Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
125
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
TRANSLATION PROCESS AND PROBLEM OF TRANSLATION IN
WORLD CLASSICS
Surjeet Singh Warwal
Junior Research Fellow
Department of Hindi
Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central University,
Sagar (M.P.) India
Translation is the comprehension of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production
of an equivalent text, likewise called a “translation” that communicates the same message in
another language. The text that is translated is called the source text, and the language that it is
translated into is called the target language. The product is sometimes called the target text.
Translation is the word for Greek and translation word made up two think one is Trans+
Lation, trans means across Lation means to bring. Thus we can say that translation is the S.L to
Converted to T.L. Translation is a creative process of reproducing the text from S.L to T.L . It is
like a change one set of clothes to another where the context is same. Chukovask “Translation
is not a Art but a high Art” E. V Nida “E. V. Nida has a significant roll in the field of
translation. His work “Towards a science of translating 1964” attempts to Provide an
essentially descriptive approach to the process of translation. which discussing the theory of
translation. Nida gave examples primarily from bible material. Acc. to Nida there are certain
restrictions on translation imposed by the culture contexts linguist ion and literary style or media
of communication. In translating poetry stylistic restrictions are most important because mainly
the essence of poetry lies in the formal envelop for a meaningful context.
Acc. To Nida basic thing in the principle and produces of translation is the understanding
of the way in which meaning is expressed through language as a communication code. In it there
is three steps.
1. The parts which constitute such code.
2. The manner in which such codes operates.
3. The such code as language related to other words.
Nida classified the study of meaning into three parts
1. Semantic It deals with the relationship of science to referents.
2. Syntactic It is concerned with relationship of symbol to symbol.
3. Pragmatic It deals with the relation of symbols to behavior.
Among these three the pragmatic element of meaning is most important because the
Effectiveness of any message is dependent on the Understanding of receptor of that message.
Thus we can say that the reactions of people or the response of receptor are the fundamentals of
the analysis of any communication.
Different author give different types of the process of translation but the main propose of
translations to translate the S.L.T into T.L.T. in this process the first step is decoding the S.L test,
the another , first of all understands about the inherent port of the source language text. He
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
126
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
understands the content socio- culture aspect of S.L.T after that the next step encoding in into
T.L text..
The transition can be done by two ways.
1 Personal Translation
2 Agency
The purpose of translation is to give knowledge to everyone , First of all the translator
analysis the S.L.T.
According to Nida (1964), and Surya Wdnata (1982) there are three Types of activity in
process of translation. Analysis of S.L.T and second thing is transfer the Context and third the
restructuring in the T.l.T Bell’s (1991) Point of views syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic.
According to Herbay Higgings and Heywood (1995) two types
1 Understanding the S.L.T
2 Formulating the T.L.T
Theories of Translation
During 20th century, many Scholars have carried research on various aspects of
translation. The main thorists of translation who contribute to the theory of translation earlier are
J.C Catford, Nida Peter Newmark .
J.C Catford – According to J.C Catford “Translation id a replacement of Texual material
of one language ( S.L ) by equivalent texual material in Another language ( T.L )
J. C. Catford’s work’s name “A Lingistic theory of translation” (1965) Deals with the
analysis’s description of translation process. In this book J.C Catford proposed 3 general
categories of translation in term of .
Catord sets up a theory of translation based on general linguistic theory developed by
‘Holliday’ for him. Theory of translation is a branch of comparative linguistic as it deals with
certain types of relation B/W language. It is essentially a theory of applied Linguistics.
Catford feels that the central problem of translation practice is that of finding target
language translation equivalents. So the central task of translation theory is that of defining the
nature and condition of translation equivalence. Catford feels that in general theory of translation
both phonological and graph logical. Translation’s must be include since they help to throw light
on the condition of translation Equivalence and there by on the more complex process of total
translation Example .
In rank bound translation T.L equivalent are selection always at the same rank it is bad
translation. In unbound translation equivalent shunt up and down the rank s call freely.
Catford (distinguished) B/W translation Equivalence as an empirical phenomenon
discussing by comparing S.L and T.L text’s . the underling conditions of Justification of
1- Extent
Full
Partial
2- Level
Totel
Partial
3- Rank
Bound
Unbond
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
127
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
translation equivalence while discussing translation equivalence as an empirical phenomenon he
further distinguishes b/w textual equivalence and formal correspondence. Textual equivalence is
any target language text, formal correspondence is any T.L category which can be said to occupy
as nearly as possible the same piece in the economy of T.L as the given S.L category occupies in
the S.L (The ultimate text for textual equivalence is communication. According to this text we
may systematically introduce changes in S.L.T and observers what changes if any occur in the
T.L.T as a consequence.
Textual translation equivalent is that portion of T.L.T which is changed when an only
when a given portion of S.L.T is changed. Communication can also be used to demonstrate the
lack of equivalents for a given S.L items Example in English my father was a doctor In Hindi
mere pita ji doctor the. In Hindi the word ‘A” is missing, it show’s lack of Equivalence.
In a text a specific S.L item may occur several times and at each occurrence there will be
a specific T.L textual equivalence. By observing each particular textual equivalence we can
make a general statement if textual equivalences for each S.L items covering all its occurrences
in the text as a whole. It is quantified equivalence but formal correspondence can be only
established on the basis of textual equivalence.
Importance of meaning in translation
J.C Catford feels that it is very necessary for translation theory to drown upon a theory of
meaning , without such a theory many important aspects of the process of translation can not be
discussed the theory of meaning is derived from the view of J.R Firth, J.C defines meaning as the
total network of relation entered into by any linguistic form text , item in text structure, element
of structure, term in system or what ever it may be so meaning is the property of language S.L
text has S.L meaning’s T.L text has T.L meaning Catford discussed 2 kind of relation entered
into by the formal linguistic units of grammar’s Lyric ( stock of words) These are formal
relation and second is contextual relation’s. The relation b/w one formal item’s other’s in the
same language are called formal relations, The relationship of grammatical or lyrical item’s to
linguistically relevant elements in the situation in which the items operate or in text is called
contextual relations. The formals contextual meanings of S.L & T.L items can rarely be the same
there is no one to one relationship b/w grammatical excel items’ there contextual meaning of any
language.
Catford also finds out the difference between translation & Transference. In translation
the S.L meaning gets substituted by T.L meaning in transference the implementation of S.L
meaning into the T.L text takes place.
Translation Equivalents
Catford said that translation equivalents are those S.L & T.L text or items that can be
inter-changeable in a given situation. He feels the translation equivalence is to be established at
sentence rank because sentence is the grammatical unit most directly related to speech functions
with in a situation
Catford talks about 2 types of translation shifts:-
1- lavel shifts.
2- Category shifts
1- Lavel shifts :- These are the shifts from one linguistic level to other such as from grammer to
text vice-versa.
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
128
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
2- Category shifts :- These are the departures from formal correspondence in translation. These
may include structure shifts, class shifts, unite shifts or intra shifts system.
J.C catford also emphasis the role of played by language varieties in translation. The
selection of an appropriate registere in t.l. is very important in translation.
Translatability :- while discussing the limits of translability catford makes it clear that s.l. tent
is more or less translatable. He said untranslatability accurs when it is impossible to built
functionaley relevant features of the situation into the contentual meaning of T.L. tent. ACC. to
him there are 2 types of untranslatability
1- linguistic untranslatability :- It occurs mainly due to the lack of formal correspondence
b/w S.L. & T.L. It also occurs when an item having a particular restricted range of
meaning In Russian, prisla means ‘come’ or arrive on language the foot. English has no
lereical item with the corresponding restricted range of conteritual meaning.
2- Cultural untranslatabilty :- It arisen when a situational feature functionally relevant for
S.L. Tent is completely absent from the culture of which the T.L is a part.
Contribution of Catford to theory of translation :-
First of all it is a first extensive work on the theory of translation J.C. Catford discusses various
aspects & problems of translation. His theory of translation is based on general linguistic theory
of translation Is purely linguistic & tactual. In his theory translation equivalence is to be
established at the rank of sentence. The contextual factors that influence the process of
translation like the author / translator his social & cultural background, his interned audience, his
aim in translating the tent & the types of tent etc. are completely left art. In his thory the
discourse level beyond the sentence have not been taken care of so we can say that J.C. Catford’s
contribution in the field of translation is valuable.
Indian translation are divided for 3 period
1- Medieval period In this time most of the translation working for Sanskrit events. They
are not bound for word for word translation and sense for sense translation. Not translating
mother tang language and national language. In the medieval period attack the Muslim on India
then most of translation working does not good translation in the Akbar and Sharja time’s period
the most of writer writing literature and working for translation in which particular case most of
translation working good because main focuses for sense for sense translation . in this time most
of the translation working good
2- British Colonial Period In this time most of the translator are forger for example
English Translator . They found some Vedic Literature and other medieval translation Literature
. In which particular case most of the Translator working are not good because the medieval
translator are translating for word for word and not focus sense for sense then in this period , the
foreigner and Indian translator working main focus for word for sense. Most of Indian leader
translating the book for example “Mahatma Gandhi” and” Ravindra Nath Taggore “.
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
129
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
3- Contemporary Translation
Machine translation
The history of machine translation generally starts in the 1950s, although work can be
found from earlier periods. The Georgetown experiment in 1954 involved fully automatic
translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English. The experiment was a great
success and ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research. The
authors claimed that within three or five years, machine translation would be a solved problem.
However, the real progress was much slower, and after the ALPAC report in 1966, which
found that the ten years long research had failed to fulfill the expectations, the funding was
dramatically reduced. Starting in the late 1980s, as computational power increased and became
less expensive, more interest began to be shown in statistical models for machine translation.
Today there is still no system that provides the holy-grail of “fully automatic high quality
translation of unrestricted text” (FAHQUT) . However, there are many programs now available
that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints; several of them are available
online, such as Google translate and the SYSTRAN system which powers Alta Vista’s (Yahoo’s
since May 9,2008) Babel fish.
Problems in translation of world classics
The term “world classic” hardly needs a definition. To my mind, it is a work of literary,
or broadly artic, nature which has an appeal to various minds with various cultural and historical
backgrounds. Such works are numerous, embracing wonders of expression, from the Upanishads
down to the Waste land, including the holy books of Christianity and Islam. These world classics
have had their impressions on the minds of readers across the ages. But the fact that they were
composed in various languages presents a vital problem before the translator.
The case of translating the Bible into Arabic has for long been a source of heated
argument. The fact is that the Arabic Bible is simply Unreadable. It is true that the Song of Songs
has a certain appeal to readers with a poetic turn of mind, tinged with erotic flavors. But those
who know their Hebrew say that the biblical criticism is rather blurred in the Arabic Translation.
This is very significant indeed, since the two languages are Semitic, and so very close to each
other in grammar and syntax. But the Arabic version of the songs of Songs is the highest
example of Poetic style compared to the rest of the bible, says the Ecclesiastes, the Acts, not to
say anything of Genesis itself. The Language is simple is not Arabic, and the tern of Phrase
sounds so strange that the very meaning is clouded and soon lost.
Whys is this so? Judging by What is known of the early Translators of the Bible into
Arabic, they were mean burning with religious zeal, whose knowledge of Arabic leaves a lot to
be desired. In fact one major translator was a European missionary, Van Dyke, Whose Arabic
was too wooden to lend itself to a flowing phrase. The Book was Holy. Therefore The translation
had to be just, Exact, and lexically correct. Hence The loss of the poetry and the emotional
charge of the original . Hebrew and Aramaic are not Latin or Italian in the tonal value. But
hearing the Psalms Chanted in those rugged languages inspires even an atheist with a musical ear
with that divine awe, which is a symptom of understanding.
And that is why the Arabic Bible remains largely unread, even by “good Christians” of
today who are this side of Fifty. It is also no wonder that a God Loving father would advise his
son to start reading the Binle, skipping the Songs, Only to find soon after that the only part of the
Bible which had any appeal to the youngster was the Songs of Solomon, and nothing else.
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
130
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
The Authorized Version was made when poetry and drama flourished in England adding
more grace and elegance to the age of Queen Elizabeth such as this time master of the English
style as Marlowe and Shakespeare. The popularity of Drama and Poetry, and the standards of
poetic expression, set by the court of Elizabeth, which extended through out the seventeenth
century, formed the background to the Authorized version. It is true that “Biblical English” is
Quaint, but it is Attractive and beautiful, hence appealing to the reader. Modern English id not
like Shakespeare’s English. But a modern reader of the Songs and sonnets finds the
Shakespearean turn of Phrase appealing enough to deserve a little working out of the meaning. It
is a similar case with the Authorized Version, where the spirit of the Language denotes an age of
Elegance and beauty of style. Yet, even this was found incompatible with the spirit of the
twentieth century, and the “English Bible” was produced about thirty years ago in England, to
reader the Authorized Version more Readable to people Living in the twentieth century.
The major problem in translating a classic which is a holy book is, therefore, manly
stylistic. The historical aspect of the work seems to follow, rather smoothly, in the form of the
story told. When it is told in a smooth style there is usually very little to worry about on the level
of understanding. Believing the history told in the story is a matter highly dependent on how that
story is told. Again it is a question of style. A good deal of the appeal the miracle plays had on
the medieval audience was due to the history told in the those plays. When that history was
acted, the audience found it easier to understand questions like creation, Noah’s flood, the
Nativity, or the Immaculate Conception.
And history is one major tributary of culture. It follows, then, that a classic work with a
biblical background is basically dependent on a familiarity with the history taught by the Bible.
The cultural background becomes more or less difficult to grasp by both reader and translator in
ratio with the historical background of both reader and translator. So much for approaching a
classic in its original language. When it comes to the translation of such classic, the job of the
translator becomes at least twofold. You may translate Shakespeare or Milton to French or
German and you have an audience with essentially similar historical and cultural background,
and a familiarity with the Bible. There the historical aspect of the classic is more or less under
control of translator and reader. The cultural aspect becomes easier to approach by both
translator and reader means of a familiar historical background. But, how does it fare with the
Arab translator of Milton and Shakespeare, when the translator is predominantly Moslem in
religion, not familiar enough with the Bible, or Christian, not quite familiar with his own holy
Book? The question becomes more embarrassing when addressing an audience in the Arab world
which is not only unfamiliar with European history and culture, but not very familiar with its
own Bible, that basically middle eastern product of the mind. And this applies to reader of the
Christian faith before it does to other.
A test of good translation is the initial understanding and appreciation of the classic by
the translator himself. A poor translation is, therefore, an indication that the translator has failed
to grasp the text, and has, therefore, failed to render an effective translation. And there are many
example of this . The case of English translation of the Quran is perhaps a classic example. Now,
as every Moslem scholar knows, the miracle of the Quran is verbal and rhetorical. The Arabs are
a national who are primarily moved by words. A great cause of celebration among the ancient
Arab tribes was the emergence of a gifted poet in the tribe. The annual pilgrimage was also an
Olympiad of poetry. The winner had his poem inscribed and suspended on the curtains of the
holy Ka’aba,hence the suspended odes of pre-Islamic times. The first reaction to the verses of the
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
131
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
Quran, recited by Prophet Mohammad is that his speech was poetry. This bwas the Arabic
description of sublimity of expression and eloquence of speech. Therefore, a translation of the
Quran, the prodigy of Arabic expression, is that if its inspiration by God. A translation of the
Quran into another language, European or otherwise, cannot hope to come anywhere near the
meaning of the verses. The spirit of the language and the sublimity of style are impossible to
render in any other language and the sublimity of style are impossible to render in any other
language but that of the original Arabic.
The golden age of Arabic translation was that of the abbasid Calif Al-Mamoun in 9th
century Baghdad. One great classic that was translated into Arabic was Aristotle’s poetics. This
book was known to the Arab scholars in Baghdad in some form in the second half of the 9th
century. But the first translation was a poor Arabic translation made from an equally poor Syriac
translation from some Greek manuscript.. the first Arabic translation, made by Matta ibn Younis
Al-Qinai (d.939) was so bad that it moved an eminent Arav grammarian in Baghdad in the year
932 to accuse Matta of ignorance of both Arabic and Greek. Indeed the translation reads so bad
that one is lost as to what the words mean. Eminent scholars like Al-Kindi, Al- Farabi,Avicenna
and Averroes were all groping for the meaning of what the Greek philosopher had in mind.
Whether the original Syriac translation or the first Arabic translator know their Greek is belied
by the fact that the translation means means very little to the Arab reader.
The case of more modern classic like Shakespeare or Eliot presents historical and cultural
problems to the translator into Arabic which are basically similar to those met by the early
translators of the poetics. Shakespeare’s plays, there were three which were not yet translated
into Arabic in 1977, translate one of them : Timon of Athens. Basic problem was more cultural
then historical. The latter could be dealt with in an introduction, presenting Shakespeare the
playwright and artist to the average Arab reader. A surmountable difficulty was to present a
Shakespeare without journalstic glamorization or academic disputation. To set a text in its
sensible historical perspective is one major task before the translator. The various editions of
Shakespeare vary in this respect, and the Arden edition seems to offer the best in the way of
serious but not pedantic introduction , the translator has it all made for him. All he has to do is
to chose the better edition. But in this case of Timon on major problem before the editor was
establish the historical authenticity of the play. Hence the labyrinthal research into the historical
background of the Shakespeare’s plays, and of Timon in particular. Is such historical
preoccupation necessary for the Arab reader, therefore, ought to be translated.
The cultural aspect in Timon, and in Shekespeare’s plays in general,is overreaching. The
man “had little Latin and less Greek” but that was no drawback, despite all the “University Wits”
who could not bear to see “an upstart crow , beautifying himself on their feathers” Shakespeare
could, in Eliot’s words, make more of North’s Plutarch then many could make of the British
Museum. What the average English reader could learn about ancient Greece and Rome by
reading Shakespeare is really quite considerable, even if such English reader had little Latin and
less Greek. A reader who thinks of culture as embracing worlds outside Greece and Rome will
find God’s plenty in the rest of Shakespeare’s plays. In a more specific sense of culture, the
translator of Shakespeare play into Arabic will meet verbal and technical problems, concerning
prosody and figures of speech. “Poetry is the Arabs’ parlor” is a catch phrase in Arabic literary
criticism . A student of Arabic culture, language and literature always starts with poetry, for there
one can find everything about the Arabs. Therefore, to translate English poetry, dramatic or
otherwise , into Arabic, one is hunted by the Arabic rules of prosody and the Arabic turn of
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
132
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
phrase. One is always tempted to use rhyme and rhythm in his Arabic rendition. Sometimes to a
devastating result . One is also overwhelmed by the cadence of an iambic pentameter of the
frivolous rhythms of a songs or repartee in a comedy that one would like to achieve its
reproduction on Arabic. And these are the very quicksand’s before the translator. When a reader
is not familiar with the original play in English, the Arabic translation will always remain a few
removes away , and of limited value. Those who cannot read English have to be content with the
translation. And here is the great responsibility of the translator. In the case of Julius Caesar
translated in Egypt by the collaboration of three well known writers. The fact of collaboration in
translation is not like collaboration in writing a play, a common practice in Elizabethan England .
But this is another matter, though a drawback in the case of translation. The result was metrical
Arabic in lines which assume the appearance of blank verse, which is “neither hoarse nor ass”
people would have said. Ridiculous though it my seem, the metrical translation of Julius Caesar
shows what happens when such not unwholesome desires take a grip over the translator.
The case for the figures of speech seems less frightening to the translator. It is always
possible to find an Arabic equivalent to an English metaphor or simile, a pun or a proverb which
will satisfy the Arab reader. When this is not possible a literal translation will satisfy the
meaning and will retain the foreign taste which actually underlines the meaning. And this is
some who acceptable to the reader who finds in it something new to learn, and he usually does
not resent that.
Cultural concepts usually need footnotes which, again, are acceptable with no resentment.
The description of poets as liars, for instance, with its Platonic overtones, is acceptable to the
Arab readers who are of the Moslem faith, as there is a well- known reference in the Quran to the
poets as liars, who do not practice what they preach . A brief footnote to the origin of the idea in
Plato and Quran is big help. A similar reference to betrayal in the behavior of Judas Iscariot
could benefit from a brief footnote to a reader who is not familiar with the Bible.
When we come to a contemporary classic like Eliot’s Waste land the historical- cultural
problems become ever more formidable. This problem poem was translated four times to Arabic
in the last twenty years or so. Each time the translated buffed the average Arabic reader more
then before. It is a common place of modern criticism to point out that the Waste land makes
vital references to 35 books mostly not within the reach of the average English reader. The poem
also has Quotations in six European Languages, including Provencal, in addition to Sanskrit. As
a poet never bothered to give references which satisfy the average reader, the shock and
bafflement become a sort of anger at the poet, whose attitude to the reader may well be
interpreted as an accusation of ignorance. And here comes the double job of the translator, who
has to present a translation and an explanation. Twenty- five centuries of culture, living in the
very marrow of the poet, whose individual talent should be conscious of tradition as well. The
heritage of humanity is also the history of culture, only partially limited by Sanskrit and the
western Europeans language. The source of all wisdom and cultures, Eliot feels, is Sanskrit
which is the fountainhead of Indo- European cultures. A return to the fountainhead is necessary
for salvation. But, to present aspects of these cultures can only be done in the form of a “heap of
broken images” these, when translated, will remain a heap of broken images. Explanation and
interpretation will put the pieces together , and the comprehensive image of culture will,
hopefully, become complete.
The task os showing the Arabic reader that the Waste land was written in a form called
“free verse” was most difficult to grapple with. In the Arabic Literary tradition “poetry is a
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
133
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
speech which has rhyme and rhythm” sixteen meters limit the traditional Arabic poetry, and a
violation of their rules caste the speech into various circles of prosaic hell. A translator of Eliot to
Arabic has to deal with that point first, showing how the “music of ideas” could replace the
rhythmic feet in traditional metrical verse. In addition to this culture problem, there is the
overwhelming problem of references. These are so numerous that the translator has be on his
guard not to lose sight of the wood for the trees. Eliot spoke of the historical sense in poetry as
well as the historical sense in criticism. These have to be made available to the reader of the
Arabic translation before one can hope that the poem has entered the orbit of understanding.
Introduction and footnotes, then, cannot be enough to make a translation of the Waste
Land fully understood and appreciated. It is simple a different sort of classic which embraces
various aspects of human history and human culture. The poem has earned the reputation of
ambiguity and difficulty, and there is small wonder at that. But a classic also should be made
available to the average reader, for the sake of democratization of culture, if for no other reason.
And this can only be done through analysis and interpretation. Translation here must be a work
of scholarship as well ass that of transplanting a poem from one language to another.
Notes and Reference
1. Dell Hymes, Language in culture and society, Bombay: Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1964 p.91.
2. M. G. Kolhatkar, Othello, Pune: Modem Book Depot, 1962, New Ed. First published in 1890
p.2.
3. C. B.Dewwal, Jhunzar Rao, Pune, Ramya Katha Prakashan, 1976 New Ed. First publishedf in
1890, p.5.
4. V.V. shirwadkar, Othello, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, 1965. Second Ed, Firm published in
1961, p.19.
5. Reuben A. Brower, Mirror on mirror, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974 p. 159.
6. James, S. Holmes “Literature and Translation”,Katholike universiteit te Leuven, (1970).
7. Nida, E.A., and taber, C.R., Theory and Practice of Translation, Boston, Brill Academic
Publishers, 1982.
8. Mueller, Kurt, Volluner and Transcher, Michael (Ed.), Translating Literatures, Translating
cultures: New vistas and approaches in Literary studies, Burlin,Erich Schmidt, 1998.
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
125
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
TRANSLATION PROCESS AND PROBLEM OF TRANSLATION IN
WORLD CLASSICS
Surjeet Singh Warwal
Junior Research Fellow
Department of Hindi
Dr. Hari Singh Gour Central University,
Sagar (M.P.) India
Translation is the comprehension of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production
of an equivalent text, likewise called a “translation” that communicates the same message in
another language. The text that is translated is called the source text, and the language that it is
translated into is called the target language. The product is sometimes called the target text.
Translation is the word for Greek and translation word made up two think one is Trans+
Lation, trans means across Lation means to bring. Thus we can say that translation is the S.L to
Converted to T.L. Translation is a creative process of reproducing the text from S.L to T.L . It is
like a change one set of clothes to another where the context is same. Chukovask “Translation
is not a Art but a high Art” E. V Nida “E. V. Nida has a significant roll in the field of
translation. His work “Towards a science of translating 1964” attempts to Provide an
essentially descriptive approach to the process of translation. which discussing the theory of
translation. Nida gave examples primarily from bible material. Acc. to Nida there are certain
restrictions on translation imposed by the culture contexts linguist ion and literary style or media
of communication. In translating poetry stylistic restrictions are most important because mainly
the essence of poetry lies in the formal envelop for a meaningful context.
Acc. To Nida basic thing in the principle and produces of translation is the understanding
of the way in which meaning is expressed through language as a communication code. In it there
is three steps.
1. The parts which constitute such code.
2. The manner in which such codes operates.
3. The such code as language related to other words.
Nida classified the study of meaning into three parts
1. Semantic It deals with the relationship of science to referents.
2. Syntactic It is concerned with relationship of symbol to symbol.
3. Pragmatic It deals with the relation of symbols to behavior.
Among these three the pragmatic element of meaning is most important because the
Effectiveness of any message is dependent on the Understanding of receptor of that message.
Thus we can say that the reactions of people or the response of receptor are the fundamentals of
the analysis of any communication.
Different author give different types of the process of translation but the main propose of
translations to translate the S.L.T into T.L.T. in this process the first step is decoding the S.L test,
the another , first of all understands about the inherent port of the source language text. He
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
126
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
understands the content socio- culture aspect of S.L.T after that the next step encoding in into
T.L text..
The transition can be done by two ways.
1 Personal Translation
2 Agency
The purpose of translation is to give knowledge to everyone , First of all the translator
analysis the S.L.T.
According to Nida (1964), and Surya Wdnata (1982) there are three Types of activity in
process of translation. Analysis of S.L.T and second thing is transfer the Context and third the
restructuring in the T.l.T Bell’s (1991) Point of views syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic.
According to Herbay Higgings and Heywood (1995) two types
1 Understanding the S.L.T
2 Formulating the T.L.T
Theories of Translation
During 20th century, many Scholars have carried research on various aspects of
translation. The main thorists of translation who contribute to the theory of translation earlier are
J.C Catford, Nida Peter Newmark .
J.C Catford – According to J.C Catford “Translation id a replacement of Texual material
of one language ( S.L ) by equivalent texual material in Another language ( T.L )
J. C. Catford’s work’s name “A Lingistic theory of translation” (1965) Deals with the
analysis’s description of translation process. In this book J.C Catford proposed 3 general
categories of translation in term of .
Catord sets up a theory of translation based on general linguistic theory developed by
‘Holliday’ for him. Theory of translation is a branch of comparative linguistic as it deals with
certain types of relation B/W language. It is essentially a theory of applied Linguistics.
Catford feels that the central problem of translation practice is that of finding target
language translation equivalents. So the central task of translation theory is that of defining the
nature and condition of translation equivalence. Catford feels that in general theory of translation
both phonological and graph logical. Translation’s must be include since they help to throw light
on the condition of translation Equivalence and there by on the more complex process of total
translation Example .
In rank bound translation T.L equivalent are selection always at the same rank it is bad
translation. In unbound translation equivalent shunt up and down the rank s call freely.
Catford (distinguished) B/W translation Equivalence as an empirical phenomenon
discussing by comparing S.L and T.L text’s . the underling conditions of Justification of
1- Extent
Full
Partial
2- Level
Totel
Partial
3- Rank
Bound
Unbond
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
127
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
translation equivalence while discussing translation equivalence as an empirical phenomenon he
further distinguishes b/w textual equivalence and formal correspondence. Textual equivalence is
any target language text, formal correspondence is any T.L category which can be said to occupy
as nearly as possible the same piece in the economy of T.L as the given S.L category occupies in
the S.L (The ultimate text for textual equivalence is communication. According to this text we
may systematically introduce changes in S.L.T and observers what changes if any occur in the
T.L.T as a consequence.
Textual translation equivalent is that portion of T.L.T which is changed when an only
when a given portion of S.L.T is changed. Communication can also be used to demonstrate the
lack of equivalents for a given S.L items Example in English my father was a doctor In Hindi
mere pita ji doctor the. In Hindi the word ‘A” is missing, it show’s lack of Equivalence.
In a text a specific S.L item may occur several times and at each occurrence there will be
a specific T.L textual equivalence. By observing each particular textual equivalence we can
make a general statement if textual equivalences for each S.L items covering all its occurrences
in the text as a whole. It is quantified equivalence but formal correspondence can be only
established on the basis of textual equivalence.
Importance of meaning in translation
J.C Catford feels that it is very necessary for translation theory to drown upon a theory of
meaning , without such a theory many important aspects of the process of translation can not be
discussed the theory of meaning is derived from the view of J.R Firth, J.C defines meaning as the
total network of relation entered into by any linguistic form text , item in text structure, element
of structure, term in system or what ever it may be so meaning is the property of language S.L
text has S.L meaning’s T.L text has T.L meaning Catford discussed 2 kind of relation entered
into by the formal linguistic units of grammar’s Lyric ( stock of words) These are formal
relation and second is contextual relation’s. The relation b/w one formal item’s other’s in the
same language are called formal relations, The relationship of grammatical or lyrical item’s to
linguistically relevant elements in the situation in which the items operate or in text is called
contextual relations. The formals contextual meanings of S.L & T.L items can rarely be the same
there is no one to one relationship b/w grammatical excel items’ there contextual meaning of any
language.
Catford also finds out the difference between translation & Transference. In translation
the S.L meaning gets substituted by T.L meaning in transference the implementation of S.L
meaning into the T.L text takes place.
Translation Equivalents
Catford said that translation equivalents are those S.L & T.L text or items that can be
inter-changeable in a given situation. He feels the translation equivalence is to be established at
sentence rank because sentence is the grammatical unit most directly related to speech functions
with in a situation
Catford talks about 2 types of translation shifts:-
1- lavel shifts.
2- Category shifts
1- Lavel shifts :- These are the shifts from one linguistic level to other such as from grammer to
text vice-versa.
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
128
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
2- Category shifts :- These are the departures from formal correspondence in translation. These
may include structure shifts, class shifts, unite shifts or intra shifts system.
J.C catford also emphasis the role of played by language varieties in translation. The
selection of an appropriate registere in t.l. is very important in translation.
Translatability :- while discussing the limits of translability catford makes it clear that s.l. tent
is more or less translatable. He said untranslatability accurs when it is impossible to built
functionaley relevant features of the situation into the contentual meaning of T.L. tent. ACC. to
him there are 2 types of untranslatability
1- linguistic untranslatability :- It occurs mainly due to the lack of formal correspondence
b/w S.L. & T.L. It also occurs when an item having a particular restricted range of
meaning In Russian, prisla means ‘come’ or arrive on language the foot. English has no
lereical item with the corresponding restricted range of conteritual meaning.
2- Cultural untranslatabilty :- It arisen when a situational feature functionally relevant for
S.L. Tent is completely absent from the culture of which the T.L is a part.
Contribution of Catford to theory of translation :-
First of all it is a first extensive work on the theory of translation J.C. Catford discusses various
aspects & problems of translation. His theory of translation is based on general linguistic theory
of translation Is purely linguistic & tactual. In his theory translation equivalence is to be
established at the rank of sentence. The contextual factors that influence the process of
translation like the author / translator his social & cultural background, his interned audience, his
aim in translating the tent & the types of tent etc. are completely left art. In his thory the
discourse level beyond the sentence have not been taken care of so we can say that J.C. Catford’s
contribution in the field of translation is valuable.
Indian translation are divided for 3 period
1- Medieval period In this time most of the translation working for Sanskrit events. They
are not bound for word for word translation and sense for sense translation. Not translating
mother tang language and national language. In the medieval period attack the Muslim on India
then most of translation working does not good translation in the Akbar and Sharja time’s period
the most of writer writing literature and working for translation in which particular case most of
translation working good because main focuses for sense for sense translation . in this time most
of the translation working good
2- British Colonial Period In this time most of the translator are forger for example
English Translator . They found some Vedic Literature and other medieval translation Literature
. In which particular case most of the Translator working are not good because the medieval
translator are translating for word for word and not focus sense for sense then in this period , the
foreigner and Indian translator working main focus for word for sense. Most of Indian leader
translating the book for example “Mahatma Gandhi” and” Ravindra Nath Taggore “.
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
129
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
3- Contemporary Translation
Machine translation
The history of machine translation generally starts in the 1950s, although work can be
found from earlier periods. The Georgetown experiment in 1954 involved fully automatic
translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English. The experiment was a great
success and ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research. The
authors claimed that within three or five years, machine translation would be a solved problem.
However, the real progress was much slower, and after the ALPAC report in 1966, which
found that the ten years long research had failed to fulfill the expectations, the funding was
dramatically reduced. Starting in the late 1980s, as computational power increased and became
less expensive, more interest began to be shown in statistical models for machine translation.
Today there is still no system that provides the holy-grail of “fully automatic high quality
translation of unrestricted text” (FAHQUT) . However, there are many programs now available
that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints; several of them are available
online, such as Google translate and the SYSTRAN system which powers Alta Vista’s (Yahoo’s
since May 9,2008) Babel fish.
Problems in translation of world classics
The term “world classic” hardly needs a definition. To my mind, it is a work of literary,
or broadly artic, nature which has an appeal to various minds with various cultural and historical
backgrounds. Such works are numerous, embracing wonders of expression, from the Upanishads
down to the Waste land, including the holy books of Christianity and Islam. These world classics
have had their impressions on the minds of readers across the ages. But the fact that they were
composed in various languages presents a vital problem before the translator.
The case of translating the Bible into Arabic has for long been a source of heated
argument. The fact is that the Arabic Bible is simply Unreadable. It is true that the Song of Songs
has a certain appeal to readers with a poetic turn of mind, tinged with erotic flavors. But those
who know their Hebrew say that the biblical criticism is rather blurred in the Arabic Translation.
This is very significant indeed, since the two languages are Semitic, and so very close to each
other in grammar and syntax. But the Arabic version of the songs of Songs is the highest
example of Poetic style compared to the rest of the bible, says the Ecclesiastes, the Acts, not to
say anything of Genesis itself. The Language is simple is not Arabic, and the tern of Phrase
sounds so strange that the very meaning is clouded and soon lost.
Whys is this so? Judging by What is known of the early Translators of the Bible into
Arabic, they were mean burning with religious zeal, whose knowledge of Arabic leaves a lot to
be desired. In fact one major translator was a European missionary, Van Dyke, Whose Arabic
was too wooden to lend itself to a flowing phrase. The Book was Holy. Therefore The translation
had to be just, Exact, and lexically correct. Hence The loss of the poetry and the emotional
charge of the original . Hebrew and Aramaic are not Latin or Italian in the tonal value. But
hearing the Psalms Chanted in those rugged languages inspires even an atheist with a musical ear
with that divine awe, which is a symptom of understanding.
And that is why the Arabic Bible remains largely unread, even by “good Christians” of
today who are this side of Fifty. It is also no wonder that a God Loving father would advise his
son to start reading the Binle, skipping the Songs, Only to find soon after that the only part of the
Bible which had any appeal to the youngster was the Songs of Solomon, and nothing else.
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
130
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
The Authorized Version was made when poetry and drama flourished in England adding
more grace and elegance to the age of Queen Elizabeth such as this time master of the English
style as Marlowe and Shakespeare. The popularity of Drama and Poetry, and the standards of
poetic expression, set by the court of Elizabeth, which extended through out the seventeenth
century, formed the background to the Authorized version. It is true that “Biblical English” is
Quaint, but it is Attractive and beautiful, hence appealing to the reader. Modern English id not
like Shakespeare’s English. But a modern reader of the Songs and sonnets finds the
Shakespearean turn of Phrase appealing enough to deserve a little working out of the meaning. It
is a similar case with the Authorized Version, where the spirit of the Language denotes an age of
Elegance and beauty of style. Yet, even this was found incompatible with the spirit of the
twentieth century, and the “English Bible” was produced about thirty years ago in England, to
reader the Authorized Version more Readable to people Living in the twentieth century.
The major problem in translating a classic which is a holy book is, therefore, manly
stylistic. The historical aspect of the work seems to follow, rather smoothly, in the form of the
story told. When it is told in a smooth style there is usually very little to worry about on the level
of understanding. Believing the history told in the story is a matter highly dependent on how that
story is told. Again it is a question of style. A good deal of the appeal the miracle plays had on
the medieval audience was due to the history told in the those plays. When that history was
acted, the audience found it easier to understand questions like creation, Noah’s flood, the
Nativity, or the Immaculate Conception.
And history is one major tributary of culture. It follows, then, that a classic work with a
biblical background is basically dependent on a familiarity with the history taught by the Bible.
The cultural background becomes more or less difficult to grasp by both reader and translator in
ratio with the historical background of both reader and translator. So much for approaching a
classic in its original language. When it comes to the translation of such classic, the job of the
translator becomes at least twofold. You may translate Shakespeare or Milton to French or
German and you have an audience with essentially similar historical and cultural background,
and a familiarity with the Bible. There the historical aspect of the classic is more or less under
control of translator and reader. The cultural aspect becomes easier to approach by both
translator and reader means of a familiar historical background. But, how does it fare with the
Arab translator of Milton and Shakespeare, when the translator is predominantly Moslem in
religion, not familiar enough with the Bible, or Christian, not quite familiar with his own holy
Book? The question becomes more embarrassing when addressing an audience in the Arab world
which is not only unfamiliar with European history and culture, but not very familiar with its
own Bible, that basically middle eastern product of the mind. And this applies to reader of the
Christian faith before it does to other.
A test of good translation is the initial understanding and appreciation of the classic by
the translator himself. A poor translation is, therefore, an indication that the translator has failed
to grasp the text, and has, therefore, failed to render an effective translation. And there are many
example of this . The case of English translation of the Quran is perhaps a classic example. Now,
as every Moslem scholar knows, the miracle of the Quran is verbal and rhetorical. The Arabs are
a national who are primarily moved by words. A great cause of celebration among the ancient
Arab tribes was the emergence of a gifted poet in the tribe. The annual pilgrimage was also an
Olympiad of poetry. The winner had his poem inscribed and suspended on the curtains of the
holy Ka’aba,hence the suspended odes of pre-Islamic times. The first reaction to the verses of the
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
131
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
Quran, recited by Prophet Mohammad is that his speech was poetry. This bwas the Arabic
description of sublimity of expression and eloquence of speech. Therefore, a translation of the
Quran, the prodigy of Arabic expression, is that if its inspiration by God. A translation of the
Quran into another language, European or otherwise, cannot hope to come anywhere near the
meaning of the verses. The spirit of the language and the sublimity of style are impossible to
render in any other language and the sublimity of style are impossible to render in any other
language but that of the original Arabic.
The golden age of Arabic translation was that of the abbasid Calif Al-Mamoun in 9th
century Baghdad. One great classic that was translated into Arabic was Aristotle’s poetics. This
book was known to the Arab scholars in Baghdad in some form in the second half of the 9th
century. But the first translation was a poor Arabic translation made from an equally poor Syriac
translation from some Greek manuscript.. the first Arabic translation, made by Matta ibn Younis
Al-Qinai (d.939) was so bad that it moved an eminent Arav grammarian in Baghdad in the year
932 to accuse Matta of ignorance of both Arabic and Greek. Indeed the translation reads so bad
that one is lost as to what the words mean. Eminent scholars like Al-Kindi, Al- Farabi,Avicenna
and Averroes were all groping for the meaning of what the Greek philosopher had in mind.
Whether the original Syriac translation or the first Arabic translator know their Greek is belied
by the fact that the translation means means very little to the Arab reader.
The case of more modern classic like Shakespeare or Eliot presents historical and cultural
problems to the translator into Arabic which are basically similar to those met by the early
translators of the poetics. Shakespeare’s plays, there were three which were not yet translated
into Arabic in 1977, translate one of them : Timon of Athens. Basic problem was more cultural
then historical. The latter could be dealt with in an introduction, presenting Shakespeare the
playwright and artist to the average Arab reader. A surmountable difficulty was to present a
Shakespeare without journalstic glamorization or academic disputation. To set a text in its
sensible historical perspective is one major task before the translator. The various editions of
Shakespeare vary in this respect, and the Arden edition seems to offer the best in the way of
serious but not pedantic introduction , the translator has it all made for him. All he has to do is
to chose the better edition. But in this case of Timon on major problem before the editor was
establish the historical authenticity of the play. Hence the labyrinthal research into the historical
background of the Shakespeare’s plays, and of Timon in particular. Is such historical
preoccupation necessary for the Arab reader, therefore, ought to be translated.
The cultural aspect in Timon, and in Shekespeare’s plays in general,is overreaching. The
man “had little Latin and less Greek” but that was no drawback, despite all the “University Wits”
who could not bear to see “an upstart crow , beautifying himself on their feathers” Shakespeare
could, in Eliot’s words, make more of North’s Plutarch then many could make of the British
Museum. What the average English reader could learn about ancient Greece and Rome by
reading Shakespeare is really quite considerable, even if such English reader had little Latin and
less Greek. A reader who thinks of culture as embracing worlds outside Greece and Rome will
find God’s plenty in the rest of Shakespeare’s plays. In a more specific sense of culture, the
translator of Shakespeare play into Arabic will meet verbal and technical problems, concerning
prosody and figures of speech. “Poetry is the Arabs’ parlor” is a catch phrase in Arabic literary
criticism . A student of Arabic culture, language and literature always starts with poetry, for there
one can find everything about the Arabs. Therefore, to translate English poetry, dramatic or
otherwise , into Arabic, one is hunted by the Arabic rules of prosody and the Arabic turn of
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
132
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
phrase. One is always tempted to use rhyme and rhythm in his Arabic rendition. Sometimes to a
devastating result . One is also overwhelmed by the cadence of an iambic pentameter of the
frivolous rhythms of a songs or repartee in a comedy that one would like to achieve its
reproduction on Arabic. And these are the very quicksand’s before the translator. When a reader
is not familiar with the original play in English, the Arabic translation will always remain a few
removes away , and of limited value. Those who cannot read English have to be content with the
translation. And here is the great responsibility of the translator. In the case of Julius Caesar
translated in Egypt by the collaboration of three well known writers. The fact of collaboration in
translation is not like collaboration in writing a play, a common practice in Elizabethan England .
But this is another matter, though a drawback in the case of translation. The result was metrical
Arabic in lines which assume the appearance of blank verse, which is “neither hoarse nor ass”
people would have said. Ridiculous though it my seem, the metrical translation of Julius Caesar
shows what happens when such not unwholesome desires take a grip over the translator.
The case for the figures of speech seems less frightening to the translator. It is always
possible to find an Arabic equivalent to an English metaphor or simile, a pun or a proverb which
will satisfy the Arab reader. When this is not possible a literal translation will satisfy the
meaning and will retain the foreign taste which actually underlines the meaning. And this is
some who acceptable to the reader who finds in it something new to learn, and he usually does
not resent that.
Cultural concepts usually need footnotes which, again, are acceptable with no resentment.
The description of poets as liars, for instance, with its Platonic overtones, is acceptable to the
Arab readers who are of the Moslem faith, as there is a well- known reference in the Quran to the
poets as liars, who do not practice what they preach . A brief footnote to the origin of the idea in
Plato and Quran is big help. A similar reference to betrayal in the behavior of Judas Iscariot
could benefit from a brief footnote to a reader who is not familiar with the Bible.
When we come to a contemporary classic like Eliot’s Waste land the historical- cultural
problems become ever more formidable. This problem poem was translated four times to Arabic
in the last twenty years or so. Each time the translated buffed the average Arabic reader more
then before. It is a common place of modern criticism to point out that the Waste land makes
vital references to 35 books mostly not within the reach of the average English reader. The poem
also has Quotations in six European Languages, including Provencal, in addition to Sanskrit. As
a poet never bothered to give references which satisfy the average reader, the shock and
bafflement become a sort of anger at the poet, whose attitude to the reader may well be
interpreted as an accusation of ignorance. And here comes the double job of the translator, who
has to present a translation and an explanation. Twenty- five centuries of culture, living in the
very marrow of the poet, whose individual talent should be conscious of tradition as well. The
heritage of humanity is also the history of culture, only partially limited by Sanskrit and the
western Europeans language. The source of all wisdom and cultures, Eliot feels, is Sanskrit
which is the fountainhead of Indo- European cultures. A return to the fountainhead is necessary
for salvation. But, to present aspects of these cultures can only be done in the form of a “heap of
broken images” these, when translated, will remain a heap of broken images. Explanation and
interpretation will put the pieces together , and the comprehensive image of culture will,
hopefully, become complete.
The task os showing the Arabic reader that the Waste land was written in a form called
“free verse” was most difficult to grapple with. In the Arabic Literary tradition “poetry is a
Indian Scholar
An International Multidisciplinary Research e-Journal
133
Vol. 1 Issue I September, 2014
ISSN 2350-109X
www.indianscholar.co.in
speech which has rhyme and rhythm” sixteen meters limit the traditional Arabic poetry, and a
violation of their rules caste the speech into various circles of prosaic hell. A translator of Eliot to
Arabic has to deal with that point first, showing how the “music of ideas” could replace the
rhythmic feet in traditional metrical verse. In addition to this culture problem, there is the
overwhelming problem of references. These are so numerous that the translator has be on his
guard not to lose sight of the wood for the trees. Eliot spoke of the historical sense in poetry as
well as the historical sense in criticism. These have to be made available to the reader of the
Arabic translation before one can hope that the poem has entered the orbit of understanding.
Introduction and footnotes, then, cannot be enough to make a translation of the Waste
Land fully understood and appreciated. It is simple a different sort of classic which embraces
various aspects of human history and human culture. The poem has earned the reputation of
ambiguity and difficulty, and there is small wonder at that. But a classic also should be made
available to the average reader, for the sake of democratization of culture, if for no other reason.
And this can only be done through analysis and interpretation. Translation here must be a work
of scholarship as well ass that of transplanting a poem from one language to another.
Notes and Reference
1. Dell Hymes, Language in culture and society, Bombay: Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 1964 p.91.
2. M. G. Kolhatkar, Othello, Pune: Modem Book Depot, 1962, New Ed. First published in 1890
p.2.
3. C. B.Dewwal, Jhunzar Rao, Pune, Ramya Katha Prakashan, 1976 New Ed. First publishedf in
1890, p.5.
4. V.V. shirwadkar, Othello, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, 1965. Second Ed, Firm published in
1961, p.19.
5. Reuben A. Brower, Mirror on mirror, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974 p. 159.
6. James, S. Holmes “Literature and Translation”,Katholike universiteit te Leuven, (1970).
7. Nida, E.A., and taber, C.R., Theory and Practice of Translation, Boston, Brill Academic
Publishers, 1982.
8. Mueller, Kurt, Volluner and Transcher, Michael (Ed.), Translating Literatures, Translating
cultures: New vistas and approaches in Literary studies, Burlin,Erich Schmidt, 1998.
No comments:
Post a Comment