{"title":"Sources of Panteleimon Kulish’s Views on Translation","authors":"Тарас Шмігер","doi":"10.33608/0236-1477.2019.09.3-10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Panteleimon Kulish’s views on translation were based on his own experience of translations and shaped under the infl uence of contemporary Ukrainian translation practice and scholarly thought (observations by H. Kvitka-Osnovianenko, P. Hulak-Artemovskyi, Ya. Holovatskyi, and M. Maksymovych; biblical texts in translation of P. Hulak-Artemovskyi, M. Maksymovych, V. Aleksandrov, and P. Morachevskyi), as well as the German translation studies (ideas of J. Herder, W. Humboldt, F.Schleiermacher, and A. Schlegel). The Ukrainian critic’s understanding corresponds to the views of other Slavonic authors: some Czech critics considered translation as a significant power for creating a new literature and nation and saw the roots of this strength in the language, but more detailed criteria for evaluating translation quality weren’t discussed yet; Russian researchers emphasized the significance of the author’s approach for the correct translation of his/her writings. P. Kulish considered the problems of reproducing the identity of the text much deeper, drawing attention to what makes any translation a different literary work and how the text may or should be modified with respect to the specific features of the reader’s perception. In terms of translation studies of the time, P. Kulish regarded the “poetic spirit and composition” of the text as the main criteria of the equivalent translation. However, the term ‘composition’ does not only designate the formal structure of a text. It is related to the concept that the form is shaped by the language and specific lingual means as well. P. Kulish was aware of the semantic problems of translation, but available linguistic knowledge of the time didn’t offer proper terms for their description. In addition, P. Kulish was actually one of the first (if not the first) to introduce into Ukrainian translation studies the term ‘untranslatable’, which became very popular in the theoretical and critical discussions of the 20th century.","PeriodicalId":370928,"journal":{"name":"Слово і Час","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Слово і Час","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33608/0236-1477.2019.09.3-10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Panteleimon Kulish’s views on translation were based on his own experience of translations and shaped under the infl uence of contemporary Ukrainian translation practice and scholarly thought (observations by H. Kvitka-Osnovianenko, P. Hulak-Artemovskyi, Ya. Holovatskyi, and M. Maksymovych; biblical texts in translation of P. Hulak-Artemovskyi, M. Maksymovych, V. Aleksandrov, and P. Morachevskyi), as well as the German translation studies (ideas of J. Herder, W. Humboldt, F.Schleiermacher, and A. Schlegel). The Ukrainian critic’s understanding corresponds to the views of other Slavonic authors: some Czech critics considered translation as a significant power for creating a new literature and nation and saw the roots of this strength in the language, but more detailed criteria for evaluating translation quality weren’t discussed yet; Russian researchers emphasized the significance of the author’s approach for the correct translation of his/her writings. P. Kulish considered the problems of reproducing the identity of the text much deeper, drawing attention to what makes any translation a different literary work and how the text may or should be modified with respect to the specific features of the reader’s perception. In terms of translation studies of the time, P. Kulish regarded the “poetic spirit and composition” of the text as the main criteria of the equivalent translation. However, the term ‘composition’ does not only designate the formal structure of a text. It is related to the concept that the form is shaped by the language and specific lingual means as well. P. Kulish was aware of the semantic problems of translation, but available linguistic knowledge of the time didn’t offer proper terms for their description. In addition, P. Kulish was actually one of the first (if not the first) to introduce into Ukrainian translation studies the term ‘untranslatable’, which became very popular in the theoretical and critical discussions of the 20th century.
潘捷列蒙·库利什的翻译观是基于他自己的翻译经历,并受到当代乌克兰翻译实践和学术思想的影响而形成的(H. Kvitka-Osnovianenko, P. Hulak-Artemovskyi, Ya)。霍洛瓦茨基和马克西莫维奇先生;圣经文本的翻译(P. Hulak-Artemovskyi, M. Maksymovych, V. Aleksandrov和P. Morachevskyi),以及德国翻译研究(J. Herder, W. Humboldt, F.Schleiermacher和A. Schlegel的观点)。乌克兰评论家的理解与其他斯拉夫作家的观点相一致:一些捷克评论家认为翻译是创造新文学和国家的重要力量,并在语言中看到了这种力量的根源,但尚未讨论更详细的评价翻译质量的标准;俄罗斯研究者强调作者的翻译方法对其作品的正确翻译的重要性。P. Kulish更深入地考虑了再现文本身份的问题,引起了人们对什么使任何翻译成为不同的文学作品以及文本可以或应该如何根据读者感知的具体特征进行修改的关注。在当时的翻译研究中,库利什把文本的“诗性精神和诗性构成”作为等效翻译的主要标准。然而,“作文”一词并不仅仅指一篇文章的形式结构。这与“形式是由语言和特定的语言手段塑造的”这一概念有关。P. Kulish意识到翻译的语义问题,但当时可用的语言学知识并没有提供适当的术语来描述它们。此外,P. Kulish实际上是第一个(如果不是第一个)将“不可译”一词引入乌克兰翻译研究的人之一,这个词在20世纪的理论和批评讨论中非常流行。