Translational Ingenuity vs James Joyce's Language Play: Based on the Translations of Episode Eight of Ulysses (1920s-1930s)

The aim of this study is to analyze the implementation options of the conscious participation of the language itself in the creation of a literary work in the Russian translations of the 1920s-1930s. Episode Eight of James Joyce's novel Ulysses has become the basis for the study. Since the key feature of the first Russian translations is their fragmentariness, the choice of the episode has been determined by the presence of the sought-for examples in all the stated translations: by S. Alymov and M. Levidov (1929); by D. Mirsky (1935); by N. Daruzes, a member of I. Kashkin's translation team, (1936). The translation by V. Khinkis and S. Horujy is not considered due to the time of its creation (1989, 1993). The translation fragments are examined for the presence of artistic or linguistic creativity inherent in the original. A language play has been chosen as a term; it is often regarded as an intentional language deviation that violates generally accepted norms. The analysis of the examples shows that each of the translators prefers their own way of demonstrating Joyce's language play: (1) Alymov (songwriter) and Levidov (journalist and writer). They drew attention to Joyce's novel in search for specific words. In their translation, there are no syntax or grammar changes but a montage and foregrounding devices. (2) Mirsky (literary critic and publicist). His translation fragments were part of a critical article whose aim was to demonstrate the flaws of Joyce's innovative writing method, but the result was a representation of the true essence of the novel in one of its manifestations-the language play. Mirsky's passages represented the author's linguistic creativity, the language play and creation of neologisms. (3) Daruzes (translator). Joyce's linguistic deformations aimed at breaking stereotypes are presented in Daruzes' translation mainly within the limits of the language norm; conventional language structures are maintained. The study of the examples shows a significant discrepancy in the perception of the author's language play by the translators. The reasons may be the following: (1) a subjective approach when the translation has been made by an amateur or a professional. The first option expands the possibilities of creativity while the second one limits them; (2) an objective restraining factor: a discrepancy in the language systems; (3) the fragmentary translations themselves influence the actions of individual translators; disintegration eliminates the plot and, as a consequence, the need to demonstrate the participation of the language itself, i.e., deformation or deviation. Thus, having been partially manifested by Alymov, Levidov and Mirsky and almost completely lost in Daruzes' work, stylistic eccentricity is not able to become the basic element of the plot in the Russian translations of the 1920s-1930s.

Keywords

Authors

References