UDC 821.111
A.N. Trutnev
cand. philol. Sci., Senior Lecturer, Department of General Technical Disciplines, Arzamas Polytechnic Institute, Nizhny Novgorod State Technical
university. R.E. Alekseev"
PLAY B. SHOW "HEART BREAKING HOUSE" AS A DRAMATIC FANTASY
Annotation. The article analyzes B. Shaw's play "Heartbreak House", originally defined by the author as a "dramatic fantasy". Within this genre, there is a tendency to build themes like musical ones. The term "fantasy" signals the absence of formal restrictions and indicates a strong improvisational beginning, the free development of the author's thought, his focus on themes, and not on external action.
Key words: Bernard Shaw, Heartbreak House, dramatic fantasy, discussion play.
A.N. Trutneva, Arzamas Polytechnic Institute (branch) Nizhny Novgorod state technical University n.a. R.E. Alekseev
HEARTBREAK HOUSE BY G.B. SHAW AS A DRAMATIC FANTASIA
abstract. "Heartbreak House" by G.B. Shaw was first called "A Dramatic Fantasia" and later "Fantasia on English Themes in the Russian Manner". "A Dramatic Fantasia" seizes upon such essential qualities of the genre as spontaneous handling of conventional dramatic forms and the tendency to treat ideas as if they were musical themes. "Heartbreak House" was the culmination of dramatic development which found a form in the Discussion Play.
Keywords: G.B. Shaw, Heartbreak House, Dramatic Fantasia, Discussion Play.
The play Heartbreak House (1913-1917) by Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) is "one of the peaks of the intellectual drama" in which all the characters argue, argue with each other, creating a "polyphonic, many-voiced discussion » .
The play "House where hearts break" completes the middle period of Shaw's work. Its appearance is associated with the beginning of the transitional stage from the "drama of ideas" to the "drama of intellectual fantasy". The play represents Shaw's "complex bundle of creative impulses". The play, originally subtitled "dramatic fantasy" (Dramatic fantasia), was eventually defined by Shaw as a "Russian-style fantasy on English themes". Within this genre, there is a tendency to build themes like musical ones. The musical term "fantasy" signals the absence of formal restrictions and indicates a strong improvisational beginning, the free development of the author's thoughts, his focus on themes, and not on external action. According to E. Bentley, the approach to Shaw's plays as musical works is justified only in relation to "discussion plays" as "Showian sonatas", the most successful of which was the play "House where hearts break". The peculiarity of the play "Heartbreaking House" is the combination of discussions in a musical free manner.
Heartbreak House, together with the plays Marriage and Unequal Marriage, forms a trilogy, where three dramatic works are united by a common content and form. Topics move from one play to another within a group of discussion plays: politics, social order, economics, ontological concepts, literature, gender relations, marriage, etc. The place of action is limited to the living room, the internal action prevails over the external. The plays reflect Shaw's critical attitude towards the ruling class. All of them are a vivid example of the "play-discussion" genre created by the Show.
The play "Heartbreaking House" belongs to the genre of fantasy, the form of which
reflects the free element of the author's imagination, its composition is distinguished by great harmony. Considering the play as a piece of music, B. Dakor identifies a series of duets and trios: the first act - four duets (Ellie - Hesiona, Mengen - Shotover, Ariadne - Hector, Hector - Shotover) and one trio (Hector - Shotover - Hesiona); the second act - five duets (Ellie - Mengen, Hesiona - Mazzini, Hesiona - Ellie, Ellie - Shotover, Hector - Randel), one trio (Hector - Randel - Ariadne) and a chorus with a new character (thief); third act - chorus. The ensemble of characters is subject to the course of discussion on various topics, the logic of thought unites the characters. The desire of most characters to make independent responsible decisions is ostentatious - they are all dependent on the logic of the "partners" reasoning and act as accomplices in criticizing the existing social system.
The moral and psychological content of the play goes beyond the story of the inhabitants of the house, personifying idle Europe on the eve of the war. By increasing attention to ideas, Shaw weakens plot tension, relegating it to a secondary place in the structure of the play. The plot serves only as an impetus to continue the discussion. The topics of discussion are developing progressively, accumulating towards the last third act. The discussion at the end of the first act (about Mengen-like "humanoid reptiles", tools of destruction of life, "vampire women", Shakespeare, etc.) thematically echoes the finale of the third act. The debate of the second act (on poverty and wealth, marriage of convenience, money, old age, sleep, etc.) develops against the background of the recognition of the industrialist Mengen in fraud. The theme of money and power, which prevails in the "play-discussion" Major Barbara, dominates here as well - earning money, saving money, stealing money, marrying for convenience, etc. Much of the discussion of the third act, while repeating and summarizing the themes of the first and second acts, focuses on the theme of death and the salvation of England. Only the final part of the discussion of the third act is connected with the main storyline - Ellie's wedding.
The "Rondo-discussion" is built by analogy with a piece of music, in which repeated repetitions of the main theme alternate with episodes that differ from each other thematically: the theme of marriage - the social structure - the "women's issue" - capitalist society - love - business - the relationship between a man and a woman - money - marriage - illusions. Thus, the main recurring theme in the discussion is the theme of marriage, love, gender relations (as in the previous "plays-discussions" "Marriage", "Unequal Marriage"). The organization of the discussion process in the form of a “rondo-discussion” first appeared in Shaw in the play “Unequal Marriage” and reached perfection in the play “Heartbreak House”, which became Shaw's next experiment in the field of dramatic form.
The expansion of the range of topics and the intensification of the discussion are characteristic features of the traditional technique of creating "play-discussions". Unlike the participants in Chekhov's polyphonic dialogue, Shaw's characters drag each other into an argument, trying to achieve the truth. For example, Ellie holds Shotover: "... you won't leave before you answer... I can hypnotize you...". Shotover considers it his duty to dissuade old Mangen from marrying a young girl: “Everyone should intervene in this. The stars tremble in the sky when things like this happen." In dialogue with Mengen, he demands from him: "Talk like a person, not like a puppet on the screen." Hesiona, dissatisfied with Ellie's evasive answers about her feelings for Mengen, demands, "I want you to tell me the truth."
The discussion is aimed at achieving the truth and unmasking each other, because, as the characters themselves say, "everything, everything is fake", "even thieves - and they cannot behave naturally in this house." The exposure of falsehood, pretense in personal and public relations of people is a characteristic feature of Shaw's realistic method.
In the play, the phenomenon of genre contamination, which is characteristic of Shaw's "play-discussion", is observed. The play includes elements of the dramatic tradition of the 19th century. without a specific dominance
cutting form. Some images (the innocent girl Ellie, who is about to marry a millionaire to save her father; the villain Mengen; the romantic Hector; the villains, the "demonic women" Ariadne and Hesion) are characteristic of the melodrama. The meeting of Ellie and Hector, the acquaintance of Shotover with Mr. Dan - these are dramatic situations inherent in farce and burlesque. There is also a system of characters traditional for these genres (Shotover is an eccentric old man; Nanny Guinness is a comic elderly maid). The scene of Hector's unusual behavior is also characteristic of the farce: he sits motionless, then gets up, grabs his cane from the table, enters into a desperate duel with an imaginary opponent, plunges a sword into him to the very hilt, grabs an imaginary woman by the hands with the words "you love me" , again plunges into thoughtfulness. If the melodramatic elements give the play spectacle and fascination, then the farcical scenes emphasize the failure of the characters' lives and the general atmosphere of trouble.
The finale of the play is complicated, i.e. along with the main interchange, parallel ones are also possible. The play could be finished before the main finale twice: with the wedding of Ellie and Man-gen, the wedding of Ellie and Shotover. Both versions of the finale are melodramatic. The main ending of the play is decided in the traditions of tragicomedy and is open. The surviving characters of the play "in despair", "with disgust" perceive the fact that they are forced to continue their bleak life, proving the idea expressed by Shaw in the preface about the irreparable corruption and spiritual exhaustion of man.
Thus, Shaw's tendency to organize the process of discussion like a piece of music leads Shaw to use the genre of fantasy, which involves free use of conventional dramatic forms. The choice of a dramatic conflict, the weakening of plot tension, the contamination of genres, the expansion of the range of topics are the hallmarks of the technique of creating "discussion plays" that has become traditional for Shaw. The improvisational fantasy play Heartbreak House is a vivid example of the genre created by Shaw.
Bibliography:
1. Evnina E.M. Western European realism at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. - M.: Nauka,
2. Merkulova M.G. Late dramaturgy B. Shaw: problems of typology: diss. ... cand. philol. Sciences. - M., 1998.
3. Khrapovitskaya G.N. Some main features of conflicts and composition in the drama of ideas // Questions of composition in foreign literature. - M.: MGPI im. IN AND. Lenin, 1983.
4. Show B. The house where hearts break / per. from English. S. Bobrov and M. Bogoslovskaya // Show B. Complete collection of plays: in 6 volumes - L .: Art, 1980. - V. 4. - S. 463-602 (S. 463-498 - Shaw's preface to the play ). The following text is cited from this edition.
5. Bentley E. Bernard Shaw. - New Directions Books, 1947.
6. Bertolini J.A. The playwrighting self of Bernard Shaw. - Carbondale: SIU Press, 1991.
7. Dukore B. Bernard Shaw, playwright: aspects of Shavian drama. - University of Missouri Press, 1973.
8 Gibbs A.M. Heartbreak House: Chambers of Echoes/ Bertolini J.A. Shaw and other playwrights. The Annual of Bernard Shaw Studies. Vol. 13. - Penn State Press, 1993.
9. Meisel M. Shaw and the nineteenth-century theater. - Greenwood Press, 1976.
Based on the fact that the object of our study is the play Heartbreak House by B. Shaw, we consider it appropriate to determine the place of this work in the work of B. Shaw, to say a few words about the historical context of the time when the play was written, to highlight the ideological drama issues.
Huge, almost like a century, Shaw's life and his work are more described than studied, notes A.G. Obraztsova (28, p.3). We, in turn, cannot but agree with this opinion. B. The show was made a classic during his lifetime and written off, declaring it old-fashioned. However, many critics who study his work notice that the completely new method of B. Shaw, different from all previous ones, has been little studied and, in general, is not fully understood.
"The inexhaustible gift of Bernard Shaw to turn everything generally accepted inside out, to look for their new, unexpected meaning in words and phenomena, seems to envy some of his critics" (28, p.4).
In the plays of the early period of B. Shaw's work, problems are highlighted that do not cast doubt on the expediency of the foundations of the social system in England. But saturated with satire, they have earned the name "unpleasant plays"; and then this causticity of well-chosen witticisms passed into the tragicomedies of the 20s and 30s, where the playwright depicts the political state structure of Europe in a grotesque description. The show himself calls these comedies "political extravagances."
B. Shaw entered the 20th century as an already well-known author of drama discussions, a satirist with the positions of an incorrigible subverter of traditional false idols, and a critic of capitalist foundations. The play "The House Where Hearts Break" by A.G. Obraztsova (28) calls one of the most remarkable works of the playwright.
Researcher of creativity B. Shaw, Doctor of Philology P.S. Balashov (6) writes about the play Heartbreak House as a tragicomedy of epochal significance. This work is the pinnacle of a whole cycle of plays that reveal the fragility of family and moral foundations in an English respectable family. All previous dramas were, as it were, sketches, foreshadowing, according to the tendencies laid down in them, a comprehensive socio-philosophical canvas "The House Where Hearts Break".
If we turn to world history, then the beginning of the twentieth century is a time of growing general crisis and confusion that gripped the bourgeois intelligentsia of Europe on the eve of the war. During this period, B. Shaw writes one of his most original philosophical dramas, Heartbreak House. The play was started in 1913 and was written for quite a long time - until 1917, which is completely unnatural for B. Shaw's work. I.B. Kantorovich (20), like many other researchers of the playwright's work, notes that "this is one of Shaw's best, most poetic plays, testifying to the deepening of critical realism in his work, to the perception and original interpretation of the traditions of Russian critical realism, in particular L. N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov "(20, p. 26) about which Shaw himself writes in the preface to the play, calling it in the subtitle "Fantasy in the Russian style on English themes."
The creative path of B. Shaw began in 1885 with the play "The House of the Widower", therefore, the play "The House Where Hearts Break" falls on the years of the writer's creative maturity, it seems to connect all the main motives of the playwright's work into one knot. "The wrathfully satirical beginning in the play is organically intertwined with the lyrical, poetic beginning - an expression of the artist's passionate search for true humanity" (6, p. 17). It should also be noted that many critics consider the play "House where hearts break" the beginning of the emergence of a new genre - a kind of social and philosophical tragicomedy "genre, especially indicative of the 2nd stage of B. Shaw's work.
Now we should turn to the ideological content of the play, because it is obvious that the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama is wider than it was defined by the playwright himself, saying in the preface that he wanted to show "the worthlessness of cultural idlers who are not engaged in creative work" (38, p. 303) actually the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama, as I.B. Kantorovich is "the crisis of the entire bourgeois way of life, exposed by the war" (20, p. 29). The show creates a kind of "ark" from his artificially isolated home - the ship, which is described in a detailed, as always, side note. But the main thing, of course, is not the appearance of the house, but the customs that reign there. One of its inhabitants says: “We have such a game at home: to find out what kind of person is hiding under this or that pose” (38, p. 329). This is the main feature of this house, here they expose everything ostentatious, visible and try to get to the bottom of the essence of man and phenomena. The author settles in this unusual house tenants who are not accustomed to reckon with decency and, contrary to them, call a spade a spade. Another characteristic common line of similarity between the characters is that each of them is endowed with some catchy individual features (age, appearance, etc.) that single him out only for stage action, but which do not make him a truly original character.
In his play Heartbreak House, Shaw brought together people from various generations of the intelligentsia. The representative of the oldest generation is the old Captain Shotover, the owner of the house, through whose mouth B. Shaw most often judges the rotten world, which is destined to disappear from the face of the earth. As noted above, by and large, all three generations represented in the house are endowed with similar, complex characters, and in this case there could be no conflict, there could not be drama. That is why dissidents also penetrate into this house - the ship: Boss Mangan (Mangan), thief William Dan (The Burglar), partly this is the youngest daughter of the captain - Lady Utterword (lady Utterword)
"In the abstract - moral sense, notes I.B. Kantorovich, the conflict in Shaw's philosophical drama is dramatically maintained in the clash of people who do not try to seem better than they really are, with people who put on a mask of virtue and respectability" (20 , p.31). The main residents of the house - the ship belong to the first, they do not have much respect for themselves, or for others, or for the whole world. But they weren't like that before, were they?
The author gives us a definite answer to the question posed: they have become so since life broke their heart. The show brings everything to the judgment of readers, viewers, demonstrates the process of contrition of hearts, and some movement is associated with these images, the development of the action, which is almost imperceptible in the drama. If we talk about the plot design of the drama, then it is also negligible. Compared with the philosophical theme, the plot only serves the author's goal to transfer the semantic content of the drama to the philosophical and social plane, where Shaw makes an attempt to solve the problem of the crisis of bourgeois-capitalist society and the fate of its further development.
However, guided by the point of view of P.S. Balashov, we can say that in this drama, Shaw the artist is much more insightful than Shaw the thinker. "For the first time in the play, a pointed formulation of the main philosophical theme of the drama is given, which speaks of an understanding of a number of reasons why the catastrophe broke out. The world is so bad that Captain Shotover, this "wise man" already falling into infancy, is ready to blow it up, and he is bad because pigs rule it, "because of their belly they have turned the universe into a feeding trough" (6, p.13). play-fable were underestimated rather than overestimated.What should be the power of the playwright’s word in order to be able to identify the main philosophical theme of the work from the very first remark of the first act - the theme of the extraordinary atmosphere of an unusual house-ship and consistently draw it with internal subtext through the entire play, psychologically inflating the atmosphere of the house from phenomenon to phenomenon, from act to act.
I would like to note that the conversation about the individual transformation of the playwright's linguistic means on a particular example of the play Heartbreak House should begin with the title, since it is clearly metaphorical in nature.
It can be argued that in the drama "Heartbreaking House" the storyline serves only as a background for the main philosophical theme of the play, helping to translate the semantic content into a socio-philosophical plane. It was also possible to establish that when writing this work, B. Shaw enters first as an artist of the word, and then as a philosopher-thinker.
Turning directly to the question of the metaphorical nature of the language of a work of art in the original, we can rely on the above statements, putting them in defense of the choice of B. Shaw's dramaturgy, namely the play "Heartbreaking House" as an object of study.
When studying research works on the work of B. Shaw, one can observe the main tendency to identify the distinctive properties of style in his plays and, in particular, in the play "House Where Hearts Break". However, the totality of linguistic devices, including, of course, figurative ones, which determine the symbolism of the plays of the great playwright, is considered very concisely in all works and is reduced mainly to explaining the names of the dramas. This phenomenon is observed everywhere, especially when studying the literary works of foreign authors. And this, as the great critic exclaimed (10), against the backdrop of a growing general interest in the figurative means of language. Based on this provision, we can argue that the novelty of our work lies in the linguo-stylistic study of previously unstudied material, that is, the ideological drama of B. Shaw "The Heartbreak House", in order to identify words and free phrases with metaphorical content.
The house where hearts break- a play by the Irish playwright Bernard Shaw with the subtitle "Fantasy in the Russian style on English themes". Consists of three actions. The play was begun in 1913, but completed only in 1917.
History of creation
The play was started by Bernard Shaw in 1913. According to the author himself, he wrote this play under the influence of the playwrights of Chekhov, whom he considered one of the best playwrights of his time. However, the First World War, which began in 1914, slowed down the creation of the work. The book was finished in 1917, but the author decided to publish it only after the end of the war - in 1919.
Characters
- Captain Shatower - former sailor
- Hesiona, Mrs. Hashebay - captain's eldest daughter
- Hector Hasheby - Hesiona's husband
- Ariadne, Lady Utterword - captain's youngest daughter
- Randall - Ariadne's husband's brother
- Ellie - friend of Hesiona
- Mazzini Dan - Ellie's father
- Mengen - Ellie's fiancé, industrialist
- Guinness - former nanny of the Shotover children, maid
- William Dan - thief, ex-husband of Guinness
Plot
Ellie Dan, a friend of Mrs. Heshebye, comes to Captain Shatover's house by invitation. After some time, the second daughter of Captain Shatover, Lady Utterword, arrives. However, the captain pretends that this is not his daughter, but another guest. The reason for this behavior turns out to be simple - Ariadne, without consulting anyone, married Hastings Utterward, whom the captain calls "a chump". Hastings himself never appears on the stage, although much is said about him. Hesiona tries to dissuade Ellie from marrying the millionaire Mengen, who, as it turns out, ruined her father. Moreover, Ellie is in love with a certain aristocrat. This aristocrat turns out to be Hesiona's husband, Hector, who "fed" Ellie with fairy tales. Gradually, the tangle of complex relationships between the characters is growing and growing. And in the finale it turns out that there is not a single hero in the play, the first impression of which would coincide with his true essence. This applies to absolutely all heroes, including the nanny and the thief.
Main Topics
Society
Bernard Shaw in his play showed the English society during the First World War. The main character traits of this society are the indifference and ignorance of the upper and middle classes. A formally prosperous society is simply decomposing from within, decomposing morally. There is not a single positive character in the play - each hero is either a hypocrite, or a liar, or just an evil person. In the play, Shaw showed English society from the inside. The house "where hearts break" is also the house "where all the secret becomes clear." And if in all the houses of British society all the vices, all the underhand are carefully hidden, then in the house of Shatover, the opposite is true - everyone tries to bring the other hero to clean water, while often giving himself away. The society shown in the play is simply doomed to destruction, moreover, to self-destruction. People will destroy themselves - morally.
Characters
Each hero of the work personifies a certain type of person, a certain character, which we can meet always and everywhere.
Hesiona personifies a beautiful woman, a representative of the high society, who no longer knows how to entertain herself - either to interfere with the marriage of Ellie and Menger, or to wait for planes with bombs.
Hesiona's husband is Hector, a representative of high society. He is handsome, but he is bored with life - he is looking for new love adventures, however, his love for Hesione is stronger than all hobbies. From a proud handsome man, he turned into his wife's "pet dog".
Ellie is a representative of the lower classes of English society, who by hook or by crook is trying to break into people. However, she continues to love her father. However, most likely, soon she will completely forget all the concepts of honor, love, goodness. She is ready to marry without love, the main thing would be - for a millionaire.
Mazzini Dan is a representative of the lower classes of English society, who, thanks to his abilities in economics and industry, could break out into the high society, but this was prevented by his friend Mengen. Throughout the play, the intrigue remains: who outwitted whom - Mazzini Mengen or Mengen Mazzini. Each time in this situation, new details are revealed. Ultimately, it turns out that Mazzini outwitted Mengen, and Mengen does not have a penny to his name - he is not a millionaire.
staging a play
The play, due to its extreme plot complexity, is rarely staged on theater stages. The play was first staged in 1920 at the Garrick Theater in New York. There are also two main video versions of the play.
One: This is a 1985 television version directed by Anthony Page. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089262/
Second, this is a DVD based on the 1977 version directed by Cédric Messina. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076132/~~V
- In the year the play was staged at the Rains Theatre, St. Petersburg (staged by Natalia Nikitina).
Links
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .
See what "Heartbreak House" is in other dictionaries:
Film by Alexander Sokurov (1986) based on the play by Bernard Shaw Heartbreak House (1913-1919). The subtitle of the play is fantasy in the Russian spirit on English themes. He meant Chekhov's theater with its plotlessness and meditativeness. Scenario for ... ... Encyclopedia of cultural studies
Wikipedia has articles about other people with this surname, see Menglet. Georgy Menglet Birth name: Georgy Pavlovich Menglet Date of birth ... Wikipedia
Georgy Menglet Birth name: Georgy Pavlovich Menglet Date of birth: September 17, 1912 Place of birth: Voronezh ... Wikipedia
Georgy Menglet Birth name: Georgy Pavlovich Menglet Date of birth: September 17, 1912 Place of birth: Voronezh ... Wikipedia
Georgy Menglet Birth name: Georgy Pavlovich Menglet Date of birth: September 17, 1912 Place of birth: Voronezh ... Wikipedia
Russian State Academic Bolshoi Drama Theater named after G. A. Tovstonogov Former names since 1919 Bolshoi Drama Theater since 1932 Leningrad Bolshoi Drama Theater named after M. Gorky since 1964 ... ... Wikipedia
Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation
Novgorod State University
named after Yaroslav the Wise
Humanitarian Institute
Department of English
Graduate work
analysis of metaphors in the work of Bernard Shaw
“heartbreak house”
specialty 021700 - philology
Supervisor
d. fil. n., Professor V.V. Ivanitsky
Student group 7572
I.V. Lapushkin
Veliky Novgorod 2002
Introduction
Chapter I. The Theory of Metaphor
5. Functions of metaphors
Chapter II. Analysis of the play by B. Shaw "House where hearts break"
3.1 Zoomorphic metaphors
Conclusions on the second chapter
Conclusion
Bibliography
Introduction
This thesis is devoted to one of the main issues of comparative stylistics - the transfer of metaphorical figurativeness of the original text of B. Shaw's play "House where hearts break" in its translation into Russian. Thus, this work is part of the general issue of transferring the qualitative figurative originality of the original, a question that to this day causes a large number of debates and disputes, forcing such prominent Russian philologists and linguists as V.V. Vinogradov, I.R. Galperin, N.D. Arutyunov and others, as well as foreign linguists, among whom we can single out Paul Ricœur, George Miller, Max Black, Philip Wheelright, to continue work on the theory of figurative means of language, put forward by Aristotle. The growth of theoretical interest in metaphor was stimulated by the increase in its presence in various types of texts, from poetic speech and journalism to the languages of various branches of scientific knowledge.
The relevance of the topic of this work is determined by the insufficient systematization of the existing theoretical developments on the study of metaphor, as well as the scarcity of linguistic studies devoted to the functioning of this type of figurative language means. Means of figurative expression have a large share in the artistic system of B. Shaw's plays. He widely and freely uses metaphors in revealing the psychological state of the characters, connecting the moral experiences of his characters with the fate of the whole country. Nevertheless, researchers of the playwright's work prefer to leave this issue without due attention, dwelling in detail on the study of the problems associated with the writer's dramatic method.
That is why the purpose of our work was a detailed description of the use of words and free phrases with a metaphorical meaning and their comparison in the translation of B. Shaw's play "House where hearts break" into Russian. It is noted by many critics as the most poetic work of the playwright, created at the junction of two global periods of creativity.
The general goal determined the setting of specific tasks and the procedure for their solution in this work:
the study of the theoretical range of general stylistic and general linguistic problems that determine the status of metaphor as a figurative polyfunctional unit of language;
determination of the structural construction of the metaphor;
analysis of metaphor components;
comparative characteristics of the meanings of the components of the metaphor;
correlation of metaphor with the definitions of “epiphora” and “diaphora”;
study of the functioning of metaphor as a linguistic unit in the original and in translation;
considering metaphor as a source of vocabulary replenishment.
The scientific novelty of the thesis lies in the fact that we are trying to explore this linguistic figurative means and its functioning in the system of the artistic language of B. Shaw's play using material that has not been previously studied from the point of view of metaphor.
During his lifetime, this writer was called a classic and “written off”, declaring old-fashioned. However, studies of his work include a large number of works. B. Shaw’s drama language is a classic version of literary English. The play Heartbreak House was written at the beginning of the 20th century, during ideological crises and moral revelations on a global scale. European life
30s, created by Shaw a decade later, was prepared by all the previous work of the playwright, in particular, as many of his critics note, "fantasy in the Russian style", i.e. the play that is the object of our work.
The material for the practical part of the work was selected using the continuous sampling method. The primary analysis was carried out by means of a complete lexicographic description. The sample size is about 40 examples, which are compared with the same number of translation options.
The work consists of an introduction, the main part, traditionally divided into two chapters - theoretical and practical, equipped with conclusions, a conclusion and a list of references.
The first chapter provides a concise critical review of studies on the theory of metaphor, gives a number of opinions on the classification of metaphorical means of language, describes the theory of the functioning of metaphors, based on the position of the existence of a polyfunctional figurative language field.
In the second chapter, already on a particular example of the material of B. Shaw's play “Heartbreaking House”, an attempt is made to confirm the main provisions of the theories set forth in the first chapter of the work, an analysis is made of a continuous sample of metaphorical means of the play, and the correspondence between the degree of figurativeness of the original and translation is studied.
Chapter I. The Theory of Metaphor
1. On the problems of understanding and classifying metaphors
The main contradiction in the understanding of metaphor lies in the revealed dual nature of this phenomenon: on the one hand, metaphor is a means of language, a linguistic unit, on the other hand, its belonging to figurative figures of speech is undeniable. Having made a short digression into the history of the study of metaphor, in particular, referring to Aristotle, we can argue that until the 20th century this phenomenon was considered only as a poetic figure, and only about 100 years ago the first attempts began to “oppose the linguistic and artistic, poetic essence of metaphor” ( 4 p.333). In our time, the division of metaphor into two types is indisputable: linguistic metaphor and artistic metaphor. “In relation to metaphor as an accessory of fiction (both poetry and prose), Russian linguistics uses the following terms: artistic metaphor, poetic, tropeic, individual, individual authorial, creative, speech, optional, metaphor of style" (3 p. 31). "A metaphor is recognizable only due to the presence of an artistic element in it. It necessarily implies a certain degree of artistry. There can be no metaphors devoid of artistry, just as there are no jokes devoid of humor" (9 p. 173).
Scientists have not yet come to a consensus on this issue. So, O.S. Akhmanova (5 p. 231) divides metaphors into five types: hyperbolic, lexical, broken and sequential metaphor, as well as poetic metaphor. B.N. Tomashevsky divides metaphors into stylistic and linguistic ones. A.V. Belsky (7 p. 281), in addition, divides the metaphors of style into poetic and rhetorical. Yu.S. Yazikova (39 p. 154), distinguishing two types of metaphors: metaphors of language and metaphors of style, subdivides linguistic ones into genetic ones (“door handle”, “chair back”), which O.S. Akhmanova calls lexical, and into metaphors with a figurative meaning (“golden character”, “noble nest”). A.V. Belsky calls them rhetorical. Scholars differ both in the definition of the types of metaphors and in the definition of the criterion for their difference.
However, the classification of A.V. Kalinina (19), since it is based on such fundamental research that fixes linguistic imagery, such as dictionaries. It is the most appropriate for our study. Although it cannot reflect all the needs in the analysis of a literary text, A.V. Kalinin divides metaphors into three groups according to the degree of their use. (19s.28)
Metaphors are names that have ceased to be perceived as figurative bright figurative meanings of words, although by origin they can be called “creations of the speaker” they are worn out metaphors (“bow of the ship”, a coat of dust).
Figurative general language metaphors. The figurative, figurative nature of such metaphors is clearly felt by the speakers (“the sea of loaves”, the ties of love). Such metaphors are reflected in the explanatory dictionaries of Russian and English, as well as in bilingual dictionaries, where they are classified as figurative.
Metaphors of the author's individual style. These are figurative metaphors, sparkling with their novelty of the discovery of one or another author. They have not become a fact of any language and belong to the peculiarities of the speech of any writer, poet, playwright. They are not reflected in dictionaries: “chintz of the sky”, “blood berries”, vehicle of his daily business life.
We agree with the classification of A.V. Kalinin in the fundamental points of differentiation, but this classification cannot fully meet our needs. The names seem somewhat vague to us. Metaphors - names form the backbone of the vocabulary of the language. Therefore, it is more appropriate to call a lexicalized, “dead”, “petrified”, “usual”, “erased” metaphor a lexical metaphor. It is given in dictionaries, in particular, in CID, BES as a derivative-nominative meaning that arose through not marked “transfer” or figurative (abbr. “transfer.” and fig).
When translating, lexical metaphors are most strongly influenced by differences in the etymological and lexical nature of the two languages - Russian and English. Many of them have clear equivalents in another language, for example, a coat of dust is “a layer of paint”, and the direct meaning of the word coat is “jacket, outer dress, coat” (22 p. 128). Some scholars are inclined to believe that there can be no question of looking for figurative language means when translating or comparing such pairs of words.
The term “general language” seems to us less successful, since these metaphors also gravitate to speech, their use (or non-use) creates “one of the properties of the speech tissue of one or another functional style” (25.55). In addition, having become facts of the language, they are used in the so-called “individual” styles of different writers. To a certain extent, the translator knows the constant correspondences of the two languages: the mask of his face - “the mask of his face”, and shaolow of a smile - “the shadow of a smile ”, which are found in many authors. Such metaphors, notes I.A. Krylov, it is more expedient to call them general stylistic. “On the one hand, this term reflects the phenomenon of language - a functional style, on the other hand, the phenomenon of speech - an individual style” (25.56). It can be assumed that the name is a link between the name “lexical”, representing the phenomenon of language, and the term “individual-stylistic”, denoting the phenomenon of speech. We will consider general stylistic metaphors that are given in dictionaries marked fig (transt. / fig). Of course, these are well-established metaphors accepted in this language.
Individual stylistic metaphors have not become facts of language. They are facts of speech and occur in the individual style of a particular writer or translator. We will refer the term “individual-stylistic metaphors” or simply “individual” to those cases that are not included in the lexical system of the language as phenomena of figurative use and are not recorded in dictionaries, which are considered metaphorical occasionalisms. Occasional meaning is the meaning given to a word in in this context and representing a deviation from the usual, generally accepted. However, we can conclude that this classification is superficial and conditional; indeed, it cannot fully reflect the requirements for our research. This classification is indicative of demonstrating the main concepts developed by domestic linguists. In our work, we will use the term “artistic” metaphor, believing, following G.N. Sklyarevskaya (31) that the content of this term is wide and includes all the characteristics reflected in other terms related to artistic, rather than linguistic properties.
2. To the question of the definition of the term “metaphor”
First, we should give definitions of the metaphor itself, as a stylistic device that adequately meets the objectives of our study. O.S. Akhmanova in her dictionary of linguistic terms gives the following definition: “metaphor (meaning transfer). Tropes consisting in the use of words and expressions in a figurative sense based on similarity, analogy, etc. ” (p. 231). If we turn to LES, we can give the following definition: “metaphor (from the Greek. metaphora - transfer) is a trope, or a mechanism of speech, consisting in the use of a word denoting a certain class of objects, phenomena, etc. to characterize or name an object belonging to another class, or to name another class of objects similar to this one in any respect ...” (41, p. 296). It seems impossible for us to make a final conclusion on the definition of the term metaphor without citing the statements of various linguists on this issue, although both of the above dictionary definitions lie on the same plane and consider the metaphor from a stylistic point of view, which indicates the similarity of the basic concepts of the term definition. George F. Miller, in defense of the traditional point of view on metaphor, argues that “this is a tight comparison and the thought caused by it (metaphor) concerns similarities and analogies.” (26, p. 236) I. V. Arnold in his work on the style of the English language a concise definition of metaphor, saying that it is “usually defined as a hidden comparison carried out by applying the name of one object to another and thus revealing some important feature of the second” (2, p. 82) I.R. Halperin speaks on the subject of metaphor:
“metaphor is a relationship between a dictionary and a logical meaning arising from the context, based on the similarity or similarity of certain proper features of two similar concepts” (10, p. 136)
Along with the definitions just given, it is useful to compare some of the definitions of metaphor proposed by E. Jordan (4).
“Metaphor, therefore, is ... a verbal formulation of reality, which is contained in diversity, perceived as a set of properties.”
“Metaphor is a statement of individuality; an affirmation by which a complex of real qualities becomes an individual or asserts itself as a reality”.
“Metaphor is a verbal structure which, by virtue of its form, affirms the reality of an object. The form here, as elsewhere, is a system of interrelated features that transforms the totality of its elements into a harmonious whole. This whole is the object whose existence the metaphor asserts.
Therefore, we can now generalize and deduce the definition of a metaphor as an expressive means of a language as follows: it is a concise comparison consisting in transferring the meaning of one object (or class of objects) to another object (or class of objects) based on the similarity of some feature.
We note in passing that one should not make mistakes in identifying comparison and metaphor: they are similar in many respects, but their differences are obvious. Arutyunova N.D. (4) more than once in his works raises the question of the nature of tropes.
A brilliant generalization belonging to R. Jacobson (40) is as follows: “Any replacement of one term by another does not go beyond the scope of similarity.” that if the concept of "similarity" is allowed in the description of a metaphor, then it should be considered as a way of predicating a feature to a subject, and not as a way of substituting names. In the words of Beardsley (8), a metaphor is what turns an unviable, internally contradictory statement into an internally contradictory, but meaningful, meaningful statement. The implementation of this transition occurs through similarity. He said that a metaphor, in contrast to comparison, is similar to identity, it is only stated, excluding measurement, that it does not need an explication of the signs that served as the basis for the convergence of objects. We can support this statement by Miller's statement that the metaphor is based on the convergence of features that occupy different places in the models of compared objects, and this distinguishes it from comparison, which can bring both different and the same together. But D. Davidson spoke most clearly on this subject: “The most obvious semantic difference between metaphor and comparison is that all comparisons are true, and most metaphors are false.” (17, p. 173)
3. The dual nature of metaphors
Over the past thirty years, new, somewhat different criteria for the classification of words and free phrases with metaphorical content have been developed. However, all of them are based on the semantic duality of metaphor as a unit of language. “Significant units are bilateral, they are formed by the combination of form and meaning, or, in other words, they reveal two planes: the plane of content and the plane of expression" (1, p. 4). units in terms of their form and formal characteristics, then we consider it appropriate to begin to consider the metaphor in direct connection with its defined.Two pairs of components participate in the formation of a metaphor - the main and auxiliary subjects to which paired terms are applied;
Literal frame and metaphorical image;
Theme and “container”;
Referent and correlate.
And also the related properties of each object or class of objects.
Max Black (9) introduced the concepts of “focus” and “frame” in his work on metaphor. On the example of classical metaphor considered by him (an example of a “pure case” of metaphor), Black revealed the core of metaphor - a word with an indisputable metaphorical meaning (focus) and the periphery of words used literally (frame). He focuses on the fact that when considering such phenomena, we concentrate on one - a single word, in which lies the cause of metaphor.
When we talk about metaphor, we give as an example simple sentences or free phrases in which only some words are used metaphorically, and the rest - in their usual meaning. The notion we have to figure out is the metaphorical use of the “core” or, as Black calls it, the “focus” of a metaphor and its relation to the “frame”, because one “frame” can make a metaphor and the other cannot. The "focus" of a metaphor, that is, a clearly metaphorical word or expression inserted into a frame of words with a direct meaning, serves to convey a meaning that could be expressed literally. However, there are cases in the language where there is simply no literal equivalent. For example, in the mathematical terminology of the English language, the word side - the side of a triangle, square, etc. is expressed by the word leg, which literally means “leg”. Mathematicians say so because there is no other such condensed expression that most accurately characterizes this subject. which he understands the use of the word in some new sense in order to fill a gap in the dictionary. However, if the direct purpose of catachresis is to put "new meaning into old words" (9p.159), then the metaphor is not assigned to the function of enriching the vocabulary of the language . The replacement of literal expressions by metaphorical ones is also explained in Black's work for purely stylistic reasons. A metaphorical phrase in its literal use often refers to a more specific object than its literal equivalent, which gives pleasure to the reader of the text. Either the reader is pleased to solve the problems and puzzles presented by the author in such an ingenious interweaving, or he rejoices at the author’s ability to half hide, half to reveal the true meaning, or he, the reader, is in a state of “pleasant surprise”, etc. All these reasonings make decoration from metaphor, which, in principle, does not contradict its nature, but only determines one of the main functions of metaphor - aesthetic.
The theory of M. Black described above is called the "interactionist" point of view, which M. Black himself outlined in seven requirements, saying that a metaphorical judgment has two different subjects - the main and the auxiliary, which we managed to find out earlier. The mechanism of metaphor is application to the main subject of a system of “associated implications" (9, p. 167) associated with an auxiliary subject. These implications, Black explains, are nothing more than generally accepted associations associated in the minds of speakers with an auxiliary subject, however, non-standard ones can also occur. "Metaphor in an implicit form includes such judgments about the main subject, which are usually applied to the auxiliary subject. Thanks to this, the metaphor selects, singles out and organizes some, quite definite characteristics of the main subject and eliminates others "(9p.167). the statement is especially important for our research, because it allows us in any kind of artistic metaphor - whether it is a simple metaphor expressed in one word or a group of words, or whether it is a detailed metaphor - to isolate subjects and reason about their context.
4. Correlation of metaphor with the concepts of epiphora and diaphora
According to the method of influence on the addressee, metaphors are divided into epiphors and diaphors. For the first type of metaphors, the main one is the expressive function (i.e., it appeals to the imagination), expanding the meaning through comparison, for the second type of character, the appeal to intuition; generating new meaning through juxtaposition and synthesis.
Philip Wheelwright (34) considers these two phenomena quite deeply, saying that although they are differentiated within the metaphor, they are often a shadow of each other (in particular, he noticed that the shade of the epiphora accompanies the diaphora).
The term “epiphora” itself is borrowed from Aristotle, who wrote that a metaphor is the “transfer” (epiphora) of a name from the object denoted by this name to some other object. Epiphoric metaphor comes from the ordinary meaning of the word; then she relates the given word to something else based on comparison with a more familiar object and in order to indicate its comparison. The semantic movement, notes F. Wheelwright, comes from a more concrete and easily grasped image to something that is perhaps more indefinite.
“The essential feature of the epiphora is to express the similarity between something well known and something that is dimly perceived, and since it must do this through words, it follows that the epiphora implies the presence of some mediator of an image or concept that can be are easily understood, being indicated by the corresponding word or phrase "(34 p. 84). In one word, there must be an initial, "literal" basis for subsequent operations.
In passing, we note that the “literal” basis, the “literal” meaning of a word often appears in the definition of a particular concept, therefore, it seems correct for us to consider two meanings below - literal and figurative, figurative, as two starting concepts in the semantics of words with a metaphorical meaning.
Continuing to argue over the epiphora, we, following F. Wheelwright, can assert that the bare statement of comparison is not an epiphora.
In the practical part of the work, we will try to most clearly demonstrate the “semantic movement” within the epiphora.
The best epiphora are fresh, subtly drawing attention to similarities that are not so easy to spot. In general, an epiphora says F. Wheelwright, "probably more vital - that is, more significant and more effective - when it is clearly connected with a large poetic space, whether it be part of a work or the whole." A single epiphoric theme can be maintained for several lines, but this applies more to poetry. There are much fewer so-called “epiphoric themes” in prose, mostly only single epiphors are found.
Diaphora is another type of semantic movement, distinct, of course, from the epiphoric type. In diaphora, there is a movement through certain elements of experience (real or imaginary) along a new path, so that a new meaning appears as a result of a simple juxtaposition. It is almost impossible to find good examples of pure diaphora, as we noted earlier, it often, if not always, has epiphoric “overtones”. One can argue that contrast (in the literal sense) is the source of diaphora. However, this, in our opinion, applicable to music or painting, but cannot fully reflect the needs of literary art.Such a contrast in a literary text cannot be considered “by itself”, it functions only when viewed in a wider context, which, together with it, harmoniously reveals the signs diaphora.
It should be replaced that the connection of concepts in diaphora is based only on emotional correspondence. However, even in a broad context, the basic impression of diaphora remains. If you do not insist that the diaphora should be completely freed from the admixture of epiphora, then there is no doubt in the essential and significant role of the diaphora in poetry and prose - the presentation of various details in a new, musically speaking, arrangement. In principle, many linguists say that the two processes, epiphoric and diaphoric, are closely related aspects of language that, when interacting, enhance the effectiveness of any good metaphor. Approaching the question of the functions of metaphors, one should refer to the work of N.D. Arutyunova (4). The problems of defining the functions of a metaphor are as confusing a topic as, for example, the classification of a metaphor or its very definition. The question of the primary function of metaphor is solved in different ways. In rhetoric and lexicology, where the metaphor has been studied most fully, it is considered primarily as a means of nomination, that is, a unit that performs an identifying, classifying function. However, we, following N.D. Arutyunova, we allow ourselves to assume that the characterization function can be considered the initial for metaphor, in which, however, as in the case of the nominative function, a metaphorical image generated by the replacement of one meaning by another is assigned to the individual. The image contained in the metaphor usually does not acquire a semiotic function, that is, it cannot become a signifier of some meaning. This, in particular, distinguishes a metaphor as a unit of language from a symbol (in the narrow sense). “Meaning is stable in metaphor, it is directly associated with the word as with its signifier. In a symbol, an image that performs the function of a signifier is stable. A metaphor is united with a symbol and is distinguished from signs by the absence of a regulatory function, and as a result, the absence of direct addressing. (3, p. 358).
5. Functions of metaphors
When considering a metaphor as a resource of communication, we can say, based on the research of a number of linguists (9,17,4), that it is the source of many lexical phenomena. Let us repeat once again the common truth that a metaphor consists of words or free phrases that have a metaphorical meaning, or in other words, a metaphorical content. Metaphorization of the meaning of a linguistic unit can take place within the same functional category of words, or be accompanied by a syntactic shift. A metaphor that does not go beyond a specific vocabulary is used mainly for nominative purposes. Nominativity serves as a technical method of forming the names of objects (the stem of a glass, the eye of a needle, etc.). This often gives rise to homonymy. By definition, O.S. Akhmanova homonymy is the subject of “lexico-semantic variation of vocabulary units” (5, p. 104). To help in distinguishing between the polysemy of a word and homonymy, the study of the patterns of semantic relationships in a particular language comes. In modern English, the definition of the category of belonging of a language unit to homonyms is the definition of the lexico-semantic relationship between the variants of language units. And first of all, these are connections of a metaphorical nature (5 p. 163), and then of a metonymic nature, etc. All these connections characterize the ratio of the general sense and the more particular.
I would like to note that the issue of polysemy and homonymy is the main stumbling block. “The question of how to correctly determine the line on which a linguistic unit is not a lexical-semantic carrier of various semantic variants of one word, but becomes a case of homonymy” remains open to this day. However, as regards the metaphorization of the meaning of indicative words, we, following A. D. Arutyunova, we can argue that this metaphorical transfer is the source of the polysemy of the word. It is hardly possible to deny the very phenomenon of the polysemy of the word - its identity in the presence of two or more meanings expressed by the same sound segments. But there is a denial of the existence of the polysemy of words, while at the same time, the assertion that any semantic difference in the case of the coincidence of the sound form represents a case of homonymy and vice versa.
As we noted on the first pages of this chapter, we will try to consider the metaphor and all linguistic phenomena associated with it not only “in breadth”, i.e. its interaction with other figures of speech: comparisons, catachreses, etc., but also “in depth”, i.e. let us consider in sufficient depth the nature of the functions of metaphor, their origin and interaction. In general, the theoretical issues of metaphor have been studied, as they say, “along and across”, but we, trying not to repeat ourselves and be somewhat different from others, present a non-standard way of studying the functioning of metaphors, based on the position of the existence of a polyfunctional image of the language field and all the resulting facts and theories of language. Research L.A. Kiseleva (“Issues of the theory of speech influence” (23) and “The semantic basis of figurative means” (24)) we will consider as the basis of the above theoretical material. L.A. Kiseleva is a linguist, a follower of the Leningrad phonological school. Dealing with theoretical and practical issues of the semantics of figurative language means, in particular those related to the metaphorical group (comparison, metaphor, epithet, personification), she made a great contribution to the development of this issue both in theory and in practice: on the basis of domestic literature.
Thus, following L.A. Kiseleva, we can argue that figurative language means can be combined into a polyfunctional figurative language field, a kind of linguistic subsystem of the language. Under the figurative linguistic means of the language, one should understand both tropes and other stylistic devices: inversion, repetition, allusion, etc. Raising the question of the essence of the polyfunctional figurative field, we, following L.A. Kiseleva, we can consider it as a figurative language field, distinguished at the intersection of the nominative, expressive, emotional-evaluative and aesthetic fields. L.A. Kiseleva notes the existence of polyfunctional units and claims that they can be included in several fields as a manifestation of their relationship in the interaction of field-forming functions. Like any functional field, a figurative language field is a system of language units. Being a system, it has certain systemic properties, which we, following L.A. Kiseleva and give:
The figurative language field is an open system, and, like any functional field, a certain “growth” is characteristic of it.
The polyfunctional figurative field is characterized by integrity, which is ensured by the integration of its components through a common seme for them - “image”, “representation”, “vision of 2 pictures”, as well as the interaction of its components (the difference in metaphors, for example, according to the degree of usage, according to the structure etc.).
The selected polyfunctional figurative field is linguistic, that is, it is a system of bilateral linguistic units, which are the unity of content and form.
In it, as in any other field, one can distinguish the core and the periphery.
The core of the figurative language of the field is created by units that are most specialized for expressing the field-forming seme “image”, which, as a rule, are polyfunctional. contain expressive information, give someone, something an assessment and aesthetically form the thought of the writer in addition to their conceptual content.
Peripheral units, as the specialized seme “image” is stifled, gravitate toward one or another linguistic field. For example, lexical metaphors formed with the help of transfer, containing a “erased image”, which have lost their expression and serve for understanding, gravitate towards the nominative field.
Based on the understanding of the polyfunctional image of the field, one can also try to determine the functions of metaphors, linking them with the promotion of one or another seme that functions in parallel with the seme “image”. This is, first of all, a nominative function. literature: - concretizing, - generalizing, - illustrative. Through this function, metaphor becomes a kind of tool for cognizing reality. You can also talk about the expressive function of metaphor, supported by the expressive qualities of the language itself, that is, the special expressive power of language units, in particular words and phrases with a metaphorical content.
The next function that we highlight is the aesthetic function of metaphors, performing which language units should most fully correspond to their purpose or individual ideal. And, finally, the fourth function is emotional-evaluative, which, together with the two previous ones, is distinguished by linguists as a separate class of pragmatic functions of figurative units of language, in this case, metaphors. Thus, when translating metaphors or words and free phrases with metaphorical content from one language to another, a linguist should be guided by the multidimensionality of figurative information, due to the multifunctionality of figurative language units, in particular metaphors. Thus, we approach the issue of aspects of considering the constituents of a figurative language field in terms of their transmission in the translation of fiction, however, based on the title of our work, we will restrict ourselves to the consideration of constituents that carry a metaphorical image.
In passing, we note that the selection of aesthetic information and, as a result, the aesthetic function of figurative means in a number of other functions is under development. No wonder L.A. Kiseleva considers her substantiation of the aesthetic field, its constituents, a hypothesis (24, p. 56), but a hypothesis included in the resolution of the problem posed about the specifics of the aesthetic activity of works of art: “We need ... hypotheses about the nature of the aesthetic activity of art" (35, p. 5) .
So, as noted above, the difficulty of translating words and phrases with metaphorical content is due to their multifunctionality. No wonder they believe that a metaphor is an extension of the informational capabilities of a language (15, p. 107).
Apparently, when considering the translation of these units, it is necessary to take into account their semantic information. In this regard, when analyzing the translation, we will dwell on the semantic basis of metaphors, consider their violations, when the links of the metaphor “revitalization”, “support” - the words that update it - do not agree in direct meaning in the translation (see the practical part of p. - ).
A metaphorical figurative means is expressive, although the degree of expression is different. If this is a lexical metaphor, a metaphor-name, then it carries a weakened “dead” image. There is no mark “transfer” in dictionaries. Such a metaphor gravitates towards the nominative field. If it is a general stylistic metaphor, that is, usual, established, adopted in a particular language, it carries more expression. This is reflected in the dictionaries marked “transfer (figurative)”. stylistic metaphors form the core of the figurative field, since the seme “image”, “figurative impression” is most clearly represented in them. The dictionary does not reflect this expression. These are speech units, but the expression does not reach the highest degree.
When we can talk about the translation of individual stylistic metaphors by general stylistic, lexical and when we consider the translation of lexical metaphors by individual stylistic, general stylistic metaphors, we must compare the expressive power of the metaphorical image of the original and the translation, that is, the transmission of figurative information and the accompanying expressive information.
Speaking about the adequate transmission of expressive information (by language expressive information, we, following L.A. Kiseleva, understand information about the expressive qualities of the language itself, that is, about the special expressive power of language means) (24, p. 24), we will use the marking and unmarked dictionary meanings with the label “transfer”, figurative. Unmarked dictionary meanings are “words of a stylistically neutral layer (about 90%) that do not have any marks”. (17, p. 133). This layer can include “derivative-nominative meaning that arises through metaphorical transfer, but does not have the label “transfer” or figurative” (17, p. 133). The very inclusion of these values in the neutral layer indicates the neutralization of expression, expressiveness in them.
There is a certain amount of novelty and freshness in these meanings, which does not allow words with this meaning to be included in the neutral layers of the vocabulary.
However, it seems to us that the expression of language units represented in dictionaries by the label “transfer”, figurative, is lower than the expression of figurative speech pragmes, whose figurative impact is the highest. Basically, such language units are created to perform one or another expressive, emotional-evaluative, aesthetic function in “a certain speech utterance” (24, p. 24), thus they are not included in the dictionary fund of the language and therefore are not marked in dictionaries.
This, apparently, once again confirms the validity of the division of metaphors into three types and the use of the terms “lexical”, “general stylistic” and “individual stylistic”.
As mentioned earlier, figurative metaphorical language means are included in the core of the expressive language field. (24, p.11). Thus, "considered from the point of view of the transfer of expression, metaphors are expressive pragmemes."
In this regard, it seems to us appropriate in terms of translation to consider how figurative information and the accompanying expressive information of figurative units of the original are presented in translation, whether the image and its expression coincide with the same stylistic categories in translation, whether the power of expression of the original image corresponds to the power of expression of the image in translation. In the reviewed literature on the translation of metaphors (4,8,31), it is emphasized that a living image (that is, an image with the highest expressive activity) is recreated in translation, an extinct image (an image with the lowest expression power, that is, reduced to zero in a lexical metaphor) is transmitted through meaning.
As the study shows, this aspect of the plan of the content of the image when transferred to another language appears in a slightly different light: there is no such direct dependence of the “extinct” - “non-extinct” image of the English language on its transfer - non-transmission into Russian. And if the expression of the image intensifies, then we can talk about richer figurative information in translation, since more “luminaries” of metaphors have a more transparent interaction of direct meaning and meaning in context, leading to a more vivid “representation”, “vision of two pictures” . Accordingly, the saturation of the statement increases from an informative point of view, which leads to a change in the influence of the read text on the reader's figurative thinking.
“The metaphorical image, carrying figurative expressive information, simultaneously transmits emotional and evaluative information.” (23, p. 70). When studying this pragmatic aspect of metaphor, it is necessary to analyze the syntagmatic environment in which the metaphor utterance is closely connected with the transfer of the completeness of semantic information in a metaphorical way” (24, p.71)
We, following A.I. Fedorov (35, p. 45) we believe that metaphorical semantics consists of several closely related elements:
The original “literal” meaning of words, retouched, shifted as a result of the interaction of semantic-associative fields of unusually connected words
The image that arises on the basis of the associative fields of these words
New logical (semantic, conceptual, conceptual) content, a new nomination resulting from the comprehension of metaphors.
This complex semantic formation is a carrier of several types of information: figurative, semantic, expressive, aesthetic, emotional and evaluative, during the transfer of which the corresponding function of metaphors is carried out, or several functions are performed simultaneously.
Aesthetic information in this or that work is objectified by specific linguistic metaphorical images (of course, along with other linguistic means). The transfer of metaphorical images, which carry aesthetic information in addition to figurative information, in translation leads to the preservation of the same aesthetic effectiveness of a work of art for the Russian reader.
Thus, it seems possible for us to assume that the three above-mentioned types of information - expressive, aesthetic, emotional - evaluative - are adequately conveyed by metaphorical images in translation and will have a pragmatically relevant effect on the reader of the corresponding Russian text.
However, before accepting this assumption, we consider it necessary to give an example of the parameter of the adequacy of the translation of metaphors in terms of content.
And this is, first of all, the parameter of the adequacy of the transfer of semantic information in a metaphorical way, which is closely related to the transfer of the nominative function of the metaphor. This function is carried out through the completeness of the transfer of semantic information. The higher the degree of correlation with the main, “literal” meaning, the more fully the main, nominative function is carried out.
This primarily concerns lexical metaphors, which carry the highest degree of semantic information. Semantics (or, otherwise, rational, logical, etc.) information is understood as such a subsystem of linguistic information that has correlative links with objects, phenomena, etc. reality through a system of relevant concepts about them, judgments, which is reflected in the content of intellectual language means (24, p.15).
The accuracy (as far as the language of translation allows) of the transfer of the semantic basis of the metaphors of the original leads to an adequate linguistic image of the metaphor in translation and its adequate semantic content, through which the nominative function of the metaphor is also carried out. In translation, this is confirmed by those cases where the impossibility of preserving the metaphorical image leads to the use of only the semantic content of the metaphor in order to perform at least a nominative function. The fact that the figurative meaning is polyfunctional and, in particular, has a nominative function can be confirmed once again by the statement of I.V. Arnold: “Meaning is called figurative or figurative when it not only names, but also describes or characterizes an object through its similarity or connection with other objects (2, p. 123)"
In order to create a holistic figurative impression when it is expressed by means of language, a writer or playwright “finds words with semantics corresponding to the image and combines them so that the features indicated by their semantics are combined and, complementing each other, create the same figurative representation in the mind of the reader. , which has developed in the mind of the writer. Choosing words for this and colliding them in phrases, the artist of the word acts on intuition. ” (6, p. 7).
In order to preserve in the translation a holistic figurative impression created by the writer in the original and expressed through words with semantics corresponding to the image, the translator, choosing words in the target language, does not act and cannot act on intuition. It starts from the semantics of words in the metaphorical combination of the original and goes through a comparison of the lexical meanings of words in the original language and the target language.
Metaphorical semantics of words, notes I.A. Krylova (25), has no clear boundaries if it arises on the basis of an associative connection of a person's impressions of objects. Therefore, with the normative semantics of words that create a metaphorical meaning, subjective personal associations can also arise in the mind of the reader, associated with his worldly experience, mental make-up, the nature of intellectual life, even mood. But the basis of the figurative impression remains the same, because it depends on the meaning that is assigned to the words that convey this or that image in the national language.
Therefore, when conveying the image of a metaphor, the translator is looking for words with such normative semantics, the meaning of which, assigned to them in the national language, would serve as a solid basis for the figurative impression. Thus, adequately rendered in translation by dictionary equivalents, a metaphor has an adequate nominative function in translation.
In connection with the above, it seems to us that the adequacy of the translation of words and phrases with a metaphorical meaning in terms of content implies the transfer of all types of information by equivalent means.
6. Lexical transformations in translation
Along with the use of sound correspondence as the basis of metaphor, when translating words and phrases with metaphorical content, variants based on meanings that at first glance deviate far from the meanings of dictionary equivalents are used. The use of such equivalents is based “on the formal-logical relations between similar concepts” (29, p. 61).
Methods of logical thinking, with the help of which the translator reveals the meaning of a foreign word in the context and finds a Russian equivalent for it that does not match the dictionary, Ya.I. Retzker calls “lexical transformations” (29, p. 37). “Semantically, the essence of transformations is to replace the translated lexical unit with a word or phrase of a different internal form, actualizing that component of a foreign word that is to be implemented in a given context” (29, p. .38).
We use the identified and described Ya.I. Retzker lexical transformations, reducing them to five varieties:
specification
value generalization
semantic development
holistic transformation
antonym translation
In an effort to convey the figurative information of the original, translators resort to the method of specifying the meaning that serves as the basis of the metaphor. This technique consists in narrowing the general, replacing the general with a particular, generic concept with a specific one. With the help of this technique, the basis of general stylistic metaphors is preserved.
The second technique - the generalization of meanings - consists in "replacing a specific general, specific concept with a generic one" (29, p. 40). As a result of applying this type of transformation, the translation version contains a word that names a phenomenon that enters the life of the described environment.
The reception of semantic development is used to convey to the reader of the translation the semantic basis of the metaphorical image. This technique consists in the use in translation as the basis of the metaphor of the meaning of the word, which denotes, if not any stage of the process, then its consequence or cause, not the object itself, but its characteristic feature, etc.
The collision of words with different semantics, their unusual environment generates a meaning caused by the influence of the context. And the interaction of logical and contextual meanings is a metaphor. It is distinguished by impressive figurativeness, the task of the translator is to preserve it when transferring it to the plane of another language.
The semantic basis of the metaphors of the original is very often conveyed using the method of holistic comprehension, where the connection between the internal form of the basis of the metaphor of the original and the translation is based on secondary intersecting semes. In this case, the transformation of the main metaphor takes place within the framework of the crossing. At the same time, the conceptual content of the basis of the metaphor of the original, its nominative function is conveyed by applying the method of integral transformation in the outside. In this case, the connection between the internal form of metaphorical words and phrases of the original and translation is not traced. Thematically, the metaphorical image of the translation is synonymous with the image of the original, equal in aesthetic function, emotional-evaluative function, the expression can be of the same strength, but the specificity of the image is different. Its semantic basis has no semantic connections with the basis of the metaphor in translation.
Antonomic translation in the transfer of imagery is an infrequently used technique. It consists in replacing the concept of the original with the opposite concept in translation, with a corresponding restructuring of the entire statement. In this case, the affirmative structure can be replaced by a negative one.
Chapter II. Analysis of the play by B. Shaw "House where hearts break"
1. Problems of B. Shaw's drama "Heartbreaking House", its historical context
Based on the fact that the object of our study is the play Heartbreak House by B. Shaw, we consider it appropriate to determine the place of this work in the work of B. Shaw, to say a few words about the historical context of the time when the play was written, to highlight the ideological drama issues.
Huge, almost like a century, Shaw's life and his work are more described than studied, notes A.G. Obraztsova (28, p.3). We, in turn, cannot but agree with this opinion. B. The show was made a classic during his lifetime and written off, declaring it old-fashioned. However, many critics who study his work notice that the completely new method of B. Shaw, different from all previous ones, has been little studied and, in general, is not fully understood.
"The inexhaustible gift of Bernard Shaw to turn everything generally accepted inside out, to look for their new, unexpected meaning in words and phenomena, seems to envy some of his critics" (28, p.4).
In the plays of the early period of B. Shaw's work, problems are highlighted that do not cast doubt on the expediency of the foundations of the social system in England. But saturated with satire, they have earned the name "unpleasant plays"; and then this causticity of well-chosen witticisms passed into the tragicomedies of the 20s and 30s, where the playwright depicts the political state structure of Europe in a grotesque description. The show himself calls these comedies "political extravagances."
B. Shaw entered the 20th century as an already well-known author of drama discussions, a satirist with the positions of an incorrigible subverter of traditional false idols, and a critic of capitalist foundations. The play "The House Where Hearts Break" by A.G. Obraztsova (28) calls one of the most remarkable works of the playwright.
Researcher of creativity B. Shaw, Doctor of Philology P.S. Balashov (6) writes about the play Heartbreak House as a tragicomedy of epochal significance. This work is the pinnacle of a whole cycle of plays that reveal the fragility of family and moral foundations in an English respectable family. All previous dramas were, as it were, sketches, foreshadowing, according to the tendencies laid down in them, a comprehensive socio-philosophical canvas "The House Where Hearts Break".
If we turn to world history, then the beginning of the twentieth century is a time of growing general crisis and confusion that gripped the bourgeois intelligentsia of Europe on the eve of the war. During this period, B. Shaw writes one of his most original philosophical dramas, Heartbreak House. The play was started in 1913 and was written for quite a long time - until 1917, which is completely unnatural for B. Shaw's work. I.B. Kantorovich (20), like many other researchers of the playwright's work, notes that "this is one of Shaw's best, most poetic plays, testifying to the deepening of critical realism in his work, to the perception and original interpretation of the traditions of Russian critical realism, in particular L. N. Tolstoy, A.P. Chekhov "(20, p. 26) about which Shaw himself writes in the preface to the play, calling it in the subtitle "Fantasy in the Russian style on English themes."
The creative path of B. Shaw began in 1885 with the play "The House of the Widower", therefore, the play "The House Where Hearts Break" falls on the years of the writer's creative maturity, it seems to connect all the main motives of the playwright's work into one knot. "The wrathfully satirical beginning in the play is organically intertwined with the lyrical, poetic beginning - an expression of the artist's passionate search for true humanity" (6, p. 17). It should also be noted that many critics consider the play "House where hearts break" the beginning of the emergence of a new genre - a kind of social and philosophical tragicomedy "genre, especially indicative of the 2nd stage of B. Shaw's work.
Now we should turn to the ideological content of the play, because it is obvious that the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama is wider than it was defined by the playwright himself, saying in the preface that he wanted to show "the worthlessness of cultural idlers who are not engaged in creative work" (38, p. 303) actually the theme of Shaw's philosophical drama, as I.B. Kantorovich is "the crisis of the entire bourgeois way of life, exposed by the war" (20, p. 29). The show creates a kind of "ark" from his artificially isolated home - the ship, which is described in a detailed, as always, side note. But the main thing, of course, is not the appearance of the house, but the customs that reign there. One of its inhabitants says: “We have such a game at home: to find out what kind of person is hiding under this or that pose” (38, p. 329). This is the main feature of this house, here they expose everything ostentatious, visible and try to get to the bottom of the essence of man and phenomena. The author settles in this unusual house tenants who are not accustomed to reckon with decency and, contrary to them, call a spade a spade. Another characteristic common line of similarity between the characters is that each of them is endowed with some catchy individual features (age, appearance, etc.) that single him out only for stage action, but which do not make him a truly original character.
In his play Heartbreak House, Shaw brought together people from various generations of the intelligentsia. The representative of the oldest generation is the old Captain Shotover, the owner of the house, through whose mouth B. Shaw most often judges the rotten world, which is destined to disappear from the face of the earth. As noted above, by and large, all three generations represented in the house are endowed with similar, complex characters, and in this case there could be no conflict, there could not be drama. That is why dissidents also penetrate into this house - the ship: Boss Mangan (Mangan), thief William Dan (The Burglar), partly this is the youngest daughter of the captain - Lady Utterword (lady Utterword)
"In the abstract - moral sense, notes I.B. Kantorovich, the conflict in Shaw's philosophical drama is dramatically maintained in the clash of people who do not try to seem better than they really are, with people who put on a mask of virtue and respectability" (20 , p.31). The main residents of the house - the ship belong to the first, they do not have much respect for themselves, or for others, or for the whole world. But they weren't like that before, were they?
The author gives us a definite answer to the question posed: they have become so since life broke their heart. The show brings everything to the judgment of readers, viewers, demonstrates the process of contrition of hearts, and some movement is associated with these images, the development of the action, which is almost imperceptible in the drama. If we talk about the plot design of the drama, then it is also negligible. Compared with the philosophical theme, the plot only serves the author's goal to transfer the semantic content of the drama to the philosophical and social plane, where Shaw makes an attempt to solve the problem of the crisis of bourgeois-capitalist society and the fate of its further development.
However, guided by the point of view of P.S. Balashov, we can say that in this drama, Shaw the artist is much more insightful than Shaw the thinker. "For the first time in the play, a pointed formulation of the main philosophical theme of the drama is given, which speaks of an understanding of a number of reasons why the catastrophe broke out. The world is so bad that Captain Shotover, this "wise man" already falling into infancy, is ready to blow it up, and he is bad because pigs rule it, "because of their belly they have turned the universe into a feeding trough" (6, p.13). play-fable were underestimated rather than overestimated.What should be the power of the playwright’s word in order to be able to identify the main philosophical theme of the work from the very first remark of the first act - the theme of the extraordinary atmosphere of an unusual house-ship and consistently draw it with internal subtext through the entire play, psychologically inflating the atmosphere of the house from phenomenon to phenomenon, from act to act.
I would like to note that the conversation about the individual transformation of the playwright's linguistic means on a particular example of the play Heartbreak House should begin with the title, since it is clearly metaphorical in nature.
It can be argued that in the drama "Heartbreaking House" the storyline serves only as a background for the main philosophical theme of the play, helping to translate the semantic content into a socio-philosophical plane. It was also possible to establish that when writing this work, B. Shaw enters first as an artist of the word, and then as a philosopher-thinker.
Turning directly to the question of the metaphorical nature of the language of a work of art in the original, we can rely on the above statements, putting them in defense of the choice of B. Shaw's dramaturgy, namely the play "Heartbreaking House" as an object of study.
When studying research works on the work of B. Shaw, one can observe the main tendency to identify the distinctive properties of style in his plays and, in particular, in the play "House Where Hearts Break". However, the totality of linguistic devices, including, of course, figurative ones, which determine the symbolism of the plays of the great playwright, is considered very concisely in all works and is reduced mainly to explaining the names of the dramas. This phenomenon is observed everywhere, especially when studying the literary works of foreign authors. And this, as the great critic exclaimed (10), against the backdrop of a growing general interest in the figurative means of language. Based on this provision, we can argue that the novelty of our work lies in the linguo-stylistic study of previously unstudied material, that is, the ideological drama of B. Shaw "The Heartbreak House", in order to identify words and free phrases with metaphorical content.
2. Metaphorical title as a way to reveal the idea of the play
In general, our study of language units with metaphorical meaning will lie in the plane of stylistic semasiology. In this branch of linguistic sciences, various figures of speech (in particular, tropes) are analyzed from the point of view of the semantic transformations taking place in them and their stylistic function. The semantic interpretation of the material allows us to consider figures of speech of any grammatical nature in this regard, that is, without the influence of whether they are expressed by a single word, phrase, and possibly a whole sentence.
The name of the play - "House where hearts break" already contains a phrase with a metaphorical meaning - we, of course, mean the phrase "hearts break". This is an example of a simple metaphor, as I.V. calls this type. Arnold (2). However, we will not consider the study of I.V. Arnold as the basis for the characterization of metaphors, we will only briefly touch on the basic simple division of words and free phrases with a metaphorical meaning. In the above analysis of the English version of the play, this expression, "Heartbreak House" is written in two words: "Heartbreak House". This is an illustrative example from the point of view of a comparative analysis of the two languages. English word formation is fundamentally different from the similar process of the Russian language for the simple reason that English is an analytical language, and Russian is an inflectional language.
But let's return directly to the definition of the components of the "heartbreak" metaphor. The word "heart", in our opinion, is a carrier of figurativeness, since B. Shaw used it not in a direct "literal" sense, but in a figurative, therefore, metaphorical one. In general, expressions such as "you broke my heart", "broken heart", the closest to the option under consideration, and the expressions "heart cries", "heart groans" are quite often used both in prose and in poetry, and half of those presented options can be found in the phraseological dictionary. We consider it superfluous here to give an example of the use of any of these expressions in the works of writers and poets. The image of a loving heart, a broken heart, etc., these are frequent characteristic images in the work of any writer working in the "writer's field". Therefore, we found out that the above metaphor is not the author's occasionalism, but quite the contrary, it is a vivid example of a poetic metaphor (in relation to the classification of O.S. Akhmanova (5)) In other words, this metaphor can be called a figurative general language, more precisely, a general stylistic metaphor figurative, figurative nature of which is clearly felt by the speaker.
The choice of such a vividly figurative metaphor included in the title is not accidental for the author. Shaw himself notes this in the preface to the play, saying that in the drama he shows two forces opposed to each other. Allegorically, they can be called "Heartbreak House" and "Horseback Hall" ("House where hearts break" and "Manege where horses go round"). The inhabitants of the "House" are intellectuals, the inhabitants of the "Manege" are businessmen. The social struggle is portrayed by the playwright as a clash of these two forces.
It is quite obvious that the metaphorical reading of the expression “hearts are broken” differs from the literal one: the expression, which in its literal meaning is used for the physical characteristics of, say, sick people, when figuratively read, highlights a different class of inanimate objects, however, having a hint of being in their semantics, in as a result of which none of the objects belonging to the class of internal organs can be distinguished in the same way as the "heart", while expressing the same idea.
Correlating the studied linguistic figurative component - the metaphor "hearts break" with the theory of M. Black (9), we can single out the so-called "focus" of the metaphor and its environment - the "frame". And then we will make an attempt to explain why this "frame" in combination with this "focus" gives a metaphorical imagery.
So, according to the substitutional concept, the focus of a metaphor (that is, a clearly metaphorical word inserted into the frame of the direct meanings of words) serves to convey a meaning that, in principle, could be expressed literally. We can conclude that the focus of this metaphor is the word "heart". The author uses it instead of another series of concepts (hopes, expectations, aspirations, etc.), which are abstract in contrast to the completely materialized concept of "heart". The word is a substitute (or means of transmission) not for a separate impression received in the past, but for a combination of general characteristics "(17, p. 46). This statement by Ivor A. Richards is the general formulation of the formation of a metaphor.
The second component of a metaphor that is simple in structure - "break up", respectively, is a frame. The new, different context of the word "heart", that is, the focus of the metaphor, causes the expansion of the meaning of the focal word through the "frame". The word that serves as the focus of the metaphor has not changed its meaning in the "system of generally accepted associations" (1, p. 165), it has only expanded its meaning.
Let's try to clarify the above: "analogy" immediately comes to the reader's mind, but a closer examination of the metaphor shows that analogy alone is not at all enough: the change in meaning occurs through contextual conditioning in the broad sense of the word "context". From this it follows that speaking of the metaphorical phrase "heartbreak" we must take into account the rest of the "environment" - that is, the full name of the play "House where hearts break".
In defense of the just given extended version of the metaphor, we can put forward the following statement by E. McCormack: "A metaphor in all its beauty can be realized only through an extended correlate" (34 p. 88). In our case, the correlate is expressed by the term "frame". The whole aesthetic manifesto of B. Shaw can be deduced in the following words: “The expressiveness of the statement is the alpha and omega of style.” Style for Shaw is, first of all, a thought that absorbs life, returning to it realistic images that affect the minds of people.
This transition to the problem of imagery and style is generally not accidental in our work. The image is the source of basic semiotic concepts, the structure of which is created by the interaction of fundamentally different planes - the plane of expression and the plane of content. Metaphor is very often defined through an appeal to the image created by the figurative meaning of language units. This image in the narrow sense serves as a compositional moment in creating the image of a literary hero, character, and sometimes an artistic symbol - as in our case. The image of a house where the hearts of both young and more mature people are broken was created by B. Shaw not without the help of metaphorical transfer, which served as a "tool" for imagery and symbolism along with other tropes. Let us take as proof the lines of N.I. Isachkina: "The symbolism of the Show is dual - often it not only allows you to fix broad social generalizations in a figurative form, but also masks the contradictions and bewilderment of the playwright" (18, p. 53). Further N.I. Isachkina in her research work on the work of B. Shaw comments on the use of the concept of "heartbreak". She says that it takes on a special meaning in the context of the whole play. The show treats the theme of "heartbreak" in two ways: in everyday life, when unsuccessful love acts as the cause of "heartbreak," and in philosophical, when historical timelessness turns out to be its cause.
Summarizing all the statements given earlier, we can draw the following picture: the concept of "House where hearts break" ("Heartbreak House") is metaphorical due to the figurative, figurative meaning of the concept "heart", which serves as a focal point and, with a known contextual expansion, forms such meaning, which, on the one hand, is due to the development of the play, the title of which is the metaphor in question, and, on the other hand, reveals the figurative, to some extent even the philosophical concept of "House", as an expanded meaning.
3. Metaphors in the language system of the play
Turning to the analysis of the text of the play in the original and in translation, we should note that we will consider words and free phrases with metaphorical content based on the following scheme:
Determination of the initial structural characteristics of the metaphor (simple / extended).
Analysis of metaphor components (focus and frame).
Characterization of the meanings of the metaphor components.
Correlating metaphor with the definitions of epiphora and diaphora.
The functioning of metaphor as a language unit.
Consideration of metaphor as a source of replenishment of the dictionary.
Identification of the frequency of use of non-linguistic metaphors in the text.
The author of the play, B. Shaw, provided his work with an extensive remark, immediately introducing the reader into the strange atmosphere of a strange house - a ship. Marine terminology saturates the entire remark from beginning to end. The same applies to the play itself, or rather one acting character - Captain Shotover, the owner of the house - the ship. His speech is replete with marine terms, which, acquiring an unusual environment through context, can be considered as linguistic units with a figurative meaning:
…young and attractive female waiting in the poop.
The literal translation of the word "poop" is "poop, feed". However, the old captain rewards the hall of his house with this name.
…as a child she thought the figure - head of my ship…the most beautiful thing on earth.
The literal translation of the highlighted phrase is "the figure on the prow of my ship". Captain Shotover calls his home a ship.
…you will not marry the pirate, s child.
The highlighted phrase, which translates as "child, child of a pirate," old Shotover refers to a simple young girl Ellie (Ellie), the daughter of the unsuccessful romantic Mazzini Den (Mazzini).
Go there yourself, you and all the crew.
Batten down the hatches.
The highlighted word has the following literal translation - “hatch, hatch cover". Telling everyone to go to the basement during the bombing, Shotover also orders to close the hatches. In relation to the contextual environment, the door from the basement is called a hatch. It should be noted that the expression “Batten down the hatches " is the naval command “Back the hatches! ”,
Take him to the forecastle.
“the forecastle” - a tank, a bow cabin for mattresses. Saying the phrase, Captain Shotover sends the thief who got into the house to the kitchen to the servants.
I'll have no boatswain on my quarter-desk .
The first highlighted word translates as “boatswain.” On an ordinary ship, this is the person of the junior commanding staff, to whom the ship’s housekeeping team is subordinate. The captain calls the thief Billy Dan “quarter - desk” - yut, shkantsy, for Shotover, this is the living room in his house.
If we conduct a small experiment and replace the words of marine terminology with ordinary everyday words, then we will get the following phrase: “I'll have no thief (pilferer) in my living-room (in my house)”, which can be translated as follows: “I I will not tolerate a thief in my living room (in my house)."
On the one hand, all these words and expressions can be considered as used in a figurative, figurative sense, but, on the other hand, one cannot but take into account the image of the house of Captain Shotover, the house - the ship. From which it follows that the transfer of meaning cannot be fully correlated with the metaphorical transfer, therefore, the highlighted words and free combinations cannot be undeniably classified as metaphors. They are more symbolic than metaphorical. "Starting from the image, the metaphor and the symbol "lead" it in different directions. At the heart of the metaphor is a categorical shift ... therefore, the metaphor relies on the meaning ... In the symbol, the form stabilizes." (4s.23). Along with those already mentioned, there are still a large number of differences - fundamental ones at that - between metaphor and symbol. If the transition from an image to a metaphor is caused by semantic (intralinguistic) needs and concerns, then the transition to a symbol is most often determined by extralinguistic factors. This applies to both occasional (as in our case) and stable characters. N.D. Arutyunova (4) notes that an image becomes a symbol by virtue of the function it acquires in the life of a person, calling such cases of symbolism "personal symbols." Drawing a conclusion, we can assert that the examples under consideration can rather be attributed to symbolism.
I would like to highlight one more case of B. Shaw's use of the marine lexicon in phrases with a metaphorical meaning: “The church is on the rocks, breaking up. I told him it would unless it headed for God’s open sea.” In the translation under consideration (M.B. and S.B.), these sentences look like this: “The Church was thrown on the rocks, it will be blown to pieces. I told him that this would be the case if she did not keep her course on the sea of God.
Shotover's words have a double meaning: literal - "(local) church on the rock, it is collapsing" and figurative "the church is generally aground, it is collapsing" because "to be on the rock" is an idiomatic expression accepted in the English language. It is equivalent to the Russian idiom “to run aground”, in other words, to be in a difficult position. In the translation, the authors did not resort to any lexical transformations, which led to the loss of idiomatic expression and, as a result, the loss of a certain amount of expression. At the very end of the quote, one can single out the figurative nature of the use of the expression “God’s open sea”, literally translated “open divine sea”, “open sea of God”, in the considered one - “the sea of God”. This phrase can be considered as the author's occasionalism, i.e. individually - a stylistic metaphor preserved in translation. Continuing the theme of occasional metaphors, it should be emphasized that their use in the text is of a singular nature.
Still, there is no use catching physical colds as well as moral ones…
But if you have not saved yourself from a moral cold, then why else should you catch a cold physically ...
letters. per. “But there is no point in having a physical cold as well as a moral cold.
… I should ever have dreamed of forcing her inclinations in any way…
letters. - I ever thought about raping her inclinations.
Returning to the metaphorical phrase “God's open sea”, it should be noted that the phrases: sea of lights, flowers, air, bliss, bliss, joy, happiness, etc. We have given a literal translation of the phrase “God's open sea”, which clarifies the motives for the use of the word “God” instead of “divine” by translators. The latter can be understood by the reader in two ways: either as an adjective with the meaning beautiful, enchanted, or as an adjective related to religion - church. To avoid confusion of meanings, the authors of the translation resorted to the use of a synonymous concept.
"On the port side of the room, near the bookshelves, is a sofa with it , s back to the windows. It is a sturdy mahogany article, oddly upholstered in sailcloth, including the bolster, with a couple of blankets handing over the back ."
The above sentences give a vivid example of the use of metaphor as a technique for forming the names of objects. The concept of "back" - in literal translation means "back". Here this word serves nominative, identifying purposes, being attached to some object (in our case, to a piece of furniture - a sofa) as the name of its main component, both natural and literary language is replete with such examples.
Further in the remark: "Between the sofa and the drawing - table is a big wicker chair, with broad arms and a low sloping back…" arms of a chair - chair handles, low sloping back - low sloping back. Again, examples of nominative metaphors are given that perform the corresponding function - naming, i.e. nominative. However, not only the description of furniture contains lexical metaphors, which have already become a kind of norm of the language. We will not dwell on them due to the fact that this class of metaphors is considered the norm both in English and in Russian, these are "petrified", "dead", metaphors that are not of particular importance.
To further visualize the metaphors, we will take the following example: "…He resembled it. He had the same expression: wooden yet enterprising. She married him and will never set foot in this house again." B. Shaw put these phrases into the mouth of Captain Shotover, a hero with "author's traits", who condemns almost all the actions and decisions of other heroes of the play. Saying these words, the old man condemns the decision of his youngest daughter to marry a man who, in his opinion, looks like a wooden figure of a ship. Although this decision was made 23 years ago. In this case, the focus of the metaphor is the word "wooden" - wooden. The figurative meaning of this word is "insensitive, stupid, empty." The reader immediately recreates the feedback and reproduces the desired figurative, metaphorical meaning instead of the direct meaning. The frame or referent in this extended metaphor is the words before the colon. I would like to note that the role of the concept of "expression" is very interesting - in literal translation - "expression." It is used here with an explicit transfer of the meaning of a part of the body (face) on the one hand and an internal state on the other (internal character traits of the hero). It can be assumed that the dual nature of the disclosure of the meaning of the concept "expression" lies in the dual nature of the metaphor itself and the above concept as an integral part of this metaphor.
We consider it necessary to emphasize that "in general, there are no standard rules for determining the weight or power that should be attributed to this or that use of the expression" (9 p.157). In order to understand what the author meant by introducing the word "expression", we need to know how "seriously" he takes the concept that serves as the focal point of the metaphor. Whether he is satisfied with an approximate synonym, or chooses this particular word, which is the only possible one. In the case under consideration, we can definitely say that, indeed, the word "wooden" is the only possible one, since in the extended context a parallel is drawn, implicitly showing a comparison of the object of conversation with a wooden figure on the bow of the ship. But what role does comparison play here? In this case, we will apply the definition of comparison given by Paul Ricoeur: "Comparison is drawing attention to the similarity of objects or ways to pay attention to some characteristics of one object through pointing to another adjacent to it" (30 p. 61). Thus, we were able to determine the focus of "wooden" and the frame of the metaphor, characterize them, show them in interaction due to their position within a complex system - phrases with metaphorical content.
If we turn to the question of the functioning of this metaphor, then it is rather difficult to determine the field to which it gravitates the most: its nominativity is indisputable - it characterizes, classifies the object. Performing a characterizing function in a sentence, this metaphor acquires an indefinite indicative meaning - starting from the figurative, and ending with the meaning of a wide range of compatibility. At the same time, the metaphor under study refers to a specific subject, and this asserts it within the meanings directly related to its characteristic: "insensitive, stupid, stupid."
The following metaphor under consideration will be given in an expanded context for its visual demonstration in conjunction with another figure of speech - a comparison (a pure example of a comparison), which together give a figurative picture that is important for understanding the text of the play and is the "starting point" for further development of the plot. So, "You"ve made the acquaintance of Ellie, of course. She is going to marry a perfect hog of a millionaire for the sake of her father, who is as poor as a church mouse; and you must help me to stop her." The first highlighted phrase is a metaphor, and the second is a comparison. The key word of the metaphor, its focus, is the phrase "a hog of a millionaire" - a hog - a millionaire in translation (M.B. and S. B), and with a frame that reveals a wide context - " she is going to marry" - she is going to get married, in the translation of the same authors. The image of a person like a hog, drawn by this metaphor, characterizes both the object itself and the character expressing this thought. The situation is such that Mrs. Hashebye, introducing the young girl Ellie to Lady Utterword, speaks of her intention to marry Boss Mengen and rewards his person with the above characteristic.
Arguing about this metaphor, taking into account the pragmatic aspect of language, we can talk about those areas that connect these linguistic units with the context, first of all, this is the sphere of speech acts. As for the context, according to S. Levin (Samuel R. Levin) "It includes the speaker, the listeners and the extralinguistic environment of communication" (4, p. 346). We, following S. Levin, can talk about the main idea underlying the speech act as something specific that, in addition to expressing its own meaning, can also perform certain actions: it can assert something, ask about something, order, demonstrate, warn, promise and the like; all these are the acts that the speaker performs when uttering this or that sentence.
In our case, there is a demonstration as a kind of action performed by thought, in parallel with its direct purpose. To "support" the figurativeness of the statement being made, the speaker (Mrs. Hashebye) makes a comparison that is essentially antonymous with the preceding metaphor: Ellie's millionaire hog, Ellie's fiancé, is contrasted with her father, who is "poor as a church mouse." The comparison includes a well-known phraseological unit containing the highest degree of expressiveness. This expressiveness is transmitted by virtue of general language laws, and the comparison itself, which is the "support" of the metaphor. Based on the laws of polyfunctionality of language units, we can identify, in addition to the undeniably present, characterizing function, also an expressive function.
As shown by the above analysis, this extended metaphor is translated in a combination of absolute speech variants, i.e. without applying any of the language transformations often used in translations. This will allow us to talk about the preservation of imagery in general, and figurative expressive information in particular, in the Russian version of the text, which indicates the preservation and transfer of the corresponding function of metaphor in translation. However, if the images of the original and the translations coincided, then we can assert that the nominative characterizing function of the metaphor also, figuratively speaking, "migrated into the translation without change." This does not require serious evidence, since everything is obvious: the images of the original and the translation can only coincide if the semantic information in words and free phrases matches the metaphorical meaning, which indicates the presence of nominativity, which is caused by dependence on the semantic basis of the metaphor, which remained unchanged in the translation. .
As we noted earlier, this metaphor is a kind of "starting point" for further development of the plot of the play. But now we will talk about a slightly different, but correlated process: the so-called subtext of the work, which is not expressed directly, but only guessed, runs like a thin thread throughout the play: we are talking about the ideological expression in the work of a real class struggle, moral crisis and conflict.
3.1 Zoomorphic metaphors
At the very end of the first act, Captain Shotover asks Hector, who is close to him in many ways: "What then is to be done? Are we to be kept forever in the mud by these hogs to whom the universe is nothing but a machine for greasing their bristles and filling their snouts?"
Note that the word "hog" used in the last example in the plural is given in translation not as "hogs", but as "pigs". This suggests that the metaphor of the original and the translation differ, firstly, in terms of motivation, and secondly, in terms of the degree of expression. In English, motivation is hidden behind the grammatical form, in Russian, behind the lexical one, which leads to the use of synonyms. In this case, we can talk about weakened or strengthened speech versions of the original and translation. However, taking into account the particular metaphorical context, we can argue that we are dealing with an enhanced speech version of the metaphor in translation. We also believe that when transferring the figurativeness of the original as an artistic whole, there is a fluctuation of figurative metaphorical information (the above analysis of the metaphor proves this). The boundaries of fluctuations are within the limits set by the semantics of language images, the characteristics of the characters, the tonality of the work.
Indeed, for Captain Shotover, a male character who embodies the image that opposes the "businessmen", it is more expressive to use the word "pigs" than "hogs". Their semantics in Russian is different. The word "hog" is usually used in a figurative sense in relation to a man - prosperous, self-satisfied. The semantics of the word "pig" is a bit broader. We will break down our reasoning step by step:
This word can characterize both men and women, that is, it is applicable to absolutely everyone.
It can denote dirty, untidy, foul-smelling people.
Often a figurative meaning is used to characterize ungrateful people who acted badly.
According to external signs of personality, massiveness, along with comparisons "like a cow," like a hippopotamus", the word "pig" in question is often used, and so on.
But in the original of the play, B. Shaw leaves the word "hog" already used by him once. The motives that determined this choice are not known to us - we can only guess about them. However, we can make an assumption and identify two motives, firstly, the use of this particular word "hog", as we noted earlier, supports the internal thread of the text, and secondly, the semantics of the words "pig" and "hog" in English are similar much more than the semantics of their Russian counterparts. Therefore, we can conclude that the expressive information is conveyed in the translation without loss of intensity, and the replacement of the word "boars" with the word "pigs" ensures this preservation.
The second part of the considered free phrase with metaphorical content is a rather illustrative example in a comparative analysis of the original and translation. B. Shaw writes: "The universe is nothing but a machine fore greasing their bristles and filling their snouts." Literally, this can be translated as follows: the universe is nothing more than a machine (mechanism) for sucking, (greasing) their bristles and filling their snouts (muzzles). The lexical transformation of the meaning applied in the translation immediately attracts attention (M.B. and S.B.). Lexical transformations, as we noted in the theoretical part, are methods of logical thinking, with the help of which the translator reveals the meaning of a foreign word in the context and finds a Russian equivalent for it that does not match the dictionary. We tend to believe that in this case the translators used the method of holistic transformation, in which the semantic basis of the metaphor of the original is transmitted through rethinking, where the connection between the internal basis of the metaphor of the original and the translation is based on secondary intersecting semes, while the conceptual content of the main metaphor of the original, its nominative function does not change. Pay attention to the following fragment: fore greasing their bristles and filling their snouts. If we correlate our literal translation of this passage with the literary translation of the authors mentioned above, then we can observe the integration of meanings, as well as the implication of new concepts that are similar in semantic structure. We are talking about the words "snout" and "belly". Indeed, it is more appropriate to use "stuff the belly", and not "fill the snout", in view of the general patterns of the use of such phrases and taking into account their semantic features in the Russian language. Semantic compatibility and complementarity is obvious, we agree that it is inappropriate to talk about a person "he filled his mouth", meaning the profitability of his life. We'd rather say "he stuffed his belly, belly". In the meaning generated by this phrase, the concept of what has already been irrevocably appropriated by a person appears.
Here we will continue the study of the original, in particular, we will turn to the theory of epiphora and diaphora. Earl R. MacCormac argues that "since a metaphor is based on both similarities and dissimilarities between the properties of its referents, in any metaphor there is both an epiphoric and a diaphoric element. A metaphor, to a greater extent associated with the similarity between the properties of its referents, can be considered an epiphora, while a metaphor, more associated with dissimilarity, can be considered a diaphora" (34, p. 363). Based on the above statement, which reinforces our reasoning, we can conclude that we are dealing with an epiphora, that is, it rather tends to appeal to the reader's imagination, in contrast to the diaphora, which appeals to intuition. The referents of the metaphor, or its framework, as we have identified earlier, is the verbal environment of two concepts: "hog" and "machine". The first concept is revealed by the designation of rich, prosperous people, the second serves as an object of comparison of the Universe. Their environment, frames are in direct interdependent relationship with each other.
The metaphors considered above, in which the word “hog” appears, can be classified, as well as a number of others given below, to the category of zoomorphic metaphors.
Think of this garden in which you are not a dog barking to keep the truth out!
(Remember our garden, where you did not have to be a watchdog that barks to block the way to the truth) (hereinafter translated by M. B and S. B).
…but it's a god's life; and I don't own anything.
(... but this is a dog's life. And I have no property)
the sign that forms the zoomorphic metaphor “…you are not a god barking to keep the truth out”, not only is not essential for the original concept, but even contradicts the mass associations that the word “dog” evokes. A dog has long been perceived as a symbol of devotion, disinterested friendship and fidelity, however, these well-known qualities have not found a linguistic embodiment, and completely different associations have been fixed in metaphorical meanings - an evil, bad person (in our case), or a dexterous, skillful person in any business .
In Russian translation, one can observe the replacement of the concept “dog” by another concept “watchdog”. In English, both “dog” and “dog” have the same lexical form “dog”. It can be assumed that the authors of the translation, guided by the negative associations of the metaphorical meaning “dog”, chose the Russian version of the translation “dog”, which is more consistent with the meanings of evil, bad and has a greater expression, i.e. performs the corresponding expressive function. In addition, this linguistic metaphor also performs a nominative function. Dating back to ancient science, the delimitation of the functions of naming (nomination) and predication is distributed primarily by parts of speech. The role of the nomination is performed by nouns - in this case, the noun "dog".
The use of the adjective “dog”, derived from “dog”, but not having such positive mass associations, is indicative. In this adjective, the metaphorical feature loses its specific meaning, while, as G.N. Sklyarevskaya (31) notes, the seme is preserved and comes to the fore intensification, a general negative assessment. The phrase “dog life” in question has the meaning “very difficult, difficult, unbearable. ” Both in English and in Russian, the semantics of this combination is the same, which allowed translators to preserve the image that evokes the same type of associations in different languages.
The following considered case of a free phrase with a metaphorical meaning can be attributed to metaphors containing zoomorphic characteristics and, at the same time, to individual stylistic author's metaphors:
I tell you I have often thought of this killing of human vermin.
The Russian translation is as follows:
I often thought about the extermination of humanoid reptiles.
The expression "human vermin", or in the Russian version of "humanoid reptiles" is not traditional for any of the languages under consideration. It is believed that zoomorphic characteristics can be directed not only to humans, but also to other animals. Using "human" , i.e. literally translated “human being”, B. Shaw brings a person closer to animals. Therefore, this metaphor is due to a complicated, double semantic transformation: having been fixed in the language as a characteristic of a person - a bearer of qualities attributed to snakes (vile, slippery, deceitful) - such a metaphor will also be used in anthropomorphism, when an animal that characterizes the metaphorical transfer of the meaning of a person is attributed human qualities drawn from zoomorphic characteristics.As some researchers note, the type of metaphor under consideration does not have a regular character and tends to be commonplace.This once again confirms the opinion that this metaphorical free the phrase can be attributed to the author's occasionalisms.
What a brute I was to quarrel with you…
(What a beast I am that I started to swear with you ...)
The word “brute”, in Russian translation - “cattle” has a collective meaning: beast, domestic animal, usually cattle. But in its semantics, there is another meaning rude, with animal instincts. The expression “what a brute I was” has a pronounced metaphorical character, which is realized through the figurative meaning of the word “brute”, which is the focus of the metaphor, inserted into the meaning of words used literally.
Ellie: you are a wicked sordid little beast.
(Ellie! You vicious little petty animal)
Again, we have highlighted an example containing the collective meaning of “beast” - “animal, cattle, creature”.
This zoomorphism, displaying its meaning in human qualities, gives the object the features of an animal, considering it as a certain class highlighting the general features of the subject: stupid, unreasonable, insensitive.
Taking into account the contextual expansion of this word with a metaphorical meaning, one can observe the expanded use of adjectives that characterize a young girl. Hesiona Hashaby refers to Ellie as a way to dissuade her from marrying Boss Mangek. This, according to Hesiona, is moral meanness and a betrayal of the best human qualities. The introduction of a number of adjectives makes it possible to enhance the expressiveness of the metaphor as a whole and highlight its emotional and evaluative function.
When analyzing the text in order to identify other types of metaphors, it was possible to establish that the largest number of use of free phrases with metaphorical content refers to those metaphors that focus on the meaning of the concepts “heart” and “soul”, which include other, abstract concepts that characterize the inner the human world - love, hatred, fidelity, devotion, etc. An analysis of such metaphors is given later in the work.
Single cases of use include such metaphors in which the objective similarity between objects consists in the following properties: - color, - shape, - size. Also among the rarely used are those metaphors that are based on comparison with plants, flowers and insects.
3.2 Other metaphorical transfers
One of the main tasks that we set ourselves at the beginning of the work is the consideration of the metaphors used by B. Shaw as a source of replenishment of the dictionary. Recall that we talked about polysemy, synonymy, and also about homonymy, however, the primary analysis of the sample of metaphors showed that B. Shaw cannot be ranked among those writers and poets whose work is rich in linguistic innovations, replete with author's neologisms and occasionalisms. In confirmation of this, we can cite the words of A.G. Exemplary (28) about that. that the work of B. Shaw was permeated with characteristically traditional features, therefore, during his lifetime, he was called a classic and "written off", declaring old-fashioned. Of course, this is only indirect evidence inspired by general ideas about traditional conservative England and B. Shaw as her true "son". However, none of the researchers of the writer's work spoke about occasionalisms derived by the author or about something like that: on the contrary, they all spoke out in support of the traditionalism of Shaw's methods when writing dramas of a new ideological content. And as you know, to put forward a new idea, it is not necessary to derive "new" words. You just need to find a new use for them, to reveal a new meaning.
But let us return to the text and continue: the following metaphor, the analysis of which we have to perform, belongs to the category of general stylistic metaphors, as some foreign Germanists distinguish (in particular, Birdsly), it can also be classified as a color metaphor: "I must believe that my spark , small as it is, is divine, and that the red light over their door is hell fire. I should spare them in simple magnanimous pity." These lines in the play are spoken by Hector in a conversation with Captain Shotover. Hector Heshebye is one of the inhabitants of "House", a brilliant handsome man, a brave man and a thrill-seeker who carefully hides his true noble deeds and selflessly lies about fictional lion hunts. He, like the old captain, is full of hatred for the inhabitants of the "Manege" - businessmen and money-grubbers, speaking out on their account, he utters the above phrase.
The word "spark", whose translation is "spark" has a clearly metaphorical meaning in this text. The hero speaks of the divinity of this spark - "I must believe that my spark… is divine": "divine" literally translates as "divine, prophetic." The focus of this metaphor is undeniably the word "spark", used in a figurative sense: "something that prompts action; something that inspires". However, all of us, imagining sparks, draw to ourselves something like the following picture: white small drops, light as air, flying out from somewhere, dissipate and go out; or: red dots, pouring down like a waterfall and burning brightly, fall on some surface and die out. We gave an example of the literal meaning of the word "spark", which generates in the human imagination an image that correlates with the direct meaning of this word. With a figurative meaning and understanding of the image generated by the word "spark", only color associations arise in memory - for example, the following example can be given: "the spark in a man,s soul" - "a spark in a person's soul" - an emerging image: something the bright shines in a person, prompts him to action. The example of a metaphor that we are considering is built on a similar association, transferring the literal meaning of "spark" to objects and phenomena that are only correlated in terms of semantic characteristics.
Further, B. Shaw continues to draw a color picture: "the red light over their door is hell fire" - he already directly includes the adjective "red" denoting "red" in a number of used words. This kind of "pickup" of the metaphor allows the reader to imagine in his imagination an indelible color image, supported by a "double" color metaphor. This is another "secret" of the author - B. Shaw, speaking about the inhabitants of the "House", rewards them with a light color image, and the words about "dealers" put into Hector's mouth create an unpleasant, burning, dark shade of red - bloody color. Generating in this way the subtext of the play, the author inclines readers to the side with which he himself is more sympathetic.
This metaphor carries deep aesthetic information. By aesthetic information we mean, following L.A. Kiseleva (23), information about the aesthetic qualities of the language itself, the main criterion of which is the most complete correspondence of language units to their purpose or ideal (literal meaning). Therefore, we can talk about the presence of an aesthetic function in this extended metaphor.
4. The role of metaphorical transfer when revealing the figurativeness of concepts in the key dialogue of the play
The plot outline of the play is formed by the story of the failed marriage of the representative of the world of businessmen Mengen to the daughter of the "inventor - loser" Mazzini Dan, Ellie Dan. The dialogue of Ellie - once a sensitive and vulnerable girl whose heart has already broken and Mengen - is one of the key in the play.
"The main thing is the dialogues, during which the intellectuals are debunked, the businessmen are exposed and a picture of the deepest ideological and moral crisis arises" (14, p. 125). The clash of people of different mental make-up is just a substitution for the real class struggle, for the opening of which B. Shaw uses this technique. "The air may suit us; but the question is, should we suit one another? Have you thought about that?" - says Boss Mangen Ally at the very beginning of their conversation. A literary literary translation is practically a literal version of the translation: "The air here, of course, suits us, but the question is, do we suit each other. Have you thought about it?" We are only interested in the highlighted phrase, since, in our opinion, it carries a figurative meaning expressed by the word "we are approaching", i.e. "suit". This whole statement is an example of an extended metaphor.
Focus - the word "fit" carries only a small amount of expression, and therefore, figurativeness, since it is quite often used in a similar context, forming a lexical metaphor. These metaphors, as we noted earlier, serve mainly nominative purposes and are not very expressive, since they have long been traditionally used. The reader does not notice "freshness" or "innovation" in them;
But Ellie Mengen's answer is more expressive: of course, she is a girl who was once filled with gratitude to this man who "saved" her father - now Ellie, having survived the collapse of her dreams and hopes, is determined to "get Boss Mengen as a husband": "But we can get on very well together if we choose to make the best of it. Your kindness of heart will make it easy to me." some effort to this. Your kind heart will make everything much easier for me." Ellie tries to be as affectionate and figurative as possible with words to achieve her goals.
The author, B. Shaw, uses abstract concepts that were very successfully conveyed in translation. And again the theme of the heart sounds, a concept that we have already analyzed in detail above. For the time being, Ellie calls him "good heart", but after the dialogue that debunks Mangen as a virtue, she can no longer say this.
Further along the play, B. Shaw often uses metaphors supported by comparison or identities. This technique is called "pick up". It serves to ensure that the reader focuses his attention on the words, not just running his eyes, but consciously creating a certain image, consisting partly of the reader’s personal experience and partly of the images generated by the read text, which, as it were, “regulates” the creation of the image, complementing it facts: "I took your father's measure. I sow that he had a sound idea, and that he would work himself silly for it if he got the chance. I saw that he was a child in business, and was dead certain to outrun his expenses and be in too great hurry to wait fore his market." "I immediately saw through your father. I saw that he had a good idea and that he would go out of his way if he was given the opportunity to put it into practice. And I saw that in business he was a real baby and would not be able to meet the budget and bide your time to win the market."
All underlined free phrases are metaphorical in nature. However, each of them should be considered in detail in order to visualize the creation of that picture of the characteristic features of Mazzini Dan, which the author, B. Shaw, draws through the Mengen business.
We can distinguish two lexical metaphors in the English text - “a sound idea” and “a child in business”, which have long become commonplace and more or less commonly used. Taken out of context, they serve only nominative purposes, without expressing any or expressive characteristics.However, becoming a contextual extension of any extended metaphor, such language units serve as a "pickup", which allows an already expanded metaphor to have a greater figurative potential.
In the Russian version, one of these “dead” lexical metaphors is not preserved, the translation is given through an ugly derivative meaning - “he has a good idea”. The second - “a child in business”, which has the most pronounced seme “image”, is transmitted in translation by lexical equivalents. If the translation had “child” instead of “baby”, then we could talk about the transfer of imagery through full lexical equivalents. The reason for this replacement, in our opinion, was the desire of the authors of the translation, on the one hand, to reduce, reduce the professional qualities of Mazzini Dan, to show that his naivety, which Boss took advantage of in his time, and on the other hand, to show such qualities of Mengen as narcissism and self-confidence, which vividly characterize him as a clever businessman. His expressions “to wait for his market”, “dead certain to outrun his expenses” contain vocabulary specific to a businessman. He operates with it “with the dexterity of a circus performer”, giving it out in combinations that give rise to a figurative meaning. In the Russian version of the play, one can observe the grouping of these lexical units: “... will not be able to meet the budget and wait for the time to conquer the market.” All of them together give a full-fledged figurative meaning, an extended metaphor formed by several lexical metaphors.
It should be noted that the Russian version, in our opinion, has the greatest expression, since the metaphor includes a number of idiomatic expressions that make it concise, put it into practice, wait for time, go out of your way, which at the same time compensates for the replacement of the lexical metaphor of the English language “a sound idea” is an ugly phrase.
In continuation of our work, I would like to highlight several types of metaphors that are typical for use in the play. These are, first of all, metaphors relating to the semantic sphere “the psychological world of a person”. The denotations concentrated in this sphere are non-material, and therefore cannot serve as a source of metaphorical transformations. This sphere attracts metaphors from the objective world, demonstrating the need for a person’s spiritual worldview to be realized in specific objective meanings. The most commonly used objective meanings by Bernard Shaw are “heart” and “soul”. One can argue about the objectivity of the “soul” connotation, but it is through it that the author shows the feelings of his characters, referring “soul” to the category of real-life objects: “... I have knocked over all the chairs in a room without a soul paying any attention to me …", which is translated as follows: “Once in one house I had to break all the chairs, and at least one living soul woke up."
“Living soul” is a lexical metaphor that has already become traditional, in order to somehow highlight it, draw the attention of readers, translators resorted to inversion, putting a definite noun before the adjective that defines it. The English version does not have an equivalent for the word “live”. The noun “soul” i.e. “soul” is given without any characteristics explaining it.
In principle, there is no need to include this adjective in the Russian text. But, perhaps, the authors, based on their own perception of lexical units, decided to insert the adjective “living”, which is often an attribute of the word “soul”.
“There is a soul in torment here. What is the matter? ”
It should be noted that in the translation the word “torment” means “torment, torment.” But in the entire text of the translation, one can distinguish the authors’ tendency to use religious terms even where they are not in the original, as in this case: “Whose soul is given here to torment hell? What happened here?". Such vocabulary of a religious nature is often included in Captain Shotover's lines. Perhaps this is because this character is the bearer of the philosophical beginning in the play, through his speeches B. Shaw introduces into the text various concepts that reveal the essence of being and the meaning of human life, which many people try to learn through religion. The captain himself, in his youth, “sold his soul to the devil in Zanzibar”, and now he is trying: “to achieve the seventh degree of self-contemplation”. However, this is a positive character, if only such a division can be applied to the heroes of this play, where idols are debunked, businessmen are exposed, ideals are transmitted and, as a result, hearts are broken.
“They know it and act on it strangling our souls. They believe in themselves. When we believe in ourselves, we shall kill them". The literal translation of the word “strangling" is to strangle, strangle. The same could be attributed to a person: “strangling me”, however, the word “soul” lexically is a receptacle for all the psychological traits of a person, this seme absorbs all the moral qualities of people. “They know this and therefore do everything to crush our souls. They believe in themselves. When we believe in ourselves, we will overcome them". In the translation (M.B. and S.B.) a different translation is given, revealing a different semantic basis of the Russian equivalent of the translation “strangling". The word “crush” literally means “heavy, flatten, ... kill.” The differences in the semantics of this word and the word “strangle” are obvious. But the authors have resorted to using the lexical transformation technique to use a word whose semantics is similar to the semantics of the direct translation equivalent.
The question arises: why did the authors use the synonym? Obviously, its semantic basis is more suitable for transferring “soul” to this seme. “Smother the soul” and “crush the soul” - in Russian the difference between these phrases is revealed, in English the semantics of the concept “strangle” and “crush” are so different that they cannot be synonymized.
One could single out a few more cases of using the word “soul” in the metaphorical transfer of the meaning, but there it is worth considering the use of another object of the real world, to which the author transfers abstract concepts from the sphere of the psychological perception of the world by a person. This “heart” is a kind of keyword for the ideological content of the play. Each of the characters in turn, in one or another contextual expansion, pronounces the main metaphor of the work - “hearts break”, speaking about unfulfilled dreams, about the collapse of hopes. But there are also a number of other metaphors in the play, the focus of which is “heart”. “And you have a heart, Alfy, a wimpling little heart, but a real one”. "It turns out you have a heart, Alf. Such a tiny, pitiful heart, but still real." In this case, the word “heart” denotes human feelings of love, devotion, duty, honor. In Mangeni, they are so little expressed that they can easily “fit in a tiny, miserable heart.” This diminutive image in English is created using adjectives that have the appropriate meaning; in the Russian text of the play, the diminutive derivative “heart” is also the bearer of this meaning.
“Yet she breaks hearts, easy as her house is. That poop devil upstairs with his flute howls when she twists his heart…”. “No, she breaks hearts herself in this comfortable home of hers. And that unfortunate one up there with his flute howls the same way when she turned his heart inside out ... "
We are interested in the second highlighted phrase - “she twists his heart”. The literal translation of the word “twist” is “twist, twist, twist”. In literary translation, there is a replacement of the literal meaning with the exact opposite: “untwist, twist”. It can be concluded that the authors of the translation resorted to the method of partial antonymous transfer, replacing one word with a certain semantics with another word that is opposite in meaning, and, accordingly, with an opposite semantic meaning. The reasons for this replacement are obvious with a broader contextual expansion, the meaning of the entire highlighted metaphor is as follows: Hesiona morally tormented a young man in love with her, i.e. turned his loving heart inside out, forcing him to open up to her, to make confessions. In this case, it means to expose, to reveal the truth. In order not to lose the figurative impression caused by this phrase, the authors obviously decided to give up literalness in translation.
The above examples clearly show the use of the two concepts “heart” and “soul” as some material substances containing in their meaning, by means of metaphorical transfer, abstract concepts of the psychological qualities of a person.
Conclusions on the second chapter
The specificity of B. Shaw's language style is the use of various vocabulary words as the basis of metaphorization: concrete, abstract, poetic, as well as terms.
The most numerous in the text of the play are lexical or linguistic metaphors, which perform mainly a nominative function. Also, the author is characterized by the use of zoomorphic metaphors, especially when creating images of “horsebackers”, often identified with images of animals, the semantic meanings of which evoke negative associations: reptile (snake), dog, dog, boar, pig.
There are few metaphorical transfers based on comparison with plants, flowers, insects; as well as isolated cases of use include those metaphors in which the objective similarity between objects consists in the following properties: color, shape, size.
The ways of transferring the basis of metaphor in translation are:
the path of full speech equivalents, based on the use of absolute speech variants in translation;
the path of partial speech equivalents based on the use of lexical transformation techniques.
With the latter technique, there is either a loss of metaphorical figurativeness, or its strengthening, supported by the use of other tropes, idioms, or phraseological units, which leads to the conclusion that there is some fluctuation of figurative metaphorical information in the texts of the original and translation. The boundaries of fluctuations are within the limits set by the semantics of language images, the tonality of the entire work.
Conclusion
In this paper, we examined B. Shaw's use of words and free phrases with metaphorical content in the play "Heartbreaking House", and also analyzed the translation of metaphors from English into Russian.
Managed. establish that the metaphorical transfer of meaning is a widely and freely used technique in the text of the play. B. Shaw is characterized by a detailed processing of artistic techniques, which prepares the reader for a figurative perception of not only general stylistic, but also lexical metaphors. The presentation of abstract concepts through a metaphorical image based on specific vocabulary makes the narrative tangible, tangible, visible.
It should be answered the complicated, multi-stage nature of the use of various techniques in the language of the play, namely:
1. Using the chain introduction of metaphors: a metaphor "animated" by some technique is a contextual explanation of another adjacent metaphor.
2. The use of comparison as a "support" technique that enhances the figurative perception of the entire metaphorical context.
3. Internal technique - strengthening metaphorical imagery through the deployment of metaphors into several links.
All metaphorical figurative means considered in the work were analyzed in accordance with the concepts of "focus" and "frame". This analysis showed that the focus of a metaphor, as a rule, is a word used in a figurative sense, inserted into the frame of the direct meanings of words. The focus word is a substitute or a means of conveying not a separate impression, but a combination of the general characteristics of some abstract concept, realized in the text with the help of another, subject concept.
The entire text sample was compared with the same amount of translation. This made it possible to identify language inconsistencies when translating the play into Russian. The considered translation by M. Bogoslovskaya and S. Bobrov was made by using full dictionary equivalents. But cases of application of lexical transformations are frequent. We managed to find out that such methods are used in translation to preserve the figurative information of the original, which also makes it possible to transfer and preserve the pragmatic functions of metaphors: aesthetic, expressive, emotional and evaluative.
Bibliography
1. Arnold I.V. Lexicology of modern English. - M.: Higher school., 1973. - 304 p.
2. Arnold I.V. Stylistics of modern English. - 2nd ed., revised. - L .: Education, 1981. - 295s.
3. Arutyunova N.D. Metaphors and discourse // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - 512s.
4. Arutyunova N.D. Language and the human world: a collection / N.D. Arutyunov. - 2nd ed., corrected. - M.: Languages of Russian culture 1995. - 892 p.
5. Akhmanova O.S. Essays on general and Russian lexicology. - M.: GosUchpediz min. enlightenment RSFSR, 1957. - 295 p.
6. Balashov P.S. The Artistic World of B. Shaw: Abstract of a dissertation for a degree. - M.: Academy of Sciences of the USSR in-t world. literature named after A.M. Gorky 1974. - 63s.
7. Belsky A.A. Foreign drama: collection of articles / A.A. Belsky. - Perm: Perm State. Univer. them. A.M. Gorky. 1989. - p.5-27
8. Beardsley M. Metaphorical plexus // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - p. 201-219
9. Black M. Metaphor // Theory of Metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. -p.153-173
10. Vinogradov V.V. On the language of artistic prose. - M.: Nauka, 1980. - 358s.
11. Vilyuman V.G. English synonymy: Proc. allowance - M.: Higher School, 1980. - 128s.
12. Vygotsky L.S. Thinking and speech // L.S. Vygotsky Selected psychological studies. - M.: Nauka, 1956. - 386 p.
13. Gabrikovskiy N.K. Linguistic problems of translation: Collection of articles / Gabrikovsky N.K. - M.: Higher School, 1981. - 135p.
14. Grazhdanskaya Z.G. Bernard Shaw: Essay on life and work. Proc. settlement - M.: Enlightenment, 1979. - 175p.
15. Gyubbenet I.V. Fundamentals of philological interpretation of a literary text. M.: MSU. - 1991. - 205s
16. Dimanov S.S. Foreign literature. Collection of articles / S.S. Dinamov, M.: Goslitizdat, 1960. - 455p.
17. Davidson D. What do metaphors mean // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - p.173-194.
18. Isachkina N.I. Aesthetics B. Shaw: Collection of articles from the history of Western literature / Koblikova L.G. -M.: MGU. - 1957. - p.122-152
19. Kalinin A.V. Stylistic essays. M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University. 1979. - 195p.
20. Kantorovich I.B. “House where hearts break” and the crisis of Shaw's Fabianism // Collection of articles / A.A. Belsky. - Perm: Perm State. Univ. named after A.M. Gorky: - 1989. - p.28-39
21. Kirilova L.Ya.B. Shaw and A.P. Chekhov // Word about the theater. - M.: Rainbow, 1996. - p.34-45.
22. Smith M.D. Stylistics of the English language / M.D. Kuznets, Yu m. Skrebnev, N.N. Amosov. - L.: Uchpediz, 1960. - 173p.
23. Kisileva L.A. Questions of the theory of speech influence. - 2nd ed., revised. and additional - L .: Publishing house of Leningrad State University, 1985. - 167p.
24. Kisileva L.A. Semantic basis of figurative means. - L.: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1989. - 92p.
25. Krylova I.A. On the semantic nature of metaphors: Scientific notes, - Gorky: From the Gorky University, issue 76,: 1976. - 130s.
26. Miller J. Images and models, uses and metaphors. // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - p.236-284.
27. Nikitin Fundamentals of the linguistic theory of meaning. - M.: Higher school, 1988. - 167p.
28. Obraztsova A.N. Dramaturgical method B. Shaw. - M.: Nauka, 1956. - 316 p.
29. Retsker Ya.I. Theory and translation practice. - M.: Iz-vo IMO, 1994. - 216s.
30. Riker P. Metaphorical process as knowledge, imagination and sensation. // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress, 1990. - p.416-436
31. Sklyarevskaya G.N. Metaphor in the system of language. - St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1993. - 151 p.
32. Smirnitsky A.I. Morphology of the English language. - M.: Nauka, 1959. - p.249-255
33. Tomashevsky B.V. Stylistics. Proc. allowance - 2nd ed., corrected. and additional - L .: Publishing House of Leningrad State University, 1983. - 288s.
34. Wheelwright F. Metaphor and reality. // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress. 1990. - p.82-110
35. Fedorov A.I. Semantic structure of the word as a component of the semantic structure of the statement // Semantic structure of the word / V.G. Gak. - M.: Nauka, 1981 p.78-96
36. Fedorov A.V. Essays on general and comparative stylistics. - M.: Higher school, 1971. - p. 194.
37. Show B. Autobiographical notes. Articles. Letters.: Collection / Per. from English; Compiled by A. Obrztsova and Yu. Fridshtein. - M.: Rainbow, 1989. - 496s.
38. Yazikova Yu.S. Analysis of the metaphors of the style of M. Gorky's story “In People”.
39. Jacobson R. Two aspects of language and two types of aphatic disorders. // Theory of metaphor / N.D. Arutyunova, M.A. Zhurinskaya. - M.: Progress. 1990. - p.110-133
40. Galperin I. R. Stylistics: Book for students. - M.: Vyssaja Skola, 1971. - 342p.
41. Siedl J., Mordie M. English idioms and how to use them. - M. Vyssaja Skola, 1983. - 265p.
List of sources and their abbreviations
1. Shoy B. Heart break House // Four Plays / A. Anikst. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. - 1952. - p.137-241
2. Show B. The house where hearts break // Plays / Z. Grazhdanskaya per. from English M. Bogoslovskaya, S. Bobrov. M: True. - 1981. - p.253-351 - B. Show “D, grs”
List of dictionaries and their abbreviations
1. Akhmanova - Akhmanova O.S. Dictionary of linguistic terms. - M.: 1966.
2. BES - Big Encyclopedic Dictionary / A.M. Prokhorov., in 2 vol., M.: Soviet encyclopedia., 1991.
3. Galperin I.R. Big English - Russian Dictionary - M.: 1972.
4. KLE - Brief literary encyclopedia / A.A. Surkov, v.4., M.: Soviet Encyclopedia 1967.
5. LES - Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary / V.N. Yartseva, M.: Soviet Encyclopedia 1990.
6. Muller V.K. New Russian - English dictionary - M.: Russian language., 1998.
7. Muller V.K. New English - Russian dictionary - M.: Russian language., 1998.
8. Malakhovskiy L.V. Dictionary of English homonyms and amoforms. - M.: Russian language., 1995.
9. Dictionary of synonyms / A.P. Evgeniev, - L .: Nauka, 1977.
Translation studies
E.A. Kuznetsova
"LOSSED" OR "LOSSED"? IMAGES OF THE HEROES OF J.B. SHOW "HOUSE WHERE HEARTS BREAK" IN RUSSIAN TRANSLATIONS
The article provides a comparative analysis of translations into Russian of George Bernard Shaw's play "Heartbreak House" at the level of microstructure. Particular attention is paid to translation decisions that determine the images of the heroes of the play in translations.
Key words: George Bernard Shaw, Heartbreak House, literary image, translation of dramatic works, translation interpretation.
So far, five translations of George Bernard Shaw's play "Heartbreak House: A Fantasia in the Russian Manner on English Themes" (1917) into Russian have been published: four translations for reading and one translation for staging the work on the stage of the Moscow Satire Theater. The translation of Maria Pavlovna Bogoslovskaya and Sergei Pavlovich Bobrov, first published in 1946, is rightfully considered “classic”.
Before proceeding to the analysis of the translation interpretations of the images of the heroes, let us dwell on the names of the characters. The author did not preface the play with a list of characters. Here are the names of the characters that are found in the text of the work:
Ellie Dunn, miss Ellie;
Captain Shotover;
Mrs Hushabye, miss Hessy, Hesione;
© Kuznetsova E.A., 2015
Hector Hushabye;
Lady Utterword, miss Addy, Ariadne; Randall Utterword; Boss Mangan, Alfred, Alf(y); nurse Guinness; Billy Dunn.
It is interesting in what veiled form Shaw expresses his opinion about the relationship between the Irish and the British in the play: the names of the characters, who had Irish roots, began to be written in the English manner, and the characters themselves became guests in the house of the British captain Shotover, whose surname repeats the name of the area in Oxfordshire . (Only one last name was left unchanged by the author: Guinness is an Irish brand of beer.)
So, the surname Dunn can be interpreted as the English spelling of the Irish surname Dunne (or O "Duinn, or O" Doinn)1. It is known that Bernard Shaw wrote the role of Ellie for the Irish-born actress Ellen O "Maley and insisted that she get the role, refusing even Stella Campbell herself2. Thus, the playwright sought to emphasize the distance between the irresistible and treacherous daughters of the captain and an innocent young girl. In addition to Ellie, there are two men who have the last name Dunn in the play, which causes a funny misunderstanding:
CAPTAIN SHOTOVER. You are not Billy Dunn. This is Billy Dunn. Why have you imposed on me?
THE BURGLAR. Have you been giving yourself out to be me? You, that nigh blew my head off! Shooting yourself, in a manner of speaking!
MAZZINI. My dear Captain Shotover, ever since I came into this house I have done hardly anything else but assure you that I am not Mr William Dunn, but Mazzini Dunn, a very different person.
THE BURGLAR. He don "t belong to my branch, Captain. There"s two sets in the family: the thinking Dunns and the drinking Dunns, each going their own ways. I "m a drinking Dunn: he" s a thinking Dunn. But that didn't give him any right to shoot me3. 4
The name Mazzini is also played out in the play:
MRS HUSHABYE. Her father is a very remarkable man, Addy. His name is Mazzini Dunn. Mazzini was a celebrity of some kind who knew Ellie's grandparents. They were both poets, like the Brownings; and when her father came into the world Mazzini said,
"Another soldier born for freedom!". So they christened him Mazzini; and he has been fighting for freedom in his quiet way ever since. That's why he is so poor.
This refers to the Italian politician and philosopher Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872). Mrs. Heshebay continues to be interested in names and makes fun of Boss Mengen (we also note that the surname Mangan, like Dunn, is of Irish origin and was originally written O "Mongan or O Mangain) 5:
MANGAN. If you want to know, my name "s Alfred.
MRS HUSHABYE. Alfred!! Ellie, he was christened after Tennyson!!!
MANGAN. I was christened after my uncle, and never had a penny from him, damn him! What of it?
It seems that it was not by chance that Shaw returned so insistently to the topic of naming and naming: perhaps the author thereby invited the reader and the viewer to think about the relationship between the external, simulated, and internal, genuine in a person. The discrepancy between the personality and the connotations that the name carries was shown in the play by Shaw both in a comic and in a "semi-tragic"6 light.
The surname Utterword, which Ariadne adopted when she got married, reflects her pompous manner of speech: abundantly seasoning her speech with maxims, the heroine seeks to manipulate other heroes without showing her true face. The heroine's husband's brother has the same surname: like Ariadne, Rendel strives to speak pompously, but in vain - either Ariadne suppresses him, or he himself cannot stand his role.
The names Ariadne, Hesione and Hector Bernard Shaw may have taken from Greek mythology. Ariadne is the daughter of the Cretan king Minos and Paotfai, who saved Theseus from the labyrinth with a ball of thread7. In Shaw's play, Ariadne weaves intrigues instead of threads. Hesiona is the heroine of three Greek myths; the most famous of them tells how Hercules, the daughter of the Trojan king Laomedont, Hesione, who was given to be eaten by a monster, is saved. The name of Hector, as you know, was borne by the famous hero of the Trojan War.
In combination with the names of the heroes and Hector's stories about imperfect deeds, the names of the spouses in the play become a telling characteristic of the characters. Researchers of the playwright's work, referring to his personal archive, claim that in 1917 Shaw planned to give the play the name "The Hushaby Play"9. The discrepancy between the names once given to the heroes of myths and the surname (“hushaby” can be
translate as “bayushki-bayu”) conveys the author’s unambiguous attitude towards the Heshebay couple.
[Aksenov; 1921; With. x]
"Operating:
Captain Shotover
Mrs. Hession Heshbye
Lady Ariadne Utterward
Hector Hashby
Mazzini Dan
Billy Dan
Nanny Geness"10.
Above is a list of actors, added in freehand ink before the text of the translation. The compiler of the list ignored one hero, whose name in translation has the following spelling: Ren-doll Utterword. In the text of the translation, Mengen receives the names Alfred, Alf, Sam Mengen; Lady Ariadne Utterward - Addy; Mistress Hession Heshbye - Geziona.
[Rebellious; 1928; With. 5]
"CHARACTERS:
1 - Captain SHOTOWER
2 - GESION DODO, his daughter
3 - LADY UTTTERWOOD, too
4 - HECTOR DODO, Gezion's husband
5 - MAZZINI DUNN
6 - ELLIE DUNN, his daughter
7 - ALFRED MANGAN
8 - RANDAL UTTERWOOD
9 - Nanny Guinness
10 - THIEF"11.
Above is a list of actors added by the translator. The translation text also contains the following translations and spellings of names (according to the list numbers): 2: Mrs. Dodo 3: Mrs. Riznet (t), Ariana 7: Fred, patron Mangan 9: Guinness
10: Guillaume Dunne
[Levidov; 1933]
Ellie Denn, Miss Ellie Mazzini Denn Captain Shotover
Mrs Hashby, Miss Hessey, Hazion Hector Hashby
Lady Utterword, Miss Addy, Ariadna Randall Utterword Boss Menjman, Alfred Nanny Guinness Billy Denn
[Bobrov, Bogoslovskaya; 1946]
Ellie Den, Miss Ellie Mazzini Dan Captain Shotover
Mrs. Hasheby, Miss Hessy, Hesiona Hector Hasheby
Lady Utterword, Miss Eddy, Ariadne
Randell Utterword
Boss Mengen, Alfred, baby Alf
Nanny Guinness
Billy Dan
[Golysheva; 1962]
Ellie Dunn, Miss Ellie
Mazzini Dunn
Captain Shotover
Mrs Hasheby, Miss Hessie,
Hector Hasheby
Lady Utterword, Miss Addy, Ariadne
Randol Utterword
boss Mangan, Alfred, Alfik
Nanny Guinness
Billy Dunn
It is obvious that the translators generally preferred the method of transcription of proper names and did not seek to convey their pragmatic style. In the general row, the decision of Sergei Rebellious to translate the name Hushabye as "Dodo" stands out. Perhaps the translator decided to make such a replacement, being unsure how to properly convey the surname and the connotations surrounding it into Russian.
A few words should also be said about the definitions given by translators to the hero Billy Dunn, whom Shaw called "the burglar". The most common and expected translation option is "thief". Mikhail Yulievich Levidov proposed a "cracker". Ivan Alexandrovich Aksenov interpreted the text of the original in his own way, calling Billy Dan a crook. If the rest of the translators, following the author, stated the outward behavior of the hero, then Aksyonov demonstrated thoughtful work on the text of the original: after all, the real goal of the hero of Shaw is not to steal, but, allowing himself to be caught at the scene of the "crime", to fool the owners and lure them out of money. But, despite the fact that the translator's interpretation is correct, it is difficult to agree with such a translation decision, since the definition of "the burglar" appears in the text before readers know the tactics of the hero's behavior. Calling the hero a crook, Aksyonov introduced his subjective assessment into the text of the translation and destroyed the intrigue.
The self-identification of heroes in the artistic world of dramatic works is often realized through the characteristics of other characters in speech. Let us continue to analyze translations of definitions, taking the following passage as an example:
THE YOUNG LADY. A wild-looking old gentleman came and looked in at the window; and I heard him calling out, "Nurse, there is a young and attractive female waiting in the poop. Go and see what she wants." Are you the nurse?
MOL. LADY. A wild-looking old gentleman came up and looked out the window and I heard him calling, "Nanny, there's a young, attractive woman waiting in the stern. Come see what she wants." [Aksenov; 1921; With. 4]
ELLY - Some old gentleman came up, looked out the window, then I heard him shout to someone: "Nanny, a young and attractive lady is waiting in the stern. Ask her what she wants" ... so you are a nanny. [Rebellious; 1928; With. 7]
Young woman. An old, scary-looking gentleman came up and looked out the window. I heard him shout: "Nanny! An attractive young woman is sitting in the stern and waiting for something. Come and see what she needs." Are you the nanny?12 [Levidov; 1933; With. 192]
Young woman. Some strange-looking gentleman came up and looked out the window. And I heard him shout: "Nanny, we have a pretty young woman in the stern, go and find out what she needs." Are you a nanny?13 [Bobrov, Bogoslovskaya; 1946; With. 357]
YOUNG WOMAN. A crazy old man peered out the window. I heard him shouting: "Nanny! A young, pretty female lady is sitting on the poop. Go and ask what she needs." Are you the nanny?14 [Golysheva; 1962; With. 4]
The quoted fragment consists of two replicas, each of which contains the mutual characteristics of the characters. The greatest difficulty for translators was presented by Ellie's characterization of the captain: "a wild-looking old gentleman". This composite definition cannot be translated literally (“an old gentleman of a wild appearance” or “an old gentleman of a terrible appearance”) and sounds insulting from the lips of a young girl and, moreover, due to a normative-usual error, ridiculous. A stylistically neutral version was proposed by Rebel, who translated only one of the definitions. The sharpest wording belongs to Elena Mikhailovna Golysheva, which, surprisingly, was preserved by the directors of the Moscow Theater of Satire. The sharpness in the nanny's response ("I heard him yelling, but I thought it was not for me") was nevertheless removed in the stage version - the entire statement was omitted in its entirety.
Describing Ellie, the captain uses the word "female" (and not "woman", for example). Thus, Bernard Shaw, even before the appearance of Captain Shotover on the stage, is already drawing the contours of his portrait: his outwardly rough, abrupt manner of speech. Only two translators tried to convey the author's technique. Rebellious suggested "a young and attractive person", Golysheva - "a young, pretty female person." Perhaps, the specification of gender in combination with the definition of "pretty" makes Golysheva's translation excessively rough, but attempts to translate as close as possible to the text undoubtedly deserve attention.
Let's turn to another characterization of Ellie by Captain Shotover.
THE CAPTAIN. Nurse, who is this misguided and unfortunate young lady?
CAPTAIN SHOTOWER. |approaching the drafting table|. Nanny, who is a lost and unhappy young lady. [Aksenov; 1921; With. 5]
CAPT. SHOTOWER / approaching the drawing table / - Nanny, what kind of unfortunate young lady is she, unsuccessfully lost here. [Rebellious; 1928; With. 7]
CAPTAIN (going to the drawing table). Nanny, who is this misguided and unfortunate young woman? [Levidov; 1933; With. 192]
CAPTAIN SHOTOWER (coming to the drafting table). Nanny, who is this lost young lady? [Bobrov, Bogoslovskaya; 1946; With. 357]
CAPTAIN /approaching the drafting table/. Nanny, who is this poor misguided person? [Golysheva; 1962; With. 5]
When translating the replica, the definition of “misguided” presented the greatest difficulty. The translation option proposed by Sergei Myatezhny involuntarily raises a smile due to the normative-usual error in lexical compatibility. Although if we omit the participial turnover, then the translation of the Rebellious in this case could be called the most successful.
Mikhail Yulievich Levidov and Elena Mikhailovna Golysheva used the adjective "lost". Golysheva's translation was also accepted by the directors of the performance at the Moscow Theater of Satire. Here are the dictionary definitions:
erroneous - to err, to err, to have a false opinion or concept ...<...>... Lost, -sya - perverted from the straight and proper path15.
LOST, -th, -her (bookish) Having gone astray from the right path of life, descended16.
The translations of Levidov and Golysheva, therefore, give the statement a meaning that is completely alien to the original text.
If in other translations the captain assumes that the heroine got into the house by mistake, then in the translations of Levidov and Golysheva he points to the dubious moral character of the guest. In combination with the noun "person" the definition sounds even more dismissive.
Of the two proposed translation solutions, the first option still seems to distort the meaning of the original text and, accordingly, the image of the heroine. The translation options of Levidov and Golysheva are also unacceptable because they conflict with the author's characterization of Ellie in the remark that opens the first act. Let's consider it.
She is a pretty girl, slender, fair, and intelligent looking, nicely but not expensively dressed, evidently not a smart idler.
This is a pretty girl, slender, blond, with an intelligent look, but obviously not an idle dandy. [Aksenov; 1921; With. 3]
This is a young girl, slender, blond, with a smart look, well-dressed, but by no means expensive. It goes without saying that her appearance is not that of an elegant loafer. [Rebellious; 1928; With. 6]
She is a pretty girl, slender, with blond hair and an intelligent expression in her eyes; she is well dressed, but not elegant. Obviously, she does not belong to the type of smart bums. [Levidov; 1933; With. 192]
This is a pretty girl, slender, blond, with a thoughtful face, she is dressed very nicely, but modestly - apparently, this is not an idle fashionista. [Bobrov, Bogoslovskaya; 1946; With. 356]
She is pretty, fragile, blond, with an intelligent face, nicely but inexpensively dressed and clearly not one of the rich dandies and loafers. [Golysheva; 1962; With. 3]
Noteworthy is the erroneous translation of the adjective "intelligent", proposed by Ivan Alexandrovich Aksenov: "with an intelligent look." Recall that the estimated date of the translation is 1921. Of course, for the Russian reader of the translation, the definition acquired a range of connotations much wider than was intended by Bernard Shaw. The image of the heroine, therefore, took on other features,
than in the text of the original, which constantly emphasizes the distance between the aristocratic house and its guests (the Denn family and Boss Mengen). In the remark, Shaw emphasized the intelligence, good looks, active life position and taste inherent in the girl. The author also made it clear to the reader that the heroine is not from a wealthy family - which in no way negates her merits. In Aksenov's translation, there is also a contrast, but it is carried out on a different basis: intelligent - idle. Aksenov's version of the translation makes it clear that the translator correlated the characters of the play with the Russian linguistic and cultural phenomenon. This is far from accidental, because the author of the original text invites the reader to think about what the representatives of modern high society are and what they are doing. In the second and third acts of the play we read:
LADY UTTERWORD. Perhaps I do, Hector. But let me warn you once for all that I am a rigidly conventional woman. You may think because I "m a Shotover that I" m a Bohemian, because we are all so horribly Bohemian. But I "m not. I hate and loathe Bohemianism. No child brought up in a strict Puritan household ever suffered from Puritanism as I suffered from our Bohemianism.
HECTOR. All heartbroken imbeciles.
MAZZINI. Oh no. Surely, if I may say so, rather a favorable specimen of what is best in our English culture. You are very charming people, most advanced, unprejudiced, frank, humane, unconventional, democratic, free-thinking, and everything that is delightful to thoughtful people.
MRS HUSHABYE. You make us proud, Mazzini.
MAZZINI. I am not flattering, really. Where else could I feel perfectly at ease in my pajamas? I sometimes dream that I am in a very distinguished society, and suddenly I have nothing on but my pajamas! Sometimes I haven't even pajamas. And I always feel overwhelmed with confusion. But here, I don't mind in the least: it seems quite natural.
LADY UTTERWORD. An infallible sign that you are now not in a really distinguished society, Mr Dunn. If you were in my house, you would feel embarrassed.
MAZZINI. I shall take particular care to keep out of your house, Lady Utterword.
The quotation could go on, because the entire third act of Shaw's play is a heated discussion about modern man. However, the passages cited are sufficient to
make sure that there are grounds for Aksenov's erroneous translation decision.
Translation interpretation, therefore, is of decisive importance in the formation of images of actors in translations. In a number of cases, inaccuracies and normative-usual errors made by translators (and editors) lead to impoverishment of the characters' images and distortion of the pragmatic style of the original text in the translation texts. In addition, often the translator, interpreting the work in his own way, introduces new meanings that are absent in the original text into his translation. Comparison of translations and editions created during the 20th century makes it possible to trace the change in translation strategies, and, putting side by side sometimes literal translations of the early 20th century. and the classical translation by Bobrov and Bogoslovskaya, one cannot but agree with the statement of Jiri Levy that the reprinting of a dramatic work in new translations for the development of the theater is truly beneficial17.
Notes
MacLysaght E. Irish Families: Their Names, Arms, and Origins. Dublin: Hodges; Figgis, 1957. P. 132.
Obraztsova A.G. Bernard Shaw and Russian artistic culture at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. M.: Nauka, 1992. S. 139.
Shaw G.B. Heartbreak House, Great Catherine, and Playlets of the War. N. Y .: Brentano "s, 1919. P. 78-79 [Electronic resource] // Internet Archive. URL: http://archive.org/stream/heartbreakhouse01shawgoog#page/n9/mode/2up (Accessed: 10/31/2014 Here and below, the original text is cited according to this original edition. Here and below, the first citation of the edition of the source text and the translation text is accompanied by its bibliographic description. Here and below, when citing, the spelling and punctuation of the edition are preserved.
Hereinafter, the text of the source and the text of the translation are accompanied by the name of the author or translator, the year of publication and, if possible, the number(s) of the page(s). The data is enclosed in square brackets and placed in the text of the article after each quotation. MacLysaght E. Op. cit. P. 220.
"I imagined that I had written a calm, thoughtful semi-tragic play in the manner of Chekhov...". Cit. by: Obraztsova A.G. Decree. op. P. 146. Myths of the peoples of the world. M.: Direct Media Publishing, 2006. S. 104.
There. S. 299.
Obraztsova A.G. Decree. op. S. 127.
The J.B. Show The house where hearts break. Fantasy in the Russian manner on English themes [typewritten text] / Per. I.A. Aksenova. M.: [b. and.], 1921 (?). S. x. Hereinafter, the text of the translation by I.A. Aksenov is cited in this edition.
Home of weary hearts. Russian fantasy on English themes. Satire-comedy in 3 acts = House of broken hearts. Satire by Bernard Shaw in three acts [typewritten text] / Per. S. Rebellious. [B. m.]: [B. and.], 1928 (?). P. 5. Hereinafter, the text of the translation by S. Rebellious is quoted from this edition. Show B. The house where hearts break / Per. M. Levidova // Show B. Fav. op. M.; L.: Mrs. Publishing House of Artists. lit., 1933. P. 192. Hereinafter, the text of M. Levidov's translation is quoted from this edition.
Show B. Heartbreak House. Fantasy in Russian style on English themes / Per. M.P. Bogoslovskaya and S.P. Bobrova // Show B. Favorites. M.: State. Publishing House of Artists. lit., 1946, p. 357. Hereinafter, the text of M.P. Bogoslovskaya and S.P. Bobrov is cited from this edition. Show B. Heartbreak House. A play in three acts [typewritten text] / Per. from English. E. Golysheva. M.: VUOAP, 1962. P. 4. Hereinafter, the text of E. Golysheva is quoted from this edition.
Dal V.I. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. M.: EKSMO-Press, 2001. P. 248. Ozhegov S.I. Dictionary of the Russian language. M .: Russian language, 1977. P. 182. “It is useful for the development of the theater that even the most frequently performed classical plays are published in several translations with different interpretations” (Levy I. The Art of Translation / Translated from Czech and foreword by Vl. Rossels, Moscow: Progress, 1974, p. 216).
