Criteria for evaluating literary translation: Buryat-Russian parallels

UDC 81`25(161.1+512.3)

https://doi.org/10.20339/PhS.5-21.022        

Alexeeva Irina S.,

Candidate of Philology, Professor of the Translation Department

Institute of Foreign Languages

Herzen Russian State Pedagogical University, St. Petersburg

e-mail: i.s.alexeeva@gmail.com

Dashinimaeva Polina P.,

Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Translation and

Intercultural Communication Department

Banzarov Buryat State University

e-mail: pdash@bsu.ru 

Extensive translation experience, corresponding theories and concepts, and taking into account the needs of modern society for literary translation are the criteria for evaluating a literary text translation nowadays. The paper offers stages to form the like criteria for evaluating a translated literary text as an integrative multicomponent model. It takes into account aesthetic information, text coherence, systemic dominants and frequency of style features, diachronic distance, the translator’s individual style, the target language literary norm and society’s needs specifics. The components might be taken as nuclear ones while considering translations of the past and present, as well as a two-step translation through an intermediary language. However, when we are faced with translations from Russia’s regional languages into Russian, the named general criteria are not enough, since we ought to implement the strategy of cultural self-realization as well. Buryat-Russian translation parallels have made the authors come to a new criterion model.

Keywords: literary translation, quality assessment criteria, textual integrity, translation dominants, translator’s individual style, Buryat-Russian translation.

References

1. Bellos D. Chto za rybka v vashem ukhe? : udivitel’nye prikliucheniia perevoda. Moscow: KoLibri, 2019. 416 s. (Chelovek Mysliashchii. Idei, sposobnye izmenit’ mir).
2. Dashinimaeva P.P. Tipologiia aspektual’nosti (na materiale buriatskogo i angliiskogo iazykov). Ulan-Ude: Izd-vo BGU, 2003. 171s.
3. Zhanaev A.T. (Ne)perevodimost’ kontsepta v kul’turno-tsivilizatsionnom aspekte (na materiale buriatskikh kontseptual’nykh orientirov): avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk. Ulan-Ude, 2014. 24 s.
4. Kazakova T.A. Khudozhestvennyi perevod. St. Petersburg, 2002.
5. Kazakova T.A. Khudozhestvennyi perevod: v poiskakh istiny. Moscow, 2006. S. 54–62.
6. Toper P.M. Perevod v sisteme sravnitel’nogo literaturovedeniia. Moscow, 2000.
7. Fedorov A.V. Osnovy obshchei teorii perevoda: (lingvisticheskie pro-blemy). Moscow, 2002.
8. Fedorov A.V. Iskusstvo perevoda i zhizn’ literatury. Moscow; Leningrad, 1981. S. 50.
9. Fefelov A.F. Etnosemanticheskie svoistva kul’turnoi sredy: refraktsiia i adaptatsiia // Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriia: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaia kommunikatsiia. 2016. T. 14, No. 3. S. 15–33.
10. Shagdarov L.D. Funktsional’no-stilisticheskaia differentsiatsiia buriatskogo literaturnogo iazyka. Ulan-Ude: Buriatskoe knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1974. 345 s.
11. Reiss K. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. München: Hueber, 1971.
12. House J. Translation quality assessment: a model revisited. Tübingen: Narr, 1997.
13. Ammann M. Anmerkungen zu einer Theorie der Übersetzungskritik und ihrer praktischen Anwendung // TEXTconTEXT. 1990. Vol. 5. S. 209–250.
14. Broek R. Second thoughts on translation criticism. A model of its analytic funktion // The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literature Translation. London; Sydney: Croom Helm, 1985.
15. Schleiermacher F. Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersezens. Das Problem des Übersetzens. Hg. von Hans Joachim Störig. Stuttgart, 1963.