Asymmetry Factors Of Russian Morbial Metaphors, Their Translations Into English And German

Abstract

The article looks into the problem of metaphor translation in the framework of narrative discourse. The data for the research was taken from a piece of literary work ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ by A.I. Solzhenitsyn and its translations. The translated narration does not only serve as the source of information about the peculiarities of a writer’s culture but also promotes the development and enrichment of the receiving ethnical literature. In this context striving for excellence in translating fiction is of key importance. The choice of the material is accounted for by the controversial critical comments relating to the translation of the work into English and German. As a matter of fact, a metaphor appeared to create some obstacles for translation. 53 morbial metaphors and their translations were subjected to a component analysis of their inner form. The comparison was carried out on the basis of a contrastive analysis of the cognitive and semantic content of a target unit. The research demonstrated the difference in the meanings of an original metaphor and its translation equivalents. The article indicates possible reasons causing such asymmetry. These are ethnic and cultural specifics of associations, differences in the grammatical systems with the prevalence either of analytical or synthetic structures, and culturally-specified basis for a metaphorical transfer.

Keywords: A conceptual metaphor, connotation, equivalence, pragmatic meaning, referential meaning

Introduction

Translation of literary texts is considered to be one of the international means of mass communication. ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ is an extensive non-fictional narration with a detailed description of the Soviet system of prisons and forced labour camps. It was conceived by Solzhenitsyn as a means of struggle against the communist regime. In 1974 the translation of ‘The Gulag Archipelago’ by Thomas Whitney was introduced to American readers. According to the viewpoint of a literary critic Klimoff, ‘that American translation’ was a failure with metaphors translation being one of the reasons for criticism (1975, p. 207). Alexander Solzhenitsyn was not satisfied with the American translator’s work (Solzhenitsyn, 1996). In 1974 due to the efforts of the translator Anna Peturing a German adaptation of the novel was brought to life which later received higher critical acclaim (Bonde, 1983).

Translator skills involve multitasking and creative approach: a translator has to keep the balance between the form and the content of a translated text which requires maximum preservation of stylistic devices and conveying hidden meaning. This task becomes extremely challenging when it comes to translating metaphors as any metaphor can be both a stylistic device and a code of the author’s message.

Metaphors have been the focus of attention of scholars since Aristotle’s days. As a result, present-day linguistics offers many definitions of this language phenomenon. In our opinion, Glazunova (2002) gives the clearest definition of what metaphor is: metaphors compare one thing to another on the basis of semantic similarity of their state, attributes, and actions which characterize these phenomena and, consequently, words (word combinations or sentences) meant to denote particular objects or situations of reality are used to describe other objects or situations on the basis of relative similarity of the predicative features attributed to them. Thus, in the novel under study government officials are compared to executioners on the basis of a common feature which is “the source of death”, Soviet citizens are compared to insects or rabbits on the basis of a common feature of ‘defenselessness and vulnerability’ and judicial authorities are compared to a meat grinder on the basis of a common feature of ‘irreversibility of what is going on’.

Problem Statement

Thus, a metaphor becomes a tool of cognition, structuring and explaining the world (Arutyunova, 1990; Kubryakova, 1981; Lakoff & Johnson, 2008). The process of cognition as well as structuring the world around us is not of a universal character, although on the level of human ethnic and cultural entity some common characteristics of mental processes may become apparent (Komissarov, 2011). A metaphor is based upon the ethnic and cultural perception of the world and therefore it holds the potential to reflect fundamental cultural values. This potential becomes most evident on the level of structural metaphors. According to the theory of conceptual metaphors by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, structural metaphors actualize two things or events in our mind with one of the things or events (target domain) being structured through the terms of another (source domain). While translating metaphors we should figure out whether there is a similar way of rendering things or events in a receiving culture. The study object of this article is a peculiar type of a structural metaphor which can be defined as a morbial metaphor. Morbial metaphors project properties and features of things and events from a conceptual field “disease” to other related things or events (Chudinov, 2003).

It is immediately apparent from the foregoing that translating a metaphor requires a challenging decision making as both an original metaphor and its translation equivalent can be culture-specific and it is conceivable that the translation equivalent of a metaphor can acquire new connotations and associations specific to the receiving culture of the language. Moreover, such a scenario is possible in the case of calquing as well as in using other translation transformations. According to a cognitive interpretation of the lexical meaning of a word, each word comprises not only language awareness but also some knowledge about the world around us, which is always culture-specific (Langacker, 1997). The metaphors of a literary text are therefore extremely important as they contain contextual, semantic, and pragmatic information. So in this type of texts, a translator has to give serious consideration to each metaphor (Newmark, 1995).

Research Questions

The cases when in different languages two lexical units are identical in all their lexical meanings given in dictionaries are quite rare. The vast majority of words of any language are polysemic and the systems of their semes hardly ever match together. Consequently, comparing words from two different languages the most typical case is their partial match (Barkhudarov, 2017). Thus, a partial match is rather an acceptable phenomenon in translation practice. In this respect, the question that has to be answered is why the way metaphors were translated by an American translator became a stumbling block among critics whereas the German translation of the novel went down well with the critics. The search for the answer to this question becomes the aim of this research.

Purpose of the Study

To get the answer to the question above we need to give a quantitative assessment of translation equivalents’ match value to the original lexeme in both languages (English and German). The quantitative assessment will enable us to define whether translation equivalents are equipollent or to find out the degree of their asymmetry. The componential analysis of a metaphoric unit’s semantic structure will make it possible “to measure” match value to the original metaphor.

Research Methods

Due to a relatively limited number of evident morbial metaphors in the novel under study, it is worthwhile employing the continuous sampling method. Moreover, this method will also be used to carry out a contrastive analysis of other kinds of structural metaphors. Such an approach makes the sampling most representative.

A metaphor, like any other linguistic sign, has its inner and outer forms. In this research we will focus on its inner form, that is on its meaning. According to the theory of linguistic meanings, the inner structure of a lexical unit consists of referential and pragmatic meanings. The pragmatic meaning is not a mandatory characteristic of a linguistic sign and it arises from the cases when the attitude of the speech community towards a linguistic sign becomes a part of its semantic structure, i.e. culturally-based (Komissarov, 2011).

Since a metaphor is regarded as the product of secondary naming, there is no sense in analyzing the whole referential meaning in its structure, we can limit our attention only to the feature which triggered metaphorical transfer and the pragmatic meaning should be amplified with the metaphorical image or connotation. Thus, an original metaphor can be decomposed into the following elements: 1) the part of the referential meaning which triggered metaphorical transfer, or the so-called similative feature (Koshelev, 2012), 2) image (connotation), and 3) the pragmatic meaning.

As far as the translation equivalent of a metaphor is concerned, due to the fact that the pragmatic meaning of a lexical unit is determined by the attitude of the speech community, its structure should be amplified by the fourth element of ‘cultural connotation’, i.e. by culturally-based connotation which arises after the translated unit is introduced. In other words, the perception of the introduced translated unit in English among the American could differ from that of German among the Germans, which will inevitably lead to the asymmetry in the meanings of translation equivalents.

As a result of a metaphor’s “meaning” decomposition into several elements, we can carry out a contrastive analysis of the cognitive and semantic content of an original metaphor and its translation equivalents on the basis of the equivalence levels theory by Komissarov (Komissarov, 2011). Thus, the data was processed by the following algorithm:

1) expose in a metaphor the feature serving as the basis for a metaphorical transfer and analyze whether this feature appears in the translations under study;

2) define a metaphor’s image and check whether it is similar to the one that is created in the culture of the receiving language;

3) define a metaphor’s connotation and check whether it remains unchanged in the translation;

4) analyze the meaning of translation equivalents and check whether they denote any additional culture-specific connotations.

For clarity, the four above-mentioned criteria will be presented in the table, and in order to carry out a contrastive analysis, each criterion will be given a conditional rate depending on the level of a translation equivalent deviation from this criterion. Provided that a translation equivalent gains any additional culture-specific connotation, its conditional rate will be 0 (zero), but if it does not receive any “unnecessary” connotation, it is going to get 1 (one). In the last table column, the equivalence level of the translation under study will be shown in percentage points which will enable us to determine which translation equivalent is the closest to the original metaphor in terms of its cognitive and semantic content.

Findings

Let us consider the morbial metaphor ‘гибель’ and its translation variants:

Example 1:

$<\dots >$ сами жертвы в согласии оперативниками ведут себя как можно благороднее, чтобы не дать живущим заметить обреченного (Solzhenitsyn, 2011). – $<\dots >$ the victims, in cooperation with the Security men, have conducted themselves in the noblest conceivable manner, so as to spare the living from witnessing of the condemned (Solzhenitsyn, 2011). – $<\dots >$ die Opfer selbst $<\dots >$ benehmen sich, in voller Übereinstimmung mit den Verhaftenden, maximal wohlerzogen, auf daß die Lebenden vom des Gezeichneten nichts bemerken (Solschenizyn, 1974).

For the contrastive analysis it is necessary to define lexical meanings of each word under study using dictionaries:

Гибель – полное разрушение, уничтожение, смерть от какой-нибудь катастрофы (книжн.) (Ushakov, 1998).

Death – 1) the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an animal or plant; 5) extinction (annihilation), destruction; 10) bloodshed or murder (Macmillan English Dictionary …, 2002).

Der Untergang – 1) das Verschwinden hinter dem Horizont; 2) das Verschwinden unter der Oberfläche des Wassers; 3) das Zugrundegehen (Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch …, 1998).

The contrastive analysis results for Example 1 are shown in Tables 01 and 02:

Let us consider the morbial metaphor ‘погибший’ and its translation variants:

Example 2:

Мой дневник был только минутной струйкой той сажи (Solzhenitsyn, 2011). – My diary was only one momentary plume of that soot (Solzhenitsyn, 1974). – MeinTagebuch war von jenem Ruß nicht mehr als ein minutenlanger Hauch (Solschenizyn, 1974).

For the contrastive analysis it is necessary to define lexical meanings of each word under study using dictionaries:

Погибнуть – разрушаться, подвергаться уничтожению, умирать, исчезать от какой-ниб. катастрофы (Ushakov, 1998).

To doom – 1) to destine, esp. to an adverse fate; 2) to pronounce judgement against; condemn; 3) to ordain or fix as a sentence or fate (Macmillan English Dictionary …, 2002).

Verlieren – 1) etwas irgendwo liegen oder fallen lassen und es nicht mehr finden; 2) j-n nicht mehr haben, weil er stirbt; 3) den Kontakt zu j-m nicht mehr haben (Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch …, 1998).

The contrastive analysis results for Example 2 are shown in Tables 03 and 04:

Let us consider the morbial metaphor ‘оздоровительная работа’ and its translation variants:

Example 3:

Эта полным ходом пошла с 1927-го года и сразу въявь показала пролетариату все причины наших хозяйственных неудач и недостач (Solzhenitsyn, 2011). – This continued full speed from 1927 on, and immediately exposed to the proletariat all the causes of our economic failures and shortages (Solzhenitsyn, 1974). – Diese lief ab 1927 auf Hochtouren und führte dem Proletariat die Ursachen unserer wirtschaftlichen Mißerfolge und Mängel sogleich mit aller Deutlichkeit vor Augen (Solschenizyn, 1974).

For the contrastive analysis it is necessary to define lexical meanings of each word under study using dictionaries:

Оздоровить – 1) сделать здоровым, улучшить состояние чьего-н. здоровья, 2) перен. улучшить состояние чего-н., привести в порядок, в нормальный вид (что-ниб., находящееся в беспорядке, расстроенное) (Ushakov, 1998).

Therapy – 1) the treatment of disease, as by some remedial or curative process; 2) a curative power or quality; 3) physical treatment for curing or rehabilitating a patient or to overcome a physical defect, as by exercise, physical treatment, etc. (Macmillan English Dictionary …, 2002).

Assanierung – Verbesserung der Bebauung von Liegenschaften aus hygienischen, sozialen, technischen oder verkehrsbedingten Gründen (Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch …, 1998).

The contrastive analysis results for Example 3 are shown in Tables 05 and 06:

Let us consider the morbial metaphor ‘немое’ and its translation variants:

Example 4:

Свои, действительно, стараются в беде не оставлять, есть условие у них: своим устраивать хоть содержание льготное (Solzhenitsyn, 2011). –as a matter of fact, did try not to leave their friends in a bad spot. They had their own understanding: at least to arrange favorable conditions for (Solzhenitsyn, 1974). – Diebemühen sich tatsächlich, einander beizustehen in der Not, da gilt eine Übereinkunft: den Ihrigen zumindest Haftprivilegien zu verschaffen (Solschenizyn, 1974).

For the contrastive analysis it is necessary to define lexical meanings of each word under study using dictionaries:

Немой – 1) не говорящий, лишённый способности речи вследствие каких-н. природных недостатков или болезненных расстройств, 2) перен. тихий, исполненный безмолвия (книжн.), 3) скрытый, ничем не обнаруживаемый (книжн.) (немое страдание) (Ushakov, 1998).

Unspoken – 1) implied or understood without being spoken or uttered, 3) not talking, silent (Macmillan English Dictionary …, 2002).

Stumm – 1) nicht fähig zu sprechen, weil man die Laute nicht produzieren kann, 2) so vollig Angst oder A:nders, dass man nichts sagen kann (stumm vor Angst, Schreck, Wut sein), 3) so, dass sie kein Wort sagen, 4) so, dass dabei kein Wort gesagt wird (Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch …, 1998).

The contrastive analysis results for Example 4 are shown in Tables 07 and 08:

Let us consider the morbial metaphor ‘зараза’ and its translation variants:

Example 5:

Один из первых ударов диктатуры пришелся по кадетам (при царе – крайняя революции, при власти пролетариата – крайняя реакции) (Solzhenitsyn, 2011). – One of the first blows of the dictatorship was directed against the Cadets – the members of the(Under the Tsar they had constituted the most dangerous of revolution, and under the government of the proletariat they represented the most dangerous of reaction.) (Solzhenitsyn, 1974) – Einer der ersten Schläge der Diktatur traf die Kadetten (unterm Zaren – revolutionäres; unter der Herrschaft des Proletariats – reaktionäres) (Solschenizyn, 1974).

Зараза – 1) болезнетворное начало, распространяемое среди организмов паразитически размножающимися в них микробами; 2) эпидемия, порождаемая этими микробами (разг.); 3) перен. отрицательное, губительно влияющее и угрожающее широким распространением явление в сфере культуры (книжн. ритор.) (Ushakov, 1998).

Ranks – the people comprising a military force; military enlisted men as a group (армия; солдаты, рядовые) (Macmillan English Dictionary …, 2002).

Gift – eine Substanz, die dem Organismus stark schadet und tödlich für ihn sein kann (Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch …, 1998).

The contrastive analysis results for Example 5 are shown in Tables 09 and 10:

As for Example 5 the translator into the English language had to replace an original morbial metaphor with a military metaphor, which lowers the equivalence degree of the translated metaphor.

Following the pattern of comparison presented in the tables “The component analysis of translation equivalents’ meanings” we compared 53 metaphors. As a result we came to the conclusion that the actualized referential meaning of an original metaphor and its translation equivalents match in 99 per cent of cases. Thus, the decrease in the equivalence degree was caused by the differences in the pragmatic meaning and in the images the translated equivalents refer to.

Conclusion

Translating conceptual metaphors across languages and cultures is a complex and complicated task. It even becomes more challenging when a metaphor taken from a literary text might impose a biased (generated by an author) view on a phenomenon or realia (Khotimsky, 2016). In our previous article (2019) we came to the conclusion that a metaphor’s nature is determined by an intricate system of cultural and personal images of a particular image. Metaphoric modeling of ‘ARREST’, which was the center of scientific interest in the framework of that article, reflected three dimensions: national, social, and self-identity (Salo & Kurbanov, 2019).

In this research, we have made an attempt to conduct a contrastive analysis of morbial metaphors and their translations into the English and German languages so as to give a scientific explanation of all the differences in the meanings of an original metaphor and its translation equivalents. The analysis was aimed at revealing possible reasons causing such asymmetry. The research is consistent with the patterns of a cogno-cultural framework for metaphor translation discussed in the article ‘Cogno-cultural issues in translating metaphors’ (Al-Zoubi et al., 2016) and adds to the scientific theories that conceptual metaphors are products of the human mind which are composed of systematic cognitive relations of particular national and culture-specific concepts and metaphoric models (Cui et al., 2017).

As a result of contrastive analysis of 53 morbial metaphors and their translations into the English and German languages we discovered that the equivalence degree of the metaphors translated into English is 57 %, into German – 75 %. It should be mentioned that, compared to Peturing, Whitney resorted to the use of metaphor calquing more often but it did not bring any positive effect on the equivalence degree. Thus, in the German culture of language the cognitive and semantic content of the translated morbial metaphors are closer to the original metaphors, which is demonstrated in Table 11.

Within the scope of this research the asymmetry of a metaphor’s cognitive and semantic content can be explained by several reasons. Firstly, being one of the types of a secondary meaning of a word, the metaphorical meaning is ethnic and culture specific, which results in asymmetry in case of calquing as it creates images absolutely different from the ones implied by the author of the original novel. Secondly, German and Russian have much in common in their grammatical systems, particularly in their synthetic structures, which somehow brings certain amount of similarity in the pragmatic content between an original metaphor and its translation equivalent. Thirdly, in the receiving culture a significatum and a denotatum may not always have the similative feature, which can be used as a basis for a metaphorical transfer, which results in ‘different mapping conditions’.

References

• (Kubryakova, Е. S. (1981). The types of linguistic meanings. The semantics of a derivative word. Science.

• Al-Zoubi, M. Q., Al-Ali, M. N., & Al-Hasnawi, A. R. (2016). Cogno-cultural issues in translating metaphors. Perspectives-Studies in translatology, 3(14), 230–239.

• Arutyunova, N. D. (1990). Metaphor and discourse. In: Theory of metaphor (pp. 5–32).

• Barkhudarov, L. S. (2017). Language and translation. The issues of general and practical theory of translation. LENAND.

• Bonde, A. (1983). A study of the English and the German translations of Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn’s The Gulag Archipelago. Vol. I. Berne; Frankfort on the Main; PETER LANG.

• Chudinov, A. P. (2003). Metaphoric mosaic in contemporary political communication. Ural State Pedagogical University.

• Cui, J. B., Wang, X., & Zhu, L. (2017). The research between cognitive linguistics and metaphor translation. Proceedings papers of 4th international conference on literature, linguistics and arts (ICLLA). (Guilin, Peoples R China, 7–9 July, 2017)

• Glazunova, O. I. (2002). The logic of metaphorical transformations. Philological faculty of State University.

• Khotimsky, M. (2016). ‘Why did I sell my best years for somebody else's words?’ Soviet-era metaphors of translation in theory and in poetry. International Workshop on Translation and Transculturality in the Russian Context, 1(11), 4–22. DOI:

  Google Scholar

  Crossref

• Klimoff, A. (1975). Solzhenitsyn in English: An Evaluation. Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Critical Essays and Documentary Materials. Collier Books.

• Komissarov, V. N. (2011). Modern theory of translation studies. LENAND.

• Koshelev, A. D. (2012). The meaning of a word as a generative complex: cognitive meaning (structure of concepts connected with words) – linguistic meaning (set of usual meanings). In: Meanings, texts and other thrilling themes: The collection of scientific articles dedicated to 80th anniversary of Igor A. Melnichuk. https://www.rosmedlib.ru/book/ISBN9785955105932.html

• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. LKE.

• Langacker, R. W. (1997). The Conceptual Basis of Cognitive Semantics. In: J. Nuyts and E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and Conceptualization (pp. 229–252). Cambridge University Press.

• Langenscheidts Großwörterbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache. (1998). Publishing House Mart.

• Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. (2002). Macmillan Publishers Limited.

• Newmark, P. (1995). A Textbook of Translation. Phoenix ELT.

• Salo, V., & Kurbanov, I. (2019). Metaphoric modelling of “ARREST” in Thomas P. Whitney’s translation of Alexander I. Solzhenitsyn’s novel “The Gulag Archipelago”. Materials 9th International Scientific and Practical Conference on Current Issues of Linguistics and Didactics. The Interdisciplinary Approach in Humanities (CILDIAH). Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Research. Vol. 69 (pp. 76–81). Volgograd.

• Solschenizyn, A. I. (1974). Der Archipel GULAG. Übersetzung von A. Peturnig. Scherz Verlag.

• Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (1974). The Gulag Archipelago. Transl. by Th.P. Whitney. Harper & Row Publishers; Evantson.

• Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (1996). Talking to the students of Slavic studies at Zurich University (February 20, 1975). In: Alexander Solzhenitsyn. Social and political essays, in 3 volumes. Vol. 2. Social statements, letters and interviews. Upper-Volga publishing house.

• Solzhenitsyn, A. I. (2011). The Gulag Archipelago. PROZAiK.

• Ushakov, D. M. (1998). Advanced defining dictionary of the Russian language: 180000 words and word combinations. Alta-Print publishing house.