 |
 |
|
Udaya
Narayana Singh
|
|
|
Udaya
Narayana Singh is an outstanding linguist-translator-creative
writer. Udaya Narayana Singh, is at present
the Director of Central Institute of Indian
Languages, Mysore. |
|
He has varied experience in teaching, research
and administration. He did his M.A. and Ph.D.
in Linguistics from Delhi University.
He has over 21 years of postgraduate teaching
experience in Linguistics in South Gujarat
University,Gujarat (as a Lecturer), University
of Delhi (as a Reader) and the C(entre) of
A(pplied) L(inguistics) and T(ranslation)
S(tudies), University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
( as a Professor). He was a Research Associate
in a UNESCO project on 'Language Teaching
in Bi- or Pluri-lingual Cultural Context",
University of Delhi. He was the Founder-Head
of CALTS, University of Hyderabad.
He is the recipient of many Scholarships and
Fellowships. He was a UGC Junior and Senior
Research Fellow, in 1994-99 and also a Fellow
of the Linguistic Society of America for the
1978 Linguistics Institute at the Univ. of
Illinois, USA. He is the recipient of the
Permanent International Committee of Linguistics
(CIPL) grant, Berlin (GDR). He was an active
participant at the Roundtable on 'The Contribution
of Word Structure Theories to the Study of
Word Formation', Humboldt University and Akademie
der Wissenschaften der DDR, Berlin. |
|
|
|
0. INTRODUCTION
|
 |
n
this essay, we discuss the problems and obstacles that often
mar the joys of reading literary texts in translation either
because the text generated has fallen far short of expectation
resulting in a process which goes
|
|
by the name of 'undertranslation'
(or alpaanuvaad in Indian languages). Alternatively, in a zeal
to replicate the source text, translators overdo their bit and
come up with a target text which one could call a product of
the process of 'overtranslation' (atyanuvaad). Notice that what
is said here applies only to such texts, which are created not
as adaptations, or revisions, which, many 're-creators' may
rightfully claim, have independent existence. This is not to
deny that, at times, a given rendering or 'adaptation' may achieve
a rare status or a beauty that might not have been associated
with the original, making it possible to gain a literary fame
on its own merit. This would, however, be an example of 'gain
of meaning' (which we could call arthaagam), whereas what actually
happens in almost all inter-lingual rendering is 'loss of meaning'
(= artharhaas).
|
|
0.1. LITERARY VS LITERAL: PROBLEM OF
DEFINITION
|
Early
translation scholars have been concerned with 'literariness'
(= saahityikataa) of the resultant texts or with 'Primary' and
'Secondary' sources (= mukhya vs gauNa srota) of translation,
before they actually begin to 'appreciate', 'evaluate' or 'analyse'
a literary text in translation. In reading and understanding
a literary text in translation, we cannot afford to repeat such
worn-out practices. |
Long
ago, Richards, I.A. (1929) suggested that a new theory of appreciation
should allow individuals trying to understand a text to discover
themselves while trying out new discovery procedures for what
he called a 'perfect understanding' of the text. If we now look
back at his ideas and argue that 'perfect' understanding is
only an illusory concept, then it will follow that a 'perfect'
translation could only be a theoretical possibility. The general
impression is that the moment we begin to read literary translations,
particularly if we also happen to know the original work, the
deviations stand out before us very clearly. Thus sometimes
there are unavoidable operations or changes performed o the
body of target texts that are rooted deeply in a very different
cultural tradition. Such changes are also a part of a strategy
to circumvent a virtually 'untranslatable' portion, the knowledge
of which may or may not come with the experience one has had
with the writings on translation theory. On some occasions,
however, they may simply appear or be sheer ingenious manipulations.
But then, many translators are not at all apologetic about such
manipulations. When this happens, some still remain upset with
their own recreations or rewritings, which have thus undergone
a thorough metamorphosis, while there are others who take it
as their divine duty to 'improve' upon the original. One cannot
forget the arrogant remark of Fitzgerald, the well-known translator
of Omar Khayyam, who once commented that "it is an amusement
to me to take what liberties I like with these Persians who
(as I think) are not Poet enough to frighten one from such excursions
and who really want a little art to shape them (Fitzgerald to
Rev.Cowell)". (Trivedi, (1992): 37). |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
