Invariant and Variability Boundaries as Indicators of the Translation Adequacy (Exemplified by Contemporary American Prose)

Zhulidov Sergei Borisovich PhD in Philology Senior lecturer of the Department of English for Humanities at the National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod 603022, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Prospekt Gagarina str., 23 4131240@mail.ru Zolotova Marina Vianorovna PhD in Philology Senior lecturer, Head of Department of English for Humanities at the National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod 603022, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Prospekt Gagarina str., 23 mviazolotova@gmail.com

Kostin Aleksei Yur'evich ORCID: 0000-0002-6482-9534 Teacher of the Department of English for Humanities at the National Research Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod 603022, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod region, Nizhny Novgorod, Prospekt Gagarina str., 23 kostin704@gmail.com

Translation of literary works is traditionally considered one of the most visual, essential and at the same time complex and time-consuming varieties of practical implementation of interlanguage and intercultural communication. The fundamental elements of literary translation as a creative process and as its materialized result in the form of an analogue to the original are, firstly, its creators - the author, translator and, as a rule, the editor of the translation, and, secondly, its directly constituent units – extralinguistic, conditioned by external in relation to language and speech systems, and linguistic proper, that is, lexemes and their combinations of the source language(s) and the translation language(s), selected and updated in such an equivalent and balanced ratio that is sufficient to obtain an adequate translation. At the same time, the main criterion of adequacy, according to the majority of translation theorists, is not the complete identity of the source and translated texts (IT and PT), which is unattainable in principle, but the maximum similarity of their perception by readers of this work on the I and the PI. ^{[1; 2; 3]}.

It is precisely the observance of a precisely verified, reasonable proportion between these two, at first glance, contradictory requirements for translation – the preservation of the content of IT (translation invariant) with the assumption of its logically explicable changes (variability) – that is the main factor determining the receipt of adequate PT. Otherwise, in case of non-compliance with this principle or its deliberate violation, there can be no question of any coincidence of the impact of IT and PT on their readers, of course, there can be no question.

However, the invariant of translation, as well as its variability, are not constant and unchanging parameters for all varieties of texts and any communicative situation ^{[4; 2; 5]}. Therefore, with regard to literary translation, we will adhere to the requirements for preserving its invariant, which are essentially the same, although formulated in different ways, and also in a very significant time range for any science. For example, such:

 "The invariant in translation is the common semantic content of the original and its translation" – 1975 ^{[6, p. 34]}.

"[...] a text similar to the original one is created on the page as far as it is allowed by discrepancies between the two languages and cultures. [...] In this case, the invariant of translation is a complex education that includes both the features of the form of the text, and communicative–relevant information about the content of the text and, on top of this, the function of the text" - 2015 ^{[2, p. 204]}".

These considerations are shared, one way or another, by many authors of both theoretical studies ^{[7; 8]} and analytical reviews of translation activities already implemented in practice ^{[9; 10; 11]}.

Joining the above provisions, as well as the statement that the degree of adequacy of the translation, that is, the ratio of its invariant and the inevitable, objectively conditioned variability can be determined only by comparing the original and its translation in detail ^{[1, p. 242]}, we will try to bring theory and practice together in our own way, considering and after analyzing IT and PT.

The purpose of this article is a detailed analysis of the parallel segments of the novel on the I and N, in order to determine the degree of preservation of the invariant of the content of IT, as well as the admissibility of deviations introduced during translation in the form of variability of PT and direct distortions of the original.

To achieve this goal, we consider it necessary to solve the following tasks: 1. To determine the linguistic and extralinguistic reasons for the excessive variability of the content and its impact on the preservation or violation of the invariant of translation. 2. To distinguish between cases of actual variability and distortion of the content, as well as their comparative impact on the integrity of the translation invariant. 3. Identify the factors that caused the violation of the translation invariant, pointing out possible ways to eliminate them, and propose their own correspondences as acceptable options.

The object of the study is an American novel ^[12] and its translation into Russian ^[13]. The subject of the study is a comparison and a detailed comparative analysis of excerpts of the original and the translation, consisting of one or more sentences or of individual words and phrases.

For the purpose of optimal perception by readers of the cited factual material and orientation in it, the cited passages are numbered, and the units being analyzed are highlighted in bold. All the examples are divided into only two ad hoc groups, depending on which factors formed the basis of the variational changes – linguistic or extralinguistic. Not being exhaustive, such an incomplete classification is explained by the limited space caused by the permissible size of the article.

Before proceeding to the presentation of the main part of the article, I would like to preface it with a brief explanation. This seems to us, if not necessary, then, in any case, useful and interesting.

First, one of the authors read this book in the original. And only then did he get his hands on her published translation. It turned out that at first, when getting acquainted with the novel, he looked at it as if with the unbiased gaze of an ordinary reader, but then – with a purely "biased", that is, professional. Reading it seems to be the same thing – according to the plot and the development of storylines – the work, but not quite for the first time. And I found in front of me not a fascinating, exciting, lively and vivid narrative, sustained in a single semantic and stylistic key, but something inexplicably chaotic, strangely indigestible. Which for some reason I didn't want to believe in any way! In order to understand and understand what is the matter here, the decision was made purely philological, or rather linguistic: to take and compare the original with the translation, in other words, simply compare the source and translated texts.

I. Variability due to linguistic factors

Consider this example:

Such a clarification, which is quite acceptable, in principle (with all the controversy of its specific expression) can be explained by the absence of a grammatical gender category in the morphological system. The resulting variability would not violate the invariant of translation, except for the disadvantages, firstly, the absence of the unit * "werewolf" in the lexical system, an occasional formed by analogy with the pair "wolf - wolf", and, secondly, its explicit allusion to "Werewolf" – terrorist Nazi detachments at the end World War II. This completely unnecessary historical roll call could easily be avoided by transliterating the wolf component, focusing not on the German (why all of a sudden?), but on the English pronunciation of this word, which is the same spelling in both languages – "ver wolf".

However, the described violation of the translation invariant is not only this. Towards the end of the novel, the translator, it seems, herself realized the absurdity of her find "werewolf (-itza)", suddenly deciding to rename this heroine simply into a "werewolf", no longer trying to form a feminine gender from him. Cf.: 

The translator's equally strange approach to the transfer of the word "nemesis" to PT also attracts attention. If at the beginning of the novel it was translated as "sworn enemy", then at the end – as "Nemesis", despite the same spelling with a lowercase letter, excluding the name of the Greek goddess. And of course, it is impossible for the reader of PT to understand that in both cases we are talking about the same characters, who are marked the same in all places of the original. Cf.:

Cf.: nemesis – someone or something that continues to oppose you and cannot easily be defeated. ^[14].

Such manipulations with werewolf and nemesis already indicate the variability not of PT in relation to IT, but of the completely unacceptable "internal variability" of PT itself, in which the same character characteristics are translated differently for no reason. And such false variability occurs repeatedly in PT.

Cf., for example, similar arbitrary operations on the seemingly simplest adverb literally, which has absolutely unambiguous dictionary equivalents in PY – "literally", "in the literal sense of (this) word":

Such an unjustified overlap, and in the last three examples also the inconsistency of erroneous antonymic equivalents taken from nowhere, not only violates the invariant of translation, but also grossly distorts the general meaning of the text, preventing its understanding. Although the reader, unless he discovers the original in search of the truth, will, of course, remain unaware that one of them against the background of the other is simply unprofessionally translated - by the method "exactly the opposite".

Cf.: literally – used for showing that what you are saying is really true and not just an impressive way of describing something. eg: Now there are literally thousands of companies using our software. ^[14].

Consider this example:

Since, due to the peculiarities of the lexical systems of the I and the I, the range of values of hot does not coincide with its dictionary equivalents in the Russian language, the reason for the variability that has arisen is quite objective: it is impossible to use the repetition of some identical word in all four cases.

The reason that two of these four adjectives remained untranslated at all is already extremely subjective and quite obvious: after all, if you translate them all, then each of the four nouns would have to pick up not the same, for example, "cool", but its own special contextual equivalent of hot. Unwilling to bother with this procedure, the translator formed a PT, in which, unlike IT, cool Oliver made important transactions, but women apparently satisfied him with any. Or are they also important? What were the clubs like then? In such a distorted PT, Oliver's "coolness" is far from as obvious as in the original.

The following can be suggested as contextual equivalents:  "... big deals, spectacular (posh) women, elite clubs." Then the stylistically vivid repetition of the epithet hot, which was not transmitted, would obviously have to be attributed to a systemically conditioned semantic variability, which entailed some loss of expressiveness of this passage.

Let's consider unsuccessful examples of adaptation caused by systemic lexical differences of the I and the I, in such detailed explanations:

Due to the fact that the translator, having decided to "improve" (after all, not to distort!) the original, for some reason omitted the whole sentence IT (Wrong herb), with which the author explains why the hero suddenly confused such different sounding names - Sage and Rosemary, the reader becomes unclear what rosemary and sage and what is it in general – flowers or shrubs.

In cases where explanations in the form of explication of the denotative or stylistic meaning implied in IT directly in the PT are undesirable or impossible, for example, due to the large volume of complementary information, page-by-page footnotes marked "Translator's Note" are used quite often. Using this kind of variability, one should pay special attention to it, since in order to preserve the invariant of translation, these explanations should bring complete clarity to the content of IT, which may be misunderstood by the reader of PT.

In this case, if he studied not English, but another language, such an explanation in a footnote will not tell him anything. In his understanding, the word sage is not pronounced at all [seid?] and therefore cannot be associated with the girl's name in any way, not being a noun at all. For example, the German sage ['zage] is a verb (ich sage – I say). And the French sage [sa:?] is an adjective (elle est sage – she is smart, wise or obedient). It is clear that such associations will arise in the reader only if he either knows these languages, or at least vaguely remembers his studies. The connection between another female name – Rosemary and the plant "rosemary", which is not known to all readers, is absolutely not clear and not transmitted in the PT and also not explained in any way in this footnote. Thus, the meaning of this whole passage turned out to be distorted, that is, the translation invariant is not preserved here either.

 But since the footnote was given, then all of the above should have been explained directly in it. And, of course, in no case do not throw away, leaving untranslated, the specified sentence is the only thing that could exhaustively explain this wordplay to the reader.

Cf.: herb – a plant used for adding flavor to food or as a medicine;

rosemary – a bush with narrow leaves that have a strong pleasant smell and taste, used as a herb in cooking. ^[14].

 Let 's turn to this example:

The translator did not need to know Italian at all to correctly convey this simplest combination – "beautiful woman". It was enough to open a short dictionary. And the Milan glossy magazine Donna Moderna ("Modern Woman"), quite popular in Russia, probably fell into her hands at least once.

In any case, it is respectful to address a person in the third person (as in Polish), especially when presenting a woman with the most beautiful peaches – the words most beautiful also for some reason remained untranslated - accompanying this with the clumsy compliment "She is Beautiful!", of course, is unacceptable, even purely linguistically. As a result, the planned adaptation did not achieve its goal: the unsuccessfully formed variability, not only did not help to preserve the translation invariant, but, on the contrary, only distorted it. In the end, following the original, it was possible not to give this footnote at all, since it is clear from the context that the man was attracted by Laila's beauty.

Let's consider such an example of lexically conditioned variability, also accompanied by a footnote:

To determine on what basis the translator decided to replace the light blue azure with dark blue, explaining her decision also in a footnote, of course, is impossible, and is it worth doing it? We have given similar examples (and will give more) it is already enough to make it absolutely clear that the distortion of the original is a characteristic feature, or rather, the leitmotif of this translation.   It is clear that in this case it is not a variation at all, but just another gross lexical error that violates the invariant of translation. Note along the way that a new paint, color or shade cannot be "discovered", but can only be created by developing a procedure for obtaining them.

Cf.: cerulean – sky blue; azure; Berlin blue – Berlin azure. (see the Large English-Russian Dictionary).

A similar example:

To explain such variability, more precisely, the distortion of meaning associated with an erroneous translation, is partly possible, of course, by the presence in the English lexical system of two words of similar spelling, which, however, have completely different meanings: umber – "umber, dark brown paint" and amber – "amber, yellow". But after all, as a result of such a "funny mixing" of the colors of the foam drink, the invariant of the content is completely violated, distorting the described situation: it turns out that in the center of New York, the characters did not savor the dark beer "Bessie's Wild Hog" (Bessie's Wild Hog), but something resembling our native "Zhiguli".

Let's consider a number of cases when not just permissible, but also urgently required variability due to system-language differences was not applied for the necessary cultural and pragmatic adaptation of reality, which led to a violation of the translation invariant:

The wordplay (jersey – Jersey), clear to an American, will remain misunderstood by the reader of the translation, because the state of Jersey, as is well known, does not exist, but there is New Jersey, sometimes abbreviated as Jersey, in the USA, but not in Russia. (Cf. the similar "Nizhny" instead of "Nizhny Novgorod"). Moreover, the transliterated Russian equivalents of these words have different accents (state – New Jersey, and fabric - Jersey), especially noticeable in audiobook mode, in which, however, the capital letter J is not transmitted. The correct translation solution would be to add two lexemes: "to the state" in Asha's phrase "Are you like the state of Jersey?", which for some reason turned into a question mark in PT, and "New" in Laila's phrase "Fabric. Not the state of New Jersey." Such variability would help, if only in part (due to the stress shift), to preserve at least the functional invariant of the translation.

A similar example:

Here, the implied "street" is not explicitly expressed in PT, which is why the combination "West Sixteenth" inappropriately echoes syntactically with "bakery" as a definition for it. But its name is semantically and stylistically closely related to "baker" (Baker's Dozen), transliterated as "Baker's Dozen", where this connection, obvious to Americans, is completely lost in PT along with the meaning of this phraseology "damn dozen", hinting to customers about the rich assortment of the institution, the owner which is the hero.

These omissions could also be avoided here by making a number of additions to the PT, that is, by resorting to the permissible variability of the source text, which allows preserving the functional invariant of the content. Let's say, for example, this: "on Sixteenth Street" (omitting the irrelevant for PT "Western"). And also: "Once the baker treats you, you will die a dozen at a time" – preferably accompanied by a footnote revealing the meaning of the phraseology that became the name of this institution. (Cf. the evaluation of these cakes by the heroine:  Mini cupcakes [...] they're like eating nothing until you've eaten half a dozen. ^{[12, p.12]}. Biscuits, almost weightless! However, [...] having lost half a dozen [...]. ^{[13, p. 22]}).

II. In ariativity due to extralinguistic factors

Since the last two examples (14 and 15) are also directly related to the specific features of the country, we will proceed to consider cases of permissible and often unavoidable variability caused by the need for cultural and pragmatic adaptation of realities. It is aimed at the ordinary reader, or the "average recipient" ^{[1, p.115]} due to his alleged lack of background knowledge necessary to understand the distinctive features of the country.

Such an adaptation can also be given directly in PT by explication of the values expressed implicitly in IT, that is, implied, since they are well understood by any carrier of AI. For example:

More accurately: "According to the forecast, it will reach thirty-five today, and I would...".

Cf.: hit – to reach a particular amount, level, or age. e.g.: She hits forty this year and we're planning a big party. ^[14].

Based on the fact that in America, not the Metric, but the Traditional system of measures of the USA (U.S. Customary System) is used, such variability of translation is widespread and quite acceptable to preserve its invariant, from the point of view of the same impact of IT and PT on its readers. However, once chosen, such a method, becoming an element of the translation strategy, should be consistently followed. Alas, in the future, as will be shown below, everything turned out to be completely different.

Let's consider similar examples of adaptation of realities, but with an addition in the form of a footnote.

 Such explanations are also quite appropriate and effective, because they help the PT reader immediately imagine the growth of the character, without being distracted by the recalculation of feet and inches into meters and centimeters. This is exactly the variability that helps to preserve the translation invariant. It would seem that the translator should also adhere to this type of adaptation further. However, the confused reader is suddenly offered identical descriptions, but without explanations either in the PT or in the footnotes:

 The following example is particularly indicative in this regard:

Here, similar digital data was not transmitted at all. If, moreover, we take into account that in such a small passage, three complete sentences and a number of phrases directly describing the height of the characters in feet and inches, as well as their external data and the reaction of the hero to them, remained discarded, that is, again not translated (like six-one in example 19), then it remains to say only about the obviously deliberate distortion of the entire content of the dialogue, but certainly not about the desire to preserve its invariant. In view of which, the reader would have to (if the translator had not missed these sentences) take up a calculator for such and more detailed (in examples 18 and 19) calculations: six feet = 183 cm; about five-nine = approx. 175 cm, etc., and make up the text himself, drawing in his imagination growth (about six feet) of the victim, the figure and appearance (slim, but ripped) of the terrorist.

Cf.: eye level – the same height as your eyes when you are standing. eg: The mirror should be at eye level. ^[14].

Thus, it is necessary again (cf. examples 2 to 7) to state the presence of a completely unacceptable so-called "internal variability" of the PT itself (regardless of IT), in which words and text segments that are absolutely identical in form and content are either translated differently, or given with or without explanations, even more violating the translation invariant and finally misleading the reader.

At the end of this section, here is an example:

In general, such an adaptation, which led to some variability of PT in relation to IT, is quite acceptable and natural, because it explains to the reader, most likely, a reality that is not familiar to him. Of course, given the significant chronological shift between A. Hitchcock's film "Window to the Courtyard" (1954) and the novel being translated (2018), it would be possible, albeit briefly, to cite these data in a page-by-page footnote.

It is important to note in conclusion that if we interpret the concept of variability more broadly as any difference between PT and IT in general, then the translation of this novel will present many surprises that violate the invariant of the content in the form of its gross distortions. Of course, if only for the sake of preserving this definition itself, it is impossible to consider such deviations from the original as permissible variability. Therefore, in order to prevent the "blurring" of this strict term, which has long been established in translation studies, they need to be analyzed in detail in a special work. Here, due to the limited space, we will give only one such example for each section of the rubrication we propose, indicating the plan for building an eventual article on this topic.

1. The introduction of information missing in IT into the PT (the so-called "otsebyatina" or "phantasms" that distort the original):

2. Omission in the PT of the original information available in IT (loss of the original content, distorting it, i.e. "otsebyatina" on the contrary):

This also includes the above examples 9, 10, 20.

3. Unintentional change of IT content in PT (erroneous translation, distorting the content of the original):

This also includes the above examples 6, 8, 12, 13.

4. Deliberate change in the PT of the information available in IT (its complete "meaninglessness", distorting the content of the original):

As is evident from the analyzed excerpts, when translating this novel, the variability allowed either due to the discrepancy between the I and the I, or for extra-linguistic, extralinguistic reasons, but still intended to help preserve the invariant of the translation, often crossed all conceivable boundaries, ultimately leading to a distortion of the general meaning of the original.

In almost all the cases considered, the result of this was either erroneous or deliberate arbitrarily modified and, consequently, distorted transmission of parallel passages of IT, which, due to its frequency and absolute inconsistency with the general meaning and style of the original, led to a very far from adequate translation. The serious deviations from the translation invariant made in most of the examples given – semantic inaccuracies, erroneous translation, unjustified introduction of additional or omission of information available in IT, etc., without meeting the criteria of the necessary variability, distorted both the semantics and stylistics of the original beyond recognition.

However, as we tried to show, justifying this in the comments and offering our own variants of contextual correspondences, in fact, in all the cases considered, it was quite possible to adequately convey either directly in the PT, or with the help of detailed explanations in footnotes, most of the situations described in IT, distorted or not translated at all.

The authors express the hope that the examples and detailed explanations given in the article will be of theoretical and practical interest to specialists in the field of translation studies, translators and editors of fiction translation, as well as university teachers of intercultural communication and translation practice, comparative stylistics and English lexicology.

It seems that further research in this field of literary translation on the material of other languages, literary genres and works will lead to the creation of a more complete classification of permissible variability, contributing to the preservation of the invariant of translation.