Biblical Allusion As the Important Aspect of Intertextuality and Its Transformation in the Georgian Language (According to D.H. Lawrence’s „England, My England’’)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52340/idw.2023.21Keywords:
Proper-name allusions, key-phrase allusions, Leppihalme’s translation strategies, intertextuality, culture bumpsAbstract
The present study deals with a comparative analysis of the Georgian translation of the outstanding English writer, David Herbert Lawrence’s one of the masterpieces of his short fiction, „England, My England“, with special focus on how biblical allusions were handled in its Georgian translation. Within this context, as a major type of intertextuality, allusions are the central focus of this study. Specific samples selected from the short story and its translation are analyzed in the light of Ritva Leppihalme’s strategies for rendering allusions, particularly on the basis of her classification of proper-name and key-phrase allusions. Leppihalme’s views offer some justification for each of her potential strategies for rendering allusions. Based on Leppihalme’s views, this study aims to show that, whatever strategy the translator uses (retention of proper-name allusion or minimum change of key-phrase allusion), a translation must be considered successful, when the emotion between the readers of the source and target texts is just the same. If a translator fails to convey the connotative and pragmatic meanings of allusions which are in the source text, the target text reader is faced with “culture bumps”. Such translations turn out to be "puzzling and “impenetrable" for translation readers, and deprive them of the chance to participate actively in the reading process. To resolve this problem, a proper solution must be found in translation in order to effectively convey the sense of allusions in the source text to the audience of a different culture. That is why we consider that in order to effectively translate allusions and comprehend allusive messages properly, a translator of a literary text must have a philological education. In addition, the recognition of allusions in the text also requires background knowledge, because intertextual texts are always connected with each other in a certain way, by concept or by means of stylistic devices and for both,- a translator and a reader, they very often represent the key to understanding each other. Along with the method, the content analysis method and the translator's empirical experience are also used in the present paper .
Downloads
References
ახალი აღთქმა და ფსალმუნები. (1991). სტოკჰოლმი. ბიბლიის თარგმნის ინსტიტუტი.
Allen, G.(2000). Intertextuality. London/New York: Routledge.
Barthes,R. (1998). The Pleasure of the Text. New York: Hill and Wany.
Childs,P.and Fowler, R.(2006). The Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms. Routledge:
London and New York.
Hermans, T.(2003). Translation, Equivalence and Intertextuality. New York: Wasafiri.
Halliday, M.(2002). Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. 3rd ed. .London: Edward Arnold.
Kristeva, J. (1986). The Kristeva Reader. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lawrence, D.H. (1922). England, My England and Other Stories. London: Penguin Classics.
Leppilhame, R.(1997). Culture Bumps. Clevdon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Nida,E.A.(1964). Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden.
Pfister, M.(2009-2010). How Postmodern is Intertextuality? Berlin: W. Gruyter.
.Preminger, A.(1965). Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.
Venity, L. (2009). Translation, Intertextuality, Interpretation. Romance Studies.