Construction, Deconstruction and Reconstruction in
Translation: A Study of Translation from the Perspective of Bangladesh
Dr.
Elham Hossain,
Associate
Professor,
Department
of English,
Green
University of Bangladesh,
Dhaka,
Bangladesh.
Abstract: Translation serves as a gateway to intercultural as
well as multilingual understanding and apparently appears to be more than an
inter- and intra-semantic transfer of the basic information. Jacques Derrida
terms it much more complicated than merely a direct transfer of language.
Transference of meaning from the source language to the target language engages
both the linguistic and cultural processes. Lexical equivalence of words of one
language to those of another language does not justifiably define translation.
The most challenging task of translation is to grasp the arbitrariness of the
meanings of the source language and incorporate them into the target language
as much as possible. This arbitrariness creates spatiality which allows a
translator to utilize his authority of imposing gravity, levity, faithfulness,
or even faithlessness upon the target text. True, translation, in the present
world of multilingualism, multiculturalism and globalization can be the gateway
to reciprocation of cognition and mutual comprehensibility. However, it is also
irrefutable that translation is never apolitical as it possesses the potential
to construct, deconstruct and reconstruct the conscious incorporated into the
source text. Besides, intertextuality between the ideology of the translator
and that of the source text has the capacity to construct a new conscious and
promote the hegemonic intention of the translator. Translatability is really a
crucial issue pertinent to the translation process and requires in-depth
research. In Bangladesh which is predominantly a monolingual country,
translation from English to Bengali and vice-versa is widely practiced. This paper will address the research
question─ how translation process constructs, deconstructs and reconstructs in
the situations of cultural untranslatability. It will also borrow Jacques
Derrida’s theoretical framework of translation theory and consider select
Bangladeshi translators and their works for defending the research question.
Keywords: Deconstruction, Intertextuality,
Multilingualism, Comprehensibility, Construction, Reconstruction
Translation, as
Jacques Derrida thinks, is both possible and impossible. He further concedes
that language, however intelligible, is not without equivocation, and thus, the
translatability of any language provokes questions of authenticity, and arises
suspicion about the dexterity of the translator in grasping the equivocal
meanings of the source language and putting them into the target language.
Derrida, in his essay, “What is a Relevant Translation?” declares, “As a matter
of fact, I don’t believe that anything can ever be untranslatable or, moreover,
translatable” (178). While translating a text two things are to be kept in
mind- property and quantity. Jacques Derrida believes that a
relevant translation must sustain these two things, that is, property and
quantity.
Actually,
“[T]ranslation is as much a creative activity as literature itself, and
creativity is slave only to the dictates of the human mind, which knows no
bounds” (Ramakrishna 87). Susan Gal
calls translation “a very fruitful metaphor in anthropology” (226). Actually,
translation is a semiotic process which involves both anthropological and
ethnological matters pertinent to a community of people defined topographically
as well as historically. It contributes to “the mobility and multiplicity of
understanding” (Hossain 90). Inwardness with both the languages, that is, the
source language and the target language enable a translator to comprehend the
socio-political and cultural matrix engaged with the memory, associations and
literary allusions of the texts. It is aptly believed that “the worlding of
poetics manifests as a mode of circulating and reading literary theory and
criticism by transcending the boundaries of languages and cultures” (Lee 132).
In this respect, a translator’s engagement with all these aspects enables him
to bring about cultural transposition, essential to resonate the target text
with liveliness and authenticity. It requires both synchronic and diachronic
study of both the source text and the target text because there are chances to
lose the aesthetic essence and affective engagement of the source text. Even
Plato opposes translation as he believes that “it distorts reality while it
translates things into verbal forms” (Das 10). Actually, translation is a move
away from the original and at the same time an attempt of re-creating the
original and thus it turns into a paradox to the consciousness of the target
readers. It has the power of “transcending the boundaries of languages and
cultures” (Lee 132). Again, translation is, by nature, a deconstructive process
leading to the reconstruction of the source text to the target readers. Now in
this process what is left out and what new is added to the target text are to
be bridged together by the translators. Hence, the most difficult task of a
translator is the bridging between these two. However difficult the task may
be, it is a crying need for mutual comprehension, intertextuality of cultures
and intersectionality of knowledge.
“Borrowing”,
according to Dipesh Chakraborty, “is never a simple act of transfer; it always
involves the grafting of new terms and concepts onto existing bodies of
knowledge, transforming both” (xix). Translation is prone to domesticating
alterity which emerges out of the problem of difference. This ‘difference’ is
not transparent, but “the injurious and elusive differance, with an a, as
introduced by Derrida (1976), meaning difference coming out of that which
already is, but something that once manifested is renewed into something else-
that is, difference as something that generates difference” (Maranhao xvi).
True, identifications and differentiations come simultaneously. When a source
text is translated into the language of the target readers, it goes through a
paradigm shift of what the author means. The meanings of the translated text
are decided by the target readers and secondary meanings are constructed.
Hence, Judaism opposes translation of its scriptures. Monotheism also advocates
in favor of the untranslatability of its scriptures. In monotheistic religions
recitation, memorization even without having the slightest cognition of the
knowledge incorporated in it exactly are not discouraged because there prevails
apprehension that translation may distort the exact meaning of the scriptures.
Translation is a deconstruction process and it leads to reconstruction and as
monotheism does not usually accept it, hence, translation is not promoted in
it.
True, translation is an-ever flourishing field
in Bangladesh at present due to its constant exposure to the outer world and
interaction and response to the present globalizing situations of the world.
Nearly twenty million Bangladeshis live in different countries of the world as
diaspora and immigrants. Due to the development of cyber technology, they can maintain
communication with their home country. This phenomenal connectivity between the
home country and the host countries serves as one of the stimuli in translation
of foreign texts of various genres into Bengali for the Bangladeshi readership.
Knowing each other is like conquering each other and this instinctive aspect
significantly encourages translation. Many Bangladeshis living in different
countries translate the local texts into Bengali and vice versa. For example,
Anisuz Zaman who lives in Mexico has translated Juan Rulfo’s Pedro Paramo
into Bengali. He is also translating Bengali literature texts into Spanish
language for the local readers of Mexico and thus bringing about
intertextuality.
In this way, the
maxim ‘know and let know’ gears up the task of translation. There are a huge
number of classics in Bengali literature but it is a matter of regret that most
of them are not yet translated into English for the international readership.
At present some academicians, though a very good number of non-academicians are
doing tremendously excellent job of translation, have come forward and made
significant contributions to this field, especially translation from Bengali to
English, but in comparison with a considerably huge bulk of Bengali classics, the
quantity of translations is not very remarkable. On the other hand, translation
from English to Bengali is hugely much more than that from Bengali to English.
There are a good number of translators who have already translated a huge
number of classics from the world literature for the Bangladeshi readership.
Khaliquzzaman Elias, G. H. Habib, Kajal Bandyopadhay, Mashrur Arefin, Razu Aluddin,
Anis Uz Zaman, Elham Hossain and many others have translated a considerable
number of classics of the world literature, myths, history, aesthetics and
philosophy and thus they contribute to the development of intercultural
reality. These are immensely contributing to the intertextualization between
Bengali literature and the world literature.
True,
translation, like all other branches of the modern epistemic life, is a
business-oriented task. In Bangladesh, because of the lack of a central
translation policy and the negative perception of the readers about
translators, it is difficult to work in an organized way with creative impetus
and consistency. Translators depend on the publishers and the publishers depend
on the market in terms of the number of readers. Patronization or incentive
from the government is not noteworthy. So, very often to cater to the demand of
the publishers, a translator has to choose a text that may be widely received
by the reading public. It, on the one hand, tells upon both the quality and on
the other, it affects the quantity of transition. For the same purpose, best
sellers get more concentration than best books. Again, because of a small
number of English reading public, not more than 12%, translation from Bengali
to English is not always economically encouraged. Besides, Bangladeshized
English is not always accepted by the international publishers due to its lack
of expected international standard. It is true that many countries have
successfully domesticated English. India has Indianized English powerfully and
this English is internationally accepted. Even Africa has Africanized English
which is widely accepted by the English readers. The debate whether English
should be read as a second language or a foreign language is not still settled,
and it considerably acts, like many other factors, as a block to the way of
translation from Bengali to English.
Furthermore,
Bangladesh is mostly a monolingual country though a good number of ethnic
groups of people live here in the hill tracts and in some areas of the plain
land with their own individual cultural and linguistic identity. But their
languages and cultural norms do not enjoy a remarkable space in the main stream
culture and language of the country. Besides, the interaction, intermingling
and mutual social, political and cultural engagement between the mainstream
population which is mostly Muslim and the ethnic people speaking and following
ethnic languages and belief system is not remarkable at all. Ethnic people live
in the periphery being isolated from the main stream population. There might
have been a bridge language, may be English, between these two groups if their
mutual interaction could have been ensured. Besides, nationalistic vanity
emerged out of the consciousness of the people of Bangladesh about their 1952
Language Movement. Language was attempted to be weaponized by the then
Pakistani rulers to re-colonize the people of the then East Pakistan and
consequently, the people here then started a movement which led them to liberty
in 1971. Hence, a kind of rooted resentment towards Urdu becomes an inevitable
part of the minds of the Bangladeshis. Above all, this linguistic chauvinism
also triggered hatred for English language of the colonizers who exploited
Indian Subcontinent for 190 years. The Muslims responded to English and Urdu
bitterly because of the resentment emanated from the fact that the English
colonizers snatched away political sovereignty from the Mughals, who were
mostly Muslims. After 1947 Muslims were geographically segregated from the
Hindus and in 1971 this segregation was expedited through the emergence of the
linguistic nationalism which regretfully very soon turned into Islamic
nationalism because of the politicization of Islam by the then
power-structures. It fortifies the wide perception that Arabic will be the
language of the world after death and on the other, English is the language of
the infidels. Such mindset among a vast majority of people of the country also
retards considerable development of English language. Not only that, English
language remains confined within a particular class which is economically
capable of affording quality education, to be distinct, English medium
education for their children. Compartmentalization of education system into
various streams acts as a block to the development of translation, especially
from English to Bengali and vice-versa as a prolific field even though a good
number of quality translation works have been done in Bangladesh since its
political birth in 1971.
Fakrul Alam, a
prominent translator of Bangladesh has translated a good number of books from
Bengali to English, such as Asamapta Atmajibani (Unfinished Memoire of
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujubur Rahman), Amar Dekha Noya Chin (China as I
saw), Bishad Sindhu by Mir Mosharraf Hossain, Essential Tagore, Poems
of Jivananda Das etc. All his translations are done with a view to taking
Bengali literature in close contact with international readership. Nurul Huda’s
translation of Humayun Ahmed’s Nandito Naroke (originally In Blissful
Hell), is considered to be a seminal translation. Syed Waliullah’s
translation of his Lalsaluas Tree without Roots is a seminal book
for the international readership. Besides, Jasim Uddin’s Nakshikanthar Mathis
also translated into English for the wide range of international readership.
On the other, World literature translated from
English to Bengali occupies an important place in the academia of Bangladesh.
Khalikuzzaman Elias, a prize-winning translator, has translated a huge number
of world classics that have brought about intertextuality among different
streams of literary works, philosophy and Mythologies. He has translated from
the works of Gabriel Garcia Marqez, such as Peyarar Subash (originally The
Fragrance of Guava), Nikos Kazantzakis’s Zobra the Greek, Joseph
Campbel Mither Shokti (originally Power of Myth), Jonathan Swift‘s Gulivarer
Safornama (originally Gulliver’s Travels), Chinua Achebe’s Debotar Dhonurban
(originally Arrow of God), Jonotar Lok (originally Man of
the People), Richard Wright’s Kalo Chele (originally Black Boy),
James George Frazer’s Manusher Zadubis was a Dhormachar (originally
Golden Bough) and several other books of immense popularity and importance.
Khalikuzzaman
Elias has translated The Golden Bough by James George Frazer into
Bengali (vols. 1, and 2). The comparative study of mythology and religion which
is offered by this book is very excellently brought down to Bengali readership.
The impact of this translation on the overall condition of translation in
Bangladesh is substantial. It is also a breakthrough of the tradition of
translating mostly the bestsellers from the genre of literature in Bangladesh.
Besides, translation of such a voluminous book seems to be like touching the
peak of Everest in this field. Consequently, a trend of translating unabridged
books was geared up in Bangladesh. Initially, many world classics were
translated in abridge form for the adolescent readers. But Khalikuzzaman Elias
caused a paradigm shift in the field of translation by opening up a horizon to
the world classics to the Bangladeshi readership. Besides, through translation
a significant scope of intertextuality occurs between the traditional myths,
belief-system and pantheon and the Western epistemology. As a result, his
translation caters to the interest of the Bangladeshi readership in the world
literature, myths, religions and ethnography.
Elias’
translation of Nikos Kazantzakis, a Greek writer, journalist,
politician, poet and philosopher also opens up a new horizon where the Bengali
readership finds true gems of the Greek epistemology which after being
intersectionalized enriches Bangladeshi world-view and the poetics. Besides,
his translation of Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s work contributes to bringing
Bengali readership in contact with Latin American authors with all its probable
fragrance and taste. It is possible because he keeps every peculiar quality of
the original intact. Readers widely appreciate Elias’ translation and even they
claim that Elias’s translation does not appear to be translation at all while
reading owing to the lucidity of his language. It occurs due to his command of
both the source languages and the target language and his extensive knowledge
of the situations and realities out of which the source text emerges. Besides,
he faithfully maintains to inform his readers what the author says, but not
what the author means, and thus he effectively avoids manipulation of the
target text with his subjectivity. His fair command of the cultural history and
the diachronous location of the source text and the synchronous status and
cultural location of the target text makes his translation a tremendous
success. For example, he has used Bengali word Debotar Dhonurban in place of Arrow
of God, the title of Chinua Achebe’s one of the five seminal novel. The
connotation produced by the Bengali term effectively takes the readers very
close to the spiritual gravity of the Igbo community, which is one of the major
themes of this novel.
But every
reading is misreading because it is manipulated by the intuition and impulses
of the readers. Every text, according to the New-critics, is autonomous and
“since no two readings are identical, no translation can claim to have
perceived the author’s meanings completely and accurately” (Das 22). Hence, a
translator’s task is not to bother about the connotations and meanings of a
text because unless the voice and tone of the source text are kept intact,
translation must not be faithful and in such case, it has the apprehension of
turning into a political weapon. He should rather convert the language only.
But when translation becomes an apparatus to reform a society it borrows the
subjective voice and tone of the translator as it occurred in the case of the
translation of the great epic Ramayana
from Sankskrit to Bengali during the medieval period by Krithivasa Ojah. Rama,
the Khyatrya protagonist of the epic, in Bengali version is no more as much
heroic as he is in the original Sangskrit Ramayana
by Vhalmiki. Krithivasa Ojah translated this epic during the 15th
century when the Bengali society was shuddering with political and cultural
transition due to the advent of Islam. It was also split up or
compartmentalized into different castes. Feudal power-structure also divided
the society into center and margin on the basis of economic and political capability.
Bengalis are still renowned for their affective nature and empathy. They are
comparatively soft-hearted and mostly fond of domestic life. They try to avoid
war or bloodshed. It happens because they are not usually Khayatrya.
This non-Khaytrya disposition has
embraced Ramaand brought about a significant transformation in his attire and
attitude. Rama, in Krithivas Ojha’s translation, is different from that of
Valmiki’s Ramayana. Dr. Dilip
Majumder, in his essay “Bangla Anubad Kabbyo: Kobi Krittivas” asserts that the Ramayan
is recreated by the medieval poet Krittivas, saturated with his own impulses,
distinct mode of presentation, gravity, levity and humor (113). Thus,
translation receives from and responds to the time and the ethnographic
realities of a period and deserves both diachronic and synchronic status. It is
also the reason for which this translated version of Ramayana received a wide acceptance among the medieval Bengali
readership. This may be termed as assimilation process of translation, essential
to re-produce and reconstruct the source text. Khalikuzzaman Elias in a good
number of his translations of the short stories of Chinua Achebe has put the
local vernacular into the lips of some characters while translating their
elocutions speaking native dialect. This adaptation of the local dialect makes
a translation popular, but it cannibalizes the source text as it breaks down
its diachronic attachment with its time and location.
Similarly, Fakrul
Alam’s translation of Jibananda Das’s poems from Bengali to English carries the
magnificence of his excellent scholarship. But his translation has, to some
extent, missed the emotional attachment quite naturally with Bengal’s soil, and
it is quite an inevitable fate of any poem when it is translated from the
source language to the target language, and this is probably the reason for
which Robert Frost claims whatever is lost in translation is poetry. For
example, Jivanananda Das’s poem “Banglar Mukh Ami Dekhiachi” (translated
version: “I Have Seen Bengal’s Face”) and Fakrul Alam’s translation are put
side by side for the better comprehensibility of the difference between the
source text and the target text:
|
বাংলার মুখ- জীবনানন্দ দাশ বাংলার মুখ
আমি দেখিয়াছি, তাই আমি
পৃথিবীর রূপ দেখেছিল; বেহুলাও একদিন গাঙুড়ের জলে ভেলা নিয়ে – |
I Have Seen Bengal's Face Translated by Fakrul Alam
Because I have seen Bengal’s
face I will seek no more; The world has not anything
more beautiful to show me. Waking up in darkness, gazing
at the fig-tree, I behold Dawn’s swallows roosting
under huge umbrella-like leaves. I look around me And discover a leafy
dome-Jam, Kanthal, Bat, Hijol and Aswatha trees- All in a hush, shadowing
clumps of cactus and zedoary bushes. When long, long ago, Chand
came in his honeycombed boat To a blue Hijal, Bat and
Tamal shade near the Champa, he too sighted Bengal’s incomparable beauty.
One day, alas. In the
Ganguri, On a raft, as the waning moon
sank on the river’s sandbanks, Behula too saw countless
aswaths bats besides golden rice fields And heard the thrush’s soft
song. One day, arriving in Amara, Where gods held court, when
she danced like a desolate wagtail, Bengal’s rivers, fields,
flowers, wailed like strings of bells on her feet. |
True,
translation deconstructs and reconstructs, and it happens in the case of
Jivananda Das. It is found that translated text is quite different from the
source text. This is, in Walter Benjamin’s words, the liberation of the essence
of meaning from the barrier of language. Even Rabindranath’s translated version
of Gitanjali is called by many a different book of poetry, not an exact
translation of Gitanjali. This is invariably a common fate of a poem in
translation. However, Fakrul Alam’s translation of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur
Rahman’s Osamapta Atmajiboni (translated as Unfinished Prison Memoire) and Amar Dekha Naya Chin (translated as The New China as I Saw) has uncovered a new horizon of our valuable
history which remained neglected for many decades. Thus, translation has the
power to re-invigorate history. Again, the task of translation has been
attached with national awareness. Not only that, but also it contributes to the
process of nation building in the way that it works as a bridge between our
country and the rest of the world and thus ensures intertexuality,
intersectionality and hybridization of cultures. In the world of borderlessness
knowing one another is not a fashion, but a necessity and translation may work
as a gateway to self-knowledge, and at the same time the knowledge about
others.
Further,
translation is not politically innocent and it involves a very strong economic
aspect. These two aspects may misguide translation and thus give wrong shape to
the perceptions of the reading public. During 1980s and 1990s, many classics of
English and Russian literatures were translated in abridged form for the
adolescents. Maxim Gorky, Tolstoy, Emile Bronte, Jonathan Swift, Edger Rice
Burroughs and many other greats’ works were translated into Bengali. Even the
missionaries once distributed Bengali translated copies of the Bible among the
people, especially in the rural areas with a view to proselytizing them into
Christian. Besides, the translated classics like Wuthering Heights, Gulliver’s Travels, Tarzan created a fantasy world
regarding the countries of the whites who are rich and wealthy while we are the
people of an impoverished country dreaming of becoming like them, actually
Macaulay’s mimic man. Besides a fantasy regarding the white men was constructed
as they were depicted as the masters and the people from tropical countries
were thrown into the binary opposition as their slaves. The reading of these
translations also sowed the seed of brain drain in the form of imagination of
the adolescents who dreamt of migrating to the white men’s country to be like
them. But at the same time, translation helped the people to enrich themselves
and their writing by developing an acquaintance with the wealth of knowledge of
Europe and America and inspired intersectionality of knowledge and ideas. For
example, due to the impact of such translations the genre of science fiction
developed in Bangladesh.
With the onset
of the twenty first century, due to the tremendous impact of globalization,
corporatization of economy and cultural fluidity, translation becomes
phenomenally widespread. But it has got some crucial aspects which deserve
intensive critiques. Due to the industrialization and corporatization of the
publication business, translators put more emphasis on translating the
bestselling books than translating the world classics. Due to the immense
impact of cyber technology, mode of reading changes drastically. Reading pdf or
eBook has become a fashion and to some extent necessity of the day.
Commercialization of education system has brought about a drastic change in the
reading habit of the young readers. Besides, study is defined and determined in
terms of the requirements of the job market. The mission of the corporate
economy to produce intellectual slaves contributes to the construction of the
taste of the reading public. Hence, due to the impact of all these phenomenal
factors, in the third decade of the 21st century the perception of
the translation-readers is shaped in such a way that they have started thinking
that bestselling books are the best books of the time. It occurs due to the
advertising and promotional politics of the publishers. But it is true that
bestselling books and the classics are not same. Classics have a common trend
of acquainting the readers with the tradition and cultural essentialism which
in the multicultural era is constantly challenged. Reading bestselling books
makes a man multicultural and prepared for the present-day market demands- is a
common trend of the time. At present, it is deliberately alienating the readers
from the classics to a great extent. At the same time, it is only serving the
purpose of the corporate publishers.
Another trend of
translation is found now. Only the prize-winning books and authors usually get
almost hundred percent attentions for translation. In terms of this tendency,
translators here are of two categories. One category of translators is usually
aged and they are mostly academicians. They are prone to translating classics,
myths, histories, philosophies, literary and political theories and many other
branches of epistemology. And other group of translators which is mostly
constituted by comparatively young people is fond of translating bestsellers
and prize-winning books. It marks the cleavage in our reading which two
different generations receive differently.
Another crucial
phenomenon emerges in the field of translation and it adds a new dimension to
its existing spectrum. Especially after 2000 AD some universities in the
country have introduced courses on ‘Translation Studies’. Hence, a group of
young people with theoretical knowledge are working with translation. They are
translating some classic writings from postcolonial literature and theories. An
intrinsic emergence of national awareness and interest in the past history of
the nation motivate them to approach post-colonial theorists such as, Frantz
Fanon, Aime Cesaire, Ngugi wa Thiong’o, Gayatri Chakraborti Spivak, Edward
Said, Louis Althusser, Michael Foucault, Homi Bhabha and many others. Literary
theories are also being translated into Bengali, but while reading them an
acute scarcity of appropriate terms and terminologies makes the readers suffer.
Sometimes, Bengali terms and terminology in translation sound more complicated
than the original ones in English or French. But it is really encouraging for
the Bangladeshi readership. The impetus that they show in translating from
English to Bengali, is not exhibited in translating from Bengali to English. Thus,
Bengali writings, though there are many classics, are getting marginalized.
Translation must be done on both sides. Otherwise, it will not bring much
benefit.
In Bangladesh,
even today translators are not duly recognized or given remarkable
institutional incentive. It is also widely but wrongly believed that
translators are not creative authors. In terms of the translators’ recognition
on the part of the state is negligible, too. Bangla Academy gives a prize in
the category of translation every year. There are some non-government
organizations which organize congregation of the translators at their own cost.
They do not get much patronization from the government. Even publishers’
attitude is discouraging and tends to push off the translators out of the
mainstream creative authors because of its tenuous economic benefit. They keep
translations “low because such books are financially risky” (Venuti 124). In
maximum cases they are not ready to pay for buying copyright, Venuti opines:
Since the 1970s,
furthermore, the drive to invest in bestsellers has become so prevalent as to
focus the publisher’s attention on foreign texts that were commercially
successful in their native cultures, allowing the editorial and translating
process be guided by the hope of a similar performance in different process to
be guided by the hope of a similar performance in a different language and
culture. (124)
Again,
translation usually targets the domestic readership. As per the demands of the
publishers, bestsellers are given priority for translation with a view to
ensuring financial profit. Actually, best sellers address the concern of the
majority of the population, they have wide market. This market-oriented
translation has the risk of domesticating a foreign text and the moral,
religious and political values out of which the source texts emerge. Thus,
bestsellers in translation turn into a site or space where there are chances of
the proliferation of values that may create a situation which leads the readers
to the self-effacement. It happens because bestsellers have a tendency to blur
“the distinction between art and life by sharing a specific discourse” (Venuti
126). This tendency is expedited when translation turns into a political
apparatus to transform the target readers into ‘Others’.
In line with
this insight, it can be affirmed, as Venuti mentions, that even colonization in
America, Asia and Africa was impossible “without the translation of effective
texts, religious, legal, educational” (158). Even during the postcolonial
period, neo-colonization process is going on hand in hand with “a vast array of
translations, ranging from commercial contracts, instruction manuals, and
advertising copy to popular novels, children’s books, and film sound tracks”
(Venuti 158). Thus, translation has also a transnational role accompanied by
the hegemonic countries’ deliberate mission of building native-language
audiences for their cultural products. True, translation works as an instrument
of homogenization through its domesticating process. It also contributes to the
transnational corporation hand in hand with imperializing mission since the end
of the Second World War.
However, not
only in Bangladesh but also all over the world, translation is still wrestling
recklessly to guarantee its own future. But at the same time, it has been
linked to the aspects such as, otherness, ideology, manipulation, power and
neo-colonization. It has become a viably independent research area. In Bangladesh
translation especially from English to Bangla is still at its adolescence and
from Bengali to English is at its infancy. For organizing translation and
leading it to maturity, it requires direct patronization from the state.
Besides, self-translation may be encouraged, even though translation in this
area is scarcely found. Actually, it refers to “the translation of an original
work into another language by the author himself” (Santoyo 22). Kenyan author
Ngugi wa Thiong’o at first writes in Gikuyu and then he translates it into
English for the international readership. In this way he has created the
written form of Gikuyu language, discovered its strength and taken it to a
significant height. In this process of self-translation both the source language
and the target language become enriched in mutual correspondences. As the
author himself is the translator, he can grasp both the tone and voice of his
expression. In Bangladesh there are a handful of authors who write in Bengali
but their academic background is English literature and language. For example,
prominent litterateur Syed Manzoorul Islam writes in Bengali. Rashid Askari and
Samsad Mortuza write in English. And many other writers are well-versed in both
the languages, that is, English and Bengali. Self-translation, in this
connection, may contribute immensely to the spread of Bangladeshi literature
throughout the world.
True,
translation is not a philological job alone and “translating can never be
linked to linguistics alone” (Lefevere 5). Extra-linguistic factors are
involved in the translation process and in this vein, translation is a
New-historicist process as it encapsulates all the factors related to both the
periods of the source text and the target text. Translated text should attain
the eligibility to be accepted by the target culture. It is a difficult but
possible job and the translator’s capability to negotiate between the source
culture and the target culture can help the translated text be acknowledged by
the target culture. But this job must be done in the non-Eurocentric
theoretical framework lest the target text might have chances to lose affinity
with the source text. Like Cannibalism Translation Theory an indigenous
translation theory may be developed which may enable the translators to “… gain
creative power by “eating” the original text, just as the Tupinambas can gain
physical or (and) spiritual strength after “eating” and thus translation turns
into an empowering act as it enables the translators to digest the source text
and create a new one (Jiang et al. 119). And here lies an important factor
which deserves special consideration. If the translator does not have
specialization in this field, he may be proved a failure ultimately. Only
linguistic expertise cannot enable a translator to overcome this barrier on the
way to comprehend the source text in its fullest meaning. Any translator of a
literary text may be a man of literature. It does not guarantee that he should
have a formal degree from a university in the certain field. It puts emphasis
on his genuine inclination to the certain field in which he intends to do the
job of translation. With a scientific mindset, if a person approaches a text of
literature, then his translation may not smell literary. The mindset of the
translator must match the field in which he decides to re-produce and re-create
new texts out of the source texts. Otherwise, his work may lose its essential
voice, tone and strength.
Works Cited
Chakrabarty,
Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical
Difference. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2000
Das,
Bijay Kumar. A Handbook of Translation Studies. Atlantic Publishers
& Distributors (P) Ltd, 2013.
Derrida,
Jacques. “What is Relevant Translation”. The Translation Studies Reader,
edited by Laurence Venuti. Routledge, 2021. pp. 174-200.
Gal
Susan. “Politics of Translation”. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 44
(2015), pp. 225-240, Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24811658
Accessed: 03-06-2024 04:55 +00:00
Hossain,
Dr. Elham. Postcolonial Anxiety and Its
Aftermath: A Re-reading. AABS Publishing House, 2023.
Jiang
et al. “Cannibalism Translation Theory
and Its Influence on Translation Studies in China”. ISSN 1799-2591 Theory
and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 117-126, January 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1301.14
Lee,
Tong King. “The Role of Translation in the Worlding of Poetics”. Philosophy
and Literature, Volume 48, Number 1,Johns Hopkins University Press, April
2024, pp. 132-148, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/phl.2024.a930334.
Lefevere,
Andre. “Literary Theory and Translated Literature. Dispositio, 1982, Vol. 7, No. 19/21. Center for Latin American and
Caribbean Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. pp. 3-22.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/41491223. Accessed: 25 June 2024.
Majumder,
Dr. Dilip. “Bangla Anubad Kabbyo: Kobi Krittivas”. Kedarnath Majumderer Ramayan O Tar Somaj, edited by Dr. Dilip
Majumder. Education Forum, 2018. pp. 111-120.
Maranhao,
Tulio. “Introduction”. Translation and
Ethnography: The Anthropological Challenge of Intercultural Understanding,
edited by Tulio Maranhao and Bernhard Streck. The University of Arizona Press,
2003. pp. xi-xxvi.
Ramakrishna,
Shantha. “Cultural Transmission through Translation: An Indian Perspective”. Changing
the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era, edited by Sherry Simon and
Paul St-Pierre, University of Ottawa Press, 2024. pp. 87-100.
Santoyo,
Julio-Cesar. “Blank spaces in the History of Translation”. Charting the
Future of Translation History, edited by Georges L. Bastin & Paul F.
Bandia, University of Ottawa Press, 2006.
Venuti,
Lawrence. The Scandals of Translation:
Towards an Ethics of Difference. Routledge, 2002.