Erzsébet Cs. Jónás
Chekhov’s Three Sisters, written in 1900, was first published in Hungarian in Dezső Kosztolányi’s translation in 1922, and, although it was translated again lat
er, this time from the Russian original by Gyula Háy in 1955, it is the former translation, Kosztolányid text, which was made from a German translation, that has been a success for the past seventy years. It has inspired not only theater man
agers with changing concepts to answer the needs of their times, but also artists who, besides their intentions to follow theatrical traditions, have wanted to express the crisis of values felt at the transition between two eras, as condensed in the life of the “everyman”.
The most debated theatrical production of 1991 was Somewhere in Russia, the joint work of stage manager András Jeles and dramaturge György Spiró. One of the supporting pillars of the performance, compiled from works by 20th century Russian authors, was Chekhov’s Three Sisters, which Jeles used as the most authen
tic dramatic text to measure the authenticity of human communication. His inter
pretation holds a mirror up to an age, “when all the previous consensus has become doubtful without any hope for a new one, when there is no common image of the world, no orientation, faith or myth which could coordinate communication and the life of the community, when human personality is fragmentary and most often so in communicating itself since we can at best operate only with fragmentary myth and fragmentary language, i.e. the more profoundly we would like to show our
selves the less we understand each other” - says András Pályi in connection with the play, talking about an outlook on life dominant in our era in this eastern part of Europe (Pályi 1991).
Another interpretation, also in 1991, is Andor Lukáts’s film Three Sisters, whose plot takes place in a Soviet military base in Hungary between 1987 and 1991, just before the withdrawal of the Soviet troops. The film deals with the story of today’s
“three sisters” as a kind of model: through a series of everyday, small tragedies the director presents the life of the colony in its complete hopelessness, when Moscow has become “at once even further away and at the same time menacingly closer”
(Székely 1991).
Examining the three interpretations we can regard Kosztolányid translation as an interpretation filtered through a poetic self. Not only because the translator was
Erzsébet Cs. Jónás
not working with the Russian original1 but also because the linguistic reflection of the defenseless soul, so characteristic of Kosztolányi, keeps interspersing with Chekhov’s text, even where it would be otherwise if the translator had followed the original text.
To illustrate how Kosztolányid poetic style is reflected in the translation, let us compare a few excerpts from his poetry and from his translation, with special re
gard to the equivalent solutions of the communicative function of address (cf. Cs.
Jónás 1984):
Ó, hányszor látlak mégis benneteket, kis testvérkéim, rongyos gyermekek.2 [lit: Oh still how many times I see you, my little siblings, ragged children.]
(from O, hányszor látlak mégis benneteket)
*
Mása: Szeretnék meggyónni tinéktek, kedves testvéreim ... édes, édes kis testvéreim ...(Chekhov 1973: 546)
[lit: Masha: I’d like to confess myself to you, my dear siblings ... my sweet, sweet little siblings]
Masha: Mne hochetsya kajat’sya, milyje syostry ... milyje moji, syostri moji (Chekhov 1967: 536)
[lit: my dear sisters ...my dears, my sisters]
*
Ha volna egy kevés remény, [lit: If there were some hope, a lelketek megmenteném, I would save your souls, ti drága, drága szentek, you dear, dear saints kik ültök otthon tétován
who sit at home wavering along the abandoned rooms, and go for a walk in the evenings.
You pet everything small, Goldfish, dogs and chickens, that is a weak and poor little thing Szóltok: Képzeld csak, édesem,
múltkor meggyszósz volt édesen, mint valaha, hat éve.”
You say, “Just imagine, my sweet one, there was cherry sauce last time, sweet like in the old days, six years ago.”
(from Ha volna egy kevés remény) 1. For more information about the German source of Kosztolányid translation cf. E. Cs.
Jónás - G. Székely: Hogyan fordította Kosztolányi Dezső a Három nővért? (How did Dezső Kosztolányi translate Three Sisters?) In: Filológiai Tanulmányok A.P. Csehov drámai műveiről I., ed. G. Székely. 1987 Nyíregyháza: BGYTF. 131-138.
2. The English text of Kosztolányid poem and Chekhovd play is a translation by the au
thor of this article.
Csebutikin: Édeseim, leikeim, maguk nekem az egyetlenek, a legdrágábbak ezen a világon. (Chekhov 1973: 487)
[lit: Chebutykin: My sweet ones, my souls, you are my only ones, the dearest in this world.]
Chebutykin: Milyje moji, horoshije moji, vy u menya jedinstvennyje, vy dl’a menya samoje dorogoje, shto tol’ko est’ na svete (Chekhov 1967: 497)
[lit: My dears, my good ones]
Kosztolányid poetic language developed the adequate linguistic expression of that scale of values which is demonstrated in his poem Ha volna egy kevés remény.
The same idiom is characteristic of Chekhov’s characters, so it is regarded as au
thentic in the translated dialogues which realise the relations of the heroines in Three Sisters, both their relation to their environment and to one another. This scale of values, when traced in the text, produces the subjective modality of the text which expresses the speaker's relation to his message “through most various linguistic means: intonation, syntactic constructions of specific communicative function, word order, word repetition, insertion of modifiers, introductory words, inserted structures and also through various combinations of all these” (Svedova 1980:
215). Examining the category of modality in his textual study, Galperin points out that the domain of modality taken in the sense of traditional grammar, which can be traced with the help of verb tenses and modes in the paradigmatic system of the sentence as objective modality, along the reality - unreality opposition, becomes wider with the introduction of the concept of subjective modality, and provides op
portunity for modality to become a bridge between sentence and utterance and the complex structures of the text up to the super text, i.e. culture (Galperin 1981:
114-115, Szabó 1982: 84-147). On its next level, which is the artistic text, text modality is realised in accordance with the rules of the semiotic system of the liter
ary text. The language frame of its realization, which reflects the author’s point of view, comprises the portrayal of characters, their utterances arranged in relation to one another and the inferences - evaluative realisations of the creative artistic sub
ject. It is on this level of text modality that the three interpretations of Three Sisters, Kosztolányid, Jeles’ and Lukáts’, meet and then deviate according to their form and era. They keep Kosztolányid language of the characters and differ when the form of expression is an autonomous theatrical experiment (Jeles’) or a cinematic portrait of an era (Lukáts’) (Stepanov 1976: 7-8; Petőfi 1991: 15-36).
In the following we propose to examine the structure of Chekhov’s dialogues and to investigate the linguistic, textual elements of subjective modality, those which were preserved in the interpretations, and therefore can be regarded as ageless.
a) Let us first examine the main characteristics of the medium of the theatrical form, the dialogue, as described by Grice through his communicative conversation principles, the conversational maxims (Grice 1975). Examining the dialogues in Chekhov’s plays we find that the maxim of quality is the most important one and within this, the linguistic means of mitigating the principle are most relevant (Cs.
Jónás 1988). As for their pragmatic characteristics, these introductory words and inserted constructions reflect the speaker’s lack of self-esteem, that his opinion is indecisive, not certain if it is right, and the speaker is ready to yield when opposed by someone more powerful. Such phrases are: lehetséges [possible], úgy tűnik [it ap
Erzsébet Cs. Jónás
pears], meglehet [maybe], mondjuk [let’s say], azt mondják [it is said], szerintem [I think], úgy látszik [it seems], bizonyára [ probably] e.t.c.
Andrej (zavartan): Az álarcosok nem jönnek ... Nézd, kedvesem, Natasa azt mondja, hogy Bobik nincs egészen jól. Szóval ... nem tudom. Nekem minden mindegy ...
[lit: Andrej (confused): The maskers aren’t coming ... Look, my dear, Natasha says that Bobik isn’t quite well. Well... / don’t know. It’s all the same to me ...]
Irina (vállat von): Bobik beteg!
[lit: Irina (shrugs her shoulder): Bobik is ill!]
Mása: Hát mit tegyünk? Hogyha elkergetnek bennünket, akkor el kell menni.
[lit: Masha: What shall we do? If they turn us out, we have to leave.]
(Chekhov 1973: 524)
b) The characters lack any manifestations of their will, any sense of reality of their demands made to themselves and to those around them: they cannot see any scheme of action to change this situation. The characters, who share the author’s sympathies with their scales of values and internal crises, cannot even verbally turn against the tough world of bailiffs and newly rich tenants. This is reflected by the ratio of the second most dominant vehicle of text modality, i.e. indirect speech acts among the manifestations of will. Only 25 per cent of the initiating utterances which contain a directive are given a relevant response, the rest of the responses are evasive or introduce a new topic. The indirect manifestations of will and the in
direct negative answers are determined by the norms of social background, polite
ness, etiquette, but they are also produced, and to the same degree, by helplessness and inability to act, both when the characters represent their own interests and when they reject morally condemned utterances (cf.Terestyéni 1980).
Irina: Ivan Romanics, kedves Ivan Romanics!
[lit: Irina: Ivan Romanich, dear Ivan Romanich!]
Csebutikin: No, mi az, kislánykám, édesem?
[lit: Chebutykin: What is it, my little girl, my sweet one?]
Irina: Mondja meg nekem, miért vagyok ma olyan boldog? Mintha vitorlás hajón lennék, fölöttem a messze kék ég, és nagy fehér madarak keringenek körülöttem. Miért van ez így? Miért?
[lit: Irina: Tell me why I am so happy today? As though I were on a sailing boat, with the distant blue sky above me and big white birds flying around me. Why is this? Why?]
Csebutikin (mindkét kezét megcsókolja, gyöngéden): Kis fehér madárkám...
[lit: Chebutykin (kissing both her hands gently): My little white bird...]
(Chekhov 1973: 483)
The close study of the dialogues shows that out of four manifestations of will three are left without a communicatively adequate accepting or rejecting response.
Among the responses the ratio of direct forms and indirect speech acts is about 1:5. It is the unbound, parallel, unconcluded lines of the speech acts that are re
sponsible for the “empty places” in Chekhov’s textual composition and produce the “underwater current” (cf. Chudakov 1971: 173-183).
c) The addresses as initiating utterances in the textual structure strengthen the scale of values described above, the self-denial, the modality of an attitude accept
ing subordination. The majority of the addresses - as our examples have shown - are intimately informal. They are mitigated with intimate, metaphorical elements even in relation to those of a lower rank on the social scale:
Anfisza (kimerültén) : Oljuska, virágom... ne kergess el engem!... Ne kergess!
[lit: Anfisa (exhausted): Olyushka, my flower... Don’t turn me out!... Don’t turn me out!]
Olga: Ugyan, ne csacsiskodj, dada, hiszen senki sem kerget el.
[lit: Olga: Come on, nurse, don’t be silly, nobody is turning you out.]
Anfisza (fejét Olga mellére hajtja): Édesem, aranyom, én dolgozom, ipar
kodom. Ha elgyengülök, akkor majd azt mondják, mehetsz isten hírével!...
De hát hova menjek? Nyolcvanéves fejjel... Nyolcvankét éves leszek...
[lit: Anfisa (she is leaning her head against Olga’s breast): My sweet one, my darling, I’m doing my best. When I’ll grow weak they’ll say to me, “Good
bye and good luck to you”. But where shall I go? At 80 years of age. I’m soon 82...]
Olga: Ülj le kicsit, daduska. Elfáradtál szegénykém...
[lit: Olga: Sit down for a while, nanny. You are tired, my poor little one...]
(Chekhov 1973: 533)
d) Investigations of the opening moves of the dialogues and the directions of the evolving conversations show that the interactions opening with a question or a statement are dominant (44,5 per cent and 34 per cent respectively), directives are much less characteristic (19,5 per cent) and within this latter category requests domi
nate over commands (cf. Izarenkov 1981, Formanovskaya 1989). A study of the re
alisations of communicative functions makes it obvious that the number of unre
solved (or ignored) communicative situations is greater than that of the concluded exchanges. The same is proved by a textual semantic investigation of silences and inadequate responses in the dialogues: what does Solyonij’s “chip-chip-chip” mean or his declamation referring to Aleko, or Masha’s repeated recitation of “A green oak in a nook by the sea...” Chebutykin’s repeated humming of “tararabum-ti-ei”?
Kuligin (zavartan):... Szépen majd megint elkezdjük a mi régi életünket, és én egy árva szót sem szólok, egyetlen célzást sem soha...
[lit: Kuligin (confused): ... Now we’ll start our old life again and I will never say a single word, not even a hint...]
Mása (visszatartja a zokogását): “Zöld tölgy a tenger szögletében.” “Zöld tölgy... a tenger... szögletében... színarany lánc... színarany lánc...!” Meg
őrülök!...
[lit: Masha (choking with sobs): “A green oak in a nook by the sea.”
“A green oak... in a nook... by the sea... a pure gold chain... a pure gold chain...!” I’ll lose my mind!...] Chekhov 1973: 569)
e) The hopelessness and non-action oriented communicative behaviour are also reflected in the deep structures of the conversations. Let us describe the capacity of the dialogues, i.e. their ability to evolve further, in terms of turn-taking i.e. the par
ticipants’ right to speak. In Chekhov’s plays the ratio of virtually one-move, open
Erzsébet Cs. Jónás
exchanges is about 65 percent. In these interactions the dialogue starts with the in
tention of communicative cooperation but the initiating utterance is left without a relevant response from those present in the scene - the utterances do not serve as real stimuli:
Natasa: (...) Nálunk az egész ház tele van, amerre csak járok, mindenütt em
ber ember hátán. Pedig most a városban influenza dühöng, és félek, hogy a gyermekek megkapják.
[lit: Natasha: (...) At our place, the house is full of people, wherever you go there are people all around. Influenza is raging in town now and I’m afraid the children will get it.]
Olga (nem figyel rá): Ezen a szobán nem látszik a tűzvész. Itt minden nyu
godt.
[lit: Olga (she is not listening): This room does not show any signs of the fire. Everything is peaceful here.]
Natasa: Igen ... nagyon kócos vagyok ... (a tükör előtt) azt mondják, hogy meghíztam ... Nem is igaz! Egyáltalán nem igaz.
[lit: Natasha: Yes... My hair is unkempt... (in front of the mirror) they say I have put on some weight... But that’s not true! It isn’t true at all.] (Chekhov
1973: 533)
Each of the three utterances seemingly forming a dialogue together is an open
ing move which, if completed with a relevant response utterance, could form a concluded exchange, but without one they remain one-move, open half-dialogues.
In terms of Grice’s conversational maxims, the maxim of relevance is broken here.
f) Among the grammatical devices of text coherence it is the elliptical syntactical structures that convey the meaning of a sense of loss, the loss of footing in the sub
jective modality most conspicuously. The ellipses not only fulfill the function of stressing the comment in the actual division, but are also capable of becoming the stylistic means of expressing the speakers’ distracted states of mind. The same func
tion is fulfilled by the linking of utterances: the lack of conjunctives i.e. the use of a sequence of coordinated clauses instead of causal subordination (cf. Kiefer 1979, Békési 1982: 17-44; Békési 1986).
The frequent use of elliptical impersonal constructions in the original Russian text is not preserved in the Hungarian translation, but the pauses indicate the dis
jointed character of the speech and the fragmentary nature of thought:
Csebutikin: A bárót az előbb párbajban agyonlőtték.
[lit: Chebutykin: The baron has been shot dead in a duel.]
Irina (csendesen sírdogál):Tudtam én, tudtam...
[lit: Irina (softly crying): I knew, I knew...]
Csebutikin (a háttérben leül egy padra): Fáradt vagyok... (kivesz a zsebéből egy újságot) Hát csak sírjon... (halkan dudorász) Tarara bumtié... Hát nem mindegy!
[lit: Chebutykin (he sits down on a bench in the background): I’m tired...(he takes a newspaper from his pocket) You just go on crying... (he is humming silently) Tarara-bum-ti-ei... Isn’t it all the same!
A három nővér egymáshoz simul és így áll.
[lit: The three sisters cuddle to one another and remain standing so.]
*
Mása: O, hogy szól a katonazene! Elmennek tőlünk, az egyik már egészen el
ment ... egészen és mindörökre, mi pedig egyedül maradunk, és újra kezd
jük az életünket. Élni kell... élni kell...
[lit: Masha: O, how the brass band is playing! They are leaving us, one of them has already gone ... altogether and forever, and we are left alone and we start our life again. One has to live... One has to live ...] (Chekhov 1973:
572)
When examining here the conversational behaviour of the characters with un
balanced scales of values, we are aware of the fact that the dramatic work is regard
ed by us only as a meaningful literary text (Bécsy 1988: 5). A dramatic work, how
ever, becomes consummate in a theatrical performance, when gestures and intona
tion, by making the linguistic signs interwoven with extralingual elements, help the play to become a theatrical model of reality. The driving force of a drama is the conflict-producing situation: that “moment” in the relations of the characters which creates the necessity of change. There is, however, a certain form of dramatic art, represented among others by Chekhov, in which, although the situation involves the necessity of change, the relations between the characters remain unchanged (cf. Bécsy 1988: 79). These relations lack any demonstration of both the hierarchy of importance and the hierarchy of moods. Elements of the tragic and the comic mix freely, creating the effect of “non-selectedness”. The fact, that the tragic pas
sages are in the same utterance as the light remarks, and without any expressive marks, interjections, conjunctions or exclamatory intonation -as in the above ex
cerpt: Chebutykin says that the baron has been shot dead and then takes out a newspaper from his pocket, while humming to himself - further enhances the sense of failure...
We have investigated the first linguistic level of text modality, which reflects the relations of the characters with one another, their environment and their situation, and which has provided a common basis for differing interpretations realised on the stage and in a film. We have tried to trace, in the elements of the textual struc
ture, that common modality, already becoming ageless, which enables the text to function, both in András Jeles’ play and in Andor Lukáts’ film, either in details or as a whole in an unchanged form, as the vehicle of an attitude built on the lack of a value system. In her review of the film Three Sisters Gabriella Székely says,
“Chekhov seems to have written, centuries in advance, the specialist’s handbook of everyday unhappiness, senseless and »stakeless« sufferings”. To this we would like to add: the linguistic elements of the text-modality in Chekhov’s plays unfold the grammar of the eternal sense of loss of footing, and certainly give guidance about the textual background of the various interpretations.
Erzsébet Cs. Jónás
References
BécsyT. 1988. A dráma esztétikája.Budapest: Kossuth Könyvkiadó.
Békési I. 1982. Szövegszerkezeti alapvizsgálatok.Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
Békési I. 1986. A gondolkodás grammatikája. Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó.
Cs. Jónás E. 1984. Fordítói stílusok a Csehov dramaturgia magyar nyelvű tolmácsolásában. In:
Filológiai tanulmányok A. P. Csehov drámai műveiről. I. ed. G. Székely, Nyíregyháza: BGYTF, 102-119.
Cs. Jónás E. 1988. A kommunikatív alapszabályok nyelvi érvényesülése Csehov dialógusaiban.
In: Nemzetközi Szlavisztikai Napok III. ed. K. Gadányi, Szombathely: BDTF, 287-295.
Chudakov, A. P. 1971. Poétika Chekhova. Moscow: Nauka.
Formanovskaya, N.J. Akishina, A.A. Akishina, T.E. Sprosite, poprosite. Moscow: Russkij Yazyk.
Galperin, J. R. 1981. Tekst kak objekt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya. Moscow: Nauka.
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: Syntax and Semantics, ed. P. Cole, J.L. Morgan, vol. 3. Speech Acts. New-York: Seminar Press. 41-58.
Izarenkov, D.J. 1981. Obuchenije dialogicheskoj rechi. Moscow: Russkij Yazyk.
Kiefer F. 1979. Szövegelmélet - szöveggrammatika - szövegnyelvészet. Magyar Nyelvőr. 2.
216-225.
Pályi A. 1991. Két konvenció - egy előadás. Valahol Oroszországban. Színház. 4. 4-7.
Petőfi S.J. 1991. A nyelvi műalkotás elemzésének néhány aspektusa. In: A humán kommuniká
ció szemiotikái elmélete felé. Szeged: JGYTF. 15-36.
Shvedova, N. Ju. ed. 1980. Russkaya grammatika. I—II. Moscow: Nauka.
Szabó Z. 1982. A szövegnyelvészet stilisztikai jelentősége. In: A szövegvizsgálat új útjai. Buka
rest: Kriterion.
rest: Kriterion.