 |
 |
I envision four definite stages of attitudinal
transformation in the process of my translation: (a) Trust
(b) Comprehension (c) Incorporation and (d) Reciprocity.
All these changes within this authorial self are viewed
here as mediations between my fragmented selves initiated
by a fragment named "Translator". This fragmented
author of the TL is codified here as A2 and the writer of
the Odia text (SL) is taken as A1. As the director within
me is the first functional reader and the interpreter of
the text, who has created it for the second time in performing
space, he is taken as A2 (a).
|
|
|
The process begins when A2 (of the TL)
decides to translate, which, according to George Steiner's
Dictionary, is "to carry over from what has been silent
to what is vocal, from the distant to the near. But also
to carry back" . But A2 selects one book in preference
to others for this act of "carrying over" and
"carrying back". This begins with the assumption
that the particular play-text has 'something' which is translatable
and the other SL texts are eliminated either because their
linguistic, paradigmatic, stylistic or textual equivalences
are not available, or because of their inherent cultural
untransmissibility.
|
The criterion of the search initiated by
A2 seems too mechanical for A1 who likes all his works to
be translated for the extension of his creative self. He
does not care for the possible loss in translation as it
has been pointed out by Eugene Nida in Towards The Science
of Translating . Rather the greedy A1 would quote from
Anton Popovic's Dictionary wherein he mentions five
kinds of shifts in translation (constitutive, generic, individual,
negative and topical shifts), deploying which TL variants
could be produced.
|
As
this intra-authorial tension takes place in the process of selection
through investment of trust and with multiple readings of the
SL, another unacknowledged translator appears to give one more
shake to the process of sifting in the linguistic sieve. He
is the Director of the SL Text represented here as A2 (a). As
a semiotic translator, but for signs which embed within them
a duality in which the ungrammatical would be accepted as mimesis
of the translation. |
A2
(a) would, however, search for the linguistic equivalence, but
language in his text of translation should have functionality
in addition to readability. In India we have dhwani that expresses
a threefold sense: abidha (denotative), lakshana (indicative)
and vyanjana (suggestive). The translator, while catering to
the demands of A2 (a) accepts this semantic value. A2 would,
now, after investing one more seesaw screening, would search
for four structural features in the text: (a) the acting style
deployed in the text (b) the expected role of the audience (c)
whether the play falls into category of realism, fantasy or
expressionism, absurd, mixed means theatre or of a hyper- realistic
mode mingled with abstract expressionism or some such esoteric
brand that the showbiz invents for itself for survival in an
era of mega soap operas and (d) the performance space of the
play. |
A
particular acting style would emerge out of a particular syntax
and disorders would result in chaotic performance and incommunicative
acting style. |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
