Филологические науки/ 3.Теоретические и методологические проблемы исследования языка.

PhD in Philology, Karpukhina V. N.

Altai State University, Russia

Axiology of Translation as a Creative Activity

Communicative globalization has changed the traditional system of cultural communication. The translator as an active communicator in different languages and cultural spaces works at the edge of two or more cultures. The debatable issue on creative / non-creative translator’s communication is on the agenda nowadays. Contemporary scientific paradigms (e.g., axiological and cognitive ones) are explanatory enough to show the translation process as a creative activity (see [1; 3; 5]).

The basic methodological principles of the research are the following ideas of fiction text semiotics and literary translation: The translator’s activity is seen as a creative process taking place in different semiospheres; the fiction text translator’s strategies are appreciated in all specific situations according to the definite axiological linguistics parameters.

The aim of the article is to describe the fields of creativity applicable to the translator’s activity. We will consider the situations of self-translation and translator’s commentary as the main cross-cultural communication fields in which we can see the creative potential of translator’s strategic activity.

Translation as a creative activity, as an art is the object under consideration of literature theorists and psychologists. Linguistic theory of translation studies it in semiotic and functional aspects, traditionally. The concept of a “creative” (= free) translation is being appreciated in its negative meaning: “Free translation is a type of translation made with less equivalence than it could be gained in this translation act” [4, p. 249]. There is another point of view: “literal translation” and “creative translation”, traditionally opposed, are appreciated by Mikhail Gasparov as the steps, or periods of translation theories following one another [2, p. 126]. Considering the creative and translator’s development of Valery Bryusov, Mikhail Gasparov suggests, “The contemporary translators can find many useful ideas in Bryusov’s early translations which were absolutely free. But as for the future translators, they can not ignore the late literal translation studies of Bryusov” [ibid., p. 128].

Maximum freedom of translation strategies is associated with the self-translation situations (e.g., verse and prose self-translations by Joseph Brodsky and Vladimir Nabokov). When the fiction text is translated by its own author, we could hardly say the text production strategies were based on the results of the text interpretation strategies. Self-translations are often the results of a parallel text production in the other language semiosphere (or both texts exist as the interpretative variants). In self-translations authors use the situational axiological strategies more often than any professional translator do; and the author can change his/her own text so much none of the translators could. That shows self-translation is an interpretation variant. The author, translating his/her own text, is intuitively or intentionally led by the so called skopos-theory of a translation, or the theory of functional equivalents (see: [6; 7]). Translation (especially in the aesthetic aspect), according to this theory, should effect the receptor in the same way the source text did.

If the main result of any creative process should be something new, translation, as it is considered in the translation theory, can not be appreciated as a creative process. Though we see translation as an activity connected not only with some practices and techniques, but as an insight leading the translator to some new knowledge.

Differentiating reproduction and translation as two diverse semiotic practices, Mikhail Yampol’sky says: “Although both of them are repetition, the strategies used are different. Translation takes part in natural development and evolution of a language. It is involved into the continuous process of life (including ageing and death). Translation is often considered to be the escape from inevitable taking away by the past, it resurrects the dying texts. …If translation tends to restore the presence, reproduction shows its loss” [8, p. 286-287].

To summarize, we can say that considering the possibilities of a translated fiction text functioning in another language semiosphere from the points of cognitive and communicative linguistics, we can appreciate the translator’s activity as a creative one. Working heuristically, the translator uses definite axiological strategies of text production and interpretation, while s/he functions in a creative way as an author of a translated fiction text.

References:

1. Carter R., McCarthy M. Talking, Creating: Interactional Language, Creativity, and Context // Applied Linguistics. – 2004. – № 25(1). – P. 62-88.

2. Gasparov M.L. Izbrannye trudy. Tom 2. O stikhakh. – Moscow : Shkola “Yazyki russkoi kul’tury”, 1997. – 501 p.

3. Karpukhina V.N. The Linguistic Reality and the Contemporary Aspects of its Studies during the Scientific Paradigms Turn // Speech and Context International Journal of Linguistics, Semiotics and Literary Science. – 2014. – Vol. I (IV). – P. 15-20.

4. Komissarov V.N. Teoriya perevoda : Lingvisticheskie aspekty. – Moscow : Vysshaya shkola, 1990. – 253 p.

5. Maet F. About the Destruction, Continuation, and Transformation of Art // CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture. – 2013. – № 15.3. – http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/1481-4374.2243

6. Neubert A. Translation as Text. – Kent (Ohio); London : Kent State Univ. Press, 1992. – 169 p.

7. Snell-Hornby M. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. – Amsterdam, Philadelphia : John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1988. – 163 p.

8. Yampol’sky M. Yazyk – telo – sluchai. Kinematograf i poiski smysla. – Moscow : Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2004. – 369 p.