INTRODUCTION
Dr. A. P. Andrewskutty defined translation as "a complex activity involving a complex phenomenon - language" (Andrewskutty, 1988). More precisely, translation is a complex activity involving at least two complex phenomena - the Source language (SL) and the Target language (TL). A host of traditional scholars have established that the primary purpose of translation is to achieve equivalence between the SL and TL texts. For example, J. C. Catford, in his widely quoted The Linguistic Theory of Translation, has defined translation as "the replacement of an SL text with an equivalent TL text."
With the emergence of new and more powerful techniques of analyzing languages such as the methods of Discourse Analysis (DA), the concept of equivalence itself has undergone considerable changes. The translation of news items in mass media like the radio offers various instances, which reflect these changing concepts.
This paper is an attempt at presenting an alternative perspective on translation, in the background of DA and news translation practices, which will focus on deviances rather than on equivalences. The paper also contends that, in the evaluation of translations, more emphasis ought to be laid on deviances than is presently done.
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
To place the changing concepts of equivalence in a proper perspective, the theory and general principles of discourse analysis is examined here in a very brief manner.
In very general terms, discourse is an umbrella concept, defined and used in various social sciences in differing ways. For example, Howarth David (2002) examines the definition and scope of the term discourse. He points out that, for some, discourse is a very narrow enterprise, concentrating on a single utterance or a set of conversations, while for others it is "synonymous with the entire social system, in which discourses literally constitute the social and political world." He is of the general opinion that, "as the concept of discourse has been employed in the social sciences, it has acquired greater technical and theoretical sophistication, while accruing additional meanings and connotations."
Briefly surveying the various viewpoints concerning discourse, Howarth points out that discourses can be, at a basic level, viewed as frames, which can generate common perceptions and understandings. There is also a realist perception of discourse wherein "discourses are regarded as particular objects with their own properties and powers." From such a point of view, one looks upon any language as "a structured system in its own right." Thus, it becomes the duty of discourse analysis to "unravel the conceptual elisions and confusions by which language enjoys its power."
Marxian thought considers "discourse as ideological systems of meanings that obfuscate and naturalize uneven distribution of power and resources." Norman Fairclough's approach of critical discourse analysis emphasizes that there is a mutually constituting relationship between discourses and the social system within which they function. Fairclough contends that discourse analysis faces the task of examining this dialectical relationship and of explaining how language and meaning are used to gain dominance in a society.
The post-Structuralist and post-Marxist approaches towards discourse are also extremely interesting and are at variance with each other. According to these perspectives, discourses constitute symbolic systems and social orders. To understand these systems it becomes necessary to examine their construction and functioning from both the historical as well as political points of view. Basic to all such approaches is the assumption that social structures constitute "inherently ambiguous, incomplete and contingent systems of meaning."
To put it in a nutshell, for sociologists, philosophers and other social scientists, discourse refers to the way in which society is reflected in language. It has also to be kept in mind that the functioning of society as reflected in a language is, to some extent, determined by the language used by its members. Michael Foucault (1972) has very clearly summed up the concept of discourse from the point of view of social sciences thus: "Discourses can be defined as practices that systematically form the subject of which they speak."
LINGUISTICS AND DA
As far as linguists are concerned, discourse has become a very fertile area of research. Basically, discourse is concerned with the dynamics of language. As Cameron, 2002 says, DA is "the study of language in use." Fassold 1990 says that "study of discourse is the study of any aspect of language use." Stubbs 1982 defines discourse in more specific terms as the study of "language above sentence or above the clause."
Brown and Yule 1983 have quite succinctly explained the workings of DA. They reaffirm that "analysis of discourse is, necessarily, the analysis of language in use. As such, it cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions, which these forms are designed to serve in human affairs."
Cameron 2004 synthesizes the various viewpoints regarding discourse and has this to say:
The potentially confusing term 'discourse' is used in rather different ways by linguist and critical theorists. For linguists, discourse is language in use. A discourse analyst differs from a syntactician or a formal semanticist in that he does not study the internal working of a language system, but the way meaning is produced when a language is used in particular contexts for particular purposes. On the other hand, for critical theorists, 'discourses' are sets of propositions in circulation about a particular phenomenon. These propositions constitute what people take to be the reality of that phenomenon.THE 'PARADOX' OF TRANSLATION
Against the background of DA, the processes and activity of translation can be examined afresh.
From the perspective of DA, translation can be redefined as the reading of an SL text in a TL context. Translation becomes a relevant activity because of the differences in the contexts of the SL text and the TL text.
But, here, the main problem that arises is the question of equivalence. Just because translation is rendered necessary because of the differences in the contexts of the two or more texts under consideration, and just because under traditional approaches the activity of translation has as its principal aim the achievement of equivalence between the texts, it stands to reason that such equivalence is almost impossible to achieve. Herein lies the paradox of translation, namely, that translation is necessary but well nigh impossible in a certain sense.
VARIOUS APPROACHES TO TRANSLATION
Early translation scholars have been concerned with the 'literariness' of translation activity. However, modern scholars have veered round to the fact that translation consists of "a rewriting of the original text" (Basnet, 1999).
Kapila Kapoor, another translation scholar, has described systematically the series of shifts that have occurred in the concept of translation (Kapoor, 1997). In the initial stage the emphasis of all translational activity was the "establishment of correspondence" and "exposition." This refers to the insistence on "equivalence."
A second shift occurred when the prime importance in translation was accorded to what Kapoor calls the "propositional transfer of the actual concept." This refers to a change of approach. Here, it is never the term that is rendered equivalent in the TL text: rather, it is a proposition, idea or concept behind a proposition that is re generated in the TL context as another proposition, idea or concept.
TRANSLATION AND DISCOURSE
DA views translation as an activity akin to the second position outlined above. In the different contexts of SL and TL texts, only relevant concepts will be re generated and reflected in the TL text.
This naturally means that deviances between the SL and TL texts are inevitable. They are to be regarded the norm rather than the exception. But the significant point here is that at varying discourse levels the translated texts will have comparable discourse values. The functions of the texts will also be comparable in the two texts.
In other words, deviances at certain linguistic levels are inevitable in translation. However, these deviances assume significance in that they facilitate equivalence at the higher levels of discourse analysis. Thus, DA can be said to be offering a way out of the "paradox of translation."
Again, as deviances may be vital in maintaining readability and in enriching cultural collocations, they have to be considered proactively when translations are evaluated. Rather than considering these deviances as adulterations, it would be more justifiable to call them value additions.
ANALYSIS
The case for considering deviances in the evaluation of translation can be illustrated by the following example. The translation of a news item taken here was originally put out by a premier news agency, the United News of India, and later translated into Malayalam by the Regional News Unit of the Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum) station of All India Radio.
SL TEXT
Even as the Kerala Government is looking forward to a Rs 20,000 crore investment in the energy, petrochemical, and LNG import terminal in the state, its top functionaries are scheduled to meet a high powered delegation from Quatar in New Delhi, Wednesday.
TL TEXT
LNG terminal, petro kemikal kompleks enniva samstaanattu staapikkunnatine kuriccu kattaril ninnulla unnata tala pratiniddi samkhavumaayi samstaanatte uyarna udyoogastar carcca natattum. Adutta budhanaazcca dilliyil natattunna carcca neerattee truvanantapurattu natanna carccayute tudarccayaayirikkumennu mukhya mantri parannu.Here, the changes made in the text fall into two broad categories. One kind of change is necessitated by the nature of the medium, while another set is necessitated by the craft of journalism. The net result of both these sets of changes is as follows:
- shorter sentences,
- sharper arrangement of facts and ideas, and
- avoidance of having to refer to another document for clarification concerning this news item.
There are many changes made that fall into both the categories. For example, the term 'energy' in the SL text has been omitted in the TL text. This helps in shortening the average sentence length, which is a demand from well-established broadcast and journalism practices.
Journalists shape news items, in general, on the basis of the principle of the 'inverted pyramid.' As per this practice, all essential information, without which a particular item will not make sense, will be given invariably in the first paragraph. This is technically called the 'intro.' In the news item under analysis, the sum of investment has been omitted in the beginning, since it forms the background material, which will come towards the base of the pyramid.
The vast amount of material given in a single sentence of the SL text has been divided between two opening sentences in the TL text. This again helps easy reading (a very significant broadcasting feature and practice) even as it shortens sentences (an important journalistic tenet).
From a more general point of view, the TL text can be seen as a deviant form of the SL text. Structural shifts (for example, SL word 'investment' becomes TL phrase 'samstaanattu staapikkunnatine kuriccu', a description that is more easily understood and jibes well with the current practices of language use in Malayalam), replacement of SL terms with TL descriptions (for example, the addition of 'enniva' ("such as these") to roll up the list of investments), total avoidance of some sentences in the TL text (for example, the figure regarding the size of the investment), addition of material not given in the SL text (for example, the fact that the forthcoming discussion is a follow up of an earlier round), etc., are some of the deviances attested in the example.
CONCLUSION
The following conclusions follow from the above discussion.
- From the point of view of discourse analysis, deviances are the identifying characteristics of translational activity.
- They are inevitable, given the fact that translations are re-readings of the SL text in a TL context.
- Hence, deviances should be taken into due consideration in the evaluation of translations.
- Since the transfer of SL culture to the TL culture is principally carried out through the medium of deviances, the study of deviances creates a multi-disciplinary level in translation studies.
REFERENCES
1. Andrewskutty, A. P. (1988). "Correlatives in Translatability" in Translation as Synthesis, Annamalai.
2. Basnett, Susan (1999). Quoted in Literary Translation, A Monograph of the University of Hyderabad.
3. Brown and Yule (1983). Discourse Analysis. ELBS, Cambridge series.
4. Cameron, Deborah (2002). Working with Spoken Discourse. Cambridge.
5. Do (2004). Sexuality and Language, Cambridge.
6. Fasold, R (1990). Sociolinguistics of Language, Oxford.
7. Foucault, Michael (1972). The Archeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language, Pantheon, New York.
8. Howarth David (2002) Discourse. Viva Books, New Delhi.
9. Kapoor, Kapila (1997). "Philosophy in Translation" in Translation and Multilingualism, edited by Santa Ramakrishnan, JNU.
10. Stubbs (1982). Discourse Analysis. Chicago.
Attitudes Toward Hindi | A Survey of Language Preferences in Education in India | News Translation and the Concept of Equivalence - A Discourse Analysis Perspective | Who Is the Indigenous Sri Lankan? | An Overview of Orwell's Animal Farm | Speaking Versus Communicating in Business English | Linguistic Manipulation in Political Advertising | Some Limitations of Corpus-based Language Study | Hegemony, C-Semiologically | The Evolution of Language Policy in the Constituent Assembly of India | HOME PAGE | CONTACT EDITOR