The objective of my term paper is to explore the concept of translation in literature. Translation has a fairly long tradition.

Many theorists in the course of history have brought forth their theories on translation. In fact Translation Studies have developed as an interesting and important discipline of studies in over the years. For the purpose of my research I have taken aid of Mohan Rakeshs two short stories that have been translated from Hindi to English. The two stories of Mohan Rakesh that I have referred to in my paper are Miss Pall which is translated by Gordon C. Roadarmel , and the other one is Lord of the Rubble translated by Jai Ratan. I have additionally dealt with the concept of fidelity in translation. It would be befitting to know what the term translation means before beginning to write a paper on it and its concepts. Simply put, according to me translation is a way of expression of meaning of a text written in an original language into targeted language (Footnote 1). The term translation has been defined by numerous critics. I would like to quote Eugene A. Nida, a pioneer in the arena of translation studies whose view on translation I am in agreement with. According to him translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.(Footnote 2) The word translation evolved from the Latin word translatio, meaning to come across or bring across. It is this bringing across of other thoughts, cultures, information, ideas that the activity of the translation does. Literature is a repository of knowledge and an imitation of life as claimed by many. It is also something which mirrors cultures and civilization and it encompasses all spheres of human activities. It is also amongst extremely imaginative and universal avenues of communicating t emotions, other worldly feelings and psychological affairs of mankind. Language is the tool which helps to give expression to all this. But unfortunately everyone does not have the privilege of being acquainted with an extra language. Since literature is produced in various languages spoken around the globe, the role of translation becomes necessitous. It helps in enlightening readers about that, which is not available to them otherwise due to their handicap of not knowing any other language apart from their own . F.L. Lucas states this very objective of translation when he argues that translation is a way to try to compensate the intelligent reader for his ignorance of the language concerned, and to give him, the impression he would be likely to get if he would be likely to get, if he read the original fluently. In addition , translation has several meanings and one of its meaning is the product , that is to say the work or text which has been translated. In this research of mine, my preoccupation lies with the product. I will be elucidating on various issues with respect to the product. Moving on with the discussion of theory and practice of translation, there are various rules one expects a translator to bear in mind while translating a literary text. I feel that, while undertaking the task of translating, firstly it is a pre-requisite for a translator to have complete understanding, dexterity and perfect knowledge over both the languages, that is the original and the one that the work is being translated into. Secondly it is imperative that the translator must read the source text thoroughly and clearly comprehend the meaning and sense of the original text. He/she should at the same time make his own assessment of the characters before beginning to work on the process of rendering a translation. Furthermore the translator should not adopt word for word rendering approach ( I have discussed this in detail later in my paper). I believe that Gordon C. Roadarmels translation of Miss Pall complies to all the demands that have been laid out here. The translator has done a fair job by appreciating the sensibilities and emotion of the author and has been successful in expressing the thoughts of the author in the translation. French humanist Etienne

Dolet(1509-46) who was one of the first few writers published a framework of translation conventions, entitled La Maniere De Bien Traduire Dune Langue En Cultre, wherein Dolet laid out certain principles for a translator to follow. His principles emphasized on the significance of comprehending the source language text as a foremost necessity and translation involves both a scholarly and sensitive appraisal of the source language text as an awareness of the place the translation is intended to occupy in the translated language system. (footnote 3) As pointed out earlier, I will now begin with my discussion that has got the translation theorists occupied for ages. It is about the everlasting debate on whether word to word translation is better or sense for sense. I feel prominence should be given to sense and not words. Various theorists of translation studies have been caught up with the discussion and debate over literal(word for word) translation and free(sense for sense) translation, and which of the two is a better approach to follow while translating a piece a literature from one language to other. This debate goes back to Cicero(first century BCE) and St. Jerome(late fourth century). Cicero expressed the difficulty of translation thus: if I render word for word, the result will sound uncouth and if compelled by necessity I alter anything in the order of wording, I shall seem to have departed from the function of a translator. For Cicero the art of translator consisted in judicious interpretation of the source language text so as to produce translated language version based on the principle of expressing not word for word but sense for sense. FOOTNOTE4 ((pg 19 nair)) Jerome too disparaged the word for word approach because by following so closely the form of the source text, it produces an absurd translation cloaking the sense of the original. The sense for sense approach, on the other hand allows the sense or the content of the source text be translated FOOTNOTE 5(jm). Thus over time translation theorists have reiterated that word for word translation does not yield in good translation of the original work. It takes away the beauty of a translated piece and mars the beauty of original too. Such an approach ruins the meaning and structure of the original in the targeted language. I will take a simple example of an idiomatic phrase of the English language to further throw light on the concept of free versus literal translation. The idiomatic expression its raining cats and dogs is used when we want to say that it is raining heavily. If we are asked to translate it into Hindi language for those who are inept to fathom what it means. By translating it literally, the end product will be an absurd combination of Hindi words which are an equivalent to the English words that make up the phrase. It would be something as atrocious as baarish ho rahi hai billio aur kutto ki. This simply illustrates that the concept of word for word translation is flawed in most of the cases. It only strangles the meaning and gives birth to an absolutely different interpretation that is far removed from the original. Moreover by following this approach, lyricism and rhythm of the language is also lost. If the translator slavishly translates word for word he will be incapable of creating the same atmosphere and sense of the original. Hence today most of the translators have chosen the path of sense for sense translations, thus allowing the possibility of translated texts being read as naturally in the translated language as they are read in the source language. An example from the story Miss Pall to highlight that the translator of the story has also adopted the same sense for sense approach. When in the original language Miss Pall frowns upon Ranjit s decision to leave and clearly tells him that she wouldnt let her go. In the original Hindi story, Miss Pall the character says, yeh baat tum gaat mein baandh lo ki aaj tumhe yaha se nahi jaane dungi. Translating this in english word for word would give us a meaningless sentence. Hence the translator has adopted the sense for sense technique and the English translation of the sentence, which is Get this into your head- I wont let you leave today is apt and transmits the original authors meaning to

the readers of the translation. I would thus sum up this concept by quoting Voltaire in support of my argument. He exclaimed, Woe to the makers of literal translators, who by rendering every word weaken the meaning! Here I will approach the concept of fidelity in the product that is the translated text. The discussion of fidelity has infiltrated the treatise of translation for centuries. Translated works have often been accused of betraying their original works or misinterpreting them. I feel fidelity should be understood in terms of retaining the original sense and meaning of source text in translated text in targeted language. After reading both the stories that I have been mentioning in the course of my paper, I feel that both the translated versions do have a fidelity to the original. Fidelity in translation is about conveying the message of original language into another by creating the same effect in the other language. This should be done in a manner that readers of the translated text react exactly as the reader of the original text. Lord of the Rubble closely resembles the structure, the style and importantly the sense of original story Malbe ka Malik and so it can be argued that it has its fidelity to the original. Many have argued that if a translator is compelled to strictly adhere or follow the original it becomes a hindrance to the flight of imagination of original, questions about subjectivity and objectivity of translators have been raised. Such questions I feel are baseless because translation is an act of rendering somebodys work into just another language. One cannot take the liberty of improving on the original. Some writers have echoed the same sentiments. One of them is late Sujit Mukherjee. He attached huge significance to fidelity to original. In his collection of essays on translation he laid emphasis on the point that a translator by necessity be true to the original and that translation should be a viewing medium or be as a kind of lens through which the original can be examined thoroughly whenever the need be. Aruna Chakraborty who won the Sahitya Academy award for translation, too attaches immense value to fidelity. But according to her translator should be faithful to the spirit of the work, the cultural framework rather than the written word. She feels that even if a single phrase or line is taken away from some texts , they suffer but with others there is a possibility of condensing them without significant loss to the original. Thus the concept of fidelity in translation is like walking on a tight rope , so it is best for a translator to be tightly clasp the intent of the author in order to be faithful to original. Furthermore fidelity shouldnt be confused with word for word translation. Translation is a complex process. So there are certain methods that literary translators adopt in their vocation of translating. In some cases when a word of a language is so common or universally known, translators then borrow that word and incorporate it in their translation. For example, from the story Malbe ka Malik certain words such as gurdwara, burqa have been borrowed and used in the English translation Lord of the Rubble. The word burqa does have an English equivalent called veil but to use the Hindi word ikn the original shows that while translating a translator should also keep cultural aspect in mind. While on the other hand it becomes a necessity to render some words that do represent culture the original language text into a familiar word of targeted language for a better comprehension of the readers of translation. In India the word paan isnt alien but readers of English language who are not Indian will not understand the word paan if it was used by the translator in Lord of the Rubble . Then it will be a tedious task for translator to clear the obscurity hence betel leaf is used in Lord of the Rubble. But this substitution of the word does not at all hamper the progression of description in the translated text.

Now. I will touch in brief manner on, is meaning lost in translation. After the close reading of both versions of Mohan Rakeshs short stories i conclude that meaning is not always lost in translation if the translators understanding original language and language in which the translation is done is impeccable. The aesthetic pleasure I derived from the original was the same as I got after reading the translated texts. Along with that translator should be aware of the dangers of translating literally which flattens the meaning of a text most of the times. Though at times social and cultural aspects which are difficult to carry over from one language into another are lost in the translation process. In addition a wide range of linguistic devices such as proverbs, puns, idioms, sayings are clipped off. The discussion about idiomatic expression its raining cats and dogs is one such example . Nevertheless, I would prefer to say that translation is great art. More than losing something it makes literature of targeted language richer. I would sum up my views on this issue by summarizing Salman Rushdie on the same in Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism He points to the origin of the term translation, which I have pointed out in an earlier segment of my paper. In the essay he says that it is normally presumed that something is always lost in the process of translation but according to him something is also gained from it. Today translation has become an indispensable part of literature. There is no doubt that translation takes birth because of an existence of its original and as I have already stated that fidelity to the original is of great significance to translation. Therefore I feel that translation should be read as original that is to say it should produce an equivalent effect on the readers of translation as the original did on its readers. Hence a translation shouldnt be treated as an inferior entity. Translation should also enjoy a better status.