THE

THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
 13

Chapter II:
THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The present chapter seeks to define a frame of reference for this study.
The linguo-cultural study of the Marathi translations of Russian literature
needs a comprehensive review of various theoretical approaches in Translation
Studies. The review takes into account major approaches to translation in the
past i.e. before the 19'*^ century, as well as those which developed after the
emergence of linguistics as a science in the 20* century. While comparing the
traditional and new approaches, we have focused on the emergence and
development of a functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of
translation, when Translation Studies emerged as an interdisciplinary branch
of knowledge.

Translation Theory before the twentieth century:

Up to the second half of the twentieth century, translation theory
seems to be locked in a debate over the 'literal', 'free' and 'faithfiil'
translation. The distinction between 'word-for-word' (i.e. 'literal') and 'sense-
for-sense' (i.e. free') translation goes back to Cicero (first century BC) and St.
Jerome (fourth century AD). The same type of concern seems to have
occurred in other rich and ancient translation traditions such as in China and
the Arab world. (Munday, 2001:20). Within Western society, controversy over
the translation of the Bible and other religious and philosophical texts was
central to translation theory for over a thousand years. Issues of free and literal
translation were dominant in these translations. The pre-occupation of the
Roman Catholic Church was for the 'correct' established meaning of the Bible
to be transmitted. Non-literal or non-accepted translation came to be seen and
used as a weapon against the Church. One may cite the examples of
translators like French humanist Etienne Dolet and Martin Luther to see what
fate awaited for a translator who dared to transgress the Church's notions and
ideas about religious beliefs or the faithful rendering of the word of God.
Dolet (1509-46) was tried and executed for heresy after 'mistranslating' one of
 14

Plato's dialogues in such a way as to imply disbelief in immortality. The

concepts of fidelity (to both the words and the perceived sense), spirit (the
energy of the words and the Holy Spirit) and Truth (the 'content') were
considered to be of utmost importance in the translation of sacred texts. By the
seventeenth century, fidelity had come to be generally regarded as more than
just fidelity to words and spirit. It lost the religious sense it originally
possessed and was thenceforth used solely in the sense of the creative energy
of a text or language.
In the Renaissance period translation acquired a central importance in
Europe. Translation became an affair of State and Religion. Poets and prose
writers debated the matter.
Sir John Denham (1615-1669), John Dryden (1631-1700) are a few
names of scholars who contributed to the translation thought in the
seventeenth century.
In 1789, George Campbell published his remarkable work on the
history and theory of translation. It is mainly related to the scriptures. In 1791,
Aleksander Tytler published his work The Principles of Translation. This was
the first systematic study of the translation processes in English.
The sole aim of the theory of translation from Dryden to Tytler was to
recreate the essential spirit, soul or nature of the original work of art.
The Romanticism of the early nineteenth century discussed the issues
of translatability or untranslatability. The German theologian and translator
Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote a treatise on translation ^Uber die
verschiermacher Methoden des Ubersetzens' {On the different methods of
translating; 1813),' which had a great influence on the subsequent
development of translation theory. He distinguishes two different types of
translator working on two different types of texts; these are:
1. the 'Dolmetscher', who translates commercial texts;
2. the 'Ubersetzer', who works on scholarly and artistic texts.
He goes beyond the issues of word-for-word and sense-for-sense,
literal, faithful and free translation, and considers there to be only two paths
open for the 'true' translator:
 15

Either the translator leaves the writer alone as much as possible and
moves the reader toward the writer , or he [sicjleaves the reader
alone as much as possible and moves the writer toward the reader.
(Munday, 2001:28)
Schleiermacher preferred the first strategy, moving the reader towards
the writer. This meant 'giving the reader same impression that he as a German
would receive reading the work in the original language'. To achieve this, the
translator must adopt an 'alienating' (as opposed to 'naturalizing') method of
translation.
Schleiermacher's influence has been enormous. Many modem
translation theories respond to his hypothesis in one way or another. His
consideration of different text-types becomes more prominent in Reiss's text
typology. The 'alienating' and 'naturalizing' opposites are taken up by Venuti
as 'foreignization' and 'domestication'.(Munday 2001: 146) The vision of the
'language of translation' is pursued by Walter Benjamin and the description of
the hermeneutics of translation as apparent in George Steiner's 'hermeneutic
motion. (Munday 2001: 163)

II

Translation Theory in the twentieth century:

During the twentieth century the principles of translation underwent
significant changes. The main factors which brought about these changes are:
the development of communication theory, the expansion of the field of
structural linguistics, the application of linguistics to the study of translation
and the outgrowth of machine translation. We see the translation Studies shift
from traditional to scientific theories. This is expressed in the Russian
Formalist Circle in the 1920s and subsequently in the Prague Linguistic Circle,
thus leading to a more theoretical study of translation around 1950s. (Munday
2001: )
In the 1950s and 1960s the key terms in the debate over translation are
meaning and equivalence. These concepts are discussed by Roman Jakobson
in 1959 and are crucially developed by Eugene Nida in the 1960s.
 16

Roman Jakobson, the Russian-American linguist and scholar, in his

seminar paper On linguistic Aspects of Translation (1959/2000:114)
distinguished three types of translation in linguistic terms by adopting Pierce's
theory of signs and meaning:
1. Intralingual translation or rewording: an interpretation of verbal
signs by means of other signs in the same language.
2. Interlingual translation or translation proper: an interpretation of
verbal signs by means of some other language.
3. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation: an interpretation of verbal
signs by means of signs of non-verbal sign systems.
(Bassnet 1980:14)
The Interlingual translation has been the main focus of translation
studies in theoretical literature. And the transfer of meaning from one
language into another is the central problem of this discussion.
Since the 1950s, there has been a variety of linguistic approaches to
the analysis of translation. They propose detailed lists or taxonomies in an
effort to categorize' the translation process. The important theories in this
period are:
1) Vinay and Darbelnet's taxonomy in 'Stylistique compare dufrancais et
de I'anglais' (1958), which is the classical model and one which has
had a very wide impact), a contrastive approach to the translation
between French and English;
2) Georges Mounin examined linguistic issues of translation in his Les
problemes theoriques de la traduction (1963);
3) Eugene Nida (1964a) in his book Toward a Science of Translating
presents an entirely socio-linguistic and receptor-oriented approach. He
takes into consideration, contextual or discourse features besides
the textual or linguistic features. The most important aspect of Nida's
theory is the communicative frame of reference within which the
translation process takes place. His mode of translation process is set in
an ethnolinguistic framework.
Eugene Nida analyses meaning systematically and proposes
that a translation should aim for equivalent effect. His great achievement is
that he drew translation theory away from the stagnant 'literal verses free'
 17

debate and into the modem era. His concepts of 'formal' and 'dynamic'
equivalence have exerted huge influence over subsequent theoreticians,
especially in Germany.
Nida puts forward a structure approach. Nida argues that "instead of
going directly from one set of surface structures to another, the competent
translator actually goes through a seemingly roundabout process of analysis,
transfer and restructuring" (Nida, 1975: 79). This approach reflects much more
accurately what happens in good translation and is more efficient method for
the mastery of translation technique.
He represents a set of related procedures in the following diagram:

SOURSE LANGUAGE RECEPTOR LANGUAGE

TEXT TRANSLATION

ANALYSIS RESTRUCTURING
i
TRANSFER
Besides this model of the process of translation, Nida introduces the
concepts of 'formal equivalence' and 'dynamic equivalence'. Formal
equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content.
While the 'dynamic equivalence' is based upon the principle of 'equivalent
effect'. It refers to the equivalence of corresponding effects that the SL and
TL texts have on their respective Receivers.
4) J. C. Catford (1965): In his view, "The central problem of translation
practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central task of
translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation
equivalence." (Catford 1965:21). Accordingly, he makes a distinction between
'textual equivalence' and 'formal correspondence'. He treats translation
equivalence as an empirical phenomenon, which can be discovered by
comparing SL and TL texts.
Catford talks of two types of translation shifts: level shifts and
category shifts. Level shifts are the shifts from one linguistic level to the other
 18

such as from grammar to lexis and vice-versa which are quite common.
Category shifts are departures from formal correspondence in translation.
These may include structure-shifts, class-shifts, unit-shifts or intra-system-
shifts.
As our present research does not concentrate on the purely linguistic
theories, we do not present here the details of the linguistic theories.

Ill

Translation and other research areas:

The history of translation has seen bringing together scholars from a
wide variety of traditional disciplines.
In the U.S.A., translation - specifically literary translation - was
promoted in universities in the 1960s by the translation workshop concept. It
was based on I.A.Richards's reading workshops and practical criticism
approach which began in 1920s and in later creative writing workshops
established in the universities of Iowa and Princeton.
Rvmning parallel to this approach was that of comparative literature.
Here literature is studied and compared transnationally and transculturally and
so it becomes necessary to read literatures in translation.
There have been a number of developments in this field since the
1970s. Contrastive Analysis has lost its central place as the process of
translation came to occupy the interests of the theorists. The linguistic-
oriented theories of translation still continue to have a strong impact in
Germany, but the concept of equivalence associated with it does not have as
prominent place in the discourse as it had previously. There was witnessed a
new awakening of interests in theories centred around text-types (Reiss 1977)
and text-purpose (Vermeer, 1989) (the skopos theory). In Australia and U.K.
the Hallidayan influence of discourse analysis and systemic functional
grammar, which views language as a communicative act in a socio-cultural
context (Bell (1991), Baker (1992) and Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997) was
found to be more acceptable than the other theoretical positions. The rise of a
descriptive approach that had its origins in comparative literature and Russian
Formalism has been a prominent phenomenon in the late 1970s and the 1980s.
 19

Tel-Aviv has been a pioneering centre, where Itamar Even-Zohar (1978) and
Gideon Toury (1985) have pursued the idea of the literary polysystem. The
polysystemists have worked with a Belgium-based group (Jose Lambert and
the late Andre Lefevere,) and with the U.K.-based scholars (Susan Bassnet,
and Theo Hermans). The collection of essays edited by Hermans, 'The
Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation' (Hermans 1985a)
gave rise to the name of the 'Manipulation School'. This dynamic, culturally-
oriented approach had remarkable influence on the theorists in this field.
We see the incorporation of new schools and concepts in 1990s with
Canadian-based translation and gender research led by Sherry Simon (1996),
the Brazilian cannibalist school promoted by Else Vieira (1999), postcolonial
translation theory with prominent scholars like Tejaswini Niranjana (1995)
and Gayatri Spivak (1998) and in the U.S.A., the cultural-studies-oriented
analysis of Lawrence Venuti (1995), who strongly supports the cause of the
translator.
IV

Functional Theories of Translation:

A literary work - ST - has its own functional value in that specific
culture. But the function of the translated text in its target culture is not
necessarily the same as in the source culture. It may differ from that of the ST.
Placing the TT in its socio-cultural context is an important aspect of our study.
Hence, it is essential to review the various fiinctional approaches to
translation.
In the 1970s and 1980s we see the emergence and flourishing of a
functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of translation. These
new theories moved translation from a static linguistic phenomenon to being
considered as an act of intercultural communication.
James S. Holmes in a seminar paper presented in 1972 - The name and
nature of translation studies (Munday, 2001:10) puts forward an overall
framework, describing what translation studies covers.
 21

and to whether spoken translation (interpretation) is consecutive or

simultaneous^
Area-restricted theories are restricted to specific languages or groups
of languages and/or cultures. They are closely related to work in
contrastive linguistics and stylistics.
Rank-restricted theories are linguistic theories that have been
restricted to a specific level of (normally) the word or sentence.
Text-type restricted theories look at specific discourse types or
genres; e.g. literary, business and technical translation.
Time-restricted theories refer to theories and translations limited
according to specific time frames and periods.
Problem-restricted theories refer to specific problems such as
equivalence etc.
Holmes suggests that several different restrictions can apply at any one
time.
The Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) focuses on three points:
examination of 1) the product, 2) the function and 3) the process.
1) Product-oriented DTS examines existing translations. This can
involve the description or analysis of a single ST-TT pair or a
comparative analysis of several TTs of the same ST (into one or more
TLs).
2) Function-oriented DTS involves the description of the 'function [of
translations] 'in the recipient socio-cultural situation. 'It is a study of
contexts rather than texts'. Now-a-days it is called cultural-studies-
oriented translation.
3) Process-oriented DTS is concerned with the psychology of translator.
It is concerned with what happens in the mind of a translator during
the actual process of translation.
The 'applied' branch of Holmes's framework concerns:
• translator training
• translation aids
• translation criticism
Holmes also mei^tions another area of research i.e. translation policy.
 22

Here he sees the translation scholar advising on the place of translation in

society, including what place it should occupy in the language teaching and
learning curriculum.
The crucial role played by Holmes's paper is that it precisely describes
the potential of translation studies. He devoted two-thirds of his attention to
the 'pure' aspects of theory and description. This shows his research interests
rather than a lack of possibilities for the applied side. But the main limitation
of Holmes's theory is that his map omits any mention of the individuality of
the style, decision-making processes and working practices of human
translators involved in the translation process.
Katherina Reiss's initial work links language function, text-type,
genre and translation strategy. It builds on the concept of equivalence but
views the text, rather than the word or sentence, as the level at which
communication is achieved and at which equivalence is sought. Her functional
approach aims initially at systematizing the assessment of translation. On the
basis of Buhler's three functions of language, she makes a distinction between
form-oriented texts (poems and other literary works), content-oriented texts
(news, scientific technical etc.) and connative texts (advertisements etc). She
suggests 'subsidiary' or 'audio-medial texts' (operas, songs, radio plays) to
include texts involving other media than print. According to her, it is the text
types which have to be kept equivalent in translation.
The main criticism that Reiss's theory faced is 'whether text types can
really be differentiated'. A text may have several functions in the source
culture. Co-existence of functions within the same ST and the use of the same
ST for a variety of purposes does not fit easily into Reiss's clear divisions. The
translation method employed depends on far more than just text type. The
translator's own role and purpose, as well as socio-cultural pressures, also
affect the kind of translation strategy that is adopted.
Hans J. Vermeer in his Skopostheorie says that translation is
essentially 'a Cultural transfer'. Skopos is a Greek word for 'aim' or
'purpose', which Vermeer introduced as a technical term for the purpose of a
translation and the action of translating. Skopos theory mainly focuses on the
purpose of translation, which determines the translation methods and strategies
that are to be employed in order to produce a functionally adequate result. This
 23

result is the TT, which Vermeer calls the translatum. Therefore, in skopos
theory, knowing why an ST is to be translated and what the function of the TT
will be are crucial for the translator. The function of the target text may differ
from the original function of the source text. He differentiates between two
types of function of the translated text: (i) Funktionskontaz (unchanged
function) and (ii) Funktionsveranderung (changed function, where the text is
adapted to meet specific needs in the target culture).
An important advantage of skopos theory is that it allows the
possibility of the same text being translated in different ways according to the
purpose of the TT and the commission which is given to the translator. But the
main limitation of his approach is that it is valid for non-literary texts such as
user instructions, advertising pamphlets, scientific articles, for professional or
for layman, and so on. Literary texts are considered to have no specific
purpose and/or to be far more complex stylistically. Also, it does not pay
sufficient attention .to the linguistic nature of the ST as well as to the
reproduction of microlevel features in the TT.
Christiane Nord in her Text Analysis in Translation (1988/1991)
presents a more detailed functional model. It incorporates elements of text
analysis, which examines text organization at or above sentence level. Nord
makes distinction between two basic types of translation product (and process)
as:
• Documentary translation: 'serves as a document of a source culture
communication between the author and the ST recipient' (Nord
1991:72).
• Instrumental translation: Here TT receivers read the TT as if it were an
ST written in their own language. The function may be the same for
both ST and TT. Nord calls these 'function-preserving translations'.
Nord's theory aims primarily at providing translation students with a
model of ST analysis which is applicable to all text types and translation
situations. The model is based on a functional concept, enabling understanding
of the function of ST features and the selection of translation strategies
appropriate to the intended purpose of the translation. (Nord 1991: 1).
In her 1997 book, Translating as a Purposeful Activity, Nord proposes
 24

a more flexible version of the model. The new version highlights 'three
aspects of functionalist approaches that are particularly useful in translator
training. They are:
1. the importance of the translation commission (or 'translation brief);
2. the role of ST analysis;
3. the functional hierarchy of translation problems.

Discourse and Register Analysis approaches:

In the 1990s discourse analysis became more prominent in translation
studies. It has a link with the text analysis model of Christiane Nord. The
organization of the text above sentence level is investigated. The text analysis
normally concentrates on describing the way in which texts are organized
(sentence structure, cohesion, etc.), while discourse analysis looks at the way
language communicates meaning and social and power relations.
Halliday's systemic functional model has had enormous influence on
the discourse analysis approach. His model is based on 'systemic functional
grammar'. It is designed for the study of language as communication and sees
meaning in the writer's linguistic choices and systematically relates these
choices to a wider socio-cultural framework. It borrows Buhler's division of
language functions. In this model we see a strong interrelation between the
surface-level realizations of the linguistic functions and the socio-cultural
framework. This is shown in the following Figure. The arrows indicate the
direction of influence.
 25

FIGURE: Relation of genre and register to language

Sociocultural environment

Genre

i
Register
(field, tenjor, mode)

Discourse semantics
(Ideational, interpersonal, textual)

I
Lexicogrammar
(transitivity, modality, theme-rheme/cohesion)

Thus, the genre is conditioned by the socio-cultural environment and itself

determines other elements in the systemic framework.
• The field of a text is associated with ideational meaning, which is
realized through transitivity patterns (verb types, active-passive
structures, participants in the process; etc.)
• The tenor of a text is associated with interpersonal meaning, which is
realized through the patterns of modality (modal verbs and adverbs
such as hopefully, should, possibly, and any evaluative lexis such as
beautiful, dreadful).
• The mode of a text is associated with textual meaning, which is
realized through the thematic and information structures (mainly the
order and structuring of elements in a clause) and cohesion (the way
the text hangs together lexically, including the use of pronouns,
ellipsis, collocations, repetition, etc.).
Analysis of the metafunctions (ideational, interpersonal and textual) is of
prime importance in this model. However, Halliday's grammar is extremely
complex.
Juliane House presents A model for Translation Quality Assessment'
(1977), which is based on comparative ST-TT analysis leading to the
assessment of the quality of the translation, highlighting 'mismatches' or
 26

'errors'. Her revised model of 1997 involves a systematic comparison of the

textual 'profile' of the ST and TT. The comparative model uses as a resource
much complex taxonomy, but this can be reduced to a register analysis of both
ST and TT according to their realization through lexical, syntactic and textual
means. She gives two types of translations - 'overt' and 'covert'.
An overt translation is a TT that does not purport to be an original. A
covert translation 'is a translation which enjoys the status of an original source
text in the target culture'. She says that the translation and evaluation of covert
translation requires a cultural filter. But the 'cultural filter' she talks about
needs to be applied by the translator, modifying cultural elements and thus
giving the impression that the TT is an original. This may involve changes at
the levels of language/text and register. House applies this model to a number
of texts. She claims that fianctional equivalence is possible in covert
translation, but it is impossible in overt translation.
A major limitation of her study is that she deals with the two languages
German and English, which are very close on cultural and linguistic grounds.
Hence, her model can not be appropriate in the case of languages culturally
and linguistically different from each other like English - Marathi or Russian
- Marathi. Secondly^ her study is based upon only specific types of texts like
technical, non-technical, non-fictional and fictional. Her study also lacks any
cultural frame of reference.
Mona Baker's book In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation
(1992) has had considerable influence on translation training and consequently
on translation studies. Baker looks at equivalence at a series of levels: at word,
above-word, grammar, thematic structure, cohesion and pragmatic levels. She
makes detailed use of the terminology of functional grammar and discourse
analysis. She devotes her most attention to the textual function.
Baker considers various aspects of pragmatic equivalence in
translation, applying relevant linguistic concepts to interlinguistic transfer.
Baker defines 'pragmatics' as follows:
Pragmatics is the study of language in use. It is the study of meaning,
not as generated by the linguistic system but as conveyed and
manipulated by participants in a communicative situation.
(Baker 1992:217)
 27

Baker considers three major pragmatic concepts:

• Coherence: the coherence of a text, related to cohesion, 'depends
on the hearer's or receiver's expectations and experience of the
world' (ibid. 219). Clearly this may not be the same for the ST and
TT reader.
• Presupposition: This is closely related to coherence. Baker defines
it as 'pragmatic inference'.
• Implicature: It is another form of pragmatic inference. Baker
defines it as 'what the speaker means or implies rather than what
s/he says'.(ibid., 223)
Baker notes that translators need to be fully aware of the different
co-operative principles in operation in the respective languages and cultures.
Basil Hatim and Ian Mason's works Discourse and the Translator
(1990) and The Translator as Communicator (1997) developed out of the
Hallidayan model of language exerted great influence on the translation
studies in 1990s. They focus on the realization of ideational and interpersonal
functions (rather than just the textual function) in translation and incorporate
into their model a semiotic level of discourse.
Hatim and Mason also consider shifts in modality (the interpersonal
function). Their 'foundations of a model for analyzing texts' (1997: 14-15)
incorporate and go beyond House's register analysis and Baker's pragmatic
analysis. Language and texts are considered to be realizations of sociocultural
messages and power relations. They define discourse as:
Modes of speaking and writing which involve social groups in
adopting a particular attitude towards areas of sociocultural activity
(e.g. racist discourse, bureaucratese, etc.).
(Hatim and Mason 1997: 216)
Discourse analysis models have become extremely popular among
many linguistics-oriented translation theorists and serve as a useful way of
tackling the linguistic structure and meaning of a text. However, the
Hallidayan model has been criticized for being over-complicated in its
categorization of grammar and for its apparently inflexible one-to-one
matching of structure and meaning.
 28

We have taken a review of the development of translation theory in the

course of time and how the various approaches present different views
regarding the analysis of translation.

VI

The Traditional and New Approaches:

The traditional essentialist approach to literature, which Lefevere
(1981) calls 'the corpus' approach is based on the Romantic notion of
literature which sees the author as a quasi-divine 'creator'. This 'creator'
possesses 'genius', fte is the origin of the Creation which is original, unique,
organic, transcendental and hence sacred. Translation is therefore a mere copy
of the unique entity and so, the translator, who just copies the original work of
art does not have 'genius'. Secondly, the question of finding equivalents for
lexis, syntax or concepts, style, genre, figurative language, historical stylistic
dimensions, polyvalence, connotations as well as denotations, cultural items
and culture-specific concepts and values is of vital importance to the
traditional theories. In literary translations, the translator's choice of decisions
regarding whether or not to retain the style of the ST in the TT becomes
important. The whole discussion of traditional translation studies was centered
around the stereotyped problems like: Is the translation of literary texts,
especially that of a poem, is possible? Should translation be 'literal' or 'free'?
Should the emphasis be on the content or the form? Can a faithful translation
be beautiful? And we find many of the theoreticians taking extreme stands on
these questions. (Ketkar 2006a)
The new approaches to translation attempt to find alternatives to the
traditional views. They do not consider literature as an autonomous and
independent domain. They see it in much broader social and cultural
framework. They see literature as a social institution, related to other social
institutions. The recent translation theory examines the complex
interconnections between poetics, politics, metaphysics, and history. It
borrows its analytical tools from various social sciences like linguistics,
semiotics, anthropology, history, economics and psychoanalysis. It is closely
allied to the discipline of cultural studies and uses culture as a descriptive
 29

rather than normative category, works within an expanded concept of culture,

which rejects the 'high' versus 'low' stratification. It is keenly interested in the
historical and political dimension of literature. (Ketkar2006a)
There is a 'cultural turn' or 'paradigm shift' in the discipline of
translation theory. There is awareness that in translation one does not look for
merely verbal equivalents but also for cultural equivalents. This helps the
translator to decide the strategies to be used.
These days there is a widespread assumption that literary text is a
cultural artefact and is related to the other social systems. Some major
theorists presenting their insightful perspectives in this direction are Andre
Lefevere, Gideon Toury, Itamar Evan-Zohar, and Theo Hermans. They adopt
the notion of 'literature as system' propounded by Russian Formalists like
Tynianov, Jakobson, and Czech and French Structuralists thinkers, and the
Marxist thinkers who considered literature as a section of the 'superstructure'.
"The central idea of this point of view is that the study of literary
translation should begin with a study of the translated text rather than
with the process of translation, its role, function and reception in the
culture in which it is translated as well as the role of culture in
influencing the 'process of decision making that is translation.' It is
fundamentally descriptive in its orientation.

(Toury 1985)

// is necessary to include translated literature in the polysystem. This is

rarely done, but no observer of the history of any literature can avoid
recognizing as an important fact the impact of translations and their
role in the synchrony and diachrony of a certain literature.
(Even-Zohar, 1978a: 15, Quoted from Gentzler 1993: 116)

VII

Polysystem Approach:
The Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar developed Polysystem theory
in the 1970s borrowing ideas from the Russian Formalists of the 1920s, who
had worked on literary historiography. Here, a literary work is not studied in
 30

isolation but as a part of a literary system, which itself is defined as 'a system
of functions of the literary order which are in continual interrelationship with
other orders.'(Munday2001: 109). Literature is thus part of the social, cultural,
literary and historical framework and the key concept is that of the system. In
this system there is an ongoing dynamic of 'mutation' and struggle for the
primary position in the literary canon.
Even-Zohar reacts against the fallacies of the traditional aesthetic
approach, which focus on 'high' literature and disregard literary systems or
genres such as children's literature, thrillers and the whole system of translated
literature.
Even-Zohar emphasizes that translated literature operates as a system:
1. in the way the TL selects works for translation;
2. in the way translation norms, behaviour and policies are influenced by
other co-systems.
Thus, the system of translated literature does not work in isolation. It
fully participates in the history of the literary polysystem, as an integral part of
it, related with all the other co-systems.
The polysystem is conceived as a heterogeneous, hierarchized
conglomerate (or system) of systems which interact to bring about
an ongoing, dynamic process of evolution within the polysystem as a
whole.
(Shuttleworth and Cowie 1997: 176, Quoted from Munday 2001: 109)
The polysystem theory sees translated literature as one system among
many in the constant struggle for the dominant position. Its status in the
polysystem - whether it forms a part of the prestigious centre or remains a
peripheral phenomenon - depends upon the specific circumstances operating
in the polysystem. Evan-Zohar identifies three sets of circumstances in which
it can occupy a central position:
a) when a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to say, when a
literature is 'young', in the process of being established and looks
initially to 'older' literatures for ready-made models;
b) when a literature is 'peripheral' or 'weak', or both and imports those
literary types which it is lacking. This can happen when a smaller
nation is dominated by the culture of a large one. All sorts of
 31

peripheral literature may in such cases consist of translated literature.

This happens at various levels,
c) when there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuums in a literature,
when established models are no longer considered sufficient. Where no
type holds sway, it is easier for foreign models to assume primacy.
Translated literature plays different roles in the target polysystem.
Translated literature which occupies a central position is mostly innovative
and introduces original elements into the polysystem, while translated
literature having a peripheral position is highly conservative and conforms to
already existing norms and models. The former introduces features into the
home literature which did not exist there before, whereas the latter becomes a
means to preserve traditional taste.
Translated literature, like any other literary form comprises its own
stratified subsystem, And within a subsystem of translated literature, one
section of translated literature may assume a primary position, another may
remain secondary. Even-Zohar gives an example of the Hebrew literary
polysystem published between the two world wars, when translations from
Russian were primary but translations from English, German and Polish were
secondary.
Even-Zohar suggests that the position occupied by translated literature
in the polysystem conditions the translation strategy. If it is primary,
translators do not feel constrained to follow source literature models and are
more prepared to break conventions. They often produce a TT that is a close
match in terms of adequacy, reproducing the textual relations of the ST. This
in itself then may lead to new SL models.
According to Even-Zohar, a text does not reach the highest hierarchical
level within a given culture because of some inherent eternal beauty or verity,
but (1) because of the nature of the polysystem of the receiving culture and its
social/literary historical circumstances, and (2) because of the difference
between certain elements of the text and cultural norms.
Even-Zohar's theory was a paradigm shift from the earlier
preoccupation of nature of Equivalence between the ST and TT. He
endeavoured to arrive at a historical and social understanding of the way
 32

translated works function collectively, as a subsystem within the target

polysystem.
The advantage of Polysystem theory is that it allows for its own
augmentation and integrates the study of literature with the study of social and
economic forces of history (Gentzler 1993). His work makes significant
contribution not only to the field of translation theory, but to literary theory as
well.
The criticisms of polysystem theory include:
1. overgeneralization to 'universal laws' of translation based on relatively
little evidence;
2. an over-reliance on a historically based 1920s' Formalist model which,
following Even-Zohar's own model of evolving trends, might be
inappropriate for translated texts in the 1970s;
3. the tendency to focus on the abstract model rather than the 'real-life'
constraints placed on texts and translators;
4. the question as to how far the supposed scientific model is really
objective.
(Munday2001: 111)
Gideon Toury (1985) is another major theorist working on similar
lines. He focused on developing a general theory of translation. He calls his
approach as Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS). The ultimate aim of
DTS is to discover probabilistic laws of translation, which may be used to aid
further translators and researchers. Toury emphasizes that translations are facts
of one system only: the target system and it is the target or recipient culture or
a certain section of it, which serves as the initiator of the decision to translate
and consequently translators operate first and foremost in the interest of the
culture into which they are translating. His TT-oriented theoretical framework
combines linguistic comparison of ST and TT and consideration of the cultural
framework of the TT.
Toury proposes a three-phase methodology for systematic DTS.
Incorporating a description of the product and the wider role of the socio-
cultural system:
1. Situate a text within the target culture system, looking at its
significance or acceptability.
 33

2. Compare the ST and the TT for shifts, identifying relationships

between 'coupled pairs' of ST and TT segments, and attempting
generalizations about the underlying concept of translation.
3. Draw implications for decision-making in future translating.
Toury views translation as basically a norm-governed type of
behaviour. These norms are socio-cultural constraints specific to a culture,
society and time. An individual acquires them from the general process of
education and socialization. In terms of 'potency' Toury places norms
between rules and idiosyncrasies. These norms determine the (type and extent
of) equivalence manifested in actual translations. Being a translator involves
fulfilling a function specified by the TL community, rather than simply
transferring phrases and sentences from the SL to the TL. He presents three
types of translational norms: initial norms, preliminary norms and operational
norms.
The initial norm in translation involves a basic choice between
adhering to the norms realized in the ST (which reflect the norms of the source
language and culture) and adhering to the norms prevalent in the target culture
and language. "Adherence to source norms determines a translation's
adequacy as compared to the source text, subscription to norms originating in
the target culture determines its acceptability" (ibid. 56-67)
Preliminary norms concern:
a) the existence and nature of a translation policy (in terms of the choice
of text-types, or even of individual texts, to be imported through
translation into a particular culture/language at a particular point in
time), and
b) the directness of translation, i.e. a particular society's tolerance or
intolerance tpwards a translation based on a text in an intermediate
language rather than on the source language text.
And finally, operational norms concern decisions made during the act
of translation itself There are two types of operational norms:
a) matricial norms, relate to the completeness of the TT. This
phenomenon includes omission or relocation of passages,
textual segmentation, and the addition of passages or footnotes.
 34

b) textual-linguistic norms, which concern the selection of TT

linguistic material: lexical items, phrases and stylistic features.
He reveals that in terms of initial norms, the translator's attitude
toward the source text is affected by the text's position in the source culture's
literary polysystem, while in terms of operational norms, all decisions are
influenced by the position - central or peripheral - held by translated literature
in the target culture polysystem.
The examination of the ST and TT should reveal shifts in the
relations between the two that have taken place in translation.
Toury hopes that the cumulative identification of norms in descriptive
studies will enable the formulation of probabilistic 'laws' of translation and
thence the 'universals of translation'. The tentative laws he proposes are:
1. The law of growing standardization refers to the disruption of the
ST patterns in translation and the selection of linguistic options that
are more common in the TL. This may happen when translation
assumes a weak and peripheral position in the target system.
2. The law of interference sees interference from ST to TT as 'kind of
default'. Interference refers to ST linguistic features (mainly lexical
and syntactical patterning) being copied in the TT, either
negatively or positively. Tolerance of interference depends on
sociocultural factors and the prestige of the different literary
systems: there is greater tolerance when translating from a
prestigious language or culture, especially if the target language or
culture is 'minor'.
The consideration of translated literature as a part of a hierarchical
system shows the way DTS interlinks with polysystem theory.
Toury's stance risks overlooking ideological and political factors such
as the status of the ST in its own culture, the source culture's possible
promotion of translation of its own literature and the effect that translation
might exert back on the system of the source culture. Secondly, whether the
translator's decision-making really is sufficiently patterned as to be
universalized, may be questioned. (Hermans 1992: 92) It is said that the 'laws'
Toury tentatively proposes are in some ways simply reformulations of
generally-held beliefs about translation. And they are to some extent
 35

contradictory. The law of growing standardization depicts TL-oriented norms,

while the law of interference is ST-oriented.
It is observed that systems theorists in general have restricted their
work to literary translation. However, Toury has included the sociopolitical
factors in and around the translation process, which may help in examining the
translation of non-fiction or technical texts.
Andrew Chesterman (1997: 68) states that all norms 'exert a
prescriptive pressure'. He proposes another set of norms, covering the area of
Toury's initial and operational norms. These are:
1. Product or expectancy norms and
2. Professional norms
Chesterman proposes three kinds of professional norm:
a) The accountability norm: This is an ethical norm, dealing with
professional standards of integrity and thoroughness. The translator
will accept responsibility for the work produced for the
commissioner and reader.
b) The communication norm: This is a social norm. The translator, the
communication 'expert', works to ensure maximum
communication between the parties.
c) The 'relation' norm: This is a linguistic norm which deals with the
relation between ST and TT.
The International Comparative Literature Association, with the
Influence of polysystem theory, held several meetings and conferences
around the theme of translated literature. Belgium, Israel and the Netherlands
were the prominent centres and the first conferences were held at Leuven,
(1976), Tel Aviv (1978) and Antwerp (1980). This group of scholars known as
the 'Manipulation School or Group' published a collection of papers entitled
77?^ Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation (1985a),
edited by Theo Hermans.
What they have in common is a view of literature as a complex
and dynamic system; a conviction that there should be a continual
interplay between theoretical models and practical case studies; an
approach to literary translation which is descriptive, target-oriented,
functional and systemic; and an interest in the norms and constraints
 36

that govern the production and reception of translations, in the

relation between translation and other types of text processing, and in
the place and role of translations both within a given literature and in
the interaction between literatures.
(Hermans 1985b: 10-11.Quoted from Munday 2001: 120)
The link with the polysystem theory and Descriptive Translation
Studies seems to be strong and the Manipulation School proceeded on the
same lines.
Jose Lambert and Hendrik van Gorp (1985) in their paper drawn on
Even-Zohar's and Toury's early work propose one scheme for the comparison
of the ST and TT literary systems and for the description of relations within
them. Each system comprises a description of author, text and reader. They
divide the scheme into four sections:
1. Preliminary data: information on title page, metatexts (preface, etc.)
and the general strategy (whether the translation is partial or full). The
results should lead to hypotheses concerning levels 2 and 3.
2. Macro-level: the division of the text, titles and presentation of the
chapters, the internal narrative structures and any overt authorial
comment. This should generate hypotheses about the micro-level (level

3)-
3. Micro-level: the identification of shifts on different linguistic levels.
These include the lexical level, the grammatical patterns, narrative,
point of view and modality. The results should interact with the macro-
level (level 2) and lead to their 'consideration in terms of the broader
systemic context'.
4. Systemic context: here micro- and macro-levels, text and theory are
compared and norms identified. Intertextual relations (relations with
other texts including translations) and intersystemic relations (relations
with other genres, codes) are also described.
They stress the link between the individual case study and the wider
theoretical framework.
Lambert and Van Gorp suggest that all fianctionally relevant aspects of
translation activity in its historical context need to be carefully observed. The
author, text, reader, and literary system is juxtaposed to an author, text, reader.
 37

and literary norms in another literary system. They call for not only a study of
the relation between authors, texts, readers, and norms in the two differing
systems, but also for relations between authors' and the translators' intentions,
between pragmatics and reception in source and target systems, between
authors and other writers in the source and target systems, between the
differing literary systems, and even between differing sociological aspects
including publishing and distribution. (Lambert and Van Gorp, 1985: 43-45)

VIII

Cultural Studies: ,
The term 'Cultural Turn' is used in translation studies for moving
towards the analysis of translation from a cultural studies angle. It focuses on
the interaction between translation and culture, on the way in which culture
impacts and constraints translation and on 'the larger issues of context, history
and convention'. (Bassnet and Lefevere 1990: 11)
Andre Lefevere had strong links with polysystem theory and the
Manipulation School Translation studies and developed his work out of the
same. But his later work on translation and culture represents a bridging point
to the cultural turn. His book Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of
Literary Fame (1992a) well expresses his shift to cultural angle.
According to Lefevere, literature is one of the systems which constitute
the system of discourses (which also contain disciplines like physics or law.)
usually referred to as a civilization, or a society (1988:16).' Literature for
Lefevere is a subsystem of society and it interacts with other systems. There is
a control factor in the literary system which sees to it that this particular
system does not fall too far out of step with other systems that make up a
society. This control function works from outside of this system as well as
from inside.
According to Lefevere three factors control the translation functions in
a literary system. They are:
1. Professionals, within the literary system: These include critics and
reviewers (whose comments affect the reception of a work), teachers
(who often decide whether a book is studied or not) and translators
 38

themselves (who decide on the poetics and at times the ideology of the
translated text).
2. Patronage outside the literary system: These are 'the powers (persons,
institutions) that can further or hinder the reading, writing, and
rewriting of literature'. Patrons may be on an individual level, group or
institutional level.
Lefevere identifies three elements to this patronage: ideological, economic or
status.
3. The dominant poetics: Lefevere analyses this into two components:
a) Literary devices: These include the range of genres, symbols,
leitmotifs and prototypical situations and characters.
b) The concept of the role of literature: This is the relation of
literature to the social system in which it exists.
Lefevere focuses on the examination of 'very concrete factors' that
systematically govern the reception, acceptance or rejection of literary texts.
They include issues such as 'power, ideology, institution and manipulation'.
The people involved in such power positions are the ones who 'rewrite'
literature and govern its consumption by the general public. The motivation
for such writing can be ideological (conforming to or rebelling against the
dominant ideology) or poetological (conforming to or rebelling against the
dominant/preferred poetics). Lefevere claims that 'the same process of
rewriting is at work in translation, historiography, anthologization, criticism,
and editing.' In the system approach, the political and social aspect of
literature is emphasized. The cultural politics and economics of patronage and
publicity are seen as inseparable from literature, which establish and validate
the value structures of canons. Rewritings, in the widest sense of the term,
adapt works of literature to a given audience and/or influence the ways in
which readers read a work of literature. The texts, which are rewritten,
processed for a certain audience, or adapted to a certain poetics, are the
'refracted' texts and these are responsible for the canonized status of the text.
Interpretation (criticism) and translation are probably the most important
forms of refracted literature, in that they are the most influential ones.
Lefevere makes an important statement on the interaction between
poetics, ideology and translation:
 39

On every level of the translation process, it can be shown that,

if linguistic considerations enter into conflict with
considerations of an ideological and/or poetological nature,
the latter tend to win out.
(Lefevere 1992a: 39)
The most important consideration for Lefevere is the ideological one.
This refers to the translator's ideology, or the ideology imposed upon the
translator by patronage. The poetological consideration refers to the dominant
poetics in the TL culture. Together these dictate the translation strategy and
the solution to specific problems (p.41).
Once getting a cultural dimension. Translation studies, moving away
from purely linguistic analysis came in contact with other disciplines. The
cultural theorists also utilized the insights from other disciplinary inquiries,
sociological, anthropological, political etc.

IX

Translation and other disciplines:

Sherry Simon approaches translation from a gender-studies angle. In
her work Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of
Transmission (1996) she criticizes that the term 'culture' is often referred as if
it is an obvious and unproblematic reality. She sees language of sexism in
translation studies, with its images of dominance, fidelity, faithfulness and
betrayal.
The feminist theorists see a parallel between the status of translation
and that of women for translation is often considered to be derivative and
inferior to original writings, and the women, too, are so often repressed in
society and literature. This is the core of feminist translation theory.
Sherry Simon links gender and cultural studies to the developments in
post-colonialism.
Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, a critic and translator draws together
issues of gender and postcolonialism. She is concerned about the ideological
consequences of the translation of 'Third World' literature into English and
 40

the distortion it involves. In her essay The Politics of Translation (1993/2000),

she brings together feminist, postcolonialist and poststructuralist approaches.
She criticizes Western Feminism and suggests that feminists from the
hegemonic countriesi should show real solidarity with women in postcolonial
contexts by learning the language in which those women speak and write.
According to her the 'politics of translation' currently gives prominence to
English and the other 'hegemonic' languages of the ex-colonizers. Spivak
argues that translation has played an active role in the colonization process and
in disseminating an ideologically motivated image of colonized peoples.
Tejaswini Niranjana's book Siting Translation, History, Post-
Structuralism, and the Colonial Context (1992) examines translation theories
in the colonial and post-colonial contexts. She points out that translation is
between languages, which are hierarchically related, and that it is a mode of
representation in another culture. When the relationship between the cultures
and languages is that of colonizer and colonized, translation produces
strategies of containment. According to her literary translation is one of the
discourses like education, theology, historiography and philosophy. And these
discourses inform the hegemonic apparatuses that belong to the ideological
structure of colonial rule (Niranjana 1992: 33). The focus of her study is on
the way the colonial power uses translation into English to construct a
rewritten image of the 'East', which has been considered as the truth and how
the colonizers impose their ideological values through translation. She
explains, how the missionaries ran schools for the colonized and also
performed a role as linguists and translators, how the ethnographers recorded
grammars of native, languages. And actually 'participated in the enormous
project of collection and codification on which colonial power was based'.
Translation as a practice shapes, and takes shape within, the
asymmetrical relations of power that operate under colonialism.
TVi '. U S 7 ^ (ibid. 2)
She criticizes the Western orientation of translation studies for three
main failings:
i) that translation studies has until recently not considered the
question of power imbalance between different languages;
 41

ii) that the notions of text, author, and meaning in the Western
translation theory are based on an unproblematic, naively
representational theory of language. And hence, its
concepts are flawed;
iii) the 'humanistic enterprise' of translation needs to be
questioned, since translation in the colonial context builds a
conceptual image of colonial domination into the discourse
of Western Philosophy.
(Munday2001: 135)
Her recommendations for action are:
1. In general, that the post-colonial translator must call into
question every aspect of colonialism and liberal nationalism.
(Niranjanal992: 167).
1. Niranjana calls for an 'interventionist' approach from the
translator (ibid.: 173)

Susan Bassnet and Harish Trivedi in their collection of essays

Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice (1999) say that the hierarchic
opposition between the original work and translation reflects the hierarchic
opposition between the European colonizer culture and the colonized culture.
They observe that this hierarchy is Eurocentric, and its spread is associated
with the history of colonialization, imperialism and proselytisation. Because of
these historical reasons, radical theories of translation have come up in the
former colonies. This type of approach to translation promotes the awareness
of political and historical field in which translation operates among the readers
as well as the translators. (Ketkar 2006a)
We see an important postcolonial movement in translation emerging in
view in Brazil. It is based on the metaphor of anthropophagy or cannibalism
which emerged in the 1920s with Oswald de Andrade's Manifesto
Antropofago. It draws on the famous story of the ritual cannibalization of a
Portuguese bishop by native Brazilians. Since 1960s, with the poetical work of
the de Compos brothers, the metaphor has been used by the strong Brazilian
translation-studies community. It stands for the experience of colonization and
translation: the colonizers and their language are devoured, their life force
 42

invigorating the devourers, but in a new purified and energized form that is
appropriate to the needs of the native peoples. Else Vieira, in her paper
Liberating Calibans (1999) presents a summary of Brazilian cannibalist
movement.
Michael Cronin in his Translating Ireland (1996) concentrates on the
role of translation in the linguistic and political battle between the Irish and
English languages. Translation continues to be a political issue in modem
postcolonial Ireland where the Irish and English languages co-exist.
The new dimension of cultural studies in translation has widened the
scope of translation studies. It has brought together scholars from a wide range
of backgrounds. There are new insights, new perspectives towards translation.
Lawrence Venuti analyses the Anglo-American publishing
hegemony in the field of translation. He uses the term Invisibility 'to describe
the translator's situation and activity in contemporary Anglo-American
culture. In The Translator's Invisibility (1995) he examines historically how
the norm of fluency prevailed over other translation strategies to shape the
canon of 'foreignness' and 'awkwardness' of the translated text as a positive
value in the evaluation of translation. He discusses invisibility with two types
of translation strategies: 'domestication' and 'foreignization'. And he favours
the latter. These strategies concern both the choice of text to translate and the
translation method.
Antoine Berman, an important influence on Venuti, also discusses the
need for translation strategies that allow the 'foreign' to be experienced in the
target culture. He deplores the general tendency to negate the foreign in
translation by the translation strategy of 'naturalization' which is similar to
Venuti's later 'domestication'. He says that 'the properly ethical aim of the
translating act is receiving the foreign as foreign'.
Many other approaches to the study of translation seem to emphasize
the political dimension of literary translation. The more recent literary theories
like New Historicism are interested in reading the contexts of power relations
in a literary text. John Brannigan (1998) in his critical exposifion of New
Historicism and Cultural materialism states, 'New Historicism is a mode of
critical interpretation which privileges power relations as the most important
context for texts of all kinds. As a critical practice it treats literary texts as a
 43

space where power relations are made visible'. (Branniganl998: 6; quoted

from Ketkar2006a) Such a perspective when applied to the texts that
communicate across cultures can yield very important insights and open an
exciting way of thinking about translation.

Reception theory:
There is a link between the workings of the publishing industry and the
reception of a given particular translation. Meg Brown has made an in-depth
study of Latin American novels published in West Germany in the 1980s.
(Brown 1994). The reviews play an important role in informing the public
about recently published books and in preparing the readership for the work.
Adopting the ideas from reception theory, she examines the way a work
conforms to, challenges or disappoints the reader's aesthetic expectation (of
style, form, content etc.) of the genre or series to which the new work belongs.
Reviews are also a useful source of information concerning that culture's view
of translation itself Some observations reveal how TT is normally read as if
the work had originally written in the TL. The contribution of translator is
almost overlooked. In reviews there is lack of focus on the process of
translation. Reviews can be analysed synchronically or diachronically.

XI

Interdisciplinary approach:
Translation has been considered as a derivative activity since long and
the academia has been reluctant to accept translation studies as a new
discipline. Hence, much research in this field continues to be conducted within
a variety of departments.
Snell-Hornby has attempted to overcome divisions between literary
and linguistic analyses of translation with an 'integrated' approach. Since then
the interdisciplinary approach in translation studies is emphasized. There are
attempts to create new methodologies appropriate for translation studies.
 44

She borrows the notion of prototypes for the categorizing of text types.
Depending on the notion of text type under consideration, she incorporates
cultural history, literary studies, socio-cultural and area studies and, for legal,
economic, medical and scientific translation, the study of the relevant
specialized subject.
This is an interesting attempt to bring together diverse areas of
translation and to bridge the gap between the commercial and artistic
translation. However, there are inconsistencies. And the question whether an
attempt to incorporate all genres and text types into such a detailed single
analytical framework is viable.
In recent years the interdisciplinary approach has gained ground. The
recent books and essays by various scholars are indicative of the way
translation studies has established strong primary relationship to essentially
non-linguistic disciplines. These books include: collections of essays
Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural Studies (Sonja
Tirkkonen-Condit, 1991), Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline (Snell-
Homby et al. (eds) 1994) and Translation as Intercultural Communication
(Snell-Homby et al. (eds) 1996).
Hewson and Martin (1991) have made an attempt recently to bridge
the gap between the linguistic and systemic approaches to translation. They
formulate a two-tier model for analyzing and explaining the translation
phenomenon. While the first tier focuses on the range of linguistic possibilities
available to the translator and the choices he or she makes while the second
tier deals with the institutional, cultural, contextual factors that influence the
rsinge of choices as well as the actual decisions made by the translator.
(Ketkar: 2006a)
The growth of new technologies is likely to have major impact on the
type and form of future research. The tools of translation are changing. Corpus
linguistics (the analysis of large amount of electronically stored text) already
facilitates the study of features of translated language.
In recent times there has been great impact of globalization on the
translation environment. The most recent globalization process has brought
about unprecedented changes to the global society. It has also given impetus to
the development of the translation and interpretation profession and business.
 45

However, a number of issues regarding translation theories and their

application to the translation practice in the process of globalization have
emerged and need to be addressed urgently.

XII

Evolving a model for the analysis of translations in Russian- Marathi

language-pair:
After taking an overall review of the various translation theories, it is
felt that target-oriented functional theories of translation which have emerged
since 1970s in the West and cultural translation studies which appeared since
1980s offer a valuable theoretical foundation for the study of the Russian-
Marathi translations during the twentieth century.
The study will make comprehensive use of target-oriented and culture-
oriented translation theories as a basic theoretical framework for the research.
These two approaches overlap to some extent. Both the theories emphasize on
the target or receptive culture.
The present thesis uses the polysystem model advanced by Even-Johar.
The Polysystem Theory deals with all cultural, linguistic, literary, and
social phenomena. It does not account for translations as single texts, but
regards them as a system functioning within a polysystem governed by the
literary system in which translations are done. According to this theory, the
social norms £ind literary conventions in the receiving culture ('target' culture)
govern the aesthetic presuppositions of the translator and thus influence
ensuing translation decisions.
The process of translation of Russian literature into Marathi, too, can
not be considered as a merely linguistic activity. It takes place in a specific
cultural and socio-political atmosphere. It has a prominent colonial
background. All the factors related with this process are influenced by the
historical contemporary literary and socio-cultural conditions. Hence this
study requires a pqlysystemic approach to understand the relationship of
Russian-Marathi translation activity with the changing dynamics of Marathi
literary polysystem in the twentieth century.
 46

The functional approach to Russian-Marathi translations helps us to

examine the functional value of these translated literary works in relation to
Marathi literary polysystem.
Hence, the analysis of the selected texts will be done through the
following approaches:
^y 1) Contextual analysis: The polysystemic theory is considered as a
theoretical framework for this thesis. The selected translation texts will be
analyzed in view of the target culture i.e. contemporary Marathi literary
polysystem.
The following criteria as described by Dr. Chandrashekhar Jahagirdar
will be used to assess the texts under study: i) The Translator's intention; ii)
Literary Taste; iii) The literary compulsions of the polysystem; iv) The
Institutional Role; v) Ideological factors. (Sawant 2001: 34)
Culture-oriented translation theory will give investigation of the
interaction between translation and culture; of the impact of the translated
work on the target culture, and the cultural significance of the translation in
Marathi polysystem. An attempt will be made to see, wherever required, the
cultural context, in which various important political, cultural and translational
events interweaved and in which these translations were produced.
The Functional approach will help us to determine the functional role
of the translation text in the target-culture.
In some cases the post-colonial theories may help us to review the
Russian-Marathi translation activity in the colonial context. They provide for a
post-colonial perspective to the relationship between British, Russian and
Marathi polysystems.
The following methodological tools are used in the process of
contextual analysis:
i) Primary tools such as Target Texts and Source Texts
ii) Paratextual Tools such as prefaces, introductions, blurbs, reviews,
commentaries, publishers' notes, reference essays, articles etc.
^-^•'^^ Textual Analysis: A comparative textual analysis of the selected
translations and the originals will be conducted. This will involve the
following concepts: i) Linguistic analysis ii) Cultural Transfer iii) Literary
Style.
 47

The process and problems of translation with reference to specific

genres - novels, sho|t stories and drama - will be discussed in the respective
chapters on these genres. The chapter IV deals with the study of selected
Russian novels in Marathi polysystem. Chapter V studies the Russian short
stories in Marathi, while Chapter VI attempts to analyse the Russian drama
translated into Marathi.