Style as a Specific Problem of Literary Translation

§1 Definitions and main Specifications
of Stylistic Devices

Style has been an object of study from ancient times. Aristotel, Cicero and Quintillian treated Style as the proper adornment of thought.

An essayist or an orator is expected to frame his ideas with the help of sentences and choose figures suitable for his mode of discourse.

Arthur Schopenhauer’s definition of Style as “the physiognomy of the mind” suggests that “no matter how calculatingly choices may be made, a writer’s Style will bear the mark of his personality. An experienced writer is able to rely on the power of his habitual choices of sounds, words and syntactic patterns to convey his personality of fundamental outlook .”¹

Many scientists agree on the statement that language is said to have two functions: it serves as a means of communication and also as a means of showing one’s thoughts. The first function is called communicative, the second – expressive. In connection with the second function there arises the problem of the interrelation between the thought and its expression. As for the problem of expression J. Middleton Murry considers that “Style is a quality of language which communicates precisely emotions or thoughts or a system of emotions or thoughts peculiar to the author.”²

Notwithstanding the fact every writer has his own individual style using a unique combination of language units that make his work easily recognizable the mechanism of the applying SD is still the same. Thus, it is feasible to take up general characteristics of SD when speaking about the individual style of a writer.

Concerning this issue, many scholars are at variance with the typology of SD. At the same time it is difficult to deny that SD must be observed on different levels: phonetic, morphemic, lexical, phraseological and syntactical. I.Galperin adds the utterance level ³.

First of all let us determine what SD proper is. This term is suggested by I.Galperin who considers SD “a conscious and intentional literary use of some of the facts of the language (including expressive means) in which the most essential features (both structural and semantic) of the language forms are raised to a generalized level”⁴ . Needless to say that most SD may be regarded as aiming at the further intensification of the emotional or logical emphasis. This conscious transformation of language units into a Stylistic Device has been observed by certain linguists whose interest in scientific research have gone beyond the boundaries of grammar. Thus A. Potebnja writes, “As far back as in Ancient Rome and Greece and with few exceptions up to the present time the definition of the figurative use of a word has been based on the contrast between ordinary speech used in its own, natural, primary meaning and transferred speech ”⁵ .

In other words, the main constituting feature of a SD is the opposition of two meanings of the applied unit, one of which is normatively fixed in the language and does not depend on the context while the other one originates in the certain context. I.Galperin calls this phenomenon Interaction as far as Lexical level is concerned. His typology runs as follows:

• Lexical Level of SD
  1. Interaction of Dictionary and Contextual Logical Meanings (Metaphor, Metonymy, Irony)
  2. Interaction of Primary and Derivative Logical Meanings (Policemy, Zeugma, Pun)
  3. Interaction of Logical and Emotive Meanings (Interjections and Exclamatory words, Epithet, Oxymoron)
  4. Interaction of Logical and Nominal Meanings (Antonomasia)
  5. Intensification of a Certain Feature of a Thing or Phenomenon (Simile, Periphrases, Euphemism, Hyperbole)
• Syntactical Level of SD
  1. Compositional Patterns of Syntactical Arrangement (Stylistic Inversion, Detached Construction, Parallel Construction, Chiasmus, Repetition Enumeration Suspense, Climax, Antithesis)
  2. Particular Ways of Combining Parts of the Utterance (Asyndenton, Polysindenton, the Gap-Sentence Link)
  3. Peculiar Use of Colloquial Constructions (Ellipsis, Break-in-the- Narrative, Question in the Narrative, Represented Speech)
  4. Transferred Use of Structural Meaning (Rhetorical Questions, Litotes)

This is really quite a detailed, thoroughly elaborated classification.J.Skrebnev ⁶ distinguishes 4 main important layers of SD. They are:

1. Stylistic semasiology
   1. Figures of quality
      1. Metaphorical group
      2. Metonymic group
      3. Mixed group
   2. Figures of relation
      1. Relation of Identity
         1. The Superposition of the identical elements (variation of synonyms)
         2. The Substitution of the Identical Elements (Euphemism, Periphrasis)
      2. Relation of Contrast
         1. The Superposition of the elements opposed in their meanings (Antithesis, Oxymoron)
         2. Substitution of one element by another one with opposite meaning (Irony)
         3. Relation of inequality (Climax, Anticlimax, Hyperbole, Litotes)
2. Stylistic Lexicology deals with different stratums of words: high-flown words, contextual coinage, lowered words etc.
3. Stylistic Syntax
   1. . The Absence of Speech Components (Ellipsis, Aposiopesis, Nominative Sentences, Asyndenton, Apokoinu Constraction)
   2. Excess of Speech Components (Repetition, Framing, Anadiplosis, Syntactic Tautology, Polysyndeton, Parenthetic Sentences)
   3. Unusual Distribution of Speech Components (Emphatic Inversion)
   4. Interrelation of syntactical structures above sentence level (Parallelism, Chiasmus, Anaphora, Epiphora)
   5. Types of syntactical link between words and sentences, their stylistic function (Detachment, Coordination instead of Subordination)
   6. Unusual usage of syntactical constructions (Rhetoric Questions, Negative Constructions in the function of Positive ones and vice versa, Reported Speech)
4. Stylistic Phonetics (Euphony, Onomatopoeia, Alliteration, Assonance)

As a matter of fact, all these classifications have very much in common. What we find in I. Arnold’s⁸ investigation in style is something different. She puts forward the idea of the Decoding Stylistics which is, as she writes, is opposite to Galperin’s understanding of SD . She is convinced that enumeration of SD is useless because it does not serve the disclosing of that how these devices express the contents. Following Levin and Jakobson she suggests major types of text organization. They are:

Cohesion

Convergence

Unexpected Outcome

1. She defines Cohesion as “similar elements in similar position that make the text coherent. This phenomenon can occur on different levels: phonetic, structural or semantic”⁹ . Structural similarity may be reflected in similar morphological constructions and syntactical parallelism. Semantic level includes usage of synonyms, antonyms etc. Numerous examples of Cohesion can be found in proverbs.
2. Convergence is an aggregate of stylistic devices partaking in one stylistic function. The components could be diverse. The most important thing – the function they perform. For example, the extract from H.Melville’s “Mobi- Dick” where the ocean is described ¹⁰ . “And heaved and heaved, still unrestingly heaved the black sea, as if its vast tides were a conscience”. “In this case, writes I. Arnold , Convergence is created with the whole set of stylistic devices: Inversion, Repetition, Polysindeton, Rhythm, the coinage “unrestingly”, the epithet “vast”, unusual simile “tides – conscience”. All the aggregate creates the image of waves that is really palpable.
3. Unexpected Outcome consists in appearance of elements that break the continuity of speech¹¹ . On the lexical level there can be: archaic words, loan words, unusual syntactical construction etc. Let us take an extract from Th.Good’s poem “November”. Anaphora in it is reproduced so many times that the reader get used to it – he can predict that the next line will begin with the same words that is why the end of the poem is very unexpected.

I. Arnold asserts that in the basis of decoding Stylistic lies structural approach that is characteristic of up-to-date science. This approach does not presuppose investigation of separate elements. Even correlations of these elements are the object of this analysis, but complex systems of interconnected and interdependent elements that form an inner well-organized unity. With stylistics, the object of investigation cannot include separated elements but the text as a whole. She contends that acknowledgement of SD as the highest level of text analysis reflects the cognition as the way of taking up separate elements. According to I. Arnold this is pre-structural and pre-systemic approach. In other words, it is out-dated.

Arnold’s concept is interesting and really unconventional for us. But we cannot follow it. We considered that for the analysis of the stylistic peculiarities of a translation the traditional approach seems to be more convenient. When we make an attempt to understand how the translator renders the style, we are to focus on stylistic devices and sometimes even on minute elements of language to trace the way of their translation. It never hurts to analyze the text as a whole inseparable unity. But with us, it seems useful to study stylistic devices also. Therefore, we resort to their traditional classification.

Lexical Stylistic Devices

Here we can distinguish four groups of SD.

1.1 Interaction of Dictionary and Contextual Logical Meanings.

“The expressiveness of the Metaphor¹⁴, writes V.Kukharenco, is promoted by the implicit simultaneous presence of images of both objects (concepts): the one which is actually named and the one which supplies its own “legal” name. The wider the distance between these two objects the more striking and unexpected is the Metaphor.”

A.Avtenieva believes that “Metaphor always expresses two meanings of one and the same word. The first is an “old” one (lingual) and the second is a “new” one (contextual)” .¹⁵

If a Metaphor involves likeness between inanimate and animate objects, we deal with Personification. For instance,

How sweet to be a Cloud

Floating in the Blue

Every little cloud

Always sings aloud… (A.Miln)

In this example Winnie-the-Pooh compares himself with a Cloud.

E.g.: He went about her room after his introduction, looking at her pictures, her bronzes and clays, asking after the creator of this, the painter of that… (Th. Dreiser)

“The scope of transference in Metonymy is much more limited than that in Metaphor, - writes V.Kukharenko, - which is quite understandable: the scope of human imagination identifying two objects (phenomena, actions) on the grounds of commonness of one of their innumerable characteristics is boundless, while actual relation between objects are more limited.”¹⁸ E.Aznaurova considers that fixed associations lie in the basis of Metonymy. “However, she writes, unlike associations caused by the context or by some extra linguistic factors, Metonymy appears on the basis of associations potentially permanent for the certain types of relations: items of clothing – person, parts of body – person, etc.”¹⁹

1.2 Stylistic Devices based on the Interaction between the Free and Phraseological Meanings of a word (or between the Meanings of two Homonyms)

1.3 Stylistic Devices based on Interaction between the logical and emotive meanings of a Word.

The emotive meaning or emotional colouring of a word plays a considerable role in stylistics. An utterance cannot be understood clearly without evaluation of the author’s attitude towards the things described.

1. Word epithets, i.e., epithets expressed by any emotional part of speech in the attributive or adverbial functions “wood pigeons were complaining gently to themselves.” (A.Miln)
2. Two-step epithets, i.e., epithets supplied by intensifiers (sharply conscious)
3. Inverted epithets: the shadow of the smile
4. Phrase epithets, including into one Epithet an extended phrase or a completed sentence, “Eeyore said it in a quite-between ourselves-and-don’t-tell- anybody whisper”. (A. Miln).
5. Transferred epithets are formed of metaphors, metonymies and similes, and expressed by adjectives: “Piglet who had never been really fond of both shuddered a long indignant shudder”. (A. MIln).

1.4. Stylistic Devices based on intensification of a certain feature of a Thing or Phenomenon.

I. Galperin distinguishes two types of Periphrasis: logical and figurative.“Logical Periphrasis is based of one of inherent properties or a passing feature of the object described as in “instruments of obstruction” (=pistols), “the most pardonable of human weakness” (=love). Figurative Periphrasis is based either on Metaphor or Metonymy, the key-word of the collocation is the word that used figuratively” ³⁰ as in the his neck over flowed his collar and there had recently been published a second edition of his chin (P.G. Wodehouse).

2. Syntactical Stylistic Devices

2.1 Stylistic Inversion

2.2 Repetition

The sentence Christopher Robin said nothing, but his eyes got larger and larger, and his face got pinker and pinker. According to I. Galperin is not a Repetition as a SD proper, but a means by which the excited state of mind of the character is shown. He believes that “when used as a SD Repetition does not aim at making a direct emotional impact. On the contrary, the stylistic device of Repetition aims at logical emphasis. An emphasis that is necessary to fix the attention of the reader on the key-word of the utterance.”³⁵ For example, “We woke up in the morning, said Rabbit, and what do we find? We find a strange Animal among us. An Animal of whom we have never heard before: An Animal, who carries her family about her in her pocket.” (A. Miln)

We will dwell upon two types of Repetition: Anaphora and Epiphora. If the repeated word comes at the beginning of two or more consecutive sentences, clauses or phrases we have Anaphora as in the example above. If the repeated unit is placed at the end of consecutive sentences, clauses or phrases we have the type of Repetition called Epiphora as in:

You have a house, Piglet and I have a house, and they are very good houses, and Christopher Robin has a house and Owl and Kanga and Rabbit have their houses and even Rabbit’s friends and relations have houses, but poor Eeyore has nothing. (A. Miln)

2.3 Climax

The repetition of “he thought”, then the using of the words “he knew” makes the reader anticipate the outcome of this passage. And, eventually, the reader sees it: “he had done all that he could do to save himself.”

2.4. Anticlimax

2.5. Antithesis

2.6. Ellipsis

2.7. Break-in-the-Narrative (Aposiopesis)

3. Phono-Graphical Expressive means.

3.1. Onomatopoeia

There are numerous examples of different kinds of Onomatopoeia in “Winnie-the-Pooh.”For example,

This is Edward Bear coming downstairs now: bump! bump! bump! (imitation of sound produced by things or people) or

“Trala-la-la, tra-la, la,

Rum-tum, tiddle-um-tum

Tiddle-iddle, tiddle-iddle

Rum-tum-tum-tiddle-um (imitation of singing)

Isn’t it funny

How a bear likes honey?

Buzz! Buzz! Buzz! (imitation of sound produced by a bee).

In the first and the third examples we can distinguish the usage of the onomatopoetic words (the may function as verbs: the bees were buzzing in the hole, for example. In the second instance we deal with Onomatopoeia proper - the imitating sounds (a singing is imitated).

3.2 Alliteration and Assonance

3.3 Graphical Means

Notwithstanding the fact we have studied Stylistic Devices quite thoroughly we do not think that this information can be applied directly when analyzing the stylistic peculiarities of the translation. We are not to trace how the translator translates this or that SD. Our goal we see as disclosing of how the translator “plays” with the style of the original text striving to achieve better ways of translation.

Though, we have made the stylistic analysis of the Source Text, the latter is interesting for us not as a set of SD but as a whole complex integrity whose Style is to be rendered correspondingly into the Target Language. Thus, the outlook of SD will be undoubtedly involved in this discourse.

§ 2 Style as a Specific Problem of Literary Translation

V. Comissarov suggests dichotonomous aspect of translation based on predominant communicative function of the source text. Thus, he distinguishes between Literary and Informative translation on the one hand and between Written and Oral translation on the other hand.

“The main function of Literary Translation, he continues, is to make an emotional or aesthetic impression upon the reader. Communicative value of literary texts depends first and foremost on their artistic quality and the translator’s primary task is to reproduce this quality of translation, whereas main function of informative translation is to convey a certain amount of ideas, to inform the reader. However, he adds, translations of same texts can be listed as Literary or Informative only as an approximation. A literary text may include some of purely informative character and informative translation may comprise some elements aimed at achieving an aesthetic effect” .⁴³

Susan Basset, a British scientist, is interested in structural approach seeing translation as a semiotic transformation that deals with “invariant core of the SL”. Following A. Popovitch she affirms that “Semiotic transformations or variants are those changes which do not modify the core of meaning but influence the expressive form”⁴⁴ . This statement can be interpreted as a main problem of any literary translation: how to render expressive means of the Source Text, in other words – its style. S. Basset affirms that specific problems of Literary Translation can emerge from the individual translator’s criteria. She believes that failure of many translators to understand that “a literary translation, which is made up of a complex set of systems existing in a dialectical relationship with other sets outside its boundaries, has often led translators to focus on particular aspects of a text at the expense of others.” ⁴⁵ Her statements derive from principles of Structuralism which consider literary text as a set of related systems operating within a set of other systems.

After the overview of Literary Translation we think feasible to narrow and specify the problem. As to investigation of Literary Translation concerning its style, A.Feodorov ⁴⁶ singles out 3 kinds of “translation material”:

1. Scientific literature
2. Publicist and socio-political texts
3. Fiction

He fairly notices that fiction is art, thus the role of image here is crucially important, for art thinks by means of images. It should be taken into account when analyzing literary translation.

Needless to say that techniques mostly characteristic of informative translation cannot be applied to the literary one.

Besides Feodorov, Barhudarov, Comissarov and others I.Retzker establishes the specific techniques typical of different texts meaning their different styles and kinds of translations.

Thus, when translating a scientific text “the determinative point is the term-equivalence, the permanent correspondence that does not depend on the context. “High frequency current” is always “ток высокого напряжения”. ⁴⁷

As to translation of socio-political or publicist texts there an analogue-finding technique can be applied. It presupposes selection of a synonym that will perfectly fit the context.

E.g.: The press proprietors have taken the Tories’ point and for many years the noisy presses of Fleet Street have skillfully maintain an almost total silence on Irish affairs. It was an effective blackout.

Магнаты прессы усвоили точку зрения консерваторов и на протяжении многих лет крикливые органы печати Флит-Стрит не обмолвились ни словом о положении дел в Северной Ирландии. Это был настоящий заговор молчания.

Though, in dictionary “blackout” is translated as “исчезновение сигнала”, “засекречивание” the contextual synonymic expression “заговор молчания” perfectly fits the context.

And at last, when translating fiction the technique of adequate substitution is largely applied. For example, translation of Ch.Dikkence`s “American Notes” made by T.Kudreavtseva.

However, they booked twelve people inside and the luggage, including such trifles as a large rocking chair and a good-sized dining table being at length made fast upon the roof, we started off in great state.

The translator, feeling the irony of this scene (rocking chair and dining table plus 12 people for one carriage is really a trifle), uses adequate substitution technique, expressively differentiating the meaning of the neutral word “book”.

Как бы то ни было, в карету запихали двенадцать пассажиров, и когда багаж (включая такую мелочь как большая качалка и внушительных размеров обеденный стол), был, наконец, привязан на крыше, мы торжественно двинулись в путь.

“To translate a thought exactly, writes T.Retzker, the translator should not follow the form of the ST but take it as a single whole, though consisting of contents, main ideas and style”.⁴⁸

Undoubtedly, every translator has his own method of rendering the style of the original text. If you ask, for instance, several translators to translate one and the same poem there will be definitely several different pieces of literature. More over, in the History of Literary Translation there are many colourful pictures of different literary currents⁴⁹. Method of Modernistic translation, for example, is extremely subjective, introducing subjective style of translation, change of main ideas and images. Romanticism insists on making things mysterious and introducing fantasy elements (basically in poetry).Formalistic Approach opts for literal rendering of every minute element of the ST.

Concerning the translation method some Soviet scientists suggested the term “realistic translation”⁵⁰ that substituted the term “adequate” or “full-fledged” translation. According to G. Gachechiladze translation is the reflection of the original text just as the latter is the reflection of reality. Having covered some bullet-points of the theory and historical outlook of Literary Translation we would like to approach closer to the style rendering problem within it.

The stylistic equivalence pursuit is the corner stone of Literary Translation. Style retaining is a highly problematic goal and it cannot be achieved completely. Concerning this issue, I.Leviy⁵¹ believes that Literary Translation is a hybrid. It is not a monolith work of literature, but interpenetration and conglomeration of two structures: on the one hand – contents and stylistic peculiarities of the original text, on the other hand – the whole complex of specific stylistic features characteristic of translator’s language. In the work of literature i.e. translation these two stratums are in the state of permanent tension, that can results in a contradiction.

The translator is to iron out the contradiction thus, achieving stylistic correspondence. Sometimes a minute detail will be enough for the reader to feel translator’s failure in doing that. As a matter of fact, it happens when translator either weakens the style or resorts to unnecessary exaggerations.

G.Gachechiladze speculates a lot on stylistic weakening opposing it to the full-fledged literary translation, “The main goal of Literary Translation is the enriching of the national literature and serving its interests, whereas literal translation sets the opposite goal – to reproduce the form of the original text.”⁵² For example, the famous Goethe`s poem “The song of the stranger in the night” was translated by several Russian poets, “but only Lermontov managed to render the spirit of this poem”, writes Gachechiladze.

M. Lermontov:	V. Briusov:
Горные вершины	На всех вершинах
Спят во тьме ночной,	Покой;
Тихие долины	В листве, в долинах
Полны свежей мглой;	Ни одной
Не пылит дорога,	Не дрогнет черты.
Не дрожат листы	Птицы спят в молчании бора
Подожди немного	Подожди только: скоро
Отдохнешь и ты.	Уснешь и ты.

Comparing these two poems we realize why namely Lermontov`s poem became a masterpiece, notwithstanding V.Briusov keeps to more exact correspondence of lexical units and prosody.

In Russia literal translation was a real opposition to those who were eager to preserve the inner essence of the original text. For instance, famous and respectable poet A.Fet was the apologist of literalism. He writes, “The translator is happy when he manages, at least partially, to achieve the beauty of form that is inseparable from the original text. The main task of translation is to be literal. No matter it can sound heavy and uneven; the reader with an artistic flair will feel the power of the original text” .⁵³

Logic prompts us if even there is a reader with an artistic flair he will not actually need this sort of translation (what about his good taste?). He would rather read the original. Or, perhaps, he would be interested in comparing two texts out of curiosity? Then what is the main function of Literary Translation – to satisfy the inquisitive reader?

With retaining the inner essence of the original text, Gacheciladze points out one interesting detail: the translator must find the “stylistic key” with the help of which translator does not merely translates SD given in the ST using stylistic potential of a separate word. He translates the complex interaction of these Stylistic Devices with the main idea and author’s individual style, thus rendering the “tone” of the ST.

Adequate substitutions briefly reviewed in this Chapter can be interpreted as indispensable constituents of the “stylistic key”.

Let us take B.Zahoder`s translation.

“…They (bees) might think you were only part of the tree.”

“…Они могут подумать, что это листик”

“Часть дерева”, being translated literally, will sound much worse - it is not the style of a book meant for children.

Much attention was paid by different scholars to literalism (weakening of the style), however, I.Leviy warns us about the opposite phenomenon – the deliberate exaggeration of some stylistic elements in the ST.

Unlike Alan Duff⁵⁴ he considers that “the translator has no right to embellish”. K.Tchukovsky, a famous Russian writer and translator, who wrote a lot about translation, gives vivid examples concerning unnecessary exaggerations, “Balmont translates “лоно” instead of “грудь”, “стяг” instead of “флаг” and “подъемлю” instead of “поднимаю”.