COMPARATIVE LITERATURE AND TRANSLATION STUDIES

 

 

            Some critics consider comparative literature as a subject and some do not consider it as a subject.  However, comparative literature depends very much on translation. Translation studies promote comparative literature.

 

            Comparative literature is a reaction against the narrow 19^th century nationalism.  It is originated in France in the year 1816.  Matthew Arnold popularized the term in England in 1848, through his lectures.

 

            Comparative literature is a study of intertextuality, for example, if we have to compare an English novel with that of an Oriya novel, we have to use English or Oriya as out medium.  Certain conditions determine high translation activities.  According to Evan Zohr, translation activity takes place when the literature is in its initial stage or when it is marginal.  For example, in 12^th century Europe the translation activity was significant because of a shift from epic to romance.

 

            In India there is craze for translation in recent times for two reasons:

 

1)      The writers or the critics want their literature to be translated into English or any other language because they want others to notice their literature and language.

2)      When their literature is translated there is so much scope of comparing their literature with other literary texts and its own text in source language.

 

Derrida’s theory of translation is very important.  He does not consider the source text as original because it is an elaboration of an idea, of a meaning and it in itself is a translation.   This idea about the original translation makes us conclude that translation is no more a secondary work.

 

To conclude, we could quote Susan Bassnett, who says “We should look upon translation studies as the principle discipline from now on, with comparative literature as a valued but subsidiary subject area.”

TRANSLATION AS CREATIVE WRITING

 

 

            In olden days, translation was considered as a mere rendering of SLT in TLT.  Many scholars and translators considered translation as creative process and as new writing.  Best translations are that does not read like translation at all.  Translation theories have undergone sea change with the modern critical theories.  Modern critical theories give new meaning to literature.  Based on their argument, we could easily say that translation is creative for it recreates SLT into TLT.

            A translator is a reader, an interpreter and a creator.  Sir Aurobindo says “a translator is not necessarily bound to the original he chooses; he can make his own poem out of it, if he likes…”

            Old classics, in our country, like Upanishads, Gita, Ramayana and Mahabharata have been rendered into many languages of India and the world.  Every such rendering is called as a new writing.

            K. Ayyapa Panikar says that the evolution of translation in our country began in the middle ages with the translation of Sanskrit classics like epics and puranas.  They were translated without exactness and accuracy.  These works are translated based on the features of the target language and the taste of the target readers.  The Aryan texts were translated to the Dravidian or south Indian languages, they were localized.  These localized versions are well received by the public and there is nothing alien about them.  These stand an example for the fact that translation is more of creation and not mere imitation.

            The concept of translation as a creative writing can be better understood if we examine the works of self-translators.  Self-translators are people who write the same work in two languages.  For example, Tagore’s Gitanjali in English is vastly different from his original Bengali version.  Manoj Das, a bilingual writer in Oriya and English, writes a short story in Oriya and gives sometime to translate it into English.  He keeps the plot of the story but changes many details while translating it in English.  He creates a new version in English.  Both their writings, language 1 and language 2, should be considered as new writings and creations.

Introduction to Translation Studies

 

Translation Defined

            Translation is like poetry; both are hard to be defined.  They have many definitions.  Translation is both substitution and a transference of meaning from Source Language (SL) to Target Language (TL). 

 

Oxford advanced learners dictionary defines translation as “the act of going into the meaning of a said or written word in a language.”

 

Dr. Johnson defines translation as the process of “change into another language, retaining the sense.”  A.H. Smith acknowledges and repeats Dr. Johnson’s views.  Catford defines translation from the linguistic point of view: “the replacement of textual material in SL by equivalent material in TL.”  Peter Newmark defines translation as “basic loss of meaning…between over translation and under translation.”

 

Theodore Savory defines translation as an ‘art’.  Eric Jacobson considers it as a ‘craft’ and Eugene Nida calls it as a ‘science’.  Horst Frenz goes a step further and defines translation as “neither a creative art not an imitative art, but stands somewhere between the two.”  Art is creative, craft is considered as a lower occupation and science is purely mechanical.  Translation is more than all these.  It is a process of analysis, interpretation and creation, which leads to a replacement of one set of linguistic resources and values for another.  In the process part of the original meaning is lost but an easily identifiable core is kept.”  J.C. Catford defines, “translation is an operation performed in languages: a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another.”

 

A.K. Srivastava says, “in a translation process it is the metaphoric métier that provokes the problem of ambiguity even when assuming that the core meaning arrived at by the translation represents the temper and tone of the original faithfully.”

 

Translation theorists divide translation into two types: literary and non-literary.  In literary translation is translation of literature, wherein the rhetoric of SL should be faithfully carried over to the TL.  In literary translation, the translator decodes the motive of the text in the SL and re-encodes it in the translation.

 

A translator should be thorough with both the SL and TL.  He should ‘feel’ the languages.  He should keep in mind the socio-cultural matrix of the languages.  Meenakshi Mukerjee says, “the act of translation if voluntary, that is the material has been chosen by the translation himself and the prime mover is a compelling desire to recreate.  The translator is a writer in the language in which he is translating, that is, his handling of the language is not merely competent but creative.”

Sri Aurobindo states that “a translator is not necessarily bound to the original he chooses; he can make his own poem out of it…”

 

There is another view which looks down upon translation.  Some scholars quote the Italian proverb by Benedetto Croce – “Traddutore-traditore”, which means “A translator is a traitor” and say that translation is an untrustworthy source as it is not always genuine.  Translation has been perceived as a secondary activity, as a mechanical rather than a creative process and it does not require any extraordinary skill or talent.  It is considered more to be a grab than to be an art.

 

We cannot ignore translation for these reasons.  Translation is indeed a pipeline that connects one part of the world with another.

 

The importance of translation lies in the fact that it brings the readers, writers and critics of one nation in contact with others not only in the field of literature but in science, medicine,  philosophy, religion, politics and law.

 

Translation is as old as language and more certainly an ancient craft.  It seems to be an art as it defined by its very existence in poetics.  Translation bridges the gap between stylistics, literatures, history, linguistics, semiotics and aesthetics.

 

Translation can also be considered as a fusion of two different spheres of language which have moved closer together through the medium of the translator.  Translation studies is indeed a discipline in its own way.  It has not been fixed in a single framework to offer what the field could perform in language teaching process.  It is not merely a branch of comparative literature study and a specific area of linguistics but a vastly complex field with many far reaching ramification.

Summary of Dr. Radhakrishnan's On Earth One Family

 

Introduction

Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan is the second president of India.  Indians celebrate Teachers Day to mark the birth date of Dr. Radhakrishnan.  He is a philosopher, statesman and a teacher.  He has written many books on religion and philosophy.  On Earth One Family is a prose about equality among every human being around the world.

 

Role of Science and Technology in Bringing Unity

            Dr. Radhakrishnan begins the essay by saying that the dream of prophets and the seers have true.  The modern world is emerging into a world society.  Every one of us belongs to one family because the earth has become one.  Buddhism, Christianity and Islam have talked about brother-hood, one family and one God on earth.  Science and technology has made this come true.  We are all brought together easily through science and technology.  Inspite of different races and cultures we all have become one.  The development of nuclear weapon has created the fear and hatred of war.  This has made all countries to be friendly with each other.  Total disarmament will bring peace among us.  If we want to be peaceful we should achieve it through love and brother-hood and not through hate, violence and force.

 

The Example of Nepal

            Dr. Radhakrishnan takes Nepal as an example on how to achieve peace.  Nepal had three separate entities – Bhaktapur, Patan and Kathmandu.  These three places had their own armies and existence.  After a lot of struggle, they merged together and became one state-Nepal.  To become one social injustice must be removed.

 

Qualities to Achieve Unified World

            Dr. Radhakrishnan lists the following three qualities to achieve peaceful life:

1.      We should feel that we belong to one whole and we all have common purposes, apart from all sorts of differences we have.  We all should be unified by one central authority, which will encourage love and peace among people.  This centre will link with other parts of world and we all can be united.

2.      The second quality is to remove injustice among people and to have a sense of contentment.  People should not be frustrated about their living.  They should be content with what they have and do not cry over what they do not have.  This could be achieved by removing the injustice done to them.  People must be hopeful that their life would change.

3.      The third quality is to develop a sense of belonging.  Every citizen should have a sense of belonging with the whole world.  Everyone must have the right idea, which will move the world in the right direction.  We should get rid of bad ideas.  We should have a sense of tolerance and not hostility.

 

Conclusion

Dr. Radhakrishnan is happy that the world today is united.  Earlier people did not know what was happening outside their country and religion.  But today with the help of radio, transport and communication.  This idea of oneness should be instilled in the young minds before it is corrupted by other factors.  Dr. Radhakrishnan could see the change with his own experience and with his own eyes.  To achieve unity, we should not think of the past but think of the future.  Today is an age of interdependence.  Every country depends on each others.  We must teach young students  about one nation.

Summary of Bertrand Russell's Knowledge and Wisdom

Introduction

Bertrand Russell is a modern philosopher, educationist and an essayist.  He was awarded Nobel Prize for literature.  He is also a famous mathematician.  In the essay, Knowledge and Wisdom, he defines and differentiates knowledge and wisdom.  He talks in detail about the need of wisdom compared with growing knowledge. 

 

Knowledge without Wisdom

Bertrand Russell begins the essay by saying that everyone should agree that human beings progressing with knowledge but there is only little growth in wisdom.  To define wisdom, we should take several factors into consideration.  The first factor is the sense of proportion.  By this Russell means that we have take into consideration all the possible factors attached to a problem.  To explain this Russell gives two examples.  The first one is during a medical research to reduce infant death rate, if we are successful in finding a medicine, it would be a trouble in over populated countries.  It would lead to starvation and low standards of living.  The second example is when we are busy with atomic research, which could also be used to destroy people.  Knowledge when used without wisdom is harmful.

 

The Need of Wisdom

Comprehensiveness with a broad mind would result in wisdom.  Knowledge is very narrow and it should be combined with wisdom, which is broad and knows about the end of human life.  This could be learnt from history.  For example Hegel gained much knowledge and came with a great philosophy.  The Germans used it to lead a war.  Hegel’s knowledge has become very narrow because it did not think about the end of human life.  It is for this reason we need wisdom.

 

Wisdom in Personal Life

Wisdom is also essential for our personal life.  It is essential for us get rid of our personal prejudices.  Though it is hard to be free from personal prejudice, one must try to achieve it.  Russell gives an ordinary example of two persons, who hate each other.  Both persons abuse each other in the same way.  They may be prejudiced.  If we have enough patience and explain them of their personal prejudices, they may become friends and lead a happy life.  This is possible because of wisdom.

 

Wisdom is Emancipation

We look at world through our senses and we are all selfish.  Russell wants us to come out of our ego.  When we are infants we give importance to our senses of hunger and cry, but as we grow we get more wisdom.  Similarly, we should grow out our ego.  This might happen when we stop thinking of here and now.

 

Russell about Wisdom

Russell says that wisdom should be one of the aims of education.  He uses the story of the Good Samaritan, who loves good and bad people.  We listen to this story in this church but we never behave like a Good Samaritan because we hate our neighbours and the people who are bad in the society.  This hatred makes us harmful.  He gives the example of Queen Elizabeth I, King Henry IV and Abraham Lincoln, who were not harmful to the people because of their wisdom.

 

Conclusion

Russell concludes the essay by saying that wisdom can be taught.  While improving our knowledge we learn about hatred and narrow-mindedness.  Knowledge must be taught along with morals, which would make us citizens of the world.  Such knowledge should be taught along with wisdom.