First excerpt

The first excerpt here is the same as the first passage analyzed in the Lyngstad chapter, and it exemplifies particular traits of Solstad’s style and serves as a useful research object for the French and English versions of the novel. Jean-Baptiste Coursaud’s rendering of this passage reads as follows:

Cette défaillance avait toutefois, de son propre avis, un effet compensateur sur les élèves en ce qu’ils avaient en ce moment même la rare occasion, oui, il n’hésiterait pas une seconde à dire : le bonheur, d’observer de près un homme adulte patauger dans des questions tout à fait essentielles prenant leur source dans notre patrimoine culturel, et ce, sur un mode complice mais imparfait qui avait le don de le faire bafouiller, transpirer, poursuivre des raisonnements aussi loin qu’il était en mesure de le faire, lesté comme il l’était de ses carences ; et si tant est que cela ne fût suffisant pour que les narines de quelques élèves se mettent en tout cas et dès à présent à humer certaines des conditions sur lesquelles leur vie à eux aussi se construirait, à l’instar d’un fondement, quand bien même ils ne liraient plus jamais cette pièce de Henrik Ibsen, ils comprenaient malgré tout les conditions régissant la présence, ici et maintenant, de ladite pièce. (Solstad 2008, 43–44)

It is striking how much this part diverges from the source material. It is worth keeping in mind that the differences between a northern Germanic and a Romance language system are more significant than those between a northern and a western Germanic one. A more

significant number of grammatical, lexicographical, and semantic shifts might be necessary to transmit the same content to French than to English.

The punctuation stands out once again as a major change, altering the rhythmic schema of the translated passage. As was the case with Sverre Lyngstad’s rendition, new grammatical clauses create the need for new commas, absent from Solstad’s original

transcript. The commas on each side of ‘de son propre avis’ and ‘oui’ in the second line, and

28

‘et ce’ in the fourth line are excellent examples of such altercation. Conversely, Jean-Baptiste Coursaud removes the comma from the final line, “her, nå” (Solstad 1994, 32), replacing it with the conjunction ‘et’: ‘ici et maintenant.’

In addition to these alterations to commas, Coursaud adds entirely new punctuation marks, as he goes one step further than Lyngstad in his rendition. One such addition is the colon found in the third line of the excerpt: ‘il n’hésiterait pas une seconde à dire : le bonheur.’ Another one is found in the sixth line with the addition of a semi-colon: ‘lesté comme il l’était de ses carences ; et si tant est que cela ne fût suffisant.’ These punctuation marks alter the pausation from the source text, reducing the hectic and oral rhythm of Solstad’s style. Furthermore, they highlight the grammatical clauses as oppositional, changing values of emphasis. This last change must be seen as a semantic shift; it

reconfigures the passage’s potential significance, and Coursaud seems to be more liberal in his approach than Lyngstad was in his translation. While more liberty might be necessary when traversing the language barrier between Norwegian and French, the sheer number of alterations indicates the probability of a different translational strategy.

This serves as a decent segue into discussing lexicographical and semantic shifts in Coursaud’s translation of this passage. We can find such a change already in the first line;

Solstad’s phrase, “[d]et syntes han fullt ut ble oppveid” (Solstad 1994, 31), is replaced by

‘cette défaillance avait toutefois, de son propre avis, un effet compensateur.’ The differences between the two phrases are numerous. Coursaud adds two commas and a subordinate clause;

‘de son propre avis.’ The replacement of the pronoun, ‘det,’ by an adjective, ‘cette,’ is perhaps more abrasive, even though both are demonstrative. However, the adjective’s deployment necessitates a noun, ‘défaillance,’ to create a grammatically coherent phrase, creating a significant shift. The reference to a definite fault, or a failure, is only found in the French translation, as it remains vague in both the Norwegian original and in Lyngstad’s English rendition. Thus, this alteration insinuates personal interpretation on the part of the francophone translator alone.

The most significant consequence of changing demonstratives is that the antecedent of

‘det,’ which was up to the readers’ inferral in the original transcript, becomes more specific.

Solstad precedes the phrase with: “[h]an var fortvilet, ikke fordi han som lærer ikke maktet å gi en slik briljant utleding av Vildanden som han syntes han så for sitt indre øye” (Solstad 1994, 31, original italics), where no unambiguous fault is ever described. Whether or not Elias Rukla commits a fault is entirely up to the reader’s interpretation. In Coursaud’s version, however, this interpretation is already provided. Jean-Baptiste Coursaud could have

29 chosen the French pronoun ‘cela,’ which corresponds more closely to the Norwegian ‘det.’ A phrase such as ‘cela avait toutefois, de son propre avis, un effet compensateur’ would have been grammatically correct while also retaining the ambiguity of the source material intact.

Jean-Baptiste Coursaud chooses differently in his translation.

The added clause in this phrase, ‘de son propre avis,’ also contributes to an altered emphasis in Honte et dignité. I have already discussed how the addition of a subordinate clause requires the employment of two extra commas, changing the rhythmic schema of the line. However, it also serves to reaffirm a particular focus; we are reading the opinion of Elias Rukla, emphasized as his opinion. In Jean-Baptiste Coursaud’s version of the story, this cannot be understood as a fact. While this is stated in the source text, it is perhaps overstated in the French translation. ‘De son propre avis’ is, without a doubt, a typical French

expression. The adjective ‘propre’ doubles up the function of the pronoun ‘son,’ adding emphasis. The separation of the clause, creating apposition, solicits further attention from the reader. These traits were completely absent from the Norwegian source text.

The French preference for nouns over adjectives could explain why Coursaud makes such drastic alterations. This is a linguistic habit that differs from Germanic languages, which tend to employ verbs and adverbs instead. In other words, when Coursaud replaces the Norwegian word ‘syntes’ with the French clause ‘de son propre avis,’ he is following the conventions of the French language. Nevertheless, it is lexicographically less similar than it would be if he chose a verbal sentence, such as ‘il trouvait que’ or ‘il pensait que.’ It is a similar issue to ‘défaillance,’ where French linguistic standards favor nominal phrases.

While I have already discussed several different types of shifts in this passage, I have neglected the perhaps most significant incongruences between the source text and the

translation, one that is quite common with literary transitions to the French language. This is the morphological issue with Coursaud’s phrase ‘cela ne fût suffisant,’ with the verb

conjugated in the imparfait du subjonctif, which lacks equivalents in the Norwegian and English languages.¹⁸ Furthermore, this particular tense of the subjonctif has mostly fallen out of use since the late 1970s,¹⁹ and with Solstad’s preference for radical verbal conjugations,

18 In English and Norwegian, the verbal mode of the subjunctive/conjunctive has almost entirely fallen out of use. In English, it is still used to express certain irrealities; ‘if I were rich’ is an example. In both languages, it is still found in certain expressions, such as ‘long live the king’ or ‘måtte det gå bra.’

19 According to Académie française’s website, the French language counsel, the imparfait du subjonctif was replaced by the present tense of the mode: “Le 28 décembre de la seconde [1976] […]. Il n’était désormais plus nécessaire que nous sussions conjuguer ce temps […]. Il suffisait maintenant que l’on sache, que l’on emploie, que l’on prenne et que l’on écrive” (Académie française 2015).

30 the use of an outdated and formal variation seems strange. There are several examples of this incompatible morphological choice throughout the novel. In addition to the imparfait du subjonctif, we see eleven examples of the passé simple on this page alone: “s’exclama;”

“pria;” “se pencha;” “amorça;” “retentit;” “provoqua;” “rendît;” “adressa;” “préféra;” “fit;”

and “lut” (Solstad 2008, 44).²⁰

What is problematic about the usage of the imparfait du subjonctif and the passé simple? The most drastic consequence is a remarkable change in the tone of the novel. The two conjugational forms belong to a traditional, and above all, a predominantly literary grammatical schema with strong associations to realist forms of fiction. The grammatical lexicon le Bescherelle describes the passé simple as “reserved for the written language.

Employed in narratives, it places the action in the distant past, with no link to the speaker’s present” (Laurent and Delaunay 2012, 163, my translation).²¹ What is underlined here is the non-deictic quality of the passé simple; as a verbal form, it is separated from the moment of enunciation. It is a recounting and strictly narrative form. I would argue that the close and inseparable link between narrator and narration is fundamental to Solstad’s narrative, demonstrated through the tone, processual rhythm, and personal reflection. Do these remain intact through the change to a more formal language registry and approximation to traditional literary conventions? There certainly are risks. Coursaud’s narrator does not seem to be the same as Solstad’s, as the verbal tenses and modes impose distance. The translator is clearly more than a surrogate in the case of Honte et dignité.

Whether or not Jean-Baptiste Coursaud’s interpretation of Dag Solstad’s Genanse og verdighet leads him to conceive it as a more conventional novel, I would argue that his rendition poses several problems because of these verbal conjugations. As a result, the relationship between the source text and the translation is one of tension. It would seem like the two do not entirely belong to the same literary genres and styles. Dag Solstad writes in the particular form of Norwegian, ‘radikalt bokmål,’ favoring more liberal conjugations and orthography. Descriptions such as “et vilt vræl” (Solstad 1994, 32), “keitete ansikt” (Solstad 1994, 32), and conjugations such as “hun framsa” (Solstad 1994, 32) are examples of

orthography and morphology that are opposite to the ideals of conventional literary forms. In other words, they are somewhat opposite to passé simple.

20 The original French term, passé simple, is preferred over the English ‘simple past,’ just as imparfait du subjonctif is preferred over ‘subjunctive imperfect,’ to emphasize the incompatibility of the two verbal forms.

There is no English or Norwegian narrative verb tense.

21 Original quote: “Le passé simple, aujourd’hui, est réservé à la langue écrite. Employé dans le récit, il situe l’action dans un passé sans aucun lien avec le présent du locuteur” (Laurent and Delaunay 2012, 163).

31 Before we decide to categorize this translation as target-oriented, it is essential to draw attention to the fact that individual lexicographical choices correspond closely to both target- and source-culture. Jean-Baptiste Coursaud’s replacement of the Norwegian ‘elev’ by the French ‘élève’ is one such example. These two terms correspond well to the context. Less correspondent is the case of the substitution of ‘være’ for ‘humer.’ Lyngstad inserted the word ‘sensing’ in his translation, a word with less potential for duality. However, Coursaud’s choice imposes the corporal nature; one breathes with the body through physical activity.

Additionally, smelling or inhaling is arguably semantically further from ‘være’ than ‘sensing’

is. On the other hand, one could claim that inhaling is more relevant to the idea of being.

However, the extra attention solicited by this word is diminished in Coursaud’s translation, as he removes the italics. It is rare to see significant typographical shifts of this type.

Traditional translation studies categories fail us in cases such as these, as the research object’s target- and source-orientation fluctuates drastically. Polysystemic arguments could point to classical literary influences on the translator being the deciding factor here, Jean-Baptiste Coursaud’s education being a socioeconomic condition. However, the translator’s extensive experiences with Scandinavian literature, both as a student and a translator (Straume 2014), would suggest more than adequate knowledge about the Norwegian

language, both in terms of its registries and literary tradition. Coursaud’s translation does not remain consistent, one way or the other, and it does not seem to be explicable through

hermeneutic or descriptive models of translation interpretation. Linguistic models would probably struggle to account for Coursaud’s strategy, as equivalency is doubtful.

What has been a consistent element throughout the analysis, however, is the presence of drastic shifts. Lexicographical, semantic, and grammatical shifts have been found in abundance in Lyngstad and Coursaud’s translations both, perhaps explaining their ubiquitous presence in translation studies theory. However, the consequences of these shifts remain difficult to explain adequately from the theoretical corpus. At first glance, Coursaud’s translation is as heterogeneous as Lyngstad’s, oscillating between close correspondence and semantic incongruity. Nevertheless, this oscillation makes Coursaud’s version somewhat reminiscent of Lyngstad’s. This is by no means to say they are identical; Coursaud takes greater liberty in his reconfiguration, building on a Latin linguistic tradition where narrative forms are often subjects of their own grammatical rules. The distance created between narrator and protagonist through the employment of the passé simple would be complicated to reproduce in English, for example. Further research on Coursaud’s translation is necessary before any conclusive remarks can be made.

32