 |
 |
|
P.P.Giridhar
|
 |
P.P.Giridhar is a linguist-translator,
working as a Reader at the Central Institute
of Indian Languages, Mysore. He has published
translations into English from Kannada and
on translation.
|
| He
is reachable at giridhar@ciil.stpmy.soft.net |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
sked whether he thought about theory when
he translated, A K Ramanujam is said to have come back with,
"Does a carpenter think about theory when he carpents?"
This counter question,if it is
|
|
not followed by a qualified
stretch of sentences might lead to an impression, which is
not right viz. that there is no theory of carpentry. A carpenter's
carpenting behaviour is neither instinctive nor genetic. There
is a cognitive grid, a cerebral matrix, a mentally represented
knowledge, which is what drives a carpenter to do what he
does.
|
|
This is the 'carpenting competence'. Such a cognitive grid
exists also for the translator which is what drives his translations
and which may be called 'translating competence'. There is
a need to unspool this grid, to access and define its being
and nature. Chomsky and Co took 40 years to unveil 'grammatical
competence'. We may take more. I don't agree that translation
is a subjectively conditioned hermeneutics. It is in the ultimate
run hermeneutics, but not subjective. It is illogical to say
that if we can't access the mental representation, it is subjective,
but if we can, it is objective. And to find out what this
grid looks like, what its constituents are etc. is NOT to
be prescriptive\normative.
|
There are basically two types of phenomena
in the universe: rule-governed phenomena and creatively
rule-governed phenomena. The latter are those that are created
by the human mind or have to do with consciousness. Language
is the best example of a creatively rule-governed phenomenon.
Translation is another. 'Translating competence' is perhaps
a composite module. The 'rule-governed' part would perhaps
mean that like in human language there are parts of translation
theory which are not functions of cultural distinctiveness
any more than the explanation for the phenomenon of the
falling object or the running train or the computer chip
or the economic law of demand and supply are functions of
cultural distinctiveness or of a societal ethos.
|
Theories,
to be so called, should be globally valid. That is, the theory
should hold for all instances of the domain of inquiry. In illustrative
words, a Paninian theory of language should be true of all languages.
A Derridan theory of literature should hold good for all literatures.
Explanations of translative acts that are language-specific
and culture-bound cannot be theories. They are descriptions/documentations
of local facts. |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
