Hanna Medzińska
Dealing with lexical ambiguity in literary
texts on the examples of Polish
translations of The Lord of the Rings by
J.R.R. Tolkien
Praca licencjacka napisana
w Instytucie Filologii Angielskiej
Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza
pod kierunkiem dra Grzegorza Krynickiego
Poznań, 2010
OŚWIADCZENIE
Ja, niżej podpisany/a
Hanna Medzińska
studentka Wydziału Neofilologii
Uniwersytetu im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
oświadczam,
że przedkładaną pracę dyplomową
pt. Dealing with lexical ambiguity in literary texts on the example of Polish
translations of The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien.
napisałam samodzielnie.
Oznacza to, że przy pisaniu pracy, poza niezbędnymi konsultacjami, nie
korzystałam z pomocy innych osób, a w szczególności nie zlecałam opracowania
rozprawy lub jej istotnych części innym osobom, ani nie odpisywałam tej
rozprawy lub jej istotnych części od innych osób.
Jednocześnie przyjmuję do wiadomości, że gdyby powyższe oświadczenie
okazało się nieprawdziwe, decyzja o wydaniu mi dyplomu zostanie cofnięta.
Poznań, 21.06.2010
(miejscowość, data)
(czytelny podpis)
2
Table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: LEXICAL AMBIGUITY AND HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ............. 6
1.1. THE NOTION OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY ...................................................................... 6
1.2. TESTS FOR AMBIGUITY ............................................................................................ 6
1.3. TYPES OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY ............................................................................... 8
1.3.1. Sense modulation and sense selection ............................................................ 8
1.3.2. Homonymy and polysemy ............................................................................... 9
1.4. WORD SENSE DISAMBIGUATION ............................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 2: LEXICAL AMBIGUITY IN WRITTEN TRANSLATION ............ 14
2.1. LEXICAL AMBIGUITY IN TRANSLATION AND TRANSLATIONESE ............................. 14
2.2. NON-LITERARY TRANSLATION AND ITS TREATMENT OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY ....... 15
2.3. LITERARY TRANSLATION AND ITS TREATMENT OF LEXICAL AMBIGUITY ............... 16
CHAPTER 3: LEXICAL AMBIGUITY IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS AND ITS
POLISH TRANSLATIONS ......................................................................................... 17
3.1. TOLKIENIAN STYLE AND TRANSLATIONS OF TOLKIEN’S WORKS ............................ 17
3.2. LEXICAL AMBIGUITY IN THE LORD OF THE RINGS .................................................. 17
3.2.1. Homonymy .................................................................................................... 18
3.2.2. Treatment of lexically ambiguous words by Tolkien’s translators
Skibniewska and Łoziński ....................................................................................... 27
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 35
3
REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 36
4
Introduction
The thesis focuses on the notion of lexical ambiguity and its types as exemplified by
J.R.R. Tolkien in the novel The Lord of the Rings (henceforth LOTR) and its treatment
in translation.
In the first chapter there are introduced tests for ambiguity. Moreover, it discusses different classifications of lexical ambiguity and concentrates on methods of word
sense disambiguation, regarding various types of it.
The second chapter deals with the treatment of lexical ambiguity in written
translation. There are described main problems encountered by translators when facing
lexical ambiguity in translation. The second chapter also differentiates between the appearance and role of lexical ambiguity in non-literary and literary translations.
The final chapter constitutes an independent study into the instances of lexical
ambiguity in The Lord of the Rings. On the basis of a dictionary and context it judges
the role of lexical ambiguities, makes predictions of whether an example of lexical ambiguity will cause trouble to the translator. Then it finds out how Polish translators have
dealt with lexical ambiguity and what the effect like in the target text is{but unclear
anyway}.
It is hypothesized that lexical ambiguity in a literary translation benefits the
source and target text, enriches them significantly so that the translator should always
seek to preserve it.
5
Chapter 1: Lexical ambiguity and how to deal with it
1.1. The notion of lexical ambiguity
It should be indicated what the notion of lexical ambiguity stands for. According
to Saeed (1997: 60-61), ambiguity appears when one lexeme has got two or more different meanings (also called senses). One can find out how many senses a particular
lexeme has got by looking it up in a dictionary which contains the lexicon of a given
language. If one lexical entry contains two or more explanations or one lexeme has got
two or more lexical entries, then it can be stated that such a lexeme is ambiguous.
For the purpose of clearer definition, Saeed (1997:60-62) introduced the distinction between ambiguity and vagueness. Basically, when considering an instance of ambiguity, there must appear two or more various senses of the same lexeme whereas
vagueness applies to one sense influenced by various contexts. Thus, “(…) in examples
of vagueness the context can add information that is not specified in the sense, but in
examples of ambiguity the context will cause one of the senses to be selected” (Saeed
1977:61). There arises a problem how to differentiate between ambiguity and vagueness. In order to resolve the problem, some tests for ambiguity will be introduced and
applied.
1.2. Tests for ambiguity
If we want to recognize an instance of ambiguity correctly, we may not only rely on our
intuition but also, in order not to confuse an ambiguous word with just a vague one,
6
apply the ambiguity tests (Kempson1977, as cited in Saeed 1997: 61). First of them is
called a do so test as it focuses on the abbreviated forms of do so, do so too, so do
which are used to replace the preceding verb phrase. This test relies on identity, repetition of an ambiguous sense. Let us look at the examples given by Kempson:
(1) Charlie hates mayonnaise and so does Mary.
(2) Duffy discovered a mole, and so did Clark.
Because of the identity between the two parts of each sentence, we know that in
the example (1) Mary hates mayonnaise and that in (2) Clark discovered a mole. Thus,
the two verb phrases share the same sense, regardless of the sense actually selected in
the first verb phrase. Considering those two examples, the second one, because of the
existence of two meanings of mole (“a small burrowing mammal” and “a long dormant
spy”) is a case of lexical ambiguity. In contrast, when there is an instance of vagueness,
the do so test does not work. Kempson proves this on the example of the word publicist:
(3) They hired a publicist and so did we (Kempson 1977, as cited in Saeed 1997:62).
This example shows that publicist is vague, unspecified for gender since the
publicist in the first clause can be male and in the second female, so the specifications
of publicist may differ. “The unspecified aspects of meaning (…) are in fact not part of
the meaning and therefore are not available for the identity check” (Saeed 1997:61).
Another ambiguity test introduced by Saeed is called Sense Relations Test. It relies “on one sense being in the network of relations with certain other lexemes and another sense being in a different network” (Saeed 1997:62). It means that one meaning of
a word is synonymous to some set of words, e.g. run is a synonym of jog, while another
meaning of this word cannot be replaced by those synonyms but by different set of synonyms, e.g. run in another context can be replaced by enclosure. This shows the ambiguity, the separate senses of the lexeme run.
Cruse introduces two tests for ambiguity, direct and indirect tests (Cruse 1986,
as cited in Salhi 2008:17). For example, one of the indirect tests deals with paradigmatic
relations, particularly with synonymy. Cruse exemplified this test by comparing two
sentences including the lexeme “match”:
7
(4) Guy Struck the match.
(5) The match was a draw.
The two senses of the word match were differentiated with the help of inventing
the synonym lucifer, which is a synonym of match in the first sentence whereas it cannot replace match as it appears in the second sentence. This shows the evidence that the
word match is lexically ambiguous. This test for ambiguity does not seem to differ in
any respect from the Sense Relations Test.
1.3. Types of lexical ambiguity
1.3.1. Sense modulation and sense selection
Cruse distinguishes two types of lexical ambiguity: sense modulation and sense
selection (Cruse 1986, as cited in Salhi 2008:17). In his view, sense modulation manifests itself in that every context makes a kind of modification of a given word to its own
meaning. The example given concentrates on the word cousin in the sentence:
(6) Sue is visiting her cousin.
According to Cruse, the word cousin is ambiguous since it may denote both a
female and a male. And here appears a kind of conflict between Cruse and the view of
Kempson mentioned earlier which would classify such an instance as vagueness rather
than ambiguity.
The second kind of lexical ambiguity mentioned by Cruse, sense selection, appears when the context selects one of the separate meanings of the word, as in the example:
(7) We finally reached the bank.
8
Where bank can be interpreted as “a financial institution” or “the edge of the river”
(Salhi 2008:15).
1.3.2. Homonymy and polysemy
Homonymy and polysemy are types of lexical relations which “constitute two of the
causes of ambiguity in natural languages”(Oakes 2005:175). Homonymy appears when
one phonological word has got various senses. While having different meanings, those
words may have the same spelling and then they are homographs (e.g. verb keep and
noun keep); or the same pronunciation and then they are called homophones (e.g. not
and knot).
Polysemy appears when the two senses of one word are related. The words are
said to be related if they belong to the same semantic field or have the same historical
origin. Whether one encounters an example of polysemy and homonymy can be also
easily checked in other way, by looking a word up in a dictionary. Because the criteria
of relatedness is taken into account by lexicographers, homonyms are given separate
lexical entries whereas polysemous words appear under one entry. What is of great
importance in the distinction between homonymy and polysemy as well, is the etymology of words. The homonymous words are assumed to have been derived in the past
from separate lexical items. Practically, it does not always seem to be the case since
historical derivation of some words is not certain and the problem arises how far we
have to go back in the history of words (Lyons 1977, as cited in Klepousniotou
2002:206).
According to Apresjan (1974, as cited in Klepousniotou 2002:206), polysemy
can be further divided into two types: metaphorical and metonymical. When it comes to
polysemy motivated by metaphor, “(…)a relation of analogy is assumed to hold between the senses of the word”. The main sense of such a word is literal, as the basic
sense of eye is part of the body; and its secondary meaning is figurative, as part of a
needle is a figurative sense of eye. In polysemy motivated by metonymy “the relation
that is assumed to hold between the senses of the word is that of contiguity or connectedness”. This kind of polysemy is said to simply stick to the definition of polysemy in
general, “to have several distinct but related meanings”. Both senses of the word are
9
literal, as in the example of chicken which is understood as an animal and meat at the
same time.
Both polysemy and homonymy can be treated as instances of lexical ambiguity.
Pustejovsky (1996: 27-33) mentions the distinction made by Weinreich (1964) between
two types of lexical ambiguity. The first one is called contrastive ambiguity and it actually equals homonymy. One of the examples given is an instance of lexeme line:
(8) Drop me a line when you are in Boston.
(9) We built a fence along the property line.
Pustejovsky explains contrastive ambiguity by claim that it is a “pragmatically
constrained ambiguity” and that we need to know the context in which it appears in order to be able to disambiguate it.
Another type of ambiguity mentioned by Pustejovsky is the opposite of
contrastive ambiguity, complementary polysemy. The words refer to the same basic
sense but occurring in different contexts. It is distinguished from so called logical
polysemy by the fact that it allows for the relation of cross-categorial meanings, so it is
a broader term which is illustrated in the example of farm:
(10)
The farm will fail unless we receive the subsidy promised.
(11)
To farm this land would be both foolish and without reward.
In contrast, logical polysemy is also a kind of complementary ambiguity but it
does not allow for the change of lexical category, as in the example:
(12)
The bank raised its interest rates yesterday.
(13)
The store is next to the newly constructed bank.
According to Pustejovsky, contrary to contrastive polysemy, complementary
polysemy is a “semantically constrained ambiguity” and though not context-based, the
reader still has to possess some general knowledge about the world, called commonsense knowledge (Pustejovsky 1995, as cited in Salhi 2008:15). All the senses in
10
complementary polysemy relate to one shared core meaning which is a prototypical, the
most salient meaning (Salhi 2008:19).
The best way to visualize polysemy is to have the lexicon with multiple listings
of words, each with a discrete meaning. Such a dictionary is defined by Pustejovsky
(1996: 29) as Sense Enumeration Lexicon (SEL). Considering this method of lexical
sense organization, the ambiguity of a word does not appear to confuse the interpretation of a sentence. As an example there were used two senses of the word bank:
(14) Bank 1
CAT= count_noun
GENUS= financial institution
(15) Bank 2
CAT=count_noun
GENUS= shore
In order to differentiate between two senses of one lexeme, there were used lexical data structure which is grammatical category type CAT as well as basic designation
of the semantic genus term GENUS. The Sense Enumeration Lexicon may be of great
help in the process of disambiguation which will be discussed in detail in the following
section.
1.4. Word sense disambiguation
Although the existence of polysemy and homonymy contribute to making words
ambiguous, there is a process which enables us to interpret a word correctly,
considering the sense that was intended by its author. Such a process is called word
sense disambiguation. We will look at the words that are contrastively ambiguous.
Pustejovsky gave an example of the following sentence (Waltz and Pollack 1987, as
cited in Pustejovsky 1996: 29):
(16)
John shot a few bucks.
11
We can assume that John was hunting or spent money when gambling. The
proper understanding of this utterance is based on the context of who John is and what
does he do. Thus, it is an example of Pragmatically Constrained Disambiguation
(Pustejovsky 1996: 29). What is worth noticing is that “once the context or domain for
one item has been chosen or identified, the ambiguity of other items is also constrained”. Here the meaning of buck determines the meaning of shot.
Next examples given to illustrate different type of disambiguation are:
(17)
The judge asked the defendant to approach the bar.
(18)
The defendant was in the pub at the bar.
At this time we disambiguate on the basis of typical use of those lexical items
and discourse within which the sentences appear, though other interpretations could be
hypothetically possible. Nevertheless, we use intuitive methods of priming and context
setting and assume that the judge is in the court rather than in the club.
Another type of disambiguation does not require context but the right sense of
the word is derived due to sortal knowledge of the noun phrase as in the following example (here in the position of the inverted subject):
(19)
Nadia’s favourite club is the five-iron.
(20)
Nadia’s favourite club is The Carlton.
Thus, we are sure, of course if we only possess this kind of knowledge, that in
the first sentence club can be specified to the golf club, whereas in the second example
club refers to the place of entertainment. Pustejovsky called such method of disambiguation Sortally Constrained Disambiguation (1996:30).
Disambiguation may be performed also with the help of Sense Enumeration
Lexicon (SEL) by looking at the type selection or selection for particular syntactic environment of verbs (Pustejovsky 1996:34-38). In order visualize this method clearly
Pustejovsky provided us with a given example:
(21)
Nadia’s plane taxied to the terminal.
12
We can identify contrastive senses of plane as well as terminal with the help of
adequate features:
(22)
Plane 1
GENUS= aircraft
Plane 2
GENUS= tool
This illustrates that contrastive meanings of plane are sortally constrained since
we do not focus on the context in order to disambiguate. Instead, we disambiguate the
subject with the help of type selection by the predicate taxi.
When it comes to disambiguation of the words that carry complementary polysemy, the correct sense is chosen by looking at the context in which the word appears.
In opposition to contrastive senses which are contradictory, complementary senses have
“weaker shadowing effect”. Both meanings seem to be relevant but only one appears to
be “focused” in the context. There is an example of lamb and its SEL representations:
(23)
The lamb is running in the field.
(24)
John ate lamb for breakfast.
(25)
Lamb
SENSE 1= CAT= mass_noun
GENUS= meat
SENSE 2= CAT= count_noun
GENUS= animal
Those two senses are differentiated by type. And in this representation in SEL
where they are in a single entry, suggested by Pustejovsky as the best, it is seen that
they are logically related.
13
Chapter 2: Lexical ambiguity in written translation
2.1. Lexical ambiguity in translation and translationese
As Salhi (2008: 18) states, the process of translation being a practical exercise of language is a reliable source of information of how lexical ambiguity is perceived in texts
and how it complicates the interpretation of a source text. The ambiguity may be then
viewed as a stylistic fault and failure. “Lexical ambiguity poses one of the most basic
problems in word recognition and sentence comprehension” (Becker 1976: 243). Thus
the translator has got two choices. They may preserve the ambiguity in the target text or
not try to keep it and simply ignore it.
The significant problem which arises before the translator is third code or
translationese (Salhi 2008:5). It is understood as an awkward use of the words in the
target language. Salhi used the instance of translationese to show how complementary
polysemy may complicate the process of translation. He compared the translations of
three complementary senses of the word rabbit into French and Arabic. He used three
exemplary sentences:
(26)
John ate rabbit.
(27)
I refuse to wear rabbit.
(28)
After several lorries had run the body, there was rabbit splattered all over the
highway.
The first sentence interprets rabbit as meat, the second as a fur and the final one
as blood or flesh. When translating it into French, one word du lapin perfectly matches
14
all three senses. On the contrary, in Arabic the usage of one word to fit three contexts
creates only oddity and instead of repeating rabbit in the second and third case it should
be translated simply as fur and flesh. Such a transferred usage of complementary polysemy is an example of translationese and shows that lexical ambiguity may become a
trap to the translator and contribute to awkward translation.
2.2. Non-literary translation and its treatment of lexical ambiguity
When it comes to the non-literary translation, we mainly consider translation of
technical and scientific or legal content. Technical and scientific translation is also
called specialist translation (Pieńkos 2003: 89). Such translations are supposed to be
impersonal- they are not identified with the author of a source text. What differentiates
them from literary translations is, above all, lack of emotions and aesthetic values.
One of the characteristics of non-literary translations is the importance of some
concepts and terms and their accurate translation. The translator is interested in looking
for equivalents of some specific terms in the target language. This equivalence is not
necessarily on semantic field but it is a functional equivalence. In order to obtain it a
translator has first to understand the meaning as intended by the author. It is applied in
order to avoid ambiguity in the target text and once understanding the appropriate
meaning the translator should seek to put an equivalent which will be explicit in meaning.
The technical, scientific as well as legal texts should contain precise and clear
messages since those texts tell the truth about the reality and do not create it. Otherwise,
the text translated inaccurately could cause a threat to people or just constitute no cognitive value that the source text possesses. Thus, the translator of above-mentioned kinds
of non-literary texts should avoid polysemous words which might cause problem with
proper interpretation of the message of the text (Pieńkos 2003 : 89-100).
15
2.3. Literary translation and its treatment of lexical ambiguity
Boase-Beier (2006:84) defends the phenomenon of ambiguity in literature by saying
that such ambiguity cannot be treated as anomaly but it has got its own purpose in wider, more complex interpretation of the literary work and the translator’s task is to recognize all of the meanings included in the original and how they relate to each other. Thus,
the translator should seek to translate it in the way which would preserve this “complex
state of mind”.
Boase-Beier purports that “the translator’s task is to preserve the interactive nature of the original”, that they should preserve the same emotions evoked and thus not
only concentrate on the ambiguity of the word itself but mainly on the ideas that lie behind words, that are suggested by them (Boase-Beier 2006:121).
Pieńkos asserts that translation of a literary work gives a translator an opportunity for the highest level of creativity. The translator’s role then is not only to convey the
same meaning but also evoke similar emotions in the reader and maintain the same esthetic values. Thus, the translator in this respect is also a kind of artist who has to recreate the artistic vision in a new cultural background of the target language. Because of
those cultural differences, the translator may introduce some changes to the work and
not always be faithful to the original (Pieńkos 2003: 87-94).
When encountering ambiguity in literature the readers have to search for
resolution, which generates their interest. And this is the crucial difference between
literary texts and texts of other kind: the non-literary texts give the reader at first some
kind of cognitive effort but eventually provide the reader with clear interpretation
whereas literary texts allow various interpretations and in this way stimulate the reader.
Ambiguity is viewed as one of the principles and characteristic features of literature,
therefore the translators are advised to keep it in order to preserve the essence and genius of the original work.
In this thesis, on the basis of examples compiled from the novel The Lord of the
Rings and its Polish translations, we will try to find out when translators maintain lexical ambiguity, when they disambiguate and what effect does it have on the target text as
well as what kinds of lexical ambiguity may be problematic to the translator and which
are not.
16
Chapter 3: Lexical ambiguity in The Lord of the Rings and its
Polish translations
3.1. Tolkienian style and translations of Tolkien’s works
Explaining the choice of Tolkien, we may follow Lichański’s claim that he is one of the
greatest English writers whose works constitute a great artistic challenge for a translator
(Lichański 2000:379). According to Lichański, artistic translation of Tolkien, preserving all artistic values, is impossible and the translator may only focus on philological
translation, focused on conveying information, due to complexity of Tolkien’s texts.
There has not been really indicated in literature reviewed by the author of this paper any
tendency of Tolkien to apply lexical ambiguity in his novels. And it is neither the aim of
this thesis to prove or disprove that this author may apply it on purpose. Tolkien’s novel
here is used only as an example to show how lexical ambiguity in the source text, here a
literary text–a novel, may influence its translation and to consider the instances when it
is better to disambiguate or to preserve ambiguity.
3.2. Lexical ambiguity in The Lord of the Rings
We will look at the examples of lexically ambiguous words in LOTR, even when the
meaning of those words seem obvious to the reader when looking at the given context in
which they appear. Thus, some of them may not cause trouble when translating into
Polish. There will be provided specially selected sentences taken out from the novel that
contain at least one lexically ambiguous word. The fact of being lexically ambiguous
17
will be proved on the basis of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (henceforth AHDEL) or the applied tests for ambiguity described in Chapter 1.
Then we will try to classify the ambiguous word more narrowly and disambiguate the
ambiguities when possible and on this basis we will make predictions about whether
given instances may cause trouble to the translator. We will subjectively decide if the
meanings fit in the context and if they have some influence on the novel –if it is better
to disambiguate when the other meaning seems nonsense or not right, or if the ambiguity may be intended since it enriches the text in some way (e.g. comic relief).
Then, in the next subchapter we will have a look at Polish translations and see if
a translator disambiguated the ambiguous word— if the target word is ambiguous as
well and if so, if the meanings of a target word are equivalent to the meanings of ambiguous words in the source text.
We will also compare two Polish translations, by Skibniewska and Łoziński, and
see if lexical ambiguity in the source fragment contributed to different interpretations of
one word, or maybe both translators disambiguated the word when the word seemed to
be context-specific and ambiguity did not play any significant role in the text. Then we
will try to judge, on the basis of gathered evidence, if the target text “lost” something in
the process of translation from English to Polish, namely if the source text in given
fragments conveys more information than the source text, if it makes a different effect
on the reader or maybe the Polish translations seem to enrich the original.
Finally, we will make a conclusion if it is better for a translator to disambiguate
or preserve the ambiguity in a target text and when, in what cases.
3.2.1. Homonymy
We will consider the examples of homonymous words in the source text, the first of
which is:
(29)
Even outside everything seemed still (Tolkien [1954] 1978: 61).
Still is treated here as an adjective which has got two meanings, both similar to
each other. The first sense relates to not moving, being motionless and the second sense
18
of still is strictly connected with the first one meaning quiet, calm. Those two meanings
are given in a single entry, thus it can be noticed that they exemplify the polysemous
relations within the word still. It cannot be decided without doubt which of those two
senses is intended here since the context does not determine it. But it is not really a
problem to the translator in this case because the two meanings are so closely linked to
each other that it seems to be of no higher importance which of them will be selected in
the target text. We may also ask if the ambiguity was intentional in this sentence but the
two meanings are almost synonymous and preserving ambiguity in translation, even if it
was possible, would not bring in anything important to the text. The choice of any of
these meanings would not change the sense of target text significantly, if at all.
Another example shows the use of spare in the following context:
(30)
You’ll keep an eye on Frodo, won’t you?
—Two eyes, as often as I can spare them (Tolkien [1954] 1978:34).
Looking the word up in a dictionary of English, it has got numerous senses,
many of which relate to linked meanings. For lack of space, I will not mention them all
here but will select these among them which best suit the context in which the word
spare appeared in the given fragment of the novel. The polysemous senses of the word
spare are: “to refrain from treating harshly, to treat leniently”, “to refrain from harming,
destroying”; “to use with restraint”. “To keep an eye on somebody” is an idiom but it is
not a matter of our research here. What is of particular interest for this thesis is that the
word spare may be interpreted ambiguously here, not only because of being given a few
senses in a dictionary, but also by relating it to the context, and context of the given
fragment which was chosen as well as to the context of the whole novel. Knowing the
context, one may notice that the given fragment contains a humorous element. The person who answers the given question is Gandalf, a wizard from LOTR. Since he is an
elderly person, the word spare seems to be ambiguous in a humorous way, meaning that
Gandalfwill look after Frodo as often as he is able to do this. But the first two senses of
the word spare may suggest broader meaning of this word, that Gandalf will prevent his
eyesight from deterioration if only he is not exposed to danger which he, as a magician,
frequently faces. Moreover, another sense of spare mentioned as a third may indicate
that Gandalf will try to save his eyesight in order to be able to look after Frodo, since its
19
deterioration is likely considering that he is advanced in years. If we interpret the ambiguity in this way, it introduces humour since it would imply that Gandalf has got huge
distance to himself and his ripe old age. If the same effect is preserved in Polish translations, we will find out later.
Let us consider another instance of use of polysemous words:
(31)
(...)And there were various other rustic hobbits listening to their talk (Tolkien
[1954]1978:46).
According to the dictionary, rustic means either rural, living in the country and
simple, unsophisticated. At first those meanings do not seem to be linked, because they
express in turn one’s origin and a feature of character, so two distinct entities. But when
we have a closer look at them, it may be deduced that they are strictly connected with
each other since people living in the country are stereotypically thought to be uneducated, leading simple life. Thus, rustic could have first appeared as a word denoting people
living in the country. Then, since in the past their way of living focused mainly on
working in the field and they were not interested in education or taking any excessive
mental effort, they could be considered, contrary to dwellers of the cities, as coarse
people. In this way, the meaning of rustic could be extended. Although such a way of
thinking does not aim at offending villagers, it may seem pejorative since it indicates
that such people are in general not smart enough. Here, judging from the context as
well, either of those senses of the word rustic might be taken into account. Hobbits live
in the country called Shire and the agricultural lifestyle of its inhabitants suits the first
sense. Nevertheless, Tolkien very often relates in LOTR to hobbits being simple, even
not very intelligent, with a few exceptions. Thus, whether one selects the first or the
second meaning here or maybe both of them, the solution seems to be always correct
and any of those senses may be interpreted twofold by the reader.
Another example of lexical ambiguity results neither from polysemy nor
homonymy:
(32)
‘(...)Who invented the stories anyway? Take dragons now’.
‘(...)There’s only one Dragon in Bywater, and that’s Green’, he said, getting a
general laugh (Tolkien [1954]1978:46).
20
The ambiguity and even humorous ambiguity here stems from the fact that
Green Dragon is a proper name in the novel, denoting a popular pub. Of course it relates as well to dragon as an animal, a creature which appears in fairy tales. But in the
second fragment the interlocutor, called Ted Sandyman, has in mind the pub, not the
animal, which is highlighted by the usage of capital letters. The person expresses in this
way a doubt in the existence of real dragons in Bywater, pointing to the Green Dragon,
a pub in Bywater, as the only dragon that exists. Thus it evokes a burst of laughter
among the characters in the novel. We can predict that translating it into Polish should
not cause any trouble to the translator, since the ambiguity of the word dragon itself
was not used by Tolkien. The second meaning was just introduced by the proper name.
It is an example of Sortally Constrained Disambiguation that was introduced by
Pustejovsky, since we disambiguate here on the basis of our knowledge of what The
Green Dragon is in the novel.
Another instance of lexical ambiguity from LOTR which will be taken into consideration here concerns the same example which was described in the first chapter.
(33)
The hobbits scrambled down a steep green bank and plunged into the thick trees
below (Tolkien [1954]1978:92).
It is an example of homonymous ambiguity. The senses which were mentioned
earlier in sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 referred to bank either as “a financial institution” or “a
side of the river”. But looking it up in a dictionary and considering all the senses of the
word bank, we would have to introduce the meaning beyond those two aforementioned
in order to suit the context of the given sentence in which the word bank here appears.
Judging from the context and even relying on our knowledge of the novel, we would
have to resign from the first sense of the word bank, because in the world presented by
Tolkien there are no institutions of that kind. Moreover, this meaning would not fit in
the rest of the sentence. The remaining part of the sentence rather suggests that the author has in mind an element of natural environment. Investigating the sentence in more
detail in order to select the intended meaning of the word bank, one can notice that bank
is an entity or, as we have already decided, en element of environment, that has to tower
over something, here over the trees which are below. The word below is thus a key element here since it indicates that the bank is situated above the trees. Hence, the most
21
appropriate meaning of bank here is not financial institution nor a side of the river, but
another explanation of this word would have to be introduced. AHDEL provides us with
the entry containing such explanation: “the slope of land adjoining a body of water” and
another one “a steep natural incline”. It means that bank in this context may be “an incline”, “a slope”. It is situated near the river, but not necessarily. In the sentence from
LOTR there is no mention of any body of water, thus the only possible sense is “a steep
natural incline”. We disambiguated the word bank by elimination, focusing on the specific context in which it appeared. This process of disambiguation represents Pragmatically Constrained Disambiguation.
Later in the novel, there is an example of the same word, relating to the same
entry in the dictionary:
(34)
The banks of the stream sank,(...)wandering off towards the Marish and the
River (Tolkien [1954]1978:93).
This sentence exemplifies the sense of the word bank which was used in the first
chapter, where one of its interpretations was “a side of the river”. Here it relates to the
reservoir of water as well. The stream in the end turns into a river, thus it can be stated
that it is the same bank. One may mean side of the river or, as in this case, side of the
stream but still it will be actually the same object, denoting the place where water meets
the ground not filled with water. Still, though those two instances of word bank here
relate to the same entry in AHDEL, there seems to be a difference between them. We
will later find out if there is such distinction in Polish language looking into the Polish
dictionary and comparing those instances in Polish translations.
Another word expressing homonymous relations is presented in the following sentence:
(35)
After a while Pippin fell fast asleep, and was lifted up and borne away to a
bower under the trees (...)(Tolkien[1954]1978:85).
Here we might argue whether bower relates to “a shaded, leafy recess; an arbor” or
“a rustic cottage; a country retreat”. It can be stated that those meanings are polysemous
since both indicate a kind of shelter, made most possibly out of wood or other natural
22
sources, differing mostly in respect of time spend there during one’s life. Cottage is a
place of permanent living, a lodging place, whereas arbour is rather a place of relaxation
in the garden. Although two meanings are polysemous, the places they denote differ in
their appearance as well as their function, despite having already mentioned similarities.
Basing on our knowledge of the novel and the information that it happens in the woods,
and relying on another part of the sentence, that the bower is situated under the trees,
does not have to determine anything since it is likely to find some leafy shelters as well
as huts. Another sentence found some pages further helps us in reaching final decision
of disambiguation, referring to the same place which was mentioned in the sentence
which has just been discussed. The sentence is:
(36)
He was lying in a bower made by a living tree with branches laced and drooping
to the ground; his bed was of fern and grass (...) (Tolkien [1954]1978:89).
This sentence containing brief description of a bower leads us to the conclusion
that this bower is a place of rather temporary stay, not a place of permanent address
because anything made by a living tree is not even a hut but the point where one may
unwind and find shelter in the shade. Although bed may indicate that it is a place of
sleep, this bed is made of impermanent materials that are fern and grass which suggest
that it is a temporary place of living, so an arbour.
Next example of lexical ambiguity seems to select two of its meanings:
(37)
Their land was originally unprotected from the East; but on that side they had
built a hedge: the High Hay. It had been planted many generations ago, and was
now thick and tail, for it was constantly tended. It ran all the way from Brandywine
Bridge, in a big loop away from the river, to Haysend (...): well over twenty miles
from end to end. But, of course, it was not a complete protection (Tolkien
[1954]1978:103).
This description of hedge suggests without doubt that the hedge here is just a
plant, bushes. It is definite for it is said that it had been planted, and that one has to look
after it. Nevertheless, when we analyse the rest of the fragment, the given hedge fulfils
as well the specific function which is given as a second explanation in a separate entry
23
for the word hedge. It is defined in Collins English Dictionary as: “a barrier or protection against something”. Thus, it gives protection to the land which was mentioned in
the fragment above. Since the two senses are polysemous, they interlace here, and
hedge is here a kind of large fence which serves as protection for the described land.
Another case exemplifies polysemous relations between two related senses of
one word:
(38)
Looking up he saw before him a tall white tower, standing alone on a high ridge
(Tolkien [1954] 1978: 113).
The American Heritage Dictionary provides us with two possible explanations to
this word: “a long, narrow upper section or crest” or “a long, narrow chain of hills or
mountains”. The fact that those explanations represent two seemingly distinct entities,
would lead us to assume that those senses represent rather homonymous, differing relations. However, they are contained in a single entry, which helps us determine that those
two meanings are strictly connected to each other, polysemous. What probably connects
those meanings is presenting something raised and narrow at the top of something.
Nevertheless, judging from the context the second one fits in the context perfectly. The
first cannot be selected, since one should then use the expression “a ridge of something”, it requires a complement, while in the text there is just a ridge. Therefore, the
translation of this lexical ambiguity should not pose any further problems.
Moving further, lexical ambiguity of the word muffle is even more complicated:
(39)
The others halted startled; but the cry fell as if muffled by a heavy curtain
(Tolkien [1954]1978:116).
Lexical ambiguity in this case is really worth of interest. There are two definitions of the word muffle that may be taken into consideration. One of them explains to
muffle as “to wrap up, as in a blanket or shawl, for warmth, protection or secrecy”,
whereas the other relates to wrapping in order to deaden the sound. At this moment of
the novel one of its protagonists has just made a cry while being in the woods. But we
have to remember now that the curtain is a subject here, and cry is an object. Curtain, as
a fabric, may keep warm, but the cry is not a material object that can be kept warm. The
24
cry cannot be wrapped up either. Therefore, “muffled by heavy curtain” is introduced
here only as a comparison. The verb muffle here refers closely to the word cry. The first
sense from a dictionary suggests rather a physical object which may be kept warm or
protected. Instead, it should be described using the criterion of loudness. Thus, thinking
about the meaning of the word muffle when translating, one would have to select the
meaning which relates to making a sound quieter.
Let’s have a look at ambiguity that has got several separate meanings:
(40)
You may meet a friend of mine on the Road: a Man, lean, dark, tall, by some
called Strider (Tolkien [1954]1978:176).
In AHDEL there are some polysemous senses explaining dark. They are: lacking
brightness, light”; “swarthy”; “mysterious”; “sinister”. And approaching it from a linguistic point of view, considering semantic features of them, only the first sense, without light, so suggesting being blackish, is an adjective which is not an attribute of a human, or even anything animate. Thus, we could say that “without light” is minus
animate. It means that it refers to the inanimate properties. Thus, dark cannot be an attribute of a man called Strider in the first sense, namely without light. The rest of them
can describe a human. They are plus animate and plus human. In order to disambiguate
dark here among those three senses, one has to apply Pragmatically Constrained Disambiguation. One has to rely on the knowledge of this particular character from the
novel. Looking even only at the given sentence, it can be assumed that since someone
regards the Strider as his friend, he will not relate to him by saying that this man is sinister. Thus, this sense may be eliminated. The remaining senses are: “having dark complexion” and “mysterious”. It may be hard to determine which one was intended, relying only on the given sentence. Both of them could be applied here at the same time.
However, a translator who would like to select only one sense could notice that
mentioning someone’s feature of character between two features of appearance would
be inappropriate. It helps us disambiguate the adjective indicating that Tolkien had in
mind a particular sense, the feature of appearance when describing the Strider.
Now we have got a kind of lexical ambiguity which seems to be intentional:
(41)
I hope Butterbur sends this promptly.(...) If he forgets, I shall roast him
25
(Tolkien [1954] 1978:176).
There are two separate entries in the dictionary under roast: “to cook with dry
heat” and “to ridicule or criticize harshly”. “To criticize” is a literal meaning which suits
here well since it shows a consequence of potential behaviour of Butterbur. Nevertheless, two of them may be applied here, used as a threat in the case of Butterbur not sending something immediately. “To roast” meaning “to cook somebody” fits in this context
as well. It could be expressed as a threat by an angry person, indicating rather a metaphor than actually intended behaviour. Thus, the intention behind using this sense
would be the same as the first one meaning “to criticize somebody, to blow a fuse at
somebody”. This second meaning in itself generates laugh but it is even intensified by
the ambiguity here. The person’s intention is to criticize somebody, but as there appears
lexical ambiguity, the reader imagines Butterbur over the fire, ready to become cooked
as an animal, as punishment for his disobedience. The meaning to ridicule somebody
might have emerged because of people’s habit to threaten somebody in a humorous way
by saying that they will roast somebody, deriving from the initial meaning of to roast,
namely to cook. Consequently, in order to preserve humour the expression should stay
ambiguous in a target language as well.
Lexical ambiguity in another example does not seem to be difficult to disambiguate:
(42)
But Frodo felt the chill lessen in his side and arm; a little warmth crept down
from his shoulder to his hand, and the pain grew easier (Tolkien
[1954]1978:217).
Three explanations given to the word chill should be taken into account. The
first one deals with a feeling of cold, the others with “dampering of enthusiasm, spirit”
and “a sudden numbing fear or dread”. Having a closer look at this sentence, it is said
that the chill we are talking about is located in a particular place, namely in side and
arm. It excludes the last two definitions, since neither fear nor enthusiasm, denoting
emotions, cannot be located in part of a body like hand.
Another example of lexically ambiguous word does create a problem as well, at
least before a detailed analysis:
26
(43)
For a moment it seemed to the eyes of Legolas that that a white flame flickered
on the brows of Aragorn like a shining crown (Tolkien [1954]1978:437).
We may differentiate between two senses of the word to flicker. Firstly, it may
indicate wavering movement. Secondly, it may point to burning unsteadily. The second
one suits in the context and perfectly creates a collocation with a flame, because flickering is a property of a flame which relates to burning.The second sense seems thus more
suitable, however, the first one is more general, is just an extension, andfits in the context as well.
3.2.2. Treatment
of
lexically
ambiguous
words
by Tolkien’s
translators
Skibniewska and Łoziński
Let’s now look at how Polish translators interpreted the aforementioned and described
ambiguities and see whether our predictions were right and how the translators treated
lexical ambiguities in the target texts. In the sets of examples, Skibniewska’s translation
will be provided as the first one, and Łoziński’s translation will follow.
(44)
Nawet na dworze wszystko ucichło (Tolkien [1954]1990:62).
(45)
Wydawało się, że i na dworze wszystko zamarło (Tolkien [1954] 2008:64).
The words taken in bold refer to the word still in the source text. Thus, they are
Polish translations of this word. We differentiated two meanings of still, as being motionless, so without any move and as being quiet, not creating any sound. Let’s find out
if the Polish forms used by Skibniewska and Łoziński exemplify lexical ambiguity as
well. At first, one has to notice that the forms still and zamarło or ucichło are not simply
equivalents for they belong to a different part of speech. Both translators decided to use
a verb rather than an adjective as it was in the source text and a verb in a perfective aspect. When looking under the entry ucichnąć in the Polish dictionary, all of its polysemous meanings refer to becoming quiet, without talk. Thus, the ambiguity here was not
preserved. Taking into consideration Łoziński’s translation, the word used by him,
27
zamrzeć, does embrace the meaning of the word still since it may relate to sounds and
then means becoming quiet, but it also relates to motionlessness. We may conclude that
Łoziński’s translation maintained the lexical ambiguity from the source text. Nevertheless, it does not seem to make any difference here whether the translator uses cichnąć
lub zamrzeć. They may be treated as substitutes here.
Another instance of lexical ambiguity, example (30), is translated in this way:
(46)
-
You’ll keep an eye on Frodo, won’t you?
-
Two eyes, as often as I can spare them.
-Będziesz miał oko na Froda, prawda?
-Nawet parę oczu, w miarę możności(Tolkien [1954]1978:35).
(47)
- Będziesz miał na niego oko, prawda?
- Oczywiście, nawet parę oczu, jeśli los pozwoli mi użyć do tego i drugiego
oka(Tolkien [1954]2008:38).
In the source text, there was used the word spare. Skibniewska replaced the verb
with the phrase w miarę możności. Such translation seems to indicate only one meaning,
namely ‘to be able to afford or give‘, as given in The Collins Dictionary. Thus, lack of
ambiguity makes this part of a sentence more serious than in the original. It resigns
from the humorous element which lexical ambiguity of the verb to spare introduced.
Analyzing this fragment in English version of LOTR, we have decided that the
lexical ambiguity of the word to spare may have been used on purpose by Tolkien, in
order to make a reader laugh. Łoziński seems to relate to the sense which points to preventing something from injury. It may relate to Gandalf’s old age, but indicating the
possible usage of only one eye, not two eyes, it points not to losing eyesight while getting older as we interpreted earlier, but rather losing an eye in a fight. The effect was
actually the same, although Łoziński used only one meaning of to spare, he interpreted
it only in the humorous way, expressing even a kind of dark humour.
Considering another example (31), translators reached an agreement in the selection of the same sense of the adjective rustic, though they expressed it by different parts
of speech:
28
(48)
(…) Inni hobbici, okoliczni wieśniacy, przysłuchiwali się ich rozmowie
(Tolkien [1954]1990:47).
(49)
(…) a ich pogawędce przysłuchiwali się różni wiejscy hobbiści
(Tolkien [1954]2008:50).
Rustic was interpreted in Polish translations as living in the country. Not preserving ambiguity does not seem to affect the target text on any way since one may deduce the simplicity of hobbits, so the another meaning, from the fact of being a villager
as well as the description of hobbits’ behaviour in the novel.
The following instance of ambiguity when one may mean either an animal or a
specific proper name is exemplified on the word dragon:
(50)
—Kto je wymyślił? Weź na przykład smoki…
—Dziękuję pięknie, nie wezmę…- odparł Ted- Słyszałem o smokach, kiedy byłem
smarkaczem, ale nie ma powodu, żeby w nie wierzyć. Nad Wodą, w każdym razie
jest tylko jeden smok, i to zielony! — zakończył wywołując ogólny śmiech na
Sali (Tolkien [1954] 1990:93).
(51)
—Bo kto niby miałby je wymyślać? Na przykład te o smokach?
—Daj spokój— machnął ręką Tado.— Nasłuchałem się o nich jako szkrab, ale
nie ma powodu, żeby teraz dawać im wiarę. W Przywodziu jest tylko jeden smok,
i to w dodatku zielony. Uwaga ta wywołała powszechną wesołość. (Tolkien
[1954] 2008:94-95).
The ambiguity was preserved here in both translations, which contributed to the
maintenance of comic relief here. The translators had to preserve the humorous element
since it was clearly marked in the novel, by the reaction of hobbits.
Next Polish translations refer to the examples (33) and (34) of the usage of the
noun bank:
(52)
Hobbici zsunęli się stromą zieloną skarpą w dół i zanurzyli w gąszcz drzew.
(53)
Brzegi strumienia obniżały się w miarę, jak spływałna równinę, nurt
29
rozlewał się szerzej i płycej dążąc ku Moczarom i Rzece (Tolkien [1954]
1990:93).
(54)
Hobbici zeszli po stromym zielonym zboczu i zanurzyli się w leśną gęstwinę.
(55)
Na przeciwległym brzegu strumienia rozpościerała się równina, ciągnąca się
w stronę Błot i rzeki (Tolkien [1954] 2008:94-95).
Both translators managed to disambiguate the word bank in the same way, judging from the particular context in which it appeared in the source text. In the following
sentences translators approached some problems connected with finding the accurate
equivalent:
(56)
Wkrótce Pippin usnął na dobre, odniesiono go więc na ubocze i ułożono w
kolibie pod drzewami.
(57)
Leżał w kolibie uplecionej z żywych gałęzi, zwisających aż do ziemi; łoże,
uścielone z paproci i mchów, było miękkie i wonne (Tolkien [1954]
1990:87;90).
(58)
Pippin niebawem pogrążył się w głębokim śnie, zabrano go więc i zaniesiono
do małej altany, utworzonej przez gałęzie żywego drzewa zwieszające się aż do
ziemi.
(59)
Leżał pod drzewem niczym w altanie. Łoże zrobione z paproci i trawy było
głębokie, miękkie i aromatyczne(Tolkien [1954] 2008:88;91).
The translators disambiguated the word bowerin both instances and relying on
the context rejected the meaning of a cottage, sticking to a leafy, ephemeral shelter.
Nevertheless, they wanted as well to highlight the uncommonness of such a shelter,
which was indicated in the source text by the narrow description of the bower. Thus,
koliba used by Skibniewska is specifically a shelter in the mountains, especially for
shepherds. Łoziński emphasized that the shelter was unusual by saying that he was
Lying “as if in a shelter” (“niczym w altanie”). It induced him to change the order of a
description to draw the appropriate picture of a bower at the very beginning.
30
(60)
Kraj ich początkowo był bezbronny od wschodu, potem ogrodzono go z tej
strony żywopłotem, zwanym Wysokim Murem. Żywopłot, pielęgnowany stale
przez kilka pokoleń hobbitów, wyrósł wysoko i rozkrzewił się szeroko. Zaczynał
się od mostu na Brandywinie, olbrzymim łukiem odbiegał od rzeki i sięgał aż
do Ostatniej Łąki (gdzie płynąca z lasu Wija wpadała do Brandywiny), miał więc
ponad dwadzieścia mil długości. Nie zapewniał oczywiście niezawodnie
bezpieczeństwa (Tolkien [1954] 1990:103).
(61)
Ich kraina była początkowo odsłonięta od wschodu, z czasem jednak pojawił
się tutaj pas żywopłotu: Wysoki Płot. Sadzony wiele pokoleń wcześniej, apotem
troskliwie doglądany, był teraz gęsty i wyrośnięty. Od mostu na Brandywinie
wielkim łukiem, odchodzącym od rzeki, biegł aż do Skraju (…), liczył więc sobie
dobrze ponad pięć mil. Nie zapewniał jednak całkowitego bezpieczeństwa (Tolkien [1954] 2008:103-104).
The translators disambiguated the word hedge and the meaning of it as aplant
have taken as the primary one here. However, they did not convey by this translation the
fact that the hedge was not only a plant but its primary role in the context was to protect
the land. The sense of protection was omitted here, since żywopłot in Polish is not lexically ambiguous and reflects only a plant which sets a border, but it is not treated in the
Polish dictionary as a kind of protection. Of course, it cannot be said that it impoverished the translation in any way but it rather points lack of Polish equivalent with two
similar meanings. If we just left the one sentence with bolded word as if taken out from
the context, we would not know anything about the hedges double role, not only as a
decorative plant, but also a plant which primary role is to protect the land and prevent
foes from attacks.
(62)
Podniósłszy wzrok ujrzał przed sobą smukłą białą wieżę, wystrzelającąsamotnie
nad wysokim wzgórzem.
(63)
Kiedy spojrzał w górę, zobaczył smukłą wieżę, która samotnie stała na wysokiej
grani.
31
Again the lexically ambiguous word, here ridge, was successfully disambiguated
with the help of so called Pragmatically Constrained Disambiguation. Lack of ambiguity does not lack anything since the lexical ambiguity in the source text in English did
not play any role at all.
(64)
Hobbici zaskoczeni przystanęli, krzyk jednak urwał się, jakby zduszony
ciężką zasłoną (Tolkien [1954] 1990:116).
(65)
Reszta zatrzymała się zaskoczona, ale krzyk wygasł jakby pochłonięty
przez gęstą kurtynę (Tolkien [1954] 2008:116).
When looking up the word zduszony in a Polish dictionary, it is explained as an
adjective referring to the sound, meaning quiet, muted sound. Skibniewska thus selected
the meaning which we expected in our analysis in the preceding subchapter. Łoziński
used the word pochłonięty meaning being sucked in, which does not suit any of the
meanings of the word used by the author. Łoziński uses the word as a metaphor and
refers to the source text indirectly.
(66)
Zapewne spotkasz na gościńcu mojego przyjaciela: chudy, ciemnowłosy,
wysoki człowiek, a zwą go Obieżyświatem (Tolkien [1954] 1990:175).
(67)
Na Gościńcu napotkasz być może jednego z moich przyjaciół: to
człowiek szczupły, wysoki, ciemny, przez niektórych zwany Łazikiem (Tolkien
[1954] 2008:171).
In Skibniewska’s translation, an adjective dark was translated as dark-haired.
Such explanation of dark was not included in AHDEL. Whether such a meaning of dark
really exists, is not debatable here. AHDL suggests that there is no such meaning, hence
we might contend that Skibniewska conveyed different information from that in the
original text, although they both still refer to the appearance. Such translation could be
misleading when the translator did not have the perspective of the whole novel. It may
have been mentioned later in the novel that Strider’s hair is dark or there was no mention that he was swarthy, and it could influence the choice of Skibniewska. Łoziński, on
the contrary, he not only conveyed the information about having dark skin on which we
32
have decided, but also found a Polish equivalent which enriched the source text somehow, bringing lexical ambiguity which cannot be dealt with as in the original. As a result, one may now interpret ciemny as having dark skin, being mysterious, sad, uneducated in Polish translation by Łoziński. Thus, it can strengthen the atmosphere of
mystery that has always surrounded Strider.
(68)
Gdyby przegapił tę sprawę, upiekę go żywcem (Tolkien[1945] 1990:176).
(69)
Jeśli tym razem zapomni, chyba go upiekę (Tolkien[1945] 2008:172).
The translators wanted to preserve the humorous element and thus they left the
meaning of to roast somebody as to cook somebody. If they just translated it into criticize, the effect would be different and would lack humor. Preserving the ambiguity
would even strengthen the humorous effect. The translators probably could not find a
possible equivalent.
(70)
Lecz pod dotknięciem palców elfa lód w ramieniu i bokuFroda jakby
stajał, ciepło przepłynęło od barku aż do dłoni i ból złagodniał (Tolkien [1945]
1990: 216).
(71)
Frodo poczuł, jak malutka strużka ciepła spłynęła z barku do dłoni, ból zaś
zelżał (Tolkien [1945] 2008:2090.
Referring to chill, lód by Skibniewska may be interpreted as the feeling of coldness, coolness. Thus, she disambiguated it. Łoziński entirely resigned from the usage of
this passage about a chill.
(72)
Przez okamgnienie Legolasowi zdawało się, że biały płomyk otoczył
skronie Aragorna świetlistą koroną (Tolkien [1945] 1990:30).
(73)
Legolasowi zdało się przez chwilę, że na czole Dunadana pojawił się
jakby błysk świetlistej korony (Tolkien [1945] 2008:421-422).
Otoczyć is more like to surround but its meaning here is similar to pojawić się.
Translators disambiguated the word for there was no purpose to preserve it. They both
33
resigned from the meaning to glitter, although it is connected with the flame mentioned.
But the simultaneous appearance of both to glitter and a flame would be an overuse.
34
Conclusion
As it has been indicated, lexical ambiguity brings about the difficulty in the interpretation in a literary work, and translators have to follow their intuition, based on the context and try to apply ambiguity tests in order to preserve the source work meaning. During the study, the target text has almost always lost some senses in the process of
translation from the English, due to the problem of finding an equivalent with the same
set of senses. But it was compensated when the translators were still able to preserve the
same effect, for instance humorous one. The ambiguity seems to have no value in the
source text when it referred to an entity, a particular object, unless its designation in the
source text applied primarily to the function of something. Disambiguation seems also
to be the best solution when the senses of a word a so closely linked that they could be
interchangeable. Thus, the initial hypothesis that the translator ought to maintain lexical
ambiguity at all cost has been discredited.
However, the scope of the study has been too narrow to generalize about the
right techniques of treating lexical ambiguity in translation. Since it is based on the novel of one author, and it relies mainly on one English dictionary and on thesis author’s
commonsense knowledge, it seems unreasonable to find the conclusions of this thesis
applicable to every translator encountering lexical ambiguity, even in literary texts.
Nevertheless, the described types of ambiguity, the tests and ways of resolving them, as
well as problems faced when translating ambiguity and given methods of how to deal
with them provided by translators of The Lord of the Rings, may constitute a priceless
source of advice for the potential translators of literary works.
35
References
Becker, Curtis A., David E. Meyer and Roger W. Schvaneveldt. 1976. “Lexical Ambiguity, Semantic Context, and Visual Recognition.” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2, 2: 243-256.
Boase-Beier, Jean. 2006. Stylistic Approaches to Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Klepousniotou, Ekaterini. 2001. “The Processing of Lexical Ambiguity: Homonymy
and Polysemy in the Mental Lexicon”, Brain and Language, 81: 205–223.
Lichański, Jakub Z. 2000. „Jaki Tolkien? O problemach tłumaczeń utworów literackich
Johna Ronalda Reuela Tolkiena” [What is Tolkien like? On problems while
translating J.R.R. Tolkien’s literary works], in: Wojciech Kubiński, Ola
Kubińska and Tadeusz Z. Wolański (eds.), Przekładając nieprzekładalne:
Materiały z Międzynarodowej Konferencji Translatorycznej. [Translating the untranslatable: the materials from the International Conference on Translation].
Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 379-390.
Oakes, Mustafa Abusalah John Tait Michael. 2005. Literature Review of Cross Language
Information Retrieval. {Miasto?}World Academy of Science, Engineering and
Technology 4.
Pieńkos, Jerzy. 2003. Podstawy przekładoznawstwa. Od teorii do praktyki. [Foundations of translation. From theory to practice. ] Kraków: Zakamycze.
Pustejovsky, James. 1996. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Saeed, John I. 1997. Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
36
Salhi, Hammouda Ben Ammar. 2008. Investigating Complementary Polysemy in Translation: a Corpus-Based Study. PhD Research Proposal, 2008
Tolkien, J.R.R. [1954] 1978. The Lord of the Rings. 1st edition. London: Unwin Paperbacks.
Tolkien, J.R.R. [1954] 1990. Władca Pierścieni. [The Lord of the Rings]. (Translated
by Maria Skibniewska.) Volume 1 and 2. Warszawa: Czytelnik CiA
Books/Svaro.
Tolkien, J.R.R. [1954] 2008. Władca Pierścieni. [The Lord of the Rings]. (Translated
by Jerzy Łoziński.) Poznań: Zysk i S-ka Wydawnictwo.
Dictionaries
The American Heritage Dictionary. 2000. (4th edition). Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/) (date of access: 20 June 2010).
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged. 2003. (6th edition). Oxford:
HarperCollins Publishers. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/) (date of access:
20 June 2010).
Sobol, Elżbieta (ed.). 2008. Nowy Słownik Języka Polskiego. [The New Dictionary of
Polish Language]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
37