Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. Introduction
In their classic work on metaphors, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson argue that
“most of our normal conceptual system is metaphorically structured; that is, most
concepts are partially understood in terms of other concepts” (1980: 56) — in
particular, more complex concepts are understood in terms of simpler ones.
Since translation is recognized as one of the most complex mental operations, its
metaphorical representations may be expected to be numerous and diversified,
32 Elżbieta Skibińska and Piotr Blumczyński
It seems that the most unmarked term for translation in Polish is tłumaczenie.
This is also probably the earliest term, attested already in the early 15th century.
Its etymology is unclear: one dictionary notes that the root of this word may be tło
(‘background’) while other sources mention unspecified Turkish origins.
Tłumaczyć — much like its Latin counterpart transfero — since its emergence
has carried the broad meaning of both ‘to explain the meaning of,’ ‘to attribute a
specified meaning to,’ and ‘to translate [usually a spoken message] from one lan-
guage into another,’ which mirrors the semantic range of to interpret in English.
That both meanings are closely related is clear; the dynamics of this relationship,
however, may be described in two different ways. From the conceptual perspective,
it may either be argued that the meanings “to explain” and “to translate” stand to
each other in the superordinate-hyponym relation, with the former representing
the more salient aspect, or that they are related by way of metonymy, with explain-
ing focused on the idea of rewording involved in the process of translation. Should
then translating be viewed as a special case of explaining or is explaining a more
general form of translating? A survey of dictionaries published in the last two cen-
turies shows that the most salient meaning of tłumaczyć has gradually shifted away
from interlingual translation towards other aspects, including “to explain, present,
interpret something,” “to find justification, explanation, motivation for something;
to base something on” and “to insistently convince/persuade somebody to [do]
something.”
A similar phenomenon may be observed with respect to the nominal derivate
tłumaczenie, designating both the process and product/effect of the verb tłumaczyć,
which initially was only used of interlingual translation. While in the 1850’s the
word only described ‘translating, going about translation; a way of presentation,’
contemporary dictionaries list as many as six meanings of this noun, of which only
two refer to translation, its process and product, respectively.
The agentive nominal derivative, tłumacz, has also undergone a significant
change, though in the opposite direction. Two meanings of this noun were attested
in the 15th century: (1) ‘one who translates/interprets from one language into an-
Polish metaphorical perceptions of the translator and translation 33
other’ and (2) ‘a translator/interpreter and at the same time guide in a foreign land.’
The latter sense is understandable in view of the actual function of the interpreter
who is often expected to provide wide-ranging mediation, not limited to the lin-
guistic level, in a culturally unfamiliar environment. On a more abstract level, this
meaning is prone to a metaphorical understanding, in which the translator/inter-
preter becomes his reader’s/hearer’s guide through the unfamiliar — and possibly
hostile — land of the foreign language. Unfortunately, this early secondary sense of
tłumacz has not survived, at least at the lexicographic level, as it is not mentioned
by any of the other dictionaries consulted.6 In the following centuries, the semantic
range of tłumacz has gradually been narrowed down to ‘interlingual translator/
interpreter’, the only meaning found in contemporary dictionaries of Polish.
The other standard, non-figurative Polish term for translating is przekładać, de-
rived from the stem łożyć (iterative) or kłaść (imperfective), meaning “to put, lay
[down],” combined with the prepositional prefixes wy- or prze-. This derivation
process has been very productive, yielding about a dozen words, most of them ca-
pable of both a literal and abstract or figurative understanding. The Latin cognate
of przekładać is of course transferre, which is similarly related to a number of pa
rallel derivates (e.g. adferre, deferre, inferre, interferre, circumferre, etc.). The pattern
is clear: the concrete meaning of the verb, always connected with the movement
specified by the prepositional prefix, is metaphorically extended to the abstract
domain. Thus in Polish phraseology one can nałożyć (‘put on’) both a sweater and
a penalty, or odłożyć (‘put away’) either a pencil or a certain amount of money;
likewise, przełożyć/przekładać may either be used literally, “to take [sth from one
place] and put [it elsewhere],” or metaphorically, including concepts such as “to
carry over,” “to postpone,” and — last but not least — “to translate.” Contempo-
rary dictionaries of Polish list five meanings of this verb: the first three refer to
physical movement (“to relocate something”; “to pass something over something
else”; “to put something in between [the layers of] something else”); the fourth
introduces an abstract extension of these concepts (“to move something away in
time; postpone”); and only the last one, apparently considered the most complex
conceptually, refers to translating. Consequently, the image of translation evoked
by przekładać is based on the primary spatial and ontological conceptualization
incorporating simple metaphorical components. If ideas are objects, they can
be taken from one language container, raised above the barrier of non-
communication, and placed in another language container.
The noun przekład has undergone a similar process of semantic simplifica-
tion. The highly specialized meanings attested in Old Polish were soon replaced
34 Elżbieta Skibińska and Piotr Blumczyński
commonly held views regarding the relationship between thought and language.
Polish theoreticians — following French scholars in this respect — distinguished
between the form and content of the linguistic sign. Such a view of this relation-
ship was naturally conducive to understanding translation in terms of changing
the container for thought (which, as we have shown above, is also manifested in
the dictionary definitions of the word przekładać).9 This image appears in meta
phorical statements, such as those found in the translator’s preface to a Polish
translation of Fénelon’s Les Aventures de Télémaque:
Do not hold it against me that at times the Polish pen twisted and failed to perfect-
ly express all exquisite thoughts. They were often like costly liquors that cannot
be poured into another container without losing some of its strength and aroma
(Trotz 1750 in Ziętarska 1969: 52).10
The Polish translator of Fénelon, quoted above, addresses another very important
issue, namely the relationship between the original text and the translated text
and the underlying phenomenon of translatability. From what he says it follows
— in line with the theoretical views of language — that a translation is capable of
expressing the “thoughts” (the content) of the original but not of conveying the
complete range of its linguistic and stylistic properties. This is confirmed not only
by observation of actual translation work but also by theoretical reflection, accord-
ing to which the main obstacle hampering a faithful reproduction of the original
36 Elżbieta Skibińska and Piotr Blumczyński
in translation is the incongruity of the author’s and translator’s means. A vivid il-
lustration of these opinions is provided by popular “painting metaphors”:
… in translation, even a very best one, every author — a poet in particular — loses
as much as a colorful painting when reproduced in copper stitch; the contour
and thought of the artist is preserved but the most attractive honor, i.e. the paint,
which brought it closest to nature, is lost (anonymous author 1765 in Ziętarska
1969: 45).
… foreign trees transplanted to our soil which lose their freshness, virtue, shape,
and magnificence: they stand in our garden with drooping and yellowing leaves,
with no scent, no bloom, no fruit; faint and half-dead (Włodek 1780 in Ziętarska
1969: 48).
The original-translation relationship was not the only focus of the 18th-century
reflection on translating; the translator-author relation was also explored, though
it never received an unequivocal interpretation. Some held that the translator is
only a “copyist,” as indicated above and illustrated by the following statements:
A translator, when incapable of producing an exact likeness to the original in his
copy, should at least try to achieve the greatest possible likeness … The first yoke
translators accept or indeed take upon themselves is this: that they should only be
copyists of their original, and not rivals; they would consider themselves guilty of
sacrilege should they ornament it in weak places; they do not let themselves do it,
always to be inferior … (Fijałkowski 1790 in Kostkiewiczowa and Goliński 1993:
469–470).
A perfect translator — the experts say — is fighting a constant battle with his
author, a glorious and magnificent battle (Osiński 1818–1830 in Balcerzan 1977:
111).
A translation [Polish: tłumaczenie] may be good, provided that it accurately ren-
ders the author’s sense and thought and its language is pure and domestic. Trans-
lating [Polish: przekładanie] is more demanding and here lies the true art and
difficulty of the task: it is … a fight between the original writer and the translator
who is trying to capture all the beauty of the former and carry it over into his lan-
guage while the author as a rule bravely defends this beauty, as if he were jealous
(Potocki 1815–1816 in Kostkiewiczowa and Goliński 1995: 101–102).
the one he is going to translate, absorbing his way of thinking and expression by
repeated reading as well as by careful and diligent attention (Krasicki 1772 in Bal-
cerzan and Rajewska 2007: 55).
… one must transform himself, so to say, into his author and write under the in-
spiration of the same spirit that animated him (Słowacki 1826 in Balcerzan 1977:
128).
Finally, the translator is viewed as a guide of the author who enters a foreign house
as a guest (reminiscent of the secondary meaning of the word “tłumacz,” as used
in the 15th century (see Section 2.1 above):
To translate well is to create … To leave out or add, to trim or stretch the writer’s
thoughts and images is not the essence of translation. Some think that when they
carry a foreign writer over into their land, they are obligated to shape him accord-
ing to national habits. This is a guest entering an unfamiliar house for the first
time, warned by his guide how to behave in accordance with the local custom
(Osiński 1818–1830 in Balcerzan 1977: 110).
At the same time, the image of a guide points to the translator’s role in the target
culture, which is particularly evident in the statements emphasizing his activity
“in between”:
Translators … are middlemen and moneychangers in this mental commerce, so
their task is to provide superior goods and protect the country from being flooded
by rubbish (Czartoryski 1801 in Ziętarska 1969: 239).
In his profession, a translator is like Charon who carries both the good and the
evil, at the same rate, across to the other side (Żółkowski 1821 in Ziętarska 1969:
238).
respect: “[I]t is translation that opens doors, that brings light and enlightment for
all, not just for the select few; in other words, translation performs a public func-
tion” (1985: 117).
The metaphorical images of translators and their work are largely reminiscent
of those identified by D’hulst (1993) in French material. In Poland, however, 18th
century judgments concerning translation were a part of the broader context of
understanding literary phenomena, typical of the Enlightment, in which the so-
cial role of literature was brought to the foreground. Utilitarian trends present in
the meta-translational discourse of that era were manifested in a strongly didac-
tic mindset seeing translations as powerful tools capable of influencing the moral
and social behavior of readers. From the utilitarian perspective, translations were
expected to stimulate the development of the Polish language, which accounts for
the significant number of comments focused on the translator’s “workshop” (offer-
ing hints how to translate well or describing the necessary skills). The metaphors
used in this discourse — seen as a powerful argumentative tool — also contributed
to its didactic dimension.
Some metaphors used in 18th-century discourse have survived to this day: the
images of translation as a painter’s (inexact) copy or translating as transplanting
foreign trees have entered the inventory of “winged words,” becoming elements of
popular understanding of translation. However, when analyzing comments made
by contemporary translators — particularly those translating literature — who re-
flect on the essence and nature of their work, we discover that they often tend to
view it in a different way, underscoring its creative aspect. This may well stem from
the fact that many of them are also authors of original literature; often renowned
poets. Translation metaphors encountered in their comments extend over a very
broad range, being drawn from medicine, biology, sports, music, construction,
and countless other domains. The various metaphorical images found in the cor-
pus, diversified and dispersed as they seem, may still be roughly grouped accord-
ing to the aspects highlighted.
The first of these aspects concerns the nature of translation itself and what it really
consists of. Let us start this survey with the words of Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński, one
of the most prominent Polish translators,13 who describes the “impossible” task of
translating thus:
40 Elżbieta Skibińska and Piotr Blumczyński
I took apart, sentence by sentence, word by word, every little screw and bolt of the
creative mechanism of a number of writers … I took them in completely, made
them a part of my life, I thought their thoughts and laughed with their laugh, and
offered them my blood in order to restore color to their pale faces. Obviously, in
this process I could not have confined myself to admiring those “classics” in the
noble folds of their monumental draperies but simply had to strip them down to
their pants: whose greatness stands this test, he or she indeed has a certificate of
immortality (1919 in Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007: 126).
This description identifies the following stages in the translator’s work: dismantling
the text (down to the smallest piece) and disrobing the author; identifying with the
author through blood transfusion, which results in reanimating and refreshing the
translated piece. The images emerging from Boy’s words may also be found in the
statements of other translators who typically focus on one of those elements only.
Consequently, some highlight the identification (of the author and the translator,
of the translated and the original text) in translation seen as transfusion:
Transfusion — that metaphor by Jan Śpiewak — is one of the most accurate ones
because it conveys something of the life of a poem. Blood transfusion is a process
that requires precision, in which a living tissue is being transferred into the living
vessel of another organism14 (Kamieńska 1975 in Pollak 1975: 135).
The work of the translator of poetry could perhaps be likened to the persistence
of erosion processes or attempts of transplanting tissues. The language, however,
rejects all transplants and foreign bodies. The number of assimilated translations
is surprisingly low in comparison with the number of repeated attempts. Yet even
those rejected transplants leave perhaps a certain trace, improve the flexibility of
language as a tool, and oppose its inherent passivity (Kamieńska 1975 in Pollak
1975: 137).
Polish metaphorical perceptions of the translator and translation 41
Quite a number of metaphors emphasize the two stages of the translator’s work:
taking apart a certain whole and then putting it back together, though using new
components:
Regardless of the uniqueness of a poem — indeed, questioning its uniqueness —
we replicate it or try to replicate in a different language, therefore in a new mate-
rial, as it were (Kamieńska 1975 in Pollak 1975: 136).
Like one who recreating an old mosaic builds it using differently shaped elements,
a translator of poetry should use the principle of compensation skillfully and
moderately (Sandauer 1955 in Rusinek 1955: 344).
So — to embed in one’s own tradition, and to update, to stick to the thought, rath-
er than words of the author … still, can we really build an 18th century palace out
of modern material: concrete and steel? How much longer can a modern engine
be installed in a carriage from the previous century? (Ratajczak 1968 in Balcerzan
and Rajewska 2007: 236).
I like to wrestle with a poem, play chess with it, break it into blocks, cut it like a card-
board puzzle, and only then laboriously, meticulously, put the pieces back together
so that they fit properly (Tuwim 1950a in Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007: 136).
The metaphor lets us view translation as playing with blocks: a certain structure
is built on the basis of the target culture that contains elements [blocks] derived
from the source culture (Bednarczyk 2002: 268).
The above comments focus on another aspect of translation: this is not an easy
task (“I like to wrestle with a poem”). This difficulty is often presented in terms of
a fight — whose conclusion is not certain — with an opponent in the form of the
original text (compared with e.g. a monolith or a jungle):
A foreign literary text piles up before us like a hard monolith which we have to
drill through intense mental effort. My usual method is to look for the most vul-
nerable spot and crack the rock starting from there (Strasburger 1971 in Balcerzan
and Rajewska 2007: 250).
A great poem may be compared to a jungle luring the translator into its depths
with an irresistible power. Because of this attraction, the translator trudges, as if
over fallen logs, through differences between cultures, traditions, social experience
and languages, often to find at the end of his journey that he is lost, and some-
times that the expedition has not been entirely without significance (Barańczak
1994:156).
I also used the metaphor of a fight, of two struggling powers. Translating is like
wrestling with someone who is not an enemy but still resists us to defend itself, its
autonomy and uniqueness … while we want to snatch it from him. We say: ‘Give
42 Elżbieta Skibińska and Piotr Blumczyński
up; surrender something of yourself, open, let us repeat you and say you again.’ —
‘No,’ it responds, ‘I am literally what I am. If I could be said with different words
I would cease being myself and become something completely different.’ So this
wrestling goes on, word by word, sense by sense (Kamieńska 1975 in Pollak 1975:
135–136).
A chess master, asked why he took part in tournaments, responded: because there
is nothing more pleasurable than the moment when I feel I am crushing my op-
ponent’s spine. Even if this sounds somewhat crude, we must admit that we trans-
late Shakespeare’s sonnet to crush some spine … not Shakespeare’s or that of his
poetry but of resistance and apparent untranslatability… A translator of poetry
translates not in order to match or excel the original text but to break the spine of
its linguistic and formal resistance — and in order to feel an ecstatic thrill down
his own spine (Barańczak 1994: 14).
The surrender of the original consists of the disclosure of its senses which have to
be conveyed in translation:
Translation is an attempted bursting into an unknown world; the translator is the
breeding ground for the feelings and thoughts inherent of that world and concret-
ized in the given text: it is the replication of this concretization that the faithful-
ness of a translation depends on (Niemojowski 1968 in Balcerzan and Rajewska
2007: 230).
The work of a translator is kind of a math problem with multiple unknowns that
is solved largely using intuition (today we could say: using a computer in our
head, which — having been programmed by the translator’s consciousness — re-
turns the results of its calculations, though the calculations themselves are not
consciously recorded) (Stiller 1977 in Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007: 305).
Polish metaphorical perceptions of the translator and translation 43
A different simile also presents an argument against interfering. When the author
of a play thinks that he knows better than the director, things are worse than
when the director knows and follows his own way. The director can see some ele-
ments of the work that the author himself cannot (Łukosz 2004 in Balcerzan and
Rajewska 2007: 462).
or a conductor or musician:
The translator has been compared to the conductor of an orchestra who needs
to interpret the score in his own individual way [the translator, in the first place,
must be an analytical critic and interpreter]. This simile must be adjusted, though:
the conductor has different instruments in his orchestra: strings and brass instead
of organ and piano (Wat 1983 in Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007: 321).
The analogy with music is also instructive because in this case our attention is
focused on similarity, manifested in a twofold way. [a] Every musical structure
recorded in a score may be transposed for various groups of instruments … [b]
Some can read scores directly, i.e. without any external stimuli hear groups of
sounds in their heads. Most of us, however, do not have this gift: thus, concerts
and recitals are held for us, feeding on the scores as their “translations” … A yet
different issue is interpretation and performance of old music. Should it be per-
formed using old or contemporary instruments? We may therefore conclude that
translation of poetry oscillates between two patterns. On the one hand, it resem-
bles interpretation of a musical piece, justified only as a sound reproduction of the
original composition; on the other hand, it is like a portrait, which in the course
of time becomes separated from its “model” and has to rely on purely aesthetic
merits (Czerniawski 1995 in Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007: 373–374).
The comments listed above picture the translator as interpreter; his or her subjec-
tivity, however, is particularly emphasized by the following remark:
Translation is always interpretation, and interpretation both clarifies and dif-
fuses the original thought, resulting in its uncovering and concealment, to use
44 Elżbieta Skibińska and Piotr Blumczyński
Heidegger’s terms. Perhaps not all but a large number of the translator’s decisions
while disclosing a certain thought to the reader at the same time mask its other as-
pects. In translation faithfulness always borders treachery (Garewicz 1984: 121)
4.2 The relationship between original and translation and between author
and translator
We are slaves of somebody else’s words, thoughts, and images. We are slavishly
bound with a text that is shoving us around with a line of difficult words and as-
saulting us with imagery (Truchanowski 1955 in Rusinek 1955: 370).
In much the same vein, the inherently inferior status of translations in relation to
originals has been described in terms of plagiarism and parasitism:
In a sense, every translation is morally suspect, for each qualifies as some sort of
plagiarism … Whether we call it translating, Polonizing or paraphrasing, we are
still dealing with an organic, parasitic dependence. A translation grows out of the
original and feeds on its juices (Łuszczykiewicz 2000 in Balcerzan and Rajewska
2007: 420–421).
The multi-faceted dual bond between the author and translator and their respec-
tive works is also metaphorically represented in relational, marital, and sexual
terms, which highlight its highly individualized character –
46 Elżbieta Skibińska and Piotr Blumczyński
In order for a translation to come across well, there must be some sort of “sexual
selection” between the author of the original and the translator (Tuwim 1950b in
Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007: 156)
The last group of metaphors to be discussed concerns the role of the translator.
The images evoked for this aspect seem to fall into three major categories, focused
either on the source or the target perspective — or both — by emphasizing the
bidirectional nature of the translator’s task. The basic concept underlying most of
the metaphorical images in each of these categories is that of mediation, whose
various aspects are highlighted accordingly.
First, the translator’s role is defined with reference to different elements of the
source framework but, among them, first and foremost to the author. In a powerful
image, “a translator gives the author life in a new environment, tossing him or her
into swirling adventure” (Parandowski 1975 in Pollak 1975: 260), which indicates
a rare case of the translator’s superiority or control over the author, though used to
benefit of the latter. An equally benevolent attitude, though demonstrated from a
certainly lower (and derivative) position, is attributed to the translator viewed as
the author’s representative (Święch 1984: 41), agent or ambassador in the foreign
linguistic, cultural and literary context:
Moreover, the translator is a sort of a literary agent or even ambassador of a given
author and often an enthusiast of his or her work; one who suggests and com-
mends it to publishers, brings it to the attention of the local media, writes reviews
and recommendations (Kapuściński 2007: 13).
elsewhere, which raises the everlasting question whether he or she can be trusted
(traduttore — traditore?).
This concern regarding the commitment of the translator leads us to the se
cond perspective, connected with the target readership and the receptor culture.
From this standpoint the translator’s role has been defined in a number of ways.
Starting from the most aggressive image, translators may be seen as conquerors
of previously unknown or unexplored lands (Parandowski 1955 in Rusinek 1955:
12) and discoverers of new cultures (Szmydtowa 1955 in Rusinek 1955: 126) or as-
sume a more peaceful role as guides at a “literary travel agent’s” — either to spare
the readers the effort of arduous independent exploration or to prevent them from
learning what they are not supposed to find out, often for ideological or censorial
reasons (Fornelski 1997: 94–95). At any rate, the translator’s educational and for-
mative role cannot be denied:
By translating a text we open a new world to Others, explain it and let them dwell
in it and make it a part of their own personal experience (Kapuściński 2007: 15).
Much like a creative poet, the translator forms a foundation of trust and becomes
a changer of the world — by affecting imaginations thereof — as well as a multi-
plier of spiritual wealth (Przybylak 1997 in Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007: 387).
The aspect of enriching and building up the target culture has also been illustrated
by a different metaphor, intended to counterbalance the image of the translator as
an ambassador of a foreign culture with the idea of a national legislator:
Such a translator chooses texts for translation not because they are representa-
tive of the culture they come from but because their translation may enter into
a creative dialogue with his or her native culture, suggesting new models, new
languages, and new criteria. This translator establishes … new artistic legislation
for his native literature (Jarniewicz 2002: 37).
An even more vital role is attributed to the translator (of poetry) by Tadeusz
Różewicz, one of most renowned contemporary Polish poets and playwrights,
who pictures him or her as “a steward of the nourishing poetic content”:
Perhaps the translator brings us fruit differing in shape or colors from that which
grew or ripened inside an Eskimo’s igloo or among tomahawks and totem poles.
Does he bring it? Of course he does — like a basket with bread and fruit. The
translator brings and serves these texts like bread and water. In this case the shape
of the basket, shape of the container, is the most important thing (Różewicz 1962
in Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007: 214).
48 Elżbieta Skibińska and Piotr Blumczyński
Finally, the translator’s role may be considered from the combined perspective of
both the source and target standpoints. From a distance things look different: the
precise direction of the cultural transfer becomes blurred in the overarching im-
age of mutual mediation and exchange. Nations, cultures and eras no longer con-
quer one another by means of translation but rather, through the translator’s noble
intermediary mission, “give each other their share … in the exchange of goods”
(Parandowski 1955 in Rusinek 1955: 20). Consequently, the translator is not seen
as a member of either one of the interacting languages and cultures, with their
particular interests and calls for allegiance, but as an impartial mediator, facilitator
and communicator strongly rooted in both of them:
The translator, though he is always on the road, visiting foreign countries and
dealing with foreign people, foreign thoughts, customs and beliefs, at the same
time he is always home, in his homeland, in his native thought and language
(Hertz 1975 in Pollak 1975: 86).
the river. The adventure consists of the exciting uncertainly whether our living
cargo will safely land on the other bank or drown in the stygian waters; whether
we will be able to transport it into a new life or merely drown in a new silence.
The nonsense of this adventure, both now and forever, is the abuse which overesti-
mates our own strength, which translates in order to invade, conquer and capture
a foreign reality, dominate it, cut its wings, take its life and make it look, speak and
live according to our will, not its own (1974: 30).17
5. Conclusion
Interestingly, no images have been found that would refer to phenomena explored
by post-colonial translation theories, stressing the asymmetrical relations in cul-
tural encounters realized by means of translation.19 This may be because this area
of cultural reflection has only just begun to emerge — however dynamically — in
Polish discourse.20
As we have seen, a number of Polish metaphors focused on the nature of trans-
lation and the role of translator belong to the common European heritage. Others
seem to be more particular to the Polish context — but are they really uniquely
Polish? It would be interesting to consider them alongside imagery of translation
Polish metaphorical perceptions of the translator and translation 51
found in other “weak languages” (including but not limited to the Slavic group).
Only a thorough comparison of this kind would enable a precise placement of the
Polish perceptions of translation in the broader European and global perspective.
Notes
1. Johan Heilbron lists Polish among the semi-peripheral languages which provide some 1–3%
of the total of translated books (1999: 434).
2. Confirmed, among other things, by the relationship between the translational import and
export: e.g. in 1988–2004 as many as 24,305 translations of fiction were published (against 704
titles sold). Within the post-colonial figuration of translation focused on the power relations be-
tween the participants of the translational exchange, we could speak of a voluntary submission
to intellectual colonization.
3. It should be remembered that until the Second World War Poland was a multiethnic, mul-
ticultural and multilingual country and translation was an important issue, as evidenced by
studies exploring its functioning within social communication, e.g. Sinko 1968, Dmitruk 2005,
Wnęk 2006.
4. Some valuable insights in this respect are offered by Balcerzan 2007, published in a slightly
modified version as “Introduction to the second edition” in Balcerzan and Rajewska (eds.), pp.
13–23.
6. Still, it is found in some contemporary metaphors, although their authors are probably not
aware of the Old Polish meaning of this word.
7. In addition to ancient classics, a significant number of translations came from modern lit-
eratures and languages. Based on the material from 1764–1822 Krzysztof Dmitruk concludes:
“Almost 600 (591) translators familiarized Poles with the grandest literary masterpieces as well
as popular European writings. Texts coming from other cultural settings were scarce. In the
Enlightment, the most popular language to translate from was French (768), followed by Latin
(344), German (265), English (161), Italian (100), and Greek (71)” (2005: 37, translation ours).
8. Some of the statements cited here come from the early 19th century but are nevertheless
rooted in the Enlightment tradition. They have been included in this discussion as a reminder
of the fuzzy borders between literary periods; the Polish Enlightment practically continued into
the 1830’s.
9. Theo Hermans makes the same observation regarding the Renaissance imagery of transla-
tion: “The implication is that translation is a matter of changing merely the outward form, not
the substance of the source text” (1985: 120).
11. Cf. “Translating in science seems to be the same as copying in the arts” (Krasicki 1803 in
Balcerzan and Rajewska: 58); “in Polish I copied” [the letter of J. E. Minasowicz to J.A. Załuski]
(Ziętarska 1969: 41).
12. This is a particularly popular concept, reappearing also in translation theory (e.g. Chamber-
lain 1988/2000: 315ff).
13. Although Tadeusz Boy-Żeleński (1874–1941) belongs to the earlier period, not considered
in the present study, his remarks are nevertheless taken into account as coming from one of the
greatest and most prolific Polish translators.
14. It should be noticed that blood transfusion from one organism to another also consists of
changing the container!
15. The concept of translation as a game also appears in translation theory: e.g. Jiři Levý suggests
applying to translation the formal methods of game theory (1967/2000: 149).
16. For an insightful discussion of this and related concepts, see Balcerzan 2007: 145ff.
17. Dedecius’ metaphor of translating as crossing a river — either over a bridge or in a boat — is
reminiscent of Nida and Taber’s analogy “of crossing a broad, deep, swift river. If one does not
know how to swim, and does not have a boat, it is necessary to go up or down the bank of the
river until a place is found that is shallow enough to serve as a ford. The time and effort spent
walking along one side of the river is not wasted; it is absolutely essential to the crossing” (1969:
34).
18. On the basis of the corpus analyzed, however, it seems that specialized and commercial
translation provides less inspiration for figurative descriptions.
19. Maria Tymoczko notes that analysis of these relations “invites metaphor: … for example, of
voice silenced, margin and centre and … house of mirrors” because critics tend to view post-
colonial literature as a new literary phenomenon for which adequate vocabulary has not yet
been developed (1999: 19).
20. Referring to studies within the postcolonial paradigm, Clare Cavanagh criticizes their au-
thors for ignoring the so-called ‘Second World’, namely “Russia and its former satellites in Eu-
rope and Asia”. After all, “the Russian Empire and its 20th century successor, the Soviet Union,
surely deserve a place in any contemporary attempt at a critical evaluation of imperialism and its
cultural effects” (Cavanagh 2003: 61). In her opinion, a similar place is also deserved by Poland,
“the country first divided between the fascist Germany and the Soviet Union, then occupied
by the Nazis, and toward the end of the war ‘liberated’ by the Soviets and incorporated into the
‘Eastern Empire’” (Cavanagh 2003: 62). This thought is carried further by Aleksander Fiut who,
while opposing the perpetuation of the image of Poland as a victim, encourages “using, also in
literary studies, the notional system of postcolonial criticism, yet purified of ideological exag-
gerations and liberated from inveterate and anachronistic resentments as well as indoctrination,
however intentional” (2003: 153). Applying this tool to examine Polish ‘Eastern borderland’
literature or to texts describing cross-cultural relations in Western Poland could bring to light
hitherto neglected phenomena or lead to posing hitherto unformulated questions. One example
of formulating new questions is the recent study by Bogusław Bakuła (2006), proposing a quest
for a new language to be used when talking about Poland’s Eastern Borderlands. From the trans-
Polish metaphorical perceptions of the translator and translation 53
lational perspective, it would be interesting to explore the relationships between the Polish lit-
erature and the literatures of its closest neighbors as well as of ethnic and linguistic minorities in
Poland, both before and after 1945. A recent analysis of translations of poetry of Lemkos — the
ethnic minority currently “reclaiming their own voice” — reveals that relationships within the
‘Second World’ may be significantly different to those existing between the ‘First’ and ‘Third’
Worlds (cf. Skibińska and Misiak 2007).
Bibliography
Corpus
a. Dictionaries:
Bańkowski, Andrzej. 2000. Etymologiczny słownik języka polskiego. Warszawa: Polskie
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Linde, Samuel Bogumił. 1859. Słownik języka polskiego, Lwów: Ossolineum.
Mayenowa, Maria Renata, ed. 2003. Słownik polszczyzny XVI wieku. Warszawa: Polska Aka-
demia Nauk.
Doroszewski, Witold, ed. 1958–1969. Słownik języka polskiego (in 11 volumes). Warszawa: Pol-
skie Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Szymczak, Mieczysław, ed. 1978. Słownik języka polskiego (in 3 volumes). Warszawa: Polskie
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Urbańczyk, Stanisław, ed. 1982. Słownik staropolski. Wrocław et. al.: Polskie Wydawnictwo Nau-
kowe.
Dunaj, Bogusław, ed. 1999. Słownik współczesnego języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wilga.
Dubisz, Stanisław, ed. 2006. Uniwersalny słownik języka polskiego PWN. Warszawa: Polskie
Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Karłowicz, Jan, Adam Kryński and Władysław Niedźwiedzki. 1912. Słownik języka polskiego.
Warszawa: Kasa im. Mianowskiego.
Zdanowicz, Aleksander et allii. 1861. Słownik języka polskiego. Wilno: Maurycy Orgelbradt.
Fijałkowski, Marcin. 1790. “O geniuszu, guście, wymowie.” Teresa Kostkiewiczowa and Zbig-
niew Goliński, eds. 1993. Oświeceni o literaturze, vol. 1. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo
Naukowe. 431–475.
Flukowski, Stefan. 1972. “Materia literacka i muzyczna.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 256.
Hertz, Paweł. 1955. “O tłumaczeniu ksiąg.” Rusinek 1955. 207–230.
Iłłakowiczówna, Kazimiera. 1951. “Parę nieodpowiedzialnych słów o przypadkowych
tłumaczeniach.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 209–211.
Jastrun, Mieczysław. 1973. “O przekładzie jako o sztuce słowa.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007.
261–269.
Kamieńska, Anna. 1975. “Pochwała niemożliwości.” Pollak 1975. 133–138.
Kopacki, Andrzej. 2000. “Piękne posłuszeństwo i zadłużenie.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007.
418–419.
Krasicki, Ignacy. 1772. “O przekładaniu ksiąg.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 55–56.
Krasicki, Ignacy. 1803. “O tłumaczeniu ksiąg.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 56–59.
Kurecka, Maria. 1975. “Próby.” Pollak 1975. 167–173.
Łukosz, Jerzy. 2004. “Czy autor powinien się wtrącać?” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 459–463.
Łuszczykiewicz, Piotr. 2000. “Przekład jako plagiat?” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 420–421.
Niemojowski, Jerzy. 1968. “Siedem zasad.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 229–230.
Osiński, Ludwik. 1818–1830. “O potrzebie, ważności w literaturze i warunkach przekładów.”
Balcerzan 1977. 108–112.
Parandowski, Jan. 1955. “O znaczeniu i godości tłumacza.” Rusinek 1955. 11–20.
Parandowski, Jan. 1975. „Autor i tłumacz.” Pollak 1975. 253–260.
Pollak, Seweryn, ed. 1975. O sztuce tłumaczenia II. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Potocki, Stanisław. “O wymowie i stylu.” Teresa Kostkiewiczowa and Zbigniew Goliński, eds.
1995. Oświeceni o literaturze. vol. 2, Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe. 65–114.
Potocki, Stanisław. 1815–1816. “Czym jest przekładanie, i stosowne do niego uwagi i przypisy.”
Balcerzan 1977. 100–104.
Przybylak, Feliks. 1997. “Wymiar tłumaczenia.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 385–387.
Ratajczak, Józef. 1968. “O tłumaczeniu.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 234–236.
Różewicz, Tadeusz. 1962. “Szafarz Pożywnej Treści Poezji.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 214.
Rusinek, Michał, ed. 1955. O sztuce tłumaczenia I. Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Sandauer, Artur. 1955. “Troski tłumacza.” Rusinek 1955. 343–346.
Słowacki, Euzebiusz. 1826. “O przekładaniu z obcych języków na ojczysty.” Balcerzan 1977.
127–135.
Stiller, Robert. 1977. “Przekład jako własność niczyja.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 304–307.
Strasburger, Janusz. 1971. “Z warsztatu tlumacza.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 248–251.
Szmydtowa, Zofia. 1955. “Czynniki rodzime i obce w przekładzie literackim.” Rusinek 1955.
111–126.
Truchanowski, Kazimierz. 1955. “O tłumaczu i jego roli.” Rusinek 1955. 367–381.
Tulli, Magdalena. 2001. “Milimetr and tekstem.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 432–433.
Tuwim, Julian. 1950a. “Czterowiersz na warsztacie.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 135–145.
Tuwim, Julian. 1950b. “Traduttore — traditore.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 151–167.
Waczków, Józef. 1971. “Ktoś w rodzaju inscenizatora.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 255–256.
Waczków, Józef. 1998. “Pisarze-wielowarsztatowcy, czyli tłumacze.” Balcerzan and Rajewska
2007. 391–397.
Wat, Aleksander. 1983.“O przetłumaczalności utworów poetyckich.” Balcerzan and Rajewska
2007. 317–321.
Polish metaphorical perceptions of the translator and translation 55
Ważyk, Adam. 1949. “O tłumaczeniu wierszy rosyjskich.” Balcerzan and Rajewska 2007. 173–
177.
Ważyk, Adam. 1975. “Przygody i doświadczenia.” Pollak 1975. 323–346.
References
D’hulst, Lieven. 1995 “Pour une historiographie des théories de la traduction: questions de mé-
thode”, TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 8 : 1. 13–33.
Dmitruk, Krzysztof Maria. 2005. “Przekład w kulturze literackiej polskiego oświecenia. Prow-
izorium dokumentacyjne.” Joanna Rusin and Kazimierz Maciąg, eds. Literatura i jej kontek-
sty, Rzeszów: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Rzeszowskiego, 2005. 34–45.
Fiut, Aleksander. 2003. “Polonizacja? Kolonizacja?” Teksty Drugie 6 (84). 150–156.
Heilbron, Johan. 1999 “A Sociology of Translation.” European Journal of Social Theory, no. 2(4).
429–444.
Hermans, Theo. 1985. “Images of Translation. Metaphor and Imagery in the Renaissance Dis-
course on Translation.” Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Liter-
ary Translation. London: Croom Helm. 103–136.
Jakobson, Roman. 1959/2000. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” Lawrence Venuti, ed. The
Translation Studies Reader. London-New York: Routledge, 2000. 113–118.
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago-London: The Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Levý, Jiři. 1967/2000. “Translation as a Decision Process.” Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation
Studies Reader. London-New York: Routledge, 2000. 148–159.
Nida, Engene and Charles Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Round, Nicholas. 2005. “Translation and its metaphors: the (N+1) wise men and the elephant.”
SKASE 1:1. 47–69.
Sinko, Zofia. 1968. Powieść zachodnioeuropejska w kulturze literackiej polskiego Oświecenia,
Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Skibińska, Elżbieta and Małgorzata Misiak. 2007. “Języki mniejszości etnicznych a przekład. Wokół
polskich i francuskich przekładów poezji łemkowskiej.” Teksty Drugie 4 (106). 73–95.
Tabakowska, Elżbieta. 1998. “The Polish Tradition.” Mona Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of
Translation Studies. London-New York: Routledge. 523–532.
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999. “Post-colonial writing and literary translation.” Susan Bassnett and Har-
ish Trivedi, eds. Post-colonial Translation. Theory and practice. London: Routledge. 19–40.
Wnęk, Jan. 2006. Polskie przekłady literatury zagranicznej 1918–1939. Kraków: Wydawnictwo
MCDN.
Ziętarska, Jadwiga. 1969. Sztuka przekładu w poglądach literackich polskiego Oświecenia.
Wrocław: Ossolineum.
Résumé
Cet article propose un panorama systématique du monde des métaphores polonaises appliquées
à la traduction, à commencer par l’image des métaphores que reflète la linguistique polonaise.
Vient ensuite un rapport sur les descriptions métaphoriques du traducteur et des traductions
à travers le 18e s., — situation qui reflète l’ère préscientifique dans la réflexion sur la traduc-
tion. Mais l’attention se dirige principalement vers les métaphores répandues dans le discours
polonais contemporain sur la traduction, et notamment à propos: (1) de la nature même de la
traduction; (2) des relations entre texte source et texte cible, puis entre auteur et traducteur; et
(3) à propos du rôle du traducteur. Il en ressort que le contexte polonais propose un riche réper-
toire d’évocations métaphoriques du phénomène traductif qui reflète une position historique et
culturelle particulière.
Polish metaphorical perceptions of the translator and translation 57
Authors’ addresses
Elżbieta Skibińska Piotr Blumczyński
Instytut Filologii Romańskiej Instytut Filologii Angielskiej
ul. Komuny Paryskiej 21 ul. Kuźnicza 22
50-451 Wrocław 50-138 Wrocław
Poland Poland
skibin@uni.wroc.pl pb@ifa.uni.wroc.pl