Paper: 15: “Literary Translation in India”

PAPER 15: MODULE 03: E-TEXT UGC MHRD e Pathshala

Subject: English

Principal Investigator: Prof. Tutun Mukherjee, University of Hyderabad

Paper: 15: “Literary Translation in India”

Paper Coordinator: Prof. T. S. Satyanath, University of Delhi

Module No 03: 20

and the 21

Century

Content Writer: AnshikhaAdhikari, Independent Researcher

Content Reviewer: Prof. T. S. Satyanath, University of Delhi

Language Editor: Dr. MrinmoyPramanick, University of Calcutta

20

and the 21

Twentieth century translation on the other hand has unfurled itself not only to varieties of linguistics, literary criticism, philosophical speculation, and cultural theory, but experimental studies and anthropological fieldwork, as well as translator training and translation

Century

Introduction

The practice of translation is quite long established but the discipline of Translation studies is fairly new. Translation is a set of activities carried out by a translator to convert a source language text

into a text of the target language. A source text is a text from which the ideas are drawn. Target text on the other hand, is a translated text in which the intended text is translated.

Late nineteenth and early twentieth century saw the dynamic upsurge in the development and progress of translation studies as a discipline. The ideas were obviously rooted in the German literary and philosophical traditions, Romanticism, hermeneutics, and existential phenomenology. Not only that, it also carries the erudition from antiquity to the late nineteenth century. Back then, the theories of translation studies also dealt with the long defined fields like literary theory, philosophy, rhetoric and grammar. Some of the most cited scholars of translation studies of this period are: Cicero, Horace, Quintilian, Augustine, Jerome, Dryden, Goethe, Schleiermacher, Arnold, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

practice.Some of the prominent theorists and scholars of translation studies are mentioned below who paved the path for the discipline in the twentieth and the twenty first century.

Walter Benjamin (1892- 1940)

Walter Benjamin in his seminal work The Work of Art proposed that “history of every art form has critical periods in which the particular form strains after effects which can be easily achieved only

with a changed technical standard–that is, a new art form.” In other words, technological innovation do not improve the already existing art forms but try to create a new art form. This idea of Benjamin was carried forward into another important essay The Task of the Translator, where he attempts to create an idea of translation as an art form which is unique in itself. In his opinion ‘Translation is a mode.’ Moreover ‘As translation is a mode of its own, the task of the translator, too, may be regarded as distinct and clearly differentiated from the task of the poet.’(1921) Benjamin separates the action of the translator from the poet or novelist, giving translators their due independence as artists in their own, distinct way.

The Task of the Translator opens with a discussion of “the appreciation of a work of art or an art form” (253). Benjamin argues that the value of an art doesn’t depend on its interpretation and it’s content to gain a moral lesson from it. Art is free of all of this. Art is definitely supposed to be meaningful but it is not intended to give lessons to or delight or inform a person

Thus, according to Benjamin if an original work is not responsible to communicate with its reader, then the translation also follows the same guidelines. This potent argument by Benjamin marks a step to establish translation as an independent art in its own right. From there, he also says that since translation is an art on its own, therefore the translator’s tasks are quite different from that of a poet.

To conclude one last point should be made about Benjamin’s analysis of the issues surrounding translation. It is also interesting to observe that for Benjamin, a translation also remains something provisional because ‘in its afterlife […] the original undergoes a change. Even words with fixed meaning can undergo a maturing process’ and in the meantime ‘the mother tongue of the translator is transformed as well’ so ‘what sounded fresh once may sound hackneyed later.’

Thus a translator should consider the significance of a text in its context and in the light on the changes it has to undergo throughout the ages because this text will not have the same impact today than it had fifty years ago for instance. As Benjamin aptly remarks ‘This, to be sure, is to admit that all translation is only a somewhat provisional way of coming to terms with the foreignness of languages.’

José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955)

José Ortega y Gassetis famous for his influential works in Spanish philosophy. Nonetheless his reference and viewpoint about language is manifested throughout his works. This is quite prominent in his splendid essay ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’

In 1937, he wrote ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’, an essay that, as stated in previous works (Ordóñez-López, 2006), has attained the status of a “classic” of translation theory.

However, it would be interesting to find out whether Ortega’s ideas play an operative and active role in

contemporary Translation Studies. It was first published in an Argentinian journal La Nación, in a series of five weekly articles, between June 13th and July 11th, 1937.

In the beginning of his essay, Ortega explains the ‘miseries’ or hardships of translation, as accepting these hardships would pave the path to the ‘splendours’ of translation. He embarks on the journey by defining translation as a utopian activity, ‘Isn’t the act of translating necessarily a utopian task?’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 93). This is due to the ‘cowardice’ of the translator.

According to him ‘What will (the translator) do with the rebellious text? Isn't it too much to ask that he also be rebellious, particularly since the text is someone else's? He will be ruled by cowardice, so instead of resisting grammatical restraints he will do just the opposite: he will place the translated author in the prison of normal expression; that is, he will betray him. Traduttore, traditore.’ Ortega attributes this to the author’s personal writing style which forms a deviation from the habitual usage which results into the mismatch between the meanings of a word in between two languages. Mathematics and science, in Ortega’s point of view are two disciplines which face huge difficulties in translation, mainly due to untranslatability.

Translation is not a duplicate of the original text […] translation doesn’t even belong to the same literary genre as the text that was translated […] translation is a literary genre apart […]

with its own norms and own ends […] a translation is not the work, but a path toward the work […] I imagine a form of translation that is ugly, as science has always been; that does not intend In the middle of the essay, he deals with several facts of the language which he categorizes into good and bad utopianisms:

Both the bad and the good utopians consider it desirable to correct the natural reality that places men within the confines of diverse languages and impedes communication between them.

The bad utopian thinks that because it is desirable, it is possible. […]The good utopian, on the other hand, thinks that because it would be desirable to free men from the divisions imposed by languages, there is little probability that it can be attained; therefore, it can only be achieved to an approximate measure. But this approximation can be greater or lesser, to an infinite degree, and the efforts at execution are not limited, for there always exists the possibility of bettering, refining, perfecting: “progress”, in short. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 98-99)

Furthermore he discusses the ‘splendours’ of translation. He moves on to deliberate as to what he understands by the term ‘translation’ and how the translators should strive to perfect the art of translation activity. Ortega then proceeds to establish some principles that should govern the ‘the new enterprise of translating’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 108) and define what a translation should be:

to wear literary garb; that is not easy to read, but is very clear indeed. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992:

109, 111)

Roman Jakobson (1896-1982)

A Russian linguist, Roman Jakobson distinguished three different types of translation in his seminal essay On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.In his essay, Jakobson states that meaning of a word is a linguistic phenomenon. Using

• Intralingual

semiotics, Jakobson believes that meaning lies with the signifier and not in the signified. Thus it is the linguistic verbal sign that gives an object its meaning. Interpretation of a verbal sign according to Roman Jakobson can happen in three ways:

intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic. In the case of intralingual translation, the changes take place within the same language. Thus a verbal sign (word) belonging to a particular language is replaced by another sign (word) belonging to the same language. Interlingual translation on the other hand can be seen as replacing a verbal sign with another sign but belonging to a different language.

Interpretation of a verbal sign according to Roman Jakobson can happen in three ways:

• Interlingual, and

• Intersemiotic

Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language. In other words, it is “putting meaning in different

words.” But while defining translation, scholars and theoreticians do not consider intralingual translation as a part of translation activity. Primarily the focus is on interlingual translations. Even at the universities, students are primarily trained in interlingual translation. This is stimulating because the components of translation which a student learns to perform the activity of inter lingual translation also influence the production of intralingual translation.

Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of

some other language.

An example of interlingual translation would be the Bible. Assumed to be originally written in Hebrew, the Bible also underwent numerous translations into Greek and Latin and then into English. The King James Bible or the Authorized Version has primacy in English. But the language is antiquated and many people might find it difficult to follow. So at present there is the Good News Bible, which is the modern English version translated by the American Bible Society.

Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems like novel to film or story to a play. Baker (1998) argues that intralingual translation is not a subsidiary form of translation, as is the popular perception. She also points out that most of the translation in the Greek language was intralingual rather than interlingual, for the major work was that of modernizing ancient Greek texts. In most of the ancient Sanskrit plays, there were at least three dialectical versions of pure Sanskrit in use, which

required the audience to translate as he/she watched the play. This was an intralingual translation rather than interlingual translation.

Eugene Nida (1914-2011)

Eugene A. Nida was a linguist by profession. He was a key person who developed the dynamic- equivalence theory and is considered as one of the founders of the modern discipline of Translation Studies.

His pivotal theory of dynamic equivalence and formal equivalence are two dissimilar translation

.In the later following years, Nida separated himself from dynamic equivalence and introduced another term called functional equivalence. Functional equivalence suggests not just that the equivalence is between the function of the source text in the source culture and the function of the

techniques involved which are employed to achieve differing levels of literalness between the original and target languages of a text. Formal equivalence focuses on the constancy to the lexical and grammatical details of the source language. Dynamic equivalence on the other hand employs more natural rendering but targets less on the literal precision.

Nida argued that there are two different types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence remains faithful to the source text without influencing the source text with the translator’s ideas. Formal equivalence aims in bringing forth the original (translation) in the target culture, but that "function" can be thought of as a property of the text.

message without corrupting it with the translator’s thought. In other words, it is word for word translation.

This is therefore much more of a word – for – word view of translation.

Dynamic equivalence is an approach in which the text from the source language is translated thought for thought. Each sentence or the thought is taken up separately and the same meaning is rendered in the target language. But in this process, the translator pays least attention to maintain the idiom or phrasal consistency of the target language with the source language. This technique is more pointed towards the ease of readability and also tries to maintain some faithfulness to the original text without simply paraphrasing the original text. For a work of fiction, for instance, a novel, formal equivalence is of much more use because it retains the ideas of the source text and also remains faithful to the lexical and grammatical structure of the same. Dynamic equivalence is of extreme use when the target language is very dissimilar from the source language. This is so because, a language which is immensely different from the source language, it becomes very difficult to find idioms or phrasal equivalents in the target language.

In addition to that, Nida also puts forth three basic factors which account for the contrasts in translation:

1. The nature of the message: in some messages the content is of primary consideration, and in others the form must be given a higher priority.

2. The purpose of the author and of the translator: to give information on both form and content; to aim at full intelligibility of the reader so he/she may understand the full implications of the message; for imperative purposes that aim at not just understanding the translation but also at ensuring no misunderstanding of the translation.

3. The type of audience: prospective audiences differ both in decoding ability and in potential interest.

He maintains that it is quite difficult to find ‘identical equivalents’ so a translator should always look for ‘closest natural equivalents’.

J.C. Catford (1917-2009)

John .C. Catford put forward his theory of translation based on the principles of general linguistics developed by Michael Halliday. Catford argued that translation studies should be an integral part of comparative linguistics because the central problem of translation studies is to find translation equivalents in the target language. He defines translation as ‘the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent translation material in another language (TL).’

He further distinguishes between textual equivalence and formal correspondence. He (1965) defines textual equivalence ‘any TL text or portion of a text which is to be equivalent of a given SL text or a portion of the text.’ Moreover he defines formal correspondence as ‘any TL category which can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL.’

Catford categorizes the types of translation into three ways:

1. Subject to the extent of SL text adhered to the translation process:

a) Full translation b) Partial translation

2. Subject to the levels of language involved in the process of translation a) Total translation

b) Restricted translation

3. Subject to the ran in a grammatical hierarchy at which the translation equivalence is established

a) Rank-bound translation b) Rank-free translation

In Catford’s opinion, meaning forms the core of any translation activity. Therefore, ‘it is clearly necessary for translation theory to draw upon the theory of meaning; without such a theory certain important aspects of the translation process can’t be discussed.’ (1965)

James S. Holmes (1924-1986)

Dutch based US scholar of translation studies James Holmes coined the term translation studies in his key defining paper which he delivered in 1972. This paper was widely circulated after 1988. Holmes defines translation studies as ‘the complex of problems clustered round the phenomenon of translating and translations’ (Holmes 1988b/2004: 181). He proposed that the

main intention of the then nascent discipline is to define the theory of translation studies properly.

His paper “The Name and the Nature of Translation Studies” is considered as a landmark in the field of translation studies. It provides a theoretical system that both recognizes and unifies many aspects of translation studies. It predicts an entire future discipline and effectively encourage work aimed at establishing that discipline. Holmes grouped and mapped scientifically, and arranged his topics hierarchically.

He divided the discipline into ‘applied’ and ‘pure’ translation studies. Then, ‘applied’ was further disintegrated into ‘theoretical’ and ‘descriptive’. Descriptive translation studies describes

‘the observable facts of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience’.The purpose of the Theory of Translation Studies is ‘to establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explained and predicted’ Not only that,

‘descriptive’ was again divided into ‘product oriented’, ‘process oriented’ and ‘function oriented’, and so on. Product-oriented descriptive translation studies mainly revolves around the description of individual translations. Process-oriented descriptive translation studies aims at revealing thethought processes that take place in the mind of the translator while she or he is translating. Function-oriented descriptive translation studies include research which describes the function or impact that a translation or a collection of translations has had in the socio-cultural situation of the target language.

The empirical finding of descriptive translation studies often aids theoretical translation studies.

It describes principles, theories and models to explain and predict what the process of translation is, given certain conditions such as a particular pair of languages or a particular pair of texts.

Theoretical translation studies is further subdivided into general translation theory and partial translation theory. Holmes maintains that the aim of the discipline is to explain and predict all the phenomena and processes involved in the activity of translation.

Theoretical Translation Studies hold both a General Translation Theory and Partial Translation Theories. Holmes established the final aim of the discipline as the elaboration of a general theory capable of explaining and predicting all phenomena regarding translating and translation.

Holmes distinguishes six different types of Partial Translation Theory: medium restricted, area- restricted, rank-restricted, text-type restricted, time restricted and problem restricted.

• Medium restricted theory describes whether the theories are pertaining to human versus computer assisted translation or written versus oral translation.

• Area-restricted theories are related to particular language communities.

• Rank-restricted are theories dealing with language as a rank or level system.

• Text-type restricted theories are related to specific genres of a particular literary piece or a non-literary piece.

• Time restricted theories pertain to the theories which deal with contemporary texts or those from an older period

• Problem restricted theories focus on the specific problems which arise when for example, a metaphor is to be translated from the source language to target language.

Applied Translation Studies, another main branch of the discipline, is concerned with the following issues:

• Translator training.

• The preparation of translation tools, such as dictionaries, grammars, term banks.

• Criticism of translation which also evaluates the quality of product which has been translated.

• The establishment of translation policy which decides on various factors like the socio- cultural context, role of translation studies in foreign language teaching.

Itamar Even-Zohar (1939- )

Itamar Even-Zohar is a translation theorist who propounded the polysystem theory. This is one of the most influential theory of the twentieth century as it attempted to locate translation within the context of literature in the receptor language. This work was originally published in French, and was published in English as Papers in Historical Poetics.

Since Even-Zohar’s polysystem theory was directly influenced from the Russian formalism therefore it is necessary to understand the key concepts of the Russian formalism. The formalist approach towards a literary piece of text was to consider it as an entity or a separate structure on its own.

JurijTynjanov proposed the idea that a piece of literature, literary or non-literary should be known for its ‘literariness’. In other words, the qualities of a text played a key role in making it unique. But at the same time it is necessary to know more about its tradition. Thus in order to explain this relationship, he brought forward the concept of system which offered a general model for understanding, analyzing and describing the functioning and evolution of literary systems which were in dialectical relation to one another.

According to Even-Zohar polysystem ‘is a heterogeneous and a hierarchized conglomerate of systems which interact among each other to bring about an ongoing dynamic process of evolution within the polysystem as a whole.’ (1990)

This dynamic method of evolution is necessary for the polysystem, because it demonstrates the relationship between the innovatory and conservative systems which are in a steady status of instability and competition. Due to this instability, the status of literature in the target language is not permanent in the polysystem. It may take up a primary or a secondary position in the too. If it is primary, it contributes dynamically in shaping the center of the polysystem.

Even-Zohar classifies three social circumstances in which translation may preserve a primary position:

1. When a literature is at its developing stage 2. When a literature is marginal or feeble or both

3. When a literature contains a vacuum or finds itself in a state of crisis or at a turning point.

He argued, ‘Translated literature fulfills the needs of a young literature to put its renewed tongue in use in as many literary genres as possible in order to make it functional as a literary language and useful for its emerging public. Since, when it is young and in the process of being established, a young literature cannot create major texts in all genres until its polysystem has crystallized, it greatly benefits from the experience of other literatures, and translated literature becomes, in a way, one of its most important systems.’ (1990)

Andre Lefevere (1945- 1996)

Andre Lefevere was a translation theorist who regarded translation as a ‘form of rewriting.’ He regarded translation as an act carried out under the influence of particular categories and norms constituent to systems in a society. In Lefevere’s views (1992) rewriting is an ‘adaptation of a work of literature to a different audience, with the intention of influencing the way in which that audience reads the work.’ An example of rewriting is the translation of Victor Hugo's Les Misérables by Münif Pasha in 1860 into Turkish.he argues that action is an important element in this translation, where the readers are held in suspense for the next episode not only to boost the circulation of the newspaper, but also to entertain the readers and to create a positive atmospere for the printing of newspapers and the development of journalism in the Reformation Period (the 19th century) of the Ottoman Empire. With the modernization and westernization initiatives led by Atatürk, the founder and first president of the Turkish Republic, a full-scale translation initiative was envisaged by the Ministry of National Education. This activity was organized, manipulated and conducted by the state itself, from the selection of the works to be translated to

the establishment of the guidelines in the translation process that would serve the spirit that lay behind the whole initiative.

Susan Bassnett (1945- )

Susan Bassnett is a translation theorist and a scholar of comparative literature. Her book Translation Studies (2002) is an indispensable text for any aspiring student of translation studies and has marked its dominance in the contemporary scenario of translation studies. This book provides translation studies with much of its impetus and pedagogical direction.

In this book, Bassnett explores translation as a semiotic and a cultural act which adheres itself strictly to the linguistic process. She highlights the problem of ‘equivalence which a translator faces when s/he decodes the source language and recodes the message in the target language.

She illustrates this idea by providing the example of ‘butter’ in English and ‘burro’ in Italian.

She argues that these two nomenclature might signify the same food object but vary in their meaning in a wider cultural context. She elaborates this example by mentioning that in Italian

‘burro’ means an unsalted butter which is yellow in colour and is used as a spread on the bread.

But ‘butter’ in English holds high prestige than ‘burro’. Nonetheless the phrase bread and butter is considered acceptable even when the product is actually margarine which is an imitation butter spread.

Bassnett also implied the importance of translation studies in the discipline of comparative literature, postcolonial studies and globalization.

Lawrence Venuti (1953- )

Venuti is considered as one of the sharpest minds of the twenty first century in the modern translation theory. Not only this, he is known to differ from the mainstream translation theorists.

He is critical of the point that a translator is an invisible figure.

His seminal work, The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, has been in the limelight and criticism since it has been published. In it, he lays out his theory that so-called

"domesticating practices" at work in society have contributed to the disappearance of the translator in his/her works, claiming that legal and cultural constraints make it so that 'faithful rendition is defined partly by the illusion of transparency’, such that foreignizing or experimental types of translation are ‘likely to encounter opposition from publishers and large segments of Anglophone readers who read for immediate intelligibility’. This leads to a situation in which

"fluency" is the most important quality for a translation and all traces of foreignness or alterity tend to be purposely erased in a manifestation of ethnocentric violence. As a solution to this problem, Venuti puts forward the process of foreignization, which targets at ‘sending the reader abroad’ instead of ‘bringing the author back home’. He conceives translation as an interpretive act with far-reaching social effects, which is enabled and constrained by specific cultural situations.

Conclusion

As mentioned earlier, modern translation theory owes its development to the first translation workshop which was held in the U.S.A. in 1964. In the twentieth century, translation studies as a discipline has become mixed-hybrid because of the cultures which have become hybrid too. The translator should keep in mind that a translation activity is not limited to just the source text and the target text but to two different cultures. Translation has been given a new meaning and translation theories have attained an independent status now which play an important role in international communication and globalization. The future of translation studies in the twenty first century is enormous.

Works cited

Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge, 1998. Print.

Benjamin, W., & Underwood, J. A. (2008).

Catford, J.C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. London:

Oxford UP, 1965. Print.

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. London: Penguin.

Holmes, James S. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. In Holmes, Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam: Rodopi. 1988. pp. 67–80.

Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.

Nida, Eugene A, and Charles R. Taber. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J.

Brill, 1969. Print.

Venuti, L. (2008). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. Abingdon, Oxford:

Routledge.