Теория языка | Филологический аспект №7 (15) Июль, 2016

Fedka-the-Convict’ discourse: the problem of translation

Ружицкий Игорь Васильевич
МГУ имени М.В. Ломоносова
Ружицкая Элина Александровна
НИЯУ «МИФИ», г. Москва

Аннотация: Актуальность настоящего исследования определяется развитием такого лингвистического направления, как лингвоперсонология, а также значимостью фигуры Ф.М. Достоевского, необходимостью изучения языковой личности писателя, ее роли в современном коммуникативном пространстве. Методологической основой является концепция трехуровневого строения языковой личности, разработанная Ю.Н. Карауловым, в которой в качестве одного из методов исследования языковой личности, наряду с ассоциативным экспериментом, словарным конструированием и др., используется анализ дискурса персонажа художественного текста. На основе изучения речевых особенностей Федьки-каторжника, персонажа романа Ф.М. Достоевского «Бесы», делаются выводы относительно особенностей элементов структуры индивидуальной и коллективной языковой личности. Проводятся параллели между некоторыми персонажами произведений Ф.М. Достоевского, определяются константные компоненты этих образов. Делается предположение о том, что такой тип персонажа, как Федька-каторжник, был создан Ф.М. Достоевским и в дальнейшем использован в произведениях современной русской литературы, в основном детективного жанра. В статье также обозначены области непонимания или неполного понимания в дискурсе Федьки-каторжника, которые представляют сложности для перевода романа «Бесы», в частности, на английский и немецкий языки.
Ключевые слова: индивидуальная и коллективная языковая личность, Достоевский, константность образа, идиостиль, коммуникация, перевод

Ruzhitskiy Igor V.
Lomonosov Moscow State University
Ruzhitskaya Elina A.
National Research Nuclear University MEPhI, Moscow

Abstract: The importance of the present research is determined by the lingua-personology – one of the modern linguistics directions – development and also by the significance of such a person as Dostoyevsky, by the necessity of his linguistic personality investigation, its role in the modern communicative space. The methodological basis is the linguistic personality theory which presupposes the concrete character discourse analysis as one of the main methods usage (Karaulov). The conclusions regarding the individual and collective peculiarities in the structure of this linguistic personality are made on the material of Fedka-the-convict from Dostoyevsky’s novel “The Demons” speech features observations. The parallels between this character and other Dostoevsky’s characters are drawn, some of its constant components are determined. It is assumed that such type of a character as Fedka-the-convict has been firstly created in Russian literature by Fyodor Dostoevskij but hereinafter it has got features of constancy in the characters of modern detective stories. The areas of possible misunderstanding or incomplete understanding which hinder the translator’s work are identified.
Keywords: individual and collective linguistic personality, Dostoyevskij, character’s constancy, idiostyle, communication, translation

Публикация подготовлена в рамках поддержанных РГНФ научных проектов № 15-04-00135 и 16-04-00291

The success of communication depends not only on its participants common language but also on presupposition i.e. common cognitive space in which this communication is taking place. This fact is particularly relevant when we deal with intercultural communication because in this case cognitive obstacles can lead to a serious distortion of the information perceived. A big role in creating the cognitive space plays so called precedent texts through which and by which people of other cultures are perceived, in particular their discourse peculiarities including intentional. Thus, Russia and Russians perception is going on in the background of already created through reading the works of Russian classical literature presumption and the leading role in this respect belongs to Fyodor M. Dostoyevskij, mainly to his key novels – “great Pentateuch” novels. For foreigners Russian national character is often determined through Dostoevsky and by using Dostoyevskij.

The main aim of the present article is to show a hypothetical possibility to detect those areas in Fedka-the-convict from Dostoyevskij’s novel “The Demons” speech features which can become difficult for translating. We meet Fedka-the-convict in three small dialogues: the first two with Stavrogin [4, p. 205–206, 221–222] and one with Pyotr Verkhovenskij [4, p. 428–430]. Analyzing Fedka-the-convict’s discourse we pay special attention to the use of stylistically marked vocabulary, fixed expressions of different types, neologisms, among which words with subjective evaluation suffixes are the most interesting. It should be assumed that just these areas will be the most difficult for Fyodor Dostoevskij’s novels adequate translation to other languages.

Dialogue 1

The most frequent words in the first dialogue are the preposition “v” (20), conjunction “i” (17) and prepositions “po” and “na” (10). Noteworthy is the relatively high frequency of pronoun “ja” usage (15 + 4 times “mne”, 3 – “menja”, 1 – “moju”). Fedka in this dialogue meets Stavrogin and it’s important for him to tell about himself those things which can be interesting for his interlocutor. Among full words the most frequent is addressing “sudar’” and this is quite remarkable: we also find “gospodin” but only twice and no one addressing “barin” that has to be natural in such situation. Besides we can pay attention at the slovoyers which is etymologically connected with “sudar’” usage: bylo-s, idti-s, katorge-s, krajah-s, li-s etc. The addressing “sudar’” although being respectful however is used to somebody peer, in the dialogue with Pyotr Verkhovenskij it is absent. While styling folksy speech Dostoevskij quite often uses the technique of modifying the standard forms of words: a speaker adapts a word that is not completely clear for him to the word he knows. In Fedka-the-convict’s discourse these are e.g. “astrolom” and “aglickij”. In different translations into German and English stylistically neutral equivalents are usually used, the only exception is the translation made by R. Pevear and L. Volkhonsky who attempted to change the word literary form. Compare: «Potomu, govorjat, papasha tebja v klube aglickom v karty togda proigral; tak ja, govorjat, nespravedlivym sie beschelovechie nahozhu » [4, p. 204]; «Pjotr Stepanych – astrolom i vse Bozhii planidy uznal, a i on kritike podverzhen » [4, p. 205]; «Because, says he, my papa lost you at cards in the English club, and I, says he, find that inhumanity unjust» [3]; «Because, he says, papa lost at cards in the Engullish club, and I, he says, find this inhumanness unjust» [1, p. 258]; «Pyotr Stepanovich is an astronomer, and has learnt all God’s planets» [3]; «Pyotr Stepanovich is an astronimer, and has learned all God’s planids» [1, p. 259].

Among the other words usual for folksy speech in the first dialogue are used the following: ali, (v) brjuhe, von (in meaning ‘vot’),dosele, djaden’ka, zaproshloe (2), zvanija (in meaning ‘slovo, nazvanie’), znamshi, izobidet’, koli, nabros’te (in meaning ‘dobav’te, dajte deneg’), natreskalsja, naslyshany (2), oblagonadezhivajut (in meaning ‘obeshhajut’), odezhi, okromja (3), ochinno (3), papasha, pogodil, pozaimstvovat’sja, potomu (6) (in meaning ‘pojetomu’), pridutsja (tri celkovyh), Rasee (2), rastres, rukovodstvovat’ (in meaning ‘pokazyvat’ dorogu’), skuchaju (pasportom), spravljat’, uchast’, hosh’, jehma, (ne) javljajsja (in meaning ‘prihodi’). Besides, offensive vocabulary is used in the structure of phraseological units: durak (2), duraka, podlec, podleca, chjort. We can also find the frequent words with subjective evaluation suffixes usage (meshhaninishki, dohodishki, djaden’ka, zontichek, kushachok, chajok). Among the words which are not typical for folksy speech we find the following: beschelovechie, vedaet, zapolonil (dushu), (vashej) milosti (5), milostivyj, doverennosti, edinstvenno, noshh’, (ne) pitajut (doverennosti), planidy, podverzhen, pozvolite, pred (4), roditel’nicu, sem (na sem mostu), sie, skonchalis’, soblagovolili, stopami, takim obrazom. Separately note is the group of words pertaining to the sphere of religious ideas: Boga, bozhii, bozhiju, twice in the same meaning Istinnyj (pred Istinnym – before the True) and also dushu, kolokola, krestili, molit (Boga), cerkovnye. The phraseological units used in this dialogue are vdol’ po katorge (‘na pozhiznennuju katorgu’ – ‘life penal servitude sentence’) and peremenit’ uchast’ (‘nahodjas’ v zakljuchenii, sovershit’ prestuplenie ili pobeg, chtoby sudit’sja vnov’ i po novomu prestupleniju popast’ kuda ugodno, tol’ko by ne na staroe, nadoevshee mesto, ne v prezhnij ostrog’ – ‘while imprisonment to commit a crime or escape for the new court and to get the new sentence for a new place of imprisonment as of being tired of the old one’). Dostoevskij took these expressions from criminal jargon and he had used them before “The Demons”, in “Notes from the Dead House”. There are also such speech clichés as milostivyj gospodin, starushka Bozhija, k zemle rastjot; po grob zhizni and sayings, proverbs, rhythmical phrases of different kinds: sdal knigi i kolokola i cerkovnye dela, da vot den’ da noch’ – sutki proch'; libo sena klok, libo vily v bok; natreskalsja piroga, kak Martyn myla; luchshe, dumaju, ja uzh sapogu poklonjus’, a ne laptju; zdeshnij gorod – jeto vsjo ravno, chto chjort v korzine nes, da rastres. In Fedka-the-convict’s speech while his first dialogue with Stavrogin we can meet quite a lot cases of lexical and grammatical compatibility violations that is usual for folksy speech: zontikom pozaimstvovat’sja, prirodnaja roditel’nica, pasportom oblagonadezhivajut, doverennosti ne pitajut, ob vas mnogim naslyshany, pasportom skuchaju (sl. ‘nuzhdajus’ v pasporte’ – ‘I need the passport’), pomimo ih ne posmeju vas bespokoit’ (‘bez ih vedoma’ – ‘without their knowledge’), v tom predmete, chto (‘tak kak, poskol’ku’ – ‘because, as’), krome nih mogu (‘bez nih mogu’ – ‘I can’t without them’), storonoj vyshlo (‘sluchajno poluchilos’’ – ‘accidentally happened’).

Dialogue 2

The frequent word forms in the second dialogue are: vspomoshhestvovanija (5), jeh (5), da (4), nikak nel’zja-s (3), sudar’ (3), vide-s (2), vynut’ (2), govorjat (2), gospod’ (2), mogu (2), poltory (2), poslednego (2), raz (2), rublev (2), sijatel’stvo (2), sud’be (2). The addressing “sudar’” remained but in the end of the dialogue it was changed by ironical “vashe sijatel’stvo” (“your Excellency”). Of course we can’t help but notice the high frequency of the word “vspomoshhestvovanie” usage that commonly has the meaning ‘material’naja pomoshh’, posobie’ (‘financial assistance’) but in Fedka-the-convict’s speech it is hidden ‘nagrablennoe’ (‘loot’) or ‘плата za ubijstvo’ (‘payment for the murder’). The frequency of slovoyers usage increased almost to the possible maximum for such a small text – 18 times: verujut-s, vide-s (2), zashjol-s, Lebjadkina-s, li-s, nel’zja-s (3), net-s, poseshhat’-s, pribirali-s, sebja-s, slyshal-s, sovetujut-s, stoit-s, Filippova-s, chelovek-s. In this dialogue we find the following folksy speech words: ali, al’, von (in meaning ‘vot’), vynut’ (in sl. meaning ‘ukrast’’), zadarom, (dvenadcat’, sotni poltory) rublev (2), divish’sja, dopodlinno, manenechko, oblegchil (in sl. meaning ‘ubil’), (po nashemu) oborotu, okromja, ochinna, poobozhdav, pribirali (in sl. meaning ‘krali’), puskat’sja (in meaning ‘idti na chto-l.’), spervonachalu, slyshamshi, uznamshi. Only one word with a diminutive suffix is used – (tri) rublika, but only in the end of the dialogue, when Fedka-the-convict becomes sarcastic again. Before that he is almost serious, partially removes the mask: the conversation is important for him, it’s decisive – the deal completing, getting money (vspomoshhestvovanie). The percentage of bookish words in the second dialogue is higher than in the first one: blagodetel’nogo, vozlagat’ (nadezhdu), vzaimnyj (spor vyshel), vspomoshhestvovanija (5), edinaja (dusha), zhestokoserdnyj, izvolili, inoj raz, istinnuju, nabljudat’ (svoimi glazami), objavljali (in meaning ‘rasskazyvali’), ostepenil (sebja), persti, priobrel (dvenadcat’ rublev), soblagovolite, sobstvenno, (iz) ust, chrezvychajno. The words pertaining to the sphere of religious ideas are the following: blagodat’, bogu, verujut, ver’te (bogu), gospod’ (2), grehi, dusha, d’jakonov, mahal’nicu, nebesnaja, nebesnogo, podborodnik, pomolit’sja, sogreshil, tvorca, ugodnika, hlopotnicu. The only precedent text the references to which we find in Fedka-the-convict’s speech is the Bible: v tvorca nebesnogo, nas iz persti zemnoj sozdavshego, ni na grosh ne verujut-s. The fixed expressions used in this dialogue are speech cliché mertvecki p’jan and standing comparison smotrit kak baran na vodu – Fedka speaks here about Pyotr Verkhovenskij and moves from singular number to plural. The number of phraseological units is much less than in the first dialogue: Fedka wants to be understood, he has no more the intention to hide anything from Stavrogin. We see only few cases of lexical and grammatical compatibility violations: ver’te bogu, vzaimnyj spor vyshel, gde sejchas izvolili poseshhat’-s, zhestokoserdyj naschjot vspomoshhestvovanija.

Dialogue 3

Among the frequent word forms in Fedka-the-convict’s dialogue with Pyotr Verkhovenskij is conjunction “i” (“and”) repetition (22 times) that primarily attracts our attention, that is why this text becomes rhythmic, sounding similar to the gospel narrative. This function of “i” is increased by frequent kak (11) and chto (10). Fedka starts to teach his former master and to condemn him for his unbelief. The high frequency of ty (20), tebja (5), tebe (2), toboju (2), toboj, tvojo is connected with conscious emphasizing by Fedka his advantage over Pyotr Verkhovenskij. In the beginning of the dialogue Fedka speaks quite politely, using familiar “ty” but at the same time both the first and father’s names. Slovoyers and “sudar’” addressing are completely absent in the third dialogue. The word “gospodin” (“lord”) is quite often used but only for Stavrogin and Kirillov, as for Pyotr Verkhovenskij he is named only like “prirodnyj gospodin” (‘the former master’). The frequency of the word “Bog” (“God”) usage and its derivatives and synonyms is even higher than in the first dialogue: boga (2), Istinnogo (2), tvorca (2), bozhiim. Folksy speech words in this dialogue are the following: ali, byvshi, verno (govorju), vidish’ (in introductory word meaning), zachal, zen’chug, nashival (na rukah), neuchtivstvo, (s) pervonachalu, poreshil (in meaning ‘ubil’ – ‘killed’), pochjom (ty znaesh’), sulil, sulish’, sumlevajus’, syznova, tepericha, ubivec, shljosh’ (menja v Peterburg). Special mention deserves the use of slang “derznul” (‘udaril’ – ‘hit’). Besides but not too often offensive vocabulary is used: (poganaja) vosh’, (nastojashhij) podlec. Of course Fedka wants to insult Verkhovenskij but he does it rather politely even smartly emphasizing every word and using similes. Non typical for a man of the people words are veleno (na blagorodnom) vizite, vsenarodno, vozdyhaniem, legkoverie, legkovernyj, ljubeznejshij, nasushhnogo (pristanishha), otrokom, osenila, perstom, pochitaju, pochitajut, pred (5), predo, preobrazhenija, preobrazilas’, pristanishha, rasporjazheniem, sego, sej, sirota, filosofom. “Filosof” (“philosopher”) is used for Kirillov opposing him to Verkhovenskij who was ironically named “astrolom” in the first dialogue. Religious vocabulary here is wider than in the first and second dialogues: ateist, apokalipsisa, boga (2), bogorodicy, Bozhiim, verovat’, Vsevyshnego, gornilom, zastupnica, idol, idolopoklonnik, Istinnogo (2), kolenoprekloneniem, mater’, molitvoj, lestvice, pelenoj (osenila), perl, presvjatoj, podnozhiju, (s) sijanija (perl pohitil), soblaznitel’, Sozdatelja, (o) sotvorenii mira, (vsjakoj) tvari (preobrazhenie), chudo. Fixed expressions are not too frequent: nepovinnaja krov’, s mesta sego ne shodja. Lexical and grammatical compatibility violations are very seldom: sumlevajus’ v ume, chego stal dostoin uzhe tem odnim punktom, pervym dolgom zdes’ dolzhen ponimat’, i iz jetogo ty vyhodish’ pervyj ubivec, perestal po razvratu svoemu verovat’, prirodnyj moj gospodin; Ja kak est’ ni odnoj kaplej ne uchastvoval, ne to chto poltory tysjachi, ty na blagorodnom vizite u gospodina Kirillova. Fedka-the-convict’s speech in the third dialogue is rather literate, it is close to bookish: he tries to speak like an educated person.

It should be assumed that this moving from one stylistic register to another is strictly motivated and done by Dostoyevskij absolutely deliberately that means it must be taken into account in the novel’s translation.

Since the writer’s death a certain tradition of Dostoyevskij’s creative works translation into German and English has existed. It is recognized that choosing between literal accuracy and artistry the second one is more important [6]. Here are some examples of the vocabulary translation that is important for transmission Fedka-the-convict’s linguistic personality characteristics, his idiostyle. Slovoyers usage which is frequent and meaningful for Fedka-the-convict when translated into German and English is not represented: u kapitana Lebjadkina-s, gde sejchas izvolili poseshhat’-s – bei dem Hauptmann Lebjadkin, den Sie soeben besucht haben (here and further German examples are given by [2]); at Captain Lebyadkin’s, out yonder, whom your honour’s just been visiting (here and further English examples are given by [3]). Vernacular and bookish words are translated be neutral equivalents: soblagovolili – möchten Sie schenken; might have the kindness to give me. Or: dosele – bis jetzt; to this day; djaden’ka – mein Onkel; my uncle; znamshi – (ich) kenne; (is) known; vspomoshhestvovanie (which is so important for Fedka characterizing word) – die Unterstützung; helping; natreskalsja piroga – an Kuchen satt gegessen; I filled myself as full of pie. See also the following: na sem mostu – auf dieser Brücke; on this bridge; sie beschelovechie – diese Unmenschlichkeit; that inhumanity. The same is with the diminutives e.g. kushachok – Gürtel, belt; chajok – Tee, glass; celkovyh – Rubel, roubles: Vy by mne, sudar’, sogret’sja, na chajok, tri celkovyh soblagovolili? – Möchten Sie mir nicht drei Rubel schenken, gnädiger Herr, damit ich mich mit Tee erwärmen kann?; You might have the kindness to give me three roubles, sir, for a glass to warm myself. Thus, even based on these few examples we can come to the conclusion that in both German and English translations the character’s speech remains stylistically the same in contrast with the original text and it means that the whole idea of creating this difficult and extraordinary image is very much distorted.

There is every reason to assume that such type of a character as Fedka-the-convict has been firstly created in Russian literature by Fyodor Dostoevskij but hereinafter it has got features of constancy in the characters of modern detective stories. Fedka-the-convict’s ability to conscious and reasoned moving depending on the situation, topic of communication and recipient from one style to another, to irony and at the same time to flattery and game, e.g. unexpected moving to the theme of poverty, using the typical for a beggar way – selfhumiliation etc. give us the right to conclude that this personality is very complicated. The choice of the general conversation tone and language is conditioned by the speaker’s intentions. The through line in all three dialogues is the Fedka’s desire to “subdue” the interlocutor. And in the novel’s translations this extraordinary personality becomes quite ordinary, Fedka-the-convict remains in the reader’s perception as a usual killer and thus the writer’s idea is strongly distorted. The same is with the other Dostoevskij’s key characters discourse translations and this is how the whole adequate perception of the writer’s works becomes broken and as it already has been said Dostoevskij is the writer though which Russia and Russians perception generally is going on. But it should be noted that the starting translator’s “mood” to the possible misunderstanding fields from one side complicates the translator’s work but at the same time allows making the translation more correct.

1. Dostoevsky Fyodor. Demons. Translated und annotated by R. Pevear and L. Volkhonsky. – Vintage Classics: New York, 1995. – 733 p.
2. Dostojewskij F. Die Dämonen. Übersetzung E. Rahsin. 2. Aufl. Zürich, 2008. – 995 S.
3. Dostoyevsky Fyodor. The Possessed. (The Devils). Translated from the Russian by Constance Garnett. – [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/dostoyevsky/d72p/index.html (дата обращения: 12.07.2016).
4. Достоевский Ф.М. Бесы // Полное собрание сочинений: в 30 т. – Л.: Наука, 1972–1990. – 522 с.
5. Караулов Ю.Н. Русский язык и языковая личность. 1-е изд. М.: Наука, 1987. – 264 с.
6. Смоленская Е.С. Ф.М. Достоевский глазами немецких и английских переводчиков: вызовы, проблемы, перспективы. – [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://yspu.org/images/6/67/Smolenskaya%D0%95S.pdf (дата обращения: 12.07.2016).