Translation: Conveyance of Treasures of One Language to Another - Research Paper Example

Translation: Conveyance of Treasures of One Language to Another Introduction If a language serves the purpose of a medium of communication between people of a community translation is the medium of communication between the peoples of the communities and societies of the world. Simply the task of translation is to be considered as a science, so far as the transmission of information is involved with it. But when the intention of the author of the original text and its aesthetic purpose are taken into concerns, the task turns into a form art that is intended to attain the highest possible level of excellence. Several parties are involved with the art of translation. First, the author of the original text and the intended readers are the main parties of this art. Then the languages of the author, the intended readers and the translators are to come into the focus of the art of translation. All these parties or variables of translation necessarily determine the possibility and the affordability of excellence of the art of translation. But very often the hierarchy of importance of the variables of this task is argued from time to time. Critics emphasize the variables differently. Sometimes subjective groups of translators put stress on the author’s intension at the first place. What they argue is that the author is the most responsible behind the conjuration of his work. So the author, his work and the background of both the author and the works are the first to be interpreted. But another school of translators argue that it is the readers for whom the author composes his work. Comprehensibility of the readers and the conveyance capability of the translated the works should be of prime concern for the task of translation. If communicating capability of the translated work is not up to the requirement, it is as meaningless as the non-interpretable original form of the author. In both cases the task of the translator is considered to be the high quality interpretation of the original works. Here the translator is the first interpreter of the author’s work. His interpretation is expected to be interpreted by the readers. But the problem that persists here is that the readers are two times alienated from the author of the original work. Obviously this is reason for which, as Metzger points out, “the cynic speaks of translation as "the art of making the right sacrifice," and the Italians have put the matter succinctly in a proverb, "The translator is a traitor” (1993, pp. 140-50). The view of the task of translation is rather weak at a first glance. It is that the task of a translator is that of a messenger who is trusted upon to transport the information as well as the emotion and feeling of the work to be translated. According this view the primary challenge of the translator is to meet the required unemotional, unbiased, and the neutral stance and stand point from where he is able to view both the author, the work, and the readers independent of himself, and even though he may be personally engaged with the work of the author, he can tactfully avoid the overlap. Excellence of the task of translation and the translator is set to achieve these goals. Ideologies Shaping the Translation Theories Scholars define the task of translation differently. But essentially most of these definitions anchor in almost the same point: the author’s purpose. The word is originated from the Latin words “trans” and “latus”. Its meaning is “carried across” Lewis (1958, p. 265). According to Foster translation is the task of transferring the element of a literary work from the selected language to the target language. Some scholars necessarily overlook the cultural concern of both of the author and the text. Catford is of this view. He says that translation is the equivalent materials of one text in other language. Equivalence of the textual materials of one language is the most important subject to be addressed in the task of translation (Catford 1965, p.20). The transportation of the knowledge is more important than the equivalence of the textual materials. In this regard Savory echoes Levy. For him as the transmission of ideas is the most important thing, different verbal expressions can be adopted as medium of transmission of knowledge of the original text. Most strikingly Benjamin opposes all these views of the transmission of knowledge. He asks, “Is a translation meant for readers who do not understand the original? This would seem to explain adequately the divergence of their standing in the realm of art.” (Benjamin 1923, p. 75) Indeed Benjamin is grossly influenced with the view “art for art’s sake”. Again he comments that a literary work “tell very little to those who understand it” (Benjamin 1923, p. 75). According to him, the essentiality of a work of translation should not transmit only the information. The role of the readers’ comprehensibility should not be of top priority of the translator, because for him ‘no poem is intended for the reader, no picture the beholder” (Benjamin 1923, p. 75). As Benjamin views, translation is not for the reader’s sake. Though controversies go on over the point whether translation is for the reader’s sake or for the text’s or the author’s sake. But the following definition of Wilss seems to encapsulate the essence of the translation. As he says, “Translation is a transfer process, which aims at the transformation of a written SL text into an optimally equivalent TL text, and which requires the syntactic, the semantic and the pragmatic understanding and analytical processing of the SL” (Wilss 1982, p. 3). Translation for Reader’s Sake or for the Text’s Sake The controversy whether translation is for the reader’s sake or for the text’s sake emerges from the question whether Art is for Art’s sake for man’s sake. Some scholars like Benjamin argue that translation should be for Art’s sake. But it is also remarkable that Benjamin’s view encapsulates also the appeal of translation to the reader in round about way, though he never directly refers. As it is not possible to maintain the sanctity of art in a translation up to the fullest, Showman considers the work of translation as a sin. Benjamin necessarily has to adopt the view that “translation is a mode” (Benjamin 1923, p. 76). Being a mode, translation is determined by the laws of translatability of a text. For Benjamin, translatability of a text has two-fold meaning: how its readers perceive it and the how much the text itself possesses the qualities of translatability. Translatability is a quality that a linguistic creation or work possesses inherently. It does not means that the works is to be translated necessarily and the translated version of the text will contain the same significance as the original text is. The translated version of the text can be in close connection with the original, but, as Benjamin says, “No translation, however good it may be, can have any significance, as regards the original” (Benjamin 1923, p. 76). It is widely accepted that art is for art’s sake. But as the necessity of the translation cannot be ignored at any cost, any translation that include this motto and the view that readers is also the necessary part of translation, is bound to be of highest possible excellence. As Larson points out, the job of translation is a systematic process that is based on the theory to abstract the implication of a text from the cage of its forms and contents and reproduce the meaning in different from of the target language. (Larson 1991, p. 1) Qualities of Good Translation and Application of Translation Theories A translation has certain qualities for which it can be marked as a good translation. In spite of the differences in opinions, scholars have suggested some factors that are to be maintained for the sake of good translation. According to the French scholar Dolet, “word for word” translation is detrimental for a good translation. Such type of translation may spoil the beauty of both of the content and the forms of the text. It is because that every language has its own sets of words that are especially unique in nature and consequently they have certain annotations and connotations. Very often these annotations and connotation take the forms of figurative meaning. A figurative meaning of one language that is expressed with a word or a set of words may not be conveyed by the annotative replacement of the words of the target language. It may be the case that utterly new words of the target language will be needed to express such figurative meaning of the selected language. In this regard a good translator needs to have an excellent command of the target language. In most cases if the target language is the mother tongue of the translator, the purpose of translation serves well. In this regard as Belloc says, nativity of the translated work is one of the qualities of a good translation. It contains the essence of the original captured in the target language up to the highest possible level (Belloc 1931, p. 153). So a good command of the Language in which the text is to be translated and the language, from which the text is to be translated, can never be ignored. Spivak (1992) marks it as the “intimate act of reading” (p. 398). Again he says that a translator has to be an earnest reader, before he is a good translator. If a translator fails to do so, he or she will fail to “respond to the special call of the text" (p.400). A good understanding of both of the Target language and the selected language is unquestionably necessary for comprehending the surface meaning and the inner meaning of the text. But a close study of the cultural background of both of the author and the text is necessary to perceive the meanings that lie beneath the surface level of the original text in order to produce a translated version that will face both ends of the task of translation. A good command of the author’s cultural background as the cultural concern of the author is closely related to the text. Meanwhile the cultural background of the target readers also helps a translator to perceive the cultural differences between the cultures of the author and the readers. As Eco (2001) says, “Thus, the translator is forced at all times to go beyond linguistic competence to the cultural spectrum. Consequently, translations do not constitute a comparison between two languages but the interpretation of two texts in two different languages.” (p. 5) This perception of the cultural differences is helpful for a translator to perceive the text as a whole and at the same time to express them in the target language making it more compatible and comprehensible for the readers. In this regard Larson’s core diagram of translation speaks out the best: Diagram from Larson l998, p. 4 Theories of Translation and their Ideological Differences Generally translation theories deal with translating figurative language, lexical problems, “rhetorical questions inclusion of cohesion markers and many other topics crucial to good translation” (Vallejo 2008) Mainly there are two predominating translation theories: one is the process of translating an original text keeping as close resemblance as possible and the other is to express the meaning completely with the forms of the receptor language. Ideologically the two are different from each other. The next shows fewer adherences to the original text and therefore is more prone to violate the moral obligation to the author of the text. It is less acceptable because of the possibilities of the violation of moral values. After all an excellent craftsmanship of the theories of translation are necessary to produce a quality translation. The above mentioned criteria of translation pertain to the translation theories. But ideological differences sometimes determine a good number of variations in the composition and the application of the theories. A close study of the histories of the translation theories shows that every theory is the offspring of one specific ideology. After all any translation theory is judged from the standards of a good translation, which are mentioned in the previous passage. The major qualities of a good translation are widely considered as adherence to the original text, a close perception and manifestation of the author’s intended target and style, eloquence of expression in the target language etc. Indeed these are the moralistic values that are to be maintained thoroughly in the task of translation. Equivalence in Translation Determining the Theories In the job of translation the achievement of equivalence is of paramount importance. But its application perspectives, its relevance with art, and the relativistic view concerning it application has engendered heated arguments. Equivalence theory involves a set of vantage points to view a text and the author and to apply them in the reproduction of the text. These are the style, mode of narrative, rhymes, rhythms, parallelism and new grammatical structures, use of imagery, setting, plot, characters, and cultural perspectives of the characters. Dynamic equivalent translation theory Dynamic equivalent translation theory is one of the major translation theories that prevail in the job of translation. According to this theory an original text is be translated into such a version that the translated one is equivalent to the original one to the highest possible extent. As Metzger (1993) says, "Dynamic equivalence is defined as "the quality of a translation in which the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors.... The opposite principle is formal correspondence." (Eugene & Charles 1969 in Metzger) This process requires rewriting and rewording of the expression found in a text so far possible. The American Bible Society adopted this method of translation to produce “Good News For Modern Man” version of New Testament. The process can be explained with an example from Psalm 23:5. There is a sentence “anointed my head with oil” that is translated literally. But according to dynamic equivalent, the transformed expression is “welcomed me as an honored guest” (Metzger 1993, pp.140-50). Subsequently the Good News Bible in 1976 and the apocryphal books 1979 that were translated according to this dynamic equivalent theory were widely accepted because of its ready intelligibility (Metzger 1993, p. 147) Formal Equivalence or Dynamic equivalence in Translation have some problems in its application perspectives. As “X” points out, “There are problems, however, with dynamic equivalence translations. Since the translator is "freer" from the grammatical forms of the original language s/he is more likely to exceed the bounds of an accurate translation, in an effort to speak naturally in the native language.” The dynamic equivalence translations provide a translator with opportunities to make his translation more precise and more natural than theory of formal equivalence does. In the case of formal equivalence the possibility of deviation from the ethics of translation as much as it allows to make the text more natural and precise. But Benjamin goes against this view to some extent. For him Kinship of language is more possible among the definable similarities of the two texts, the original and the reproduced than the indefinable resemblances. Is Equivalence Theory Unquestionable? Benjamin (1923) opposes this view to some extent, as he says, “no translation would be possible if in its ultimate essence it strove for likeness to the original” (p. 77). The scholars who oppose this theory argue that no language has any complete synonym. So the ideas that are made equivalent by the use of synonyms are not acceptable. Consequently equivalence is not the necessary criterion for a translator. According to Eco (2001), “translation scholars should have had, at least once in their life, both the experience of translating and that of being translated.” (p. 5) He believes that translators should be in a position independent of such responsibility that hinders them from formulating theoretical reflection on the subject. But a well-balanced combination of all of the theories is more fruitful for the task of translation. It can asserted that the accuracy and success of translation depends on the tactical combination and applications of the theories where they suit well. Poly-System Theory and Its Ideology Another translation theory that involves an approach to children literature is poly-system theory. This theory evaluates the causes and effects of the translated works in any literary system. This theory is determined by the reformative and pedagogic ideologies for the children. If other theories are more committed to produce a translation completely equivalent to the original text, poly-system theory allows a translator the right to produce the text with its essence. This theory was first introduced in 1920s by Russian Formalism (Even-Zohar 1990). Even-Zohar (1978) states that translated literature as a part of existing literary system receive less awareness than it deserves. There are two prevailing concepts: translation and translated works that areto be treated on the individual perspective. According to them translation or translated works serves the purpose of a bond through which elements of foreign culture can be transmitted into a literary system. In poly-system theory a text is evaluated in term of its concern with other literary works of a literary system. A text is considered to have its relation with other works in term of their influence on the text as a whole and also on the author. These influences include the cultural and the historical influences also, as the whole literary system is considered to be influenced by the existing culture. Poly-system theory considers that literary system of a country is a component of the socio-cultural, historical and literary framework. These frameworks are interrelated and interdependent. So poly-system approach to translation puts stress on the evaluation of the text in the context of its socio-cultural background. The ideology behind the poly-system theory asserts that translation is the task of making a foreign literary work an integrated part of the receptor culture. According this theory the task of task of a translator is innovative and creative; he has to make the translated piece an integral part of the existing literary system (Snell-Hornby 1988, p. 24). Translated Works and their Central Position and Peripheral Position A Good understanding of the poly-system theory may render crucial help to the task of translation. When translating a text, knowledge of the uniqueness of the text helps a translator to determine what approach should be taken to translate it in the original language. In a literary system both of the original works and the translated can occupy the peripheral and the central position. “Sometimes the primary position is occupied by original writings and sometimes by translated ones” (Ebrahimi n.d.). If translated works occupy a central position in the literary arena of a country, they can serve the purposes of innovatory forces for the whole literary system. According to Even Zohar (1978, pp. 193-94) translated works can occupy the central position in a literary system: 1. If the literary system is at the primary stage of “build up”, (2) If the literary system is not well composed, (3) if there is revolutionary change taking place within the system. The question how a competitive knowledge of the poly-system can help a translator, can be answered in three ways: 1. If a translator is well-aware of the poly-systematic influences of both of the target language and the language of the original text, he can easily avoid the unwanted impacts of the text on the target language. 2. Knowledge of the poly-system may inspire the translator to be innovative in his expression, if the features of the works to be translated are new in the target poly-system of a country. 3. Knowledge of the poly-system of the source language can provide the translator with understanding of the original text. Reception Theory and Its Impact on Translation The first and foremost concern of reception theory is how the readers of a text perceive it. In this theory, it is considered that perception of a text will vary from reader to reader. Interpretations of the same text may be different for different readers. This variation of interpretations is caused by the readers’ psycho-contextual differences. Nida says that the interpretation of a text can never be concrete. But he is grossly accused with the charge that translation on this assumption allows a translator to perform his job on the basis of a short of approximation and that he may be deviated form the required equivalence to the original text. According to this theory a translator himself is an interpreter of the text and other readers are to interpret the interpretation of the translator. But if the translation is able to produce the same effect on the target reader as it does on the readers of the original language, it is considered to be successful. “This assertion is grounded on the fact that it is believed by many that translation is itself an end, serving a certain purpose. When it comes to a different point of view-translation is also a medium, or a process, I have something different to say” (Shi 2004). The scholars, who are of different opinion, points out that under the above mentioned process accuracy and adherence to the text are nothing but an illusion. It turns into an idealistic pursuit. So adherence to both of the content and form of the text is a must for these scholars. Consequently this view puts priority on the structure of the original text in the job of translation. They discard the task of expressing the meaning of the text defying it as “guess”. For them two versions of translation should be compared on the basis of grammar, structure, style, diction, etc. They argue that a well-done semiotic interpretation is capable of transmitting the same effect of the original text, as semiotics is a “domain of investigation that explores the nature and function of signs as well as the systems and processes underlying signification, expression, representation, and communication. (Perron, 1997) Literary semiotics can be seen as a branch of the general science of signs that studies a particular group of texts within verbal texts in general” (Shi 2004). The Tasks of a Good Translator and His Commitment to the Theories A translator plays a vital and crucial role in the job of translation. He is to play many-fold roles to transmit the message of the author to the readers. First he is to play the role of an ardent reader who is well aware of the facts and figures of language, intention, culture of the author and the content and forms of the text. One of the ways to perceive the author and the text is to read all the sentences of the text completely. The main purpose of this reading is that he will be able to familiar thoroughly with the author and the text and their other concerns. This perception helps the translator to draw a line of distinctions between the readers of the target language and the author. As Vallejo (2008) says, “The translator should understand perfectly the content and intention of the author whom he is translating. The principal way to reach it is reading all the sentences or the text completely so that you can give the idea that you want to say in the target language because the most important characteristic of this technique is translating the message as clearly and natural as possible” (Vallejo 2008). Whether the target language or the receptor language is the mother tongue of the translator, he has to have a deep knowledge of both of the languages of the author and the target reader. Again Vallejo points out, “The translator should have a perfect knowledge of the language from which he is translating and an equally excellent knowledge of the language into which he is translating” (2008). Without the deep knowledge of both of the languages it will not be possible for the translator to achieve the expected equivalence in his work. For example, though people of different countries may use the same language. But annotation and connotation of the same words may not be the same in different countries. In Mexican language the sentence “she is unloyal with her husband” is translated as “Ella le pone los cuernos” but the same is translated in Peru as “Ella le pone los cachos” (Vallejo 2008). Nida believes that the task of a translator is to translate “fullest meaning rather than a bare minimum. But Eco (2001) determines the role of translator from the perspective of a contra-equivalent theory. A translator should not perform his job depending on the dictionary alone. Rather he should do it taking the two literatures as two different socio cultural wholes. Therefore the task of translation is not only related with linguistic competence, but with inter-depending, psycho-analytical, and narrative competence. Certainly with this interpretative perspective a translator has to add an aesthetic effect. Conclusion Translation can be fruitful with the tactical application of the translation theories. But a translator needs to perceive the sharp but subtle differences of the theories. Indeed these differences are caused by the ideological differences behind them. So a successful translation requires a close and in-details study of the ideologies, their differences and how they shape a translation. A good translator should know that though there are differences between the ideologies and the theories, there are uncompromised moral values that are to be followed in the job of translation. There are controversies over the point whether translation is science or art. But it has both the features of arts and science. After all it does not matter whether it is art or science so far a translator has to face the challenge of presenting a successful translation. As Baker (1998) believes, translation “like any young discipline, ... needs to draw on the findings and theories of the other related disciplines in order to develop and formulate its own methods” (P. 4). Bibliography Baker, M. (Ed.). 1998. Encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge. Belloc, H. 1931. On translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Benjamin, W. 1923. The translator's task. In H. Andret (Ed.), Illuminations. London: Cape. CATFORD J. C. 1965 A Linguistic Theory of Translation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-437018-6 Eco, U., 2001, Experiences in Translation, Toronto University of Toronto Press. P. 5 Ebrahimi, B., n.d. ‘The Polysystem Theory. An approach to children's literature’, Available at http://www.translationdirectory.com/articles/article1320.php Even-Zohar, I. 1978. The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem. In: Venuti, L. (Ed.). 2000. Translation Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 192-7 Foster, M. 1958. “Translation from/into Farsi and English”, Retrieved April 1, 2007 from http://www.parsa-ts.com/index.htm Larson, M. L., editor. 1991. “Translation: theory and practice, tension and interdependence”, American Translators Association scholarly monographs, 5. Binghampton, NY: State University of New York. p. 270 Larson, M. L. 1998. Meaning-based translation: A guide to cross-language equivalence. Lanham, MD: University Press of America and Summer Institute of Linguistics, p. 586 Lefevere, A. 1992. Translation/History/Culture London and New York: Routledge Lewis, M. M., 1974, Language in Society. London: Nelson. Metzger, M. B., 1993, “Theories of the Translation Process” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 598 PP. 140-150. Nida, A. E., & Tabor, R. C., 1969, The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: Brill, p. 202. Savory, T., 1969, The art of translation. London: Jonathan Cape Ltd. Shi, A., 2004. ‘Hermeneutics and Translation Theory’, available at http://www.translationdirectory.com/article115.htm Spivak, G. 1992. The Politics of Translation. In A. Barrett (Ed.), Destabilizing theory: contemporary feminist debates (pp. 177-200). London & New York: Routledge. Vallejo, J. D. P., 2008, “Translation Theory” available at http://www.albaglobal.com/article1500.html Wilss, W., 1982, The science of translation: Problems and methods, G. Narr  (Tübingen) Read More