Assignment - “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View” Ganesh Devy

“Translation and Literary History: An Indian View”

Ganesh Devy

Name: Emisha Ravani

Paper: 208: Comparative Literature & Translation Studies

Roll no: 07

Enrollment no: 4069206420210031

Email id: emisharavani3459@gmail.com

Batch: 2021-2023(M.A. Sem 4) 

Submitted to: S. B. Gardi Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

Introduction

Translation studies is an interdisciplinary field of study that explores the theory, history, and practice of translation. It encompasses a range of topics, including the cultural and linguistic aspects of translation, the ethics of translation, the role of translation in society, and the relationship between translation and other disciplines such as literature, linguistics, and philosophy. Translation studies emerged in the 1970s as a distinct academic discipline, and has since developed into a vibrant field with a global community of scholars and practitioners. The field draws on a variety of disciplines, including linguistics, literary studies, cultural studies, philosophy, and anthropology, among others.

One of the key concerns of translation studies is the relationship between language and culture. Translation involves the transfer of meaning from one language to another, and this process inevitably involves cultural differences and nuances. Translation studies seeks to understand how translators navigate these differences, and how they can work to preserve the cultural and linguistic nuances of the original text. Another important area of inquiry in translation studies is the role of translation in shaping literary and cultural history. Translations often play a key role in the circulation and dissemination of literary works across national and cultural boundaries, and can have a profound impact on the reception and interpretation of these works.

Introduction

"Translation and Literary History: An Indian View" is a scholarly essay written by Ganesh Devy, a renowned Indian linguist, literary critic, and activist. Devy argues that translation plays a critical role in shaping literary history and cultural identity. He contends that translation is not merely a linguistic exercise but a political and ideological one, as it involves the transfer of ideas and values from one culture to another. According to Devy, translations are not just secondary works but are integral to the literary canon and literary tradition. Devy also highlights the challenges that translators face in preserving the original cultural and linguistic nuances of a text while making it accessible to readers from a different cultural background. He argues that translators must be familiar with both the source and target cultures and languages, and should be sensitive to the socio-political and historical context in which the original text was written.

Translation and Literary History: An Indian View” Ganesh Devy

‘Translation is the wandering existence of a text in a perpetual exile,’. - J. Hillis Miller

Western metaphysics holds that translation is a form of exile, a departure from the original source. This idea is rooted in the myth of Babel and the subsequent linguistic crisis. As a result, translations are often considered inferior to original works in Western literary criticism, due to their perceived lack of authenticity and temporal distance from the source. Western culture's emphasis on individualism and the notion of guilt further contribute to the devaluation of translations. Translations are often seen as an intrusion of "the other," though some may find pleasure in this encounter.

Unfortunately, this narrow view of translation has limited the Western literary historiography's ability to understand the origins of literary traditions. One significant example of this is the authorized translation of the Bible, which had a transformative impact on the English language and literary style.

Over the past two centuries, translation has played a crucial role in communicating literary movements across linguistic borders. For instance, the Anglo-Irish literary tradition that gave us renowned writers like Shaw, Yeats, Joyce, Beckett, and Heaney owes its origins to the translation of Irish works into English initiated by Macpherson in the late 18th century. Similarly, Indian English literature emerged from the Indological activity of translation during the late 18th and 19th centuries. Many Anglo-Irish and Indian English writers have also been accomplished translators themselves. Likewise, the settler colonies of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have impressive modern literary traditions that have arisen from the "translation" of settlers from their homelands to foreign locations. In post-colonial writing, translation has proven to be a crucial condition for creativity, as seen in former Spanish colonies in South America, former colonies in Africa, and other parts of the world.

Since most literary traditions originate in translation and gain substance through repeated acts of translation, it would be useful to have a theory of literary translation to support a theory of literary history. However, translations are often perceived as unoriginal, and little attention has been given to the aesthetics of translation. Primary issues related to form and meaning have also not been fully resolved in relation to translation. Critics have not taken a well-defined position about the placement of translations in literary history, whether they belong to the history of the "T" languages or the "S" languages or form an independent tradition. This ontological uncertainty surrounding translations has resulted in a haphazard approach to translation studies that devotes too much energy to discussing problems of conveying the original meaning in an altered structure.

Roman Jakobson in his essay on the linguistics of translation proposed a threefold classification of translations: (a) those from one verbal order to another verbal order within the same language system, (b) those from one language system to another language system, and (c) those from a verbal order to another system of signs (Jakobson, 1959, pp. 232– 9). As he considers, theoretically, a complete semantic equivalence as the final objective of a translation act – which is not possible – he asserts that poetry is untranslatable. He maintains that only a ‘creative translation’ is possible.

It is important to recognize that the concept of synonymy within a single language system cannot be equated with the concept of synonymy between two distinct languages. Structural linguistics considers language as a system of signs, arbitrarily developed, that tries to cover the entire range of significance available to the culture of that language. The signs do not mean anything by or in themselves; they acquire significance by virtue of their relation to the entire system to which they belong. This theory naturally looks askance at translation which is an attempt to rescue/ abstract significance from one system of signs and to wed it with another such system. But language is an open system. It keeps admitting new signs as well as new significance in its fold.

When considering the communication of significance, it is necessary to examine whether systems can become a single open and extended system. If we define translation as a form of communication that conveys meaning, and we accept the structuralist principle that communication is made possible by the nature of signs and their entire system, then it is logical to conclude that translation is the merging of two or more sign systems. Such a merger is feasible because systems of signs are open and susceptible to change.

‘Translating Consciousness’

The idea of a "translating consciousness" and the communities of individuals who possess it are not merely abstract concepts. In many Third World countries, where a dominant colonial language has been given a privileged position, such communities do exist. India is an example of a country where multiple languages are used simultaneously by language communities, creating a continuous spectrum of signs and meaning. The use of multiple languages in translation activities cannot be fully understood through theories of foreign language acquisition that assume a chronological gap and a hierarchical scale in language learning situations. Although Chomsky's linguistic theories include the concept of semantic universals, they represent the farthest limits to which monolingual Saussurean linguistic materialism can be extended. In practice, even in Europe, the translating consciousness treats the source language and target language as parts of a larger and continuous spectrum of intersecting verbal sign systems. However, the structuralist reluctance to acknowledge any non-systemic or extra-systemic core of meaning has resulted in an inadequate concept of synonymy in the West for explaining translation activities. Without a linguistic theory based on a multilingual perspective or on translation practice, Western translation thought overemphasizes the validity of the concept of synonymy.

J.C. Catford presents a comprehensive statement of theoretical formulation about the linguistics of translation in A Linguistic Theory of Translation, in which he seeks to isolate various linguistic levels of translation. His basic premise is that since translation is a linguistic act any theory of translation must emerge from linguistics: ‘Translation is an operation performed on languages: a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another; clearly, then, any theory of translation must draw upon a theory of language – a general linguistic theory’ (Catford, 1965, p. vii).

Orientalism for the Orient, and anthropology for the rest of the world. In its various phases of

development modern Western linguistics has connections with all these. After the ‘discovery’ of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones, historical linguistics in Europe depended heavily on Orientalism. For a long time afterwards linguistics followed the path of comparative philology. And after Saussure and Lévi-Strauss, linguistics started treating language with an anthropological curiosity. When linguistics branched off to its monolingual structuralist path, comparative literature still persisted in its faith in the translatability of literary texts.

Translation can be seen as an attempt to bring a given language system in its entirety as close as possible to the areas of significance that it shares with another given language or languages.

 Literary translation is not just a replication of a text in another verbal system of signs. It is a replication of an ordered sub-system of signs within a given language in another corresponding ordered sub-system of signs within a related language.

  

The challenges encountered in translation studies are comparable to those in literary history. Both fields grapple with the complexities of the connection between origins and progression. However, just like in translation studies, the question of origin in literary history has not been adequately addressed. It is essential to note that the concept of the origins of literary traditions may require a different perspective from literary communities that have a "translating consciousness." Indian literary communities possess such consciousness, as demonstrated by the fact that modern Indian literatures were founded on translation efforts by individuals such as Jayadeva, Hemcandra, Michael Madhusudan Dutta, H.N. Apte, and Bankim Chandra Chatterjee.

Conclusion 

In contrast to Western Christian metaphysics, Indian metaphysics maintains a belief in the unimpeded transmigration of the soul from one body to another, making repeated birth an inherent aspect of all living creations. In this view, when the soul moves from one body to another, it retains its fundamental significance, and Indian philosophical systems concerning the interrelationship between form and essence, structure and meaning, are guided by this metaphysical perspective. The soul, or significance, is not bound by the laws of time, and therefore, even literary significance is considered ahistorical in Indian thought. Elements such as plot, characters, and stories can be reused by new generations of writers because originality is not the primary criterion of literary excellence in Indian literary theory. If originality were emphasized, a significant number of Indian classics would not pass the test. The actual measure of excellence is the writer's ability to transform, translate, restate, and reinvigorate the original work. As a result, Indian literary traditions are, in essence, traditions of translation.

Works Cited

MAMBROL, NASRULLAH. “Translation Studies – Literary Theory and Criticism.” Literary Theory and Criticism, 15 December 2017, https://literariness.org/2017/12/15/translation-studies/. Accessed 29 March 2023.

Singh, Prof Madhu. “Translation and Literary History: An Indian View” Ganesh Devy.” Translation and Literary History G N Devy, https://udrc.lkouniv.ac.in/Content/DepartmentContent/SM_c30be09c-d6c7-4cd2-a95c-a81119f654eb_6.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2023.