TRANSLATION INADEQUACIES IN ANTANAS BARANAUSKAS’ ANYKŠČIŲ ...

the author of the ST described the situation of the contemporary forest and
used the comparison, i.e. structure phrase Lyg tartum. The parallel construction in
each line and synonymous adjectives nudegęs, išgriuvus, apsvilus strengthen the
oppressive atmosphere. Stylistically connoted lexemes pūstynė, kemsynė give the
poem negative emotional colouring. The diction in the TT is more neutral, and the
emotionally coloured nouns in the ST are substituted by the verbs teemed,
gleamed to preserve the rhyme of the poem. The translator’s inability to achieve
the same effect as in the ST modifies the author’s intentions related to a deserted
place.

In the next stanza we can also notice some alterations:
Greit auga, ilgai esti giminių visokių:
Paąžuolių, raudonikių ir kitų kitokių.
c.f.:
And here too thrive this kin of every kind:
Brown, red, grey - every shape and hue you’ll find.

First of all, the ST is developed through the participant line which is
realized through lexical cohesive devices, i.e. through hyponymic repetition
giminių, paąžuolių, raudonikių, kitų kitokių. It is also developed through the event
line: auga, esti. Although the cohesion in the TT is maintained, certain alterations
are noticeable. For instance, the nominative chain paąžuolių, raudonikių in the ST
is substituted by the scale of colors brown, red, grey. In the TT it is also explained
that mushrooms are of different sizes and shapes. The translator finds it difficult to
choose identical lexical items and uses such items that rhyme with one another
and do not distort the deep level of the ST.

The following stanza also reveals some changes in meaning:

“Ką, ką, ką jums atnešti? Ką jūs kalbat niekus?
Ką, ką, ką, ką? Ar grūdus? Ar musias? Ar sliekus?”
c.f.:
“What – what – what – what to bring you? Speak in turn!
What – what? A grain of wheat? A fly? A worm?

50

The latter lines expressively depict the life of birds. The short joyful
questions create the alliteration of sounds in the ST. Although it does not seem
easy to translate the lines and to reveal the same idea, the author successfully
maintains the syntactic structure of the original lines. The question Ką jūs kalbat
niekus? is translated using the command Speak in turn which modifies the
author’s intentions and, therefore, might be defined as alteration. Despite this
fact, the translator managed to translate short questions and answers in the second
line. The joyfulness of the text is maintained alliterating the sounds [w] and [r].

The language of A. Baranauskas is simple but deep. The diction can tell a
lot about the poem and about various objects that are being depicted. Interesting
images are employed to describe the rich kingdom of trees. Unfortunately, the
translator cannot choose suitable equivalents for all the linguistic expressions and,
therefore, the cases of alteration become prominent. For example, in the following
extract

Ir vasarą, ir žiemą kaip rūtos žaliuoja,
Liemuo liemenį plaka, kaip mendrės siūruoja.
Už pusvarčio nesmato – toksai tankumynas!
c.f.:
In summer and in winter green as rue,
Like reeds they grow, they close the distant view
And all around you only trees are seen.

the phrase liemuo liemenį plaka, kaip mendrės siūbuoja acquires
metaphoric meaning in the ST. The trees are no longer ordinary trees but symbols
of something hidden deep in the poet’s memory (Mieželaitis, 1985). Analysing the
TT lines, we notice that the translator obviously changes the meaning of the ST.
The metaphor liemuo liemenį plaka is changed by a less colourful comparison like
reeds they grow. The feeling of motion which is reflected by verbs plaka, siūruoja
disappears in the translation. Although the translator uses the neutral verbs grow
and close, they do not reflect the same idea. Another important item which
disappears in the TT is the Russian linear measure pusvartis which was used in the
19th century in Lithuania. This minor but important item in the ST gives additional
information related to the history of Lithuania. The omission of this unit
eliminates some meaningful facts.

51

One more example which shows the inability to reveal the author’s style
might be given:

Krūmai, žole barzdoti, kraštais mišką riečia,
Ir linijos perejos skersai mišką šviečia.
c.f.:
Light floods the wood where clearings drive a wedge,
Green-bearded bushes mark the forest edge.

The ST illustrates the statement that Baranauskas’ poem and particularly
some lines are very expressive and joyful. The epithet krūmai, žole barzdoti
creates a bright visual scenery that everything is growing and thriving. Even
without naming any colours, it is obvious that green is the dominating one.
However, when compared to the TT, it becomes obvious that the first line from
the ST does not correspond to the same line in the TT. The first line from the ST
refers to the second from the TT and the second from the ST refers to the first
from the TT. Although the translator maintains the epithets of the original, e.g.
green-bearded bushes, he modifies the thought of the second line in the ST and
adds additional item light which is not mentioned in the ST. We can imply that the
neutral noun light is chosen as an equivalent for the ST verb šviečia.

Let us consider the following short excerpt in which the thought of the
original is modified:

Skamba tik, skamba miškas: čia volungė Ievą
Trotina: “Ieva, Ieva! neganyk po pievą!”
c.f.:
The forest rings. The oriole teases Eve:
“Eve, Eve believe me! You this field must leave!”

First of all, we can observe the allusion to the Lithuanian folklore, e.g.
volungė Ievą trotina. The author of the ST used the folk onomatopoeia Ieva, Ieva!
Neganyk po pievą. Secondly, the poet repeats the verb skamba in the first line to
stess the musical side of the poem. The translation is different from the original
because the translator substitutes the line Skamba tik, skamba miškas by the

52

neutral utterance The forest rings. This short sentence only states the fact but does
not provide the readers with the same musical sound as in the ST. Besides, the
emotionally connotated lexeme trotina is replaced by a more neutral verb teases
which implies slightly negative connotations. The translator tries to maintain the
national peculiarities of the Lithuanian culture, but he chooses verbs believe and
leave to maintain the rhyme of the poem. Also the translator gives the explanation
of the line which helps to understand our cultural peculiarities to the readers.

A variety of flourishing flora is depicted in the following lines:

Ir visoki žiedeliai taip tarp savęs pinas, -
Kad iš tolo tik regis gražus margumynas.
c.f.:
When flowers in profusion intertwine
To make a single carpet woven fine.

The author of the ST uses a diminutive word žiedeliai to describe flowers.
In the TT only the neutral noun remains: flowers. The idea of the second line in
the TT is a bit different from that in the ST. The noun margumynas in the ST
implies that flowers are very colourful and creates a visual image. Moreover, the
translation stresses motion rather than colors because of the presence of the verb
woven. Moreover, the noun carpet, which is used to describe a meadow (a place
where wild flowers grow), might be understood as a metaphor. Though the
translator maintains the general idea of those two lines, some minor inadequacies
on the surface level might be noticed. The translator chooses diction with different
denotational meaning, and his choice gives some grounds for alterations.

The following extract presents not only the case of alteration but also some
important cultural shifts:

Medžiai mat iš daugybės visiškai atpigę.
Ir taip ilgai eikvoję, - net kolei pristigę;
Ė tai vis dėl arielkos daugiausia išleidę:
Visi buvę kaip žydų šeimyna pasleidę.
c.f.:
With timber so abundant prices fell.

53

They sold until there was not much to sell.
Whatever money they received they drank
And into ways of dissolution sank.

The given extract presents some negative cultural phenomena in the ST.
The main idea is that hard times influenced spiritual degradation and forced the
people to drink. The barbarism arielka is used to reveal this negative cultural shift.
To maintain the text coherence the barbarism is substituted by the verb drank in
the TT. As we compare the last lines, we may observe that the author’s intention
is modified, and this violates the text coherence. In the original the Lithuanians
are compared with the Jews, and we can make several interpretations. In the
translation this social fact disappears and only the fact of dissolution is
emphasized.

The research proves that Baranauskas knew how to express himself
precisely and laconically. It is no wonder that all the colours of the forest on
Baranauskas’ poetic palette are so fresh and vivid. The poet transmits an object of
reality through the prism of epithets and other poetic figures, thus imparting to it a
new, purely aesthetic status. He also had a keen sense of the magic power of
poetry. Metaphoric imagery creates its own field which lures the reader into its
depths. The author’s palette resembles rainbow, and he manages to evoke all the
principal colours of the four seasons of the year. Colour is only one side of the
poem. The other side is music. Both colour and music form one inseparable
whole. The musical side of the poem adds greater vitality to all the colour scheme
of the forest landscape and gives more gracefulness to it (Mieželaitis, 1985:46).

54

CONCLUSIONS

1. Translation of a poetic text is a very complicated process, and it has
always been a debatable issue. Many linguists, translation theorists and
translators are arguing which translation is better – literal or free, and what
is more important in translating – to maintain form or content. A number
of theorists believe that some discourses, especially poetic and highly
culturally – bound texts are untranslatable and that equivalence cannot be
achieved, because the identical structure between the ST and the TL
version cannot exist. The difference between grammatical categories
creates problems for the translator and brings us back to the problems of
equivalence and linguistic untranslatability. It is important to mention that
there are no simple solutions to the previously mentioned problems in
translation studies.

2. In translating discourse it is very important to retain the coherence and
cohesion of a SL text established by an author in a TT. The choice of
various cohesive devices in different languages may vary, although the
deep structure of the ST has to remain unchanged.

3. The register influences the author’s as well as the translator’s choice of
cohesive devices. As the poetic discourse could be characterized as
belonging to an open – ended register, it manifests the author’s freedom to
choose from a wide range of possible meanings and his or her ability to
express individuality and creativity.

4. The obtained results from the contrastive analysis of a Lithuanian poetic
discourse Anykščių šilelis by A. Baranauskas and its translation into
English proved the presumptions that the translator, aiming to convey the
original text as coherent and cohesive structure into the TT, preserved the
deep structure of the original while allowing certain variations at the
surface level. From the analyzed extracts of both Lithuanian and poetic
text and its translation in English we can draw a conclusion that the
modifications on the surface level manifest themselves in the additions,
omissions and alterations of formal linguistic means.

4.1 Additions are often employed by the translator to compensate for the lack
of stylistic elements in the TT, especially in the places where diminutive

55

words or dialectal expressions are found. On the other hand, they are often
added to preserve the rhyme of the poem.
4.2 Omissions are noticeable in the cases where the author uses folklore
diminutives, picturesque verbs, epithets, metaphors, comparisons etc.
Place names as well as onomatopoeia expressions are also omitted.
Moreover, a variety of semantically related and stylistically loaded items
forming nomination chains in the TT are usually formed by employing
fewer in number and more general or neutral lexical items.
4.3 Alterations are usually employed in the places where the translator, facing
various dialectal or archaic words, rich dialectal expressions or folklore
diction, is forced to search for other combinations and other structures to
express the author’s idea because of the lack of the same expressive means
in both languages.
5. Previously mentioned variations are inevitable due to the differences in
language structure, the lack of corresponding expressive means in both
languages as well as cultural constraints. The more culture – bound a text
is, the wider range there may be for modifications.

56

SUMMARY

Vertimas yra be galo daugialypis procesas ir jame atsiranda šiokių tokių
problemų, kurias plačiai diskutuoja šios srities specialistai. Ypatingas dėmesys yra
kreipiamas į poezijos vertimą, nes poezija priklauso laisviesiems registrams,
kuriuose autorius bei vertėjas gali laisviau reikšti savo mintis bei turi daugiau
pasirinkimo. Dauguma kalbininkų diskutuoja klausimu, ar poezija yra išverčiama,
ar ne. Pritariu idėjai, kad poezija gali būti išverčiama, jei vertėjas pripažįsta, jog
vertimas nėra produktas, o sudėtingas procesas, reikalaujantis daug pastangų.
Verčiant poeziją svarbu ne tik geros abiejų kalbų žinios, bet ir būtinybė perteikti
autoriaus mintis, stilių, istorinį ir kultūrinį poemos kontekstą. Manoma, jog kuo
daugiau kultūrinių elementų randama kūrinyje, tuo sunkiau jį išversti į kitą kalbą
ir surasti atitinkamus ekvivalentus, kad nenukentėtų nei kūrinio turinys, nei forma.

Tyrimui buvo pasirinkta Antano Baranausko poema Anykščių šilelis ir jos
vertimas į anglų kalbą. Pagrindinis tikslas – išsiaiškinti, kokiomis priemonėmis
reiškiami vertimo neatitikimai poetiniame diskurse. Kadangi poemoje gausu tam
laikotarpiui būdingų kultūrinių aspektų, įvairių mažybinių formų, vaizdingų
epitetų, metaforų ir tarminių žodžių, neišvengta tam tikrų vertimo neatitikimų
paviršinėje teksto struktūroje. Sunkumų taip pat sukėlė ir skirtinga abiejų kalbų
gramatinė sistema, nes anglų kalba yra analitinė, o lietuvių – sintetinė. Vertėjas
yra priverstas pasirinkti tokias raiškos formas, kurios išlaikytų nepakitusį originalo
turinį ir rimavimo būdą. Kaip parodė tyrimas, vertimo neatitikimai gali būti trijų
skirtingų tipų: pridėjimai, praleidimai bei prasmės niuansų pakeitimai. Kai kurie iš
šių neatitikimų randami mišria forma, nes, pavyzdžiui, jei vertėjas negali išversti
tam tikro žodžio ar junginio, jį praleidžia, ir tuo pačiu, savo nuožiūra prideda kitą.
Iškilę vertimo neatitikimai nepažeidė giluminės teksto struktūros, o tik sukėlė
šiokių tokių paviršinių pakitimų. Taip pat svarbu paminėti, jog lietuviško teksto
autorius linkęs naudoti vieną dominuojančią - veikėjo arba veiksmo liniją, kai tuo
tarpu vertime pastebimos abi linijos. Taip atsitiko dėl gramatinių struktūrų
neatitikimo.

Bet kokiu atveju poemos vertimas yra reikšmingas indėlis kalbai, jos
kultūrai bei vertimo mokslui. Tai galimybė kitoms tautoms geriau susipažinti su
lietuvių kalbos istorija bei kultūra.

57

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, J.R. 1977. The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard University Press.

2. Barbe, K. The Dichtonomy Free and Literal Translation, accessed 12
October, 2007 available from
http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1996/v41/n3/001968ar.pdf

3. Bassnett, S. 1980. Translation Studies. Methuen.
4. Bell, R.T. 1991. Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice.

London and New York: Longman.
5. Brower, R. A. (ed.) 1959. On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.
6. Catford, J. C. A. 1965. Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford

University Press.
7. Černiuvienė, L. 2005. Poezijos vertimas: prasmės perteikimo problemos,

accessed 10 May 2008, available from
http://www.culture.lt/lmenas/?st_id=7866
8. Cook, G. 1994. Discourse and Literature. Oxford University Press.
9. Delisle, J. Lee- Jahrke, H. & Cormier, M.C. (eds) 1999. Terminology of
Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
10. Eco, U. 2001. Experiences in Translation. University of Toronto Press
11. Englund-Dimitrova, B. 2005. Expertise and Explicitation in the
Translation Process. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12. Gentzler, E. 2001. Contemporary Translation Theories. Revised 2nd
Edition. Multilingual Matters LTD.
13. Gerding- Salas, C. Teaching Translation Problems and Solutions.
Translation Journal, accessed 28 September 2007, available from
http://accurapid.com/journal/13educ.htm
14. Gregory, M. & Carroll, S. 1978. Language and situation: Language
varieties and their social contexts. London: Routledge.
15. Gregory, M. 1980. Aspects of Varieties Differentiation. Journal of
Linguistics 3/2.

58

16. Gutwinski, W. 1974. Cohesion in Literary Texts: a Study of some
Grammatical and Lexical Features of English Discourse. The Hague:
Mouton de Gruyter.

17. Haliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. Longman:
London and New York.

18. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context, and Text:
Aspects of Language in a Social- Semiotic Perspective. Oxford University
Press.

19. Hatim, B. & Mason, I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London and
New York: Longman.

20. Hatim, B. & Munday, J. 2004. Translation. An Advanced Resource Book.
Routhledge Applied Linguistics.

21. Hatim, B. 2001. Teaching and Researching Translation. Harlow:
Longman.

22. Holmes, S. 1988. Translated. Papers on Literary Translation and
Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

23. James, K. Cultural Implications for Translation. Translation Journal,
accessed 24 September 2007, available from
http://accurapid.com/journal/22delight.htm

24. Jones, W. 1989. Translations From Oriental Languages, 2 vols. Delhi:
Pravesh Publications.

25. Koller, W. 1979. Equivalence in Translation Theory. Helsinki, Finn
lectures.

26. Kussmaul, P. 1995. Training the Translator. Amsterdam & Philadelphia,
Benjamins.

27. Larson, M. L. 1984. Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-
language equivalence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

28. Lefevere, A. 1992. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of
Literary Fame. Routledge.

29. Lietuvių literatūros istorija I (iki 1940). 1979. Vilnius: Vaga. Lietuvos
TSR Mokslų Akademija. Lietuvių kalbos ir lieratūros institutes.

30. Lindsay, P. & Norman, D. A. 1977. Human Information Processing.
Academic Press, New York.

31. Mieželaitis, E. 1985. Paminklas savo kraštui. Vilnius: Vaga.

59

32. Mills, S. Discourse. Sheffield Hallam University, accessed 16 December
2007, available from
http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=1261

33. Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
34. Nida, E. 1964. Principles of Correspondence. In Venuti, L. The

Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
35. Nunan, D. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. Penguin English

Applied Linguistics.
36. Petrilli, S. (ed.) 2003. Translation Translation. Amsterdam, New York.
37. Pym, A. 1992. Translation and Text Transfer, - An Essay on the Principles

of Intercultural Communication. Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.
38. Raffel, B. 1991. Artists All: Creativity, the University, and the World.

Continuum.
39. Riazi, A. 2002. The Invisible in Translation: The Role of Text Structure

accessed 12 May 2002, available from http://www.proz.com/translation-
articles/articles/282/1/-The-Invisible-in-Translation:-The-Role-of-Text-
Structure
40. Riškus, J. 1982. Lietuvių literatūra XIX a. I pusė. Vilnius: Mokslas.
41. Scholes, R. 2002. Literacy and Language Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates: Hillsdale, NJ.
42. Schulte, R. & Biguenet, J. (eds) 1992. Theories of Translation. An
Anthology of Esssays from Dryden to Derrida. The University of Chicago
Press: Chicago and London.
43. Selver, P. 1966. The Art of Translating Poetry. Boston: The Writer.
44. Shi, A. Translatability and Poetic Translation, accessed 17 December
2007, available from http://www.translatum.gr/journal/5/translatability-
and-poetic-translation.htm
45. Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance: Communication and
Cognition. Blackwell, Oxford.
46. Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of
Natural Language. University of Chicago Press.
47. Tancock, L.W. 1958. Aspects of Translation. Secker and Walburg:
London.

60

48. Turner, R. 1998. Register in Academic Writing, accessed 21 March,
available from http://neptune.spaceports.com/~words/register.html

49. Venuti, L. (ed.) 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London and New
York: Rothledge.

50. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, available from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

51. Wills, W. 2001. Knowledge and Skills in Translation Behaviour.
Amsterdam: Benjamins.

52. Zequan, L. 2002. Register Analysis as a Tool for Translation Quality
Assessment, accessed 22 March, available from
http://accurapid.com/journal/25register.htm
SOURCES

1. Baranauskas, A. 1985. Anykščių šilelis. Vilnius: Vaga.
2. Baranauskas, A. 1985. The Forest of Anykščiai. Translated from the

Lithuanian by P. Tempest. Vilnius: Vaga.

61