In this paper, the author presents and compares the different Hungarian translations of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina. The first, 1887 translation of the novel – a scandalously bad, abridged text, completely unworthy of Tolstoy, made on the basis of the German translation – rightly provoked rage among contemporary critics and readers. At the beginning of the 20th century, the translation of the novel was undertaken by Dezső Ambrozovics and then by a group of four translators, but the real breakthrough came with the 1951 translation by László Németh, which was a nice and accurate translation of Anna Karenina, and worthy of its author. In the course of time, several editions of the translation made by László Németh were published, yet the editors “provided some clarifications” throughout the text with the intention of correcting it. The author of the present paper also gives some examples of the misunderstandings and errors of translation which were produced in the text due to the lack of proper knowledge of Russian culture.
culture. The results of the analysis also allowed us to test the re-translation hypothesis. We were able to investigate whether the initial English translations of Bulgakov's novel were domesticated to a greater extent, and whether they were closer to the
In the paper I bring together two sets of theories from Narrative Theory and from Retranslation Theory. Links and similarities between the theories are examined under the headings of Essence, Social Conditioning, and Interpretation. A post-structuralist narrative theory is presented, and I extrapolate from this to propose a post-structuralist retranslation theory. After the theoretical discussion I report on the study of a corpus comprising Zola's novel Nana and its five major British (re)translations. The aim is to evaluate how well the theories regarding narrative versions and retranslations hold up with respect to a study of data. A conclusion is reached as to which theories best explain the data. The paper concludes too that bringing together sets of theories from different but related disciplines can be productive in conceptualizing translational phenomena, in this case the phenomenon of retranslation.
This paper explores the reasons for the translation boom in the 1990s in mainland China. During this period translated literature flourished in China. Many translations were retranslations of the great classical works of world literature. The major reason for the prospering of retranslations in this period was commercial. After 1978, the year of political opening-up, the monotonous cultural life of the Chinese people was enriched and enthusiasm for reading classical literature reawakened. A surprisingly large readership emerged. Well-established publishers, such as People’s Literature Publishing House and Yilin Publishing House produced many high-quality translations of works included in the world’s literary canons, which fueled and strengthened people’s interest in reading literature. Due to a large market, re-translation and re-publication of foreign masters became a very lucrative business. Some publishers were unqualified for publishing foreign literature and they did not have foreign-language editors. However, in the hope of making a large profit, they began to publish poor-quality retranslations of literary masterworks, even though a canonical translation of the same work had been published by some other publishing house. As a result, the retranslation boom of the 1990s in mainland China became a bedlam.
, when post-editing a low-quality MT, they had frequently checked the ST for revising the MT output, or for re-translating segments with critical mistakes from scratch. In other words, when post-editing a low-quality MT, participants will have to allocate
particular stretto entries). Instead, in the piece Memory (dedicated to “Dear Christina”), the composer prefers a variant re-translation of a folk melody with a characteristic “extended” and accentuated syncopated ending. Moreover, this detail is a kind of
the Vulgate Bible. 27 In general it is not clear to what extent Jerome made use of pre-existing Latin translations for the Greek parts of the book. At least for Dn 13 (Sus) it is likely that he re-translated it, even though VL phrases are occasionally
). Öreg Szinán építőmester [Old Sinan the master builder] . Erdélyi Helikon , 5 ( 8 ): 538 – 545 . Kós , K. ( 1995 ). İstanbul. Şehir tarihi ve mimarisi [Istanbul. Urban History and Architecture] . İstanbul , T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı . (It was re-translated