Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Type of publication: Straipsnis kituose recenzuojamuose leidiniuose / Article in other peer-reviewed editions (S5)
Field of Science: Filologija / Philology (H004)
Author(s): Tamošiūnaitė, Aurelija
Title: Simono Daukanto Rubinaitis Peliūzė : vertimas ir adaptavimas
Other Title: Simonas Daukantas’s Rubinaitis Peliūzė: translation and domestication
Is part of: Archivum Lithuanicum. Wiesbaden, Germany : Publishing House Harrassowitz, T. 9 (2007)
Extent: p. 249-274
Date: 2007
Keywords: Lietuvių kalba;Vertimas;Domestikavimas;Robinzonas Kruzas;Campe Joachim Heinrich;Lithuanian language;Translation;Domestication;Robinson Crusoe;Campe Joachim Heinrich
Abstract: The article analyzes the strategies of one translation (Rubinaitis Peliūzė; DaRub) by Simonas Daukantas. While translating Robinson der Jüngere by Joachim Heinrich Campe Daukantas adapted the original to his own culture: he changed most of the proper names (e.g. Hamburg became Palanga, Gotlieb―Pile etc.), domesticated some of the cultural characteristics, such as the religion of the main protagonist (e.g. in the original Robinson is a Protestant, in DaRub―a Catholic), language, and a few historical events. However, since some proper names were kept in the original, or they were changed to different ones further on in the text, I believe that Daukantas was translating sentence by sentence and did not revise or compare his finished work again with the original. Daukantas tried to avoid literal translation. He modified sentences by shortening or extending them. However, he followed the original quite precisely. The tendency to etymologize some words (e.g. slėgti) were conspicuous. The usage of the Prussian and Latvian words in the DaRub corresponds well to Daukantas’s idea to create the Standard Lithuanian language based on historical principles. Daukantas domesticated the text not only on the semantic level, but on the pragmatic as well (e.g. instead of neutral verbs he often used connotative ones). Syntactic meanings of the text were not kept in translation due to different Lithuanian and German sentence structure. Some of the mistakes found in DaRub could be attributed to the anonymous person who rewrote (copied) the text, rather than to Daukantas, since his original longhand version did not survive
Appears in Collections:Universiteto mokslo publikacijos / University Research Publications

Files in This Item:
marc.xml6.72 kBXMLView/Open

MARC21 XML metadata

Show full item record

Page view(s)

checked on Dec 9, 2019


checked on Dec 9, 2019

Google ScholarTM


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.