Contrastive Analysis of two Translations of A. Miln’s Book “Winnie-the-Pooh”

Our century is called the age of translation since nowadays international agreements between states, public and private organizations are translated for all interested parties whether or not the signatories understand each other language¹ .

Translator needs a large knowledge of literary and non literary textual criticism, for he has to assess the quality of a text before deciding how to interpret and then translate it.

Furthermore, an ordinary passionate reader even if he is well acquainted with the life of the author, his works, critical reference to them, and tries to follow the writer’s thought and tone cannot make a professional translation, unless he handles translation techniques, stylistic devices and masters both SL and TL correctly and ingeniously. As we will see further even doing many things correctly and pursuing accuracy translator could fail, because there is something extremely difficult to render: the minute shades of meaning, playing upon words, connotations expressed with the help of various stylistic devices.

This Chapter aims at the contrastive analysis of the translations made by B. Zahoder and V. Veber alongside with N. Rein who was responsible only for the poems.

In 1999 was the publication of “Winnie-the-Pooh” translated by V. Veber. At first sight there is nothing strange about that – appearance of new translations of literary works that were already translated is quite natural: the era of translation pluralism is proclaimed nowadays. M. Gasparov² explains this phenomenon a little bit differently. He considers that different translations should co-exist in the following way: liberal translation (that suits poetry, for example), more precise and even word-for-word translation which is meant to facilitate the study of a language. V. Veber, a translator, elaborated his own concept of translation. He says that the translator has no right to add anything when translating. That is why he considers that too rich imagination of a writer interferes with his translation and distorts it. According to his concept writers and poets are bad translators – there are a lot of deviations in their works. He claims that the well-known Russian version of “Winnie-the-Pooh” is abridged (B. Zahoder did not translate 2 chapters) and heavily remade. Thus, V. Veber decided to do another, “more accurate” translation ³ .

We will try to make the analysis to see if he has been up to the challenge. In order to compare stylistic peculiarities of these two translations we will again apply the A. Popovitch’s classification of Stylistic Transformations. We think it is reasonable to set all the phenomena into the appropriate rank to make the analysis objective.

In this Chapter we took only 4 Stylistic Transformations, because Stylistic Individualization, which we dropped out, serves only for analysis of poetry. As we know in the second translation all the poems were translated by N. Rein. Our task is to compare B. Zahoder’s and V. Veber translations of “Winnie-the-Pooh”. So, analyzing these translations we handle 4 Stylistic Transformations:

1. Stylistic Correspondence
2. Stylistic Substitution
3. Stylistic Weakening
4. Stylistic Amplification

1. Stylistic Correspondence

As far as the manner of narration is concerned V. Veber preserves A. Miln’s way of doing it. In other words, he uses Stylistic Correspondence method in his translation. Compare:

	“What about a story?” said Christopher Robin.
	“What about a story?” I said.
Veber:	–Как насчет сказки? – спросил Кристофер Робин.
	– Насчет сказки? – переспросил я
Zahoder:	–Папа, как на счет сказки? – спросил Кристофер Робин.
	–Что насчет сказки? – спросил папа.

B. Zahoder narrates the story in the third person. Thus, he does not break the narration as a whole which consists of two layers. The first is about Winnie-the-Pooh and his friends and the second is about Christopher Robin and his father. We will dare say it is quite logical. He does not follow the author but at the same time he does not weaken the style that is not less important. Now let us take examples where he retains the stylistic peculiarities of the original text. And we will see how V. Veber, the accuracy apologist, manages with the high fidelity of the style rendering.

The imaginary horrible animal Heffulump sounds like a distorted and rethought word “elephant” in children’s language. The syllables are rearranged and [h] is added. By the way in Shepard’s pictures illustrating Winnie-the-Pooh we can see quite an awesome elephant. B. Zahoder translates it like “Слонопотам” V. Veber writes ”Хоботун”.

Let us take this well-known example when Piglet was terrified by Winnie- the-Pooh whom he mistook for the Heffulump.

E.g.:

” Help, Help!” cried Piglet, “a Heffulump, Horrible Heffalump”, and he scampered off as hard as he could still crying out “Help, Help, A Horrible Haffalump! Hoff a Hellible Horralump! Hooll, Holl, a Hoffable Hellerlump! ”

B. Zahoder following A. Miln skillfully juggles with 3 words “Караул”,”Ужасный” and “Слонопотам” like A. Miln with words “Help”, ”Heffulump”, “Horrible”.

As to Veber, he restricts his playing to 2 words and his translation leaves much to be desired. Compare:

Zahoder:	–Караул! Караул! – закричал Пятачок, – Слонопотам, ужасный Слонопотам!!! – И он помчался прочь, так что только пятки засверкали, продолжая вопить. – Караул! Слонастый Ужопотам! Караул! Потастный Слоноужам! Слоноул! Слоноул! Карасный Потослонам!
Veber:	– На помощь! На помощь! – заголосил Хрюка. – Хоботун! Здесь ужасный Хоботун !– и он со всех ног пустился бежать вопя благим матом, – На помощь! На помощь! Хоботун! Ужасный Хоботун! Там!Там! Страшный Хоботам! Страшный Хобошум!

As you see, instead of Stylistic Correspondence Veber weakens the style. He loses the words, which produce such a strong impact. Although we cannot consider them sponerisms (they are neither notional nor function words) they produce the similar effect. Spoonirisms are slips of the tongue called after English priest A. Spooner who was famous for his slips of the tongue during his sermons. The effect of a spoonerism is produced only in the case it can be deciphered and connected with other elements in the surrounding context⁴ . So, we are convinced that Veber is accurate with the translation proper, but not with the style. V. Veber claims that in contrast to B. Zahoder he does not permit himself deviations from the original text. His “Мишка со слабеньким умишком” is a more accurate translation of “Bear with Very Little Brain” comparing with Zahoder’s “Медведь с опилками в голове”. However, Russian “Мишка со слабеньким умишком” has a reminiscence of the word “слабоумие”. This is the way the literal translation is. Let us trace another case when V. Veber is not interested in rendering stylistic devices. It concerns Pun, one of the most frequent stylistic devices used by A. Miln. It is taken from the Chapter where Eeyore loses his tail and Winnie-the-Pooh finds it. Owl advises Pooh on finding the tail:

“This thing to do is as follows. First, Issue a Reward, Then – “Just a moment”, said Pooh holding up his paw, “What do we do to do this – what you were saying?” You sneezed just as you were going to tell me “I didn’t sneeze” “Yes, you did, Owl” . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “What I said was “First, Issue a Reward” “You are doing it again”, said Pooh sadly

B.Z.:	–А сделать нужно следующее: во-первых, сообщи в прессу. Потом …
	–Будь здорова,– сказал Пух, подняв лапу. – Так что мы должны сделать с этой … как ты сказала? Ты чихнула, когда собиралась сказать.
	–Я не чихала.
	–Нет, сова, ты чихнула
	. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
	–Я начала говорить: сперва сообщи …
	–Ну, вот ты опять. Будь здорова,– грустно сказал Вини-Пух.
Veber	–А сделать надо вот что. Первым делом объявить о вознаграждении. Затем …
	–Одну секундочку, – Пух поднял лапу. – Что мы должны делать для этого? Что вы сказали? Вы как раз чихнули, вот я и не …
	–Я не чихала!
	–Чихнули, Сова, чихнули!
	. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .
	Я сказала “Первым делом объявить о вознаграждении…”

Let us compare. The English word “issue” [`isju:] really sounds like sneezing. B. Zahoder renders it by using the word “сообщи” which is similar to the Russian “апчхи ”.

As to Veber’s “вознаграждение” it does not suit the context at all. The reader cannot figure out why Pooh decided that Owl had sneezed. does not sound like sneezing, it is really far from imitating it. Thus, the play upon words and the comicality of the situation are lost completely. Instead of Stylistic Correspondence we find Stylistic Weakening, to say the least.

Comparing the two translations we got such an impression that the major motto of V. Veber seems to be like “a translation different from B. Zahoder’s one”. Following this principle he has to forgo his accuracy as in the episode when Winnie-the-Pooh finds Eeyore’s tail which Owl uses instead of a bell-rope. Pooh says about Eeyore’s tail:

“He was – he was fond of it.” “Fond of it?” “Attached to it “, said Winnie-the-Pooh sadly.

B. Z. :	– Он … он очень любил его.
	– Любил его?
	– Был привязан к нему, – грустно сказал Вини-Пух.
V. V.:	– Он просто его обожал
	– Обожал шнурок от звонка?
	– Не расставался с ним ни на секунду.

“Был привязан” in this case is an accurate translation from English “was attached”, because the English word “attached” means “joined to something” or “full of affection for somebody/ something” ⁵ Veber translates it differently. Why should he follow B. Zahoder? Nobody deprives him from his right to translate as he considers reasonable. Only the style suffers. Only the reader does not feel the flavour of the original text. 2. Stylistic Substitution

This kind of Stylistic Transformation takes place when the translator cannot resort to the corresponding stylistic means to reproduce images from the original text. Therefore, he substitutes them for other language elements, more appropriate and more natural for his native language ⁶.

E.g.:	“That’s right”, said Eeyore. “Sing Umty tiddly, umty too. Here we go gathering nuts and may” Enjoy yourself.
	“I am”, said Pooh.
B.Z.:	– Вот-вот, правильно, – сказал Иа-Иа, – Пой, пой. Трум-тум-тум- тирим-бум-бум. В лесу родилась палочка, в лесу она росла и много много радости детишкам принесла. Веселись и развлекайся.
	–Я веселюсь, – сказал Пух.
Veber:	– Все правильно, наконец молвил Иа. – Песня. Тирли-мырли, ой-люли по орехи мы пошли! Радуйтесь и наслаждайтесь.
	– Я и наслаждаюсь.

“Here we go gathering nuts and may” is a line from an English nonsense verse.

Gathering nuts does not coincide with blossoming of the hawthorn. However, this song, if merely translated, does not tell anything to the Russian reader. In order to render the nonsense B.Zahoder remakes a well-known Russian song “В лесу родилась елочка.” He substitutes the word “елочка” to give to the song a shade of absurdity like in English nonsense verse. He obviously achieves the effect by handling Stylistic Substitution.

As to Veber, he also tried to substitute the English verse but “ой люли, ой люли по орехи мы пошли” does not express the nonsense given in the original text. Consequently, we cannot state the fact of Stylistic Substitution.

More over, we would like to remark that the word “молвил” does not suit the context. It is too high-flown for it, though it is characteristic of Russian folklore (Compare “не вели казнить, вели слово молвить”). Veber must have mistaken it for “промолвил” which is quite another pair of shoes. Let us take another example where Winnie-the-Pooh got stuck in Rabbit’s house.

E.g.:	(Christopher Robin) “I’m afraid no meals… but we will read to you”. Bear began to sigh and then found he couldn’t because he was so tightly stuck; and a tear rolled down his eye as he said, “Then you read a sustaining Book, such as would help and comfort a Wedged Bear in Great Tightness.
B.Z.:	– Обедать, дорогой мой, не придется! – сказал Кристофер Робин – ведь ты должен скорей худеть. Вот читать вслух – это мы тебе обещаем. Медвежонок хотел вздохнуть, но не смог – настолько крепко он застрял. Он уронил слезинку и сказал:
	– Ну, уж вы тогда читайте мне какую-нибудь удобоваримую книгу, которая может утешить и поддержать медвежонка в безвыходном положении.

Further Zahoder adds (it is not written in the Source Text): И вот целую неделю Кристофер Робин читал вслух именно такую удобоваримую, то есть понятную и интересную книжку.

V.V.:	– К сожалению, еды не будет, – еще больше огорчил медвежонка Кристофер Робин, – Так ты быстрее похудеешь. Но мы почитаем тебе книжки. Пух уже собирался тяжело вздохнуть, но обнаружил, что это невозможно; слишком уж крепко земля стискивала бока. И по его мордочке скатилась слеза.
	– Тогда почитайте мне какую-нибудь подкрепляющую книгу, которая утешит и успокоит меня, несчастного, зажатого со всех сторон медвежонка.

In the word combination used by A.Miln “Sustaining Book” “sustaining” means providing enough of what somebody/something needs in order to live or exist.

E.g.:

I only had a little chocolate to sustain me on my walk 7

B.Zahoder does not translate it literally because it would “make” the Book edible. As a matter of fact, Winnie-the-Pooh is smart enough to understand it is impossible to make a book edible. That is why B.Zahoder opts for the paronym “удобоваримая” which contradicts the logic also. Compare: “удобоваримый – легко и хорошо усваиваемый органами пищеварения. Удобоваримая пища”⁸ .But it sounds quite similar to the word “удобопонятный” which means “легко понимаемый. Удобопонятный текст”⁹ Further in his translation Zahoder explains the idea.

We must admit that this Substitution does not damage the style of the Russian text. Even more, it gives a humorous touch to the narration: whenever Pooh wants to say something it turns out to be his favourite subject – food.

Analyzing many cases of Stylistic Substitution we come to the conclusion that V.Veber is reluctant to use this type of Transformation. He prefers to be literal, considering that he makes more accurate translation in this way. Formally, it could be so, but we must admit – it damages the translation which is understood as a text of belles-lettres style.

3. Stylistic Weakening

This type of Transformation seems to be the most frequent in V.Veber`s translation. Many puns and idioms remain ignored. For example, Chapter II in which Pooh goes visiting and gets into a tight place.

B.Z.:	Глава вторая, в которой Вини-Пух пошел в гости, а попал в безвыходное положение.
V.V.:	Глава вторая, в которой Пух идет в гости, объедается и застревает.

V.Veber loses the pun because “tight place” means not only a very narrow passage but also a very difficult or dangerous situation. Instead of Stylistic Correspondence Veber unlike Zahoder opts for stylistic Weakening. In the following example Veber is too wordy– he chooses long and clumsy description instead of playing with the connotative meaning of the verb “to spoil”.

E.g.:	“Christopher Robin, you must shoot the balloon with your gun. Have you got your gun?”
	“Of course I have”, you said. “But if I do that it will spoil the balloon”, you said. “But if you don’t”, said Pooh, “I shall have to let go, and that would spoil me”.
V.V.:	– Кристофер Робин, ты должен выстрелить из ружья. Ружье при тебе?
	– Ну, ясное дело, – ответил ты, – но если я выстрелю, то шарик лопнет.
	– А если не выстрелишь, мне придется его отпустить, и я разобьюсь
B.Z.:	– Кристофер Робин, ты должен сбить шар из ружья. Ружье у тебя с собой?
	– Понятно с собой, – сказал Кристофер Робин, – но если я выстрелю в шарик, он же испортится.
	– А если ты не выстрелишь, тогда испорчусь я, – сказал Пух.

Let us take another instance (Chapter III in which Pooh and Piglet go hunting and nearly catch a Woozle)

E.g.:	So they (Pooh and Piglet) went on, feeling just a little anxious now, in case the three animals in front of them were of Hostile Intent.
B.Z.:	И они пошли дальше, начиная немного волноваться, потому что ведь эти три Неизвестных Зверя могли оказаться очень Страшными Зверями.
V.V.:	Винни: «Продолжим преследование». И они продолжили, хотя и с легкой опаской, а вдруг троим зверям, которых они преследовали, не понравится их появление? Вдруг они проявят по отношению к ним враждебные намерения?

V.Veber consistently keeps to the formalistic approach. He uses such formal constructions (“продолжим преследование”, “проявят по отношению к ним враждебные намерения”) that they can be easily mistaken for a military report when isolated from the context.

Hardly can children be persuaded that this story is better because it is more truthful owing to the accurate translation. There is another example where Veber unlike Zahoder is not interested in reproducing colloquial style of speech. We think it also can be considered as Stylistic Weakening:

E.g.:	“I have just remembered something that I forgot to do yesterday and shan’t be able to do tomorrow. So I suppose I really ought to go and do it now.”
	“We’ll do it in this afternoon, and I’ll come with you” (a dialogue between Pooh and Piglet).
B.Z.:	– Знаешь что? По–моему, я что–то вспомнил, Да, да! Я вспомнил об одном деле, которое я забыл сделать вчера, а завтра я уже не успею… В общем, мне нужно пойти домой и сделать это дело.
	–Давай сделаем это после обеда, – сказал Пух, – я тебе помогу.
V.V.:	– Я думаю, что я кое о чем вспомнил… Только что я вспомнил об одном деле, которое не сделал вчера и которое не смогу отложить на завтра. Поэтому, мне ничего не остается, как вернуться и заняться этим самым делом.
	–Займемся им во второй половине дня, и я тебе помогу, – рассеянно ответил Пух.

While Zahoder energetically uses short and rhythmical sentences, Veber prefers clumsy officialese inconsistent with the style meant for children’s literature. It is difficult to imagine that Piglet and Pooh could have spoken to each other like that. We must say that the whole translation is full of officialese and translatese.

Moreover, still trying to include some colloquial elements, he uses them, however, alongside with the words and constructions typical of formal style. As a result we see a lot of discrepancy that is inadmissible as far as belles-letters style is concerned. Sometimes writers do such things deliberately to achieve humorous effect, but this is not the case, unfortunately.

For example, words like “вроде бы” turned out to be in one and the same passage with “завершил я дискуссию”; “здоровенный дуб”, with “его отбросило от ветки, растущей двадцатью футами ниже”; and “аккурат в тот момент” with “я-то решил, что ты очень озабочен случившимся с моим хвостом”.

V.Veber like B.Zahoder also tries to use contextual coinage but often times they result in failure.

E.g.:	весело побубнивая
	похудательная гимнастика
	подкрепляющая книга

There are obvious cases of calque. Compare:

E.g.:	You never can tell with Heffalums.
V.V.:	С этими Хоботунами заранее ничего не скажешь.
B.Z.:	За слонопотамов ручаться нельзя.

And at last, there are a lot of blunders in V.Veber`s translation which are like stones the reader stumbles over. Let us take some of them. “Вопль грусти (!) и отчаяния” (when Pooh was trying to take his head out of the jar). “Иди и принеси” instead of “пойди и принеси” or “И Кристофер Робин и Кролик, и все родные и знакомые Кролика попадали на землю и друг на друга, а сверху на них навалился Вини-Пух, свободный как ветер.” The simile “свободный как ветер” implies movement. Compare A.Pushkin’s

Ветер, ветер! Ты могуч

Ты гоняешь стаи туч

Ты волнуешь сине море

Всюду веешь на просторе.

But Winnie-the-Pooh did not move anywhere; he just fell onto his friends. We certainly did not have the aim to compare Veber and Pushkin. There is no point in doing that. It so happened that the example with the wind is widely known and when we try to think of the wind these lines immediately come to everybody’s mind who has ever tried to read to his child fairy tales.

Sometimes Veber makes his character speaking with intonation of a provincial actress, “Вот он, – пискнул Хрюка, – Как он ужасен, правда?” (expressing Piglet’s fear of the Heffalump) or “Боже мой! – закричал Хрюка. – Боже, милостивый Боже!”

As for B.Zahoder`s Stylistic Weakening, we have stated its instances in Chapter II and found no more with the only exception of one blunder “в три часа утра”. It is obvious that Russian people unlike British do not say “”. They use “в три часа ночи”.

4. Stylistic Amplification

Stylistic Amplification means the intentional emphasizing of the expressive means. The translator can introduce his own metaphors, epithets or stylistic devices that are not stated in the original text ¹⁰.

There are numerous examples where B.Zahoder amplifies the poetics of the Source Text in order to adjust it to Russian belles-lettres style. With Veber, his translation is neutral or very often with the style weakened, if not worsened. The only example of the Stylistic Amplification used by V.Veber is the following:

E.g.:	“Oh! Cried Pooh?
	“You are hurting!”
	“The fact is”, said Rabbit, “You are stuck”
	“It all comes”, said Pooh crossly of not having front doors big enough.”
V.V.:	– Ой, вырвалось у Пуха. – Мне же больно.
	Все понятно, – Кролик уже смекнул что к чему. – Ты застрял.
	Вот что происходит, когда экономят на парадных дверях, – сердито буркнул Пух.
B.Z.:	–Ой-ой-ой! Больно!
	Теперь все ясно, – сказал Кролик, – ты застрял.
	Все из-за того, – сердито сказал Пух, – что выход слишком узкий.

It is clear from the example above that B.Zahoder is neutral while Veber amplifies the style by using irony (you cannot apply words “парадные двери” to the Rabbit`s hole)

Unfortunately, it was the single case of the Stylistic Amplification we came across in Veber`s translation. But we definitely have no right to disregard it. With B.Zahoder, we have already mentioned in the previous chapter that we found numerous examples of Stylistic Amplification in his translation.

Let us analyze one of them comparing it with Veber`s variant.

E.g.:	Piglet scratched his ear in a nice sort of way, and said he has nothing to do till Friday.
B.Z.:	Пятачок мужественно почесал за ухом и сказал, что он до пятницы совершенно свободен.
V.V.:	Хрюка задумчиво поскреб за ухом и сказал, что до пятницы ему все равно делать нечего.

Veber prefers neutral style whereas B.Zahoder introduces a Stylistic Device that is not stated in the original text. This is Oxymoron “мужественно почесал за ухом”. He breaks the collocation “задумчиво почесать в затылке /нос/за ухом” in order to attract reader’s attention to Piglet’s emotional state: he tries to hide his fear.

Sometimes Zahoder amplifies the style by using a phraseologism.

E.g.:	But he (Piglet) didn’t feel very brave for the word which was giggetting about in his brain was Heffalump.
B.Z.:	Но все поджилки у него тряслись, потому что в ушах у него гремело страшное слово “Слонопотам”.
V.V.:	Но на самом деле особой храбрости не наблюдалось, потому что в голове у него вертелось одно единственное слово “Хоботун”.

Veber unlike Zahader tries to follow the ST construction – he preserves the negation (особой храбрости не наблюдалось). As a result he damages the style of the narration. Instead of rendering Piglet’s tension we face a description given by a cool-headed psychiatrist.

The pie-chart of V.Veber’s handling of Stylistic Transformations looks like that:

Summing up all the contrastive analysis we have made we come to the conclusion that the two translators opt for the different techniques to render the style of the ST. It was proved in the previous Chapter that the most frequent type of

Transformation used by B. Zahoder is Stylistic Amplification.

As to V. Veber, his concept, declaring that formal accuracy is more important than rendering the style of the original text, did not bear any fruits. We are convinced that formalistic approach used by the translator resulted in ignoring Stylistic Devices, literal understanding of puns and echoing English constructions, non-typical of the Russian language. This dissonance is particularly conspicuous in fiction meant for children.

Nora Gall, a gifted Russian translator, once wrote that all the translator’s errors and blunders, lack of linguistic feeling and artistic flair are twice as much dangerous for children, because they are taught (!) this ugly language by means of fiction¹¹ .

1 Peter Newmark Approaches to translation, Oxford, 1988, p. 89
2 М. Гаспаров Подстрочник и мера точности www.lib.ru
3 А. Борисенко Песни невинности и песни опыта. О новых переводах Винни-Пуха // Иностранная литература №4, 2002, с.68
4 Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence, Hangue – Paris, 1975, p. 11-45
5 Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English A. S. Hornbey, Oxford, 2000, p. 701
6 А. Попович Проблемы художественного перевода, М., 1980, с.112-137
7 Oxford Advanced Learner’s dictionary of Current English A S Hornby, Oxford, 2000, p.1365
8 С.Ожегов Словарь русского языка, М., 1990, с.824
9 Ibidem, p.824
10 А. Попович Проблемы художественного перевода, М., 1980, с. 112-137
11 Н.Галь Слово живое и мертвое, М., 2001, с.324