Translation Theories and Translating Assamese Texts

Translation Theories and Translating Assamese Texts

Manjeet Baruah

Abstract

The paper is divided into two broad sections. The first section examines the changing focus of translation theories worldwide, especially in the last three decades, and the facility that the newer developments in translation theories have provided in translating texts in multi-lingual societies. It will be shown that vis-à-vis the old school of linguistic equivalence, the shifts into the fields of power discourse (i.e. politics of translation) and translation have provided the framework for approaching the praxis of translation in multilingual societies more fruitfully. The second section of the paper comprises two case studies of specific forms of writing in the Assamese language, viz. (a) Bezbarua and colloquial aesthetics, and (b) Indira (Mamoni Raisom) Goswami and multiple language variant textual structure. The two textual methods will be discussed vis-à-vis the problematic of their respective translations and in the context of the theoretical outline drawn in the first section. The objective of the exercise is twofold, viz. (a) to highlight and explore the potentials in applied translation vis-à-vis languages of North East India and (b) to emphasize the peculiarities in translating texts from or into languages and cultures of North East India.

Keywords: translation theory, South Asia, North East India, Laksminath Bezbarua, Indira (Mamoni) Raisom Goswami, Assamese literature, modern Indian language, ideology, textual structure.

Section I

In this section, the attempt is to draw a broad outline of the debates in translation theories, especially in the 20th century,

Translation Today

5

Translation Theories and Translating Assamese Texts
and create the platform for the discussion on translation visà-vis languages of north east India (with Assamese texts as the illustration) in the subsequent section. Between the 1950s/60s and 1980s/90s, translation theories have undergone paradigm shift. The fundamental component of the shift has been the transition from models of praxis to models of analysis. For example, one of the most distinct features of translation debates in the 1950s/60s was the question of linguistic equivalence, i.e. how to arrive at linguistic equivalence between the source language (SL) and target language (TL). One of the underlying factors of the debate was the assumption of universal language. It was precisely because of the assumption of universal language that, irrespective of the positions that theorists held, that linguistic equivalence between the SL and TL was possible was never questioned.

On the issue of linguistic equivalence and how to arrive at it between the SL and TL, one of the most comprehensive frameworks was perhaps offered by Nida (Nida, 1964). Nida not only focused on the possibility of equivalence, but also developed a model based on Chomsky’s system of deep structure-surface structure of language vis-à-vis SL-TL relation. The fundamental argument of Nida was that from the surface structure of the SL, the translator has to move into its deep structure, and then find the equivalent of the SL deep structure in the deep structure of the TL. Thereafter, the TL can be developed into its surface structure. Nida argued that through this process, a scientific equivalence between the SL and TL can be arrived at. Nida also advocated that translation should be of dynamic equivalence and not formal equivalence and that through the above process of deep structure-surface structure inter-language relation, dynamic equivalence can be arrived at. The basic thrust in Nida’s argument, i.e. of dynamic equivalence, can be traced back to earlier periods as well. However, what was unique about his model was that it offered a systematic mechanism, unlike the previous theories, of how to achieve dynamic equivalence between SL and TL while translating. For example, a simple illustration of the complex process of dynamic equivalence can be shown in translation of

6

Translation Today

Manjeet Baruah
proverbs. Going by Nida’s argument, a proverb in SL would need to be broken down into its deep structure, and then through its deep structure equivalence in the TL, the surface structure linguistic equivalence can be arrived at in the TL. Proverbs are notable illustration of Nida’s argument on two counts. On the one hand, it negates the notion of untranslatability, i.e. something as peculiar to locale as proverbs cannot be translated. On the other hand, it highlights how meaning of proverbs cannot be translated in literal method. The specifics of linguistic expression of the proverb in the SL and TL may vary. But in the process, their meaning would remain the same. Noam Chomsky’s theory of Syntax and generative grammar was not, nor was it intended to be, a theory of Translation. In fact, Chomsky cautioned against its appropriation (Gentzler, 2010: 46-64)

It is evident that a founding principle of the Nida’s model was how to translate. Nida himself was a practicing translator, involved in translation of the Bible. His objective was that the Bible should reach the maximum people in the world. But this intent behind translation also highlights another point, viz. the why behind the how to translate. In other words, if Nida demonstrated that through the paradigm and method of dynamic equivalence, the problem of untranslatability can be overcome, it was because it was necessary for him that the Bible is translatable in any language. Nida’s approach was evidently influenced by the reigning approach of the times, namely structuralism. Therefore, if one returns to the example of proverbs, there is the underlying assumption that its meaning in the deep structures of the SL and TL can remain same due to the reality of universal language. But where Nida was different was that despite his assumption of universal language and a structuralist method of arriving at it, he took into account the problem of linguistic differences and that the problem can only be addressed“dynamically”and not formally or literally. Behind these theoretical explorations, his politics of religion was of crucial importance.

It was such cases as Nida’s, i.e. exposing the often hidden

Translation Today

7

Translation Theories and Translating Assamese Texts
or invisible reality of motive/objective behind translation, and how it shapes theoretical explorations, that came to be foregrounded in the 1980s. This foregrounding became a paradigm shift in translation, pushing the domain from translation to translation studies, i.e. from praxis to studies. This shift has come to be called the ‘cultural turn in translation’, traced to a series of new studies since the late 1970s and 1980s. The primary shift that took place through these studies was that translation debates were no longer in terms of how to translate; rather they were in terms of the three factors of who, why and when vis-à-vis any translation. How to translate, in fact, became now a corollary of the above three factors of who translates, why it is translated and when it is translated. In other words, vis-à-vis the text, it is the context that became more crucial in explaining or comprehending a translation. Now the understanding was that once the context is explained or can be determined, how to translate can also be arrived at. This shift, as well known today, came to be termed “cultural turn in translation”. What it meant was that it was not language and its structure wherein the meaning of translation can be located. The meaning of translation was in the socio-political and cultural context (or specifics) of translation which involved questions of who, why and when rather than how.
‘Cultural turn in translation’ was marked by multiplicity in approaches vis-à-vis the relation between translation and its context. For example, the polysystem model (Toury: 1995) emphasized the importance of target culture in explaining the nature of translation. The model followed a binary classification of target (language) culture in terms of weak and strong target cultures, and argued that when the target culture is weak, translations are more naturalized or domesticated in the TL, whereas when the target culture is strong, the foreignness of the SL text in the translation remains visibly evident. In other words, a weak TL culture tends to naturalise translations in its own repertoire (and gives the appearance of being its own cultural production rather than as one originating elsewhere) while a strong TL culture does not suffer such anxieties and therefore

8

Translation Today

Manjeet Baruah
does not hesitate to highlight that the translated text is not its own cultural production, but has come from another culture into its now expanded repertoire.
Despite the apparent similarity of the model to the 18th-19th century nationalist approach to translation in Europe, especially in France and Germany (Venuti: 2004) wherein foreignness of SL culture in translation was argued to highlight the unique national character of the TL, the polysystem model is fundamentally different in its principles from it. The main difference is that the polysystem model is not premised on one particular assumption of politics. On the contrary, it leaves open a space for context specific politics to be incorporated within the larger framework of weak-strong binary in target culture. But one of the main problems of the polysystem model is how to ascertain whether a culture is weak or strong. It may be argued that the strength or weakness of TL culture could be ascertained by its very practice of translation. But such an approach only explains the action (nature of translation practiced), not what produces the action itself. To use a South Asian illustration of the problem, the pre-colonial transcreations of the epic in different languages, though borrowed from the “cosmopolitan” Sanskrit literary world to which they traced their connected histories, nevertheless claimed their difference overtly from that “cosmopolitan” world through their very act of transcreation (and not “translation”). The problem here is twofold. On the one hand, how would one ascertain the strength or weakness of theTL culture in such cases of transcreation which stands outside the foreign-natural act/nature of translation. In other words, how does one explain transcreation through the polysystem model. On the other hand, transcreations also raise an additional question, i.e. how meaningful are binaries such as cosmopolitan and vernacular, or great and little traditions etc. When seen from this question, the polysystem model once again falls short of explaining a historical phenomenon of literary culture found widely in pre-colonial South Asia.

In contrast to the polysystem model and its assumptions

Translation Today

9

Translation Theories and Translating Assamese Texts
of strong or weak TL culture, therefore, there are approaches which highlight the critical significance of ideology or ideological relation between SL and TL to explain the nature of a given translation. For example, in the works of Lefevere (Lefevere, 1993), the discussion is more concentrated on the historical or sociopolitical context of the target culture or in the relation between the source and target cultures rather than on the linguistic or grammatical aspects of the SL and TL in question. Lefevere argues that peculiarities of grammar and language do not sufficiently explain the textual features in translation. The broader argument he makes is that while translating, which is a practice, linguistic choices are exercised by the translator. These choices are not necessarily pre-given in languages per se. These choices are conditioned by the context and objective of the translator/ translation. It may be interesting to note here the remarks of Levi Strauss vis-à-vis the significance of totems in this regard (Strauss, 1982). Strauss argued that totems are interfaces that translate nature to human society and vice versa. Thus, if the argument is carried forward, one can present a case that totems may be seen as codes of translation. Such an approach to translation opens a tremendous space for ethnographic study vis-à-vis translation. However, we will return to this point later in the discussion.
With regard to the role of ideology, there are three major approaches or models of the period that needs to be emphasized. Each of them takes the study and practice of translation away from the linguistic orientation that the field predominantly had until the 1960s. One of them has been the model of linguistic discourse analysis. Under this model, a text is analyzed in terms of the three linguistic registers of field, tone and mode (Baker, 1992), in which field refers to the content, tone to who is communicating through the text and mode to the medium of communication, i.e. oral or written. The model, based on Halliday’s framework, compares the text in its SL version and TL version based on the three linguistic registers, and indicates the changes or character that they assume in their respective conditions. One of the fundamental principles of this model is that it is not language per se but the use of language
10 Translation Today

Manjeet Baruah
in given contexts that is more important. It is given usage of language that explains the character of a text and its relation to the context. It is evident here that though based on study of language and its use, the model fundamentally differs from the concept of linguistic equivalence. Among others, one of the basic differences is that unlike the concept of linguistic equivalence, it is not based on any assumption of universal language; thus, the emphasis on usage of language as the key to understanding or translating meaning in text. Needless to point out that usage of language is located in the ideological use of language rather than merely the linguistic features of a given language.

Another major breakthrough in the field of translation studies came in the late 1980s and early 1990s through the translation debates that Subaltern Studies initiated in India (Spivak, Paul, 2007). Subaltern Studies sought to interrogate and engage with the voices of the marginal which, it claimed, are frequently lost in textual sources or written materials. It is because language and communicating through language is mediated through the relations of unequal power. Since written language bears the hegemony of the powerful in a society, therefore, it fails to carry or communicate the voices of the marginal which inhabits that society. Spivak’s translation of Mahasweta Devi’s fiction is notable in this regard. The challenge that Spivak, as a translator, poses can be stated as when translation is taking place into a dominant language in any give social context, what are the possibilities of retaining the message of protest of the dominated against the dominant within the linguistic or narrative framework of the translated text. The translation strategy that Spivak uses in this regard has two aspects. At one level, Spivak retains words/ syntax (in italics) of the (dominated) SL in the (dominant) TL. At another level, sentences/words/passages will be put in italics in the TL which, in the SL, is not placed in italics. The objective in the second case is to indicate to the reader that the italicized carries meaning or message that the reader needs to take note of. Therefore, Spivak makes an active intervention in the translation and in the process adds new dimensions to the interpretation

Translation Today

11

Translation Theories and Translating Assamese Texts
of the SL text and production of culture in general. From the perspective of Subaltern Studies, this nature of intervention is considered as necessary for three reasons, viz. (a) to prevent the cultural appropriation of the dominated by the dominant, (b) to emphasize that the dominant culture (in this case language and narrative of text) lacks the capacity to communicate the culture of the dominated, and (c) through the use of italics (as already noted) and making the reading of the translation uneven, the attention of the reader can be drawn to the deeper context of power relation in culture and production of culture.
The act of active intervention that a translator can and needs to make in the larger context of production of culture has come to be most significantly advocated in the 1990s by Lawrence Venuti (Venuti, 1992). He has put the debate in the framework of visibility vs. invisibility of translator. Venuti’s argument rests primarily on two factors, viz. ideology of translator and translator communicating with readers beyond the mediation of the author of the SL text. On the question of ideology and translator, he points out that every translation is premised on ideological choices and ideological acts. Therefore, if a translation has to be understood or explained, it is necessary that the ideological foundations of the translation needs to be taken into consideration. In this case, the translator’s ideology assumes critical significance. Without explaining the translator’s role, the translation too cannot be comprehended. But Venuti makes a further point as well, which follows from the above point. He argues that precisely because translator plays a critical role in the production of meaning in a given translation, it is necessary that s/he communicates with the reader beyond the author of the SL text. Translation is an ideological reproduction of the SL text. Therefore, the meaning in the translation goes beyond the meaning in the SL text. As a result, a translator should seek to highlight the role that s/he plays in the reproduction of the original that the translation is. In other words, a translator has to make himself or herself visible.
The above position challenged one the fundamental
12 Translation Today

Manjeet Baruah
premises of form in TL text. Translation theories in the West have historically favoured meaning based translation to word based translation. In other words, compared to word-for-word translation, the emphasis needs to be on translation of meaning from the SL text to the TL text. Thus, translation theories focused on paraphrase or dynamic equivalence vis-à-vis metaphrase or formal equivalence. The critical point here is the relation between form and readability in translation. Paraphrase or dynamic equivalence places emphasis on naturalizing or domesticating of SL in TL text. The deep structure-surface structure process is nothing but a mechanism to arrive at the naturalized form of the SL text in the TL. However, in stark contrast to the above approach, the paradigm of visibility vs. invisibility of translator argues that naturalized form masks the deeper ideological meaning in translation, and therefore it needs to be shed. In other words, narrative realism is to be avoided in translation. To be noted here is that Spivak’s use of italics in the translation also forms part of this paradigm of translator’s visibility, seeking to communicate with the reader beyond the role of the author of the original. (It may also be noted that challenging narrative realism to indicate the ideological construct of art was at the root of neo realist cinema of post World War II Europe.)
Section II
In the previous section, we have tried to draw a broad outline of the ‘paradigm shift’ that debates in translation have undergone in the course of half a century in Europe, especially after World War II. In this section, we will try and situate the question of situating translation of literary productions in the Assamese language in this above debate on translation and translation theory. As already noted, two case studies of specific forms of writing in Assamese language, viz. (a) Bezbarua and colloquial aesthetics, and (b) Mamoni Raisom Goswami and multiple language variant textual structure will be taken into consideration in this regard.

Translation Today

13

Translation Theories and Translating Assamese Texts
The writings of Lakhminath Bezbarua (1868–1938) are taken as the first example (Baruah, 2010). The particularity of Bezbarua’s literary aesthetic was in the way the oral and textual narrative elements could come together. If aesthetic is approached as a structure, it becomes evident that two sets of relations were central to the aesthetic structure of Bezbarua’s writings, namely (a) language-narration-narrator/author and (b) plot-narrationnarrator/author.
One of the most distinct features of Bezbarua’s aesthetic structure is the simultaneity of realism and traditional anti-realism that could be achieved through the relation of language, narration and narrator/author. The difference in the structure of language that Bezbarua used comes into sharper relief when compared to other writers, either contemporary or especially those since 1940s. Bezbarua did not maintain any significant distinction between the language of the characters (conversations, first person) and that of (third person) narration. But unlike many other writers, he did not make his characters speak in textual Assamese, or in the written form of the language. Therefore, both the characters and the narration could proceed based generally on colloquial Assamese of the eastern part (upon which the Sibsagar variant of Assamese language is based) of Assam. Another author (as discussed later) who made extensive use of colloquial language in conversations among the characters was Indira (Mamoni Raisom) Goswami. However, in her writings, the language of narration was different from that of conversation among the characters. The textual form of Assamese exists in her writings as the referent against which the language of conversations operates and gives meaning to the text.
In terms of aesthetic structure, the method of Bezbarua with regard to the relation between language and narration made the narrator/author a far greater distinct a factor of the text. More appropriately, the narrator/author did not remain a covert textual factor but as an overt textual factor. Further, it is necessary to mention here that Bezbarua’s use of traditional anti-realism was also evident in the impersonal relation between narration 14 Translation Today