Introduction 3
Chapter 1. Social and Role Relations as a Subject of Translation Studies 7
1.1. Translation Equivalence in Literary Translation 7
1.1.1. The Concept of Translation Equivalence 7
1.1.2. Studies of Translation Equivalence in Literary Translation 12
1.2. Linguistic Representation of Social Status and Communicative Role in Fiction 14
1.2.1. Social and Role Relations in Fiction 14
1.2.2. Characters’ Speech as Linguistic Representation of Their Social Status and Communicative Role 16
1.2.3. Author’s Remarks and Characters’ Comments about Each Other as Linguistic Representation of Social Status and Communicative Role 18
1.2.4. Addresses, Titles and Speech Formulas as Linguistic Representation of Social Status and Communicative Role 19
1.2.5. Impositive Utterances as Linguistic Representation of Social Status and Communicative Role 21
1.3. Research on Translation of Information about the Social Status and Communicative Role 23
1.3.1. The Role of Cultural Background in Conveying the Linguistic Representation of Social Status and Communicative Role 23
1.3.2. Ways of Translating Social Status and Communicative Role in Characters’ Speech 27
1.3.3. Ways of Translating Social Status and Communicative Role in Author’s Remarks and Characters’ Comments about Each Other 29
1.3.4. Ways of Translating Social Status and Communicative Role in Addresses, Titles and Speech Formulas 30
1.3.5. Ways of Translating Social Status and Communicative Role in Impositive Utterances 32
Summary of Chapter 1 34
Chapter 2. Analysis of Translation Solutions in Translations of Works by M. M. Zoshchenko and M. A. Bulgakov 35
2.1. The Artistic Originality of the Works by M. M. Zoshchenko and M. A. Bulgakov 36
2.2. Translation of Social Status and Communicative Role Through Lexical Representations of Social Groups 39
2.3. Translation of Social Status and Communicative Role Through Terms for Impositive Practices 58
2.4. Translation of Social Status and Communicative Role in Impositive Utterances 74
Summary of Chapter 2 92
Conclusions 96
References 98
List of Abbreviations Used 103
This research studies the ways of conveying information about the social statuses and communicative roles of characters in translations of fiction from Russian into English.
When addressing complexities of translating fiction, a well-known English-to-Russian translator Viktor Petrovich Golyshev mentioned challenges inherent in conveying the communicative distance between characters. He pointed out that English fictional characters appear to maintain a greater communicative distance in their interactions as compared to corresponding Russian characters in translations, and this communicative distance does not translate well into Russian.
As noted by V. P Golyshev, there seems to be “a screen of coldness” between characters of English works of fiction [Golyshev 2010: 11:50]. Indeed, the norms and expression of communicative distance differ across linguistic communities. Therefore, such aspects as social status, communicative role and communicative distance are represented by unique vocabulary, grammar structures, and types of utterances in each culture.
The difficulties involved in conveying the communicative distance between the characters are linked to specific cultural and historical social scripts. In many translated works, the information about the communicative distance between characters, their social status and communicative roles, is simply omitted because it is not crucial for communicating the author’s central message. Thus, in order to explore translations of such information, it is useful to conduct an analysis of characters’ utterances in works of fiction where the social statuses and communicative roles of characters are in the focus of the author’s attention.
Many works of fiction of the early Soviet era, such as works by M.A. Bulgakov and M.M. Zoshchenko, fall under this category. The analysis would provide valuable insights into the challenges of rendering social statuses, communicative roles, and the intended communicative distance of the characters in the context where this information cannot be omitted in the translation.
The relevance of the research is determined by the fact that it is carried out in compliance with modern pragmatic and sociolinguistic studies of literary translation.
The novelty of the research. The research examines the translation strategies for conveying the language of social status and role in texts where the information about social status and role is the main theme and is, therefore, a translation priority. The work develops new translation-oriented ways of examining the linguistic expression of social status and communicative role.
Theoretical framework. The research approach is based on Language and Culture studies (Larina, Brown and Levinson, Wierzbicka); Sociolinguistics (Karasik, Krysin, Bell, Leech); Translation studies (Retzker, Alexeyeva, Fedorov, Komissarov, Barkhudarov).
The subject of the study is the linguistic expression of social status and communicative role in English translations of Russian fiction.
The focus is on the translation strategies applied by English translators to convey the Russian meanings associated with social status and communicative role.
The primary aim of this study is to investigate the ways in which linguistic expressions of social status and communicative role are translated from Russian into English without losing the meaning, nuance, and voice of the original text....
The primary aim of this study was to investigate the ways in which linguistic expressions of social status and communicative role are translated from Russian into English without losing the meaning, nuance, and voice of the original text.
According to the theoretical results of this study, literary translation aims at recreating a work in the target language with the same artistic and aesthetic impact as the original. This research on social and role relations in translation reveals specific complexities of achieving equivalence between the original and the translated text.
Thus, the analysis revealed that the difficulties in the translations include the loss of specific cultural nuances in vocabulary that denotes social groups; the omission of derogatory connotations; the frequent elevation of the narrator's social status due to untranslated colloquialisms; the illusion of greater communicative distance due to more formal language; and the mitigation of imposition.
In terms of the levels of translation equivalence, the most frequent one is the level of the situation (18 translations out of 50). This predominance is due to the translators’ focus on maintaining the overall context and actions of the original text, ensuring that the basic situational dynamics are conveyed accurately. This level allows for the preservation of the general narrative flow and the main events, which are crucial for understanding the plot and character interactions.
Conversely, the least frequent level of equivalence is the lexical correspondence level (6 translations out of 50). This infrequency is because achieving a direct lexical match that also captures the nuanced social and cultural connotations of the original terms is particularly challenging. The complexity of accurately translating specific terms with their original intensity and cultural implications often leads to a reliance on broader situational equivalence instead. This approach, while maintaining the storyline, often omits the precise linguistic and cultural nuances of the original text.
The results of this research can serve as a framework for a comparative evaluation of the strength of imposition conveyed through face-threatening acts and the translation of social status and communicative role relations. This can be done conducting parallel psycholinguistic experiments in the source and the target cultures.
1. Alexeeva I. S. Tekst i perevod: voprosy teorii. M.: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, 2008. 184 pp.
2. Alexeeva I. S. Vvedenie v perevodovedenie : ucheb. posobie dlya stud. uchrezhdeniy vyssh. prof, obrazovaniya. M.:Izdatelskij centr “Akademiya”, 2012. 368 pp.
3. Alimova A. D. Proiznesennaya nesobstvenno-pryamaya rech v russkoy i angliyskoy literature: priznaki i vvodyashchie konstrukcii // Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Gumanitarnye nauki. №5 (847), 2021. Pp. 9-20.
4. Arnold I. V. Leksikologiya sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka: Ucheb. dlya in-tov i fak. inostr. yaz. — 3-e izd., pererab. i dop. — M.: Vyssh. shk., 1986. 295 pp.
5. Arnold I. V. Stilistika sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka. M., 1990. 300 pp.
6. Askoldov S. A. Religiozno-eticheskoe znachenie Dostoevskogo // Dostoevskij F. M. Stati i materialy / sost. A. S. Dolinin. M., 1922. P. 73.
7. Bakhtin M. M. Problema rechevykh zhanrov // Bakhtin M. M. Sobr. soch. T. 5: Raboty 1940-1960 gg. M.: Russkie slovari, 1996. Pp. 159-206.
8. Bakhtin M. M. Satira / Bakhtin M.M. Sobranie sochineniy: v 7 tomah. T. 5. - M.: Russkie slovari, 1997. Pp. 11-38.
9. Barkhudarov L. S. Yazyk i perevod (Voprosy obshchey i chastnoy teorii perevoda). M., “Mezhdunar. otnosheniya”, 1975. 240 pp.
10. Barkhudarov L. S., Retsker Ya. I. Kurs lekcij po teorii perevoda //M.: Izd-vo MGPIIYA, 1968. 240 pp.
11. Blinova O. A. Preobrazovaniya nesobstvenno-pryamoj rechi pri perevode s anglijskogo yazyka na russkij (na materiale zhurnalistiki Hemingueya) // Vestnik Cherepoveckogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. №1 (82), 2018. Pp. 47-52.
12. Chudakova M. O. Poetika Mihaila Zoshchenko. M.: Nauka, 1979. 200 pp.
13. Dovlatov S. D. Eto neperevodimoe slovo «hamstvo» // Dovlatov S.D. Sobranie sochineniy v 4-h tomah. Tom 4. 2005. p.. 323.
14. Dubakh T. M. Rechevoy portret personazhey maloy prozy A. Schnitzlera // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. Tambov, 2014. № 8. Pp. 61-64.
15. Fedorov A. I. Frazeologicheskiy slovar russkogo literaturnogo yazyka. — M.: Astrel, AST, 2008. 828 pp...(64)