Şiirsel Çeviride Orijinalin Estetiği: Üslup - Anlam Bilim - Yapı
56 125
Anahtar Kelimeler:
aesthetics, Kazakh women's poetry, original, literary translation, style, concept.Özet
The article discusses the issues of recreating the aesthetic of the original text in literary translation. The aesthetics of the original and translated texts must, to a certain extent, coincide in the aspect of creative reproduction of key poetic characteristics and the creation of an equivalent aesthetic sensation. The aesthetics of the text here is understood as a set of interconnected motivic, figurative-style, structural, intonation, rhythmic, melodic, and other elements of poetics that have intentional and communicative functionality, cognitive capacity, and variability. The basic requirement for poetic translation is the preservation of the stylistic features of the original since style is the quintessence of a literary text, the combination of content, and semantic dominants with overt formal elements such as rhythm, composition, melody, and others. Even the verse volume of the text can act as a kind of marker of the author’s idiostyle, reflecting his aesthetic choice, a reflection of the semantic determinant. The object of the study is the lyrical poems of modern Kazakh poetesses Fariza Ungarsynova and Akushtap Bakhtygereeva and their translations into Russian and English. An extreme discrepancy between the aesthetic content and style of the original and the presented translations into Russian is established, resulting in a semantic, communicative, and interpretative dichotomy. The last negatively affects the perception of the original text as a complete semantic and artistic artifact. The issue of adequate perception and subsequent reconstruction of the semiosis of the original in translation invariants is considered. Semiotically and semantically rich elements of poetics, such as metaphors, hidden cultural allusions, personal and authorial reminiscences, ethno cultural markers must be creatively recreated in translation. As a result, the translation also becomes a cultural artifact of the literature in the language of which the translation was carried out.
Referanslar
Claramonte M.Á.V. Translation and Contemporary Art: Transdisciplinary Encounters (1st ed.). – New York: Routledge. – 2022. – 126 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9 781003267072 2. Джумалиев К. Первая лекция // Простор. – 1965. – №1. – С. 35. 3. Левый И. Искусство перевода. – М.: Прогресс, 1974. – 397 с. 4. Халидуллаева Г.Б. Поэзиядағы концептілерді салыстыру // Ясауи университетінің хабаршысы. – 2023. – №3 (129). – С. 198–210. https://doi.org/10.47526/2023-3/26 64-0686.15
Гачечиладзе Г.Р. Вопросы теории художественного перевода. – Тбилиси: Литература да хеловнеба, 1964. – 305 с. 6. Соколов А.Н. Теория стиля. – М.: Наука, 1968. – 257 с.
Виноградов В.В. Стилистика. Теория поэтической речи. Поэтика. – М.: Наука, 1963. – 435 с. 8. Zhang C. The Role of Literary Theory in Literary Translation // Studies in Linguistics and Literature. – 2020. – Vol. 4. – P. 122–130. https://doi.org/10.22158/sll.v4n4p122 9. Иванов Н.В. Дихотомии перевода (к онтологическим основаниям определения научного объекта переводоведения) // Вестник Московского университета. Сер. Теория перевода. – 2015. – №4. – C. 34–64. 10. Lardelli M. Gender-fair translation: a case study beyond the binary // Perspective. Studies in Translation Theory and Practice. – 2023. – Volume 31. – Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2023.2268654 11. Queiroz J., Castello-Branco M., Fernandes A.L., Atã P. Intersemiotic translation as a cognitive artifact – from Webern’s serialism to concrete poetry // Perspectives. – 2022. – Vol. 30 (6). – P. 957–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1990368
Варламова Е.Ф. Стилевая традиция как предмет анализа критики. В кн.: Современная литературная критика. 70-е годы. – М., 1985. – С. 145–157. 13. Бақтыгереева А. Сені ойлаймын. – Алматы: Жазушы, 1973. – 125 б. 14. Бахтыгереева А. Белокрылая. – Алматы: Жазушы, 1981. - 137 с. 15. Оңғарсынова Ф. Шілде. – Алматы: Жазушы, 1976. – 173 б.
Унгарсынова Ф. Тревоги. – М.: Советский писатель, 1979. – 374 с.
Унгарсынова Ф. Озарение. – М.: Советский писатель, 1980. – 275 с.
Унгарсынова Ф. Полдневный жар. – Алматы: Жазушы, 1980. – 256 с. 19. Sun Y. Literary translation and communication // Frontiers in Communication. – 2022. – Vol. 7. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.1073773 [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2022.1073773/full (date of access: 15.08.. 2023)
Claramonte M.Á.V. Translation and Contemporary Art: Transdisciplinary Encounters (1st ed.). – New York: Routledge. – 2022. – 126 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9 781003267072
Djumaliev K. Pervaia lekcia [First lecture] // Prostor. – 1965. – №1. – S. 35. [in Russian]
Levyi I. Iskusstvo perevoda [The art of translation]. – M.: Progress, 1974. – 397 s. [in Russian]
Halidullaeva G.B. Poeziadagy konceptіlerdі salystyru [Comparison of Concepts in Poetry] // Iasaui universitetіnіn habarshysy. – 2023. – №3 (129). – S. 198–210. https://doi.org/10.47526/2023-3/26 64-0686.15 [in Kazakh] 5. Gachechiladze G.R. Voprosy teorii hudojestvennogo perevoda [Issues in the theory of literary translation]. – Tbilisi: Literatura da helovneba, 1964. – 305 s. [in Russian] 6. Sokolov A.N. Teoria stilia [Style theory]. – M.: Nauka, 1968. – 257 s. [in Russian] 7. Vinogradov V.V. Stilistika. Teoria poeticheskoi rechi. Poetika [Stylistics. Theory of poetic speech. Poetics]. – M.: Nauka, 1963. – 435 s. [in Russian]
Zhang C. The Role of Literary Theory in Literary Translation // Studies in Linguistics and Literature. – 2020. – Vol. 4. – P. 122–130. https://doi.org/10.22158/sll.v4n4p122
Ivanov N.V. Dihotomii perevoda (k ontologicheskim osnovaniam opredelenia nauchnogo obiekta perevodovedenia) [Dichotomies of translation (towards the ontological foundations of defining the scientific object of translation studies)] // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Ser. Teoria perevoda. – 2015. – №4. – C. 34–64. [in Russian]
Lardelli M. Gender-fair translation: a case study beyond the binary // Perspective. Studies in Translation Theory and Practice. – 2023. – Volume 31. – Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2023.2268654
Queiroz J., Castello-Branco M., Fernandes A.L., Atã P. Intersemiotic translation as a cognitive artifact – from Webern’s serialism to concrete poetry // Perspectives. – 2022. – Vol. 30 (6). – P. 957–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1990368
Varlamova E.F. Stilevaia tradicia kak predmet analiza kritiki. V kn.: Sovremennaia literaturnaia kritika. 70-e gody [The stylistic tradition as a subject of criticism analysis. In: Modern Literary Criticism. The 70s]. – M., 1985. – S. 145–157. [in Russian] 13. Baqtygereeva A. Senі oilaimyn [I think of you]. – Almaty: Jazushy, 1973. – 125 b. [in Kazakh] 14. Bahtygereeva A. Belokrylaia [White-winged]. – Almaty: Jazushy, 1981. - 137 s. [in Russian] 15. Ongarsynova F. Shіlde [July]. – Almaty: Jazushy, 1976. – 173 b. [in Kazakh] 16. Ungarsynova F. Trevogi [Anxiety]. – M.: Sovetskiy pisatel, 1979. – 374 s. [in Russian] 17. Ungarsynova F. Ozarenie [Illumination]. – M.: Sovetskiy pisatel, 1980. – 275 s. [in Russian]
Ungarsynova F. Poldnevnyi jar [Midday Heat]. – Almaty: Jazushy, 1980. – 256 s. [in Russian]
Sun Y. Literary translation and communication // Frontiers in Communication. – 2022. – Vol. 7. doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2022.1073773 [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2022.1073773/full (date of access: 15.08.. 2023)
