Chapter-III Theories of Translation: Their Uses and Applicability

Transcription

1 62 Chapter-III Theories of Translation: Their Uses and Applicability I The aim of this chapter is to examine the various theories of translation and find out the need of theories in translating and if we can still carry on without them. It discusses the most important decisive factors, sometimes in the form of debates that have constituted the configuration of translation studies- covering the contributions made by both traditional translation theorist and modern theorists. The researcher s observations form the last part of this chapter. What is theory? Before dwelling on the theories of translation, it is necessary to call upon what theory means. When we talk of just theory, the usage of the term seems to be wrong, because we always expect it to be followed by something, like theory of relativity or at least to be preceded by some adjective- say for instance as in literary theory. In the simplest form, theory can refer to an explanation of a phenomena, the perception of system and order in something observed (Bell 1991: 24-25). So when placed alone, theory can refer to: an unbounded corpus of writings which is always being augmented as the young and the restless, in critiques of the guiding conceptions of their elders, promote the contributions to theory of new thinkers and rediscover the work of older, neglected ones a source of intimidation, a resource for constant upstaging to admit the importance of theory is to

2 63 make an open ended commitment, to leave yourself in a position where there are always important things you don t know (Culler 1997: 15-16). Theories of Translation: What do they consist of? With this very brief introduction to theory, we can now proceed with what translation theories are and also cite the various theories of translation which have been under discussion since a very long time. To begin with, what actually are translation theories? Do they consist of all that has ever been written by practicing translators? As also been mentioned in the previous chapter, these theorists are practitioners themselves who wrote broad series of comments on translation, often as prefaces to their translated works. What we study as theories today were not well known in the time they were written. These translators have taken such a long time to put into words, clearly and unmistakably, their aims and methods because they often ignored, or were ignorant of, most of what had been written before. These early theorists went on setting down rules; providing guidelines on how to do it, techniques to solve and sort out translation problems, and sorting out the must-haves of a translator all on their own, as if their way was the only way available. Some were concerned with how a translation should be and how to produce the best ever translation. E.g. Fidelity to the original is the main concern for some e.g. early Bible translations, then the discovery (like that of St. Jerome) that certain amount of interpretation was inevitable. In laying down rules on how to produce the best translation, French bishop Huet insisted the translator to stay the closest possible first to his author s meaning and then to his words and style. Hilaire Belloc also contends that

3 Good translation must consciously attempt the spirit of the original at the expense of the letter (Orero 1997: 56). 64 To get acquainted with the various theories of translation and their applicability, we need to be aware of how they have been defined throughout the ages. To begin with, we can have Peter Newmark s definition for whom translation theory is a misnomer, a blanket term referring to a body of knowledge that we have and still to have about the process of translating which provides a framework of principles, restricted rules and hints for translating texts and criticizing translation, a background for problem-solving. He also shows that the purpose of translation theory is to give some insights into the relation between thought, meaning and language; the universal, cultural and individual aspects of language and behaviour, the understanding of cultures; the interpretation of texts that may be clarified and even supplemented by way of translation (1988: 19). Chomsky, on the other hand has stated thus: Translation theory is primarily concerned with an ideal bilingual reader-writer, who knows both languages perfectly and is unaffected by such theoretically irrelevant conditions as memory limitations, distractions, shifts of attention or interest, and errors (random or characteristic) in applying this knowledge in actual performance (in Bell 1991: 38). Holmes has remarked that the goal of translation theory is to develop a full, inclusive theory accommodating so many elements that it can serve to

4 65 explain and predict all phenomena falling within the terrain of translating and translation, to the exclusion of all phenomena falling outside it (Munday 2009: 9-10), while for Basnett, it is to reach an understanding of the processes undertaken in the act of translation and, not, as is so commonly misunderstood, to provide a set of norms for effecting the perfect translation (1980: 43). Roger Bell also contends that translation theory should explain what translation is, how it works and how it fits into human communication and human society (1991: 4). Translation theory, according to R. S. Gupta, is: theory informed and enriched by linguistic, literary and cultural theories that has much to contribute to our understanding of creative literatures and the transformations these literatures undergo in the process of translation from one language and culture to another language and culture, leading to an enhanced understanding and appreciation of not only comparative literary studies but of translated literatures which constitute a sizeable part of several worlds literatures (1998: 9). Yet there are some who are of the view that translation theory is nothing but the knowledge one has of translating. Now the point to be emphasized here is when actually theory started to take roots. Did it exist right from the moment translation as a practice started? The main problem in the formulation of translation theory, as Eugene Nida also talks about in his essay Theories of Translation lies in the fact

5 66 that translation takes place in our brains and we actually do not know what actually takes place. In a technical sense a fully adequate theory of translation would consist of a group of general and coherent principles in matching the semantic contents of verbal utterances. The best translators do not spend years memorizing sets of related meanings, but they have incredibly alert sensitivity to the meanings of corresponding expressions in two or more languages (2006: 11). Though we believe translation to have started at least by 3000 B.C, its importance became evident in 300 B.C. in the West when Romans started translating Greek texts. Here, we refer to translation as distinguished from interpretation, notwithstanding the fact that the oral tradition precedes the written tradition. The story of translation can be accounted in short in this way: it first developed in Greek, Romans borrowed it from them. Later on i.e., during the medieval times, Greek and Roman classics were translated extensively into many European languages. Much later, oriental knowledge and occidental knowledge made a to and fro movement between each other through translation. This has been the story so far. Theories however came much later. In the early Christian era, there were no traces of theories. The reason must be either there were no theories at all or the translators did not convey the various techniques they used (Miremida 1995: 50). Whichever the reason may be, the practitioners of those times were well and good, and they still carried on without them. By the 4 th century A.D. when Saint Jerome started translating, the distinction

6 67 between word for word (holy text) and sense for sense (text on more general topics) translation came into being and his pronouncement of the latter proved to be a milestone in the history of translation theories. He believed that except in the case of Holy Scriptures where the words of God should not be dismantled, word for word translation should not be encouraged. He broke the silence of the ancient days of Greek and Rome which had been so due to the indifference of the Greek scholars towards translation for they considered their language to be the most superior and of Rome who considered themselves capable of learning the Greek language and were against having books translated from it. They also thought that books written in languages other than Latin were vociferous. Important names of his times were Cicero and Horace who were also concerned with the key question of whether a translator should be faithful to the original text by adopting a literal (word-for-word) approach or whether a free (sense-for-sense) approach should be chosen. This controversy can be regarded as the oldest one in the history of western translation theory. Literal translation or word for word is the segmentation of the SL text into individual words and TL rendering of those word-segments one at a time. Sense for sense, also known as free translation, refers to the looser rendering of the SL text. It is less slavish to the original text and also less bound to individual words and their sequencing. Horace along with the Jewish scholars embraced the former while Cicero was against it. This distinction however cannot manage to draw a sharp line between the two categories as there are some whose preference changes from the first category to the second one, for example George Chapman. There are also those who believe that the two are equally important and one should not be sacrificed for the

7 68 other but there should be a balance between them. Yet there are others who regard such distinction as less straightforward and also perhaps less of a central issue. In this regard Tytler and Herder may be mentioned. And so the list goes on. It is true that we have the tendency to refer to this persistent and sterile age-old dichotomy of word and sense i.e., whether translations should be literal (word for word) or free (sense for sense) of over two thousand years as the beginning of translation theory. But when we come to theories which are not only systematic and organized but also very often referred to, we start counting from Dryden, Dolet, Cowley and Tytler. They are regarded as the stars of the seventeenth century in the field of translation. What did they do which others before them had not done that they are regarded as the first ever theorists in the field? - This is the question worth asking. Next without beating around the bush, we will deal with three broad divisions to account for the diverse theories of translation throughout the ages: 1. Traditional or pre-linguistic theories During this period, literary texts and Bible were mostly translated and no particular theories existed. Translators went on following what they believed was the right way of translating. These various ways became their own theories. They were so self-centered that none of them was aware of what the others were doing and what paths they were following. They didn t know what each other s work on translation was comprised of. And the biggest drawback was that they cited no practical examples and developed no methods. The main focus was on the central recurring theme of word-for-

8 69 word and sense-for-sense translation or free versus literal translation. This debate over literal, free and also faithful translation went on till the second half of the twentieth century. Even though translation took place for better or for worse, the contradiction between its inherent impossibility and its absolute necessity was there to stay. The most important requirement to be met was considered as maintaining faithfulness to both the form and content of the original text as accurately as possible. The theories that emerged from the Roman period to the linguistic period can be placed under this category. But as we have just argued that theories in the true sense of the word began form the seventeenth century, we shall start from it but not without bringing back one name from the past. He is none other than French humanist printer, translator and scholar, Etienne Dolet ( ), who had tried his hands in giving rules, five in number in his On the Way of Translating Well from One Language into Another, published in 1540: 1. The translator must understand to perfection the meaning and the subject matter of the author he translates. 2. The translator should know the language of the author he translates to perfection and that he should have achieved the same excellence in the language he wants to translate into. 3. When you translate you should not enter into slavery to the point of rendering word for word. 4. If you translate a Latin book into languages which are not yet established in the field of art like French, Italian, Spanish, German, English, and other vulgar tongues. You should not

9 70 usurp words which are too close to Latin or have been little used in the past. 5. The translator should observe the figures of speech, namely that he should link and arrange words with such sweetness that the soul is satisfied and the ears are pleased. He should never object to harmony in language (in Lefevere 1992: 27-28). The seventeenth century witnessed the birth of many influential theorists such as Sir John Denham ( ), Abraham Cowley ( ), John Dryden ( ), and Alexander Pope ( ). Unlike those who had ever written on translation, these names could for the first time carry out a very systematic analysis of translation apart from pondering over which is the correct way of doing it- word for word or sense for sense etc. According to Amos, the England of the seventeenth century- with Denham, Cowley and Dryden- marked an important step forward in translation theory with deliberate, reasoned statements, unmistakable in their purpose and meaning (Munday 2001: 24). Abraham Cowley and Sir John Denham are regarded as the founding fathers of English thinking about translation (Hopkins 2005: 56). Denham was in favor of idiomatic translation and advocated the principle of compensation by which addition was to be allowed. He said, Without such remedial measure, nothing would remain of the original but captum mortuum - a worthless residue (ibid. 57). Alexander Woodhouselee allowed retrenchment and addition but with greatest caution, but Denham was against it for he stated that Poesie is of so subtle a spirit, that in pouring out of one Language into another, it will all evaporate (in Weissbort 2006: 549). Cowley is best remembered for his approach to translation of the Pindaric ode, which established this form in

10 71 English. In his preface to the Pindariques, he advanced the notion of Imitation, an ultra-free type of translation, which later on was adopted by Dryden. He wrote, If a man should undertake to translate Pindar Word for Word, it would be thought that one Madman had translated another (ibid. 124). According to him, word for word translation should not be attempted at, and the loss in the original, which is sure to happen, should be compensated for by the use of wit or invention to create beauty, so that no gaps can be seen, so that the lost excellencies of the original can be replaced by the new ones. Dryden can be regarded as the most important one amongst the three, for he was not only a theorist of significance writing in English but also the one who could raise a voice against the preceding principles. He is best remembered for his tripartite classification of translation as paraphrase, imitation and metaphrase. Munday remarks that, Dryden s proposed triad of the late seventeen century marked the beginning of a more systematic and precise definition of translation (2001: 33). Metaphrase, also known as word for word translation is the least desirable form and he says it s like dancing on ropes with fettered legs (Hopkins 2005: 57). Dryden, further, declares: Tis almost impossible to translate verbally and well at the same time; (...) the verbal copier is encumbered with so many difficulties at once that he can never disentangle himself from all. He is to consider at the same time the thought of his author and his words, and to find out the counterpart to each in another language; and besides this, he is to confine himself to

11 the compass of numbers, and the slavery of rhyme (in Weissbort 2006: 146). 72 By imitation, he refers to the loose approximation of the original where excessive freedom is exercised. These two extremes should be avoided. Paraphrase is the ideal kind of translation, the golden mean he calls it, as it can do justice to the sense of the original without being enslaved by the words. Dryden however changes his outlook later in life by asserting that the translators should decide which one of the three types would be best suited in accordance with the author whose work they have taken up to translate and go for it. He himself has admitted that he too had broken the rules made by his own hands only to see to it that the translation is able to represent the original in all its beauty and grandeur. So if need be it, there should be abundant rooms for variation. He was against Denham s principle of compensation as it was like a license which gives translators enormous freedom to such an extent that sometimes the translated work may look like a completely new creation without a tinge of the original. He also resisted to the freedoms advocated by Cowley in the preface to his Pindaric odes (1656). Too much liberty as had been advocated by both Denham and Cowley, he says, is the most advantageous way for a translator to skew himself but the greatest wrong which can be done to the memory and reputation of the dead (Hopkins 2005: 58). Dr. Johnson has rightly averred that It was reserved for Dryden to fix the limits of poetical liberty and give us the just rules and examples of translation (Nair 1996: 23).

12 73 Tytler can be regarded as the one who comes next to Dryden in carrying out the most systematic study on translation in English. He laid down three principles in his Essay on the Principles of Translation, (1791): I. That the Translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work. II. That the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original. III. That the Translation should have all the ease of original composition (Lefevere 1992: 128). He emphasized on the exact reproduction of (a) the idea (b) the style and the manner of writing and (c) the ease of the original work (Bapuji 1994: 24) and was also against Dryden s influence, maintaining that the concept of paraphrase had led to exaggeratedly loose translations (Basnett 1980: 67). He was the one who used the eighteenth century concept of the translator as imitator or painter with a difference for he asserted that the translator should not use the same colours as the original but should be able to give his picture the same force and effect (ibid. 67). With the rise of romanticism in the nineteenth century, translation became popularly identified with literary translation. And the common belief was that translation was a continuation of the life of the original, and that it also enriched a language (Kelly 1979: 96). This period was characterized by the ambiguous attitude of a number of major writers and translators which were seen in their discussions on the nature of translation. It was characterized by two conflicting tendencies: the first considered translation as a category of thought, and saw the translator as a creative

13 74 genius, who enriches the literature and language into which he is translating, while the second saw him through the mechanical function of making known a text or an author (Basnett 1980: 69). This period also witnessed the enhancement of Romanticism, which led to the birth of many theories and translations in the domain of literature, especially poetic translation. Weissbort maintains: Several of the key statements of the nineteenth-century philosophy and policy of translation were made by German scholars and writers who were, in one way or another, active in the period generally characterized as Romantic. Herder, Goethe, Humboldt, the Schlegel brothers and Schleiermacher all wrote important documents about translation.they also made their mark as theoretical pronouncements both in and beyond the German sphere, especially some of Goethe s statements and Schleiermacher s On the Different Methods of Translating (2006: 195). Johann Gottfried von Herder and Friedrich Daniel Ernst were the pioneers in the field of literary translation. Wilhelm von Humboldt and Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe translated extensively from modern and ancient language. The latter can be regarded as the important figure of the period because of his contribution to translation studies by his classification of translation into three categories: literal translation (word for word), parody (imposition of the translators and his society on the original by the translator himself), interlinear version (penetration to the very essence of the original). Another name we cannot just leave out is that of Edward Fitzgerald ( ) who made Omar Khyyam immortal by rendering his

14 75 Rubaiyat (1859) which was originally written in Persian into English. Though he has taken so much freedom in translating this work and though he has given justification for doing so, though we are with him or against him, we know that a writer from the far-east has written such work only from his translation. Such is the impact of translation in giving wider recognition to a work which would have remained unknown in some corner of the world. During the Victorian age, Matthew Arnold s translation of Homer made him theorize his practical experience. He was of the view that Homer should be presented as poetry that conformed to the contemporary experience of poetry. This was opposed by F.W. Newman who was of the opinion that he should be presented to the reader of English by conscious archaism (Kelly in F.A. Sawyer 1997: 145). These two viewpoints marked the Victorian doctrine in terms of translation. Another contradiction was between the viewpoints of Longfellow who looked at translator as a technician, neither poet nor commentator, with a clearly defined but severely limited task and who made restriction on the translator s function by asserting that it is the business of the translator to report what the author says, and not to explain what he means and that of Edward Fitzgerald who was still influential in the Victorian era and who was of the view that a text must live at all costs with a transfusion of one s own worst Life if one can t retain the Original s better (Basnett 1980: 73). In short, the Victorian concept of translation can be summed as literalness, archaizing, pedantry and the production of a text of second-rate literary merit for an elite minority and this trend was to follow in the first half of the twentieth century (ibid. 76).

15 76 2. Linguistic theories The connection between translation and linguistics seems to arise from the fact that both are concerned with language: the first being a language activity where the source and target languages play their part and the second being the study of language, which has not only to produce many powerful and productive theories about how language works but also to influence literary theory, e.g. Structuralism originated in the early 1990 s in the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and the subsequent Prague, Moscow and Copenhagen schools of linguistics. Therefore, it is obvious that linguistics must be having something to say about translation. The relationship of linguistics to translation can be twofold: one can apply the findings of linguistics to the practice of translation, and one can have a linguistic theory of translation, as opposed, say, to a literary, economic or psychological theory of translation (Fawcett 1997: 2). When British translation theorist John Catford wrote: "Clearly, then, any theory of translation must draw upon a theory of language - a general linguistic theory" in his book A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965: 1), he must have been under the spell of this connection. Nida too considers that the fundamental thrust of his approach to translation process must be linguistic, as it must be in any descriptive analysis of the relationship between corresponding messages in different languages (1964: 8). On the other hand another approach exists which does not only differ from this but also contradicts it. It shows translation and linguistics as two separate entities and points out that it is inappropriate to locate translation within the fence of linguistics though claims have been made in the past that it is a sub

16 77 branch of applied linguistics. The co-existence of translation with linguistics has never been comfortable because the former always lies on the border between languages and deals with the shifts from one language to another and investigates what happens in between whereas the latter views language in general terms by looking more for what unites language rather than divides. Fawcett asserts that (m)any linguists have no interest in translation theory, and some translation theorists are increasingly declaring that linguistics has nothing to offer their discipline while the fact, according to him, is that there are many things in translation which can only be described and explained by linguistics and that a translator who lacks at least a basic knowledge of linguistics is somebody who is working with an incomplete tool kit (Fawcett 1997: 1). We also can not deny the fact that linguistic theories have occupied an important place in translation studies and have even helped it to certain extent to emerge as an independent discipline. And hence its importance cannot be done away with. By mid twentieth century, the circular debate of literal and free translation which lasted several years seemed to have been exhausted. It was during this period that translation as an activity and also as a discipline got a deep blow with the rise of a new approach which centers on key linguistic issues. The most significant of these issues were those of meaning and equivalence which was first discussed by Roman Jacobson in his seminal paper On the Linguistic Aspects of Translation (1959). It can be said that the twin issues coupled with the problem of untranslatibility formed the main theme of translation studies in the 1960s. We can sum up the twentieth century turn by the belief that since translation is all about retaining the meaning of the SL text in the TL text by searching for the exact

17 78 equivalences, the absence of them or the inability on the part of the translator to come up with such equivalences causes untranslatability. Translation from the linguistic point of view is all about searching for the exact equivalence, the absence of which, as just mentioned above, leads to untranslatability. Catford s The Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965) is one of the earliest attempts to study translation form the point of view of linguistics. The main defect of his book is that he could not discuss beyond the level of the sentence. He analyses the importance of meaning through translation and also believes that meaning captures the essence of the text and meaningful translation also can transfer the essence. American Bible translator Eugene Nida advocates the concept of formal and dynamic equivalence which replaces the free versus literal debate of the traditional theorists. Formal equivalence centers on the form and content of the message of the ST while dynamic equivalence, later termed functional equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression. According to Munday, he is the one who could draw translation theory away from the stagnant literal vs. free debate and into the modern era (2001: 53). His emphasis on the receiver or the reader of the translation is also something no one before him has ever done. Despande asserts: The theories of translation formulated by Nida and Catford are regarded as the most systematic ones in English. Catford s theory is based on Halliday s linguistic theory. He is concerned with the nature and problems of translation in general. Nida evolved his theory out of his concern for Bible

18 translation. He is more interested in the practical aspects of translation (1984: 44). 79 In his discussions, Nida includes not only the text but also the context. The main drawback however lies in the fact that his study, as many have also argued, has been based on the translation of the Bible only and considers no other text. Even if it be so, his achievement as a translation theorist cannot escape our sight. Gabriela Saldahanha too recognizes the contribution made by them and remarks that: linguistically oriented theorists have attempted to explain translation in terms of equivalence, the most influential being Catford (1965) and Nida (Nida 1964; Nida and Taber 1969). Both Catford and Nida stress that translation is not about achieving equivalence of meaning; Catford argues that it is about finding target text meanings that are interchangeable with source text meanings in a given situation, that is, when the two relate to some of the same features of extralinguistic reality.nida attempts to formalize general, non language specific strategies of translation, based on transformational grammar and the concept of deep structure (Baker 2009: 149). Nida s point of departure is the place from where Peter Newmark begins. He goes beyond the Bible to include other texts and studies them from a wider perspective. He replaces the terms formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence with semantic translation and communicative translation, and alters the focus of the translation back to the ST with his support for a literal approach. He, together with Eugene Nida, can be

19 80 regarded as the most eminent of translation theorists from the linguistic tradition. According to him, linguistic theories were concerned mainly with the study of literary translation and were centered on the opposition of word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation. Linguistic meaning and equivalence are the key issues for the Russian structuralist and linguist Roman Jakobson. His essay, On Linguistic Aspects of Translation extends the significance of translation to include intralingual and intersemiotic translation. He contends: Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics. Like any receiver of verbal messages, the linguist acts as their interpreter. No linguistic specimen may be interpreted by the science of language without a translation of its signs into other signs of the same system or into signs of another system. Any comparison of two languages implies an examination of their mutual translatability; the widespread practice of interlingual communication, particularly translating activities, must be kept under constant scrutiny (1959: 233-4). Now what is equivalence? In the next twenty years after Jakobson had written his essay, there has been an endless attempt to sort out the nature of equivalence. Equivalence is regarded as the central concept in translation theory in spite of the controversies that have come out regarding its relevance and applicability and even its definition. It has been variously regarded as a necessary condition for translation, an obstacle to progress in translation studies, or a useful category for describing translations. Different

20 81 theorists have approached it in a variety of ways. For instance, Catford (1965), Nida and Taber (1969) have defined translation in terms of equivalence relations; while others have rejected the theoretical notion of equivalence, claiming it is either irrelevant (Hornby 1988) or damaging (Gentzler 1993/2010) to translation studies. Yet other theorists steer a middle course: Dorothy Kenny notes that Baker uses the notion of equivalence for the sake of convenience because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status (Baker 2009: 96). These linguistic theories are criticized on the ground that they have moved from the word to the text as a unit but not beyond (Lefevere 1992: 4) and therefore are limited in their approach. The painstaking task of comparing the original and its translation will lead us nowhere until and unless they are studied from the context of the cultural environment in which they are written and translated- hence the birth of the cultural approach. Solution to the inadequate normative model is the descriptive, historical approach or the cultural model. It leads discussion away from the normative notion of right and wrong. This has inevitably led to an attack on linguistic theories of translation. The risk of dwelling on the language alone, without any consideration of the socio-cultural context in which it is based, came to be realized when we see the inadequacies faced when we choose this unbranched road where everything starts with and ends in language. The importance of accentuating on the way language is used in a given social context came from many directions. Nida in his book, Contexts in translating, has discussed this issue in a very elaborate way. He says:

21 82 words only have meaning in terms of the corresponding culture. But while a language can usually be acquired within a period of ten years, it takes a lifetime to understand and become an integral part of a culture (2001: 13). 3. Culturally oriented theories Cultural oriented theories emerged as a result of the inadequacy of the previous linguistically oriented theories. If we look at the ways how translators from different cultures and time periods have translated the same work e.g. that of Homer s differently in accordance with the cultural and socio-historical constraints under which each of them is working, we come to know that culture- and time-bound criteria play a very important role in the translator s activity. So, we need to step beyond the investigation of whether a translation matches the original and if it does, then to what extent. We need to go further and then find out the underlying constraints and motivation which inform the translation process. The linguistic oriented theories which are based on the absolute concept of equivalence had to be replaced by the socio-cultural model of translation which takes care of the conditions under which translations are produced so that they may be well received in the target culture. This new model requires in translation not only a word-for-word substitution, but also a cultural understanding of the way in which people in different societies think and how they translate accordingly and also what they expect from a translated text. With this new turn, (l)inguistic theories of translation has been superseded, translation has come to be considered in its cultural, historical and sociological context (Baker 2009: 100). Here we find ourselves more concerned with literary

22 83 translation as culture is the main emphasis. Cultural elements become central to any translation. Harish Trivedi contends that: the translation of a literary text became a transaction not between two languages, or a somewhat mechanical sounding act of linguistic substitution as Catford had put it, but rather a more complex negotiation between two cultures. The unit of translation was no longer a word or a sentence or a paragraph or a page or even a text, but indeed the whole language and culture in which that text was constituted (2005: 254). It comes to be realized that no amount of linguistic knowledge can make one a translator. Some introduction to linguistics will do no harm, it could instead make the activity of translation more meaningful but no training in linguistics will make one a top-flight translator. Dryden, Fitzgerald, Tagore etc. got no training whatsoever in linguistics but they have produced world s best translation works. Linguists analyze texts, but translators must understand texts (Nida 2001: 10). Here lies the difference. Piotr Kuhiwczak also contents that linguistics tends to view language in general terms while translation is particular and always lies on the border between languages shifts from one language to another, and investigations of what happens in between have never been central preoccupation in linguistics (in Anderman 2010: 113). In other words, translation is not only the transformation of linguistic signs but also the communication of thoughts and culture. It must be made clear before moving on further that by stressing that translation used to be confined within the scope of linguistics means that

23 84 translation was merely referred to as a conversion of languages, from the source language into the target language. When we talk about the cultural turn which emerged by the end of twentieth century, we are referring to the realization that just by converting a set of meanings from one language to another; translation does not come into being. It is because meaning is found not only associated with the language or the text but also with the author and the reader, the cultures in which the languages are rooted, the backgrounds, the people and their beliefs, customs, legends etc. This may not apply again to scientific or technical translation but in literary translation, all these factors have to be counted. Recent studies have also revealed that translation studies is a move away from looking at translations as linguistic phenomena to looking at translations as cultural phenomena. Rorny Heylen also looks at translation as a process of negotiation between two (or more) series of cultural codes and systems, as the product of transcoding different cultures, and not solely as the result of a crossing of linguistic barriers. Translation should not be considered a matter of equivalence or synonymy, but rather one of differences and shifts, since it entails a goal-oriented decisionmaking process of negotiation between various cultural codes and systems (1993: 20). So this new approach, which goes beyond the language boundary to make up for the imperfections whatsoever it is, deals less with the letters and more with the people belonging to a particular group and their culture, as distinguished from those belonging to other groups portrayed in their literature, and how transferring this literature into another language opens up a whole variety of new findings. It sees translation not as an operation on

24 languages but as an act of cultural transfer or cultural transformation. Hence the birth of culturally oriented translation theories. 85 II There are many theories of translation and some of them are even contradictory to each other. To talk about which is the more appropriate one would be futile as each one of them approaches translation from totally different premises. To cite a few, we have the functionalistic skopos approach which advocates that the translation should not be compared with the original to see how faithful it is but should be accessed on the purpose of what it was intended for. The purpose of the Target Text then determines the translation methods and strategies in order to produce a functionally adequate or appropriate result. There is polysystem theory which looks at translation as one of the many systems which are in constant interplay with each other. The poststructuralist or deconstructive approach on the other hand deals with how power relations between the target and source culture affect the way in which a translation gets done. Feminist and poststructuralist scholars who use this approach include Tejeswini Niranjana, Lawrence Venuti, Gayatri Chakrabati Spivak etc. According to them, it is not the translators themselves but the discourse in which they are participating and the age in which they are living that determine the quality of a translation or how a text is translated. A translator working in the colonial period will be affected by the colonial power, the colonial discourse and hence his translation will be a product of that discourse that is acting on him. The advocators of each school have their own reasons to defend themselves and to explain why they do what they do.

25 86 Today we find translators and translation theorists from across the globe doing everything they can for translation in order to mend the cracks if there be any so that it contributes to better human understanding among nations speaking different tongues on one hand and on the academic side to establishing a full-fledged discipline on the other. How a translation ought to be? How should it be like: a new creation or the imitation of an existing work within the system of another language? This question of whether a translation should read like an original or a translation should rest on the translator, depending on what purpose he wishes to fulfill, and who he aims his target audience to be. Diverse views arise from different quarters and some says translation should read like an original while others believes that it should read like a translation only. According to Savory, A translation must give the words of the original work, give the ideas of the original, should read like an original work, read like a translation, or should reflect the style of the original, possesses the style of the translator, read as a contemporary of the original (House 1977: 35). Goodspeed contends that: The best translation is not one that keeps forever the reader s mind the fact that this is a translation not an original English composition, but one that makes the reader forget that it is a translation at all and makes him feel that he is looking into the ancient writer mind, as he would into that of a contemporary (Venuti 2002: 159). J.B. Philips asserts that: The test of a real translation is that it should not read like translation at all (ibid. 160). Venuti is also of the view that a translation is taken to be a successful one when it reads fluently, when it gives the appearance that it is not translated, that it is the original, transparently reflecting the foreign author s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text (1992: 4). Seen in this light it seems that translation theory is about setting down rules on how

26 87 to produce good translation. But it is not all. To this may be added the following points which form the most debated questions in the realm of translation theory and also have become the major concerns of translators and scholar working in the field of translation studies: 1. Everything is translatable versus nothing is translatable. It may look like some baseless talk to be referring to the impossibility of translation when we are actually talking about translation. We cannot, however, overlook the two contradictory viewpoints: that of the Universalist view which says that translation is possible, and Monadist outlook that sees it as impossible. We know that in reference to the constant practice that has been taking place since time immemorial, the impossibility of translation has to be denied but contradictions are there to stay. The age-old debate between the Monadist and the Universalist is well known. Pisarska contends that, What is predominant is the Universalist view because provided that there be some space of loss, everything is translatable (1989: 7). Ricoeur contends that beneath the diversity of languages, there are hidden structures that either bear the trace of a lost original language that we must rediscover or consist of a priori codes, of universal structures or, as we say, transcendentals that we must manage to reconstruct (2006: 15-16). Mention may be made of Lila Ray who says: No two languages, no two texts, codify exactly the same area of experience. A man has an experience about which he wishes to tell others If what he has discovered is of value to them, other men listen to him. It adds to their own experience and

27 becomes the possession of the group to which he belongs, a part of their cherished lore (1976: 261). 88 Edward Sapir also claims that No two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality (Basnett 1980: 21), Nida believes...not all language-cultures use similar terms for corresponding positions of responsibility creates special problem for translators (2001: 7). For George Steiner, the underlying structure of language is universal, common to all men. Dissimilarities between human tongues are essentially of the surface. The commonalities found in human tongues make translation feasible. Translation is realizable because those deep-seated universal genetic, historical, social, from which all grammars derive, can be located and recognized as operative in every human idiom, however singular or bizarre its superficial forms (Steiner 1975: 73). 2. Translation is an art/science/craft. For some translation is an art, while for others it is a science. For example, Savory thinks it is an art. Eric Jacobsen believes it as a craft. For Eugene Nida, translation is a science. According to him, interlingual communication is essentially a special skill that does not necessarily depend on long years of training, although it can often be greatly enriched by studying how other translators have solved typical problems (2001: 4). For some it is neither a creative art nor an imitative art but stands somewhere

28 89 between the two. It is no scientific discipline which can be analyzed on certain parameters. It is the fundamental act of human exchange. This controversy has reigned supreme in the history of translation studies for a long time now. To bring a compromise we can assume that it is a science where there is one correct or one objectively superior rendering of a word, phrase, clause etc. and an art when there are more than one equally (or less than) adequate rendering (Newmark 1982: 136). He has also made the point that its standard of excellence can be determined only through the informed discussion of experts or exceptionally intelligent laymen (ibid. 18) and this is what it shares with arts and other crafts. 3. Everything is lost in translation versus something can also be gained. Robert Frost believes that poetry is that which gets lost in translation. It also means that nothing survives in translation. It is true that almost everyone who has had a word to say about translation could not but talk about its losses. If we expect translation to involve no loss of information then, not only translating but all sort of communication will not be realizable. Some loss is inevitable. The degree of the loss differs as per the cultural gap that exists between the SL and TL. If through translation something is lost, then can t something also be gained? The answer is yes. Many things can also be gained in translation. Against Robert Frost s dictum, we have James Thurber s I tend to lose something in the original (in Eoyang 2003: 121), meaning that translation can also become better and enhanced. We have come across instances in the history of literature as a whole how the original has been surpassed by its translation, how some work depends on its rendering in a foreign tongue for its survival. Mention

29 90 here may be made of Omar Khayyam s Rubaiyat (1858) which turned into a treasure in the hand of Edward Fitzerald who translated it into English; Gregory Rabassa s English translation of One Hundred Years of Solitude which was preferred to the original by none other than the original writer, Gabriel Garcia Márquez himself. We are also aware of how the Luther s version in Germany and the King James versions in English of the Bible have gone far ahead of the original in terms of its accessibility. Translation extends the life of the original. It can be regarded as a cultural practice by virtue of which a work lives longer and better, beyond the means of its author (Brodzki 2007: 2), beyond its linguistic borders and historical moment (ibid. 6). Above the loss and gain, translation can also turn a text inside out to bring its deconstructive factor to the fore. The new language draws out possibilities he (the original writer) might have consciously rejected (Chaudhuri 1999: 2). Translation done by great writers has raised the status of the original into heights it never has not got, by bringing out the sub-textual treasures embedded in the original text. Translations like Dryden s Virgil and Pope s Homer are preferred to their originals and they are regarded as the superior alternatives which allow the readers to feel that they can disperse with those classics (Gillespie 2005: 7). The statement made by Keats after reading George Chapman s translation of Homer supports this statement: Yet did I never breathe its [Homer s] pure serene/till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold (Rao 1998: 69). We are also aware of how the Romans became richer in their literary tradition by translating from the Greeks models.

30 91 4. Unit of translation- word or idea. The concept unit of translation (UT) normally refers to the sourcelanguage unit which can be recreated in the target language without addition of other meaning elements from the source language (Newmark 1982: 140). There can be no hard and fast rule regarding what actually should be the unit of translation- word/phrase/sentence/paragraph or the idea of the original text. Though one word is regarded as the ideal unit of translation, one cannot stick to it when one finds that no exact equivalence of certain words exist in the target language. Therefore one is bound to translate the ideas rather than words of the original to cope up with the difficulties. 5. No addition and retrenchment in translation versus they should be allowed. Finlay notes that any translation worthy of the name must reproduce the full sense of the original, omitting nothing and adding nothing (1971: 2). Translation becomes adaptation or précis or version or abstraction or arrangement if things are added or omitted. Leonardo Bruni, Dolet, Dryden, among others advocated this principle. Against this, there are others who believe that they should be allowed to clarify ambiguities which arise due to the cultural gap between the SL and TL. The Romans whose main aim was the enrichment of their own literary tradition believed that the addition of new words and expression was a necessity. Horace was also of the view that new expression should be used in translation to avoid being a slave to the original. Even the romantics favored the use of a created language but theirs was for another reason- they allowed addition not for clearing obscurity but to add an element of strangeness (Gupta 1999: 80). Tytler contends that super-added ideas should be connected with the original thought and