What is the correlation between the SL text and its translated version?

The interest of knowing ‘Others’ should be one of the chief features of

Translation Studies. The fertility of translator’s mother tongue could be
sustaining more with the act of translating something. The readers of Gujarati
literature are probably expecting to bring the same ideas as that of the original
text from the translators (Jayanti Dalal & Harendra Bhatt). Harendra Bhatt’s
translation includes many shorter sentences to convince the readers though it
looks abrupt in terms of its limited meanings which have been deliberately
used by the translator. Traditionally, translation could be read and enjoyed by
the readers; it might be seen as the surface level understanding the particular
translation. Though, translation itself reveals the connection between SL&TL
that gradually leads to an understanding of the relationship between SL & TL in
terms of its socio-cultural, political and economic aspects. In this way,
translation “goes beyond the communication of the foreign meanings to
encompass a political inscription”. The occurrence of literary translation could
be representing when the equivalence of SL & TL texts could be co-exist. To
support my view, I have quoted “translation is not just about texts: nor it is
only about cultures and power. It is about the relation of the one to the other”.

In Indian literature, the scope of translation as a subject includes wider area

to work on as the country is born with 1652 spoken languages, 40 nationalized
languages and 18 official languages. (**citation)

The act of translating any of the literary text slightly reveals one particular
nation’s fundamental similarities with another in terms of its SL & TL texts. I
have argued, subsequently, that in ‘Animal Farm’(1945), the translated version
of the text roots out the fundamental similarities between the SL & TL (Jayanti
Dalal’s translation and his life) texts in terms of its historical, social, cultural
and political alikeness, rather only linguistic differences(English & Gujarati). To
reinforce my argument, I would like to refer Walter Benjamin’s argument that
‘pure language’ is achievable through this ‘technique’ because ‘languages are
not strangers to one another, but are, a priori and apart from all historical
relationships, interrelated in what they want to express.’(The Task of the
Translator, 1923) According to Benjamin, translation becomes transparent
when the TL text follows the purity of the original work and its language by
creating linguistic harmony between the original work and its shadow. The
complication has been appearing more clearly when Benjamin’s argument
specifically centres the linguistic bridge between SL & TL narratives in terms of
its vital link with the linguistic harmony.

Socialist realism in Translation: Critically, it should be claimed that ‘Animal

Farm: A Fairy Tale’ is a piece of original literature as it neatly linked with
socialist realism discourse. The theory of existentialism and the intensity of
self-reflection have been accounted in both the SL& TL works. As per the Soviet
cultural view, translators have been seen as the cultural workers. (The
Translator’s Section of the Writers’ Union-1934, Soviet Union) The significance
of Animal Farm’s translation into Gujarati Language moderately associated
with Translation Theory as a whole during late Stalinism in Russia.(*
Elaboration required)

 Arunava said, "Translators must have target language as mother tongue,

but in India we have source language as mother tongue."
 Tulasi Das’ Ramcharitmaanasa (1575-1577), which is a poetic
retelling/adaptation/translation of Valmiki’s Ramayana in Hindi from
Sanskrit.
 Translation of Hindu works into Persian language can be observed as
complex in terms of authenticity.
 “To establish international peace, translation can be seen as powerful
medium”. - Sigmund Freud
Jayanti Dalal (1909-1970): as per the recommendation of translator, a
translator must have sufficient amount of knowledge of both the languages.
Dalal is the present example of this eligibility. Dalal is much more than that. I
have argued, ‘Dalal has significantly created a kind of linguistic bridge between
the SL& TL (Animal Farm& Pashu Rajya) work to make the translation
meaningful and culturally interlinked.’ Dalal as a literary scholar and as a
translator carefully created a periphery between linguistic and socio-cultural
contexts in his translated version to support Orwell’s ideology in general and
‘Animal Farm: A Fairy Tale’ in particular. The term ‘ideology’ (Marxist Ideology)
in terms of Literature as well as in Translation Studies as subjects, has been
discussed more in the context of writer and translator’s own ideology. The
equivalence ideologies of writer and translator could be resulted in genuine
and authentic translation for a translator if he made “the autonomous virtues
of the original more precisely visible in the translated text” (*Steiner)
Harendra Bhatt: Here the translator has taken up his own ideology to facilitate
the interests of a particular region of people in Gujarat. The use of paraphrase
(translation) in Bhatt’s translation majorly follows the Ciceronian ‘sense for
sense’ translation. To support Ciceronian’s argument, I would like to quote
Aurobindo here, “a translator is not necessarily bound to the original he
chooses; he can make his own poem out of it, if he likes, and that is what is
generally done.” (* citation) Sometimes, the translation itself can be observed
as dangerous if it gets slippery from the SL text or proves to be unfaithful to
the original piece of work. Therefore, typical word-for-word translation or
taking too much liberty will obscure the prestige of translation itself. I have
argued on Aurobindo’s statement that, a Translator can never make his own
poem as the POETRY (or any genre vice versa) as a permanent property of the
poet. Translator’s boastful attitude towards translation will violate the
fundamental idea of the SL text. Transportation of cultural terms from SL to TL
can be undermined by the influence of undertaking too much liberty or word
for word translation. As a translator, Bhatt also faces problems to translate
cultural terms or (European ideology at large) particular sector of people (Mr.
Jones& Pashabhai patel). The process of domesticating TL text in translation
studies could be seen as fruitful activity for the targeted audiences’ better
understanding. The use of domesticated language should be investigated
within the target language in terms of translator’s ideology. An excessive use
of domesticated language in terms of its social, cultural and linguistic aspect
could be collapse the fertility of the SL text or translator might be treated as
unfaithful towards the SL text and its writer.

Representation of lyrics in the translation of Jayanti Dalal:

In the long run, the dilemma of translation arises more diplomatically, when
the prose translation contains the mixture of prose and poetry. Thus, the task
of the translator becomes more laborious as the tone of a poem along with its
rhetorical devices cannot be translated in their literal sense (Jayanti Dalal &
Harendra Bhatt’s translation.) Dalal’s translation of ‘Animal Farm’ gathered
more significance and especially, for the way it has been written. Dalal’s
translation is the shadow of the original work. To quote Spivak “translation is
the representation of the original work with its shadow”. (The Politics of
Translation, 1993) Undoubtedly, Dalal may also fall with the confusion of
poetry translation within a prose work as Orwell has depicted. Sharply, the
translation of poetry stanza by Dalal in the receptor language can be observed
as unclear or mismatching to Orwell’s ideology of using it. To understand it
sharply, I have quoted Robert Frost here, “Poetry is that which is lost in
translation.”(Citation) While on the other hand, Bhatt’s translation
significantly emerged as the question of translating verse stanza or deliberately
suspending in TL. One another argument by Benjamin states that “Just as
translation is a form of its own, so, too, may the task of the translator be
regarded as distinct and clearly differentiated from the task of the poet”
(“The Task” 258).

Nida’s statement: Nida points out that the critical analysis of the SL text
gradually led to the translator for restructuring the text in the receptor
language. Here, NIda’s arguments slightly linked with the theories of post-
structuralism and deconstruction. The psyche of the translator’s offers a scope
to detective role to investigate how to restructure the hybrid SL text into the
target language.