of verse translation]. Poetika. Vremennik otdela slovesnyih iskusstv Gosudarstvennogo instituta istorii iskusstv 2: 104–118. Leningrad: Academia. Fedorov, Andrej. 1974. The problem of verse translation. Linguistics: An international review. 12, 137: 13–29. Finkel, Oleksander. [1929a] 2007a. Teoriya i praktyka perekladu [Theory and practice of translation]. Kharkiv: DVU. Reprint in Chernovaty, Leonid et al., eds. 2007. Oleksandr Finkel – zabutyi teoretyk ukrainskoho perekladoznavstva [Oleksandr Finkel: The forgotten theorist of Ukrainian translation studies: A collection of selected works], 49–182. Vinnytsya: NovaKnyha. Finkel, Oleksander [1929b] 2007b. “H. F. Kvitka – perekladach vlasnykh tvoriv” [H.F. Kvitka as the Translator of His Own Works]. In Kvitka-Osnovyanenko: Zbirka na 150–richchia narodzhennia, 107–132. Kharkiv: Ukraiinskyi Robitnyk. Reprintin Chernovatyi, Leonid et al., eds. 2007. Oleksandr Finkel – zabutyi teoretyk ukrainskoho perekladoznavstva [Oleksandr Finkel: The forgotten theorist of Ukrainian translation studies: A collection of selected works], 184–226.Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Finkel, Aleksandr. [1939] 2007. “O nekotorykh voprosakh teorii perevoda.” Nauchyie zapiski Kharkovskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta inostrannykh yazykov1: 59–82. Reprint in Chernovaty, Leonid et al., eds. 2007. Oleksandr Finkel – zabutyi teoretyk ukrainskoho perekladoznavstva [Oleksandr Finkel: The forgotten theorist of Ukrainian translation studies: A collection of selected works], 226–58.Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Holmes, James S. 1988. “Describing Literary Translation: Models and Methods.” In Translated! by James S. Holmes, 81–92. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Nataliia Kalnychenko. 2020. “Campaigning against the ‘nationalistic wrecking’ in translation in Ukraine in the mid-1930s.” In Translation and Power, ed. by Harmon, Lucyna, and Dorota Osuchowska. Berlin: Peter Lang, 53–60. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Lada Kolomiyets. 2022. “Translation in Ukraine during the Stalinism Period: Literary Translation Policies and Practices.” In Translation Under Communism, ed. by Rundle, Christopher, Anne Lange, and Daniele Monticelli, 141–172. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Natalia Kamovnikova. 2020. “Navchannia perekladu: instytutski prohramy z perekladoznavstva pochatku 1930–ykh rokiv” [Teaching translation: Academic courses in ‘Translation theory and practice’ of the early 1930s]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho 58 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina. Seriia “Inozemna filolohiia. Metodyka vykladannia inozemnykh mov.” 91: 147–155. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Yuliana Poliakova, eds. 2011. Ukraiins’ka perekladoznavcha dumka 1920–pochatku 1930 rokiv: Khrestomatija [Ukrainian translation thinking of the 1920s-early 1930s: Anthology]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Yuliana Poliakova, eds. 2015. Volodymyr Derzhavyn. Pro mystetstvo perekladu: statti ta retsenzii 1927–31 rokiv [Volodymyr Derzhavyn. On art of translation: Essays and reviews of 1927–31]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Zinayida Zarubina. 2017. “Povtorni pereklady v Ukraini u 1920–I – 1950–I roky” [Retranslating in Ukraine in the 1930s-1950s]. Naukovi zapysky Kirovohradskoho derzhavnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu im. Volodymyra Vynnychenka. Seriia: Filolohichni nauky. 154: 336–343. Kalynovych, Mykhailo. 1932. Course program Translation Methodology. Typescript. At: The Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur in Irpin. Kochur, Hryhoriy.1968. “Zdobutky i perspektyvy” [Achievements and prospects].Vsesvit 1: 92–97. Kolomiyets, Lada. 2010. “O. M. Finkel yak teoretyk perekladu”[O. Finkel as a theoretician of translation]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina. 896: 150–156. Kolomiyets, Lada. 2013. Ukraiinskyi khudozhniy pereklad ta perekladachi 1920–30–kh rokiv: Materialy do kursu “Istoriia perekladu” [Ukrainian literary translation and translators in the 1920s-30s: History of translation course materials]. Kyiv: Kyivskyi universytet. Kolomiyets, Lada. 2019. “The Psycholinguistic Factors of Indirect Translation in Ukrainian Literary and Religious Contexts.” East European Journal of Psycholinguistics. 6, 1: 32–49. Kolomiyets, Lada. 2020. “A Psycholinguistic Analysis of the First Ukrainian Syllabi on General and Special Methodology of Translation by Mykhailo Kalynovych and Mykola Zerov.” East European Journal of Psycholinguistics 7, 2: 135–154. Kolomiyets, Lada. 2021. “Novatorstvo Mykoly Zerova u planuvanni perekladnoho repertuaru ta napracyuvanni lekcijnoho kursu z metodyky perekladu” [Mykola Zerov’s innovation in planning the translation repertory and developing a lecture course on translation methods]. Visnyk Kyyivskoho nacionalnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Inozemna filolohiya 1, 53: 29–40. Kopelev, Lev. 1973. “Goethe: Khudozhestvennye perevody i mirovaya literature” [Goethe: Literary translation and world literature]. In Masterstvo perevoda, ed. by Agii Gatov, Zinaida Kuľmanova, Vilgelm Levik, Maria Lorie, Simon Markish, Lev Ozerov, Vladimir Rossels, Boris Turganov, Olga Kholmskaya, Yurka Gavruk, Givi Gachechiladze, Aleksander Kurtna, Levon Mkrtchian, and Efim Etkin, 406–442. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Korunets, Ilko. 2008. “Bilia vytokiv ukraiins’koho perekladoznavstva” [Origins of the Ukrainian translation studies]. Vsesvit 1–2: 188–194. Kulyk, Ivan. [1928] 2011. Antolohiia amerykanskoi poezii. 1855–1925 / Peredmova [The Anthology of American poetry. 1855–1925 / Foreword], 9–38. Kharkiv. Reprint in Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Yuliana Poliakova, eds. 2011. Ukraiins’ka perekladoznavcha dumka 1920–pochatku 1930 rokiv: Khrestomatija [Ukrainian translation thinking of the 1920s-early 1930s: Anthology], 483–486. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Lysenkova, Еlena L., and Roman R. Chaikovsky. 2017. “Ob odnoy tsytate iz V. fon Gumboldta I yeye bytovanii v rossiyskom peredovedenii” [On a quotation from W. von Humboldt and its use in Russian translation studies]. In Vilgelm fon Gumboldt i yego naslediye, ed. by Georgii Khukhuni, 112–122. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. 59 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Maifet, Hryhorii. 1928. “Z uvah do teorii perekladu” [From the notes to the theory of translation]. Krytyka, 3: 84–93. Maifet, Hryhorii. 1929. “Review on: Finkel O. Teoriia I praktyka perekladu. Kharkiv: DVU, 1929.”Chervonyi shliakh, 12: 249–253. Maifet, Hryhorii. 2015. “Perekladoznavchi pratsi” [Works in translation studies]. In Novyi Protei. Issue. 1, ed. by Oleksandr Kalnychenko, 136–163. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Maifet, Hryhorii. 2017. Vybrani rozvidky z perekladoznavstva [Selected papers in translation studies]. Lviv: Taras Shevchenko Scientific Society. Plokhy, Serhiy. 2017. Lost Kingdom: The Quest for the Empire and the Making of the Russian Nation. New York: Basic Books. Potebnia, Aleksandr. [1862]/1993. Mysl’ I yazyk [Thought and language]. Kyiv: SINTO. Protokoly zasidan’ Pidhotovchoi komisii RNK URSR, kolehii NKVI, NKPratsi URSR ta materialy do nykh, 10 travnia – 12 veresnia 1930 r. [e Reports of Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission RNK URSR, NKVO Board, Labour NK and Materials to them, the 10 of May – the 12 of September 1930]. TSDAVOV Ukrainy, fund. 1, op. 6, file 41, 139 pp. Pym, Anthony. 2016. Translation Solutions for Many Languages: Histories of a flawed dream. London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Radchuk, Vitalii. 2007. “Yaka teoriia dopomozhe praktytsi?” [What theory will help practice?]. In Oleksandr Finkel – zabutyi teoretyk ukrainskoho perekladoznavstva: Zbirka vybranykh prats, ed. by Leonid Chernovatyi, Vyacheslav Karaban, Valerii Podminohin, Oleksandr Kalnychenko and Vitalii Radchuk. 2007. 10–33. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Reiss, Katharina. 1971. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. München: Max Hueber Verlag. Reiss, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 2014. Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained. London and New York: Routledge. Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst. 2002. “Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens.” In Kritische Gesamtausgabe I.11. Schriften und Entwürfe: Akademievorträge, ed. by Martin Rössler and Lars Emersleben. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1992. “On the Different Methods of Translating.” In Translation/ History/Culture: a sourcebook. Trans. and ed. by André Lefevere, 141–171. London and New York: Routledge. Scholz, Karl W. H. 1918. The Art of Translation: With Special Reference to English Renditions of the Prose Dramas of Gerhart Hauptmann and Hermann Sudermann.Doctoral dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. Shmiher, Taras. 2005. “Volodymyr Derzhavyn: teoriia i krytyka perekladu” [Volodymyr Derzhavyn: theory and critics of translation]. Zbirnyk Kharkivskoho istoryko-filolohichnoho tovarystva. Nova seriia 11: 205–214. Shmiher, Taras. 2009. Istoriia Ukrayins’koho perekladoznavstva [History of Ukrainian translation scholarship]. Kyiv: Smoloskyp. Shmiher, Taras. 2017. “Vnesok Hryhoriia Maifeta v ukrainske perekladoznavstvo” [Hryhorii Maіfet’s contribution to Ukrainian translation studies]. In Maifet, Hryhorii.Vybrani rozvidky z perekladoznavstva, 7–18. Lviv: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. Shmiher, Taras. 2021. A History of Ukrainian Translation Studies: A Study Guide. Lviv: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Usov, Dmitriy. 1934. Programma po teorii i praktike perevoda [Program on theory and practice of translation]. Manuscript. At: Literature and Arts Central State Archive of St. Petersburg (TsCALI SPb), f. 158 (A. Fedorov), op. 2, No 398. 60 D i s c o v e r i n g e r a s e d d i s c u s s i o n o n t r a n s l a t i o n m e t h o d i n U k r a i n e i n 19 2 7 – 19 31 Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Invisibility of the Translator: A History of Translation. London; New York: Routledge. Wilss, Wolfram. 1982. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Witt, Susana. 2013. “Arts of Accommodation: The First All-Union Conference of Translators, Moscow, 1936, and the Ideologization of Norms.” In The Art of Accommodation. Literary Translation in Russia, ed. by Leon Burnett and Emily Lygo, 41–184. Oxford: Peter Lang. Zerov, Mykola. 1928. “U spravi virshovanoho perekladu. Notatky” [On the case of verse translation. Notes]. Zhyttia y revoliutsiya 9: 133–146. Zerov, Mykola. 1929. “Review on Finkel O. Teoriia i praktyka perekladu. Kharkiv: DVU, 1929.” Zhyttia y revoliutsiia 10: 192–194. Zerov, Mykola. [1930] 2002. “Review on Chukovskii Kornei and Andrey Fedorov. Iskusstvo perevoda.L.: Academia, 1930.” Zhyttia y revoliutsiia 1: 198–199. Reprinted inMykola Zerov. 2002. Ukrainske pysmenstvo [Ukrainian literature] 765–767. Кyiv: Vydavnytstvo Solomii Pavlychko. Zerov, Mykola. 1932. Programme of the course “Methods of translation.” Typescript. The Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur in Irpin’. 9 p. Zerov, Mykola. 1968. “Bryusov – perevodchik latinskikh poetov” [Bryusov as a translator of Latin poets]. In Masterstvo perevoda, 1966, ed. by Kornei Chukovskii, Agii Gatov, Zinaida Kul’manova, Vilgelm Levik, Maria Lorie, Simon Markish, Lev Ozerov, Vladimir Rossels, Boris Turganov, Olga Kholmskaya, Chingiz Aytmatov, Yurka Gavruk, Givi Gachechiladze, Nataliia Kapiieva, Hryhorii Kochur, Aleksander Kurtna, and Efim Etkin. 416–422. Moscow: Sovetskii pisatel’. Zerov, Mykola. 2002. Ukrainske pysmenstvo [Ukrainian literature]. Kyiv: Vydavnytstvo Solomii Pavlychko Zhukovskii, Vasilii. 2012. “O perevodakh voobshche, i v osobennosty o perevodakh stikhov” [About translations in general, and especially about translations of verses]. In Complete works and letters of Zhukovskii in 20 volumes. V. 12, 311–315. Moscow: Yazyki slavianskikh kultur. AB S TR ACT The study deals with the theoretical discussion of the late 1920’s – early 1930’s about the choice of a method for literary translation. Initiated by Volodymyr Derzhavyn in 1927, it was joined by Hryhorii Maifet, Mykola Zerov, Oleksander Finkel, and Ivan Kulyk, whose views on the issue are compared in this paper. The debate about homologous or analogous translation, which lasted until 1931, was about choosing between two possibilities: focusing either on the source text, with its language, culture, and stylistic features, or on the readership, with their language, culture, and tastes. This discussion revealed a wide range of views on the translation method. In the 1920s, a significant number of Ukrainian humanities scholars and literati shifted their professional interests to the field of translation (as translators, editors, authors of prefaces or footnotes, critics, and reviewers of translated works, and ultimately as translation theorists). Collectively, they developed a new notion of the translator’s task, the philological understanding of translation as a special method of text hermeneutics, consisted in the stylistic analysis of the translated text, which markedly improved the quality of translations. At the same time, an alternative approach, which focused on the mass Soviet readership perception and therefore authorized changes, omissions, and additions, especially for the so-called ‘injurious to the working class’ literature, was emerging within the predominantly Bolshevik environment. 61 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S The works of Zerov, Derzhavyn, Maifet, Finkel, and Kulyk discussed the translation method and the translator’s choices between the orientation either towards the source or the target language culture. Their writings are important documents that serve as proof of a high level of the Ukrainian translation scholarship of that time; they remain relevant for contemporary translators and translation studies scholars. Keywords: Analogous translation. Homologous translation. Literary translation. Translation method. Translation studies. Ukraine. CO NTAC T D ETAI L S: Oleksandr Kalnychenko, Associate Professor V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University 4 Svobody Sq. 61022 Kharkiv Ukraine & Department of Slavic Languages Faculty of Arts Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica Tajovského 40 974 01 Banská Bystrica Slovak Republic kalnychenko@ukr.net ORCID: 0000-0001-7808-357 62 BE T WE EN CE NS O RS H IP A ND N ATIO N BU IL DIN G: THE FIRST UKRAINIAN LECTURE COURSES O N T RA NS L ATIO N S TU DIE S F ROM A H IS TOR ICAL PE RS PE C TIV E 1 La d a Kol om iyets In t ro d u ct io n At the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, translation into the Ukrainian language and literary translation, in particular, began to develop and gain momentum rapidly. is fact is evidenced not only by the numerous printed translations, already available at that time (on the variety of translators and translations see Kolomiyets 2015) but also by the publishing plans carefully drawn up for the release of translated literature on a broad book market of Soviet Ukraine. Most Ukrainian publishing houses had highly ambitious plans at that point, grounded in the nation-building sentiments and perspectives. Moreover, the task of translating large numbers of texts was stipulated by the so-called “five-year plan,” which began in 1928, and therefore, in the long run, a broad range of translated literature was planned for publication in substantial volumes and circulations, though incomparable with the print runs of propagandistic literature. The grand plans and extensive lists of works recommended for translation of world literature, as well as philosophy, history, and the best works of journalism were compiled by Ukrainian book editors by the early 1930s. The situation required a speedy development of a comprehensive map of translation studies as a scientific and educational discipline that would help analyze, categorize, create, and publish quality translations. In September 1932, professors at the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education (Ukraїns´kyĭ Instytut Linhvistychnoї Osvity,2 abbreviated UILO) Mykhailo Kalynovych and Mykola Zerov developed two integrated and consecutive lecture courses for the translation department of this Institute: “Metodolohii͡a perekladu” (Methodology of Translation) and “Metodyka perekladu” (Methods of Translation) 1 2 I am deeply grateful to the Wenner-Gren Foundation (Sweden) for the generous support of this research (contract number GFU2022–0029). I follow the Library of Congress (LoC) transliteration method for transliterating personal names, proper nouns, titles of books and periodicals, terminology, and so on (separately for Ukrainian and Russian). Where an individual is known in the English-speaking world under a specific variant spelling, I use that spelling rather than accurate LoC transliteration, in order to enhance the keyword discoverability of the individual’s name. These exceptions include, but are not limited to, Korney Chukovsky, Andrey Fedorov, Maksym Rylsky. However, in bibliographical references to the works, published in Ukrainian or Russian, I strictly follow LoC transliteration. 63 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S respectively. The Institute was established in 1930 in Kyiv on the basis of philological departments of the Kyiv Institute of Public Education (Kyїvs´kyĭ Instytut Narodnoї Osvity, abbreviated KINO; now the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv) and the Kharkiv Institute of Public Education, which functioned in 1921–1930 (the UILO branch was located in Kharkiv). The Institute’s task was to train qualified teachers of foreign languages and literature for Soviet universities and colleges, as well as translators of scientific, technical, and artistic literature. From the early 1933, the Institute began to be sharply criticized on standard political accusations of that time, e.g., for its “orientation to the West,” apolitical study of Western languages, and so on (as cited in Mysechko 2007, 37).3 In 1934, the Institute was transferred from Kyiv to Kharkiv, where in 1935 it was reorganized into the Kharkiv Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages (for more detail see Mysechko 2007). As evidenced by an excerpt from Zerov’s employment record book (Illustration 1), from October 1932 Zerov worked as Professor at the Kyiv Institute of Linguistic Education, also holding the post of Head of the Department of Theory and History of Translation (the record is in Russian4). Zerov was dismissed from the Institute as early as October 1933, which means that the integrated cycle of the disciplines on general and special methodology of translation was only taught at the Institute for one academic year. 3 4 ) Illustration 1. Page from the employment record book of Mykola Zerov; the encircled entry (written in Russian) reads: “was a professor at the Kyiv Institute of Linguistic Education, head of the Department of Theory and History of Translation from the fall of 1932.” (From the Collections of the Central State Archives Museum of Literature and Art of Ukraine; the document is in the public domain) TSDAVO Ukraïny [Central State Archive of the Supreme Bodies of Government and Administration of Ukraine]. F. 166. Op. 11. # 325. Sheet 20а-22, 41–47 (Mysechko 2007, 37). Byl professorom Kievskogo Instituta lingvisticheskogo obrazovanii͡a, rukovoditelem kafedry teorii i istorii perevoda s oseni 1932 g. 64 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... A close reading of the syllabi on methodology and methods of translation “Methodology of Translation” by Mykhailo Kalynovych e lecture course “Methodology of Translation” by Mykhailo Kalynovych5 was designed for the second-year students of the UILO. It included eight thematic blocks and was aimed to cover twenty academic hours. e syllabus of this course was signed by its developer, Professor Kalynovych, on September 5, 1932, and was first published in 2015 (Dzhuhastrians´ka and Strikha). Its content and structure are discussed in the article by Oleksandr Kal´nychenko and Nataliia Kamovnikova (2020), not only in the Ukrainian but also in the Russian context. In their research, the authors compare the Kalynovych syllabus with the syllabus of the course in theory and practice of translation, compiled in 1934 by Russian poet-translator, literary critic, and lexicographer Dmitriĭ Usov for the Moscow Institute of New Languages (now Moscow State Linguistic University). The syllabus by Kalynovych embraced the following lecture topics, or thematic blocks: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) The essence and purpose of translation (4 hrs.); Translation studies, or the science of translation (1 hr.); Stages of translation history (6 hrs.); Stages of the history of translation studies (3 hrs.); Translation studies at the service of proletarian society (2 hrs.); Class function of translation during the dictatorship (1 hr.); The problem of accuracy in translation (2 hrs.); Organization of work around translation (1 hr.)6 (Kalynovych 1932, 1–7). The first thematic block was subdivided into the following rubrics: a) b) c) definition(s) of translation; the object of translation: the word, morphological-syntactic structure, phonetic features, style, language functions; the social function of translation; translation as a tool of class struggle. The second thematic block was subdivided into: a) b) c) the object of translation studies; the branches of translation studies: theoretical and applied translation studies; translation studies and related disciplines. Among the theoretical disciplines of translation studies, Kalynovych included translation methodology, history of translation, and history of translation studies. ) ) ) ) ) ) 6 Mykhailo Kalynovych (1888–1949). Ukrainian linguist, Sanskrit specialist, literary critic, and translator; since 1939 academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR; in the 1940s became a supporter of the Russification of the Ukrainian language. 1. Sut´ i meta perekladu. 2. Perekladoznavstvo – nauka pro pereklad. 3. Etapy istoriї perekladu. 4. Etapy istoriї perekladoznavstva. 5. Perekladoznavstvo na sluzhbi proletars´komu suspil´stvu. 6. Kliasova funktsiia perekladu za doby dyktatury. 7. Problema tochnosty v perekladi. 8. Orhanizatsiia pratsi kolo perekladu. ) 5 65 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S By Kalynovych, applied translation studies consisted of the general methods of translation (applicable to translation in general) and the partial methods/technique of translation (applicable to a specific language pair: from one’s native language into a foreign language and from a foreign language into one’s native language). e technique of translation was further ramified into the techniques of non-literary prose translation, literary prose translation, verse translation, scientific and technical phraseology (verbatim “nomenclature” in Kalynovych) and terminology in translation, as well as business correspondence in translation. At the same time, Kalynovych considered translation studies in relation to the following subjects and topics: dialectical and historical materialism, linguistics, philology, literary studies, history of material culture, history of class struggle, and national education (1932, 2–3). Within the framework of the third thematic block, Kalynovych regarded the following stages of the history of translation: a) b) c) the emergence of translation in prehistoric society; stages of the history of translation based on the history of class struggle and changes in socio-economic formations; translation in a pre-capitalist society; translation under the capitalist socio-economic formation (1932, 3–4). Within the confines of the fourth thematic block, the field of translation science was viewed from a social class perspective. Thus, Kalynovych divided the history of translation studies into the following stages: “translation studies in pre-capitalist society,” “translation studies under the capitalist socio-economic formation,” and “classical and romantic theories of translation and their social roots,” having also mentioned the “bourgeois classification of translations”7 and exemplified it by the dicta of Fedor Batiushkov8 (Kalynovych 1932, 4). e fih thematic block consisted of several rubrics, including a separate discussion of the Marxist-Leninist theory of translation as well as quotations from the classics of Marxism-Leninism on the problem of translation and their personal translation experience. e syllabus mentions the lack of methodological literature on translation studies and argues for the importance of theoretical translation studies (in particular, in working out a revolutionary proletarian theory of translation), including critical assimilation of the “bourgeois cultural heritage” by the proletariat. Finally, there is a synthesized review of translation studies literature (Kalynovych 1932, 5). The sixth thematic block reiterated the author’s focus on working out the proletarian theory and class function of translation during the dictatorship of the proletariat, in particular, by viewing translation as a means of spreading the 7 8 I aim at conveying the definitions by Kalynovych and Zerov with the maximum possible semantic accuracy, which is why I put some expressions and terms in quotation marks. This mainly concerns ideological clichés, which entered scientific communication from the Soviet press to become forcibly ubiquitous in the ideological discourses of that time. Fedor Batiushkov. A leading literary critic and historian of Western European literature; died in 1920 after having been fired from his post of the head of the Saint Petersburg State Theatres Committee by the People’s Commissar for Education Anatoly Lunacharsky (in office October 1917–September 1929). 66 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... “proletarian thought” and ideas of socialist building among “all peoples of the world.” An obligatory mention of worldwide popularization of the “achievements of Soviet proletarian science, technology, literature, and art” was also made there alongside a call to “arm” the proletariat with scientific and technical knowledge, to develop the proletarian artistic style, to familiarize the world proletariat with the work of the International Association of Revolutionary Writers and literatures of the nationalities “oppressed by the bourgeoisie” as well as to foster accelerated development of the languages whose nations and ethnic groups “have fallen behind economically and culturally.” It is important to note that along this series of tasks the need to revitalize the pace of Ukrainization and Ukrainian culture building, “national in form and socialist in content,” was also mentioned. The penultimate and ultimate goals, formulated in the block, were to “integrate the ideological superstructure of the world proletariat” and to “construct the world proletarian culture and a new way of life,” in particular, by translating the works of proletarian art into Esperanto (Kalynovych 1932, 5–6). These were followed by a thematic block dedicated to the issue of accuracy in translation and other major issues, which included, importantly, the question of expediency of political censorship of translations labeled by the then critics as “class-harmful.” In general, the block was structured as follows: a) b) c) d) e) equivalence to the original and inaccuracy in translation; the translator’s social background and professional image; different degrees of objectivity in bourgeois and proletarian translations; proletarian translation as the only manifestation of objectivity; the problem of using old translations for reprints; translations from translations; the principles of editing class-harmful translated literature (Kalynovych 1932, 6–7). The final eighth thematic block focused on the issues of organizing translationrelated activities. It addressed the need for publishers to conform to the existing ideological resolutions, instructions, and Soviet publishing regulations, such as the Decree on Press and Stalin’s instructions to publishers. Translation planning was described as necessary for the proletariat in its class struggle. The activity of Soviet publishers was illustrated by several examples of publishing houses from the Russian Federation; the only Ukrainian example was the publishing plan for translations of literature compiled by the State Publishing Association of Ukraine. Administration of the process of translation, editing, and reviewing was also touched upon briefly; a special emphasis was made on tandem work and pairing translators with one another or with the author (Kalynovych 1932, 7). There is every reason to argue that at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s translation studies rose in Ukraine as a new interdisciplinary science. It was an innovative initiative not only for the entire Soviet Union but also for the field of translation on the broadest geographical scale. However, from the early 1930s, as can be seen from the syllabus, a social-political shift affected the Soviet thought on translation and the humanities in general. Soviet censorship performed by multiple bureaucratic bodies broke the backbone of Ukrainian translation studies, paralyzing it for decades. 67 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Kalynovych gives a detailed description of the lecture course “Methodology of Translation,” which he sees as a theoretical branch of translation studies. I hereby summarize it in Chart 1. Chart 1. Methodology of translation as a theoretical branch of translation studies 68 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... “Methods of Translation” by Mykola Zerov The lecture course “Methods of Translation” by Mykola Zerov9 preserved in the archives of the Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur in the city of Irpin in Kyiv Oblast appeared to be an extension of the course by Kalynovych, who had by then outlined the general issues and methodology of translation in his introductory course. Zerov defined his intentions in the beginning of the explanatory note to his course on translation methods as an extension of the course on translation methodology: “Its target orientation has been predetermined by the orientation of the methodology course”10 (Zerov 1932, 1).11 Zerov designed the course on special issues (methods) of translation to help students in translation in their work in different genres and styles, including both non-literary and literary prose. The course contained two sections and seven topics to be covered in fifty academic hours. Signed by its developer on September 9, 1932, Zerov’s syllabus had the following structure: SECTION I. General methods of translation. Topic 1. Main features of translation typology (2 hrs.). Topic 2. Translation of non-literary prose (8 hrs.). Topic 3. Translation of literary prose (8 hrs.). Topic 4. Translation of poetry (8 hrs.). SECTION II. From the history of Ukrainian translation. Topic 5. Translation in Ukraine in the times of feudalism (2 hrs.). Topic 6. Translation in the times of industrial capitalism and imperialism (5 hrs.). Topic 7. Translation in the times of the dictatorship of the proletariat (5 hrs.)12 (Zerov 1932, 1–9). The remaining academic hours were allocated to two conferences planned at the end of each section. Students were also supposed to write a course paper on each section and make reports on their work in class. Within the framework of Section I devoted to general translation methods, the first lecture focused on the issues of possibility and impossibility of an “adequate translation,” accuracy and inaccuracy in translation, criteria of accuracy in the translation of non-literary prose, literary prose, and poetry translation, and tendencies towards originality and foreignness. A classification of the types of translation from the point of view of their social function was also provided (Zerov 1932, 3). Whereas 11 12 ) ) 10 Mykola Zerov. A translator of classical Latin poets, literary scholar, and orator. He was arrested on a charge of “Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism” and shot dead as an “enemy of the people” in the GULAG on 3 November 1937. Kurs metodyky perekladu i͡e bezposeredni͡e prodovzhenni͡a kursu metodolohiї perekladu. Tsil´ove i͡oho spriamovanni͡a napered vyznachene spri͡amovanni͡am kursu metodolohiї. Unless otherwise noted, all translations from the Ukrainian and Russian languages are by the present author. Zahal´na metodyka perekladu. 1. Osnovni rysy typolohiї perekladu. 2. Pereklad prozovoho nekhudozhnioho tekstu. 3. Pereklad prozovoho khudozhnioho tekstu. 4. Pereklad virshovyĭ. Z ISTORIЇ UKRAЇNS´KOHO PEREKLADU. 5. Pereklad na Ukraїni za fevdalnoї formatsiї. 6. Pereklad za chasiv promyslovoho kapitalizmu ta imperii͡alizmu. 7. Pereklad za doby dyktatury proletarii͡atu. ) 9 69 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Kalynovych attributed general methods of translation to the branch of practical translation studies, Zerov compiled a detailed list of different types of translation according to the translation techniques known at that time. Based on the text type, its style, and genre, Zerov split up the section of genrespecific translation methods into such sectors as 1) non-literary prose translation; 2) publicist translation and translation of literary criticism; 3) literary prose translation; 4) translation of poetry; 5) translation of scientific and technical phraseology and terminology. The sector of non-literary prose translation, in its turn, was subdivided by genres and styles and dwelt on translation in the fields of science, administration style, and business. The second topic in the syllabus, “Translation of Non-Literary Prose,” began with the general classification of texts into non-literary prose, literary prose, and poetry. Zerov enumerated possible procedures for the transfer of new terms in the language of translation, namely: 1) descriptive replacement, 2) transcription of borrowed words, 3) calquing, 4) creating a new word. Zerov pointed out the importance of morphology and syntax in non-literary prose translation, as well as intonation, logical accents, and orthoepic and orthographic norms of transcribing terminology and proper names. In detail, the second lecture topic focused on the following: a) b) c) d) The definition of literary and non-literary prose and the ideological and practical value of the latter (as a premise of its specifics). Creative nature of prose, its genre diversity. Classification of non-literary prose: scientific, administrative, and business texts and their templates. Journalism and criticism as border areas between non-literary and literary prose. Translator’s tasks by genre. The problem of conveying individual words in a non-literary prose text: 1) descriptive substitution, 2) transcription of a borrowed word, transcription variants, 3) calquing, 4) creating a new word in the language of translation. The word in its communicative function. Terminology. Two trends in the translation of terms: 1) a “bourgeois-nationalist” emphasis on idiosyncrasy, 2) orientation of the “proletarian translator” towards internationalism in conveying terms and phraseology. Observance of orthoepic and orthographic norms in transcribing terms and phraseology. Morphology and syntax in non-literary prose translation. Morphological features of the language of the original and the language of translation and the difficulties in conveying the original text caused by them. Syntax: hypotactic and paratactic composition of languages, assimilation of hypotactic structures in languages with paratactic composition; translation practice in this area and its norms in the “bourgeois and proletarian translation.” Phonetics in non-literary prose: intonation, logical accents. Cacophonous coincidences, their nature, reasons for avoiding. Intonational phrase structure (Zerov 1932, 4–5). In the section entitled “Translation of Literary Prose,” Zerov focused on the aesthetic functions, which are difficult to convey in translation, namely, the socio-cultural pattern and “associative richness.” Zerov dwelt on the role of synonyms in literary prose, as well as their emotional coloring. He defined variation, explication, 70 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... and gradation as the means of developing meaning with the help of synonyms and periphrases. He stressed the importance of homonyms, puns, and means of conveying them in translations of literature. He also addressed the issues of the individual word, grammar, and style choice, which the translator was expected to reproduce. Finally, he spoke about rendering sociolects and phonetically distorted words as well as about morphological and syntactic reorganization of texts and rendering phraseology, proverbs, clichés, and catchphrases. The third lecture topic covered the following themes: a) b) c) Conveying lexical and semantic features of the original work. The aesthetic function of literature and difficulties of conveying it (the socio-cultural pattern of the word and its associations). Synonyms, their “class-emotional” coloring, and role in the text (variation, explication, gradation). Homonyms and their role in literature. Rendering “word plays,” sociolects, and phonetically distorted words. Translation of “linguistically pathological” phenomena. Tropes, their different types, methods of their translation (exact reproduction and mitigation). Lexical choices, the so-called “high” and “low” styles (Zerov put the terms in inverted commas), means of their reproduction in translation. Morphological and syntactic problems. Phraseology, translation of sayings, proverbs, words of address, conditional formulas, phraseological clichés and catchwords of nationally limited and international usage. Translating the individual syntax of the writer. Main figures of style, inversions and their role. Phonetics in a literary text. The rhythm of a prose text (ancient tradition, bourgeois theoreticians, proletarian theory of prose). Syntactic and metrical elements of prose rhythm; the concept of tact, phonetic sentence, phonetic period. The difference between the rhythms of verse and prose. Free verse and the role of graphics in the perception of rhythm. Euphony in literature: onomatopoeia, sound repetitions, and methods of conveying them. Types of literary prose and their requirements for translation (Zerov 1932, 5–6). Rendering poetry was described in the syllabus in even greater detail. The topic entitled “Translation of Poetry” included the questions of poetic vocabulary, morphology, syntax, metric units, enjambment, versification systems, tonic, syllabic, and free verse, equirhythmic (equimetric) translation, sound repetitions and euphony, as well as prose translation of verse. Additionally, the author raised the question of the “correct” degree of requirements for the translator in different genres of poetry. Therefore, the fourth lecture encompassed such issues as the specifics of verse translation and the importance of lexical, morphological, syntactic, and phonetic elements. Zerov also spoke of the poetic vocabulary and its conservatism and addressed the problem of struggle with conservatism in translation (both “bourgeois” and “proletarian”). He focused on the following subject areas: a) b) Specific features of morphology and syntax in poetry and its translations; the mismatch of syntactic and metrical units in the poetic text (enjambment) and rendering it in translation. Phonetics of poetry, including rhythm and melody; syntactic and metrical elements 71 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S of prosody. e systems of versification (metric, tonic, syllabic, various types of free verse). Equirhythmic translation. e metric system and its conveyance by means of tonic verse. Syllabic, accented (tonic-sliding), and free verse in “bourgeois” and “proletarian” translations. Euphony of verse translation. Sound repetitions. Rhyme and its variations, the practice of conveying repetitions and rhymes. e translation of verse passages in works of prose, translation of poetry by means of prose, and requirements for translations in different genres of poetry (Zerov 1932, 6–7). Section II was devoted to the history of Ukrainian translation and started with a lecture on “class styles” in Ukrainian literature in the periods of feudalism era, industrial capitalism, imperialism, and the proletarian dictatorship. A special focus was made on the traditional Ukrainian “khutir style” (lit. “hamlet style” or “homestead style” in the translations by Ievhen Hrebinka, Petro Hulak-Artemovs´kyĭ13 and other nineteenth-century poets) (Zerov 1932, 8). The sixth lecture focused on translation in the period of industrial capitalism and imperialism and dwelt upon the prominent Ukrainian writers-translators of the nineteenth – early twentieth centuries and the sociological and stylistic aspects of their translations. Literature of the bourgeois nobility. Folklorism in translations by Amvrosiĭ Metlyns´kyĭ, Markiian Shashkevych, Stepan Rudans´kyĭ, Iuriĭ Fed´kovych, and poets-Osnov’ians, whose works appeared in the Ukrainian journal Osnova, published in Saint Petersburg from January 1861 to October 1862;14 The polemics of Mykhaĭlo Drahomanov and Stepan Rudans´kyĭ.15 b) The formation of the “bourgeois style” and translations by Panteleĭmon Kulish and Mykhaĭlo Staryts´kyĭ.16 Kulish’s theory of the “Old Rus´ky revival” and its social class foundations; folklorism in the translation style of Kulish. Staryts´kyĭ, his translations and “controversy”; Staryts´kyĭ’s stylistic “breakdowns.” c) “Petty-bourgeois style,” its representatives in translation. Ivan Franko17 and his translations. Lesya Ukrainka, Volodymyr Samiĭlenko,18 and their approach to 13 Ievhen Hrebinka (1812–1848) – Ukrainian romantic prose writer, poet, and ethnographer; wrote in both the Ukrainian and Russian languages and was recognized as a leading representative of the Ukrainian school in Russian literature. His 1836 translation of Aleksandr Pushkin’s poem Poltava is considered a burlesque rendition. Petro Hulak-Artemovs´kyĭ (1790–1865) – poet, fabulist, and translator of classical literature. Amvrosiĭ Metlyns´kyĭ, Markii͡an Shashkevych, Stepan Rudans´kyĭ (1834–1873) – Ukrainian poets, translators, and folklorists; Iuriĭ Fed´kovych (1834–1888) – Ukrainian writer, poet, folklorist, and translator. Ukrainian poets and belletrists (in total over 40) whose works were published in the journal Osnova: Taras Shevchenko, Leonid Hlibov, Oleksa Storozhenko, Oleksander Afanas´iev-Chuzhbyns´kyĭ, Danylo Mordovets´, Hanna Barvinok, etc. Mykhaĭlo Drahomanov (1764–1880). Ukrainian political theorist, economist, philosopher, and public figure, known as one of the first socialist activists in Ukraine. Panteleĭmon Kulish (1819–1897) – Ukrainian writer, literary critic, poet, folklorist, and translator (German Romantics, thirteen plays of Shakespeare); Mykhaĭlo Staryts´kyĭ (1840–1904) – Ukrainian writer, poet, playwright, and translator. Ivan Franko (1856–1916). Ukrainian poet-modernist, writer-polyglot, translator, journalist, political activist, social and literary critic. Lesya Ukrainka (1871–1913) – a number one Ukrainian woman-poet and writer, best known for her ) 14 ) a) 15 16 17 18 72 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... d) translating civic poetry, especially in translations from Pierre-Jean de Béranger, Heinrich Heine, and Nikolaĭ Nekrasov. Practice of prose translation, publishing houses, their publications and book series. Translations by Ukrainian modernist writers and their “class” foundations, or “the tendency towards grand-bourgeois decadence in the age of imperialism” (Zerov 1932, 8–9). The seventh lecture topic of Zerov’s course contained information on translation during the decade of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The lecture is demonstrative of the negative attitudes to “national democrats” and their writings. Zerov also defines them as “hostile” to the proletariat and labels their approaches to translation as “wrecking” in accordance with the requirements of the Bolshevik propaganda discourse aimed at fighting against national democracy.19 The seventh lecture was designed to review the new anthologies of translated poetry. The complete collections of classic poets in translations by Ivan Kulyk, Dmytro Zahul, and Maksym Rylsky20 were mentioned in the syllabus as the most notable editions, alongside several collections of translation of the works by Emile Zola, Guy de Maupassant, Jack London, and Russian authors. The lecture also raised questions of translation repertoire planning and the translated literature bibliography. It discussed the cases of Knyhospilka Publishing House, the Publishing Plan of the Union of revolutionary writers “Western Ukraine” for the year 1927,21 and other examples. A special place was given to translations of political and socio-economic literature, school textbooks, and children’s literature, as well as to translations of the works by Ukrainian revolutionary writers into the languages of other nationalities of the Soviet Union. The importance of cultivating the translation techniques of both literary-figurative and abstract scientific language was brought into the limelight as well (Zerov 1932, 9). The detailed lecture course “Methods of Translation” was seen by Zerov as a practical branch of translation studies. I hereby summarize it in Chart 2. 19 20 21 poems and plays, political, and civil activist; Volodymyr Samiĭlenko (1864–1925) – Ukrainian writer, poet, satirist, and translator. The term “wrecking” (Ukr. shkidnytstvo) in reference to translation meant distancing the Ukrainian language from Russian (See Kahanovych 1934), which was equated to “wrecking” in Soviet industry, collective farming, education, and communal services. The “wreckers” were blamed for all the troubles and failures in Stalin’s national economy (for more detail see Kalnychenko and Kalnychenko, 2020). Ivan Kulyk (1897–1937) – Ukrainian poet, writer, translator, diplomat, and Communist Party activist; Dmytro Zahul (1890–1944) – Ukrainian writer, poet, and translator; Maksym Rylsky (1895–1964) – one of the foremost Ukrainian poets, literary critic, translator, academician. The publishing plan for 1927–1928 included thirty-two literary titles (stories, poetry) with a size of up to four printed sheets and a circulation of approx. 3,000 (Molotkina, 2016, 63). 73 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Chart 2. Methods of translation as a practical branch of translation studies 74 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... Th e f i r s t m ap o f t ra n sl a t io n s t u di e s, i t s t h e o ret i c a l b ac kgro u n d a n d p oten t i a l The discipline “Methodology of Translation” in the context of its time and fur ther developments in translation theor y In his syllabus, Kalynovych spoke of multiple tasks of translation brought in line with the Marxist-Leninist ideology and its political language, which targeted the dissemination of the ideas of socialist building, Soviet technology, literature, arts, and the proletarian literary style. A builder of the “proletarian” theory of translation, whose ultimate purpose was to integrate proletarian ideology worldwide through translation, was supposed to have strong confidence in translatability. In this regard, internationalization was considered a marker of the “proletarian” approach and translating proletarian art into Esperanto a highly important task. At the same time, the role and significance of Ukrainization in the mid-1920s – early 1930s constituted an integral part of the Ukrainian theory of translation, and the “proletarian” translation in particular, although the Bolsheviks’ policy of indigenization (Ukrainization) basically aimed at the Socialist reformation of national cultures instead of their development. Kalynovych and Zerov, like many other Ukrainian intellectuals of that time, attempted to build Ukrainian translation studies amid the rising campaign of Stalin’s terror. Professional terminology in their syllabi, for the most part, remains important and relevant to contemporary research. First of all, this applies to the term perekladoznavstvo (lit. “translation studies”), which was used by Kalynovych as the name for the academic discipline concerned with the study of translation in general. The context of the early Soviet theory of translation is evidenced by the recommended reading lists for each topic in Kalynovych and Zerov’s syllabi. A closer look at these sources reveals the worldview imposed on Ukrainian translation studies during the early Stalinist period, which was supposed to model a new reader with a class approach to the perception of art. Two textbooks were defined as mandatory in both Kalynovych’s and Zerov’s courses. They are: 1) 2) a monograph in Ukrainian by Oleksandr Finkel´ eory and Practice of Translation (Kharkiv: DVU Publishing House, 1929, 166 p.); a collective monograph in Russian by Korney Chukovsky and Andrey Fedorov The Art of Translation (Leningrad: Akademiia, 1930, 236 [3] p.), consisting of two chapters, one by Chukovsky and one by Fedorov. Apart from these two books, the required and recommended readings for Kalynovych’s course included the following: • • Alekseev, Mikhail. Problema khudozhestvennogo perevoda [The problem of literary translation]. Irkutsk: Irkutsk University publication, 1931, 50 p. (In Russian) Batiushkov, Fedor, Nikolay Gumilev, and Korney Chukovsky. Printsipy khudo75 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S • • • zhestvennoho perevoda [Principles of literary translation]. Petrograd: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel´stvo, 1920, 60 p. (In Russian) Bulich, Sergeĭ. Ocherk istorii iazykoznaniia v Rossii [An essay on the history of linguistics in Russia]. St. Petersburg: Printing House of M. Merkushev, 1904, XI, 1248 pp. Chapter 4: “Znakomstvo s i͡azykami v drevneĭ i moskovskoĭ Rusi i prepodavanie ikh” [Introduction and teaching the languages of ancient and Muskovite Russia], 184–203. (In Russian)22 Kautskiĭ, Karl. Introduction to “Das Kapital. Kritik der politischen Ökonomie” by Karl Marx, 1st volume, 7th ed. Moscow: GIZ (State Publishing House), 1930, Х-ХХХ. (In Russian)23 Shalia, Ivan. K voprosu o iazykovykh sredstvakh perevodchikov 18 stoletiia: Trediakovskiĭ kak perevodchik [On the question of the language means of translators of the 18th century: Trediakovskiĭ as translator]. Article in “Proceedings of the Kuban Pedagogical Institute,” Krasnodar: [n.p.], 1929, 215–240. Bibliography in footnotes and in text. A separate reprint from the second and third issues of “Proceedings of the Kuban Pedagogical Institute.” (In Russian) Forty years before Holmes’ chart of translation studies (TS) came about in 1972, Kalynovych worked out a view on perekladoznavstvo, which substantially corresponds to the map of the discipline promoted by Holmes (1972; Chart 3), who “is credited with the first attempt to chart the territory of translation studies as an academic pursuit” (Baker 1998, 277). Holmes’ map of translation studies was commonly recognized as a framework for organizing research and teaching activities within this discipline (278). In addition to his scheme, Holmes mentions two important areas of inquiry: the study of TS itself (such as the history of translation theory, the history of translator training, etc.) and the study of the methods and models of specific types of research in the discipline (279). Chart 3. Holmes’ basic map of translation studies (from Toury 2012, 4) 22 23 In these chapters, Bulich focuses on lexicons, grammars, ABC-books, and various kinds of dictionaries in the framework of Russian imperial historiography. Direct translations of the book from German into Ukrainian were also available (Marx, Karl. 1923. Do krytyky politychnoї ekonomiї [Criticism of political economy]. Trans. by Mykola Porsh, ed. by Ievhen Kasia- 76 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... ) Like Holmes, Kalynovych divided the discipline, which he referred to as the science of translation, into two major branches: theoretical translation studies (in Holmes: pure TS) and practical translation studies (in Holmes: applied TS). The branch of theoretical TS was further subdivided in Kalynovych into three sections: 1) methodology of translation, 2) history of translation (general history and national histories), and 3) history of translation studies. The branch of practical TS was further subdivided in Kalynovych into two sections: 1) general methods of translation and 2) partial methods of translation (for a specific language pair) (see Chart 1). The most important point is that Kalynovych further subdivided translation studies into 1) the object of study, 2) the branches of the discipline, and (3) related disciplines. By including the domain of related disciplines into TS, Kalynovych advocated a view of TS as interdisciplinary, embracing a wide range of methods and models from other disciplines. Kalynovych took an integrated approach to TS, which enabled him to add another branch to the discipline. This is the branch of translation management consisting of such subbranches as 1) translator/editor/ reviewer training, 2) publishing and planning translations, and 3) joint translation activities, or the tandem method (see Chart 1). The branch of translation management was discussed by Kalynovych in the eighth lecture entitled “Organization of work around translation” (Orhanizatsiia pratsi kolo perekladu), in which he presented his pioneering approach. Along with the task of translator training, Kalynovych raised the issues of organization of labor and cooperation in the field of translation as well as editing and reviewing translations. Kalynovych also dwelt on the problem of joint translation activities, namely, on the tandem method (verbatim “the brigade form of translation” in Kalynovych). The method consisted in pairing of a translator with a better knowledge of the language of the translation with a translator fluent in the language of the original; translators could also be paired with original authors. The team method as cooperation of a tandem of translators is a common phenomenon in the world translation practice. Among the Ukrainian translation tandems of the late1920s–early1930s, the names of Veronika Hladka and Kateryna Koriakina are worthy of mentioning. A talented poet, Hladka had an excellent command of the Ukrainian language, and Koriakina, a Russian speaker, was proficient in the Scandinavian languages. Their fruitful cooperation gave the Ukrainian reader an opportunity to enjoy high-quality translations from Scandinavian languages and English. They translated in tandem three novels, two novellas, and a collection of short stories of Jack London (1927–1930), science fiction stories and the novella A Story of the Days to Come by H.G. Wells (1930), the novel Mysteries by Knut Hamsun (1930), five plays of Henrik Ibsen (1930; 1932) (see Kolomiyets, 2015, 267–269). In a similar way, several families of Ukrainian writers worked as translation teams in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Among them were Modest and Zinaїda ) ) ) ) nenko. Kharkiv – Berlin – New-York: Ukrainian-American publishing house “Kosmos.” Marx, Karl. 1926. Do krytyky politychnoї ekonomiї [Criticism of political economy]. Trans. by Mykola Porsh, ed. by Ievhen Kasianenko. Kharkiv: State Publishers of Ukraine.). However, Kalynovych could not refer to them because the editor, Ievhen Kasianenko was politically persecuted in the early 1930s (see Kolomiyets 2015, 262). 77 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S ) Esli schitat´ sushchnost´iu proizvedeniia ego obshchee ideĭno-ėmotsional´noe ėsteticheskoe vozdeĭstvie, po otnosheniiu k kotoromu razlichnye slovesnye sredstva igraiut lish´ sluzhebnuiu rol´, to problema tochnogo v smysle adekvatnosti perevoda okazyvaetsia razreshimoĭ. ) ) 24 ) ) ) Levytsky, who co-authored a four-volume edition of the novel The Story of a Peasant by Émile Erсkmann-Сhatrian (1928), the novella At Dawn by Teodor Tomasz Jeż (1929), the novel e Jungle by Upton Sinclair (1930). Many of their tandem translations remained unpublished, such as novels by Polish writers Henryk Sienkiewicz, Boleslav Prus, and Eliza Ozheshko (see Kolomiyets 2015, 190). Thus, from the point of view of translation history, the “brigade method” as a collective activity (team translation) was not a communist invention, although the term “brigade” was intentionally borrowed from the sphere of the Soviet economy, creating an “appropriate” association with the workers’ brigades of the early 1930s. Another important area in translation management industry is the publishing and planning of translated publications. These issues were discussed by both Kalynovych and Zerov in their syllabi. All in all, the map of TS by Kalynovych 1) clarified the nature (or “essence”) of translation, its purpose, and the unit (“object”) of translation; 2) identified (together with Zerov), the three functions of translation, namely, the a) social (“class”), b) communicative, and c) esthetic function; 3) developed the principles for evaluation of the strategies and the result of translation, using such evaluative terms as accurate, equivalent, adequate, and objective translation. At the same time, Kalynovych was the first to notice and single out indirect translations, or translations from intermediary languages, as a separate category, calling them translations from translations (see Chart 1). By separating such translations from others, he made it clear that standard evaluation criteria (accuracy, equivalence, adequacy, objectivity) are not applicable to them. It is very important that this distinction was made in anticipation of the unofficial recognition of indirect translations into Ukrainian through Russian as an intermediary language, which became a mass phenomenon, especially from the mid-1930s to the mid-1950s. Interestingly, until the early 1930s, the concept of “adequate translation” alongside the concept of “accurate translation” was mainly considered a close reproduction of linguistic and stylistic features of the original text. It was interpreted this way by Volodymyr Derzhavyn (1927), Andrey Fedorov (1927), Oleksandr Finkel´ (1929), and others. However, since the mid-1930s, Soviet translation thinkers separated the term “adequate translation” from the source language orientation and linked it to the target language and the functions in the target environment. In the article entitled “Translation,” which was published in 1934 in the eighth volume of the Literary Encyclopedia, the leading Soviet literary theorists Aleksandr Smirnov and Mikhail Alekseev allocated a separate place to the section “Methods of literary translation.” They presented the idea of fundamental translatability of foreign language works and rejected doubts regarding that possibility. “If the essence of a work is its general ideological and emotional aesthetic impact, in relation to which verbal means play only a supplementary role, the problem of an accurate translation in the sense of translation adequacy turns out to be solvable”24 (Smirnov and Alekseev 1934, 527). 78 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... ) ) ) Thus, the authors of the quoted article opposed the theorists of the early 1920s who addressed the problem of limited or incomplete translatability in both poetry and prose (see Batiushkov, Gumilev and Chukovsky 1920). For example, Fedor Batiushkov spoke about the inexpressibleness of some foreign language elements in the book Principles of Literary Translation, which was the first “alphabet for translators.” Based on his assumption, he argued that no translation was capable of replacing the original (10) and at the same time he insisted that precision should be observed in conveying formal features of a foreign work. Along similar lines, two other contributors to the book, Nikolay Gumilev and Korney Chukovsky, advocated accuracy in representing the original form of the source text. It is worthwhile to comment separately on the term “objective translation” used in the meaning “independent of language features,” i.e., oriented to objective reality. In the Soviet school of translation of the early 1950s, it evolved into the concept of “realistic translation,” which was devoid of any specific meaning and was used as a synonym for “good” translation (Levý 1974, 43). The basis of the theory of realistic translation was introduced in the mid-1930s as the theory of “creative translation,” proponed by the Russian literary scholar Johann Altman, who contrasted creative translation as “the best translation method” to “naturalism” and “formalism” (the terms borrowed from literary theory). Altman also argued that “creative translation is an adequate transfer of content and form” (Altman 1936, 167), while the “stylizers,” or adherents of stylization in translation, were denounced by the theorist of creative translation as those reaching out to the most “nationalist” and “reactionary elements” (167–168). The sociological aspect began to dominate in the Soviet school of translation from the early 1930s. Accordingly, in Kalynovych’s course syllabus, the social (class) function of translation appeared in the first place (along with the communicative and aesthetic functions). The class function of translation was put forward as early as 1929 in Finkel´’s monograph, replacing the cognitive function distinguished in 1927 by Derzhavin (who singled out the communicative, or informative, cognitive, and artistic functions). Compared to the end of the 1920s, views on translation became socialized, and a shift took place in the translations’ functional typology paradigm. The Discipline “Methods of Translation” through the prism of debates on translation practice: Axiological paradigm and relevance to contemporar y discour ses on translation Apart from the two obligatory readings (these were the book by O. Finkel´, Theory and Practice of Translation, and the collective volume by K. Chukovsky and A. Fedorov, The Art of Translation), the required and recommended readings for Zerov’s lecture course included the following: • • Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. “Problema virshovanoho perekladu.” [The problem of verse translation]. Pluzhanyn, nos. 9–10 (13–14), 1927, pp. 44–51. (In Ukrainian) Fedorov, Andrey. “Problema stikhotvornogo perevoda” [The problem of verse translation]. Poetics. Journal of the Department of Verbal Arts of the State Institute of Art History, Vol. II, 1927, pp. 104–118. (In Russian) 79 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S ) ) ) • ) • Fedorov, Andrey. “Zvukovaia forma stikhotvornogo perevoda” [Sound form in verse translation]. Poetics. A Magazine of the Department of Verbal Arts of the State Institute of Art History, Vol. ІV, 1928, pp. 45–69. (In Russian) Kulyk, Ivan. [Peredmova to] “Antolohiia amerykans’koї poeziї. 1855–1925” [Foreword to the Anthology of American Poetry. 1855–1925]. Kharkiv, 1928, 313 p. (In Ukrainian) Peshkovskiĭ, Aleksandr. “Printsіpy i priëmy stilisticheskogo analiza i otsenki khudozhestvennoĭ prosy (kak i khudozhestvennoĭ rechi voobshche)” [Principles and techniques of stylistic analysis and evaluation of literary prose (as well as literary speech in general]. Moscow: State Academy of Arts, 1927, pp. 29–68. (In Russian) Peshkovskiĭ, Aleksandr. “Ritmika “Stikhotvoreniĭ v proze” Turgeneva” (Rhythmic of “Poems in prose” by Turgenev). First published in the collection: “Ars poetica,” issue 1–2, Мoscow, 1927–1928. Reprint in the collection: Russian speech. New series Moscow, 2, Leningrad, 1928. (In Russian) Timofeev, Leonid. Problemy stikhovedeniia: Materialy k sotsiologii stikha. [Problems of science of versification: Materials for the sociology of verse]. Moscow: Federation, 1931, 227 [5] p. (In Russian) Zerov, Mykola. “U spravi virshovanoho perekladu. Notatky” [On the case of verse translation. Notes]. Zhyttia i revoliutsiia, vol. IX, Sept. 1928, pp. 133–146. (In Ukrainian) ) • • • • The first section of Zerov’s syllabus brought together four topics under the heading “General Methods of Translation.” The first topic, “Main Features of Translation Typology,” addressed the main types of translation, the criteria for determining them, and the features of each of the type. It started with the problem that caused heated debates in the late 1920s: the possibility or impossibility of adequate translation, the importance of accuracy, and the limits of inaccuracy in non-literary translation, literary prose, and verse translation. Based on the degree of “originality” of the source text and the attitude to linguistic foreignness in translation, Zerov sorted translations into six types, with the key terms given in inverted commas: 1) foreignized translation (verbatim “close to a foreign-text coloring” in Zerov), 2) translation“analogue,” 3) translation-“compromise,” 4) “free” translation, 5) translation“stylization,” and 6) translation-“montage”(see Chart 2). While Kalynovych devoted a lot of space in his syllabus to the Marxist-Leninist ideological principles as a new methodology of translation studies (it was MarxistLeninist and later Stalinist ideology that soviet scholars had to adhere to) Zerov reflected on the existing typologies of translations and listed the classifications of translation methods and techniques by his contemporaries (Fedorov, Finkel´) as well as recent predecessors in translation theory (Batiushkov, Gumilev). The type of translation considered by Zerov first, which is foreignized translation, corresponds to the term “foreignizing” translation used presently. The rationale for this type of translation as a foundation for the Romantic school of translation was worked out by the German Romantics as early as the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries. The Romantic school’s approach to translating was described by Finkel´ in the first theoretical chapter of his monograph (1929), which Zerov multiply refers to in his syllabus. 80 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... The term translation-analogue describes the opposite case of translation. The concept of analogous translation, or translation-analogue, was substantiated as the opposite to “stylization” (in Zerov: foreignized translation) by Zerov’s contemporary Volodymyr Derzhavyn. In his syllabus, Zerov mentions Derzhavyn’s 1927 article “Problema virshovanoho perekladu” (The problem of verse translation), in which a “stylized” translation as a true translation is contrasted with the selection of a stylistic analogue in the native culture. An analogous translation is modelled on a poetic and stylistic pattern of local literature, chosen by the translator as an “analogue” to the poetics and style of the original work. The interpretation of the term “translationanalogue” (modern counterpart: “domesticating” translation) as the opposite to preserving the original form can be also found in Finkel´, who quotes from Andrey Fedorov’s 1927 article: “The dilemma posed by Humboldt has been an object of dispute until our time. A. Fedorov expressed it again almost literally in our time [the turn of the 1920s and 1930s]: “The translator has either to use analogues from his own language soil, or to approach a foreign, unusual verbal form; these are the two possible options for the translator.” (Fedorov 1927, 117; as cited in Finkel´ 1929, 68; Finkel´s emphasis) The term translation–compromise speaks for itself: this type of translation is the result of a compromise between different translation principles, which targets a balanced impartial approach. In his part of the 1930 book Iskusstvo perevoda (The art of translation), Fedorov responded to Batiushkov’s search for the criteria of “adequate” translation by putting forward the idea of “adequate” translation as a “full-fledged” (polnotsennyĭ) translation and suggested compromising as a way to “successful translation.” In 1930, Fedorov viewed compromise as a combination of: 1) 2) 3) preference for the native language (vernacularity, svoiemovnist´ in Zerov), when the translator avoids all tracesof foreign language and expressions that are not accepted in the language of translation; preference for foreignness in translation, which consists in conveying other people’s images and ideas as they are, introducing foreign words that may not be completely understandable, reproducing the order of words and their arrangement without mitigations, disregarding (maintaining intelligibility) the rules of one’s native language; preference for smoothed-out translation, which neither preserves the national specifics of the original work, nor introduces specific features of the target language (Chukovsky and Fedorov 1930, 115–130). Fedorov saw each of the approaches taken separately as undesirable and thought that combining them was key to make a translation “successful” (udachnyĭ perevod) (119). At the end of the 1920s, the term free translation used in relation to translations of poetic works had rather negative connotations. Notably, in his 1929 monograph Finkel´ strongly disapproved of translation related to the concept of “free translation”: “Paraphrases and renditions (perespivy) have existed throughout the ages, but the best paraphrase is always worse than the worst translation in terms of characterizing the 81 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S ) ) original”25 (1929, 66). At that time, the terms “adapted translation” (adaptovanyĭ pereklad) and “reworking” (pererobka) were tolerated only in translations for children and young adults. Concurrently, the question of translating classical poetry by means of free verse is worthy of a separate mention. Evgeny Lann, the young Russian poet-translator who had lived and studied in Ukraine, wrote in defense of free-verse translation as early as 1921: “Ten years of practice – and the poet will master the technique of verse. He will learn to vary the rhythm, subordinating it to the thematic meaning of the phrase; he will understand a simple truth: ... arbitrariness of the corset of strict verse” (Lann 2010, 9; as cited in Azov 2013, 62–63; footnote). Zerov as a translator preferred the translation-analogue framework, and not a free-verse pattern, in his renderings of strictly metrical, classical poetry. The term translation-stylization originated from Derzhavyn’s 1927 article “Problema virshovanoho perekladu,” which has been referred to earlier in the present research. In his article, he defined a translation as “adequate” to the original if it corresponded to its stylistic features and reflected them in one way or another. Derzhavyn categorized translations according to their functions: communicative (the main purpose: practical message, hence the type “translation-presentation”), cognitive (the main purpose: scientific terminology, hence the type “translation-transcription”) and artistic (the main purpose: sensory representation, transfer of external and internal form of the language, hence the type “translation-stylization”) (Derzhavyn 1927, 45, 46, 47, 48). Derzhavyn opposed “pale literary imprints” and equated “artistic translation” with “translation-stylization,” believing that the artistic translation “must be, if possible, literal – not in that every word of the original is translated separately, but in the fact that the artistic value of every sentence, word, grammatical and phonetic structure of the original should, if possible, be reflected in the style of the translation”26 (1927, 50–51). Derzhavyn’s argumentation for equating those two terms is as follows: the sound and grammatical possibilities of any language are so wide that if one does not follow the usual “standardized” structure of the language and formulaic literary “equality” [between the two languages], one can always select a combination of linguistic elements that are more or less homogeneous to the structure of a foreign poetic language. The proof of this lies in the unlimited possibilities of stylization, which operates in the same ways as artistic translation. Therefore, we can characterize the latter as “translation-stylization”.27 (1927, 48) Parafrazy ta perespivy isnuvaly za vsi doby, ale naĭlipshyĭ parafraz zavzhdy hirshyĭ vid naĭpohanishoho perekladu z pohliadu kharakteryzatsiї oryhinalu. khudozhniĭ pereklad (pereklad-stylizatsiia) musyt´ buty, po mozhlyvosti, doslivnyĭ, – ne v tomu, shcho kozhne slovo oryhinalu perekladaiet´sia zokrema, a v tomu, shcho khudozhnia tsinnist´ bud´-iakoho rechennia, slova, hramatychnoї ta fonetychnoї struktury oryhinalu povynna, po mozĭhlyvosti, znaĭty sobi vidobrazhennia v styli perekladu. zvukovi ta hramatychni mozhlyvosti bud´-iakoї movy nastil´ky shyroki, shcho koly ne doderzhuvatysia zvychaĭnoї “standartyzovanoї” budovy movy, shablonnoї literaturnoї “rivnosty,” to zavzhdy mozhna pidshukaty kombinatsiiu iazykovykh elementiv, bil´sh abo mensh odnoridnykh strukturi chuzhoї poetychnoї ) ) ) 82 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 27 ) ) ) ) ) ) 26 ) ) 25 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... Stylizing translation, as it was described by Derzhavyn, can be viewed as “exoticizing” translation and a higher stage of translation defined in Zerov as “foreignized,” or “translation close to a foreign-text coloring”: It is impossible to reproduce the structure of a foreign language accurately; but it is possible to create something similar by successfully combining sound and grammatical material of the native language. Of course, the language becomes unusual, not completely clear, and partly artificial because of this: but it has to be that way. A translator cannot convey the artistic side of a foreign language without doing considerable violence to his own; therefore, he has the right to demand significant effort from the reader.28 (1927, 47–48) Preparing the lecture, Zerov wrote down a continuation of this fragment from Derzhavyn’s article on a separate piece of paper to read it out to his students (Illustration 2): “An easy translation is always a forgery, not a reproduction of the artistic side of the original. Its easiness is false easiness, while a difficult translation requires from the translator greater combinatorial abilities in the field of poetic language, but, in principle, it can always create an impression more or less corresponding to the artistic structure of the original” (1927, 48). This quotation from Zerov’s handwritten notes to his lecture course on translation methods is deposited in the archives of the Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur in Irpin. ) ) Illustration 2. A quotation from Derzhavyn’s article “Problema virshovanoho perekladu” handwritten by Mykola Zerov ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 28 ) ) movy. Dokazom ts´omu mozhe buty neobmezhena mozhlyvist´ stylizatsiї, shcho operuie tymy sposobamy, shcho ĭ khudozhniĭ pereklad. Tomu ostanniĭ my mozhemo kharakteryzuvaty iak “pereklad-stylizatsiiu.” Tochno vidtvoryty strukturu chuzhoї movy nemozhlyvo; ale mozhna utvoryty shchos´ podibne, vdalo combinuiuchy zhukovyĭ ta hramatychnyĭ materiial, shcho ie v ridniĭ movi. Zvychaĭno, shcho mova staie vid ts´oho ne zvychaĭnoiu, ne zovsim iasnoiu ta pochasty shtuchnoiu: ale tse tak i musyt´ buty. Perekladach ne mozhe peredaty khudozhniĭ bik chuzhoї movy bez znachnoho nasyl´stva nad svoieiu vlasnoiu; tomu vin i vid chytacha maie pravo vymahaty znachnoho napruzhennia. 83 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S 29 ) ) The term translation–montage ties translation to the works of modernism and visual and graphic features of poetic forms. Literary montage (the term “montage” is borrowed from cinematography) is a combination of fragments of literary works with other sources, such as memoirs, autobiographies, documentary evidence, critical reviews, etc. (“Literaturnyĭ montazh” in Hrom’iak, Kovaliv and Teremko 2007, 407). Literary montage was admired by many Zerov’s contemporaries. Among them were the Futurists, in particular the members of the Russian writers’ association LEF (Left Front of Arts), who asserted the factographic nature of arts. In 1922–1929, branches of LEF existed not only in the cities of Russian Federation (Moscow and others), but also in Russified cities of Ukrainian SSR, such as Odesa.29 It is worth mentioning that the concept of “translation-montage” was developed by the Czech-Slovak school of translation in the 1960s–1970s, in particular in the works of Jiří Levý and Anton Popovič. They viewed translation-montage as an exact reproduction of the “moment of movement” caught by the author of the source text in its psychological dynamics. In particular, Levý wrote about the importance of accurate reproduction of associations present in the source text, or “the associative montage” (Levý 2011, 117; Levý 1974, 166). Popovič included the notion of “compilative” technique (calling it “montage” and/or “collage”) into his framework of “faithful” translation (Popovič 1980, 151). Translation studies terminology used and coined by Zerov was largely based on the Ukrainian language models of term building. This terminology remains relevant to contemporary discourses on translation. For instance, Zerov opposed the translator’s orientation towards the target language and its originality (his term: svoiemovnist´) and gave preference to the source language peculiarities (his term: chuzhomovnist´). This conceptual opposition of the native language-centered strategy to the foreign language-centered strategy correlates with the opposition between domesticating (target-oriented) vs. foreignizing (source-oriented) strategies in Western theories of translation. It would be appropriate to mention here that in the early 1930s Soviet translation theorists started discussing domestication and foreignization for purely political motives. The strategy of domestication began to be associated with a “bourgeoisnationalist” love of the vernacular, while foreignization, on the other hand, came to be correlated with proletarian internationalism, applied primarily to political discourses, scientific and technical terminology, and nomenclature mediated by the Russian language. Under the slogan of linguistic internationalism, Russification was actually carried out. For political censorship reasons, Zerov had to publicly disapprove of the orientation towards vernacular originality (svoiemovnist´) in conveying foreign terminology and oppose it to the so-called “proletarian translator’s orientation towards internationality” (Zerov 1932, 4). In this respect, Zerov’s syllabus is a starting point to particularly interesting discussions, such as the possibility or impossibility of adequate translation, the criteria The LEF movement was preceded by Cubo-Futurism (also called Russian Futurism) that arose in the early twentieth century first in the spheres of arts and later in poetry. It is also related to Ukrainian avant-garde. Cubo-Futurism uses montage of images, fragmentation, and shifts in forms, textures, and colors as a way to explore the possibilities of non-representational art. 84 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... of accuracy in translating texts of different literary genres, the choice between focusing on one’s own language culture or focusing on the language of the original. In the Soviet Union, the discussion of internationalism in the transfer of terms essentially amounted to the Russification of national languages; in the current geopolitical situation, it raises a problem of linguistic dominance of lingua francas over minor languages. In today’s translation studies, the discussion of one’s-own-languageness (“originality”), or domesticating translation, vs. foreign-languageness, or alienating translation, has become particularly acute and ambiguous depending on the languages of the original and the translation. In particular, foreignization in translation into a global language, such as English, is now associated with the anti-imperialist direction of translation (Venuti 1995), while foreignization in translation from English into a “minor” language, such as, for example, Catalan, can mean a colonial offensive against this language (Pym 1998). As indicated earlier, the second section of Zerov’s syllabus entitled “From the History of Ukrainian Translation” covered three topics: “Translation in Ukraine during the Feudal Era,” “Translation under Industrial Capitalism and Imperialism,” and “Translation under the Dictatorship of the Proletariat” (see Chart 2). Developing Finkel´’s ideas regarding the relation of the translation method to the general poetic philosophy of a literary school,30 Zerov defined the Ukrainian literary translation history in the context of national literary schools under different socio-political systems. Zerov was the first to introduce the history of Ukrainian literary translation into the structure of translation studies as a university discipline. A Ukrainian literature historian, he viewed the history of literary translation as an integral segment of national literature and recognized the translations by Ukrainian writers as part of a broader historical context of national literary schools, traditions, and styles. Zerov considered contemporary translation a branch of nation and culture building and provided an overview of anthologies and complete collections of the classics of world literature in Ukrainian translations. He emphasized the need for careful planning of translations by the publishers (Knyhospilka cooperative publishing union described as a positive example). He also spoke of the need for a bibliography of translated literature of prose and poetry, children’s literature, school textbooks, works on politics, sociology, and economics. On the whole, despite the mandatory application of Marxist-Leninist political clichés to linguistic phenomena, such as searching for the “class-based emotional coloring” in synonyms, Zerov made a huge contribution to the development of Ukrainian translation studies and the Soviet theory of translation. In particular, he introduced into TS numerous terms and concepts from related fields, especially from the theory and history of literature, linguistics, and art history. These were the concepts of “social dialect,” “social and cultural relief of the word” and its “associative saturation,” as well as stylistic techniques of “variation,” “explication,” “gradation,” etc. (see Chart 2). 30 This idea is based on Finkel´’s study of aestheticism in the eras of Classicism and Romanticism in Western Europe and the Russian Empire (on the Classical and Romantic theory of translation, see Chapter 1 of Finkel´’s monograph Theory and Practice of Translation; 1929). 85 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Co n cl u si o n : Co n s o li da te d e f fo r t s o f Ka l y n ov ych a n d Z e rov As can be seen from the contents of the Kalynovych and Zerov syllabi’s thematic blocks (Charts 1 and 2), both lecture courses had to contain the Bolshevik rhetoric and demonstrate loyalty to the latest ideological trends in the Communist Party’s national and cultural policy; they also propagated socio-political proletarian views of the language, literature, and translation studies. In conclusion, it is important to emphasize that in such extremely unfavorable and deteriorating political conditions professors Kalynovych and Zerov jointly created the first Ukrainian map of translation studies and introduced its integral teaching at the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education. Their lecture courses on the general and special issues of translation constituted a cycle of university disciplines in translation studies. This program was the first in Ukraine and, most likely, in the entire Soviet Union; it gave an outline of the diverse structure of translation studies. A conceptual analysis of the two syllabi, “Methodology of Translation” and “Methods of Translation,” encourages us to rethink the early Soviet theory of translation and recognize the significant contribution of Ukrainian translation scholars. Kalynovych and Zerov created the first holistic concept of translation studies, presenting it as a modern science with a complex structure and close interdisciplinary links. My attempt to map the consolidated efforts of Kalynovych and Zerov resulted in Charts 1 and 2, which illustrate their integrated approach to the methodology and methods of translation. Bound by the dogmas of proletarian propaganda, Ukrainian university professors were practically devoid of academic freedom as early as the beginning of the 1930s. Despite the mandatory Bolshevik rhetoric, Kalynovych and Zerov’s syllabi contain promising ideas of early Soviet translation theory. Some of their ideas remained relevant for later TS in the West, such as the training of translators, editors, and translation reviewers, translation as professional activity, and stylistic multidimensionality of literary texts. Also relevant for today is the study of the translator’s social profile and the function of translation, outlined separately in Zerov’s syllabus, as well as the emphasis on the importance of distinguishing the socio-cultural features of a word and the associations it evokes in different contexts. Problems of conveying uncodified speech, social dialects, and colloquialisms also remain relevant for today. The integrity of TS as a university discipline, as shown by Kalynovych and Zerov, is based on theory, practice, and management of translation, with each branch providing the logic and rationale for the other two. Remarkably, in many aspects the syllabi by Kalynovych and Zerov correlate with the school of descriptive translation studies, as they were the first to introduce the term “translation studies,” the exact English equivalent of which was proposed only in the early 1970s (Holmes 1972 [1988]), as well as a holistic view of the structure of TS as a ramified discipline. The integral model of TS as a separate discipline in Kalynovych and Zerov correlates with the polysystem theory developed within the framework of descriptive translation studies (Even-Zohar 1990). In addition to theoretical, methodological, and organizational activities, this model also includes general history of translation, national histories and traditions of translation, as well as the history of translation studies. In particular, Zerov’s syllabus contained the section on the history of 86 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... translation in Ukraine. Kalynovych and Zerov were the first to outline the diverse content of translation studies as a discipline with its theoretical, descriptive, and applied fields. The latter embraced 1) methods of teaching translation, 2) organization of translation work, and 3) publishing management of translated literature. In general, Kalynovych and Zerov significantly expanded the field of TS. Some topics first outlined in their syllabi were later rediscovered by Western translation scholars. REF E RE NCE S ) ) ) ) Altman, Johann. 1936. “O khudozhestvennom perevode” [On literary translation]. Literaturnyĭ kritik [Literary critic] 5: 148–169. Azov, Andrey. 2013. Poverzhennye bukvalisty: Iz istorii khudozhestvennogo perevoda v SSSR v 1920–1960–e gody [Defeated literalists. From the history of literary translation in the USSR in the 1920s–1960s]. Moscow: Vysshai͡a shkola ėkonomiki. Baker, Mona. 1998 [2000]. “Translation Studies.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 277–280. London and New York: Routledge. Batiushkov, Fyodor, Nikolay Gumilev, and Korney Chukovsky. 1920. Printsipy khudozhestvennoho perevoda [Principles of literary translation], Petrograd: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo. Chukovsky, Korney and Andrey Fedorov. 1930. Iskusstvo perevoda [The art of translation]. Leningrad: Academia. Derzhavyn, Volodymyr. 1927. “Problema virshovanoho perekladu” [A problem of verse translation]. Pluzhanyn, nos. 9–10 (13–14): 44–51. Dzhuhastrians´ka, Iuliia and Maksym Strikha. 2015. “Vazhlyva pam’iatka z istoriї ukraїns´koho perekladoznavstva” [An important document from the history of Ukrainian translation studies]. Novyĭ Proteĭ 1: 133–135. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. “Polysystem Theory.” Poetics Today: International Journal for Theory and Analysis of Literature and Communication. Tel Aviv: Schenkman Publishing Company, Inc., 11, 1: 9. Finkel´, Olexandr. 1929. Teoriia i praktyka perekladu [Theory and practice of translation]. Kharkiv: DVU. Fedorov, Andrey. 1927. “Problema stikhotvornogo perevoda” [e problem of verse translation]. Poetics: A Magazine of the Department of Verbal Arts of the State Institute of Art History, Vol. 2: 104–118. Holmes, James S. 1972 [1988]. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, ed. by James S. Holmes, 67–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hrom’iak, Roman, Iuriĭ Kovaliv and Vasyl´ Teremko, eds. 2007. Literaturoznavchyĭ slovnykdovidnyk [Literary dictionary-reference]. Kyiv: Vydavnychyĭ Tsentr “Akademiia.” Kahanovych, Naum. 1934. “Natsionalistychni perekruchennia v ukraїns´kykh perekladakh tvoriv Lenina” [Nationalistic distortions in Ukrainian translations of the works of Lenin]. Movoznavstvo, 2: 9–24. Kal´nychenko, Oleksandr and Nataliia Kamovnikova. 2020. “Navchannia perekladu: instytuts´ki prohramy z perekladoznavstva pochatku 1930–ykh rokiv” [Teaching translation: academic courses in translation theory and practice of the early 1930s]. Visnyk KHNU imeni V. N. Karazina. Seriia: Inozemna filolohiia. Metodyka vykladannia inozemnykh mov, 91: 147–155. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr and Nataliia Kalnychenko. 2020. “Campaigning against the ‘Nationalistic Wrecking’ in Translation in Ukraine in the mid-1930s.” In Translation and 87 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Power, ed. by Harmon, Lucyna and Dorota Osuchowska, 53–60. Peter Lang: Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften. Kalynovych, Mykhailo. 1932. “Metodolohiia perekladu” [Translation methodology]. Typescript. From the archives of the Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur in Irpin. No archival data. Published by: Dzhuhastrians´ka, Iuliia and Maksym Strikha. 2015. “Vazhlyva pam’iatka z istoriї ukraїns´koho perekladoznavstva” [An important document from the history of Ukrainian translation studies]. Novyĭ Proteĭ 1: 133–135. Kolomiyets, Lada. 2015. Ukraїns´kyĭ khudozhniĭ pereklad ta perekladachi 1920–30–kh rokiv: Materialy do kursu “Istoriia perekladu” [Ukrainian literary translation and translators in the 1920s-1930s: “History of translation” course materials]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Kolomiyets, Lada. 2021. “Pershodruk materialiv Mykoly Zerova z arkhivu Hryhoriia Kochura” [Mykola Zerov’s unpublished manuscripts from Hryhoriy Kochur’s archives]. Visnyk of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Foreign philology 1(53): 5–15. Lann, Ievgeniĭ. 2010. “Heroica (mirooshchushchenie poėta)” [Heroica (poet’s attitude)]. In Ievgeniĭ Lann. Heroica: stikhotvoreniia [Poems], 9–32. Moskva: Vodoley. Levy, Irzhi. 1974. Iskusstvo perevoda [The art of translation]. Trans. from Czech and foreword by Vladimir Rossels, ed. by Miron Kharlap. Moskva: Progress. Levý, Jiří. 2011. The Art of Translation. Trans. by Patrick Corness, ed. by Zuzana Jettmarová. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Molotkina, Valentyna. 2016. “Osoblyvosti orhanizatsiĭnoho stanovlennia ta funktsionuvannia derzhavnykh vydavnytstv v USRR (20–i rr. XX st.) [Specifics of the organizational formation and functioning of state publishing houses in the Ukrainian SSR (1920s)].” Paradyhma piznannia: Humanitarni pytannia. Kyiv, 1(12): 55–71. Mysechko, Olha. 2007. “Spetsial´ni linhvistychni navchal´ni zaklady iak nova forma pidhotovky v Ukraїni vykladachiv inozemnykh mov u 30–kh rokakh XX st. [Special linguistic educational institutions as a new form of training of foreign language teachers in Ukraine in the 1930s].” Istoriia pedahohichnoї dumky, 2, 34–37. Popovič, Anton. 1980. Problemy khudozhestvennogo perevoda, ed. by Pavel Toper, tr. by Inna Bernshteĭn and Irina Cherniavskaia. Moskva: Vysshaia shkola. Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Smirnov, Aleksandr and Mikhail Alekseev. 1934. “Translation.” In Literaturnaia ėntsiklopediia, Vol. 8, 512–532. Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopedia. Toury, Gideon. 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge. Zerov, Mykola. 1932. “Metodyka perekladu” [Methods of translation]. Typescript. From the archives of the Literary Museum of Hryhoriy Kochur in Irpin. No archival data. Published by the present author: Kolomiyets, Lada. 2021. “Pershodruk materialiv Mykoly Zerova z arkhivu Hryhoriia Kochura [Mykola Zerov’s unpublished manuscripts from Hryhoriy Kochur’s archives].” Visnyk of the Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv. Foreign philology 1(53): 13–15. AB S T RACT The paper analyzes the first Ukrainian lecture courses on the general issues and methodology of translation and on methods of literary and non-literary translation into Ukrainian, developed by Mykhailo Kalynovych and Mykola Zerov for the Ukrainian Institute of Linguistic Education in September 1932. The paper discusses both the theoretical and terminological 88 Between censorship and nation building: the first Ukrainian lecture courses.... innovations and the rhetorical features of these courses in the context of the early Soviet period. It dwells on the contribution of these programs to shaping of translation studies as an interdisciplinary subject in the system of higher education. Keywords: Lecture course syllabus. Methodology and methods of translation. Translation studies as science and university discipline. CO NTACT D ETAI LS : Lada Kolomiyets, Dr. Sci. (Philol.), Prof. Department of Theory and Practice of Translation from English Educational and Scientific Institute of Philology Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 14 Taras Shevchenko Blvd. 01601 Kyiv Ukraine ladakolomiyets@gmail.com; l.kolomiiets@knu.ua ORCID:0000-0002-8327-6672 89 ATTACH ÉS O F U KR A INI AN C U LTU R E IN ES TO NI A A n ne La n ge Since the Orange Revolution of 2004, news about Ukraine and its politicians have been browsed intensively in the awareness that developments in the country in Europe affect Europe’s possibilities to advance its goal of a ‘union’. Monographs and collections published on Ukraine in recent years are abundant (Kvit 2015, Reid 2015, Yekelchyk 2015, Moussienko 2016, Dalla Mora 2019, among others) and enable a more thoughtful reading. But the war of 2022 came to many Europeans still as unexpected; it was followed by the feeling of helpless shock when its atrocities became known. This short article will trace the presence of Ukraine in Estonia and introduces some of the Estonian translators of Ukrainian poetry who have kept us in contact with the mental milieu of Ukraine. Who were/are the Estonian translators of Ukrainian literature and what could have been their motivation and systemic support they could rely on in their work? Translators as agents of translation inevitably interact with their social environment that either encourages or shuns them. Alongside the attachés of Ukrainian culture available in Estonia, the article gives an overview of the contribution of Ukrainian translation scholars in advancing our knowledge of the history of translation studies through their English language presentations in international forums held in Estonia. Uk ra i n e i n E s to n i a i n 1917 It is fair to begin with the politics of the early twentieth century that inaugurated Estonian intellectuals’ steady interest in the social developments in Ukraine. There is a series of articles by Jüri Vilms (1889–1918)1 that are well preserved in Estonian political history. eir inclusion in this article requires a non-traditional understanding of translation, which is not restricted to close rendering of oral or written prototexts that have led to translation, but functions as an ideological and political form of cultural production. Originating from his contacts with Ukrainian politicians and following the developments in Russia by reading Russian government decrees and newspapers, Vilms informed Estonian readers about the advancement of the 1 Vilms was a lawyer by education (he studied law at Tartu in 1907–1911) and owned a law firm. After the 1917 February revolution, he was mostly engaged in politics, publishing numerous articles demanding autonomy for Estonia within the Russian empire. He was one of the authors of the Estonian declaration of independence, issued on 24 February 1918. Vilms was assassinated on 2 May 1918 in Hämeenlinna, Southern Finland, where he had volunteered to travel in order to deliver funds to Estonian missions that were working towards the achievement of the diplomatic recognition of the newly declared sovereign Estonian state. The assassins were probably Swedish volunteers in the Finnish War of Independence who mistook Vilms for a Bolshevik. 90 Attachés of Ukrainian сulture in Estonia Ukrainian course. What was it but translation? Most Estonians at that time still needed translational information even though the late nineteenth century russification had introduced Russian as the language of education at all levels, primary schools included. On 21 June 1917 Vilms published an article in an Estonian newspaper Päevaleht [The daily paper] entitled “Russian Government and Ukrainian People.” In the article, he discussed implementation and non-implementation of the eight paragraphs of the Declaration of the Provisional Government, which included a commitment to waive national restrictions. The negotiations between the Provisional Government and the Ukrainian Central Rada on Ukrainian autonomy showed no attempt to fulfill the commitment at all. Vilms gives an overview of his meeting with a Ukrainian delegate in a congress of Estonian military, as well as of the contents of the Rada’s First Universal. He concludes his article by stating that So far, Russian democracy does not understand that Russia’s future is about the free self-determination of its peoples. If the Russian government and democracy follow their own way in national issues, peoples must also find their way. Ukrainian people have directed us all to it. Long live free Ukraine! When the Russian government and democracy do not change their position on national issues, Estonia must follow the path Ukraine has chosen. (Vilms 1917a)2 In December, after the Bolshevik coup, Vilms published an article on the new administration of Russia with a focus on the self-determination of the peoples within the former empire. He wrote: Ukraine has always strived for running its life independently. Ukraine has never intervened in the internal affairs of others. But now the Bolsheviks demand it to set up a government of the Soviets of Soldiers and Workers in their country. Ukraine cannot let Cossacks go home to the Don but is obligated to let Bolshevik troops cross their country so that they can go and establish the Soviet power in the region. Ukraine did not abide by these demands because they severely infringed on its self-determination, and the result was that the Bolshevik government in Smolny declared war on Ukraine. (Vilms 1917b) Vilms does not dwell in detail on the history of Ukraine, but these quotes do impress as resonant today. In 1998, his publicist articles were collected and issued anew in a prestigious series Eesti mõttelugu [Estonian intellectual history] under the title Kahe ilma vahel [Between the two worlds]. The more than 500-page volume is on the reading list for Estonian students of history and international relations, contributing to their realization that translational activities are social processes that are systemically related to the cultural and political endeavors of the writer. In his articles, Vilms combined the existential needs of Ukraine and Estonia and encouraged Estonians by the example of Ukraine to look for a way to get out of Russia’s imperial pretensions. 2 All translations into English are by the present author. 91 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Uk ra i n i an p o et r y i n Es to n i a The prime translator of Ukrainian poetry into Estonian is Harald Rajamets (1924–2007). Rajamets translated from Ukrainian, Russian, German, English, Italian, Polish, Danish, Swedish, and Lithuanian, including Shakespeare’s sonnets and poems and Dante’s Divine Comedy. In all the Who’s Who reference books of Estonian culture, his translations from Ukrainian are mentioned first, because he himself considered these most important. Ukrainian poetry, unlike Shakespeare, was novel in Estonia. In 1944, Rajamets was conscripted by age into the German army; he spent 1945 and 1946 in prison camps in Germany, Belgium, and France; in 1947, back in his homeland, he began his studies of Finno-Ugric languages at the University of Tartu, which he had to leave because of the threat of repressions due to his dubious past. In 1950s, he lived in Ukraine, doing odd jobs. This is where his knowledge of the Ukrainian language and interest in the Ukrainian culture come from. In 1966, Rajamets published a selection of contemporary Ukrainian poetry entitled Kõnelus gloobusega [A conversation with the globe] in the most prestigious series of literary translations in Estonia, Loomingu Raamatukogu [The library of creativity]. It included translations of thirty-three poets, who had published their poems in 1960–1965, selected by Rajamets from Ukrainian journals, newspapers, and almanacs. The title of the collection comes from Borys Oliynyk’s poem, where the narrator talks to the “cardboard head” asking it why there is no Zatshepylivka, his home village, on the globe, thus highlighting the obvious: the globe is a schematic abstraction that does not mirror human life. In his introduction to the volume, Rajamets describes Ukrainian poetry as romantic in its character and admits this is akin to his tastes (1966, 3). The same year, in 1966, there also came out a collection of translated poems of Maksym Rylski entitled as Roosid ja viinapuud [Roses and wine trees]; he published his translations of Lesya Ukrainka Aoeelsed tuled [Light before dawn] in 1971, Mykola Vingranovsky’s poems as Armastuse akna all [Under the windows of love] in 1975, Ivan Drach’s collection Südame kaugusel [Close to the heart] in 1978, Ivan Franko’s Varastatud õnn [Stolen happiness] and Dmytro Pavlychko’s Vaade kaevu [A look into a well] in 1985, and Lina Kostenko’s Kordumatus [Uniqueness] in 1990. Several of his translations from Ukrainian authors (Vingranovsky, Drach, Pavlychko, Kostenko) were published in the series Soviet Poetry, which, being a good publishing opportunity, did not automatically brand the authors or their translators into mainstream Soviets. The series Soviet Poetry was a loophole for Rajamets to render the Ukrainian poets he appreciated in his mother tongue. In 2004, Rajamets published a 500-page collection of his translations he had compiled himself. Such translation anthologies are rare in Estonia, and this opportunity is offered only to the greatest masters. The volume is chronological, i.e. translations are not grouped by languages or cultures. Of the Ukrainian authors, he has included Taras Shevchenko, Stepan Rudansky, Ivan Franko, Lesya Ukrainka, Maksym Rylski, Andriy Malyshko, Igor Muratov, Dmytro Pavlychko, Lina Kostenko, Vasyl Symonenko, Borys Oliynyk, Ivan Drach, Mykola Vinhranovsky, and Oleksandr Zavgorodniy. 92 Attachés of Ukrainian сulture in Estonia The previous paragraphs look like a catalogue, but this is to show that Rajamets remained a dedicated spokesperson of Ukrainian poetry for decades. In an interview given to Estonian Radio, he confessed to his belief that “a god’s hand took me to those poets, and I am happy that these translations appeared, whatever the series” (Rajamets 1994). Introducing Ivan Drach’s poems in his selected translations collection, Rajamets comments that “... his poems are often so close to his home that they cannot resound in the land of their translation, therefore the selection includes primarily more general and lyric poems” (Rajamets 2004, 434). It is true that the twenty-two translations by Drach included in the volume can be easily read without footnotes. Lyric poetry and close observance of its rhythm patterns including rhyme was a distinctive attribute of Rajamets’s work throughout his career. This is one of the reasons why his translations have not been forgotten. They are abundantly recycled in contemporary blogs with references to the volumes these were initially published (e.g. Sulepuru 2022). Therefore, Rajamets was a highly influential representative of the Ukrainian mindstyle in Estonia. Recent political developments have enlarged the list of people who translate Ukrainian poetry. With those translators in mind, it is helpful to think of the concept of telos as introduced by Andrew Chesterman: “We have become accustomed to use the term skopos to denote the intended effect of a translation. We might also make use of the companion term telos to denote the personal motivation of translators” (2009, 17). In 2019 Mathura, an Estonian author, artist, and translator from Hindi, English, and other languages published a translation of Lyubov Yakymchuk’s poetry collection “Apricots of Donbas.” Yakimchuk both selected the poems for the Estonian edition and wrote a new introduction for the volume. Mathura wrote in his afterword, Speaking of the communicative value, I feel that apart from other cultures it is important to maintain the Estonian dialogue with the literatures with which we share a common history, including the common post-Soviet cultural space. We understand that, like us, they found their own ways to manage the social-political situation, which gave birth to new cultural expressions. (Mathura 2019, 74) This paragraph partly reminds us of what Jüri Vilms wrote a hundred years ago: common history and thus common sensitivity are good grounds for understanding what people in Ukraine do. Activism as an effort to promote or impede changes in society can take many forms. Mathura’s collection of translations was not activist in the sense that it aimed at bringing about political change, but it is a token of the translator’s moral agency (Mathura is also the publisher of the collection) and his selectivity of what to translate and when. The 2022 March issue of Looming [Creativity], the monthly magazine of the Estonian Writers’ Union, included a selection where both Estonian and Ukrainian authors wrote on Ukraine. There were fourteen pieces: poems and a short story by an Estonian writer. Among the Ukrainian authors were both those from Ukraine and those living in Estonia. It was an immediate reaction to what had happened in February. The poems – like the translations of Mathura – “filled the gap between the coverage of the war in news items and the personal emotional reality of people” (Mathura 2019, 74). The authors translated were Artem Polezhaka, Julia Musakovska, 93 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S Serhiy Zhadan, Alex Averbuch, Halyna Kruk, Dmitri Strotsev, Yaroslav Dovgan, and Katya Novak. Their translators were Maarja Kangro, poet, short story writer, and essayist; Anna Verschik, professor of linguistics at Tallinn University, and translator from Yiddish; Igor Kotyuh, tri-lingual poet living in Estonia, writing in Russian, Estonian, and Ukrainian; and Ellen Dovgan, translator between Ukrainian and Estonian, who lives in Estonia and studies translatability on the example of Ukrainian-Estonian translations of fiction. Translations from Ukrainian at present are activist in the sense that they resist overtly to the political catastrophe in Ukraine like the authors they translate. Rajamets had no other option than to play the emotion down, the way Estonian writers had to conceal the situation in Estonia knowing that their readers would contextualize their words. As activism implies “deliberate intent or action” (Bandia 2020, 515), it can be said that whenever a translator and/or an editor/or a publisher initiates a translation, it is a form of literary activism that parallels other attempts to reconfigure the prevailing social and cultural situation. Julia Musakovska’s lines “Хочеться вмерти, але доводиться говорити / ротом, повним каміння і цвяхів, / ротом, повним крові” [I’d like to die but have to speak, / with my mouth full of stones and nails, / a mouth full of blood], were posted by Anna Verschik in her Estonian translation on her Facebook page on 1 May 2022, “Tahaks surra, aga tuleb rääkida / kive ja naelu täis suuga, / verd täis suuga.” On 13 April 2022, Anna Verschik asked, in her translation, together with Julia Musakovska, “Kes ütles, et sõnadel pole praegu kaalu? [...] Meie sõnad / püüdlevad meie lähedaste poole” / “Хто сказав, що слова зараз не мають ваги? [...] Наші слова / тягнуться до близьких” [Who said that words carry no weight at present? [...] Our words / strive to reach our cognates]. Facebook networks are of significance for the translators of the early 2022, Anna Verschik told me, – and these are not limited to Ukrainian-Estonian contacts but also include translators of Ukrainian poetry from Belorussia, Lithuania, and others. Poetry exists to boost morale, and translation amongst political atrocities reminds us that society has other functions outside politics. Poetry is an expression of compassion and concern, and although it is not enough in wartime, as Ellen Dovgan posted on her Facebook page on 25 February 2022, its absence would be as dreadful as the absence of fiscal help to Ukraine. When Andrew Chesterman charted his map for translator studies, he differentiated its cultural, cognitive, and sociological branches (2009, 19). The first one includes, among other ideologies, ethics, history, networks, and institutions. These aspects interplay in the work of translators: translators are agents of translation, whether supported or not by their networks and institutions. Translators of Ukrainian poetry into Estonian have made the best use of the latter: under their different political circumstances, both Harald Rajamets and Anna Verschik found a way to reach the Estonian readership whose intellectual interests, far from provincial, yet need translational mediation to comprehend Ukraine. T he p res en ce o f U krai n i a n tra ns l at i o n s t u di e s i n E s to n i a In Estonia, translation became a field of academic research first in the 1930s (Annist, Saar 1936), and then, more extensively, in the 1960s within Slavic studies at the University of Tartu. Estonian researchers almost entirely omitted references to 94 Attachés of Ukrainian сulture in Estonia Ukrainian scholars in the Russian language publications of the late twentieth century. There may be a few isolated cases like in Peeter Torop’s Тотальный перевод [Total Translation] (1995), which contains two references to Oleksandr Finkel, but no proper discussion of the work of Ukrainian scholars or their contribution to the intellectual history of the discipline took place at that time. Thus, next to nothing had been known in Estonia about translation studies in Ukraine until the 2010 conference on translation history in Tallinn, where Oleksandr Kalnychenko presented his paper “A Sketch of the Ukrainian History of Translation of the 1920s.” In his presentation, Kalnychenko pointed out the importance of finding a way to introduce historical research to students of translation studies. In his view, historical knowledge prevents from dogmatism and leads to circumspection with seemingly new ideas. The latter is what Brian Baer reiterated throughout his article “On origins: the mythistory of translation studies and the geopolitics of knowledge.” According to Baer, there has been no linear advancement of translation research from James S. Holmes’ paper in Copenhagen in 1972 up to its present healthy and versatile state; instead, we have a ramifying network of discourses on translation that have been pursued across the world and originated much earlier than the Copenhagen Congress, the legendary site of the birth of translation studies (2020). Kalnychenko illustrated his statement that historical knowledge would make researchers more modest about the originality of their inventions with an example from a later period. He referred to Mykola Lukash’s 1956 speech on unique items, as we call them now. Unique items are linguistic commonalities of the target language that are absent in the source language and tend to be absent also in translations. This is what editors of translations work with daily (probably also all over the world), encouraging translators to use grammatical and lexical possibilities that are available in the language they write in but are not present in the language they translate from. It may be just that the vocabularies of scholars and translators/editors do not coincide, as the latter are not too willing to peruse academic terminology. In Ukraine, the situation seems to have been different. Speaking about the forgotten findings of the executed intellectuals of the renaissance period in Ukraine when translation was treated as an integral part of the target culture, Kalnychenko called these translators scholars of cultural and translation studies. Translation studies, perekladoznavstvo, was in the curriculum of universities in Ukraine in the early 1930s, largely due to the initiatives of translators. The list of names referred to in the paper was impressive: Mykola Zerov, Mykhailo Kalynovych, Volodymyr Samiylenko, Ivan Kulyk, Pavlo Fylypovych, Oleksandr Finkel, Mykola Lukash, Hryhoriy Kochur, to list just a few. As we archived the conference with a selection of its papers and edited the volume (Chalvin, Lange, and Monticelli 2011), we had doubts about the abundance of facts in the article. Actually, Kalnychenko himself wrote in his article that “there is a possibility, even a need, for several varieties of translation history with regard to their target audience” (2011, 255). We therefore suggested some omissions, but not extensive, and the initial article turned out to be only two hundred words longer than the one published. The review of the volume appeared three years later, in The Translator of 2014. It was written by Franco Nasi of Modena University. Being, by and large, appreciative of the volume, Nasi dwelled most extensively on Kalnychenko’s chapter. 95 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S It is indeed quite surprising to read about the intense translation activity that took place in Ukraine between 1918 and 1933, the first 15 post-revolutionary years, in a period of apparently vibrant “national revival”. All this happened just before the gloomy period of restrictive Bolshevik control over Ukrainian culture that ushered in the Stalinist regime in which Soviet cultural policy limited translation from other languages and imposed Russian as the privileged intermediary language. (Nasi 2014, 137–138) Nasi was impressed by the long list of books translated into Ukrainian in the 1920s from many languages, and the original Ukrainian contributions to translation theory during the same decade: perekladoznavstvo, as it has been mentioned above, was established as an academic discipline, and numerous studies were undertaken on the historical and social aspects of translation, including readership reception, the influence of translated literature on the target poetic and stylistic norms, and other themes. His obvious conclusion was that it was necessary to reflect in detail on translation practice in other less known languages and cultures that have had centuries of experience in translation. English as the present lingua franca has, indeed, won the battle of languages for the time being, but this does not mean that our narrations of translation studies and its history should rely basically on the available English language sources “as a sort of neutral and theoretically unchangeable scenario” (Nasi 2014, 138). There is no feeling of the end of history in this review even though it would be cost-effective to reduce our knowledge of translation studies to English-language readers and handbooks. Nasi ends his review of Kalnychenko’s article by quoting his final paragraph: In the 1920s, translation scholars in Ukraine were conceptualizing translation in terms very similar to those taken up more recently by Western translation scholars. If mainstream (and often English-language) translation studies were more familiar with other translation traditions, they would be more moderate and balanced in their claims and could have saved time and effort in a common enterprise of trying to define translation. (Kalnychenko 2011, 265) Nasi calls the paragraph provocative but still repeats Goethe’s dictum from Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre that Kalnychenko had used in his article, “all intelligent thoughts have already been thought; what is necessary is only to think them again.” There were three more international conferences in the Itineraries in Translation History series, the second one in Tallinn (2012), the other two in Tartu (2014, 2018). The Ukrainian presentations deserve mentioning here, as they informed the audience better about the significance of translation in Ukraine and the long history of translation studies in the country. In 2012, Oleksandr Kalnychenko presented his paper “Ukrainian translation in the 1920s–1950s under Stalin’s regime,” which showed how Soviet cultural policies deprived the Ukrainian language of its free development and caused a formation of a kind of parallel language, abundant in loans from Russian. In the same conference Maksym Strikha in his paper “Literary translation and the shaping of modern 96 Attachés of Ukrainian сulture in Estonia Ukrainian identity” joined the discussion of translation studies and postcolonial theory by giving his examples of leading Ukrainian authors, both classical and contemporary (Panko Kulish, Lesia Ukrainka, Ivan Franko, Mykola Zerov, Maksym Rylsky, Hryhorij Kochur, Mychajlo Moskalenko), who were writers, literary translators, and scholars at the same time. The statement visualized itself for the present author several years later, in 2019, during the tenth international conference on major issues in translation studies in Kharkiv, when Ukrainian translators came in for their meeting. Dignified middle-aged gentlemen with their leather portfolios, moderate but determined in their demeanor, these people were no puppets of commercial publishing houses but intellectuals who would not compromise the reputation of their trade. In 2014, we had with us Lada Kolomiyets from Kyiv with her comparative review of literary translation policies in the 1920s and 1990s. She focused on the two national renaissance decades, nation building, and Ukrainization and observed that the share of printed books of translation books decreased in the late twentieth century. The reasons in the digital age are obvious: other means of communication are abundant and people prefer audiovisual media to serve their cultural needs. Anastasiya Vassylyk from Lviv spoke in 2014 about literary translation in the interwar period stating that the role of Ukrainian literary translation was not limited to aesthetic and informative functions but shaped the national identity and, ultimately, facilitated nation-building in Ukraine. Whatever part of Ukraine the researchers come from, they share the conviction that translators are not translating for the sake of translation but for Ukraine or its adversaries. Maksym Strikha’s presentation of 2014 focused on Ukrainian language policy in the years 1991–2013. The 2010 presidential elections when Viktor Yanukovych was elected president put an end to the twenty comfortable years when publications of translations were often funded by Western institutions and new private publishing houses offered new opportunities. In his abstract, Strikha says, Although Ukrainian is still treated as the only official language, the interpretation for the ministers of the Ukrainian government (mainly representatives of business and criminal elites of the Russian speaking Donetsk region) during international events is commonly provided into Russian. Therefore, the social dilemma between Ukrainian and Russian translation in Ukraine is now strongly correlated with the wider civilization choice between Europe and Russia. (The online abstract is no more available.) From the papers by Ukrainian scholars, we learned that “the history of translation studies is a personified and dramatized translation theory where every scholarly conception has a label with its names, dates, and specific circumstances of its emergence” (Kalnychenko 2011, 255). And we also learned that there is little reason to celebrate in 2022 the fiftieth anniversary of translation studies (fifty years from the Copenhagen conference), as it was suggested a few times. “Can translation change history?” Kalnychenko and Kolomiyets ask in their article on translation in Ukraine during the Stalinist period that was published in the volume Translation under Communism in 2022 (Kalnychenko and Kolomiyets 2022, 141). They cannot give a definite answer to their question because their research shows 97 I I . O N H I S TO R I C A L J U S T I C E I N T R A N S L AT I O N S T U D I E S that it can both change and save history. Like war. What is clear from this article, however, is that literary translation has for decades been a conscious form of resistance to the russification of Ukrainian culture. Co n cl u si o n The article brought together political, aesthetic, and academic attachés of Ukraine in Estonia. Translation – from Russian into Estonian in the case of Jüri Vilms, from Ukrainian into Estonian in the case of poetry translations, and from Ukrainian into English in the case of academic research – has been the key for the realization that Ukraine is a battlefield of choice between Europe and Russia. Nothing doing, the opposition has not become obsolete. Translation has been the cultural attaché in all those spheres of contacts and enhanced the ability of readers in Estonia to understand what Ukraine has been, is, and can be. RE F ERE NCE S Annist, August, and Gustav Saar. 1936. Jean Paul ja Witschel. Akadeemilise Kirjandusühingu toimetised. Publikationen der Akademischen Literarischen Vereinigung zu Tartu XI. Acta et Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis (Dorpatensis) B XXXIX3. Tartu: Akadeemilise Kirjandusühingu Kirjastus. Baer, Brian. 2020. “On origins: the mythistory of translation studies and the geopolitics of knowledge.” The Translator 26, 3: 221–240. Bandia, Paul F. 2020. “Afterword. Postcolonialism, activism, and translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Activism, ed. by Rebecca Ruth Gould and Kayvan Tahmasebian, 515–520. London and New York: Routledge. Black, Joseph Laurence, Michael Johns, and Aland D. Theriault, eds. 2016. The Return of the Cold War: Ukraine, the West, and Russia. London and New Work: Routledge. Chalvin, Antoine, Anne Lange, and Daniele Monticelli, eds. 2011. Between Cultures and Texts/Entre les cultures et les textes: Itineraries in Translation History/Itineraires en histoire de la traduction. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Chesterman, Andrew. 2009. “The Name and Nature of Translator Studies.” Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Business 22, 42: 13–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v22i42.96844. Dalla Mora, Maddalena. 2019. From the Euromaidan to the Hybrid War in the Donbass: An Analysis of the Ukraine Crisis and the Determinants of Russian Foreign Policy. Saarbrücken: AV Akademikerverlag. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr. 2011. “A Sketch of Ukrainian History of Translation of the 1920s.” In Between Cultures and Texts/Entre les cultures et les textes: Itineraries in Translation History/Itineraires en histoire de la traduction, ed. by Antoine Chalvin, Anne Lange, and Daniele Monticelli, 255–267. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Lada Kolomiyets. 2022. “Translation in Ukraine during the Stalinist Period: Literary Translation Policies and Practices.” In Translation under Communism, ed. by Christopher Rundle, Anne Lange, and Daniele Monticelli, 141–172. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Kvit, Serhiy. 2015. The Battlefront of Civilizations: Education in Ukraine. Kyiv: Kyiv–Mohyla Academy. Mathura. 2019. “Ljubov Jakõmtšuk ja tema kaotatud trööstitu paradiis” [Lyubov Yakymchuk 98 Attachés of Ukrainian сulture in Estonia and her lost desolate paradise]. In Donbassi aprikoosid ja teisi luuletusi by Ljubov Jakõmtšuk, 73–75. Tallinn: Allikaäärne. Moussienko, Natalia. 2016. Art of Maidan. Trans. by Andriy Kulykov. Kyiv: Huss. Nasi, Franco. 2014. “Between cultures and texts. Entre les cultures et les textes. Itineraries in translation history/Itinéraires en histoire de la traduction, edited by Antoine Chalvin, Anne Lange and Daniele Monticelli.” The Translator 20, 1: 136–141. DOI: 10.1080/ 13556509.2014.899089. Rajamets, Harald. 1994. “Tõlkijad.” [Translators] ERR. Arhiiv. Kultuur. Accessed on June 15, 2022. https://arhiiv.err.ee/vaata/tolkijad-tolkijad-harald-rajamets. Rajamets, Harald. 2004. Pegasos ja peegel. Valimik tõlkeluulet [Pegasus and mirror. Selected translations]. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Reid, Anna. 2015. Borderland: A Journey through the History of Ukraine. New York: Basic Books. Sulepuru. 2022. “Ukraina luule”[Ukrainian poetry]. In Luuleleid. Accessed June 18, 2022. https://luuleleid.wordpress.com/category/ukraina-luule/. Torop, Peeter [Тороп, Пеэтер]. 1995. Тотальный перевод [Total Translation]. Tartu: Tartu University Press. Vilms, Jüri. 1917a. “Vene valitsus ja ukraina rahvas” [Russian Government and Ukrainian People]. Päevaleht [Daily Paper], 21 June, 2. Vilms, Jüri. 1917b. “Enamlaste valitsus ja rahvaste enesemääramine” [Bolshevik Government and Self-Determination of Peoples]. Päevaleht [Daily Paper], 12 December, 1. Yekelchyk, Serhy. 2015. The Conflict in Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press. AB S TR ACT The article traces some of the contacts of Estonian intellectuals with Ukraine, all of them relying on translation. In 1917, after the February and October revolutions in Russia, Estonian politicians followed closely the strive for independence in Ukraine and set it as a pattern for Estonia. During the Soviet occupation, Ukrainian poetry had a dedicated translator in Estonia in the person of Harald Rajamets, the translator of Dante and Shakespeare. Since 2004 when interest in the political developments in Ukraine increased, it has been accompanied by translations of Ukrainian poetry to reveal the mental atmosphere in the country; during the years of the ongoing war, abundant translations circulate in Facebook. Academic contacts with Ukrainian translation scholars have considerably improved our knowledge of the rich academic tradition of Ukrainian translation research and changed radically the notion of Soviet translation studies as a monolithic and unified field. Keywords: Translation as cultural production. Telos of translation. Networks of translation. Ukrainian poetry in Estonia. Ukrainian translation studies. CO NTAC T D ETA IL S : Anne Lange, Associate Professor of Translation Studies School of Humanities Narva mnt 25 10120 Tallinn Estonia anne.lange@tlu.ee 99 III. ON METHODOLOGICAL ASPECT S OF TR AN SL ATI ON ME TH ODO LO GY O F S PEC IA LI SE D TRANSLATOR AND INTERPRETER TRAINING I N U K R AIN E Le on id C h er nova t y This article deals with a brief overview of the development of translator and interpreter training methodology in Ukraine. The discussion will be limited to specialised translation and interpreting. Besides, it is the methodology as a science, and not the translator and interpreter training in general, that will be reviewed here, as the history of the latter is much longer. According to the available research (Kalnychenko and Kalnychenko 2021), the first attempts to compile translatortraining curricula in Ukraine were recorded back in the 1930s, while the full-fledged translator and interpreter training programs started in the early 1960s when translation departments were opened in Kyiv (Taras Shevchenko National University, 1962) and Kharkiv (V.N. Karazin National University, 1966). There was practically no experience of such training in those centres, as well as in the country in general. Literary translation did exist, of course, but translators of literature did not receive any special training, they just emerged due to natural selection. Therefore, it was up to the teachers, who had some experience in the translation of fiction or technical literature, to determine the content and methods of training. The teaching system itself was mostly based on the medieval master-disciple model, where the master (teacher) was the undisputed authority and the disciple (student) tried to borrow at least some of the enormous wisdom possessed by the master. The content of teaching conducted by different instructors was poorly coordinated, so the overall efficiency of the translator’s professional competence development mostly depended on the students’ extra-curricular work. For the time being, this system had functioned relatively satisfactorily. e number of students at the two centres was relatively small, as the opening of the new translator training schools was prohibited for ideological reasons. e students’ motivation was extremely high, as they had a realistic chance to get reasonably well paid jobs abroad, which was an extraordinary opportunity in the Soviet times. Overall, there were enough qualified teachers with translation experience, and the requirements to the quality of translation, apart from literature, were not generally too strict. ere was a problem with the interpreting practice due to the state control of contacts with foreigners, but the demand for that type of mediation was rather limited. The situation dramatically changed in the late 1980s: the ban on translator training outside Kyiv and Kharkiv was lifted, and by the mid-1990s, translator training programs were launched in many universities. This happening coincided in time with the establishment of Ukraine as an independent state and the need to switch over to Ukrainian as the language of instruction, which resulted in the teaching materials crisis. The crisis was not easy to overcome, as the new centres did not have experience 102 Methodology of specialised translator and interpreter training in Ukraine in training or preparing materials, while the old ones did not receive any targeted financial support. The bitter truth was that they did not have much experience in materials preparation either, as they had been receiving textbooks from Moscow before. Some teachers did compile the materials for their classes, but, usually, these materials were never published and were lost as soon as their author stopped teaching the specific discipline. Another problem was the shift of priorities in translator and interpreter training. In the Soviet times, the main areas of translator training were socio-political (with a substantial emphasis on the communist ideology) and military (upon graduation, most translation department students had to serve as military translators at least for two years). Discussions of literary translation problems were popular as well, while specialized translation was generally limited to one scientific or technological domain that was randomly selected by the teacher and depended on the latter’s preferences or the available teaching materials. On the other hand, at the end of the twentieth century, it was becoming ever more evident that despite the increasing volume of literary translation, the demand for specialized translation, whose share exceeded 90%, was growing fast. Specifically, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, as compared with the late 1970s, its amount within the European Union increased more than a thousandfold. Moreover, the need for sociocultural adaptation of specialized texts, including soware products, expanded the content of cross-lingual mediation, adding localization to translation proper (Mishchenko 2012). The shift in priorities resulted in the corresponding modifications in the views on the content of professional translator training. Theoretical journals started publishing papers discussing the specifics of specialized translation and its teaching in the domains of medicine (Wakabayashi 1996) and law (Harvey 2002). By the end of the second millennium, there was a serious interest in the use of bilingual corpora in teaching translation (Bowker 1998; Malmkjaer 1998; Zanettin 1998; Maniez 2001). Thus, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, some attempts had been made to study the problems of specialized translation, but they were isolated and caused by accidental factors (such as the emergence of bilingual terminological corpora) beyond the teaching methodology or any theoretical model of such instruction. Solving these problems required the accomplishment of a series of interrelated tasks. 1) 2) 3) Developing a model of translator/interpreter training in Ukrainian universities. This task involved several objectives: compiling the list of the necessary knowledge and skills, i.e. identifying the composition of the translator’s/interpreter’s professional competence; outlining the aims, principles, methods, and content of teaching; developing the system of assessing the translator/interpreter competence components; Outlining the domains and, respectively, the subject knowledge and terminology required for the efficient translation within them; Formulating the principles of the system of exercises and tasks to be used in the development of teaching materials for each type of translation and interpreting, as well as for the complexes of exercise and tasks within each thematic cycle; 103 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N 4) 5) Developing the system of translation and interpreting assessment in the current, intermediate, and final testing; Implementing the above model through its experimental testing and the introduction of the corresponding teaching materials into the translator/interpreter training process. The solution of the tasks described above required motivated teachers with sufficient experience in teaching specialized translation and interpreting. In addition, they had to have certain professional training and experience in the development of teaching models, systems of exercises and tasks, textbooks, and other teaching materials, as well as in planning and conducting experimental teaching, processing its results, and formulation of conclusions. There were some problems in this respect, as the Kyiv center, as well as another major translation stronghold, Ivan Franko National University at Lviv, traditionally focused on literary translation. Moreover, the institutionalized translator training in Lviv started only in 1996, i.e. 30–34 years later than in Kharkiv and Kyiv respectively, and it took the university some time to accumulate the necessary experience there. The circumstances at that time were such that the professionals who met the requirements happened to be available at the English Translation Department (the current name – Mykola Lukash Translation Studies Department) of the V.N. Karazin National University in Kharkiv. It was mainly due to their effort that the solution of these tasks was carried out for at least the first 10–15 years, before a new generation of translator training experts joined them later (see further). The results of their work are presented below. Translator/Interpreter Training Model. To provide for the theoretical basis, the general concept of further research was formulated in several publications in the early 2000s (Chernovaty andHanicheva 2002; Chernovaty 2003; Chernovaty 2004). The subsequent research by the teachers and post-graduate students of the department, as well as the international practice (EN 15038 2006; EMT 2009; ISO 17100 2015) and the experience accumulated in the preparation and experimental testing of teaching materials culminated in the development of the Translator/Interpreter Training Model based on several approaches. The competence approach is generally based on the PACTE translation competence model (PACTE 2000), though it has certain distinctions as well. As far as the general translation competence is concerned, this model includes the bilingual, extralinguistic, translation, personal and strategic components. The technological competence model developed by the department (Chernovaty and Olkhovska 2022) specifies the elements of that particular module. The aim of the training involves a systematic, focused, and integral development of the subcompetences described. The comprehensive approach is related to the parallel development of translation (sub)skills in oral (visual, consecutive, simultaneous) and written (equivalent and heterovalent) forms in the course of the modular, mutually complementary, and specific-domain approaches’ implementation. The specific-domain approach favours specialized translation/interpreting as opposed to the translation of fiction, in line with the former’s share in the total volume of global translation and the world’s tendencies in translator/interpreter training. The 104 Methodology of specialised translator and interpreter training in Ukraine relevance of a specific domain for translator training depends on the degree of its likelihood in the future work of the graduate, while the sequence of domains depends on their conceptual complexity: simpler domains go first, followed by more complicated ones. The selection of the domains, in its turn, is based on a number of principles. According to the pragmatic value principle, the preference is given to the domains that provide a greater amount of subject knowledge and terminology, which the students are more likely to come across in their future work. The modular approach provides for the division of the entire training course into one-credit (30-hour) modules, each of them being related to a specific domain (society, politics, science, technology, economics, law, etc.). The combinatory approach allows for the flexible combination of the modules to meet the changing requirements of the translation/interpreting market, removing some of them and substituting them with others, related to the new domains. The systemic approach applies to devising sets of exercises within a specific module based on the general translation/interpreting exercise system principles designed by the Translation Studies Department (Chernovaty and Kovalchuk 2019). The mutually complementary approach means that each undergraduate level module suggests skills for both interpreting (mostly in-class) and translation (mostly self-study); skills of both forms of translation mutually complement each other contributing to the development of the professional translator/interpreter’s competence in general. The cyclic approach applies to the organization of exercises and tasks in the form of cycles, which are related to one text of a specific topic or subtopic. On the basis of this text, students perform exercises and tasks (preparatory, for the development of automatized subskills, and for complex skills). The correlation of tasks depends on the position of the particular cycle within the thematic module, in line with the characteristics of the system of exercises and tasks developed at the department. The system of the students’ translation and interpreting assessment, developed within the translator training model, is based on the differential approach to the evaluation of different types of translation and interpreting assessment, taking into account the specific characteristics of each of them (Chernovaty 2013). The model under discussion is being used (with natural adaptations depending on the local specifics and their own interpretation) at many Ukrainian translator/ interpreter training centers. This model is constantly developing alongside the development of the overall educational system and does not significantly depend on its authors. The year 2003 saw the launching of the DictumFactum project (founded by the Kharkiv and Kyiv translation departments), which aimed at the development, testing, and publication of the teaching materials within the framework of the model described above. To involve teachers from other universities in the research and teaching activities, the Ukrainian Translator Trainers Union (UTTU) was founded in 2013 alongside with a new UTTU series. The technical support for both projects is provided by “Nova Knyha” Publishers. The first textbook in the DictumFactum series was devoted to the field of law. In addition to the importance of the domain itself, the series co-editor, Viacheslav 105 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N Karaban, had by then finished two big Ukrainian-English and English-Ukrainian law dictionaries (over 70,000 terms each; published in 2003 and 2004 by Nova Knyha) and was ready for editing legal texts. Besides, the Ohio Bar Association permitted to use their popular brochure TheLawandYou as the source of the textbook texts selection. It was a lucky chance because the brochure was compiled by professional lawyers but was intended for a wide readership. It was therefore ideal for a translator-training textbook, as the students (as well as their teachers) did not specialize in law either. The processing of the texts into a textbook required a system of exercises and tasks, the principles for which were formulated at the Kharkiv department. The book was first published in 2004 (Chernovaty, Karaban, and Ivanko 2004). It turned out to be in demand, and its four editions have been used for training lawyers, translators, and interpreters in many universities ever since. Other textbooks for training translators and interpreters in the domain of law include those devoted to human rights (Chernovaty et al. 2006) and the EU law (Chernovaty et al. 2021). Economics and socio-political domain. The following two textbooks were also published due to international cooperation. The US Embassy in Kyiv permitted to use its information materials as source of texts for the textbooks in the domains of economics (Chernovaty et al. 2005) and the US state government (Chernovaty et al. 2006). Teaching consecutive interpreting requires the use of interpreter’s shorthand. In order to provide for this skill, a methodology was developed in Kharkiv; it was then implemented in the textbook by the current head of the department Oleksandr Rebrii (2006). Since 2006, the textbook has seen several editions; it is used in many universities. Rebrii also applied the concept to the domain of international organizations, and his textbook The European Union and other international political, economic, financial and military organizations (2009) has been republished several times There are some difficulties in training students for whom English is the second foreign language. ey are related to the students’ insufficient knowledge of terminology related to politics. To solve the problem, the preparatory stage concept was suggested in Kharkiv, and it was implemented in the appropriate textbook for these EFL students (Chernovaty and Kotliarov 2005). Science and Technology. The first textbook for teaching translation in this domain was published in 2004 by Karaban (2004). It was followed by publications in Kharkiv: translation in the field of technology, electric and electronic equipment, metal production, and processing (Chernovaty, Karaban, and Omelianchuk 2006) and translation of patents written in cooperation with Kharkiv National Technical University (Chernovaty and Tsariova 2011). These textbooks were followed by other publications in the UTTU series in the areas of psychology (Chernovaty, Karaban, and Khomulenko 2012), technology (energy, natural resources, and transport) (Chernovaty et al. 2017a), natural sciences (algebra, geometry, physics, and chemistry) (Chernovaty et al. 2017b), and two textbooks in medicine (Chernovaty et al. 2019a; Chernovaty et al. 2019b). us, in less than twenty years, twenty-eight textbooks for teaching specialized translation have been published in the Dictum Factum and UTTU series. But the series is not restricted to these publications. It boasts anthologies on the history of Ukrainian 106 Methodology of specialised translator and interpreter training in Ukraine translation, including the volumes devoted to the famous Kharkiv translators and translation studies experts, like Oleksandr Finkel (Chernovaty, Karaban, and Kalnychenko 2007), Mykola Lukash (Chernovaty, Karaban, and Cherniakov 2009), Volodymyr Derzhavyn (Kalnychenko 2015), Vasyl Mysyk (Hrytsiv 2017). It also includes books on the history of Ukrainian translation in the 1920–1930s (Kalnychenko and Poliakova 2011), translation of the works by foreign translation studies authors, like, for example, the Benjamin’s five-volume Handbook of Translation Studies that is being carried out now (Kalnychenko and Chernovaty 2020–2022), as well as materials for teaching English to students majoring in translation, etc. However, the discussion of this part of the series is beyond the limits of the present article. Generalizing a short history of specialized translation teaching in Ukraine, we may distinguish a few milestones in its development. 2002. Publication of the first article outlining the tasks to be accomplished to develop the methodology of teaching specialized translation (Chernovaty and Hanicheva 2002). 2003. Launching of the Dictum Factum series and the publication of the first textbooks. 2007. e first completed Ph.D. dissertation on the methodology of teaching specialized translation, Mykola Lukash Translation Studies department (Hanicheva 2007). 2013. The publication of the first textbook on the methodology of translator and interpreter training and teaching (Chernovaty 2013). The textbook provided the basis for further research in the area and received over 300 citations in Google Academia. 2013. The foundation of the Ukrainian Translator Training Union (UTTU) and the UTTU series. 2016–2018. Active expansion of the research activities in Ukraine. Completion of several postdoctoral (Dr.Sc.) dissertations at different universities: Oleksandra Popova, Ilia Mechnikov National University in Odesa, on the model of professional translator training from Chinese (2016); Natalia Zinukova, Alfred Nobel University in Dnipro, on the methodology of the graduate level interpreter training in the domain of foreign economy (2017); Iryna Simkova, National Technical University of Ukraine, on the methodology of the undergraduate level interpreter training in the domain of technology (2018); Kateryna Skyba, Khmelnytskyi National University, on modernization of professional translator and interpreter training (2017); Eugeny Dolynskyi, Khmelnytskyi National University, on translator and interpreter training within the informational and educational university space (2018); Alla Olkhovska,V.N. Karazin National University in Kharkiv, on translator and interpreter training by means of information and communication technologies (2018). This qualitative leap may be regarded as evidence of the steady development of translator and interpreter training methodology in Ukraine. The methodology of translator and interpreter training is often regarded as applied translation studies or as part of the methodology of foreign language teaching. However, there are essential differences between these disciplines. While the object 107 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N of research in translation studies is the subject of the specific type of bilingual communication, the object of the methodology of translator and interpreter training is the development of this subject’s ability to provide for the specific type of bilingual communication. The objects and subjects of the methodology of teaching foreign languages, on the one hand, and the methodology of translator and interpreter training, on the other, coincide. However, they differ in the types of activity they teach. While in teaching foreign languages we deal with the development of the ability to conduct monolingual communication, the aim in translator and interpreter training is the ability to provide for bilingual (and intercultural) communication. This basic difference results in distinctions in the processes of monolingual communication, on the one hand, and translation, on the other. Despite reluctance, it seems reasonable to admit that, contrary to the popular belief, the methodology of translator and interpreter training as a science is not part of translation studies for the same reason that the methodology of foreign language teaching is not part of linguistics, or methodology of teaching physics is not part of physics. The methodology of teaching foreign languages was initially researched by linguists and, sometimes, psychologists. They tried to build it based on various linguistic (traditional grammar, structural linguistics, etc.) or psychological (conscious learning, subconscious acquisition, etc.) models. This work had gone a long way before there emerged a sufficiently big group of researchers who exclusively or primarily studied the problems of teaching and did not depend upon the changing fashions in linguistics or psychology. In the same way, there will emerge a group of researchers with a solid theoretical basis in respect to education in general and translation in particular. The global process of this transformation appears to be currently under way. Similarly, the Ukrainian methodology of translator and interpreter training seems to be in transition to become a separate full-fledged science. Taking into account the positive dynamics, its prospects of development both in theoretical (the study of the teaching model components) and practical (the development and publication of teaching materials) aspects seem to be encouraging.1 RE F ERE NCE S Bowker, Lynne. 1998. “Using Specialized Monolingual Native-Language Corpora as a Translation Resource: A Pilot Study.” Meta 43, 4: 631–651. Chernovaty, Leonid, and Alla Olkhovska. 2022. “Future interpreter’s componential technological competence model.” Information Technologies and Learning Tools 87, 1: 320–335. Chernovaty, Leonid, and Dmytro Kotliarov. 2005. Politychnyi pereklad: pershi kroky [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to politics. First steps], textbook for university students. Kharkiv: V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. Chernovaty, Leonid, and Natalia Kovalchuk. 2019. “Teaching non-fiction translation: the system of exercises and tasks.” Advanced Education 12: 5–11 1 Transliterating from Ukrainian has been carried out according to the current norms through the programme http://www.ukrlit.org. 108 Methodology of specialised translator and interpreter training in Ukraine Chernovaty, Leonid, and Svitlana Tsarova. 2011. Pereklad tekstiv anhlomovnykh zasobiv zakhystu intelektualnoi vlasnosti: patenty, znaky dlia tovariv ta posluh [Translation of the English-language instruments of intellectual property protection: patents, trademarks and service marks], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, and Tetiana Hanicheva. 2002. “Shliakhy optymizatsii pidhotovky perekladachiv v Ukraini” [Ways to improve translator/interpreter training in Ukraine]. Filolohichni studii 2: 198–204. Chernovaty, Leonid, Oleksandr Rebrii, Oleksandr Kalnychenko, Ihor Kamynin, Ludmyla Kovalenko, and Natalia Kovalchuk. 2019a. Pereklad anhlomovnykh tekstiv u sferi nadannia medychnoi dopomohy [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to medicine], textbook for university students. Part 1. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Oleksandr Rebrii, Kamila Voronina, Natalia Kovalchuk, Dmytro Kotliarov, and Tetiana Lukianova. 2019b. Pereklad anhlomovnykh tekstiv u sferi nadannia medychnoi dopomohy [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to medicine], textbook for university students. Part 2. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Oleksandr Rebrii, Oleksandr Kalnychenko, Ihor Kamynin, and Kamila Voronina. 2017a. Pereklad anhlomovnykh naukovo-tekhnichnykh tekstiv: enerhiia, pryrodni resursy, transport [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to science and technology: energy, natural resources, transport], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Oleksandr Rebrii, Oleksandr Kalnychenko, and Tetiana Lukianova. 2017b. Pereklad anhlomovnykh tekstiv u haluzi pryrodnychykh nauk: alhebra, heometriia, fizyka, khimiia [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to natural sciences: Algebra, Geometry, Physics, Chemistry], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Tetiana Komarova, Natalia Zinukova, and Iryna Lypko. 2021. Pereklad anhlomovnoho dyskursu v haluzi prava Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu [Translation and interpreting of the English-language European Law discourse], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Viacheslav Karaban, and Borys Cherniakov, eds. 2009. Mykola Lukash: Motsart ukrainskoho perekladu [Mykola Lukash – Mozart of Ukrainian Translation]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Viacheslav Karaban, and Oleksandr Kalnychenko, eds. 2007. Oleksandr Finkel – zabutyi teoretyk ukrainskoho perekladoznavstva [Oleksandr Finkel – a forgotten theoretician of Ukrainian Translation Studies]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Viacheslav Karaban, and Oleksandr Omelianchuk. 2006. Pereklad anhlomovnoi tekhnichnoi literatury. Elektrychne ta elektronne pobutove ustatkuvannia. Ofisne ustatkuvannia. Komunikatsiine ustatkuvannia Vyrobnytstvo ta obrobka metalu [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to technology. Electric and electronic consumer equipment. Office and communication equipment. Metal production and processing], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Viacheslav Karaban. and Tamara Khomulenko. 2012. Pereklad anhlomovnoi psykholohichnoi literatury [Translation and interpreting of the English- language discourse related to psychology], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Viacheslav Karaban, Iryna Penkova, and Iryna Yaroshchuk. 2005. Pereklad anhlomovnoi ekonomichnoi literatury. Ekonomika USA [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to the US economy], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. 109 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N Chernovaty, Leonid, Viacheslav Karaban, Olexandr Rebrii, Iryna Lypko, and Iryna Yaroshchuk. 2006. Systema derzhavnoho upravlinnia USA [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to the US government], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Viacheslav Karaban, Tetiana Hanicheva, and Iryna Lypko. 2006. Mizhnarodni konventsii u haluzi prav liudyny [Translation and interpreting of the English-language discourse related to international covenants on human rights], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid, Viacheslav Karaban, and Yulia Ivanko. 2004. Pereklad anhlomovnoi yurydychnoi literatury [Translation and interpreting of the US legal discourse], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid. 2013. Metodyka vykladannia perekladu yak spetsialnosti [Methodology of translator and interpreter training and teaching], textbook for university students]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Chernovaty, Leonid. 2004. “Problematyka doslidzhen u haluzi metodyky navchannia perekladu yak spetsialnosti” [Problems awaiting research in methodology of teaching translation as a major]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V.N. Karazina [Bulletin of V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University] 635: 192–197. Chernovaty, Leonid. 2003. “Pryntsypy pobudovy navchalno-metodychnykh materialiv dlia pidhotovky perekladachiv” [Principles of structuring teaching materials for translator/ interpreter training]. Visnyk SumDU. Seriia: Filolohichni nauky [Bulletin of Sumy State University. Philological sciences] 4, 50: 230–234. Dolynskyi, Yevheniy. 2018. Profesiina pidhotovka maibutnikh perekladachiv v umovakh informatsiino-osvitnoho seredovyshcha universytetu [Professional training of future translators under the condition of university information and education environment]. Khmelnytskyi: FOP Melnyk A.A. EMT. 2009. The EMT conception of translation competence. https://www.researchgate.net EN 15038. 2006. European Standard EN 15038. Translation services – Service requirements. http://qualitystandard.bs.en-15038.com Hanicheva, Tetiana. 2007. “Metodyka navchannia maibutnikh filolohiv usnoho anhlomovnoho dvostoronnoho perekladu u haluzi prav liudyny” [Methodology of teaching two-way interpreting in the domain of human rights]. Ph.D. dissertation, Kyiv National Linguistic University. Harvey, Malcolm. 2002. “What’s so special about legal translation?” Meta 47, 2: 177–185. Hrytsiv, Natalia. 2017. Vasyl Mysyk: Riznohrannyi diamant ukrainskoho khudozhnoho perekladu [Vasyl Mysyk: A multifaceted diamond of Ukrainian literary translation]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. ISO 17100. 2015. International Standard ISO 17100 Translation services. Requirements for translation services. https://www.austrian-standards Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Natalia Kalnychenko. 2021. “Teaching Translation: First University Courses in Translation Theory of the Early 1930s.” In Translation, Interpreting and Culture 2: Rehumanising Translation and Interpreting Studies. Banská Bystrica, Slovakia, 22–24 September 2021. Book of Abstracts, 9. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Leonid Chernovaty, eds. 2020–2022. Entsyklopediia perekladoznavstva [Encyclopedia of Translation Studies]. Translated from English. Vol. 1–3. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, and Yuliana Poliakova, eds. 2011. Ukrainska perekladoznavcha dumka 1920–kh – pochatku 1930–kh rokiv [Trends in Ukrainian Translation Studies in 1920s-early 1930s]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. 110 Methodology of specialised translator and interpreter training in Ukraine Kalnychenko, Oleksandr, ed. 2015. Volodymyr Derzhavyn [Volodymyr Derzhavyn]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Karaban, Viacheslav. 2004. Pereklad anhlomovnoi naukovo-tekhnichnoi literatury [Translation of English literature in science and technology], textbook for university students]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Malmkjaer, Kirsten. 1998. “Love thy Neighbour: Will Parallel Corpora Endear Linguists to Translators?” Meta 43, 4: 534–541. https://doi.org/10.7202/003545ar Maniez, Francois. 2001. “Extraction d’une phraséologie bilingue en langue de spécialité: corpus parallèles et corpus comparables.” Meta 46, 3: 552–563. https://doi.org/10.7202/003549ar Mishchenko, Alla. 2012. “Hlobalizatsiia ekonomiky ta svitovyi standart” [Globalization of economy and the world standard]. Naukovi zapysky. Seriia “Filolohichni nauky” [Scholarly Notes. Series: Philology] 105, 4: 373–378. Olkhovska, Alla. 2018. Rozvytok fakhovoi kompetentnosti mahistriv-perekladachiv zasobamy informatsiino-komunikatsiinykh tekhnolohii: teoriia i praktyka [Development of MA (majoring in Translation) students’ professional competence by means of IT technologies: Theory and practice]. Kharkiv: Planeta-Print. PACTE. 2000. “Acquiring Translation Competence: Hypotheses and Methodological Problems in a Research Project.” In: Beeby, Allison, Doris Ensinger, and Marisa Presas (eds.). Investigating Translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 99–106. Popova, Oleksandra. 2016. Profesiino-movlennieva pidhotovka maibutnikh perekladachiv kytaiskoi movy v umovakh universytetskoi pedahohichnoi osvity: teoretychnyi aspekt [Linguistic and professional training of future translators from Chinese: theoretical aspect]. Odesa: Atlant. Rebrii, Oleksandr. 2009. Yevropeiskyi Soiuz ta inshi mizhnarodni politychni, ekonomichni, finansovi ta viiskovi orhanizatsii [European Union and other international political, economic, financial and military organizations], textbook for university students. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Rebrii, Oleksandr. 2006. Osnovy perekladatskoho skoropysu [Basics of interpreter’s shorthand: textbook for university students]. Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha. Simkova, Iryna. 2018. Formuvannia v maibutnikh perekladachiv profesiinoi kompetentnosti v usnomu dvostoronnomu naukovo-tekhnichnomu perekladi [Development of the future translators’ professional competence in the two-way interpretation in the domain of science and technology]. Kyiv: KPI imeni Ihoria Sikorskoho. Skyba, Kateryna. 2017. Modernizatsiia profesiinoi pidhotovky perekladachiv: stratehichni oriientyry [Modernization of translators’ professional training: strategic guidelines]. Khmelnytskyi: Terminova polihrafiia. Wakabayashi, Judy. 1996. “Teaching medical translation.” Meta 41, 3: 356–365. Zanettin, Federico. 1998. “Bilingual Comparable Corpora and the Training of Translators.” Meta 43, 4: 616–630. Zinukova, Natalia. 2017. Usnyi perekladu zovnishnoekonomichnii sferi: teoriia i metodyka navchannia mahistriv-filolohiv [Interpreting in the foreign economics sphere: Theory and practice of teaching MA philologists]. Dnipro: Alfred Nobel University. 111 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N AB S TR AC T The article outlines the main developmental stages of the methodology of translator and interpreter training and teaching (MTITT) in Ukraine. The paper analyzes the prerequisites of its emergence, the characteristics of its initial stages, and the factors that influenced it in the Soviet period, as well as the complications in its progress in the early years of Ukraine’s independence. The author offers his model of training and teaching, as well as the principles of the teaching materials preparation. Taking into account the results of the analysis, the paper formulates the conclusion about the dynamic development of the MTITT in Ukraine and its promising prospects for the future. Key w o r d s : Methodology of training and teaching. Model of training and teaching. Teaching materials. Translators and interpreters. Ukraine. CON TACT D E TA I LS : Leonid Chernovaty, Doctor of Sciences (Pedagogy), Full Professor Mykola Lukash Translation Studies Department V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University 4 Svobody Sq. 61022 Kharkiv Ukraine & Department of English and American Studies Faculty of Arts Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica Tajovského 40 974 01 Banská Bystrica Slovak Republic leonid.m.chernovaty@meta.ua ORCID: 0000-0003-3411-9408 112 TR AN S LATI ON S TU DIE S -S PEC IF IC ME THO DO LO GICAL PR INC I PLE S – AN (U N )IN TE NTI ON A LLY NE GLE C TED AS PE CT O F TR AN SL ATIO N RE S EA RC H? V i a c h es la v Ka ra b a n – A n n a Ka ra b a n Rec ent deve l o p me n t s i n t ra n sl at i o n s tu d ie s met ho do l o gy an d a b ri ef h i s to r ic al exc u r su s As is well known, any full-fledged science should have its own research methodology in addition to its subject and object of study and terminological/conceptual apparatuses. Incidentally, the term “methodology” is ambiguous and has at least the following meanings: a) it is the study of existing and the development of new research methods, and b) it is a set of research principles (RPs) and approaches. Also, the methodology of science (in our case, translation studies – TS) must be distinguished from translation methodology, which deals with methods (techniques) of practical translating activities. In the past decade, the attention of translatologists to the TS methodology was increasingly growing. Several high-profile volumes and articles contributed to the studies of different methodological aspects, mainly research approaches and methods, as well as general TS methodology issues. These were works by Anthony Pym(2014), Gert De Sutter et al. (2017), Gabriela Saldanha and Sharon O’Brien (2014), Sandra Halverson and Álvaro Marín García (2021), and Jai Vasumathi Valli Rani (2018). Peter Flynn and Yves Gambier clearly indicate that methodology “can be considered as the hallmark or defining feature of a discipline or an approach within a discipline” (2011, 88). The importance of the role of methodology in TS was emphasized in the latest volume on TS methodology: “In order to navigate research territories, methodological considerations are needed as a way of interpreting the data and phenomena studied” (Zanettin and Rundle 2022, 2). In this respect, the following remark by Wilhelm Neunzig is worthy of translatologists’ attention: “Translation Studies can adapt and apply the well-defined tools used by the natural, social, or human sciences. Research problems associated with each field arise, in particular, at a methodological level: when choosing an approach, designing and planning the research and when gathering data... that can be used to validate our hypothesis” (2011, 17). Borrowing methodologies from other, even neighboring sciences, instead of developing TS-specific methodology and research tools was justifiably criticized by Flynn and Gambier, who argued that “[t]hese methodologies are built on a set of sometimes unarticulated assumptions and previously articulated givens and concepts that often are at odds with translation data” and that “outsourcing the problem of methodology to other disciplines may cause us to lose track of the intricate links 113 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N between (translation) phenomena and method. This would further involve our forsaking the rigor required to adapt and fine-tune a method in order to increase its explanatory power” (2011, 88–89). T S m eth o do l o gi ca l p r in c i p le s : an u n de r re s e arch e d a re a Flynn and Gambier concluded that “Translation Studies has gradually identified and articulated its own basic assumptions, methodological concerns, research criteria and questions” (2011, 89). In our opinion, this conclusion was made prematurely: as will be shown below, TS has failed to identify and clearly define its major methodological principles (MPs), which account for a very important portion of TS-specific methodology. The latest book on TS methodology aims primarily at “methodological tools that are currently in use” (Zanettin and Rundle 2022, 2). However, the volume is limited to TS research methods, and the references to RPs lack detail: “While approach and framework are terms used to refer to abstract theories and organisational principles, methods and techniques[,] [m]ethodology implies the application of these theories and principles to actual research” (2). Regretfully, neither the above volume nor the other abovementioned publications refer to or, more so, discuss TS-specific MPs. Our analysis of TS literature makes it possible to argue that methodological and research principles have been practically ignored by translation scholars for a long time. On the Internet, one cannot find any mention of TS-specific MPs or of the fact that such principles are important for the further development of the TS methodology and translation theory, even though this aspect of TS methodology is very important and essentially necessary for translation research. In this respect, one may recall that as early as the first decades of the 1900s, the role of RPs was strongly emphasized by Harrington Emerson, a practitioner of scientific management, who wrote: “The man who grasps principles can successfully handle his own methods. The man who tries methods, ignoring principles, is sure to have trouble” (1911, 86). Around the same time, philosopher and educationist Ernest Albee also argued for the importance of MPs in scientific research (1906). Prospectively, this may clearly indicate that correct principles or research in the hands of the average researcher are more robust than the haphazard and/or random attempts of experts. Met ho do l o gi ca l p ri n ci p l e s o f sci e n t i f i c re se a rch Scientific principles are statements generally accepted by most representatives of a particular science about why and how something exists or happens. In the TS case, these are statements about what happens in translating and how to research this. An MP is a culmination of scientific laws, theories, and regularities that have been previously studied. As the experiences of methodologies in more developed sciences (such as natural ones) show, any scientific inquiry must be based on a small set of important assumptions or principles. A particular science-specific methodology is most often defined as a set of research methods, principles, and techniques used in 114 Tr a n s l a t i o n s t u d i e s - s p e c i f i c m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . . . a specific branch of science. An interesting instance of registering scientific principles can be Dictionary of Scientific Principles by Stephen Marvin (2011). MPs (sometimes also called regulative or research principles) are a set of rules that should guide researchers in their work and determine the direction and nature of research inquiry. As methodological guidelines to the discipline, such principles influence both empirical studies and theory-making. In cognition, MPs play the role of a filter, as they make researchers choose specific goals and means and discard others. MPs are brief theoretical statements and proven postulates that summarize the achievements of science in a particular area; they serve as guidelines for further translation research. The sources of science-specific MPs are general philosophical principles, general scientific MPs, TS observations, generalities, and regularities. T S m et h o do l o gi ca l p r in c ip l e s A special methodology is expected to have a system of MPs used within a given science, including TS (Karaban 2019, 155). Such principles are the basic premise underlying the requirements for the content of a methodology. Special methodology, especially MPs, allow and facilitate us to formulate laws or regularities and research guidelines relating to the specific features of the formation, development, and functioning of the TS phenomena. The MPs now seem to be an underresearched aspect of TS, it is an aspect that was probably almost neglected. Methodology does not consist purely in the analysis and development of methods of studying objects of research in line with the area of knowledge; – methodological tasks also include the formulation of science-specific MPs, in our case, TS MPs. Therefore, TS and its methodology may want to search for meaningful MPs of translation research. The abundance of new approaches currently includes complexity paradigm, cognitive endeavors, synergetics borrowings, ecological bend, etc.: such a paradoxical momentum in the course of TS development reflects in the impetus of its methodological self-cognition: “The need for a methodological study arises in a situation where the available theoretical and empirical material is insufficient” (Yolon 2002, 375).1 Admittedly, there are some weak points that hinder this aspect of TS methodology. ere is uncertainty about formulating translation research MPs. Very few monographs and textbooks are related to TS methodology with an emphasis on RPs, and there are practically no conferences with panels devoted to these issues. How can one explain why of all the TS branches, TS MPs as a key area is the least developed, although it is essential for the entire science of translation and the development of translation RPs? Why does it lag behind developments in most fields of TS? The following negative factors might suggest answers to this question: 1) 2) 1 The difficulties in research and development demand absolute awareness of what has been done in TS. The lack of interest of translation researchers in methodology issues. In the methodology itself, much is left unclear in its subject, in the questions of the Translation by the present authors. 115 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N 3) 4) juxtaposition of methodological and theoretical problems of science and the juxtaposition of methodology and philosophy. e need for a system for teaching general science and applied science methodology in higher educational institutions. The university curricula currently do not provide for these courses at all. Neglect of methodology on the part of translation scholars due to the lack of awareness of the importance of methodology in the development of science. In general, translation scholars are likely to disregard methodology for many reasons. It is not only because it is a difficult field related to general scientific methodology but also because it may not be seen as worthy of translation scholars’ time and efforts, seemingly remote from translation research. Although TS methods are thus developing satisfactorily in many leading TS countries, another aspect of TS methodology – MPs – remains, indeed, unstudied. However, it may turn out that a seemingly tiny and neglected corner of discomfort is actually of great importance to our science, as it holds the promise for fundamental breakthroughs in some areas of TS. Generally, TS demonstrates very slow progress in identifying, defining, and describing MPs. What we really need in TS is MPs similar to Karcevskij’s principle of the asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign in linguistics (1929). Understandably, scientific principles tend to vary for the subject at hand. What are the ways of establishing scientific principles for translation research, then? We tentatively propose a number of the following requirements for identifying, defining, and formulating a TS-specific MP, which should: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) be based on general scientific MPs, common to all sciences, and with due account of research in TS; be a brief fundamental statement related to a major theoretical TS issue about the nature and characteristics of translating and translation; take into account the achievements of translation theory, adequately reflect translation practice, and not contradict the latter; facilitate the transparency, reliability, credibility, veracity, novelty, and quality of translation research; differentiate between typical and atypical translation phenomena and objects; allow to formulate most simple hypotheses; be immanent to the subject matter of TS and its conceptual apparatus; fulfill normative, constructive, and heuristic functions of all TS methodological means. T S met ho do l o gi ca l p ri n ci p l e s a n d t he de f i n i t io n o f t he TU Further on, we put forward and try to prove the following two working hypotheses: 1) 2) correct TS-specific MPs are crucial in solving some major theoretical problems of TS, and relying on such MPs, it is possible to find the solution to the problem of the translation unit (TU), which we claim to be a speech act (SA). 116 Tr a n s l a t i o n s t u d i e s - s p e c i f i c m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . . . e lines of proving the two hypotheses are as follows. First, it must be emphasized that one of the most important MPs in TS is the principle of differentiating translation as human activity (the translation process) (Vygotsky 1934, 267). Other important aspects are the result of such activity (the TT) and the priority of the translation process over the TT as its effect. The human activity of translating is primary, a prerequisite of TT, and the latter is dependent on the corresponding activity (this means that for TS and translation theory, the most important aspect is the translation process). The term TU refers to the unit taken for processing by the translator at a given time during the translation process. There is no consensus regarding the character and length of such units between translatologists who claim that the TU may be represented by various SL system elements from phoneme to sentence or the ST as a whole, or even a “sense/message quantum” (Kushnina 2019) and “translateme” (Odrekhivs’ka 2016). Language units, however, cannot be TUs because they have different major features: phoneme ≠ morpheme, morpheme ≠ word, word-group ≠ sentence, sentence ≠ SA, polypredicative structure≠ compound speech act. They are not units of mental and verbal activity but constitute a mental-linguistic act (simple or compound) or, simply, an SA. Texts are artifacts; they are only results of activity but not units of translation activity, and they are not manageable as units of translation at all. A translateme cannot be a TU, for it cannot be defined in terms of such a physical parameter as length but can be expressed by linguistic elements of various levels. What are, then, the TU misconceptions? One of them consists in ignoring MPs of research in translation studies. The most important principle here is the principle of determinism: the translation process as a cause takes precedence over the product of translation as an effect. Therefore, the former is a human activity in which only units can be singled out, and it is the locus of the TU. The translation is a process of conveying sense/message in discourse rather than meanings of individual linguistic elements or their combinations. Sense (not meaning) can be found only in speech because only speech carries meaning; it is contextual and has a purpose (intention). Speech is comprised of SA units. Another misconception of our predecessors who tried to define the TU is that they neglected the (correct) definition of the term unit, which is a separate entity “regarded as single and complete but which can also form an individual component of a larger and more complex whole: importantly” (Lexico Dictionaries, n.d.). Units can only be components of human activity (in our case translation activity), whereas elements can only be components of static objects (artifacts) (in our case translation result/product). Considering this important MP allows us to solve the TU problem correctly based on TS MPs. To do so, we propose that the criteria for the definition of TU are as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) presence in speech produced in any human language; sense-(or message-) bearing (not only meaning-bearing); linguistic and/or situational contextualization, identity of the main characteristics in relation to other speech units; subjection to rules of use; and 117 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N 6) easy identifiability in form, content, and intention (proposition, illocution, and perlocution). Obviously, according to these criteria, only SA can be a TU. S p eech a ct s a s TU s e speech act in context (hereinaer – SA) is a purposeful mental and speech action or activity performed in accordance with the principles and rules of speech behavior accepted in a certain speech community. It is a minimal unit of normative sociolinguistic behavior considered within a pragmatic situation. As a SA is a unit of speech activity, its analysis uses essentially the same categories necessary to characterize and evaluate any action: subject, purpose, means, instrument, result, conditions, and success. A sentence (one-, two-member, or complex) is an “ectype” of a SA or otherwise a polypredicative asyndetic unit present in a text as a result of its performance. As any activity and all its units (unlike the elements of static resultant objects and artifacts), the ST and TT authors’ SAs are characterized by approximately the same basic features and parameters: propositionality, intentionality/purposefulness (illocutionary and perlocutionary force), situational embeddedness and contextualization, intelligibility (comprehensibility, i.e., conformity with language regularities and norms), and conventionality (conditions of use). The validity of these considerations and methodological evidence of SAs acting as TUs is confirmed by the extensive practice of translating texts, where the translator translates SAs alternately in both oral and written activities, leaving sentences in the texts as their “ectypes.” Following the general scientific MP of correspondence of theory to practice, another argument in favor of the discussed TS-specific MPs and the definition of the SA as the TU can find its justification in comparing the number of SA “ectypes” (sentences in context) in ST and TT, which should be approximately the same. The correctness of the assumption about the nature and characteristics of TUs is confirmed by our calculations of the difference in the number of sentences in seven English source texts of O. Henry’s (2010) short stories (979 sentences) and their translations (Henri 2017) into Ukrainian (1038 sentences). The comparison showed the sentence number variance of not more than three to nine percent, with an average of six percent). Further analysis of ten Ukrainian novels – (Dovzhenko 2017), (Honchar 1968), (Pidmohylny 2017), (Prokhasko 2018), (Vovchok 1862), (Zabuzhko 2007; 2010), (Zhadan 2004; 2010; 2017) 55,394 sentences in total – and their English translations – (Dovzhenko 1982), (Honchar 1989), (Pidmohylny 2014; 2018), (Prokhasko 2007; 2011), (Vovchok 1983), (Zabuzhko 2011; 2012), (Zhadan 2016; 2018; 2019) – with the total of 48,827 sentences – registered the sentence number variation range from 96% to 144% that makes an average of thirteen percent. Quite logically, the sentence number variation increases with a greater length of the ST (from a short story to a novel). In the case of novels, this can be explained by a greater number of compound and complex sentences, by the addition of sentences to clarify the information in the ST, and by the textual features of the respective pair. Notably, similar results for various language pairs were obtained by Magnus Merkel (2001). Harry Huang and Canzhong Wu also showed that 87% of translators translate sentence after sentence in context more often than not, and 96% often 118 Tr a n s l a t i o n s t u d i e s - s p e c i f i c m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . . . translate sentence after sentence, while 4% rarely or never translate sentence after sentence (2009, 125). Thus, the ST author, using appropriate SAs with due account of the SL usage, produces the ST, and the translator, using his/her knowledge and skills and focusing on the sense (message) and form of the ST, produces SAs in the target language, making the TT into an “ST copy.” If accuracy is a translation requirement, it follows that the number of sentences as “ectypes” of SAs in the ST must be (approximately) the same as in the TT, for such is the requirement. It should be particularly noted that the TU might sometimes be confused with the following likely similar entities. However, according to the MP of differentiating between similar objects, they are, in fact, not SAs but elements of the SL or TL system or ST/TT and must not be misidentified or mistakenly called TUs. The sentence is the highest element in the hierarchy of the SL or TL systems with predicative parts – a subject and a verb that are actually “ectypes” of SAs. The translator’s orientation unit is an ST fragment, which enables the translator to start searching and/or choosing the solution. The translator focuses on the difficulty of translation (an ST linguistic element or group) that requires more than usual attention/effort. The translation evaluation unit is a TT linguistic element or a group of elements evaluated for equivalence/adequacy by the translator. An editing/revision unit is a TT linguistic element or a group of elements to be edited or revised. The discussion on identifying and defining the TUs testifies, in our opinion, to the great importance to be attached to the formulation and use of TS-specific MPs in theoretical research of translation. They should never be ignored when trying to find adequate solutions to complex problems in translation theory. The description of TS-specific MPs will be concluded with a suggested list of other possible candidates for such principles: • • • • • the principle of reality – typical and atypical objects and phenomena of translation should be distinguished among the objects of research; the holism principle – the whole in translation is greater than the sum of its parts; identification of the most important aspects (things) in translation that functions as a guideline for other principles (for example, language usage is critical as the final filter of the translator’s speech norms); the ST and TT are not identical entities, they are only (very) similar ones; translation is more complex than we perceive it. Co n cl u si o n To our knowledge, this is the first detailed discussion of TS-specific TPs contributing to the development of TS methodology and description of special TPs. It demonstrates their important role in adequately solving the problem of the TU-based general scientific and TS-specific MPs. TS-specific MPs are proved to be instrumental in identifying and defining SAs as TUs. It also convincingly shows that TS-specific MPs are extremely understudied and deserve much greater attention from the translation studies community. It also proves that TS-specific MPs are very likely to be important and effective in addressing theoretical problems of translation studies. 119 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N We are convinced that it is essential to increase methodological awareness, including that of TPs, in translation scholars in every possible way. Methodological knowledge and constructs become operative only when they are included in the cognitive process through their assimilation by the researcher and their transformation into facts of methodological consciousness, given that this is also a special type of interaction between translation theory and practice. The translation community can reasonably expect the world’s leading translation scholars to make a greater effort to address the problem of TS-specific MPs. Hopefully, this will give methodological research in the field of TS the necessary impetus to advance both the development of TS research methods, approaches, and theoretical issues and a more detailed elaboration of TS MPs. RE F ERE NCE S Albee, Ernest. 1906. “The Significance of Methodological Principles.” The Philosophical Review 15, 3: 267–276. Flynn, Peter and Yves Gambier. 2011. “Methodology in translation studies.” In Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1), ed. by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 88–96. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. De Sutter, Gert, Marie-Aude Lefer, and Isabelle Delaere, eds. 2017. Empirical Translation Studies: New Methodological and Theoretical Traditions. Berlin, Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Dovzhenko, Oleksandr. 1982. The Enchanted Desna. Trans. by Anatole Bilenko. Kyiv: Dnipro. Dovzhenko, Oleksandr. 2017. Zacharovana Desna. Kharkiv: Folio. Emerson, Harrington. 1911. Speech published in “The Convention: Fifteenth Annual Convention of the National Association of Clothiers.” e Clothier and Furnisher. Vol. 78: 6. Halverson, Sandra and Álvaro Marín García, eds. 2021. Contesting Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies. New York: Routledge. Henri, O. 2017. Opovidannia. Trans. by Volodymyr Horbatko, Yurii Ivanov. Kharkiv: Folio. Henry, O. 2010. The best short stories of O. Henry. New York: Modern Library. Honchar, Oles. 1968. Sobor. Kyiv: Dnipro. Honchar, Oles. 1989. The Cathedral. Trans. by Yuri Tkach, Leonid Rudnytzky. Washington: St. Sophia Religious Association of Ukrainian Catholics. Huang, Harry, and Canzhong Wu. 2009. “The unit of translation: Statistics speak.” Meta: journal des traducteurs/Meta: Translators’ Journal, 54.1: 110–130. Karaban, Viacheslav. 2019. “Notatky pro suchasnyi stan metodolohii vitchyznianoho perekladoznavstva.” In Pereiaslav Linguistic Convention: the First International Scientific and Practical Conference Proceedings, 153–156. Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi: PereiaslavKhmelnytskyi Hryhorii Skovoroda State Pedagogical University. Karcevskij, Sergei. 1929. “Du dualisme asymétrique du signe linguistique.” Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 1: 88–93. Kushnina, Liuydmila. 2019. “Translation systematicity in the light of epistemic paradigm.” Mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya: lingvisticheskiye aspekty. 141–152. Lexico Dictionaries n.d. “Unit” in Lexico.com. Accessed on 25 June, 2022. https://www.lexico.com/definition/unit. Marvin, Stephen, ed. 2012. Dictionary of scientific principles. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Merkel, Magnus. 2001. “Comparing source and target texts in a translation corpus.” In Proceedings of the 13th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics (NODALIDA 2001). Uppsala: Department of Linguistics, Uppsala University. 120 Tr a n s l a t i o n s t u d i e s - s p e c i f i c m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r i n c i p l e s . . . Neunzig, Wilhelm. 2011. “Empirical studies in translation: Methodological and epistemological questions.” TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 24, 2: 15–39. Odrekhivs’ka, Iryna. 2016. “The philosophy of Viktor Koptilov’s translation studies concept: from metacriticism to translation theory.” Accessed on December 22, 2022. http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/vduepf_2016_2_43. Pidmohylny, Valerian. 2014. “The City. Part 1.” Trans. by Maxim Tarnawsky. Ukrainian Literature. A Journal of Translations.4: 11–103. Toronto: Shevchenko Scientific Society of Canada. Pidmohylny, Valerian. 2017. Misto. Kyiv: Osnovy. Pidmohylny, Valerian. 2018. “The City. Part 2.” Trans. by Maxim Tarnawsky. Ukrainian Literature. A Journal of Translations. 5: 105–233. Toronto: Shevchenko Scientific Society of Canada. Prokhasko, Taras. 2007. “e UnSimple. Part 1.” Trans. by Uilleam Blacker. Ukrainian Literature. A Journal of Translations. 2: 8–52. Toronto: Shevchenko Scientific Society of Canada. Prokhasko, Taras. 2011. “e UnSimple. Part 2.” Trans. by Uilleam Blacker. Ukrainian Literature. A Journal of Translations. 3: 58–115. Toronto: Shevchenko Scientific Society of Canada. Prokhasko, Taras. 2018. NeprOsti. Lviv: Terra Incognita. Pym, Anthony. 2014. Method in translation history. London: Routledge. Rani, Jai Vasumathi Valli. 2018. “Methodologies of Translation.” IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science. 2/1: 1– 4. Saldanha, Gabriela and Sharon O’Brien. 2014. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. New York: Routledge. Vygotsky, Lev. 1934. Myshlenie i rech. Psihologicheskoeissledovanie. Moscow, Leningrad: Sotsial‘no-ekonomicheskoe Izdatel‘stvo. Vovchok, Marko. 1862. “Instytutka.” Osnova 3: 34–77. Vovchok, Marko. 1983. After Finishing School. Trans. by Oles Kovalenko. Kyiv: Dnipro. Yolon, Petro. 2002. “Metodolohiia nauky.” In Filosofskyi entsyklopedychhnyi slovnyk, ed. by Volodymyr Shynkaruk, 374–376. Kyiv: Abrys. Zabuzhko, Oksana. 2007. Poliovi doslidzhennia z ukrainskoho seksu. Kyiv: Fakt. Zabuzhko, Oksana. 2010. Muzei pokynutykh sekretiv. Kyiv: Fakt. Zabuzhko, Oksana. 2011. Fieldwork in Ukrainian Sex. Trans. by Halyna Hryn. Las Vegas: Amazon Crossing. Zabuzhko, Oksana. 2012. The Museum of Abandoned Secrets. Trans. by Halyna Hryn. Las Vegas: Amazon Crossing. Zanettin, Federico and Christopher Rundle. 2022. “Methodology in Translation studies: An introduction.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Methodology, ed. by Federico Zanettin and Christopher Rundle, 1–8. London and New York: Routledge. Zhadan, Serhii. 2004. Depesh Mod. Kharkiv: Folio. Zhadan, Serhii. 2010. Voroshylovgrad. Kharkiv: Folio. Zhadan, Serhii. 2016. Voroshilovgrad. Trans. by Isaac Stackhouse Wheeler and Reilly Costigan-Humes. Deep Vellum Publishing. Zhadan, Serhii. 2017. Internat. Chernivtsi: Meridian Czernowitz. Zhadan, Serhii. 2018. Depeche Mode. Trans. by Myroslav Shkandrij. London: Glagoslav Publications. Zhadan, Serhii. 2019. The Orphanage. Trans. by Isaac Stackhouse Wheeler and Reilly Costigan-Humes. New Haven: Yale University Press. 121 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N AB S TR AC T The paper justifies the need to pay more attention to the methodological principles of translation studies and their important role in solving theoretical problems of translation research, an example of which is solving the long-standing problem of defining the translation unit (TU). The paper discusses two hypotheses regarding the role of such principles in translation studies and the speech act as the TU. Keywords: Translation studies methodology. Methodological principle. Translation unit. Speech act. CO NTACT D ETAI LS : Viacheslav Karaban, Full Professor Department of the Theory and Practice of Translation from English Educational and Scientific Institute of Philology Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 14 Taras Shevchenko Blvd. 01601 Kyiv Ukraine v.karaban@knu.ua ORCID: 0000-0002-4229-2641 Anna Karaban, Associate Professor Department of English Philology and Intercultural Communication Educational and Scientific Institute of Philology Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 14 Taras Shevchenko Blvd. 01601 Kyiv Ukraine a.karaban@knu.ua ORCID: 0000-0002-1101-4227 122 COM PAR ATI VE S TU DIE S OF H IS TORY, R EL IGIO N AND TR AN S LATI ON : TH R EE DIS CIPL IN ES AT ON E LIT U RGICAL C RO S S ROA DS Ta ras S h m ih er Dedicated with the deepest respect and gratitude to Slovaks and all Europeans for your support of Ukraine in the torturous year 2022. In the impenetrable thicket of humanity Where dismal gloom has made its dreadful lair, Where the blind earth nonchalantly sucks The blood of the worst and the best of us, ... It is only a feeble ray of human warmth That alone brings some comfort to our hearts. Hryhoriy Kochur, translated by Lada Kolomiyets A Ukrainian apocrypha tells a story of how humans learnt from nature by using comparisons. Abel had been lying dead and unburied for thirty years when the grieving Adam saw one dove die, and another bury it. Therefore, Adam buried Abel and stopped grieving (Apokrify 1896, 9). This story, extracted from a seventeenthcentury manuscript, described what cognitivists traced long afterward: a great mental capacity of conceptual comparison and blending, which occurred 50,000 years ago, which developed an unprecedented power to evolve and innovate (Fauconnier and Turner 2002, v). This cognitive revolution changed the historical dynamics of human progress and civilization drastically. The aim of this article1 is to dwell upon the ability of comparative studies to advance the exploration of liturgical translation in the domains of translation theory and history. 1 This article is part of the future book “Liturgical translation in Ukraine and Poland: a comparative approach to text, religion, and culture” which is the result of the project made possible through Scholarship Grant No. 52110864 from the International Visegrad Fund. The project was implemented at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University (Lublin, Poland) under the supervision of Prof. Magdalena Mitura. 123 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N Co mp a ri so n a n d co n t ra s t In linguistics, the view has been stabilized that comparison only covers similarities and is good for typological aims (Tötösy de Zepetnek 2006, 352), while contrast is used to study both similarities and dissimilarities and, thus, fits the systematic description. In the exploration of a specific language pair (or a culture pair), it is possible to identify and interpret the convergent and divergent features of phenomenal systems. The epistemological value of comparison is recognized as an important tool to study the discipline and its tendencies. Comparative/contrastive studies are known in humanities and sciences. Comparison is seen as an immanent part of cognition and a fundamental logical means of cognizing the world (Saidov 2006, 1–2). The need for classification generates a skill of being more critical towards the compared objects and deepens the interpretation of these phenomena, their relations, and statuses as well as their viable and hierarchical systematicity. In history, comparative studies have triggered debates about the drawbacks and limitations of the national focus: “To limit the subject of historical study within national boundaries is always to invite the charge of narrow perspective and historical nationalism” (Woodward 1997, 3). The perspective uncovers neglected, forgotten or considered-to-be-minor facts that, vice versa, are the smallest detail to complete the solid puzzle. In historical studies, even terms like nation and national are often misinterpreted and misused deliberately or accidentally. There are many practical definitions of the word nation as “a relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country,” “the territory occupied by such a group of people,” “the government of a sovereign state,” “a people who share common customs, origins, history, and frequently language; a nationality” (American, 2018, 1173). These definitions are rejected, because some historians turn out to see everything connected with a “nation” through the lens of different historical and political concepts: nation-state is really a strict social formation, but it should not overshadow geographical, ethnic, lingual associations which are applicable to describing social entities beyond the Modern time. History studies can benefit from the understanding of the major contradiction: on the one hand, each history is unique and distinctive; on the other hand, it shares a lot of common and universal civilizational features, which construct the human race. This contradiction does not elucidate topics remaining on the line between parochialism andcosmopolitanism, but, strictly epistemologically, it helps combine uneven knowledge from different research domains in order to demonstrate the unitary civilization’s smoothness and continuity. A number of comparative cultural studies (Chrisomalis 1993; Hodgson 1993; Shulman, Stroumsa 1999; Vulfson 2003) have helped shape visions of what researchers are welcome to explore in our civilizational history. They can be applied to the following aspects of translation: 1) stable correspondences are demonstratively efficient criteria for describing material under study, though their stability is to be studied in dynamics when different historical periods need different axiological categories for assessing reception; 124 Comparative studies of histor y, religion and translation... 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) in the existing system of nations’ historical progress, symmetrical and asymmetrical oppositions equally identify parameters for juxtaposing translation milieus and products, meanwhile asymmetries are even more thought-provoking for searching the in-depth factors of civilizational progress; acceptance can be regarded as a value for identifying a specific set of historical phenomena whose status is temporarily canonized by a longer tradition or by a shorter public acknowledgment; all phenomena contain a culturally specific sense, but if the awareness of this sense is not recognized by the majority of the readership, thus the misbalance of power in two traditions becomes an additional point of attention; liminality and centrality are parameters which can explain how flexible and changeable power can be in the dynamics of civilizational progress; the object of research is the topoi of historical – in our case, historically religious – experience, the continuity of which is witnessed in the context of interregional cooperation and change. Any comparison is not an end in itself without the boundaries set up by other methods (Saidov 2006, 8), and its aims are within the partial methods of a discipline. In translation studies, they strive for discovering the multifacetedness of translation phenomena: their agents (personalities and institutions), their products (direct and indirect results), their targets (individual readers and reading communities), their implementing ways (like texts and paratexts, levels of introspection), their temporal boundaries (effective here and now or effective in medium- and long-term prospects), their spatial locations (milieus and their hierarchies). James Holmes’ map of translation studies will provide more ideas for partial comparative studies (Holmes 1988, 67–79). C o mp a ri n g hi s to ri e s a n d so ci et i e s History is often mistaken for chronology (which is its part) and is interpreted as a collection of facts (this is true only partially). Summarizing the studies of history in general and those of translation history in particular, researchers have identified the following theoretical lines of investigation: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) the nature of changes: each translation has appeared for a reason and has agents, whose qualifications determine textual changes of a translation and linguopoetical fluctuations of the literary process; there are also different ways a translation influences its readership; activity: who and how can participate in these transformations (gender, social or ethnic groups as creators; controversies between an individual and a group): teleology: this point helps penetrate the asymmetry between the aim and the result of doing a specific translation; prognostication: each text can generate transformations for a number of similar or dependent texts in spatial and temporal dimensions; producers and consumers: in the social hierarchy, the role of translators can be a major factor in shaping a literary canon, but they also transfer values of their authorities for manipulating reading communities; 125 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N 6) histotainment is not applicable to this domain of history studies, but market may demand everything soon. These parts of literary history can contribute to writing the history of a national literature that incorporates original writings and translations, social categories as well as lines of perception and reception. The plurality of approaches and topics means that histories can be written and interpreted in various directions. One of these directions is comparative; it serves both the source and the aim of a study, as the very comparison draws attention to neglected facts and makes the researcher think over why dissimilarities have appeared during phenomenal progress in two different national traditions. From this perspective, this approach should be called contrastive, but the term comparative still dominates. Mark Bloch differentiates two types of comparison for historical purposes (Hill 1980, 830): 1) 2) universal comparison (when societies under study are separated in time and distance); historical comparison (when a historian’s focus is on neighbouring and contemporary societies). Liturgical traditions are better to explore on the examples of contacting societies, as the differences revealed elucidate the dynamics of civilizational advance. The Ukrainian and Polish liturgical traditions constitute a good object for comparative research, because, on the one hand, they represent the same geographical area – Central/Eastern Europe, and, on the other hand, they inherited the opposite – Eastern and Western – branches of Christianity. In a way, this comparison returns us to a millennium-old discussion of “whose faith is better,” but nowadays, scholars have no necessity to simplify this historical and theological complexity, and they have opportunities to observe civilizational dynamics in order to build a larger picture later. In Milan Kundera’s ironical words, “the part of Europe situated geographically in the centre – culturally in the West and politically in the East” – is in the focus of attention (Kundera 1984, 33). The prospects of the comparative history of liturgical translation can be shaped according to the following research areas or lines: 1) 2) 3) the Liturgy and the development of Language: the sacredness of a language is perceived as a cultural and theological value; a language was designed for liturgical and evangelistic purposes (Church Slavonic); liturgical texts need retranslations which reflect a reading community’s current religious experience; the Liturgy and the development of Literature: religious writings substituted for the system of national literature in some periods; they successfully contributed to the formation of some genres of meditative lyrics and prose. the Liturgy and the development of music: the rise of ecclesiastical chants impacted the advance of national musical cultures; singing and instrumental arrangements contribute to religious hermeneutics; they can be generally regarded as instances of intersemiotic translation; 126 Comparative studies of histor y, religion and translation... 4) 5) 6) the Liturgy and the development of book culture: liturgical text has had a high status in the system of national book-printing histories; the role of some liturgical book types (like prayer books) supported the dissemination of literacy; he Liturgy and the development of ideas: Christian lexis changed people’s worldview; it helped them to move from physical mentality to more abstract forms; Christianity interacted with the elaboration of national law and aesthetics; the Liturgy and the development of societal mentality: historical, ethnic, and national milieus wereshaped around religious values; liturgical texts boosted national identities via translation in contexts of imperialism, exile, minorities, and newly independent countries. e civilizational changes orchestrated by religious praxis mirror the supranational and interregional evolution of worldview, cultural practices, and art forms. The unity of synchronic sections with diachronic excursuses reveals the beauty and richness of a nation’s spiritual life encrypted in translation phenomena. C o mp a ri n g re l i gi o n s a n d tex t s In an average conviction, religion is always connected or arranged in the word or via the word; thus, it is practiced in the text and via the text. The importance of the text for religious practices also means that this text has its identity, which is determined by its functionality, communicative efficiency, intertextuality, and even ethnicity along with sacredness. This is why, from the translation perspective, the comparison of religions coincides with the comparison of texts. The identity of liturgical texts is constructed around their being the object of sympathetic reactions and evangelical praxis. Their core lies in the interpretation of hymns and prayers as texts for distributing evangelization and sharing sympathy. This factual symbiosis shaped the unity, which appeals to the classification of functions of the liturgical text, when historical and dogmatic informativeness, aesthetics, psychological intentionality, and even magical aspirations are expected from the same text. The rhetoric of prayers and hymns encompasses the ways of administering transcendence, when the whole system looks like a triangle or a tripartite channel joining God, the Self, and the liturgical text. In all religious texts, immediateness, visual clearness, and efficacious emotional appeal engage typical verbality, which is easily remembered and often reproduced by believers by means of their language. The language serves the foundation of Christian thought by applying insightful rhetorical figures (Edwards 2017, 57–60, 149–153) or ars oratoria bordering on music (Ślusarczyk 2009, 192–195). Religions can be envisioned as spaces, memories, emotions, but all these visionary programs are encrypted in texts, which can be studied with applying methodologies of translation quality assessment. Most (or all) religions are empowered by a dual cosmology or a two-world model: this inspiration to see the “other world” transfuses all the levels of hierarchical ecclesiastical texts. On the lowest – intimate (individual) – level, liturgical texts assist the believers to cognize their existence between here and eternity; on the highest – societal (public) – level, they disclose the eschatological 127 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N value of entire institutions, like the Warring Church on Earth and the Triumphant Church on Heavens. The greatest power of liturgical texts is that they convert grand ideas for private use. All the methods of analysis, fermented within cognitive and communicative linguistics are applicable for revealing the intricate nexus of dogmatic truths and emotive states, which is encoded in a single liturgical text (Shmiher 2018, 166–304). History is usually interpreted in the two-phase mode: each religion has a pre-history; thus, Christian pre-history is paganism. In the meantime, a reading community’s collective experience has a history, too, but it is beyond the focus of research. The cultural and axiological models of translation analysis borrowed from ethnography, postcolonial studies, and sociology contribute to exposing the historical identity of liturgical texts (Modnicka 2009, 217–226). Impressive, but quite logical was the interpretation of Roman Catholic texts as symbols of Western hegemony in non-Catholic areas (Dubets 2015, 25–30). This is historically true to Latin America and Asia. Not only the religious ideas, but also the Gregorian music triggered some resistance and colonial associations among local, but non-European Catholics. A similar case is in Eastern Orthodoxy. Some Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches still use the Church Slavonic liturgy, which is recited according to the phonetic rules of the local vernacular. The Russian pronunciation outside Russia is a sample of Moscow’s hegemony, because the Polish Orthodox Church uses the Russian recension of Church Slavonic on the territory, which used to be part of the former Kyivan metropolis and, accordingly, the Ukrainian recension and chants were practiced. Meanwhile, Slovak Orthodox and Greek Catholic churches have retained the Kyivan liturgical heritage due to other historical conditions. A f ter t ho u gh t s In the history of knowledge, everything starts with the empirical work and collecting data. Further work on classifications is more experimental: descriptive observations are not always clear-cut, and fuzzy boundaries can create grey zones. For this reason, the isolation of phenomena under analysis is supplemented with the non-isolation of interpreting them in comparative contexts. Comparison (albeit contrast is a better concept epistemologically) is neither the substitution of the earlier ‘gathering’ – i.e. positivist – methodology nor a stage of the very paradigm, but it offers an additional productive source of analytical knowledge that has different values at various stages of exploring historical – and not only – phenomena. Like cultural history, ecclesiastical history deals with the issues determined by its global context and sacred world history. These preliminaries make us think that supra-national religious projections share repetitive patterns of religious translation. The history of translating the Bible and the Quran shows a similar change in accepting sacred texts in vernaculars. This state of affairs leads us to the hypothesis that this process takes place in all the Abrahamic religions at different speeds depending on the degree of discrepancies between sacred languages and contemporary vernaculars. Hypothetically, the same processes are to be observed in other religions. Inured by tradition, liturgical texts have become gems of high culture, as major prayers and hymns are samples of the splendour of verbal worship. Beauty, reverence, 128 Comparative studies of histor y, religion and translation... and inspiration given in and taken from liturgies alter believers and their worldview. It is the reason why the liturgical word is so valuable that all these features change human senses and speech. These originals continue engendering new-quality translations, and this is the greatest divine mystery how religious poetry can be better understood and practiced through the interlingual comparison. REF E RE NCE S e American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. [2018]. Rev. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Apokrify i lehendy z ukrainskykh rukopysiv [Apocrypha and legends from Ukrainian manuscripts]. 1896. Vol. 1. Lviv: Naukove tovarystvo im. Shevchenka. Chrisomalis, Stephen. 1993. Numerical Notation: A Comparative History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dubets, Adam. 2015. Archypastyr: Vybrani poslannia ta dopovidi [Archpastor: Selected proclamations and reports]. Sianok: Eparchy of Przemysl and Nowy Sacz. Edwards, Michael. 2017. Ku poetyce chrześcijańskiej [Towards a Christian poetics]. Tłum. Monika Szuby. Gdańsk: Wyd. Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego; Pelplin: Bernardinum. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think: conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books. Hill, Alette Olin, and Boyd H. Hill, Jr. 1980. “Mark Bloch and Comparative History.” The American Historical Review 85, 4: 828–846. Hodgson, Marshall G. S. 1993. Rethinking world history: Essays on Europe, Islam, and World History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holmes, James. 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kundera, Milan. 1984. “The tragedy of central Europe.” Trans. by Edmund White. The New York Review of Books April 26 (no. 7): 33–38. Modnicka, Noemi. 2009. “‘Nie jestem z tego świata’ – czyli o osobliwościach mowy protestantów ewangelikalnych” [“I am not from this world,” or on specific features of Evangelical Protestants’ speech]. In Protestancka kultura słowa, ed. by Zbigniew Pasek, 212–226. Krakow: Nomos. Saidov, А. Kh. 2006. Sravnitelnoye pravovedenie [Comparative law studies]. Moscow: Norma. Shmiher, Taras. 2018. Perekladoznavchyi analiz – teoretychni ta prykladni aspekty: davnia ukrayinska literatura suchasnymy ukrayinskoyu ta anhliyskoyu movamy [Translation quality assessment, its theoretical and applied aspects: Early Ukrainian literature as translated into Contemporary Ukrainian and English]. Lviv: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. Shulman, David and Guy G. Stroumsa (ed). 1999. Dream Cultures: Explorations in the Comparative History of Dreaming. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ślusarczyk, Dawid. 2009. “Biblia jako źródło inspiracji dla kompozytorów luterańskich. Relacje słowa i muzyki na przykładzie twórczości Jana Sebastiana Bacha” [The Bible as a source of inspiration for Lutheran composers. Relation of Word and Music as exemplified by Johann Sebastian Bach’s creativity]. In Protestancka kultura słowa, ed. by Zbigniew Pasek, 191–200. Krakow: Nomos. Tötösy de Zepetnek, Steven. 2006. “Nowa Literatura Porównawcza jako teoria i metoda” [New Comparative Literature as a theory and method]. Trans. by Agata Zawiszewska and Andrzej Skrendo. In Konstruktywizm w badaniach literackich: Antologia, 347–389. Kraków: Universitas. 129 I I I . O N M E T H O D O LO G I C A L A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L AT I O N Vulfson, B. L. 2003. Sravnitelnaya pedagogika. Istoriya i sovremennye problem [Comparative pedagogy. History and current problems]. Moscow: URAO. Woodward, C. Vann (ed.). The Comparative Approach to American History. 1997. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. AB S TR ACT The aim of this paper is to consider the capabilities of comparative studies to translation history of liturgical texts. The main research methodologies originate from comparative history and comparative religion. They demonstrate how the role of religious translation progressed in societies as well as explain why the translation quality assessment of prayers and hymns is to be adjusted if the very texts are intended for private use or approbated for public use. Although the researcher focuses on the Ukrainian-Polish parallels of religious translation, these observations can contribute to the exploration of intercultural and interdenominational relations of homogeneous and heterogeneous civilizational traditions via the prism of translation problematics. Keywords: Religious translation. Liturgical translation. Comparative studies. Historiography. Religion studies. CO NTAC T D ETAI L S: Taras V. Shmiher, Dr Habil., Prof. Full Professor of the Hryhoriy Kochur Department of Translation Studies and Contrastive Linguistics Faculty of Foreign Languages Ivan Franko National University of Lviv Vul. Universytetska 1 79000 Lviv Ukraine taras.shmiher@lnu.edu.ua ORCID: 0000-0002-4713-2882 130 IV. O N LI N GU IS TI C A SPE CT S O F TR ANS LAT IO N IN TE RS E MIOTIC S O F TR ANS L ATIO N V ita li y Ra dc h uk Translation as viewed by intersemiotics is reputed to be a very modern field of research, although it covers ages of development of human spiritual culture. If rediscovered, the history of literature and art clears up very subtle theoretical points in translatology. Oddly enough, some of its breakthrough ideas are often cited in the old terms without being doubted or discussed on the basis of fundamentals that were considered by Charles Pierce, Charles Morris, Ferdinand de Saussure and later by Rolland Barthes, Claude Lévi-Strauss and other French structuralists. Some contradictions and illogical slips in categorization still linger repeatedly and become stiff patterns to be imitated on a broad scale without any critical insight. That is why the following revision draws attention to the issue that was already highlighted in my essay “Proteus or Janus? (On the types of translation),“ the first version of which was published in the magazine “Vsesvit” (“Всесвіт”) in 2004 and is cited below from the last of its reprints. The same approach to language(s) and translation was also applied in my attempt of a linguistic foresight (Radchuk 2008). Taking into account the current trend in categorization and terminology, let us look at the topic from a varied retrospective as wells as perspective and reframe some basic ideas afresh. Intersemiotics, just like semiotics at large, does not rank first in translation studies today. Nevertheless, it is undoubtful that no analyst can do without semiotics while evaluating the work of a translator, even if semiotics is not mentioned among the tools of research. In fact, the obvious is rarely mentioned. One is not obliged to give names to everything one does. But such accurate names are absolutely necessary if they are key terms for the key concepts in a fundamental theory. Intersemiotics is often defined as resemiotisation, as “circulation of meaning between different sign systems” (Gignoux 2005, 98) that inevitably produces intertextuality. But it can equally be considered as a network of correspondences within the global semiosphere, as translation from its source sign subsystem to a target one in order to create some new meaning. From this standpoint, hermeneutics and applied semiotics are synonymous. In his famous work “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” Roman Jakobson distinguishes three kinds of translation. He labels them as intralingual, or rewording within the same language, interlingual, or translation proper, done in words (verbal signs in his terms) of some other language (mind the restricted meaning of the term language here) and intersemiotic, or transmutation which is “an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems” (Jakobson 1966). In my view, this scheme is not logical. Moreover, it is a misleading mistake. What is a “translation proper” and why other kinds of translation are improper? What is a language proper and why all other codes are improper if the fundamental 132 Intersemiotics of translation laws of semiotics can be applied to all of them? To what kind of translation should we attribute the recent translation of Don Quixot, the masterpierce of Cervantes, into Spanglish, a hybrid language, or a pidgin, spoken by forty million people? British-American glossaries are already in big demand. Have you finished your porridge? is translated into Are you through with your cereal? Etymologically, any standard vocabulary has been almost all borrowed, just like any idiolect. The border between languages is sometimes blurred, conventional, subject to doubt and change, especially as translations from (into) pidgins and creoles are currently made, and old texts, like “Beowulf ” and “Canterbury Tales,” are translated into ever modern English(es). Phonetician Professor Higgins of G.B. Shaw’s “Pygmalion” becomes a ballet teacher in “Galatea,” the ballet version of his play, to make Eliza Doolittle a ballerine. This adequacy of expressive means is only normal because ballet dancers speak only by means of movement. A minor logical brainwave gives us a hint that transmutation can equally be done in the opposite direction. To reword the cited definition, it can be an interpretation of nonverbal signs by means of signs of verbal sign systems. Examples abound. There are poems about musical pieces and paintings, verbal descriptions of statues and dance performances, etc. A further excursion into the interaction of codes convinces that intersemiotic translation is done between any two nonverbal systems of signs, just like between any pair of verbal ones. By making about thirty pictures of the Rouane Cathedral, Claude Monet translated the art of architecture into the art of painting, and the Gothic style into the style of impressionism. August Rodin’s sculptures “Ever-lasting spring,” “The kiss,” “Eternal idol” and some others depicting tender love of man and woman were translated into a chain of ballet dances by Leonid Yakobson, founder of the theatre“ Choreographic miniatures.” Why should we restrict intersemiotics to a particular case if it works elsewhere and everywhere? Rewording within the same language normally entangles two codes, hence is also a case of intersemiotic translation. Moreover, any translation is interlingual because it is done by a human being endowed with an ability to create one’s own language from a number of codes that constitute the idiolect, within which all transformations occur. In other words, every human being is a polyglot. But the question “How many languages do you know?” is somewhat biased because every polyglot knows just one language, the language of his or her mind. Do we always understand our mothers using our mother tongue? It is evident that semiotics, intersemiotics in particular, gives a clear understanding of the concept of language as such. And that of translation, too. It is owing to translation that the subcodes of a language do not belong exclusively to that language, with an exception of local dialects and standard territorial variants. e styles of Shakespeare and Byron as well as the terminology of IT specialists are not the monopoly of English, just like Dante’s pen is not purely Italian by effect. is also concerns Sandro Botticelli’s illustrations of “e Divine Comedy” (as artistic translations, they compare not only with those by Renato Guttuso but also with those by William Blake, Gustave Doré, Michail Pikov and others). Neither is the style of Taras Shevchenko the monopoly of Ukrainian, as his poetry is appreciated in dozens of 133 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N languages and his pictures are internationally understood. Moreover, the individual style of a genius features eternity, not just his epoch. If the so-called subcodes travel from language to language almost untouched, why should they be called subcodes? ey do not belong to a language. ey are full-fledged languages by themselves. Below is a sentence in 6 registers in English, each next step being a translation of any other one. These “stairs” can be translated into other tongues (as it was done twice into Ukrainian in an article of mine [4]) to show that registers do not belong to a particular tongue. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No foe’s able to rebuff the blow of this knight’s potent hand. The individual in question is capable of destroying any adversary since his limbs are of great physical power. This gentleman with iron fists is apt to win any fight. This man can beat any other fighter, for he has very strong fists. This here feller will give any other fighting chap a thrashing: got mighty strong fists. This guy can damn well give you a lick: he’s nifty with his mitts. These are different languages, not just one, and they owe to comparison and translation. Contrary to what dictionaries explain, the task of a translator is not to change the language but to preserve it in order to be understood. A variety of semiotic systems brings to life different kinds of translation (within a language, cross-lingual and nonverbal) urging to revise, branch out and specify the Jakobsonian triad. If semiotics is to be universal any translation qualifies as “intersemiotic,” with source and target codes being verbal or nonverbal. Moreover, any translation can be treated as that within the synthetic individual language of the polyglot translator. Translation is often wanted even if no language barrier separates the parties, as they speak alike or are bilingual. Yet, such barriers occur within a language that normally falls into varieties: styles, registers, jargons, professional, local and social dialects, etc. These subcodes normally tend to be interpreted in alternative terms rather than get contaminated. Any rich language splits and reintegrates, its size becomes a barrier by itself. None can boast knowing the whole of one’s native tongue. Thus, we resort to rewording to explain and reach beyond. It was the lexical growth that made Charles Ogden create Basic English of 850 words and translate Big English into Basic. Short defining vocabularies of two thousand words are often devised now to explain bigger lexicons. A similar thing happens when you hear the symphony of an orchestra translated into a ringtone. RE F ERE NCE S Gignoux, Anne-Claire. 2005. Initiation à l’intertextualité. Paris: Ellipses. Jakobson, Roman. 1966. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, ed. by Reuben Arthur Brower. New York: Oxford University Press, 232–239. Radchuk, Vitaliy. 2008. “Europe’s crossroads: what language will Ukraine use in 2101? How to translate into interacting languages?” In Donetskyi visnyk Naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka. T. 22. Movoznavstvo, ed. by Anatolii Zahnitko. Donetsk: Skhidnyi vydavnychyi dim, Donetske viddilennia NTSh, 155–177. 134 Intersemiotics of translation Radchuk, Vitaliy. 2018. “Protei chy Yanus? (Pro riznovydy perekladu)” [Proteus or Janus? (On the varieties of translation)]. Dyvoslovo 9 (738), 36–46, 38. A BS T RACT The essay highlights intersemiotic translation as applied witnin the whole variety of sign systems, those within a language, cross-lingual and nonverbal. Translation as viewed by intersemiotics is reputed to be a very modern field of research, although it covers ages of development of human spiritual culture. Intersemiotics, just like semiotics at large, does not rank first in translation studies today. Nevertheless, it is undoubtful that no analyst can do without semiotics while evaluating the work of a translator, even if semiotics is not mentioned among the tools of research. In fact, the obvious is rarely mentioned. Keyword s: Language. Translation. Sign. System. Intersemiotics. CON TACT D E TA I LS : Prof. Vitaliy Dmytrovych Radchuk Department of Theory and Practice of Translation from English Educational and Scientific Institute of Philology Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 14 Taras Shevchenko Blvd. 01601 Kyiv Ukraine vitaliy_radchuk@ukr.net 135 A S T YL IS TIC D IME NS IO N O F L IT ER ARY TR AN S LATI ON O len a Du be n ko In t ro du ct i o n The explication of the relationship between style and meaning in a literary text can be safely called a pivotal task of both literary translation and stylistics.1 While the former aims at faithful recreation of this relationship by means of the target language, the latter provides the methods designed for decoding the semantics of the original and prompts the ways of its rendering. Although these profound linkages between the purport of literary translation, on the one hand, and stylistics, on the other hand, appear to be undeniable, it is only lately that translation scholars have become increasingly interested in the concept of style as well as in the question whether style can be detached from meaning. It goes without saying that literary translation would only gain from turning to the attainments of modern stylistics, which actively draws on the advantages that have opened up in this field with the advent of the cognitive paradigm. I aim at describing those recently evolved stylistic approaches to translation that foster artistically accurate interpretation of literary texts in foreign languages and cultures. However, before doing that it would be logical to analyze the reasons for underestimating stylistic aspects in translation studies, where style is typically mentioned only in passing. Th e co n cept of s t y l e i n t ran s l at i o n s t u di e s It would be wrong to state that the issue of style has not been addressed in translation studies. First, one should mention the works of Anton Popovič, whose contribution to the topic under discussion cannot be overestimated. Based on František Miko’s model that studies literariness through the effect of a literary text on its recipients (Valentová and Čechová 2015, 142), Popovič suggests his idea of shifts of expression in literary translation and presents an extended pattern of the style of a literary text that comprises macro-stylistics (thematic composition) and micro-stylistics (linguistic composition) (1975, 130). The scholarly profoundness of this approach, which deals with the major dimension of a literary text – its literariness, makes Popovič’s theory unquestionably relevant for current research in literary translation (Valentová and Čechová 2015). The topicality of this vision appears especially obvious in the light of the attention currently paid to the notion ‘literariness’ by translation theorists (Garza 1 This article was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation, IZSEZO 212468. 136 A st ylistic dimension of literary translation 2021, 50–66; Rossi 2019, 42–43; Shen and Fang 2019, 327–328; Albaladejo and Chico-Rico 2018, 116; Katan 2015). It should be emphasized that contemporary understanding of this concept is in keeping with the standpoint of Roman Jakobson who in 1921 defined literariness as “what makes a given work a work of literature” (in: Eichenbaum 1965, 107), i.e. the literary value of the text, its artistic merit. It is in this meaning that I use the term ‘literariness’ in the article. In this connection, it is hard to disagree with Jaroslav Špirk, who advocates for translating all Popovič’s works into English, as without it this valuable scholarly heritage, unfortunately, remains “inaccessible to the wider professional public” (2009, 22). Furthermore, Mona Baker’s offer of a methodological framework for exploring the style of a literary translator (2000), and Tim Park’s insightful analysis of stylistic aspects of literary translation (2011) are also significant milestones for a better comprehension of stylistic issues in literary translation. However, it is not infrequent that translation scholars regard style as a category, which does not matter so much to the quality of literary translation as cultural and ideological factors, or differences in language systems. Adherence to this conviction entails “a lack of critical interest and theory in translating style” (Pillière 2018, 27). Such treatment of stylistics is all the more paradoxical in the light of a high dependence of literary translation upon “knowing not only what a text means in an obvious sense but also what it suggests” (Boase-Beier 2012, 61). Evidently, this situation is contingent on the special status of stylistics per se. Although studies in style as the central notion of the discipline have enjoyed a longstanding tradition, there is no generally recognized and exhaustive definition of this interdisciplinary concept. Style defies any “coherent theoretical approach” (Snell-Hornby 1995, 119), has no clear-cut morphological characteristics, and the nature of individual-situational semantics it implies cannot be explained solely within the framework of general linguistics. Due to its complexity and multifarious character, the notion of style gets various interpretations not only in the fields of research that are directly connected with linguistics (rhetoric, philosophy of language) but also in a rather wide spectrum of the humanities: psychology, cultural studies, philosophy, social philosophy, philosophy of culture, and art criticism. Only in the domain of linguistic and literary studies, there are at least two types of stylistics, both of which have their own aims, tasks, and methods: linguostylistics, or functional stylistics that deals with non-literary texts, and literary stylistics that studies style in its aesthetic sense. Accordingly, in this sphere one may speak of individual style, functional style (official, business, scientific, mass media), individual style (the style of Hemingway) as well as the styles of literary movements (classicism, romanticism). Apart from the approaches described above, the field of stylistic studies can be regarded as “an area of mediation between two disciplines: linguistics and literary criticism” that has no status of autonomy (Widdowson 1991, 4). Internationally, studies in stylistics have not only seen a variety of approaches and methodological principles, but also different degrees of importance ascribed to them in different scholarly traditions. Stylistics has flourished in Europe and Australia and has had less impacting in the United States (Stockwell 2002, 9). 137 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N The only irrefutable postulate concerning the aims of all kinds of stylistic research is that stylistics (both in its linguistic and literary aspects) investigates the means of appropriate verbal expression of a certain message that should not be misinterpreted by the addressee. Therefore, stylistics has to deal with interpretation – one of the most controversial concepts in the realm of liberal arts, which inevitably turns stylistic studies into an interdisciplinary field described as “an elusive and slippery topic” (Bradford 2005, xi). Given the above, it is not surprising that although translation scholars have a background in stylistics, in some cases, they are reluctant to focus on the recent developments in cognitive stylistics and linguistics, being more inclined to use the definitions of style that were topical decades ago. Typically, researchers tend to equate stylistics to structuralist linguistics or stylistics, and seeing stylistics as a structuralist project leads to a tangible prejudice against stylistically-based translation studies. However, modern stylistics “goes far beyond the rhetoric, poetics, formalism, structuralism and functionalism of the past” (Burke 2018, 2) dealing with predominately interdisciplinary spheres of investigation that open new, exciting perspectives in literary text interpretation. A strong research tradition in text interpretation that associated with stylistics in its pragmatic, semiotic, and cognitive orientations has yielded unique methods of text analysis. In contrast to structuralism, modern stylistics convincingly reveals a deep bond between the meaning of the text and its style, taking into consideration the context that is understood as “the psychological and social circumstances under which language is used” (Stockwell 2002, 60). These new avenues for literary text comprehension that have opened up in the domain of stylistics, account for the mounting interest in style issues in contemporary literary translation studies. S t y l i s ti c a p p roa ch to l i te ra r y t ra n sl a t io n At the present stage, style-oriented translation studies may be characterized at least from three perspectives. The first one concerns the type of stylistics involved. To a certain degree, current research on the problem relies on the concepts and rules of the structuralist era, especially on Anton Popovič’s theory that proved its undeniable relevance in terms of contemporary scholarly paradigms (Špirk 2009; Valentová and Čechová 2015). Meanwhile, most translation scholars who highlight stylistic aspects of literary translation tend to rely on cognitive stylistics or cognitive poetics. Undoubtedly, a more stereotyped character of non-literary phenomena gives wider opportunities for generalizations, encouraging empirical studies of a fundamental nature. Suffice it to mention a series of studies aimed at analyzing the implications of a cognitive approach to translating metaphors (Schäffner 2004; Al-Hasnawi 2007; Fernández 2011, 2013). The works based on literary material are more introspective and infrequently lack a straightforward translatological orientation. They may offer a comprehensive in-depth analysis of certain poetic elements in source and target texts, making a considerable contribution to cognitive poetics theory’ at the same time, they may be of little interest to translation studies. This is, for instance, the case 138 A st ylistic dimension of literary translation with Margaret Freeman and Masako Takeda’s paper (2006) where the perception of the original poem by Emily Dickinson (F1599/J1622, dated 1883), and its Japanese translation is studied within the framework of conceptual blending theory (Fauconnier and Turner 2002). A thorough examination of the semiosis processes provided in the study has an indisputable value for cognitive stylistics, but it is not much help for the practice of literary translation. Meanwhile, several translation scholars have already successfully applied the advancements of cognitive stylistics to such key problems of translation studies as fidelity of translation, or rendering the ‘literary’ in literary translation. In doing so, they resort to various major categories of cognitive poetic analysis: it may be a mind style/a cognitive state (Boase-Beier 2003, 2006, 2010a; Dick 2009), or the voice of the author/mind style of the character (Pillière 2018). The terms mind style, cognitive state, and voice of the author are to a great degree interchangeable. They are related to the narrator’s worldview or the world perception that is encoded in the stylistic patterns of the source and target texts. The conveyance of a mind style poses specific challenges for the translator, who should be able to decipher the interplay of textual ambiguities and suggestions (the cognitive context of the original) and expose the target reader to a similar world perception, or cognitive state. In the words of Jean Boase-Beier, style attains a special significance “if we want to both preserve the same possible range of interpretations of the cognitive state expressed in the text as were implicated by the original and to keep the same potential range of poetic effects as the original” (2004, 280). The main factor that predetermines the translators’ success in performing this complicated task is seen in appropriate, artistically motivated stylistic choices made by the translator in the interpretation of the original. Although the cognitive perspective offers the greatest opportunities for adequate literary text comprehension, some scholars speak of a combination of stylistic approaches that complement each other. These include linguistic stylistics (describing varieties of languages), literary stylistics (discerning aesthetic aspects of the text), affective stylistics (activating experiences of reading and our intuitive responses to the text), and cognitive stylistics (activating the knowledge stored in the human mind on various linguistic and non-linguistic aspects) (Almanna and Farghal 2016). The second categorization of style-oriented translation studies is related to the translatological approach to style, which may be either source-text or target-text oriented. Speaking about this dichotomy, Gabriela Saldanha characterizes the first subtype as a traditional style-based trend of translation research, while the second one is associated with an innovative presentation of translations and translators as stylistic domains (2014). The source-text oriented approach takes place when the researcher is concerned about conveying the style of the original (Malmkjær 2004; Boase-Beier 2003, 2010b, 2011, 2014). It is the so-called “translational stylistics” (Malmkjaer 2004, 38) that presupposes the studies of target texts in relation to their original. Boase-Beier distinguishes between first-order meanings determined by lexis or syntax and second-order meanings, or weakly implied meanings, where choices can be made by the author/translator (2010, 112–113). In contrast to first-order meanings whose translation requires background cultural and linguistic knowledge, weakly implied meanings presuppose a particular stylistic awareness on the part of the translator. Thus, the fidelity of rendering the source text becomes the matter of stylistic choices 139 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N made by the translator who, ideally, should be able to decode the in-depth semantics of the original, which is responsible for the literariness of the literary text. Target-text oriented approach to style in translation interprets the style as a way of responding to the source text. Scholars propose to search for stylistic idiosyncrasies that remain consistent across several translations by one translator and ignore the differences in source texts (Baker 2000; Saldanha 2014). In other words, the approach under discussion focuses on the style of the translator. The third taxonomy of style-based translation studies was presented by Boase-Beier (2014); it is structured around the type of analyzed material. While some scholars compare target texts with source texts to define stylistic changes that have taken place in translation (Malmkjaer 2004; Boase-Beier 2003, 2010b, 2011), others do stylistic analyses of different translation versions of the same text to describe their different effects (Millán-Varela 2004; Jones 2011). Finally, there are research works that focus on rendering particular stylistic features (Marco 2004). M et h o do l o gi ca l i mp l i ca t i o n s At least two major operational concepts can be singled out in the studies of style in literary translation. The first one proceeds directly from the definition of modern stylistics, which is mainly viewed as a study of reading (Stockwell 2002, 8). This discipline offers instruments for a close or “stylistically-aware” reading (Boase-Beier 2006, 113) of the original that would help the translator to discover the ‘literary’ in a literary text. The kind of reading that assesses the style of the source text and its effects, including the inferences it permits (Gutt 2000), its ambiguity, compression, or incompleteness it manifests, leads to what may be called a stylistically-aware translation. A systemic close reading means that, figuratively speaking, the translator has an ear for style that allows hearing the voice of the author by detecting unique semantic nuances of the original text. If stylistically-aware reading is associated with the initial hermeneutical stage of the translator’s activity, the second important term from the methodological domain is immediately linked to the target text writing. It is the notion of a stylistic choice that is applicable both to the author’s and the translator’s literary decisions. The translator’s choices are regarded as a realization of the translator’s reading style. Besides, it is important to remember at least two sets of constraints upon the translator’s stylistic choices. The first set is the style of the author that regulates the selection of expressive means applied by the translator; the second one is linked to the function that the translated text is expected to fulfill (Boase-Beier 2010a, 54). These analytical and evaluating competences (Almanna and Farghal 2016) enable the translator to find the appropriate strategies and to make appropriate choices to ensure minimal losses in rendering the conceptual content of the original. Co n cl u si o n The analysis of recent research publications suggested here gives ground for suppositions about the development of a mutually beneficial relationship between stylistics and literary translation. Although it would be premature to speak of a “stylistic 140 A st ylistic dimension of literary translation turn” in translation studies, there is, nevertheless, a rising interest in style issues on the part of translation scholars. One may note a gradual development of the terminological apparatus by means of translational stylistics. It contains such generally recognized terms as mind style, cognitive state, voice of the author, stylistically-aware reading/translation, translator’s stylistic choice, and some others. Furthermore, the multidimensional approach to style that has established itself in translation studies can be seen as a promising sign, because it testifies to the degree of attention to the problem. The vectors of style exploration encompass source-text and target-text oriented trends as well as the involvement of different types of research material (the source text vs the target text, or various translation versions of the same original literary text). It becomes clear that stylistics provides the methods of revealing the necessary frameworks of textual language signals, which are highly helpful for the translator in deciphering the cognitive content of style, or, in other words, in grasping the artistic message of the source text. To sum it up, the stylistic approach to translation offers the instruments of producing stylistically-aware translations, i.e. better literary translations, which convey the literariness of the original literary text. REF E RE NCE S Albaladejo, Tomás, and Francisco Chico-Rico. 2018. “Translation, style and poetics.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Culture, ed. by Sue-Ann Harding and Ovidi Carbonell Cortés, 115–133. London and New York: Routledge. Al-Hasnawi, Ali. 2007. “A cognitive approach to translating metaphors.” Translation Journal 11, 3. Accessed August 15, 2014, from http://translationjournal.net/journal/41metaphor.htm Almanna, Ali, and Mohammed Farghal. 2016. “Style in Literary Translation: A Practical Perspective.” Journal of Arts and Social Sciences 7, 1: 5–17. Baker, Mona. 2000. “Towards a Methodology for Investigating the Style of a Literary Translator.” Target 12, 2: 241–266. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2003. “Mind Style Translated.” Style 37, 3: 253–265. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2004. “Saying what someone else meant: style, relevance and translation.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 14, 2: 276–287. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2006. Stylistic Approaches to Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2010a. Stylistic Approaches to Translation. Routledge. London, New York. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2010b. “Translation and timelessness.” Journal of Literary Semantics 38, 2: 101–114. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2011. “Translating Celan’s Poetics of Silence,” Target 23, 2: 165–177. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2012. “Stylistics and Translation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies, ed. by Kirsten Malmkaer and Kevin Windle. 61–68. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Boase-Beier, Jean. 2014. “Stylistics and translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Stylistics, ed. by Michael Burke, 393–407. London and New York, Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group. Bradford, Richard. 2005. Stylistics. London and New York: Routledge. Dick, Christopher. 2009. Shifting form, transforming content: stylistic alterations in the German translations of the early Hemingway’s fiction. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Kansas. Accessed on July 25, 2020. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/8556. 141 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N Eichenbaum, Boris. 1965. “The Theory of the ‘Formal Method.’” In Russian Formalist Criticism, trans. and ed. by Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis, 99–139. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The way we think. New York:Basic Books. Fernández, Eva Samaniego. 2011. “Translation Studies and the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor.” Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9, 1: 262–279. Fernández, Eva Samaniego. 2013. “The impact of cognitive linguistics on descriptive translation studies: novel metaphors in English-Spanish newspaper translation as a case in point.” In Cognitive Linguistics and Translation. Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications, ed. by Ana Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano,159–198.Walter De Gruyter: Berlin and Boston. Freeman, Margaret, and Masako Takeda. 2006. “Art, science, and Ste. Emilie’s sunsets: A Háj-inspired cognitive approach to translating an Emily Dickinson poem into Japanese.” Style 40, 1–2:109–127. Garza, James Michael. 2021. The relationship between textual and reader variables in literary perception: an empirical approach to the reception of Japanese poetry in translation. PhD thesis, University of Leeds. Accessed on December 1, 2022. https://Garza_JM_Languages_PhD_2021.pdf. Gutt, Ernst-August. 2000. Translation and Relevance. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. Jones, Francis. 2011. Poetry Translating as Expert Action. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Katan, David. 2015. “Translating the ‘literary’ in literary translation in practice.” Linguee Linguaggi. 14: 7–29. DOI: 10.1285/i22390359v14p7. Malmkjaer, Kristen. 2004. “Translational Stylistics: Dulcken’s Translations of Hans Christian Andersen.” Language and Literature 13, 1: 13–24. Marco, Josep. 2004. “Translating Style and Styles of Translating: Henry James and Edgar Allan Poe in Catalan.” Language and Literature 13, 1: 73–90. Millán-Varela, Carmen. 2004. “Hearing Voices: James Joyce, Narrative Voice and Minority Translation.” Language and Literature 13, 1: 37–54. Parks, Tim. 2011. Translating Style. A Literary Approach to Translation. A Translation Approach to Literature. St. Jerome Publishing: Manchester, UK and Kinderhook, NY, USA. Pillière, Linda. 2018. “Style and Voice: Lost in Translation?” Études de stylistique anglaise. La Société de Stylistique Anglaise (1978–2018): 40 ans style.12. Accessed on January 16, 2021. https://journals.openedition.org. Popovič, Anton. 1975. Teória umeleckého prekladu: Aspekty textu a literárnej metakomunikácie [eory of artistic translation: aspects of text and literary metacommunication]. Bratislava: Tatran. Rossi, Cecilia. 2019. “Literary translation and disciplinary boundaries: creative writings and interdisciplinarity.” In The Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation, ed. by Kelly Washbourne and Ben Van Wyke, 42–57. London: Routledge. Saldanha, Gabriela. 2014. “Style in, and of, Translation.” In A Companion to Translation Studies, ed. by Sandra Bermann and Catherine Porter, 95–106. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Schäffner, Christina. 2004. “Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive approach.” Journal of Pragmatics 36, 7: 1253–1269. Accessed on February 1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012. Shen, Dan, and Kairui Fang. 2019. Stylistics. The Routledge Handbook of Literary Translation, ed. by Kelly Washbourne and Ben Van Wyke, 325–337. London: Routledge. Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1995. Translation Studies. An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Špirk, Jaroslav. 2009. “Anton Popovič’s contribution to translation studies.” Target 21, 1: 3–29. Stockwell, Peter. 2002. Cognitive poetics: an introduction. London and New York: Routledge. 142 A st ylistic dimension of literary translation Valentová Mária, and Lýdia Čechová. 2015. “Revitalizing structuralism in Slovak translation theory – potential and limitations.” Acta Universitatis Carolinae. Philologica 3, Translotologica Pragensia IX, 141–147. A BS T RACT The article addresses the importance of studies in the stylistic aspects of literary translation, which, until recently, were not much discussed by translation theorists. It offers an overview of research in style issues related to the contemporary literary translation studies. A special emphasis is placed on the cognitive stylistic categories that are valuable in conveying the literariness of literary texts in translation. Key w o r d s : Literary translation. Stylistics. Literariness. Mind style. Stylistically-aware translation. Stylistic choice. CO NTACT DE TA I LS : Olena Dubenko, Associate Professor Department of Theory and Practice of Translation Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 14 Taras Shevchenko Blvd. 01601 Kyiv Ukraine helenadoobenko@ukr.net ORCID: 0000-0001-5720-1637 143 O MIS S IO N A ND ADDI TIO N O F FI C TIO N S IMI LE S : CO GN ITIV E TR AN SL ATIO N A N ALYSI S A lla M a r t ynyu k – E lv ira A k h m ed ova In t ro du ct i o n Most papers on the translation of similes describe the simile as a figure of speech that rests on the comparison of two entities and instantiates in the source text and target text linguistic expressions that are subject to structural and semantic translation analysis (Zorivchak 1983; Pierini 2007; Tsepeniuk 2011; Thahara and Hum 2015; Mohammed 2017; Kendenan 2017; Kautsari 2019). Quite a few studies of similes (Hilman, Ardiyanti, and Pelawi 2013; Shamsaeefard, Fumani, and Nemati 2013; Ramli 2014) rely on Patrizia Pierini (2007), who proposes six translation procedures that she calls “strategies” to render different types of similes from Italian into English. These translation procedures include “literal translation (retention of the same vehicle); replacement of the vehicle with a different vehicle; reduction of the simile, if idiomatic, to its sense; retention of the same vehicle plus explicitation of similarity feature(s); replacement of the vehicle with a gloss; omission of the simile” (31). Focusing on structural-semantic correspondences between the source and target languages, several researchers (Zorivchak 1983; Ramli 2014; Thahara and Hum 2015; Mohammed 2017) make a stress on the impact of different cultural environments and, consequently, different worldviews on simile interpretation. This paper is one of the few cognitive studies in the translation of similes (Pohlig 2006; Aasheim 2012; Parkhomenko 2018; Akhmedova 2021; Martynyuk and Akhmedova 2021) that view similes as phenomena of thought. Inspired by cognitive linguistics (Lakoff and Johnson [1980] 2003; Ortony 1993; Cameron and Low 1999; Gibbs 2008) cognitive translation researchers conceive similes as explicit conceptual metaphors and focus on identifying conceptual structures that underlie linguistic expressions of similes and influence translators’ decisions. Unlike most translation papers that compare the source text linguistic expressions with the target text equivalents, this paper deals with “translation gaps” (Sigismondi 2018, 292), that is, cases in which a source text simile is missing in the target text (omission) or, vice versa, a simile is employed in the target text to render a source text expression containing no comparison (addition). The data for translation analysis constitutes the total number of similes (21) omitted in Ukrainian translations of the three English novels – Donna Tartt’s The Goldfinch (2013), The Secret History (2015), and Margaret Atwood’s The Blind Assassin (2009) – and also the total number of similes (32) added in Ukrainian translations of these novels. The translations were performed, respectively, by Viktor Shovkun (Tartt 2016), Bohdan Stasiuk (Tartt 2017) and Olena Oksenych (Atwood 2018). 144 Omission and addition of fiction similes: cognitive translation analysis The main objective of this paper is to apply cognitive translation analysis to reveal correlations between a choice of domesticating translation procedures by means of omissions and additions of similes and the cultural specificity of the conceptual structures of these similes. The significance of the research is accounted for by its cognitive methodology that gives instruments of differentiation between constrained and free translators’ choices, imposed or not imposed by linguacultural specificity of the conceptual structures that licence linguistic instantiations of conceptual simile. Res earch met ho d o lo g y Theoretical issues The key principle of cognitive linguistics that has strongly influenced translation studies is the assumption that our thinking is “metaphorically structured” (Lakoff and Johnson [1980] 2003, 56). This means that “most concepts are partially understood in terms of other concepts” (56). The founders of the conceptual metaphor theory George Lakoff and Mark Johnson view metaphor as “understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another” (5). Structurally a conceptual metaphor involves two domains: “the target domain, which is constituted by the immediate subject matter, and the source domain, in which important metaphorical reasoning takes place” (265). Metaphorical reasoning employs inference patterns “from one conceptual domain to reason about another conceptual domain” (246), and the “results of source domain inferences are carried over to the target domain via neural links” (258). e systematic correspondences across these domains are called “metaphorical mappings” (246) or “projections” (171). Lakoff and Johnson also emphasize that “a metaphorical mapping is multiple, that is, two or more elements are mapped to two or more other elements” (265). In line with them, Gilles Fauconnier argues that similes like metaphors “project part of the structure of one domain onto another” (1997, 9), thus supporting the idea of projections/ mappings: “in order to talk and think about some domains (target domains), we use the structure of other domains (source domains) and the corresponding vocabulary” (9). The researcher places a great emphasis on the cultural and lexical entrenchment of mappings as well as their transparency. Both metaphor and simile mappings are represented by propositional models, which slightly differ. Compared to a metaphorical model “A (the target domain/ concept) is B (the source domain/concept),” a simile model contains a marker of comparison, and, in addition, may include a feature on which the comparison is based, “a (the target domain/ concept) is like B (the source domain/concept) on the basis of feature C.” Within the structure of a simile, concept A is also called the topic, and concept B – the vehicle. For example: The peonies are almost finished, bedraggled and limp as damp tissue, but the lilies have come out; also the phlox (Atwood 2009, 62). – Півонії майже відійшли, обвисли, розм’якли, наче мокра тканина, але з’явилися лілії та ще флокси (Atwood 2018, 69) [Peonies almost finished, bedraggled, softened like wet cloth, but appeared lilies and also phloxes]. 145 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N Each component of the simile structure is verbalized in both the source and target texts: the target concept/the topic – peonies/півонії, the source concept/the vehicle – damp tissue/мокра тканина, the marker of comparison – preposition like/наче, and the feature of comparison – limp/ розм’якли. Methodological design The choice of the novels for translation analysis is justified by the fact that they are abundant in all kinds of stylistic devices, in particular similes. The authors won important literary awards (Tartt received the WH Smith Literary Award, the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, and the Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Fiction and Nonfiction; Atwood is a Man Booker Prize laureate), which highlights the distinguished mastery of their art. In e Goldfinch published in 2013, Tartt tells the story of eo Decker, a teenager whose mother died in a terrorist attack during their visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. In the aftermath of the explosion, urged by a dying man, Theo took home the painting called “The Goldfinch.” Describing ten years of Theo’s adventures, Tartt shows that art may turn into an addiction, which can also be capable of relieving the pain of loss. In The Secret History, a detective novel published in 1992, Tartt reveals how going beyond the normal can turn evil. The narrator Richard Papen, a student of Hampden College, enrols in a Greek course taught by Professor Julian Morrow, thus joining a socially isolated group of six students. That becomes the turning point of his life, which results into two murders. The Blind Assassin is an intellectual novel by Atwood published in 2000. The author created a multilevel intrigue with an unexpected finale. The main characters are two sisters, whose mother died when they were kids and the older, Iris, has to take care of the younger, Laura. When Tomas Alex, an eccentric newspaper reporter, appears in their life, Laura almost immediately falls in love with him. After learning about Alex’s death, Laura drives her car off a bridge. Then Iris finds her sister’s manuscript, where some uncomfortable things are revealed. In working with the data, we take the following steps. 1) Define the type of the target text and source text similes. Firstly, we distinguish between conventional and original fiction similes in order to see how the author’s creativity affects the choice of translation procedures and strategies. Conventional fiction similes are based on the features of comparison, which are “intrinsic” and “characteristic” (Langacker 1987, 160–161) of the entities compared. Typically, most people associate such features with an entity and this association is part of the “generic knowledge” (160). For example, My new room was as bare as a jail cell (Tartt 2013, 120) is a conventional simile since most people regardless of their cultural identity would hardly have any difficulties imagining a prison cell and associating it with a plain, scarcely furnished room with limited living space. Unlike conventional similes that rest on group knowledge, original fiction similes are rooted in individual knowledge and the unique creative imagination of the authors (Akhmedova 2021, 236). They highlight “non-intrinsic” and “non146 Omission and addition of fiction similes: cognitive translation analysis 2) characteristic” similarity features that represent “specific knowledge” (Langacker 1987, 160). For example, this massive, jam-packed church ceremony was springing up around me like a flash mob (Tartt 2013, 273) is an original simile because a church ceremony is hardly associated with a flash mob by many people, and to some people such a comparison may seem unacceptable. Secondly, we take into account that conventional similes can be idiomatic and have different degrees of conventionality. Some idiomatic similes rest on generic knowledge shared by representatives of both cultures, like, for instance, he’s strong as an ox (Tartt 2015, 33). Others root in culture-specific experience, as in the case of You are white as a fish (Tartt 2013, 375). In Ukrainian culture, whiteness is not associated with fish contrary to many other entities like death, wall, clay, day, paper, sour cream, or snow (Aforyzmy 2022). To establish linguacultural specificity or similarity of idiomatic similes, we use English and Ukrainian dictionaries of idioms (Aforyzmy 2022; ATSUM 1970–1980; SSFS 2007–2022; UKRLIT.ORG 2005–2021; Farlex 2015; Merriam-Webster 1828–2022; Your Dictionary 2022). These dictionaries list similes based on full idioms, the meaning of which cannot be inferred from the meanings of their vehicles like happy as a clam, as well as semi-idioms, the meaning of which can be inferred from the meanings of their vehicles like to work like a horse. Reveal correlations between the presence or absence of cultural specificity of fiction similes and the translation procedures and strategies employed. Integrating fundamental ideas of western and domestic researchers (Lörscher 1991; Chesterman 1997; Koptilov 2002; Cherednychenko 2007; Rebrii 2012), we view a translation strategy as the translator’s general mental course of action, aimed at rendering the source text in the target language in a comprehensible way. We also side with Oleksandr Rebrii that a choice of strategy is determined by the translator’s wish to discover the “golden mean” between foreignization and domestication to provide a communicatively relevant translation (2012, 64–65). In line with Lawrence Venuti, we interpret domestication as the adaptation of a source text to the canons of the target language culture, and foreignization – as the retention of the source text structures even if they interfere with the target text linguacultural conventions (2001, 240–241). In addition, we differentiate between types of domestication that are dictated and not dictated by linguacultural specificity of the source text linguistic expressions. Accordingly, we talk about compulsory domestication and optional domestication (Martynyuk and Akhmedova 2021). In defining translation procedures, we follow Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet (1958, 31) as well as Peter Newmark (1988, 81), who address them as translators’ actions aimed at solving specific translation problems. While strategies work for texts, “translation procedures are used for sentences and the smaller units of language” (Newmark 1988, 81). This paper investigates two contrasting translation procedures – omission and addition, which both constitute cases of domestication. Omission involves a removal of a source text simile without providing any compensation in the target text. Addition, on the contrary, presupposes an insertion of a simile into the target text to render the source text linguistic expression that does not contain comparison. 147 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N Da ta p resen ta t io n a n d di scu s si o n Having analysed the samples, we found that omission is employed to translate original as well as non-idiomatic and idiomatic conventional similes. The first example illustrates the omission of an original simile: My dad ... would go outside to smoke or else skulk darkly at the margins looking like a drug pusher whenever he was forced to attend any sort of school event or kiddie party (Tartt 2013, 273). – ... він тоді виходив покурити або забивався в якийсь темний закуток, ______ коли мусив бути присутнім на якомусь шкільному заході або дитячій вечірці (Tartt 2016, 550) (the gap indicates omission of the simile) [...he then went out to smoke or got into some dark corner, ______ when [he] had to be present at some school event or kid party]. Theo compares his father to a drug pusher to stress that his father felt highly uncomfortable around children and wanted to be as inconspicuous as possible to avoid any undesirable contact and responsibility, including the responsibility for his son. The translator’s choice to omit the simile is not dictated by the cultural specificity of the simile mapping someone trying to be inconspicuous is like a drug pusher, since representatives of both cultures can more or less easily conceptualize a drug pusher. Neither is it imposed by any linguistic difficulties since the target sentence does not contain any English constructions that are problematic for translation. Since the translator’s decision to omit the simile is not imposed by any linguacultural constraints, we qualify such a strategy as optional domestication. At the same time, the association between one’s father and a drug pusher is far from conventional. The translator decided to omit the simile because he may have felt that such a comparison would be a bit too rough for a Ukrainian reader. As a result, the target text seems to be losing the singularity of Tartt’s style that is “lush with verbiage but rarely veers into pleonasm” (Cwik 2013), and abounds in metaphors and similes that “are unique and striking” (Mintsys and Chik 2016, 95). On top of that, this omission makes it impossible for the translator to render Theo’s complicated emotional state. It seems to be one of those Tartt’s original similes that “are apparently in tune with the characters’ mood” (Mintsys and Chik 2016, 97), “percolate with tragedy” (Cwik 2013), and help “to emphasize Theo’s despair, loneliness, and hopelessness” (Mintsys and Chik 2016, 97). The next example presents another instance of an original simile omission: My mother slid into me and grabbed my arm; and I saw she was clammy and pale as a cod (Tartt 2013, 13). – Маму відкинуло на мене, і вона схопила мою руку; я помітив, що вона спітніла й смертельно зблідла ______ (Tartt 2016, 17) [Mother was thrown on me, and she grabbed my hand; I noticed, that she perspired and deadly whitened _______]. The simile describes Theo’s carsick mother. Though such characteristics as paleness andclamminess can be easily associated with codfish by most people, the comparison of one’s mother with a cod is somewhat unexpected. The translator’s decision to domesticate the target text omitting the simile is not compulsory, since it is dictated neither by linguacultural specificity of the simile conceptual mapping nor by the impossibility to retain the source text linguistic structure. Probably, the 148 Omission and addition of fiction similes: cognitive translation analysis translator’s choice to omit the simile was prompted by its uncanniness. However, continuing the line of argumentation started above, we should cite the literary critics, who see the use of “neat similes based on zoonyms (rat, fish, dog, animal, etc.)” as one of the peculiarities of Tartt’s style (Mintsys and Chik 2016, 97). The following example illustrates the omission of a non-idiomatic conventional simile: She was sopping like a wet sheep, and I was pretty wet myself (Atwood 2009, 126). – Лора була геть мокра ______, та і я сама не суха (Atwood 2018, 149) [Lora was entirely wet______, and also I myself [was] not dry]. The simile is used to describe Iris’s younger sister, Laura, who fell into the river. The translator’s choice to omit the simile may be explained by the fact that in colloquial Ukrainian the noun вівця [sheep] used to describe a woman is highly derogatory. Employed as a direct insult, it is often accompanied by the adjective тупа [dumb] creating a metaphorical idiom. Thus, we may conclude that the omission was dictated by the linguacultural specificity of the Ukrainian direct equivalent of the English simile vehicle, and qualify the translation strategy as compulsory domestication. Contrary to the above example, the example below illustrates the omission of a non-idiomatic conventional simile devoid of any linguacultural specificity: He was not in a mood to talk – ebullient sometimes, he could also be as mute and sulky as a child (Tartt 2015, 206). – Чарльз був не в гуморі спілкуватись. Інколи щебетливий, він так само міг понуро замикатися в собі та не промовляти ні слова ______ (Tartt 2017, 365) [Charles was not in [a] mood to communicate. Sometimes chattering, he also could gloomily withdraw into himself and not say [a] word______]. The simile is used to describe the mood of one of the main characters, who is frightened of being arrested for murder. The translator’s choice to domesticate the text omitting the simile is optional since it cannot be explained by its linguacultural specificity. In the next example, the omission is applied to render an idiomatic simile: Although I might smoke like a chimney, who cared, because my mouth would taste clean as a whistle if I stuck to Spuds (Atwood 2009, 184). – Я можу курити, наче паротяг, – усім буде байдуже, бо разом зі “Спадз” дихання лишатиметься свіжим ______ (Atwood 2018, 227) [I can smoke, like [a] chimney, – everyone will be indifferent, because together with “Spuds” breath stays fresh______]. A heavy smoker, Iris employs the simile clean as a whistle (“completely free of dirt and neat in appearance” (Farlex 2015); “very clean” (Merriam-Webster 1828–2022) to describe the effect of using Spuds (mashed potatoes) to get rid of the cigarette taste. In Ukrainian culture, purity/cleanliness is not associated with whistle. It is associated with water, tears, crystal, sky, glass, ice, mirror, and even fisheye, or pig in the rain (Aforyzmy 2022). Thus, domestication is compulsory here. However, this strategy does not have to be realized as an omission. It could have taken shape of a replacement of the source text idiomatic simile with a Ukrainian one that is based on a culture-specific conceptual mapping. It would be preferable sinceAtwood’s style is characterised as “privileging colloquial idioms” (Dvorak 2006, 122). Thus, even 149 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N though the translation renders basic information contained in the source text, the translator changes the style of the text transforming the stylistically coloured idiomatic linguistic expression into a neutral one. The next example is another instance of an idiomatic simile omission: Then he said that in any case, now that she’d shot up like a weed she looked as old as I did (Atwood 2009, 151). – І додав, що в будь-якому разі вона так витягнулася ______, що здається не молодшою за мене (Atwood 2018, 184) [I added, that in any case she so has grown______, that seems not younger than me]. The author compares Laura with a weed, because she has grown out of her dress extremely quickly. In Ukrainian the expression рости як бур’ян [to grow like weed] is used to qualify something useless and even harmful that needs to be cut and this meaning is realized in the expression скосити/підкосити як бур’ян [to cut like weed] (ATSUM1970–1980). The translator’s choice of domestication is compulsory in the sense that she is constrained by the specificity of linguacultural interpretations. However, instead of omitting the source text simile, she could have replaced it with a Ukrainian simile-based idiomatic expression рости як на дріжджах [to grow like on yeast], which means “to develop well; very fast” (SSFS 2007–2022), and preserve the stylistic scale of the original. In the following example, omission is employed to render another idiomatic simile: Won’t do a thing after school but drink like a fish and go to parties (Tartt 2015, 33). – Після занять напивається ______ й гуляє (Tartt 2017, 58) [After school gets drunk______ and entertains]. The simile to drink like a fish (“to drink alcohol excessively; to be in the habit of drinking alcohol excessively;” Farlex 2015) describes one of the Greek class students with an alcohol addiction. Evidently, the translator resorted to omission because the conceptual mapping someone drunk is like a fish is foreign to Ukrainian culture. Thus, the strategy employed is qualified as compulsory domestication. However, there are synonymic idiomatic similes in Ukrainian that rest on culture-specific conceptual mappings: набрався як свиня/нализався як свиня з корита [got drunk, like [a] pig/got drunk like [a] pig from [a] trough]], and п’яний як чіп [drunk as [a] stopper]. Using such a simile-based idiom in translation would make it possible to preserve the style of the source text. The following example illustrates the omission of an idiomatic simile that is rooted in a culturally similar conceptual mapping: She was a hard worker though, she’d worked like a horse, keeping the joint clean... (Atwood 2009, 263). – Утім вона була працьовита, підтримувала чистоту в забігайлівці... (Atwood 2018, 328) [Yet she was hardworking______, kept cleanliness in [the] joint]... In spite of the fact that in both cultures a hard-working person is conceptualised as a horse and this association instantiates in the corresponding simile-based idioms, the translator chooses to omit the target text simile. Such a translation strategy is qualified as optional domestication. Probably,the translator’s choice can be explained by the wish to avoid pleonasm since the expressions to be a hard-worker and to work like a horse are synonymous, and used together they create tautology. 150 Omission and addition of fiction similes: cognitive translation analysis In order to see how linguacultural specificity of simile correlates with the choice of the translation procedure we calculated percentages of culture-specific and nonculture-specific similes that were omitted taking into account the types of similes. The data are presented in Figure 1. Figure 1. Percentage of omitted similes e data show that translators omit more nonculture-specific than culture-specific similes. Cultural specificity, characteristic of idiomatic and sometimes of non-idiomatic similes, is only one of the possible reasons that can influence the translator’s choice of omission. Original similes that cannot be discussed in terms of cultural specificity as well as nonculture-specific idiomatic and non-idiomatic conventional similes are also omitted. As to addition, we have found out that translators add non-idiomatic conventional similes as well as similes based on idioms. The following example instantiates addition of a non-idiomatic conventional simile: When he shook her she’d close her eyes and go limp, which incensed him further (Atwood 2009, 137). – У такі моменти вона заплющувала очі й ставала м’яка, мов ганчір’яна лялька, від чого він лютував іще сильніше (Atwood 2018, 164) [At such moments she closed [her] eyes and became limp, like [a] rag doll, from which he got furious even more]. In the source text, the expression to go limp is used to describe how feeble little Laura looked when Mr. Erskine, her tutor, got furious because of her distractedness during the lesson and shook her. The translator introduces the simile built on the conceptual mapping someone who is limp looks like a rag doll in order to emphasize Laura’s laxness and passiveness. The simile is conventional since any reader regardless of their cultural affiliation can associate a little girl shaken by a strong man with a rag 151 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N doll. This case of domestication is optional. Moreover, by introducing the stylistic device absent in the source text the translator not only domesticates the target text but also changes its neutral stylistic scale into stylistically coloured. The next example presents another case of a non-idiomatic conventional simile addition: There were no signs and no apparent logic to the house numbers, and after we’d poked around blind for about half an hour, I began to hope that we would never find it at all... (Tartt 2015, 219). – Ніяких вказівників та очевидної логіки в нумерації будинків нам відшукати не пощастило, і після півторагодинного тицяння туди й сюди, немов ми були сліпими кошенятами, я вже почав був сподіватися, що потрібної адреси ми не знайдемо... (Tartt 2017, 389) [No sings or apparent logic in numbering [the] houses we to find were not lucky, and after half-an-hour poking around, as if we were blind kittens, I already began to hope that the necessary address we will not find...]. This simile addition can be partly explained by the difference between the grammatical structures of the English and Ukrainian languages. In the source text, the adjective blind is part of the mixed verbal-nominative predicate poked around blind, which is translated into Ukrainian by a subordinate clause of comparison – тицялися наче сліпі [poked around as if [we were] blind]. It seems the translator added the word кошенята [kittens] since blindness and helplessness are the qualities associated with kittens, who are born blind and helpless. This association is materialised in the Ukrainian metaphor сліпі кошенята [blind kittens]. The simile addition is qualified as optional domestication, because it is the translator’s free choice. This choice embodies the translator’s associations and can be explained by the effort to achieve fluency and naturalness of narration. Next, we consider an example of an idiomatic simile addition: Redeemed Repair is generally the best – they’re a bunch of born-agains down there but they’ll still shake you down pretty good if you don’t keep an eye on them (Tartt 2015, 16). – Найкраще було би звернутися до “Рятівного ремонту” – вони, звісно, ще ті новонавернені євангелісти, але все одно пильнуй, бо обдеруть як липку (Tartt 2017, 28) [Best would be to turn to “Redeemed Repair” – they [are], of course, still those newly converted evangelists, but any way be on alert, because they will pick [you] out like a linden]. The idiomatic phrasal verb to shake down means “to obtain money from in a deceitful, contemptible, or illegal manner” (Merriam-Webster 1828–2022) or “by extension, to ask, pressure, or force someone to pay a sum of money, oen an exorbitant or unfair amount” (Farlex 2015). In the novel, these are the words of the dean who warns Richard that the repair’s staff might charge him a double price if they learnt he was from the college. The translator renders this phrasal verb with the culture-specific idiomatic simile обдерти як липку which means “to rob, to take something from someone by force” (SSFS 2007–2022). The domestication is compulsory here since it is prompted by the necessity to adapt a culture-specific source text expression, though it does not necessarily have to be an addition of a simile. At the same time, employing an idiomatic Ukrainian simile seems justifiable since it helps to maintain the style of the original text. According to literary critics, idioms are an important part of Tartt’s style, 152 Omission and addition of fiction similes: cognitive translation analysis they “perform a certain stylistic function in the text contributing to familiarity and informality of speech, making it more colloquial, colourful and lively” (Mintsys and Chik 2016, 97). Finally, we consider a case where an explicit idiomatic simile is used to render an implicit (hidden) idiomatic simile: He was three sheets to the wind (Tartt 2015, 31). – Сидів п’яний як чіп (Tartt 2017, 54) [Sat drunk as [a] stopper]. The idiom to be three sheets to the wind that means to be “extremely drunk, especially to the point of being uncoordinated or out of control” (Farlex 2015) is used to describe one of the key character’s father. Etymologically, the idiom comes from “sailing ships,” where the “sheet” means “a rope that controls the trim of sail” (YourDictionary 2022). “If a sheet is loose, the sail flaps and doesn’t provide control for the ship,” but if several sheets are loose, it will cause “the ship to rock about drunkenly” (YourDictionary 2022). Thus, if three sheets are loose, the ship “will stagger like a drunken sailor” (YourDictionary 2022). Thus, etymologically the expression he is three sheets to the wind is an implicit simile based on the conceptual mapping someone drunk is like a staggering ship. The translator chooses to render the idiom with a culture-specific idiomatic simile п’яний як чіп (UKRLIT.ORG 2005–2021) [drunk as [a] stopper], which is stylistically equal to the source text expression, and accurately renders the meaning of the English idiom. We qualify this strategy as compulsory domestication since representatives of Ukrainian culture do not associate a drunken person with a staggering ship. To summarise the results of the analysis of simile addition, we calculated the percentage of the types of similes that were added in Ukrainian translations and presented the data in Figure 2. Figure 2. Percentage of added similes The data show that translators add more culture-specific idiomatic than nonculture-specific non-idiomatic similes. 153 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N Co n cl u si o n s The paper investigates two contrasting translation procedures: omission and addition of similes, which both contribute to the strategy of domestication. Domestication is compulsory if the translator’s choice is constrained by linguacultural specificity of the source text expression, or optional, if it is not. Omission involves the removal of a source text simile without providing clarifications or explanations in the target text. Translators omit original as well as idiomatic and non-idiomatic conventional similes, both culture-specific and nonculture-specific. Cultural specificity cannot be considered the main cause of omissions, since translators tend to omit more nonculture-specific similes than culture-specific ones. The omission of culture-specific similes is compulsory in the sense that they are built on conceptual mappings that do not exist in the target language culture and cannot be retained. However, omissions are not the only solution, since in many cases culture-specific source text similes could be replaced by culture-specific target text ones, which would help to maintain the original style. The omission of original and nonculture-specific conventional similes is optional. We assume that translators omit original similes because they may seem too extraordinary for the average reader. As far as nonculture-specific idiomatic and non-idiomatic similes are concerned, one possible explanation of their omissions is to avoid pleonasms. Anyway, by choosing to omit a simile translators risk failing to reproduce the features of the author’s style. Addition involves the insertion of a simile into the target text to translate the source text expression that contains no comparison. Translators tend to add more culture-specific idiomatic similes than nonculture-specific non-idiomatic ones to render culture-specific as well as nonculture-specific expressions that are not based on simile. In cases of culture-specific source text idiomatic expressions domestication is compulsory. Additions can be the only solution if the source text idiom has a simile-based translation equivalent. In cases of nonculture-specific source text expressions, domestication is optional; it is based on the translator’s free associations and aims at naturalness of expression. RE F ERE NCE S Aasheim, Irina. 2012. A contrastive study of similes in English and Norwegian. A master thesis presented to the Department of Literature, Area Studies and European Languages. University of Oslo. Aforyzmy: narodni prykmety ta narodni porivnyannya [Aphorisms: folk omens and folk simile]. 2022. Accessed on June 04, 2022. http://aphorism.org.ua/subrazd.php?page=107&pages_block=8&rid=3&sid=25. Akhmedova, Elvira. 2021. “Zhortannya anhlomovnykh khudozhnikh porivnyan’ v ukrayins’kykh perekladakh” [Reduction of English fiction similes in Ukrainian translations]. Scientific Notes of V.I. Vernadsky Taurida National University 32 (71), 5: 235–239. ATSUM: Akademichnyy tlumachnyy slovnyk ukrayins’koyi movy [Academic explanatory dictionary of Ukrainian]. 1970–1980. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. Accessed on June 04, 2022. http://sum.in.ua/. 154 Omission and addition of fiction similes: cognitive translation analysis Atwood, Margaret. 2009. The Blind Assassin. Kettering: Virago Press. Atwood, Margaret. 2018. Slipyy ubyvtsya [Blind assassin]. Trans. by Olena Oksenych. Kharkiv: Family Leisure Club. Cameron, Lynne, and Graham Low. 1999. Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge Cambridge University Press. Cherednychenko, Oleksandr. 2007. Pro movu i pereklad [About language and translation]. Kyiv: Lybid’. Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterda: John Benjamins. Cwik, Greg. 2013. “Donna Tartt’s New Anti-epic.” e Los Angeles Review of Books. Accessed on June 04, 2022. https://lareviewoooks.org/article/greg-cwik-on-donna-tartts-the-goldfinch/. Dvorak, Marta. 2006. “Margaret Atwood’s Humor.” In The Cambridge Companion to Margaret Atwood, ed. by Coral Ann Howells, 114–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Farlex dictionary of idioms. 2015. Accessed on June 04, 2022. https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/. Fauconnier, Gilles. 1997. Mappings in ought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Galera, Alicia. 2010. “A Cognitive Approach to Simile-based Idiomatic Expressions.” Círculode Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48. http://www.ucm.es/info/circulo. Gibbs, Raymond W., Jr. 2008. “Metaphor and thought: The state of the art.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs, Jr. 3–13. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Hilman, Evert, Kristina Ardiyanti, and Bena Yusuf Pelawi. 2013. “Translation of Similes in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel ‘The Great Gatsby.’” Jurnal Ilmu dan Budaya “ILMU dan BUDAYA” 1: 45–62. Kautsari, Ati Fauziya. 2019. “Techniques of Translating Simile from English to Indonesian in Capote’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” (Doctoral dissertation, UNNES). Kendenan, Esriaty Sega. 2017. “Simile and Metaphor in Translation: A Study on Students’ Translation of Amy Tan’s ‘Two Kinds’ Short Story.” Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature 11, 2: 107–16. Koptilov, Viktor. 2002 Teoriya i praktyka perekladu: navchal’nyy posibnyk [Theory and practice of translation: A textbook]. Kyiv: Yunivers. Kovalenko, Liudmyla, and Alla Martynyuk. 2021. “Verbal, Visual, and Verbal-visual Puns in Translation: Cognitive Multimodal Analysis.” Cognition, Communication, Discourse 22: 27–41. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. [1980] 2003. Metaphors We Live by. London: The University of Chicago Press. Langacker, Ronald Wayne. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Martynyuk, Alla, and Elvira Akhmedova. 2021. “Cognitive Translation Analysis of Fiction Simile.” Cognition, Communication, Discourse 23: 81–100. Merriam-Webster dictionary. 1828–2022. Accessed on June 04, 2022. https://www.merriam-webster.com/. Mintsys, Ella, and Elizabeth Chik. 2016. “Metaphors and Similes in Contemporary American Prose: D. Tartt’s Novel ‘The Goldfinch.’” Journal of Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian National University 3, 4: 95–99. Mohammed, Essam Tahir. 2017. “Simile as a Translation Problem.” Adab-Al-Farahidi Journal 31, 15: 563–77. 155 I V. O N L I N G U I S T I C A S P E C T S O F T R A N S L A T I O N Newmark, Peter. 1988. Textbook of Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. Ortony, Andrew. 1993. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parkhomenko, Karyna. 2018. “Translation strategies of reproduction of associative comparisons in Ukrainian and English translations of ‘Gattopardo’ by Giuseppe Tomasi Di Lampedusa.” Zakarpattia Philological Studies 5, 2: 69–74. Pierini, Patrizia. 2007. “Simile in English: from Description to Translation.” Circulo de Linguistica Applicada a la Communication 29: 21–43. Pohlig, John. 2006. A Cognitive Analysis of Similes in the Book of Hosea. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Stellenbosch. Ramli, Wan Nor Hazwani Wan. 2014. “The Translation of Simile in The Hunger Games Novel: Translation Strategies.” In Synergizing Knowledge on Management and Muamalah. Taman Batu Muda, Selangor: International Islamic University, 373–378. Rebrii, Oleksandr. 2012. Suchasni kontseptsiyi tvorchosti u perekladi [Modern conceptions of creativity in translation]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina. Shamsaeefard, Mansour, Mohammad Reza Falahati Qadimi Fumani, and Azadeh Nemati. 2013. “Strategies for Translation of Similes in Four Different Persian Translations of Hamlet.” Linguistics and Literature Studies 1, 3: 164–168. Sigismondi, Paolo. 2018. “Exploring Translation Gaps: The Untranslatability and Global Diffusion of ‘Cool.’” Communication Theory 28, 3: 292–310. SSFS: “Svit slova.” Frazeolohichnyy slovnyk [“The world of the word.” Phraseological dictionary]. 2007–2022. Accessed on June 04, 2022. https://svitslova.com/idioms-dictionary.html. Tartt, Donna. 2013. The Goldfinch. New York: Little, Brown and Company. Tartt, Donna. 2015. The Secret History. New York: Vintage. Tartt, Donna. 2016. Shchyhol’ [Goldfinch]. Trans. by Viktor Shovkun. Kharkiv: Book Club Family Leisure Club. Tartt, Donna. 2017. Tayemna istoriya [Secret history]. Trans. by Bohdan Stasiuk. Kharkiv: Book Club Family Leisure Club. Thahara, Yopi, and M. Hum. 2015. “Translation Techniques of Simile in the Novel ‘Angels and Demons’ to Malaikat and Iblis.” Journal of Translation Techniques of Simile 5, 1: 9–21. Tsepeniuk, Tetiana. 2011. “Vidtvorennya avtors’kykh peretvoren’ komparatyvnykh frazeolohichnykh odynyts’ intensyfikuyuchoho znachennya ukrayins’koyu movoyu” [Reproduction of the author’s transformations of comparative phraseological units of intensifying meaning in Ukrainian]. Studia methodologica 32: 67–71. UKRLIT.ORG: Publichnyy elektronnyy slovnyk ukrayins’koyi movy [UKRLIT.ORG: Public electronic dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. 2005–2021. Accessed on June 25, 2022. http://ukrlit.org/slovnyk. Venuti, Lawrence. 2001. “Strategies of Translation.” Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies: 240–244. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1958. Stylistique Comparée du Français et de L’anglais [Comparative stylistics of French and English. A methodology for translation]. Trans. and ed. by Juan C. Sager and Marie-Josée Hamel. Paris: Didier. YourDictionary. 2022. Accessed on June 04, 2022. https://www.yourdictionary.com/threesheets-to-the-wind. Zorivchak, Roksolana. 1983. Frazeolohichna odynytsya yak perekladoznavcha katehoriya (na materiali perekladiv tvoriv ukrayins’koyi literatury anhliys’koyu movoyu) [Phraseological unit as a translation category (on the materials of translations of Ukrainian literature into English)]. Lviv: Publishing House of Lviv Polytechnic National University. 156 Omission and addition of fiction similes: cognitive translation analysis AB S TR ACT This paper reveals correlations between translators’ choices of omission and addition of fiction similes and addresses the issue of cultural specificity of conceptual mappings underpinning these similes. It argues that the choice of omission and addition is not always constrained by the cultural specificity of the source text material. Omissions are also employed to minimise extraordinariness or avoid pleonasms, while additions are introduced to achieve naturalness and fluency of expression. Key w o r d s : Addition. Conceptual mappings. Culture-specific simile. Domestication. Nonculture-specific simile. Omission. CO NTAC T D ETAI L S: Alla Martynyuk, DSc. in Philology Mykola Lukash Translation Studies Department School of Foreign Languages V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University 4 Svobody Sq. 61022 Kharkiv Ukraine allamartynyuk@ukr.net ORCID: 0000-0003-2804-3152 Elvira Akhmedova, full-time postgraduate student and lecturer Mykola Lukash Translation Studies Department School of Foreign Languages V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University 4 Svobody Sq. 61022 Kharkiv Ukraine elvira.akhmedova@karazin.ua ORCID: 0000-0002-4515-4359 157 V. ON T RAU MA AN D MA NI PU LAT I ON Ü BE RS E TZ U NG U ND MAN IPU LAT ION : U K R AIN IS CHE L ITE R AT U R IN DER DDR M a r ia Iva nyt ska Vo r b emer ku n ge n : Po li t i sc h- ku l t u re ll e r R a hm e n Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg verbreitete die Sowjetunion ihre Ideologie auf verschiedenen Wegen, auch mittels Literaturübersetzungen. Man war überzeugt, dass die sowjetische Kultur und Literatur im Bereich marxistischen kulturpolitischen und ästhetischen Denkens starke erzieherische Wirkung auf die Entwicklung der deutschen Kultur haben konnten (Lehmann 2015, 221). Das Fundament dafür wurde noch in der Zwischenkriegszeit von deutschen antifaschistischen Dichtern gelegt, die ab Mitte der 1930er Jahre in der Sowjetunion Zuflucht gefunden hatten, nach 1945 nach Deutschland zurückgekehrt waren und sich für die Umsetzung sozialistischer Ideen engagierten. Zu ihnen gehörte zum Beispiel Alfred Kurella, Übersetzer und Herausgeber von Werken ukrainischer Dichter, der eine leitende Position im Schriftstellerverband der DDR übernahm und als Leiter der Kulturkommission des Politbüros des Zentralkomitees der SED1 Kulturpolitik in der DDR beeinflusst hat. Sehr stark kam der ideologische Transfer zwischen der Sowjetunion und der sowjetischen Besatzungszone zum Vorschein. „Die sofort nach dem 8. 5. 1945 einsetzende Propagierung russischer und sowjetische Literatur ist sowohl von sowjetischer als auch von deutscher Seite betrieben worden“ (222). Da die ukrainische Literatur zur sowjetischen gehörte, wurde auch sie für die „erzieherische Wirkung“ herangezogen. Die neugegründeten Medien Neue Welt und Tägliche Rundschau und Übersetzungen der sowjetischen Literatur, die in hohen Auflagen herausgegeben wurden, waren dafür ausschlaggebend. Beispielsweise wurden die politisch geprägten Theaterstücke des ukrainischen Parteifunktionärs und Schriftstellers Oleksandr Kornijtschuk, darunter auch Die Front, das in Stalins Auftrag 1942 geschrieben worden war, in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone mehrmals publiziert und auf den Bühnen Berlins, Dresdens und Potsdams aufgeführt. Auch in den folgenden Jahrzehnten wurden Literaturübersetzungen durch den starken Einfluss seitens des sowjetischen Staates und der SED determiniert. Sicher muss ein differenzierter Blick auf übersetzerische Leistungen in der DDR geworfen werden, damit sie nicht nur im Lichte der „Anweisungen von oben“ beschrieben werden (Tashinskiy 2020, 20). Aber das Anliegen dieser Studie ist es zu zeigen, welche Konsequenzen dieser politisch-kulturelle Rahmen für die Repräsentation der ukrainischen Literatur für das deutsche Lesepublikum hatte. 1 SED – Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands 160 Übersetzung und Manipulation: Ukrainische Literatur in der DDR Meth o do l o gi sch e Gr u n dl a ge n Der Forschungsgegenstand dieser Studie ist der ukrainisch-deutsche Literaturtransfer in den ersten Jahrzehnten nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Es wird untersucht, inwiefern Literaturübersetzungen von politischen und sozialen Kontexten dieses Literaturtransfers abhängig waren und welche Besonderheiten sie entwickelten. Als Forschungsmaterial der Studie dienen die in der SBZ und der DDR publizierten Übersetzungen von den Texten folgender ukrainischer Autoren: Olesj Hontschar, Wadym Sobko, Mychailo Stelmach, Wassyl Stefanyk und Anthogien der ukrainischen Literatur: Aus dem Buch des Lebens. Ukrainische und estnische Novellen (Müller 1951), Ukrainische Erzähler (Runge 1963), Eine beispiellose Hochzeit: Ukrainische Erzählungen aus neun Jahrzehnten (Göbner 1980) samt ihren Para- und Metatexten. Anhand der Analyse von den Paratexten (Vor- und Nachworten, Kommentaren, Klapptexten), Metatexten (Rezensionen zu Übersetzungen und literaturwissenschaftlichen Arbeiten) und anhand der vergleichenden Analyse der Ausgangstexte mit den Zieltexten lassen sich wichtige Merkmale dieses Literaturtransfers feststellen, die im Weiteren dargestellt werden. Ich beziehe mich bei der Analyse auf die Forschungen von André Lefevere und Susan Bassnett, die das Verhältnis zwischen Übersetzungen und ihren politischen, ideologischen und sozialen Rahmenbedingungen und Hintergründen sowie den Einfluss der Gesellschaft auf die Übersetzung als Prozess und als Ergebnis thematisieren. Im Vorwort zu ihrem Buch Translation, Rewriting and Manipulation of Literary Fame schreiben sie Folgendes: „Eine Übersetzung ist natürlich eine Neuschreibung eines Originaltextes. Alle Neuschreibungen, unabhängig von ihrer Absicht, spiegeln eine bestimmte Ideologie und Poetik wider und manipulieren als solche die Literatur, um in einer bestimmten Gesellschaft auf eine bestimmte Weise zu funktionieren. Umschreibung ist Manipulation im Dienste der Macht.“2 (Bassnett und Lefevere 1992, vii) Auf die Wichtigkeit der Berücksichtigung sozialer Komponenten bei translation studies weisen auch Norbert Bachleitner und Michaela Wolf hin, die sich auf die Theorie von Pierre Bourdieu über Feld, Kapital und Habitus stützen. Der von ihnen herausgegebene Band Streifzüge im translatorischen Feld. Zur Soziologie der literarischen Übersetzung im deutschsprachigen Raum (2010) beschreibt das Übersetzen als soziales Handeln und Übersetzer*innen als soziale Akteure. Ihnen zufolge interagiert ein Übersetzer auf dem globalen Übersetzungsfeld mit anderen Akteuren des Feldes unter Einhaltung bestimmter Spielregeln, wobei als Akteure Personen, Gruppen oder Institutionen fungieren können, die über ein bestimmtes kulturelles, wirtschaftliches, soziales oder symbolisches Kapital verfügen und entsprechend bestimmte Positionen im Feld einnehmen können (Bourdieu 1986; Bachleitner und Wolf 2010, 7–14). Unter dem ukrainisch-deutschen Übersetzungsfeld verstehe ich, in Anlehnung an Bourdieu, den soziokulturellen Raum, der sich an der Schnittstelle des deutschen und des ukrainischen literarischen Polysystems befindet und durch mehrstufige Verbindungen zwischen Akteuren gebildet wird, die mit einem gewissen Kapital agieren, um eine soziokulturelle Gemeinschaft auf dem Literaturmarkt der anderen Gemeinschaft zu präsentieren. 2 Hier und weiter – meine Übersetzung, soweit nicht anders angegeben. 161 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N Das Verständnis, dass es im Übersetzungsfeld unterschiedliche Akteure und Kräfte gibt, die von verschiedenen Motiven und Aufträgen geleitet werden, ermöglicht uns, den Prozess und das Ergebnis von Übersetzungen umfassender zu betrachten und zu verstehen, dass Übersetzer*innen bei ihrer Tätigkeit nicht (völlig) frei sind, die zu übersetzenden Werke und Übersetzungsansätze zu wählen. A kteu re a u f de m u kra i n is ch - de u t sch e n Ü be r set zu n gs fel d Wenn man politisch-soziale Kontexte und Bedingungen der Übersetzung von Texten der ukrainischen Literatur ins Deutsche nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone und in der DDR analysiert, wird klar, dass die stärksten Akteure des ukrainisch-deutschen Übersetzungsfelds die Kommunistische Partei der Sowjetunion und die Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands waren, die die dominierende Rolle in allen Lebensbereichen der UdSSR und der DDR spielten. Schriftstellerverbände und Verlage mit dazugehörigen Übersetzer*innen, Lektor*innen, Redakteur*innen, aber auch Zensor*innen sollten die Entscheidungen der oben genannten Akteure umsetzen, auch wenn sie sich mit der Zeit immer mehr Freiraum genommen haben (Kerstner und Risku 2014, 168–173; Tashinskiy 2020, 19). 1985 schrieb der Herausgeber von The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation Theo Hermans, dass jede Übersetzung ein gewisses Maß an Manipulation des Textes voraussieht, um ein bestimmtes Ziel zu erreichen (Hermans 1985, 9). Da in der beschriebenen Periode der Staat, die SED und der Schriftstellerverband eigene ideologische und politisch-kulturelle Ziele hatten, standen Literaturübersetzungen im Dienste deren Erfüllung und waren durch Manipulationen betroffen. Der von Lefevere eingeführte Begriff der Patronage eignet sich gut, um das existierende System der Beziehungen im ukrainisch-deutschen Übersetzungsfeld zu verdeutlichen. Unter Patronage versteht Lefevere Machtinstanzen, die als ein Instrument des ideologischen Einflusses und der Steuerung von Literaturübersetzungen zu sehen sind (Lefevere 1992). Daher betrachte ich den sowjetischen Staat und genauer gesagt die Kommunistische Partei der UdSSR und die von ihr gegründeten und kontrollierten Organe und Institutionen, auch in der DDR, als Patrone für die ganze Kulturarbeit, die nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg in Ostdeutschland organisiert wurde. Laut Lefevere wird jeder übersetzte Text einer bestimmten Ideologie bzw. Poetik angepasst und sollte daher als eine Neuschreibung betrachtet werden (ebd.). In Anlehnung an Lefevere kann man „Rewriting“ auch breit verstehen – nicht nur als Manipulation mit fremdsprachlichen Texten selbst, sondern auch als Manipulation mit deren Präsentation in neuer Form, zum Beispiel in Anthologien und Para- bzw. Metatexten. Texta u swah l a ls Man i p u l a t io n Manipulationen mit Übersetzungen manifestieren sich schon bei der Auswahl der zu übersetzenden Texte. Es ist nicht zu übersehen, dass die Sowjetunion daran interessiert war, sozialistische Ideen und Inhalte in die Länder des Ostblocks zu transferieren (Gröschel 1966). Deswegen wurden für Übersetzungen nur solche Texte und Autoren zugelassen, die diesem Anliegen eindeutig dienen konnten: sowjetische 162 Übersetzung und Manipulation: Ukrainische Literatur in der DDR Autoren, die den Kampf für Sozialismus und gegen den Faschismus darstellten, und revolutionäre Autoren der früheren Epochen, die die Ausbeutung von Bauern und Werktätigen vor der Oktoberrevolution und deren Befreiung durch die Revolution beschrieben. „Der Zweite Weltkrieg und der antifaschistische Widerstandskampf wurden zum zentralen Referenzmythos, der auch dem Zensor die Maßstäbe lieferte,“ schreibt Lokatis (2003, 19). Besonders auffallend sind solche Auswahl-Manipulationen in Anthologien. Anthologie als Text In der DDR wurden mehrere Anthologien der ukrainischen Literatur publiziert. Gabriele Pizarh-Ramirez analysierte die Arbeit des Verlags Volk und Welt im Bereich der übersetzten Literatur und stellte fest, dass die Politik der Erstellung und Herausgabe von Anthologien in diesem Verlag die Übersetzungskultur in der DDR am besten demonstrieren konnte und dass die Form der Anthologie Rückschlüsse auf die Wirkung nicht-literarischer Faktoren auf die Werkauswahl und die Präsentationsstrategie übersetzter Literatur zuließ (Pisarz-Ramirez 2008, 1779). Auch Walter Höllerer betonte, dass Anthologien noch stärker als andere Druckformen von der gesellschaftlichen Bewertungsskala her als „die Schnittzone zwischen dem Literarischen und dem Sozialen“ gesehen werden können (Höllerer 1970, vii). Ich teile die Meinung von Olena Haleta, dass Anthologien als eine besondere literarische Gattung betrachtet werden können, als „Weg zur Schaffung von Werten,“ als „Texte mit einer komplexen Struktur, bei denen der Erzähler ein Kompilator ist, der seine eigene Geschichte mit bestimmter Moral erzählt, zusammengesetzt aus Texten verschiedener Autoren“ (Haleta 2012, 72). Haleta stellt fest, dass solche neuen Werte nicht nur die Vergangenheit widerspiegeln, sondern auch Möglichkeiten der Interpretation der Gegenwart und den Blick in die Zukunft bilden (ebd.). Das literarische Spiel des Verfassers, der eigene Regeln aufstellt, „bleibt aus Sicht der modernen Literaturanthropologie und des Poststrukturalismus niemals unschuldig: Jede Sammlung wird zu einem literarisch-anthropologischen Projekt, das das Restrukturieren des Ausgangsmaterials und eine gewisse Politik seiner Bearbeitung beinhaltet, ausgedrückt in einer bestimmten Hierarchie von Werten, in der Textauswahl, Definition des Feldes und Spielregeln selbst, sowie von Regeln seiner Bewertung“ (73). Darüber hinaus werden übersetzte Anthologien zum Mittel, das Bild eines fremden Landes und einer fremder Literatur zu schaffen, in unserem Fall – das Bild der Ukraine und ihrer Literatur. Solche Bände besitzen eine unausgesprochene Autorität als repräsentative und kanonische Instanz, fügen sich in das imagologische Bild des Ausgangslandes ein und erfüllen die Funktion der Allegorie dieses Landes. Anhand von konkreten Beispielen wird gezeigt, wie das in den Anthologien ukrainischer Literatur in der DDR funktionierte. Rolle von Para- und Metatexten Alle genannten Anthologien ukrainischer Literatur haben vielsagende Paratexte. Unter Paratext werden nach Gérard Genette (2003) alle Informationen verstanden, die den Haupttext, in unserem Fall den übersetzten Text, begleiten. Zu Paratexten gehören Vorworte, Nachworte, Fußnoten, Kommentare, Glossare, die vom Übersetzer oder anderen Akteuren zusammen mit dem Haupttext (Peritext) eingereicht werden, 163 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N sowie Begleittexte des Herausgebers, die in direktem Zusammenhang mit dem Peritext stehen, aber getrennt von ihm existieren und dessen Rezeption sichern. Bereits in der ersten Anthologie (1951) ist eine Tendenz zu beobachten, die in allen folgenden in der DDR publizierten Anthologien entwickelt wurde: Ein Blick auf die ukrainische Literatur durch das Prisma der russischen Sprache und Literatur und die immer wieder auftretende Betonung der brüderlichen Verbundenheit der Ukraine mit dem russischen Volk, das die Rolle eines Befreiers und eines älteren Bruders spielt. Sehr deutlich wird dies im Vorwort von Erich Müller formuliert: „Die Ukraine ist von altersher durch Tausende von Fäden mit dem Geschick Rußlands [!] verknüpft, Estland erst seit 1710... Erst Peter I. brachte dem Land Frieden und schloss es Rußland an“ (Müller 1951, 5). Der Herausgeber erklärt explizit, dass er ausgewählte Texte in (historisch-politische) Perioden gegliedert hat und schreibt Leser*innen quasi vor, wie die Texte zu deuten sind: „Um dem Leser das Erfassen der geschichtlichen und gesellschalichen Situation zu erleichtern, lassen wir jeder Periode eine Einführung vorangehen. Sie umfasst den gesellschalichen Hintergrund und stellt den sozialistischen Inhalt bzw. den Wesenskern der jeweiligen Novelle heraus“ (ebd., 8). Diese kurzen Einführungstexte ordnen sogar Novellen von vorsowjetischen Autor*innen den sozialistischen Ideen und der sowjetischen Geschichteschreibung unter. So heißen („literarische“) Perioden „Als Stalin Zarizyn verteidigte“ oder „Als die Schlacht um Stalingrad die Wende herbeiführte.” Es ist erwähnenswert, dass der Verfasser dieser kurzen einleitenden Bemerkungen nicht einmal die Autor*innen von Novellen nennt (!), sondern nur seine eigene Geschichte schreibt, indem er Texte für das eigene Sujet und die sozialistische Aulärung auswählt und interpretiert. Alle literarischen Werke ukrainischer und estnischer Schristeller präsentieren einen kurzen, skizzenartigen Kurs der Geschichte der UdSSR, aber – was am wichtigsten ist – ersetzen literarische Interpretation von Werken durch ideologische Botschaen, geben klare Richtlinien und festigen Stereotypen, die ein bipolares Bild von der Welt schaffen: „unsere junge sowjetische Macht und alle fortschrittlichen Kräe“ vs. „reaktionäre Kräe und ihre ausländischen Helfershelfer,“ „Macht des Volkes“ vs. „gehasste Verräter“ usw. Der Verfasser äußert sich auch zum literarischen Anliegen der Anthologie: „Der Sozialismus hat neue Schristeller geschaffen, die durch realistische Kunst einen neuen Menschen formen, den Erbauer des Kommunismus“ (8). Solche Äußerungen prägen auch andere Paratexte, was als eine der stärksten manipulativen Strategien verstanden werden kann. Außer Vor- und Nachworten, die meistens von Herausgeber*innen geschrieben und von Lektor*innen, Zensor*innen und Gutachter*innen zum Druck zugelassen wurden, griffen Übersetzer*innen zur Hilfe von Kommentaren und Fußnoten, um den Leser*innen das „richtige“ Verständnis bestimmter Szenen oder Passagen anzubieten. So geht es in einer Textpassage von Mychajlo Stelmach um die Minister der Ukrainischen Volksrepublik (UNR), des 1918 aufgerufenen ukrainischen Staates, der 1920 durch den Einmarsch der Roten Armee in die Ukraine aufgelöst wurde: „що не з добром приїхали уенерівські міністри до чорного барона в Крим“3 (Stelmakh 1962, 11). 3 Wortwörtlich: „nicht mit guten (Vorschlägen) kamen die Minister der UNR zum schwarzen Baron auf die Krim“ 164 Übersetzung und Manipulation: Ukrainische Literatur in der DDR In der Übersetzung von Jurij Elperin „wenn die UNR-Minister zum schwarzen Baron in die Krim gefahren sind“ wird in der Fußnote die Abkürzung so definiert: “UNR – Ukrainische Volksrepublik, offizielle Bezeichnung der konterrevolutionären Petlura-Bewegung“ (Stelmach 1960, 18), indem die Ukrainische Volksrepublik eine eindeutige abwertende Charakteristik bekommt. Im Zieltext gibt es auch weitere ähnliche Kommentare, z.B. über den berühmten ukrainischen Schriftsteller und Politiker jener Zeit Wolodymyr Wynnychenko, den Autor mehrerer Gesetze der Ukrainischen Volksrepublik und den Vorsitzenden des Exekutivorgans der UNR: „ukrainischer Schriftsteller, Nationalist und politischer Abenteurer“ (66). Solche äußerst negativen Deutungen der ukrainischen Geschichte und der Bestrebungen von Ukrainer*innen, einen eigenen Staat zu gründen, haben allmählich entsprechende Stereotype über die Ukraine in den Augen von deutschsprachigen Leser*innen entwickelt: Alle Ukrainer*innen, die für die Unabhängigkeit gekämpft haben, wurden als Konterrevolutionäre bzw. Nationalisten abgestempelt. Es lässt sich kaum feststellen, ob solche politisch abwertenden Kommentare und Interpretationen von Übersetzer*innen, Verleger*innen oder Lektor*innen stammen, aber die Übersetzungen als Kollektivprodukt von Akteur*innen des Übersetzungsfeldes tragen solche Botschaften ganz deutlich. Eine wichtige Rolle spielen auch Metatexte – Rezensionen und literaturkritische Texte, die separat von den Haupttexten fungieren, aber mit diesen verbunden sind und auch einen Einfluss auf die Wahrnehmung von Übersetzungen ausüben können. Meistens dienen sie mit Haupttexten und Paratexten einer einheitlichen Präsentation des Ausgangtextes im Übersetzungsfeld. So bezeichnet der bekannte Dichter und Übersetzer Alfred Kurella in seinem literaturkritischen Text über die ukrainischen Nationaldichter Taras Schewtschenko und Iwan Franko, die eigentlich für die Freiheit der Ukraine kämpften, als Internationalisten und „Verehrer der Kultur des russischen Brudervolkes“ (Kurella 1940, 34), und Ursula Wiebach nennt in ihrem Vorwort zu Frankos Übersetzung diesen Autor einen „Vorgänger von Lenin und Stalin“ (Wiebach 1955, 5–7). Auf solche Weise ergänzen Para- und Metatexte einander und schaffen mit dem Peritext ein imagologisches Bild der Ausgangsliteratur und des ganzen Landes. In unserem Falle – das Bild der Ukraine, die in den Augen von Deutschen für sowjetische Ideen unter der Leitung des russischen Volkes stand. Doppelte Über setzung und Russif izierung des Zieltextes Eine Besonderheit der ukrainisch-deutschen Literaturübersetzung in den ersten 20 bis 30 Nachkriegsjahren war, dass ukrainische Texte zuerst ins Russische und dann aus dem Russischen ins Deutsche übersetzt wurden. Das hatte zum einen den Grund, dass es nicht genügend hochqualifizierte ukrainisch-deutsche Übersetzer*innen gab, zum andern aber, dass die zu übersetzenden Texte zweimal von Patronage-Instanzen ausgewählt und kontrolliert werden konnten. Die ukrainisch-russisch-deutsche Übersetzung ist daher nicht nur als Instrument der doppelten Kontrolle, sondern auch als Instrument der doppelten Zensur zu sehen. Zum dritten trug diese doppelte Übersetzung dazu bei, dass in den übersetzten Texten die Anwesenheit der russischen Kultur als selbstverständlich zu sehen war. Diese Manipulationen lassen sich auf beiden Ebenen beobachten, sowohl in Paratexten als auch in Haupttexten. 165 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N So kann man auch Peter Zimas Meinung zustimmen, dass kulturelle und ideologische Faktoren nicht nur die Auswahl der zu übersetzenden Texte beeinflussen, sondern auch die Semantik und Syntax von Übersetzungen, obwohl die Übersetzer*innen dies nicht immer verstehen (Zima 1992, 232). Im Falle der ukrainisch-russisch-deutschen Übersetzung verleihen die teilnehmenden Akteure den Zieltexten nicht selten neue Inhalte, die ich Russifizierung der Übersetzung nenne. Dazu gehören Einschübe russischer Sprach- und Kulturelemente (Realien, Namen, Sprichwörter, Symbole u.ä.) in die Zieltexte. Zum Beispiel, aus dem einfachen Satz «Так, − сказав Макс Дальгов, − добра штука4» (Sobko 1951a, 289) wird in der russischen Übersetzung der Satz «Да, как говорят русские, хорош гусь! − проговорил Дальгов5» (Sobko 1952, 306) und der deutsche Übersetzer Harry Schnittke wiederholt das: „Ja, ein schöner Gänserich, sagt der Russe in solchen Fällen“ (Sobko 1951b, 542). Die Passage stammt aus dem Roman vom ukrainischen sowjetischen Schriftsteller Wadym Sobko, der 1947–1950 als Leiter der Kulturabteilung der Zeitung Sowjetskoie slowo bei der Sowjetischen Militäradministration in Deutschland tätig war. Sein Roman Zaporuka myru (Des Friedens Gewahr) thematisiert sozialistische Veränderungen in der sowjetischen Besatzungszone und trägt genug ideologische Botschaften. Max Dalgow, der deutsche Kommunist, äußert sich auch explizit als Befürworter dieser Veränderungen. Aber der zusätzliche Einschub, von Übersetzer*innen vorgenommen, verleiht seiner Äußerung Nähe zur und Vertrautheit mit der russischen Kulturwelt, die nun als eine Orientierung für Deutsche diente und so von Lesenden wahrgenommen werden sollte. Weitere Fälle der Russifizierung sind mit der Wiedergabe von ukrainischen Realien verbunden. Sie werden nicht transkribiert, was das ukrainische Kolorit hätte behalten können, und nicht domestiziert, erklärt oder durch Hyperonyme übersetzt, um dem Zielleser den Inhalt leichter wiederzugeben, sondern durch russische Realien ersetzt. Ähnliches betri auch kulturmarkierte Textelemente. So erzählt die Großmutter in der Novelle von Mychajlo Koziubynskyj Що записано в книгу життя6 ein Märchen über „die Mutter Luchs.” Eine solche Figur gibt es in der deutschen Märchenwelt nicht und die Übersetzer gehen mit der mythischen Gestalt unterschiedlich um: Ausgangstext: Рот розкривався [...] і в ньому шипіли слова – щось про царенка, злото, дорогі страви [...] і баба кінчала про інше – про кобилячу голову або риь-мати7 (Kotsiubynskyi 1979, 102). Böltz: Der Mund öffnete sich [...] und Worte, die irgendein Königssohn von Gold und kostbaren Speisen gesprochen, fielen heraus [...] und es kam etwas anderes: die Geschichte vom Stutenkopf oder von der Königstochter, die in einen Frosch verzaubert worden war (Müller 1951, 14). Plackmeyer 1: Ihr Mund öffnete sich [...] und Worte von irgendeinem Königssohn, von Gold und teuren Speisen zischten darin. [...] und die Alte endete mit ganz etwas anderem − erzählte vom Pferdekopf oder vom Froschkönig (Runge 1963, 141). 4 5 6 7 Wortwörtlich: „Ja, sagte Max Dalgow, ein gutes Ding.“ Wortwörtlich: „Ja, wie Russen sagen, ein guter Gänserich, sagte Dalgow.“ Wortwörtlich: Was ins Buch des Lebens eingeschrieben ist. Wortwörtlich: „Der Mund öffnete sich [...] und darin rauschten Worte – etwas über einen Zarensohn, Gold, teure Speisen [...] und die Oma endete über etwas anderes – über einen Pferdekopf oder Mutter-Luchs.“ 166 Übersetzung und Manipulation: Ukrainische Literatur in der DDR Plackmeyer 2: Der Mund tat sich auf [...] und zischende Worte kamen heraus von einem Zarewitsch, von Gold und von herrlichen Speisen. [...] und die Großmutter schloß mit etwas ganz anderem – einem Pferdekopf oder einer bösen Stiefmutter (Göbner 1980, 7). Wilhelm Plackmeyer domestiziert das Bild und im Zieltext gibt es dann eine Stiefmutter oder einen Froschkönig, aber Alexander Böltz verwendet dafür ein beschreibendes Verfahren: „Königstochter, die in einen Frosch verzaubert worden war.” Das ist eine Figur aus einem ziemlich bekannten russischen Märchen. Hier schiebt man also eine russische Realie ein und so wird der Text der ukrainischen Literatur als solcher markiert, der gleiche mythische Gestalten hat wie die russische Kinderliteratur. Gleiche Manipulationen lassen sich auch bei Übersetzungen von ukrainischen Märchen beobachten, wenn ein Kater nicht mehr Bandura (ukrainisches Volksinstrument) wie im Ausgangstext, sondern Balalajka (russisches Volksinstrument) spielt (Horbach 1963, 42). Auch die Namen wurden in den meisten deutschen Übersetzungen nicht nach dem ukrainischen, sondern nach dem russischen Lautbild transkribiert: nicht Wolodymyr (wie es im Ukrainischen klingt), sondern Wladimir (wie im Russischen), nicht Oleksij, sondern Aleksej, nicht Olenka, sondern Aljonka. So wurde die Ukraine nach außen als Bestandteil Russlands kommuniziert und der Ausgangstext wurde als Phänomen der russischen Kultur rezipiert. Es ist daher nicht verwunderlich, dass viele europäische Leser*innen keine Differenzen zwischen der russischen und der ukrainischen Kultur gesehen haben. Noch mehr: auch für einige Verleger war die ukrainische Literatur als eigenständige kaum bekannt. So erschien 1985 in der DDR der Roman Morgenröte des bekannten ukrainischen Schriftstellers Oles Hontschar, der nur auf Ukrainisch schrieb. Auf der inneren Titelseite des Romans stand „Titel des russischen Originals – Твоя заря“ (Hontschar 1985), obwohl der Originaltext auf Ukrainisch geschrieben wurde. Das zeugt davon, dass das Russische vielen Verlegern als die einzige mögliche Ausgangssprache der Literatur aus der Sowjetunion erschien. Das lässt schlussfolgern, dass solche Übersetzungen über das Russische die Position der russischen Sprache in Kulturraum Europas festigten und für das Image der „großen russischen Kultur“ sorgten. Kommunisierung der Über setzungen Außer Einschüben von Inhalten, die auf den russischen Kulturraum hinweisen, beinhalten die analysierten Übersetzungen auch andere Einschübe, die mit sozialistischen, kommunistischen, antifaschistischen Ideen zusammenhängen (Hofeneder 2013). Obwohl für die Übersetzung nur ideologisch „richtige“ Texte ausgewählt wurden, versuchten manchmal Akteure des Übersetzungsfeldes einige politisch wichtige Aspekte zusätzlich hervorzuheben, etwas zu ergänzen, was nicht genug pointiert war. Einige Beispiele solcher Kommunisierung (nach Hofeneder 2013) können dies veranschaulichen: Ausgangstext: Вона стоїть за мир, за демократичні реформи, проти всяких зандерів і фуксів8 (Sobko1951a, 249). 8 Wortwörtlich: „Sie steht für den Frieden, für demokratische Reformen, gegen verschiedene Sanders und Fuchs’.“ 167 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N Schnittke: Sie ist für den Frieden, für demokratische Reformen, gegen die ganze Sander- und Fuchsbagage (Sobko 1951b, 471). Gerull-Kardas: Sie ist für den Frieden, für demokratische Reformen und gegen Gesindel wie Sander, Fuchs und Konsorten (Sobko 1954, 330). Die implizit angedeutete negative Stellung zu nicht „sozialistischen Elementen“ wird in der deutschen Übersetzung erweitert und expliziert, indem Lexeme mit negativer Konnotation wie Bagage, Gesindel und Konsorten dort verwendet werden, wo es im Ausgangstext nur die Pluralformen von zwei Familiennamen stehen. Besonders viele gravierende Änderungen von Textinhalten lassen sich in den ersten zwanzig Jahren nach dem Krieg beobachten. Sie folgten den sowjetischen Narrativen und haben allmählich ein Bild einer bipolaren Welt aufgebaut, in der sozialistische Länder hilfsbereit, human, antifaschistisch seien, und ihre Gegner – faschistisch, nationalistisch, menschenhassend. Ausgangstext: А ти розказала б про розподіл землі між селянами, про передачу заводів народові9 (Sobko1951a, 249). Schnittke: Und wenn du erst davon erzählst, wie der Boden unter den Bauern aufgeteilt worden ist, wie die Betriebe dem Volk übereignet worden sind? (Sobko 1951b,462) Gerull-Kardas: Du solltest erzählen, daß hier der Grund und Boden an die armen Bauern verteilt wurde. Daß die großen Industrieunternehmen den Naziverbrechern abgenommen und in die Hände des Volkes gegeben wurden (Sobko 1954, 324). Man machte sozialistische Akzente deutlicher und schob antifaschistische Akzente ein: Von Naziverbrechern war im Ausgangstext doch keine Rede. Zahlreiche ähnliche Beispiele erlauben die Schlussfolgerung, dass solche Verschiebungen die Lesenden in den Ländern des Ostblocks vorprogrammierten, die Welt so aufzunehmen, wie sie von der sowjetischen Propaganda dargestellt wurde. Dieser Aspekt wird im Band „Jedes Buch ist Abenteuer.” Zensursystem und literarische Öffentlichkeit in der DDR bis Ende der 60er Jahre so beschrieben: „Zentrale Kampfund Sinnbildungskonzepte wie „Antifaschismus“ oder „sozialistische Menschengemeinschaft“ scheinen in doppelter Perspektive auf: als Bürokratie- und als Kommunikationsgeschichte, als „geheime“ Verwaltung von Begriffen und als zirkulierende Deutungsmuster von Geschichte, Gegenwart und Zukunft“ (Barck/Langermann/Loktis 1997, 14). Textuelle Ver schiebungen Das Ende der 1960er Jahre wurde durch eine gewisse Milderung der sowjetischen Ideologieeinflüsse auf die Kulturpolitik in der DDR gekennzeichnet. Darüber hinaus arbeiteten in Verlagen schon Übersetzer*innen, die direkt aus dem Ukrainischen übersetzen konnten. Seit dieser Zeit sind weniger solche explizite Textfälschungen zu beobachten. Aber trotz der gewissermaßen alltäglichen „gediegenen Arbeit am Text“ (Meinert 1994, 213) lassen sich beim Vergleich der Ausgangs- und Zieltexte zahlreiche manipulative Strategien nachweisen. Unter den häufigsten kann man Verschiebungen nennen, wenn nationales Kolorit des Ausgangstextes reduziert oder gar eliminiert wird, d.h., wenn 9 Wortwörtlich: „Und du könntest über die Bodenaufteilung unter Bauern erzählen, über die Übergabe von Werken ans Volk.“ 168 Übersetzung und Manipulation: Ukrainische Literatur in der DDR Realien oder Symbole, kulturell markierte Metaphern ausgelassen oder durch Hyperonyme wiedergegeben werden. Auch Phraseologismen mit national markierten Elementen wurden o dephraseologisiert oder domestiziert, sodass das territoriale Kolorit des Textes neutralisiert wurde. Dazu gehören auch sowohl Standardisierung und Neutralisierung der Sprache von Protagonisten, Vermeidung von nicht-literatursprachlichen Elementen (Dialekten, Jargonismen, familiärer Lexik), als auch Veränderungen des syntaktischen Bildes: syntaktischen Strukturen wurden o vereinfacht, die Sprache des Autors simplifiziert. Das hatte zur Folge, dass die übersetzten Werke o ihre Eigenart und ihren Stil verloren haben. Darüber hinaus wurden Passagen mit ideologisch unangemessenen Inhalten, z.B. mit dem religiösen Gehalt reduziert oder ausgelassen. Das empirische Material gibt dafür reichhaltig Beweise. Betrachten wir einige davon. Der Epigraph zur Geschichte von Wassyl Stefanyk lautet im Original: „Політичним арештованим мужикам на Святий вечір“10 (Stefanyk 2015, 98). In der Übersetzung wird der Heilige Abend weggelassen und durch ein absolut anderes Lexem ersetzt: „Den politischen Häftlingen aus der Bauernschaft“ (Müller 1951, 136). Außerdem hat der Übersetzer das Register des umgangssprachlichen Wortes мужики11 geändert und eine neutral-offizielle Formulierung benutzt. Diese beiden Änderungen lassen sich durch die ideologisch begründete Eliminierung des religiösen Themas erklären, die sich auch in anderen Erzählungen des Sammelbandes nachvollziehen lässt, sowie durch politische Flirts mit der Bauernschaft, die zurVerwendung der Amtssprache durch den Übersetzer führte. Texte vieler ukrainischer Autoren von früheren Epochen, die an dialektalen Ausdrücken reich sind, wurden in den Übersetzungen meistes standardisiert, sodass die sprachlichen Porträts von Protagonisten verwischt wurden, wie z.B. hier: Ausgangstext: На-ко тобі грейцір, на-ко, але не плач. Аді, чуєш, шо дєдя каже, аби-с баби слухав, аби-с не пустував. Казав оце Василь до Іванка та й дав йому новенький грейцар12 (Stefanyk 2015, 101). Müller: Hier, da hast du einen Kreuzer, aber hör auf zu weinen! Hörst du, der Vater schreibt, du sollst der Großmutter folgen und keinen Unfug treiben, sagte Wassil zu Iwanko und schenkte ihm einen blanken Kreuzer (Müller 1951, 139). Im Ausgangstext gibt es einen Unterschied zwischen den Benennungen der Münze (Kreuzer), die dem Kind gegeben wird: Der Sprecher verwendet einen phonetischen Dialektismus – грейцір13 und in der Autorenrede steht die literarische Form jener Zeit грейцар14. In der Übersetzung verschwindet dieser Unterschied, ebenso wie die Expressivität der Äußerungen, die insbesondere durch Modalpartikel erzeugt wird. Die Einfachheit und Natürlichkeit der Umgangssprache gehen verloren, und das Ersetzen des Wortes пустувати15 durch einen Ausdruck der Amtssprache Unfug 10 11 12 13 14 15 Wortwörtlich: „Politisch verhafteten Männern/Bauern an Heiligabend“ Männer/Bauer (umg.) Wortwörtlich: „Hier, du (dial.), nimm mal einen Kreuzer (dial.), nimm mal (dial.), aber weine nicht. Schau mal (dial.), hör mal, was der Vater (dial.) sagt, du sollst (dial.) der Oma zuhören, du sollst (dial.) nicht unartig sein (umg.) So sagte Wasyl zu Iwanko und gab ihm einen neuen (deminutiv) Kreuzer.“ [hrejtsir] [hrejtsar] unartig, ausgelassen sein (umg.), meistens mit einer nachsichtigen und wohlwollenden Stellung des Sprechenden zum Kind artikuliert 169 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N treiben macht die ganze Äußerung offiziell. Der Verlust der Differenzierung zwischen der Sprache des Autors und der Sprache der Protagonisten simplifiziert den Zieltext und ignoriert dominierende Züge des autorischen Stils. F az it Die Analyse der Übersetzungen von Texten ukrainischer Literatur in den ersten Jahrzehnten nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, die in der DDR publiziert wurden, ergibt Erkenntnisse, die auf den manipulativen Charakter des Literaturtransfers dieser Epoche hinweisen. Ohne die Wichtigkeit und Rolle von Leistungen vieler Übersetzer*innen zu vermindern, muss darauf hingewiesen werden, dass deutsche Übersetzungen aus dem Ukrainischen zur Herausbildung des Images der ukrainischen Literatur als Teil des russischsprachigen Kulturraumes beigetragen haben, was die Aneignung des ukrainischen geistigen Kapitals durch die „große russische Literatur“ ermöglichte. Die Übersetzung über die russische Sprache, die in den ersten zwei Jahrzehnten ein gängiges Verfahren war, eliminierte nationale Eigenschaften des ukrainischen Ausgangstextes und „kämmte“ das Werk entsprechend den ideologischen und ästhetischen Vorstellungen der Auftraggeber und Patronen dieses Literaturtransfers, d.h., der Kommunistischen Partei der Sowjetunion, der SED und des Deutschen Schriftstellerverbandes. Zu den wichtigsten Manipulationen gehörten ideologisch bedingte Textauswahl, Kommentare und Vorworte, bewertende Aussagen, die dem Leser vorschrieben, wie Texte wahrgenommen werden sollten; Russifizierung der Zieltexte durch die Einführung russischer Sprach- und Kulturphänomene, auch Eigennamen; Kommunisierung der Texte durch Einschübe zusätzlicher ideologisch beladener Elemente; Neutralisierung und Standardisierung der Sprache durch Weglassen von ukrainischen Kulturphänomenen, Dialektausdrücken und anderen stilistisch markierten Elementen; Simplifizierung der Texte auf der lexikalischen, syntaktischen und phraseologischen Ebene, was ihre Expressivität und das ganze Erscheinungsbild änderte. Wenn man bedenkt, dass solche Manipulationen über mehrere Jahre und in vielen Übersetzungen wirkten, aber vom Lesepublikum als solche kaum bemerkt wurden, kann man den Einfluss der übersetzten Literatur auf die Formierung des Images des Ausgangslandes besser verstehen. Und das findet bedauerlicherweise auch heute eine Fortsetzung in dem Krieg, der von Russland gegen die Ukraine geführt wird. LI T ER AT U R Bachleitner, Norbert, und Michaela Wolf (Hg.). 2010. Streifzüge im translatorischen Feld. Zur Soziologie der literarischen Übersetzung im deutschsprachigen Raum. Wien-Berlin-Münster: LIT-Verlag. Barck, Simone, Martina Langermann und Siegfried Lokatis. 1997. „‚Jedes Buch ein Abenteuer.‘ Zensur-System und literarische Öffentlichkeit in der DDR bis Ende der sechziger Jahre.“ Berlin: Akademie. Bassnett, Susan und André Lefevere. 1992. „General editors’ preface.” In: Lefevere, André. 1992. Translation, Rewriting and Manipulation of Literary Fame, vii-viii. London, New York: Routledge. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The forms of capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the 170 Übersetzung und Manipulation: Ukrainische Literatur in der DDR Sociology of Education, ed. by John G. Richardson, 241–258. New York: Greenwood Press. Genette, Gérard. 2003. Paratexte. Das Buch vom Beiwerk des Buches. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Göbner, Rolf, Hg. 1980. Eine beispiellose Hochzeit: Ukrainische Erzählungen aus neun Jahrzehnten. Berlin: Volk und Welt. Gröschel, Manfred. 1966. „Deutsch-sowjetische Kulturbeziehungen und die Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland.” In Deutschland − Sowjetunion: Aus fünf Jahrzehnten kultureller Zusammenarbeit, 189–193. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität. Haleta, Olena. 2012. „Vid antolohoii do ontolohii: kolektsiia yak sposib literaturnoi (samo)identyfikatsii.” Literaturnyi protses: metodolohiia, imena, tendantsii 1: 72–76. Hermans, Theo. 1985. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm. Hofeneder, Philipp. 2013. Die mehrsprachige Ukraine. Übersetzungspolitik in der Sowjetunion von 1917 bis 1991. Berlin-Wien: LIT-Verlag. Höllerer, Walter. 1970. „Vorwort.” In Bark, Joachim, und Dietger Pforte, Die deutschsprachige Anthologie. Band 1: Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Theorie und eine Auswahlbibliographie des Zeitraumes 1800–1950, vii–xii. Frankfurt am M.: Klostermann Verlag. Hontschar, Oles. 1985. Morgenröte. Roman. Übers. von Johann Warkentin. Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag. Horbach, Anna-Halia. 1963. „Ukrainska literatura v pisliavoiennykh nimetskykh perekladakh.” Suchasnist 1: 40–55 Kerstner, Judith, und Hanna Risku. 2014. „Die Situation der LiteraturübersetzerInnen in der DDR und im heutigen Deutschland. Eine Untersuchung zu Translation und Kooperation.” Zeitschrift für Translation und Fachkommunikation 7(1): 166–183. Kotsiubynskyi, Mykhailo. 1979. Tvory v trokh tomakh. T. 3: Povisti. Opovidannia (1910–1912). Statti. Lysty. Kyjiv: Dnipro. Kurella, Alfred. 1940. „Taras Schewtschenko der Nationaldichter der Ukraine.” Internationale Literatur. Deutsche Blätter 11: 33–43. Lefevere, André. 1992. Translation, Rewriting and Manipulation of Literary Fame. London, New York: Routledge. Lehmann, Jürgen. 2015. „Die Rezeption russischer und sowjetischer Literatur in der Sowjetischen Besatzungszone (SBZ) und in der DDR.” In Russische Literatur in Deutschland, 221–284. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler, Lokatis, Siegfried. 2003. „Nimm den Elefanten− Konturen einer Verlagsgeschichte.” In Fenster zur Welt. Die Geschichte des DDR-Verlages Volk und Welt, hg. von Simone Barck und Siegfried Lokatis, 15–32. Berlin: Ch Links. Meinert, Joachim. 1994. „Zur Situation der literarischen Übersetzer in den neuen Bundesländern.” Neue deutsche Literatur 43 4: 211–221. Müller, Erich, Hg. 1951. Aus dem Buch des Lebens. Ukrainische und estnische Novellen. Berlin: Verlag Kultur und Fortschritt. Pisarz-Ramirez, Gabriele. 2008. „Übersetzungskultur in der DDR. Eine Fallstudie.” In Übersetzung – Translation – Traduction, B. 2, hg. von Harald Kittel, Armin Paul Frank, Norbert Greiner, 1779–1799. Berlin: de Gruyter. Runge, Karl, Hg. 1963. Ukrainische Erzähler. Berlin: Neues Leben. Sobko, Wadym. 1951a. Zaporuka myru. Kyiv: Radianskyi pysmennyk. Sobko, Wadym. 1951b. Des Friedens Gewahr. Übers. von Harrry Schnittke. Moskau: Verl. für fremdsprachige Literatur. Sobko, Wadym. 1952. Zalog mira. Übers. von Tsetsiliia Dmitriieva, Natalia Trenieva. Moskau: Sovetskij pisatel. 171 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N Sobko, Wadym. 1954. Irgendwo in Deutschland. Nach vorliegenden Übersetzungen bearbeitet von Ruth Gerull-Kardas. Berlin: Das neue Leben. Stefanyk, Wasyl. 2015. I choho ty, sertse moie...: Vybrane. Kyiv: VTs „Akademiia.” Stelmach, Mychajlo. 1960. Menschenblut ist keinWasser. Aus dem Russ. übersetzt v. Jurij Elperin. Berlin: Aufbau-Verlag. Stelmakh, Mykhailo. 1962. Krov liudska – ne vodytsia. Kyiv: Derzhavne vydavnytstvo khudozhnioii literatury. Tashinskiy, Aleksey. 2020. „Eine Verflechtungsgeschichte zwischen Ideologie und Idiosynkrasie: Gesammelte Werke in Einzelausgaben von Lev Tolstoj im DDR-Verlag Rütten und Loening. 1952–1962.” In Übersetzer und Übersetzen in der DDR, hg. von Aleksey Tashinskiy, Julija Boguna und Andreas F. Kelletat, 17–58. Berlin: Frank und Timme. Wiebach, Ursula. 1955. “Vorwort.” In Sturm in Tuchla-Tal. Erzählung von Iwan Franko, 5–7. Berlin: Kultur und Fortschritt. Zima, Peter, und Johann Strutz. 1992. Komparatistik. Einführung in die vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft. Tübingen: Franck. A BS T RACT The author analyzes a specific period of the translations of Ukrainian literature in the GDR and argues that during this period literary relations between the Soviet Union and East Germany were clearly determined by the ideology. This resulted in many manipulations: ideological changes in selecting texts, ideological motivation by text selection for anthologies, evaluative statements, additions, extentions, simplifications, tentative comments, and forewords dictating the reader on text perception. Translations from Ukrainian via Russian into German created the image of Ukraine as a part of the Russian-speaking cultural area. Russification of target texts expressed itself in the introduction of Russian language and cultural phenomena, Russian phonetic transcriptions of proper names, neutralizations, and omissions of Ukrainian cultural phenomena. Keywords: Manipulation. Anthology. Ukrainian-German literary translation. Ukrainian literature. Paratext. Style. CO NTAC T D ETA I LS : Maria Ivanytska, Dr. habil., Full Professor Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv 60 Volodymyrska Str. 01601 Kyiv Ukraine ivanytska@ukr.net ORCID: 0000-0002-4870-431X 172 ON T HE PE RS PE C TIV ES OF T RA NS L AT ING TH E WA R LI TER ATU R E OF T RAU M A N a ta lia Ka m ovn ikova In t ro d u ct io n The war that broke out in Ukraine on 24 February 2022 forever changed the relationships, social interactions, and allegiances and disrupted millions of human lives lost to the war or scattered within and beyond Ukrainian borders in search for refuge. In the midst of the ongoing crisis, much less is being said, albeit quite naturally, about the ways the war affects those spheres of life that lie beyond the primary needs of humans. The war has already affected literature written in Ukrainian and Russian languages by writers and poets on both side of the front line. The scope of the war literature will invariably grow in the coming years, and new approaches to representing the events will emerge as people gradually become able to come to grips with their losses. This literature will certainly be translated into other languages, and these translations will also require new approaches to reading the original texts and their subsequent rendering in other languages. The literary works that will grow out of the terrors of the Russo-Ukrainian War will clearly have their distinctive features; it is not only their painful content, but also their underlying implications and very specific formal features that will undoubtedly present challenges to translators into third languages. This paper is an attempt at the initial analysis of the tendencies of the emerging war literature with an eye to potential translation problematics. I have been gathering the practical material presented here from the very first day of the war. The sources of examples are predominantly social networks; and, as I continue gathering data, I am aware of the fact that some perspectives will transform in response to the rapidly changing circumstances. All examples used in the article were created by Russian speakers, and my choice of examples is determined both by the fact that Russian is my A-language and by my wish to share the examples from the new emerging Russian anti-war literature, access to which might be substantially hindered to the world outside Russia under current circumstances. As I am writing this paper in June 2022, I can see two important features of the Russo-Ukrainian War literature that will determine the future of its literary translation. One of them, trauma, has psychological origins, and the concept of trauma has been studied widely by literary scholars. e other feature, bilingualism, introduces sociolinguistic problematics into the translational context. Bilingualism of war literature as such presents a wide scope of problems from the purely technical tasks of rendering to very subtle challenges in decoding the degree of accommodating and non-accommodating strategies. Incorporating themselves in the new war literature, trauma and bilingualism intertwine, which makes translation tasks relating to one of them unsolvable without addressing the other. 173 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N Tra u ma e literature emerging on both sides of the frontline builds upon the wartime experience and the memories of the parties, be these memories first-hand, or related on the accounts of war by immediate witnesses and media. e immediacy of war dictates very specific means of trauma representation in the new war literature. e physical presence of war in Europe, in the direct proximity to the writers and poets creating literature, has already caused a makeover in literary approaches. It was only in 2020 that Robert Eaglestone, when speaking about trauma fiction, noted that literary interpretation depends on the questions posed; in the case of Eaglestone 2020 paper trauma fiction meant “less ‘fiction about trauma’ and more, ‘reading with trauma in mind’” (287). Two years aer these words were written, we are witnessing the dramatic change of the entire paradigm of the European literature, which has equalized his definitions of trauma fiction. Literature on the Russo-Ukrainian War will continue to be read with trauma in mind, but the immediacy of warfare makes it in default fiction about trauma. The first quarter of the twenty-first century flings us back from the literature of the collective traumatic memory, which requires temporal distance from the traumatic events, to the literature of the trauma as such. Current war literature is a means of releasing the individual trauma, “a blow to the psyche that breaks through one’s defenses so suddenly and with such brutal force that one cannot react to it effectively;” or, after the initial shock spends itself, it releases the collective trauma – “a blow to the basic tissues of social life that damages the bonds attaching people together and impairs the prevailing sense of communality” (Erikson 1976, 153–54). The traumatic experience depicted in the war literature of 2022 will take many shapes. Descriptions of the national calamity as described by the Ukrainians, both civilians and the military, will be central to the themes of the new war literature. However, there will be other themes, probably peripheral and to some readers more disputable from the point of view of ethics and source. There will appear literary accounts of people from the other side of the frontline, those anti-war Russians to whom the news of war came as a shock, who rioted, protested, and were arrested by the regime, who had to flee to other countries leaving behind all hope of a happy life. For all writers and poets affected by war, disregarding the nationality, writing about war is much more than literary engagement: it is primarily a means of releasing trauma and distancing oneself from the horrors of the witnessed reality. The other striking feature of the ongoing war is that this is the first war in the history of Europe unfolding in front of the entire world in an online mode. The practice of televised wars goes back to the Vietnam War; however, neither the Kosovo War in 1998–1999, nor the 2003 Iraq War was able to receive such unprecedented coverage for reasons of technological advancement. The Russian invasion in Ukraine unfolds in front of our eyes: its videos and photos are streamed into social networks nonstop and almost instantaneously. The confrontation between the two states has remained in the focus of media since the Russian occupation of Crimea in 2014, but the avalanche of information now coming from Ukraine is many times greater than it used to be before February 2022. The mere psychological awareness of the fact that the new war is unfolding in the heart of Europe has increased the circulation of information and public response. 174 On the perspectives of translating the war literature of trauma Modern means of social communication enable anyone who is willing to gain knowledge of the ongoing events and, which is particularly important, to compare the information coming from different sources. In this regard, the Russo-Ukrainian War literature coming into being will have a different effect on its readership, both domestic and international. In 2018, Gerd Bayer described all war literature as a gray zone phenomenon that exists “between the didacticism of educating readers about the horrors of the battlefields and the enticement that stems from drawing on extreme emotions” (213). In 2022, the didactical purpose becomes peripheral, for the readership that is interested in the works on the ongoing conflict has already been widely informed. e same concerns the “enticement,” which has already been made for by mass media, which were univocal in presenting the war as a non-enticing dramatic story of grief, pain, destruction, looting, and descent into inhumanity. Beyond didacticism and readership entertainment, the Russo-Ukrainian War literature lays the groundwork for individual confessions, where sharing a single person’s experience becomes as valuable as sharing a collective memory. is focus on the individual experience without substantial claims for wide literary recognition is also maintained by the primary forms of circulation of the new war literature: written under the spell of a moment, it is first made public in social networks and personal webpages. Having gained so much media coverage, the Russo-Ukrainian War, is currently coming into literature in the shape of multiple individual tragedies. Sooner or later, some of these stories are going to be translated, and one of the main challenges awaiting translators, in my view, is the danger of de-scaling the original, bringing the collective aspect above the personal one, or, contrarily, failing to recognize the collective trauma in the personal account. Another feature of the new war literature will be its integral attempts to define the figure of the enemy and the boundaries of its existence. Between the two countries and the two nations bordering on each other and sharing a common, albeit an extremely difficult history, bound by decades of individual friendships and family ties, the definition of an enemy as a figure is traumatic experience as such. For is that every Russian, or some individual Russians, or all Russians excluding some individuals, who are perceived by the wronged Ukrainian population as enemies? Outlining the enemy and giving it a clear shape is one of the moral tasks the new war literature is trying to resolve. On the side of the anti-war Russians, the trauma will consist in drawing the demarcation line between themselves and the aggressor in order to “wash oneself clean” from the collective image of the aggressor. The other feature of the anti-war Russian writings is reflections on the ways of redeeming the deeds of aggressors bound to them by the mere name of the nation. An illustrative example in this regard is a poem written and published by Vadim Zhuk on 11 March 2022. Стремительно, страшно и необратимо стареем. Ни сил, ни желания нет, чтоб покинуть страну. Московский еврей перед винницким горько винится евреем, Никак не умея свою сформулировать толком вину. – Ты здесь ни при чём, – ему винницкий друг отвечает. Московский заплакал в свои-то – за семьдесят – лет. Компьютер нетвёрдой своею рукой выключает И смотрит на снег за окном и на солнечный мартовский свет. (Zhuk 2022) 175 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N [Rapidly, terribly and irreversibly, we are aging. / There is neither the strength, nor the wish to leave the country. / A Moscow Jew beats himself up bitterly before a Vinnitsa Jew / Not being able to formulate his guilt properly. / “You have nothing to do with it,” his Vinnitsa friend replies. / The Muscovite bursts out crying for once in his seventy years. / He turns off the computer with an unsteady hand / And stares at the snow outside the window and at the sunny March light.]1 For a representative of the country directly engaged in the war, this poem is clearly anti-war and infinitely traumatic. e feeling of the grief is created by means of omissions, which can be easily restored by the live witnesses of the events. e conversation between a Russian and a Ukrainian pensioner described in the poem is one of thousands that took place in March 2022 between Russians and Ukrainians trapped physically and psychologically on both sides of the frontline. e only directly formulated phrase – the reply of the Ukrainian pensioner – evokes memories of multiple confessions and anti-war protests on the Russian side. e image is enhanced by the recognizable description of March 2022 in Eastern Europe: very cold and sunny, with long blue shadows of trees lingering in the snow in the hope for the spring warmth. Paradoxically, the literature of trauma poses two equally important translation problems with a clearly reverse vector. One of them, as we have seen, consists in the ability of the translator to recognize the trauma in a seemingly non-traumatic text. The other, oppositely, is the ability of the translator to resist the trauma and maintain a distance from the other’s pain when translating. This contrariety in translation practices is rooted in the ethical nature of literature in general; literature of trauma increases the ethical aspect manifold, which made Colin Davis describe talks of the other’s trauma as “an ethical minefield” (2011, 19). Trauma as a literary phenomenon, states Davis, is capable of causing the secondary witnessing effect, which induces the reader to participate in the story and trauma of others. This fact calls into question the possibility of defining the meaning of another’s story without delusion or falsification (20). Translators as immediate text mediators will therefore be most subject to secondary witnessing, and the degree of their involuntary interference with the emotional arrangement of the texts they deal with will be considerably higher in comparison with the texts of other types. What is more, the temporal and spatial proximity of the described events will increase the risks of secondary witnessing. The implications of this fact are numerous; the issue of our prime concern must be the increase of the awareness of translators engaged in these painstaking tasks. Another important consequence of the immediacy of literary response to the war is the anticipated growth in the number of retranslations, which will follow as the war, hopefully, becomes the event of the past and distances itself in time from its readers. Bi l i n gu a l is m Bilingualism as a feature of the new war literature is preconditioned by several important factors, and the primary reason for the already tangible tendency of both literatures to combine both the Ukrainian and the Russian language in the literary works is 1 All translations are by the present author. 176 On the perspectives of translating the war literature of trauma a sociolinguistic one. Russian continues to be widely spoken in Ukraine and remains the mother tongue to a considerable number of Ukrainians. e Russian language, therefore, is currently facing a double bind, being both the language of the aggressor and of the victim, this fact becoming but another motive for the active employment of bilingualism in the ongoing war literature. In a sense, bilingualism has become one of the means of resolving individual traumas. For the Ukrainian-originated texts, bilingualism oen, however not always, serves as a means of drawing a demarcation line between the nation and “the other.” For the Russian-originated texts, bilingualism manifests redemption and acknowledgement of tragedy. In the first hundred days of war, Russo-Ukrainian bilingualism has become an instrument of expressing protest in Russia: with the open resistance movement crashed by government forces, learning the Ukrainian language, the Ukrainian anthem, and poems by Taras Shevchenko became the means of personal resistance (Meduza 2022). Bilingual accounts of warfare by eyewitnesses will undoubtedly present a complex matter for their prospective translators. Preference of one language to another may be motivated sociolinguistically; it can therefore target the social manifestation of distancing oneself from the aggressor or maintaining solidarity with the fellow-nationals (Giles, Coupland, and Coupland 1991, 2). On the other hand, cladding individual memories and feelings in words under the conditions of stress and trauma requires a wider array of linguistic instruments than the use of one single language. In the case of traumas, the employment of the second/non-native language is capable of working towards detachment from the described experience in the individual’s first language, thus enabling the writer to release the emotion otherwise suppressed. This effect of emotional detachment was widely described in literature on and psychotherapy in bilinguals, starting as early as 1976, when Luis R. Marcos formulated his fundamental detachment principle. According to Marcos, speaking across the language barrier may determine a substantial diminution or deflection of affect, because the transfer to a non-native language makes the speakers “invest affect in how they say things and not so much in what they are saying” (1976, 348). Further achievements in the studies of bilingual autobiographic memory were described with much detail by Jeanette Altarriba and Rachel G. Morier (2006) and Aneta Pavlenko (2014, 191–205). Within the framework of literature and translation studies, the findings in bilingualism can prove to be of key importance when assessing language choices by writers and poets of the new war literature. These choices can be deliberate, as well as involuntary, motivated by unresolved traumas and the yet unrendered emotions. Among numerous examples of bilingual literary and journalistic texts, “The red nail polish” by Kirill Serebrennikov is probably one of the most widely circulated in the Russian opposition press (Serebrennikov 2022). Serebrennikov is a well-known Russian film-director who openly opposes the official Russian policy; he spent two years under house arrest in course of a headline-making trial case, which the independent media described as fabricated. “The red nail polish” is an allusion to the chilling photo image of a dead female hand in Bucha. It was due to her fresh bright-red manicure that the deceased was identified by her nail artist, who happened to see the photo in the media. Serebrennikov’s essay is a broad allusion to Nikolai Gogol’s novella The Viy, in which a young seminarian holds vigil by the body of a young dead woman, whom he involuntarily killed as she presented herself in an image of an old witch. The 177 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N native language of Serebrennikov, Russian, intertwines with the Ukrainian language of the dead girl. Я держу в руках какую-то книгу, написанную по-русски. Буквы умерли. Губы пересохли. Мертвая украинская девушка стоит передо мной и просит: «Поглянь на мене, хлопчик. Поглянь». Я думаю: «Не могу, не могу.” «Треба, хлопчик, треба». Я молчу, не знаю, как быть. Она шепчет: «Бачиш?» Я говорю: «Нет». Она смеется: «А ты побач! Не бійся.” Я тихо говорю: «Тогда поднимите мне веки». Кто-то поднимает мне веки, заставляет смотреть. Мне страшно, но я смотрю. Я смотрю. Там – война. [I am holding some book written in Russian. The letters have died. The lips have dried. The dead Ukrainian girl stands in front of me, asking, “Look at me, boy. Look at me.” I am thinking, “I can’t, I can’t.” “You’ve got to, boy, you’ve got to.” I am silent; I do not know what to do. She whispers, “Do you see?” I reply, “No.” She laughs, “Go take a look. Fear not.” I am saying quietly, “Raise my eyelids, then.” Someone raises my eyelids, making me see. I am afraid, but I am looking. I am looking. There is war.] As one can see, all remarks by the dead Ukrainian girl are rendered in the Ukrainian language in the original; the rest of the original is in Russian. In the context of a scholarly article, I have intentionally translated both languages into English to ensure understanding. However, the translation targeting literary publication would require a different set of decisions, which in any case will have dramatic consequences in both the effect on the translation readership and the representation of the original author’s intention. What Serebrennikov metaphorically describes here is an encounter with a different, although a seemingly familiar nation, in whose death the protagonist feels he has a hand, albeit involuntarily. The voice of the dead girl is the voice of “the other” speaking a different language. At the same time, this voice is also the voice of the human conscience, sounding familiar, yet different for the desire to resist it. The mere call to open one’s eyes and see causes pain; putting it into an understandable but different language is also a subconscious psychological measure that enables the protagonist follow his path. As the detachment of the two wanes and the protagonist obeys the persuasion, the spell is broken, and the awareness of evil arrives. The bilingual intertextual narrative, understood without translation by the majority of native Russian speakers, will probably translate with relative ease into Slavic languages including those using Latin alphabet. However, the inter-Slavic bilingualism will undoubtedly be a challenging matter for translators into non-Slavic languages. Individual choices of translators will, of course, depend on multiple factors, for which one cannot provide universal prescriptions. Yet one thing is clear: translators of the new war literature will have to familiarize themselves, deliberately or by probe, with the phenomenon of bilingualism as a means of trauma release in literature. The bilingualism of the new war literature will contribute into the complexity of literary forms. The literature of trauma as such has been referred to as a “form of literary unsettlement” (Eaglestone 2020, 290); the translation of trauma literature therefore requires a special focus on rendering the formal features of the original. 178 On the perspectives of translating the war literature of trauma Bilingualism as an integral feature of the new war literature will raise the problem of form rendering to new heights. Decisions regarding rendering or omitting bilingual features of originals in their translations into third languages will be rather more of ethical than of linguistic matter, as the bilingualism of the new war literature has become a unique tool fulfilling multiple purposes: from the expression of alienation, accusation, and rage, to manifesting protest, proclaiming disagreement, and seeking for reconciliation. Co n cl u si o n The translation of the Russo-Ukrainian War literature written in Ukrainian, Russian, and both is yet to take place, as the scope of it is rapidly emerging against the background of the dramatic military events. With the war going on at the heart of Europe, new literary works will be very soon translated into most European languages. The traumatic experiences contained in the new war literature and the stylistic means employed in it will pose new questions to those who will decide to render the poignant stories of modernity into their languages. As Cathy Caruth wrote in her preface to the seminal volume Trauma, “[t]he difficulty of listening and responding to traumatic stories in a way that does not lose their impact, that does not reduce them to clichés or turn them all into versions of the same story, is a problem that remains central to the task of therapists, literary critics, neurobiologists, and filmmakers alike” (Caruth 1995, vii). To this, we need to add here, “and translators,” for the desire of the victims to reveal their pain and the desire of the caring to join in the sorrow often meet in the determination of translators to mediate the almost unspeakable and empathize the almost unperceivable meanings that trauma brings into a narrative. REF E RE NCE S Altarriba, Jeanette, and Rachel G. Morier. [2004] 2006. “Bilingualism: Language, Emotion, and Mental Health.” In The Handbook of Bilingualism, ed. by Tej K. Bhatia and William C. Ritchie, 250–280. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Bayer, Gerd. 2018. “Trauma and the Literature of War.” InTrauma and Literature, ed. by J. Roger Kurtz, 213–225. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Caruth, Cathy. 1995. “Preface.” In Trauma. Explorations in Memory, ed. by Cathy Caruth, vii–ix. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Davis, Colin. 2011. “Trauma and Ethics: Telling the Other’s Story.” In Cultural History and Literary Imagination. Vol. 18. Other People’s Pain. Narratives of Trauma and the Question of Ethics, ed. by Martin Modlinger and Philipp Sonntag, 19–42. Bern: Peter Lang. Eaglestone, Robert. 2020. “Trauma and Fiction.” In The Routledge Companion to Literature and Trauma, ed. by Colin Davis and Hanna Meretoja, 287–295. Oxon and New York: Routledge. Erikson, Kai. 1976. Everything in Its Path. New York: Simon and Schuster. Marcos, Luis R. 1976. “Linguistic dimensions in the bilingual patient.” American Journal of Psychoanalysis 36: 347–354. Giles, Howard, Nikolas Coupland, and Justine Coupland. 1991. “Accommodation Theory: Communication, Context, and Consequence.” In Contexts of Accommodation, ed. by Howard Giles, Nikolas Coupland, and Justine Coupland, 1–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 179 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N Meduza. 2022. “Konechno, strashno, no luchshe postradat’ za chestnost’, chem ne imet’ sovesti” [Of course, I am afraid, but better to take the fall for honesty, than live without conscience]. Meduza. Accessed on June 12, 2022. https://meduza.io/feature/2022/06/11/konechno-strashno-no-luchshe-postradat-za-chest nost-chem-ne-imet-sovesti. Pavlenko, Aneta. 2014. The Bilingual Mind and What It Tells Us about Language and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Serebrennikov, Kirill. 2022. “Krasnyi lak” [The red nail polish]. Accessed on June 13, 2022. https://meduza.io/feature/2022/05/24/soldaty-moey-strany-voshli-v-chuzhuyu-stranu-inachali-ee-unichtozhat. Zhuk, Vadim. 2022. “Voiuiushchaia storona” [The belligerent party]. Accessed on June 12, 2022. https://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=623FF19DABD56. AB S TR AC T The article by Natalia Kamovnikova “On the perspectives of translating the war literature of trauma” is an overview of the potential problematics of the translation of the literature in Ukrainian and Russian languages emerging in the course of the Russo-Ukrainian War. The author recognizes trauma and bilingualism as the major distinct features of the new war literature that will have effect on the future rendering of the new war literature into third languages. Studies in the literature of trauma, on the one hand, and sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic findings in bilingualism, on the other, will therefore be inseparable from studies in the translation of war literature written in Ukrainian, Russian, and both. Keyword s: Translation. Literature. Russo-Ukrainian War. Trauma. Bilingualism. CON TACT D ETA I LS : Natalia Kamovnikova, Ph.D. Department of Slavic Languages Faculty of Arts Matej Bel University in Banská Bystrica Tajovského 40 974 01 Banská Bystrica Slovak Republic natalie_kamov@yahoo.com ORCID: 0000-0001-7388-2743 180 POW ER IN TR AN S LAT ION : A F O RM ATIV E FACTOR OF RECEPTION AND DISTRIBUTION A ND A DE F O R MATIV E FAC TOR IN CO NCE PTUA LI SATI ON O F L ITE R AT U RE IN S LOVAK TR AN S LAT ION , 1945–1970 M á ri a Ku sá Power is a factor that not only forms the reception and “distribution” of foreign literature in the Slovak cultural sphere, but also deforms the conceptualisation of literature in translation.* In the historical circumstances of the twentieth century, the phenomenon of power in the Slovak cultural sphere underwent a distinctive journey. According to Max Weber (1969, 1983, 1997, 1998a, 1998b, 1999), there are five forms of power: 1) power as the means to achieve one’s aim (as opposed to another person’s aims); 2) power as will to power; 3) power as rule and control; 4) power as administration and control: the power to allocate, distribute, administer; the “power of the stamp,” enabling one to allow, forbid, or grant; 5) power as leadership: when people follow a leader, the leader is the one with power. The period of former Czechoslovakia examined in this paper was a witness to and a stage for all these forms of power, and translation at the time was no exception, subject to power’sinfluence in literature and culture as a whole. It is not our intention to make cheap comparisons/ analogies with contemporary Russia, but they are obvious. What else came into play in the relation between power and culture? In one of his innumerable cultural and historical studies, Jean Delisle stated the following: “...translation is a discipline at a crossroads; it has been practised for millennia, so it comes as no surprise that crossroads of towns or countries are where cultures and nations meet, mix, hybridise” (2003, 3). In the second half of the twentieth century, two eminent Slovak theorists – fine art historian Ján Bakoš (1984) and literary historian Peter Zajac (1996) – described this crossroads aspect in relation to the nature of literature and the fine arts. Slovakia in the Czechoslovak Republic during the second half of the twentieth century (1948–1989) embodied a country that could not act as a crossroads (the borders being almost completely closed off) but most certainly acted as a border between two worlds, the West and the East, which had an impact on the cultural and political status of the written word, both original and translated. Over the decades, the cultural politics of the people’s democracy and later “socialism” in Czechoslovakia, dating from 1945 (or, if you prefer, from 1948), began to include in the translation process other literary and non-literary factors that formed * This article was written in the framework of the project VEGA “Translation as part of the cultural process history III. Translation and translating – texts, personalities, institutions in inter- and transdisciplinary relations”. 181 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N and deformed the shape of translation (e.g. the publishing plans of exclusively state-run publishing houses with strictly specified proportions between “Western” and “Eastern” publications, the establishment of so-called “printing supervision” organizations, direct “control” over literature by Communist Party authorities, the union monopoly Zväz československých (or slovenských) spisovateľov, distribution through the state-run monopoly Slovenský knižný veľkoobchod etc.). In this case, we are referring to state-run publishing houses, now known as the established ones. On one hand, responsibility or “ethics” were an issue because the publishers basically decided which texts got to be translated; on the other hand, thanks to their prestige and orientation,1 translation production overall and, specifically for our research, translations of social science texts of various origins contributed to the institutionalised establishment of ideas about the translated literatures and created a canon of this type of texts in the Slovak cultural sphere. Naturally, translators always had the option to accept or refuse a text. However, their autonomy in this respect was tied to their need to make a living. Katarína Bednárová commented on the disparate cultural situations of the various post-war decades as follows: “The imaginary compass needle continued to oscillate wildly between the West and the East, most frequently targeting the translation of Russian and Soviet literature that dominated this period in every way” (2015, 31). To make this statement more precise, we should add that in very few spheres of cultural transfer were works of Russian origin or written in Russian subject to as much interest as in the translation of social science texts; this was precisely because they had an operative and educational function, or, as Delisle would call it, “an instrumental and mediating function” (2003, 3), which was directly connected to the sociocultural aspect. Our source material was a bibliography from Libor Knězek (1929–2017) entitled Preklady z iných literatúr do slovenčiny 1945 – 1968. Bibliografia knižných prekladov beletrie a umenovedy do slovenčiny (1969). In his essay “Úvodom” (1969, iii), Jozef Felix, a Romance studies scholar, university teacher, literary scientist, translator and one of the first historians of translation in Slovakia, enumerates milestones in translation in the Slovak cultural sphere, basically since its beginning. However, he also mentions the reason why L. Knězek chose to research the period from 1945 to 1969: “his choice was surely influenced by the beginning of an unusual expansion of Slovak literature in translation, an expansion both quantitative and qualitative. After the Second World War ended in 1945, Slovakia started a new national and cultural era in the restored Czechoslovak Republic, which is, undoubtedly, an important milestone in the history of Slovak translation and European translation in general” (iii). Seen from the perspective of our chosen segment of the book market, the year 1945 can clearly be understood as a milestone. Another fact concerning translation production that Felix, an intellectual of pan-European significance, emphasises in the introduction to Knězek’sbibliography, is the liberation of text selection from randomness and arbitrary, individual whims. 1 Each individual publisher focused on a specific part of the market; e.g. Slovenský spisovateľ focused on contemporary literary works of Slovak origin as well as translations; Tatran, formerly Slovenské vydavateľstvo krásnej literatúry, focused on classics, etc. 182 Power in translation: a formative factor of reception and distribution However, he stresses that this does not entail “directive and forced interventions into translated literature. On the contrary, it suggests work with a clear aim” (ix). ough this may seem paradoxical, especially if we consider the obvious institutional preference for literature written in Russian, it is actually a reflection of the period when the text was written. Knězek’s bibliography was published in 1969, but due to the long process of preparation for print at the time, the text was compiled during what is known as the Prague Spring (1967–1968), a period of great political liberation that brought hope. Let us examine the facts that are obvious from reading and interpreting the bibliographical data. Just by looking at a simple graph of the number of recorded translations of various origins between 1945 and 1969/70, it is clear that, just as in the case of literary works, Bednárová’s words also apply to the translation of social science texts in the Slovak cultural sphere after 1945: “Translation from Russian and Soviet literatures is a story in itself. They reflect ideological supervision, and their existence depended on the situation in the former USSR. It went through periods of harsh political and cultural pressure to periods of liberalisation” (2015, 57). We would like to reflect upon this oscillation to avoid false narratives about how the above-mentioned translations functioned. That is also the reason why it is only possible to perceive them via thorough research of the connections and context, number, and character of translations from other cultural spheres. Viewing them in context suggests a possible participation in the establishment and subsequent shaping of the canon in different artistic areas/spheres – literature, fine arts, music, theatre etc. Based on the available bibliographic sources (Knězek 1969, among others), we will attempt to reconstruct the corpus of non-literary and social science texts translated into Slovak published between 1945 and 1970 and confirm or refute the hypothesis that they reflect the social transformations of that era. In Slovník prekladateľov... we noted the concurrence of the translation of literary and non-literary texts by Slovak translators (2015, 2017): “The professional profile of a translator is also shaped by non-literary translations, including specialised texts, mainly in the fields of literary science, fine arts, philosophy, as well as various guidelines, promotional publications, manuals etc.; that is why we mention them under the [given] entry... however, they are not subject to further analysis...” (Kovačičová and Kusá 2015, 9). Let us look at the statistics from standpoint A – the number of translated social science texts according to the source language (in contrast to standpoint B – the areas/nature of the disciplines of the translated texts – see below), as well as reflect on whether and how power in various forms (the power to get one’s way, power as control, administrative power, power as leadership, etc.) manifested itself in potential factors/agents that shaped the idea of translated literature and its form. If we apply all the definitions of power mentioned above, the overwhelming dominance of Russian literature is clear (altogether there are 91 titles). Significantly, however, the first two translations from the Russian cultural sphere are from 1948, thus after the communist coup, while the next translations are from the beginning of the 1950s.2 According to Bednárová, “the year 1949 marked the ideological, political, 2 One of the most hostile publications is the selection of works from the “architect” of the persecution of Russian writers and artists as early as the 1940s, A.A. Zhdanov (1896–1948) A. A. Ždanov a sovietske umenie, Bratislava: Obroda1951. 183 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N and institutional transformation of cultural life in Slovakia and heralded the infamous fifties, which were known for political repression and ideological and political restrictions in culture” (2015, 31). In this case, the “self-identifying” function of translation took a specific form, imposed by the socio-political power of the time. There was an aspiration to view literature/art/philosophy according to “the grand Soviet example.” We could say that these texts had a disseminating function because they were meant to diffuse and spread the doctrine. If the period from 1963 to 1969 represented “the reintegration of the translation situation into the interrupted continuum of the interwar period” (32), this was evident in, among other things, quantitative changes in translations from Russian literature, with a clear falling tendency. From the point of view of geopolitics, the absence of translations of Russian originals in 1966 and 1967 is very telling. In 1968, the year of the Prague Spring, there was only one translation of Russian originals. In 1965, an anthology was published and, very characteristically, it would be “used” during Czechoslovakia’s “normalization” era for citations of Lenin (and Marx), in literary and other works: Lenin, Vladimir. O literatúre a umení (translation by a group of authors). At the same time, translations of Russian encyclopaedic texts appear – Maliarstvo, sochárstvo, grafika3 (Dmitrijeva 1964) played a formative role, as well as O nepredmetnom svete (1968),4 selected works of suprematist Kazimir Malevich about the theory of the avant-garde, which is a clear example of the mediating function of translation, one where translation not only transferred a specific avant-garde experience of the Russian context into the Slovak one, but also opened doors in the Slovak cultural sphere to the avant-garde in general, which shows the democratizing function of translation. The second most translated language was Czech (28 translations). However, the translated texts went beyond Czech literature and culture, embracing a broader spectrum of phenomena. Obviously, there were the obligatory translations featuring major figures according to the dominant ideology of the post-war era – O Juliovi Fučíkovi (1951), Stanislav Neumann – Antonín Jelínek: O „Mladej garde“, románe Alexandra Fadejeva (1951), Jaroslav Kojzar: O živote a diele Zdenka Nejedlého (1954), Z. Nejedlý:Výber z diela (1958). Especially in the 1960s, however, the proximity of the Prague Spring was noticeably evident in translations of works by important Czech scholars of art such as the structuralist Jan Mukařovský (1947), Karel Honzík (1961), and Václav Černý (1964). The mediating function of translations from Czech was also important during this period, exemplified in works such as Auguste Renoir (1963), Kapitolky o džeze (1964), Fauvizmus (1966) and Paul Cézanne (1968). The number of translations from Czech was never more than five publications per year. In 1948 (the year of the February coup) and 1953 (marked by the deaths of Klement Gottwald and J. Stalin), but also in 1956, 1957, and subsequently in 1959 and 1960, translations of Czech origin were completely absent. In terms of the number of translations, Russian and Czech were followed by French and German texts (25 translations each). In both cases the number of publications rose between 1956 and 1958. Translations from French in the 1950s 3 4 Translation from Russian by Michal Čabala, verse adapted by Ľubomír Feldek, afterword by Tomáš Štraus. State 1915–1922. Translation by Naďa Čepanová. Text selection, afterword, notes by Oskár Čepan. Bratislava: Tatran 1968. 184 Power in translation: a formative factor of reception and distribution were strongly marked by ideology (more on this later), while, the 1960s were characterised by literature about theatre (Jean-Louis Barrault: Som divadelník, 1961; Jean Vilar: O divadelnej tradícii, 1966), film (Georges Sadoul: Zázraky filmu and Z druhej strany kamery 1961, 1965; Pierre Leprohon: Michelangelo Antonioni, 1965), phenomena and figures of various fine arts (Le Corbusier: Kapitolky o modernej architektúre, 1966; Francis Carco: Priateľ maliarov, 1966; Brassai: Rozhovory s Picassom, 1967), philosophical texts (Henri Bergson: Smiech. Esej o význame komična, 1966) and texts about aesthetics (Denis Huisman: Estetika, 1966). A similar situation can be found among the translations from German. To put it simply, they follow the journey from Marx and Engels (1950, 1954), Bertolt Brecht (1959) and GottholdEphraim Lessing (1949 as well as 1961) to Enno Patalas and his work Filmovým hviezdam (1966). English as a source language is, not by accident, throughout the whole examined period in a different category (7 translations). Aside from one exception, these translations are ideologically focused literary translations (19535 and 19556) or translations of texts about music (1961), theatre and the fine arts (1963)7. 1966 and 1967 saw the first two publications in Slovak about the “Western” history of fine arts, and both were translations from English – Michael Levey: Stručné dejiny maliarstva od Giotta po Cézanna8 and Herbert Read: Stručné dejiny od Cézanna po Picassa.9 The translations from English were bookended by two publications that defied categorisation. One was published immediately after WWII (1946) – Michael Sayers and Albert Kahn: Veľké sprisahanie proti Rusku.10 The other was published in the “revivalist” year of 1968, a collection of theoretical reflexions on art from Aldrich C. Virgil: Filozofia umenia, translated by renowned Slovak art historian Marian Váross, who added an erudite afterword.11 The narrative of Hungarian as a “brotherly” language in the socialist bloc (7), has been presented since the 1940s – as a characteristic example, we would mention one of the “giants” of literary science for the “socialist” (at the time, “people’s democratic” would have been more precise) camp: György Lukács, whose works were translated as Literatúra a demokracia12 and Veľkí ruskí realisti.13 From 1954 to 1957, the time of the Hungarian “counter-revolution,” translations from the then-problematic Hungarian cultural sphere were naturally absent. Italian was used as a source language very sporadically (6 translations) in 1945, 1957, 1963, 1967, but quite surprisingly still more often than some other languages with more ideological “affinity” like Polish (2) or Bulgarian (1). 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Translation from English by Ján Šimko, verse adapted by Viera Szathmáryová-Vlčková and Milan Kraus. Translation from English by Alfonz Bednár. Searle, Humphrey: Hudba Franza Liszta. Translation from English by Lýdia Lenhardtová. Miller, Arthur: Myšlienky o divadle. Translation from English by Karol Dlouhý. Selection, foreword, and notes by Ján Válek. Read, Herbert: Umenie a priemysel. Translation from English, introduction, and graphics by Eduard Toran. Translation from English by Ivan Krčméry. Translation from English by Marián Fridrichovský. Translation from English by Alfonz Bednár. Bratislava: Tatran 1968. Translation from Hungarian by Imrich Bojsa and Ladislav Szantó. Afterword by Alexander Matuška. Translation from Hungarian by L. Ivanovičová and A. Kalinová. 185 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N Another important factor is that the authors of the publication Preklady z iných literatúr do slovenčiny 1945 – 1968, Jozef Felix14 and L. Knězek,15 gave the book a subtitle that delineated the choice of texts accordingly: Bibliografia knižných prekladov beletrie a umenovedy do slovenčiny [A bibliography of published translations of fiction and art theory/history into Slovak]. is can be interpreted and viewed as a perception of “equality” between the translation of fiction and that of art theory/history; we should also emphasise the fact that in many cases the latter is a form of fictionalized storytelling about the lives of artists or their works. In the bibliography, the texts are divided according to particular disciplines; we have categorised them as works of literary science, aesthetics, fine art theory, theatre science, musicology and film studies, as well as overtly politically/ideologically charged and instructive materials. If we think about and evaluate the statistical data from standpoint B – the areas/nature of the disciplines of the translated texts – the results confirm our expectations. A clear dominance of literary science texts can be found (93), followed by texts from general aesthetics/philosophy of art (30).16 Both types of texts are of course marked by ideology17, and it is important to highlight the fact that this does not apply to texts of Russian origin alone; it is visible in French and German texts as well. If we were to identify the main figures of published literary science, we would mention two Russian literary figures. In the first half of the 1950s, it was Maxim Gorky, demonstrated in the translated works: Alex Yuter Roskin. M. Gorkij (translation from Russian by B.); M. Gorkij a detská literatúra (translation by E. Labáthová); M. Gorky. Ako som sa učil písať (translation from Russian); Alexandr Michailovich Yegolin. M. Gorkij a ruská literatúra (translation by Šarlota Barániková); Boris Bursov. “Matka” M. Gorkého a otázky socialistického realizmu (translation by Viera Fašková); and M. Gorky. State o literatúre I. (translation from Russian by H. Klačko, annotated by Hana Kostolanská and Felix Nejeschleba). The other major figure was Vladimir Mayakovsky, a favourite of Stalin’s after his death, featured in the translated publications Mark Maslin: Vladimír Majakovskij. Stenografický záznam verejnej prednášky (translation from Russian by Viktória Lapárová and Jela Fašková) and Majakovského tvorba. Sborník sovietskych štúdií (translated from Russian and selected by Viktor Kochol). Examples of pointedly ideological texts include translations of several French works by Roger Garaudy: Komunizmus a morálky (translation by Ján Mišianik), 14 15 16 17 Felix studied Slovak and French at Comenius University in Bratislava and Charles University in Prague, French at the Sorbonne in Paris. Knězek studied literary science and aesthetics in 1948–1952 at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University. Ivanov, P.: Problém krásna v marxisticko-leninskej estetike. Translation from Russian by Jela Kresáková. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ 1952. Yermilov, Vladimir Vladimirovich: Krásno – náš život. Translation from Russian by Ela Surová. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ 1952. Lunacharsky, Anatolij Vasilievich.: Umenie a revolúcia. Translation from Russian by Soňa Lesňáková and Mikuláš Šimko. Selection, editing and afterword by Mikuláš Bakoš. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ 1958. Yermilov, V. V.: Sovietska literatúra – bojovníčka za mier. Translation from Russian by Viera Fašková. Verse adapted by Miroslav Válek. Bratislava: Tatran 1951. Druhý všezväzový sjazd spisovateľov. Translation from Russian by Viera Dovinová, Marta Ličková and Magda Takáčová. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ 1953. Literatúra a umenie v uzneseniach a dokumentoch KSSS. Translation from Russian, selection, notes and afterword by Mikuláš Bakoš. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ 1954.O socialistickom realizme. Translation from Russian by Edo Friš (from periodicals). Afterword Ján Števček. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ 1960. 186 Power in translation: a formative factor of reception and distribution Cirkev, komunizmus a kresťania (translation by Ondrej Žiška) and Sloboda (translation by Ján Žigo). The zeitgeist played an important role in translation policy: in 1950, a typical example was the collective translation (from Russian and Czech) of the anthology O socialistickom realizme. 1951 was characterised by the ideological, imposed (via power) “annunciation,” in this case from the pen of literary scholar A.V. Yegolin: J. V. Stalin a otázky literatúry (translation from Russian by Soňa Čechová). 1953 was exemplified by a book by George Thomson Marxizmus a poézia (translation from English by Ján Šimko, verse adapted by Viera Szathmáryová-Vlčková and Milan Kraus) and by L.V. Dubrovinová Detská literatúra vo svetle úloh komunistickej výchovy (translation by F. Michaličová). Stalin’s death was followed by the gradual publication of V.V. Yermilov’s monographs about classic nineteenth-century authors, who had been essentially neglected in the late 1940s and first half of the 1950s because, due to their timeless nature, they did not lend themselves to ideological use (or, more aptly, misuse). These included Yermilov’s books on Chekhov: A.P. Čechov (translation by Pavel Branko) and Veľký ruský spisovateľ A. P. Čechov, and particularly Dostoevsky: F. M. Dostojevskij (translation by Pavel Ličko). Texts about fine arts basically came in two different types. Several are written in a semi-encyclopaedic style or that of a manual, such as the previously mentioned Nina Dmitriyeva Maliarstvo, sochárstvo, grafika18 and B.V. Ioganson O majstrovstve a maliarstve19 and Vznik a rozbor obrazu20. The second most frequent style was biographical or autobiographical and, in some cases, almost fictionalised stories (exemplified by Sochári o sebe a o svojom diele – translated from English, Russian, Italian and German and selected by Zdenka Volavková-Skořepová; translated from Czech by E. Grečnerová). Most of these publications were characterized by the participation of contemporary and important Slovak art historians (Tomáš Štraus, Ladislav Saučin et al.). One, often downright bizarre, manner of deformation was the “use” of a Russian/ Soviet example as a “seal of approval” for the perception and acceptance of “Western” literature, such as A.K. Djivelegov Talianska ľudová komédia. Commedia dell’arte – though this particular example was a case of “positive discrimination” of sorts.21 This model of Russian/Soviet reasoning was applied if there was an “enlightened” author of Russian/Soviet origin whose authority could grant a “problematic” Western author or work entry into the Slovak sphere, thus paving the way for their publication. Let us return to the original hypothesis: we can clearly confirm that the translation of social science texts in the examined period of 1945–1970 is, among other things, a very accurate reflection of social transformations, which we have demonstrated by contextualizing the examined texts. To put it simply, power, according to Weber, is “the ability to achieve any given result under any circumstances” (see Moc), or “the ability to control reality, especially 18 19 20 21 Translation from Russian by Michal Čabala. Verse adapted by Ľubomir Feldek. Afterword by Tomáš Štraus. Translation from Russian by Ján Mojžiš in cooperation with L. Saučin. Translation from Russian by a group of translators. Introduction and notes by A. Richter. Bratislava: Tatran 1953. Translation from Russian and afterword by Emil Lehuta. Bratislava: SVKL 1959. 187 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N imposing one’s will upon others” (see Slovník filosofických pojmů). It is therefore clear, or at least clearer in this case than in the case of literary texts, that power acts as a deformative factor influencing not only the reception but also the distribution of translated texts. We can conclude this based on the ratio of translated texts from various languages into Slovak and the dominance of translations of literary science texts. This study is the first probe into this issue and poses further questions (the relationship between literary and non-literary texts translated by specific translators, translators of social science texts from various languages etc.). These should be the subject of further research. Translated by Michael Dove R EF ER ENC ES Bakoš, Ján. 1984. Dejiny a koncepcie stredovekého umenia na Slovensku: explikácia na gotickom nástennom maliarstve. Bratislava: Tatran. Bednárová, Katarína. 2013. Dejiny umeleckého prekladu na Slovensku I. Od sakrálneho k profánnemu. Bratislava: Veda, vydavateľstvo SAV and Ústav svetovej literatúry SAV. Bednárová, Katarína. 2015. “Kontexty slovenského umeleckého prekladu 20. storočia.” In Slovník slovenských prekladateľov umeleckej literatúry 20. storočie (A–K), ed. by Oľga Kovačičová and Mária Kusá, 15–73. Bratislava: Veda, vydavateľstvo SAV. Brteková, Lucia. 1980. Bibliografia prekladov literatúry zo Zväzu sovietskych socialistických republík na Slovensku za roky 1960 – 1974. Bratislava: ALFA. Bursov, Boris. 1952. Matka M. Gorkého a otázky socialistického režimu. Tatran. Delisle, Jean. 2003. “L’Histoire de la Traduction: Son Importance en Traductologie, Son Enseignement au Moyen d’un Didacticiel Multimédia et Multilingue.” Forum 1, 2: 1–16. Dmitrijeva, Nina.1964. Maliarstvo, sochárstvo, grafika. Bratislava: Osveta. Dubrovinová, L. V. 1953. Detská literatúra vo svetle úloh komunistickej výchovy. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ. Feldek, Ľubomír, and Braňo Ondruš. “Aj dnes je v literatúre cenzúra.” Z archívu Slova. Bratislava: Wednesday, 12 October, 2016. Accessed on June 07, 2021. https://www.noveslovo.sk/c/Lubomir_Feldek_Aj_dnes_je_v_literature_cenzura. Felix, Jozef. 1969. “Úvodom, p. III-XXXVII.” In Knĕzek, Libor. Preklady z iných literatúr do slovenčiny 1945 – 1968. Bratislava: Diliza. Fox, Ralph. 1955. Romána ľud. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ. Garaudy, Roger. 1950. Komunizmus a morálky. Bratislava: Pravda. Garaudy, Roger. 1950–51. Cirkev, komunizmus a kresťania. Bratislava: Tatran. Garaudy, Roger. 1958. Sloboda. Bratislava: SVPL. Gorkij, Maxim. 1951. Ako som sa učil písať. Slovenský spisovateľ. Gorkij, Maxim. 1958. State o literatúre. SVKL. Ioganson, B. V. 1954. Maliarstvo, sochárstvo, grafika. Bratislava: Tvar. Kahn. Albert. 1946, 1948, 1949, 1951. Veľké sprisahanie proti Rusku. Bratislava: Pravda. Kenížová-Bednárová, Katarína. 1994. “Miesto a funkcia prekladu v kultúre národa. Metodologické poznám k dejinám prekladu.” In K otázkam teórie a dejín prekladu na Slovensku II. Katarína Kenížová-Bednárová et al., 8–29. Bratislava: Ústav svetovej literatúry SAV. Knězek, Libor. 1969. Bibliografia knižných prekladov beletrie a umenovedy do slovenčiny 1. Bratislava: Diliza. 188 Power in translation: a formative factor of reception and distribution Knězek, Libor. 1969. Preklady z iných literatúr do slovenčiny 1945 – 1968. Bibliografia knižných prekladov beletrie a umenovedy do slovenčiny 2. Bratislava: Diliza. Kovačičová, Oľga, and Mária Kusá, eds. 2015. Slovník slovenských prekladateľov umeleckej literatúry. 20. storočie. A-K. L-Ž.Bratislava: Veda, vydavateľstvo SAV a ÚSvL SAV. Kusá, Mária, ed. 2017. Ruská literatúra v slovenskej kultúre v rokoch 1825 – 2015. Bratislava: VEDA a ÚSvL SAV. Kusá, Mária, and Natália Rondziková. 2021. “Preklad spoločenskovedných textov? Miesto úvodu.” In Preklad vo vedách o človeku a dialóg kultúr, ed. by Mária Kusá and Natália Rondziková. Bratislava: Veda, vydavateľstvo SAV. Lenin, Vladimir. 1965. O literatúre a umení. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo politickej literatúry. Linzbothová-Litschauerová, Júlia. 1980. Bibliografia prekladov literatúry zo Zväzu sovietskych socialistických republík na Slovensku za roky 1945 – 1959. Bratislava: ALFA. Levey, Michael. 1966. Stručné dejiny maliarstva od Giotta po Cézanna. Bratislava and Belgrade: Tatran – Jugoslavija. Lukács, György. 1949. Literatúra a demokracia. Bratislava: Pravda. Lukács, György. 1950. Veľkí ruskí realisti. Bratislava: Pravda. Malevich, Kazimir.1968. O nepredmetnom svete. Bratislava: Tatran. Maslin, Mark. 1950. Vladimír Majakovskij. Stenografický záznam verejnej prednášky. Bratislava: Práca. Maslin, Mark. 1954. Majakovského tvorba. Sborník sovietskych štúdií. Slovenský spisovateľ. Miko, František. 1977. “Štylistika odborného prekladu.” In Preklad odborného textu, ed. by Anton Popovič. Bratislava: SPN. Miller, Arthur. 1963. Myšlienky o divadle. Bratislava: SVKL. Mistrík, Jozef. 1975. Žánre vecnej literatúry. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo. Moc. http://dai.fmph.uniba.sk/~filit/fvm/moc.html. Accessed on June 18, 2022 Popovič, Anton, ed. 1983. Originál– preklad. Interpretačná terminológia. Bratislava: Tatran. Popovič, Anton, ed. 1978. Preklad spoločenskovedných textov. Bratislava: Slovenský literárny fond. Pym, Anthony. 2014. Method in Translation History. Oxon; New York: Routledge. Pym, Anthony. 1997. Pour une éthique du traducteur. Arras: Artois Presses Université, Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa. Read, Herbert.1963. Umenie a priemysel. Bratislava: SVKL. Read, Herbert. 1967. Stručné dejiny od Cézanna po Picassa. Bratislava: Tatran. Roskin, Alex Yuter. 1950. M. Gorkij. Obroda. Roskin, Alex Yuter. 1950. M. Gorkij a detská literatúra. Smena. Searle, Humphrey.1961. Hudba Franza Liszta. Bratislava: Štátne hudobné vydavateľstvo. Slovník filosofických pojmů. http://www.jozefmiko.sk/03_integralna_akademia/08_integralna_ akademia/02_filozofia/01_okcidentalna_filozofia/slovnik_filosofickych_pojmu/slovnik_ filosofickych_pojmu.pdf. Accessed on June 18, 2022. Thomson, George. 1953. Marxizmus a poézia. Bratislava: Slovenský spisovateľ. Weber, Max 1969. Antologie textů z díla Maxe Webera. Praha: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství. Weber, Max.1983. K metodológii sociálných vied. Bratislava: Pravda. Weber, Max.1997. Autorita, etika a společnost: pohled sociologa do dějin. Praha: Mladá fronta. Weber, Max.1998a. Metodologie, sociologie, politika. Praha: Oikoymenh. Weber, Max.1998b. Sociologie náboženství. Praha: Vyšehrad. Weber, Max. 1999. Základné sociologické pojmy. Bratislava: SOFA. Yegolin, Alexandr Michailovich. 1951. M. Gorkij a ruská literatúra. Bratislava: Obroda. Yegolin, Alexandr Michailovich. 1951. J. V. Stalin a otázky literatúry. Bratislava: Pravda. Yermilov, Vladimir Vladimirovič. 1954. A. P. Čechov. SVKL. Yermilov, Vladimir Vladimirovič. 1958. F. M. Dostojevskij. Slovenský spisovateľ. 189 V. O N T R A U M A A N D M A N I P U L A T I O N Yermilov, Vladimir Vladimirovič. 1960. Veľký ruský spisovateľ A. P. Čechov. Bratislava: SČSP. Zajac, Peter. 1996. Sen o krajine. Bratislava: Kalligram. AB S TR AC T The study analyzes power as a factor in (de)forming the reception and distribution or translated texts in the Slovak cultural space. The subject of study is the translation of scholarly texts in the humanities and the social sciences and its literary and editorial context in Czechoslovakia in 1945–1970. After defining power and its relationship with culture in the historical context of the post-war period, the study reflects on A) the relations between power and the language of the original text (a predictable domination of Russian) and B) the relation between power and the discipline of the original text (a predictable domination of ideologically driven literarytheoretical texts). In this sense, it shows (paraphrasing Max Weber) that those in power were able to manipulate reality, especially by forcing their opinion and will on others. Keyword s: Czechoslovak cultural politics in 1945–1970. Ideologically driven translation of non-literary texts. Translation as a mirror of social transformations. CO NTAC T D ETAI L S: Prof. PhDr. Mária Kusá, CSc. Institute of World Literature Slovak Academy of Sciences Dúbravská cesta 9 841 04 Bratislava Slovak Republic maria.kusa@uniba.sk ORCID: 0000-0002-6051-3997 190 Tra ns la ti on S tu di es in U krai ne as an In tegra l Par t o f th e Eu ro pea n Con text Mar ti n D J OV ČOŠ Ivana HO STOVÁ Mári a K USÁ Emí l i a PER E Z (ed s. ) Cover: Eva MÁTHÉ (with the use of M. C. Escher’s motif) Layout: Eva KOVAČEVIČOVÁ First edition Published and printed by VEDA, Publishing House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Centre of Operations of the SAS, Dúbravská cesta 5820/9, 841 04 Bratislava, in 2023 as its 4697th publication. www.veda.sav.sk Grant VEGA 2/0166/19 ISBN 978-80-224-2015-0 DOI 10.31577/2023.9788022420150 ISBN 978-80-224-2015-0 9 788022 418737