|
| Post Graduate Diploma in Translation Studies |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |
Let me now restate the above idea to the more specific context of understanding and translation. Take a case of understanding an ancient text, such a Rig Veda. There are several factors to be noticed in order to know: What it is to understand a text like Rig Veda? First is the distance, Rig Veda was composed in the distant past in our history. It is a text located in a time and in a culture from which we are separated. Second is the encounter. It is true that we are separated from the past but in our act of understanding the past and the present meet. Now, what happens when they are brought together in the act of understanding? In our encounter with the past we very often try to understand the past in the light of certain preconceived notions and judgments. This is not only true of past but even with the present, for example, when we try to understand source of who is conversing with us now. The presence of preconceived notions and judgments may result in misunderstanding. But here the question is: how far does such understanding be purified from all such prejudgments and prejudices? Or should we say all of them get modified and change the very texture of an understanding? These are, indeed, difficult questions and these providing a definite answer to all of these may be impossible. However, there is a way out. In this respect analysis of what constitutes an act of understanding provides the answer. An act of understanding implies a cognitive process. It is a process though originated from here and now seeks to reach out something existing there and then. In other words, it covers the passage running from me to him, of this is what an act of understanding is in structural terms it can not avoid interpretation. An element of interpretation necessarily enters into every act of understanding. In this respect, Sri Aurobindo's 8 objection to Max Muller's translation of Upanishad may cited as a case in point. The main contention of his objection is that Max Muller's translation of Upanishad is unsatisfactory because, it does not convey the proper (or, as he says 'inner') meaning of the text. But why does he fail to do so? The reason cannot be his knowledge of Sanskrit which is otherwise unquestionable. According to Sri Aurobindo, the fault lies in Max Muller's understanding and interpretation of the text. Upanishad belongs to one kind of cultural tradition and Max Muller - the translator of the text hails from another tradition. His own cultural tradition as a presupposition which guides Max Muller to interpret Upanishad in a particular way. As a result, Max Muller fails to see the spiritual basis of Upanishad and there by his translation could not reveal the inner meaning or significance of Upanishad. Sri Aurobindo sharply reacted to Max Muller's translation of Upanishad and himself made a fresh translation which came out as a book under the title 'The Eight Upanishads'. My purpose here is not to say that Sri Aurobindo is right. Instead, my emphasis is on the controversy that Sri Aurobindo raised. Its significance in translation as a matter of interpretation is based on the notion of understanding which is historically designed. This indeed speaks for the Heremeneutics of translation. |
| |
| Points to Remember(15f) |
| |
| 423.9.7: TRANSLATION AND THE THEORY OF DECONSTRUCTION |
| |
However, we should also caution ourself from the possible danger. An unguarded heremenutical perspective may lead to an extreme view of translation. The view that translation involves interpretation can virtually make translation impossible. The reason is that in such a view it is difficult to talk about semantic equivalence between the text and the translated version of it. Now, unless one can talk about the equivalence between the two there is no meaning in saying that one is the translation of the other. The view expressed here is not a remote possibility. In fact, on the other hand, it is very close to the stand point expressed in the theory of deconstruction. Let me try to briefly explain the issue here which is otherwise very complex. In the context of translation the two foremost important things are - the text and the understanding the text. Now the question is "What do we do when we read a text?" to this there is a traditional answer. That is, when we read a text we try to understand the meaning of the text. The assumption here is that the text concerned has a fixed meaning. But, who has given this meaning? and, further how is it fixed? The answer to it is that it is we who have given a particular meaning to a text and in the process of doing it we reshuffle the entire text according to our own convenience. Take a concrete case, in our reading of a particular text, say Sankar Vasya, we identify certain portion as philosophically imported or signified and leave the rest as unimportant. A kind of procedure - telling how to go about when you read a text - is thus laid down. This is the traditional conception of text. But this conception of text, as Derrida says, is essentially wrong, because there is no text. There is no text apart from what you do it. We reshuffle the text for our advantage. Similarly, there is no fixity of meaning existing in any form. Fixity of meaning is only in our creation. Now what is the positive gain of all these. The answer is to ensure freedom.
The repercussion of this thinking on translation is obvious. In the absence of a text the very idea of a translation has to be drastically revised if not dropped. The condition for translation is that there must be a text which a translation seeks to translate after understanding its meaning. Now if there is no text then what is it to translate? Further, even if one is able to make a translation, one can not claim it to be correct because there can not be any semantic equivalence between - this and the original.
|
| |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
