Prev | Home | Next

Translatology, the scientific study of translation, and translation theory has been concerned primarily with translations done by skilled professional trarnslators of scientific, technical and literary texts. In turn, the theory of translation has much to offer these professional translators by way of principles, rules and guidelines for effective translation from the source language into the target language. Scholars working in the field of translation theory have discussed at length the different types of translation on the basis of different parameters and dimensions. The three parameters that have determined the classification of translation types are: medium, process and text. A consolidated picture of the resultant typology is presented in the appendix. However, standard writings on translation have, hitherto, not given due recognition and importance to natural translation which has been defined as "the translation done by bilinguals in everyday circumstances without any special training for it" (Harris, 1975).

In the present paper we wish to argue that the study of natural translation, rather than that of skilled professional translations, is likely to yield valuable insights for understanding the processes involved in translation, and for building up an integrated theory of translation. It is also our contention that natural translation rather than skilled professional translation should provide the data-base for building up a viable and cogent theory of translation, just as ordinary, everyday speech provides the data-base for writing the grammar of a language. In this connection it may be pertinent to point out that the native and unskilled translator stands in the same relationship to the translatologist as the native speaker of a language does in relation to the linguist.

It is commonly accepted that the native speaker can speak his language fluently and communicate in it effectively without being a linguist. Similarly, there are bilinguals who can translate ideas from one language into another without being translatologists or theorists of translation. This prompts us to propose a parallelism between the native speaker's linguistic competence and the bilingual's competence for interlingual translation. It is also commonly accepted that there is a distinction between the psychologically real grammar that is internalised by a native speaker and which exists covertly and implicitly in the linguistic consciousness of the native speaker, and the explicit grammar written by the linguist. This explicit grammar reflects the linguistic competence of the native speaker and has been defined as the "system of rules and principles that constitute a person's knowledge of language and that form the various mental representations that enter into the use and understanding of language' (Chomsky, 1983). Evaluation procedures suggest that the most highly-rated explicit grammar of a language would be the one that best matches and reflects the system of rules and principles internalised by its native speakers. We would like to accept this model for bringing translatology at par with linguistics. We would like to view translation theory as a set of explicitly stated rules and principles. If this is granted, then we would like to identify the locus of the interlingual transfer (translation) competence (corresponding to the linguistic competence) which may be defined as the system of rules and principles internalised by the bilingual individual (natural translator) and which exists covertly and implicitly in the consciousness of the bilingual. This parallelism may be schematically shown as below:

Native speaker à Linguistic competence.
Bilingual individual à Translation competence.
Linguist à Explicit grammar.
Transistologist à Formalised rules and principles of translation.

In the light of the foregoing we would like to suggest that just as we talk of a linguistic competence in the case of a monolingual native speaker, it might be useful to talk of linguistic competence in L-1 and L-2 and a competence for interlingual transfer (translation competence) in the case of bilinguals. It is this translation competence in its most natural manifestations that should constitute the field of inquiry for translatologists, and is one that is most likely to enable us to build up an integrated theory of translation. The notion of a double or rather triple competence in the case of bilinguals has already been proposed by Harris (1975) who says:

All bilinguals can translate. In addition to some competence in two languages L-1 and L-2, they all possess a third competence, that of translation from L-1 to L-2. and vice-versa. Bilingualism is therefore, a triple, not a double competence; and the third competence is bidirectional (Harris, 1975).

Although we agree with Harris as far as the postulation of a triple competence is concerned, we would like to reconsider his remark that "all bilinguals" can translate", and for doing so we have to go through some of the definitions of bilingualism that have been given by Bloomfield (1933), Christoperson (1958), Arseniari (1954), Weirireich (1953), Diebold (1961), Ervin and Osgood (1954) and others. From these definitions it is clear that bilingualism can mean near perfect control of two languages or, at the other extreme, it can mean a mere passive knowledge of the second language. In addition, we have the distinction between isolated bilingualism and societal bilingualism. We would like to suggest that the best examples of natural translation can be gathered from situations attesting societal bilingualism and from individuals who are compound bilinguals.

A very good example of compound societal bilingualism is provided by Hindi-English bilinguals in the urban centres of India. Our work has drawn on the bilingual behaviour of bilinguals in Delhi. The bilinguals we have here are educated native speakers of Hindi who have acquired considerable proficiency in English. They are proficient in the receptive and productive control of the two languages (Hindi and English), and can use them in socially significant interaction. They are capable of producing complete and meaningful utterances in the two languages, and can comprehend utterances in the two languages produced by others. They are capable of dealing with a large variety of themes and topics in the two languages and may often attain a high degree of sophistication in their use of the two languages, whether written or spoken. Moreover, on the basis of domain analysis, it can be definitely stated that these compound bilinguals use Hindi in certain domains and English in certain other domains. In addition, there are certain other and overlapping domains in which both Hindi and English are used alternatively. It is in these overlapping domains (especially those involving casual intragroup interaction) that a mixture of Hindi. and English is used by our bilinguals most naturally and spontaneously. Empirical studies of code-mixing and switching (Gupta, 1978) suggest that, in facty for the educated, urban Hindi-English bilingual the most natural choice for verbal interaction is this mixture of Hindi and English, termed MHE in the literature. The claim that MHE is the most natural code for verbal interaction amongst our compound societal bilinguals implies two things:

1) The use of a mixed code for verbal interaction requires the minimum amount of monitoring, and

2) This mixed code can be and is used in all casual, informal interactional episodes with ease, fluency and a high degree of effortlessness.

Interestingly enough, when these bilinguals are called upon to use one of the 'pure' codes that constitute their own and their community's verbal repertoire, i.e., Hindi or English, they have to make a switch from the mixed code. This movement from the mixed code to one of the pure codes requires extra effort and a greater degree of monitoring than does the use of mixed code.

In fact what appears to happen in the case of these compound bilinguals is that while they learn their 'pure' codes - Hindi and English - through natural language acquisition and 'formal training, the mixed code is acquired by them, picked up as it were, in course of time as they grow up in the environment and setting of societal bilingualism. In other words, they are taught the 'pure' codes, but no one is ever taught or formally trained in the mixed code. It comes to them naturally as a consequence of the contact and convergence between their two languages, viz., Hindi and English. Although writing about a different speech community, Rayfield (1970) has an interesting remark to offer about compound societal, bilinguals. He says:

The community has two languages, but these languages together constitute one pattern of speech habits. The regularity of patterns ... shows to what extent the two languages are welded together into what might be called a supersystem (Rayfield, 1970: 106).

What Rayfield calls a supersystem has also been considered as a separate mixed code that arises out of the welding together of the two languages in question. This welding, or rather, the continued coexistence of the two languages in the mind and the environment of the bilinguals leads them not only to use the two languages separately but also to mix the two freely, naturally and spontaneously. This, in turn, results in a single, fused semantic base with alternate surface manifestations in one of the two languages or, alternatively, in the mixed language. These bilinguals thus come to possess a single semiotic - cognitive structure as a common resource for alternative linguistic expressions, rather than two distinct or parallel associational links between reference and symbol which the coordinate bilinguals seem to operate with. This is the reason why we would like to qualify Harris' remark that all bilinguals can translate by claiming that while all bilinguals - compound or coordinate - can translate to varying extent, the ideal setting for translation, especially natural translation, is provided by societal bilingualism, and the best and most prolific natural translators are those who are compound bilinguals. The very existence and the extensive use of the mixed code among these bilinguals is evidence of the enormous amount of natural translation they do from Hindi to English and vice-versa. We can now suggest two postulates in the light of our discussion so far:

A) All bilinguals can translate, but compound bilinguals in the setting of societal bilingualism are the best and most prolific natural translators.

B) Code-mixing which characterises the verbal behaviour of compound bilinguals in the setting of societal bilingualism, is an evidence as well as concomitant result of natural translation between L -1 and L -2.

We can now go on to re-examine our claim about natural translation in the context of what is known about translation as a process. The process of interlingual translation has been viewed as involving three steps - analysis, transfer and restructuing (Nida, 1969). It has also been viewed as a process in which the translator performs three functions - reception function, transfer function and reproduction function. Haas (1968) has represented this process of translation in the following grammar:

Sign-1

Expression-1 Meaning Expression-2

Sign-2

What happens in the case of compound bilinguals is that the two References begin to come close and even merge and coalesce resulting in a situation which is represented by Haas in the following manner:

Exp-1 Ref-1-Ref-2 Exp-2

As opposed to the merger and coalescence of the two Refs in the case of compound bilinguals, they tend to remain apart in coordinate bilinguals. The merger of Ref-1 and Ref-2 gives the compound bilinguals great facility in translating- from their L-1 to L-2 and vice-versa. Often they translate even without being conscious that they are so doing. The three functions of reception, transfer and reproduction seem to be performed simultaneously without any conscious effort by the compound bilinguals. It is for this process of interlingual translation that we use the term natural translation.

While professional translators are busy striving for exactitude, near-perfect equivalence and felicitous expression, our natural translators have only one target, viz., communication of ideas and messages with minimum distortion. In order to achieve this target of communication of ideas and messages they often tread on what Halliday et al (1964) have termed the 'threshold of acceptability'. In this context it would be appropriate to quote Harris:

In natural translation transmission of information is the prime aim and criterion of success. Linguistic expression is relatively unimportant so long as it does not interfere with information (Harris, 1975 : 105).

As a matter of fact the natural translator (the compound bilingual) aims not only at transmission of information but also at doing so with the minimum of effort. For this he draws upon those linguistic resources that are readily and easily accessible to him from within his own linguistic 'arsenal'. While the skilled professional is stretching out for a bilingual dictionary, looking for exact equivalences both contextual and formal, in order not to miss a single nuance of meaning or a single beauty of expression, the natural translator is happy to make do with 'easily accessible substitutes, because his aim is not the production of a near flawless co-text in the 'pure' form of the target language, but rather the transmission of information in an acceptable and easily comprehensible form. The natural translator follows what Haugen (1977) has termed 'the communicative norm' as opposed to the 'rhetorical norm'. The communicative norm that the natural translator follows is not only easy of access to him but is also in tune with the expectations of those for whom the message is intended. Consider the following examples of different translations of the same English sentences:

A) He teaches physics at the university.
(1) vah university m? physics parhata ? hai.

(2) vah university m? bhautiki parhata ? hai.
(3) vah viSvavidyalaya m? physics parhata ? hai.
(4) vah viSvavidyalaya m? bhautiki parhata ? hai.
B) Have you got your seat reserved for the morning flight ?
(1) kya apne morning flight m? apni seat reserve kera li hai ?
(2) kya apne subah ki flight se apni seat reserve kera li hai ?
(3) kya apne subah ki ur?an? m? apni seat reserve kera li hai ?
(4) kya apne subah ki ur?an? m? apni seat arakSit kera li hai ?
(5) kya apne pratahkalin ki ur?an? m? apna sthan arakSit kara li hai ?

In the two sets above (A and B) A-4 and B-5 would be considered examples of skilled professional translation, while A-1 and B-1 would be examples of natural translation. A-2, B-2 and B-3 would also come under the category of natural translation, though they would show a lower frequency of occurrence. A-3 and B-4 would tend to be treated as skilled translations.

Two things emerge from the above examples. First, professional translators, in their eagerness to satisfy the expectations of purists and 'nationalists' tend to use expressions -lexical and phrasal that are not easily comprehensible to the common man. They also end up creating a 'distant -language' and a language style that, at least in India has been labelled as 'Translation Style' (Srivastava, 1985). This over-emphasis by the professional translator on purity of expression in the target language lends to the translation a degree of artificiality which is not always to the liking of the average compound bilingual. Let us give an instance of the total incomprehensibility that can result due to over zealousness of professional translators. The English expression 'postal stamp' has two commonly accepted and used equivalents in Hindi: dak ike and ike . Recently a professional translator went to the post office and asked for 'preS mudrank' (a Sanskrit based coinage). He was of course unable to get what he wanted till he used 'dak ike' or 'ike' which everyone in the post office' understood. 'The point we wish to emphasise here is that while the natural translator aims at transmission of information without undue care for felicity and purity of expression, the professional translator, in his pursuit of purity of linguistic expression and stylistic embellishment, often disregards or overlooks the information transmission aspects of the transiator's activity. It is this aspect of the problem that makes it imperative that we study more closely the relationship between translation and communicability, especially in the setting of societal bilingualism where natural translation seems to score over skilled professional translation. In this very context, it might be suggested that it would perhaps be advisable for professional translators not to try to translate every word and item of the source text, but to retain certain words and items of the source-text if that aids communicability.

This is precisely what the natural translator does and there he has something to offer not only to the professional translator but also to the translatologists - the importance of communicability in translation (See, Appendix-III for types of translation).