Translation and Literary History: An Indian View
Ganesh Devy
[Reading and comprehending original articles by scholars can be a daunting task, and I found it especially challenging while preparing for my exam. To alleviate this stress, I have simplified the article based on my understanding and with the assistance of ChatGPT. I have attempted to present the information in simple and easy-to-understand language. This blog is geared toward exam preparation and aims to provide a clear understanding of the article's core ideas and concepts. However, it's important to note that if you want to gain a deep understanding of the topic, reading the original article is highly recommended. CLICK HERE FOR BLOG I (it has quotes in the language of the original article)]
Introduction
The translation is like a text that is always in exile, never able to fully return to its origin. This idea comes from Western philosophy, where the translation is seen as a fall from the original, similar to the biblical story of exile. Because of this belief, literary translations are not always given the same importance as original works. Western culture values individuality, so they see translations as an intrusion of something different. This can be pleasurable up to a point, but not beyond that. This way of thinking makes it difficult for European literary historians to understand the origins of literary traditions. Scholars J. Hillis Miller and others have written about this idea.
The translation of the Bible into English was a very important event in the history of the English style, and it was also connected to the Protestant Christian faith. This translation helped to recover the original spirit of Christianity. Even earlier, the famous writer Chaucer was translating the style of another writer named Boccaccio into English when he wrote his famous Canterbury Tales. Later, writers like Dryden and Pope used translation to help create a sense of order in their writing. Other European languages, such as German and French, also had similar attempts at using translation to improve their literacy.
Translation has become very important in the last 200 years for communicating literary movements across different languages. For example, the tradition of Anglo-Irish literature, which includes famous writers like Shaw, Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, and Heaney, began with the translation of Irish works into English in the late 1700s. Indian English Literature also developed in a similar way, with conventions of writing influenced by translations during the 18th and 19th centuries. Many of these writers were also skilled translators themselves. Settler colonies like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand also have impressive literary traditions that developed through the "translation" of settlers to new locations. In post-colonial writing, translation has played a crucial role in creativity, as seen in former Spanish colonies in South America and former colonies in Africa. Literary movements and traditions often have their origins in acts of translation.
The importance of translation in literary traditions cannot be denied, yet there hasn't been much thought put into the aesthetics of translation. Critics have not taken a clear position on whether translations belong to the history of the same language or an independent tradition. This has made translation study a difficult activity that focuses on conveying the original meaning in the altered structure. Linguistic developments that relate to meaning and structure are based on monolingual data, and therefore not sufficient to understand translation. Roman Jakobson has proposed a threefold classification of translations, but even he acknowledges that a complete semantic equivalence is not possible, and only creative translations are possible. Formalistic poetics also considers every act of creation as unique. However, it is important to acknowledge that synonymy within one language system is not the same as between two different languages. Historical linguistics can help explain linguistic changes and shows that differences within a single language are mainly semantic, while differences between closely related languages are predominantly phonetic. Therefore, it is technically possible to have synonyms between two related languages.
Structural linguistics sees language as a system of signs that gains meaning through its relation to the entire system to which it belongs. This theory is skeptical of translation because it tries to extract meaning from one system of signs and apply it to another. However, language is open and constantly admitting new signs and significance, and bilingual users like translators rend it open further. Translation can be seen as a merger of sign systems, exploiting the potential openness of language systems. A theory of interlingual synonymy and literary historiography can be developed by conceptualizing a community of "translating consciousness." This idea suggests that the translating consciousness can bring together materially different sign systems as it shifts significance from one verbal form to another. This theory is supported by scholars such as Roman Jakobson, who proposed a threefold classification of translations and believed that poetry is untranslatable.
In many Third World countries, there are communities of people who use multiple languages, and translation between these languages is a common practice. This is different from the approach of foreign language acquisition, which assumes a chronological gap and a hierarchy of value between languages. Linguistic theories like Chomsky's focus on semantic universals but only apply to monolingual situations. The concept of synonymy, which assumes that words in different languages have the same meaning, is inadequate to explain translation in these multilingual contexts. Structural linguistics, which emphasizes the systemic nature of language, also fails to acknowledge the existence of non-systemic or extra-systemic significance. As a result, there is a need for a linguistic theory based on a multilingual perspective or on translation practice.
J.C. Catford wrote a book called "A Linguistic Theory of Translation" in which he explains that any theory of translation must emerge from linguistics because translation is a linguistic act. He believes that translation involves substituting a text in one language for a text in another language, and any theory of translation must draw upon a theory of language. Catford's ideas are related to the development of linguistics in Europe, which has connections with Orientalism and anthropology. European historical linguistics depended heavily on Orientalism, while comparative literature implies that between two related languages, there are areas of significance that are shared. Translation can be seen as an attempt to bring a given language system as close as possible to the areas of significance that it shares with another given language or language.
The translation problem is not only about language, but also about aesthetics and ideology, and it has a significant impact on literary history. Literary translation is not just a copying of a text in another language; it is the copying of a specific system of signs within a language into a corresponding system in another related language. The translation is not merely transferring meaning or signs. After translation, the original work remains unchanged. The translation is an attempt to revitalize the original work in a different language and time period. Like literary texts, which belong to their original period and style but also exist in successive periods, translation both approximates and transcends the original work.
The problems in studying literary translation are similar to those in studying literary history. They both deal with the relationship between origins and sequence. However, the issue of origin has not been adequately addressed in either field. Literary communities with a 'translating consciousness' may have to approach the question of the origins of literary traditions differently. Indian literary communities have this translating consciousness, and it is evident from the fact that many modern Indian literatures were founded on acts of translation by scholars such as Jayadeva, Hemcandra, Michael Madhusudan Dutta, H.N. Apte, and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can consider Indian metaphysics when thinking about translation. In Indian philosophy, the soul can migrate from one body to another without losing any of its essential significance. This belief shapes Indian literary theory and the relationship between form and essence. In this view, literary significance is ahistorical and not subject to the laws of temporality. Therefore, elements of plot, stories, and characters can be used again and again by new generations of writers because Indian literary theory does not place a strong emphasis on originality. Instead, the writer's capacity to transform, translate, restate, and revitalize the original is considered the true test of literary excellence. As such, Indian literary traditions are essentially traditions of translation.
