Przekład mniejszościowy / przekład mniejszości – łemkowska przestrzeń translatologiczna

In the text I attempt to take into account in the presented Lemko translations the influence of factors related to the underlying indigenousness of the language and culture of this community. Using Petr Murianka’s translations as an example, I point out the imaginative and ethos mechanisms linked to the land, drawing on folklore and indigenous tradition that are activated in them. I propose to revise, in the context of minority translation, the interpretation of concepts relating to the strategies used in cultural translation (exoticisation and domestication), highlighting the other-than-central conditions of attitudes to Otherness in minority communities. The article also proposes a new ‒ perhaps controversial from the perspective of traditional translation studies ‒ attempt to read Petr Murianka’s (auto) community biography A Vistula Continues to Flow as Translation. Translating one’s world into a neighbouring (dominant) language on one’s own terms somehow reduces the tension arising from the confrontation of indigenous cultural codes with institutionally shaped cultural schemas. I also characterise another kind of translation, carried out on Lemko soil by Petr Krynytsky, linked to the systematic preparation of a translation workshop effective in facing the challenges defined as crucial for a given text. This is how I define the fields of translational activities undertaken on Lemko grounds to indicate how they reflect important minority discourse beliefs and identity mechanisms and textual strategies developed in the majority-minority relationship. What is significant here is the epistemic and emotional potential embodied in language as a kind of antidote to the marginalisation and traumas that are a permanent minority experience. The activation of language in translation, the experiencing of language in translation, the deepening of awareness of difference, the raising of prestige, the strengthening of community, are values that I point to as positive effects of translation. Nor do I overlook the losses and concerns associated with the transfer, especially in pragmatic translation, of entire lexical-structural complexes inherent in institutional languages to the traditional cultural core. In my concluding remarks, I point out the positive dimension of reflection on Lemko translations and identify spaces for continuing research, e.g. in comparative terms.