Georgian Translations of Ernest Hemingway’s Story “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place”: Some Examples of the Analysis of Translation Equivalency

Hemingway elaborates his own aesthetic principle and points out that if a writer of the prose knows enough about what he/she writes, he/she can omit certain things. If a writer writes appropriately, a reader will feel those things as strongly as if an author stated them. The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water” [Hemingway, 1932:98]. Hemingway creates a new style, which is completely different from a stereotypical and a grandiloquent language. Despite its subtlety and simplicity, the language structure is complex. Its restoration in the Georgian translation seems a complex philological procedure.

 Arthur Schopenhauer remarks that during translation from one language into the other, every single word of one language has no exact equivalents in another. Accordingly, the concepts that are expressed through the words may differ in languages. Therefore, it is rarely possible to produce the same effect in the translation as it is in the original [Schopenhauer, 1992:32-33]. As a result, the main issue with translation is the choice of words and meanings for representing the original. This issue is the object of our research. It can be viewed from the perspective of understanding the simple language world of Hemingway’s short story “A Clean, Well, Lighted Place” during the evaluation of its Georgian translations.

In the 16th century French humanist, translator and poet Étienne Dolet in his famous essay La manière de bien traduire d’une langue en autre (“How to translate well from one language into another”) created an approach to the translation, which responds to the fundamental  principles of the modern translation studies: a translator should avoid the tendency of translating word-for-word, because it will destroy the meaning of the original and the beauty of the form; the translator should use the speech forms of common usage, choose the right word and create the same impression as the original elicits [Dolet, 1540:183]. Walter Benjamin urges that a translation has to be transparent; does not cover the original, does not block its light, but allows the pure language shine upon the original [Benjamen, 1992:79-80]. Our criteria of evaluation of the translations of Hemingway’s short story follow the given statement.

As a literary translation is a creative work built mainly upon a content equivalence, a content equivalence together with a stylistic equivalence (which will not exist without the maintenance of the content) is a subject matter of the paper. Galperin differentiates three types of a content information: a content-factual information, a content-conceptual information and a content-subtextual information. A content-factual information gives information on facts, events, processes that will take place in the world around us, in true or imaginary reality. A content-factual information is explicit, i.e. it is always conveyed verbally. Language units are usually expressed directly, through thematic-logical dictionary meanings. A content-conceptual information conveys to a reader an author’s individual viewpoint about the interrelation between certain events. This kind of information emerges from the whole literary work and it is an artistic reevaluation of facts, events and processes in the imagination of the author. A content-conceptual information is not always expressed clearly and requires the elucidation. The difference between a factual and a conceptual information lies in the fact that a factual information is ordinary, while a conceptual information is aesthetic and creative. A content-subtextual information represents a covered information that comes out of a factual information on the basis of the capacity of language units that can generate associative and connotative meanings. This type of information is optional but if it exists, it produces a textual counterpoint together with a factual information. A conceptual information is subjective and gives rise to different interpretations [Galperin, 2006:27-28]. It is evident that three types of information are interrelated and equally important for the perception and interpretation of a literary text. Deciphering of all the information necessarily depends on a translator’s erudition, intellectual preparation, knowledge of both (source and target) languages, social and cultural contexts, intuition and subjective conceptualization. Generally, the main issue with Hemingway’s writings is the conceptualization of a subtextual information, but the precision of a factual-conceptual information in the course of translation seems doubtful.    

Apart from the study of a content information, the translations in the paper are examined on the syntactic and stylistic levels, which are related to the linguistic and stylistic categories promoted by Geoffrey Leech and Mick Short. These categories are considered to be efficient for revealing the possibilities of a good translation on the basis of juxtaposing the source and target texts and for establishing a content accuracy according to the content categories. Each analysis of the style is an attempt to find an artistic principle underlying a writer’s choice of language and “the relation between the significances of a text, and the linguistic characteristics in which they are manifest” [Leech and Short, 2007:56]. The stylistic values associated with the linguistic data can be categorized. The linguistic and stylistic categories (including lexical and grammatical categories, figures of speech, cohesion and context) in the text create stylistically relevant information and ultimately serve to yield the content of the whole text [Leech and Short, 2007:60-61]. The paper covers only three categories: figures of speech, a lexical category and a grammatical category. The figures of speech consider traditional means  -  tropes and schemes. Lexical categories involve the complexity and simplicity of vocabulary, informal and formal discourse, the usage of idioms, dialects or different registers. As for a grammatical category, it denotes different types and structures of sentences (complexity, simplicity), their compositions and effects [Leech and Short, 2007:61-63].

A clean, well-lighted place” was translated two times into Georgian. The first translation by Vakhtang Chelidze („სუფთა, ნათელი ადგილი“) was issued within Hemingway’s four-volume prose publication in 1965. The second version „იქ, სადაც სინათლეა“ was published in 2011 without stating the translator of the story. A comparative linguistic analysis of two translations will be employed in terms of a conceptual equivalency, a stylistic analogue and an artistic-emotional equivalence.

A clean, well-lighted place” is Hemingway’s one of the most popular stories significant with its rhythm and stylistic characteristics. Stephen Hoffman regards it as the writer’s stylistic masterpiece [Hoffman, 1990:172], while James Joyce states that the short story reduces the veil between literature and life. According to his viewpoint, “A clean, well-lighted place” is masterly. It is one of the best stories ever written.1 The story embodies Hemingway’s so-called ars poetica that contradicts to pathetics and eloquence and makes opposition between the latter and an empirical reality. Hemingway’s biographer Carlos Baker points out that Hemingway strips language clean and lays it bare down to the bone [Baker, 1967:75]. The writer himself believes that “prose is the architecture, not an interior decoration… People… not skilfully constructed characters must be projected from the writer's assimilated experience, from his knowledge, from his head, from his heart and from all that there is of him” [Gribanov, 1986:239].

A clean, well-lighted place” touches upon the main existential problem - solitude and estrangement of a modern human being. The story has to be understood from the standpoint of Hemingway’s worldview. The equivalency of its translation needs to be investigated alongside the interpretation of the writer’s idea and aesthetics. The story is about a harsh feeling of the loss of place in the world of trauma, vanity of existence, homelessness and emptiness. According to the story, the life is short and the death is confronted only with a human dignity. A human being should retain humaneness and dignity in the world of nothingness, death of values and meaninglessness.

The manner of the verbal expression of the story can be described in the following way: the body of the story is built up by short dialogues. The style is simple and free of the decoration created by the lack of adjectives and emphatic verbs. Stylistic means are scanty. Syntactic constructions are simple. They basically contain compound and simple sentences with 16 lexical units as an average. 

Vinogradov points out that the examination of a writer’s style, poetics and mindset is impossible without the analysis of the language [Vinogradov, 1959:61]. Therefore, the analysis of the translation will be started by a lingual analysis. Its inseparable part is the title of the story. „სუფთა, ნათელი ადგილი“ is almost a word-for-word translation of the original thoroughly implying the lexical meaning of the title, its sonority and contrast with the text of the story. As for the second translation („იქ, სადაც სინათლეა“), despite shortness, neatness and compactness, it fails to convey the idea of the title and does not fully correspond to the text. In contrast to the original, it is elevated and poetic that triggers irrelevance between the title and the idea of the story. Such kind of translation of the title can be linked with the Russian interpretation «Там, где чисто, светло» (translated by E. Romanova). The Georgian translation is just an incomplete version of the Russian one.

The syntax i.e. a structure of a sentence, determines a stylistic aspect of an utterance. In Hemingway’s works a compound sentence is often followed by a simple one and mainly this alternation ensures the melody of a text. The tone of the story as well as the rhythmic-intonational image of the source text are maintained in „სუფთა, ნათელი ადგილი“. The following passage representing an emotional monologue of an elderly waiter is interpreted in such a manner that the translation appears to be an aesthetic counterpart of the original:


“He disliked bars and bodegas. A clean, well-lighted café was a very different thing. Now, without thinking further, he would go home to his room. He would lie in the bad and finally, with daylight, he would go to sleep. After all, he said to himself, it is probably only insomnia. Many must have it” [Hemingway, 2003:291].


,,ვერ იტანდა ბარებსა და ღვინის სარდაფებს. სუფთა, ნათელი კაფე სულ სხვა საქმე იყო. ახლა აღარაფერზე იფიქრებს, პირდაპირ შინისკენ გასწევს, თავის ოთახში შევა, ლოგინში ჩაწვება, და გათენებისას როგორმე ჩაეძინება კიდეც. იქნებ სულაც უძილობა სჭირდეს და სხვა არაფერი. ეგ რამდენსა სჭირს“  [Hemingway, 1965:161].


    The translator manages to transpose an original compound sentence into one sentence in such a way that the naturalness of the phrase is preserved. In the following passage, the presentation of a long phrase maintains the texture of the text:  


“They sat at a table that was close against the wall near the door of the café and looked at the terrace where the tables were all empty except where the old man sat in the shadow of the leaves of the tree that moved slightly in the wind” [Hemingway,  2003:211].

,,ოფიციანტები კედელთან მისხდომოდნენ მაგიდას, ქუჩიდან შემოსასვლელი კარების მახლობლად, და ტერასას გასცქეროდნენ, საცა დაცარიელებულ მაგიდებს შორის კენტად იჯდა ბერიკაცი, ქარით ოდნავ მოქანავე ფოთლების ჩრდილში [Hemingway,  1965:156].


    In the second translation, the original compound sentences are not transformed into the long ones, but are subdivided into small simple sentences depriving the musicality of the phrase.


,,ისინი მაგიდას უსხდნენ იქვე, კართან, კედლის გასწვრივ და ტერასას გადაჰყურებდნენ, სადაც ერთი მაგიდის გარდა ყველა დაცარიელებული იყო. ამ მაგიდასთან, ხის ჩრდილში მოხუცი იჯდა. ფოთლებს ოდნავ არხევდა ნიავი [Hemingway, 2011:153].


    The translator of „იქ, სადაც სინათლეა“ reveals his/her dependence on the Russian translation from the very first phrase of the text. The first sentence repeats the structure, meaning and  punctuation of the Russian sentence with an absolute precision:


«Был поздный час, и никого не осталось в кафе, кроме одного старика, - он сидел в тени дерева, которую отбрасывала листва, освещенная электрическим светом» [Hemingway, 1987:302].

უკვე გვიან იყო და კაფეში არავინ დარჩენილა ერთი მოხუცი კაცის გარდა, - იგი იჯდა ხის ჩრდილში, რომელსაც ელექტრონით განათებული ფოთლოვანი ისროდა [Hemingway, 2011:153].


The Georgian sentence molded on the structure of the Russian sentence loses naturalness. The same can be said about the whole paragraph and other parts of the story. 

The melancholy and elegiac tone of Hemingway’s story can be perceived from the very first sentence, which emphasizes the emptiness of the café. The intonation is descending and reaches its utmost point in the last passage, where the elderly waiter, fallen into deep despair, utters his inner monologue. This is an inner monologue, which conveys the emotions of the waiter with the repetition of one word - Nada (nothing, nothingness) - forming his spiritual mood. The word is repeated several times in the passage and is configured as a refrain. The prayer to nothingness serves as one the most important parts of the story and its equivalent translation is crucial for the perception of the entire story and for understanding the writer’s fictional world.

     The word “nothingness” - the Spanish word “nada”  -  is inserted in almost every phrase of “Our Lord” and in the short prayer to Virgin Mary, both expressing despair. The word reaches its culmination at the end of the prayer, where every second word is already “nada”. The inner monologue and the parody of the prayer are shortened and lexico-semantically incorrect in the translation „იქ, სადაც სინათლეა“:   


Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee” [Hemingway, 2003: 291].


„მამაო არარაობავ, იკურთხოს არარაობა შენი და მოვედინ არარაობა შენი და იყავნ ნება შენი, აწ და მარადის და არარაობით არარაობამდე“ [Hemingway, 2011:158].


    A comparative linguistic analysis of Georgian and Russian translations of the passage evidence the fact that the Georgian version is equivalent to the Russian translation, which is also incomplete.


«Отче ничто, да святится ничто твое, да придет ничто твое, да будет ничто твое, яко в ничто и в ничто» [Hemingway, 1987:305]. 


    The early translation provides a fully rendered monologue of the old waiter. 


,,მამაო არარაობავ, რომელი ხარ არარაობასა შინა, არარაობა იყავნ სახელი შენი, არარაობა სუფევა შენი, არარაობა ნება შენი, ვითარცა არარაობასა შინა, ეგრეცა არარაობასა ზედა. მომეც ჩუენ არარაობა არსობისა, და მომიტევენ ჩუენ არარაობა ჩუენი, და ნუ შემიყვანებ ჩუენ არარაობასა, არამედ მიხსენ ჩუენ არარაობისაგან. pues nada. დიდება შენ, არარაობავ, არარაობა იყავნ სუფევა შენი [ჰემინგუეი, 1965:160].


However, the original “Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee” is the parody of the Catholic authorized version “Hail Mary, full of grace. The Lord is with thee”,3 The given parody is altered and its content is inaccurate.

It is noteworthy that both Russian and the Georgian translations of the first words “Our Nada” are reproduced as «Отче ничто», „მამაო არარაობავ“. The translations can be considered as non-equivalent to the original, because they intensify the feeling of despair reflected in the original. It is implied in the story that the writer does not finally close the door of hope and faith to the waiter. This fact is elicited in the last words and contradicts to the guest’s longing for suicide: “after all…it’s probably only insomnia” [Hemingway, 2008:291]. Consequently, the prayer should have started with „არარაობავ ჩვენო“, taking into account the fact that this phrase repeats the semantics of the original word-by-word. The prayer cannot be understood as an antireligious appeal. Robert Penn Warren points out that this passage embodies the conception of the religious faith of the waiter and can also reflect Hemingway’s piety. The despair and insomnia that the elderly waiter suffers from is a hanger for meaningfulness of the religious faith he is trying to attain [Warren, 1947:6].

As far as the relevance of content of two translations is concerned, it is necessary to single out other lexical units that cause the change of a content-factual and a conceptual information in the translation. The original “The dew settled the dust” [Hemingway, 2003:288] is rendered in the first translation as the following: „მტვერს ნამი დააწვებოდა“ [Hemingway, 1965:156]. The second translation of the story finds the following solution: „ცვარმა დალექა მტვერი“ [Hemingway, 2011:153]. One of the meanings of the verb “to settle” is defined as ,,დადება“. Besides, the dew covers the dust, but does not press or precipitate it. Accordingly, the phrase could have been translated as „ნამი მტვერს დაედებოდა“.

“The waiter took the brandy bottle and another saucer from the counter inside the café” [Hemingway, 2003:289] is rendered in the early translation as „ოფიციანტი კაფეში შევიდა, მებუფეტეს კონიაკი და ლამბაქი გამოართვა“ [Hemingway, 1965:160], while the second interpretation is: „ოფიციანტმა დახლიდან აიღო კონიაკის ბოთლი, სუფთა თეფში…“ [Hemingway, 2011:154]. The word “counter“ means ,,დახლი“, ,,ბუფეტი“ and not ,,მებუფეტე“. “Brandy” is a highly alcoholic drink made from wine materials, while “cognac” is the brandy with a protected designation of origin produced in France, namely, in the province of Cognac. Thus, a factual information is incorrect in both translations. Besides, it can be ascertained from the story that there is no one in the café except two waiters and one old man. In the first translation appears the fourth character, which disappears afterwards. In the second translation the collocation “another saucer” is translated as „სუფთა თეფში“ (a clean plate), when the first and the only meaning of the word “saucer” is „ლამბაქი“. In addition, another factual information is added to the meaning - „სუფთა“ (clean). The “saucer“ taken out by the waiter with the drink for the old client could be clean, but nothing is said about this in the story. Consequently, it can be concluded that a factual information in both translations is not realized correctly leading to the loss of a conceptual information and creating only a superficial plot.

An irrelevant content-factual information can be observed in the second translation, particularly, when the young waiter says about the old man:


“He is lonely. I am not lonely. I have a wife waiting in bed for me” [Hemingway, 2003:289].

„გაბრაზებულია მარტოობით. მაგრამ მე ხომ არა ვარ მარტო - ცოლი მელოდება ლოგინში“ [Hemingway, 2011:155].


The incorrect lexical units used in the sentence lead to an inaccurate description of the old man’s character: the old man is lonely, he is not angry. For this reason, the old man’s calm and balanced behavior during expelling him out of the café contradicts to this evaluation. He leaves the café without saying a word and walks down the street with dignity – „ღირსებით სავსე ნაბიჯით“ [Hemingway, 2011:156]. The early translation renders this passage in the following manner: 


„მარტოხელა კაცის ამბავი ხომ იცი. აბა მე რა - ცოლი ლოგინში მელოდება“  [Hemingway, 1965:158].


The loneliness of the old man is correctly emphasized in the first sentence, but the first part of the second sentence - „აბა მე რა“  - does not represent the content given in the original  - “I am not lonely”. Therefore, the information embedded in the original is reproduced obscurely in the translation. 

The translator of the early version tries to  diversify the vocabulary, to make the narration more intensified. For this reason, the translator renders trite and neutral words with stylistically marked forms, for instance:


“You should have killed yourself  last weak” [Hemingway, 2011:289]

 „ნეტა მართლა ჩაძაღლებულიყავი იმ კვირას [Hemingway, 1965:157].


  The corresponding English word for „ჩაძაღლება“ is “to drop dead/die like a dog”4, but “to kill oneself” is an informal and a neutral word and denotes „თავის მოკვლა“, „თვითმკვლელობა“. A simple form is transformed into a metaphor expressing the connotation of derogation and anger, which gives more nihilistic trait to the utterance. There is a sentence similar to the above mentioned one (“He should have killed himself last weak” [Hemingway, 2011:289] – „ნეტა მართლა მოეკლა თავი იმ კვირას“ [Hemingway, 1965:157]). Supposedly, the translator avoids the conveyance of a similar meaning with the same words and translates the phrase differently. Two similar phrases are rendered in the second translation in the following way: „ბარემ წინა კვირას მოეკლა თავი და გათავებულიყო“, „ჰა და გათავებულიყავ ბარემ წინა კვირას“ [Hemingway, 2011:154]. The word „გათავებულიყო“ seems to be more natural as far as it is not a vulgarism and has less derogatory connotation than the previous examples.

It is known that in the Georgian literary language an emphatic vowel (ა - [a]) has specific positions: after nouns in dative, genitive and instrumental cases followed by the conjunctions და/თუ [and/or], after modified nouns when they are followed by postpositional attributes, etc. However, this element is also characteristic of the Georgian dialectal speech. Hemingway’s language and dialogue are informal and neutral, typical of ordinary people’s vocabulary relevant to their everyday verbal relations. This can be a consequence of the translator’s choice in the first translation to employ an emphatic vowel with a dialectal nuance in order to imitate the informal situation of the café in the original text, such as: „დარაბებს კეტავდნენ“ (the narrator’s speech), „ეგ რამდენს სჭირს“ (the character’s speech), „სად შინ ყოფნა და სად აქ“ (the character’s speech). The elements of the Georgian dialect intruded in the translated text, both in the character’s and the narrator’s speech, neutralizes the color of the original that has to be melancholic and solemn and has to conform to an existential mood of the entire story. In contrast, the dialectal element serves as a precondition for giving an absolutely different flavor to the phrase, creating an impression of the Georgian reality caused by the abundance of the Georgian national color and intonation. The word „დუქანი“ serves the same purpose in the second translation: „დუქანში კაცურად ვერ დაჯდები“ [Hemingway, 2011:157] -“Nor can you stand before a bar” [Hemingway, 2003:191], the corresponding phrase in the first translation is: „დახლთან აყუდებაც რა საკადრისია“ [Hemingway, 1965:160]. In addition to an inaccurate content, the word „დუქანი“ creates the surplus of a local colour and therefore, the foreign environment is faded in the translation. From this perspective, the first translation is different, although lexically and semantically this translation is far from the precision.  Besides, the dialectal form „საცა“ employed in several occasions instead of using „სადაც“ (where) in the narrator’s speech fulfills the same effect. 

The translator of the second version tries to achieve expressiveness in the last passage, where the inner monologue of the elderly waiter is conveyed by employing a stylistic device – repetition - that makes the phrase more emphatic. The original does not lack this:


“He would lie in the bed and finally, with daylight, he would go to sleep. After all, he said to himself, it is probably insomnia” [Hemingway 2003: 291].

„დაწვება და გათენებისას ბოლოს და ბოლოს ჩაეძინება. ბოლოს და ბოლოს, თქვა მან თავისთვის, შეიძლება უბრალოდ უძილობა სჭირდეს“ [Hemingway, 2011:158].


It is preferable to find a synonymic word or a word-combination or actualize other lexical items having the same meaning as it can be observed in the first translation: „ლოგინში ჩაწვება, და გათენებისას როგორმე ჩაეძინება კიდეც. იქნებ სულაც უძილობა სჭირდეს და სხვა არაფერი“ [Hemingway, 1965:161].

An essential feature of Hemingway’s style is a shortage of the narrator’s remarks. The remarks are not accompanied with the narrator’s explanations. In the first translation the translator adds his own assessment: instead of rendering the writer’s typical remark neutrally -  “Said the old man” [Hamingway, 2003:290] - „თქვა/უთხრა/მიუგო მოხუცმა“, the translator interprets it in the following way: „არ მოეშვა ბერიკაცი“ [Hemingway, 1965:158]. This kind of an explanation makes the sentence more intensified, but apparently, it is not the writer’s intension to depict this mood.

As far as the translator’s interpretation of the text is only one among others and the translator creates it from the perspective of his/her own literary taste, thesaurus and subjective viewpoint, criteria of the evaluation of the translation will be subjective. It is possible to replace an item with a target-language item or expression, which has a similar impact on the target-language reader, but does not have the same meaning [Baker, 2006:31]. In addition, a translator interpreting according to his/her own viewpoint and thinking “opts for naturalness at the expense of accuracy” [Baker, 2006:57]. It can happen conversely. Accordingly, any possible attempt of the analysis of the translation can be a partly objective issue. Besides, objectivity is not a measurable category and a critic of the translation cannot be exempt from subjectivity. Peter Newmark believes that any judgment about translation assumes uncertainty and subjectivity, but it eliminates neither the necessity nor the usefulness of a translation criticism, because first of all a translation criticism helps to raise standards of translation [Newmark, 1988:192].

In Hemingway’s minimalist prose, every single device serves for its specific purpose on the way to create an expressive style of a text, which at the same time remains uncluttered and informal. According to Venuti, the strategies of domestication and foreignization tackle “the question of how much a translation assimilates a foreign text to the translating language and culture, and how much it rather signals the differences of that text” [Venuti in Munday, 2008:146]. After employing Venuti’s dichotomy, it can be presumed that both translators are target text and culture oriented. Hence, the text adjusted to the system of the Georgian language does not lose naturalness, but it takes superfluously Georgian outward appearance. On the one hand, the style of the translated language and content should correspond to the original. On the other hand, a translated text has to give an impression that it is not an original literary work, but it belongs to the foreign world. The language of translation should have its own style. Thus, a translated text should assume both “foreignization” (for instance, a reader lives in a foreign environment in the Georgian translation of the text) and “domestication” (even though a reader lives in a foreign environment, he/she is surrounded by his/her own language world).

The difficulty of translating Hemingway is that the language, the syntactic simplicity and the lyricism can lead to dryness in translation and fail to elicit the same aesthetic effect. In order to avoid a schematic style of the language in the translated text, the translators employ the following method: they translate stylistically neutral vocabulary with stylistically marked words. First of all, these are: marked lexis, vulgarism, dialectalism and stylistic devices. The result of this attempt is inaccuracy and in certain cases, the style of translation, in contrast to the original, shifts into a different register. Sometimes even a content information is conveyed irrelevantly. The translation cannot fully reflect artistic peculiarities of the original. However, there are passages in the translations, where the atmosphere and the characteristics of the original are kept lexically and stylistically untouched  - the translators remain faithful to the original.

 After analyzing the first translation „სუფთა, ნათელი ადგილი“, it can be placed within a historical context and perceived via considering a theoretical background of translation existing at that time in Georgia. The publication of the story was preceded by a period, when literary theorists and linguists discussed translation from one angle. Literary theorists viewed the process of translation and the practice of literary translation in terms of ideological, historical, extra-linguistic factors, literary traditions, etc., while linguistics focused on general linguistic problems, inter-lingual transformations and lexicological issues until the 1960s, when the research methods of linguistic and literary approaches to translation were synthesized. In 1953 Andrei Fedorov published his work “An introduction to the theory of translation” in which he discussed the issues of choice of language means in translation as well as characteristics of different functional styles. He classified the correspondence on lexical, grammatical and stylistic levels. The book was followed by the first Georgian theoretical study of translation called Theoretical aspects of literary translation: a problem of realistic translation (1959) written by Givi Gachechiladze. The research dwelt on the unity of form and content maintained in translation that was the result of a realistic method of interpretation. Word-for-word rendering of the original was devoid of its aesthetic value, while free rendering lost the unity of content and form. “Realistic translation represents basic, typical and characteristic aspects of the original, its typical environment, national specific features, the unity of form and content” (Gachechiladze, 1959:348]. In the course of translating the prose, meaning, intonation and rhythm are intertwined and expressed through a syntactic form. They combine with an artistic and an emotional aesthetic impression adequate to the original when transforming the above through the realistic means [Gachehiladze, 1959:248]. It is natural that the first translation reflects a historical reality, a literary taste, a tradition, strategies of the interpretation of literary texts and approaches to translation relevant to the environment in which the interpretation was executed. The translator finds the right constructions for intonation and syntactic form and makes an effort to restore the style of the original. At the same time, the translator manages to enrich the Georgian literary tradition with new literary principles and forms. Supposedly, the second translation is performed through an intermediary text. Therefore, it only partly represents artistic values of the original and Hemingway’s manner of writing.

1 The following el. resource is used:

2 The following el. resource is used:

3 The following el. resource is used:

4 A Comprehensive Georgian-English Dictionary, 2006.


Gachechiladze G.
Theoretical Aspects of Literary Translation: A Problem of Realistic Translation. Tbilisi: Sabchota Sakartvelo.
Gribanov B.
Hemingway. Tbilisi.
Hemingway E.
Literary works in 4 vol. Tbilisi: Lieteratura da Khelovneba.
Hemingway E.
Short Stories. Tbilisi: Palitra L.
Baker C.
Hemingway: The Writer As Artist. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Baker M.
In Other Words. A coursebook on translation. London and New York: Routledge.
Benjamin, W.
“The Task of the Translator”. In Schulter, R. & Biguenet, J. (eds.) Theories of Translation: An Anthropology of Essays From Dryden to Derrida. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Dolet, E.
La manière de bien traduire d’une langue en autre. Paris.
Hemingway, E.
The Complete Short Stories. New York: Scribner.
Hemingway E.
Death in the afternoon. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Hoffman S. K.
“Nada and the Clean, Well-Lighted Place: The Unity of Hemingway’s Short Fiction”. In Jackson, J.B (ed) New Critical Approaches to the Short Stories of Ernest Hemingway. Durham and London: Duke UP.
Munday, J.
Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge.
Schopenhauer, A.
“On Language and Word”. In Schulter, R. & Biguenet, J. (eds.) Theories of Translation: An Anthropology of Essays From Dryden to Derrida. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Warren, R. Penn
Hemingway.” The Kenyon Review, Vol. 9, No.1, pp.1-28.
Vinogradov V.
On the Language of Fiction. Moscow.
Hemingway E.
A Farewell to Arms. Short Stories. Dnepropetrovsk: Promin
Rayfield D.
A Comprehensive Georgian-English Dictionary.