Translation
as Recovery
TRANSLATION AS LANGUAGE USE
In a typical monolingual
nation stage in the West competence in one or more languages other
than the first language of a person is looked upon with some wonder
of not dismay or envy, In A country like India bilingual is not a
phenomenon, it is a way of life. (This may come to be the case the
case , in tomorrow’s Europe in all probability.)
A situation of this kind therefore offers a better vantage
pint for a more balanced perspective on translation.
Translation, to this ay of thinking, is no more than paraphrasing
a message in another language. (In
Sanskrit, interestingly enough, there is no word coterminous with
translation: one says bhāṣāntaram
anuvāda,
paraphrasing in another language.)
Paraphrasing in turn is reproducing a message with a fresh
formulation; and reproducing a message is producing a message. A child
without a fresh formulation is simply repeating a message. A child
initiated into language through reception, reproduction, and production
roughly in that order. Translation, in short is part and parcel of
language use,
The fact
that formulation can be present or absent in reproduction indicates
that language use is layered activity. Reproduction implies prior
production of some source message Thus, there are two language transactions
here ; primary and secondary. The
whole thing can now be conveniently mapped in some such way:
1.
Primary
|
Production
|
formulation,
|
→
|
speaking
|
language
|
|
|
|
↓
|
use
|
reception
|
|
|
listening
1
|
|
|
|
|
↓
|
secondary
|
reproduction
|
|
|
speaking
2
|
language
|
|
|
|
↓
|
use
|
reception
|
comprehension2
|
←
|
listening
2
|
2.
Primary
|
production
|
formulation1
|
→
|
speaking1
|
language
|
|
|
|
↓
|
use
|
reception
|
comprehension1
|
←
|
listening1
|
secondary
|
reproduction
|
formulation 2
|
→
|
speaking1
|
language
|
|
|
|
↓
|
use
|
reception
|
comprehension2
|
→
|
listening2
|
Of
one carefully compares (1) and (2), it will immediately become clear
that (I) maps reception and (2) maps paraphrase.
The language underlying the secondary (that is, cued and modeled)
language use may be the same as or different from the language underlying
the primary (that is, source) language use.
Speaking-and –listening may be replaced by reading –and writing
without making any essential difference.
So---
3.
Reproduction may be—
repetition/paraphrase
some-language/ different –language
spoken
/ written
Translation
is different –language paraphrase.
Spoken translation is called interpreter ship. Different-language repetition is perfectly possible. Consider the following—
4
German to English
Berlin/
ber’lin:n/→ Berlin/bә:
(r)’lin/
München → Munich
Deutschland →Germany
Note: The first is clearly a repetition. The third and probably the second also are
paraphrases since both call for a prior identification of the place.
Any language use is considered acceptable
(as distinct from tolerable) if it wholly conforms to the underlying
language norms that constitute the language use. But in the case of paraphrases (including of course translations)
an additional demand comes into play.
When is proposed same-language or different language paraphrase
that is acceptable in the language of the secondary use also acceptable
as a paraphrase of the message in the primary use?
Thus
---
5. (a) Good-bye and see you (again) are both perfectly good English. But----
(b) Are they good paraphrases of each
other?
(c) Are they both good paraphrases
of auf Wiedersehen in German?
(d) And, if the answer to (c) is yes,
are they equally good paraphrases of the German message?
Note:
The answer to (c) probably
depends on the answer to
(b) If we bring in farewell into the picture, matters
will get only slightly more complicated.
The curial question for the present purposes is then---
6. (a) Given the pair, say auf wiedersehen
: Good –bye---
Is the proposed translation (Good-bye) an acceptable
translation?
(b) More generally-When is
a proposed translation an acceptable translation?
Note: The answer to
(a) depends on the answer to (b).
There are (at least) two alternate ways of answering the last
question are (at 6b). True with many pairs (at 6a) the answer will
be same whatever answer we offer to the more general question. But
for quite a few pairs the general answer will make a significant difference
to the specific answer.
In Case We Are Wondering what auf
Wiedersehen is saying in German, the answer in English is more
clearly See you again. On
the other hand, in case we are wondering how one says in English what
auf Wiederseben is saying in German, the answer is either of
the two. If we use the expression
doing in German in place of saying in German The relevant context
(textual contact and / or situational context), will have to
be brought into the picture. Thus the answer to the second alternative question
(how one says in English etc.) May turn out to be something like this:
one says Good-bye in formal English
Bye-bye in informal British English, See you
(again) in informal American English. So—
7.
A pair of
alternative answer to (6b) will be—
A proposed translation is an acceptable translation if and
only if—
(a)It satisfactorily presents in the target language the comprehension
lowing from the source message. That
is, it satisfactorily decoded the source message.
(b)It satisfactorily presents the formulation in the target
language such that this formulation satisfactorily captures the source
message. That is, satisfactorily
reencodes the source message.
8.
For the Marathi expression māmā --
(a) An acceptable reendowing
translation in English will be maternal uncle
(b)
An acceptable
rein-coding translation in English will be mother’s brother in
some contexts (any relation of your’s? – Yes he’s my...)
but uncle in most contexts (please listen to me...).
Note: One wishes that
bilingual dictionaries were more informative on this point.
Which of the two answer (7a, 7b) we accept for the crucial
general question hinges upon many things, It will especially depend
upon the overall function of the source language appearing in the
primary language use and the target language papering in the secondary
language use.
9.
The overall
function of language can be any of the following;
(a)
the utilitarian function (language
as a way of controlling the environment, natural or human, as, in
Open the door, Is it locked?, or even Open
sesame! in appropriate situations),
(b)
the associative function (language
as away of defining the social setting as in Good-bye, ?sorry
I’m with you, you son of a bitch! in appropriate situations),
(c)
the intellectual function (language
as a way of redefining shared information or insight, as in Old
is gold Out of sight out of Mind, Two and two is four or To
say ‘It is I’ is to use stilted English in appropriate situations),
(d)
the poetic function (language
in the way of shared play, as in joking story-telling lyric zing creating
an appropriate situation along the way),
Normally, one would expect, a source message conceived in
utilitarian, associative, intellectual, or poetic terms will likewise
be received in translation in corresponding terms. But exceptions of course do turn up. Thus, a poetic message may be offered in translation for intellectual
purposes (as in a scholarly or pedagogic bilingual edition or as cited
evidence in a cultural history).
Again, normally, one would expect, a decoding translation
will be faithful to the source message rather than the target language
in cases where it cannot be faithful for its viability in the secondary,
language use on Its relationship with the source message.
(using it in a bilingual edition will simply be an extreme
example of such dependency) Likewise, one would expect, a reendowing
translation will be faithful to the target language rather than the
source text in cases where it cannot be faithful to both.
In other words, the translation will be independent for its
viability in the secondary language use of its relationship with the
source message. Thus, utilitarian source messages will typically
call for reendowing translations of independent viability.
But there is at least one uncomfortable exception-poetry.
TRANSLATING POETRY AS POETRY
What strategy do we adopt in translating a poem for being
received as a poem? (we are not thinking here of a poem being offered
for intellectual purposes). How does one account for the fact that
apparently contradictory demands are being made on translations of
poetry? These are expected to be at once ‘faithful’
and ‘free’!
Obviously something is wrong somewhere. Let us ask the crucῑal question once again in respect of poetry. When is a proposed translation of poetry an
acceptable translation? And
let us now once again offer the pair of answer already offered (at
7a, 7b). Now If the stress is on translation as poetry, our
concern should be that the secondary language use (what happens between
the translation and its recipient) should be as closely like the primary
language use as feasible. The translation in the target language should
be acceptable as a poem in the target language. In other word, an acceptable translation of
poetry should be a reendowing poetic translation. But there is a a stringent limit on the ‘feasibility’ of the whole
enterprise.
If we put the stress on translation of poetry, our concern
should be that the translation, in being faithful to the source poem,
cannot but be dependent. The
translation has to be faithful to the source message rather than the
target language where it cannot be faithful to both.
In short, an acceptable translation of poetry as poetry is
a dependent recoding translation.
This alone does justice to the fact that poetry resists paraphrasing—whether
in the same language or in another language.
(as many literary critics writing in Sanskrit put it, poetry
is a-sva-¿ abda-vācya- that is, it does not lend
itself to being reproduced in the reproducer’s own speech, it is not para-phrasable. There are three distinct yet interrelated
reasons for this state of affairs.
10.
Poetry cannot
be paraphrased without residue in that---
(a) Poetic language needs to be seen to be or not so much
a means of communicating experience as a medium of understanding experience.
(b) poetic language tends to demand that the recipient fuse
listening and comprehension so that the sounds reinforce the sense.
(c)
poetic language tends to resort
to displacement and enrichment in the formulation –and-interpretation.
Note: Displacement can be seen in metaphor, metonymy, irony,
obliqueness and the like: the Sanskrit critical terms are lakṣaṇā
and
vakrokti. Enrichment can be
seen in intended suggestion, reverberation, intern nation density
and the like; the Sanskrit critical terms are vyañjanā
and ati¿āyana.
This calls, of course, for the setting up of or pair of an
alternate to (6b) in addition to the ones offered at (7a, 7b).
11.
A proposed
translation is an acceptable translation if and only if—
(a)
It gives priority to faithfulness
to the source message and thus remains dependent for its viability
in the secondary language use on its relation to the source message
.
(b)
It gives priority to faithfulness
to the target language and thus re remains independent for
its viability in the secondary language use on its relation to the
source message .
In proposing dependent
viability as an alternative mode of translation so as to do justice to the fact that poetry cannot be paraphrased
without residue (to), we have, so
to say, proposed at the same time a certain revision in Our
mapping of paraphrasing (at2). A
fresh map is here proposed with respect to dependent translation of
poetry.
12.
primary
|
production
|
formulation1
|
→
|
speaking
|
language
|
|
|
|
↓
|
use
|
reception
|
comprehension1
|
←
|
listening1
|
secondary
|
reproduction
|
formulation2
|
→
|
speaking2
|
language
|
|
|
|
↓
|
use
|
reception
|
comprehension2
|
←
|
listening2
|
Compare (12) with (2). Independent viability of
the other map at (2). Translation
of poetry is, then, typically conceived as dependent reechoing translation
–selecting strategy (b) at (7) and strategy (a) at (11).
So it needs to be at once ‘free’ to re-encode and ‘faithful’
enough to remain dependent. These
two demands are theoretically independent of each other but practically
in conflict with each other. No wonder then that translating poetry is notably
difficult. The notorious comment
in French that translations, like women, can not be beautiful and
faithful at the same time certainly has a point, the underlying male
chauvinism notwithstanding!
POETRY
AS RECOVERY
We now
propose to briefly look at how two contemporary Marathi poets, ARUN
KOLATKAR and DILIPCHITRE, translate an early 17th century
bhakti poet, TUKĀRĀM –we have selected a poem that
both of them have translated.
A few
words by way of ‘placing ‘ this piece of translating activity. In the history of modern Marathi poetry, the ‘modernist’ phase beginning
with B.S. MADHEKAR and P.S. REGE is known as navakavitā * (new
poetry) KOLATKAR and CHITRE are both poets of stature belonging to
the ‘third’ generation’ of this phase.
One recurring feature of nava kavitā is the way it harks back to medieval bhakti poetry – in particular to the viṭṭhal
bhakti poetry tradition in Marathi of which TUKĀRĀM is the last great figure. For a fuller discussion, see Kelkar and behave
1978). It is as if the ‘modernist’
poetry was recovering a lost sense of intense concern with ‘ the human
condition’ - the loss being
associated with much of the non-bhakti poetry in Medieval Marathi
and, more recently, with the middle phase of modern poetry just preceding
the’ modernist’ phase. Another interesting trait of MARDHEKAR, REGE,
KOLATKAR, and CHITRE is that (like the late-19th century
KESHAVSUT, the first modern poet, before them) They have all tried
their hand at writing original poems in English: MADHEKAR and KOLATKAR
more notably than others.
What
drew KOLATKAR and CHITRE to translating TUKĀRĀM? It is as if translating TUKĀRĀM was an act of saluting
a past major poet whom they specially admire, an act of’ “ acquiring
what we have in heritor” ( to use Goethe’s phrase), an act of recovering
TUKĀRĀM has appeared in the UNECSCO ache me).
We begin
by presenting the Marathi original with my own ‘ interlinear dependent
decoding translation followed by KOLATKAR’s and CHITRE’s dependent
re-encoding translations. The
poem has no title ad is numbered 676 in the so-called sarakārῑgāthā
(collection put together and brought out by the four versions will
be labeled O, A, B. and respectively (TUK ĀRĀM KELKAR, KOLATKAR
and CHITRE).
VERSION-O
kāya khāven ātān koṇīka·ejāven
gāv āntarā
hāvenkoṇyābalen //I//
kopalāpā
ṭīlagānvace
he laka
āt ān
ye
ṇen
ghāl ībh īka koṇa
maja //dhru//
ātān
ye
ṇencav
īsā ṇ · iī mhaṇ atī
nivā·ākarati divāṇ ān ta//2//
bhakyālokī n yāsa sāngitalī
māta
kelāmājhā
ghā tadurbalācā//3//
tukā mhane yā
cācsanga navhe bhalā
śodhī ta
viṭṭhalā jāū
n //4//
VERSION-A
To eat? Now, where to go?
On what strength to live in the village? (I)
The village chief is angered, and so are the villagers
Who will give alms to me now? (Refrain)
They say now this fellow has given up any sense of good taste
They debate the verdict in the Council Chamber(2)
Good men and true set down the matter thus to this fellow
Have ruined poor me (3)
Tukārām)
says the company is not so good and true \ Let me go look for
viṭṭhal
now(4)
What will I eat now:
Where will I go?
Do I dare to stay on In the village? [I]
Villagers furious,
Their chief Crain grumpy,
If I beg I’ll only see
The door in my face [2]
I’m shameless they say,
An exhibitionist
The elders in a conference
Are taking a decision [3}
The angry gentry
Have done their bit
And brought ruin
On a defenseless man [4}
What do I want, says Tuka,
With these people ?
I must get going now
And search for Vital [5]
VERSION-C
Where shall i go now?
What shall I eat?
With whose backing
Shall live in this village? [I}
The village chief
is furious with me
All the public
Hates my sight [2}
I plead with them
But they won’t listen.
I’ve lost all deceny
They say
Their council has
Convicted me. [3]
It’s no go
According to
The powers that be
I’m burnt out. [4]
Says Tuka,
It’s no good
To remain
In such company.
I had better
pack up
And go
In search
Of Vitthal. [5]
Considering that A.B, and C
are all dependent translations, we can keep the picture at (12) in
mind in going over the steps through which translation activity proceeds.
The abhanga verse form
in O has four short lines (the fourth being even shorter rhyming aaax
or approximately so (thus, āven
at O: I, but
ācā, alā alā ā at O:4) in each stanza; the
refrain has also four short lines but no rhyme scheme.
This has a bearing on the assignment of now to go (as in O,
A, C) rather than eat (as in B), and on the free verse form) in B,C)
and the bound prose form )in A).
Note
that the last stanza in C (C:
ʃ) is longer than the rest.
The conversational format with an embedded signature of the
poet (tukāmha
ṇe at O: 4a) has been retained ) in B,C –compare them with O, A) as also
the battery of question-word questions (at O:r, R). Marathi’ modernist’ poets feel more at home in the conversational
mode than in the more rhetorical or ‘ singing’ modes of the poetic
tradition.
Moving on to comprehension1
→ formulation2 (at
2), there are two problematic spots (at O: Icd and at O: 4ab).
13.
O: gāvān
tarāhā ven / koṇyā balen
A: On
what strength to live in the village?
B: DO
I dare to stay on/ In the village?
C: With
whose backing/Shall I live in this village?
The
‘whose’ of C probably stems from miscomprehending koṇyā
(what)
14: O: yācā/sanga navhe bhalā
A: the company is not so good or true
B: What do I good / To remain / In such company.
Does
the pronominal yācā (of this one) refer
back to yene n (Ooze) and yā sa (O:3a) (this fellow- the me of
O:I, R in the eyes of the village councilors) or rather to the councilors
themselves, bhale loka (O:3a, and they –concord at ):? The company of this fellow in the signature
stanza (O:4, A:4, B:
ʃ , C ʃ) will make for better grammar and the company of these
good fellows and true will
make for award grammar (singular this for the plural loka-people) but better common
sense (giving up the company of these supposedly honorable people
sitting in the Village Council in favour of the company of God Viṭṭhal). B opts for the plural third person, but A, C simply skirt
the problem of reference (give up my company or their company?) The skirting is the better solution
in that it retains the ambivalence of the source, with its sardonic
rejection of one’s public self ( me as
seen by them) and ironic rejection of the gentry (bhale loka-
good men and true-fit to sit ion the Village Council or an
English jury). The poet is rejecting the whole worldly existence
–himself included –in favour of God’s company. The deft irony with which this is done _okay,
so I am no good, but none of us are) is very much in TUKĀRĀM
style –which thus departs from the humble surrender typical of much
of the bhakti tradition.
It is significant that both B and C seek to recover ‘TUKĀRĀM
(with his deft irony) for their own disillusioned, worldly generation. This is seen in their selection from the large
TUKĀRĀM corpus and their reendowing of TUKĀRĀM
in a modern idiom. Thus B
has grumpy (B:2b), exhibitionist(:3b), defenseless (:4d)
and C has backing (:I c- compare O:Id, A: Icd),
public (:2c), the power that be (:4c), burnt out (:4d),
pack up (:ʃ f). AT these points, B and C slide into independent reendowing.
In the present author’s judgment only defenseless brings
some welcome enrichment; backing and
Burnt out are textually indefensible (koṇyāi
is what, not whose, and baḷ
need not involve anybody’s backing ; kelā ghāta is brought
ruin and not ‘ declared me to be exhausted through prolonged stress’,
grumpy a and exhibitionist are a shade too coy;; the power that be and pack up a shade too brash.
Other felicitous reencodings,
besides defenceless (B: 4d), are—Do I dare (B:Ic), The door in my face’ (B:2d),
have their bit (B;4b, with
a –like irony), lost all decency (C:3c), and perhaps had
better (C:
ʃe-compare let me A:4d, I must B: ʃc).
In the balance, both B and C have
similar goals but brings it off more successfully than C, which overdoes
things somewhat.
How
may one expect English-reading ‘ mod’ young men or women of contemporary
India to respond to these reendowing translations (B, C)? Not being one of them, I can only speculate. The chances are that they may not have even
heard of TUKĀRĀM or at best have only heard of him—this
unfortunately may apply even to the Marathi speakers among them. The chances are that they may be found to be
either unreligious or irreligious or religious in a trendier sort
of way –in any case they may not have much inclination to read
bhakti poetry unless for reasons not intrinsic to it (in preparing
themselves for some test, for example). Will these translations effect
a ‘recovery’ of TUKĀRĀM for them?
Will they be enticed to enter and remain to enjoy and admire?
Professor
Lothar Lutze and I discovered each other across cultures at a time
when both of us were discovering Hindi language and literature. I thought it would not be inappropriate to celebrate our mutual
discovery by my speculating on ‘ translation as recovery’ across time. My title of course alludes to SUJIT MUKHERJEE’S
Translation as discovery (i98i).
For an earlier and more detailed perspective on translation
theory, see KELKAR I98ʃ
REFERENCE
KELKAR, ASHOK R., To translate or not to translate?, in: META:
Journal DESTRADUCTEURS, NR. 30/3 Montr éal, Sept. I98 ʃ pp. 2ii-223. (inclusive of a comparison of five available English translations
of Charles bordelaise’s les correspondences’ with the original and
with each other.)
KELKAR, ASHOKA R, BHAVE, SADASHIV S, Bhakti in the modern
mode, in; Vāgartha,
Nr. 21, new Delhi-I978
PP. I3-39 (Repr. with corrections, south Asian digest of regional
writing, Nr. 6, I977, PP.3-28, published I98I; E. ZELLIOTT, m. BERNTSEN,
eds.): The experience of Hinduism, Albany, N.Y. I988,
pp. 297-320. (Inclusive
Of translations of 17 contemporary Marathi poems made by ARK
MUKHERJEE,
SUJIT, Translation as discovery..,. New Delhi I98I.
COLOPHON
This was published in Tender Ironies: A Tribute to
Lather Lutze, ed. Dilip Chitre, Günther-Dietz Sontheimer, Heidrun
Brüekner, Anne Feldhaus, and Rainer Kimmi 9. New Delhi: Manohar, 1994,p
237-50.