kamarova er perevodnaya-mnojestvennost-hudojestvennogo-teksta-na-primere-perevodov-romana-dj-selindjera-nad-pr 170245

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION
FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY ―HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS‖
School of Foreign Languages
Endzhe R. Kamarova
MULTIPLICITY OF LITERARY TRANSLATION:
TWO TRANSLATIONS OF “THE CATCHER IN THE RYE” BY J.D.
SALINGER
BACHELOR‘S THESIS
Field of study: Linguistics
Degree programme: Foreign Languages and Intercultural Communication
Academic Supervisor:
Irina I. Chironova, Professor
Moscow, 2021
2
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5
Literature Review .......................................................................................................... 9
1. The Overview of the History of Translation Multiplicity Studies ............................ 9
1.1. The Development of the Theory of Retranslations Abroad ............................ 10
1.2. The Development of the Theory of Translation Multiplicity in Russia ......... 12
2. The Concept of Translation Multiplicity ................................................................ 14
2.1. Definition of Translation Multiplicity............................................................. 14
2.2. Classification of Translations in the Framework of the Translation
Multiplicity Concept ....................................................................................... 16
2.3. Postulates and Characteristics of Translation Multiplicity ............................. 18
2.4. Factors of Translation Multiplicity Occurrence .............................................. 25
Empirical Part .............................................................................................................. 29
I. Discourse Analysis................................................................................................... 29
1. Analysis of the Personalities of the Authors ...................................................... 30
1.1. Jerome David Salinger ............................................................................... 31
1.2. Rita Yakovlevna Rait-Kovaleva ................................................................ 38
1.3. Maxim Nemtsov ......................................................................................... 46
2. Analysis of the Socio-Cultural Context of the Epochs ...................................... 52
2.1. Socio-Cultural Context of the USA in 40-50s ........................................... 52
2.2. Socio-Cultural Context of the USSR in 50-60s ......................................... 62
2.3. Socio-Cultural Context of Russia in 2000s ................................................ 73
II. Comparative Analysis ............................................................................................ 84
1. Individual Peculiarities....................................................................................... 84
1.1. Lexical Level .............................................................................................. 92
1.1.1. Youth Slang ........................................................................................ 92
1.1.2. Thieves' (Criminal) Jargon ................................................................. 95
1.1.3. Swear Words ...................................................................................... 96
1.1.4. Colloquial Words ............................................................................... 98
1.1.5. Obsolete Words .................................................................................. 99
3
1.2. Syntactical Level ...................................................................................... 100
1.2.1. Reduction ......................................................................................... 100
1.2.2. Clarification of the Meaning ............................................................ 101
1.3. Grammatical Level ................................................................................... 103
1.3.1. Choice of Tenses .............................................................................. 103
2. Socio-Cultural Peculiarities ............................................................................. 109
2.1. Text Transformations Caused by the Political and Ideological Features of
the Epochs ..................................................................................................... 110
2.1.1. Attitude to Religion .......................................................................... 110
2.1.2. Attitude to Homosexuality ............................................................... 114
2.1.3. Attitude to Racism............................................................................ 116
2.1.4. Attitude to Politics............................................................................ 118
2.2. Text Transformations Caused by the Domestication and Foreignization of
the Translations ............................................................................................. 123
2.2.1. Generalization of Concepts .............................................................. 124
2.2.2. Suppression of the American Realities ............................................ 126
2.2.3. Absence of the American Realities .................................................. 130
2.2.4. Translation of Proper Names ........................................................... 135
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 140
References ................................................................................................................. 145
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 156
4
Abstract
The presence of several translations of the same literary work in one culture has
become of interest for the scholars in the field of translation science since the middle
of the 20th century. This phenomenon of the coexistence of various translations is
called the multiplicity of translations which has been discussed up to the present
days. The purpose of this paper is to shed new light on the grounds for the emergence
of multiple translations of Jerome David Salinger‘s novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ in
the Russian culture. This study examines two translations of the book into the
Russian language made by Rita Rait-Kovaleva in 1960 and Maxim Nemtsov in 2008.
The present investigation hypothesizes that the multiplicity of translations of this
novel has arisen due to such reasons as the peculiarities of the socio-cultural
background of certain epochs and the personal characteristics of the authors including
their intentions and preferences regarding their works. To achieve the set goals and
test the hypothesis, such key research methods as discourse and comparative analyses
have been chosen. First, the discourse analysis allows exploring the biographies and
individual characteristics of each of the authors as well as analysing in detail the three
epochs when the works were published (the post-war USA of 40-50s, the Soviet
Union of the 50-60s, and the postmodern Russia at the beginning of the 21st century).
Second, the comparative analysis of the two translations of the original novel is
carried out in order to identify the differences between the texts. As a result of the
examination, the discrepancies at different levels of the language reveal the influence
of the socio-cultural characteristics of the epochs and the individual peculiarities of
the authors on the translated texts and confirm the hypothesis. Besides, theoretical
and practical implementations as well as the research limitations are rigorously
considered in this paper.
Keywords: translation multiplicity, socio-cultural context, individual features,
discourse analysis, comparative analysis
5
Introduction
Since ancient times books have been reprinted by various authors and
translated into different languages for the purpose of their distribution and
transmission from one generation to another. In addition, many texts of foreign origin
have always been an issue of interest for the representatives of diverse nations who
have had a desire to draw knowledge from other cultures (Poucke & Gallego, 2019).
Therefore, foreign books started to be translated into other languages many years ago.
However, in the 20th century, translations of works that had been already written in
the same language of the host culture began to appear. Such occasions became an
object of study for the researchers who tried to find out the reasons for the occurrence
of repeated translations in the same culture and their distinctive features.
In fact, the existence of several translations of the same original work in one
language culture is called multiplicity of translations or retranslation (Tchaikovsky &
Lysenkova, 2001). Studies of this concept are conducted by both foreign and Russian
scholars. Although research in this area appeared earlier abroad, Russian scholars
have also done a lot of work in this domain and have contributed significantly to this
section of translation science. A thorough study of the research in this field shows
that an essential number of theorists pay attention to the grounds for the translation
multiplicity phenomenon and highlight the personal characteristics of different
authors and the distinctive features of the socio-cultural context of the epochs which
lead to the emergence of more and more new translations of the same work.
However, the majority of such investigations are theoretical and are not supported by
any empirical data.
Furthermore, recently, the phenomenon of translation multiplicity among
literary works has become an issue attracting the attention of researchers. Due to the
fact that a large number of theoretical materials were represented in the last century,
in modern times, investigators are more engaged in the study of retranslations of
literary classical books, although the phenomenon of multiplicity is applicable to
many other genres, such as journalistic works, academic and scientific texts, news,
and others. Thus, many books of world classical literature and their translations into
6
different languages have been studied by various authors in recent years. Among
these works, Jerome David Salinger‘s novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ represents a
significant interest for the scholars. This book was published in 1951, but it still
remains well-known among the representatives of distinct generations and is explored
by many researchers. Moreover, translations of this work into other languages also
gain popularity among professionals. As for the Russian-language translations,
Salinger‘s novel was translated for the Russian audience several times by different
authors at various times. However, although there are many studies on these
translations, most of them are aimed only at exploring the discrepancies between
them in terms of translation practices and methods which have had a different impact
on the works.
Therefore, the present paper discusses the multiplicity of literary translations
based on the novel of Jerome David Salinger ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ and two of its
translations into the Russian language made by Rita Rait-Kovaleva in 1960 and
Maxim Nemtsov in 2008. Taking into account previous research connected to these
texts, the hypothesis is put forward which proposes that the multiplicity of
translations of this American novel appeared for two reasons related to the personal
characteristics of each of the authors as well as to the peculiarities of the sociocultural background of the epochs in which the three works under analysis were
published. More precisely, these are such periods of time as the post-war USA of 4050s when the original novel was released, the Soviet Union of the 50-60s when Rita
Rait-Kovaleva‘s translation was printed, and the postmodern Russia of the early 21st
century when Maxim Nemtsov‘s translation was published.
The relevance of this study lies in the fact that the multiplicity of translations
has an obvious substantial appeal among scholars as well as J. D. Salinger‘s novel
still generates a lot of interest. However, while research related to the translation
multiplicity, the American book, and its translations under consideration continue to
be investigated, there is no fundamental examination of the grounds for which there
exist several translations of the same novel in the Russian culture. In addition, there is
a gap in research on the influence of the personal characteristics of J. D. Salinger,
7
Rita Rait-Kovaleva, and Maxim Nemtsov, as well as the socio-cultural peculiarities
of the eras when their works were written.
Therefore, the main purpose of the present paper is to identify the major
factors that have caused new translations of the literary book ―The Catcher in the
Rye‖ to appear within the same language culture and led to the occurrence of the
translation multiplicity. Such an investigation will be carried out on the basis of three
texts: J. D. Salinger‘s novel and its two translations into the Russian language made
by Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov. Hence, the objectives of the study are as
follows:
1) to define the phenomenon of translation multiplicity and reveal the features
of this concept;
2) to analyse the personalities of Jerome David Salinger, Rita Rait-Kovaleva,
and Maxim Nemtsov in order to reveal the peculiarities related to their biographies
and life events which might have an impact on their works;
3) to investigate the social, cultural, and historical peculiarities of the three
epochs to discover their distinctive features that could influence the works of the
three authors under consideration;
4) to examine the three works (J.D. Salinger‘s ―The Catcher in the Rye‖, R.
Rait-Kovaleva‘s and M. Nemtsov‘s translations) in order to reveal the discrepancies
between them which might have appeared due to the authors‘ personal peculiarities
and socio-cultural contexts of the epochs.
In order to achieve the objectives of the study, the methods of discourse and
comparative analyses have been chosen. Firstly, the rigorous study of texts and
articles devoted to the investigation of the personalities of the American writer and
two Russian translators will be carried out. Furthermore, the three epochs under
consideration will be examined in order to reveal the socio-cultural context of the
novel and its two translations. This research will be conducted with the application of
the discourse analysis method. Secondly, the original book of J. D. Salinger and its
two translations into the Russian language will be examined in terms of the
comparative analysis. This research method will allow determining the differences
8
between the texts and discovering the main grounds for their occurrence. On the
whole, the findings obtained during the discourse and comparative analyses will be
explored thoroughly in order to test the proposed hypothesis about the influence of
the socio-cultural characteristics of various periods of time and the individual
peculiarities of the authors on the works.
Nevertheless, the present study has several limitations. One of them is a small
number of rigorous investigations of the translation multiplicity phenomenon, the
socio-cultural features of J. D. Salinger‘s novel and its translations, and the impact of
personal characteristics of the authors on their works. The majority of the studies
related to such issues are conducted on the basis of their predecessors‘ works and do
not represent the unique and valuable information. Therefore, this restriction does not
allow discussing the topic from every possible angle and contrasting different
scholars‘ thoughts. Furthermore, another limitation is the subjectivity of the analysis,
since the interpretation of the discrepancies in the literary works may differ
depending on the point of view of each researcher.
This investigation has several significant implications. The outcomes of the
present paper may be implemented in the studies related to the translation activities as
well as cross-cultural communication because the cultural background is taken into
account during the analysis of all the three works under consideration. Moreover, the
findings of this study may be essential for the future translators who have a desire to
work with Jerome David Salinger‘s novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ and create such a
translation which would be the most approached to the original version of the text.
The paper is organized in a following way. The first part of the research deals
with the theoretical framework. It includes the investigation of the translation
multiplicity and outlines the previous studies related to this concept. The second part
is empirical and consists of two sections correlating with the two research methods
applied in this paper. The first one comprises the discourse analysis of the three
authors‘ personalities and the three epochs under consideration whereas the second
one incorporates the comparative analysis of the texts. This section includes the
9
examination of the differences between the three works and their exploration
integrating the results of the discourse analysis.
Literature Review
1. The Overview of the History of Translation Multiplicity Studies
The repeated translation of one work into the same language is a phenomenon
that has been known for a long time. Nevertheless, research that analyzes the
theoretical side of the issue and puts forward specialized theories and hypotheses on
the particular concept of translation multiplicity of literary works began to be
published quite recently (Levin, 1992).
Both foreign and Russian researchers carry out various analyses on this issue
while the denominations of the concept and the objects of research vary. Thus, the
term retranslation is more often used by representatives of foreign schools (Paloposki
& Koskinen, 2010) whereas Russian authors refer to the same phenomenon as
translation multiplicity or translation plurality or multiplicity of translations (Levin,
1992; Sherstneva, 2008).
Russian specialists in the field of the multiplicity of translations explore
exclusively works of fiction and literary translations, and most texts have a canonical
status imposing that such a work is read by many generations and considered a
significant and valuable item of classical literature (Stanislavsky, 2016). Foreign
retranslation has a completely different research objects. According to the British
translation expert, Sebnem Susam-Sarajeva (2006: 137-138), retranslations can
appear not only when the original work is a canonical work of art, but also in other
types of texts, such as scientific ones, advertising, sacred texts, international
documents, dramatic works, and so on.
Thus, the fields of research of Russian and foreign scholars differ slightly but
these are all the divergences that are present between the concepts of retranslation
and translation multiplicity. In fact, these two terms mean the same phenomenon in
which the same factors of translation appearance, their nature, classification, and
features are discussed.
10
Further, the fundamental reviews of research conducted by both foreign and
Russian scholars on the topic of multiple translations will be carried out. These
overviews will highlight an in-depth history of the development of the retranslation
phenomenon study by various authors in distinct schools and will reveal the questions
scholars have been and are engaged in on this issue. The development of the
retranslation theories abroad will be investigated primarily. After that, the study of
the concept of translation multiplicity in Russia will be undertaken.
1.1. The Development of the Theory of Retranslations Abroad
The novelty of the concept of translation multiplicity can be identified in the
following data. There is no information about multiplicity of translations in the first
edition of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (Baker, 1997), but an
article on this topic appears in the second edition of the same encyclopedia in 2009
(Baker & Saldanha, 2009). Furthermore, in recent years, an increasing number of
foreign studies regarding the concept of retranslation have been published.
In 1990, the French translation theorist, Antoine Berman, in his article ―La
retraduction comme espace de la traduction‖ (1990), developed a concept which was
called the ―Retranslation Hypothesis‖ according to which there exists a phenomenon
of ―a great translation‖ the essence of which will be examined later in the present
paper. This hypothesis became widespread in further works in the field of foreign
translation studies. Furthermore, the French translator, Paul Bensimon (1990), also
states that the first translation of the work is very different from the subsequent ones,
since it is the ―naturalisation de l‘oeuvre étrangère‖, meaning the naturalization of the
foreign work. In other words, the first translation focuses on a targeted culture, while
the following works may emphasize the variability of cultural values and
orientations.
Inspired by the vital and vivid differences between translations, the topic of
retranslations became an increasingly attractive and curious issue for various
researchers. Hence, at the beginning of the 21st century, many works dealing with
such a phenomenon were published. For instance, Finnish translators and professors
of translation studies, Kujamäki Pekka and Riitta Oittinen, wrote such works as
11
―Deutsche Stimmen der Sieben Brüder‖ (1998), ―Finnish comet in German skies.
Translation, retranslation and norms‖ (2001) and ―Translating for Children‖ (2002).
These works are dedicated to the investigation of the occurrence of the translation
multiplicity within different literary books. Furthermore, the French translation
theorists, Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere, were famous for their study called
―Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame‖ published in 1992
(Bassnett & Lefevere, 1992). In addition, the Slovak scholar, Maria Tymoczko, made
a contribution to the research by her work ―Translation in a Postcolonial Context‖
(1999). Although these works did not test or discuss the topic of the popular
hypothesis at that time, they still reveal that scholars from many countries and
different cultures were interested in the topic of retranslation, thereby increasingly
studying the phenomenon of multiple translations and fueling new research related to
this concept.
Following the Berman hypothesis, Finnish translation scholars, Outi
Paloposki and Kaisa Koskinen, focused on such concepts as domestication and
foreignization of translations in their articles. According to the researchers, the
domesticated translation introduces the text, and the foreignized one is aimed more at
a specific audience (Paloposki & Koskinen, 2004). However, in their work ―A
thousand and one translations: Revisiting retranslation‖ (2004), they consider the
hypothesis in more detail and find that it is not applicable in all possible cases.
Moreover, they suggest various factors that may affect translations and cause various
retranslations.
The same authors reflect on such concepts as ―translation aging‖ and its
division into ―hot and cold" which appear due to the fact that the previous translation
is always imperfect and requires a new one (Paloposki & Koskinen, 2010). However,
such hypotheses are being revised by scholars of the early 21st century who develop
different theories and study retranslation from a slightly different angle. For instance,
the Australian researcher, Anthony Pym, in his book ―Method in Translation History‖
establishes a classification of translations into active and passive. According to him,
active translations have a common cultural and temporary location whereas passive
12
ones are separated by geographical distance and time and do not affect each other in
any way (Pym, 2014).
Moreover, many translation scholars have devoted their work to research into
the reasons of retranslation. For example, in his paper (ibid.), Anthony Pym identifies
pedagogical and competitive factors related to the knowledge present in different
texts which contribute to the appearance of various grounds for the multiplicity. In
addition, the French linguist, Yves Gambier, in his work ―La Retraduction, retour et
détour‖ (1994), suggests that new translations appear because of new knowledge
about the original language or changes in the interpretation of the original text.
However, these works are completely theoretical and they do not have evidence for
the derived theories and hypotheses based on the empirical data.
Thus, it can be found that the majority of foreign works investigating the
phenomenon of retranslation rely on various hypotheses put forward in the late 20th
century and early 21st century. In addition, many of them focus on studying the
causes of multiple translations, often studying the processes of domestication and
foreignization, which will be investigated and considered more thoroughly in the
present paper.
1.2. The Development of the Theory of Translation Multiplicity in Russia
The previously presented review of the literature which deals with the study
of the phenomenon of retranslations concerns the history of the study of the concept
by foreign scholars. Nonetheless, the issue of translation multiplicity was also
explored by Soviet and Russian researchers.
The concept of translation multiplicity of literary works has been studied in
the Soviet Union only since the second half of the 20th century. Although in 1930, a
Russian and Soviet philologist and translator, Andrey Fedorov, in his work
―Fundamentals of the General Theory of Translation‖ (2002), mentioned and
analysed the phenomenon of translation multiplicity, he did not use such terms as
multiplicity, plurality, and retranslation which are widely accepted nowadays. In that
manual, the author covered the most important sections of the general theory of
translation, such as the conditions for choosing language tools in translation,
13
grammatical issues of translation, types of translation, etc. Further, in 1963, the
Russian Soviet literary critic and translator, Vladimir Shor, in his article ―Experience
of Multiple Solutions to One Translation Problem‖ (Shor, 1963) was the first to use
the words ―multiplicity‖ and ―plurality‖ in the context of scientific translation
activities. In his work, he considers the need for multiple translations and discusses
the inaccuracy of those translation works that are literal translations of foreign
literature. After that, the Soviet and Russian literary critic and translator, Yuri Levin,
studied the phenomenon of multiple translations in-depth and wrote many articles and
works on this topic. For instance, in his article ―On the Issue of Translation
Multiplicity‖ (1981) and ―Translation as a Form of Literature‘s Existence‖ (1982), he
states that the phenomenon of multiplicity of translations is a part of literature‘s life
and provides his own views on the definition of the concept within the cultural
frameworks. Nevertheless, these works did not explore any specific literary
examples, but only investigated the theoretical components of the issue under
analysis.
Following these studies, academic papers that pointed out the concept of
translation multiplicity began to intensively emerge only at the beginning of the 21th
century. Many Russian and Ukrainian authors were actively involved in the study of
the present phenomenon. The most significant works of that time regarding the
concept of translation multiplicity were Valuitseva‘s ―The Retranslation of the Sacred
Text: Return or Modernization?‖ (2009), Bazylev‘s ―Theory of Translation‖ (2012),
and so on. In many of these works, the authors connect the foreign concept of
retranslation with the Soviet and Russian term translation multiplicity and point out
their similarity and several differences. However, still these studies were not
supported by practical research based on the literary books.
Nevertheless, a great contribution to this issue and the analysis of this
phenomenon was made in the early 2000s, when Russian scholars from Magadan,
Tchaikovsky and Lysenkova, began to approach the issue comprehensively and
identified fifteen postulates about the translation multiplicity of literary works based
on the books of R. M. Rilke and their translations. These authors created such works
14
as ―Translation Inexhaustibility. 100 Translations of R. M. Rilke‘s ―The Panther‖ into
15 Languages‖ (Tchaikovsky & Lysenkova, 2001), ―Poetry and Prose by R. M. Rilke
in Russian Translations: Historical, Stylistic-Comparative, and Translation Studies
Aspects‖ (Lysenkova, 2007) ―Basic Principles of Literary Translation‖ (Tchaikovsky,
2008), etc. However, their articles are generally based on their own conclusions and
are aimed at finding the causes of the phenomenon of multiple translations.
Furthermore, in 2000, a Russian and Soviet literary critic, Pavel Toper, has
published the work named ―Translation within the System of Comparative Literature
Studies‖ (Toper, 2000). This article became widespread and many other linguists and
literary researchers based their theories and hypotheses on Toper's work. In his book,
the author outlined the definition of the phenomenon of translation multiplicity and
provided some of the main characteristics of this concept. By the way, based mostly
on the works of Toper, Tchaikovsky, and Lysenkova, such a Russian scholar as E. S.
Sherstneva published her article called ―The Translation Multiplicity as a Category of
the Translation Studies: the History, Status, and Trends‖ (2008) where she explored
the concept of translation multiplicity in the aspect of the history of research of this
category of literary translation. The author studied the functional features of the
phenomenon, introduced new postulates of the theory of translation multiplicity, and
revealed more reasons for the retranslation phenomenon.
Thus, many Soviet and Russian scholars have studied the concept of
translation multiplicity during the last century, and many are writing their works on
this topic now. Therefore, based on the research that has been already done, several
conclusions can be drawn and the knowledge and results of the studies can be
summarized.
2. The Concept of Translation Multiplicity
2.1. Definition of Translation Multiplicity
To begin with, to understand the concept of multiple translations, it is
necessary to define what a literary translation itself is. According to Yuri Levin,
literary translation is a type of creative literary activity in which a work produced in
15
one language and is recreated in another one using the means of this translation
language (Levin, 1981: 365). This scholar believed that the study of the phenomenon
when there are several translations of one work into the same language is a relatively
new field of translation studies, and the very concept of translation multiplicity is
recognized as the possibility of having several translations of the same literary work
into a single foreign language, the original version of which usually has only one
textual implementation (Levin, 1992).
Thus, any book can have several literary translations; therefore, this
phenomenon was called ―translation multiplicity (plurality)‖ by the Soviet and
Russian scholars. Moreover, Tchaikovsky in his work approached such a concept as
―the fact of the real existence in the translated literature of two or more translations of
the same original‖ (2008: 140). In addition, he considered the translation plurality to
be a ―synonymy at the text level‖ (2008: 149).
In addition, different researchers described the phenomenon in distinct words
and always had their own specific angle of view which changed each of the
definitions. So, Pavel Toper, for instance, indicates in his work that translation
multiplicity is a ―natural attribute of a work of art‖ which is associated with the
creative personality of the author and the competition of talents (Toper, 2000: 228).
Furthermore, Toper in his book ―Translation within the System of Comparative
Literature Studies‖ (2000) asserts that there cannot be an absolute, correct, and ideal
translation for all times and epochs. The author calls the possibility of repeated
translations the inexhaustibility of a great work of art as he refers to the translation
activity.
Regarding the topic of the ideal translation which was studied by Pavel Toper,
it is worth mentioning the theory of the French translation theorist, Antoine Berman.
According to this scholar, there is a concept of a ―great translation‖ which is depicted
in his article ―La retraduction comme espace de la traduction‖ (1990). Thus, the
scholar believes that the very first translation work cannot be perfect, while the
subsequent ones can be called the great translations. He confirms his idea by
indicating that the first translator being a pioneer always has doubts about his or her
16
work while followers can study the success, advantages, and mistakes of the work
done before and improve the previous translation. This concept is denominated as the
―Retranslation Hypothesis‖ which is justified and confirmed by numerous studies,
and many scientists believe in it, albeit not all of them.
2.2. Classification of Translations in the Framework of the Translation
Multiplicity Concept
After the definition of the phenomenon is specified, it is necessary to examine
various approaches to the classification of translations within the framework of the
concept of translation multiplicity developed by varied scholars.
First and foremost, in their work ―Translation Inexhaustibility. 100
Translations of R.M. Rilke‘s ―The Panther‖ into 15 Languages‖, Tchaikovsky and
Lysenkova propose the principle of potential and real translation multiplicity. They
point out that these concepts are closely related to each other and interdependent
since the original work is always open meaning that it is ready for translation into
other languages and has the potential for its implementation in another language.
Therefore, such a potential causes a real possibility of the transition from the
theoretical probability of the translation to the practical appearance of new
translations. As a result, the phenomenon of translation multiplicity emerges.
Moreover, the concepts of potential and real translation multiplicity are determined
by both linguistic and extralinguistic factors. The authors specify such factors as the
orientation of the original text to the existence in the foreign language, the desire of
translators to surpass existing translated versions, and the readers' interest in a foreign
work which is going to be translated (Tchaikovsky & Lysenkova, 2001: 186).
Furthermore, Pavel Toper in his book, considering the concept of multiple
translations, categorizes translations into synchronic and diachronic. The researcher
denominates synchronic translations of a single work that are made due to the
competition of talents between translators who live at the same time, that is, between
several contemporaries. Moreover, he considers diachronic translations to be those
that are released with a sufficiently large time interval from each other, and the
17
reason for the appearance of a new translation is the change and accumulation of
society's traditions (Toper, 2000: 44).
The same classification was proposed by R. R. Tchaikovsky in 2008 when the
author put forward the idea of the division of translations into diachronic and
synchronic and asserted that this classification approach depends completely on the
time interval between the creation of the original work and its translations and on the
sequence of appearance of various translation versions. Thus, the sequence of
publication of different retranslations can be chronological, and in this case, the
translations are called diachronic, or it can be simultaneous, in which the translations
are entitled synchronic (Tchaikovsky, 2008).
In addition, in her work, E. S. Sherstneva refers to another classification
which was made by Tchaikovsky and Lysenkova who classified the translation
plurality into active and passive. They identified active translation multiplicity the
situation when the original text has several translations into the same language, and
all versions of translations are reprinted and read. So, they function synchronously
although they were released at different times. Moreover, they denominated passive
translation multiplicity the phenomenon when a book has several translations that
appeared either in the same period of time or with a larger interval between but only
one version of the translation is reprinted and read while the rest become inactive and
not in demand, and simply constitute the property of literary history (Sherstneva,
2008: 528). By the way, the Australian researcher, Anthony Pym, in his book
―Method in translation history‖ establishes the same classification as Sherstneva‘s
one (Pym 2014).
Eventually, in 2019, in a paper entitled ―On the Issue of Translation Plurality
of Jane Austen‘s Works‖, S.M. Isaeva and M.V. Dobryakova mention a competing
type of translation multiplicity along with active and passive ones. Such a kind of
multiplicity of translations, according to the authors, can appear if translations of the
same work, published over a relatively short period, coexist and function in parallel.
Thus, the difference of this type of multiplicity from the active one is that translations
in a competing type of multiplicity are released during approximately the same time
18
period, while the active one emerges when translations of different times are
functioning (Isaeva & Dobryakova, 2019).
2.3. Postulates and Characteristics of Translation Multiplicity
In 2001, Tchaikovsky and Lysenkova in their book entitled "Translation
Inexhaustibility. 100 Translations of R.M. Rilke‘s ―The Panther‖ into 15 Languages"
described 10 postulates which mean the statements that characterize the phenomenon
of translation multiplicity (Tchaikovsky & Lysenkova, 2001).
These postulates are outlined in a structured way in Table 1 below. This table
represents the essence of the postulates as well as reveals their features and meanings
in more detail (Tchaikovsky and Lysenkova, 2001; Sherstneva, 2008: 528-529).
10 postulates characterizing the phenomenon of translation multiplicity
according to Tchaikovsky and Lysenkova (2001)
№
1
Postulate
Meaning of the Postulate
The multiplicity of translations Translations of the same text in the same
is synonymy at the level of the language are text synonyms, even if the
text.
degree of similarity between them is
extremely different.
2
Expansion of the figurative and The understanding of the original version
conceptual meanings of the itself expands when several translations into
3
original work.
other languages appear.
The importance of the title.
The title of various translations plays an
important semantic role and unites all
translations into one text community.
4
The inevitability of repetitions The multiplicity of translations leads to the
in translation multiplicity.
fact that repetitions are unavoidable in
several translations of the same work.
5
The
problems
of
optimal Since there is an inevitability of repetitions,
translation solutions.
there is a problem to choose the most
appropriate translation version.
19
The
6
identification
of When several translations of the same work
translations shortcomings and appear, these translations become competing
advantages.
since the translation multiplicity allows us to
identify the advantages and disadvantages of
each translation
The invalidity of the progress The law of progress does not exist in a
7
law in translation multiplicity.
literary
translation
meaning
that
each
subsequent translation will not necessarily
be better than the previous one.
The impossibility of creation The phenomenon of translation multiplicity
8
the appropriate translation after implies the application of the maximum
resource depletion.
possible
resources
of
the
translation
language, and when these resources are
exhausted, the
appearance
of
a new
appropriate translation becomes impossible.
The depletion of translation The exhaustion of language resources does
9
resources does not affect the not indicate the exhaustion of the original
original work.
10
work.
The brilliance of an original If the original work has several translations
work with multiple translations. in the same language, then the original
version of the book can be considered
"genius".
Table 1. 10 postulates characterizing the phenomenon of translation multiplicity
according to Tchaikovsky and Lysenkova (2001)
This description of the postulates enables realizing the basic functional and
qualitative characteristics of the phenomenon of translation multiplicity since they
were considered only at the first stages of in-depth study of the multiplicity concept
when it was necessary to explain the phenomenon.
20
Over time, scholars began to pay more attention to the conditions and grounds
for the translation multiplicity occurrence. Moreover, there were an increasing
number of interpretations of the phenomenon essence. Therefore, in 2007, Lysenkova
in her work ―Poetry and Prose by R. M. Rilke in Russian Translations: Historical,
Stylistic-Comparative and Translation Studies Aspects‖ introduces five new
postulates combining them with the previous ten (Lysenkova, 2007; Sherstneva,
2008: 529). The description and essence of these new theses are presented in Table 2
below.
5 new postulates characterizing the phenomenon of translation multiplicity
according to Lysenkova (2007)
№
1
Postulate
Meaning of the Postulate
The possibility of different Each
interpretations
of
original literary work.
literary
the interpretations
work
and
can
have
translations
different
since
each
translator pays attention to some particular facet of
the meaning of the original book.
2
Polylogy of texts that are Translation plurality is a "polylogue" which means
similar in content and that it is a combination of texts that are more or
form.
3
less similar in content and form.
The meaning intensity of The original version filled with an abundance of
the original work is a meaning and sense implies the appearance of
prerequisite for multiple several versions of the translation in one and the
translations.
same language which simultaneously compete
with each other and complement each other.
4
Translation multiplicity is The phenomenon of translation multiplicity is
a means of identifying useful in identifying differences and similarities
differences and similarities between languages of translations and of the
between
the
being compared.
5
languages original text in terms of the structural component
of the language.
The ability to highlight In the phenomenon of translation multiplicity,
21
different
types
of different types of translations can be distinguished
translations that vary in which
have
different
translation
principles,
their characteristics of the translators‘ goals, and other characteristics of
original
work recreating the original version of the work.
reproduction.
Table 2. 5 new postulates characterizing the phenomenon of translation multiplicity
according to Lysenkova (2007)
Analyzing and exploring these theses of translation multiplicity highlighted
and studied by Tchaikovsky and Lysenkova, E. S. Sherstneva in 2008 in her work
―The Translation Multiplicity as a Category of the Translation Studies: the History,
Status, and Trends‖ suggests five more postulates that, in her opinion, expand the
concept of translation multiplicity in more depth (Sherstneva, 2008: 529-530). These
latest postulates determine some of the reasons for the appearance of the phenomenon
of multiple translations which distinguish them from the fifteen that have already
been described in the present paper. These added postulates are constituted in Table 3
below.
5 newest postulates characterizing the phenomenon of translation multiplicity
according to Sherstneva (2008)
№
1
Postulate
Meaning of the Postulate
The original version of the The original literary work is meaning and sense
book is a multi-layered intensive, so it is open to many various
and
meaning-intensive interpretations. In addition, such a multi-layered
work.
text makes it difficult to translate it into another
language, and it is puzzling to save all the content
components during the translation processes.
2
The temporal nature of At different times and in different epochs, various
translation multiplicity.
means are used in translations that are in demand
for a certain period of time. Thus, the new
translation of the work bears the cultural and
22
historical imprint of the translation era and the
original version becomes updated and actualized.
3
Translation multiplicity is The ability of the original text to be interpreted
a dialog between a unique many times and the inability to create a single and
original work and many of most suitable translation discloses the dialogical
its translations.
relationship between the original text and its
translations. Moreover, various translations occur
because of the translator's personality and the
specific cultural and historical context in which the
translated version of the work is created.
4
The interpretative nature During the translation process, the translator
of translation.
produces a new image based on his own thinking
and vision interpreting what the author of the
original work saw and thought. This confirms the
fact that translations of the same work cannot be
fully identical, since the consciousness of each
translator is individual. Thus, in the translation
text, one sees the "reflected refraction" of the
original text through the translator's prism.
5
The importance of the The translator is the central object when creating a
translator's individuality in translation of a work, so the translation text
translation multiplicity.
reflects the cognitive and emotional characteristics
of each translator. Therefore, through translation,
one can observe the personal characteristics of the
translator, his/her speech and literary preferences,
his/her ideas and thoughts about the language and
culture of the foreign original text.
Table 3. 5 newest postulates characterizing the phenomenon of translation
multiplicity according to Sherstneva (2008)
23
Many of the ideas emphasized by Sherstneva in her postulates are found in
the works of other authors and researchers focusing on translation multiplicity. For
instance, regarding the second thesis of Sherstneva concerning the temporality of
translation multiplicity, another scholar can be mentioned to consider such a
characteristic. Thus, in 1931, M. P. Alekseev noted in his work that while translating
the issue of the translation technique is preceded by the time of the translation and the
translator themselves (Alekseev, 1931: 4). Therefore, a translation is produced at a
specific period of time in the life of society with certain qualities and beliefs which
are reflected in the translated work created for people of this very certain society and
time. Consequently, the socio-cultural context plays a significant role in creating
translation.
Furthermore, considering Sherstneva‘s third postulate which reveals the
influence of the translator's personality and socio-cultural context on translations, it is
worth mentioning that, in fact, the historical and political context of the time and
place in which the translator lived and worked has a huge impact on the translated
work. According to E. S. Sherstneva (2008: 527), various translations of a single
work can demonstrate the cultural development of a society. Moreover, as Pavel
Toper pointed out, translation activity is not about creating copies, but about
multiplying spiritual riches developing the cultural life of society and people (Toper,
2000: 44).
In addition, there are many scholars who explored the interpretative nature of
translations corresponding to the fourth thesis of Sherstneva. Thus, in his work, Toper
states that a foreign book can have a lot of various translations because of a great
variety of multiple translators‘ individual differences that affect the work. Besides,
each of the interpretations can be considered worthy since the translator perceives the
original text exactly as he or she presents it in his or her translated work (ibid.).
Furthermore, L. Makarova (2006: 6-10) in her research ―Communicative and
Pragmatic Aspects of Literary Translation‖ claims that during the process of literary
work translation, there is an individual reinterpretation of figurative and semantic
features of the text that should be taken into consideration. Therefore, the creative
24
aspect of translator‘s personality determines the appearance in the translation of such
semantic and aesthetic features which were absent in the original version of the text.
In addition, N. K. Garbovsky (2004: 246) in his book ―Theory of Translation‖
points out that there are a lot of situations when the author of the original work
designates phenomena in one way, and in the language of translation, the translator
should create his or her own individual denomination for the same phenomenon.
Therefore, the systems of different languages can resist the language consciousness
of individuals meaning that some phenomena in one language can denote certain
phenomena not in the way as it is accepted by the norms of another language.
Further, moving on to Sherstneva‘s fifth postulate regarding the personality
and individuality of the translator which plays an essential role in the translation
process, there are many scholars who are pondering over this issue. Indeed, each
person has their own standpoint and vision of the world which reflect on their life,
behaviour, and various works of art. The personality of each translator, their
character, upbringing, nationality and related customs, traditions, and beliefs, as well
as religious ones, leave a mark on the text translated by them. So, the individual
consciousness of every person has an imprint on his or her work since it reflects
reality which is perceived exclusively through the prism of the author‘s vision.
However, a work that has been translated from one language to another no longer
captures the translator‘s genuine reality but it is only a secondary representation of
how certain phenomena were seen by the original author. Nevertheless, according to
Levin, even with the author's greatest desire to transmit an accurate translation of the
original into another language, the translated work still turns out to be individualized
and reflects the translator's identity and understanding of the original version (Levin,
1981: 365).
Thus, the phenomenon of translation multiplicity and the reflection of each
translator‘s personality lead to the possibility of detecting what each translator is
capable of. So, from several translations of different translators, comparing and
contrasting them, one can monitor the quality of work of a particular translator and
his or her personal characteristics and manner of work (Sherstneva, 2008: 527).
25
Taking everything into account, it can be observed that many researchers
share Sherstneva's opinion about the characteristics of multiplicity of translations.
Furthermore, after analyzing her postulates, it can be revealed that in her work she
studied thoroughly the causes of the appearance of several translations of the same
work in the same culture, as well as those features that affect translations and create
the phenomenon of multiple translations.
2.4. Factors of Translation Multiplicity Occurrence
Thus, having considered and described the postulates and characteristics of
translation multiplicity, it is possible to distinguish various factors for the appearance
of several translations of the same literary work in the same language.
So, translation multiplicity is a widespread phenomenon in the world
literature. It serves as a material for research of the original work, various
translations, their differences and similarities. In addition, plurality of translations
allows people to explore the identity of translators, the cultural and historical context
of the eras in which they worked. This creates a dialogue between cultures and
literature and ensures the accumulation of traditions.
Therefore, the phenomenon of translation multiplicity is determined not only
by the semantic load of the text, but also by the author's subjective choice of certain
linguistic and stylistic translation decisions which are influenced by the translator's
personal perception of the world as well as by the socio-cultural and historical
context.
Furthermore, regarding the factors of translation multiplicity, in their work
(2019), Michajlova and Rubtsova suggest that studies of translation multiplicity are
conducted at macro and micro levels. First, at the micro level, scholars carry out
practical studies by comparing and contrasting different translations of a specific
literary work into one particular language. Second, at the macro level, theoretical
research is conducted that enables to combine and summarize the practical
knowledge obtained at the micro level and create general and common hypotheses
and theories about several retranslation of works and their possibility of coexistence.
Moreover, Michajlova and Rubtsova identified internal and external factors of
26
translation multiplicity at the micro and macro levels. Their ideas are represented in
Table 4.
Translation multiplicity factors by Michajlova and Rubtsova (2019)
Micro-level
Internal factors
Macro-level
External factors
Factors
1) The impossibility to 1) The situation in the 1) The historical situation
create a single perfect literature
market,
and ideal translation due demand
for
the that
provides
the
new
certain translation;
to the complexity of the genres, types of texts;
2)
The perception of a
original work and the 2) The need to target particular author and his or
feasibility of different translations to specific her work in the receiving
interpretations;
groups (social, academic, culture;
2) Obsolescence of the professional, amateur and 3)
translation
language, so on).
The
literary
situation
around the world and in the
translation standards and
receiving culture;
norms, and the degree of
4) The cultural interaction
familiarity
and
of
the
political
relations
receiving culture with the
between the countries of the
peculiarities
original
of
the
source culture;
work
and
translations.
3) Personal cognitive and
emotional characteristics
of
translators,
preferences,
their
age,
principles, traditions, etc.
Table 4. Michajlova and Rubtsova‘s identification of internal and external factors of
translation multiplicity (micro and macro level)
Moreover, regarding the obsolescence of the translations considered in the
work of Michajlova and Rubtsova, a French scholar, Yves Chevrel, in his article
27
―Introduction : la retraduction – und kein Ende‖ (2010), notes that retranslation is a
way to update the text. Thus, over time the approach to reading and writing texts
changes. On the one hand, the translation becomes outdated, and on the other readers' preferences, their perception of certain situations and conditions transforms.
In addition, literary norms and standards are modifying because they are oriented
differently for each generation. Hence, each generation needs its own version of the
translation which will fit harmoniously into its picture of the world and will be easy
to perceive and understand.
Nevertheless,
considering
the
phenomenon
of
author‘s
personal
characteristics influencing and causing the translation multiplicity, such Finnish
translation scholars as Outi Paloposki and Kaisa Koskinen in their work ―A thousand
and one translations: Revisiting retranslation‖ (2004) suggest various factors that may
affect translations and cause various retranslations. In particular, they investigate
thoroughly the concepts of domestication and foreignization of translations.
According to the authors, some foreign texts may seem extremely alien to the culture
of the receptor or to the translator himself or herself. In this case, the translation is
constructed in such a way that it meets the requirements of society and is adapted to
their realities. Therefore, the translator tries to create a text that is understandable to
the reader of a certain culture at a certain point in time. However, later translators can
benefit from this approach to translation, and they attempt, on the contrary, to
introduce readers more closely to the source culture, that is, to the culture of the
original work. So, after the initial domesticated version of translation, the one which
is source-oriented or foreignized is needed (Koskinen & Paloposki, 2003). Thus, this
division of translations into domesticated and foreignized reveals that different
translators have various goals and tasks during their work, and each translator sees
their potential audience and their preferences differently, which leads to the
phenomenon of multiple translations. Hence, based on the classification of
translations into domesticated and foreignized, two types of translators can be
distinguished. First of all, there are socio-oriented translators who adapt to the tastes
of the target language readers and bring the translation text to their level. Secondly,
28
there are person-oriented translators who aim to preserve the features of the original
text in the translation text.
Taking everything into consideration and having investigated various
approaches of scholars engaged in research on translation in general and on the
translation multiplicity, in the present paper, the hypothesis is proposed which
predicts that there are two main reasons which cause the emergence of the translation
multiplicity phenomenon:
1) Socio-cultural context of time, including ideology, political and economic
realities of time, non-compliance with the cultural-historical and literary-stylistic
norms of the modern language of the previous translations;
2)
Translator's
personality,
including
their
goals,
preferences,
professionalism, perceptions of audience priorities, and the possibility of multiple
solutions application to the same translation task.
These aspects of translation multiplicity will be explored in this paper based
on the analysis of the novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ by Jerome David Salinger and
its translations into the Russian language made in 1960 by the Soviet translator and
writer, Rita Yakovlevna Rait-Kovaleva, and in 2008 by the Russian translator,
Maxim Nemtsov. Based on the original novel and its two translations, the factors that
influenced the features and peculiarities of each of the three works will be analysed,
namely, the epochs, socio-cultural and historical contexts of the works as well as the
individual characteristics of the author and the translators reflected in their works.
29
Empirical Part
In order to prove or reject the hypothesis derived in the theoretical part of the
present paper, Jerome David Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ and its two
translations into the Russian language presented by Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim
Nemtsov will be explored in a profound way. In the empirical part of the
investigation, two research methods, such as discourse and comparative analyses, will
be applied in order to achieve the objectives of the study. First, a discourse analysis
of the personalities of J. D. Salinger, Rita Rait-Kovaleva, and Maxim Nemtsov will
be conducted in order to identify their biographical facts and individual features that
may have influenced their literary works. Further, the same method of discourse
analysis will be employed to the research of the three epochs and cultures in which
the three works under analysis were written. These are such periods as the post-war
era in the American culture in the 50s when Salinger's novel was released, the Soviet
Union in the 50-60s when Rait-Kovaleva was writing her translation work, and the
postmodern Russia in the early 21st century when Maxim Nemtsov‘s translation was
published. This examination will allow discovering the distinctive peculiarities of
each of the epochs that could have an impact on the authors and their works.
Secondly, a comparative analysis of the original novel and its two translations will be
carried out in order to reveal the differences in the three texts under analysis.
Furthermore, the results obtained in the course of the discourse analysis will be used
in the comparative analysis to explain the reasons for the discrepancies in the literary
works of the three authors.
Essentially, using various research methods, it is assumed that the findings
achieved will confirm or refute the hypothesis that the main reasons for the
appearance of the phenomenon of multiplicity of literary translations are the sociocultural context of the epochs and the personal characteristics of the authors.
I. Discourse Analysis
Jerome David Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ and its two Russian
translations written by Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov were published in
different epochs and in various cultures. Previously in the present paper, it was
30
hypothesized that the multiplicity of translations is generated by two main reasons
such as the personal characteristics of the authors and the socio-cultural context of the
times when the novel and its translations were published. In order to test the deduced
hypothesis, a discourse analysis of the eras and personalities of the authors will be
conducted.
To begin with, the various texts and works devoted to the study of the lives of
the three authors, their individual characteristics and peculiarities, will be studied
carefully. Firstly, J. D. Salinger's life at the time of writing his novel in 1951 will be
considered. Secondly, the personality of Rita Rait-Kovaleva by the time of the
publication of her translation in 1960 will be analyzed. Thirdly, Maxim Nemtsov and
his personal characteristics by 2008 when his translation was released will be
investigated.
Furthermore, various monographs, books, articles, and other resources that
study the socio-cultural and historical context of the three epochs of each of the
authors will be explored. First, the features of the American culture of the 40-50s
when Salinger was working on his novel will be regarded. Second, the characteristic
features of the Soviet Union in the 50-60s when Rita Rait-Kovaleva‘s translation
work was published will be analyzed. Third, the postmodern era of the 2000s when
the Russian translator Maxim Nemtsov was writing his work will be explored in
detail.
Therefore, in the course of the discourse analysis, the conclusions will be
drawn about each of the authors‘ distinctive features which may affect their choice in
the translation activities. Moreover, the characteristic peculiarities of the social,
historical, and cultural contexts of each of the epochs will be revealed. The obtained
data will be applied in the comparative analysis of the translations and the novel, and
will contribute to proving or refuting the deduced hypothesis.
1. Analysis of the Personalities of the Authors
To begin with, the characteristics of each of the authors will be studied
thoroughly. First, the personal characteristics of the American writer Jerome David
Salinger, as well as his life path, which influenced his creative activity, will be
31
studied. Next, the life of Rita Rait-Kovaleva and her personal characteristics will be
rigorously investigated. In the end, Maxim Nemtsov, the peculiarities of his
character, his preferences and life orientations will be explored. Consequently, the
present analysis will allow identifying the distinct peculiarities of each of the authors‘
personalities which could affect their original and translated works.
An analysis of a few biographical facts from Jerome David Salinger's, Rita
Rait-Kovaleva‘s, and Maxim Nemtsov‘s lives, their personality features and their
manifestations in the novel was conducted as part of the course paper written in 2020
on the topic ―Multiplicity of Literary Translation Theory‖ (Kamarova, 2020). The
present paper continues exploring the individual peculiarities of the American writer
and the two translators under consideration and delves into the study of the traits of
their characters and the distinctive aspects of their lives that could affect their works.
1.1. Jerome David Salinger
Jerome David Salinger was born on January 1, 1919, in New York City. His
father, Solomon Salinger, was Jewish of Lithuanian descent and was involved in the
wholesale trade of luxury food. Jerome's mother, Miriam Salinger, was a woman of
Scottish-Irish descent, a Christian convert to Judaism. Such a religious situation in
Salinger‘s family is reflected in the fourteenth chapter of the novel ―The Catcher in
the Rye‖ where the main character, Holden Caulfield, recounts that his parents adhere
to different religions, and all the children in their family are atheists (Salinger, 2016a:
116). In addition, J. D. Salinger had only one sister, Doris, who was eight years older
than him (Graham, 2007: 3).
Jerome David Salinger's father took great care of his son, his upbringing and
education. Therefore, Salinger studied in fairly respectable educational institutions,
but he never graduated from any higher educational establishment due to the low
academic performance which was explained by the writer's disinterest in his career
growth. This feature can also be remarked in the main character of the novel who
tells his story about his exclusion from the Pencey Prep School. In fact, the novel
contains many coincidences between the protagonist and the author of the novel
(ibid.).
32
Although some scholars do not consider the novel to have the
autobiographical features, many researchers still have explored such motifs in Jerome
David Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖. Such a scholar, as Hamilton (2010)
in his book describes the different epochs of American writer‘s life, and he argues
that several episodes from Salinger‘s life are manifested in the main character,
Holden Caulfield, and in the events taking place in the novel, according to the plot.
Thus, many works reveal that Salinger's book is a reflection of his own experiences
from his life, and Holden resembles a portrait of a young writer. This hypothesis is
confirmed by the phrase of the writer himself, which he uttered in his interview in
1954. In this statement, the writer admits that his childhood was similar to the one of
the boy from the book (Alexander, 2013: 177-178). Furthermore, in 1953, Salinger
gave an interview to the school newspaper, where he also confessed that his novel is
quite autobiographical, and it was a great relief for him to tell people about some
moments of his childhood through the prism of the main character of the novel
(Crawford, 2006: 4).
Due to the fact that the novel has several autobiographical references, and the
narrative is conducted in the first person, it can be assumed that the main character
reflects the values and beliefs of J. D. Salinger. However, there are some episodes in
the novel that contradict this assumption. One of these passages is an excerpt from
the twenty-fifth chapter of the novel (Salinger, 2016a), where Holden notices obscene
words on the walls of the school and museum. He tries his best to erase them in order
to protect the children from reading these bad phrases. In fact, there is a deeper
meaning hidden in this episode, which is that Holden is trying to protect children
from the rude and aggressive world of adults (Rosen, 1977: 557). Nevertheless,
Salinger himself uses swear words in his novel. Therefore, it can be remarked that the
writer subjects the children who will read his novel to the study of obscene words.
However, the American writer does this for a reason. Using bad words in his novel,
he portrays the real world which is fallen and rude and everyone has to come to terms
with it. This is the conclusion that the main character of the novel comes to at the end
of the novel, when he understands that children cannot be saved from growing up and
33
no one can prevent the process of their maturing, because it is natural. Therefore, in
the end, the views of the writer and the main character still converge.
Returning to the investigation of Salinger‘s education, it is worth mentioning
that the only educational institution that the American writer graduated from was the
Military Academy in the state of Pennsylvania. Starting from 1936, when he
graduated from it, Salinger has already known what he wanted to do and understood
that the writing process was inspiring for him. Therefore, he attended many different
lectures related to the topics of literature and writing. Then, in 1940, his first short
story was published under the title ―The Young Folks‖ after which his works began
to be published in well-known and leading magazines of his time. For instance, in
1941, the story called ―Slight Rebellion off Madison‖ was accepted by The New
Yorker where the readers could observe Holden Caulfield for the first time (Graham,
2007: 4).
However, in 1942, during the Second World War, Salinger was called up for
the military service in the US Army, graduated from the officer-sergeant school of
the signal forces, and in 1943, with the rank of sergeant, was transferred to counterintelligence (Salinger, 2013). Moreover, he took part in various key battles such as DDay, the Battle of the Bulge, the Battle of Hürtgen Forest, etc. (Lutz, 2001). This
period of his life, connected with the war, had a strong imprint on his works because
during the war he wrote many stories. Moreover, Salinger began to write the novel
―The Catcher in the Rye‖ in that period of his life, although the book was published
in 1951.
In fact, before the war, Salinger was an ardent patriot of the USA and desired
America to enter World War II. Furthermore, he wanted to be drafted into the army;
however, he was not taken from the first time, but after a while he managed to get
into the ranks of soldiers. Initially, in his stories, J. D. Salinger described the soldiers
as great people who bravely fought in different battles. Nevertheless, his direct
involvement in the war changed his attitude towards the army. So, his romantic view
of the war was replaced by discontent of his entourage and the whole country. In fact,
the war caused great damage to the soul and character of Salinger. After the end of
34
the war, he was hospitalized for several weeks to cope with the stress reaction that
many soldiers experienced after participating in the war and witnessing the terrible
scenes and situations during it (Hamilton, 2010). His daughter Margaret wrote in her
memoirs that the effects of the war were reflected even in their family relationships a
lot. Besides, Salinger once said to her daughter several phrases about the war which
Margaret wrote down in her work. They were related to the fact that even many years
after the war, Salinger could not overcome the stress that he had experienced
(Salinger, 2013).
In addition, as for the consequences of the war years, their influence was
reflected in Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖. Indeed, many scholars
consider the depictions of the ―trauma‖ of young people in the novel. Primarily, the
initial trauma inherent in the book is an impact of the Second World War in which
the writer took part. Thus, Holden Caulfield is shown as a representative of the
American society who lived with their trauma after the war and was dissatisfied with
the post-war life. Such a characteristic feature of the USA will be explored more
carefully in the investigation of the socio-cultural background of the country later in
this paper. So, J. D. Salinger's novel can be called an image of a generation having a
post-war depression which is shown through the prism of Holden's history and his
reflections on the American society and its shortcomings (Yahya & Babaee, 2014:
1825).
By the way, the novel also reflects the trauma of the teenage society which
denies the American principles that developed after the war. In fact, it seems that this
topic has already dried up and does not attract the readers anymore. However, it is
controversial as the novel still remains popular. This happens because each
generation of people of every culture has its own trauma, problems, and discontent.
Therefore, everyone who reads this book can find in it a reflection of the trauma that
is relevant to him or her since everybody can find similarities with the main character
in their thoughts about the world around them. Therefore, Salinger's novel can be
called a mirror of the concerns and worries of the young readers who oppose the
national values of any country.
35
Thus, this period of Salinger's life related to the war completely changed his
attitude to various aspects of his life. The American writer became disillusioned with
the American society. He began to hate the ideas that were promoted by the country
in the post-war epoch. This stance on the society of the USA is fully reflected in the
attitude of the main character of the novel, Holden Caulfield, to the surrounding
reality. So, in the book, it is vividly depicted that the protagonist appears in the image
of an opponent of the American realities which he condemns and avoids.
This dissatisfaction is close related to the disappointment of Jerome David
Salinger with the Western school of thought which led him to become infatuated with
the Eastern one. Hence, he found peace in Buddhism which helped him to get rid of
his mental problems caused by the consequences of the war. Therefore, this
peculiarity of his life is also reflected in his novel. So, Salinger knew the essence of
the Buddhist line of thought and was aware of the story of the Buddha who had three
problems in his life, which are old age, illness, and death. According to some
researchers, these manifestations of the Buddha's life are symbolically displayed in
Holden's teacher whose name is Mr. Spencer. Indeed, in the second chapter of the
novel, readers learn that he is an old man shown to be ill in the book. In addition, in
Holden's essay, which his teacher and he discuss, the main character mentions the
death of the Egyptian people (Rosen, 1977: 548-549).
Another distinctive feature of the novel that is connected with Salinger‘s
practice of the Buddhism can be related to the first ―Noble Truth‖ of the Buddha
which is the statement that ―Life is suffering‖. Suffering in this phrase refers to fear,
irritation, anxiety, and other unpleasant sensations that a person experiences when he
or she cannot accept any life changes and situations, such as illness, old age, and
death, and avoids them in every possible way trying to create an illusion of constancy
and stability. Moreover, a person may suffer because of their personal changes, which
they cannot control since they are natural. According to Buddhism, a person should
never hold on to anything in their life and should let go of the ―selfish craving for
ways out of time‖ (Rosen, 1977: 559-560). This concept is reflected in the novel. It
can be noticed that the main character Holden Caulfield is in a state of suffering since
36
it is difficult for him to think about changes concerning himself and people close to
him. He tries to save everyone from changes and growing up because he sees that this
leads to the adverse consequences that Holden has already felt for himself since at his
early age, he already loses a person which was the most important and valuable for
him, namely, his younger brother Allie, thoughts of which never leave the
protagonist. Furthermore, in the twenty-second chapter (Salinger, 2016a), there is a
conversation between Holden and his younger sister, Phoebe, who asks him a
question about what her brother likes most in life. However, Holden remembers only
several people who died, like his classmate Castle and his brother Allie, because he
feels very unpleasant that they are no longer there with him. Nevertheless, Phoebe
reminds him that these people have already passed away, and that they cannot be
returned. At this point, Holden realizes that he likes being with his sister during the
time of their conversation. Thus, this passage demonstrates that Phoebe helps her
brother, Holden, to get rid of thoughts about the past, let them go, and open up to
changes not being afraid of them and accepting them. Consequently, the younger
sister of the main character enables him to get out of the state of suffering into real
life where there are also beautiful moments to enjoy. Moreover, the Buddhist subtext
in this episode is emphasized by the fact that Phoebe is sitting in the lotus position
while talking to her brother.
Holden's dialogue with his sister Phoebe, which was analyzed earlier, is a
significant moment in the novel. This passage demonstrates that often people who are
younger can give advice to their elders and understand them much more correctly
than all adults. This episode shows that Phoebe genuinely understands Holden and
helps him realise his thoughts, which his parents, teachers, and acquaintances older
than him could not give him. In fact, this extract reflects Salinger's intention to
illustrate the American culture in which parents cannot be a support for their children
being preoccupied with their own materialistic affairs which will be examined later in
the present paper. Thus, J. D. Salinger in his novel reflects his personal dissatisfaction
with the current situation in his culture where children do not trust adults because
they do not want to become similar to them and repeat their falseness and lies which
37
they can constantly observe. Therefore, Salinger represents a new counterculture of
young people who are able to take care of each other without turning to their elders
for help (Rosen, 1977: 561). Thus, the novel contains several references to Buddhist
motifs which confirm the reflection of Salinger's experience in the novel.
Moreover, in the post-war years, Salinger spent some time in Germany, where
he
was
enlisted
for
a
six-month
period
of
―Denazification‖
for
the
Counterintelligence Corps. There, he married Sylvia Welter, with whom he came to
the United States in 1946. However, their marriage was short-lived, and after 8
months they dissolved the marriage (Alexander, 2013).
Further in 1951, J. D. Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ was
published. This book brought a special and unique wave of events related to the book
into his life as it gave him great popularity which he tried to escape and avoid as
much as possible.
According to the biography of J. D. Salinger (Slawenski, 2011), until 1947,
Salinger published his works in ―The New Yorker‖ magazine, but ―The Catcher in
the Rye‖ was released in another edition which was called ―Little, Brown and
Company‖, since ―The New Yorker‖ did not give the American writer permission to
use obscene phrases in his novel. However, one of the author's goals was to
deliberately insert profanity in order to counteract the established society in which
children were restricted from knowing about the rude and fake outside world. Indeed,
the American society has always been taking care of the children and adolescents
from such sensitive topics as sex, aggression, and so on. Nevertheless, after such
guardianship, young people still had to enter the adult world for which they were not
prepared at all. Thus, the children were given the hope of a prosperous world where
there was no evil and rudeness. Holden also had such a hope, but he had to face such
problems of the adult world as the loss of his own brother and the lack of
understanding of the environment. So, the main character was completely unprepared
for such realities. This led him to a revolutionary confrontation with the whole
society, which was characteristic of the entire teenage community, and it still remains
an urgent problem. Consequently, society, by restricting children from the adult
38
world, does not prepare them for difficulties; so, they enter the adult world immature
and get lost in it, being unable to find the right reference points (Rosen, 1977: 558).
Returning to the biography of Jerome David Salinger, later, in 1955, he
married Claire Douglas, and they had two children, Margaret and Matthew. After the
novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ gained popularity, Salinger began to lead the life of a
recluse. After 1965, he stopped publishing and wrote stories only for himself. The
American writer imposed a ban on the republication of his early works and stopped
several attempts to release his unpublished works. In the last years of his life, he had
little contact with the outside world living behind a high fence in a mansion in the
town of Cornish, New Hampshire, and engaged in a variety of spiritual practices such
as Buddhism, Hinduism, yoga, macrobiotics, dianetics, as well as alternative
medicine, glossolalia, homeopathy, acupuncture, and Christian science. Salinger died
of natural causes at his home in New Hampshire on January 27, 2010, at the age of 91
(Italie, 2010).
1.2. Rita Yakovlevna Rait-Kovaleva
A soviet writer and translator, Rita Yakovlevna Rait-Kovaleva, was born on
April 19, 1898, in the village of Petrushevo, Elisavetgrad district, Kherson oblast
(province). Her real name and surname were Raisa Yakovlevna Chernomordik. She
was born in a Jewish family. Rita Rait-Kovaleva's father, Yakov-Meer Zalmanovich
Chernomordik, was a graduate of the University of Dorpat, participated in the
Russian-Japanese War, where he was a colonel of the medical service, and devoted
his entire life to medical practice as he was the chief sanitary doctor in his hometown
of Velizh in the Smolensk region (Great Russian Biographic Encyclopedia, 2007).
Information about the mother of Rita Rait-Kovaleva could not be found.
Rita Yakovlevna spent her childhood in Kursk and Velizh. After finishing
school, she went to Kharkov to get a medical education and continue her father's
medical affairs. At the same time, she began to be interested in the literary activities.
She worked part-time for the magazine ―Ways of Creativity [Puti Tvorchestva]‖ and
attended private foreign language courses where she taught English to beginners and
was engaged in the ―Dickensian group‖ which was created for those who knew
39
English well but wanted to improve it. In Kharkov, she met Velimir Khlebnikov, who
was a Russian poet and prose writer. She translated his poems into the German
language (Rait-Kovaleva, 1966).
After graduating from the Kharkov Medical Institute, she entered at the
Medical Faculty of the Moscow State University, from which she graduated in 1924.
However, medicine did not please her and did not bring her satisfaction. Since then,
she decided to fully immerse herself in writing, and she took such a pseudonym for
herself as Rita Rait. By the age of twenty, she was already composing her own poems
and was fluent in German and French. Later, she learned English and Bulgarian
(Petrenko & Stein, 2009: 170).
Her translation career began in 1920, when she was 22 years old. At that time,
in the ―Windows of ROSTA [Okna ROSTA]‖, she met Vladimir Mayakovsky (Great
Russian Biographic Encyclopedia, 2007). ―Windows of ROSTA [Okna ROSTA]‖ is
the name of the activity of the Russian Telegraph Agency (ROSTA), when in the
period from 1919 to 1921, Soviet poets and artists distributed satirical posters for
visual propaganda (Kozlenkov, 2011). Then, at the request of Vladimir Mayakovsky,
Rita Rait translated into German and English his play called ―Mystery-Bouffe‖ for
the delegates of the Third Congress of the Comintern (Kachan, 2012). In this agency,
Rita Rait-Kovaleva worked in parallel with her studies at the Moscow State
University. She was a freelance employee in the art department of ROSTA. In this
organization, she checked the texts under the posters which were drawn by hand by
not very competent artists. She also wrote some texts on the topics that Mayakovsky
assigned her. Moreover, during her studies at the Moscow University, she met Osip
and Lilya Brik, and Boris Pasternak. At this period, she began documenting
Mayakovsky's life at the personal request of Lily Brick. Rita Yakovlevna lived in
their house and scrupulously recorded everything that Mayakovsky did and said.
Further, the book ―Rait Rita: ―Only Memories‖ [Rajt Rita: ―Tol'ko vospominaniya‖]‖
was born from these records (Great Russian Biographic Encyclopedia, 2007).
After graduating from the Moscow University, Rait-Kovaleva moved to
Leningrad. There she got a job at the Institute of Experimental Medicine in the
40
laboratory of the famous scientist and physiologist, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, where she
worked for seven years. She also taught English at the Military Technical Academy
in this city. In 1935-1938, she worked at the Brain Institute (Memoria. Rita RaitKovaleva, 2019). During this period of her life, she wrote nothing. It is assumed that
this happened because her first child died. In fact, nothing is written about this
accident in any official sources. However, in the memoirs of a friend of RaitKovaleva, Lyubov Kachan, such information can be observed that at that time Rita
lost her child and was very worried about it. However, some time passed, and she met
a beautiful young man, engineer-captain of the 1st rank, submariner, Nikolai Kovalev
(Kachan, 2012). In 1933, Nikolai and Rita got married and, in their family, a
daughter, Margarita Kovaleva, was born. She was a biologist, was fond of
entomology, graduated from VGIK, and worked as a screenwriter of documentaries
and educational films. Moreover, Margarita Kovaleva was also a translator, and
wrote many works both herself and in collaboration with her mother (Petrenko &
Stein, 2009: 170).
In 1938, Rait-Kovaleva became a member of the Union of Writers of the
USSR. During the Great Patriotic War, the Kovalev family moved to the Yaroslavl
region, and then to Arkhangelsk. There, Rita Rait-Kovaleva worked at the local radio
station as a correspondent for the Sovinformburo. After the war, they returned to
Moscow, and in 1946, Nikolai Kovalev died (Memoria. Rita Rait-Kovaleva, 2019).
After the death of her husband, Rait-Kovaleva plunged into work and became
the unofficial literary secretary of Samuil Marshak, whom she met in 1924. She
recorded his speeches and systematized everything that the Russian and Soviet poet
and translator wrote until 1964 when Samuil Marshak died (ibid.).
In 1960, a translation of Jerome David Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the
Rye‖, written by Rita Rait-Kovaleva, was published. According to the writer, Sergey
Tusk, who recalls Rita Yakovlevna in a documentary dedicated to her and entitled
―The Ecology of the Literature. Rita Rait-Kovaleva [Ekologiya literatury. Rita RajtKovaleva]‖, the translator did not immediately decide to translate the novel but tried
to immerse herself in youth slang and the culture of teenagers to understand the
41
context of the novel more profoundly (The Ecology of the Literature. Rita RaitKovaleva, 2008).
In her translation, using numerous euphemisms and replacing slang and swear
words with neutral and generally accepted words of the Russian language, Rita RaitKovaleva made Holden an internally pure boy who did not use any slang in his
speech and did not express himself obscenely. This peculiarity of her translation can
be interpreted by the fact that Rita Rait-Kovaleva wanted to raise the stylistic register
of the novel. Her desire could have had two reasons. First, at the time when Rita RaitKovaleva was working on her translation, that is, in the Soviet Union of the 50-60s,
the country had strict censorship, under which it was necessary to adjust the works so
that they met all the required standards. The impact of this cultural and historical
context on translation will be discussed in more detail in the next chapter of the
present paper. Second, translators working in the Soviet epoch created their work in
such a way that it turned out to be a new literary book deserving the value of a
separate work. The high quality of the Soviet translations can be explained by the fact
that the Soviet translators did not focus on conveying only the linguistic aspects of a
foreign book. On the contrary, they created the translation in such a way that it was
pleasant to read for people for whom the work was intended. Soviet writers, applying
the literary means which were characteristic of the Russian language and the Russian
literature, composed a completely independent work that did not copy the foreign
ways of transmitting information in books. Thus, Soviet translators often deviated
from the original work and gave the literary work the emotional coloring that people
of USSR needed (Ermolaev, 1997).
Following the rules of translation and trying to convey the aesthetic
component of the novel, Rita Rait-Kovaleva removed all slang and abusive
expressions from her translation, and also avoided describing details about gender
and sexual behavior. This image of Holden was very appealing to Soviet people, as
Caulfield was depicted as a pure and sweet boy (Petrenko, 2007: 76). However,
according to the scholar Alexandra Borisenko, Rait-Kovaleva desired to leave at least
a few rough words in her translation to make it more similar to the original. In
42
particular, she asked the editor to keep the word ―govnyuk‖, which means ―shithead‖
in Russian. However, the censorship was impenetrable and did not allow her to put
even one rude word in the text (Borisenko, 2009: 225).
Subsequently, it seems that one of the main objectives of Rita Rait-Kovaleva
when translating foreign books was to introduce foreign writers and their works to the
readers of USSR. Therefore, the translator always focused on her audience which
consisted of Soviet people. In order to demonstrate writers and authors from other
countries in a good light, it was necessary to make the translations in such a way that
they would suit Soviet people and would interest them. Based on this desire of Rita
Rait-Kovaleva, in her translation, she used several techniques in order to attract
Soviet readers with her work. One of them is constituted by the application of many
equivalents of various expressions that do not correspond to the original American
ones. Rita Rait-Kovaleva selected them in such a way that they were understandable
to the Soviet person and corresponded to the speech that Soviet people used in
everyday life. In the comparative analysis that will be presented later in this research,
this aim of Rita Rait-Kovaleva and its reflection in the translation will be thoroughly
investigated. Thus, Rita Rait-Kovaleva in her work wanted to generate the same
emotions that Salinger put into his novel, but she made sure that her translation was
localized for the Soviet society. According to some researchers, this purpose of RaitKovaleva enabled her to create such a translation of the novel which became favorite
for everybody who read it, and this is also the reason that her translation still remains
the most widely read of all others among all generations (Galinskaya, 2017: 35-36).
Thus, the Russian and Soviet poet, K. I. Chukovsky, in his book ―High Art‖
(2011) wrote that Rita Rait-Kovaleva managed to successfully translate Salinger's
novel since she did not translate lexical units and particular utterances but sought to
reproduce the psychological and emotional essence of each phrase (Petrenko & Stein,
2009: 177).
Furthermore, regarding the translation of ―The Catcher in the Rye‖, in his
article ―If Holden Caulfield Spoke Russian‖, Johnson Reed points out that Salinger's
novel became an instant sensation for the Soviet readers of the 60s. Although the
43
translated text was allowed to be released due to the novel's devaluation of capitalist
values, most readers paid more attention to the appealing portrait of a boy who
condemns the society (Johnson, 2013). For post-war people living within the
framework of communist rules, Holden's voice, protesting falsehoods and
artificiality, became very close and understandable. Teenagers adopted Holden's
speech style, though not original expressions, but their equivalents in the Russian
language, even if they were unaware of the life of night jazz clubs and private
schools. Despite the difference in the cultures, Soviet people found something
common and akin in Holden, and this turned out to be fatigue and rather internal
resentment of all those customs and rules that people had to obey strictly and
unquestioningly. This effect, which was produced by the translation of the novel,
appeared thanks to Rita Rait-Kovaleva and her individual decision, which was to
translate the book with dignity and make it close to the Soviet readers.
Moreover, being born in 1898, at the time of the publication of the translation
of the novel, Rita Rait-Kovaleva was sixty-two years old. By this time, many
different situations had occurred in the life of the Soviet translator, and she had
gained such experience that she was able to make such a translation of the novel,
which was praised by many critics, writers, and authors. Moreover, as an older
woman, Rita Rait-Kovaleva has witnessed many changes in society, both social and
political. Consequently, her translation could have been influenced by the times of
the October Revolution of 1917, since it was at this time that Rait-Kovaleva was very
young and started to develop herself in the field of translation activities (Galinskaya,
2017).
Nevertheless, considering the biographical facts of Rait-Kovaleva, it is worth
mentioning that in the late 60s, Rita Rait-Kovaleva began translating Kurt Vonnegut.
Since then, she has become friends with an American writer, with whom they even
met several times. She translated all of his works written before the mid-1980s
(Kachan, 2012). Moreover, in the last years of her life, the Soviet translator loved to
relax and work in the House of Creativity in Golitsyno (ibid.). Rita Rait-Kovaleva
44
died in Moscow on December 29, 1988 (Great Russian Biographic Encyclopedia,
2007).
As for the awards, Rita Rait-Kovaleva received the Order of Friendship of
Peoples as well as the Thornton Wilder Prize from the Columbia University‘s
Translation Center (Great Russian Biographic Encyclopedia, 2007).
Thus, having analyzed in detail the biography of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, it can be
emphasized that she was the first translator in the USSR who translated such wellknown authors as William Faulkner, Heinrich Bell, Jerome Salinger, Kurt Vonnegut,
Franz Kafka, Edgar Poe, Anne Frank, Natalie Sarrot, and many others. It was thanks
to her that Soviet people were able to get acquainted with foreign literature and learn
about those great authors and their works. In addition, Rita Rait-Kovaleva wrote an
artistic biography of the Scottish poet, Robert Burns, and memories of such talented
writers and poets as Vladimir Mayakovsky, Velimir Khlebnikov, Anna Akhmatova,
and Boris Pasternak. Thus, Rait-Kovaleva not only translated works, but also had
brilliant knowledge of the Russian language, having written many great works
(Petrenko & Stein, 2009: 170-171).
Moreover, in 1982, Rita Rait-Kovaleva wrote a story about the Russian poet,
linguist, and ethnographer at the Museum of Man in Paris, Boris Vilde, entitled ―Man
from the Musée de l'Homme. The Story of Boris Vildé [Chelovek iz muzeya
cheloveka. Povest' o Borise Vil'de]‖. Rita Rait-Kovaleva was very responsible for her
works. In order to write a book about Boris Wilde, she spent a lot of time and effort,
went to Paris, where Boris Wilde lived and worked in his youth (Kachan, 2012).
Thus, she was drawn to translation work from her young ages. At the same time,
according to the writer, Lyubov Kachan, who corresponded with Rita Rait-Kovaleva
for 20 years, the Soviet translator was constantly surprised that money was paid for
such a pleasure as translation work, which she considered an honor to perform.
Furthermore, Kachan noted in her work that Rait-Kovaleva was proud of her
translations and literary works. She showed them in various collections pointing out
that they constituted her immortality (ibid.).
45
In addition, in her memoirs about Rita Yakovlevna, Lyubov Kachan
highlighted that Rait-Kovaleva was constantly choosing what she would need to
translate after she finished working on the previous work, and Rita often mentioned
that perhaps the one she wanted to translate, she would not be allowed to do it (ibid.).
This was her reference towards a restriction on the part of the Soviet Union's
censorship which will be analyzed later in this paper.
This description of the life of Rita Rait-Kovaleva leads to the conclusion that
she was an indisputable authority for the translation workshop of the 60s. She was
highly respected person with a considerable reputation. This is evidenced by the fact
that many scholars, describing this translator and her work, point to her talent,
giftedness, professionalism, and respectability (Katz, 2012: 536). In addition, some of
her colleagues, writers and translators, discuss her works only with kind and pleasant
words.
For instance, in 1964, Ludmila S. Kustova, Ph. D, associate professor at the
sub-department of foreign journalism and literature, Department of Journalism, MSU,
noted the dedication of Rita Rait-Kovaleva. She remarked that Rait-Kovaleva‘s
translation of J. D. Salinger's novel was recognized as outstanding in literary circles,
and Rita Rait-Kovaleva herself was placed in the ranks of first-class translators
(Kustova, 1964: 72).
In addition, the American satirical writer, Kurt Vonnegut, in his article
―Let's invite Rita Rait to America!‖, expressed his respect for Rait-Kovaleva‘s
translated works and emphasized the translator's skills which enabled her to avoid
strict censorship and find such suitable equivalents of Salinger's swear and slang
words that impressed many writers and translators (Vonnegut, 2009).
Moreover, a Russian novelist, poet, and playwright, Vladimir Voinovich,
spoke of Rita Rait-Kovaleva as an excellent translator who opened many foreign
authors to Russian readers. Moreover, he noted her excellent knowledge of several
foreign languages, as well as of the Russian language. He said that Rita had a sharp
mind and a remarkable memory which allowed her to talk very vividly about her past,
46
meetings with famous poets and writers and friendship with them (Memoria. Rita
Rait-Kovaleva, 2019).
Furthermore, a student of the translator, Mikhail Levitin, wrote in his article
―The Story about Rita Rait [Bajka pro Ritu Rajt]‖ that Rita Rait-Kovaleva was a
―komsomol window to Europe‖, since she covered many foreign works and
translated them is such a way that they were even much better than the original works
themselves (Levitin, 1992: 24).
Thus, the biographical facts about Rita Rait-Kovaleva illustrate that the life of
the Soviet translator was filled with various stories, meetings, and friendships with
many creative and talented people. All this was reflected in her personal
characteristics which influenced her translation of J. D. Salinger's novel ―The Catcher
in the Rye‖. The impact of these individual qualities of the translator on her work will
be analyzed in more detail later in this paper.
1.3. Maxim Nemtsov
Due to the fact that Maxim Nemtsov is a translator of the present epoch, there
is little research devoted to his biography, life, and creative activity. Basically,
information about this author can be obtained only from the numerous interviews that
Maxim Nemtsov has given throughout the whole his life. Therefore, in this paper,
many various articles on Nemtsov's dialogue with different interviewers will be
examined. These works allowed identifying a number of personal characteristics of
the translator under the analysis.
To begin with, the Russian translator and editor, Maxim Vladimirovich
Nemtsov, was born on January 16, 1963, in Vladivostok. He graduated from the
Faculty of English Philology of the Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU). Nemtsov
tried himself in different professions. He worked as an editor of newspapers at the
Ussuri publishing house and as an assistant of the Consul for Press and Information at
Consulate General of the United States in Vladivostok. Moreover, he translated
television programs in the Russian Broadcasting Corporation which was the first
media enterprise with foreign capital in Russia (Mamedov, n. d.).
47
In addition, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Maxim Nemtsov was
publishing an underground self-made magazine dedicated to counterculture, rock
music, and literature, which was called ―DVR‖. This magazine was being released
with a circulation of no more than 10 copies. It was a project whose editors were
focused on the local rock scene. According to former members of the editorial board,
this magazine consisted of fairly sarcastic and witty reviews of such events of the
time as concerts, festivals, album recordings, and others. The main purpose of this
unofficial publication was to entertain the readers and the editors themselves since,
according to Maxim Nemtsov, listening to Vladivostok music was rather boring and
irritating. Furthermore, the magazine under analysis had American roots as in the
United States of the 60s it became popular to organize such local projects that
provided interested people with up-to-date and truthful information in various fields.
In America, this was called the underground press aimed at the youth generation. Due
to the fact that such publications did not limit themselves to topics and statements,
they contained a lot of information that contradicted established traditions and norms.
So, researchers studying modern mass culture denominated such magazines a
subjective protest against the capitalist society. This trend spread in Russia in the
1990s when the young generation wanted to distinguish themselves from the previous
ones and to resist the established way of society‘s life. However, the magazine ceased
to exist in 1991 since a new generation has come, which was uninterested in reading
the articles about the issues discussed in such a magazine (Sergeeva, 2000).
Moreover, in the mid-90s Maxim Nemtsov learned about the Internet. During
this period, he was concerned about the fact that there were no well-established
publishing houses in Russia that knew their business. Therefore, he decided that the
Internet would be a suitable platform for translators and their work. Thus, in 1996, he
created an electronic library called ―Speaking In Tongues [Lavka yazykov]‖ where he
was publishing his translation works, and the ones of other people. So, in his library,
he released the translations of many foreign poets and prose writers, such as Jack
Kerouac, Charles Bukowski, Guy Davenport, William Burroughs, and others.
Furthermore, on this resource, translations of the Russian literature, especially poetry,
48
into other languages can be found. In 2002, the journalist, Natalia Babintseva, called
this electronic library the largest translation platform on the Russian-language
Internet (Babintseva, 2002). In addition, during the period of prosperity of this
website, Maxim Nemtsov was even offered some contracts with several print
publications as this resource was becoming increasingly popular (ibid.). This site was
supported by Nemtsov until 2003. Nowadays, visiting the website of this library, it
can be noticed that the last changes were made in 2009.
Regarding the biographical facts of the translator under consideration, in
2001, Maxim Nemtsov moved to Moscow where he worked as an editor and
translator with leading publishing houses of Moscow and St. Petersburg. In his
interview from 2018, Nemtsov points out that he lives in Vladivostok at the present
time; however, he is glad that he spent a certain stage of his life in Moscow since this
period allowed him to find many useful acquaintances. In addition, that part of his
life enabled him to work online from his hometown nowadays since the relations with
Moscow and St. Petersburg publications still remained, albeit in a remote format.
Nevertheless, Maxim Nemtsov understands that in Moscow he would have more
opportunities for professional growth but he is still happy with the opportunities that
he has in his native lands (―Max Nemtsov: In the World Where Simulacra Rules, Any
Ringing Phrase Will Do‖, 2018).
Furthermore, in this interview, Nemtsov explains the reason for his return to
Vladivostok. He highlights the fact that those of his friends with whom he was in
various sub-cultural movements and worked in the translation industry in Moscow,
began to move to other cities or simply aged. Eventually, he made the decision to
move back to his city (ibid.). The fact that Maxim Nemtsov took part in various sub
cultural movements and was a member of such groups makes it clear that the Russian
translator was inside the youth atmosphere and was aware of the rules and attitudes of
such communities. Moreover, he knew the speech used by the younger generation
and used the slang expressions of the time himself. Therefore, in his translation of J.
D. Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖, it can be noticed that Nemtsov applies
49
a huge number of slang utterances and swear words. A study of such a peculiar
feature of his work will be conducted later in the present investigation.
As for the achievements of the Russian translator, in 2002 he won the title of
―The Editor of the Year‖ awarded by the newspaper ―Book Review‖. Then, in 2012,
at the Nora Gal Award dedicated to the centenary of the birth of the Soviet translator
Nora Gal, Maxim Nemtsov became one of the first winners of this award where he
received twenty thousand rubles for translating the short story by Nelson Algren in
the category ―For Solving a Special Translation Task‖ (―Jubilee Evening and
Winners of 2012‖, n. d.).
Examining the translation activity of Maxim Nemtsov, in one of his
interviews, he emphasizes that his desire to translate works arose from the fact that he
felt the skills and ability to translate those authors who were not translated in the
Soviet era. He highlights that most often he translates works from the English
language, but sometimes he can translate poetry from French if he has the inspiration
to do so. In addition, he underlines that such an American writer as Thomas Pynchon,
whom the translator read in his student years and became very interested in his works
at that time, had a great influence at the beginning of his translation career
(Mamedov, n. d.).
In addition, considering the translation activities, Maxim Nemtsov argues that
there can be no universal translation of one work since the previous attempts always
become outdated. Therefore, he considers it appropriate and necessary to retranslate
those books that have already been translated into the same language by different
authors. Moreover, he reproaches critics and dissatisfied readers and believes that it is
time to realize that the new translation does not make the old one worse and does not
cancel the previous work; contrariwise, it complements the preceding publication,
develops new boundaries of understanding of the artifact, and opens new ideas and
meanings in it (ibid.).
As for J. D. Salinger's novel, in all his interviews, Maxim Nemtsov claims
that his translation strategy was chosen correctly despite the huge barrage of criticism
towards his work. In his opinion, he did everything as he wanted and planned, and it
50
turned out to be a decent and proper translation. In addition, Nemtsov acknowledges
the fact that in his translation he inserts concepts from the American realities that
may be incomprehensible to the reader, but he points out that this was done
intentionally and purposely. According to the translator, the realities of the American
culture mentioned in his work may be equally confusing and vague to the modern
citizens of the United States since the original novel of Jerome David Salinger was
published many years ago and the work is already outdated. In addition, Nemtsov
denies the presence of footnotes and references in the translations that explain any
phenomenon to the reader justifying this by the fact that these inserts prevent the
process of the reading of the work itself and immersion in its plot (ibid).
Studying the personal characteristics of Maxim Nemtsov, it is worth
mentioning the processes taking place in literature during the author's work on his
translations. Since literature occupied a significant part of Nemtsov‘s life, it is
necessary to trace the influence of literary movements on the work of the translator.
In addition, due to the fact that the translation of Maxim Nemtsov was published in
2008, the era of postmodernism in the early 2000s in Russia will be examined in
detail in this investigation. Despite the fact that a thorough analysis of this epoch will
be carried out later in this paper, it is essential to reveal what features of this era can
be noticed in the individual characteristics of Maxim Nemtsov.
To begin with, it should be pointed out that the rise of the postmodernism in
Russia coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism in the
country. Thus, since the 90s of the 20th century, Russian society has plunged into the
postmodern reality (Gomel, 2013: 309).
According to many researchers, the literature of the postmodern era is
characterized mainly by fragmentation, irony, and black humor, the combination of
which allows postmodern authors to deny the ideas that are characteristic of the
previous epoch of modernism. Fragmentation, in this case, is characterized by an
interrupted sequence of plot, themes, character development, intertextuality, and
others. This feature is particularly characteristic of the works of postmodernists
(Gomel, 2013: 318).
51
On the one hand, there is no clear description of the vivid peculiarities of the
postmodern era in literature; however, it is often described in comparison with the
previous epochs. Studying the postmodern period, scholars argue that the literature of
postmodernism is characterized by a denial of the search for meaning in the world of
chaos. So, if modernists were looking for meaning in all the things and phenomena
around them, then postmodernists avoid this search and describe it with the elements
of parody in their works. Moreover, the main idea in postmodernism is that the author
can no longer write anything fundamentally new. This means that, in fact, the writer
cannot write anything original, and he or she only quotes the ideas of preceding
writers. Therefore, the role of the author in postmodernism decreases essentially
(ibid.).
Nevertheless, there are many authors who characterize the epoch of
postmodernism and constitute the concrete examples of this era. Such genuine
practitioners of the postmodernism in Russia are, for instance, Alexei Ivanov, Pavel
Sanaev, and Viktor Pelevin with such iconic works as ―The Geographer Drank His
Globe Away [Geograf globus propil]‖, ―Bury Me behind the Plinth [Pohoronite
menya za plintusom]‖, and ―Generation P‖, correspondingly. In all these works,
postmodernism manifests itself in the ambiguity of the characters, the uncertainty of
the reader in relation to them, and the miserable existence of people. Moreover, the
works are distinguished by the presence of jargon of the lowest social level, obscene
language, and discussion of various topics that would seem unacceptable for the
Soviet society (Kuchmenko, 2013).
In general, such symbolic writers left a strong imprint on the history of
postmodern literature, gained popularity rather quickly and vigorously, and managed
to attract the attention of many readers. In addition, a lot of researchers suggest that
they had a great impact not only on readers, but also on other authors and writers,
because many adopted their writing style and manner of portraying various
phenomena. Subsequently, it can be assumed that Maxim Nemtsov, being a person
who was interested in literature, was also influenced by such great writers since many
authors of that time wanted to achieve the same success (Dalton-Brown, 1997).
52
Taking everything into consideration, the biography of Maxim Nemtsov
demonstrates that this Russian translator has many stories in his background that
shaped his personality and influenced his formation. Furthermore, it was explored
that the socio-cultural context had a significant impact on Maxim Nemtsov which is
proven by the distinctive features of his works. Thus, many individual peculiarities of
Nemtsov were revealed. Their influence on his translation of Jerome David Salinger's
novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ will be studied thoroughly as part of the comparative
analysis in the present investigation.
2. Analysis of the Socio-Cultural Context of the Epochs
In this chapter, the cultural, social, and historical features of the three epochs
will be analysed. Initially, the time when Jerome David Salinger was working on his
novel will be carefully examined. Further, the eras when the translations of the book
into the Russian language presented by Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov will
be thoroughly explored. Thus, in the course of the discourse analysis, various
resources devoted to the study of the peculiarities of each of the epochs will be
investigated. Moreover, the impact of the particular features on the works of the
American writer and the two translators will be analyzed.
As part of the course paper written in 2020 on the topic of ―Multiplicity of
Literary Translation Theory‖ (Kamarova, 2020), an investigation of the socio-cultural
peculiarities of the three epochs was conducted but not quite profoundly. The present
study continues examining the features of the port-war USA of 40-50s, the Soviet
Union of 50-60s, and the postmodern Russia of 2000s in order to thoroughly observe
all the details and reveal their influence on the translated works. Furthermore, the
distinctive features that will be discovered in this part of the research will be applied
in the comparative analysis of the novel and its two translations.
2.1. Socio-Cultural Context of the USA in 40-50s
Jerome David Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ was published in
1951, although the writer had been working on this book since 1941 when he was
writing some of the short stories that later became part of the novel. Thus, the
53
American writer was creating his novel in the USA of 40-50s of the 20th century. To
find out how the socio-cultural context of that time influenced his book, the analysis
of this era will be carried out carefully.
Initially, in the period from 1929 to 1939, America experienced the Great
Depression, the consequence of which was the widespread poverty of American
people, which led to high rates of unemployment and economic crisis. However, in
1939, the Second World War began. Primarily, the United States did not want to get
involved in the war and did not take part in it. Nevertheless, in 1941, there was a
Japanese attack on the harbor on the island of Oahu (Hawaii) called Pearl Harbor,
after which America began military operations against Japan, Germany, and Italy.
Moreover, the United States began testing atomic bombs at the end of the war, and
the Japanese cities such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were defeated by America in
1945. This event constituted the beginning of the atomic age in the world (Graham,
2007: 9-11).
Due to the late entry of the USA into the war, its effects were much more
modest in America than in other countries. For instance, during the participation in
the Second World War, the United Stated lost the lives of about 400,000 people,
which is quite a small number if to compare the loss rates of other nations. Thus, the
USA was almost the only state that did not experience huge negative consequences.
Therefore, this country became the most powerful in the post-war period world.
Despite this, America still had a potential enemy that was able to develop and use
atomic bombs against the country. Such a power has the Soviet Union, famous at that
time for its communist ideas which completely contradicted the concepts of
capitalism promoted among the American society. Hence, the United States and the
USSR had different ideologies, and both states understood the strength and power of
each other, which caused the mutual fear of these two countries. This state of affairs
led to the Cold War, the outcomes of which can be vividly regarded in the post-war
America (May, 1989: 82).
Created in 1934 to combat subversive and anti-American propaganda, the
House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), began to actively pursue
54
suspicious people after the war. Such representatives of the society might have been
hired by the Soviet Union or hold communist views. This committee tracked down
such representatives of the American society and put them on a black list, getting into
which completely destroyed the career and life of a person, leaving him or her with
the label of a traitor. During the activities of this organization, many famous people,
such as actors, film directors, and others, were persecuted. These society
representatives were considered to be able to influence other people and propagate
ideas that contradict capitalistic ones. Such measures of dissidence suppression have
created an atmosphere of fear and uneasiness in the American society. This
uncertainty extended to all Americans who were frightened by communism and felt
the threat of potentially possible atomic war (Jones, 1983: 530).
Despite the anxiety prevailing among the US population, the lives of
Americans were changing at a rapid pace. After the war, the country managed to
overcome the economic crisis that had started long before the war years.
Furthermore, the quality of the American life began to improve more and more. After
the war, many job places were released and new ones appeared which helped the
country to get rid of the large unemployment rate and reduce it by approximately one
million. Moreover, wages have elevated which could not but please the residents of
the country (Tindall & Shi, 1996: 1238). Thus, the financial well-being of the US
population ameliorated, and an increasing number of people could afford to build or
buy a big house and start a large family. Such initiatives were actively supported by
the American state (Chafe & Chafe, 2003: 112). Moreover, according to the financial
magazine ―Fortune‖, the purchase of cars began to be made much more often, as the
price of gasoline was low, and more people could provide themselves with a car. In
addition, having the opportunity and the means for material objects, the Americans
also started to indulge in various types of entertainment. This feature of the era led to
the opening of fast food restaurants, such as McDonald's, and contributed to the
emergence of numerous cinemas and small hotels (Tindall & Shi, 1996: 1326).
As for recreation and leisure, in the post-war period, people spent an
increasing amount of money on various items that brought them pleasure. So, many
55
representatives of the American culture purchased televisions in that epoch. Thus, it
can be deduced that in the 40s and 50s, the United States became very materialistic,
since the value of any tangible objects far exceeded the spiritual value, and America
became significantly prosperous where quite a lot of affluent people had a large
income and could afford a variety of things (Coontz, 2016: 25). This characteristic of
the era is illustrated in J. D. Salinger's novel, because in the course of getting
acquaintance with the book, the reader learns that the Holden family is rather wealthy
and the main character does not experience an unbearable need for money. In
addition, from the novel, it can be noticed that Holden lives in a comfortable
environment because he can order a taxi, eat at a restaurant, and treat his girlfriend
(Salinger, 2016a).
However, such changes for the better apply only to white people living in the
United States. In the 1950s, black people still did not have equal rights with whites.
Nevertheless, black people began to adapt more and more to the white society since
in wartime, due to a lack of human resources, blacks were hired in various factories
and their rights were equated with those of whites. However, there was strong
discrimination by white people, which led to riots by people of color. Despite this
disparagement of the other race, by 1960, many movements supporting black people
had emerged, setting the stage for further political and economic measures to prevent
discrimination (Chafe & Chafe, 2003: 123).
Moreover, in the 40-50 years of the United States, there was not only racial
inequality, but also gender disparity. Women who were forced to work in wartime did
not want to leave their posts; however, preference was still given to men who needed
to work after the war (Tindall & Shi, 1996: 1339). By the way, the country has
experienced a large increase in the number of marriages and a decrease in the number
of divorces. This situation caused a significant boost in the birth rate. Hence, the
country experienced a ―baby boom‖ which provoked a large number of teenagers and
young people by the end of the 50-60s. Accordingly, in this era, teenagers, as in all
other times, desired a new way of life in comparison with the one of their parents.
56
Being a sizeable young society, this opposition to adults became fairly strong, which
led to a large gap between generations (Graham, 2007: 14).
Regarding the gender differences, it is worth mentioning the relationship
between men and women in the epoch under consideration. According to the research
of scholars, people in the 50s had a poor sexual education (Turner, Danella, &
Rogers, 1995). In the late 40s, several books were published on the sexuality of men
and women, but such works were few in number because talking about the
relationship between a man and a woman was unacceptable and inadmissible. This
feature of the era is reflected in Salinger's novel since during the whole book the main
character repeats for several times that he does not understand anything about sexual
matters, but often reflects on them (Salinger, 2016a). Thus, the American society of
that time, although showing interest in the topic under analysis, did not discussed it
and behaved with restraint and uncertainty within the framework of this issue (Turner
et al., 1995).
When considering the relationship between a man and a woman, the attitude
towards homosexual people in America in the 40s and 50s should also be highlighted.
In the post-war period, as mentioned earlier, the special committee tracked people
who went against the capitalist ideology and were considered spies. The same
category of suspects included people of non-traditional orientation. Thus,
homosexuals were persecuted, as were communists, because they were considered
potential enemies of the established capitalist system. Therefore, homosexuality in
the USA at that time was condemned and not accepted by the society at all (Johnson,
2009).
Moreover, the USA of the 40-50s was distinguished by the fact that people
began to have more free time than it was before the war and during it, as the working
week was shortened. This was one of the reasons for the increase in the number of
religious people. Moreover, the American government supported the prosperity of the
church, because the capitalist ideology did not hinder religion, unlike the communist
one, where atheism was promoted among the entire population (Tindall & Shi, 1996:
1341). Therefore, in the epoch under consideration, the habit of American people to
57
attend church on Saturday mornings took place, which grew into a tradition over
time. In addition, according to the researchers, capitalist states financed and
supported religious organizations. Donations of large amounts from various countries
were one of the most substantive incomes of the Catholic Church. It is noteworthy
that during the post-war period in the United States, there was a huge contribution to
the Vatican from America (ibid.). Thus, the theme of religiosity was supported by
both the American population and the government. Considering Salinger's novel, the
issue of religion is reflected in fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of the book, where
Holden, expressing opposition and confrontation with the American society, speaks
of himself as an atheist who is not close to religious topics, but he often thinks about
God and Jesus Christ (Salinger, 2016a). More thoroughly, the reflection of the epoch
through the prism of religious ideas in the novel will be studied later in the
comparative analysis.
In essence, in the postwar period, the United States became a conformist
society. On the one hand, such conformity was aimed at uniting the nation and
creating common traditions and values. On the other hand, conformity deprived
people of individuality, because the rules of the group were more important in society
(Whyte, 2013). Thus, everyone had to comply with the social laws, put on the labels
that they were prescribed. This state of affairs limited and disappointed many young
people (Graham, 2007: 16). In addition, this characteristic of society is also reflected
in Salinger's novel. For instance, in the twelfth chapter, Holden meets an
acquaintance of his brother D. B., whose name is Lillian Simmons. When saying
goodbye, Holden says “Glad to’ve met you” (Salinger, 2016a: 101), but he does not
understand the meaning of this utterance since, in fact, he is not glad to see her.
However, after that, the main character says a phrase that confirms what has been
mentioned above about conformity: “If you want to stay alive, you have to say that
stuff, though” (Salinger, 2016a: 101). Hence, Holden understands that people are fake
and phony because they are labeled and cannot act otherwise. This irritates him and
he does not want to appear in the adult world where people take on undesirable roles
and try to comply with the rules that they themselves have come up with.
58
Moreover, the concept of "teenager" was born in the 50s as a social
phenomenon that had not existed before. Teenagers were separating from their
parents creating a ―peer culture‖ in which they shared common values that made
them different them from those of older generations. Young people were used to
spend more time with each other than with their families, and in order to stand out
from the other generations, teenagers created their own films, music, and clothing
that set them apart (Vorrath & Brendtro, 1985). More often, the young generation
began to resist conformism, because teens did not want to follow the rules prescribed
to them by the adults. Consequently, the influence of counter-culture was very strong,
as new genres of writing, abstract drawing, rock-n-roll, be-bop jazz, existential
philosophy, cheap soft-cover books that young people bought willingly, which
allowed Salinger's novel to become so popular among young people, began to appear
(Graham, 2007: 16).
As it was emphasized earlier, when analyzing J. D. Salinger's personality, the
novel conveys an image of the trauma of American people after the war. According
to the scholar Granofsky (1995: 18), after returning from the war, people could not
live the same life, because terrible events happened to them, which they could not
forget and always recalled. These memories of the war were their trauma, which
caused a sense of anxiety and hopelessness. Often such feelings led to thoughts of
suicide or complete apathy to life. On the one hand, people began to live better and
this helped them to distract from their heavy thoughts; on the other hand, their
emotional state could not settle down. Although the novel does not have many
references to the war, the trauma of warring people is still depicted through the main
character, Holden, who lost his younger brother Allie. Thus, Holden is the prototype
of those people who could not forget the details about the war like the main character
could not leave the thoughts about the loss of his close and dear person. Such a
painful situation in Holden‘s life leads him into a state of suicidal depression, because
throughout the whole book he often imagines that he has a tumor, like his brother
had, that he is shot with a gun or that he falls out of a hotel window. Therefore, one
can draw an analogy between the feelings and thoughts of people who returned from
59
the war and Holden Caulfield, and note that Salinger may have wanted to convey this
feature of the era in his work.
In addition, basing on the words of Krystal (1995: 80), people's trauma lead to
a loss of trust in other people. This is clearly evident in Holden's character. Being
confused because of his brother‘s death, Holden needs an assistant and a supporter in
his life who would save him from all problems. In the main character, the desire to
share his feelings with someone can be easily traced since during the novel he always
wants to call someone or talk to someone. However, every time he starts a
conversation, it does not lead to anything pleasant as everything and everyone around
him seems false and deceptive to Holden. This attitude to the surrounding world is
burdensome for the main character, and he does not want to enter adulthood for fear
of turning into the same deceitful adult that he observes (Rosen, 1977: 551-552). In
addition, Holden cannot even turn to his parents as he sees their duplicity and
insincerity which turns him away from them. Consequently, the main character
cannot find support even in the person of his parents which may be the original and
genuine cause of his unstable mental state.
Hence, there is even a point of view that Salinger's novel is not about the
doubts and discontents of American youth, but about the lack of faith in the American
character due to the recognition of the powerlessness of American adults and parents
to provide a positive sense of the future for their children. The novel accuses adults of
apathy and complexity in building a social reality in which an American person
cannot develop, and teenagers do not feel confident in growing up (Whitfield, 1997:
593). However, after analysing the book, it can be underlined that the grounds for
Holden‘s dissatisfaction of his life do not lie only on his parents and the tragedy that
happened to his brother Allie. In addition to these reasons, society as a whole does
not suit the main character since he condemns social inequality and hierarchy, the
injustice of people around him who have status, and the falseness of all adults who
for some reason try to conform to the established norms of society that they do not
like (Yahya & Babaee, 2014: 1826).
60
Furthermore, Holden Caulfield describes a post-war America in conflict with
the norms and values inherent in people. So strong was the effect of military actions
on society that teenagers had a depressive and suicidal attitude to their lives. For
example, Holden says that he is glad that an atomic rocket was invented, because if
there is a new war, he will sit on this rocket of his own free will (Salinger, 2016a).
Holden is raised in the American culture, even though he wants to escape its features,
he just cannot do it as well as he cannot stop thinking about death (Rosen, 1977:
550). The narrator is afraid of growing up, and he tries to resist it as much as he can,
since his own values do not match those that are established in the society. He sees so
much meanness and untruth in the lives of adults that he does not want to let himself
enter into this world, and more importantly, he does not want to let children get in
there, that is, those whose values are not yet stained with deception and phoniness
(Yahya & Babaee, 2014: 1827).
Holden does not want to live the way all adults are supposed to and forced to.
The narrator desires to avoid taking certain roles of a husband and a father. He just
wants to be free of that and of all limits. This coincides with the general hate of the
young generations to have certain limits in something and to have institutional roles
that each person should take in an obligatory order (Rosen, 1977: 553-554). All these
Holden‘s desires, thoughts, and discontents are a reflection of the thoughts of
teenagers both then and now, because young people always strive to get rid of the
norms adopted by their ancestors, and which they are dissatisfied with. Thus, Holden
is a collective image of youth and its voice.
Back to the American society in the 50s, it is important to mention again that
it was so materialistic that relationships between people often depended on a person's
status and well-being. Relationships were established in conditions of constant
competition and materialistic values that were put much higher than moral ones. For
Holden, it was disgusting, and he was trying to find a sincere and soulful relationship
(Rosen, 1977: 554). In the novel, this is symbolically shown by Holden expressing
his displeasure to his girlfriend Sally that he does not like that everyone around him
cares so much about their cars and is chasing new brands at breakneck speed. He says
61
that even a horse is closer to his soul: "A horse is at least human for God's sake"
(Salinger, 2016a: 151).
Thus, American culture, being strongly materialistic, celebrated the concept
of ―winning‖, which concerned all branches of life, including victory over other
people and ending with triumph over the whole society. In this case, it can be clearly
seen how this feature was condemned by the author himself, who conveyed his
discontent through Holden's non-conformism and showed the dissatisfaction of the
entire youth society with this aspect formed in American culture.
Indeed, the novel's portrayal of this distinctive feature of the United States
was highlighted by writer and politician, Tom Hayden, who called Holden an
―alternative cultural model‖ (1989), marveling at Holden's ability to be
compassionate and help others, a quality that was not characteristic of the society. In
fact, even when expressing dissatisfaction with everything around him, the
protagonist rarely refuses people. For instance, he helps to write an essay for his
neighbor Stradlater, takes out a pair of scissors for another neighbor named Ackley
from his already packed suitcase, and when talking to the mother of one of his
classmates, lies to her about her son's good qualities, which are not really there, just
to please and not upset her (Salinger, 2016a). Furthermore, Holden's kindness can be
symbolized by his friend Jane‘s habit that he liked very much and always
remembered, which consisted of the fact that she kept her checkers kings in the last
row. This peculiarity can denote restraining strength and aggression against other
people and unwillingness to fight with others (Rosen, 1977: 554-556).
However, being benevolent to everyone around him, Holden can be
considered to be an underdog in the society, as people of this type are not trusted by
others, because they seem to fall out of the whole community. Therefore, it is
difficult for Holden to navigate among other people and trust anyone, but he is also
not able to completely get out of this society, since he is still very young.
Nevertheless, Holden, being a prototype of the younger generation, reflects
the opinion of many young people of the epoch under consideration in the United
States, who tried to resist the established norms and values (Hayden, 1989).
62
Furthermore, such people formed a separate subculture of nonconformists, who were
called beatniks. These young people characterized the social stratum of the youth of
the 40s and 50s, distinguished by their antisocial behavior and rejection of the
traditional cultural values of their nation (Lawlor, 2005).
Taking all of the above into account, the USA of the 40-50s has a lot of
distinctive features that J. D. Salinger reflects in his novel since the events, values,
traditions, emotions, and feelings of the post-war people of America are depicted in
his book. Therefore, the novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ can be denominated a
portrayal of the USA in the 40-50s of the twentieth century where its social, cultural,
and historical aspects are demonstrated through the prism of the typical teenager‘s
life. Subsequently, the book is a significantly profound and multifaceted work that
remains interesting to read for many generations, even after more than 70 years from
the date of its publication. Furthermore, the influence of the socio-cultural features,
together with the previously studied personal characteristics of the writer, will be
investigated in more detail in the comparative analysis in this paper.
2.2. Socio-Cultural Context of the USSR in 50-60s
Rita Rait-Kovaleva‘s translation which was named as ―Nad Propast'yu vo
Rzhi [Over the Abyss in the Rye]‖ (Katz, 2012: 536) was published in the Soviet
Union in 1960. Therefore, in order to trace the impact of that time on the translated
work, the fundamental analysis of the USSR in 50-60s will be presented in this paper.
According to the Ukrainian scholar, Rudnitskaya (2013), translation in nondemocratic countries is the object of strong ideological influence. Indeed, one of the
manifestations of the overwhelming influence of government structures on society is
the interference of the state in translation activities. Thus, the State authorities are
able to exercise full control over the activities of the translator. First, at the stage of
selecting the text to be translated, the state decides on the possibility and necessity of
translating a particular text. Further, the translation process itself is under the
supervision of the authorities. In addition, the stages of editing, publishing, and
distributing the translated text are also under the total control of the state.
63
Such peculiarities in translation work can be vividly seen in the Soviet Union
where there was an indissoluble link between the creative process of writers and the
ideology of the country. Therefore, creative activity was under the strict supervision
of political institutions, which made sure that the texts corresponded to the political
situation of the state and its ideological views. As a Soviet translator, Rita RaitKovaleva was greatly influenced by such a political ideology (Rudnitskaya, 2013:
25).
In the 60s, when Rita Rait-Kovaleva was working on her translation, the
Soviet Union stood out for its particularly strict and ubiquitous censorship, through
which every work had to pass. This Soviet censorship consisted in the control of the
Party institutions of the USSR over the content and dissemination of information of
any kind. Under the rigorous supervision were released products, musical works,
works of fine art, cinematic and photographic works, radio and television, and many
others. The purpose of this control was to suppress all unofficial sources of
information and limit the distribution of ideas that were considered undesirable and
harmful (Ermolaev, 1997).
Such comprehensive censorship flourished in the USSR because of the
totalitarian ideology in the country. In fact, totalitarianism is a political regime that
implies absolute state control over all aspects of public and private life. Thus, there
was a certain ideology of the country, which no one had the right to object to
(Borowski, 2017). Moreover, any actions that contradicted the ideology were called
anti-communist, because the Soviet Union declared itself a communist state.
More precisely, communism is a social and economic system that is based on
complete public ownership which ensures social equality (Rozhkov, 2019). Strictly
speaking, the opposite ideology to communism is capitalism. It is an economic
system that is based on private property and free enterprise with the goal of
increasing capital and generating profits (Jones, 1983). As was studied earlier in this
paper, such a capitalist ideology prospered in the United States, while in the USSR,
the communist orientation of ideas prevailed. Thus, the ideologies of the Soviet
Union and the USA completely contradicted each other.
64
Therefore, being a totalitarian state, the USSR vigilantly controlled translation
activities, since they reflected an external source of information coming from other
countries and cultures through various literary works. Such foreign works could have
ideologically alien information that undermined the ideas of communism
(Rudnitskaya, 2013: 25).
As it was revealed earlier, printed materials, translation activities, and foreign
literature were under strict state control. In the Soviet Union, such control was
maintained by the work of such political institutions as the Main Directorate for
Literature and Publishing [Glavnoe upravlenie po delam literatury i izdatel'stv]
(Glavlit) and the Main Repertory Committee [Glavnyj repertuarnyj komitet]
(Glavrepertkom). These state administration bodies of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics censored printed, musical, and cinematic works intended for public
distribution or performance and provided protection of state secrets in the mass media
(Rozhkov, 2019).
As for Glavlit, this organization was formed in 1922, and it established that
only individual publishers under the control of the Soviet Party had permission to
translate foreign books. Furthermore, at that time, it was determined that the work of
a translator should be under constant supervision by the State (Petrenko, 2007: 74).
Therefore, much attention was paid to the identity of the author and the translator,
because some writers might be inclined to spread information and ideas that were a
threat to the Soviet ideology. Consequently, the authors who were trusted and
allowed to create literary works were united in the organization of professional
writers which was called the Union of Writers of the USSR [Soyuz pisatelej SSSR].
However, those who contradicted the ideas of the country were not included in the
list of these writers. Moreover, some of them could be on this list, but then, if anticommunist propaganda was noticed in their work when checking their text, these
writers were excluded from the writers‘ union. For instance, the work of Boris
Pasternak ―Doctor Zhivago‖ was prohibited because, according to the Party
institutions, the Bolshevik revolution in it was presented as a huge crime. Therefore,
the work was declared counter-revolutionary and slanderous, and Boris Pasternak
65
was expelled from the Union of Writers, which undermined the trust in the writer and
severely limited his creative activities (Kulmanov, 2018).
Furthermore, some translated works that were allowed to be translated may
have acquired a motive that contradicts the ideology. Hence, even a finished work
could be removed from publication because of the agitation of an idea that does not
correspond to the ideas of the country. Thus, the choice of a work for translation was
an important step for translators, because their reputation depended on how they
created their work (Petrenko, 2007: 74). In addition, if the original book was written
by an author from a capitalist country, then such a work was subjected to even more
thorough examination and verification of compliance with the ideological
requirements of the country, since the communist and capitalist ideas differed
significantly. In order to prevent capitalist ideas directed against communism from
entering the country, there was strict censorship (Rudnitskaya, 2013: 27).
Working in such strict frameworks, Rita Rait-Kovaleva dared to translate a
book that reflects the American realities, namely Jerome David Salinger's novel ―The
Catcher in the Rye‖. However, the Soviet Party did not forbid the translator to take up
this work, since in the original work, Salinger, through the main character Holden
Caulfield, condemns the capitalist American society, in which lies, duplicity, and
passion for money reign (Petrenko, 2007: 75). Thus, political institutions allowed
Rait-Kovaleva to translate this work in order to demonstrate capitalism, which is
criticized by the protagonist who is a representative of the US society, in order to
show all the shortcomings of the American communities (Johnson, 2013).
Due to the thorough censorship that existed in the USSR, many translators
realized that it would not be easy to translate ―The Catcher in the Rye‖, and it would
not be possible to leave many expressions used by Salinger, since the original text
contains a lot of swear words and slang. Therefore, according to Rait-Kovaleva
herself, many translators left this book out of consideration because they considered
Holden to be a failure boy whose speech could not be translated. However, Rita
Yakovlevna decided to work on this novel and managed to translate it the way that it
was allowed by the censorship of the USSR (Petrenko, 2007: 75).
66
Nevertheless, there are still moments that were considered harmful to the
morals of the Soviet reader, namely, vulgarisms, topics of relationships and sex,
alcoholism, etc. The presence of such issues in the text that contradicted political
ideology led to a ban on the implementation of the translation or to the introduction
of changes, omissions, substitutions in the text of the translation (Rudnitskaya, 2013:
27). This is the way Rait-Kovaleva modified her work. She smoothed out many
elements of the text, neutralized them, and made some shifts according to the realities
of Soviet people and their lives (Rudnitskaya, 2013: 26).
In addition, it is worth mentioning that Rita Rait-Kovaleva changed even the
name of the original work, which is directly related to the influence of the sociocultural background on the work of the translator. In her book of the title ―Nad
Propast'yu vo Rzhi [Over the Abyss in the Rye]” (Katz, 2012: 536), she uses the word
―abyss‖, which is impossible to notice in the original version. On the one hand, this
word logically fits the context of the novel, since in the plot, the main character,
Holden, dreams of becoming a catcher of children and saving them from falling into
the abyss. On the other hand, this language unit can have a much deeper connotation.
In the Soviet Union, the phrase ―the abyss of capitalism‖ was common and wellknown, which could serve as an idea for Rita Rait-Kovaleva. Thus, some scholars
suggest that with this name, the translator emphasized the imperfection of the
capitalist system describing it as a structure that is rapidly falling (Lotovsky, 2010).
Furthermore, returning to the distinctive features of the USSR of 50-60s, the
attitude of the Soviet society to religion and church should be examined. The
ideology of the communist society was to promote atheism. All manifestations of
religious activities, such as visiting temples, saying prayers, celebrating religious
holidays, and many other things were prohibited. Thus, people were forbidden to
practice any religion. They should have believed and obeyed only the communist
Party of the Soviet Union. Besides, if someone was noticed in any actions related to
religion, they were fined or even punished by the courts (Van den Bercken, 2019).
This feature of the socio-cultural context of the USSR of the 50-60s is directly
represented in the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva. Since the USSR was anti-
67
religious, blasphemy which is sometimes represented in the original work was not
considered obscene, but rather supported (Rudnitskaya, 2013: 27). The reflection of
such a peculiarity of the epoch will be considered profoundly later in this paper in a
comparative analysis of the novel and its two translations into Russian.
Analyzing the socio-cultural context of the USSR in the 50s and 60s, one
should pay attention to the relationship between a man and a woman and to sexual
education at this time. According to the scholar, Karam, at the end of the October
Revolution, sexual education of adolescents in school was developed within the
framework of such a science, which was called pedology. This science, which deals
with the problems of the development and upbringing of children and adolescents,
was introduced because of the need to bring sex education to the masses. It was
assumed that this school subject would develop in an integrated approach and with
the use of various kinds of knowledge. However, in 1936, pedology was declared a
―pseudoscience‖. Subsequently, the process of sexual education was never
sufficiently developed, and the project of integrating such a science was terminated in
the late 40s when Stalin signed a decree ―On pedological perversions in the system of
People's Commissariats of Education [O pedologicheskih izvrashcheniyah v sisteme
Narkomprosov]‖, which limited any initiatives of sexual education. After that, sexual
enlightenment of children and adolescents in school became a closed topic until the
60s of the 20th century. At this time in school education, such a course as
―Fundamentals of the Soviet Family and Family Education [Osnovy sovetskoj sem'i i
semejnogo vospitaniya]‖ has begun to be included. Moreover, various optional
classes covering the topics of love, marriage, gender, health, and sexuality were
implemented. However, the course was recognized ineffective since the main focus
was only on the benefits of the family as the minimum unit of society. Consequently,
in 1965, it was removed from the school curriculum (Botova, 2021).
Furthermore, regarding sexual issues in the Soviet Union, sexual promiscuity
was often seen as a sign of political corruption, due to which the Party had to
thoroughly investigate the affair between political figures and expel the ―enemy of
68
people [vrag naroda]‖ from the political institutions in which he or she was a member
(Cohn, 2009: 433).
Therefore, the generation of the Soviet Union in the 50s and 60s was not
enlightened in the field of relations between men and women. To talk about topics
related to the relationship between husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, to
discuss any features of puberty and sexual details were not accepted in society at all.
Moreover, people who dared to refer to this issue were condemned by people around
them, since this topic was considered intimate and unacceptable for general
disclosure and discussion.
Considering the issue of sexuality, the attitude of the Soviet society towards
homosexuality should be examined. In the USSR, homosexuality was regarded as a
criminal offense which was punished by the court and the law. According to the
pioneering scholar of Russian and Soviet sexuality, Dan Healey, after the death of
Joseph Stalin, mass terror was stopped in the period between 1953 and 1956, but antihomosexual politics became even fiercer (Alexander, 2018). To strengthen
heterosexual norms, science, police, and medical institutions were applied. In this era,
after the death of Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev came to power. Up until 1964, during his
administration of the state, the focus of the ideology shifted from eliminating
capitalist realities to comparing the shortcomings of capitalism with the superiority of
communism. Therefore, during this time period, the term ―homosexuality‖ was
introduced in some manuals on sexual education for adolescents. More precisely, in
1960, a major Soviet publishing house of medical literature published a textbook on
sexual education called ―The Youth Becomes a Man [Yunosha prevrashchaetsia v
muzhchinu]‖. As mentioned earlier, in this epoch, the government decided to
introduce a school subject on sexual development, which was called ―Fundamentals
of the Soviet Family and Family Education [Osnovy sovetskoj sem'i i semejnogo
vospitaniya]‖. This textbook was devoted to various topics related to the issues of sex
and gender. Near the end of the guide, the reader could find a passage about
homosexuality that was almost never discussed publicly at that time. However, an
interesting fact is how it was described in this manual. In this textbook, the author
69
described homosexuality as a serious danger, where homosexuals were presented as
sexual predators that prey on young people. The author of this manual offered advice
to readers that in case they meet such people with a non-traditional orientation, they
can report them to the police, do not allow them to touch anybody, and do not
hesitate to speak about such people to parents and teachers. Finally, the author made
a statement that homosexuality is a punishable crime, and homosexuals know this
themselves; subsequently, it is very complicated to get rid of them (Healey, 2001).
In fact, in the Soviet Union, homosexuality was equated with counter
revolutionary issue since both of these phenomena undermined the norms of Soviet
society. Therefore, same-sex marriage was punishable and prosecuted. This violent
policy against homosexuals continued until 1993. It was only at this time, when the
Soviet Union was collapsing and a new Constitution was being prepared where the
anti-homosexual laws were repealed. However, until that time, discussing and talking
about homosexuality was considered obscene and improper (ibid.). Such a
persecution of homosexuals constitutes the roots of Russian homophobia which has
persisted for many years.
So, according to Johnson Reed, Rita Rait-Kovaleva's translation of Salinger's
novel ―bears an indelible watermark of the Soviet literary establishment‖.
Nevertheless, she managed to translate this novel in such a way that it dealt with
topics such as homosexuality and prostitution, which were forbidden to be discussed
in the USSR, but the translation was allowed to be published (Johnson, 2013).
Furthermore, unlike the original version of the novel, Holden in the translation by
Rait-Kovaleva does not focus too much on his sexual preferences and relationships
(Rudnitskaya, 2013: 26). Thus, she gave people the opportunity to read and learn
foreign books, get acknowledged with the culture of other countries (Vonnegut,
2009).
Analysing the nation of the Soviet Union itself, it should be pointed out that
the society was multinational. In general, the USSR was a state association of
peoples, which, on the one hand, were organized into their national republics, and, on
the other, were united in one multinational socialist union state. However, despite the
70
fact that the Soviet ideology encouraged internationalism, yet the ethnic division of
society existed and gave rise to nationalism. Nevertheless, in the years under
consideration, it was not evidently expressed. As for black people in the Soviet
Union, they were not subjected to severe racial discrimination. In the USSR, black
people were from Africa, North and Latin America. The appearance of
representatives of the Negroid race is marked by the 1930s, when the Soviet Union
was in a period of industrialization. At that time, the Party invited many engineers
from leading Western European and American companies. Moreover, Negroes came
to the USSR to work under contract in various fields, for example, in professional
sports. Many of them remained in the Soviet Union and continued their life in the
USSR. Therefore, the number of representatives of the black population was rather
large (Verkhoturov, 2006).
Furthermore, regarding the political situation of the epoch under analysis, the
Soviet Union of the 50s-60s is marked by a significant historical moment which is
related to the death of J. V. Stalin, since after this event, the situation in the country
began to change rapidly. After his death in 1956, the processes that were called ―destalinization [destalinizaciya]‖ and ―Khrushchev thaw [Hrushchyovskaya ottepel']‖
started. These periods of time are distinguished by many political transformations in
the country which were aimed at deconstructing the system of total violence (Reid,
1997: 177).
In the mid-50s of the 21st century, the center of power in the USSR has
moved to the secretariat of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union (CPSU) headed by Nikita Khrushchev who was elected in 1953 as the
first secretary, when the post of General Secretary was abolished. Those who
remained in power at that time understood that many contradictions had accumulated
in the society which had to be resolved by a series of partial reforms. Therefore,
many Party leaders expressed the need to democratize society in order to increase the
creative activity, improve the mechanisms of economic management, and enhance
the overall standard of living of Soviet people. According to politicians, small
reforms that removed some of the restrictions which had been adopted earlier could
71
ensure the growth of production and establish the stability of society (Reid, 1997:
178-179).
Besides, at that time, the Party apparatus was considered to be the main social
force that provided the economic recovery. Although totalitarianism was removed
under Khrushchev, the country was quite authoritarian. However, even in such a
political situation, there was some weakening of the most acute forms of
authoritarianism and some of them were eliminated at all. So, the collegiality of the
Party leadership was restored, repressive activities were transformed and sharply
reduced, and persons directly associated with mass repression were excluded.
Moreover, the State Security Committee (KGB) was formed, which replaced the
Ministry of State Security, and provided state security (Dobson, 2011: 921).
In addition, the democratization of public life was accompanied
simultaneously by criticism of the ―cult of Stalin's personality‖ and criticism of the
mass political repression that took place during his administration of the Soviet
Union. The negative attitude towards Stalin came from Nikita Khrushchev himself.
For instance, in 1956, at the XX Congress of the CPSU, Khrushchev made a personal
report where he spoke very emotionally and condemned the abuse of power and
lawlessness that had been in the country before him. However, such excited
exaggerations and crude expressions about mass repressions undermined the
authority of the Soviet government and faith in socialist ideals, which led to a split in
the international communist movement. Due to the fact that during this period there
was a Cold War between the USSR and the United States, Khrushchev‘s
exclamations were used against the USSR itself and its communist ideology (Dobson,
2011: 912). As for the Cold War, it was mentioned in this paper earlier during the
investigation of the socio-cultural and historical background of the USA. It was
revealed that the consequences of the Cold War had a great impact on the American
society. Nevertheless, the Soviet culture also felt the influence of such an
international situation.
More precisely, the Cold War is the period from 1946 to the end of the 1980s.
At this time, two powerful states, such as the USSR and the USA, became the centers
72
of confrontation. This confrontation consisted in the fact that the Soviet Union and
the United States had different ideologies, competed in the economic, political, and
military sectors. However, in general, it can be constituted that it was a struggle for a
dominant position in world public opinion since each side had both many allies and
enemies. Therefore, the main focus of the state leadership of the epoch under
consideration was to strengthen the military power and build up the scientific,
technical, and industrial potential of the country in order to be competitive and ―catch
up and overtake [dognat' i peregnat']‖ the US economy (Kremenyuk, 2015).
Analysing the Soviet Union of 50-60s in terms of the Cold War, it is worth
mentioning an important historical event which has occurred at the end of the 50s.
This accident is associated with the island of Cuba. Until 1959, Cuba developed and
flourished due to the fact that wealthy Americans loved this state for recreation. They
spent their vacations and weekends there; consequently, they supported Cuba's
tourism which made its economy rather stable. Moreover, Cuba sold sugar and some
other goods to the United States, and America supplied oil and food to the island
(Pérez-Stable, 2011). However, in 1959, the revolutionary and Party leader, Fidel
Castro, came to power in Cuba, establishing a socialist regime in the state. That
political system was similar to communism and shared the same ideological attitudes
as the Soviet ones. Fidel Castro ruled the state until 2008. When he came to govern,
the United States, being a capitalist country for which communist and socialist ideas
were alien and hostile, terminated all diplomatic relations with Cuba. Thus, the island
was left without any material assistance, its development was suspended, and the
economy and quality of life began to deteriorate, accordingly. Nevertheless, during
that period, the Soviet Union realized that Cuba was adhering to the same views and
values and established diplomatic relations with the Cuban state. The Soviet
government gave great support to the island, so Cuban people became friends with
the Soviet nation (Azicri, 2008).
These historical cases are inextricably linked to a very essential event in the
world history, associated with the Cold War, during which both sides, the United
States and the USSR, were developing their atomic bombs. In 1961, the United States
73
deployed its Jupiter medium-range missiles in Turkey which was an ally of the USA.
The choice of such a place was made for a reason. From Turkey, the missiles could
fly unhindered to the western part of the Soviet Union and even reach Moscow.
However, the USSR did not have the same opportunity to send a missile to the United
States due to the long distance. Therefore, in 1962, the Soviet Union placed its
military supplies, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons on the island of Cuba,
which was located in the immediate vicinity of the coast of the United States (ibid.).
These military actions in October 1962 could lead to a global nuclear war.
Subsequently, at that time, the relations between the USSR and the United States
were very tense, and the event became known as the ―Caribbean Crisis‖. However, at
the end, the conflict was settled and both sides pledged to withdraw all their weapons
from Turkey and Cuba (ibid.).
Thus, in the epoch under consideration, the Soviet Union was in complicated
political, economic, and military relations with other countries. Furthermore, the
ideology of the USSR was quite powerful and persistent. All this features of the
social, cultural, and historical backgrounds could not but affect the creative activity
of writers and translators. The impact of these features on the translation of the Soviet
translator, Rita Rait-Kovaleva, will be investigated rigorously in a comparative
analysis later in the present paper.
2.3. Socio-Cultural Context of Russia in 2000s
In 2008, the translation of the novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ was presented
by the Russian translator Maxim Nemtsov. He named his work as ―Lovets na
Khlebnom Pole [Catcher in the Grain Field]‖ (Katz, 2012: 536). Since the translation
was made in the postmodern Russia, this epoch will be profoundly analysed in the
present paper.
In this period of time, many socio-economic reforms related to taxes,
pensions, employment, and others were carried out in Russia. In general, the
beginning of the 21st century is characterized by the adoption of many laws and
regulations that changed various established traditions in different spheres of life. The
most significant event in the country's domestic politics was the coming to power of
74
Vladimir Putin in 1999, who took the post of president of Russia after the March
2000 elections. The main task of the new leadership of the country was to strengthen
the Russian statehood. As for the economy, in the early 2000s, decisions were taken
to overcome the severe consequences of the economic crisis of 1998. Moreover, the
revival and further formation of the market system of the economy began, and state
ownership was gradually transformed into collective and private forms. Moreover,
small and medium-sized businesses have started to develop in the country. As for the
social life of people, in 2005 the country's leadership started to solve large-scale
national tasks. The projects related to health care, education, housing, and others
were advanced. The main purpose of these programs was to improve the quality of
Russians‘ life. In general, in the early 2000s, there were numerous modifications in
various spheres of life in the country (Imyarekov, Kevbrina, & Imyarekov, 2017).
In addition, when studying a certain epoch, it is necessary to analyze the
situation in the country's foreign policy. Due to the fact that Jerome David Salinger's
original novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ was written in America, this work will
consider Russian-American relations. As revealed earlier in the present paper, there
has been a Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States for many years.
However, in 1985, with the coming to power of the Soviet and Russian politician,
Mikhail Gorbachev, diplomatic relations between the USSR and the United States
began to ameliorate. Such progress in relations was achieved because of the adoption
of many reforms and the promotion of a new ideology of the Soviet Party leadership,
which were initiated by the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee,
Mikhail Gorbachev, in 1985-1991. These reforms were aimed at a comprehensive
democratization of the socio-political and economic system that developed in the
Soviet times. This period of change was called ―Perestroika‖. The modifications in
ideology made it possible to end the long-standing ideological confrontation between
the USSR and the USA, and the transition to a market economy enabled the country
to promote partnership and cooperation with America (Desai, 2014). Moreover, after
the collapse of the USSR, in the early 1990s, Boris Yeltsin, who became the first
president of Russia in 1991, met with George W. Bush at the White House in the
75
United States. At this meeting, they put the final end to the Cold War, and Yeltsin
announced the end of confrontation and the beginning of active cooperation with
Western countries. Since then, the American direction has become predominant in the
Russian foreign policy (―Russian-American Relations in 1992-1996. Reference‖,
2011).
Furthermore, with the end of the Cold War, the censorship of Western sources
of information was mitigated, and Soviet people began to learn more about the
American culture from which they were no longer turned away. In addition, it
became possible to discuss many topics that were forbidden before, for example, the
relationship between a man and a woman, drug addiction, domestic violence, and so
on. Besides, on June 12, 1990, the USSR Law ―On the Press and Other Mass Media‖
was adopted, which completely prohibited censorship and ensured freedom for the
media (Desai, 2014). Thus, at the time of writing the translation of the novel by
Maxim Nemtsov, in the Russian society there was no previous hatred of the United
States, as well as there was no censorship and ideology that directed the ideas of the
authors against the American society.
Studying the postmodernism of Russia in the early 2000s, it is essential to
analyse the attitude towards religion on the part of young people. In this research, the
youth generation is studied for the reason that in the discourse analysis of Maxim
Nemtsov's personal characteristics, it was revealed that he aimed his translation at a
young audience. Thus, according to the statistical indicators, at the beginning of the
21st century, the Russian youth was not entirely religious, and the attitude to the faith
and believers was neutral and even indifferent. It was found that the confessional
commandments did not have much value for teenagers in the postmodern era
(Savruckaja & Zhigalev, 2014). Moreover, at that time, an extra-ecclesiastical type of
religiosity was discovered, in which a person believed in the existence of God and his
power, but did not have confidence in the church institutions and temples. In
addition, the researchers note that young people had a contradictory attitude to
Christianity and religion in general and had many doubts about it. Even more
distrustful attitude was shown in young people towards the clergy. Moreover, at that
76
time, religiosity became a personal and intimate topic, so its discussion was often
avoided (ibid.). Thus, it can be emphasized that in the era under consideration, the
youth of Russia was not vary religious and had a contradictory attitude to the church,
but there were no restrictions in its discussion and propaganda.
Moreover, regarding the postmodern epoch of the Russian Federation, the
attitude of postmodern Russian society towards the topic that was considered
forbidden in the Soviet Union, namely the topic of homosexuality, should be
explored. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the anti-homosexual laws adopted
in Soviet times were not canceled. Even in the newly formed Russia, a large number
of people were convicted under these laws. Nevertheless, at this time, movements in
defense of homosexual minorities began to appear. Furthermore, voluntary same-sex
relationships were decriminalized in 1993. This year, a decree was issued, according
to which people of non-traditional orientation no longer had to be prosecuted by the
law; however, previously convicted because of homosexuality were not automatically
released from punishment. Further, in 1996, a new criminal code of the Russian
Federation was adopted, which stated that violent acts in both same-sex and differentsex relationships bear the same criminal responsibility. Nonetheless, despite the
exclusion of punishment for same-sex contacts, there was still hostility and bad
attitude towards homosexuals in society. People in the Russian society called the
representatives of such minorities with rude and obscene words and considered it a
shame to be a homosexual. Thus, although the legal persecution of people who prefer
people of the same sex was eliminated, society still treated such people with distrust
and caution (Kochetkov & Kirichenko, 2009).
Moreover, as for forbidden topics in the USSR, they began to be widely
discussed after its collapse. Thus, earlier in this work as part of the discourse analysis
of the Soviet Union era in the 50s and 60s, it was revealed that the issues of relations
between men and women and sexual education were considered to be inappropriate
to speak about. However, in the postmodern Russia, these topics became more open
and attracting attention. Therefore, in 1991, attempts were made to introduce sex
education in the Russian Federation since more than 60% of respondents expressed
77
their approval for introducing sexual education lessons in schools. In 1994, the state
allocated about 2.5 billion rubles for the development of a special federal program
which was signed by Boris Yeltsin and was called ―The Children of Russia [Deti
Rossii]‖. This program was experimentally introduced in several schools, but there
were a considerable number of opponents of this innovation whose doubts were
rooted in the Soviet epoch. Thus, this project was constantly slowed down and did
not develop in the right direction. Despite this, the topic under consideration became
more open for discussion in society, and people were no longer so shy to talk about
these issues in the circle of friends and acquaintances because it was not considered
shameful as it was in the Soviet Union (―Instead of Sex Education — Sexual
Debauchery‖, 2017).
Considering such sensitive topics as racism and nationalism, in the
postmodern period in Russia of the 2000s, the attitude towards people of other races
and nationalities worsened in a significant way. In 2006, the non-governmental
organization, Amnesty International, revealed that racism in Russia has crossed all
the boundaries and got out of any control. The hospitable nature of people that was
promoted by the Soviet internationalism was completely destroyed, and the Russian
citizens became much less tolerant towards people of other nationalities and races.
Moreover, in these years, Russia was occupying one of the highest positions in the
ratings of immigrants from the country. Besides, it was found that exchange students
who came to the Soviet Union and then to Russia began to succumb more and more
to attacks from other people, being insulted and humiliated. Thus, due to the absence
of any restrictions concerning the personalities of people of different nationalities and
races, as well as due to the lack of any directed movement in defense of foreigners in
Russia, a strong intolerance on the part of the Russian society developed in the
country (―Russian racism 'out of control'‖, 2006).
Moreover, as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were great
changes not only from a political point of view, but also in all spheres of people's
lives. Translation activities were not an exception. According to the scholar, Irina
Sergeevna Alekseeva, at the end of the 20th century, when many restrictions related
78
to censorship were abolished, translators felt fairly free and had the opportunity to
translate whatever they wanted and in the way they desired to do it. Furthermore, in
her book ―Introduction to Translation Studies‖ (Alekseeva, 2004: 120), she
emphasizes that the translation industry has become capitalistic at the beginning of
the 21 century, as private publishers began to outpace state-owned ones. By the way,
the goal of these private publishing organizations was mainly focused on making a
profit. Consequently, strict control over the activities of the translator and rigorous
editing were eliminated, and anyone could translate any books. Therefore, the role of
the translator, which in the USSR was valued as much as the writer‘s one, began to
devalue to such an extent that the activity of the translator ceased to be significant
and special for society (Borisenko, 2009). In addition, the control over translation
activities has decreased so much that the same book could be published an endless
number of times by various publishers and translated by different translators.
In his article ―If Holden Caulfield spoke Russian‖, Johnson emphasizes the
difference in approaches to translation studies which has developed in the conditions
of the postmodern Russia. According to the scholar, if Rita Rait-Kovaleva made her
translation aimed at the Soviet audience and refined some points so that they fit the
picture of the world of the USSR people, then Maxim Nemtsov acts fairly differently,
namely, as was customary for translators of the 2000s. More precisely, the translation
of the postmodern authors is characterized by a deliberate approximation to the
original version of the text in order to show foreign characteristics of the primary
work. However, many authors try to emphasize the features of the original with
unnecessary effort. As a result, the plot loses its initial appearance and is greatly
distorted. The same thing happened with the translation of Maxim Nemtsov. As a
translator of the postmodern epoch, he decided to intentionally apply as many slang
expressions as possible in his work, but the reasonableness of the choice of many
words and utterances is often questionable throughout the whole translated work.
Thus, Nemtsov had an aim to show the American nature of the novel using an
excessive number of swear words and a constant transmission of the American
79
realities (Johnson, 2013). In more detail, this feature of the translation of Maxim
Nemtsov will be explored later in the comparative analysis in the present paper.
Furthermore, under the conditions of the postmodern Russia, all censorship
restrictions of the Soviet Union were eliminated, and the authors had no limitations
from the state in the printing business since in 1993 censorship was prohibited by the
Constitution of the Russian Federation (Rudnitskaya, 2013: 26).
In addition, in the postmodern era, many writers and translators tried to
adhere to the so-called deideologization. More precisely, they composed their works
and texts in contradiction to the current political situation in the country where they
worked at a certain period of time (Petrenko, 2007: 73). Due to the process of
destruction of the established traditions and methods of translation, postmodern
translators tried to alter as much as possible the ready-made version of the translation
of the work. According to Kulakov in his work ―Just art‖, deideologization consists in
the rejection of modernist attitudes which leads to the rejection of deliberate selection
of linguistic means in the target language when translating a work (Kulakov, 1999:
67). So, the aesthetic colour of the text which was important in Soviet times becomes
an insignificant and unimportant aspect of translation activity (Petrenko, 2007: 76).
Moreover, in the postmodern era, the vulgarization of language appears
(―Russian language of the end of the XX century‖, 2000: 79-80). The authors of the
Stylistic Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language edited by M. N. Kozhina
point out that the literary language is becoming more liberated, the style of the
language is decreasing, and the stylistic norm of the literary language is changing,
since the colloquial style of speech and colloquialisms can now be used in absolutely
any literary genres (Stylistic Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language, 2002:
668).
Such a disregard for the translation rules and moral norms was carried out by
translators in order to attract the attention of readers shocking them with such
expressions and themes that they were not used to seeing in literary works since they
were banned in the Soviet Union. Thus, in the translations of those books that had
been already translated by the Soviet translators, the postmodern authors tried to
80
describe as clearly and vulgarly as possible those scenes that were omitted or
smoothed out previously (Petrenko & Stein, 2009: 11).
Therefore, the postmodern translators are making a so-called revolution in
literary and translation norms. According to E. Markstein in the article ―The
Postmodern Concept of Translation (With or Without a Question Mark)‖,
postmodernists have the motivation to rewrite already made translations. This desire
consists in giving up the desire for ―realistic translation‖, which was so valued in the
Soviet times. So, the postmodernists reject the idea that a translation should be read
as an ―original work‖ and adhere to the idea that they should deconstruct the
techniques of translation studies derived by modernists (Markstein, 1996: 34).
In addition, due to the fact that restrictions were destroyed everywhere,
Russia became more open to the influence of various foreign cultures. Thus,
according to Shelestiuk (2013: 43-44), at the beginning of the 21st century, there
were strong changes in the Russian lexicon. They consisted in the fact that the
Russian language began to embrace an increasing number of borrowings and
loanwords from other languages. Such innovations in the language had a strong
impact on translations. In more detail, the use of translation techniques such as
compensation or adaptation has been reduced, and they have been replaced by
newfangled translation methods such as calculus, transcription, and transliteration.
Consequently, the tendency for domestication which means the orientation of the
translation to the readers of a particular society and the adaptation of the work to the
usual realities of community which was typical in the Soviet Union was replaced by
foreignization the purpose of which was to make the translation more foreign and
similar to its original. Besides, the growing importance of the English language in the
whole world also played an essential role in the development of the translation
activities in the postmodern Russia since translators began to pursue the goal of
bringing their work closer to the original version and resembling to the foreign
cultures.
However, the majority of the Russian society was not ready for such changes
as over the years they had become accustomed to certain norms in literary works
81
which were difficult to abandon in the shortest possible time. Therefore, these
innovations in the translation industry have led to a lot of criticism. This was also one
of the reasons for the poor reviews of the translation by Maxim Nemtsov who fully
supported the changes that were analyzed earlier and brought them to his translation
of J. D. Salinger's novel (Brajnović, 2018: 31).
Thus, a huge number of profanity and slang expressions appear in Nemtsov's
translation where Holden speaks colloquial language and also does not hesitate to talk
about the relationship between a man and a woman. Such changes in translation
transform the emotional tone of the original novel. Here Holden is presented as an
exceptionally uneducated and very rude teenager whose speech and thoughts are
difficult to trace and understand. More thoroughly, this influence of the epoch on the
translation of Maxim Nemtsov will be considered later in the comparative analysis of
the original work and its two translations into Russian in the present paper.
Considering such cultural changes concerning the translation activities, it
should be noted that these changes were supported and promoted mostly by the
younger generation, while the older one whose formation and upbringing took place
in the conditions of the specific ideology of the USSR were perplexed by the lack of
control that occurred in the early 2000s in the postmodern Russia. This surprise of
people has led to a global question about whether to translate those books that have
already been translated before. According to some scholars, such as Toporov (2008),
for instance, the retranslation of the same original was considered vandalism in
relation to the work that was done by the previous translator. In addition, many
researchers expressed their position that those retranslations that began to appear at
the beginning of the 21st century devalue the great works of translators and disgrace
classical literature.
Thus, it can be revealed that although all formal restrictions and limitations
were eliminated in Russia of 2000s, people were unaccustomed to such freedom and
were against the appearance of new translations when there was already one
canonical translation in the culture made by an experienced translator or even a writer
(Borisenko, 2009).
82
Considering the socio-cultural characteristics of the postmodern Russia in the
early 2000s, it is necessary to analyze carefully the young generation of this era, since
it was young people who were the lever that moved the country in the direction of
changes within society. This is due to the fact that the Russian youth was oppositional
in relation to the older generation born in the Soviet epoch. The teenagers of the
period under analysis wanted to completely contrast themselves with the previous
generations and be different from them. Thus, at the beginning of the 21st century, a
youth culture was formed in Russia which was very distinct from its predecessors.
This generation was distinguished by the fact that it was indifferent to the career
which was associated with the gradual stabilization of the economy. Modern young
people were not afraid to be left without jobs and money understanding that they will
always be able to find some occupation. If the generation of the 90s faced an
alternative between work and poverty, then for the generation of the 2000s, quiet
creative work that brings pleasure began to exceed the need for grueling work to
build a career. Moreover, the youth generation of this time is characterized by the
loss of moral obligations to society, the growth of nihilism, and the mass refusal to
participate in public policy. In addition, various groups of people appeared and
developed in the society who had non-traditional views of the world and differed
from each other in specific interests. So, in Russia, there were ―gopniki‖, who were
aggressive-minded teenagers with criminal behavior traits, near-football players
fiercely supporting certain football teams and aggressively opposed to people who
support other ones, and other various types of groups. However, at this time, people
belonging to various sub-cultural movements, such as punks, emo, hippies, etc.,
which appeared in the 80-90s, were already condemned by the youth of the early 21st
century as they were considered a mass culture which the new youth generation tried
to escape. In addition, this generation condemned television as a model of mass
character and stereotyping which led to the development of the parody genre since
television stars became a mockery among young people (Gudkov, Dubin, & Zorkaya,
2011).
83
Thus, many researchers call the generation of the 2000s skeptical since young
people did not believe in advertising, did not trust the media, and extremely doubted
in various PR campaigns realizing that the desire to sell goods is behind all the
advertising campaigns. However, despite such an ardent aspiration to distance
themselves from mass culture, in fact, the youth generation still could not do without
any objects of this culture (ibid.).
In addition, studying this generation, it is worth regarding the speech of
young people of this time. In the early 2000s, a new layer of vocabulary and jargon
associated with computer games appeared. Although not everyone had computers at
this time, their popularity was growing at an incredible rate. Moreover, the
phenomenon of the so-called ―Olban language [Olbanskij yazyk]‖ appeared which
was distinguished by sarcastic and even obscene expressions with orthographically
deliberately incorrect spelling. In addition, with the spread of subcultures and the
fashion for learning English, many anglicisms appeared in the speech of young
people turning into youth slang. Furthermore, the jargon of the streets consisting of
obscene and rude words was actively developing. Thus, the generation of the
postmodern Russia in the early 2000s had distinctive features concerning the
linguistic component of the society under consideration (Ivanova, 2007).
Taking everything into account, the socio-cultural context of the postmodern
Russia in the early 2000s is characterized by changes and modifications that occurred
very often within the country and transformed the usual way of life that had
developed during the Soviet era. Since the majority of the Soviet restrictions and
limitations were eliminated, young people of this epoch sought for new experiences,
tried to destroy the established way of thinking and build a new one by abolishing the
previous norms and rules. Therefore, this epoch has such characteristics that radically
distinguish it from the Soviet times. The influence of these social, cultural, and
historical aspects of the period under consideration on the translation of Maxim
Nemtsov will be studied rigorously later in the present research.
84
II. Comparative Analysis
In order to test the deduced hypothesis that there are two major reasons for the
translation multiplicity phenomenon related to socio-cultural aspects and individual
features of the authors and find out what differences the two translations of Salinger's
novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ have, the comparative analysis of the two translations
and the original work was carried out. The full dataset obtained during the research is
presented in the form of tables that are attached to the appendixes (Table 1 and Table
2).
Table 1 is devoted to the differences in the three texts which occurred due to
the individual characteristics of the authors, their own preferences, and the choice of
words when translating. Table 2 reflects the discrepancies in the translations that
were caused by the socio-cultural contexts of the different epochs.
Further in this paper, the differences in translations will be discussed in more
detail. Firstly, the features that have emerged as a result of the impact of the
personalities of the authors of the works will be considered. These peculiarities in the
translations manifest themselves at different language levels and perform various
functions. Secondly, the inconsistencies that appeared under the influence of the
socio-cultural context will be presented. Furthermore, the causes of each kinds of the
discrepancies will be analysed and explained thoroughly.
1. Individual Peculiarities
This part of the investigation is dedicated to the analysis of the differences
that appeared in the translated texts under the influence of the personal characteristics
of the authors. Having examined the original novel and its two translations, it was
revealed that a significant number of discrepancies in the translations were provoked
by the transformations of the style registers in relation to the original version of the
novel. In fact, the investigation of the works of Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim
Nemtsov indicates that two translators give the preference to the choice of various
vocabulary layers and language styles in their works.
To begin with, concerning the original novel by Jerome David Salinger, in his
work, it is possible to trace the use of various language styles, the choice of which
85
depends on a certain situation and a particular context. This characteristic feature of
the book will be analyzed in detail later in this paper.
With regard to the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, in general, in her work,
she chooses to use a neutral and literary or bookish style. The Soviet translator does
not use any slang expressions and swear words in her translation, and adds such
profanities that are quite acceptable and appropriate for the literary works. The
reasons for this choice of words can be explained by different factors. So, it can be
supposed that Rita Rait-Kovaleva used a neutral or literary style in her translation
since she was an experienced and professional translator of her time, when the use of
obscenities and slang utterances was unacceptable for a Soviet person. In addition,
Rait-Kovaleva translated various writers and poets whose works constitute classical
literature both in Russia and abroad. Consequently, the translation of these works
should be proper, meaning that there are no provocative themes and undesirable
words and expressions. Besides, the application of the neutral and literary styles
makes the translated book allowed to be read by both children and adults despite the
fact that the original work was approached more for an adult audience.
Presumably, Rait-Kovaleva‘s translation of the novel ―The Catcher in the
Rye‖ was aimed at introducing the American writer to the Russian readers and
enlightening them about his novel. If she had written it essentially close and
resembling to the original, then most likely the book would not have been allowed to
be printed, and Soviet people themselves might have been shocked by the slang and
swear words, since in the Soviet times books were mostly read by educated and
intelligent people who did not speak the language that Holden used in Salinger‘s
novel. Thus, such readers spoke more in a neutral style whereas in the original book
the register is often lowered. Certainly, even in the USSR, the use of swear words and
slang expressions was typical and frequent, but such vocabulary units were used more
often by working people who did not have time to read classic books, especially
translated ones. The working people were simply not interested in such literature.
This means that presumably Rait-Kovaleva was oriented towards an educated reader.
Furthermore, the words she used are literary and acceptable to the generations of
86
different people. Perhaps, this is also one of the reasons why the translation of RaitKovaleva is still considered the most successful and proper, and its sale far exceeds
the translation of Nemtsov. All in all, Rita Rait-Kovaleva smoothed out her
translation by writing it in neutral and literary stylistic registers.
Regarding the work of Maxim Nemtsov, his translation is often lowered since
he uses colloquial language style. Sometimes such a lowering of a register is justified,
when J. D. Salinger also writes in a colloquial style and uses swear words or slang
expressions. In this case the lowered translation is considered to be reasonable as it
corresponds to the motive of the original novel and conveys the informal style of
speech that Holden uses in the work of the American writer, since he talks to the
readers as if they were his acquaintances throughout the whole novel. Examples of
such translation will be examined thoroughly later in the analysis of slang
expressions in the works of translators.
Nevertheless, more often the application of the colloquial language style is
completely groundless in the work of the Russian translator. It is rather confusing to
reveal the reasons according to which Nemtsov decided to translate the words in such
a lowered style when in the original novel they are completely neutral. Conceivably,
during his translation process, the author attempted to make Holden Caulfield a
significantly distinctive character that clearly represents the teenage society.
However, the constant lowering of the register does not lead to a desirable result,
because Holden appears in the image of a man who has served time in prison, swears
obscenities constantly and uses thieves' slang words in his speech permanently.
Furthermore, such a translation is fairly sophisticated to understand since the readers'
thoughts focus on an overabundance of swear words, and not on the overall picture
and content as a whole. Nevertheless, despite the constant use of a colloquial stylistic
register, sometimes Maxim Nemtsov translates in a neutral style, too. Besides, the
application of the literary style in his translation work was not discovered at all.
Generally, when analyzing and comparing the language styles used by Rita
Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov in their translation of the Salinger‘s original
novel, it is noticed that Nemtsov writes always in one stylistic register lower than
87
Rait-Kovaleva. Hence, if Rita Rait-Kovaleva uses a neutral style, then Maxim
Nemtsov translates in a colloquial one, and if she applies a literary style, then he uses
a neutral one.
To confirm all those suppositions and statements which were proposed
earlier, the table is presented below which contains the words and expressions from
the original novel and its translations into the Russian language in the works of Rita
Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov. So, the discrepancies between the works are
considered in this table which should be analysed in terms of the conclusions
mentioned.
J. D. Salinger1
I didn‘t even know I was
leaving them (p. 7)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva2
... никогда не думаю ни
про какое прощание (p.
9)
I think I‘m going
Увы, увы! Кажется, я
blind...Mother darling...
слепну! О моя дорогая
(p. 26)
матушка... (p. 31)
The worst part was, the
Хуже всего, что у этого
jerk had one of those very пижона был такой
phony, Ivy League
притворный,
voices, one of those very аристократический
tired, snobby voices. (p.
голос, такой, знаете,
147)
утомленный снобистский
голосишко. (p. 163)
Maxim Nemtsov3
... даже не дорубал,
сваливаю или нет (p. 10)
По-моему, я слепну.
Миленькая мамочка...
(p. 34-35)
А поганее всего, что у
туполома этого голос такой фуфловый, что
дальше некуда,
культурно-плющовый
такой, усталый,
снобский. (p. 191)
In the first example, it can be pointed out that Salinger writes a sentence in a
neutral style: “I didn’t even know I was leaving them” (p. 7). It is translated also
neutrally by Rait-Kovaleva: “... никогда не думаю ни про какое прощание [...
nikogda ne dumayu ni pro kakoe proshchanie]” (p. 9). However, Nemtsov translates
the same utterance in a colloquial style, which is not justified by anything in this case
and does not correspond to the original version: “... даже не дорубал, сваливаю или
нет [... dazhe ne dorubal, svalivayu ili net]” (p. 10).
1
Salinger, J. D. (2016a). Nad propast'yu vo rzhi: kniga na anglijskom yazyke [The Catcher in The Rye: English Book]. Sankt-Peterburg: Antologiya: KARO.
2
Salinger, J. D. (2018). Nad propast'yu vo rzhi / J. D. Selindzher; [per. s angl. R. Y. Rajt-Kovalevoj] [Over the Abyss in the
Rye / J. D. Salinger; translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva]. - Moskva: Izdatel'stvo «E».
3
Salinger, J. D. (2016b). Lovec na hlebnom pole / J. D. Selindzher; [per. s angl. M. Nemcova] [The Catcher in the Bread
Field / J. D. Salinger; translation of Maxim Nemtsov]. - Moskva: Izdatel'stvo «E».
88
The following example depicts a passage in which Holden imagines himself
an actor who speaks in a more heightened style: “I think I’m going blind...Mother
darling...” (p. 26). This is completely reflected in Rita Rait-Kovaleva's translation
(―Увы, увы! Кажется, я слепну! О моя дорогая матушка... [Uvy, uvy! Kazhetsya,
ya slepnu! O moya dorogaya matushka...]” (p. 31)), since she uses a clearly literary
style, while Nemtsov translates this sentence neutrally, and Salinger's idea that
Holden changes the register of speech while pretending another person, is not
reflected in Nemtsov's work at all: “По-моему, я слепну. Миленькая мамочка...
[Po-moemu, ya slepnu. Milen'kaya mamochka...]” (p. 34-35).
In the latter example, Salinger applies a mixture of neutral and colloquial
vocabulary units. The word “jerk” (p. 147) refers to a colloquial slang phrase
meaning a stupid person. In addition, the word “phony” (p. 147) is also a slang
expression and means something that is not sincere and not real. The rest of the
words in the given utterance are neutral. Rita Rait-Kovaleva in this case elevates the
register since her sentence is almost completely neutral, and she translates the words
“jerk” and “phony” as “пижон [pizhon]” (p. 163) and “притворный [pritvornyj]”
(p. 163), correspondingly. At the same time, Maxim Nemtsov completely lowers the
style and uses a lot of unreasonable vocabulary, for instance: the neutral “worst” (p.
147) is translated as “поганее [poganee]” (p. 191), and slang expressions are quite
offensive in his work: “туполом [tupolom]” (p. 191) and “фуфловый [fuflovyj]” (p.
191).
Thus, these utterances presented in the table above are fairly demonstrative
since they reflect what styles are used by all the three authors throughout their works.
On the whole, Jerome David Salinger, Rita Rait-Kovaleva, and Maxim Nemtsov
apply various language registers in their works: Salinger writes his novel in a neutral
and colloquial style, Rait-Kovaleva creates her translation using a literary and neutral
registers, and Nemtsov, like Salinger, gives preference to a neutral and colloquial
style, but his colloquial register is much more lowered since there is an
overabundance of slang expressions and swear words in his text.
89
Nevertheless, the stylistic registers of the three texts under analysis alter to
varying degrees depending on the context and plot of the story. Below, the table with
the utterances from the works is presented in order to consider the characteristic
features related to the shift of the styles.
J. D. Salinger
Hello, sir! (p. 10)
M‘boy, if I felt any better
I‘d have to send for the
doctor. (p. 10)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
Здравствуйте, сэр! (p. 13)
Знаешь, мой мальчик,
если бы я себя
чувствовал лучше,
пришлось бы послать за
доктором. (p. 13)
You take somebody's
С матерями всегда так –
mother, all they want to
им только рассказывай,
hear about is what a
какие у них
hotshot their son is. Then великолепные сыновья.
I really started chucking
И тут я разошелся вовсю
the old crap around ...
...
... ―Well, a bunch of us
... «– Понимаете, многие
wanted old Ernie to be
хотели выбрать вашего
president of the class. I
Эрни старостой класса.
mean he was the
Да, все единогласно
unanimous choice. I mean называли его
he was the only boy that
кандидатуру. Понимаете,
could really handle the
никто лучше его не
job,‖ I said--boy, was I
справился бы, » –
chucking it. ―But this
говорю. Ох, и
other boy - Harry Fencer - наворачивал же я! - «Но
was elected... (p. 66)
выбрали другого знаете, Гарри Фенсера...»
(p. 75-76)
Maxim Nemtsov
Здрасьте, сэр. (p. 14)
Мальчик мой, да будь
мне получше, врача
вызывать надо было б.
(p. 14)
Чью угодно штруню
возьмите - им же только
дай послушать про то,
какой ферт у них сынок.
И тут я уже по-честному
погнал туфту ...
... «В общем, мы с
парнями хотели, чтобы
старина Эрни был
старостой класса. Ну то
есть, единогласно
выбрали. В смысле, он
только один такой
точняк бы справился, » говорю; ух как же я
гнал. - А выбрали этого
другого пацана, Гарри
Фенсера...» (p. 85)
To begin with, in Salinger's original novel, the main character Holden
Caulfield is characterized by his colloquial speech, in which he uses lowered
vocabulary. He allows himself to talk to the readers in this way since when he tells
his story he speaks as if to friends. However, when his dialogues with adults appear
in the novel, there is a change of registers, and Holden speaks to people older than
90
him on a neutral level. With this change of style, Salinger shows Holden's decency
and his respect for adults.
Regarding the work of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, in her translation, Holden seems
to be well-mannered throughout the whole book since he usually speaks in a neutral
language, uses acceptable vocabulary, and does not use swear words and jargon.
Nevertheless, when Holden speaks to adults, he can even switch to a literary style, or
remain in a neutral register. Moreover, Rita Rait-Kovaleva also heightens the register
when a speech is uttered by an older person.
In contrast, in Maxim Nemtsov's work, when Holden tells his stories in the
first person, a colloquial style is applied. The same register remains in his
conversations with adults. Thus, the change of styles does not occur, and this
translation decision misrepresents the original novel, since there is no distinction
between the speech with which Holden addresses the readers, and the one when he
talks to other people who are older than him.
To examine in depth such peculiarities of the shift of the language styles in
the works, the utterances outlined in the table above will be considered thoroughly.
Firstly, in the second chapter, Holden Caulfield visits his teacher Mr. Spencer
who is a rather elderly man. When he meets him, he greets him on a neutral level,
like an ordinary decent boy who respects his teacher: “Hello, sir!” (p. 10). In the
same way, Holden says in the Rait-Kovaleva‘s translation; so, a neutral level is also
applied here: “Здравствуйте, сэр! [Zdravstvujte, ser!]” (p. 13). However, Maxim
Nemtsov unexpectedly has a conversational style where Holden dismissively greets
his professor as if he were his friend: “Здрасьте, сэр. [Zdras'te, ser.]” (p. 14).
Thus, Nemtsov decides to lower the style and use the same one that was before this
replica, that is, with slang expressions, reductions, jargons, etc. In addition, such a
translation does not seem to correspond to the original idea of the American writer.
Secondly, the following utterance in the table is pronounced by Holden‘s
teacher, Mr. Spencer. It can be pointed out that although Salinger himself uses the
reduction of the word “M'boy” (p. 10) here, the sentence is written in a neutral style:
“M’boy, if I felt any better I’d have to send for the doctor” (p.10). The sentence is
91
translated by Maxim Nemtsov approximately in the same register: “Мальчик мой, да
будь мне получше, врача вызывать надо было б. [Mal'chik moj, da bud' mne
poluchshe, vracha vyzyvat' nado bylo b.]” (p. 14). On the contrary, Rita RaitKovaleva decides to heighten the style in this sentence, and she makes the teacher's
speech bookish. This approach is quite reasonable as in the Soviet Union, teachers
and professors were considered reputable and revered people who should express
themselves in a proper way. Therefore, in this case, Rait-Kovaleva slightly distorts
the original, and draws attention to the teacher's speech making it elevated: “Знаешь,
мой мальчик, если бы я себя чувствовал лучше, пришлось бы послать за
доктором. [Znaesh', moj mal'chik, esli by ya sebya chuvstvoval luchshe, prishlos' by
poslat' za doktorom.]” (p. 13).
Thirdly, in the eighth chapter of the novel, the main character goes on a train
to New York and meets the mother of his classmate. They have a conversation that
demonstrates vividly how the various authors of the three books focus on changing
registers in a different way and how they express Holden's adaptability to diverse
situations. So, in the third line of the table above, two small paragraphs taken from
the scene from the train can be considered. They are explored in this paper to realise
evidently the difference between the styles. In the first paragraph, Holden speaks
directly to the readers. Here several slang expressions are encountered: “hotshot”,
―chucking around”, and “crap” (p. 66). Then, in the quotation marks in the second
paragraph, Holden's utterance to his classmate‘s mother is presented. In this sentence,
it is impossible to notice any lowered words since everything is written in a neutral
style. In the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, the difference between the registers is
also visible, but not so distinctively, since her translation as a whole is heightened.
Nevertheless, it can be noticed that when the main character talks to the readers in the
first paragraph, he uses the phrase “разошелся вовсю [razoshelsya vovsyu]” (p. 75),
which is considered to be a colloquial expression. In a conversation with the mother
of his classmate, there are no such expressions, and the entire speech is written in a
neutral style. Contrariwise, Maxim Nemtsov's translation is much diverse from RaitKovaleva's. If she tried to change the register and point out that Holden knows how to
92
speak correctly with the elders, then Nemtsov does not seem to pay attention to this
trait of Holden. So, in the first paragraph, as in Salinger‘s work, there are some slang
expressions: “штруню [shtrunyu]”, “ферт [fert]”, and “погнал туфту [pognal
tuftu]” (p. 85). However, later, in a conversation with the classmate‘s mother, the
style does not change at all. Holden also talks to an adult like to his readers using
lowered vocabulary instead of neutral words applied by Salinger. So, the neutral
words “really” and “boy” (p. 66) from the original novel are translated by Nemtsov
with the slang words “точняк [tochnyak]” and “пацана [pacana]” (p.85),
accordingly.
This analysis of the shifts in language styles reveals that the translations of
Rait-Kovaleva and Nemtsov differ greatly. In Rita Rait-Kovaleva‘s work, the change
of registers in Holden's conversation with adults is shown more clearly. However, the
change of styles is hardly noticeable in the work of Maxim Nemtsov. Nevertheless,
both translations differ from the original novel and vitiate the American book since
Rita Rait-Kovaleva elevates the style while Nemtsov lowers it.
Taking everything into consideration, it was discovered that Rita RaitKovaleva generally translates the novel in a neutral and literary language styles,
whereas Maxim Nemtsov gives preference to a colloquial style, and only
occasionally translates neutrally. This different choice of the registers is reflected in
the analysed texts at various language levels. Therefore, the subsequent part of the
present paper will be divided into several sub-chapters where the discrepancies at the
lexical, syntactical, and grammatical levels will be studied in detail. Besides, these
features manifesting themselves at different language levels perform various
functions in the texts and originate from distinct reasons related to the personal
characteristics of the authors.
1.1. Lexical Level
1.1.1. Youth Slang
J. D. Salinger
my parents (p. 3)
brother (p. 3)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
родители (p. 5)
родной брат (p. 5)
Maxim Nemtsov
предки (p. 5)
брательник (p. 6)
93
a very big deal (p. 4)
we sort of struck up a
conversation (p. 5)
get a bang out of (p. 9)
важней всего на свете (p.
6)
разговорились (p. 7)
получать удовольствие /
быть в восторге (p. 12)
не хватает слов (p. 15)
кипиш (p. 7)
чуток потрепались (p.
8)
зашибись (p. 13)
паршивый словарный
запас (p. 16)
phony (p. 17)
сплошная липа (p. 21)
сплошное фуфло (p. 23)
He did it on purpose. You Нарочно - это сразу было Это он спецом.
could tell. (p. 25)
видно. (p. 29)
Точняк. (p. 33)
a date (p. 28)
свидание (p. 32)
свиданка (p. 36)
handsome (p. 33)
красивый (p. 38)
симпотяга (p. 43)
Don‘t worry about it. (p. Не волнуйся. (p. 65)
Ты не кипишись. (p.
57)
74)
drunk (p. 73)
пьяны (p. 83)
накирялись (p. 93)
what you‘re talking about про что ты говоришь (p. чего ты ей пуржишь (p.
(p. 78)
89)
100)
swiped (p. 102)
стащил (p. 114)
свистнул (p. 132)
You‘re cute. (p. 112)
А ты хорошенький! (p.
Ты лапуся. (p. 144)
124)
She looked terrific. (p.
До чего же она была
Выглядела она
143)
красивая! (p. 159)
зашибенско. (p. 185)
he was one of these very он был ужасно умный (p. он такой интель (p. 204)
intellectual guys (p. 157) 174)
We‘re both just dandy. (p. О, у нас все чудесно! (p. Мы оба просто отпад.
209)
231)
(p. 271)
lousy vocabulary (p. 12)
Throughout the whole translated text, Maxim Nemtsov inserts slang
expressions of the youth society, while Rita Rait-Kovaleva smooths her translation
and does not use any slang expressions (this is represented in the table above). More
precisely, Rita Rait-Kovaleva replaces all the slang that Salinger uses in his novel
with neutral words that do not belong to any social groups. On the one hand, this
makes the translation a classic literary one, and the main character appears as an
intelligent boy who speaks at a high level of the language. On the other hand, this
does not correspond to what the American author writes in the original work. In
Salinger‘s book, the main character Holden Caulfield is a typical representative of the
teenage society which is characteristically distinguished by its manner of
communication and speech. It is reflected in the novel by the American writer, and it
94
creates an image of Holden as a boy who can express himself in slang terms and
speaks informally.
This lack of slang expressions in the translation which is presented by Rita
Rait-Kovaleva can be explained by the fact that she simply did not know such words
due to her age since at the time of the work publication, she was already 62 years old,
according to the Great Russian Biographic Encyclopedia (2007). In more detail, this
reason will be outlined in the fifth chapter of this part of the paper, where the
outdated words in the Rait-Kovaleva‘s translation will be analyzed.
Contrariwise, Maxim Nemtsov attempts to convey Salinger‘s concept in
relation to Holden‘s belonging to the youth society. In this respect, Nemtsov's
translation slightly outperforms that of Rita Rait-Kovaleva since he uses a lot of
youth vocabulary in his work. For instance, he translates “lousy vocabulary” (p. 12)
as “паршивый словарный запас [parshivyj slovarnyj zapas]” (p. 16), and the
expression “to get a bang out of” (p. 9) as “зашибись [zashibis']” (p. 13). Such a
translation transmits the emotions that Salinger put into the words. However, there
are quite a few such well-founded translations. Many slang words in Nemtsov‘s work
are completely unjustified by the original work. So, for example, the neutral word
“parents” (p. 3) is translated as “предки [predki]” (p. 5), and the neutral sentence
“Don’t worry about it” (p. 57) as a slang one “Ты не кипишись [Ty ne kipishis']” (p.
74). Thus, it can be noticed that Maxim Nemtsov uses a much larger number of youth
vocabulary than Salinger does in the original work. Eventually, Nemtsov‘s Holden
turns out to be too uneducated and unable to speak the normal language unlike the
original Salinger‘s Holden Caulfield. The reason for such an excess of slang
expressions in Maxim Nemtsov may be the desire of the translator to show the main
character's belonging to a teenage society; however, this is done groundlessly and
unreasonably since Rait-Kovaleva, who does not use any slang, managed to find
more original ways to present the character as a young boy, which will be discussed
later in the paper. All in all, it is worth mentioning that Nemtsov's overabundance of
slang interferes with the perception and understanding of the text as a whole since in
95
the process of reading, a lot of attention is paid to the words themselves, and not to
the contextual meaning of the plot.
1.1.2. Thieves' (Criminal) Jargon
J. D. Salinger
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
I don‘t feel like going into мне неохота в этом
it (p. 3)
копаться (p. 5)
Maxim Nemtsov
только не в жилу мне
про все это трындеть (p.
5)
I like to (p. 5)
я люблю (p. 7)
мне-то в жиляк (p. 8)
parents (p. 17)
родители (p. 21)
штрики (p. 23)
buddy (p. 21)
приятель (p. 25)
корефан (p. 27)
a traffic cop (p. 22)
полисмен-регулировщик дорожный фараон (p.
(p. 26)
30)
dopy questions (p. 61)
чудацкие вопросы (p. 69) бажбанские вопросы (p.
78)
a cab (p. 62)
такси (p. 71)
мотор (p. 79)
I can‘t turn around here,
Не могу, Мак... (p. 80)
Тут не могу, кореш. (p.
Mac. (p. 70)
90)
What‘re ya tryna do, bud? Ты что, братец... (p. 81)
Ты чѐ эт, корешок,
(p. 70)
удумал? (p. 90)
that kind of junk (p. 72)
такая пошлятина (p. 83)
эта параша (p. 93)
the talk (p. 79)
диалог (p. 89)
базары (p. 101)
no brains (p. 156)
никаких мозгов (p. 172)
голяк мозгов (p. 202)
Another characteristic feature of Maxim Nemtsov‘s translation is the
application of thieves' jargon or criminal vocabulary. Assumptions about the reason
for their use by Maxim Nemtsov can be considered from two points of view. On the
one hand, this translator was born in 1963; so, by 2008, the year when he was
working on the novel‘s translation, he was 45 years old (Mamedov, n. d.). Thus, in
the 80s and 90s, the young Nemtsov could observe a period of prosperity of various
bandit and criminal gangs and groups that were distinguished by a special manner of
speech. In more detail, people from such groups used many jargon words that have
their origin in prisons or other criminal institutions. Thus, Nemtsov has heard such a
speech in his youth, which characterized a large number of young people of that time.
Therefore, in his translation, he probably uses these words to show Holden as a
person from a teenage society. On the other hand, from the biography of Maxim
Nemtsov, it can be learned that he edited a rock magazine called ―DVR‖ and
96
participated in several sub-cultural movements (ibid.). Thus, it can be assumed that
Nemtsov himself used such words in his speech, since the rocker communities were
also characterized by the use of both their own special rocker vocabulary and
criminal vocabulary. Therefore, perhaps Maxim Nemtsov thought that young people
still speak in such words, so he used them in his translation. However, in fact, these
words distort the personality of Holden Caulfield since Nemtsov's main character
appears in the image of a person with a low social status.
1.1.3. Swear Words
J. D. Salinger
crap (p. 3)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
муть / несусветная чушь
(p. 5)
важная шишка (p. 7)
дурацкая пушка (p. 8)
Maxim Nemtsov
херня (p. 5)
не хрен собачий (p. 8)
долбанутая пушка (p.
10)
freezing my ass off (p. 7) чуть зад не отморозил (p. жопа подмерзает (p. 10)
8-9)
I was getting the hell out Я отсюда уезжаю
меня, на фиг, тут
(p. 7)
навсегда (p. 9)
больше нет (p. 10)
the big phony bastard (p. этот сукин сын (p. 25)
здоровенный
21)
фуфловый гад (p. 27)
I‘ll be up the creek (p.
мне несдобровать (p. 38) в говне по шею (p. 44)
34)
the crazy sonuvabitch
дурак (p. 53)
падла эта долбанутая
(p. 47)
(p. 61)
perverts and morons (p. всякие психи (p. 81)
извращеный и дебилы
71)
(p. 91)
with this very stupid
с самым идиотским
рожа при этом
expression on his face (p. выражением лица (p. 55) дурацкая
48)
(p. 62)
very big deal (p. 5)
crazy cannon (p. 7)
In his novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖, Jerome David Salinger uses a large
number of slang expressions and rude words that characterize Holden Caulfield as a
typical teenager who expresses himself in such a way. Thus, these words build up the
personality of the main character and manifest his image in the book. These features
related to the swear words are reflected in different ways in the translations of Rita
Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov.
97
To begin with, in the translation of the Soviet translator, only a few rude
words can be found. They are, for instance, “дурацкая [durackaya]” (p. 8), “зад
[zad]” (p. 8-9), “сукин сын [sukin syn]” (p. 25) and “идиотским [idiotskim]” (p.
55). The rest of the swear words that can be observed in the original work are
translated with neutral words by Rait-Kovaleva. This choice of translating such
expressions can presumably be caused by two reasons. Firstly, the Soviet Union had a
strong censorship system, according to which translators were not allowed to use
swear words in their works (Ermolaev, 1997). It is possible that initially Rita RaitKovaleva used more obscene words to bring her translation closer to the original, but
eventually, she was not enabled to publish such a translation in the editorial office,
and she was forced to soften her work. Secondly, it can be assumed that such a choice
of words in translation also appeared under the influence of Rait-Kovaleva's selfcensorship. Being an intelligent and educated writer and translator, perhaps Rita RaitKovaleva considered it unacceptable for her to use any abusive words and believed
that such words were also inappropriate to see to Soviet people who would read her
work.
On the contrary, in the translation of Maxim Nemtsov, a large number of
swear expressions are revealed, and they are highlighted in bold in the table above.
Such a rich set of rude words in the work can be interpreted from the different points
of view. On the one hand, perhaps, as in the case of slang and thieves' expressions
examined earlier in this paper, Nemtsov had an objective to get closer to the younger
generation in this way and focus his translation on teenagers who supposedly talk
using swear words in their speech. Moreover, he presumably wanted to recreate the
image of Holden in the original novel by Salinger and make the protagonist the same
typical boy belonging to the teenage subculture. On the other hand, in the early
2000s, such writers as, for instance, Viktor Pelevin, who used profanity in his books,
gained great popularity. His works became so influential on a generation of
postmodern writers that many decided to follow Pelevin's style in their works
(Dalton-Brown, 1997). Consequently, Nemtsov conceivably also desired to get
98
approval with his translation, making it in the manner of the writer who was widely
known.
1.1.4. Colloquial Words
J. D. Salinger
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
I don‘t feel like going into мне неохота в этом
it (p. 3)
копаться (p. 5)
Maxim Nemtsov
только не в жилу мне
про все это трындеть (p.
5)
my parents would have
у моих предков, наверно, предков бы по две
about two hemorrhages
случилось бы по два
кондрашки хватило (p.
apiece (p. 3)
инфаркта на брата (p. 5) 5)
got pretty run-down (p. 3) чуть не отдал концы (p. меня шарахнуло (p. 6)
5)
staff (p. 6)
петрушка (p. 8)
прочее (p. 8)
I don‘t give a damn. (p.
мне-то наплевать (p. 15) мне надристать (p. 17)
12)
he put my goddam paper он положил мою
он опустил мою, на фиг,
down (p. 16)
треклятую тетрадку (p. работу (p. 21)
19)
corny jokes (p. 21)
анекдоты вот с такой
фофанские анекдоты (p.
бородищей (p. 25)
27)
a conceited sonuvabitch
воображала (p. 34)
напыщенная падла (p.
(p. 30)
39)
can (p. 32)
умывалка (p. 37)
тубзо (p. 42)
a hot-shot (p. 34)
собаку съел (p. 39)
шишка (p. 45)
Stop swearing. (p. 198)
Перестань чертыхаться! Хватит ругаться. (p. 257)
(p. 219)
In the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, several colloquialisms and
phraseological units can be ascertained. Examples of such words can be seen in the
table above. Such expressions which Rait-Kovaleva uses in her work were most
likely used intentionally in order to convey the informality of the main character's
speech, make his language more youthful, and create the translation which is close to
the original Salinger‘s work. However, in fact, the difference between Holden in
Salinger‘s and Rait-Kovaleva‘s texts turned out to be quite significant since in the
book of the American writer, slang expressions completely characterize the main
character as a teenager, but some expressions used by Rita Rait-Kovaleva refer to
colloquialisms in general. So, they do not designate such a vivid belonging of Holden
99
to the youth society and misrepresent his original personality. Nevertheless, it is
worth noting that despite the inconsistencies with the original slang expressions, the
words used by the Soviet translator do not interfere with the perception of the entire
text at all, unlike Nemtsov's excess of slang. Thus, Rita Rait-Kovaleva tried to use
words of the colloquial style to approach the original novel, and although it did not
turn out so successfully, her method of translating is original and quite elaborate.
Nonetheless, in the table, the translation of the same expressions proposed by Maxim
Nemtsov can be observed; however, he translates them using many slang expressions
that have already been analyzed earlier in this paper.
1.1.5. Obsolete Words
J. D. Salinger
salesman (p. 111)
fountain pen (p. 125)
front door (p. 180)
stationery store (p. 229)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
приказчик (p. 123)
самопишущая ручка (p.
139)
парадная дверь (p. 199)
писчебумажный
магазин (p. 252)
Maxim Nemtsov
продавцы (p. 143)
авторучка (p. 162)
наружная дверь (p. 235)
канцелярский магаз (p.
297)
In the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, there are several words that were
uncharacteristic for the speech of a teenager in the 60s in the Soviet Union. To
understand the reason for their appearance in the work, the biography of the translator
should be considered. According to the description of the life of Rita Rait-Kovaleva
in the Great Russian Biographic Encyclopedia (2007), she was born in 1898, and she
published a translation of the novel in 1960, when she was 62 years old.
Consequently, it can be supposed that those expressions which are irrelevant at the
time of writing the translation are the utterances that were used by people when RaitKovaleva was young. Trying to bring her translation closer to the original, she
wanted to use such words that could characterize the teenage society of the 60s in the
USSR. However, being elderly and lacking the topical information related to the
teenage realities, she used several words of her youth. Nevertheless, they do not fully
correspond to the ideas conveyed by Jerome Salinger in his novel and slightly distort
the original work.
100
Taking everything into account, previously, the features of the translations of
Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov as well as the original novel by Jerome
David Salinger which are manifested at the lexical level of the language were
explored. Further, the peculiarities at the syntactical level will be investigated
carefully.
1.2. Syntactical Level
In this chapter, the features of the texts at the level of sentences and phrases
will be regarded. However, some peculiarities which will be discussed in this part of
the paper can be also applied to the lexical level of the language.
1.2.1. Reduction
J. D. Salinger
the store (p. 20)
birthday (p. 22)
cigarettes (p. 40)
I tole ya that. (p. 117)
I swear. (p. 144)
G’night! (p. 205)
literature (p. 210)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
магазин (p. 24)
день рождения (p. 26)
сигареты (p. 45)
Я же вам говорил. (p.
130)
клянусь (p. 160)
Спокойной ночи! (p. 226)
литература (p. 232)
Maxim Nemtsov
магаз (p. 26)
деньрож (p. 29)
сиги (p. 52)
Я те грил. (p. 151)
чесслово (p. 186)
Спок ночи! (p. 266)
литра́ (p. 273)
When comparing the texts under consideration, special attention should be
paid to the reduction of words and expressions which can be seen both at the lexical
and syntactical levels. It is worth noting that reduction, or clipping, is a process of
word formation which means the shortening of a longer word (Moehkardi, 2016:
333).
As it can be seen from the table where a few expressions from the two
translations and the original work are represented, Maxim Nemtsov shortens a lot of
words in his translation. This method makes his work more youthful since teenagers
are used to cutting words in their speech. However, as in the case of slang
expressions, there are also few reasonable reductions in his translation. For instance,
the shortened utterances “G’night!” (p. 205) and “I tole ya that.” (p. 117) are
legitimately translated as “Спок ночи! [Spok nochi!]” (p. 266) and “Я те грил. [Ya
te gril.]” (p. 151), respectively. In the other examples from the table, it can be
101
pointed out that Salinger did not use any reduction; however, they appear in the
translation of Maxim Nemtsov. Such frequent use of word clipping does not make the
translated work more youth oriented, which is most likely what the translator is trying
to achieve, since teenagers, although they use such words, do not use them as often as
Nemtsov represents in his work. Besides, in the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva no
reduction of words was observed.
1.2.2. Clarification of the Meaning
J. D. Salinger
got t.b. (p. 8)
leukemia (p. 45)
the patterns of your mind
(p. 171)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
заболел туберкулезом (p.
10)
белокровие (p. 51)
строй твоих мыслей (p.
189)
Maxim Nemtsov
ТБ подхватил (p. 11)
лейкемия (p. 58)
паттерны твоего
рассудка (p. 223)
Considering the syntactical level of the language, during the comparative
analysis of the three works, it was discovered that in her translation, Rita RaitKovaleva used such utterances that were easier for the readers to comprehend. For
instance, in the table above, translations of several scientific terms are represented.
These words were unclear for the Soviet society since people of the USSR did not use
them in their speech. Thus, Rait-Kovaleva decided to translate them in such a way
that she did not explain the meaning of some words and expressions of the original
novel; however, in her text she directly inserted such terms that were understandable
for a Soviet person. On the other hand, Maxim Nemtsov translated such terms word
for word, leaving abbreviations and English terms. Such a translation may raise a lot
of questions for the reader who does not have any information about the English
denominations. Thus, in this case, the translation of 1960 is more comprehensible and
easier to realise, although some terms are transformed in comparison with their
equivalents in the original version. Besides, the translation of 2008 is complicated to
understand since the words and their meanings can be a basis for various questions
from the readers.
102
To analyze this peculiarity in more detail in the translation of Rita RaitKovaleva, a separate example with the topic of the sanatorium, which is mentioned in
the translation, will be considered below.
J. D. Salinger
had to come out here and
take it easy (p. 3)
Maxim Nemtsov
пришлось отвалить
сюда расслабляться (p.
6)
свояси (p. 6)
They made me cut it out.
(p. 8)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
меня отправили сюда
отдыхать и лечиться (p.
5)
треклятый санаторий (p.
5)
Тут, в санатории,
заставили бросить. (p. 9)
came out here for all
these goddam checkups
and stuff (p. 8)
попал сюда на проверку
и на это дурацкое
лечение (p. 10)
сюда приперся - все эти
анализы сдавать и
прочую херню (p. 11)
crumby place (p. 3)
Заставили бросить. (p.
11)
In Salinger's original novel, the protagonist, Holden Caulfield, tells his story
directly to the reader in the first person. At the very beginning of the book, he tells
the readers that he is recounting his adventures from some institution that he calls a
“crumby place” (p. 3), where he was sent to “take it easy” (p. 3), in order to check
his state of health. However, throughout the novel, Holden does not tell where
exactly he is, and the readers can only learn that it is somewhere in California. In
addition, at the end of the novel, in Chapter 26 (Salinger, 2016a: 245), Holden talks
about a psychoanalyst who asks him “stupid questions”. By the way, the readers can
realize that Holden speaks about his adventures that happened to him around
Christmas time of the previous year. To be more precise, he is expelled from the
Pencey Prep school, encounters many people, does not understand them and does not
tolerate their behavior, and often recalls his deceased younger brother Allie who died
three years ago, whom he clearly misses. Furthermore, everything around does not
please him because it seems to him that everything around is a “phony” (p. 17). From
these facts, the reader can conclude that Holden is in a mental hospital. However,
Salinger does not mention this exactly anywhere; it can only be guessed from the
context. In his translation, Maxim Nemtsov also does not write specifically about any
place, while Rita Rait-Kovaleva inserts the word “санаторий [sanatorij] (p. 5)
103
meaning a sanatorium, and also adds that Holden came there to be treated
(“лечиться [lechit'sya]”) (p. 5). This example is rather illustrative since it
demonstrates that Rita Rait-Kovaleva explains some things and meanings in more
detail than it is in the original novel and in Nemtsov‘s translation. It can be assumed
that she decides to do this in order to make it easier for the readers to comprehend the
information and to make the text more understandable.
Thus, this chapter was devoted to the examination of the distinctive features
of translations identified at the syntactical level, although they are also partially
present at the lexical level. Further, in the following chapter, the differences in the
translations and the original novel which manifest themselves at the grammatical
level of the language will be explored.
1.3. Grammatical Level
1.3.1. Choice of Tenses
J. D. Salinger
Anyway, the next thing I
knew, I was on the
goddam floor and he was
sitting on my chest, with
his face all red. That is,
he had his goddam knees
on my chest, and he
weighed about a ton. He
had hold of my wrists,
too, so I couldn't take
another sock at him. I'd've
killed him (p. 51)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
Но тут я очутился на
полу, а он сидел на мне
красный как рак.
Понимаете, уперся
коленями мне в грудь, а
весил он целую тонну.
Руки мне зажал, чтоб я
его не ударил. Убил бы я
его, подлеца. (p. 58)
Maxim Nemtsov
В общем, дальше я
помню, что валяюсь, на
фиг, на полу, а он сидит
на мне, и рожа вся
красная. То есть не
сидит даже, а колени
мне на грудь поставил, а
весит он тонну, не
меньше. И руки мне
прижимает, чтоб я,
значит, еще раз ему не
вмазал. Убил бы. (p. 66)
Throughout the whole novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖, Holden Caulfield talks
about the situations that happened to him recently. Therefore, J. D. Salinger usually
uses past tenses to describe various events occurred with the main character. This
allows transferring mentally to Holden‘s past and imagining these situations.
However, when comparing the three works, it was noticed that Rita Rait-Kovaleva
and Maxim Nemtsov had different attitudes to the choice of tenses for the translation
of this type of narration.
104
Regarding the work of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, it can be noticed that she followed
the principle of the American writer and also translated mainly in the past tense. So,
for example, in the table above, a small piece of text where Holden describes his fight
with his roommate Stradlater can be explored. As it can be seen from these
utterances, Salinger described the situation in the past tense: “Anyway, the next thing
I knew, I was on the goddam floor and he was sitting on my chest, with his face all
red. That is, he had his goddam knees on my chest, and he weighed about a ton. He
had hold of my wrists, too, so I couldn't take another sock at him. I'd've killed him”
(p. 51). The same happened in the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva where she also
applied the past tense: “Но тут я очутился на полу, а он сидел на мне красный
как рак. Понимаете, уперся коленями мне в грудь, а весил он целую тонну. Руки
мне зажал, чтоб я его не ударил. Убил бы я его, подлеца. [No tut ya ochutilsya na
polu, a on sidel na mne krasnyj kak rak. Ponimaete, upersya kolenyami mne v grud',
a vesil on celuyu tonnu. Ruki mne zazhal, chtob ya ego ne udaril. Ubil by ya ego,
podleca.]” (p. 58).
Concerning Maxim Nemtsov‘s translation, many of the situations that
happened to Holden are described in the present tense. This method of narration
characterizes colloquial speech. In fact, when people in their ordinary lives tell
someone about any situations that have happened to them recently, they use the
present tense. So, the application of the present tenses gives the effect of informal
conversation in the translation: “В общем, дальше я помню, что валяюсь, на фиг,
на полу, а он сидит на мне, и рожа вся красная. То есть не сидит даже, а
колени мне на грудь поставил, а весит он тонну, не меньше. И руки мне
прижимает, чтоб я, значит, еще раз ему не вмазал. Убил бы. [V obshchem,
dal'she ya pomnyu, chto valyayus', na fig, na polu, a on sidit na mne, i rozha vsya
krasnaya. To est' ne sidit dazhe, a koleni mne na grud' postavil, a vesit on tonnu, ne
men'she. I ruki mne prizhimaet, chtob ya, znachit, eshche raz emu ne vmazal. Ubil
by.]” (p. 66). Although this choice of tenses does not correspond to the original
version, it is rather logical and indeed creates a conversational style of narration.
Furthermore, the use of the present tense provides a significantly strong presence
105
effect causing the feeling that events are happening here and now. This allows the
reader to get used to the image of the main character faster.
Thus, a comparative analysis of the original novel and its two translations into
the Russian language allowed identifying the differences in the texts that are
observed at the grammatical level of the language.
On the whole, the analysis of the previous features, which were revealed
during the comparison of the translations and the original novel, has disclosed that all
three works are significantly distinct from each other by different characteristics.
Generally, based on the results of the research conducted in this paper, it can
be concluded that the specific choice of the style by the authors, as well as various
manifestations of the registers at different language levels, influenced the portrait of
the novel protagonist, Holden Caulfield, whose character traits differ rather
essentially in the three works.
At first, in Jerome David Salinger‘s novel, Holden Caulfield is a typical
teenager of the American society who uses a lot of slang expressions of the youth
generation of the 50s, swear words, reductions and many others in his speech.
Nevertheless, he knows how to properly talk to adults and show respect. So, he
knows how to adapt to various language situations and when he should change the
style of his speech. Thus, the peculiarities of his language indicate his decency and
good manners, but at the same time, these features determine the main character‘s
belonging to the teenage society for which swearing and using slang words is an
ordinary and shameless phenomenon.
As for the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, Holden Caulfield in her work is
presented as a boy who is distinguished by his modesty and courtesy which are
usually not typical of teenagers of his age. From his speech where he does not use
any youth slang expressions and swear words, it is clear that he is an ideal good boy
who never performs unpleasant and wrong actions, does not swear with others, and
speaks in a very correct way. This image of Holden does not correspond to the
portrait of a typical teenager, so it can be summarized that his image is slightly
distorted from the original work.
106
Regarding Nemtsov‘s translation, the main character differs from the original
to a greater extent. The overabundance of swear words and slang expressions that
were studied earlier in this paper makes Holden a teenager who seems to have fallen
into a bad society, where he became a bandit and a thief. Such an opinion about the
protagonist is formed because of the large amount of thieves' jargon and slang words
that he uses in his speech. In addition, Holden appears in the image of a boy who
does not know how to talk to people and speak respectfully to adults.
Furthermore, concerning Holden Caulfield‘s image built in the translations of
Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov, it is necessary to emphasize another feature
that was revealed during a deep study of the differences between the translation
works. This peculiarity can be observed in the second chapter of the book when
Holden meets with his history teacher, Mr. Spencer. During the conversation with
him, he shares his emotions and thoughts with his readers in a parallel way. In these
remarks, Holden's attitude towards adults and his personal characteristics can be
noticed and explored rigorously. The utterances from the texts can be considered in
the table below.
J. D. Salinger
He started chuckling like
a madman. (p. 10-11)
kept talking (p. 11)
he was mad about history
(p. 14)
You can‘t stop a teacher
when they want to do
something. They just do
it. (p. 14)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
Он стал хихикать как
сумасшедший. (p. 14)
все насчет того же (p. 14)
он был помешан на
своей истории (p. 17)
Уж если преподаватель
решил что-нибудь
сделать, его не
остановишь. Все равно
сделает по-своему. (p.
18)
I sort of wished he‘d
Хоть бы он запахнул
cover up his bumpy chest. свой дурацкий халат. (p.
(p. 17)
20)
Maxim Nemtsov
Закудахтал как
ненормальный. (p. 14)
трындел (p. 15)
совсем спятил на своей
истории (p. 19)
Учителя же не
остановишь, если ему
чего в голову взбредет.
Прет и все. (p. 20)
Хоть бы он грудь эту
свою вислую прикрыл.
(p. 23)
So, in the present table, a few expressions made by Holden in relation to his
teacher during his conversation with him can be considered. To begin with, the
original novel will be examined in more detail. In the utterances from Salinger‘s
107
novel, Holden uses some slang expressions, such as “chucking like a madman” (p.
10-11) and “to be mad about history” (p. 14), but they do not create a negative
connotation to the context of the situation. These words express Holden's
dissatisfaction with several of Spencer's personal characteristics, but his statements
do not make the teacher unfavorable in the eyes of the readers. Moreover, Holden
himself does not appear in the negative image. So, these words do not make the
readers think about how ill-mannered and discourteous Holden is.
Analysing the expressions from the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, it can
be pointed out that she shows Holden as a wonderful person. In this case, Rita RaitKovaleva is fairly close to the original version of the book since she has managed to
convey similar emotions and feelings that this passage of Salinger‘s novel does.
Indeed, in the translation of Rait-Kovaleva, there are also colloquial utterances, such
as “хихикать как сумасшедший [hihikat' kak sumasshedshij]” (p. 14), “помешан
на истории [pomeshan na istorii]” (p. 17), “дурацкий [durackij]”(p. 20). However,
these expressions do not make the readers think about how terrible Mr. Spencer is,
and they simply reflect the emotions that Holden had at the time of the conversation
with his teacher. Thus, Holden's speech does not lead readers to accuse him of bad
manners and rudeness.
On the contrary, in the translation of Maxim Nemtsov, the tendency to the
image of Holden as a rude person can be remarked. During the dialogue with his
teacher, the main character uses such lowered words that are not just colloquial, as in
Rait-Kovaleva‘s work, but offensive and inappropriate: “закудахтал как
ненормальный [zakudahtal kak nenormal'nyj]” (p. 14), “трындел [tryndel]” (p.
15), “совсем спятил [sovsem spyatil]” (p. 19), and “прет и все [pret i vse]” (p.
20). Such utterances about his teacher create a negative attitude towards Mr. Spencer,
and they also show how rude Holden is, because in the plot of this passage it is clear
that the teacher does not wish his student something bad, but rather supports him.
Thus, in his translation Maxim Nemtsov represents Holden as a very impolite person
who disrespects other people.
108
Taking everything into consideration, the analysis of a small passage of the
second chapter made it possible to clearly identify the image of the main character
created by the three authors in their works. As for the reasons that the translators had
in producing such portraits of Holden, they may come from various individual
considerations of the authors. It can be assumed that Rita Rait-Kovaleva created the
image of the main character as a positive, kind, and sweet boy who does not do
anything bad and does not say anything obscene in order to convey such a prototype
of a teenager to those young people who will read her translation. She intended to
show what a teenager should be like and how he should talk and behave.
Contrariwise, Maxim Nemtsov may have aimed at creating an exaggerated image of a
typical teenager who does not appreciate and respect people around him and who
allows himself to express his thoughts in any way. Perhaps, Nemtsov focused on the
fact that people of the younger generation reading his translation would find
something similar in Holden‘s personality and this would bring them closer to the
character. However, this idea of the translator does not seem quite well thought out,
since teenagers still have their own specific youth slang which is not thieves‘ one
prevailing in the translation, and many of teenagers still treat adults with enough
respect, or at least they try to show a good attitude towards them.
To summarise, numerous inconsistencies between J. D. Salinger's original
novel and its two translations into the Russian language have been analyzed
thoroughly. Overall, it was discovered that the main difference in the translations is
that the authors used different stylistic registers in relation to the original novel.
Evaluating the texts globally, Rita Rait-Kovaleva heightened Salinger's style in her
work whereas Nemtsov, on the contrary, greatly lowered it. As a result of the
comparative analysis, many differences manifesting in different language levels were
revealed. All these distinctive characteristics of the novel and its translations are
explained by the individual features of the authors and their personal preferences,
ideas, and intentions. In general, it can be concluded that each of the authors had
specific objectives when writing their texts. In order to achieve their aims, they chose
109
certain techniques and methods of translation that originated from their personal
decisions.
Nevertheless, due to the fact that each of the authors lived in different epochs
of various cultures, the environment and surrounding situations also shaped their
personality. Therefore, personal characteristics and preferences are closely related to
the socio-cultural and historical peculiarities of the epochs in which the authors of
each of the three texts worked. These eras will be thoroughly investigated in the
following part of the comparative analysis.
2. Socio-Cultural Peculiarities
This section of the research is devoted to the analysis of the differences that
have occurred in the translated texts under the influence of social, cultural, and
historical features of various epochs. In the present investigation, the peculiarities of
the three periods will be taken into consideration: the post-war era in the American
culture in the 50s when Salinger's original novel was published, the Soviet Union in
the 50-60s when Rait-Kovaleva was working on her translation, and the
postmodernism of Russia in the early 21st century when Maxim Nemtsov proposed
his translation.
This chapter will explore in detail the transformations of texts under analysis
that have arisen for various reasons. In the first sub-section, the transformations
caused by the political and ideological characteristics of the eras will be analysed,
whereas the second section will be dedicated to the examination of the
transformations caused by the domestication and foreignization of translation. These
phenomena of the domestication and foreignization were considered in the theoretical
part of the present paper where it was determined that translation works can be
classified into domesticated and foreignized ones. In the first case, domestication
allows creating a translation aimed at a targeted audience; so, the text is composed in
such a way that it is understandable for people who will read this translation. In the
second case, foreignization of the translation enables bringing it closer to the original
version of the book, since such a literary work focuses on the transmission of the
110
features typical of the original book rather than on the readers‘ comprehension of the
text (Paloposki & Koskinen, 2004).
The differences between the translations and the original work will be
presented in the form of tables containing words and expressions from the original
novel and its translations into Russian in the works of Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim
Nemtsov. Each table will be followed by a detailed analysis of the discrepancies and
an in-depth explanation of the reasons for their occurrence.
2.1. Text Transformations Caused by the Political and Ideological Features of
the Epochs
In this part of the paper, the peculiarities determined by the distinctive
features of the political situation and ideological orientations in certain countries and
epochs will be examined. Furthermore, the identified differences in translations will
be rigorously analyzed taking into account the socio-cultural background that was
studied earlier in the present research as part of the discourse analysis.
2.1.1. Attitude to Religion
J. D. Salinger
a terrific lecture coming
on (p. 13)
for God‘s sake (p. 24)
for Chrissake! (p. 25)
For Chrissake, grow up.
(p. 26)
Je-sus Christ (p. 36)
Checkers, for Chrissake!
(p. 38)
Jesus! (p. 55)
Maxim Nemtsov
светит неслабая нотация
(p. 18)
ѐксель-моксель (p. 32)
елки-палки! (p. 33)
Елки-палки, дитя малое
(p. 35)
Гос-споди боже мой. (p.
48)
Вот так история! (p. 43)
Святой милостивый
боже. (p. 49)
Фу ты, дьявол, он играл в Шашки, язви тебя! (p.
шашки!!! (p. 43)
50)
О ч-черт! (p. 62)
Бож-же! (p. 71)
You‘re still bleeding, for
Chrissake. (p. 55)
Да у тебя до сих пор
кровь идет! (p. 63)
Да у тебя еще кровь
идет, елки-палки. (p. 71)
Nobody‘s making any
cracks about your
goddam religion. (p. 59)
for God‘s sake (p. 72)
Никто твою религию не
трогает, хрен с ней. (p.
67)
черт их дери (p. 82)
Никто про твою, на фиг,
веру не острит. (p. 76)
Jesus Christ. (p. 38)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
начнется жуткая
проповедь (p. 16)
черт его дери (p. 28)
Что за черт! (p. 29)
Да перестань ты, балда!
(p. 31)
О черт! (p. 41)
ѐксель-моксель (p. 92)
111
Girls. Jesus Christ! (p.
85)
God, I hate that staff. (p.
100)
Christ almightly. (p. 154)
Ох эти девчонки, черт бы
их подрал! (p. 95)
Фу, до чего я это
ненавижу! (p. 111)
Ох, мать честная! (p.
170)
Девчонки. Господи ты
боже мой. (p. 109)
Господи, просто
ненавижу. (p. 129)
Господи ты боже мой.
(p. 199)
Previously in the present investigation in terms of the discourse analysis, the
socio-cultural and historical features of each of the epochs under consideration were
thoroughly examined. It was discovered that such peculiarities affect various areas of
people's lives. Special attention was paid to the issue of religion since this topic is an
integral part of every culture.
Consequently, it was revealed that in the period after World War II, the
American society was closely associated with religious institutions. At that time in
the USA, capitalist ideas prevailed which did not object to the church and recognized
the equality and full rights of all confessions. So, religiosity was not prohibited, and
people practiced the religion that was closer to them (Tindall & Shi, 1996: 1341).
Therefore, in J. D. Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖, a lot of expressions
with references to God, Jesus Christ, and religion in general can be noticed.
Throughout the whole work, Holden Caulfield uses such statements in his speech, in
which God and Christ are mentioned. Examples of such utterances can be observed in
the table above in the first column. Furthermore, in the fourteenth chapter, the main
character of the novel, Holden Caulfield, reflects also on the topic of Christianity and
the religiosity of the society. He shares with readers that religion has an important
place in the life of the American society but there are doctrines that are imposed on
other people. He finds it unpleasant that some people who adhere to the Catholic
Church always ask the question of whether the other person believes in religion and
God. This annoys Holden because he does not want to obey the rules of the society
and believe in something that is convincingly preached by others. The main character
says that he wants to think about all this things by himself, and make his own
decision about his beliefs (Salinger, 2016a: 115-116). Thus, through the prism of
112
religion, Salinger shows Holden as a typical teenage boy who demonstrates his
confrontation and opposition to the American society.
Regarding the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, it is vividly noticeable in her
work that there are some socio-cultural features of the Soviet society at that time
influenced her translation. As it was analyzed earlier in the present study, the
communist society of the Soviet Union was distinguished by the prohibition of
religious ideas and sermons and restricted any manifestation of religious activity.
Accordingly, it was forbidden for people to profess any religion since everyone had
to be atheists and believe only in the rightness of the Party and the law (Van den
Bercken, 2019). This cultural and historical peculiarity of that period is fully reflected
in the translated work of Rita Rait-Kovaleva. In the table above, it can be seen that
for many original expressions that have a reference to God or Jesus Christ, RaitKovaleva comes up with such equivalents that do not contain any link to confessional
ideas. For instance, there are many utterances that are translated by Rita RaitKovaleva with the use of the word “черт [chert]” which means ―devil or demon‖:
Salinger‘s “for God’s sake” (p. 24) and “Jesus!” (p. 55) are translated as “черт его
дери [chert ego deri]” (p. 28) and “О ч-черт! [O ch-chert!]” (p. 62),
correspondingly. Certainly, there are a few religious references in the translation of
Rita Rait-Kovaleva, but they are quite insignificant, because the vast majority of
phrases are distorted. Furthermore, in the first chapter, Rait-Kovaleva uses in her
translation such an expression as: “начнется жуткая проповедь [nachnetsya
zhutkaya propoved']” (p. 16). The word “проповедь [propoved']” refers to a sermon
here and performs as a translation to the word “lecture” (p. 13) from the original
novel. However, Rait-Kovaleva decided to add the emotional connotation to the word
“lecture” calling it a sermon and describing it as “жуткий [zhutkij]” meaning
terrible and hideous. Such a decision in translation could not be accidental, because
the word sermon for a Russian-speaking person is associated with a church
preaching. Therefore, Rait-Kovaleva decided to emphasize such a disapproval of the
church and religion.
113
On the one hand, the reason for such transformations in the work of the Soviet
translator could be the influence of censorship in the editorial office, which did not
allow words with a religious connotation to appear in the translation of Rita RaitKovaleva because such expressions were not in line with the communist principles.
On the other hand, it may be self-censorship or inner censorship of the author which
occurred under the influence of the epoch. So, Rita Rait-Kovaleva could adhere to
communist ideas herself. Consequently, she was an atheist and did not want to
enlighten her readers in religious concepts. Hence, she decided to eliminate many
expressions with religious connotations that would contradict the ideology of the
country.
As for the translation of Maxim Nemtsov, in his work, references to God and
Jesus Christ are more frequent than in the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva.
However, there are significantly fewer of them than in J. D. Salinger‘s novel. This
choice of words in translation can be analogously explained by the socio-cultural
context of the postmodern era, the features of which were deeply studied earlier in
this paper. It can be assumed that although at the beginning of the 21st century there
were no restrictions and prohibitions on religious topics, Nemtsov decided to avoid
excessive use of language related to God and Christ. One of the reasons for this
choice may be the focus of Nemtsov's translation on the youth audience. At the
beginning of the 21st century, when the novel was published, Russian youth were not
quite religious and did not adhere to confessional precepts. It was found out that in
this epoch, there was an extra-church type of religiosity, when a person believed in
God but did not follow the church obligations. Furthermore, at that time, religiosity
became a more individual and personal topic which was not customary to discuss
(Savruckaja & Zhigalev, 2014). Therefore, Nemtsov decided not to endow his
translation with a large number of references to religion, so that it does not disturb
and confuse young readers.
Thus, the sentences quoted from Salinger's novel and two of its translations
and presented in the form of the table clearly illustrate the differences that appeared
due to the socio-cultural characteristics of the time. Such historical features have an
114
impact both on society as a whole and on each author individually. Therefore, each
translator and writer has a certain social background which differs greatly due to the
distinctions in epochs. Eventually, such a phenomenon causes the occurrence of
multiple translations.
2.1.2. Attitude to Homosexuality
J. D. Salinger
flits / flitty (p. 165-166)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
Maxim Nemtsov
психи / педераст /
гомики (p. 214-216)
извращенцы / не совсем
нормальный / со
странностями (p. 182183)
flitty-looking guy (p. 165, вид психоватый (p. 182) / на вид-то гомики
p. 172, p. 175)
женоподобный тип (p.
(p.214)/ гомиковатый
191, p. 194)
такой типус (p. 224) /
гомик на вид (p. 228)
In the epochs and cultures under consideration, attitudes towards sexual
minorities were similarly negative. However, the irreverent attitude towards the
representatives of such minority groups was manifested in varying degrees of
severity. According to the discourse analysis of the works devoted to the study of this
topic within the framework of American, Soviet, and Russian cultures, several
conclusions that explain the differences in the translations can be drawn. Below, each
of the epochs and cultures will be considered in more detail.
First, J. D. Salinger's original novel was written in the post-war period in the
United States. During the Cold War, as it has already been studied in the present
paper, the representatives of homosexuality were persecuted and eliminated, like
communists, since these people were considered a part of groups that had their own
rules and regulations. It was believed that homosexual people and communists
weakened the country and could be spies in the state and public organizations.
Therefore, the attitude towards such people was dismissive for some time after the
war, before same-sex marriage was gradually allowed in different states of the
country. Hence, the connotation of such words was quite negative and applied to
people who were not liked by others (Johnson, 2009). Therefore, in Salinger's novel,
115
Holden uses the word “flits” (p. 165-166) and its derivatives “flitty” (p. 165-166)
and “flitty-looking” (p. 165, p. 172, p. 175) quite a lot of times in relation to the
people he meets in the bar. Furthermore, Holden also reveals that his childhood
friend, Carl Luce, often told his classmates about famous people who were gay or
lesbian. Thus, it can be pointed out that the use of such words was acceptable to
American youth, since homosexuality was actively discussed in their circles.
Second, the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva was presented in the Soviet era
when homosexuality was a criminal offence. Men who engaged in same-sex contacts
were considered counter-revolutionaries since they destroyed a Soviet society.
Therefore, the homosexuality was persecuted by the law. Although anti-homosexual
laws were abolished after Stalin's death, the oppression of homosexuals was even
intensified. Anti-homosexual laws were fully repealed only in 1993 during the
preparation of a new Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, until that
time, homosexuality was considered a topic that could not even be discussed (Healey,
2001). This situation had a significant impact on the translation of a literary work. If
to look at the table represented above, then in the second column it can be remarked
that Rita Rait-Kovaleva called homosexuals psychos, strange and abnormal people:
“психи [psihi]”, ―извращенцы [izvrashchency]”, “не совсем нормальный [ne
sovsem normal'nyj]”, “со странностями [so strannostyami]” (p. 182-183). Such
translations offered for the words related to homosexuals emphasize the attitude
towards such people in the society. Therefore, it constitutes the reason for the choice
of such words by Rait-Kovaleva. In addition, the Soviet translator also used the word
“педераст [pederast]” (p. 182-183) describing people of homosexual orientation;
however, it was not very offensive and unacceptable. Besides, it should be noted that
Rita Rait-Kovaleva represents a larger number of synonyms for the word ―flit‖, while
Salinger constantly repeats only this word in his novel.
Third, since the translation of Maxim Nemtsov was published in the
postmodern era in Russia, it is necessary to analyze the influence of this epoch on the
translation. A detailed examination of the features of the postmodernism was
provided earlier in this work. Regarding the topic of homosexuality, as it has been
116
already mentioned, in 1993, the criminal penalties for non-traditional sexual
orientation were discontinued. Nevertheless, the disparaging attitude towards people
who prefer same-sex contacts remained relevant. In Russia, homophobia was
flourishing quite vividly as homosexuals were condemned by society and considered
inadmissible. In this regard, in the 2000s, a bill was considered and then adopted to
ban the promotion of homosexuality (Kochetkov & Kirichenko, 2009). Such
manifestations of negative attitudes towards homosexuality had a direct impact on
translated works. So, in his work, Maxim Nemtsov uses the offensive and
contemptuous word “гомик [gomik]” (p. 214-216, 228) and its derivative
“гомиковатый [gomikovatyj]” (p. 224) in relation to homosexuals. This translation
fully reflects the attitude of the postmodern youth towards homosexuality in Russia,
as it was considered shameful. Besides, the word “гомик” is essentially close to the
original word “flit” since it directly means a homosexual person and also appears in
all translations of the words “flit” and its derivatives. Thus, Maxim Nemtsov
resembles Salinger‘s style and does not provide a large number of synonyms for this
word.
Taking everything into consideration, it can be emphasized that the sociocultural peculiarities of each epoch, related to the attitude towards homosexuality,
also influenced the translations and caused the difference in the translated texts. This
fact serves as evidence that distinctions in cultures and epochs give rise to the
phenomenon of translation multiplicity.
2.1.3. Attitude to Racism
J. D. Salinger
a colored guy (p. 93)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
негр (p. 104)
Maxim Nemtsov
цветной парняга (p. 120)
In the course of the comparative analysis carried out in the present paper, a
difference in translation related to the topic of racism was noticed. This issue was
discussed earlier in this paper in the discourse analysis of the three epochs (the postwar USA, the Soviet Union of the 50-60s and the postmodernism of the early 21st
century). Thus, further, the peculiarities of the attitude towards colored people in each
117
of the periods and cultures, as well as the impact of the racism situation on the
literary works will be studied in more detail.
Regarding the American society, racism in the United States has existed since
the very beginning of the foundation of the state. White people constantly suppressed
the rights of the black population. However, during the Second World War, when a
large increase in production was required, black people in factories were almost equal
in their rights with whites. Although this led to an increase in riots among black
people since they were constantly harassed by white workers, this situation caused at
least a little equalization of the rights of the colored population. Then, in the 1960s,
there was significant progress in overcoming racism in the United States. At this
time, much attention was paid to the civil rights movements which resulted in
significant political and socio-economic measures. Such innovations provided an
increasing suppression of the longstanding inequality of black people (Chafe &
Chafe, 2003: 123). Therefore, in his novel, J. D. Salinger does not use offensive
words like black nigger and negro, but calls them “colored” (p. 93).
Considering the work of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, written in the era of the Soviet
Union, the attitude to racism was quite specific. Despite the fact that the ideology of
the country declared internationalism, the ethnic division of society still existed.
Nevertheless, as for the attitude towards black people, in the USSR, they were not
subjected to racial differentiation in comparison with the United States. In the 1930s,
during the industrialization of the Soviet Union, at the direction of the Party, a large
number of engineers from leading Western European and American companies were
invited from abroad (Verkhoturov, 2006). Consequently, the number of
representatives of the black population has increased. To call them negroes became
unacceptable only in the 21st century, but in the USSR this word did not have any
negative connotation. So, in her translation, Rita Rait-Kovaleva used this word and
translated Salinger‘s “a colored guy” (p. 93) as “негр [negr]” (p. 104).
Contrariwise, in Maxim Nemtsov's translation from 2008, it can be seen that
he translated Salinger's expression “a colored guy” (p. 93) as “цветной парняга
[cvetnoj parnyaga]” (p. 120). This difference in the translations of Nemtsov and
118
Rait-Kovaleva can be explained by two reasons. First, it is possible that Nemtsov
simply translated Salinger's expression word for word and did not format it in order
to bring his work as close as possible to the original version. Second, perhaps
Nemtsov did not use the word negro as Rait-Kovaleva because of the fact that during
the period of the postmodernism, there was an increase in racist movements and
severe discrimination in Russia, which led to trials and debates (―Russian racism 'out
of control'‖, 2006). This could be the ground for Nemtsov not to interfere in these
manifestations of culture. Therefore, he translated this expression with a more neutral
phrase.
All in all, attitudes towards racism vary from era to era and from culture to
culture. Such dissimilarities are reflected in the translations of the texts under
consideration. Therefore, they cause a multiplicity of translations.
2.1.4. Attitude to Politics
In the process of comparing the two translations with each other, as well as
finding discrepancies between the translations and the original novel, a specific
feature was noticed that distinguishes the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva from the
translated work of Maxim Nemtsov and slightly vitiates the original book of Jerome
David Salinger. Such a peculiarity consists in the addition of negative connotations to
the words relating to the American realities. Examples of such manifestations in the
translation of the Soviet translator can be considered in the table below. These
language units will be discussed in more detail further.
J. D. Salinger
night club (p. 88)
bourgeois (p. 125)
butler (p. 145)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
кабак (p. 98)
мещанские (p. 139)
лакей (p. 161)
Maxim Nemtsov
ночной клуб (p. 113)
буржуазные (p. 162)
дворецкий (p. 187)
To begin with, in the tenth chapter of the book, it is described how the main
character Holden Caulfield spends the evening in a bar which he leaves early enough
and wishes that there is a place where one can sit until late without drinking
something alcoholic. In the novel, J. D. Salinger uses the word “night club” (p. 88) to
portray such a place. Maxim Nemtsov translates this utterance in the same way in the
119
Russian language with the collocation “ночной клуб [nochnoj klub]” (p. 113).
However, as for the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, when translating this
expression, she applies the word “кабак [kabak]” (p. 98), which means a tavern or a
pub. This word in Russian is used to indicate a lower-class institution where alcoholic
beverages are sold, and the word is also used when someone wants to say
disapprovingly about a restaurant or a cafe. Thus, this language unit has a strongly
negative connotation, and Rait-Kovaleva used it not by accident. She decided to
involve this word to translate the expression “night club” because at the time of the
publication of her translation, there were no night clubs in the USSR. They were
considered immoral places of debauchery and licentiousness. Moreover, they were
completely denied by the Soviet ideology. Although there were a few restaurants,
they had a wicked reputation since it was not customary for the intelligent and
educated people to go there. So, the restaurants were often called “кабаки [kabaki]”,
meaning pubs, by ordinary people to show their disapproval of such establishments.
Therefore, with the application of such a word in her translation Rita Rait-Kovaleva
emphasizes that in the USA, there are such institutions that should not be approved
by the Soviet society. Hence, this translation solution shows the American society
from the unfavorable side which is on par with the Soviet ideological ideas that were
promoted to the people.
Furthermore, in the fifteenth chapter, Holden talks about his hatred of people
who have cheap suitcases. He describes a situation that happened to him and Dick
Stagle. This is a boy Holden roomed with at Elkton Hills High School. Dick had
inexpensive suitcases whereas Holden's ones were the newest and most fashionable.
Therefore, the protagonist became uncomfortable with this situation and hid his
suitcases under his bed, so as not to embarrass his neighbor. However, the next day,
this boy, on the contrary, put them back in a prominent place to tell everyone that
they were actually his suitcases. Moreover, Holden had many things that were more
expensive than Dick‘s. Therefore, Stagle called Holden's things “bourgeois” (p.
125). So, in the translation of Maxim Nemtsov, it can be remarked that he uses the
same word in the Russian language: “буржуазные [burzhuaznye]” (p. 162).
120
However, Rita Rait-Kovaleva translates this word as “мещанские [meshchanskie]”
(p. 139). This language unit in Russian has a more negative connotation than the
word “bourgeois”. “Мещанство [Meshchanstvo]” means philistinism in English. It
is a person's preoccupation with proprietary interests and a narrow ideological and
social outlook. Thus, the bourgeoisie or the philistines assess everything in terms of
luxury and money. In Soviet times, the desire for philistinism and material values at
the expense of spiritual values was highly criticized. Therefore, Rait-Kovaleva used
such a word to describe Holden's expensive possessions. This indicated a
disapproving attitude of Soviet people towards luxury goods. Such a position existed
in the USSR since it was believed that people should not show their expensive things
on display and be content with what everyone has.
In addition, in the seventeenth chapter, Holden tells about the theatrical
performance that he visited with his girlfriend, Sally. He describes some of the
moments that occur in the play. In his story, he mentions “butler” (p. 145) pouring
tea for two actors on stage. In English, the word “butler” means the most important
servant in the house, usually responsible for the organization of other servants. In his
translation, Maxim Nemtsov uses the word “дворецкий [dvoreckij]” (p. 187) to
translate Salinger's “butler”. In the Russian language, the word “дворецкий
[dvoreckij]” has a rather positive connotation. It means the head servant who runs the
household and controls the other servants. Thus, the translation fully corresponds to
the original idea of J. D. Salinger. However, in the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva,
the word “butler” is translated as “лакей [lakej]” (p. 161). This utterance in Russian
means a servant in various institutions. In addition, the word has a more negative
connotation than “butler” and “дворецкий [dvoreckij]”. Therefore, this choice of
word vitiates the original version of the novel. The reason for such a translation
decision may be the desire of Rita Rait-Kovaleva to show the American realities in
more negative tones, even if the word is used in the context of a theatrical production.
In the translation of Maxim Nemtsov, such peculiarities were not noticed
since in the era of the postmodernism there was no such ideology that was set against
other countries and their politics. Contrariwise, Russia became more open to the
121
whole world. Therefore, Nemtsov did not have such a goal to show the culture of
America from the unpleasant side.
Consequently, the inconsistencies in the translations and the original work
which were explored indicate that Rita Rait-Kovaleva understated the American
realities. She used the words with negative connotations to show the USA to the
Soviet readers from a worse side, as it was ideologically accepted.
In addition, in the process of comparing the three works, a significant feature
was noticed in the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva which refers to the replacement
of the word in the translation. The grounds for such a translation decision are
constituted by the political issues concerning the USSR. The passage where this
peculiarity was emphasized can be considered in the table presented below. Further,
this prominent detail and its causes will be examined thoroughly.
J. D. Salinger
One of them was this very
Cuban-looking guy, and
he kept breathing his
stinking breath in my face
while I gave him
directions. (p. 104-105)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
Один из них, настоящий
испанец с виду, все
время дышал мне в лицо
вонючим перегаром,
пока я объяснил, как им
пройти. (p. 117)
Maxim Nemtsov
Один на вид вроде такой
сильно кубинец, он мне
всю рожу перегаром
завонял, пока я им
объяснял, как пройти.
(p. 135)
To begin with, in the thirteenth chapter of Jerome David Salinger‘s novel, the
main character Holden Caulfield recounts that he goes to a hotel in New York. On the
way, he sees a “dumpy-looking” bar (p. 104) that he wants to enter; however, he
immediately loses this desire because two completely drunk people come out and ask
him for directions. Holden describes one of them as a “Cuban-looking guy” (p. 104)
who “kept breathing his stinking breath in his [Holden’s] face” (p. 104-105) and
made Holden uncomfortable with such a situation.
In the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, this description of a drunken man is
translated as “испанец с виду [ispanec s vidu]” (p. 117). So, the translator changes
the word “Cuban” (p. 104) man to a Spanish man, which completely contradicts the
original novel. Nevertheless, the Soviet translator makes this transformation for a
reason. There is a logical explanation for such a translation decision.
122
The work by Rita Rait-Kovaleva was published in 1960. A year earlier, in
1959, the socialist regime came to power in Cuba. Before that, Cuba had been
expanding and prospering thanks to the help of the United States which had supplied
food and oil there in exchange for sugar and other valuable items. Furthermore, rich
Americans used to come to the island to spend their holidays there; consequently,
they fed the Cuban state with money from the tourist side (Pérez-Stable, 2011).
However, in 1959-1961, Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary and party leader who
led Cuba from 1959 to 2008, openly declared that Cuba would follow the socialist
path of the development. After such a statement, the United States broke off
diplomatic relations with Cuba, but the relations of the USSR with the state became
better, on the contrary. The Soviet government began to provide materialistic and
financial support to the island, which suddenly found itself without any American
investment (Azicri, 2008). Therefore, the Cuban people were considered friends to
the Soviet Union. Subsequently, in her translation, Rait-Kovaleva removed the word
“Cuban” (p. 104), because in the original novel it is used in relation to a drunken
person. So, the connotation of the passage is negative. In this regard, the Soviet
translator decided to replace this word with another one in order not to mention Cuba
in the unfavorable context.
Regarding the translation of Maxim Nemtsov, he translates the word in
question as “кубинец [kubinec]” (p. 135) which means a person from Cuba. Thus,
the translator does not substitute any words in this extract. This decision may be
explained by the fact that after the collapse of the USSR, economic assistance to
Cuba was completely terminated by the authorities of the new Russia (Azicri, 2008).
Therefore, Cuba was no longer considered the state that was significant to the
country. Thus, Nemtsov left the translation unchanged and used the word related to
Cuba.
This analysis of the word substitution illustrates a substantial influence of the
socio-cultural context on the translation activity. In addition, historical events create a
difference between translations within one culture, which leads to the phenomenon of
multiple translations.
123
Taking everything into account, this part of the paper has examined the
transformations that had occurred in the Russian translations of J. D. Salinger's
original novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ under the influence of the political and
ideological characteristics of each of the epochs.
2.2. Text Transformations Caused by the Domestication and Foreignization of
the Translations
The translation of a literary work from one language into another is
impossible without any grammatical and lexical transformations. There are lexical
units in the vocabulary of one language that have no equivalents in another. Such
features occur due to the difference in the cultural realities. In fact, in J. D. Salinger's
novel there are many such peculiarities that are difficult to translate into the Russian
language since in the Russian culture there are no such realities that are described in
the original work. These inconsistencies are well reflected in the translation of Rita
Rait-Kovaleva who tried to make her work understandable for the Soviet readers and
did not add any foreign words, the meanings of which could be confusing for people
as they did not have the same concepts as people from the American society.
Thus, Rita Rait-Kovaleva used such a translation technique as domestication
making her work understandable and accessible for the Soviet readers. On the
contrary, the translation of Maxim Nemtsov is foreignized since this Russian
translator did not aim at creating the text oriented to society, but making it closer to
the original book, preserving the features of the American culture in it.
Regarding the work of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, in her translation it can be noticed
that this Soviet translator adjusted her text to the level of knowledge of her readers
with the help of such a translation technique as generalization. More precisely,
generalization, or lexical broadening, consists in replacing a specific and particular
meaning of the language unit by a more general concept (Klaudy, 2010: 93). Several
vivid examples of the application of this method are described in the table below.
Further, it will be considered how the authors' desire to make the text comprehensible
or, contrariwise, more Americanized influenced their texts and contributed to the
appearance of discrepancies in translations.
124
2.2.1. Generalization of Concepts
J. D. Salinger
two boys were playing
Flys Up with a soft ball
(p. 136)
the canoe (p. 139)
cabin camps (p. 152)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
мальчики играли в мяч
(p. 151)
лодка (p. 154)
туристические лагеря (p.
168)
Maxim Nemtsov
два пацана играли
софтболом в «свечку»
(p. 176)
каноэ (p. 180)
кемпинги с хижинами
(p. 197)
First of all, in the table above the following expression is highlighted: “... two
boys were playing Flys Up with a soft ball” (p. 136). This utterance from Salinger‘s
book was translated by Rita Rait-Kovaleva as “... мальчики играли в мяч [...
mal'chiki igrali v myach]” (p. 151). In such a translation, it is clear that the author did
not elaborate on the details of the American game which was unknown to the people
of the Soviet Union and applied such a translation technique as generalization. Thus,
the translator mentioned that the boys were playing with the ball and she did not
concretise the essence and the name of the game.
The same translational operation was used by Rita Rait-Kovaleva in the
process of translating several other expressions in her work. So, such utterances as
“the canoe” (p. 139) and “cabin camps” (p. 152) in Salinger's novel, were translated
by Rait-Kovaleva as “лодка [lodka]” (p. 154) meaning a boat and “туристические
лагеря [turisticheskie lagerya]” (p. 168) meaning tourist camps, respectively. In the
English expressions presented in these examples, one can regard the concretization of
certain concepts that make the novel abundant with small and precise details.
However, for a Soviet person, these concepts were complicated for understanding
since such realities as a “canoe” and a “cabin camp” did not exist in the USSR.
Nevertheless, people were knowledgeable about such objects as a boat and a camp
which figurate in the Rait-Kovaleva‘s translation as “лодка [lodka]” and
“туристические лагеря [turisticheskie lagerya]”, correspondingly. These are the
words with the general meaning and they denote a generic concept as a whole. Such a
translation certainly vitiates the original version of the novel, depriving it of some of
the details and features of the American culture. However, it can be assumed that Rita
Rait-Kovaleva decided to use this translation technique because one of her goals was
125
to restrict her readers from the realities of America, as it was analyzed previously in
the present paper. In addition, the translator wanted to create a literary work which
would comply with the norms of the Russian language, since the translations were
valued almost as much as the original works in the USSR. Therefore, Rait-Kovaleva
did not add transliterated words. Moreover, this allowed her to avoid excessive
author‘s insertions with an explanation of the meaning of several concepts. Such
author's remarks are not always an appropriate idea, as they often distract from the
process of reading and the comprehension of the plot and context. Consequently, in
her translation, Rita Rait-Kovaleva applied such a translation technique as
generalization. She replaced the concretized concepts found in the original work with
general words that did not confuse readers.
As for the work of Maxim Nemtsov, in his translation he often leaves the
American realities as they are and tries to translate them in such a way that his work
fully reflects the American culture and its characteristics. Hence, no generalization
technique was noticed in his work. However, it can be pointed out that Nemtsov
retains the concretization which is presented in the original version of the book and
adds the realities of Russia. So, in the expressions analyzed, one can notice that the
American game, which Salinger described as “Flys Up with a soft ball” (p. 136), was
transformed by Nemtsov into the Russian game “свечка [svechka]” (p. 176) which
was also played with a ball, but not always with a soft ball. This translation
demonstrates that in some passages Maxim Nemtsov tried to make his work focused
on the Russian reader by replacing American realities with Russian ones. However,
very few such transformations were highlighted in his translation. In most cases, the
Russian author finds words that convey the characteristics of the American culture.
For instance, these are the words that sound the same way as English words but are
written in the Russian language because they constitute the loan words of the Russian
vocabulary: “софтболом [softbolom]” (p. 176), “каноэ [kanoe]” (p. 180) and
“кемпинги [kempingi]” (p. 197). In addition, examining the phrase “cabin camps”
(p. 152) translated by Nemtsov as “кемпинги с хижинами [kempingi s hizhinami]”,
it can be seen that he translated the word “cabin” as “хижина”, which is not a
126
complete equivalent of the word in Russian; however, it conveys the meaning of the
expression, since “хижина” in Russian means a primitive structure, usually made of
natural material, where people can live. Approximately the same concept was meant
by the word “cabin” referring to a small tourist holiday home in the USA.
Subsequently, from the analysis carried out, it can be concluded that each of
the translators uses different translation methods. The choice of these techniques
depends not only on the intentions of the authors, but also on the social context of the
time and readers‘ awareness of the particular concepts. Hence, in the postmodern
Russia, people began to know more about the American culture and various
peculiarities about their country that came into the Russian language whereas Soviet
people were limited from such knowledge about other cultures due to the ideology of
the country.
Furthermore, in the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, many examples were
found which demonstrate that she did not translate several passages from the original
book or slightly transformed them in order not to show certain American realities to
Soviet people and not to spread them among the society of the USSR. This feature of
translation is directly related to the ideological and political peculiarities of the Soviet
Union in the era of 50-60 years. An analysis of such peculiarities is presented in the
next sub-chapter.
2.2.2. Suppression of the American Realities
J. D. Salinger
near Central Park South
(p. 16)
all those Ivy League
bastards (p. 99)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
у Южного выхода (p. 20)
все эти хлюпики из
аристократических
землячеств (p. 110)
My father‘s quite
Хотя отец довольно
wealthy, though. I don‘t
богатый, не знаю,
know how much he
сколько он зарабатывает,
makes - he‘s never
- он вечно вкладывает
discussed that staff with
деньги в какие-то
me - but I imagine quite a постановки на Бродвее.
lot. He‘s a corporation
(p. 137-138)
lawyer. Those boys really
Maxim Nemtsov
возле Южной СентралПарк (p. 22)
все эти гады из Лиги
Плюща (p. 127)
Хоть штрик у меня и
богатенький. Не знаю,
сколько он там
зашибает, - он про такое
со мной никогда не
заговаривал, - только я
прикидываю, что до
фига. Он
127
haul it in. Another reason
I know he‘s quite well
off, he‘s always investing
money in shows in
Broadway. (p. 124)
Strictly Ivy League. Big
deal. (p. 146)
Светский лев.
Аристократ. (p. 162)
корпоративный юрист.
А эти ребята гроши
лопатой гребут. Еще
почему я знаю, что у
него гроши водятся, - он
вечно их вкладывает в
бродвейские
постановки. (p. 160)
Плющовая Лига, аж
куда деваться. (p. 189)
In the table above, several expressions are quoted to highlight the features that
were noticed in the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva. These peculiarities are
associated with the removal of the American realities by the translator. The utterances
from the table will be examined thoroughly below.
First, in J. D. Salinger's novel, frequent references to Central Park in New
York can be pointed out. In the novel, Holden Caulfield often goes there and tells
readers the stories about this place. As for Maxim Nemtsov, he translates this name
of the park with the transliteration “Сентрал-Парк [Sentral-Park]” (p. 22), which
allows readers who have information and knowledge about this popular American
park to understand that this location is meant in the book. However, in the translation
of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, she translates Salinger's “near Central Park South” (p. 16) as
“у Южного выхода [u Yuzhnogo vyhoda]” (p. 20), without mentioning this famous
park anywhere. The reason for such a translation decision may be the desire of Rita
Rait-Kovaleva to prevent readers from the American realities that make the United
States more remarkable than the USSR. Thus, it is assumed that according to RaitKovaleva, Soviet people did not need to know about such a popular place which
could be considered a proud asset of the American culture.
Second, in two passages of the novel, there is a mention of the Ivy League.
The utterances taken from the original book and its translations are represented in the
table. The Ivy League is an association of eight private American universities located
in seven states in the northeastern United States. The universities included in this
league are distinguished by the high quality of education (Vedder, 2019). In the
128
translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, this association is not mentioned at all. Instead, the
translator uses such equivalents that do not fit the original meaning and idea. For
instance, she translates Salinger‘s phrase “all those Ivy League bastards” (p. 99) as
“все эти хлюпики из аристократических землячеств [vse eti hlyupiki iz
aristokraticheskih
zemlyachestv]”
(p.
110).
The
word
“землячество
[zemlyachestvo]” means an association of fellow countrymen or natives of the same
locality or country. Therefore, it has nothing common with the league of universities
which is mentioned in Salinger‘s book. Analyzing the reasons for such a translation,
it can be supposed that Rita Rait-Kovaleva did not want to highlight this association
so as not to give the Soviet readers the knowledge about such high-quality
universities that existed in the United States. Thus, the Soviet translator restricted
readers from the information that might offend them because there was no such
league in the USSR and then readers might be disappointed that there was something
better in America than in their country. Consequently, these thoughts would
undermine the ideological orientation of the country since the USSR was considered
the best country to live in and all its inhabitants had to serve for the benefit of their
fatherland while America was promoted as an enemy society that disrupted the moral
foundations of people. Eventually, readers may have had a misunderstanding that
they were being forced to have unfavorable thoughts about America whereas this
country had such wonderful educational institutions. In addition, the reason for
limiting readers from ideologically colored words could be a prohibition to
demonstrate the good sides of the American society and promote admiration for this
country which was controlled by the editorial board and censorship institutions.
Third, in the fifteenth chapter of the novel, the main character Holden
Caulfield tells the readers about the financial state of his family. In this passage, he
mentions his father's income. In the original version of the novel written by Salinger,
Holden talks about his father being a “corporation lawyer” (p. 124). People of this
profession are known for the fact that they earn a lot of money and can afford to
invest in “shows in Broadway” (p. 124). Such a statement about Holden's father can
be seen in the translation of Maxim Nemtsov who translates this passage almost word
129
for word, and readers can easily understand who the father of the main character is.
However, regarding the translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, she excludes several
sentences in this fragment of the text. She leaves only a small description of the
profession of Holden‘s dad: “Хотя отец довольно богатый, не знаю, сколько он
зарабатывает, - он вечно вкладывает деньги в какие-то постановки на
Бродвее. [Hotya otec dovol'no bogatyj, ne znayu, skol'ko on zarabatyvaet, - on
vechno vkladyvaet den'gi v kakie-to postanovki na Brodvee.]” (p. 137-138). So, in
her work, she does not translate that Holden's father is a lawyer who receives a lot of
income. The reason for this omission in the translation may be the desire of Rita RaitKovaleva to limit the Soviet readers from knowing that the profession of the lawyers
is quite profitable in comparison with other jobs. This information might not suit a
Soviet person, since many of them worked in factories, and their earnings were quite
less than the described ones of Holden's father, who could invest his money on any
shows. Moreover, some of the readers of her translation could be lawyers. If they saw
that in America their profession was profitable, and in the USSR they had a small
salary, then such knowledge could have a negative effect on their work and
satisfaction with it. Therefore, Rita Rait-Kovaleva chooses not to give such a piece of
information to the Soviet readers because they do not need to know about several
aspects of the USA. She makes such a translation decision in order to prevent their
questions and frustration with their realities.
Hence, these peculiarities which were noticed when comparing the
translations of the novel and its original version, led to the conclusion that Rita RaitKovaleva in her work removed ideologically colored words and cut off the reader
from the information about the USA and the American realities. She believed that
Soviet people did not need to know this since the information about favorable
conditions in America could cause people's dissatisfaction with their country.
In addition, special attention should be paid to such expressions in the
translation of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, in which she changed some of the ideas of the
original novel because in the Soviet Union people called certain objects or
phenomena in a different way or had no idea about particular American realities
130
which did not exist in the USSR. Examples of such features in translation can be
found in the following sub-chapter.
2.2.3. Absence of the American Realities
J. D. Salinger
we all had to stand up in
the grandstand and give
him a locomotive - that‘s
a cheer (p. 20-21)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
мы должны были
вскочить на трибунах и
трубить вовсю, то есть
кричать ему «ура!» (p.
25)
котлета (p. 49)
кондуктор (p. 50)
рулетка-автомат (p. 50)
hamburger (p. 42)
the bus driver (p. 44)
the pinball machine (p.
44)
this little sandwich bar (p. вокзальный буфет (p.
124)
138)
bacon and eggs (p. 124)
яичницу с ветчиной (p.
138)
When I came out of the
Я вышел из магазина record store, I passed this тут подвернулось кафе, и
drugstore, and I went in.
я зашел. (p. 149)
(p. 134)
Veterans‘ Day (p. 193)
День выпускников (p.
214)
Maxim Nemtsov
мы все на трибуне
должны были встать и
дать ему «паровозика» это приветствие такое
(p. 27)
гамбургер (p. 55)
водитель (p. 56)
пинбол (p. 57)
эта бутербродная (p.
160)
яичница с беконом (p.
160)
Вышел из магаза, и тут аптека, и я туда зашел.
(p. 173)
День ветеранов (p. 252)
In Jerome David Salinger's novel, there are many expressions that
characterize the realities of the American society. Realities are the various
phenomena, objects, and features of a culture that distinguish it from another.
Accordingly, the peculiarities of the American culture are more or less different from
those of the Soviet and Russian cultures.
The Soviet translator, being an elderly woman, and therefore wise and
experienced, understood that translating American realities as they were, was not
entirely reasonable for several reasons. First, unfamiliar expressions and phenomena
could distract Soviet people from reading and violate the logic of the plot and
context. Second, in fact, it would be possible to translate everything word for word
and explain each of the features of American culture as an author's remark. However,
then Rait-Kovaleva would have to spend a lot of time and effort on this process since
the novel is American and the plot is written about an American boy; therefore, there
131
are a lot of American realities there. In this regard, Rita Rait-Kovaleva decided to
remove the characteristics of the US society and translate them with the Russian
words which were close semantically to the original versions of the language units
and which were understandable and ordinary for every Soviet reader. This solution
makes the work of Rait-Kovaleva easy to comprehend and follow, but it certainly
differs from the original novel. In the table above the expressions in which Rita RaitKovaleva eliminated the American realities and added the Soviet ones are presented.
Each of them will be examined in-depth below.
To begin with, in the second chapter, Holden Caulfield talks about the
tradition that Americans have during football matches, namely, “to stand up in the
grandstand and give [somebody] ... a locomotive” (p. 20-21). Locomotive cheer
means a prolonged cheer that increases in volume. Fans from the Soviet times did not
have this kind of greeting, so Rita Rait-Kovaleva translated this expression as
“кричать ... «ура!» [krichat' ... «ura!»]” (p. 25), which means shouting ―hooray‖
that was typical in any of the types of greeting in the Soviet Union. As for Maxim
Nemtsov, he translated this passage literally as it was written in Salinger's novel:
“должны были встать и дать ему «паровозика» [dolzhny byli vstat' i dat' emu
«parovozika»]” (p. 27). He wrote this utterance in such a way in order to fully
convey the realities of the American society. However, it is difficult for a Russian
person to understand them, because Russians do not have the complete information
about the culture of America, and Nemtsov does not give any explanations for such
expressions.
Furthermore, in the fifth chapter of the book, it is told how Holden and his
friend Mal Brossard decided to go to Agerstown for a walk and eat a “hamburger”
(p. 42) there. In the Soviet Union, when Rait-Kovaleva was working on her
translation, people did not know what a hamburger was. McDonald's, because of
which they could learn about it, opened in the USSR only in 1990 (Malyshkina,
2008: 61). Therefore, the Soviet translator decided to use the Russian word
“котлета [kotleta]” (p. 49) meaning a cutlet. So, this word was understandable to
every Russian-speaking person, since the cutlet was probably in the diet of every
132
person of that time. Regarding Maxim Nemtsov‘s work, the word “hamburger” is
translated as “гамбургер [gamburger]” (p. 55). This is a word that was borrowed
from the English language, and at the beginning of the 21st century, most people in
Russia knew what it meant.
Later, in the same chapter, when the boys decide to go to the city by bus,
Holden makes a snowball while waiting for the others, but he does not throw it
anywhere and takes it with him on the bus. However, as described in the original
work, “the bus driver” (p. 44) forces Holden to throw a snowball away before getting
on the bus. In the translation of Rait-Kovaleva, the phrase “the bus driver” is
translated as “кондуктор [konduktor]” (p. 50). In fact, it is quite obvious why the
Soviet translator decided to distort the original a little. In the Soviet Union, and then
in Russia, the buses are kept in order by special people, who are called
“кондуктор[ы] [konduktori]” in Russian. They sell tickets and control the situation
on the bus, while the driver is only engaged in driving. Therefore, it is more logical
for the Soviet reader that it would be the conductor who would ask Holden to throw
out his snowball. Nevertheless, in his translation, Nemtsov applies the literal
translation. So, Salinger's “the bus driver” turns into “водитель [voditel']” (p. 56),
which means a driver in the Russian language. Perhaps, Nemtsov decided to leave
this reality in order to get closer to the original novel and not misrepresent it.
Further, in the same chapter, Salinger describes that the boys come into this
city of Agerstown and decide to play “the pinball machine” (p. 44) there. This is a
game that was played on slot machines in America. It was popular among Americans
and at the time of writing the novel it was quite new and attracted the attention of
many people (Westhoff, 2004). Certainly, such a game was unknown to the Soviet
reader, so Rait-Kovaleva replaced it with the Soviet equivalent of “рулеткаавтомат [ruletka-avtomat]” (p. 50), which was comprehensible to her readers.
“[Р]улетка-автомат [Ruletka-avtomat]” is a slot machine that imitates a real
gambling game called ―рулетка [ruletka]‖. It was popular in the USSR, and although
its essence was nothing like the one of the game of pinball, the translator conveyed
the main idea that the boys played on slot machines. Moreover, Rait-Kovaleva did it
133
in such a way that the Soviet reader fully and easily perceived it. However, Maxim
Nemtsov again translated the expression literally with the word “пинбол [pinbol]”
(p. 57). Perhaps, in the era of the postmodernism, due to the greater opening of
borders, Russian people already knew such a game, or it can be supposed that
Nemtsov simply translated the word verbatim and without any changes of the
American realities in order to be in line with the original version of the work.
In addition, in the fifteenth chapter of Salinger's novel, Holden recounts that
after leaving his belongings at the railway station, he went to “the little sandwich
bar” (p. 124) where he ate “bacon and eggs” (p. 124). This passage has several
American realities that may be confusing for the Soviet reader. First, in the USSR
there were no sandwich bars or small cafes where one could have a hearty breakfast,
so Rait-Kovaleva in her translation replaced this reality with a more understandable
“вокзальный буфет [vokzal'nyj bufet]” (p. 138), which was familiar to any Russianspeaking reader. Moreover, Soviet people hardly knew what bacon was, so translator
changed this word into “ветчин[а] [vetchina]” (p. 138) referring to salted and
smoked pork ham. Consequently, the meaning of the words has not changed much,
but the utterances used by Rita Rait-Kovaleva were more habitual to people from the
USSR and easier to read. On the contrary, Nemtsov left the direct translation of the
American reality and applied such an expression as “бекон [bekon]” (p. 160). The
reasons for this translation decision remain the same as those described earlier in the
framework of other utterances analysed.
Furthermore, in the sixteenth chapter, J. D. Salinger writes that Holden goes
to the “drugstore” (p. 134). This is a shop where drugs and medicines are sold and
where cosmetics, household goods, and also drinks and snacks can be bought. Such
an establishment is familiar to the American reader; however, in the USSR, there
were no such places. In order not to explain this reality and not to make her
translation sophisticated, Rita Rait-Kovaleva used such an expression as “кафе
[kafe]” (p. 149) meaning simply a cafe. The essence of the plot did not change
because of such an alternation of the words since Holden went to this drugstore not
for medicines, but for food. However, Nemtsov translated this utterance as “аптека
134
[apteka]” (p. 173) referring to a pharmacy store. This translation misrepresents the
original version and the meaning of the passage since it is clear from the context that
Holden comes in for food, and it turns out illogically that he goes to the pharmacy for
it. The reason for such a translation may consist in the lack of Nemtsov‘s knowledge
about such an American reality. This led to the fact that he decided to translate the
expression based on the word ―drug‖.
Finally, in the twenty-second chapter of Salinger's novel, Holden Caulfield
tells his little sister Phoebe how much he dislikes his school. He talks about some
“phony” (p. 198) and insincere events that take place there, such as “Veteran's Day”
(p. 193), when people who have already graduated a long time ago come to school,
walk around it, and recall their school years. It becomes clear from the context that
the graduates are called veterans here. So, in her translation, Rita Rait-Kovaleva
translates this day as “День выпускников [Den' vypusknikov]” (p. 214) which means
the graduates‘ day, because in the USSR of the 60-s the word ―veteran‖ was
associated with people who had took part in the Second World War. Therefore, RaitKovaleva decides to remove the word ―veteran‖ and use another one which is more
comprehensible for the readers and appropriate for the context. Besides, it is worth
mentioning that the removal of this expression and its replacement with another one
does not change the essence of the plot. Concerning Nemtsov‘s work, he translates
this utterance verbatim and does not give any explanation for the meaning of the
words he uses. Such a translation decision makes his work difficult for understanding
for Russian people who do not know the American realities.
On the whole, the analysis of the American realities and their translations into
the Russian language by the two translators allowed examining many peculiarities
and differences in the works under consideration. In conclusion, regarding the work
of Maxim Nemtsov, despite the fact that the realities of the Russian society were
distinct from the American ones, he translated Salinger's expressions literally.
Perhaps the main purpose of the Russian translator was to demonstrate the American
realities as they had been described in the original book since from the analysis
conducted earlier, it is noticeable that he translated almost everything verbatim.
135
Besides, he did not give any explanations in his translation, so in many passages the
text became incomprehensible for the Russian reader.
On the contrary, Rita Rait-Kovaleva decided to translate in a completely
different way. She removed the American realities that were unknown to the Soviet
readers and changed them to the realities of the USSR. It is assumed that RaitKovaleva's goal was to simplify her translation in order to make all the words used in
the work understandable for the Soviet people. Consequently, she eliminated the
American realities and did not translate them verbatim since they could be misleading
for the readers. Instead, she found the closest equivalents among the Soviet realities,
which, although slightly distorted the original version of the novel, however, did not
change the logic and contributed to a better understanding of the plot. Thus, such
findings allow revealing that Rait-Kovaleva wanted to make her work domesticated
whereas Nemtsov focused on the foreignization of his translation.
Moreover, the application of the generalization technique by Rita RaitKovaleva can also be considered in relation to proper names. In this case, the work of
Maxim Nemtsov is quite specific since he chose a certain tactic in translating such
words. Therefore, although this feature of translations under analysis still occurred
due to the use of the same technique, a separate sub-chapter was allocated to the
translation of the utterances containing the proper names.
2.2.4. Translation of Proper Names
J. D. Salinger
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
Old Stradlater was putting Стрэдлейтер
Vitalis on his hair. My
припомаживал волосы
Vitalis. (p. 38)
бриолином. Моим
бриолином. (p. 43)
Glastones (p. 61)
чемоданы (p. 68-69)
Maxim Nemtsov
А этот Стрэдлейтер
давай себе «виталисом»
волосы мазать. Моим
«виталисом». (p. 49)
«гладстоуна» (p. 78)
Spaulding‘s (p. 61)
спортивный магазин (p.
69)
«Сполдингз» (p. 78)
Tom Collinses (p. 86)
прохладительное (p. 97)
«томы-коллинзы» (p.
111)
in this LaSalle convertible на машине (p. 101)
(p. 90)
в этом их «ласалле» с
откидным верхом (p.
116)
136
Previously, the analysis which was conducted enabled revealing that the
American realities in Jerome David Salinger's novel are rather frequent since the
work itself is devoted to the story of a typical teenager of the American society.
Therefore, the culture of America surrounds the main character from all sides and
areas of his life. Consequently, when recalling his stories, Holden Caulfield mentions
many different concepts related to the American realities that did not exist in the
Soviet Union and Russia or were called in a distinct way.
In the table above, several expressions that represent a specific characteristic
of Maxim Nemtsov‘s translation are emphasized. In the original novel, there are
many proper names that denote brands or denominations of different items. In his
translation, Maxim Nemtsov encloses such words with quotation marks and
transliterates them in the Russian language. So, he writes them in the way they are
read in English. It is worth mentioning that in the translated work there are a lot of
such words in quotation marks that resemble their English equivalents. On the one
hand, this approach to the translation of proper names allows preserving the
American realities and showing them to the Russian people. So, perhaps, the
avoidance of the generalization was one of Nemtsov's objectives, since he aimed at
creating the translation as close as possible to the original version of the novel. On
the other hand, these language units enclosed in quotation marks are often
incomprehensible to the readers since Russian people do not know all the brands and
the names of the objects in English. Hence, such a translation is sophisticated and
makes it difficult to understand the text and its meaning.
On the contrary, in order to avoid misunderstandings on the part of readers, in
her translation, Rita Rait-Kovaleva translates the same proper names in words that are
comprehensible to the Soviet reader. Below, several expressions that demonstrate
various approaches of the authors to translating the same utterances will be analysed.
To begin with, in the fourth chapter of Salinger‘s novel, there is an episode
where Holden Caulfield talks with his room neighbor, Stradlater. During their
conversation, Stradlater smooths his hair with a special cosmetic product for the hair
care which makes the hair shine and fixes the hairstyle. It is used primarily by men.
137
Such a beauty treatment in America was called “Vitalis” (p. 38). In his translation,
Maxim Nemtsov left the same appellation with the same pronunciation, only wrote it
in quotation marks and in the Russian language using the word “виталис [vitalis]”
(p. 49). It is fairly difficult for people who read this translation and do not have any
information about such a hair cosmetics with such a name to understand the meaning
of what is being told. Therefore, this translation confuses the readers and their
thoughts. It is for this reason that Rita Rait-Kovaleva replaced this word with such a
denotation as “бриолин [briolin]” (p. 43). This product was intended for the same
purposes as “Vitalis”, but its name corresponded to what it was called by all people
in the USSR. Therefore, when reading, people did not find it perplexing to
understand the meaning of the word and the plot as a whole.
Furthermore, in the table above, several more expressions can be regarded.
They are similar in the way they are translated by the authors; however, RaitKovaleva's technique is completely different from Nemtsov's. So, in J. D. Salinger's
novel, there are the denominations of certain objects that function in the text as
antonomasia. More precisely, antonomasia is a trope expressed in the use of a proper
name in the meaning of a common noun, and vice versa. Thus, in the novel of the
American writer, several words created with the application of such a stylistic device
can be found: “Gladstones” (p. 61) meaning suitcases of a particular company named
Gladstone; “Spaulding’s” (p. 61) relating to a store with such a name; “Tom
Collinses” (p. 86) meaning a particular kind of drink; and “LaSalle” (p. 90) which
concerns a certain brand of cars. As it can be remarked from the examples, these
proper names replace the appellations of the items themselves, since they are wellknown to the American readers, and they immediately understand what is meant by
the proper names.
Regarding the translation of Maxim Nemtsov, he decided to leave all the
names of the objects and use them in the text in such a way that the Russian readers
could see the English denominations. The translator wrote them in the Russian
language and enclosed them in quotation marks, but their pronunciation remained
similar to that of their English equivalents. Thus, such words in Salinger‘s novel as
138
“Gladstones” (p. 61), “Spaulding’s” (p. 61), “Tom Collinses” (p. 86), and
“LaSalle” (p. 90) were translated by Maxim Nemtsov as “гладстоуна
[gladstouna]” (p. 78), “Сполдингз [Spoldingz]” (p. 78), “томы-коллинзы [tomykollinzy]” (p. 111), and “ласалле [lasalle]” (p. 116), correspondingly. Although
these translations of the expressions are close to their original English names and
reflect the American realities, they do not mean approximately anything to the
Russian readers since they are unaware of the meaning of such names.
Concerning the work of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, in the cases under consideration,
she uses the generalization technique. Thus, Salinger's expressions which are
presented in the table above are translated by Rita Rait-Kovaleva as “чемоданы
[chemodany]” (p. 68-69) meaning suitcases, “спортивный магазин [sportivnyj
magazin]” (p. 69) relating to a sport shop, “прохладительное [prohladitel'noe]” (p.
97) which means a soft alcohol drink, and “машине [mashine]” (p. 101) which
refers to a car. All these utterances are distinguished by the fact that they replace the
proper names of companies and brands with common nouns that are clear to the
Soviet reader. Therefore, Rait-Kovaleva‘s translation work is considered to be
unsophisticated and effortless to read.
Subsequently, the present investigation revealed that Maxim Nemtsov abuses
the translation of proper names in quotation marks and transliteration. The reason for
this choice of translation technique may be the desire of the Russian author to make
his work closer to the original version of the novel. However, the words translated in
such a way only interfere with the perception of the text as they do not converge with
the realities of a Russian person. Contrariwise, Rita Rait-Kovaleva removes the
utterances belonging to the American realities and replaces them with the Russian
equivalents which are more conventional and accepted for Soviet people and do not
make the translation hard to read and the plot to comprehend.
Such differences in the choice of translation tactics are influenced by the
socio-cultural context of the time. So, Rita Rait-Kovaleva realised that Soviet people
hardly knew the names of various American companies and brands. Therefore, she
replaced the proper names by the words which were appropriate for the Soviet reader.
139
On the contrary, during the postmodern period, many people absorbed more
information from abroad, including the USA. Consequently, some of the designations
may have been known to the Russian readers of the 2000s. In addition, there were no
restrictions regarding the transmission of the American realities to the masses of
people in the postmodern era, whereas under the ideology of the USSR, the American
realities could be specially curtailed so as not to propagate them to a large number of
Soviet people.
Taking everything into account, a comparative analysis between Jerome
David Salinger's novel and two of its translations into the Russian language revealed
that there are many inconsistencies in the three works under consideration. This
chapter has examined the differences that have arisen due to the influence of the
social, cultural, and historical contexts of the three epochs: the post-war era in the
USA of the 40-50s, the Soviet Union in the 50-60s, and the postmodernism in the
early 21st century. As a result of the investigation, several features of the epochs that
affect the translation were identified.
Firstly, the essential ideological orientation of the Soviet Union and its
censorship restricted the translation of some linguistic units. This peculiarity concerns
the translation of religious terms and words related to the sexual orientation.
Moreover, under the influence of the era, the spread of the American realities was
eliminated, which led to the addition of negative connotations to the words related to
the characteristics of the American culture, their removal from translation and
replacement with concepts of the Soviet realities. In addition, the limited knowledge
of Soviet people about American concepts also affected Rait-Kovaleva's translation
work, because she replaced such utterances that might have been confusing to the
Soviet readers. She substituted them with the Russian equivalents that did not violate
the logic of the narrative and contributed to a better understanding of the plot. Thus, it
can be concluded that the socio-cultural context of the USSR and its censorship led to
the inner censorship of Rita Rait-Kovaleva, which significantly affected the translated
text.
140
Secondly, the absence of any ideological restrictions in Russia during the
postmodern period, as well as the greater openness to the whole world, contributed to
the specific features that were identified in the work of Maxim Nemtsov. On the one
hand, his translation conveys more of the American realities that are reflected in the
original work since Nemtsov does not remove or replace practically all of them. On
the other hand, it is complicated to understand and read such a translation since the
Russian author oversaturates his work with concepts that were borrowed from the
English language and are not understandable to a Russian person.
Thus, the comparative analysis allowed revealing the differences between the
two translations and the inconsistencies with the original novel in terms of sociocultural and historical contexts. Therefore, the considerable influence of the context
of time on the translation works was discovered, which proves the fact that sociocultural features constitute the fundamental grounds for the phenomenon of
translation multiplicity.
Conclusion
The present paper has investigated the translation multiplicity of Jerome
David Salinger‘s novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ in the Russian culture since there
are several translations of this book into the Russian language. However, only two of
them were studied in this research. These are the translations made by Rita RaitKovaleva in 1961 and Maxim Nemtsov in 2008.
In fact, the topic of translation multiplicity is actively studied among many
scholars. Nevertheless, little is known about the main reasons for the appearance of
multiple translations in the same language culture. Having examined many theoretical
works devoted to this issue, it was found that many researchers emphasize the
influence of the socio-cultural context of time on translation. Moreover, it was noted
that the personal characteristics of the authors are also considered as factors affecting
the translated works.
Therefore, this paper has been hypothesized that the multiplicity of literary
translations of the American novel has been generated by two main reasons, such as
the social, cultural, and historical background of the eras when the works were
141
written, and the individual characteristics of the authors that have an impact on their
works and make them distinct from each other. To test this hypothesis, such research
methods as discourse and comparative analyses were applied.
Regarding the discourse analysis, this research method allowed identifying
the features of the American writer and two Russian translators, namely: Salinger,
Rait-Kovaleva, and Nemtsov. The results of the study revealed the biographical facts
of each of the authors, their desires and goals regarding the processes writing of their
works under analysis, as well as such moments from their lives that could affect their
literary works. Moreover, using the method of discourse analysis, three epochs were
investigated, namely: the post-war USA of the 40-50 years, the Soviet Union of the
50-60 years, and the Russian postmodernism of the 2000s. These eras were analyzed
from different angles, such as the political and economic situation in the country at a
certain time, cultural and social features, historical events that characterize a certain
time, and so on. Thus, data was collected on each of the periods in which the original
novel and its translations were written.
Furthermore, the comparative analysis of the original novel and two of its
translations was carried out. During this study, the differences between these literary
texts were identified. Similar discrepancies were collected in many various groups
and analyzed taking into account the data obtained in the course of the discourse
analysis. Therefore, the comparative analysis revealed the differences that were
generated by the personal characteristics of the authors and the socio-cultural
characteristics of particular eras and the causes for the occurrence of these
dissimilarities were explained within this section of the research.
Subsequently, based on the results of the research conducted in this paper,
several general conclusions about each of the studied literary works can be drawn.
Thus, J. D. Salinger‘s novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ is a reflection of the
post-war American culture. The book confronts the principles and doctrines of the
time as Salinger dared to write about issues that many tried to hide in themselves. In
the novel, the writer clearly showed the sense of alienation of those non-conformist
people who were courageous to go against the system and did not want to obey the
142
rules of society. Although Salinger depicted the life of post-war capitalistic America,
the novel is completely apolitical, and it is difficult to find anything in it that calls for
serious criticism of capitalism (Whitfield, 1997: 587).
Furthermore, in the book, the writer managed to draw the principles of the
bourgeois capitalist system that existed in the country, namely snobbery, class
privilege, superiority of some over others, sexual exploitation, elevation of status,
competitiveness, and so on. Salinger did not explain these phenomena in the novel
and did not suggest a solution to those problems, but portrayed them so that the novel
became a mirror of what was happening in the country at the time of writing and
publication of the book. This was Salinger‘s goal to show America as such, because
the writer himself condemned the values that Americans had in the post-war era.
Regarding the translation of ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ made by Rita RaitKovaleva, it was written in the Soviet times when there was a tendency to align the
creative process of writers and translators with the ideology of the country and the
political situation. Although, American literature was not very readily accepted in the
Soviet Union, those works in which the capitalist system of American society was
shown in an unpleasant way were translated and distributed to the masses. In the
work of Rait-Kovaleva, the political ideology had a huge impact since there was a
strict censorship which did not enable the translator to use any slang expressions or
swear words which can be noticed in the original version of the novel. Moreover, as
far as the socio-cultural context is concerned, in the Soviet times translated works
were considered as meaningful as independent original literary works. Therefore, the
translation works and the translators themselves were valued and revered. Therefore,
it was not acceptable to make the translated work full of obscenities and informal
utterances. Consequently, the Soviet translator eliminated all of them from her work.
Furthermore, Rita Rait-Kovaleva's translation was also influenced by her own
inner censorship which definitely arose from the influence of the Soviet ideology.
However, her self-censorship is also determined by the fact that she was very
intelligent and educated, was familiar with many classic exemplary works and their
authors. This aspect of Rait-Kovaleva's personal features led to her translation
143
becoming stylistically more elevated than the original novel because she could not
afford to use rude words in her work. This is also due to the fact that she focused her
translation on the Soviet society and made it in such a way that it was easy for Soviet
people to comprehend. Therefore, the translator removed all American realities and
replaced them with the Soviet ones which were much clearer for the targeted
audience.
As for the translation of Maxim Nemtsov made in the postmodern epoch of
the early 21st century, his work turned out to be much lower stylistically compared to
Salinger‘s original novel. One of the reasons for this translation decision is the
absence of any political and ideological restrictions in the postmodern Russia where
different works by various authors and translators were produced. In comparison with
the Soviet Union, in the early 2000s, translations were no longer valued as much as it
was previously accepted and they could be proposed by everyone since many
publishing houses appeared and the work of the translator was not so unique and elite
anymore. In addition, the postmodernism is also characterized by the desire to reject
and neglect all established norms and rules. Such a socio-cultural peculiarity was
reflected in the translation of Nemtsov since he used a large number of deviations
from the norms of the Russian language and applied the words that were not
particularly characteristic of the modern Russian language.
Moreover, Maxim Nemtsov was a member of various youth movements and
subcultures, knew youth slang and the realities of teenagers in the early 2000s. In his
translation, this allowed him to use expressions that were similar to those of Salinger.
In addition, he did not have a goal to adapt the novel to the audience; on the contrary,
his translation was aimed at showing the plot of the novel as it was illustrated by the
American writer. Consequently, Maxim Nemtsov left all the American realities in his
work and used a lot of swear words and slang expressions there. However, the
Russian translator added an abundant number of such jargon utterances and
colloquialisms, and the main character in his translation turned out to be fairly
distorted.
144
Eventually, having analyzed Salinger‘s novel and its two translations into the
Russian language, it can be concluded that the existence of several translations of this
book in the Russian culture is explained by two main reasons, such as the sociocultural context of different times and the personal characteristics of each of the
translators. As for the social, cultural, and historical aspects in translation, it should
be pointed out that the translation process directly intersects with the humanities and
social sciences; therefore, the analysis of translation cannot be made without
considering the cultural and social context in which the translation was made.
Moreover, every translator creates his or her work based on the ideological attitudes
of their time. Some translators submit to the philosophy and worldview of the country
in which they work, while others, on the contrary, try to move away from it and act
against. In other words, political and economic aspects of society‘s life and ideology
affect directly the translator‘s activity. Considering the individual characteristics of
the authors, each writer and translator has a unique background and biography which
form certain standpoints and worldview and influence the goals when writing a
translation and the choice of translation techniques.
Thus, the outcomes of the study confirm the proposed hypothesis and the
multiplicity of literary translations of Salinger‘s novel in the Russian culture is indeed
substantiated by the socio-cultural aspects of the eras and the personal characteristics
of the translators.
The findings of this paper will be of interest for researchers in the field of
translation studies and cross-cultural communication since the emphasis on the
cultural aspects was highlighted during the investigation of all the three literary
works under consideration. Furthermore, due to research limitations and specific
purposes related to this paper, the new version of the translation was not offered in
the present study. Therefore, future translators can use the results of this study in
order to compose their own translation of ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ and make it
closer to the original version taking into account all the inconsistencies identified in
previous translations and described in this study.
145
References
Alekseev, M. P. (1931). Principy hudozhestvennogo perevoda [Principles of Literary
Translation]. Irkutsk.
Alekseeva, I. S. (2004). Vvedenie v perevodovedenie [Introduction to Translation
Studies.]. Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii fakultet SPbGU / Moscow:
Izdatelskii centr ―Akademiia‖.
Alexander, P. (2013). Salinger: a biography. Renaissance Books.
Alexander, R. (2018). Homosexuality in the USSR (1956-82). Doctoral dissertation.
Azicri, M. (2008). Soviet-Cuban Relations, 1985 to 1991: Changing Perceptions in
Moscow and Havana. Cuban Studies, 39(1), 126-131.
Babintseva, N. (2002, February 21). ―Lavka yazykov‖ protiv yarmarki tshcheslaviya
[―Speaking In Tongues‖ Against the Vanity Fair]. ExLibris. Retrieved from
https://www.ng.ru/fakty/2002-02-21/1_nemcov.html.
Baker, M. (Ed.). (1997). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (1st ed.).
Routledge.
Baker, M., & Saldanha, G. (Eds.). (2009). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Bassnett, S., & Lefevere, A. (1992). General editors‘ preface. Translation, Rewriting
& Manipulation of Literary Fame.
Bazylev, V. N. (2012). Theory of Translation. Moskva: Flinta.
Bensimon, P. (1990). Présentation, Palimpsestes 4 (1): 9-13.
Berman, A. (1990). La retraduction comme espace de la traduction. Palimpsestes.
Revue de traduction, (4), 1-7.
Bol’shaya russkaya biograficheskaya entsiklopediya [Great Russian Biographic
Encyclopedia]. (2007). Moscow: Biznessoft.
Borisenko, A. L. (2009). Selindzher nachinaet i vyigryvaet [Salinger starts and wins].
Inostrannaya literatura, (7), 223-233.
Borowski, A. (2017). Totalitarianism in sociological research. World Scientific News,
67(2), 80-101.
146
Botova, U. A. (2021). Istoriya seksual'nogo prosveshcheniya v Rossii XX-XXI vekov
i zarozhdenie nauki pedologii [The history of sexual education in Russia of
the XX-XXI centuries and the birth of the science of pedology]. Teoriya i
praktika sovremennoj pedagogiki.
Brajnović, M. (2018). English Loanwords in Two Russian Translations of JD
Salinger's Novel The Catcher in the Rye: the Connection between Language
Borrowing and Ideology in Translation (Doctoral dissertation, University of
Zagreb. University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences.
Department of East Slavic languages and literatures.).
Chafe, W. H., & Chafe, W. H. (2003). The Unfinished Journey: America Since World
War II. Oxford University Press, USA.
Chevrel, Y. (2010). Introduction: la retraduction–und kein Ende. La retraduction, 1120.
Chukovsky, K. I. (2011). Vysokoe iskusstvo [High art]. Azbuka.
Cohn, E. D. (2009). Sex and the Married Communist: Family Troubles, Marital
Infidelity, and Party Discipline in the Postwar USSR, 1945–64. The Russian
Review, 68(3), 429-450.
Coontz, S. (2016). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap.
Hachette UK.
Crawford, C. (Ed.). (2006). If You Really Want to Hear About It: Writers on JD
Salinger and His Work. Thunder's mouth Press.
Dalton-Brown, S. (1997). Ludic nonchalance or ludicrous despair? Viktor Pelevin
and Russian postmodernist prose. The Slavonic and East European Review,
75 (2), 216-233.
Desai, P. (2014). Perestroika in Perspective: The Design and Dilemmas of Soviet
Reform-Updated Edition. Princeton University Press.
Dobson, M. (2011). The post-Stalin era: de-Stalinization, daily life, and dissent.
Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 12(4), 905-924.
147
Ekologiya literatury. Rita Rajt-Kovaleva [The Ecology of the Literature. Rita RaitKovaleva]. (2008, April 19). [Documentary Film]. Retrieved 10 March, 2021,
from https://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/movie/ros/95168/annot/s11347/.
Ermolaev, H. (1997). Censorship in Soviet Literature 1917-1991. Maryland, USA:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Fedorov, A. V. (2002). Osnovy obshhei teorii perevoda (lingvisticheskie problemy):
dlya institutov i fakultetov inostr. yazykov. Ucheb. posobie. — 5-e izd.
[Fundamentals of the General Theory of Translation (Linguistic Problems):
For Institutes and Faculties of Foreign Languages. Textbook. – 5th. ed]. St.
Petersburg: Philological Faculty of St. Petersburg State University.
Galinskaya, I. L. (2017). Sud'ba romana Dzh. D. Selindzhera ―Lovec vo rzhi‖.
Lingvostilisticheskij analiz romana ―Lovec vo rzhi‖ [The fate of J. D.
Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖. Linguo-stylistic analysis of the
novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖]. Vestnik kul'turologii, (2 (81)).
Gambier, Y. (1994). La retraduction, retour et détour. Meta, 39(3), 413-417.
Garbovsky, N. K. (2004). Teoriya perevoda [Theory of Translation]. M.: MGU.
Gomel, E. (2013). Viktor Pelevin and Literary Postmodernism in Post-Soviet Russia.
Narrative,
21(3),
309-321.
Retrieved
from
http://www.jstor.org.proxylibrary.hse.ru/stable/24615399.
Graham, S. (2007). JD Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye: A Routledge Study Guide.
Routledge.
Granofsky, R. (1995). The Trauma Novel: Contemporary Symbolic Depictions of
Collective Disaster (Vol. 55). Peter Lang Pub Incorporated.
Gudkov, L. D., Dubin, B. V., & Zorkaya, N. A. (2011). Molodezh' Rocsii [Youth of
Russia]. M.: Moskovskaya shkola politicheskih issledovanij.
Hamilton, I. (2010). In search of JD Salinger. Faber & Faber.
Hayden, T. (1989). Reunion: A memoir. Crowell-Collier Press.
Healey, D. (2001). Homosexual desire in revolutionary Russia: The regulation of
sexual and gender dissent. University of Chicago Press.
148
Imyarekov, S. M., Kevbrina, O. B., & Imyarekov, V. S. (2017). Vneshnyaya i
vnutrennyaya politika Rossii v nachale HKHI veka [Foreign and domestic
policy of Russia at the beginning of the XXI century].
Isaeva, S. M., & Dobryakova, M. V. (2019). K voprosu o perevodnoj
mnozhestvennosti proizvedenij anglijskoj pisatel'nicy D. Ostin [On the Issue
of Translation Plurarity of Jane Austen‘s Works]. Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo
universiteta im. NI Lobachevskogo, (4).
Italie, H. (2010, January 28). 'Catcher in the Rye' Author J.D. Salinger Dies. ABC
News.
Ivanova, N. S. (2007). Molodezhnyj zhargon v lingvokul'turologicheskom
osveshchenii [Youth Jargon in Linguoculturological Coverage]. Doctoral
dissertation.
Johnson, D. K. (2009). The lavender scare: The Cold War persecution of gays and
lesbians in the federal government. University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, R. (2013). If Holden Caulfield spoke Russian. The New Yorker, 11.
Jones, M. A. (1983). The Limits of Liberty: American History, 1607-1980. Oxford
[Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press.
Kachan, L. (2012). Eyo velichestvo perevodchik! Rita Rajt [Her Majesty the
Translator!
Rita
Rait].
Proza.ru.
Retrieved
from
https://proza.ru/2012/02/29/434.
Kamarova, E. (2020). Multiplicity of Literary Translation Theory. Moscow: HSE
University. Unpublished Article.
Kamarova, E. (2021). Multiplicity of Literary Translation: Two Translations of ―The
Catcher in the Rye‖ by J.D. Salinger. Moscow: HSE University. Project
Proposal. Unpublished Article.
Katz, M. R. (2012). The Fiery Furnace of Doubt. Southwest Review, 97(4), 536-545.
Klaudy, K. (2010). Specification and generalisation of meaning in translation.
Meaning in translation, 19, 81-103.
Kochetkov, I., & Kirichenko, K. (2009). Polozhenie lesbiyanok, geev, biseksualov,
transgenderov v Rossijskoj Federacii [The Situation of lesbians, gays,
149
bisexuals, and transgender People in the Russian Federation] / Otv. red.
Kostenko N. M.: Moskovskaya Hel'sinkskaya gruppa.
Koskinen, K., & Paloposki, O. (2003). Retranslations in the Age of Digital
Reproduction. Cadernos de tradução, 1(11), 19-38.
Kozlenkov, V. A. (2011). Reklamno-agitacionnye strategii Vladimira Mayakovskogo
na rubezhe 1910-h 20-h godov: «Okna rosta» [Advertising and propaganda
strategies of Vladimir Mayakovsky at the turn of the 1910s-20s: ―Windows of
Rosta‖]. Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 17(1).
Kremenyuk, V. A. (2015). Uroki holodnoj vojny [Lessons from the Cold War].
Rossiya i Amerika v XXI veke, (2).
Krystal, H. (1995). Trauma and aging: A thirty-year follow-up. Trauma:
Explorations in memory, 76-99.
Kuchmenko, M. A. (2013). Postmodernizm v sovremennom literaturnom
prostranstve [Postmodernism in the Modern Literary Space]. Vestnik
Adygejskogo
gosudarstvennogo
universiteta.
Seriya
2:
Filologiya
i
iskusstvovedenie, (2 (121)).
Kujamäki, P. (1998). Deutsche Stimmen der Sieben Brüder: Ideologie, Poetik und
Funktionen literarischer Übersetzung. Lang.
Kujamäki, P. (2001). Finnish comet in German skies: Translation, retranslation and
norms. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies, 13(1), 45-70.
Kulakov, V. G. (1999). Poeziya kak fakt [Poetry as a fact]. Moskva.
Kulmanov, A. (2018, August 22). How the Soviet censorship worked. Varlamov.ru.
Retrieved from https://varlamov.ru/3059992.html
Kustova, L. S. (1964). Roman Dzh. D. Selindzhera Nad propast'yu vo rzhi i ego
perevod na russkij yazyk [The Novel of J. D. Salinger ―The the Catcher in the
Rye‖ and its translation into Russian]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta.
Filologiya, (1), 68-81.
Lawlor, W. (Ed.). (2005). Beat culture: lifestyles, icons, and impact. ABC-CLIO.
150
Levin, Y. D. (1981). K voprosu o perevodnoj mnozhestvennosti [On the Issue of
Translation Multiplicity]. Klassicheskoe nasledie i sovremennost'. L.: Nauka,
365-372.
Levin, Y. D. (1982). Perevod kak forma bytovaniya literaturnogo proizvedeniya
[Translation as a Form of Literature‘s Existence]. Hudozhestvennyj perevod.
Voprosy teorii i praktiki. Erevan: Nauka, 30-48.
Levin, Y. D. (1992). Problema perevodnoj mnozhestvennosti [The Problem of
Translation Multiplicity]. Literatura i perevod: problemy teorii. M.: Progress,
213-223.
Levitin, M. (1992). Bajka pro Ritu Rajt [The story about Rita Rait]. Ogonek, (3), 24.
Lotovsky, Y. (2010). Ot perevodchika [From the translator]. Sem' iskusstv, 2(3).
Lutz, N. J. (2001). Biography of J.D. Salinger. Bloom's BioCritiques: J. D. Salinger,
Philadelphia: Chelsea House.
Lysenkova, E. L. (2007). Poeziya i proza R.M. Ril'ke v russkih perevodah :
istoricheskie, stilistiko-sopostavitel'nye i perevodovedcheskie aspekty :
dissertaciya ... doktora filologicheskih nauk : 10.02.20 [Poetry and Prose by
R. M. Rilke in Russian Translations: Historical, Stylistic-Comparative, and
Translation Studies Aspects: Dissertation ... of the Doctor of Philological
Sciences: 10.02.20]. Magadan.
Makarova,
L.
S.
(2006).
Kommunikativno-pragmaticheskie
aspekty
hudozhestvennogo perevoda [Communicative and Pragmatic Aspects of
Literary Translation]. M.: MGLU, 19.
Maks Nemcov: V mire, gde pravyat simulyakry, lyubaya zvonkaya formulirovka
sgoditsya [Max Nemtsov: In the World Where Simulacra Rules, Any Ringing
Phrase Will Do]. (2018, July 20). Prima-Madia. ru. Retrieved from
https://primamedia.ru/news/713902/.
Malyshkina, E. A. (2008). Stanovlenie i razvitie imperii MCDONALDS [Formation
and Development of the McDonalds Empire]. Social'no-ekonomicheskie
yavleniya i processy, (4).
151
Mamedov, A. (n. d.) Perevodchik i ne dolzhen ―obsluzhivat'‖ chitatelya. Interv'yu s
Maksimom Nemcovym [The Translator Should Not ―Serve‖ the Reader.
Interview
with
Maxim
Nemtsov].
Retrieved
from
https://www.labirint.ru/now/mamedov-intervyu-s-maksimom-nemtsovym/.
Markstein, E. (1996). Postmodernistskaya koncepciya perevoda (s voprositel'nym
znakom ili bez nego) [The Postmodern Concept of Translation (With or
Without a Question Mark)]. Inostrannaya literatura, (9), 34-35.
May, L. (Ed.). (1989). Recasting America: culture and politics in the age of cold war.
University of Chicago Press.
Memoriya. Rita Rajt-Kovaleva [Memoria. Rita Rait-Kovaleva]. (2019, April 19). In
Polit.ru.
Retrieved
March
11,
2021,
from
https://polit.ru/news/2019/04/19/m_rait/.
Michajlova, I., & Rubtsova, S. (2019). Translation Multiplicity and Retranslation
Hypothesis Revisited: ‗Fathers and Sons‘ in Dutch (Translations of 18701919). Scandinavian Philology, 17 (1), 160-177.
Moehkardi, R. R. D. (2016). Patterns and meanings of English words through word
formation processes of acronyms, clipping, compound and blending found in
Internet-based media. Humaniora, 28(3), 324-338.
Oittinen, R. (2002). Translating for children (Vol. 2150). Routledge.
Paloposki, O., & Koskinen, K. (2004). A thousand and one translations: Revisiting
retranslation. Benjamins Translation Library, 50, 27-38.
Paloposki, O., & Koskinen, K. (2010). Retranslation. John Benjamins. Handbook of
Translation Studies, 294-298.
Pérez-Stable, M. (2011). The United States and Cuba: Intimate Enemies. Routledge.
Petrenko, D. I. (2007). K voprosu o perevodah na russkim yazyk romana Dzh. D.
Selindzhera «The Catcher in The Rye» [On the question of translations into
Russian of J. D. Salinger's novel ―The Catcher in The Rye‖]. Nauka.
Innovacii. Tekhnologii, (48).
152
Petrenko, D. I., & Stein, K. E. (2009). Roman Dzh. D. Selindzhera" Nad propast'yu
vo rzhi" i ego perevody na russkij yazyk [J. D. Salinger's novel "The Catcher
in the Rye" and its translations into Russian]. Monografiya. Stavropol': SGU.
Poucke, P. V., & Gallego, G. S. (2019). Retranslation in context. Cadernos de
Tradução, 39(1), 10-22.
Pym, A. (2014). Method in translation history. Routledge.
Rait-Kovaleva, R. Y. (1966). Hleb i bessmertie [Bread and Immortality]. Uchenye
zapiski Tartuskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 9, 266-270.
Reid, S. E. (1997). Destalinization and taste, 1953–1963. Journal of Design History,
10(2), 177-201.
Rosen, G. (1977). A Retrospective Look at the Catcher in the Rye. American
Quarterly, 29(5), 547-562.
Rossijsko-amerikanskie otnosheniya v 1992-1996 godah. Spravka. [RussianAmerican Relations in 1992-1996. Reference.] (2011, April 4). RIA Novosti.
Rozhkov, S. M. (2019). Formirovanie sistemy organov kontrolya za pechat'yu v
Sovetskoj Rossii [Formation of the system of control bodies over the press in
Soviet Russia]. Aktual'nye problemy gumanitarnyh nauk.
Rudnitskaya, N. N. (2013). Perevod kak ob"ekt vozdejstviya politicheskoj ideologii
[Translation as an object of influence of political ideology]. Baltijskij
gumanitarnyj zhurnal, (1).
Russian racism 'out of control'. (2006, May 4). BBC News.
Russkij yazyk konca XX stoletiya [Russian language of the end of the XX century].
(2000). Kollektivnaya monografiya. Moskva: Yazyki slavyanskoj kul'tury.
Salinger, J. D. (2016a). Nad propast'yu vo rzhi: kniga na anglijskom yazyke [The
Catcher in The Rye: English Book]. - Sankt-Peterburg: Antologiya: KARO.
Salinger, J. D. (2016b). Lovec na hlebnom pole / J. D. Selindzher; [per. s angl. M.
Nemcova] [The Catcher in the Bread Field / J. D. Salinger; translation of
Maxim Nemtsov]. - Moskva: Izdatel'stvo «E».
153
Salinger, J. D. (2018). Nad propast'yu vo rzhi / J. D. Selindzher; [per. s angl. R. Y.
Rajt-Kovalevoj] [Over the Abyss in the Rye / J. D. Salinger; translation of
Rita Rait-Kovaleva]. - Moskva: Izdatel'stvo «E».
Salinger, M. A. (2013). Dream catcher: A memoir. Simon and Schuster.
Savruckaja, E. P., & Zhigalev, B. A. (2014). Dinamika cennostnyh orientacij
molodezhi (2006-2014 gg.) [Dynamics of Youth Value Orientations (20062014)]. Monografija.
Sergeeva, A. (2000). Dlya shpany nikto ne pishet, potomu chto ona nichego ne
chitaet [Nobody Writes For Punks, Because They Do Not Read Anything].
Okeanskij
Prospekt.
Retrieved
from
https://vladivostok.com/speaking_in_tongues/dvr-again.htm.
Shelestiuk, E. V. (2013). Lingvokul'turnyj perenos kak psiholingvisticheskaya osnova
perevodcheskoj adaptacii [Linguocultural Transfer as a Psycholinguistic Basis
for Translation Adaptation]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo
universiteta, (24 (315)), 37-47.
Sherstneva,
E.
S.
(2008).
Perevodnaya
mnozhestvennost'
kak
kategoriya
perevodovedeniya: istoriya, status, tendencii [The Translation Multiplicity as
a Category of the Translation Studies: the History, Status, and Trends].
Izvestiya Rossijskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im.
AI Gercena, (73-1).
Shor, V. E. (1963). Opyt mnogoobraznogo resheniya odnoj perevodcheskoj zadachi
[Experience of Multiple Solutions to One Translation Problem]. Masterstvo
perevoda. Sbornik statej.-M.: Sovetskij pisatel', 447-486.
Slawenski, K. (2011). JD Salinger: a life. Random House.
Stanislavsky, A. R. (2016). Rasshiryaya nauchnye gorizonty: povtornyj perevod vs.
perevodnaya mnozhestvennost' [Expanding Scientific Horizons: Retranslation
vs. Translation Plurality]. Gumanitarnye nauchnye issledovaniya, (1), 47-52.
Stilisticheskij enciklopedicheskij slovar' russkogo yazyka / Pod red. d-ra. fil. nauk
prof. M.N. Kozhinoj [Stylistic Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian
154
Language / Edited by Prof. M. N. Kozhina, Doctor of Philology]. (2002).
Moskva.
Susam-Sarajeva, Ş. (2006). Theories on the move: Translation's role in the travels of
literary theories. Rodopi, (27).
Tchaikovsky, R. R., & Lysenkova, E. L. (2001). ‗Neischerpaemost‘ originala. 100
perevodov ―Pantery‖ R.M. Rilke na 15 iazykov‘ [Translation Inexhaustibility.
100 Translations of R.M. Rilke‘s ―The Panther‖ into 15 Languages].
Magadan: Kordis.
Tchaikovsky, R.R. (2008). Osnovy khudozhestvennogo perevoda: vvodnaya chast‘:
ucheb. posobie [Basic Principles of Literary Translation: Introduction:
Textbook]. Magadan: Izd. SVGU, 139-159.
Tindall, G.B., & Shi D.E. (1996). America: A Narrative History, 4th edn, New York:
Norton, 1996, p. 1238-1341.
Toper, P. M. (2000). Perevod v sisteme sravnitel'nogo literaturovedeniya
[Translation within the System of Comparative Literature Studies]. Nasledie.
Toporov, V. (2008, November 17). ―Biut chasy, iadrena mat!‖. Chastnyi
Korrespondent.
Retrieved
from
http://www.chaskor.ru/article/byut_chasy_yadrena_mat_1121
Turner, C. F., Danella, R. D., & Rogers, S. M. (1995). Sexual behavior in the United
States, 1930–1990. Sexually transmitted diseases, 22(3), 173-190.
Tymoczko, M. (1999). Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St.
Jerome.
Valuitseva, I. I. (2009). Povtornyj perevod sakral'nogo teksta: «vozvrashchenie» ili
«obnovlenie»? [The Retranslation of the Sacred Text: Return or
Modernization?] Vestnik MGIMO Universiteta, (6).
Van den Bercken, W. (2019). Ideology and atheism in the Soviet Union (Vol. 28).
Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Vedder, R. (2019, Apr 22). Does Attending Elite Colleges Make You Happy?
Lessons From The Admissions Scandal. Forbes.
155
Verkhoturov, D. (2006). The Economic Revolution of Stalin [Ekonomicheskaya
revolyuciya Stalina]. OLMA Media Group.
Vmesto polovogo vospitaniya — polovoj razvrat. Pochemu v Rossii net seksual'nogo
prosveshcheniya v shkolah. Reportazh «Meduzy» [Instead of Sex Education
— Sexual Debauchery. Why There is No Sexual Education in Schools in
Russia. Report of ―Medusa‖]. (2017, September 1). Meduza.
Vonnegut, K. (2009). Priglasim Ritu Rajt v Ameriku!/Perevod s angl. I.A Kukushkin
[Let's invite Rita Rait to America!/Translated from English by I.A.
Kukushkin]. ZHurnal «Samizdat». Personal'naya stranica AI Kukushkina.
http://zhurnal. lib. ru/k/kukushkin_i_a/rita_raitdo c. shtml.
Vorrath, H. H., & Brendtro, L. K. (1985). Positive peer culture. Transaction
Publishers.
Westhoff, G. J. (2004). The art of playing a pinball machine. Characteristics of
effective SLA-tasks. Babylonia, 12(3), 58-62.
Whitfield, S. J. (1997). Cherished and cursed: Toward a social history of The Catcher
in the Rye. The New England Quarterly, 70(4), 567-600.
Whyte, W. H. (2013). The organization man. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Yahya, W. R. W., & Babaee, R. (2014). Salinger's depiction of trauma in The Catcher
in the Rye. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(9).
Yubilejnyj vecher i laureaty 2012 goda [Jubilee Evening and Winners of 2012]. (n.
d.).
Memorial'nyj
sajt
Nory
Gal'.
http://vavilon.ru/noragal/noragalprize2012-2704.html.
Retrieved
from
156
Appendices
The present research has explored the differences among the three texts which
are J. D. Salinger‘s novel ―The Catcher in the Rye‖ and its two translations into the
Russian language made by Rita Rait-Kovaleva and Maxim Nemtsov. As part of the
comparative analysis of these works, the discrepancies and their analysis were
specified. However, in the paper, only selected quotations from books were presented
which were considered the most representative and relevant ones. Nevertheless, the
full set of these differences identified between the three works is presented further in
this part comprising two tables. Table 1 reflects the differences in the texts which
have occurred due to the individual characteristics of each of the authors, their
personal preference and choice of language units at various levels of the language.
Table 2 incorporates the discrepancies caused by the peculiarities of the sociocultural contexts of the three epochs when the books under consideration were
published.
Table 1. Differences Caused by the Individual Peculiarities of the Authors
J. D. Salinger
The Catcher in the Rye
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
Над пропастью во ржи
really (p. 3)
lousy childhood (p. 3)
на самом деле (p. 5)
дурацкое детство (p. 5)
my parents (p. 3)
and all (p. 3)
before they [parents] had
me (p. 3)
crap (p. 3)
мои родители (p. 5)
- (p. 5)
до моего рождения (p.
5)
муть / несусветная
чушь (p. 5)
словом (p. 5)
по правде говоря (p. 5)
and all that (p. 3)
if you want to know the
truth (p. 3)
I don‘t feel like going into
it (p. 3)
that staff bores me (p. 3)
мне неохота в этом
копаться / я не люблю
(p. 5)
скучно (p. 5)
Maxim Nemtsov
Ловец на хлебном
поле
охота (p. 5)
погань творилась в
детстве (p. 5)
предки (p. 5)
и всяко-разно (p. 5)
пока не заимели меня
(p. 5)
херня (p. 5)
да прочую (p. 5)
сказать вам правду /
если по-честному (p. 5)
только не в жилу мне
про все это трындеть (p.
5)
достало (p. 5)
157
my parents would have
about two hemorrhages
apiece (p. 3)
told (p. 3)
my father (p. 3)
they‘re nice and all (p. 3)
they are touchy as hell (p.
3)
madman stuff (p. 3)
got pretty run-down (p. 3)
had to come out here and
take it easy (p. 3)
brother (p. 3)
crumby place (p. 3)
one of those little English
jobs (p. 3)
It cost him damn near four
thousand bucks.
dough (p. 3-4)
terrific book (p. 4)
―The Secret Goldfish‖ (p.
4)
little kid (p. 4)
It killed me. (p. 4)
being a prostitute (p. 4)
Don‘t even mention them
to me (p. 4)
I left Pencey Prep. (p. 4)
school (p. 4)
You‘ve probably seen the
ads, anyway. (p. 4)
some hot-shot guy (p. 4)
у моих предков,
наверно, случилось бы
по два инфаркта на
брата (p. 5)
болтать (p. 5)
отец (p. 5)
вообще-то они люди
славные (p. 5)
обидчивые до чертиков
(p. 5)
сумасшедшая история
(p. 5)
чуть не отдал концы (p.
5)
меня отправили сюда
отдыхать и лечиться (p.
5)
родной брат (p. 5)
треклятый санаторий (p.
5)
английская штучка (p.
5)
Выложил за нее чуть ли
не четыре тысячи
деньги (p. 6)
мировая книжка (p. 6)
«Спрятанная рыбка» (p.
6)
мальчишка (p. 6)
С ума сойти, какой
рассказ! (p. 6)
совсем скурвился (p. 6)
Терпеть не могу. (p. 6)
предков бы по две
кондрашки хватило (p.
5)
излагать (p. 6)
штрик (p. 6)
не, они нормальные
всяко-разно (p. 6)
чувствительные, как не
знаю что (p. 6)
безумное (p. 6)
меня шарахнуло (p. 6)
пришлось отвалить
сюда расслабляться (p.
6)
брательник (p. 6)
свояси (p. 6)
английская хрень такая
(p. 6)
Выкатил за него аж
четыре штуки
гроши (p. 6)
уматная книжка (p. 6)
«Тайная золотая рыбка»
(p. 6)
пацан (p. 6)
Я чуть не сдох. (p. 6)
собой торгует (p. 6)
вы мне лучше и не
заикайтесь (p. 6)
Я ушел из Пэнси. (p. 6) Свалил из
подготовишки Пенси (p.
7)
закрытая средняя школа школа (p. 7)
(p. 6)
Рекламу вы, во всяком
Ну, рекламу точняк
случае, видели. (p. 6)
видали. (p. 7)
этакий хлюст (p. 6)
какой-нибудь ферт (p.
7)
158
вообще не видал (p. 7)
splendid, clear-thinking (p.
4)
strictly for the birds (p. 4)
Maybe two guys. If that
many. (p. 4)
ни разу в глаза не видал
(p. 6)
смелые и благородные
(p. 6)
Вот уж липа! (p. 6)
...один-два - и обчелся.
(p. 6)
Anyway, (p. 4)
Словом, (p. 6)
Короче, / В общем, /
Ладно, (p. 7)
кипиш (p. 7)
never even once saw (p. 4)
важней всего на свете
(p. 6)
You were supposed to
Если бы наша школа
commit suicide or
проиграла, нам всем
something if old Pencey
полагалось чуть ли не
didn‘t win (p. 4)
перевешаться с горя. (p.
6-7)
the two teams bashing each обе команды гоняют
other all over the place (p. друг дружку из конца в
5)
конец (p. 7)
you could hear them all
на нашей стороне орали
yelling, deep and terrific on во всю глотку (p. 7)
the Pencey side (p. 5)
scrawny and faggy (p. 5)
вякали (p. 7)
It was a terrible school, no Гнусная школа, ничего
matter how you looked at
не скажешь. (p. 7)
it. (p. 5)
I like to (p. 5)
я люблю (p. 7)
blowing their noses (p. 5)
носы вытирают (p. 7)
she wasn‘t exactly the type не такая это девчонка,
that drove you mad with
чтоб по ней с ума
desire (p. 5)
сходить (p. 7)
She was a pretty nice girl,
Хотя в общем она
though. (p. 5)
ничего. (p. 7)
we sort of struck up a
разговорились (p. 7)
conversation (p. 5)
she had a big nose (p. 5)
нос у нее длинный (p. 7)
a very big deal (p. 4)
she didn‘t give you a lot of
horse manure (p. 5)
a great guy her father was
(p. 5)
она тебе не вкручивала
(p. 7)
какой у нее
замечательный папаша
(p. 7)
великолепные
здравомыслящие (p. 7)
Это для лохов. (p. 7)
Ну, может парочку. И
то много. (p. 7)
Если Пенси не
выиграет, прям хоть в
петлю. (p. 7)
обе команды по всему
полю месятся (p. 7)
со стороны Пенси
зашибись хай стоит (p.
7)
сопливо и хило (p. 7)
В общем, жуткая
школа, как ни
посмотри. (p. 8)
мне-то в жиляк (p. 8)
сморкаются (p. 8)
по таким, как она,
сохнуть как-то не очень
(p. 8)
Но ничего девка,
путѐвая. (p. 8)
чуток потрепались (p. 8)
шнобель у нее дай боже
(p. 8)
она не лепит тебе
всякий навоз (p. 8)
какой у нее штрик
четкий (p. 8)
159
a phony snob (p. 5)
трепло несусветное (p.
7)
Я капитан этой
вонючей команды. (p.
7)
важная шишка (p. 7)
петрушка (p. 8)
Он знал, что я не
вернусь. (p. 8)
дутый халдей (p. 8)
Я, на фиг, заведовал
фехтовальной
командой. (p. 8)
very big deal (p. 5)
не хрен собачий (p. 8)
staff (p. 6)
прочее (p. 8)
He knew I wasn‘t coming
Знал, что в Пенси я
back to Pencey. (p. 6)
больше не вернусь. (p.
9)
I forgot to tell you about
Да, забыл сказать - меня Про это я забыл сказать.
that. They kicked me out.
вытурили из школы. (p. Меня вышибли. (p. 9)
(p. 6)
8)
They gave me frequent
Меня сто раз
Меня неоднократно
warning to start applying
предупреждали предупреждали, чтоб я
myself. (p. 6)
старайся, учись. (p. 8)
взялся за ум. (p. 9)
my parents (p. 6)
мои родители (p. 8)
предки (p. 9)
It has a very good academic У них очень высокая
Там очень хорошая
rating, Pencey. It really
академическая
академическая
does. (p. 6)
успеваемость, серьезно, успеваемость. Куда
очень высокая. (p. 8)
деваться. (p. 9)
it was cold (p. 6)
холодно (p. 8)
колотун (p. 9)
stupid hill (p. 6)
треклятая горка (p. 8)
дурацкий холм (p. 9)
no gloves or anything (p. 6) ни перчаток, ни черта
ни перчаток, ничего (p.
(p. 8)
9)
Pencey was full of crooks. В этой школе полно
В Пенси жуликов пруд
(p. 6)
жулья. (p. 8)
пруди. (p. 9-10)
I‘m not kidding. (p. 7)
- (p. 8)
точно вам говорю (p.
10)
crazy cannon (p. 7)
дурацкая пушка (p. 8)
долбанутая пушка (p.
10)
freezing my ass off (p. 7)
чуть зад не отморозил
жопа подмерзает (p. 10)
(p. 8-9)
I was hanging around (p. 7) валандался (p. 9)
стоял (p. 10)
I was trying to feel some
Хотелось
Я, с понтом, хотел
kind of a good-by. (p. 7)
почувствовать, что я с
попрощаться. (p. 10)
этой школой прощаюсь
(p. 9)
I didn‘t even know I was
никогда не думаю ни
даже не дорубал,
leaving them (p. 7)
про какое прощание (p. сваливаю или нет (p. 10)
9)
I don‘t care if it‘s a sad
Я не задумываюсь,
Да наплевать, сопли там
good-by or a bad goodby
грустно ли мне уезжать, на прощанье или вопли
(p. 7)
неприятно ли. (p. 9)
(p. 10)
I was the goddam manager
of the fencing team (p. 5)
160
when I leave a place I like
to know I‘m leaving it (p.
7)
I was getting the hell out
(p. 7)
nice guys (p. 7)
told us to go back to the
dorm (p. 7)
that kind of staff (p. 7)
started running down (p. 7)
old Spencer (p. 7)
till I got my breath (p. 7)
I have no wind (p. 7)
They made me cut it out.
(p. 8)
got t.b. (p. 8)
came out here for all these
goddam checkups and stuff
(p. 8)
icy as hell (p. 8)
I don‘t even know (p. 8)
a crazy afternoon (p. 8)
terrifically cold (p. 8)
когда я расстаюсь с
каким-нибудь местом,
мне надо
почувствовать, что я с
ним действительно
расстаюсь (p. 9)
Я отсюда уезжаю
навсегда (p. 9)
славные ребята (p. 9)
велел идти в
общежитие (p. 9)
такую штуку (p. 9)
побежал вниз (p. 9)
старик Спенсер (p. 9)
пока не отдышался (p.
9)
у меня дыхание
короткое (p. 9)
Тут, в санатории,
заставили бросить. (p.
9)
заболел туберкулезом
(p. 10)
попал сюда на проверку
и на это дурацкое
лечение (p. 10)
обледенела до черта (p.
10)
не знаю (p. 10)
сумасшедший день (p.
10)
жуткий холод (p. 10)
they didn‘t have too much
dough (p. 8)
Come in, dear! (p. 8)
Промерз я насквозь. (p.
10)
старушка Спенсер (p.
10)
денег у них в обрез (p.
10)
Входи, милый! (p. 10)
Are you frozen to death?
(p. 8)
Ты, наверно, закоченел
до смерти? (p. 10)
I was really frozen. (p. 8)
old Mrs Spencer (p. 8)
когда я сваливаю, мне
надо знать, что я
сваливаю (p. 10)
меня, на фиг, тут
больше нет (p. 10)
путѐвые парни (p. 10)
велел нам в общагу
двигать (p. 10)
такую хренотень (p. 10)
дернул вниз (p. 10)
этот Спенсер (p. 11)
дух перевести (p. 11)
дыхалка у меня слабая
(p. 11)
Заставили бросить. (p.
11)
ТБ подхватил (p. 11)
сюда приперся - все эти
анализы сдавать и
прочую херню (p. 11)
обледенела, как не знаю
что (p. 11)
фиг вообще знает (p. 11)
долбанутый день (p. 11)
неслабая холодрыга (p.
11)
Весь заледенел. (p. 11)
эта миссис Спенсер (p. )
грошей у них немного
(p. 12)
Заходи же, дорогой
мой! (p. 12)
Ты до смерти замерз?
(p. 12)
161
Boy, did I get in that house
fast. (p. 8)
How are you, Mrs Spencer?
(p. 8)
Я пулей влетел к ним в
дом. (p. 10)
Как вы поживаете,
миссис Спенсер? (p. 10)
she was sort of deaf (p. 8)
она была немножко
глуховата (p. 10)
я пригладил волосы
ладонью (p. 11)
I sort of brushed my hair
back with my hand (p. 8)
sort of (p. 8)
she‘d hear me (p. 8)
she closed the closet door
(p. 9)
go right in (p. 9)
get a bang out of (p. 9)
in a half-assed way (p. 9)
mean (p. 9)
what the heck he was still
living for (p. 9)
stooped over (p. 9)
he had very terrible posture
(p. 9)
he wasn‘t doing too bad for
himself (p. 9)
old as hell (p. 9)
looked over (p. 10)
Come in, boy. (p. 10)
there were pills and
medicine (p. 10)
I‘m not too crazy about
sick people (p. 10)
very sad (p. 10)
or something (p. 10)
old guys (p. 10)
- (p. 11)
чтобы она услыхала (p.
11)
она закрыла шкаф в
прихожей (p. 11)
иди прямо к нему (p.
11)
получать удовольствие /
быть в восторге (p. 12)
одной ногой стояли в
могиле (p. 12)
свинство (p. 12)
за каким чертом он еще
живет (p. 12)
сгорбленный (p. 12)
еле ходит (p. 12)
он вовсе не плохо
живет (p. 12)
человек (p. 12)
обернулся (p. 13)
Входи, мальчик, входи!
(p. 13)
везде стояли какие-то
пузырьки, пилюли (p.
13)
Я и вообще-то не
слишком люблю
больных. (p. 13)
ужасно жалкий (p. 13)
честное слово (p. 13)
старики (p. 13)
Ух как я рванул внутрь.
(p. 12)
Вы как, миссис
Спенсер? / Как у вас
дела, миссис Спенсер?
(p. 12)
она как бы глуховата(p.
12)
я, с понтом, волосы
пятерней себе
пригладил (p. 12)
с понтом (p. 12)
чтоб услышала (p. 12)
она закрыла дверцу
шкафа (p. 12)
ступай прямо к нему (p.
12)
зашибись (p. 13)
выходит как-то
несуразно (p. 13)
погано (p. 13)
за каким хреном он
вообще живет на свете
(p. 13)
скрюченный (p. 13)
осанки никакой (p. 13)
выходит, что ему, в
общем, в жилу (p. 13)
старичье (p. 13)
поднял голову (p. 13)
Заходи, мальчик мой.
(p. 14)
везде валяются пилюли
и лекарства (p. 14)
Мне больные вообще не
очень в струю. (p. 14)
убогий (p. 14)
или как-то (p. 14)
старичье (p. 14)
162
Hello, sir. (p. 10)
You didn‘t have to do all
that. (p. 10)
M‘boy, if I felt any better
I‘d have to send for the
doctor. (p. 10)
He started chuckling like a
madman. (p. 10-11)
Boy,... (p. 11)
get serious as hell (p. 11)
He started going into this
nodding routine. (p. 11)
nice old guy (p. 11)
didn‘t know his ass from
his elbow (p. 11)
quite a little chat (p. 11)
Life being a game (p. 11)
Здравствуйте, сэр! (p.
13)
Вы напрасно написали.
(p. 13)
Знаешь, мой мальчик,
если бы я себя
чувствовал лучше,
пришлось бы послать за
доктором. (p. 13)
Он стал хихикать как
сумасшедший. (p. 14)
Господи, ... (p. 14)
напустил на себя
страшную строгость (p.
14)
Тут он начал качать
головой. (p. 14)
старикашка (p. 14)
ни хрена не понимает
(p. 14)
долгий разговор (p. 14)
жизнь - это честная
игра (p. 14)
He was pretty nice about it. Он хорошо говорил. (p.
(p. 11)
14)
he didn‘t hit the ceiling or
ничего особенного он
anything (p. 11)
не сказал (p. 14)
kept talking (p. 11)
все насчет того же (p.
14)
Game, my ass. Some game. Тоже сравнили!
(p. 11)
Хорошая игра! (p. 14)
aren‘t any hot-shots (p. 11) мазилы (p. 15)
nothing (p. 12)
ни черта похожего (p.
15)
no game (p. 12)
никакой игры не
выйдет (p. 15)
Well... (p. 12)
Как сказать... (p. 15)
I shake my head quite a lot. Это у меня привычка
(p. 12)
такая. (p. 15)
I also say ―Boy!‖ quite a
Это тоже привычка lot. (p. 12)
говорить «Эх!» или «Ух
ты!» (p. 15)
Здрасьте, сэр. (p. 14)
Не надо было, чего вы?
(p. 14)
Мальчик мой, да будь
мне получше, врача
вызывать надо было б.
(p. 14)
Закудахтал как
ненормальный. (p. 14)
Ух ... (p. 15)
стал серьезный, как не
знаю что (p. 15)
Он давай себе кивать.
(p. 15)
путевый такой дед (p.
15)
жопу от локтя не
отличит (p. 15)
беседа (p. 15)
Жизнь - игра (p. 15)
Не, он нормально так
излагал. (p. 15)
ни заводился, ничего (p.
15)
трындел (p. 15)
Хрен там игра. Аж два
раза. (p. 15)
никаких фертов (p. 16)
ни в чем (p. 16)
никакой игры (p. 16)
Ну... (p. 16)
Ею я неслабо много
качаю. (p. 16)
«Ух» я тоже неслабо
много говорю. (p. 16)
163
паршивый словарный
запас (p. 16)
It‘s really ironical (p. 12)
Ужасно нелепо выходит Это вообще-то умора
(p. 15)
(p. 16)
since I was a kid (p. 12)
с самого детства (p. 15) с тех пор, как я совсем
мелкий был (p. 16)
act (p. 12)
держусь (p. 15)
веду себя (p. 16)
People always think
А люди всегда думают, Часто думают, будто
something‘s all true. (p. 12) что они тебя видят
что-то совсем бывает.
насквозь. (p. 15)
(p. 17)
I don‘t give a damn (p. 12) мне-то наплевать / мне- мне надристать / мне
то все равно (p. 15)
наплевать (p. 17)
I get bored (p. 12)
тоска берет (p. 15)
достает (p. 17)
People never notice
Вообще ни черта они не Люди никогда ни шиша
anything. (p. 12)
замечают. (p. 16)
не замечают. (p. 17)
get the old thumb right in
весь палец туда
большой палец засунул
there (p. 12)
запустил (p. 16)
будь здоров (p. 17)
pretty disgusting (p. 12)
противно (p. 16)
отвратительно (p. 17)
your mother and dad (p.
с твоей матушкой и с
с твоими матерью и
13)
твоим отцом (p. 16)
папой (p. 17)
they‘re very nice (p. 13)
они хорошие (p. 16)
нормальные такие (p.
17)
phony (p. 13)
ужасная пошлятина (p. фуфло (p. 17)
16)
puke (p. 13)
мутит (p. 16)
блевать тянет (p. 17)
sharp as a tack (p. 13)
умное (p. 16)
очень oстрого, как
кнопка (p. 17)
missed (p. 13)
не попал (p. 16)
промазал (p. 18)
get the hell out of the room бежать к чертям из
на фиг оттуда свалить
(p. 13)
этой комнаты (p. 16)
(p. 18)
tough (p. 13)
строго (p. 17)
жестко (p. 18)
I moved my ass a little bit
Я поерзал на кровати.
Я немножко поерзал
on the bed. (p. 13)
(p. 17)
жопой на кровати. (p.
18)
you knew absolutely
ты совершенно ничего
ты совсем ничего не
nothing (p. 14)
не учил (p. 17)
знаешь (p. 19)
absolutely nothing (p. 14)
совершенно ничего не
совсем ничего (p. 19)
учил! (p. 17)
that drives me crazy (p. 14) меня злит (p. 17)
от такого рехнуться
можно (p. 19)
admit (p. 14)
согласился (p. 17)
признался (p. 19)
glanced through it a couple просматривал его два
пару раз проглядывал
of times (p. 14)
раза (p. 17)
(p. 19)
lousy vocabulary (p. 12)
не хватает слов (p. 15)
164
he was mad about history
(p. 14)
You glanced through it, eh?
(p. 14)
chiffonier (p. 14)
please (p. 14)
a very dirty trick (p. 14)
like it was a turd or
something (p. 14)
Would you care to hear
what you had to say? (p.
14)
when they want to do
something (p. 14)
they just do it (p. 14)
modern science would still
like to know (p. 15)
interesting riddle (p. 15)
your essay (p. 15)
an old guy (p. 15)
―I know I did‖ (p. 15)
but you couldn‘t stop him
(p. 15)
he was hot as a firecracker
(p. 15)
he read out loud (p. 15)
he put my goddam paper
down (p. 16)
he‘d just beaten hell out of
me in ping-pong or
something (p. 16)
I really wouldn‘t (p. 16)
that damn note (p. 16)
он был помешан на
своей истории (p. 17)
Ах, просматривал? (p.
17)
полка (p. 17)
пожалуйста (p. 17)
ужасное свинство (p.
18)
как навозную лепешку
или еще чего похуже (p.
18)
Не угодно ли тебе
послушать, что ты
написал? (p. 18)
уж если преподаватель
решил что-нибудь
сделать (p. 18)
все равно сделает посвоему (p. 18)
современная наука все
еще добивается ответа
на вопрос (p. 18)
таинственная загадка
(p. 18)
твой экскурс в науку (p.
18)
древний старикашка (p.
19)
«Да-да, помню,
помню!» (p. 19)
Куда там - разве его
остановишь! (p. 19)
Из него прямо искры
сыпались! (p. 19)
он читал ужасно громко
(p. 19)
он положил мою
треклятую тетрадку (p.
19)
сделал мне сухую в
пинг-понг (p. 19)
совсем спятил на своей
истории (p. 19)
Проглядывал, значит, а?
(p. 19)
шифоньерка (p. 19)
будь добр (p. 19)
очень грязный трюк (p.
19)
словно какашку или
как-то (p. 19)
слово даю (p. 19)
проклятая приписка (p.
по-честному (p. 21)
хренова записка (p. 21)
Хочешь послушать, что
ты имел о нем сказать?
(p. 19)
если ему чего в голову
взбредет (p. 20)
прет и все (p. 20)
современной науке попрежнему хочется знать
(p. 20)
интересная загадка (p.
20)
твое сочинение (p. 20)
такой дедан (p. 20)
«Я помню» (p. 21)
но его ж не остановишь
(p. 21)
запустился, что твой
фейерверк (p. 21)
вслух прочел он (p. 21)
он опустил мою, на фиг,
работу (p. 21)
раздраконил меня в
пинг-понг (p. 21)
165
No, sir! I certainly don‘t.
(p. 16)
I wished to hell he‘d stop
calling me ―boy‖ all the
time. (p. 16)
he tried chucking my exam
paper (p. 16)
pick it up (p. 16)
It‘s boring to do that every
two minutes. (p. 16)
felt lousy (p. 16)
shot the bull (p. 16)
I told him I was a real
moron, and all that staff (p.
16)
the old bull (p. 16)
19)
«Что вы, сэр, ничуть!»
(p. 19)
Хоть бы он перестал
называть меня «мой
мальчик», черт подери!
(p. 19)
он бросил мою тетрадку
(p. 19)
подымать ее (p. 19)
Вот еще, охота была
поминутно нагибаться.
(p. 19)
было здорово не по себе
(p. 20)
принялся наворачивать
(p. 20)
я умственно отсталый,
вообще кретин (p. 20)
nasty (p. 17)
pretty complicated (p. 17)
словом, наворачивал
как надо (p. 20)
зоопарк (p. 20)
А может, они просто
улетают? (p. 20)
Все-таки у меня это
хорошо выходит. (p. 20)
занятно выходит (p. 20)
весьма интересно (p.
20)
Хоть бы он запахнул
свой дурацкий халат. (p.
20)
противно (p. 20)
довольно сложно (p. 21)
it wasn‘t up his alley at all
(p. 17)
left (p. 17)
phony (p. 17)
that‘s all (p. 17)
they were coming in the
goddam window (p. 17)
не по его это части (p.
21)
ушел (p. 21)
сплошная липа (p. 21)
- (p. 21)
все делалось напоказ не продохнешь (p. 21)
a zoo (p. 16)
Or if they just flew away.
(p. 16)
I‘m lucky, though. (p. 17)
it‘s funny (p. 17)
very interested (p. 17)
I sort of wished he‘d cover
up his bumpy chest. (p. 17)
«Нет, сэр! Конечно,
нет» (p. 21)
Хоть бы он перестал, на
фиг, звать меня
«мальчик мой» все
время. (p. 21)
он попробовал метнуть
мою работу (p. 21)
подбирать ее (p. 21)
Достает ужас, когда
надо это делать каждые
две минуты. (p. 22)
вполне себе паршиво (p.
22)
немного туфты ему
погонял (p. 22)
я настоящая дубина, и
всякую такую хреноту
(p. 22)
туфта проверенная (p.
22)
зоосад (p. 22)
А может, просто
улетают. (p. 22)
Но мне везет. (p. 22)
умора (p. 22)
очень интересно (p. 22)
Хоть бы он грудь эту
свою вислую прикрыл.
(p. 23)
погано (p. 23)
ничего себе запутанная
такая (p. 23)
да и вообще не его это
дело (p. 23)
свалил (p. 23)
сплошь фуфло (p. 23)
вот и все (p. 23)
из всех щелей оно там,
на фиг, лезло (p. 23)
166
the phoniest bastard (p. 17)
parents (p. 17)
he‘d be charming as hell
and all (p. 17)
little old funny-looking
parents (p. 17)
mother (p. 18)
corny-looking (p. 18)
подлый притворщик (p.
21)
родители (p. 21)
и до того мил, до того
вежлив - просто
картинка (p. 21)
родители попроще,
победнее (p. 21)
мать (p. 21)
смешно одета (p. 21)
I can‘t stand that stuff (p.
18)
It drives me crazy (p. 18)
старомодные (p. 21)
башмаки (p. 21)
протягивал им два
пальца (p. 21)
притворно улыбался (p.
21)
как начнет
разговаривать с
другими родителями полчаса разливается! (p.
21)
Не выношу я этого. (p.
21)
Злость берет. (p. 21)
It makes me so depressed I
go crazy (p. 18)
Так злюсь, что с ума
можно спятить. (p. 21)
―What, sir?‖ (p. 18)
«Что вы сказали, сэр?»
(p. 21)
огорчен (p. 22)
corny (p. 18)
shoes (p. 18)
shake hands with them (p.
18)
give a phony smile (p. 18)
he‘d go talk, for maybe a
half an hour, with
somebody else‘s parents.
(p. 18)
any particular qualms (p.
18)
a moron (p. 18)
―Oh, I feel some concern
for my future. Sure. Sure, I
do.‖ (p. 18)
I thought about it for a
minute. (p. 18)
I didn‘t like hearing him
say that. (p. 18)
фуфловый гад (p. 23)
штрики (p. 23)
само обаяние, как я не
знаю что, куда деваться
(p. 23)
штрики с каким- нибудь
прибабахом (p. 23)
штруня (p. 23)
на вид фофанская (p.
23)
фофанские (p. 23)
ботинки (p. 24)
руку им жал (p. 24)
улыбался фуфлово (p.
24)
шел и, может, полчаса
трындел с чьиминибудь другими
предками. (p. 24)
Я такую хренотень
терпеть не могу. (p. 24)
Хоть на стену лезь. (p.
24)
Меня так пришибает,
что я как с цепи
срываюсь. (p. 24)
«Чего, сэр?» (p. 24)
что-нибудь тревожит (p.
24)
кретин (p. 22)
дубина (p. 24)
«Нет, как не думать «Ой, ну конечно, мое
думаю, конечно» (p. 22) будущее меня
немножко заботит. Еще
бы. Ну да, конечно» (p.
24)
Я остановился. (p. 22)
Я целую минуту об
этом думал. (p. 24)
Мне стало неприятно.
Фигово он это сказал.
(p. 22)
(p. 24)
167
Зачем он так говорит будто я уже умер? (p.
22)
It was very depressing. (p. Ужасно неприятно. (p.
18)
22)
―I guess I will,‖ I said. (p.
«Непременно подумаю,
18)
- говорю, - я подумаю»
(p. 22)
―I‘d like to put some sense «Как бы объяснить
in that head of yours, boy.
тебе, мальчик, вдолбить
I‘m trying to help you. I‘m тебе в голову то, что
trying to help you, if I can.‖ нужно? Ведь я помочь
(p. 18)
тебе хочу, понимаешь?»
(p. 22)
It made me sound dead or
something. (p. 18)
we were too much on
opposite sides of the pole
(p. 19)
No kidding. I appreciate it.
I really do. (p. 19)
I couldn‘t‘ve sat there
another ten minutes to save
my life (p. 19)
very serious look on his
face (p. 19)
I felt sorry as hell for him
(p. 19)
I just couldn‘t hang around
there any longer (p. 19)
sad old bathrobe (p. 19)
somebody answers that
way (p. 19)
―Okay?‖ (p. 19)
Take care of your grippe,
now. (p. 20)
living room (p. 20)
he yelled something at me
(p. 20)
Good luck! (p. 20)
Точно я сдох или както. (p. 24)
Очень тоскливо. (p. 24)
«Наверно, да, - говорю»
(p. 24)
«Мне хотелось бы
вправить тебе мозги,
мальчик мой. Я
пытаюсь тебе помочь. Я
пытаюсь помочь тебе,
если это в моих силах»
(p. 24-25)
мы с ним тянули в
мы с ним просто
разные стороны (p. 22) слишком по разные
концы дышла (p. 25)
Честное слово, я очень Кроме шуток. Я вам
это ценю, правда! (p.
благодарен. По22)
честному. (p. 25)
я не мог бы просидеть
ну хоть убейте меня, а я
на ней еще десять
б там и десяти минут
минут даже под
больше не высидел (p.
страхом смертной казни 25)
(p. 22)
лицо стало такое
лицо серьезное такое (p.
серьезное, грустное (p. 25)
22)
мне вдруг стало жалко мне его жалко стало,
его до чертиков (p. 22)
как я не знаю что (p. 25)
не мог же я торчать у
не могу ж я тут
него весь век (p. 23)
зависнуть (p. 25)
жалкий халат (p. 23)
тоскливый халат (p. 25)
так бормочут (p. 23)
так отвечают (p. 25)
«Не стоит!» (p. 23)
Берегитесь после
гриппа, ладно? (p. 23)
столовая (p. 23)
он что-то заорал мне
вслед (p. 23)
Счастливого пути! (p.
23)
«Ладно?» (p. 26)
А вы разберитесь со
своим гриппом. (p. 26)
гостиная (p. 26)
он еще заорал мне чтото (p. 26)
Удачи! (p. 26)
168
I‘m the most terrific liar (p.
20)
It‘s awful. (p. 20)
the store (p. 20)
somebody asks me where
I‘m going (p. 20)
я ужасный лгун (p. 24)
Страшное дело. (p. 24)
магазин (p. 24)
меня вдруг спросят
куда (p. 24)
гимнастический зал (p.
24)
that was a sheer lie (p. 20) было вранье (p. 24)
in the gym (p. 20)
в этом треклятом зале
(p. 24)
the Ossenburger Memorial корпус имени
Wing (p. 20)
Оссенбергера (p. 24)
It was named after this guy Корпус был назван в
Ossenburger that went to
честь Оссенбергера,
Pencey. (p. 20)
был тут один такой,
учился раньше в Пэнси.
(p. 24)
apiece (p. 20)
с носа (p. 24)
probably (p. 20)
Ручаюсь, (p. 24)
Anyway, he gave Pencey a Так вот, этот тип
pile of dough (p. 20)
пожертвовал на Пэнси
кучу денег (p. 24)
in this big goddam Cadillac в своем роскошном
(p. 20)
«кадиллаке» (p. 24)
the gym (p. 20)
he made a speech (p. 21)
corny jokes (p. 21)
buddy (p. 21)
talk to Jesus (p. 21)
the big phony bastard (p.
21)
a swell guy (p. 21)
It was a very crude thing to
do, in chapel and all, but it
was also quite amusing. (p.
21)
он отгрохал речь /
произнес речь (p. 25)
анекдоты вот с такой
бородищей (p. 25)
приятель (p. 25)
разговариваю с
Христом по душам (p.
25)
этот сукин сын (p. 25)
замечательный парень
(p. 25)
Конечно, это ужасно,
очень невежливо, в
церкви, при всех, но
очень уж смешно
я очень неслабо вру (p.
26)
Жуть. (p. 26)
магаз (p. 26)
кто-нибудь спросит,
куда я намылился (p.
26)
спортзал (p. 26)
чистые враки (p. 26)
в спортзале (p. 26)
крыло имени
Оссенбергера (p. 26-27)
Крыло назвали в честь
этого Оссенбергера,
который учился в
Пенси. (p. 27)
за штуку (p. 27)
наверно (p. 27)
Короче, Пенси он
отслюнил кучу грошей
(p. 27)
в таком здоровенном,
на фиг, «кадиллаке» (p.
27)
он выдал нам речь /
толкнул речугу (p. 27)
фофанские анекдоты (p.
27)
корефан (p. 27)
с Христом
разговаривает (p. 27)
здоровенный фуфловый
гад (p. 27)
шикарный типус (p. 28)
Очень дубово
получилось - все-таки
капелла и всяко-разно,
но все равно хоть стой,
169
wasn‘t fit to go to Pencey
(p. 21)
pretty nice (p. 22)
this hat (p. 22)
red hunting hat (p. 22)
a buck (p. 22)
the arms were in sad shape
(p. 22)
вышло. (p. 25)
недостоин находиться в
стенах школы (p. 25)
приятно (p. 26)
красная шапка (p. 26)
охотничья шапка (p. 26)
доллар (p. 26)
ручки у кресел были
совсем поломаны
сами кресла были (p.
26)
довольно удобные (p.
26)
хоть падай. (p. 28)
недостоин учиться в
Пенси (p. 28)
путѐво (p. 28)
кепарь (p. 28)
красный охотничий (p.
29)
зеленый (p. 29)
ручки у них уже свое
доживали (p. 29)
кресла все равно были
вполне удобные такие
(p. 29)
I thought it was going to
Я думал, дрянь, а
Думал, дрянь, а вот нет.
stink, but it didn‘t. (p. 22)
оказалось интересно. (p. (p. 29)
26)
birthday (p. 22)
день рождения (p. 26)
деньрож (p. 29)
It had these very funny,
В книжке были пьесы - Там такие забавные
crazy plays in it (p. 22)
ужасно смешные (p. 26) долбанутые пьески (p.
30)
a traffic cop (p. 22)
полисмендорожный фараон (p.
регулировщик (p. 26)
30)
falls in love with this very
влюбляется в одну
сохнет по этой девке (p.
cute girl (p. 22)
очень хорошенькую
30)
девушку (p. 26)
that‘s always speeding (p.
которая вечно нарушает которая все время
22)
правила движения (p.
скорость превышает (p.
26-27)
30)
This story just about killed Потрясающий рассказ. Я от этого рассказа чуть
me. (p. 22-23)
(p. 27)
не сдох. (p. 30)
I read a lot of classical
Конечно, я читаю
Классики я тоже кучу
books, like The Return of
всякие классические
целую читал, вроде
the Native and all, and I
книги вроде
«Возвращения на
like them, and I read a lot
«Возвращения на
родину» и всяко-разно,
of war books and mysteries родину», и всякие
и мне нравится, а еще
and all, but they don‘t
книги про войну, и
кучу книжек про войну
knock me out too much. (p. детективы, но как-то
и детективов, но мне
23)
они меня не очень
они не сильно в жилу.
увлекают. (p. 27)
(p. 30)
a terrific friend of yours (p. твой лучший друг (p.
тебе дружбан неслабый
23)
27)
(p. 30)
they were pretty
comfortable chairs (p. 22)
170
Мне нравится его
Юстасия Вэй. (p. 27)
надел (p. 27)
один раз я ее уже
прочел (p. 27)
heard somebody coming
как вдруг кто-то вышел
through the shower curtains из душевой (p. 27)
(p. 23)
Even without looking up, I Я и не глядя понял, что
knew right away who it
это Роберт Экли - он
was. It was Robert Ackley, жил в соседней
this guy that roomed right
комнате. (p. 27)
next to me. (p. 23)
he was a very peculiar guy странный был тип (p.
(p. 23)
28)
nobody ever called him
все его называли только
anything except ―Ackley‖
по фамилии - Экли (p.
(p. 23)
28)
very tall (p. 24)
ужасно высокий (p. 28)
with lousy teeth (p. 24)
зубы гнилые (p. 28)
face (p. 24)
лицо (p. 28)
he had a terrible personality он был противный (p.
(p. 24)
28)
he was also sort of a nasty и какой-то подлый (p.
guy (p. 24)
28)
He came down off the
Он вышел из душевой и
shower ledge and came in
подошел ко мне. (p. 28)
the room. (p. 24)
terrifically bored / tired (p. до смерти скучно /
24)
устал (p. 28)
you were a goner (p. 24)
он тебя замучает (p. 29)
walking around (p. 24)
бродить (p. 29)
Boy, could he get on your
До чего же он мне
nerves sometimes. (p. 25)
действовал на нервы!
(p. 29)
He always made you say
Он всегда
everything twice. (p. 25)
переспрашивал. (p. 29)
I like that Eustacia Vye. (p.
23)
put on (p. 23)
I‘d read it already (p. 23)
I sneaked a look (p. 25)
he was looking at (p. 25)
He did it on purpose. You
could tell. (p. 25)
stood right in my light (p.
я покосился на него (p.
29)
рассматривал (p. 29)
Нарочно - это сразу
было видно. (p. 29)
заслонил мне свет (p.
Путѐвая у него эта
Юстасия Вай. (p. 31)
нацепил (p. 31)
я ее уже читал (p. 31)
и тут слышу, через
шторки ванной кто-то
идет (p. 31)
Даже не глядя, сразу
понял кто. Роберт Экли,
этот парень, что живет
рядом. (p. 31)
с прибабахом парень (p.
31)
его все только «Экли» и
зовут (p. 31)
дылда (p. 31)
паршивые зубы (p. 31)
рожа (p. 32)
у него еще и характер
жуткий (p. 32)
мерзкий, в общем,
парняга (p. 32)
Вот он соступил с
порожка и вошел в
комнату. (p. 32)
неслабо скучно / устал
(p. 32)
капец (p. 32)
мотыляться (p. 32)
Ух как он иногда на
нервы действует. (p. 32)
Он вечно заставляет
повторять ему все
дважды. (p. 33)
сам косяка даванул (p.
33)
пялился (p. 33)
Это он спецом. Точняк.
(p. 33)
загородил мне весь свет
171
25)
Not him, though. (p. 25)
He kept standing there. (p.
26)
He‘d do it, finally, but it
took him a lot longer if you
asked him to. (p. 26)
29)
Только не он. (p. 30)
А он стал и стоит. (p.
30)
Потом, конечно,
отойдет, но если его
попросить, он нарочно
не отойдет. (p. 30)
Goddam book. (p. 26)
Не видишь - книгу
читаю. (p. 30)
he shoved my book back
он перевернул книгу (p.
(p. 26)
30)
I can be quite sarcastic (p.
я тоже иногда могу
26)
быть довольно
ядовитым (p. 30)
when I‘m in the mood (p.
если я в настроении (p.
26)
30)
He didn‘t get it, though. (p. Но до него не дошло.
26)
(p. 30)
pick up (p. 26)
цапать (p. 30)
watched old Ackley
стал смотреть, как Экли
making himself at home (p. хозяйничает в моей
26)
комнате (p. 30)
I was feeling sort of tired
я порядком устал (p. 30)
(p. 26)
I started yawning (p. 26)
зевота напала (p. 30)
I think I‘m going blind.
Увы, увы! Кажется, я
Mother darling (p. 26)
слепну! О моя дорогая
матушка (p. 31)
You‘re nuts. I swear to
Да ты спятил, ей-богу!
God. (p. 26)
(p. 31)
I was pretty sadistic with
Злил его изо всех сил,
him quite often. (p. 27)
нарочно злил. (p. 31)
jock strap (p. 27)
шнурки от ботинок (p.
31)
he chucked it on the bed (p. швырнул нарочно на
27)
кровать (p. 31)
You got robbed. (p. 27)
Обдули тебя. (p. 32)
It was funny, in a way. (p.
Странная привычка. (p.
27)
32)
a very neat guy (p. 27)
чистоплотный (p. 32)
(p. 33)
А он - дулю там. (p. 33)
Он не сдвинулся. (p. 34)
Он, конечно, отойдет,
но не сразу, не когда
просишь. (p. 34)
Книжку, на фиг. (p. 34)
он ее пихнул (p. 34)
я тоже бываю язва будь
здоров (p. 34)
когда стих найдет (p.
34)
Только он ни шиша не
понял. (p. 34)
брать (p. 34)
гляжу, как Экли у меня
устраивается (p. 34)
я вроде как утомился (p.
34)
зевать начал (p. 34)
По-моему, я слепну.
Миленькая мамочка (p.
34-35)
Во чеканутый. Ей-богу.
(p. 35)
Я его вполне себе часто
садирую. (p. 35)
бандаж (p. 35)
кинул на кровать (p. 35)
Грабеж. (p. 36)
Даже как-то умат. (p.
36)
четкий парень (p. 36)
172
folks (p. 28)
a date (p. 28)
For one thing, the room
was too damn hot. It made
you sleepy. (p. 28)
Елки-палки, да мы в
таких дома стрелять
оленей ходим...В такой
только оленей
стреляют. (p. 36)
предки (p. 36)
свиданка (p. 36)
Во-первых, потому что,
на фиг, жара. А от нее
спать хочется. (p. 36)
I nearly got killed doing it,
too. (p. 28)
Something like that - a guy
getting hit on the head with
a rock or something tickled the pants off
Ackley. (p. 28)
В Пенси либо дубак
смертельный, либо
дохнешь от жары. (p.
36)
Слышь. А дай-ка мне
ножницы на
секундочку, есть? (p.
36)
Чуть не сдох к тому же,
доставая. (p. 37)
Такая вот фигня - парня
по башке камень
шарашит или как-то Экли веселила до
уссачки. (p. 37)
Up home we wear a hat
like that to shoot deer in,
for Chrissake...That‘s a
deer shooting hat. (p. 27)
В моих краях на охоту в
таких ходят, понятно? В
них дичь стреляют. (p.
32)
родные (p. 32)
свидание (p. 32)
В комнате стояла
страшная жара, меня
разморило, хотелось
спать. (p. 32)
At Pencey, you either froze В этой школе мы либо
to death or died of the heat. мерзли как собаки, либо
(p. 28)
пропадали от жары. (p.
32)
Hey. Lend me your scissors Слушай, дай мне на
a second, willya? (p. 28)
минутку ножницы (p.
32)
horny-looking nails (p. 28)
He was always keeping
tabs on who Stradlater was
dating (p. 29)
Boy, I can‘t stand that
sonuvabitch. He‘s one
sonuvabitch I really can‘t
stand. (p. 29)
he‘s got this superior
attitude all the time (p. 29)
I don‘t even think the
sonuvabitch is intelligent.
He thinks he is. (p. 29)
Меня при этом чуть не
убило. (p. 32)
Таких, как Экли,
хлебом не корми - дай
ему посмотреть, как
человека стукнуло по
голове камнем или еще
чем: он просто
обхохочется. (p. 33)
паршивые ногти (p. 33)
неслабые ногти, на
копыта похожие (p. 37)
Он всегда
Он вечно фараонит, за
выспрашивал, с кем
кем ухлестывает
Стрэдлейтер водится (p. Стрэдлейтер (p. 37)
33)
Не терплю я эту
Я эту падлу просто не
сволочь. Вот уж не
перевариваю. Вот уж
терплю! (p. 33)
падла так падла, не
перевариваю таких. (p.
38)
он всегда задирает нос он все время такой
(p. 33)
надменный (p. 38)
По-моему, он просто
Мне даже кажется, что
болван. А думает, что
у этой падлы и мозгов
умный. (p. 34)
никаких нет. Он только
173
He didn‘t mean to insult
you, for cryin‘ out loud. (p.
29)
I brush my teeth. Don‘t
gimme that. (p. 30)
I didn‘t say it nasty,
though. (p. 30)
Stradlater‘s all right. (p. 30)
that‘s the trouble (p. 30)
a conceited sonuvabitch (p.
30)
generous (p. 30)
I‘m old enough to be your
lousy father. (p. 30)
I wouldn‘t let you in my
goddam family (p. 30)
You going out anywhere
special tonight? (p. 31)
He had snow all over his
coat. (p. 31)
hound‘s - tooth jacket (p.
31)
It was partly a phony find
of friendly, but at least he
always said hello to Ackley
and all. (p. 31)
Он тебя ничуть не
хотел обидеть! (p. 34)
А я не чищу, что ли? И
ты туда же! (p. 34)
Я с ним говорил
спокойно. (p. 34)
Стрэдлейтер не
сволочь. (p. 34)
в этом все дело (p. 34)
воображала (p. 34)
широкий (p. 34)
Я тебе в отцы гожусь,
дуралей! (p. 35)
я бы тебя в свой дом на
порог не пустил (p. 35)
Ты идешь куда-нибудь
вечером? (p. 35)
Он весь был в снегу. (p.
35)
замшевая куртка (p. 35)
Конечно, это
притворство, но всетаки он всегда
здоровался с Экли. (p.
36)
He had a pretty heavy
У него здорово росла
beard. He really did. (p. 32) борода. Настоящая
борода. (p. 36)
no shirt on or anything (p.
так и пошел без
32)
рубашки (p. 36)
bare torso (p. 32)
голый до пояса (p. 36)
He did, too. I have to admit И это верно, тут ничего
it. (p. 32)
не скажешь. (p. 36)
can (p. 32)
умывалка (p. 37)
He could really mess a
Он любую песню мог
song up. (p. 32)
исковеркать. (p. 37)
a slob in his personal habits зверски нечистоплотен
думает, что есть. (p. 38)
Он же не хотел тебя
оскорбить, ну сколько
можно? (p. 38)
Я чищу зубы. Хватит
уже. (p. 39)
Но не погано сказал. (p.
39)
Нормальный
Стрэдлейтер. (p. 39)
вот в чем засада (p. 39)
напыщенная падла (p.
39)
душевный (p. 39)
Да я тебе, паршивцу, в
штрики гожусь. (p. 40)
я тебя, на фиг, к себе в
семью не пущу (p. 40)
Ты куда-нибудь
вечером
намыливаешься? (p. 40)
У него все пальто в
снегу было. (p. 40)
клетчатый пидж (p. 40)
Дружелюбие у него,
правда, отчасти
фуфловое, но он, по
крайней мере, с Экли
всегда здоровается и
всяко-разно. (p. 41)
Щетина у него вполне
себе густая. А то. (p. 41)
ни рубашки, ни шиша
(p. 41)
голым пузом (p. 41)
Это вообще правда.
Куда деваться. (p. 41)
тубзо (p. 42)
Обдристать песню ему раз плюнуть. (p. 42)
по всем привычкам
174
(p. 37)
своим халда (p. 42)
наводить красоту (p. 37) себе перышки чистить
(p. 43)
handsome (p. 33)
красивый (p. 38)
симпотяга (p. 43)
a big favor (p. 33)
большое одолжение (p. большой добряк (p. 44)
38)
write a composition (p. 34) написать сочинение (p. накатать сочинение (p.
38)
44)
I‘ll be up the creek (p. 34)
мне несдобровать (p.
в говне по шею (p. 44)
38)
bastards (p. 34)
типы (p. 39)
гады (p. 44)
which is something that
вот от такого
а мне будто за шкуру
gives me a royal pain in the отношения у меня все
сало заливают от такого
ass (p. 34)
кишки переворачивает (p. 45)
(p. 39)
a hot-shot (p. 34)
собаку съел (p. 39)
шишка (p. 45)
musical (p. 35)
музыкальная комедия
мюзикл (p. 45)
(p. 40)
He‘s drunk as a bastard. (p. Пьян в стельку. (p. 40)
Нажрался, как
35)
последняя сволочь. (p.
46)
looked at it for about the
посмотрел на нее в
оглядел его раз,
ninetieth time (p. 35)
сотый раз (p. 40)
наверно, в девяностый
(p. 46)
the arrangements got all
все перепуталось (p. 42) мы все просрали (p. 48)
screwed up (p. 37)
I nearly dropped dead (p.
я чуть не сдох (p. 42)
я чуть замертво на пол
37)
не шмякнулся (p. 48)
Boy, was I excited, though. Ох как я волновался. (p. Ух как меня
(p. 37)
42)
разгоношило. (p. 49)
booze hound (p. 39)
алкоголик (p. 44)
кирюха (p. 51)
a very sexy bastard (p. 39) распутная сволочь (p.
озабоченный гад (p. 51)
44)
I could‘ve sworn (p. 39)
готов был поклясться
я бы зуб дал (p. 51)
(p. 44)
Okay. (p. 40)
Ладно. (p. 45)
Лады. (p. 52)
Where the hell‘s my
Куда девались мои
Где, на фиг, мои сиги?
cigarettes? (p. 40)
сигареты? (p. 45)
(p. 52)
muffler (p. 40)
шарф (p. 45)
кашне (p. 53)
I‘m quite a nervous guy. (p. Нервы у меня вообще
Я ж вообще дерганый.
41)
ни к черту. (p. 46)
(p. 53)
these little hard, dry jobs
жесткие как подметка
сухие козявки (p. 54)
(p. 42)
(p. 48)
(p. 32)
fix himself up (p. 33)
175
посмотреть какойнибудь дурацкий фильм
(p. 49)
Neither of us felt like
Не хотелось весь вечер
sitting around on our ass all торчать дома. (p. 49)
night (p. 42-43)
a hydrant (p. 43)
водокачка (p. 49)
see a lousy movie (p. 42)
the picture / the movie (p.
44)
laughed like hyenas (p. 44)
I dropped about a thousand
hints (p. 44)
фильм (p. 50)
гоготали, как гиены (p.
50)
я раз сто ему намекал
про какую-то (p. 50)
about some babe he was
supposed to have had
sexual intercourse with (p.
44)
boardwalk (p. 44)
девчонку, с которой он
путался прошлым
летом (p. 50)
he was a virgin if ever I
saw one (p. 44)
ручаюсь, что он
женщин не знал, это
сразу было видно (p.
50)
бейсбольная рукавица
(p. 51)
живописный (p. 51)
белокровие (p. 51)
раз в пятьдесят умнее
(p. 51)
пикап (p. 52)
гайморит (p. 53)
baseball mitt (p. 45)
descriptive (p. 45)
leukemia (p. 45)
he was about fifty times as
intelligent (p. 45)
the station wagon (p. 46)
sinus trouble (p. 47)
the crazy sonuvabitch (p.
47)
he was unscrupulous (p.
47)
Where the hell is
everybody? (p. 48)
I wasn‘t going to break my
neck telling him (p. 48)
hanger (p. 48)
подъезд (p. 50)
кинцо какое паршивое
позырить (p. 55)
Ни ему, ни мне на жопе
весь вечер сидеть не
хотелось. (p. 55)
пожарный гидрант (p.
56)
картина (p. 57)
ржут, как кони (p. 57)
я тыщу раз ему намекал
про какую-то свою (p.
57)
девку, которую
прошлым летом вроде
бы оприходовал (p. 57)
променад на
набережной (p. 58)
Он целочка такая, каких
мало (p. 58)
бейсбольная перчатка
(p. 58)
наглядный (p. 58)
лейкемия (p. 58)
котелок раз в полста
лучше варил (p. 58-59)
«универсал» (p. 59)
чего-то с пазухами (p.
60)
дурак (p. 53)
падла эта долбанутая (p.
61)
у него совести нет ни
он беспринципный (p.
капли (p. 54)
61)
Куда, к черту, все
А где, на хер, все? (p.
пропали? (p. 54)
61)
чего ради мне лезть вон чего ради мне
из кожи объяснять ему морочиться и его
(p. 55)
просвещать (p. 62)
плечики (p. 55)
вешалка (p. 62)
176
with this very stupid
expression on his face (p.
48)
You always do everything
backasswards. (p. 49)
с самым идиотским
выражением лица (p.
55)
Все ты делаешь через
ж...кувырком. (p. 55)
О господи, как я его
ненавидел в эту
минуту! (p. 56)
I ignored him. (p. 50)
Я на него даже
внимания не обратил,
будто его и нет. (p. 57)
I could hardly keep my
Я ужасно старался, чтоб
voice from shaking all over голос у меня не дрожал,
the place. (p. 50)
как студень. (p. 57)
God, how I hated him. (p.
49)
all the athletic bastards
stuck together (p. 51)
эти скоты спортсмены
всегда заодно (p. 58)
with his face all red (p. 52)
That‘s the way you can
always tell a moron. (p. 53)
He probably was scared
he‘d fractured my skull or
something when I hit the
floor. (p. 53)
красный как рак (p. 58)
Кретина за сто миль
видно... (p. 60)
Видно, он здорово
перепугался, боялся,
должно быть, что я
разбил голову, когда
грохнулся на пол. (p.
60)
шпокнет миссис Шмит
(p. 60)
швейцар (p. 60)
Мне и страшно было, и
интересно. (p. 61)
give Mrs Schmidt the time
(p. 53)
janitor (p. 53)
It partly scared me and it
partly fascinated me. (p.
54)
I was tryna sleep before
you guys started making all
that noise. (p. 54)
I had a little goddam tiff
with Stradlater. (p. 55)
Do you know what time it
is, by any chance? (p. 55)
cigarettes (p. 56)
рожа при этом дурацкая
(p. 62)
Ты вообще все через
жопу делаешь. (p. 6263)
Ёксельмоксель, как же я
его ненавидел. (p. 64)
Пошел он. (p. 64)
Я едва сдерживался,
чтоб голос на всю
комнату не трясся. (p.
65)
эти гады спортивные
вместе кучкуются (p.
65)
рожа вся красная (p. 66)
Так дебилов и
определяют. (p. 68)
Наверно, обделался, что
у меня в черепе
трещина или как-то,
когда я на пол
грохнулся. (p. 68-69)
оприходовал миссис
Шмидт (p. 69)
комендант (p. 69)
Я, с одной стороны,
перетрухал, а с другой увлекательно. (p. 69)
Хотел уснуть, а вы,
Я друшлять пытался,
черти, подняли тарарам. пока вы хай не подняли.
(p. 62)
(p. 70)
Поцапались немножко
Это мы со
со Стрэдлейтером. (p.
Стрэдлейтером, на фиг,
62)
посрались. (p. 71)
Да ты знаешь, который Ты вообще в курсах,
час? (p. 63)
сколько сейчас
времени? (p. 71)
сигареты (p. 64)
покурка (p. 72)
177
what the hell was the fight
about? (p. 56)
a lousy personality (p. 56)
Boy, did I feel rotten. (p.
57)
lonesome (p. 57)
What a witty guy. (p. 57)
Don‘t worry about it. (p.
57)
dopy questions (p. 61)
I was sort of crying. (p. 61)
call up for a cab (p. 62)
I walked the whole way to
the station (p. 62)
my Gladstones kept
banging hell out of my legs
(p. 62)
snapping his soggy old wet
towel at people‘s asses (p.
64)
I started shooting the old
crap around a little bit. (p.
64)
из-за чего началась
так вы за каким хером
драка? (p. 64)
подрались то? (p. 72)
гнусная личность (p. 64) говнецо человечек (p.
73)
Ох, до чего же мне
Ух как мне было
было плохо! (p. 64)
паскудно. (p. 73)
тоскливо / тоска (p. 64) одиноко (p. 73)
Вот ума палата! (p. 65) Остряк, тоже мне. (p.
73)
Не волнуйся. (p. 65)
Ты не кипишись. (p. 74)
чудацкие вопросы (p.
69)
Кажется я всплакнул.
(p. 69-70)
вызывать такси (p. 71)
пришлось идти на
станцию пешком (p. 71)
чемоданы стукали по
ногам как нанятые (p.
71)
бил всех мокрым
полотенцем (p. 73)
бажбанские вопросы (p.
78)
Я как бы даже ревел. (p.
79)
вызывать мотор (p. 79)
до вокзала я всю дорогу
пѐр пехом (p. 79)
«гладстоны» лупили, на
хер, мне по ногам (p.
79-80)
мокрым полотенцем
своим всем по жопам
хлещет (p. 82)
И начинаю
наворачивать ей все,
что полагается. (p. 73)
А потом давай обычную
туфту помаленьку
пулять. (p. 82)
Ну и колец у нее! (p. 73) Ух меня от брюликов
чуть не затошнило. (p.
83)
a cigarette (p. 65)
сигарета (p. 74)
сига (p. 84)
It fascinated hell out of her. Она прямо обалдела. (p. Она чуть не офигела
(p. 67)
77)
вконец. (p. 86)
She was right. (p. 67)
Она была права. (p. 77) Это она точняк. (p. 86)
a goddam matinee (p. 68)
какой-нибудь утренник «матинэ» какие-нибудь
(p. 78)
(p. 88)
phony letter (p. 69)
сплошная липа (p. 79)
фуфловое письмо (p.
89)
I can‘t turn around here,
Не могу, Мак... (p. 80)
Тут не могу, кореш. (p.
Mac. (p. 70)
90)
I didn‘t want to start an
Мне не хотелось
Мне с ним собачиться
argument. (p. 70)
спорить. (p. 80)
не хотелось. (p. 90)
Boy, was she lousy with
rocks. (p. 64)
178
a madman (p. )
What‘re ya tryna do, bud?
(p. 70)
Well, the thing is... (p. 70)
ненормальный (p. 80)
Ты что, братец... (p. 81)
Понимаете, ... (p. 81)
Да, веселый спутник,
нечего сказать. (p. 81)
Выдающаяся личность.
(p. 81)
a screwball (p. 71)
псих (p. 81)
perverts and morons (p. 71) всякие психи (p. 81)
He certainly was good
company. (p. 71)
Terrific personality. (p. 71)
that kind of junk (p. 72)
In my mind, I‘m probably
the biggest sex maniac you
ever saw. (p. 72)
такая пошлятина (p. 83)
В душе я, наверно,
страшный распутник.
(p. 83)
drunk (p. 73)
very crumby staff (p. 73)
Sex is something I really
don‘t understand too hot.
(p. 73)
пьяны (p. 83)
ужасные гадости (p. 83)
Вообще я в этих
сексуальных делах
плохо разбираюсь. (p.
83)
она танцевала в кабаре
с раздеванием (p. 84)
she used to be a burlesque
stripper (p. 74)
a dump (p. 74)
That sort of scared me a
little bit. (p. 75)
I don‘t know anybody by
that name, Jack. (p. 75)
What a dope I was. (p. 77)
I certainly felt like talking
to her on the phone. (p. 77)
psychic (p. 78)
what you‘re talking about
(p. 78)
the talk (p. 79)
the band (p. 80)
a Scotch and soda (p. 80)
if you hem and haw (p. 80)
чеканутый (p. 90)
Ты чѐ эт, корешок,
удумал? (p. 90)
Ну, в общем, фигня в
том, что ... (p. 90)
Путѐво с ним так. (p.
91)
Неслабый типус. (p. 91)
ушибок (p. 91)
извращенцы и дебилы
(p. 91)
эта параша (p. 93)
В уме у себя я, наверно,
такой половой маньяк,
каких вы не видывали.
(p. 93)
накирялись (p. 93)
хезалово (p. 93)
Про секс я, если почестному, не очень
секу. (p. 93-94)
раньше она в варьете
стриптизкой работала
(p. 95)
трущоба (p. 84)
помойка (p. 95)
Я немножко испугался. Тут я уже чуточку
(p. 85)
зассал. (p. 95)
Не знаю я такого, Джек! Я никого с таким
(p. 85)
именем не знаю, дядя.
(p. 96)
Ну и дурак! (p. 87)
Вот я бажбан. (p. 98)
Ужасно хотелось с ней Очень зашибись было
поговорить. (p. 88)
бы с ней поболтать. (p.
99)
интуиция (p. 88)
телепат (p. 99)
про что ты говоришь (p. чего ты ей пуржишь (p.
89)
100)
диалог (p. 89)
базары (p. 101)
оркестр (p. 91)
банда (p. 103)
виски с содовой (p. 91) скотч с содовой (p. 103)
когда мнешься и
если начнешь бекать и
мямлишь (p. 91)
мекать (p. 103)
179
driver‘s license (p. 81)
шоферские права (p. 91) водительские права (p.
103)
Can‘tcha stick a little rum
Вы не можете
Набодяжь-те туда чутка
in it or something? (p. 81)
подбавить хоть
рому, что ли? (p. 104)
капельку рома? (p. 92)
I didn‘t hold it against him, Но он не виноват. (p.
Но я не стал на него
though. (p. 81)
92)
особо зуб точить. (p.
104)
they were three real morons форменные идиотки (p. три натуральные
(p. 82)
92)
дебилки (p. 105)
The other two grools nearly А те две чучелы
У двух оставшихся
had hysterics when we did. закатились как в
чучел чуть родимчик не
(p. 82)
истерике. (p. 92)
случился. (p. 105)
get drunk (p. 82)
напиваться (p. 93)
надраться (p. 105)
He‘s cute. (p. 83)
Такой хорошенький! (p. Такой милашка. (p. 107)
94)
It was over her head,
Все равно до нее не
Все равно ни шиша не
anyway. (p. 84)
доходит. (p. 95)
петрит. (p. 108)
lawn (p. 89)
палисадник (p. 99)
газон (p. 114)
village (p. 90)
поселок (p. 101)
деревня (p. 116)
little kid (p. 93)
ребенок (p. 103)
малявка (p. 119)
Use your head, for
Вы думайте головой,
Ты башкой своей
Chrissake. (p. 95)
господи боже! (p. 106)
подумай, я тя умоляю.
(p. 123)
prep school jerks and
пижоны из школ и
туполомыcollege jerks (p. 97)
колледжей (p. 108)
старшеклассники да
туполомы из колледжа
(p. 125)
his big old face (p. 97)
его физиономия (p. 108) эта здоровенная харя (p.
125)
he was stinking it up (p. 97) он изгадил всю музыку он ее точняк говнял (p.
(p. 108)
125)
they‘d foul up anybody (p. они кого угодно
они кого угодно
98)
испортят (p. 109)
изговняют (p. 126)
this funny-looking guy and ужасно некрасивый тип такой чмошный парень
this funny-looking girl (p.
с ужасно некрасивой
и его чмошная девка (p.
98)
девицей (p. 109)
127)
his date wasn‘t even
его девицу ничуть не
девке его футбол этот,
interested in the goddam
интересовал этот матч
на фиг, до фонаря (p.
game (p. 99)
(p. 110)
127)
She had very big knockers. Грудь у нее была
Буфера у нее будь
(p. 100)
необъятная. (p. 111)
здоров. (p. 128)
Commander Blop (p. 100) капитан Блоп (p. 111)
коммандер Блоп (p. 129)
Navy guy (p. 101)
моряк (p. 112)
флотский (p. 130)
180
свистнул (p. 132)
Я же ссыкун такой. (p.
132)
вытащил бы нычку и с
сигой... (p. 133)
he got stinking (p. 104)
он нажрался вдрабадан
(p. 134)
I got in this big mess. (p.
Я попадаю в
105)
поганейший переплет.
(p. 135)
I was already sort of sorry
Я уже жалел, что затеял Я уже вроде как
I‘d let the thing start
все это, но отказываться пожалел, что все это
rolling, but it was too late
было поздно. (p. 118)
раскочегарилось, да уж
now. (p. 105-106)
теперь не дрыгнешься.
(p. 136)
I don‘t want any old bag.
Мне старухи не надо.
Мне старая кошелка
(p. 106)
(p. 118)
невпротык. (p. 136)
losing their brains (p. 107) они сразу теряют
у них мозги из башки
голову (p. 119)
высвистывает (p. 138)
Like fun you are. (p. 109)
Будет врать-то! (p. 121) Не смеши мои коленки.
(p. 141)
salesman (p. 111)
приказчик (p. 123)
продавцы (p. 143)
You‘re cute. (p. 112)
А ты хорошенький! (p. Ты лапуся. (p. 144)
124)
when I get very depressed
когда меня тоска берет если совсем невпротык
(p. 114)
(p. 127)
(p. 147)
BB guns (p. 114)
мелкокалиберные
воздушки (p. 147)
ружья (p. 127)
we thought we could shoot думали, из
думали, чего-нибудь из
something with our BB
мелкокалиберных
воздушек настреляем
guns (p. 114)
можно настрелять дичи (p. 147)
(p. 127)
Hurry up. (p. 114)
Только не копайся! (p.
Чтоб пулей. (p. 148)
127)
I like almost anybody in the Мне в Библии меньше
Мне в Библии почти все
Bible better than the
всего нравятся эти
нравятся больше
Disciples. (p. 115)
апостолы. (p. 128)
Апостолов. (p. 148)
I tole ya that. (p. 117)
Я же вам говорил. (p.
Я те грил. (p. 151)
130)
Open up, chief. (p. 117)
Выкладывайте, шеф! (p. Рассупонивайся, шеф.
130)
(p. 151)
You‘re trying to chisel me. Вы хотите меня
Харэ меня трамбовать.
(p. 117)
обжулить. (p. 131)
(p. 152)
swiped (p. 102)
I‘m one of these very
yellow guys. (p. 102)
sneak a cigarette (p. 103)
стащил (p. 114)
Я по природе трус. (p.
114)
выкурил бы тайком
сигарету (p. 115)
он был пьян в стельку
(p. 117)
Я влип в ужасную
историю. (p. 117)
181
you‘re a stupid chiseling
moron... (p. 119)
I sort of started pretending I
had a bullet in my guts. (p.
120)
грязный кретин и
жулик (p. 132)
Я вдруг стал
воображать, что у меня
пуля в кишках. (p. 133)
with my automatic in my
pocket (p. 120)
a bunch of stupid
rubbernecks (p. 121)
I felt pretty hungry (p. 121)
it was embarrassing (p.
127)
way the hell uptown (p.
127)
с револьвером в
кармане (p. 133)
любопытные идиоты (p.
134)
сразу почувствовал, как
я проголодался (p. 135)
...если вы думаете, что я
мечтал его видеть, вы
глубоко ошибаетесь. (p.
135)
У меня от нее скулы
сворачивало... (p. 137)
портьеры (p. 137)
Потом я спустился в
лифте и рассчитался с
портье. (p. 137)
... домой я не мог
возвратиться до среды,
в крайнем случае до
вторника. (p. 137)
Центральный вокзал (p.
137)
я истратил чертову
уйму (p. 137)
есть много мучного и
всякой такой дряни (p.
138)
самопишущая ручка (p.
139)
мне стало неловко (p.
141)
где-то у черта на рогах
(p. 141)
a nun (p. 128)
old Mercutio got killed (p.
128)
монахиня (p. 142)
убили Меркуцио (p.
142)
If you think I was dying to
see him again, you‘re
crazy. (p. 121)
She gave me a pain in the
ass... (p. 123)
shades (p. 123)
Then I went down in the
elevator and checked out.
(p. 123)
... I couldn‘t go home till
Wednesday - or Tuesday
the soonest. (p. 123)
Grand Central Station (p.
123)
I‘d spent a king‘s ransom
(p. 124)
eat a lot of stretches and
crap (p. 124)
fountain pen (p. 125)
ты тупое дебильное
жулье (p. 154)
Я как бы стал
прикидываться, будто
мне пулю в живот
зафигачили. (p. 155)
с пушкой в кармане (p.
155)
толпа дурацких
глазолупов (p. 156)
мне тут же захотелось
жрать (p. 156)
Вы долбанулись, если
думаете, будто я по
нему соскучился. (p.
156)
С ней сплошной
геморрой... (p. 159)
шторы (p. 159)
Затем спустился на
лифте и выписался. (p.
159)
... домой до среды
никак, ну, на крайняк
уж - до вторника. (p.
159)
вокзал Гранд-Сентрал
(p. 159)
я до фигища спустил (p.
159)
жрешь только крахмал
и прочую
херню (p. 160)
авторучка (p. 162)
просто неудобняк (p.
164)
где-то там, в
порядочной заднице (p.
164)
монашка (p. 166)
Меркуцио грохнули (p.
166)
182
wear black clothes (p. 131)
go someplace swanky for
lunch (p. 132)
She sings it very Dixieland
and whorehouse... (p. 132)
Everybody was on their
way to the movies... (p.
133)
It was a benefit
performance or something.
(p. 134-135)
I was getting slightly low
on dough (p. 136)
there were a few kids
around (p. 136)
the Museum of Natural
History (p. 138)
Sometimes we looked at
the animals and sometimes
we looked at the staff the
Indians had made in
ancient times. (p. 138)
gum (p. 138)
the floor was all stone (p.
139)
She looked terrific. (p. 143)
that‘s bunk (p. 144)
I swear (p. 144)
the thing is (p. 144)
And your hair‘s so lovely.
(p. 145)
Lovely my ass. (p. 145)
It was on the crappy side,
though. (p. 145)
at some phony party (p.
147)
надеть монашескую
рясу (p. 146)
пошла завтракать в
какой-нибудь
шикарный ресторан (p.
147)
Она ее пела поюжному, даже поуличному... (p. 147)
Все шли в кино... (p.
148)
в черное одеваться (p.
170)
пойдет обедать в
какую-нибудь модную
рыгаловку (p. 170)
Спектакль был
благотворительный, в
пользу чего-то. (p. 149)
денег осталось мало (p.
151)
катались какие-то
ребятишки (p. 151)
Музей этнографии (p.
153)
Иногда мы смотрели
животных, иногда
всякие древние
индейские изделия... (p.
153)
резинка (p. 154)
пол в зале был
плиточный (p. 154)
До чего же она была
красивая! (p. 159)
все это выдумки (p.
159)
клянусь (p. 160)
соль в том (p. 160)
... а у тебя такие чудные
волосики! (p. 160)
Бенефис или как-то. (p.
174)
Такой сильно
диксиленд с борделем...
(p. 171)
Все в кино рулят... (p.
172)
гроши уже на подсосе
(p. 176)
какая-то мелюзга
шастала (p. 176)
Музей естествознания
(p. 178)
Иногда мы зырили
животных, а иногда ту
фигню, что индейцы в
древности делали. (p.
178)
жвачка (p. 179)
пол там весь каменный
(p. 179)
Выглядела она
зашибенско. (p. 185)
это все транда (p. 186)
чесслово (p. 186)
фигня в том (p. 186)
А у тебя такие
отменные волосы. (p.
187)
«Волосики» - лопнуть
Отменные, хрена
можно! (p. 160)
лысого. (p. 187)
Но в общем дрянь. (p.
Хотя хероватенький
160)
все-таки. (p. 187)
на какой-нибудь
на какой-то фуфловой
идиотской вечеринке (p. балѐхе (p. 190)
183
162)
Да-да, аристократ!
(p. 162)
у этого пижона был
такой притворный,
аристократический
голос... (p. 163)
Кипиш такой, что мало
не покажется. (p. 190)
the jerk had one of those
у туполома этого голос
very phony, Ivy League
- такой фуфловый, что
voices... (p. 147)
дальше некуда,
культурно-плющовый
такой... (p. 191)
She wanted to see herself in Хотела покрасоваться в Хочет посмотреть на
one of those little skirts that этой юбчонке, которая себя в такой юбчонке,
just come down over their
еле-еле прикрывает зад. что пердак еле
butt and all. (p. 149)
(p. 164)
прикрывает. (p. 192)
I‘m in bad shape. I‘m in
Я в плохом состоянии. Фигово мне. Паршиво.
lousy shape. (p. 152)
Я в ужасающем
(p. 197)
состоянии! (p. 168)
Which was crap, because I И главное, врет, ничуть Что херня на постном
wasn‘t even screaming at
я на нее не орал. (p.
масле, потому что я на
her. (p. 153)
169)
нее даже не орал. (p.
198)
after you go to college (p.
после того как ты
когда ты закончишь
153)
окончишь университет колледж (p. 198)
(p. 169)
a Swiss cheese (p. 156)
сыр (p. 172)
Швейцарский сыр (p.
201)
no brains (p. 156)
никаких мозгов (p. 172) голяк мозгов (p. 202)
he was one of these very
он был ужасно умный
он такой интель (p. 204)
intellectual guys (p. 157)
(p. 174)
he had the highest I.Q. (p.
у него был самый
у него самый высокий
157)
высокий показатель
коэффициент
умственного развития
интеллекта был (p. 204)
(p. 174)
It seemed so stupid. (p.
Глупое занятие. (p. 175) Дурогонство какое-то.
158)
(p. 205)
the Christmas thing (p.
рождественская
рождественская хрень
159)
пантомима (p. 176)
(p. 207)
the bartender was a louse,
хозяин бара тоже
бармен тоже параша (p.
too (p. 164)
скотина (p. 182)
214)
These intellectual guys
Не любят эти умники
Этим интелям не в
don‘t like to have an
вести умный разговор,
жилу с тобой поintellectual conversation
они только сами любят умному разговаривать,
with you unless they‘re
разглагольствовать. (p. если они сами базаром
running the whole thing. (p. 188)
не заправляют. (p. 221)
170)
Big, big deal. (p. 147)
184
I gotta get a move on. (p.
205)
Говно у меня, а не
половая жизнь. (p. 222)
паттерны твоего
рассудка (p. 223)
я уже нажрался, как не
знаю что (p. 225)
официант (p. 225)
набубенивался, как
просто гад последний
(p. 225)
парадная дверь (p. 199) наружная дверь (p. 235)
мне давно так не везло подфартило за много
(p. 201)
лет впервые (p. 236)
свитер (p. 210)
ветровка (p. 247)
она сразу отвернулась и она морденцию свою
не смотрит (p. 212)
долбанутую в другую
сторону отвернула (p.
249)
а потом начинает
и давай этого Спенсера
перебивать старика
перебивать, корки
Спенсера своими
бородатые отмачивать
кретинскими
(p. 252)
шуточками (p. 214)
Перестань чертыхаться! Хватит ругаться. (p.
(p. 219)
257)
баранья котлетка (p.
баранья отбивная (p.
226)
265)
Спокойной ночи! (p.
Спок ночи! (p. 266)
226)
Надо бежать! (p. 227)
Надо мослами
шевелить. (p. 266)
the back stairs (p. 207)
slippers (p. 209)
We‘re both just dandy. (p.
209)
he was a little oiled up (p.
209)
Excuse the appearance of
the place. (p. 209)
черная лестница (p. 229)
туфли (p. 231)
О, у нас все чудесно! (p.
231)
он немножко на взводе
(p. 231)
Прости за беспорядок.
(p. 232)
She just arose from the
sack. (p. 209)
literature (p. 210)
Она встала с постели.
(p. 232)
литература (p. 232)
My sex life stinks. (p. 170)
the patterns of your mind
(p. 171)
I was getting drunk as hell
(p. 172)
headwaiter (p. 172)
getting drunk as a bastard
(p. 173)
front door (p. 180)
the best break I had in
years (p. 181)
windbreaker (p. 189)
she turned her crazy face
the other way (p. 191)
and then he‘d start
interrupting what old
Spencer was saying to
crack a lot of corny jokes
(p. 193)
Stop swearing. (p. 198)
lamb chop (p. 204)
G‘night! (p. 205)
Дерьмо, а не жизнь! (p.
189)
строй твоих мыслей (p.
189)
я уже был пьян как
сапожник (p. 191)
метрдотель (p. 191)
напился там как сукин
сын (p. 191)
задняя лестница (p. 269)
шлепанцы (p. 271)
Мы оба просто отпад.
(p. 271)
он уже слегка под
градусом (p. 272)
Прошу простить за
антураж помещения. (p.
272)
Она только что из
люльки. (p. 272)
литра́ (p. 273)
185
this tray with coffee and
cakes and stuff on it (p.
213)
поднос с кофе,
печеньем и всякой едой
(p. 235)
I‘m a mess. (p. 213)
Я в ужасном виде! (p.
235)
but I didn‘t cut any (p. 214) но вообще я ничего не
пропускал (p. 236)
He smoked like a fiend. (p. Курил он как паровоз.
214)
(p. 237)
doughnuts (p. 226)
пышки (p. 249)
scraggy-looking Santa
бородатые СантаClauses (p. 226)
Клаусы (p. 249)
a pair of moccasins (p. 227) пару домашних туфель
(p. 250)
bum a ride (p. 228)
проголосую (p. 251)
where it was pretty and
sunny (p. 228)
a filling station (p. 228)
for the rest of my life (p.
228)
I‘d want it to be sunny as
hell all the time (p. 229)
stationery store (p. 229)
all cockeyed (p. 231)
the principal‘s office (p.
231)
recess yard (p. 232)
he‘s my brudda (p. 234)
с таким подносом
вошла - с кофе и
кексами и прочей
фигней (p. 276)
Я чучело. (p. 276)
но много не сачковал (p.
278)
Курит он, как зверь. (p.
278)
пончики (p. 293)
тощие Санта-Клаусы (p.
293)
мокасины (p. 294)
попрошусь к комунибудь (p. 296)
где тепло и красиво (p. где все нормалек и
251)
солнышко (p. 296)
заправочная станция (p. заправка (p. 296)
251)
до конца жизни (p. 252) по гроб жизни (p. 296)
я люблю, чтобы солнце
светило на меня во все
лопатки (p. 252)
писчебумажный
магазин (p. 252)
да еще по-дурацки (p.
254)
канцелярия директора
(p. 254)
гимнастический зал (p.
255)
он мой братишка (p.
257)
чтоб солнце было
всегда, как не знаю что
(p. 296)
канцелярский магаз (p.
297)
само собой, сикосьнакось (p. 299)
учительская (p. 300)
двор (p. 301)
он мне братан (p. 303)
186
Table 2. Differences Caused by the Socio-Cultural Peculiarities of the Epochs
J. D. Salinger
a terrific lecture coming on
(p. 13)
near Central Park South (p.
16)
we all had to stand up in
the grandstand and give
him a locomotive - that‘s a
cheer (p. 20-21)
Rita Rait-Kovaleva
начнется жуткая
проповедь (p. 16)
у Южного выхода (p. 20)
for God‘s sake (p. 24)
for Chrissake! (p. 25)
For Chrissake, grow up.
(p. 26)
Je-sus Christ (p. 36)
мы должны были
вскочить на трибунах и
трубить вовсю, то есть
кричать ему «ура!» (p.
25)
черт его дери (p. 28)
Что за черт! (p. 29)
Да перестань ты, балда!
(p. 31)
О черт! (p. 41)
Jesus Christ. (p. 38)
Вот так история! (p. 43)
Old Stradlater was putting
Vitalis on his hair. My
Vitalis. (p. 38)
Стрэдлейтер
припомаживал волосы
бриолином. Моим
бриолином. (p. 43)
Checkers, for Chrissake!
(p. 38)
hamburger (p. 42)
the bus driver (p. 44)
the pinball machine (p. 44)
Jesus! (p. 55)
You‘re still bleeding, for
Chrissake. (p. 55)
Nobody‘s making any
cracks about your goddam
religion. (p. 59)
Gladstones (p. 61)
Spaulding‘s (p. 61)
Фу ты, дьявол, он играл в
шашки!!! (p. 43)
котлета (p. 49)
кондуктор (p. 50)
рулетка-автомат (p. 50)
О ч-черт! (p. 62)
Да у тебя до сих пор
кровь идет! (p. 63)
Никто твою религию не
трогает, хрен с ней. (p.
67)
чемоданы (p. 68-69)
спортивный магазин (p.
69)
черт их дери (p. 82)
Ох эти девчонки, черт бы
их подрал! (p. 95)
прохладительное (p. 97)
for God‘s sake (p. 72)
Girls. Jesus Christ. (p. 85)
Tom Collinses (p. 86)
Maxim Nemtsov
светит неслабая нотация
(p. 18)
возле Южной СентралПарк (p. 22)
мы все на трибуне
должны были встать и
дать ему «паровозика» это приветствие такое (p.
27)
ѐксель-моксель (p. 32)
елки-палки! (p. 33)
Елки-палки, дитя малое.
(p. 35)
Гос-споди боже мой. (p.
48)
Святый милостивый
боже. (p. 49)
А этот Стрэдлейтер
давай себе «виталисом»
волосы мазать. Моим
«виталисом». (p. 49)
Шашки, язви тебя! (p. 50)
гамбургер (p. 55)
водитель (p. 56)
пинбол (p. 57)
Бож-же! (p. 71)
Да у тебя еще кровь
идет, елки-палки. (p. 71)
Никто про твою, на фиг,
веру не острит. (p. 76)
«гладстоуна» (p. 78)
«Сполдингз» (p. 78)
ѐксель-моксель (p. 92)
Девчонки. Господи ты
боже мой. (p. 109)
«томы-коллинзы» (p.
111)
187
night club (p. 88)
in this LaSalle convertible
(p. 90)
кабак (p. 98)
на машине (p. 101)
a big fat colored guy (p.
93)
all those Ivy League
bastards (p. 99)
громадный негр (p. 104)
все эти хлюпики из
аристократических
землячеств (p. 110)
God, I hate that staff. (p.
Фу, до чего я это
100)
ненавижу! (p. 111)
One of them was this very Один из них, настоящий
Cuban-looking guy, and he испанец с виду, все
kept breathing his stinking время дышал мне в лицо
breath in my face while I
вонючим перегаром,
gave him directions. (p.
пока я объяснил, как им
104-105)
пройти. (p. 117)
I don‘t know how much he ... не знаю, сколько он
makes - he‘s never
зарабатывает, - он вечно
discussed that staff with
вкладывает деньги в
me - but I imagine quite a какие-то постановки на
lot. He‘s a corporation
Бродвее. (p. 137-138)
lawyer. Those boys really
haul it in. Another reason I
know he‘s quite well off,
he‘s always investing
money in shows in
Broadway. (p. 124)
this little sandwich bar (p.
124)
bacon and eggs (p. 124)
bourgeois (p. 125)
When I came out of the
record store, I passed this
drugstore, and I went in.
(p. 134)
two boys were playing
Flys Up with a soft ball (p.
136)
the canoe (p. 139)
butler (p. 145)
вокзальный буфет (p.
138)
яичницу с ветчиной (p.
138)
мещанские (p. 139)
Я вышел из магазина тут подвернулось кафе, и
я зашел. (p. 149)
мальчики играли в мяч
(p. 151)
лодка (p. 154)
лакей (p. 161)
ночной клуб (p. 113)
в этом их «ласалле» с
откидным верхом (p.
116)
жирный цветной парняга
(p. 120)
все эти гады из Лиги
Плюща (p. 127)
Господи, просто
ненавижу. (p. 129)
Один на вид вроде такой
сильно кубинец, он мне
всю рожу перегаром
завонял, пока я им
объяснял, как пройти. (p.
135)
Не знаю, сколько он там
зашибает, - он про такое
со мной никогда не
заговаривал, - только я
прикидываю, что до
фига. Он корпоративный
юрист. А эти ребята
гроши лопатой гребут.
Еще почему я знаю, что у
него гроши водятся, - он
вечно их вкладывает в
бродвейские постановки.
(p. 160)
эта бутербродная (p. 160)
яичница с беконом (p.
160)
буржуазные (p. 162)
Вышел из магаза, и тут аптека, и я туда зашел.
(p. 173)
два пацана играли
софтболом в «свечку» (p.
176)
каноэ (p. 180)
дворецкий (p. 187)
188
Strictly Ivy League. Big
deal. (p. 146)
cabin camps (p. 152)
Christ almightly. (p. 154)
flits / flitty (p. 165-166)
flitty-looking guy (p. 172,
175)
Veterans‘ Day (p. 193)
Светский лев.
Аристократ. (p. 162)
туристические лагеря (p.
168)
Ох, мать честная! (p. 170)
психи / педераст /
извращенцы / не совсем
нормальный / со
странностями (p. 182183)
женоподобный тип (p.
191, 194)
День выпускников (p.
214)
Плющовая Лига, аж куда
деваться. (p. 189)
кемпинги с хижинами (p.
197)
Господи ты боже мой. (p.
199)
гомики (p. 214-216)
гомиковатый такой
типус (p. 224) / гомик на
вид (p. 228)
День ветеранов (p. 252)