Abstract
This article presents the results of the corpus-driven comparison between the English-original (1955) and Russian auto-translation (1967) of the novel Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. The aim of the study, which was facilitated by the computer program WordSmith Tools 4.0, was to answer the question whether the differences attested between the English and Russian parallel texts arise from translation strategies [Nabokov was an ardent advocate of literal translation as the only strategy of truly transposing the original text (Beaujour 1995: 716; Grayson 1977: 13–15)], or whether they are due to typological differences between the English and Russian languages. This corpus-driven study consists of two parts. The first part aims at a comparison of lexical wordlists (i.e. top-frequency lexical words) generated for English and Russian Lolita. The analysis revealed, among others, that Nabokov used synonymy as a frequent translation strategy (particularly in the case of English reporting verbs), which indicates that repetitions are regarded as a bad style in Russian texts. Moreover, the analysis highlighted a conspicuous typological difference between the two languages whereby Russian is more explicit semantically (i.e. words have more specific meaning distinctions) than English, which in turn is more ambiguous and vague in its surface forms (Comrie 1981: 31–79). The second part aims at an examination of translation strategies used by Nabokov while translating creative, author-specific hapax legomena, following a similar study of English and German prose conducted by Kenny (2001). The analysis revealed that Nabokov exhibited a strong tendency towards lexical normalization while translating creative hapax legomena into Russian. All in all, the corpus-driven analysis revealed that although translators are free to use multifarious translation strategies while transposing original texts, they are still at the mercy of typological differences between the relevant languages.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Beaujour (1995: 720) claims that it provides excellent examples of both the problems inherent in strict and literal self-translation and instances of advantageous employment of “unfaithful” self-translation. Obviously enough, his first translation into English was completed in 1936 and constituted the first attempt to use English for artistic purposes, the experience Nabokov referred to as disagreeable (ibid.) Having translated Lolita into Russian in 1965, Nabokov capitalized on his years of experience and undertook his second attempt at translating Oтчaяниe into English in a freer fashion. Later on Nabokov claimed that he would have been “pleased and excited” if he had had a chance to read his 1965 version of Despair at the end of 1930s (ibid.).
- 2.
The original reads: Издaвaя “ЛoлиTу” пo-pуccки, я пpecлeдую oчeнь пpocTую цeль: xoчу, чToбы мoя лучшaя aнглийcкaя книгa – или, cкaжeм eщe cкpoмнee, oднa из лучшиx мoиx aнглийcкиx книг – былa пpaвильнo пepeвeдeнa нa мoй poднoй язык.
- 3.
The original reads: Mнe Tpуднo пpeдcTaвиTь ceбe peжим, либepaльный ли или ToTaлиTapный, в чoпopнoй мoeй oTчизнe, пpи кoTopoм цeнзуpa пpoпуcTилa бы “ЛoлиTу”.
- 4.
The original reads: “Увы, ToT ‘дивный pуccкий язык’, кoTopый, cдaвaлocь мнe, вce ждeT мeня гдe-To, цвeTeT, кaк вepнaя вecнa зa нaглуxo зaпepTыми вopoTaми, oT кoTopыx cToлькo лeT xpaнилcя у мeня ключ, oкaзaлcя нecущecTвующим, и зa вopoTaми нeT ничeгo, кpoмe oбуглeнныx пнeй и oceннeй бeзнaдeжнoй дaли, a ключ в pукe cкopee пoxoж нa oTмычку”.
- 5.
The original reads: (…) нo cToль cвoйcTвeнныe aнглийcкoму Toнкиe нeдoгoвopeннocTи, пoэзия мыcли, мгнoвeннaя пepeкличкa мeжду oTвлeчeннeйшими пoняTиями, poeниe oднocлoжныx эпиTeToв – вce эTo, a Taкжe вce oTнocящeecя к Texникe, мoдaм, cпopTу, ecTecTвeнным нaукaм и пpoTивoecTecTвeнным cTpacTям – cTaнoвиTcя пo-pуccки Toпopным, мнoгocлoвным и чacTo oTвpaTиTeльным в cмыcлe cTиля и pиTмa”.
- 6.
The data presented below come from the analysis of parallel concordances, i.e. fragments of English Lolita aligned with the corresponding fragments of Russian Lolita.
- 7.
Picture of the Week, said the legend. → Haдпиcь глacилa: ЗaмeчaTeльнeйшaя зa Heдeлю ФoToгpaфия.
- 8.
This difference is due to the fact that each inflectional form of a particular word type (e.g. genitive, accusative or locative case of the verb, in either singular or plural, feminine or masculine) is treated as a single occurrence of a type, which accounts for a typical problem of operating with non-lemmatized types and tokens in highly inflectional languages such as Russian.
- 9.
Kenny (2001) used selected hapax legomena deemed as creative expressions, which constituted 0.2% of the total number of hapax legomena in a source text.
- 10.
Such a plural form (hapaxes) of “hapax legomena” was used, among others, by Kenny (2001).
- 11.
This figure approximates the one proposed by Kenny (2001), which was 0.2%.
- 12.
Oжeгoв, C., Швeдoвa H. (2000). Toлкoвый Cлoвapь pуccкoгo языкa. 4-e издaниe, дoпoлнeннoe. Mocквa.
References
Beaujour, E. 1995. Translation and self-translation. In The Garland companion to Vladimir Nabokov, ed. V. Alexandrov, 714–724. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
Berber-Sardinha, T. 1996. Applications of WordSmith KeyWords. Liverpool Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (LWPAL) 2: 1–9.
Boyd, B. 1993. Vladimir Nabokov. The American years. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Boyd, B. 1995. Chronology of Nabokov’s life and works. In The Garland companion to Vladimir Nabokov, ed. V. Alexandrov, 37–43. New York: Garland Publishing Inc.
Comrie, B. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ginter, A. 2003. Świat za słowami Vladimira Nabokova. Zabawy słowne i ich przekład. Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Grabowski, Ł. 2008. Nabokov’s theory of translation and its influence on the Russianization of ‘Lolita’. Studia i szkice slawistyczne IX: 123–132.
Grayson, J. 1977. Nabokov translated: A comparison of Nabokov’s Russian and English prose. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kenny, D. 2001. Lexis and creativity in translation. A corpus-based study. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Nabokov, V. 1955. Lolita. Paris: Olympia Press.
Nabokov, V. 1989. Lolita: A novel. Moscow: Izvestia [Haбoкoв, B. B. 1989. Лoлитa.Poмaн. Mocквa: Извecтия].
Nabokov, V. 2000. Lolita. London: Penguin Books.
Osimo, B. 1999. Nabokov’s self-translations: Interpretations, problems and solutions in Lolita’s Russian version. Sign System Studies 27: 213-233.
Ozhegov, S. and Shvedova, N. 2000. Great reference dictionary of Russian. Moscow: Nauka [Oжeгoв, C., Швeдoвa H. 2000. Toлкoвый Cлoвapь pуccкoгo языкa. 4-e издaниe, дoпoлнeннoe. Mocквa: Haукa].
Piotrowski, T. 1994. Problems in bilingual lexicography. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego.
Proffer, E. 1970. Nabokov’s Russian readers. In Nabokov: Criticism, reminiscences, translations and tributes, ed. A. Appel and Ch. Newman, 266-283. New York: Clarion.
Scott, M. 2004. Wordsmith Tools, version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stiller, R. 1991. Lolita jako gra i paradoks. In Lolita: powieść, V. Nabokov, 419-439. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Trzeciak, J. 2005. Nabokov as self-translating author. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grabowski, Ł. (2011). Crossing the Frontiers of Linguistic Typology: Lexical Differences and Translation Patterns in English and Russian Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov. In: Pawlak, M., Bielak, J. (eds) New Perspectives in Language, Discourse and Translation Studies. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20083-0_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20083-0_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-20082-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-20083-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)