Специфіка поетичного перекладу (на матеріалі трагедії В. Шекспіра “The Tragedy Of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” та її перекладів)

Abstract

UA : Дипломна робота − 90 стор., 107 джерел. Об’єкт дослідження: в даній роботі англомовні поетичні тексти. Мета роботи: дослідити особливості перекладу англомовних поетичних творів українською мовою. Теоретико-методологічні засади: ключові положення перекладознавства, розроблені В. Комісаровим, А. Поповичем, А. Федоровим, принципи теорії перекладу, розроблені В. Карабаном, І. Корунцем, Т. Кияком та ін.). Отримані результати: Поетичний переклад зумовлений не лише об'єктивними факторами (конкретно-історичним літературним каноном, нормативними вимогами), але й суб'єктивними (поетикою перекладача). Адекватним є такий переклад, у якому передані всі наміри автора, в розумінні певного ідейно-емоційного впливу на читача, з дотриманням, у міру можливості усіх застосованих автором ресурсів образності, колориту, ритму. Ступінь зближення з оригіналом залежить від багатьох чинників: від майстерності перекладача, від особливостей мов і культур, що зіставляються, епохи створення оригіналу і перекладу, способу перекладу, характеру перекладних текстів тощо. Відтворення просодичних елементів належить до категорії еквівалентності і є обов’язковим критерієм оцінки якості поетичного перекладу. Порівнюючи переклади потрібно враховувати те, що перекладачі керуються різними стратегіями, які вважають для себе пріоритетними (тип тексту, мету перекладу і цільову аудиторію).

EN : The thesis deals with the translation issues of Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” into Ukrainian. The first chapter focuses on the notion of poetic work, Challenges of poetic translation and the categories of equivalence and adequacy in translation. The research proves that any poetic text is formed by the unity of ideas, images, words, sound, rhythm, intonation, composition. It is impossible to change one of the components of the poetic text so that it does not affect the overall structure, changing one component necessarily causes a change in the whole system. Thus the attempt to reproduce all the constructive elements in translation will inevitably lead to loss of harmony, therefore, it is necessary to define which elements in the given work are the main and to reproduce them with all possible accuracy, without paying, or paying insignificant, attention to others. The main challenges in poetic translation are seen as requirements that must be met by an adequate translation, and are as follows: accuracy, brevity, clarity, literariness. The translation rules that must be followed are to preserve the number of lines, meter and size, alternation of rhymes, semantic equivalents, comparisons, and other means of tone transition. It is highlighted that creating an adequate translation is the most important task of the translator. Adequate translation covers both semantic and pragmatic equivalence, without violating any norms, it is accurate and without distortions. Equivalence is the preservation of the relative equality of meaningful, semantic, semantic, stylistic and functional-communicative information contained in the original and translation. The equivalence of the translation of the original is always a relative concept, and the level of relativity can be very different. The degree of convergence with the original depends on many factors: the skill of the translator, the features of the languages and cultures being compared, the era of creation of the original and translation, the method of translation, the nature of translated texts. 87 The second chapter presents the translation analysis of Shakespeare’s “The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark” into Ukrainian. The issues of equivalence and adequacy of Ukrainian translations, produced by Mykhailo Starytskyi, Panteleimon Kulish, Oswald Burghardt (Yurii Klen), Mykhailo Rudnytskyi, Leonid Hrebinka, Yurii Andrukhovych and Hryhorii Kochur, were analyzed. As a result, the research demonstrated, that P. Kulish's translation, which is conditioned by the romantic concept of translation, can be considered close to the style of the original; M. Starytsky's translation, aimed at accuracy, but did not convey all the subtleties of the original, and the attempt to literally convey the content led to a significant linear lengthening of the text. Translations by M. Rudnytskyi and Y. Klen are the most laconic, because they were created for the stage and the priority criterion was pronunciation. At the same time, in Klen's "rationalist and romantic" translation we often observe a pragmatic adaptation of the highest level, which contributes to the improvement of the audience's perception. Kochur's translation has much in common with Klen's translation, and represents a classical stylistic interpretation, but his language is more abstract, academic, and the texts are longer. L. Hrebinka's translation features a wide register of the vernacular and a bold reproduction of Shakespeare's vocabulary on a national basis, reminiscent of P. Kulish's translation. Yu. Andrukhovych's translation is postmodern in spirit, strikes with anti-intellectualism, figurative simplification of expression compared to the original, the presence of extremely brutal vocabulary, the translator deliberately radically modernizes the vocabulary and style of the work in the eyes of mass culture. Reproduction of prosodic elements belongs to the category of equivalence and is a mandatory criterion for assessing the quality of poetic translation. The best in terms of reproduction of the main prosodic elements is the translation by H. Kochur. M. Starytskyi changes the original five-foot iambic to amphibrachy (threesyllable foot with a medium stressed syllable), often uses six- and seven-foot iambic. P. Kulish's translation is rhythmically better than M. Starytskyi's translation. P. Kulish 88 uses a five-foot iambic extended by one unstressed syllable, but the text is very saturated with rhythmic inversions (transition to the chorus) and a four-foot or six-foot iambic instead of a five-foot iambic. Yuri Klen completely preserves the five-foot iambic of the original, he alternates the eleven-syllable lines with the ten-syllable ones in each couplet, although often the lines are extended by one unstressed syllable compared to the original. M. Rudnytsky's translation is equilinear, completely reproduces the rhyming scheme of the original, only occasionally turns to a four-foot iambic, but uses incorrect accents in the words, which he adjusts to the requirement of rhythm. L. Hrebinka's translation is also equilinear, reproducing the rhyming scheme of alternation, but the rhythmic clarity and integrity are periodically violated. The translation of Yu. Andrukhovych is two lines longer than the original, skillfully rhymed according to the scheme of the original, reproduces the prosodic features – mainly with a five-foot iambic, extended by one unstressed line. Thus, research shows that when comparing translations, it should be borne in mind that translators are guided by different strategies that they consider to be a priority. Therefore, when talking about adequacy and equivalence, it is necessary to take into account not only the type of text, but also the purpose of translation and the target audience.