Does the quality of interlingual translation influence the quality of the intersemiotic translation? On the English language film adaptations of S. Lem's The Futurological Congress and Solaris in the light of their translations into English

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to compare two English language film adaptations (by Steven Soderbergh and Ari Folman) with each other and with the books they are based on. Stanisław Lem’s novels - The Futurological Congress and Solaris - were translated into English and the directors of the films mentioned above were able to work with them. However, while one translation was appreciated by many, including the author of the original, the other one did not get much credit and features many inaccuracies, which will be presented below. The question of how much the quality of translation influences the intersemiotic translation, which adaptation is believed to be, will be examined in the paper. As, according to translation scholars, preliminary interpretation is vital for any translations, it seems justified to state that without being able to refer to the author’s original thoughts the film-makers cannot produce a good adaptation. This will be revised on the basis of comparing examples from the books and films. The analysis will be drawn on an account of translation and film adaptation theories together with the outlining of cultural background for each work.

Full text

Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2015, 3(3)
ISSN 1339-4584
SlovakEdu
144
DOI: 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Does the quality of interlingual translation influence the quality of the
intersemiotic translation?
On the English language film adaptations of S. Lem's The Futurological
Congress and Solaris in the light of their translations into English.
Agnieszka Majcher
Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego, Poland
agamajcher74@gmail.com
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to compare two English language film adaptations (by Steven Soderbergh and Ari
Folman) with each other and with the books they are based on. Stanisław Lem’s novels – The Futurological Congress
and Solaris – were translated into English and the directors of the films mentioned above were able to work with
them. However, while one translation was appreciated by many, including the author of the original, the other one
did not get much credit and features many inaccuracies, which will be presented below. The question of how much
the quality of translation influences the intersemiotic translation, which adaptation is believed to be, will be
examined in the paper. As, according to translation scholars, preliminary interpretation is vital for any translations,
it seems justified to state that without being able to refer to the author’s original thoughts the film-makers cannot
produce a good adaptation. This will be revised on the basis of comparing examples from the books and films. The
analysis will be drawn on an account of translation and film adaptation theories together with the outlining of
cultural background for each work.
Keywords
interlingual translation, intersemiotic translation, film adaptation, science-fiction, Stanisław Lem, literary
translation
Introduction
The aim of this paper is to consider potential relations between the quality of interlingual translation
and inspired by it intersemiotic translation, which, according to some film researchers, a film adaptation
is believed to be. In this article, the two English-speaking film adaptations1 based on the English
translations of Stanisław Lem’s prosaic works, i.e. Solaris (Lem, 2013a) and The Futurological Congress
(Lem, 2014), will be analysed in the light of these translations and their correspondence with the
messages of the original works in Polish. Also, the question if weaknesses of literary translations may in
any way deteriorate the quality of the film referring to the book will be raised. Finally, having taken that
a film adaptation is a kind of translation it will be investigated if one can impose the same requirements
concerning film adaptations and literary translations and whether following the rules of how to create a
good literary translation can be helpful while transferring a book onto a screen. Being aware that the
proposed material is partial, which does not allow to constitute firm evidence for the hypothesis, one is,
nevertheless, tempted to assume that, even though it is possible for a weak book to be a base for a good
film, it is more likely for a well-translated book – in this case it means a literary piece the message of
which reflects the one conveyed by the author of the original book – to be an inspiration for a good
moving picture. It becomes an especially interesting issue to research, knowing we are able to study the
1 “Solaris” directed by Steven Sordenbergh from 2002 and “The Congres” by Ari Folman from 2013.
- 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:23:25PM
via free access

Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2015, 3(3)
ISSN 1339-4584
SlovakEdu
145
book of letters Lem (Lem, 2013b) sent to Michael Kandel, the translator of The Futurological Congress
(Lem, 1985), the letters that cover the thorough transfer of the author’s ideas into a foreign language.
On the other hand, a researcher can assume that such transfer must have been disrupted in the case of
Solaris (Lem, 2003), as its English version was translated from another – French, translation and with
no reference to Lem’s suggestions. Thus, during such study one can observe if the ideas produced in
Poland of the 1960s and the 1970s can be similarly expressed by the authors creating in the world of
the West and whether it can be in any way helpful to make a film several decades later, presenting
messages no less important than the original ones.
In this paper, first, the outline of the history of translation will be presented, pointing out what is
important in the most recent approach to it. The next part will cover the issue of film adaptation as an
intersemiotic translation. In the analytical part the transfer of ideas from the original books into the
films will be looked into, in the light of Translation Studies review of selected examples from the English
versions of the books conducted to assess the general quality of the translation, as well as with
references to the reception of the films.
From the theories of translation
Translation has been defined in various ways. With regard to the type of the code, Jakobson (1989)
distinguishes three ways of interpreting verbal signs. Intralingual translation, that is rewording, occurs
when verbal signs are interpreted with other verbal signs of the same language. Interlingual translation,
translation proper, interprets verbal signs from one language using verbal signs of another one.
Intersemiotic translation, or so-called, transmutation, makes use of non-verbal system of signs to
interpret verbal signs. Nevertheless, within the last two millennia there have appeared a number of
definitions and attempts to approach the issue.
The differences come from a variety of translated materials, goals of the translations, their
recipients’ needs and different philosophical views of translators. One of the proposed definitions by
Nida and Taber (1982) states that translation is constituted by reproducing in the recipient’s language
the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, both in terms of meaning and style. Other
approaches aim at producing the text in the target language which has an intended or required function
in this language. Several oppositions describing the properties of translation can be vital: literal – free,
literary – non-literary, semantic – communicative, form – content. In the study of style one must also
consider philological theories of translation. According to Nida (2001), being the extension of
philological approach to literary analysis, they investigate corresponding written texts in the source and
the target language, trying to evaluate their equivalence, dealing with structures, stylistic and rhetorical
devices, the literary genre and cultural influences.
Steiner (2000) in his study on translation identifies four periods in its history. The first one, starting
in Ancient Rome, lasted until the Enlightenment. It features an empirical approach, encompasses first
attempts to organize the issues of translation, starting from the question: word for word or sense for
sense. The second period, finished in the 1940s, was more theoretical and its nature was more
hermeneutical. Those days, the questions about translation merged with questions about a language
and state of mind. Started by Schleiermacher, continued by Schlegel and Humboldt, hermeneutics tried
to answer the question what it means to understand the text. The questions concerning translation
were raised in philosophical aspects. The third period takes us into modernity. There appear first works
on machine translation. Formalists use linguistic theories and statistics to study literature and
translation. There appear models of connections between formal logic and linguistic transfer. Structural
linguistics enters the discussion concerning interlingual exchange. Organizations comprising
professional translators are set up.
The third phase has practically been still on, yet, some changes that took place in the 1960s made
Steiner (2000) distinguish the fourth period, initialized by the discovery of the work by Benjamin from
1923 – “The Task of the Translator”. This text, along with the great influence from Heidegger and
Gadamer, made translators and translation scholars return to hermeneutics and ask almost
- 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:23:25PM
via free access

Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2015, 3(3)
ISSN 1339-4584
SlovakEdu
146
metaphysical questions of the essence of translation and interpretation. Again there appeared enquiries
into universalist or relativist character of a language. Translation has become a subject of study by
psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists. Humboldt’s conviction that each act of communication is a
translation has become valid again.
Steiner (2000) emphasizes that human speech consists of arbitrarily chosen, but considerably
conventionalized signs, the meaning of which can never be separated from the form used to express it.
There are no transparent places in a language, however transparent the style seems to be. Each reading
is translation, and each deliberate translation, intralingual, interlingual or intersemiotic, requires
preliminary interpretation. As Balcerzan (1998) points out, in the literary translation a significant deal
of the work should be attributed to the translator.
One does not need scientific evidence to state that much of the film adaptation comes from its
director and that film language also uses conventionalized signs, though they are not so codified and are
more prone to mutations than human speech. Therefore, the assumption that while transferring a book
onto a screen we cope with the problems parallel to those faced while translating a piece of literature.
And also, that a recipient of both types of translation is likely to meet similar obstacles while
interpreting the target materials.
Film adaptation as intersemiotic translation
The theoretical part presented below is fully based on the study by Choczaj (2011). According to her,
adaptation has been analysed in many structural-semiotic ways, considering the category of
equivalence of signs in translation, making use of such terms as transformation, transposition,
transcription, or intersemiotic translation. Among those who were in favour of granting film adaptation
the label of intersemiotic translation were Eichenbaum (cf. Choczaj, 2011), Münsterberg (cf. Choczaj,
2011), Orłowski (cf. Choczaj, 2011) (who postulates the existence of the system of language signs
transposition into the system of audiovisual signs, based on finding equivalence between works of
various structures), Hopfinger (cf. Choczaj, 2011) (pointing out, however, that full translation is
impossible due to lack of equivalence of the systems). The latter recognizes adaptation as a kind of
reading-interpretation of the literary input material which must be the result of numerous external
factors such as development of filming techniques as semiotic system. Laskowicz (cf. Choczaj, 2011)
dubbed interpretation a kind of transformation in the semiotic and sociological context. She
acknowledged that system differences between the film art of many fabrics and the literature of one
fabric mean that adaptation always deforms its original, as it is only multiplied and subjective
transformation. While Bettetini (cf. Choczaj, 2011) claimed that transcription is unlikely to be achieved,
and neither is thorough translation, Osadnik (cf. Choczaj, 2011) revives the transformative approach
towards adaptation. According to him, each work of film art (target text) is an adaptation of a literary
work (source text) – that is a screenplay. What is to be assessed is equivalence, not adequacy, as the
measure of such translation is not faithfulness but approval. Osadnik understands translation as a
process dealing with cultural, social and moral contexts.
What one may find interesting is that, despite current opposition (e.g. represented by the popular
theory of adaptation as “creative betrayal” by Helman (cf. Choczaj, 2011)), semiotic research concerning
adaptation has not disappeared, yet has been subject to transformation. Wysłouch (cf. Choczaj, 2011)
revives the postulate of intersemiotic translation emphasizing correspondence of arts. In her theory, the
term of transcription, along with transliteration, description and borrowing, returns as one of the four
translating principles. This allows to transfer a phenomenon from one system to a different one, for
instance from literature to film. Thanks to relatedness of film and literary signs, the systems are
translatable. Finally, Spedicato (cf. Choczaj, 2011) refers to interlingual translation, mentioning
Translation Studies model by Malone for the first time in the film sciences context.
Although, as Choczaj (2011) states, in studies concerning adaptation one can observe significant
dominance of literary studies approach, where literary work is regarded as the original and the value of
adaptation is evaluated according to its dependability on the literary piece or its autonomy, taking film
- 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:23:25PM
via free access

Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2015, 3(3)
ISSN 1339-4584
SlovakEdu
147
adaptation as an intersemiotic translation is fully justified as thus film adaptation will be treated in the
further part of this paper.
Analysis
While analysing works of art that use different “fabric”, as it is in the case of books in different
languages and, moreover, films, one must carefully trace the transfer of the ideas from the original
books, through their translations, and to the adaptations. Without an attempt to grasp the main message
of the original book (in the light of the theories mentioned above) one cannot assess the value of any
translation, interlingual or intersemiotic. To state if the general quality of the translation proper has
been achieved, it is advisable to refer to some selected examples from the English versions of the books
in terms of translation analysis. The combination of these steps can help us draw the conclusion
whether, despite some obvious differences between the book and the film, the links between the quality
of translation and film adaptation can be observed.
Lem’s Solaris (2013a), written in 1961, is a story of a scientist, Kris Kelvin, who, having arrived in
research space station in the vicinity of the planet Solaris, experiences inexplicable encounters with a
walking embodiment of the memories of his long-dead wife. The creature, which is not subject to any
laws of earthly physics, seems to be the product of the Solaris’s ocean. The ocean has been categorized
as a living and thinking creature and the doppelgangers it produces appear to be the climax of the
attempts to make contact between the ocean and people. Sadly, as the reader can see in the course of
action, the greater lengths we go to so that the contact and understanding can be established, the
further we get from it. Such conclusion can be also drawn from the tons of scientific volumes presented
in the book. The presumed gifts from Solaris turn out to be a curse and rich terminology used to
describe the ocean only makes the image more obscure. (Is it not the trouble with contemporary earthly
science?)
The incapability of contact is symbolically expressed in the last scene, where Kris reaches the plasma
of the ocean with his hand and it smothers the limb, making a kind of a negative, a cast of it, flexible but
distant, as there is always some space in spite of the movement. The lack of direct contact can be post
factum interpreted as an allegory of the condition of translations and interpretations of this work –
neither the literary translation from 1970 (Lem, 2003) nor the adaptation by Steven Soderbergh are
among works unequivocally praised. “The New York Times” (Holden, 2002) in its review writes that the
result of co-operation between Soderbergh and Cameron is getting rid of many disturbing scientific and
philosophical details, turning the story into a popular fairy tale, without bothering the audience with
linking the meanings, and exchanging the intellectual values of “Space Odyssey” for romantic framing
like one of the “Titanic”. The conclusion – balancing on the verge of two genres was not successful.
It is hard not to agree. The reception of the film in Poland is even more ambivalent. Turning our
flagship proposal of science-fiction literature into a metaphysical story of the second, third, or even
fourth chance in love is disappointing. One cannot help noticing that the actors themselves seem
confused. Is it possible that reducing the philosophical aspects of the novel could have been caused by
its insufficient understanding resulting from the flaws of the translation? This cannot be ruled out.
Ironically, although in the West Solaris is regarded as Lem’s showcase work, until 2011 it did not have a
satisfactory translation (cf. Lem, 2011). The translation by Kilmartin & Cox (Lem, 2003) was prepared
on the basis of the French translation. The result of this multiplied copying is a lot of inconsistence on
various levels of language. Some errors refer to proper names. Although all spaceships in Solaris bear
the names of mythological heroes, one of them, Laokoon in the original [Laocoön]2, is recalled in the
English version as Laakon. One cannot also find firm excuses that made the authors of the 1970
translation change the first names or surnames of the people inhabiting the international station and
call Snaut – Snow, and Harey – with its anagram Rheya (these names appear in the film adaptation).
While the former change can be explained by the urge to use a more conventional and devoid of
2 All translations and explanations in square brackets were made by the author of this paper.
- 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:23:25PM
via free access

Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2015, 3(3)
ISSN 1339-4584
SlovakEdu
148
unnecessary associations English name, the latter is strange. Why has the perfectly English name been
changed so that is has the characteristic Slavic suffix “a”? Another issue is obscuring the message in the
translation. As a result of proximity of the “guests”, the scientists want to keep their conclusions secret
and decide to call them in the original text fantomy – twory F for short. Kilmartin & Cox copy the name,
using phantom in their translation (cf. Lem, 2003). That would be perfect if they had not decided to use
Phi-creatures as the alias for them. Thus, instead of a quite neutral letter of the Latin alphabet, the
reader is given the Greek phi, burdened with quite vast meaningfulness, of which the mathematical
symbol of circumference is the easiest example. This can significantly influence the interpretation,
especially when the readers will allow themselves for global intertextuality play.3
The translation features complex sentences and groups of sentences devoid of sense or with an
illogical meaning. While the original says: “Giese jednak, który we wszystkich opisach innych stworów
solarycznych zachowuje się jak mrówka, chodząca po zamarzłym wodospadzie, niczemu nie dając się
wytrącić z miarowego kroku swej oschłej frazy, tak był pewny swego, że poszczególne fazy wyłaniania
się mimoidu uszeregował w ciąg rosnącej doskonałości.” [Giese, however, who in all descriptions of
other Solaris’s creations behaves like an ant crawling on a frozen waterfall, allowing nothing to distract
him from the steady pace of his dry phrases, was so sure to be right that he put subsequent phases of a
mimoid emerging in a sequence of increasing perfection.], the first translation will present: “Giese
would not abandon his account of the various phases of the process as a sustained progression towards
perfection, with a conviction which is particularly surprising coming from a man of such moderate,
cautious turn of mind in advancing the most trivial hypothesis on the other creations of the ocean.
Normally he had all the boldness of an ant crawling up a glacier.”
To sum up, the language obscuring the reading of the target text calls for simplifications, including
simplified interpretation, for drawing the most obvious and popular conclusions and keeping only them
with the use of audiovisual code – for the sake of a less demanding audience.
Soderbergh’s adaptation, apart from the abovementioned emphasis of the love theme, introduces
more modifications. Sartorius becomes (in the name of general correctness?) a black woman, while the
plump African woman produced in the book by one of the crew – Gibarian’s mind turns out in the film to
be his young son. Some themes that were barely suggested in the book become obvious in the film.
How far from the original book the adaptation based on it can be illustrated by the ending of the film.
The film is devoid of the scene of Kris’s landing on a mimoid (described above). What corresponds with
it is the last but one scene in the film, when Kris, losing his vitality as a result of the ship getting closer to
the planet, sees the boy – the Solaris’s creature, representing the mind of the ocean. The boy reaches his
hand towards Kris, their fingers meet in the pose well-known from the fresco in the Sistine Chapel,
nevertheless so meaningless due to overexploitation of the image in popular culture. Compared to the
profound and visually rich scene of “touching the ocean” in the book, preceded by a dialogue about the
nature of gods, this mass-production image becomes symbolically sad. Instead of pondering on god’s
duality we are additionally offered a kind of a happy ending in the moving picture. Ironically enough,
now Kris – George Clooney’s sad countenance, expressing “why-am-I-here” question, encourages buying
the book both in English-speaking countries and in Poland.
The state of interlingual and intersemiotic translations of The Futurological Congress (Lem, 2014)
seems different. Written in 1970, the prose by Lem presents the adventures of Ijon Tichy, an astronaut,
who after the political rebellion and its inconceivably strange consequences is taken from The
Futurological Congress in Costaricana to New York of the future. Lem creates for his readers the vision
of a utopian – anti-utopian world, where people, aware to some extent and to some by deceit, let
powerful hallucinogenic pharmacological substances control over their lives. The drugs allow them to
live in the illusion of blissfulness in the actually rotting world.
The tasks which the translator of this literary piece faces are multiple. First of all, the world depicted
– Latin America and the United States, especially the States, must look credible for the English speaking
3 The latest translation deals much better with this: the creatures are called “ghosts”, that is “G-formations”.
- 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:23:25PM
via free access

Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2015, 3(3)
ISSN 1339-4584
SlovakEdu
149
reader. All cultural hints conceived by Lem must face the reality of the actual country . Thus, word puns,
neologisms must find their equivalents in the language of a different structure. Kandel did his job well
(cf. Lem, 1985). Towarzystwo Opieki nad Robotami [Society of Taking Care of Robots] has been turned
into Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Automats, SPCA. This acronym, without any modification is
the name of the popular organization looking after animals in the USA and the UK. The term Bemby,
Bomby Miłości Bliźniego [Bombs of Loving Thy Neighbour] (BMB), has found its equivalent in LTN (Love
Thy Neighbour) bombs, the name combining associations with the TNT explosive material and “Love thy
neighbour” commandment from the Gospel.
In his letter to the translator, Lem (2013b) compliments him on surpassing the original, creating a
purely American text, yet remaining faithful to the original.
Secondly, the American must realise that, while in the 1970s the Poles still saw the vision of imposed
totalitarian happiness as a real thing, the threat of serious political changes in the West was not so clear
as some decades before when the visions by Huxley and Orwell had stirred imagination for the first
time. Therefore, it would be better to emphasize the message of The Futurological Congress as a warning
against deformed overconsumption rather than as a hidden hint concerning political situation. Lem
(2013b) himself in the letter to Kandel, pointing out it is wrong to facilitate in any way the reading
comprehension for the English speaking reader, writes:
The Congress is a kind of a paraboly of consumptionist community, the community targeted at
MASSFACILITATION as SUPERIOR VALUE of existence, and this targeting brings about a crisis of
authentic values, those historically created, while ‘psychemistry’ is an ultimative and universal
technology of smoothing the path. The final scene implies that the world was shaped differently,
that a moment comes when instrumental hedonism must PAY for its practices, and the pay turns
out rather nightmarish.4
Although the author admits later that his opinion concerning the interpretation of the book is not
binding, one cannot help accepting this universal message, abandoning the one that has tempted the
western readers, to regard the book as a voice from behind “the iron curtain” allegorically presenting
the system in force. It would require further research to state whether the author of the English version
was in favour of one of the interpretations and this is not the main goal of this article. However, one can
read in the interview with Ari Folman, the director of The Congress that he was looking for a new, more
contemporary expression for the allegory of communism included in the book (cf. INTERVIEW). As a
result, he was forced to introduce significant changes to the plot. Amazingly, the changes led to
producing the film whose message could be expressed with the words by Lem quoted above. The
universal reading of the book proved right after decades.
In Cannes The Congress was dubbed the most anti-Hollywood movie ever made (cf. Kohn, 2013), yet
it was much credited. This unusual production, half traditional with actors, half animated with the use of
up-to-date motion capture method, is truly impressive. The review (Kohn, 2013) reveals phrases like:
“genius design”, “beguiling project,” “stunning appearance and the extraordinary depth of insight”,
“beauty and wonder as vessels for rage”. The production is said to “rail against commercialism”.
The director himself, undoubtedly using Kandel’s translation as his base5, tells us in the promotional
materials about the need of courage that adapting a classic book requires; about how brave one must be
to free from the text to some extent. Thus, he had to change political dictatorship into an entertainment
industry dictatorship, especially emphasizing the overly control film studios have taken over our lives
(cf. INTERVIEW). In such circumstances, replacing the astronaut Ijon Tichy with an ageing actress
(Robin Wright playing herself) is more than justified. The new identity of the leading character leads to
4 Translated by the author of this paper.
5 In the film, Kandel’s neologisms appear, such as LTN bombs.
- 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:23:25PM
via free access

Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2015, 3(3)
ISSN 1339-4584
SlovakEdu
150
further changes in the storyline (family theme, the idea of selling one’s digital image to film producers,
followed by the loss of identity).
What has been preserved from the book – the idea of willingly giving up the control over us to
omnipotent psychotropic substances – or actually to their distributors, the idea of masking the dull
reality with the illusion of wonderful worlds, the vision of people incapacitated under the appearances
of being given happiness in a pill – these have not changed and after forty years speak volumes to the
contemporary audience.
In the last scene of the book Lem, gracefully and ironically, releases the character from the
nightmare, revealing that even the final phase – the world devoid of chemical boosters – was an illusion,
hallucination created by overdose of psychotropic gas spread under the Hilton hotel in Costaricana.
Robin Wright manages to get away from the vapour masking the decaying reality, returns from the
animated to the real world here and now, but the changes that have taken place are irrevocable. The
recipient from the 21st century seems more pessimistic and apparently can face reality without the
mask of irony…
Conclusion
To sum up, one cannot present a simple recipe on how to make a successful film adaptation.
Studying the relations between the literary translation and the quality of its screen version will always
meet counterarguments, like those saying that even good non-translated books happen to have weird
and failed film adaptations. Nevertheless, if we take both literary translations and film adaptations as
types of translations – interlingual and intersemiotic – we will observe a number of analogies.
Undoubtedly, according to the abovementioned contemporary approach towards translation, it requires
an appropriate series of preparatory activities, understanding the input material and having an opinion
on it. The effort made at this stage may result in a piece of work that will be at least good. On the other
hand, a series of not very successful interpretations or translations leads, like in Chinese whispers, to
works less and less touching the original senses. And, even though these days few care for the author’s
opinion – the author of the original book in this context – each attempt of engaged reading of his
intentions gives us the scope for a creation no worse than the original.
Therefore, The Congress, the film apparently more distant from Lem’s book, has more in common
with the message of the original than, seemingly quite faithful to the story in the printed version, but
missing important points, “Solaris”. And thus, imposing the same requirements (yet for different type of
signs, of course) for film adaptations that usually refer to literary translations is fully justified and can
be helpful when defining the features of a good film adaptation.
References
Balcerzan, E. (1998). Poetyka przekładu artystycznego. In Literatura z literatury (strategie tłumaczy),
17-31. Katowice: Śląsk.
Benjamin, W. (2012). Zadanie tłumacza. In A. Lipszyc (Ed.), Konstelacje, Wybór tekstów (pp. 23-36).
Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Choczaj, M. (2011). O adaptacji, ekranizacji, przekładzie intersemiotycznym i innych zmartwieniach
teorii literatury, filmu i mediów. Przestrzenie Teorii, 16, 11-39.
Holden, S. (2015, September 22). Their love will go on in outer space. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9405E1DC1638F934A15752C1A9649C8B63
Jakobson, R. (1989). O językoznawczych aspektach przekładu. In M. R. Mayenowa (Ed.), W poszukiwaniu
istoty języka, vol. 1 (pp. 372-381). Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy.
Kohn, E. (2013, May 17). Cannes: is Ari Folman's 'The Congress' the most anti-Hollywood movie ever
made? Indiewire. Retrieved from http://www.indiewire.com/article/cannes-is-ari-folmans-the-
congress-the-most-anti-hollywood-movie-ever-made
Lem, S. (1985). The futurological congress: From the memoirs of Ijon Tichy. Tr. M. Kandel. New York: A
Harvest Harcourt Inc. Book.
- 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:23:25PM
via free access

Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 2015, 3(3)
ISSN 1339-4584
SlovakEdu
151
Lem, S. (2003). Solaris. Tr. J. Kilmartin, S. Cox. London: Faber and Faber.
Lem, S. (2011). Solaris. Tr. B. Johnston. Kindle Edition, Premier Digital Publishing.
Lem, S. (2013a). Solaris. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
Lem, S. (2013b). Sława i fortuna, Listy Stanisława Lema do Michaela Kandla 1972-1987. Kraków:
Wydawnictwo Literackie.
Lem, S. (2014). Kongres Futurologiczny ze wspomnień Ijona Tichego. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Literackie.
Nida, E. A. & Taber, Ch. R. (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill.
Nida, E. A. (2001). Contexts in translating. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s Publishing
Company.
Steiner, G. (2000). Po wieży Babel. Problemy języka i przekładu. Kraków: Universitas.
Folman, A. (Interviewee). Interview with Ari Folman. Retrieved from http://thecongress-
movie.com/behind-the-scenes-1.htm?lng=en
Contact
Agnieszka Majcher, MA
Os. Na Stoku 80/34
25-437 Kielce
Poland
agamajcher74@gmail.com
- 10.1515/jolace-2015-0028
Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/03/2016 12:23:25PM
via free access