Alisher navoiy asarlari badiiyatini ingliz tilida qayta yaratish muammolari
Translation of genres and transability of lyric words
Download 0.73 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
alisher navoiy asarlari badiiyatini ingliz tilida qayta yaratish muammolari
|
2. Translation of genres and transability of lyric words
The focus of translation studies would be shifted away from the incidental incompatibilities among languages toward the systematic communicative factors 65 E. Subtelny: ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, E. Rowson. Brill Online, 2013. 75 shared by languages. Only in light of this new focus can such issues as equivalence and translation evaluation be satisfactorily clarified 66 . Ke (Ke, 1999) says that the problem of translatability or untranslatability is closely related to man's understanding of the nature of language, meaning and translation. From the socio-semiotic point of view, ―untranslatables‖ are fundamentally cases of language use wherein the three categories of socio-semiotic meaning carried by a source expression do not coincide with those of a comparable expression in the target language. Three types of untranslatability, referential, pragmatic, and intra-lingual may be the carrier of the message. Language-specific norms considered untranslatable by some linguists should be excluded from the realm of untranslatables. And since translation is a communicative event involving the use of verbal signs, the chance of untranslatability in practical translating tasks may be minimized if the communicative situation is taken into account. In a larger sense, the problem of translatability is one of degree: the higher the linguistic levels the source language signs carry meaning(s) at, the higher the degree of translatability these signs may display; the lower the levels they carry meaning(s) at, the lower the degree of translatability they may register. 67 Translation practice is one of the strategies a culture devises for dealing with what we have learned to call the ―Other‖ (a term borrowed from Lefevere, 2001, meaning a culture different from one's own—my interpretation). The development of a translational strategy therefore also provides good indications of the kind of society one is dealing with. 66 Nemati Limai, Amir (2015), Analysis of the Political life of Amir Alishir Navai and Exploring his Cultural, Scientific, Social and Economic Works, Tehran & Mashhad: MFA(Cire)& Ferdowsi University,p57 67 Nemati Limai, Amir (2015), Analysis of the Political life of Amir Alishir Navai and Exploring his Cultural, Scientific, Social and Economic Works, Tehran & Mashhad: MFA(Cire)& Ferdowsi University,p56-59 76 Cultures that are relatively homogeneous tend to see their own way of doing things as ‗naturally', the only way, which just as naturally becomes the ‗best' way when confronted with other ways. When such cultures themselves take over elements from outside, they will, once again, naturalize them without too many qualms and too many restrictions. The less evaluative the text is, the less need there will be for its structure to be modified in translation. Conversely, the more evaluative the text is, the more scope there may be for modification. The less culture-bound (treaties, declarations, resolutions, and other similar documents) a text is, the less need there will be for its structure to be modified in translation. Conversely, the more culture-bound a text is, the more scope there may be for modification. There are numerous examples in both English and Uzbek that exhibit historical elements deeply rooted in the languages. Idioms and legends always provide ready support in this respect. Once an idiom or fixed expressions has been recognized, we need to decide how to translate it into the target language. Here the question is not whether a given idiom is transparent, opaque, or misleading. Maybe it's easier to translate an opaque expression than a transparent one. The main difficulties in the translation may be summarized as follows. An idiom or fixed expression may have no equivalent in the target language. One language may express a given meaning by means of a single word, another may express it by means of a transparent fixed expression, a third may express it by means of an idiom, and so on. So it is unrealistic to expect to find equivalent idioms and expressions in the target language in all cases. 68 Legends are of a quite similar character. What is a legendary hero in one language, for example, King Arthur in English may not be known in another 68 E. Subtelny: ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, E. Rowson. Brill Online, 2013. 77 language, such as Uzbek. Without necessary annotation the target reader would be certainly at a loss. But if the Uzbek legendary figure is loaned to serve the purpose of a courageous and brave man, the readers may be wondering if the English people also have such a legend, which may result in misunderstanding. Translation from Uzbek into English exhibits the same problem. Just as the Uzbek saying goes that a people of one geographical location is different from that of another, translation of geographical terms is where another problem is encountered. Recognition and familiarity of the geography is of immense help to bring about the readers' association, thus making comprehension easier. On the contrary, without a sense of geography, the readers have only their imagination in their power to employ. Translation of the following Uzbek poem is a case in point. As G. Steiner (1975: 45) points out, and as much research into the reading process has shown, each act of reading a text is in itself an act of translation, i.e. an interpretation. We seek to recover what is ‗meant' in a text from the whole range of possible meanings, in other words, from the meaning potential which Halliday (1978: 109) defines as ―the paradigmatic range of semantic choice that is present in the system, and to which the members of a culture have access in their language‖. Inevitably, we feed our own beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and so on into our processing of texts, so that any translation will, to some extent, reflect the translator's own mental and cultural outlook, despite the best of impartial intentions. No doubt, the risks are reduced to a minimum in most scientific and technical, legal and administrative translating; but cultural predispositions can creep in where least expected (Hatim & Mason.1990: 11). In literary translating, the process of constant reinterpretation is most apparent. The translator's reading of the source text is but one among infinitely many possible readings, yet it is the one which tends to be imposed upon the readership of the TL version. Since an important feature of poetic discourse is to allow a multiplicity of responses among SL readers, it follows that the translator's task should be to preserve, as far as 78 possible, the range of possible responses; in other words, not to reduce the dynamic role of the reader 69 . The readers' purposes can be divided into two types: for comparative literary research (intellectual) and foreign literature appreciation (aesthetic). For different purposes the translator may translate differently. Translation is a matter of choice, but choice is always motivated: omission, additions and alterations may indeed be justified but only in relation to intended meaning (Hatim & Mason.1990: 12). The translator's motivations are inextricably bound up with the socio-cultural context in which the act of translating takes place. Consequently, it is important to judge translating activity only within a social context. Before there is translation, for example, there has to be a need for translation. In fact, the social context of translating is probably a more important variable than the textual genre, which has imposed such rigid distinctions on types of translating in the past (‗literary translation', ‗scientific and technical translation', ‗religious translation', etc.) Divisions of this kind tend to mask certain fundamental similarities between texts from different fields. There are regularities of discourse procedures which transcend the boundaries between genres and which it is our aim to describe. Nida (1975) discusses translation from the point of view of semantic componential analysis, which consists in common (shared) components (the overlapping features of the single lexical units of a word field); diagnostic (contrastive) components (features which distinguish the meaning of individual lexical units of a word field or lexical units with more than one meaning); supplementary components (semantically optional secondary features which often 69 E. Subtelny: ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, E. Rowson. Brill Online, 2013. 79 have a connotative --in addition to fundamental meaning/denote: be the sign or symbol of --character and can cause metaphorical extensions). 70 I have done some research from the perspective of hermeneutics which studies meaning in human communication. Modern ideas on hermeneutics hold that the writer may be an editor or a redactor and that he may have used sources. In considering this aspect of discourse one must take into account the writer's purpose in writing as well as his cultural milieu. Secondly, one must consider the narrator in the writing who is usually different from the writer. Sometimes he is a real person, sometimes fictional. One must determine his purpose in speaking and his cultural milieu, taking into consideration the fact that he may be omnipresent and omniscient. One must also take into consideration the narratee within the story and how he hears. But even then one is not finished. One must reckon with the person or persons to whom the writing is addressed; the reader, not always the same as the one to whom the writing is addressed; and later readers. Thirdly, one must consider the setting of writing, the genre (whether poetry, narrative, prophecy, etc.), the figures of speech; the devices used, and, finally, the plot. (Hanko, 1991) Following the above ideas, we realize that understanding and interpreting the meaning of a discourse involves actually three factors: the author (writer), the text (or speech) and the reader. Jacobson (1966: 232-239) identifies three types of translation. The first is ‗translation' within the same language, referred to as intralingual translation. We are immersed in this kind of translation whenever we use different words and phrases to communicate similar meanings. Translation within the same language also shares this problem of ‗equivalence' prevalent in translation from one language to another. Jakobson points out that even synonyms do not capture ‗equivalence' of words. Thus when we replace one word by its synonym we are 70 Allworth, Edward A. (1990). The Modern Uzbeks: From the Fourteenth Century to the Present: A Cultural History. Hoover Institution Press. p. 229-230. ISBN 978-0817987329. 80 already giving into the mode of translation. In the case of scientific discourse, the problems associated with theory incommensurability arise out of intralingual translation. Although theories may use words and terms in the same language, and in fact carry over the same words into different theories, the incommensurability may arise because of changing historical and differing social contexts in which the words first gained currency. The second type of translation is interlingual translation. This is what we commonly understand as translation, where translation involves rewriting a text in one language into another. The third type of translation is intersemiotic translation, ―an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems‖, although this seems to be of little interest to the practitioners of translation. If translation does not merely re-express an original text what else does it do? For Benjamin, the position prior to actual translation is important, because it conveys that the text is more than a text—it is a text open to translation. In this sense all texts are not translatable; not all texts can be an original. The original is that which survives, has an ‗afterlife.' It is this survival that beckons the translator and opens the text to translation. To comprehend translation, we have to first understand the original as containing ―the law governing the translation: its translatability‖ (Benjamin, 1992: 71). What does translatability imply? It is seen as an ―essential quality of certain works,‖ supplies a ―natural connection‖ to the original and suggests ―that a special significance inherent in the original manifests itself in its translatability‖ (Ibid: 71). The translatability of a work is defined in terms of the ―capacity of the work to live on.‖ Thus, ―a translation issues from the original—not so much from its life as from its afterlife‖. Translation Studies is referred to as "Translatology" by scholars outside the U.S. , particularly in Europe . It is generally defined as the study of the theory and phenomena of translation. It is, according to many researchers in the field, an emerging discipline, yet to gain the status of an independent, distinct, discipline in the academia around the world. James S. Holmes is generally credited for his 81 "founding statement for the field" (Gentzler, 1993:92) in his paper, entitled " The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, " originally presented to the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics held in Copenhagen in 1972. Since then, research has been conducted with multi-disciplinary approaches in a more systematical fashion toward the formation of contemporary translation theory in its own right 71 . Wilss (2001: 58) holds that in other words, the science of translation, like Janus, has two faces. It is on the one hand the study of a process. As such, it is a prospective science which factors the translation process and studies its underlying transfer strategies. It is on the other hand the study of the results. Schleiermacher thinks that the translator can either leave the writer in peace as much as possible or bring the reader to him, or he can leave the reader in peace as much as possible and bring the writer to him. Taking into the consideration of all the above discussions of scholars and specialists we come to this conclusion: Translation lays emphasis on the product while translatology stresses a panoramic view of translation in an abstract sense. Or rather, translation is the application of rules and strategies based on translatology. 72 Here in this thesis apparently, our focus and stress is not in the academic sense of translatology per se, which according to Gary Dyck, mainly involves the study of the thinking process and methodology of translation. Nida (1965 as quoted in Fan, 1999: 5) says, ―translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language massage, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.‖ Acco 71 E. Subtelny: ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, E. Rowson. Brill Online, 2013 . 72 "About the National Library of Uzbekistan named after Alisher Navoiy". the National Library of Uzbekistan named after Alisher Navoiy. Retrieved 14 March 2013. 82 rding to Lefevere, translations should be re-termed ‗rewritings', in order to both raise the status of the translator and get away from the limitations of the term ‗translation' (Bassnett & Lefevere, 2001.) Some specialists make use of the following pair of terms literal v. free translation in the hope of shedding light on translation and clarifying certain translation process. It has been an age-old debate concerning whether translation should be free or literal. Some translation theorists present these two aspects of the translation process as though they were alternatives, one or the other of which is to be opted for at one time, depending on the translator's own brand of theory or the prevailing orthodoxy. But, as Hatim and Mason (1997) make abundantly clear, literalness or freedom are intrinsic properties of the relevant part of the text being translated. That is, it would be misleading to refer to a literal or a free translation of, say, an entire genre such as an editorial or a news report. Instead, it is more appropriate to talk of a less literal translation of a certain part of an editorial, or a more literal translation of a certain part of a news report. Newmark (1982) speaks about translation in the following way: semantic translation (to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning the original) and communicative translation. Naturally, actual effects on receivers of texts are difficult to gauge. Consequently, it seems preferable to handle the issue in terms of equivalence of intended effects , thus linking judgements about what the translator seeks to achieve to judgements about the intended meaning of the ST speaker/writer. Closely related to the literal versus free issue is the debate on the primacy of content over form or vice versa. Form, or style, may be seen as the result of motivated choices made by text producers; thus, we shall distinguish style from idiolect, the unconscious linguistic habits of an individual language user; and the conventional patterns of expressions which characterize particular languages. 83 In a word, style is used as a term distinguished from content in writing and it stresses form or format. In other words, style means ‗how' whereas content refers to ‗what'. 73 If style comes only second in priority, it certainly stands very high in importance. It is only natural that good form conveys the content in more sufficient and adequate way. In translation discussion, faithfulness in content has always been emphasized and treated seriously, but faithfulness in style seems to pose more difficulty. In literature, style is the novelist's choice of words and phrases, and how the novelist arranges these words and phrases in sentences and paragraphs. Style allows the author to shape how the reader experiences the work. For example, one writer may use simple words and straightforward sentences, while another may use difficult vocabulary and elaborate sentence structures. Even if the themes of both works are similar, the differences in the authors' styles make the experiences of reading the two works distinct. To sum up, after integrating the research achievements of modern day translation circles provides the following understanding of translation, which is universally acknowledged now. Translation is an activity comprising the interpretation of the sense of a text in one language - the source text - and the production of another, equivalent text in another language - the target text . The goal of translation is to establish a relationship of equivalence between the source and the target texts (that is to say, both texts communicate the same message), while taking into account the various constraints placed on the translator. (These constraints include the rules of grammar of the source language, its writing conventions, its idioms and the like.)The term translation is also used for the product of this procedure. Translation is also the name given to a profession which consists of transferring ideas expressed in writing from one language to another. 73 E. Subtelny: ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, E. Rowson. Brill Online, 2013. 84 Nord (1989) puts forward the following pair of terms in talking about the purposes of translation: Documentary ( preserve the original exoticizing setting) vs instrumental translation (adaptation of the setting to the target culture). Sigrid Kupsch-Losereit (quoted in Wilss, 2001) defines a translation error as an offence against: the function of the translation, the coherence of the text, the text type or text form, linguistic conventions, culture- and situation-specific conventions and conditions and the language system. What is the significance of such an assertion? The function of the translation is put at the top of the list, showing that the most serious error is to fail to convey the original function 74 . To sum up, if the purpose of a translation is to achieve a particular function for the target addressee, anything that obstructs the achievement of this purpose is a translation error. Next lets move on to study the functional classification of translation errors. Errors may occur in every aspect of translation, as shown in the following: 1) Pragmatic: caused by inadequate solutions to pragmatic translation problems such as a lack of receiver orientation. 2) Cultural: due to an inadequate decision with regard to reproduction or adaptation of culture-specific conventions. 3) Linguistic: caused by an inadequate translation when the focus is on language structures (as in foreign-language classes). 4) Text-specific: which are related to a text-specific translation problem and, like the corresponding translation problem, can usually be evaluated from a functional or pragmatic point of view. (cited in Nord. 2001.) Let us herein emphasize that translating is an activity. This means that a theory of translation can be embedded in a theory of human action or activity. The parameters of action theory may help to explain some aspects of translation. 74 Ali Shir Nava'i Muhakamat al-lughatain tr. & ed. Robert Devereaux (Leiden: Brill) 1966,p 45-47 85 Human actions or activities are carried out by ‗agents', individuals playing roles. When playing the role of senders in communication, people have communicative purposes that they try to put into practice by means of texts. Communicative purposes are aimed at other people who are playing the role of receivers. Communication takes place through a medium and in situations that are limited in time and place. Each specific situation determines what and how people communicate, and it is changed by people communicating. Situations are not universal but are embedded in a cultural habitat, which in turn conditions the situation. Language is thus to be regarded as part of culture. And communication is conditioned by the constraints of the situation-in-culture. In translation, senders and receivers belong to different cultural groups in that they speak different languages. They thus need help from someone who is familiar with both languages (and cultures) and who is willing to play the role of translator or intermediary between them. In professional settings, translators don't normally act on their own account; they are asked to intervene by either the sender or the receiver, or perhaps by a third person. From an observer's point of view, this third party will be playing the role of ‗commissioner' or ‗initiator'; from the translator's point of view, they will be the ‗client' or ‗customer'. Initiators may have communicative purposes of their own or they may share those of either the sender or the receiver. Translating thus involves aiming at a particular communicative purpose that may or may not be identical with the one that other participants have in mind. 75 Nida (1976: 64) treats this topic too, arguing that: when the question of the superiority of one translation over another is raised, the answer should be looked for in the answer to another question, ‗best for whom?'. The relative adequacy of different translations of the same text can only be determined in terms of the extent 75 Nemati Limai, Amir (2015), Analysis of the Political life of Amir Alishir Navai and Exploring his Cultural, Scientific, Social and Economic Works, Tehran & Mashhad: MFA(Cire)& Ferdowsi University,p56-59 86 to which each translation successfully fulfills the purpose for which it was intended. In other words, the relative validity of each translation is seen in the degree to which the receptors are able to respond to its message (in terms of both form and content) in comparison with (1) what the original author evidently intended would be the response of the original audience and (2) how that audience did, in fact, respond. All these arguments are strong positive support of the paramount importance of the proper understanding of the original functions as well as the purposes before one sets out doing a piece of translation. I agree with Benjamin (Benjamin, 1992: 77) that the ―task of the translator consists in finding that intended effect upon the language into which he is translating which produces in it the echo of the original‖. It is interesting that Benjamin uses the word ‗echo.' The task of the translator can only produce the echo of the original, not the originality of the original. The idea of the echo is that we hear our own voices sent back to us. The echo is never strictly identical with what has been voiced before. It also suggests something about the space, the topography, of the domain that creates the echo. The voice that comes back to us is similar to what we uttered but is also distorted by the response of what sends back our voice. 76 Jumpelt (1961 as quoted in Wilss, 2001) when discussing translation equivalence, presents in the following five pairs of principles contradicting each other. In analyzing the dilemma of the age-old dispute of free vs literal translation, we find free translation would be intelligible but may convey no cultural insight while literal translation, on the other hand, superficially preserves the original but would be unintelligible to the reader often. In consequence, Malinowski 76 In C. E. Bosworth, E. Van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs, Ch. Pellat. The Encyclopedia of Islam VII. Leiden—New York: E. J. Brill. pp. 90–93. 87 (1923,1935) opted for translation with commentary. What the extended commentary did was to ‗situationalise' the text by relating it to its environment, both verbal and non-verbal. Malinowski referred to this as the context of situation, including the totality of the culture surrounding the act of text production and reception. He believed the cultural context to be crucial in the interpretation of the message, taking in a variety of factors ranging from the ritualistic (which assumes great importance in traditional societies), to the most practical aspects of day-to- day existence. 77 Criterion that is of fundamental importance in translating this piece may turn out to be improper in guiding the process of translating another piece. Only when depending on various situations and complementing criteria can a perfect piece of translation be produced. Basic problems faced by translators in their work in broad and general terms. This is a rather complete and through description of the translation process, without the detailed steps of which there would be no guarantee for the best quality of the translation 78 . Lye (1996) says that meaning is a difficult issue. What is said here only scratches the surface of a complex and contested area. How do we know what a work of literature is 'supposed' to mean, or what its 'real' meaning is? There are several ways to approach this: 1) that meaning is what is intended by the author ; 2) that meaning is created by and contained in the text itself ; 3) that meaning is created by the reader. 77 Allworth, Edward A. (1990). The Modern Uzbeks: From the Fourteenth Century to the Present: A Cultural History. Hoover Institution Press. p. 229-230. ISBN 978-0817987329 78 E. Subtelny: ʿAlī Shīr Navāʾī. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, E. Rowson. Brill Online, 2013, p 101. 88 It becomes almost impossible to know whether the same interpretations are arrived at because the formal properties securely encode the meaning, or because all of the 'competent' readers were taught to read the formal properties of texts in roughly the same way. As a text is in a sense only ink-marks on a page, and as all meanings are culturally created and transferred, the argument that the meaning is 'in' the text is not a particularly persuasive one. 79 The meaning might be more likely to be in the conventions of meaning, traditions, and cultural codes which have been handed down, so that insofar as we and other readers (and the author) might be said to agree on the meaning of the text, that agreement would be created by common traditions and conventions of usage, practice and interpretation. In different time periods, with different cultural perspectives (including class, gender, ethnicity, belief and world-view), or with different purposes for reading no matter what the distance in time or cultural situation, competent readers can arrive at different readings of texts. As on the one hand a text is a historical document, a material fact, and as on the other meaning is inevitably cultural and contextual, the question of whether the text 'really means' what it means to a particular reader, group or tradition can be a difficult and complex one. Does the meaning then exist in the reader's response, her processing or reception of the text? In a sense this is inescapable: meaning exists only insofar as it means to someone, and art is composed in order to evoke sets of responses in the reader (there is no other reason for it to exist, or for it to have patterns or aesthetic qualities, or for it to use symbols or have cultural codes). But this leads us to three essential issues. Meaning is 'social', that is, language and conventions work only as shared meaning, and our way of viewing the world can exist only as shared or sharable. When we read a text, we are participating in social, or cultural, meaning. Response is not merely an individual thing, but is part of culture and history. 79 Allworth, Edward A. (1990). The Modern Uzbeks: From the Fourteenth Century to the Present: A Cultural History. Hoover Institution Press. p. 229-230. ISBN 978-0817987329 89 Texts constructed as literature, or 'art', have their own codes and practices, and the more we know of them, the more we can 'decode' the text, that is, understand it - consequently, there is in regard to the question of meaning the matter of reader competency, as it is called, the experience and knowledge of decoding literary texts. You might have been nudged to insist on your having and practicing competency in reading by insisting that any interpretation you have (a) be rooted in (authorized by) the text itself and (b) be responsible to everything in the text -- that is, that your interpretation of any line or action be in the context of the whole of the work. But you may have to learn other competencies too. You may see that this idea that meaning requires competency in reading can bring us back, as meanings are cultural and as art is artifact, to different conventions and ways of reading and writing, and to the historically situated understandings of the section on the Author, above; at the least, 'meaning' requires a negotiation between cultural meanings across time, culture, gender, class. As readers you have in fact acquired a good deal of competency already; you are about to acquire more. The point herein is that 'meaning' is a phenomenon that is not easily ascribed or located, that it is historical, social, and derived from the traditions of reading and thinking and understanding the world that you are educated about and socialized in. Robert Frost famously said, ―Poetry is what gets lost in translation.‖ Indeed, translation has traditionally been married to the notion of what is lost, and this makes sense, if one looks at a poem like a Renaissance painting: the original being of highest quality and any replica a necessarily poor copy. But what if, like everything else in the world, it‘s not so black and white? This examination is an interrogation of myself and my poetics, my propensity of late to write using translation dictionaries, to write poems full of words of which I don‘t know how to make meaning, to experiment with re-creating the poems of writers whose language I can‘t understand, but whose poems nonetheless (or maybe all the more) 90 mean something. The questions I am able to ask are less about semantics and more along the lines of what is present, what is absent, and what are the ways I can interpret a poem whose language is anathema to me? Can I still glean something from form or tone, or as I fear, will my interpretation be just a commentary on miscommunication? 80 In acknowledgment of our increasingly multilingual and border-shifting world, translation scholarship in recent years has catapulted beyond the science of converting one language into another and beyond conventional theories of translation. Innovative and experimental poetries, postcolonial literary theorization, and the internationalization of literature and communication are all blurring the definitions between ―originals‖ (the concept of originality itself being highly debatable, but more on that later) and their offspring. As globalization rewrites national and cultural identities, so does it refine and define anew the previously cut-and-dry notion of translation. How exciting for the formerly stodgy and aristocratic ―translation‖: in the postcolonial era, it is revamped—wearing fascinating glasses, new clothes, and engaging in a lively game of interdisciplinary Twister. Why is it important to continue exploring and discussing postcolonial translation and trans-creation theories? Allow me to plumb a few of the various subcategories of this ever expanding forum, in order to exemplify a few of the reasons why it matters, and highlight some of the ways in which these theories are put to practice in contemporary English-language poetry. Indeed, language is inextricably tied to culture. At its best, a vibrant, thriving language is full of complexities. Navoi‘s poetry is technically oriental, yet the ―sphere of language‖ in her poems is magnified by the way she utilizes memory, ceremony, and spirituality. Some lines are arguably more powerful in English than they would be in Uzbek. This is poetry, and there is beauty in Navoi‘s reclamation of a language whose people were bent on her culture‘s annihilation. Her poetry 80 Allworth, Edward A. (1990). The Modern Uzbeks: From the Fourteenth Century to the Present: A Cultural History. Hoover Institution Press. p. 229-230. ISBN 978-0817987329 91 exemplifies the notion that when people create in a language, it helps that language become vital, potent, and beautiful. For the purposes of this examination, therefore, I will assume something that is by no means unanimously agreed upon: that it is a benefit for texts to be translated, and that translation and trans-creation into English can prove positive both culturally and linguistically. First, however, we must look at translation through the lens of colonialism. Colonial translation is a one-way exchange, a tool of the dominant culture to assimilate myths and histories of the colonized culture and altering customs, phrases and intent so that these stories fit within the recognized confines of the ―new‖ culture. An assimilative approach has historically meant that anything deemed too culturally oblique or foreign in the poem to be translated was replaced with a concept the dominant culture could relate to. It is for this reason that translation has traditionally been paired with the notion of what is lost. Translation, like so many other aspects of imperial rule, suited the purposes of the dominant culture and was typically intended for an audience of the dominant culture. Given all this, it is no wonder that those who question the benefits of translation into dominant languages have more than a few reservations. Still, some translation theorists wonder, is it possible for English to redeem itself in some way? Can poets of diverse linguistic and cultural histories use English to communicate the untranslatable—the way a medium communicates with the spirit world? In important ways, using English can mean acknowledging the history of colonization, rather than rejecting it. Forcing the language to accommodate, to bend. Language has a long memory, and it is the job of the postcolonial poet, the writer, and even the citizen not only to choose their words wisely, but also to remember how easily words can lie, and to consider it our duty as writers to strive for a language that is as full and complicated and messy and culturally loaded as it is to be human. We are a memory, some say, of a narrative we tell ourselves. Words are our tools to this end. Words gain meaning by existing in relation to other words just as 92 we gain meaning by the ways that we exist in relation to other living beings on our planet. When English recognizes its dark past, it says something positive about the resiliency and adaptability of language, the acknowledgment of our interconnectedness. If one believes in a common consciousness, or even the idea of human contact being intrinsic in the exchange of ideas and language, we are all talking to each other, all of the time. Language belongs to all of us, and what we mean to say with our words is contextual, shifting. Back to the notion of the original: it is commonly acknowledged that everything said has been said before. Just as we cannot find our way back to an ur-tongue, we cannot find our way forward to a final translation. Hence, there is also no master text, to which all translations are inferior. In poetry, as well as in translation, there is no ultimate meaning. Indeed, the ―trans‖ in translation and trans-creation indicates that we are always moving across languages, across cultures. With this in mind, translation and trans-creation have the power to do much more than present a poor copy of an original or consume a dominated culture‘s literature. With these tools, we can shake up the concept of literary property. We can create alt-languages, and a space for them to exist. We can expand the parameters of the accepted language of poetics. As to the exploration of this new literary territory, Quebecan poet Jacques Brault says: Since I have been navigating in all sorts of foreign waters, which sweep along all sorts of historical, cultural, social and symbolic deposits, I feel more profoundly at home and I am cured of my land sickness…. I resolved to traverse this language until I came to my own (yet unknown) tongue, and that during this difficult and salutatory passage I would lose myself in the other, and the other would find itself in me 81 . One of the most pivotal issues concerning translation has always been the question of faithfulness to the text. Historically, a good translation was seen as 81 E. Subtelny: Alī Shīr Navāʾī. Encyclopaedia of Islam. Edited by: G. Krämer, D. Matringe, J. Nawas, E. Rowson. Brill Online, 2013 . 93 something that tried to stay as close to the original text as possible in language, meter, rhyme, and content. While that literal approach still exists today, postcolonial translators are also concerned with the cultural implications of the text. We understand poetry in layers, and the layers of culturally specific information that inform our understanding of the text are negotiable. Translators must consider the information load and the limits to which a poetic translation may be able to convey this load. The experience of the foreign is often just that–an experience, difficult to convey without prose narrative. Poet and translator Rosmarie Waldrop says, somewhat more poetically: The relations between the terms keep shifting…In the end, we are left with gestures: the gesture of analogy rather than any particular analogy, the gesture of signification rather than any particular meaning, the gestures of endless commentary and interpretation. Doing away with the concept of analogy is an ideal, yet to be deemed possible. In the same way that tolerance is no substitute for acceptance, analogy is necessary in part because we don‘t live in a peaceful world filled with mutual respect and a desire to understand one another. Changing a concept like analogy, so integral to our current ways of thinking and writing, can‘t happen in a bubble. It must be aligned with massive re-education and re-socialization. But that doesn‘t mean we can‘t consider the possibility. What could such a literature look like? Poet and essayist Joan Retallack expounds, ―[o]ne that does not deny the chaos, the inarticulate, the confusing, the fragmented, the lost, the loss, but instead brings it into form?‖ The specifics of translation often have to do with the intended audience for a text. If a minority-language text is translated with the dominant culture as its intended audience, as has historically been the case, linguistic and cultural explanations will be prevalent. At the same time, most translations assume the minority culture knows the dominant culture‘s subtext, and this assumption is a bit of a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it continues to promote an acceptance of cultural dominance, and on the other, it raises the bar for what is 94 possible for our poetry to address. As long as the translation is happening in the direction of minority language to dominant language, explains Maria Tymoczko, a translation expert and professor of comparative literature at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the prevailing standards of Western literature exclude the ―instructional‖ or ―didactic.‖ But what if the same translation is geared toward the minority culture or an international audience? It is a matter of ―bringing the text to the audience‖ or ―bringing the audience to the text.‖ Which brings us back to a fundamental question: how do we treat cultures equally and remain readable, interesting? Fortunately, new and exciting forays into multilingual, translational, and trans-creational poetries are continually emerging. The most obvious approach to postcolonial translation is of course, using established English equivalents, à la It, by Inger Christensen. Susanna Nied‘s award-winning 1988 translation is relevant to this discussion in part because she allows the mystery of language in general to come through, and in part because ―it‖ itself is about language‘s power and powerlessness and the poet‘s function in creating a world with words. This is a criticism of the power human beings have over language because it‘s a criticism of the power language has over human beings. Nied translates that the world (and therefore the word) is ―something else and more than it is / like a meaningful disagreement between us.‖ This seems such an honest and apt description of the difficulty of translation in a postcolonial international setting. Nied‘s approach to translation is stylistically traditional, but exceptional in the way that she captures the kaleidoscopic possibilities of interpretation. To be clear, Trask‘s hand extended is by no means indicative of an egalitarian relationship between the two cultures or languages. It does however, spur us to ask the question: is it even possible for languages to meet as equals in poetry? This is where the idea of trans-creation comes into play, and where things get really interesting. Writings of this sort are typically conceived in response to situations of unequal cultural exchange, and can take many forms. I wrote this text 95 knowing it was for an English publication. For a while I did not know if I would write it in French or in English. I finally chose French but soon words were coming to my mind in english. Then I decided to translate each paragraph. But gradually I kept moving from one language to the other. Translating, rewriting, writing, translating, writing, rewriting, etc. . . .―Time Out‖ cavorts between stanzas in French and stanzas in English. It is a poem that refuses to belong to one prime language, but is written through, with, and of both languages, as can be seen in this section. This sort of work celebrates a quality that has often been rejected in traditional translation, aspiring not to be either here or there, but instead pressing out to create a space between two worlds, an opening up. Indeed, ―here,‖ has become a ―permanently uncertain place,‖ and language used in poetry in the contact zone exemplifies this 82 . Translation and trans-creation today confirm that we live in a shrinking world, but a growing community. They confirm that cultures and languages are not autonomous, but plural. Multilingual and dialectical poetry are changing the translation scene, reminding us that language is alive and intertwined with culture. Recognizing the reasons why we make choices to include or exclude language and its histories is only a part of this dynamic field. In fact, what used to be considered a ―poor‖ translation may deserve a second look. It is possible that the translation simply didn‘t conform to theoretical norms of its time. Perhaps the translation expressed some discomfort with language, idiomatic or dialectic, or a gap in cultural understanding. Perhaps rather than ignore a cultural concept, replacing it with one more familiar to the translator, those translations were simply some of the first to step out into the often bewildering contact zone. Joan Retallack, in defining her term ―poethical wager‖ argues that the concept includes identifying a certain poetics of responsibility with the courage of the swerve. . . . Swerves (like antiromantic modernisms, the civil rights movement, feminism, post-colonialist 82 Alisher Navoi. Complete Works in 20 Volumes 1–18. Tashkent. 1987–2002,p 90-91 96 critiques) are necessary to dislodge us from reactionary allegiances and nostalgias. One could say that this growing body of polylingual and radical translation work is also a ―swerve,‖ a poethical wager that bears its responsibility to history, language, and culture. Central to this examination‘s concern is another Retallack notion, the idea of culture as a kinetic, labyrinthine ―coastline.‖ In her words, the ―‗horizon of time‘ is an example of a class of heavily freighted metaphors . . . whose incompletely examined historical implications exert a gravitational force that warps the edge of the contemporary as it emerges into critical view.‖ Translation is this shifting, myriad coastline between cultures, and trans-creation is the contact zone: vaguely definable, ever changing, and charismatic. This sentiment echoes a previously stated concept that bears repeating: that there is no one meaning to be found in translation, just as there is no one truth to be found in text. This in turn confirms that the evolution of language and poetics is also a process that has no beginning. ―Everything said has been said before,‖ seems more hopeful and reassuring than it once did to me. Perhaps, indeed, translation and trans-creation are not only about what is lost, but also about new solidarities, built by a fusion of language. Joan Retallack, quoting the esteemed, innovative, bilingual writer Samuel Beckett, sums up this bewildering and beautiful poetic adventure. Collectively, she says, what we are searching for is a poetics that can admit what Beckett calls ―the mess,‖ ―the chaos.‖ As Beckett explains, ―What I am saying does not mean that there will henceforth be no form in art. It only means that there will be new form and that this form will be of such a type that it admit the chaos and does not try to say that the chaos is really something else. . . . To find a form that accommodates the mess, that is the task of the artist now.‖ Download 0.73 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|