Literature Review Text Types and Literary Translations
Literary Literary translations translations have always been a fascinating fascinating branch in the study of translation translations. s. It is aimed at bridging the delicate and emotional gap between the cultures and the languages associated with those cultures. Moreover it serves as the pathway to understand the human beings across acr oss national borders. In I n the process of literary translation the task of the translator tra nslator involves involves recreating sensibilities sensibilities of foreign foreign cultures cultures and people through through linguistic and visual possibilities of a new language. Over the history of the discipline of translation studies various researchers in the field have distinguished translation of literary texts from other types of texts. In the 1970s Katherina Reiss has proposed the text types theory borrowing the three was categorization of language func functi tion onss of Karl Karl Buhl Buhler er.. (Mun (Munda day y 2012 2012:7 :72) 2) In her her text text type typess she she posi positi tion onss creat creativ ivee compositions under the heading of expressive texts. Jean Delisle (1980) has identified eight classes of translation types on the basis of four distinguished characteristics. As the first class he proposes distinguishing translations according to the function of the source text. Within this sub class he makes a distinction between the pragmatic translations and literary texts. The later involves the translation of the texts in which the expressive and the aesthetics functi functions ons predomin predominate. ate.
Peter Peter Newmark Newmark (1981, (1981, 1988 1988 and 1991) 1991) propo proposed sed a fivefo fivefold ld
classification which seems to similar to Delise. However Newmarks’ classification is more detailed. In this classification Newmark (1991) distinguishes translation types according to the content of the subject matter of the source text. Within this subcategory of differentiating tran transla slati tion onss acco accord rdin ing g to the the cont conten entt or the the subj subjec ectt matt matter er,, he separa separate tess scien scienti tific fic,, technological, technical, institutional cultural translations and literary translations Moreover Mary Snell Hornby (1988) has proposed a typology of translations. In her typology she distin distingui guishe shess betwee between n literar literary y translat translation ions, s, genera generall translat translation ionss and specia speciall langua language ge translations on the basis of characteristics of the source text. In their attempt of coming up with a translation typology, Barbara Snell and Patricia Crampton (1983) take a different appr approa oach ch and and class classif ify y tran transl slat atio ions ns main mainly ly base based d on the the tran transla slati tion on itse itself. lf. They They have have distinguished translations following seven characteristics and in the first category they come
1
up with, differentiates translations according to the content, degree of style and function of the source text. Within this category they have distinguished literary translations (including books of all kinds, literary as well as scientific), translations of instructional material and translations of informatory material (legal and official documents) (1983: 109–117). Juan Carlos Sager (1983) suggests a text typology for translations and in his classification he distinguishes between literary and non literary translations based on the function of the source text. Moreover in their studies A.V. Fedorov, Otto Kade, J.B Casagrande and Gerogers Mounin have mentioned literary translations as a separate kind. (Reiss, 2000 : 7-23) Accordingly the text types theories that seek to classify texts according to their functions and features have placed literary translations in a class of their own. As Hermans (2007: 77) claims literary translations represents a distinctive kind of translating as is it concerns with a distinctive kind of text. Significance of the study
In this light I feel that the importance of researching in literary translations cannot be undervalued. Throughout the history the research in literary translation has taken different approaches such as pragmatic cultural and Equivalent. However the stylistic approaches to literary translations seems to be lacking. On the other hand when looking at the research on literary translations between the languages of Sinhalese and English, the number is very few. For that reason exploring different issues related to literary translations between the languages of Sinhalese and English opens up to a vast and untouched research ground. And I believe a study in literary translation between the languages of Sinhalese and English will be beneficial for the translators working in these two languages as well as the f ield of translation studies in the long run. Research Question
Translation is not a mere process of replacing the items of one language by the equivalent items from another language. In the process of translation, in this case literary translation the translator has to pay attention to many more factors. One of them is carrying out the stylistic elements of the source text in to the target text in a natural manner. In my research I intend to explore how these elements are carried out when translating from Sinhalese into English. To make my study limited I will be using the novel Sedona by Eva Ranweera (1973) and its translation by Edmund Jayasooriya (2008). I intend to reach my conclusion by deep analyzing my data. 2
Position of Translations in Sri Lankan context
Within the Sri Lankan context of literary translations, more and more texts are being translated from different languages into Sinhalese. When looking at the source languages, English remains as the biggest and most widely spread source language while French, different Indian languages and Spanish follow. (National Library of Sri Lanka. Yearly Catalogues) However when considering the phenomena the other way around, that is when looking at the Sinhalese literature being translated into English or any other languages there is a significant gap. In accordance with the polysystem theory formulated by Even Zohar (Even Zohar, 1978), literary work is not being studied in isolation but as a part of literary system which itself is defined as ‘a system of functions of the literary order which are in continual interrelationship with other orders’. (Munday, 2012 :165). Accordingly literature is considered as a part of social, cultural, literary and historical framework. Also Munday (Munday, 2012 :166) mentions that Even Zohar emphasizes that translated literature operated as a system in itself. However the position of translated literature within the polysystem of a certain country is not fixed and the position of the translated literature within the polysysyem keeps changing. Therefore translated literature can hold a primary or a secondary position. On the other hand within the system of translated literature itself, certain types of translated literature may hold primary position while the others hold the secondary position. (ibid.: 167 – 168) When looking at the Sri Lankan context, translated literature as a whole can be considered as holding a primary position. Yet, within the system of translated literature, the translations from different languages into Sinhalese hold a primary position while the translations from Sinhalese into different languages hold a secondary position. As Munday mentions (ibid.: 168) Even Zohar suggest that the position held by the translated literature, within the polysystem, ‘conditions the translation strategy’ (ibid.: 168). Therefore if translated literature occupies a primary position in the polysystem, translators are not restricted to follow the literary models of the target language and they have more space to break the conventions of the target language. As a result, the produced target text closely matches with the source text models and style. Munday calls this as providing an ‘adequate’ translation (ibid.: 168). On the contrary, when the translations occupy a secondary position within a polysystem the
3
translators usually use the already existing models in the target language. Munday calls this as providing ‘non adequate’ translation (ibid.: 168). Bearing all the above mentioned points in my for my study I have chosen the Sinhalese novel Sedona by prominent Sri Lankan novelist Eva Ranaweera and its translation into English by Edmund Jayasooriya as my corpus. The novel Sedona (1973) by Eva Ranaweera stands as an out of ordinary novel because of its language usage and character development. In Her novel Sedona she has been bold enough to write about a subject that only a few of Sri Lankan women writers have touched. Moreover in her writings she uses her own and unique style. The novel is said to be scandalous in terms both the subject matter as well as the style. The main character in the book Sedona is a symbol of torment women face, when pursued and used just for sexual satisfaction. In the novel there are only a few characters present and the entire novel is written in the point of view of an uneducated village woman. Even though the story line is not well formulated, the novel portrays the life of a poor village woman from her childhood to her late adulthood. In her task of creating this woman the author just illustrates certain incidents giving the reader the chance to interpret the story in their own ways. Through the interior monologue of Sedona, the main character, Ranaweera builds up her life and illustrates the problems faced by her. In the novel Sedona Ranaweera attempts another experiment by using a different and unique language. Sinhalese is a diaglossic language which consists of two different forms for written and spoken respectively. In her language usage Ranaweera goes to the extreme of the spoken language moving towards more colloquial forms. In After Babel George Steiner claims that ‘when literature seeks to break its public linguistic mould and become idiolect, when it seeks untranslatability, we have entered a new world of feeling’ (Steiner, 1975 : 176). When looking at the back ground that Sedona emerged, as a result of education system in early post colonial period in Sri Lanka, number of contemporary creative writers in this period were more comfortable in writing in English rather than their mother tongue. Ranaweera having completed her secondary as well as tertiary Education in English medium has started her career as an English journalist. Creative writing in English was well established in the 1960s. However, with the influence of Sinhala national movement the writers in English tend to take a cultural turn in their themes and were in the attempt of capturing truly national and authentically Sri Lankan experiences in their work. (Gunathilake. 1993). Sedona can be called as a direct result of this phenomenon.
4
Edmund Jayasuriya is the person who has taught the uneducated village woman, Sedona to speak and think in English. He is a Sri Lankan journalist, translator and writer as well as a senior government officer. He has won the Gratien Prize for his translation of Sedona in 2008. Also he has won the state literary award in 2003 for his translation of Thotagamuve Sri Rahula Thera’s Sandesa Poem, Salalihini Sandesa into English. Other than that he has translated number of Sinhala fiction into English. Jayasuriya is one of the few translators working from Sinhala into English. Stylistics Studies so far
In a study of such which takes a stylistic approach to literary translations it is important to look at the previous studies that have taken a similar approach. Stylistics is central to the way in which we construct and interpret the texts. A creative writer frames His/her ideas with the help of words and choose figures for the mode of discourse. Arthur Schopenhauer defines style as “the physiognomy of the mind”. This definition suggests that a certain writer’s Style will bear the mark of his/her personality in the writing. On the other hand style can broadly refer to the categories such as written and spoken language and these main categories can be divided into sub categories based on the purpose and the situation. In other words style categories can be called as different linguistic sets that are used to serve a certain linguistic purpose. However as
Boase – Beier (2006) points out in the introduction to her book
‘Stylistic Approaches to Translation’ even though the concept of stylistics has been mentioned in the earliest writings about translations such as those of Cicero and Horce its role in translations have not yet been explored systematically.
Apart from the lack of
attention on the notion of stylistics, it remains both vague and ambiguous in nature. Moreover the investigations on the role of stylistics still remains unsystematic. Emphasizing this systematic failure to understand the effects of style Snell Hornby (1995) suggests that, “Style is nominally an important factor in translation, but there are few detailed or satisfactory discussions of its role within translation theory. In their definitions of translation quoted in 1.2.3 above, both Nida and Wilss put style on a par with meaning or content. In Reiß 1971, Wilss 1977 and Koller 1979, references to aspects of style in translation are frequent, and Stolze devotes a complete section (1982: 300ff.) to the question of style. In all cases however, the discussion is linked to specific items or examples, and no coherent theoretical approach is attempted. In the recent theories of Vermeer and Holz-Mänttäri the problem of style recedes 5
perceptibly into the background: in Holz-Mänttäri 1984 it is barely mentioned, and in Reiß and Vermeer 1984 the topic is limited to brief references to the general need for a “Stiltheorie” in translation (1984: 22, 219). Up to now this has remained a desideratum.” (Snell-Hornby, 1995:119- 120) However in the book ‘Style in Fiction’ Leech and Short has attempted to analyze the notion of Style based on linguistics. As Leech and Short suggests (1981: 29 – 71) style can be referred to a larger domain of language use common to a number of language users or to the style of an individual writer. And they mention that it is impossible to apply one model of style to all kinds of texts. Moreover they point out the literary style as the relation between the linguistic from and the literary function or artistic effect and to explain this relation the aspects of style have to be studied. According to them linguistics does not provide an objective, mechanical technique for the analysis of style and it does not replace the readers intuition. However all the linguistic choices are meaningful and stylistic. In order to understand the artistic effect better, the linguistic description is needed. Leech and Short see the style in terms of ‘significant linguistic characteristic recurring in a text, style markers and their artistic macro – level effect’. Their model of analyzing literary style is based on Hallidays ideational, interpersonal and textual functioning, making up stylistic value. Leech and Short (1981) have come up with a multilevel model for style. The multi level model they proposer for written style consists of semantic, syntactic and graphological levels. On the other hand in the model they propose for spoken style graphology is replaced by phonology. Even though this model of Leech and Short is originally designed for describing the style within one single language, it can easily be applied to translation studies and the translation texts. Leech and Short (1981) suggest a checklist that includes linguistic and stylistic categories. They have listed up lexical and grammatical categories, figures of speech, cohesion and context within here. And this check list can be applied in analyzing the texts in translations. Apart from the study of Leech and Short, Mona Baker (2000) looks at the concept of style in her article titled “Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator”. However Baker (2000) seems to be more enthusiastic about the style of translator and translators visibility than the stylistic features of texts. In her article she investigates the concept of style in literary translations to see whether the individual literary translators show a style of their own. Baker defines style as a ‘kind of thumb print that is expressed in a range of linguistic and non linguistic features’ (2000: 245). As Baker claims in the case of 6
translations, rather than the original writing ‘the notion and the style must include the (literary) translators choice of the type of material to translate, where applicable and her or his consistent use of specific strategies, including the use of prefaces, afterwards, footnotes, glossing in the body of the text etc.” (2000: 245). Furthermore she mentions that the style of the translator must focus on the manner of expression that is typical to a translator rather than to the instances of open intervention. Thus it is clear that Baker is more concerned about the linguistic habits that are beyond the conscious control of the translator. Leech and Short (1981:14) have referred to this preferred and recurring patterns of linguistic habits as “forensic stylistics”. Baker is particularly interested in the linguistic habits or unique language usage of one single translator compared to the linguistics habits and language usage of another. She is more concerned in seeing whether translators show particular patterns or preferences for using specific ‘lexical items, syntactic patterns, cohesive devises or even style of punctuation, where other options may be equally available in the language.” (2000: 248). Subsequently Jean Boase - Beier with her book ‘ Stylistic Approaches to Translation’ attempts to provide a more systematic study of the notion of style. She claims that the effect of style on translation and translation studies can be explored at least in three ways. “Firstly, in the actual process of translation, the way the style of the source text is viewed will affect the translator’s reading of the text. Secondly, because the recreative process in the target text will also be influenced by the sorts of choices the translator makes, and style is the outcome of choice (as opposed to those aspects of language which are not open to option), the translator’s own style will become part of the target text. And, thirdly, the sense of what style is will affect not only what the translator does but how the critic of translation interprets what the translator has done.” (Boase-Beier, 2006: 1) Furthermore she distinguishes the notion of style in translation in four different viewpoints. (2006:6) i) the style of the source text as an expression of its author’s choices ii) the style of the source text in its effects on the reader (and on the translator as reader)
7
iii) the style of the target text as an expression of choices made by its author (who is the translator) iv) the style of the target text in its effects on the reader. Thus Boase-Beier illustrates that on one hand while the style of the source text impacts on the source text reader (and the translator) and on the other the style of the target text, which contains the choices made by the translator, makes an impact on the target reader. The translator is positioned in between the source and the target texts and plays the role of reader of the source text style as well as the re-creator of the target text style. Moreover the target language reader responds to the style in target text. Throughout her study Boase-Beier highlights on the target perspectives, i.e. (iii) and (iv) by focusing on the perception of the translator and the effects of translators’ recreation on the target reader. She suggests that there is a gap existing between the source text style and the understanding of target text style by the cognitive state of target readers. As she claims the style is determined by the cognitive state and it can change or refresh the readers reactions to the poetic effects of the text. The ‘Cognitive state’ she suggests relates closely to the historical, sociological and cultural issues of the context. Therefore she mentions that translation is not a mere process of decoding and encoding. The context plays a major role in comprehending the meaning of source text by the translator as well as the meaning of target text by the reader. Boase - Beier applies the relevance theory in analyzing literary translations. She sees literary translation as a process of communication and it involves maximum relevance rather than mini max relevance. To illustrate the point further, in case of literary translations the reader takes maximum effort to get the maximum meaning. This maximum effort entails working to interpret the weak implicatures, that ‘goes beyond ‘primary’ lexical or syntactic meaning. (Katz, 1990, in Boase Beier 2006 :45). Accordingly Boase-Beier views style as a set of ‘weak implicatures’ that enables the reader to make pragmatic conclusions. Conclusion
Style makes the bridge between the subject areas of translations studies and literature. Even though style plays a major role in literary translations, considering the above mentioned studies it is apparent that there is a vast gap in research on style. On this ground conducting a study on literary translations with a stylistic approach between the languages of Sinhalese and English would unquestionably be beneficial.
8
Bibliography
Baker, Mona. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target, 12(2), 241 - 265. Boase-Beier, J. (2006). Stylistic approaches to translation: Saint Jerome Publishing. Delisle, J. (1980). L'analyse du discours comme methode de traduction: Ottawa, University of Ottawa. Even-Zohar, I. (1978/2004) The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem', in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) (2004) The Translation Studies Reader , 2nd edition, London and New York: Routledge, p. 199 -204 Goonetilleke, D. C. R. A. (1993). The 1971 Insurgency in Sri Lankan Literature in English. Modern Fiction Studies, 39:1. 131- 146 Hermans, T. (2007) Literary Translation, in Kuhiwczak, P. and Littau, K. (ed.) A Companion to Translation Studies, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 77 -91 Jayasuriya, E. (2008). Sedona English Translation: Colombo, S. Godage International Publishers. Leech, G. and Short, M. (1981) Style in Fiction : London, Longman. Munday, J. (2012) Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, London & New York: Routledgh Newmark, P. (1981) Approaches to Translation: Oxford, Pergamon Press. Newmark, Peter (1987) A Text book of Translation: Hemel Hempstead, Prentice Hall. Newmark, P. (1991) About Translation. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters. Ranaweera, E. (1973) Sedona: Colombo, S. Godage International Publishers. Sager, J.C. (1983) Quality and Standards. The Evaluation of Translations, in C. Picken (ed.): The Translators Handbook , London, Aslib. 121-128 Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel : Oxford University Press.
9
Snell, B. and Crampton, P. (1983) Types of Translations. in C. Picken (ed.): The Translators Handbook , London, Aslib. 109-120 Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies: an integrated approach: J. Benjamins Publishing Company.
10
