Vol. 3 No. 5 (2025), Articles
Vol. 3 No. 5 (2025)

A Comparative Study of English and Russian Translations of Poetic Figures in Kutadgu Bilig from the Perspective of Readers’ Acceptance

Articles
Published 2025-05-28
Chen Guo Xing
School of Foreign Languages, Qilu University of Technology, Jinan, China.
Askar Suyunov
School of Foreign Languages, Qilu University of Technology, Jinan, China.
Madina Suyunova
Student of the Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Finance program at the University of Sunderland, Management Development Institute of Singapore in Tashkent.
PDF
DOI

Keywords

Kutadgu Bilig, poetic figures, translation, reception theory, cultural-linguistic differences, metaphor, parallelism, symbolism, allegory, personification, reader acceptance.

How to Cite

A Comparative Study of English and Russian Translations of Poetic Figures in Kutadgu Bilig from the Perspective of Readers’ Acceptance. (2025). Journal of Science-Innovative Research in Uzbekistan, 3(5), 522-534. https://universalpublishings.com/index.php/jsiru/article/view/12041
ACM ACS APA ABNT Chicago Harvard IEEE MLA Turabian Vancouver AMA

Download Citation

Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS) BibTeX

Abstract

This study critically evaluates the translations of poetic figures in Kutadgu Bilig (Wisdom of Royal Glory), a foundational work of Turkic-Islamic literature, with a particular emphasis on the manner in which these figures are captured in the English and Russian translations. The study looks at the cultural and linguistic elements that affect how readers understand the text, using reception theory as a guide (Jauss, 1982; Iser, 1978). It looks at how the translation methods used by Robert Dankoff (English, 1983) and Sergei Ivanov (Russian, 1971) are different and how these methods affect how readers perceive and enjoy metaphors, parallelism, symbolism, allegory, and personification. The results indicate that Russian translations are more faithful to the original since they are closer to the culture, while English translations focus on being clear and easy to understand rather than being rich in style. The article suggests using hybrid translation methods that strike a compromise between being true to the original text and being for readers to understand.

PDF
DOI

References

1. Apter, E. (2013) Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. London: Verso.

2. Baker, M. and Saldanha, G. (eds.) (2020) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 3rd edn. London: Routledge.

3. Bassnett, S. (2014) Translation Studies. 4th edn. London: Routledge.

4. Bleich, D. (1988) Subjective Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

5. Chesterman, A. (2016) Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

6. Cronin, M. (2003) Translation and Globalization. London: Routledge.

7. Dankoff, R. (1983) Wisdom of Royal Glory (Kutadgu Bilig): A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

8. Dankoff, R. (2006) ‘Yusuf Khass Hajib and the Wisdom of Royal Glory’, Journal of Turkish Literature, 3, pp. 21–34.

9. Even-Zohar, I. (2002) ‘The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem’, in Venuti, L. (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd edn. London: Routledge, pp. 199–204.

10. Fabb, N. (2022) What is Poetry? Language and Memory in the Poems of the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11. Fletcher, A. (1964) Allegory: The Theory of a Symbolic Mode. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

12. Hatim, B. and Mason, I. (1997) The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.

13. Holub, R.C. (2005) Reception Theory: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.

14. Iser, W. (1978) The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

15. Ivanov, S. (1971) Kutadgu Bilig: Mudrost Blagorodnaya. Moscow: Nauka.

16. Jakobson, R. (1960) ‘Linguistics and poetics’, in Sebeok, T.A. (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 350–377.

17. Jauss, H.R. (1982) Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

18. Leech, G.N. (2008) Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding. London: Pearson Education.

19. Lotman, Y. (1977) The Structure of the Artistic Text. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

20. Munday, J. (2022) Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. 5th edn. London: Routledge.

21. Newmark, P. (1988) A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

22. Nida, E.A. (1964) Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.

23. Preminger, A. and Brogan, T.V.F. (1993) The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

24. Sertkaya, O.F. (2001) ‘Kutadgu Bilig and its place in Islamic political thought’, Turkologiya, 2(3), pp. 45–58.

25. Venuti, L. (2012) The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.