Chapter II

Theory of Translation
2.1 Introduction
Language is the most wonderful invention of the human mind. It is the most precious
possession of the human kind. The development of the human race virtually depends
on the development of human languages. Human beings convey their thoughts, ideas
and emotions through language. Creation of language is a milestone in the
development of human culture and civilization Human beings all over the world
confront the problem of communication when they happen to come across the people
speaking an unknown language. These problems are settled by transference or
substitution or ‘carry over’ of meanings from one language to another. So, translation
becomes an indispensible tool to understanding expressions in an unknown language.

Translation is primarily transference of a message from one language into another.

The curiosity of human mind to know the unknown underlines the necessity and
significance of translation. It is through translation that we are able to inform others
and be informed by others. One cannot imagine the world, particularly the
contemporary global village, without translation. The scientific inventions and
discoveries which have brought revolutionary changes in human life have reached
various nations through translation. It is not possible for us to get a Homer or a
Shakespeare, a Jnaneshwar or a Tukaram without translation. Thus, it is through
translation that the literary heritage of human culture and civilization is made
accessible to every part of the globe.

2.2 Translatability: A Concept

Any theoretical discussion about translation begins with the issue of possibility of
translation. For ages, issues like translatability, fidelity and equivalence in translation
have been debated by many scholars. Earlier, a few scholars created doubts regarding
the possibility of translation. For instance, Humbold says, “All translations seem to
me to be simply an attempt to solve an insoluble problem” (qtd. in Savory, 75).
Bacon, a renowned thinker, claims that every language is unique and hence,
obviously, translation is impossible (qtd. in Chakraborty, 42). The views of these
scholars confirm their puritanical approach to translation.

1
The presumption behind the notion of untranslatability takes us back to the birth of
languages. Anthropologists have proved that languages were born and developed with
culture. The divergence of cultures resulted in the difference among languages and
their forms. Certain linguists and anthropologists adhere to the principle of uniqueness
of language and hence emphasize the impossibility of translation, highlighting the loss
and distortion in the process. The extreme proponents of these views are Edward
Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf. These two linguists are credited for propounding the
theory of ‘linguistic relativity,’ known as Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which suggests the
difficulties in the process of translation.

2.3 Linguistic Relativity: A Concept

Edward Sapir, a significant ethnolinguist, is of the view that the differences in human
languages are more in number than the similarities. He explains that “the worlds in
which different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with
different labels attached” (Sapir, Culture, 59). He stresses the ‘unique history’ of
every language and therefore, its ‘unique structure’. The concept of uniqueness of
languages obviously results in untranslatability. Whorf, the disciple of Sapir, puts
forth the notion of ‘linguistic relativity’. He studies the language with totally different
structure, history and cultural background. He claims that every language conceals a
metaphysics which predetermines the outlook of the speaker. He calls it the principle
of relativity which is significant as it helps us grapple with the problems involved in
literary translation.

Whorf observes that the grammar of a language is a real shaper of ideas; the
programme for his analysis of impressions is “synthesis of his mental stock in trade”.
The formulation of ideas differs between different grammars. In his words, “We
dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language … the world is presented
in kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds” (qtd. in
Wardhaugh, 217). All this carries out through the linguistic system in our mind. We
get introduced to a new principle of relativity which holds that “All observers are not
led by the same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their
backgrounds are similar, or can in some way be calibrated” (qtd. in Wardhaugh, 217).

In other words, this hypothesis presents that language, thought and reality are
connected with one another. The different realities give rise to different languages. At
the same time, the languages shape the realities. People speaking a particular language
see the world as per the vocabulary and grammar of their language. So, the perception
of the world outside one’s own language and the structuring of abstract notions are
determined by their own languages. Thus, the principle of linguistic relativity leads to
the impossibility of translation practice.

2.4 Language Universals

The principle of uniqueness of languages leads to the rejection of translatability. But
the empirical analysis of translation shows that translations are possible. R. B.
Patankar argues that once we follow this line of argument, it will be impossible to
describe, discuss and evaluate a work of art (65). Also, absolute communication even
within a language is, at times, impossible.

A few anthropologists like Joseph Greenberg have proved that the variation between
languages is up to certain limits, and not ‘without assignable limit’, as stated by Sapir
(qtd. in Baker, 202). In the 1960s, Greenberg collected a sample data from thirty
languages from a variety of language families looking for similarities that had nothing
to do with any historical relationship. Notably, he discovered many ‘universals’ in
these languages, with varying degrees of statistical reliability. For the first time, says
Mark Baker, it was proved that human languages have similarities that do not
“emerge from shared culture or history but rather from general properties of human
cognition and communication” (202). Contrary to Sapir’s view, it proved that there
are “assignable limits” for language variation, suggesting the possibility of translation.

‘Linguistic Universals’ may be defined as the features that all languages have in
common. It is evident that all the languages have a conventional character. All
languages have means to express the ideas, actions and experiences and can qualify
these elements. Also, all languages have meaningful units, which express human
experience and ideas through distinct patterns composed of different elements. The
acoustic images are created by the combination of the distinct non-meaningful units
called phonemes. The speaker of any language follows certain conventions of that
particular language, e.g. the names given to the objects are common in a language. In
all languages, adverbs and adjectives are used to describe an action and an object,
respectively.
Also, to describe an action and the doer of the action is possible in all the languages
by some means. Another principle is called as double articulation principle. Henry
Schogt explains this principle as “it means that larger conceptual wholes are cut up
into smaller independent elements” (39). Temperature is thus divided into hot, warm,
tepid, and cold, time segments are divided into verbal tenses.

The concept of ‘Language Universals’ proves the possibility of translation to the

extent the source language and the target language genetically resemble or differ from
each other. A language is potentially capable of expressing the totality of cognitive
experience. This is applicable to all the languages. D. L. Bolinger affirms in clear
terms: “There is no area of meaning encompassed by one language that cannot be
encompassed by another, the more awkwardly sometimes but never with such
imperfection that the idea cannot be put across” (9). Karl Vossller goes a step further
and says: “If one denies the concept of translation, one must give up the concept of
language community” (qtd. in Suresh Kumar, 1).

Chomsky’s structural analysis of language and his concept of ‘Universal Grammar’

prove that in spite of the formal differences in linguistic systems there is something
common in the structures of all languages that allows transfer of messages. Edwin
Gentzler comments that Chomsky’s deep structure model, his transformational rules
“lend themselves to justifying a theory of translation … to represent an ‘underlying
message’ in a second language” (47). Further, several translations carried out and read
across the world for centuries establish the possibility of translation. In recent times,
linguistic investigations and research findings in Translation Studies have proved that
translations are worth attemptable.

2.5 Translation: Its Nature

The word ‘Translation’ is derived from the Latin term ‘translatus.’ The prefix ‘trans’
means ‘passing something’, while the stem ‘slate’ means ‘cover’. The term
‘translation’ has several implications such as alteration, change, conversion,
interpretation, paraphrase, rephrasing, rendition and transformation. The specific
meanings of the word are paraphrasing, interpreting, particularizing, generalizing,
decoding, etc.
In the past, translation was thought to be a secondary activity. The well-known Italian
epigram ‘traddutore-traditore’, which means that the translator is a traitor—a falsifier
of the original, shows the status assigned to translation in olden days. A popular
quotation goes thus: “Translation is like a woman, if it is beautiful, it cannot be
faithful and if faithful, it cannot be beautiful” (qtd. in Krishnaswami et al, 82). Robert
Frost, the well known American poet, once said, “Poetry may be defined as that
which is left out of translations” (qtd. in Nair, 46). Benjamin Joorett comments, “All
translation is a compromise, the effort to be literal and to be idiomatic” (qtd. in Lodha,
2). Several such views expressed by critics, philosophers and thinkers explain the
degraded status assigned to translation in the academic circles. These scholars mean
to suggest that a great deal of loss of essence of the source language is inevitable in
the act of translation.

If this view is held logical, it will be bold to claim that the particular literary piece is
perfect rendition of the expression of the literary artist. In fact, no literary genius
happens to be totally satisfied about his expression in literature. Every expression in
literature, as Vatsyayan says, “is a translation as it presents an abstract (or invisible
etc.) in language (or concrete form)” (qtd. in Sureshkumar, 28). Octovio Paz reiterates
the same concept in different words:

Each text is unique, yet at the same time it is the translation of another text. No
text can be completely original because language itself, in its very essence, is
already a translation–first from the nonverbal world, and then, because each
sign and each phrase is a translation of another sign, another phrase (qtd. in
Bassnett, Introduction, Post-colonial Translation, 3).

The concept of translation has been debated for centuries. When one speaks of
translation, one inevitably speaks of its impossibility and the problems in the act. The
inherent difficulties in the act of translation have created misunderstandings about the
process. A few scholars have commented on its importance. Goethe, the German
scholar, rightly states: “Say what one will of the inadequacy of translation; it remains
one of the most important and worthiest concerns in the totality of world affairs” (qtd.
in Sureshkumar, 6). However complex, impossible and uncalled for, translations are
being carried out widely. Dilip Chitre aptly remarks that translations “constitute
bridges between cultures even if the traffic on these bridges is alleged to be
illegitimate or illusory” (Says Tuka, 302).

Hilaire Belloc explains the attitude of holding translation in low esteem has “almost
destroyed the art altogether. The corresponding misunderstanding of its character has
added to its degradation; neither its importance nor its difficulty has been grasped
(qtd. in Das Bijaykumar, 9). However, in the recent times, the concept of translation
has undergone huge changes. Translation has become an important activity—a
creative-cum-cognitive enterprise. Translation, as Octovio Paz rightly claims, is “the
principal means of understanding the world we live in” (qtd. in Bassnett, Introduction,
Post-colonial Translation, 3).

2.6 Translation: Its Definition

The nature of translation could be explained by defining it properly. However, with
regard to defining translation, researchers have a problem. Like poetry, formulating an
exact definition or meaning of translation is next to impossible. This is largely due to
the complexities involved in the act. I. A. Richards rightly puts that translation “may
very probably be the most complex type of event yet produced in the evolution of the
cosmos” (qtd. in Gentzler, 14). Translation is more than rendition or a reformulation
of the text in source language into a target language. It is a mode of communication,
not just a derived or secondary communication. It is not just a replica of the source
language message; it is rather a creative process by which a writer’s vision is
communicated from one speech community to another.

In Dr. Johnson’s opinion, translation aims at “change into another language, retaining
the sense” (qtd. in Das Bijaykumar, 9). Obviously, it is true that retaining the ‘sense’
must be the purpose of any translation. A. H. Smith reiterates the fact with some
modification when he states: “To translate is to change into another language
retaining as mush the sense as one can” (qtd. in Das Bijaykumar, 9). In this definition,
the phrase, ‘as much the sense’ indicates the challenge in the task of the translator.
The ‘sense’ is an inclusive term that includes the exact meaning, cultural context,
associations of the word and many more things.

Translation is a process of finding expressions in another language, thereby

preserving the semantic and stylistic equivalence, matching grammatical structures
and cultural contexts. Following the line of Catford, Meethan and Hudson describe the
process of translation in the following way:

Translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a

representation of an equivalent text in a second language. Texts in different
languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent)
in respect of different levels of representation (context, semantics, grammar,
lexis, etc.) and at different ranks (word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-
for-sentence) (qtd. in Al Zoubi, 68).

Eugene A. Nida defines translation to be a process, “in which a person who knows
both the source and the receptor language, decodes the message of the source
language and encodes it into an appropriate form in the receptor language” (Science,
88). Nida emphasizes the process of decoding-re-encoding and the capability of the
translator. In translation, it is necessary to create “the closest natural equivalent of the
source language message firstly in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style”
(88). Thus, in addition to semantic equivalence, stylistic equivalence is equally
needed. J. C. Catford explains translation as a unidirectional process: from source
language (SL) to target language (TL). He defines translation as “the replacement of
textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another
language (TL) … The central problem of translation practice is that of finding TL
translation equivalent” (qtd. in Das Bijaykumar, 31).

2.7 Methods of Translation

Many translation theorists have classified translation in different ways. For instance,
Catford distinguishes translation according to extent, level and ranks. Lefevere
classifies translations according to the procedures adopted by the translator and so on.
The inquiry into the types of translation is significant as it provides a comprehensive
view of the nature of translation and problems involved therein.

2.7.1 Andre Lefevere

Andre Lefevere gives an interesting account of the seven different methods of
translation employed by English translators of Catullus’ poem 64 in Translating
Poetry, Seven Strategies and a Blue Print:
 1) Phonemic translation, which attempts to reproduce the SL sound in the TL
while at the same time producing an acceptable paraphrase of the sense. It
works well in translation of onomatopoeia, but sometimes the overall effect is
clumsy and devoid of sense.
2) Literal translation, where, the emphasis is on word-for-word translation. As
a result, it may distort the sense and syntax of the original.
3) Metrical translation, where the emphasis is on metre. This method
concentrates on one aspect of the SL text at the expense of the text as a whole.
4) Poetry into prose: In this kind of translation, the distortion of the sense,
communicative value and syntax of the SL text takes place; although not to the
same extent as with the literal or metrical types of translation.
5) Rhymed translation, where the translator ‘enters into a double bondage’ of
metre and rhyme. Lefevere feels that the translation in this case is just a
‘caricature’ of Catullus.
6) Blank verse translation, where, the emphasis is on structure.
7) Interpretation, where the substance of the SL text is retained but the form is
changed, and imitation, where the translator creates his own poem having
‘only title and point of departure, if those in common with the source text’
(qtd. in Das Bijaykumar, 34).

Lefevere deals with the problems involved in the translation of poetry in line with the
methods formulated above. In most of the types, he speaks of distortion of the sense,
syntax and communicative value in the source text. In fact, it is the poetic language
that tends to be problematic for the translator of poetry.

2.7.2 J. C. Catford
J. C. Catford classifies translation in terms of extent, level and ranks. In terms of
extent, a translation can be ‘full’ or ‘partial’. In a ‘full’ translation, every part of the
SL text is replaced by the material in the TL text. Catford explains:

In a partial translation, some part or parts of the SL text are left untranslated …
In literary translation, it is not uncommon for some SL lexical items to be
treated in this way, either because they are regarded as ‘untranslatable’ or for
the deliberate purpose of introducing ‘local colour’ into the TL text (qtd. in Das
Bijaykumar, 31).
Further, Catford explains that in ‘full/total’ translation, “the SL grammar and lexis is
replaced by equivalent TL grammar and lexis with “consequential replacement of SL
phonology/ graphology”. However, in the translation of poetry, the translator tries to
create equivalent sound effects in the target language. In a restricted translation, the
SL textual material is replaced by equivalent TL textual material at only one level.
‘Phonological translation’ is a kind of ‘restricted’ translation where the phonology of
the source language text is substituted by equivalent phonology in the target language.
The grammar and lexis of the source language text remain the same, except the
random grammatical or lexical deviations.

Another kind of translation is ‘rank bound’ translation. It connects the rank in a

grammatical hierarchy with the formed translation. In this type, the TL equivalents at
the same rank are selected. A ‘word-rank-bound’ translation is necessary to show the
differences between the two languages concerned in the process of translation (32).

2.7.3 Roman Jacobson

Roman Jacobson divides translation into three kinds on linguistic basis. First,
intralingual translation, where an interpretation of verbal signs by means of the other
signs in the same linguistic system is carried out. Second, interlingual translation in
which interpretation of verbal signs takes place by means of the verbal signs in some
other linguistic system. Third, intersemiotic translation, where interpretation of verbal
signs is carried out by means of the signs of non-verbal sign systems (114).

In intralingual translation, synonymous words from the same linguistic system are
used. However, no full equivalence can be attained even in the same linguistic system.
Jacobson explains in this regard: “Every celibate is a bachelor, but not every bachelor
is a celibate”. A word or an idiomatic phrase word may be fully interpreted only by
means of an equivalent combination of code units; i.e. a message referring to this
code-unit: “Every bachelor is an unmarried man and every unmarried man is a
bachelor”, or “Every celibate is bound not to marry, and everyone who is bound not to
marry is a celibate” (114). Jacobson, thus, proves that in intralingual translation also,
there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units while messages may serve
as adequate interpretation of alien code units or messages.
As total equivalence is unattainable, Jacobson affirms that “all poetic art is technically
untranslatable” (114). The translator decodes and re-encodes; and loss of meaning
occurs in this process. The translator tries to compensate the loss by adding
something. It is called ‘padding’ which is inevitable in the process of translation. It
brings in clarity of meaning to the SL text. It may be regarded as ‘gain’ in translation.

The rhetorical or the poetic language in literary text creates numerous problems for a
translator as he has to create an appropriate degree of rhetorical or poetic effects in the
TL text. As the present study incorporates the comparative analysis of literary texts,
the related concepts are discussed here in brief.

2.8 Translating Literary Texts

Creating a literary text is different from other language activities. A text performs
various functions like expressive, informative and directive. Normally all these
functions are imbibed in every text though one of them is always dominant over
others. If the expressive function gets priority in a text, it becomes a piece of literature
which is very different from other texts in several ways.

Literary texts are of different kinds as they adhere particularly to the norms of
metaphorical, semantic and stylistic innovation. The form, content and mode of
expression are significant in literary texts. A literary writer makes use of various
resources of a language in a large measure (e. g. polysemy, word-play, sound effect,
meter, rhyme, etc.). He invents metaphors, creates images and uses language in his
individualistic manner. Many times, the selected form of a literary work is also
suggestive. In such cases, form and content are not distinct, as Widdowson puts it:

An understanding of what literature communicates necessarily involves an

understanding of how it communicates. What and how are not distinct. It is for
this reason that literary works cannot be satisfactorily paraphrased or explained
by any single interpretation (70).

Hence, not only the ‘content’ but the ‘mode’ of expression is also of vital importance
in literary texts. The denotations of a word normally come before its connotations in a
non-literary text, but precedence is given to connotations in literary texts. The
connotative language has an emotive appeal and is used in all the genres of literature.
However, the use of language is marked by some differences.
Literature reflects the way of life, the vision of the world and the cultural values of the
linguistic community speaking that language. Due to the connotative nature of the
language, a literary translator faces many problems. There occurs multiplicity of
meaning due to the evocative and expressive nature of language. In translation,
meaning tends to get lost because of the difficulty in finding synonymous expressions.
A translator has to be concerned with the linguistic and non-linguistic elements of a
literary text. The linguistic aspects are features related to literary language. They are
sound patterns, symbols, imagery and ideas etc. The non-linguistic aspects deal with
setting as reflected in locale time, mood, atmosphere created by dance, music,
painting, audio-visual aids etc.

In literary translation, the translator has to decode the motive of the SL text and re-
encode the same in the TL text. The problems increase due to the continually
changing nature of language which results in linguistic indeterminacy. The ‘text’
carries a great deal of linguistic and cultural significance which needs to be rendered
into the target language text. The distinct genres or forms of literature create diverse
problems as far as translation in the corresponding forms is concerned. For example,
the problems the translator faces in translating a novel are different from the problems
involved in the translation of poetry or drama. In the subsequent sections, issues in
translation related to the different genres are discussed.

2.8.1 Translating Poetry

Although both are forms of literature, poetry differs from prose in many ways. Poetry
is more indirect, oblique, suggestive and ambiguous. Rhythm, metre and sound
structures mark the difference between the language of poetry and that of prose.
Distortion of the ordinary language and deviation from the grammatical rules is a
unique feature of poetic language.

Every poem uses the resources of language in its own way. Thus, it can be said that
each poem has a grammar of its own. The devices like distortion, deviation and
foregrounding are used by poets to suggest something emotional or sensitive or to
achieve some poetic effects through the creative use of language. The following lines
from Cumming’s poem, ‘Any One Lived in a Pretty Hometown’ show the deviation
from grammatical rules:
 He sang his didn’t, he danced his did
They sowed their isn’t, they reaped their same (qtd. in Mohanty, 86)

In the above lines, the grammatical pattern of English is distorted by the poet. Also,
the poet uses contraction of negated verbs like ‘didn’t’ as nouns. This deviation is also
suggestive, e.g. the word ‘did’ consists of the verbal root ‘do’ in past tense used here
as an object, that is, noun. The verb ‘did’ indicates past activity, whereas, its negation,
‘didn’t’ denotes absence of such activity. This exemplifies that words with certain
inherited meanings assume some other meaning in poetry. Bohuslav Ilek comments:

The language of poetry is a highly complicated sign structure, and the complex
structure of a poem enables it to communicate more information than a non-
poetic text can provide … this surplus information we owe to the symbolic
character of poetic language (135).

In poetry, the ordinary language is distorted to create a particular aesthetic effect.

Rhythm, music and tones are the characteristic features of poetic language. Poetry
tries to communicate through the use of figures of speech and prosody which cannot
be communicated through common language. Poetry abounds in phonological
patterns like rhyme, rhythm and tone and syntactic, semantic and stylistic patterns like
versification and morphological parallelism. In addition, the translator has to be very
cautious about the syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between the words and
their ordering.

Translation of poetry is regarded as the most difficult mode of translation and some of
the scholars have declared it to be an impossible task. Some of the romanticists
commented that poetry is impossible to translate. S. T. Coleridge describes translation
to be “painful copying that would produce masks only, and not forms breathing life”
(qtd. in Bassnett, Studies, 64). Discussing the problems of translating poetry, Jayant
Mahapatra cites four lines from a poem of an Oriya poet Radhanath Ray and
comments: “To me, a good translation into English seems almost impossible to make
… To render gems like these into English would be futile exercise” (qtd. in Das
Bijaykumar, 46).

The problems of translator get multiplied in the translation of poetry, as a poet uses
various poetic devices such as assonance, alliteration, onomatopoeia, rhythm, metre
and rhyme to create musical incantory effects. Jean Paul Sartre, a French
existentialist, comments that a poet does not use words as symbols but as things
which are to be contemplated for their own sake (qtd. in Patankar, 65). For example,
Tennyson’s famous poem ‘The Lotos-eaters’, brilliantly expresses languor through the
sounds which is very difficult to render in any other language.

In translation of poetry, many times, the form and the content are linked. A. C.
Bradley states: “And this identity of content and form … is no accident, it is the
essence of poetry in so far as it is poetry …” (qtd. in Patankar, 65). The content and
form of a text are mutually dependent on each other. In this regard, Nida asserts:
“Content can never be abstracted from form and the form is nothing apart from
content” (Science, 146). Thus, the organic view of work of art, the internal
relationship of the parts of the text makes the act of translation of poetry more
difficult.

2.8.2 Translating Drama

Drama is regarded as one of the oldest forms of literature, only next to poetry.
Misconceptions regarding the nature of drama still persist, may be due to its
relationship with theatre. J. L. Styan aptly marks that we are not sure whether we want
something effective as theatre or something good as literature (134). Some critics
claim that drama is something more than literature.

The most important feature of drama which distinguishes it from other genres is its
dialogue or conversational form. Language in drama is modeled on real life
conversation. However, the conversation in a drama is different from the day-to-day
talk. The language of drama often aims at rhetorical and poetic effects. In poetic
drama, it is ‘verse libra’. In a Shakespearean play, it is ‘blank verse’. It differs from
standard usage in order to draw attention to its rhetorical nature. The written word
gets realized when it is spoken by the actor and keeps on resonating in the mind of the
audience.

Translation of drama creates different kinds of problems than poetry. The plot of a
drama moves ahead through dialogues. Normally, the dialogues are written in a
dialect, in line with a theme or subject-matter. If the dialect and language are
culturally far away from the target language, problems of the translator increase. The
colloquial and conversational language, accent and intonation are some other issues
that make the translation of dramatic texts difficult.

Apart from language, the thought-content of a dramatic text in one culture creates a
host of problems for a translator, if the target language is culturally distant from it. A
literary translator should take into account the textual features of the text and the
context of the target language, like the linguistic and cultural diversity. The writer’s
style is an individual and creative utilization of the resources of language, which is
often the direct outcome of his age, the cultural ethos, his dialect and the genre.
Stylistically, literary translation implies not just transfer of meaning but retaining all
those stylistic features which have made the SL text.

In a poetic drama, the complexities of poetic language and its subtle nature pose
challenges. The translator has to understand the text thoroughly. However, a thorough
understanding of literature is a complex issue due to the diversity, openness and
vastness of literature. In the process of translation, interpretation of the SL text and a
systematic study/scrutiny of the fundamental concerns of its features have to be
carried out.

2.8.3 Translating Prose

A literary writer tries to express something, directly or indirectly, through words. He
craves to communicate not just words, but something between or even beyond them.
For instance, the repetition in Hemingway’s ‘In Another Country’ contributes to
express the tedious life of the character. While translating such a literary piece, the
translator has to strive to achieve the same stylistic effect of the source text. In
addition, the translator has to decide regarding the ‘unit’ of translation. While
translating a prose text, including novels, the translator has to consider the whole
literary piece as an integral unit, and translate section by section, keeping in mind the
sense of the whole literary piece. Bassnett comments:

… But whereas the poet translator can more easily break the prime text down
into translatable units … the prose translator has more complex task. Certainly,
many novels are broken down into chapters or sections … the structuring of the
prose text is by no means linear as the chapter divisions might indicate (Studies,
121).
If the translator takes liberty in selecting a minimum unit of translation as a paragraph
and translates it without relating it to the overall work, adds Bassnett, “he runs the risk
of ending up with TL text … where the paraphrasable content of the passages has
been translated at the cost of everything else” (Studies, 121). It means that the
translator adheres closely to the structure of the source text so as to create a readable
text. But he has to first think of the relation of the sentences to the structure of the
paragraph and then to the entire discourse.

Bassnett advices that the translators should first “determine the function of the SL
system and then to find a TL system that will adequately render that function”
(Studies, 123, emphasis in original). It is obvious that the function of the source text is
the aesthetic value of the text. To determine the function of the SL text, the translator
must have the knowledge of style. Thus, realization of the function of the source text
and rendering it into the TL text is important to maintain the non-standard feature of
the language or adapt it into a smooth and neutral language. Also, the translator has to
study the structure of the text. Every literary text has a unique structure of its own.
The relation of the whole text to its part and the relation of the parts to each other are
very significant in conveying a message. Emphasizing only one or a few aspects of
the SL text may not result into a proper translation.

Observing the complex nature of translation and its significance in today’s global
situation, it can be assumed that literary translation is a discipline in itself. It
highlights the significance and nobility of the translator’s task of bringing different
peoples together via sharing mutual knowledge and understanding of their literatures
and cultures. Other kinds of texts like non-literary texts are charecterized by their
propositional content. So, these texts can be translated on semantic basis alone.

2.9 Historical Development of Translation Theory

As the present research involves the close textual analysis of the acts of translation, a
review and discussion of major theoretical issues concerning translation is necessary.
Moreover, introduction to any discipline could not be complete without a historical
perspective. Though it is difficult to cover the scope of translation studies in brief,
basic lines of approach in western culture are considered.
Although translation is an ancient activity, its systematic study evolved into an
academic discipline only in the second half of the twentieth century. The name
‘Translation Studies’ was first proposed by James S. Holmes in 1972 (Munday,
Issues, 5). In this regard, Edwin Gentzler reports that ‘Translation Theory’, in its
logically disciplined sense, appeared “only since 1983 as a separate entry in the
Modern Language Association International Bibliography” ( 1). The translation
theories earlier in the twentieth century are termed as “pre-linguistic” (Newmark,
Linguistic Stages, 21) by scholars because the twentieth century is marked by various
developments in linguistics. Especially, the last 40-50 years have been significant in
the theorization of ‘translaation studies’. Translation scholars across the world have
taken efforts to comprehend the process of translation and its proper theorization.
Insights from various disciplines like linguistics, structuralism, semiotics and cultural
studies have been incorporated by scholars for the growth and development of this
discipline.

The history of translation studies in the west dates back almost 2000 years ago. The
initial translation theory is spurred on the Roman translations and later on the
translations of the Bible. The Romans translated the popular Greek texts profoundly.
The first translation theorists were Cicero and Horace who opposed word-to-word
translation as it results in clumsiness. Since the Roman days, scholars have been
debating over the issue of ‘sense-for-sense’ and ‘word-for-word’ translation. The
earliest and most systematic recorded views regarding translation are from Cicero
(55AD). He wrote on the translator’s dilemma, in deciding whether to go for word-to-
word or sense-for-sense translation. The translation with earlier method “will sound
uncouth”. Further, he explains, “if compelled by necessity I alter anything in the order
of wording, I shall seem to have departed from the function of a translator” (qtd. in
Das Bijaykumar, 5).

The first translation of the complete Bible into English was the Wycliffe Bible
produced between 1380-1384, informs Bassnett (Studies, 53). Since then, Bible
translation remained a significant issue. In the sixteenth century, the invention of
printing gave Bible translation a new impetus. The Holy Bible was translated into a
large number of European languages despite the normative standards of the church.
New versions of Bible poured in by translators with corrections, amendments and
revisions. This was undoubtedly a further step in the development of translation.
Martin Luther and Erasmus were the famous Bible translators of this age.

The renaissance period is marked by significance of translation. The translation of

Petrarch by Wyatt and Surrey became famous in this period, as their translation was
creative and read like the contemporary poems. The major translation theorist in this
age is In the preface to his translation of Ovid’s Epistles (1680), John Dryden
classified translation into three types: “Metaphrase’ or word-to-word translation,
‘paraphrase’ or sense by sense translation and ‘imitation’, where the translator can
take freedom beyond limits” (qtd. in Lefevere, 102). Dryden preferred ‘paraphrase’ or
‘sense-to-sense’ translation to ‘metaphrase’. Alexander Pope, a well-known satirist
and poet of the seventeenth century, also supported ‘sense-to-sense’ translation.

Alexander Fraser Tytler is another significant translation theorist in the eighteenth

century. In his ‘Essay on the Principles of Translation’ (1797), he formulated three
rules or laws for the translators which ask for “a complete transcript of the ideas of the
original work”, “the same style and manner as the original” and “the ease of the
original composition” (qtd. in Munday, Theories, 26-7).

The romantics stressed the importance of ‘imagination’ by refusing the rationalism of

the earlier age. Coleridge, in his Biographia Literaria (1817), clearly distinguished
between ‘fancy’ and ‘imagination’ and emphasized the importance of imagination in
the creation of poetry. Consequently, translation was also looked upon as a creative
activity in terms of imagination.

The nineteenth century witnessed a variety of attitudes towards translation. P. B.

Shelley commented that “The plant must spring again from its seed, or it will bear no
flower and this is the burthen the curse of Babel” (qtd. in Gargesh, 82). Matthew
Arnold stated that the bilingual scholars can only judge translations (qtd. in Lefevere,
69). Fitzgerald in his Rubaiayat of Omar Khayyam lays much emphasis on creativity.
He states that “a live sparrow was better than a stuffed eagle” (qtd. in Bassnett,
Studies, 76).

In the twentieth century, the theories put forth by scholars like J. C. Catford, Eugene
Nida, Gideon Toury, Anton Popovic, Peter Newmark, Larson Malon, Vinay and
Darbelnet and many others have contributed to the translation theory with divergent
viewpoints. Some of these theories are influenced by cultural anthropology,
psycholinguistics, epistemology, semiotics, sociolinguistics, etc.

In the 1980s and the 90s, the translation studies began to establish its identity as an
independent academic discipline. James S. Holmes clearly classified the theory and its
application part. Translation theory, in this period, started to move away from
descriptive standards to cultural interpretations. Snell-Hornby considers this as
“cultural turn” (Munday, Theories, 10) in translation studies that makes a significant
change in the way we look at translation. Bartoloni states that the shift in theoretical
perspectives and tools can be observed as “key methodological terms such as
‘equivalence’ and ‘transparency’ have been readily replaced by ‘difference’ and
‘resistance’” (Bartoloni, 6, emphasis in original).

In the contemporary age, the boundaries of translation studies are being expanded due
to various developments in linguistics and other sciences like anthropology, sociology
and literary studies. In addition, the recent developments like revolution in
communication system, spreading of internet, development of English as a global
language and increasing globalization have also contributed to change the attitude and
approach towards translation. Consequently, ‘Translation Studies’ has now become a
serious academic discipline and scholars across the globe are contributing for its
development.

2.10 Recent Theories of Translation

In the second half of the twentieth century, many theories evolved in the field of
translation studies which stressed divergent issues from different fields. A few
significant theories are introduced in the following sub-sections.

2.10.1 Itamar Even-Zohar: Polysystem Theory

In the 1970s, Tel Aviv scholar Itamar Even-Zohar developed polysystem theory,
taking insights from the Russian formalists. The concept of literature as a system, i.e.
“a hierarchically structured set of elements” was understood and developed by the
Russian formalists and Czech structuralists. One of the precursors of the theory is the
Slovak translation theorist Anton Popovic. The polysystem theory strongly rejects the
prevalent source-oriented theories which demanded equivalence and gave translated
literature a ‘peripheral’ position.
According to polysystem theory, a literary work is not studied in isolation but looked
at as a part of literary system. A literary system is defined as “a differentiated and
dynamic conglomerate of systems charecterized by internal opposition and continual
shifts” (Even-Zohar, qtd. in Bhatnagar, 30). Even-Zohar coined the term ‘polysystem’
to refer to the entire network of correlated literary and extraliterary systems in a
society. He emphasizes the relations between all these systems and calls them as
‘polysystem’. The various layers in the polysystem may be the genres and codes etc.,
“which are in continual interrelationship with other orders” (qtd. in Munday,
Theories, 109).

Polysystem theory “holds that literary systems tend to be in a state of flux, constantly
changing status” (Hatim, 67). This concept explains how the literary systems develop
under a variety of social conditions. For example, a continuous struggle between
different genres goes on in literary systems to get a central position. The genre or
form like the realistic novel attempts to protect its central position and the less
important genres, like popular fiction, tries to get some identification.

Polysystem theory deals with the various genres with equal attention, irrespective of
their position in the literary system. The marginal forms which are less influential
must not be ignored. The translated literature is also a literary form like popular
fiction and these forms should also attain identification. The translated literature is
capable of performing a primary function. Translated literature can be a source of new
literary forms or genres. As a result of the changing socio-cultural situation, certain
forms become obsolete and the need of new forms or models can be fulfilled by
translation. In Marathi, for example, ‘ghazal’ is a genre borrowed from Urdu
language.

In the dominant literary systems, translation is considered as a secondary activity.

Translation activity has long been struggling to seek much deserved recognition. The
polysystem theorists examine the various kinds of texts selected for translation in both
the literary systems. It shows the compatibility of the translated literature with the
established literary genres. Also, the language of translation may be considered to
“research its response to the existing norms and models in the receiving culture”
(Hatim, 69).
Even-Zohar’s hypothesis presents an important development in translation studies.
There are various advantages of polysystem theory. Edwin Gentzler comments that it
allows the study of literature with social and economic forces (119). Another
important point offered by Even-Zohar is about the concept of equivalence.
Polysystem theory allows for variation consistent with the historical and cultural
situation of the text. This proposition may take translation studies away from the
recurring and revolving arguments about equivalence.

2.10.2 Gideon Toury: Theory of Norms

In the 70s, polysystem theory and the theory of norms transformed the equivalence
paradigm. The equivalence demanded by the normative theories in the earlier period
was “an unproductive line of enquiry”, asserts Venuti (Reader, 123). The reason is not
only the shifts occurring in the translation, but any “determination of adequacy …
involves the application of target norms” (Reader, Venuti, 123). Toury formulates the
theory to explain the ‘acceptability’ of the translation in the target norms. Translation
is an activity related to the two cultures involved: the source culture and the target
culture. Toury explains:

‘translatorship’ amounts first and foremost to being able to play a social role,
i.e., to fulfill a function allotted by a community … The acquisition of a set of
norms for determining the suitability of that kind of behaviour and for
manoeuvering between all the factors which may constrain it, is therefore a
prerequisite for becoming a translator within a cultural enviornment (Norms in
Translation, 198).

2.10.2.1 What Are Norms?

Toury explains that Norms occupy ‘a vast middle ground’ in between the general
‘socio-cultural constraints’ or relatively absolute ‘rules’ and pure idiosyncrasies.
Further, he explains that the borderlines between the various kinds of ‘rules’ are
diffuse:

A favoured mode of behaviour within a heterogeneous group may well acquire

much more binding force within a certain (more heterogeneous) section thereof,
in terms of either human agents (e.g. translators among texters in general) or
 types of activity (e.g., interpreting, or legal translation, within translation at
large) (Toury, Norms in Translation, 199).

2.10.2.2 Translation: Norm-governed activity

Norms occupy an important position in translation studies. In social activities, norms
are the key concepts and they apply to variety of situations. Norms are the main
factors ensuring the establishment and retention of the social order (Toury, Norms in
Translation, 200). Again, this applies to cultures or any of the systems constituting
them. Translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves two languages and
two cultural traditions. It means that it involves at least two sets of norm system on
each level. Toury describes the ‘value’ behind it as consisting of two major elements:

1. Being a text in a certain language and hence occupying a position or filling in a

slot, in the appropriate culture, or in a certain section thereof;
2. Constituting a representation in that language/culture of another, preexisting
text in some other language, belonging to some other culture and occupying a
definite position within it (Toury, Norms in Translation, 200).

A translator has, thus, two choices available to him. Either he may choose to adhere to
the original text with the norms it has realized, or to the norms active in the target
culture. In the first choice, the translation tends to ‘subscribe’ to the norms of the
source text and the corresponding source culture. Obviously, such a translation may
involve certain incompatibilities with target norms and culture. However, if the
translator adopts the second choice, the norms in the target culture are set into motion.
In such a case, ‘shifts’ from the source text are unavoidable. The shifts occurring in
translation show the target norms at the certain historical stage. Thus, following the
source norms “determines a translation’s adequacy, compared to the source text” and
adherence to the target culture norms “determines its acceptability” (Toury, Norms in
Translation, 201).

Irrespective of its adherence to source or target norms, translation involves shifts from
the source text. Toury rightly puts it that the occurrence of shifts has long been
acknowledged as a true universal of translation. He claims that the shifts are also
norm governed:
 Since the need itself to deviate from source text patterns can always be realized
in more than one way, the actual realization of so called obligatory shifts, to the
extent that it is non-random, and hence not idiosyncratic, is already truly norm-
governed (Toury, Norms in Translation, 201).

The theory of norms liberates the translator from the normative standards demanding
fidelity to the source text. It gives him freedom to make a choice between the norms
of the source text or the target text. The theory not only justifies shifts in translation
activity as true universal but claims the shifts to be norm-governed. Undoubtedly,
Toury’s theory of norms is a significant advancement in translation studies.

2.10.3 Werner Koller’s Model of Equivalence

As stated earlier, concepts from various approaches like pragmatics, cultural studies,
etc. are applied in translation studies. Werner Koller, a German linguist and
translation theorist, has developed the model of translation equivalence taking insights
from pragmatics. According to him, translation is:

the result of a text-processing activity, by means of which a source-language

text is transposed into a target-language text. Between the resultant text in L2
(the target language text) and the source text in L1 (the source language text)
there exists a relationship, which can be designated as a translational, or
equivalence relation (Koller, qtd. in Hatim, 27).

The pragmatic analysis of a text influences the translation equivalence in various

ways. The text and its translations are produced under different historical and cultural
conditions and linguistic, textual and extra-textual factors. They include:
characteristics and limitations of source language and target language, linguistic,
stylistic and aesthetic norms and translation traditions.

Koller emphasizes the source text as the fundamental element and discusses the link
between the translated text and certain conditions relevant to the production of the
target text. He observes it as a “double linkage to the source text and to the
communicative conditions on the receiver’s end” (qtd. in Hatim, 27). As a result, he
presents five kinds of frameworks as follows:
 (1) Formal Equivalence: SL and TL words having similar orthographic or
phonological features.
(2) Referential or Denotative Equivalence: SL and TL Words referring to the
same thing in the real world.
(3) Connotative Equivalence: SL and TL words triggering the same or similar
associations in the minds of speakers of the two languages.
(4) Text-normative equivalence: SL and TL words used in the similar context in
their respective languages.
(5) Pragmatic or Dynamic Equivalence: SL and TL words having the same effect
on their respective readers (Hatim, 28).

Hatim observes that Koller’s five types of equivalence have the further advantage of
turning equivalence into a relative concept. Equivalence now had “inscribed in it the
notion of difference (i.e. minimum equivalence), as well as identity (i.e. maximum
equivalence)” (30). The equivalence relations have complex network between the
author, the translator and the reader of the translated text. Further studies have
analyzed the issue of equivalence thoroughly and terms like ‘minimum equivalence’
and ‘maximum equivalence’ have been discussed. It means that formal equivalence is
not much stressed over meaning nor linguistic system over communicative context.

2.10.4 Reiss and Vermeer: Skopos Theory

In 1984, the German Scholars, Katharina Reiss and Hans J. Vermeer published a
book, ‘Foundation for a General Theory of Translation’ in German. They directly
challenged the previous theory of translation that insists on faithfulness to the source
text. Vermeer claims to ‘dethrone’ the source text and go beyond the prevailing source
bound equivalence theories.

The theory deals with the ‘purpose’ of translation activity which he calls ‘Skopos’.
According to this theory, the target side purpose (Skopos) is dominant factor in a
translation activity. The translator needs to know the specific aims of the act of
translation. In this regard, Anthony Pym explains that “the linguistic frame of the
equivalence paradigm becomes much wider, bringing in a series of professional
relationships” (Pym, 43). The Skopos theory makes use of the key concepts in
pragmatics like intention and action. The two basic assumptions made in this theory
are:
 (1) Skopos Rule 1: Interaction is determined by its purpose.
(2) Skopos Rule 2: Purpose varies according to the text receiver (Hatim, 74).

In skopos theory, translation is governed by various factors: textual and contextual.

One of them is the intention of the receiver of the translated text. The intention of the
audience determines the strategy of translation to be adopted. Different translation
strategies could be adopted for the different purposes.

In line with this theory, it can be said that the translator’s choices need not be
dominated by the criteria of equivalence. Anthony Pym explains that there could be
some exceptions to this theory like translation of a legal agreement which may be
adapted to target side textual norms. In this regard, Vermeer explains:

Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The
skopos rule thus reads as follows: translate interpret / speak/ write in a way that
enables your text / translation to function in the situation in which it is used and
with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to
function (qtd. in Hatim, 74).

Anthony Pym enlists the principles of ‘Skopos theory’ as follows:

(1) The translator’s decisions are ultimately governed by the purpose of the
translations.
(2) The purpose of what translators do (‘translatorial action’) can be to produce
equivalence to various aspects of the source text, or to engage in between.
(3) The one source text can be translated in different ways to suit the different
purposes.
(4) A key factor in defining the purpose of the translation is the job description
given by the client or negotiated with the client.
(5) In the last analysis, the purpose of the translation is defined by the individual
translator, working in relation to all the other social factors involved. (56).

The theory frees the translator from the inconvenience caused by equivalence
paradigms and gives autonomy to the translator for his decisions regarding the
‘purpose’ of translation. The translation has to be carried out according to the
objectives (purpose) of the act. The different purposes may create different versions
of translation. It helps to decrease the translator’s anxiety regarding equivalence. The
purpose of translation activity is defined by a variety of social factors. The ‘Skopos
theory’ is a milestone in the development of translation studies as it has liberated the
act of translation from the age old theories of fidelity.

2.10.5 Lawrence Venuti: Translator’s Invisibility

One of the noteworthy American theorists in the recent era is Lawrence Venuti who
critically examines the history, politics and economics of the norm of nativization of
the translated text so as to make it appear original. He calls it ‘invisibility of
translator’ in translation practice. Through his book ‘Translator’s Invisibility’ (1995),
he contributes to translation studies by challenging the theoretical grounds of earlier
translators and scholars who demand the ‘invisibility’ of the translator. He shows how
the translators support the established beliefs about translations. In addition, he
provides new methods to assess translations and suggests different approach for
translators. He uses the term ‘invisibility’ to describe the translator’s situation and
activity in contemporary Anglo-American culture:

It [translator’s invisibility] refers to two mutually determining phenomena: One

is an illusionistic effect of discourse, of the translator’s own manipulation of
English; the other is the practice of reading and evaluating translators that has
long prevailed in U.K. and the U.S. (Venuti, Invisibility, 1)

The ‘illusionistic effect’ is the fluency of language used by the translator. A translated
text is said to be acceptable by critics or readers when it is read fluently, when there is
absence of any peculiarity of language and style. The writer and his writing become
more visible, in proportion to the fluency of a translation and the invisibility of the
translator. As a result, it seems transparent, giving the effect of the translation to be
original, and not a translation. Venuti cites lots of quotations by various critics,
reviewers and translators to show the prevalent notions regarding fluency of
translation. These quotations show that a fluent translation is one which is written in
current language, emphasizing “immediate intelligibility and the appearance of
factuality” (Venuti, Invisibility, 1).

Venuti raises serious objections to these prevalent beliefs in relation to the notions of
‘invisibility’ and ‘transparency’. These notions enforce the translator for ‘a weird self-
annihilation’ during the act of translation. Also, due to this situation, the source
text has to be ‘domesticated’ into the target language and culture. It tries to make the
foreign familiar and gives the readers an experience of recognizing their own culture
in the foreign, which is, ‘cultural imperialism’, as termed by Venuti. It marginalizes
the translator and the translation, making them ‘subservient’ to the author and the
source text. It leads to serious consequences as regard to the activity of translation.
The linguistic and cultural peculiarities of the foreign text are removed which should
be, in fact, the core of a translation work. In such a case, translation becomes “forcible
replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that
will be intelligible to the target language reader” (Venuti, Invisibility, 18). This
relationship between the translation and the cultural and social conditions indicate
‘the violence’ that exists in the very purpose and activity of translation, he asserts.

Apart from raising serious questions regarding the practice of translation, he offers
some suggestions to the translators and recommends some solutions for the analysis
of the translations as well. He criticizes the prevalent ideas in translation practice and
clearly stands for ‘foreignisation’ of translation. In his view, “the domesticating
translation that currently dominates Anglo-American literary culture … can be
challenged only by developing a practice that is not just more self-conscious, but
more self-critical” (Venuti, Invisibility, 309). He appeals the reviewers to consider the
canons of accuracy that the translator has set in the work.

In short, Venuti’s model unshackles the translation and the translator from being
‘subservient’ to the source text. He examines the various aspects of translation
practice and asks for revision of the cultural, economic and legal codes that
marginalize the translator (Venuti, Invisibility, 311). He questions the concept of
‘originality’ and believes that both the source and the target texts are ‘derived’. The
significance of the theory lies in the fact that it regards translation work as an
“original work of authorship” (p. 311).

2.11 Theories of ‘Shift’ in Translation

In the traditional view of translation, original texts were believed to be sacred and
their translations were condemned to be sacrilegious. It was based on the romantic
notion of literature. It views the author as a divine ‘creator’ who possesses ‘genius’
for ‘creation’ which is original, unique, once and for all and hence, sacred. In the light
of this view, translation is considered to be a mere imitation of the unique entity
which is by its very nature uncopy-able. The rationale behind this notion is that the
translation can never be as good as the original, as it is bound to ‘alter’ the ‘original’.

The translated version of any text signifies changes in the source text. However, in the
changed scenario, ‘translation-shifts’ are no longer referred to as ‘mistranslations’,
gaps or deviations from the translation norms. On the contrary, some theorists have
proved that shifts can be caused by some extra-linguistic factors like the function of
the text in target culture. Certainly, this is a significant development in translation
studies. It has drastically changed the prescriptive nature of translation theories in the
contemporary era. As the present research work is primarily an observation and
analysis of the ‘shifts of expression’ in the activity of translation, a few representative
theories of ‘shift’ are briefly summed up in the following sections.

2.11.1 Catford’s View of Translation Shifts

J. C. Catford, in his book, ‘A Linguistic Theory of Translation’ (1965), is the first to
use the term ‘translation shift’ to denote “departures from formal correspondence”
(qtd. in Venuti, Reader, 141). Catford’s theory of shifts is primarily a linguistic
theory. While discussing correspondence, he makes distinction between formal
correspondence and textual equivalence. By formal correspondence, he refers to a
relationship between two linguistic categories. These categories are at the same place
in the respective languages. Textual equivalence is between the source text and the
target text. A textual equivalent which is not formally correspondent with its source is
a translation shift, states Catford. Thus, ‘shifts’ are the departures from formal
correspondence in translation process. He classifies the shifts into two types: level
shifts and category shifts.

2.11.1.1 Level Shifts: Catford defines level shift as “a SL item at one linguistic level
has a TL translation equivalent at a different level” (p. 142). Catford distinguishes the
four linguistic levels, viz. phonology, graphology, grammar and lexis. In his opinion,
level shift occurs between the levels of lexis and grammar, as meaning cannot be the
same across languages. So, translation equivalence is not based on meaning. The
translation between the levels of phonology and graphology and the level of grammar
and lexis is impossible. So, in translation, only one level-shift is possible–grammar to
lexis and vice versa.
2.11.1.2 Category Shifts: In an unbounded or ‘free’ translation, where the SL and TL
equivalences are set up at whatever rank is appropriate, there is sentence-sentence
equivalence and the equivalence may ‘shift up and down’ the rank-scale. In rank-
bound translation, equivalence is deliberately limited to ranks below the sentence and
“thus leading to ‘bad translation’, i.e. translation in which the TL text is either not a
normal TL form at all, or is not relatable to the same situational substance as the SL
text” (p. 143, emphasis in original).

In addition to changes of rank, there occur change of structure, changes of class, and
changes of term in systems. Catford refers to them as category shifts. They are
discussed as follows:

(I) Structure Shifts: These are the most frequent category shifts at all ranks in
translation. These shifts occur in phonological, graphological and total translation.
They occur at all the levels in grammar. A structure is defined as the patterned way in
which a unit is made up of lower-rank units when the structure of a target language
contains different classes of elements or different arrangement of the same classes.
Catford illustrates structure shift by giving an example of an English clause and its
Gaelic translation. The English clause contains subject predicate and complement and
the translation contains predicate, subject, complement and adjunct.

(II) Class Shifts: While defining ‘class’, Catford quotes Halliday, who defines class
as “that grouping of members of a given unit which is defined by operation in the
structure of the unit next above” (p. 145). Catford explains that class-shift occurs
when the translation equivalent of an SL item is a member of a different class from
the original item. Because of the logical dependence of the class on structure (of the
unit at the rank above), it is clear that structure-shifts usually entail class shifts,
though this may be demonstratable only at a secondary degree of delicacy.

(III) Unit Shifts: By unit-shift, Catford meant changes of rank. Catford defines unit
as “stretch of language activity which is the carrier of a pattern of particular kind”. A
unit shift is departure from formal correspondence in which the translation equivalent
of a unit at one rank in the SL is a unit at a different rank in TL.

(IV) Intra-system Shift: Catford uses the term ‘system’ for a finite set of alternants
among which a choice must be made, e.g., the system of number. When two
languages have a formally correspondent system, but choose a non-corresponding
item as translation equivalent, an intra-system shift occurs. In this case, the shift
occurs internally, within a system. It happens in those cases where TL and SL possess
system which correspond as to their constitution, but when translation involves
selection of a non-corresponding term in the TL system (p. 147).

Thus, Catford studies and formulates translation shifts exhaustively. Although his
analysis has been later described to be confining solely to linguistics, it is notable that
Catford was the first theorist to use and define the term. Prior to Catford’s theory, the
changes occurring in translation were looked down as gaps, or even mistranslations.
According to Bassnett, Catford’s research, “like that of Newmark and Nida, laid a
foundation for translation studies to evoke as a discipline” (Studies, Preface, 3).

2.11.2 Nida’s View of Translation Shifts

Eugene A. Nida, in his book ‘Toward a Science of Translating’ (1964), explains the
concept of equivalence in translation. Though equivalence is the foremost objective in
translation, total equivalence is next to impossible. Even the synonyms in the same
language do not imply total equivalence. Each word contains within itself a set of non-
transferable associations and connotations. Roman Jacobson aptly proclaims that in
translation “only creative transposition is possible” (qtd. in Bassnett, 24). In Nida’s
opinion, there are fundamentally two different types of equivalence: formal and
dynamic (Science, 159).

2.11.2.1 Formal Equivalence

Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content.
“Viewed from this orientation, one is concerned that the message in the receptor
language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source
language” (Science, 159). By this, Nida means that the message in the target culture
could be compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of
accuracy and correctness. Nida terms it as ‘gloss translation’, where the translator
attempts to reproduce as literally and meaningfully as possible the form and content
of the original message. Such translation, “would require numerous footnotes in order
to make the text fully comprehensible” (Science, 159).
2.11.2.2 Dynamic Equivalence
A translation which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a formal equivalence is
based upon the principle of equivalent effect (Science of Translating, 159). In this
kind of translation, matching of “the receptor language message with the source
language message” is rather less significant but the “dynamic relationship between
receptor and message should be substantially the same” (Science, 159). Further, he
adds:

A translation of dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of

expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within
the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understands the cultural
patterns of the source language context in order to comprehend the message
(Science, 159).

2.11.2.3 Techniques of Adjustment

Nida opines that the translation should evoke the response of the reader just in the
same way as the readers of the source language text. The translation should read like
an original of the target language. To achieve this effect, the translator has to adopt
certain ‘techniques of adjustments’. Nida classifies them into three categories:
additions, subtractions and alterations. They are explained briefly as follows:

(1) Additions: If the target text contains more linguistic material than its source,
addition becomes essential. However, Nida cautions to make additions
‘legitimately’. The most common additions in the translated text are: (a) filling out
elliptical expressions, (b) obligatory specifications, (c) additions required by
grammatical restructuring, (d) amplification from implicit to explicit status, (e)
answers to rhetorical questions, (f) classifiers, (g) connectives, (h) categories of
the receptor language (which do not exist in the source language) and (i) doublets.
Although they are ‘additions’, no actual adding to the ‘semantic content’ of the
message should occur, states Nida (Science, 227-8).

(2) Subtractions: Subtraction is sometimes useful to clarify the information in the act
of translation. Nonetheless, the meaning of the source message should not be
altered. Subtractions include structural loss but they are ‘advisable’ due to the
divergence in grammatical patterns of the target language. They include primarily
 the following types: a) repetitions, b) specification of reference, c) conjunctions,
d) transitionals, e) categories, f) vocatives, and (g) formulae. Nida justifies these
subtractions as “they result in a closer equivalence than would otherwise be the
case” (Science, 228-233).

(3) Alterations: The translation shifts which are neither additions nor subtraction fall
under the category of alterations. Nida views any satisfactory translation to be a
“new birth in the new tongue”. So, the new text would be ‘subjected to a series of
changes’. While speaking about alterations, Nida explains that they may be of all
types, “from the simplest problems of correspondence in sounds to the most
complicated adjustments in idiomatic phrases”. The alterations may occur in: a)
sounds; b) categories; c) word classes; d) order of elements; e) clause and
sentence structure; f) semantic problems involving single words, and g) semantic
problems involving exocentric expressions (Science, 233-37).

Nida’s concept of formal and dynamic equivalence, the ‘techniques of adjustment’,

their classification and explanation is an indication of his thorough and extensive
contribution to the discipline. He discusses the ‘additions, subtractions and
alterations’ exhaustively. These concepts are important for the present study as the
theories of translation “must inevitably come to terms with the existence of ‘shifts’
between the SL and the TL texts” (Venuti, Reader, 122, emphasis in original).

2.11.3 James S. Holmes’s View of Translation Shifts

The translation studies until the 1970s focused on the notions of fidelity with the
source text, untranslatablity and equivalence. However, James S. Holmes in 1969
proposes translation as a ‘metatext’. “Metatext is a form of writing which makes
statements about reality” (qtd. in Hatim, 57). However, ‘metatext’ includes some
other discussions about literature like criticism and commentary. Thus, the poem or
literature which in a sense is a “translation of a given chunk of reality” (qtd. in Hatim,
57), is translated into another poem (a metapoem). So, the reality, the original poem
and the metapoem are all related to one another. Holmes explains:

The metapoem is a nexus of a complex bundle of relationships converging

from two directions: from the original poem, in its language, and linked in a
very specific way to the poetic tradition of that language; and from the poetic
 tradition of the target language, with its more or less stringent expressions
regarding poetry which the metapoem, if it is to be successful as poetry, must
in some measure meet (p. 93).

It shows that the relation of the metapoem with the poem is same as that of the poem
with the reality. Hatim opines that the translator, a metapoet, may be seen as:
(1) A critic, dealing with the norms and conventions embodied in the source.
(2) A poet, drawing on the norms and conventions of another literary system and
attempting to reconcile the two sides source and target (Hatim, 57).

Holmes holds that the definitions of translation which ‘postulate’ only correspondence
in meaning as essential or correspondence in function (pragmatic correspondence
definitions) or correspondence in form (syntactic correspondence definitions) are not
‘valid’ definitions’ as all the translations do not conform to such a requirement. In his
view, such definitions “are in reality no more than codifications of time, place and/or
text type-bound norms of an individual or a smaller or larger group, mistakenly
elevated to the position of universal translation laws (qtd. in Hatim, 56).

A translator, as Holmes mentions, has to overcome a number of hurdles like source

language diction and peculiar syntax. Also, he has to face the problem of dominance
of a language in the concerned translation activity. A translation text in the dominant
language, when read by the target reader, poses problems due to the absence of norms
and models. Holmes has designed a meta-textual element which he calls ‘meta-
literature’ that can accumulate around a poem. These can be enlisted as follows:

(1) The critical essay written regarding the poem in the same language.
(2) The critical essay written in another language
(3) The poem translated into prose
(4) The poem translated in verse (Metapoem)
(5) The imitation
(6) Poem translated partially
(7) A translation inspired by the original poem (p. 92).

This model offers a variety of choices to the translator. He may continue with the
same form or can translate poetry into prose. Thus, he can move to a deviant form
with the same content. Hatim comments that by studying the various forms, “a great
deal will be revealed not only about the nature of metapoetry, but also, and perhaps,
more significantly, about the nature of interpretative process in general” (p. 59).

As a matter of fact, the shifts in translation can be observed in three different aspects:
linguistic, socio-cultural and literary. According to Holmes, the translator has to seek
equivalence at every level, and the end result must satisfy two basic criteria:

I. It must match the original to a degree sufficient for the label ‘translation’ to be
applied (the matching criterion).
II. It must be such that the end-result will be considered a poem (the poetic
criterion) (qtd. in Hatim, 60).

The model invented by Holmes applies to other literary genres also. In the translation
process, the translator seeks not only textual, formal or semantic but functional
correspondence as well. However, in the translation of a particular text, the focus of
the translation could be on one of these. The most noteworthy thing about Holmes’s
view is the model of metatext where he offers various choices to the translator,
beyond the notions of fidelity and closeness to the text.

2.11.4 Anton Popovic’s Shift of Expression

A translated text carries some variations in various forms which are determined by the
differences between the two linguistic and literary systems. Further, the original
writer and the translator are placed in the different cultural and historical situations.
All these differences together determine the nature and scope of alterations occurring
in the translated text. Anton Popovic thoroughly deals with these changes and calls it
as the process of ‘shift of expression’.

2.11.4.1 The Concept

Popovic observes that the ‘dual’ character of translation process determines the
changes in the translation work. Translation involves “an encounter of linguistic and
literary norms and conventions, a confrontation of linguistic traditions” (p. 79). The
changes are unavoidable and a result of the ‘disparity and asymmetry’ in the
development of the two linguistic traditions. Popovic points out that these differences
can be reduced to shifts. ‘Shift’, in his opinion is, “all that appears as new with respect
to the original, or fails to appear where it might have been expected” (Shift, 79).
Popovic points out that the process of translation may involve shifts in the semantic
properties of the text. Shifts do not occur because the translator wishes to ‘change’ a
work, but because he strives to reproduce it as faithfully as possible. Here, Popovic
emphasizes the necessity of shifts and justifies that the reason behind shifts is the
intention of the translator to reproduce the most faithful source text. Popovic explains:

He resorts to shifts precisely because he is endeavouring to convey the semantic

substance of the original in spite of the difference repeating the system of the
original from that of the translation, in spite of the differences between the two
languages and between the two methods of presenting the subject matter (Shift,
79).

The significance and uniqueness of Popovic’s theory lies in the fact that he not only
justifies the translator but also underlines the necessity of shifts. A translator, in the
opinion of Popovic, resorts to shifts as “he strives to preserve the ‘norm’ of the
original, in spite of the differences in the two languages” (Shift, 80, emphasis in the
original). Thus, the shifts are a result of the translator’s efforts to create the same
‘semantic substance’ in the target language. Moreover, he comments that a translator
has a right to differ with the original:

It is not the translator’s only business to ‘identify’ himself with the original:
that would merely result in a transparent translation. The translator also has the
right to differ organically, to be independent, as long as that independence is
pursued for the sake of the original, a technique applied in order to reproduce it
as a living work (Shift, 80, emphasis in original).

Remarkably, Popovic observes the ‘shifts’ as a technique used by a translator, for the
sake of the original. The shifts are thus essential and manipulated so as to produce “a
living work”. He goes forward and offers the translator “the right to differ”. An
empirical study of translations shows that the ‘principle manifestation’ of translation
is found in “the shifts of expression, the choice of the aesthetic means, and the
semantic aspects of the work” (Shift, 81). These shifts are clearly reflected in the
concepts labeled as ‘deviation’, ‘gain’, and ‘creativity’. The researcher has repeatedly
used these labels in his discussions in the succeeding chapters.
The methods of translation in different periods indicate the aesthetic character of
translation practice in that period, claims Popovic. He observes an “interpolar
tension” between two types of norms: one type derives from the original and the other
from the translation ideal. When the first kind of norm is emphasized, the faithfulness
to the original is desired. The second kind of norm demands faithfulness to the
original on the overall level. However, the demand of faithfulness concerns the
specific character of the recipient language and culture. So the translator, says
Popovic, “will not strive to preserve all the singularities, but will try to find suitable
equivalents in the milieu of his time and his society” (Shift, 82, emphasis in original).

Popovic views the existence of two stylistic norms in the translator’s work: the norm
of the original and the norm of the translation. The norm of the original is a constant
factor and its ‘transubstantiation’ into the norm of the translation depends on the
“subjective view and creative initiative of the translator”. He adds:

The incorporation of the ‘linguistic impression’ of the original (that is, its style
as a homogenous expression) into the translation cannot be accomplished
directly, but only by means of an equivalent function, namely by appropriate
shifts (Shift, 83, emphasis in original).

The expressive values change in different languages, because of the difference in

languages. The stylistic shifts are the shifts in “expressive values of the linguistic
means”. These differences arise in the target language due to a particular situation and
in a particular sequence. Popovic remarks:

The shift of expression indicates directions from which and in which the values
of expression move in the translation. The interpretation of such shifts amounts
to the differentiation of qualities in the literary style in conformity with their
arrangement in the text. The identification of the shifts of expression and their
semantico-stylistic interpretation should be considered as the most important
aspects of translation analysis (Shift, 85).

In Popovic’s opinion, the ‘shifts’ in translation are not just gaps or changes but a part
of the techniques adopted by the translator. Further, they are the indicators of the
changes in the direction of ‘values of expression’ in translation. The shift of
expression is the basic principle governing the changes in the process.
2.11.4.2 Types of Shifts
In his description, Popovic has distinguished several types of shifts:
(1) Constitutive shift (in translation) described as an inevitable shift that takes
place as a result of differences between two languages, two poetics and two
styles.
(2) Generic shift, where the constitutive features of the text as a literary genre may
change.
(3) Individual shift, where the translator’s own style and idiolect may introduce a
system of individual deviations.
(4) Negative shift, where information is incorrectly translated, due to infamiliarity
with the language or structure of the original.
(5) Topical shift, where topical facts of the original are altered in the translation
(qtd. in Bassnett, Studies, 142).

The description above explains the several aspects of shifts occurring in the act of
translation. The first shift i.e. constitutive shift is the most significant and ‘inevitable’
kind of shift which occurs due to the ‘systemic’ differences between the concerned
linguistic and cultural systems. However, Popovic observes that something gets
‘shifted’ in the translation of the same text by different translators. Similarly,
something remains constant even after the translation. He terms it as ‘invariant core’.

2.11.4.3 Invariant Core

It is a term used by Popovic while analyzing shifts in translation. He uses the term for
content, meaning of the source text, its characteristics etc. which all remain ‘constant’
after translation. The ‘shifts’ and ‘invariants’ are related with each other. Invariance is
viewed as a necessity before the translation process and its relevance after the
translation activity. The changes in the translation can be judged against the invariant
core of the translated text.

By ‘invariant core’, Popovic means that if the same poem is translated by several
translators, we will have several versions of the poem. However, the common element
in all these translations is what he calls ‘invariant core’ of the original poem. Susan
Basenett comments on the concept:
 This invariant core, he [Popovic] claims is represented by stable, basic and
constant semantic elements in the text, whose existence can be proved by
experimental semantic condensation. Transformation or variants are those
changes which do not modify the core of meaning but influence the expressive
form. In short, the invariant can be defined as that which exists in common
between all existing translations of a single work (Studies, 35, emphasis in
original).

In his discussion, Popovic uses the expressions like ‘faithfulness’ and ‘for the sake of
the original’ which are supposed to be obsolete in contemporary translation studies.
However, in this regard, Venuti comments that the kind of “faithfulness he has in
mind is functional” (Reader, 122). Today, though the translation studies have marched
further towards target oriented approaches, it is possible to see Popovic’s theory as
baseline to understand the recent developments in translation studies.

2.12 Levels of Shifts

The above discussion shows that in the process of translation, a translator resorts to
shifts for equivalence and not ‘to change’ the semantic properties of the text. To have
a better insight into the process underlying the act of translation, it is necessary to
identify the shifts of expression occurring at various levels of the text. The shifts can
be classified with reference to their occurrence in terms of structure and semantics. As
a matter of fact, in the wider sense, these two terms overlap each other and cannot be
studied in isolation. Yet they have been categorized for convenience and a detail study
of shifts occurring in the process.

A sentence can be studied in terms of its constituent parts. Hierarchically, the

constituents of a sentence are: phoneme, morpheme, word, phrase, clause and
sentence. A shift can occur at all the levels of a sentence. In literary translation,
especially in the translation of poetry, the translator endeavours to translate the sound
patterns of the poem like alliteration, assonance, rhyme scheme etc. However, a
phonetic shift may occur due to variation in languages. For instance, the phrase
‘³ÖÖÓ›ü¾Ö»Öß ³ÖÖêÖµÖÓ¡Ö’ is rendered as ‘the sex-gadget of capitalism’ in Vinda Karandikar’s
poem ‘ŸÖß •ÖÖŸÖÖ †´Ö¸ü †ÖÆêü!’ (Immortal Are the People). The TL rendering loses the
alliterative effects, thus, creating a shift at the level of sound and style, apart from the
slight semantic shift occurred through interpretation of the words. In the course of the
practical study, several such examples are analyzed and discussed to show the shifts at
various levels.

The sentences in a source text are transformed and re-structured by the translators for
proper emphasis and balance of the sentences. In the process, sometimes a semantic
and/or stylistic shift could be observed. For instance, in the translation of the prose
texts, the translator combines sentences in the SL into a compound sentence, or vice
versa. In such cases, a structural shift takes place which results in stylistic shift taking
place in terms of movement and balance of the sentences. Another kind of shift is
interpretative shift where a translator interprets a cultural term or a phenomenon
absent in the target language. It may again affect the structural equivalence, which
changes the style of the source text.

Thus, it could be concluded that shifts occur at various level of the sentences. The
structural shift results in stylistic shift and seldom in semantic shift which shows that
various aspects of shifts are interrelated. Diagrammatically, the researcher makes an
attempt to present various levels of shifts and their interrelation as shown below:

SL Text

Structural shift Semantic Shift

Phonetic Morphological Lexical Syntactic

Pragmatic Sociolinguistic Interpretative Stylistic

2.13 Six Linguistic Aspects of the Study

The practical study of the selected texts carried out in the succeeding chapters is based
on six aspects of language: phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics,
sociolinguistics and stylistics. Here, it is worthwhile to study these six aspects briefly.
The first three aspects viz. phonology, morphology and syntax are parts of the
structure of language; so, they are studied under structural base of literary translation.
2.13.1 Structural Base of Literary Translation
In this section, the structural base of literary translation is discussed in brief. It
includes language as a system, its structure and discussion regarding various
components of language at three levels – phonology, morphology and syntax.

2.13.1.1 Language as a System

In the latter half of the twentieth century, Chomsky’s ‘Syntactic Structures’ (1957)
focused attention on the structural properties of language. He suggested that these
properties can be investigated from a mathematically precise point of view. He defines
language “to be a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length and
constructed out of a finite set of element” (Lyons, 7).

Ferdinand de Saussure views language as an organized totality, a ‘gestalt’ having its

own pattern. The components of language are interdependent and they derive their
significance from the system as a whole. One cannot add, remove or displace any
element without affecting the entire field of force (qtd. in Ullmann, 4). Similarly,
Edward Sapir stresses the systematic structure and some unique and idiosyncratic
features of language. Sapir explains the structure as a basic plan:

[S]uch a thing as a basic plan, a certain cut, to each language. This type or plan
or structural ‘genius’ of the language is something much more fundamental,
much more pervasive than any single feature of it that we can mention nor can
we gain an adequate idea of its nature by a mere recital of the sundry facts that
make up the grammar of the language” (Study of Speech, 120, emphasis in
original).

In Sapir’s opinion, the activity of translation demands a harmonizing effort between

the unique and idiosyncratic features and the systematic structures of the source
language and the target language. In the process of translation, the two linguistic
systems come into clash and the translator has to bring about a compromise to restore
semantic equivalence.

2.13.1.2 Functions of Language

Human languages serve various functions which can be classified as:
(1) informational, (2) expressive, (3) directive, (4) metalinguistic (5) aesthetic and
(6) phatic.
(1) Informational Function: In the informational use of language, conceptual
meaning is predominant. A language conveys information which is the primary
function of a language as a code of communication.
(2) Expressive Function: It expresses feelings and attitudes of the speaker, e.g.
swear words/exclamations. Affective meaning is important here, and it is obvious
in the poetic use of language, above its informational use.
(3) Directive Function: As the name suggests, it directs or makes an influence on
the behaviour of others, e.g. requests, orders.
(4) Metalinguistic Function: It focuses attention on the code itself to clarify or
negotiate it.
(5) Aesthetic Function: The aesthetic function aims at artistic effects. The
conceptual meaning and affective meaning are important here.
(6) Phatic function: The phatic function is useful in keeping communication lines
open and also keeping social relationship. For instance, in India, talking about
weather to initiate a friendly conversation is a good example of phatic function of
language. As far as the social role of language is considered, the expressive,
directive and phatic functions of language are significant.

2.13.1.3 Components of Language

A translator has to keep in mind three basic elements of language: (1) Substance
(phonic and graphic), (2) Form and (3) Meaning. As far as the structure of language is
concerned, form is significant. Sound and sense are integrated in ‘form’
harmoniously. So, language can be described on three levels: (1) Phonological
(sound), (2) Grammatical (which implies morphological and syntactic), and (3)
semantic (meaning, inclusive of sociolinguistic and stylistic aspect). In any language,
these are inter-level dependencies which are just as much a part of the language as the
purely phonological or purely syntactic relation.

2.13.1.4 Vocabulary
Words in a language are organized into three lexical structures: (a) associative field,
(b) lexical field and c) lexicon.

(I) Associative Field

The terms ‘lexical field’ and ‘associative field of a word’ are coined by Charles Bally.
In his view, associative field is “a halo which surrounds the signs and whose outer
fringes merge into their environment” (qtd. in Ullmann, 4). It is a highly variable
structure, may it be an SL item or its TL equivalent. It differs from one individual to
another, one social group to another and sometimes, from one situation to another.

(II) Lexical field:

A lexical field is a closely organized sector of the vocabulary whose elements delimit
each other. The vocabulary of every language implies a definite philosophy of life and
a hierarchy of values. It is an embodiment of peculiar vision of the universe which is
handed down from generation to generation, like colour distinction. Kinship terms in
various Indian languages like Marathi, an intricate hierarchy of kinship terms is
observed due to totally social and cultural background.

(III) Lexicon
Lexicon is the entire vocabulary of language, the third level. The concepts can be
divided into groups and then in number of divisions. If a structural approach is
applied to the vocabulary of different languages, it may produce interesting results
which can be used in the theory and practice of translation.

(IV) Associated Information of Word

Words have meaning beyond their dictionary interpretation. The information in a
word is much complex. A word is associated with many properties. Adrian Akmajian
and others linguists enlist the different kinds of information a word is associated with,
as indicated below:

(a) Phonetic/ Phonological information: For every word we know, there is a

particular way of articulating it. Part of knowing the word ‘tree’ is, knowing
certain sounds—more precisely, certain sequence of sounds.
Phonetics/phonology study the structure and systematic patterning of sounds.

(b) Lexical structure information: We intuitively know something about the

internal structure of a word. For instance, our intuitions tell us that the word
‘tree’ cannot be broken down into any meaningful parts. In contrast, the word
‘trees’ seems to be made up of two parts: the root word ‘tree’ plus an
additional suffix ‘-s’, known as the plural ending.
 (c) Syntactic information: We learn how the words fit into the overall structure
of sentences in which it can be used. For example, the word ‘reads’ can be
used in a sentence like ‘Mark reads a book’ and the word ‘readable’ (related to
the word read) can be used in a sentence like “The book is readable”. Syntax
studies the internal structure of sentence and the relationship among the
internal parts.

(d) Semantic Information: For virtually every word we know, we have a

meaning or several meanings. For example, to know the word ‘brother’ is to
know that it has a certain meaning (the equivalent of ‘male sibling’) In
addition, we may or may not know certain extended meanings of the word, as
in “John is so friendly and helpful; he’s a regular brother to me”. Semantics
studies the nature of the meaning of individual words and the meaning of
words grouped into phrases and sentences.

(e) Pragmatic information: When we know words, we know not only its
meaning or meanings but also its use in the context of discourse or
conversation. For instance, the word ‘brother’ can be used not only to refer to
a male sibling but also as a conversational exclamation as in “Oh brother!
What a mess!” In some cases, words seem to have a use but no meaning as
such. For example, the word ‘hello’ is used to greet, but it seems to have no
meaning beyond that particular use. Pragmatics studies the use of words,
phrases and sentences in the actual context of discourse (p. 12-3).

The vocabulary of a language is always in a state of linguistic flux. New words are
added into it and the meaning of the already existing words gets changed. In addition,
new words enter a language through word formation rules. New words are added
through the processes like coined words (like geek), acronyms become independent
words (e.g. radar derives from radio detecting and ranging), alphabetic abbreviations.
(e.g., C.D. - compact disc), clipping (fax for facsimile), blending (motel from motor
and hotel), generified words (zerox is a name of the corporation that produces the
photocopying machine), proper nouns (guillotine-an instrument, of execution named
after its inventor. In addition, vocabulary of a language expands through borrowings
from other languages. Words borrowed from other languages are called ‘loanwords’.
2.13.1.5 Syntax: Sentence Structure
The term ‘syntax’ refers to the arrangement of words and phrases to create sentences.
It deals with the structure of language. As mentioned earlier, Saussure first clearly
said that language is a structure. The written and spoken versions of a language are
isomorphic (having the same structure). The thing common between them is structure
only. Language has two levels of structure: The level of sounds (phonemes) and the
level of meaningful units. The advantage of duality is that innumerable units can be
created out of a very small numbers of sounds. Spoken sentences are not just
combinations of phonological elements. In creating sentences, syntactic units get
combined. Explaining the dual structure of language, John Lyons says, these two
levels are independent “in the sense that the phonological structure of a language is
not determined by its syntactic structure and its syntactic structure is not determined
by its phonological structure” (Lyons, 61).

2.13.2 Semantic Base of Literary Translation

Semantics is a scientific study of meaning expressed in language. It is central to the
study of translation. Although a translator is anxious about structural and stylistic
equivalence, he cannot achieve them at the cost of semantic equivalence. Therefore,
semantic base of literary translation is of vital significance in literary translations.

2.13.2.1 Meaning: Definition

In our cognitive thought process, meaning occupies a significant place because it is
related with the way in which we classify and convey our experiences. C. K. Ogden
and I. A. Richards have enumerated different definitions of meaning (p. 186-7). The
most relevant of them are as indicated below:

(1) Intrinsic property

(2) The other words annexed to a word in the dictionary
(3) The connotation of a word
(4) The place of anything in a system
(5) The practical consequences of a thing in our future experience
(6) That to which the user of a symbol
(a) actually refers
(b) ought to be referring
(c) believes himself to be referring; and
 (7) That to which the interpreter of a symbol
(a) refers
(b) believes himself to be referring
(c) believes the user to be referring

In a literary piece, the translator finds a mass of indeterminate meaning. It is a

semantic structure with several complex processes. The translator can recognize and
control the hurdles in communication when he understands the cognitive and
communicative structure of language. In the model of C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards
as discussed above, the definitions of meaning at 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are more important
for the translator.

2.13.2.2 Seven Types of Meaning

Meaning in its widest sense can be divided into seven types. The differences in them
can exhibit how each type contributes to the total effect of linguistic communication.
The diagram on the next page explains various types of meaning:

Types of Meaning

Denotative Connotative Associative Collocative Thematic

Stylistic Affective Reflected

(I) Denotative Meaning

Denotative meaning is also known as ‘cognitive’ or ‘logical’ meaning. This kind of
meaning is considered the most significant part of linguistic communication which is
necessary for the essential functioning of a language. There are two structural
principles at the basis of all linguistic patterning: The principle of ‘contrastiveness’
and the principle of constituent structure. Contrastive features are defined positively
by the features it does not have. For example, the meaning of the word ‘woman’ could
be shown as +human, -male, +adult, different from ‘boy’ whose meaning could be
defined as +human, +male, -adult.
(II) Connotative Meaning
Connotative meaning, in addition to its purely conceptual content, is the
communicative value of an expression. For instance, the contrastive features, +human,
-male, +adult gives the conceptual meaning of the word ‘woman’, but there are a
number of additional nonessential features associated with the word. They include not
only physical characteristics but also psychological properties like ‘emotional’,
‘sociable’ characteristics a ‘woman’ is supposed to have, according to the point of
view of an individual or a group or a whole society.

There are a few facts that distinguish connotative meaning. Firstly, connotation is not
an essential part of language. It is common to other communication systems such as
visual art and music. Secondly, connotations are unstable. They vary according to
culture, historical period and the individual experience. On the other hand, it is
assumed that on the whole, the speakers of a language have the same conceptual
framework and syntax without which communication through a language would not
be possible. In fact, semanticists today assume that all languages have the same basic
conceptual framework which is of great significance from translator’s point of view.
Thirdly, connotative meaning is not something clearly seen or fixed as conceptual
meaning. It is open ended in the sense that any subjective or objective characteristic
of an object may contribute to the connotative meaning.

The characteristics of connotative meaning like indeterminacy and open-endedness

create a host of problems for a translator. Although a translator has knowledge of
different meanings of a word, there are several possibilities before him and the choice
of the proper TL equivalent becomes difficult.

(III) Stylistic Meaning

We find out the stylistic meaning of a text by the recognition of different dimensions
and levels of usage within the same language like dialects, registers etc. Enkvist and
others (86) have shown the main dimensions of stylistic variation in the figure shown
below:
 Dimensions of Stylistic Variation

Relatively Permanent Features Relatively Temporary Features

Individuality Dialect Time Discourse Register

Medium (Speech/ Writing)

Participation (Monologue/ Dialogue)

Field Status Modality Singularity

(Law/Religion etc.) (Polite/Colloquial/ (Lecture/Memorandum (Dickens/Lamb/
Slang) Anecdote/Joke) Hemingway)

The figure shows the range of stylistic variations possible within a language. In fact,
true synonymy does not exist as words with the same conceptual and stylistic
meaning are rare. If we limit the synonymy to equivalence of conceptual meaning
with differences in stylistic meaning, we can contrast conceptual meaning with
differences in stylistic meaning. It can be illustrated as given on the next page:

(1) Word Status (2) Word Status

steed poetic home general
horse general abode poetic
nag slang residence formal
gee-gee baby language domicile official

(3) Word Status (4) Word Status

cast literary/ biblical small general
throw general tiny colloquial
chuck casual /slang diminutive normal

The words enlisted in the four sets above are conceptual synonyms but stylistic
variants. The status dimension of style is significantly important in distinguishing
synonymous expressions.

(IV) Affective Meaning

Affective meaning is the meaning which reflects the personal feelings of the speaker
and his attitude to the listener or to what he is talking about. Affective meaning is
often explicitly conveyed through conceptual or connotative contents of the words
used. This category of meaning is dependent on other categories of meaning such as
conceptual, connotative or stylistic to express our emotions. For instance, the speaker
can make use of an impolite tone to show his displeasure or through a casual tone he
may show his friendliness. There are certain linguistic elements which function to
communicate the feeling without the help of any other category of meaning. These
elements are chiefly interjections like ‘oh!’, ‘aha!’etc.

(V) Reflected Meaning

Reflected meaning is the meaning found in words with more than one conceptual
meaning of the same word. It appears when one meaning is a part of our response to
another meaning of the same word. Some words have dominant power because of
frequency and associations. For example, the words, ‘The Comforter’ and ‘The Holy
Ghost’ in church service are synonymous expressions. In the religious context, ‘the
comforter’ means one who supports but ‘the holy ghost’ suggests a feeling of respect
mixed with fear.

Similarly, taboo words need to be understood through the strength of emotive

suggestion. Words like intercourse, ejaculation, are associated with physiology of sex.
So they are very difficult to be used in their ‘innocent’ sense. Non-taboo meanings of
some words have disappeared because of their association with taboos, e.g., the word
‘cock’ in American English in the sense of a fully grown male chicken has been
replaced by ‘rooster’. The same may happen with the other words mentioned above.

(VI) Collocative meaning

Collocative meaning is made up of the associations words acquire because of the
meanings of other words which are likely to occur in their environment. In the words
of Firth, a renowned linguist: “You shall know a word by the company it keeps” (qtd.
in Palmer, 76). His familiar example was that of the word ‘ass’ which occurred in
“you silly ass!” or “Don’t be such an ass”. The adjectives ‘pretty’ and ‘handsome’
share common ground but may be distinguished by the range of nouns with which
they co-occur or collocate. Some examples of collocative words are ‘tremble’ with
fear, but ‘quiver’ with excitement’. Palmer gives some more examples of collocative
words: flock of sheep, herd of cows, school of whales, pride of lions, etc. (77).
(VII) Thematic Meaning
This type of meaning is communicated by the way in which a speaker organizes his
message from the points of view of focus and emphasis. Thematic meaning is a matter
of choice between alternative grammatical constructions. For example, an active
sentence and its passive equivalent may have same conceptual meaning but they may
have different communicative values because they suggest different contexts.
(1) The first prize was given to him. ↔ He was given the first prize.

Thematic meaning is mainly a matter of choice between alternative grammatical

constructions. For instance:
(2) A man is waiting in the hall. ↔ There’s a man waiting in the hall.

The kind of contrast implicit in ordering and emphasis in the above examples can also
be obtained by lexical items, e.g., by substituting ‘belongs to’ for ‘owns’ as in:
(3) My brother owns the house. ↔ The house belongs to my brother.

By changing syntax, the stress effect can be achieved for emphasis as in the example:
(4) Vishal uses wooden chair. ↔ The kind of chair Vishal uses is wooden.
The sentences in pairs above have the same meaning, but they differ in terms of their
communicative effect. May be a little different; but they will not each be equally
appropriate in the same context.

2.13.2.3 Sentence Meaning and Utterance Meaning

In the contemporary period, some scholars have differentiated between the meaning
of a sentence and an utterance. In their opinion, sentence meaning falls within the
scope of Semantics and the utterance meaning is an area which falls under
Pragmatics. Pragmatics is an extended study of Semantics. Pragmatics is concerned
with the ways in which the meanings of utterances change in relation to the context of
use, the time and the goals of the interlocutors. The sentences are context
independent, i.e., they are not tied to any particular time and place whereas utterances
are articulated in a particular context. Further, the utterances of everyday conversation
are not full sentences but incomplete, if taken individually. For example:

1) Next Friday, if I can manage it.

2) You’ll just have to, won’t you?
The meaning of these sentences is the same as that of the full sentences from which
they are said to be derived on a particular occasion of utterance.

Particular kinds of sentences are related to particular kinds of utterances. i.e.,

declarative sentences are uttered to make statements, interrogative statements to ask
questions etc. It is called as ‘the characteristic use’. However, a speaker may use a
sentence uncharacteristically, to mean something different from what it
characteristically means, e.g. the sentence, “It’s cold in here” has the form of a
statement. But it could be used indirectly instead of “Close the window (please)” to
get the listener to do something. Many such sentences are frequently used
uncharacteristically and indirectly in everyday language.

As stated earlier, semantics is a scientific study of the meaning expressed in language

and obviously, it is central to the study of translation. In a literary text, explains
Talgeri, “meaning is generated through internalization of the connotative content of
the text” (p. 3). The literary text not only creates the meaning, but it also
contextualizes the meaning. Literature makes use of the words with which the
speakers of the language can associate the experience of their composite culture.

To create an equivalent text, a translator has to exploit the resources of the language
by skillfully handling the tools of semantic transformations in carrying over the
meaning from the SL text to the TL text. He has to deal with the intended and
interpreted meaning of the text. At the same time, he cannot afford to ignore
ambiguity and other aspects of language. Otherwise, the translation may lead to
miscommunication. So, the literary translator must be “semantically alert’, in the
words of Geoffrey Leech, “to create an equivalent text” (Semantics, 41). For instance,
note the difference between conceptual and stylistic meaning in the following
sentences:

(1) He put the key in his pocket.

(2) He stuck the key in his pocket.

Thus, ‘meaning’ is a much wider term which includes the seven types of meanings. A
literary work is a mass of indeterminate meaning, an attempt at communication in its
flux. To create an equivalent text, the translator has to be alert precisely because the
structure embodies several complex processes. The more he knows the cognitive
nature of meaning, the more the translation is semantically equivalent.

2.13.3 Sociolinguistic Base of Translation

The structural and semantic theories deal with the form of language. Language is also
described as a social and cultural product and is defined as what the members of a
particular society speak. It means that language is also influenced by social aspects.
The role of social ecology is significant to determine the ‘shifts’ in translation, as the
meaning of an utterance does not depend entirely on its form alone. It also depends
on its function in a social and cultural setting. The meaning of what is said depends on
who says it to whom, when and with what effect. That is, the context of situation in
which an utterance is said is very crucial in deciding the overall meaning of the
utterance.

2.13.3.1 Austin’s Speech Act Theory

J. L. Austin, in his book published posthumously ‘How to Do Things with Words’
(1962), proposed the ‘speech act theory’. In his opinion, we perform certain actions
while speaking. That is to say, “the uttering of the sentence is, or is part of, the doing
of an action” (p. 5) or “speaking a language is making statements, giving commands,
asking questions, making promises, and so on”, and the action performed by
producing an utterance will consist of three related acts: the locutionary, illocutionary
and perlocutionary speech acts. A locutionary act is “uttering a sentence with a certain
sense and reference” (p. 108). A locutionary act is the basic act of the utterance or the
phonetic act. It is a production of meaningful linguistic expression. It is the literal or
dictionary meaning of all the words put together.

Austin made a distinction between sense and force. Sense is the conceptual context or
logical meaning of a sentence. Austin calls it as ‘the illocutionary meaning’. ‘Force’ is
the act performed in uttering a sentence, it is performative meaning. Austin calls it
‘illocutionary force’. It is illustrated below:

Give me the pen, please. Sentence form: Imperative

Sense: Giving the pen
Force: Request
‘The perlocutionary act’ implies the change in the mind of the hearer; hence, it is
under the control of the hearer. An utterance is made with certain intention to have an
effect. This is known as the perlocutionary effect. When the listener moves or acts in
accordance with the intention of the speaker, the perlocutionary effect is said to be
achieved. The theory of ‘sense’ of an utterance and the ‘force’ of the ‘act’ performed
during the action is much significant in the act. A literary translator has to consider
these aspects of meaning implicit in the context of situation before text-analysis.

2.13.3.2 Linguistic Competence and Communicative Competence

Dell Hymes has formulated the concept of communicative competence as an
extension of Chomsky’s notion of ‘linguistic competence’. Chomsky made a
distinction between what he called ‘competence’ and ‘performance’. According to
Chomsky (1965), competence is concerned with an ‘ideal speaker-hearer’ in
‘completely homogenous speech community’ who know their language perfectly and
are unaffected by irrelevant conditions such as memory limitations, distractions, shifts
of attention etc. While ‘ideal’ and ‘completely homogeneous speech community’ does
not exist in real life, performance is important.

However, the term ‘communicative competence’ coined by Dell Hymes is wider than
Chomsky’s term. It includes our ability to use linguistic forms appropriately. In
Hyme’s words, this competence is “integral with attitudes, values and motivations
concerning language, its features and uses” (qtd. in Hudson, 219). There are two
aspects of communicative competence. The first one is the overall appropriateness
and the second is ‘speech act’. According to the theory of speech acts, a grammatical
sentence may be a statement, a command, a request and so on. Similarly, two
grammatically different sentences may, as speech acts, be request, as shown in the
table:
 Speech-act or
Types of Sentence Examples
Illocutionary force
Statement I shall be there tomorrow.
Command You should leave this room at once.
Declarative Sentence
Request I would love some ice-cream.
Warning That plate is very hot.
Question Who is there?
Interrogative Request Can you give me your pen?
Sentence Exclamation Isn’t it wonderful?
Command What are you laughing at?
Command Shut up.
Wish Have a nice day.
Imperative Sentence
Invitation Come and see me next week.
Warning Mind your language.

Similarly, different forms may convey the same function or meaning. Secondly,
competence is dependent upon both knowledge and ability for use and relates to all
the four features listed below:

(a) Whether and to what degree something is really possible;

(b) Whether and to what degree something is feasible in virtue of means of
implementation available.
(c) Whether and to what degree something is appropriate in relation to a
context in which it is used.
(d) Whether and to what degree something is actually performed, and what its
doing entails.

If viewed in terms of the notion of competence, we can say that (a) and (b) partly have
to do with linguistic competence and (c) and (d) are partly concerned with
communicative competence. In other words, one’s communicative competence is
reflected in his/her grammatical (i.e. formally possible), psycholinguistic (i.e.
practically feasible), socio-cultural (i.e. contextually appropriate) and de-facto (i.e.
actually occurring) knowledge and ability to use a language.

Again, Chomsky’s notion of the difference between competence and performance is

often compared with the earlier Saussurean concept of the difference between ‘la
langue’ and ‘la parole’. The difference in these two concepts can be characterized as
psychological rather than sociological. La langue, according to Saussure, is a definite
element abstracted from heterogeneous facts of language in general. It is the
conventional aspect of language established by a kind of social contract among the
members of the linguistic community. La parole, on the contrary, is individual
utterance, an act of will, serving individual ends. La langue is a code language in
dictionaries and grammars and la parole is the way the code is used in actual situation.

2.13.3.3 Language, Thought / Reality and Culture

Language by its very nature is a social activity. Culture is, according to Ward
Goodenough, “socially acquired knowledge” in both of its senses of “know-that” and
“know-how” (qtd. in Hudson, 74). He states that concepts are general categories in
terms of which propositions, e.g. statements, are formulated and experience is
processed.

Analyzing the relationship between language and culture, Malinowski focuses on the
study of culture as a system. The study leads him to conclude that “linguistic
behaviour could be interpreted in its social context” (p. 40). He claims that “all
aspects of culture are interconnected” – which is the most prevalent idea in cultural
linguistics. Language is, thus, part and product of culture. So, the socio-cultural
context of situation has to be taken into account. Grimshaw represents the reciprocal
nature of the relationship between language and reality in a diagram (110) as shown in
the figure:

Language

Thought/Reality Creates Creates Creates Thought/ Reality

Culture

Thus, language has to be investigated within the social context of the community. In
the same way, literature, which is manifested through language, can only be
understood by relating it with culture and society. It is improper to assert
independence of literature or art and separate it from its context. Interpretation of a
piece of literature or any imaginative art outside its socio-cultural context leads to a
partial understanding of the process of literary creation. It is necessary to have a clear
understanding of the dynamics of social context in order to fully comprehend and
appreciate a literary text.

Culture, like human languages, is an ever-changing phenomenon. Linguistic changes

take place in response to cultural changes. If the culture of the society is dynamic,
linguistic changes are rapid. Cultural changes necessitate lexical additions through
various processes like coinage of new terms, borrowings and neologisms. Cultural
change is often reflected in lexis of a language in formation of compounds and similar
derivatives. Obviously, there is an intimate relationship between language and culture.
Language becomes a complex cultural phenomenon through transmission of customs
and traditions from generation to generation. Consequently, this complexity is
reflected in language use.

2.13.3.4 Translation: Interlingual Communication

Translation is obviously an intercultural communication. The translator, who searches
for equivalence, encounters numberless problems posed by the cultures of both the
languages concerned, i.e. the SL and the TL. Eugene Nida examines the problems in
translation which are essentially problems of equivalence. These problems may be
treated under (1) ecology (2) material culture (3) social culture (4) religious culture
(5) linguistic culture (qtd. in Kher, 72).

Various problems in translation are related with the differences between languages
and cultures. Do the languages differ partially, reflecting some common traits, or
whether the differences are arbitrary, differing in totality, reflecting completely
different people living in different intellectual world? These questions focus on the
possibility of translation equivalence and the problems involved in the process.

There are some scholars who hold that translation is impossible. Edward Sapir, a
significant ethnolinguist, is of the view that the similarities in languages are not
enough “to be considered as representing the same social reality. The worlds in which
different societies live are distinct worlds, not merely the same world with different
labels attached” (Culture, Language and Personality, 59). Even then, the study of
‘Language Universals’ has shown that although languages differ from each other, they
can be grouped into phonological, morphological and syntactic types. (The issue
‘Language Universals’ has been discussed above in 2.4) The difference of languages
occurs only in the combination of components and not in individual components. A.
L. Kroeber refutes the theory of uniqueness of languages and puts forth the principle
of ‘psychic unity’ (qtd. in Eckman, 160). Also, Lambert argues that “the similarities
among ethnic groups are much more prominent than differences” (qtd. in Eckman,
160). Therefore, the preachings of the Holy Bible are propagated in every nook and
corner of the world through cross-cultural communication, i.e. translation.

Everybody knows that human languages are not identical. Even the languages in the
same family differ in any one or all the three concepts of identities: “Conceptual
identity, referential identity and the identity based on universals of language” (Juan
Sager, 130). The difference in extralinguistic context results in linguistic differences.
When the target culture lacks a given element (object, concept, social institution,
pattern of behaviour, etc.), the target language also normally lacks an expression for
it. In such a case, Evir comments that “the translator has to find the equivalent
expression in the target language to convey the missing element to the speakers of the
language” (p. 36).

Problems of translation decrease or increase in proportion to the cultural distance

between the SL and the TL. In this regard, H. C. Trivedi aptly comments:

If the cultural structure in the background of the SL is remote from the cultural
structure which is the background of TL, translation from one to other presents
a number of difficulties (qtd. in Spitzbardt, 134).

For instance, difficulties of translation arise between languages that are associated
with different cultures and consequently have different names for different customs
(e.g. birthday party) objects, institutions (e.g. college) etc. If the readymade form for a
concept or object is not available in a language, there are two alternatives: (1) The new
form is directly imported from the language, e.g. ‘±ÉÉìVÉ’ and ‘ghee’ in Marathi and
English respectively. (2) The resources of the language are used to create the new
form, which is called calque. For example, ‘Ê´ÉtÉ{ÉÒ`ö’ in Marathi for ‘University’
in English or ‘leaf-plates/leaf-cup’ in English for the Marathi ‘{ÉjÉɴɳýÒ/pùÉä É’ are
the calques.
To sum up, a good deal of culture is transmitted verbally. Linguistic expressions
differ as cultures differ. A distinctive system of beliefs is created through the thought
process which is affected by language. Hence, translations play a crucial role as it is a
confrontation of not only two languages but two cultures. It leads to cross-cultural
communication through a compromise. The belief system undergoes a liberalizing
process of cultural assimilation. In this process, the contour of the cultural identity is
lost through mutual tolerance and giving way for the new value system of universal
brotherhood. In other words, translation is a humanizing process that lays the
foundation for the unity of mankind.

2.13.4 Stylistic Base of Translation

The literary texts are characterized by special techniques and rhetorical effects, as
compared with nonliterary texts. The translator has to be aware about the literary
effects created by the author through the use of literary language. The principle issue
for a translator is the empirical test of his successfully dealing with the text in various
social and functional situations both in the SL and TL. It is a trial of his competence
and performance on both linguistic and communicative levels.

2.13.4.1 Style: Definition

It is assumed that the literary texts have an ‘added value’, carried by various resources
of language. This added value concerns with the style of the test. Traditionally, ‘style’
is defined as the manner of expression in prose or verse:

The style specific to a particular work or writer ... has been analyzed in such
diverse terms as the rhetorical situation and aim, the characteristic diction or
choice of words; the type of sentence structure and syntax; and the density and
kinds of figurative language (Abrams, 384, emphasis in original).

So, style is observed as the way of expression. However, Abrams et al show that it
can be seen in the choice of words, the structure and the peculiar figurative language
used by the writer. In the recent researches, style has been defined in different ways in
the light of pragmatics and other disciplines. However, primarily, style is regarded as
the ‘manner of expression’ in prose or verse.
2.13.4.2 Literary Texts
The literary texts marked by style are fictional and canonical. By using poetic
language, a literary writer focuses on an expression of emotions, implicit meanings
and deviations. Jones aptly emphasizes their ‘affective/aesthetic’ function:

They have a written base form, though they may also be spoken; they enjoy
canonicity (high social prestige); they fulfill an affective/aesthetic rather than
transactional or informational function aiming to provoke emotions and/or
entertain rather than influence or inform; … they are characterized by poetic
language use … and heteroglossia (p. 152).

It implies that literary texts are composed to influence rather than to inform. They are
intended to create an aesthetic effect in the mind of the readers. The selected words or
expressions seldom have real world meanings. The ‘difference’ in the language used,
i.e. the choice of words, their ordering, and use of various devices marks the ‘style’ of
the particular writer.

2.13.4.3 Stylistics: Definitions

In the last few decades or so, the translation theorists have been paying significant
attention to ‘style’. Yet, scholars have not agreed on the exact definition of what style
is. The investigation has not taken a systematic shape due to the elusive nature of
style. The term has a wide range of meaning. Etymologically, the word ‘style’ is
derived from the Latin word ‘stylus’ which means ‘stake’ or ‘pointed instrument’ for
writing. Leech and Short define stylistics as follows:

Literary stylistics has, implicitly or explicitly, the goal of explaining the relation
between language and artistic function … The aim of literary stylistics is to
relate the critics concern of aesthetic appreciation with the linguist’s concern of
linguistic description (p. 13).

Charles Bally comments that stylistics analyzes the features of the organized language
of the text “from the point of view of their affective content, that is, the expression of
sensibility through language and the effect of language on sensibility” (qtd. in Enkvist
et al, 14). Goethe rightly comments that “Style is an active principle of composition
by which a writer penetrates and reveals the inner form of his subject” (qtd. in Enkvist
et al, 10). Stylistics analyzes the various resources of languages used in a literary text.
It is concerned with patterns of use in the given text. The purpose of stylistics is to
discover the linguistic use in communication and how their effects are revealed in the
way messages are organized in texts. Stylistics, thus, is the study of the social
function of language and is a branch of what has come to be called sociolinguistics.

2.13.4.4 Style: Its Theoretical Background

Cicero and other classical rhetoricians classified styles into three main levels: the high
(or ‘grand’) the middle (or ‘mean’) and the low (or ‘plain’) style. In the eighteenth
century the doctrine of decorum was influential. M. H. Abrams et al inform that it
required that the level of style in a work be appropriate to the social class of the
speaker, to the occasion on which it is spoken, and to the dignity of its literary genre
(p. 385). Northop Frye made a differentiation between two kinds of style 1) Demotic
style, which is modeled on the language, rhythms and associations of ordinary speech.
2) Hieratic style, which employs a variety of formal elaborations that separate the
literary language from ordinary speech (qtd. in Abrams, 385).

Also, style could be analyzed in terms of objective investigation of textual features.

Scholars like Charles Bally commented that style could be studied on the basis of the
impression of textual features on the reader (qtd. in Enkvist et al, 14). It is not
sufficient for a translator to identify the stylistic elements of the text. While
translating, in addition to discovering the stylistic features of the SL text, he has to re-
create the same stylistic features in the TL text.

According to Prague School of Linguistics, ‘foregrounding’ is central to the notion of

style. It is a device which has an aesthetic value because of the readers’ attention. It is
achieved by the use of the unusual collocations, e.g. ‘colour of the taste’. Ian
Mukarovsky, the Prague school linguist, states that all literary language is distortion
of ordinary language. Literary texts are characterized by aesthetic and rhetorical
value. The literary language has the feature of foregrounding. In literary texts,
foregrounding serves the act of expression itself. Mukarovsky calls it deautomization
of an act: “Objectively speaking, automization schematizes an event; foregrounding
means the violation of the scheme” (19). Literary texts are artistic creations in which
the difficulty and length of perception is increased, resulting in defamiliarization of
the text. Defamiliarization is making the text unfamiliar which attracts the reader.
Shklovsky claims it to be the basic aim of art: “The technique of art is to make objects
‘unfamiliar’ to increase the difficulty and length of perception” (qtd. in Pilkington, 18,
emphasis in original).

Generally, style is the selection of the particular words and their ordering at various
levels. So, the ‘choice’ of the writer becomes his ‘style’. The choices of the writer are
paradigmatic on one hand and syntagmatic on the other. Enkvist explains that style of
a given text is “a function of the aggregate of the ratios between the frequencies of its
phonological grammatical and lexical items in a contextually related norm” (p. 28).
So, style, in his opinion, is the aggregate of the contextual probabilities of its
linguistic items. The textual as well as extra textual context such as period, genre,
dialect and interpersonal relationship are included in context.

Style is looked at as the comparison between texts by the same and different authors.
It may also include the study of the same and different genres: The used methods are
derived from general linguistic theory. This approach considers style to be an organic
part of text. The contextually oriented notion of register is useful in stylistics. It
identifies the discourse in addition to the degree of formality between the speaker and
the hearer. The degree of cohesion is significant in the whole discourse.

2.13.4.5 Stylistic Approaches

(I) Simpson’s Approach to Style
In the contemporary period, stylistics has moved a step further. Modern linguists are
establishing structured models of language which can be used in stylistic analysis.
These models explain how the various patterns of language could be assessed and
understood. Simpson (p. 5) enlists various levels of language and their technical terms
in his study of language. Different linguistic features are based on the various
branches of the study of language.
Level of language Branch of Language study
The sounds of spoken language;
the way words are pronounced Phonology/ Phonetics

The patterns of written language;

the shape of language on the page Graphology

The way words are constructed;

words and their constituent structure Morphology

The way words combine with other

words to form phrases and sentences Syntax, Grammar

The words we use; the vocabulary of a language Lexicology

The meaning of words and sentences Semantics

The way words and sentences are used in everyday

situations; the meaning of language in context Pragmatics
Discourse Analysis

While explaining these levels, Simpson asserts that they depend on one another. He
says, “In producing the utterance, they represent multiple and simultaneous linguistic
operations” (p. 5). So, style is something aggregate of the various functions at
different levels. There are various issues that concerns stylistic studies. They range
from patterns of sounds to the structure of sentences. The selection of words,
figurative language, rhythmic patterns, cohesion, narrative structures, levels of
formality and so on. Many other such issues are significant for the making of style, as
a strange linguistic pattern, a ‘foregrounding’ device can be used to create a particular
style.

Writings of great authors represent their individual styles. An experienced reader can
identify the writer of the particular text, e.g., Shakespeare, Milton, Hemingway, etc.
Scholars get to know this objectively by counting frequencies of particular linguistic
features in limited contexts. Remy de Gourmont opines that a writer has a ‘style’
means that “in the midst of the language shared with others one speaks a particular,
unique and inimitable dialect, which is at the same time everybody’s language and the
language of a single individual” (qtd. in Enkvist et al, 26).
Gourmont observes an individual style to be the use of ‘unique and inimitable dialect’.
But to identify ‘the individual style’, the unique features have to be separated from all
the features present in the text. For this, an investigator must carry out a task of a
setting up a corpus of reference to find the norms from which a given text differs,
i.e. the already referred definition of style as ‘deviation from the norm’. There are
various features that define norms like metre, time, place, language, literary writer or
his school, genre, and so on. All such norms seem to be roughly circumscribed by
context.

(II) Individual Style: Epstein’s View

In a broad view, style is looked at as the ‘way’ or ‘manner’ of doing something. M. H.
Abrams et al define style to be “the manner of linguistic expression in prose or verse-
as how speakers or writers say whatever it is that they say” (p. 384). Thus, style is
derived from two fundamental notions of ‘what and how’, says Epstein. He
elaborates:

The notions of some sort of base and of some sort of variation from the base …
Style as a process of interpretation underlies surface distinctions such as content
and ornament. It is more abstract, a sort of Gestalt schema by which the
memory records and indexes its information in terms of what and how (p. 4).

So, Epstein classifies two dimensions defining style by giving an example as follows:

Identificative dimension (what) Stylish dimension (how)

Playing tennis showing characteristic manner of
playing tennis

The schematic application above, when further applied, extends to the style perceived
as that of an individual style. Epstein comments, “The end of the schematic
application is the recognition of a human being, an Other, one outside your own
perception of the universe” (Epstein, 19).

Further, Epstein cites Richard Ohmann who puts forward a hypothesis that personal
literary style can be described, at least in part, by “examination of the characteristic
idiosyncratic choice of syntactic structures employed by the author” (qtd. in Epstein
19). He takes a passage from D. H. Lawrence’s novel and analyses the elision in it. In
addition, many aspects of descriptive linguistics like graphemics, phonology, syntax,
semantics, rhetoric and many other are capable of distinguishing style (21).

2.13.4.6 Stylistics: Its Key Aspects

In the recent past, the stylistic studies are no more just ‘subjective’ studies or the
studies of the individual styles. Stylistic studies now focus on insights from
pragmatics and cultural studies. In this new light, Thornborrow and Wareing identify
three key aspects of stylistics:

(a) the use of linguistics to approach literary texts;

(b) the discussion of texts according to objective criteria rather than purely
subjective impressionistic values;
(c) an emphasis on the aesthetic properties of language (for example, the way
rhyme can give pleasure) (p. 4).

(I) Use of Linguistics

Earlier, stylistics was confined to observe how meaning in a text was created through
the choices of the writer. In other words, structuralism dominated stylistic studies as it
referred to the text to be self-referential toward the notion that the artistic form and
meaning emerge from the exchange of ideas. Recently, stylistics has shifted from the
Saussurian structuralist ideas to pragmatic and contextual studies. The post-
structuralist ideas examine the textual features like the role of speaker in shaping the
meaning of the utterance.

Recent researches in pragmatics show that meaning in the text is not stable and text
bound. It depends on various factors such as interpretation by a reader or listener,
contextual features like cultural background of the reader and the situation in which
the reader reads the text. Stylisticians now are more interested in the “systematic ways
languages is used to create texts which are similar or different” and to link the choices
in texts to social and cultural context. In short, stylistics is moving towards the study
of the relationship between the text and context.

(II) Objective Criteria

In the second aspect, Thornborrow and Wareing insist on objective criteria to the
application of subjective values. Adopting objective criteria may avoid stylistic
evaluation of a text as it was done earlier. This criticism was upon close reading of the
text, selection of some features from it and analyze with a view to judge it. The pitfall
in this method was the personalized selection and criteria. Two critics, for instance,
could select two totally different criteria to reach opposite judgments. Thornborrow
and Wareing explain: “Stylistics did not reflect the views of the individual critic but
an impersonal, reproducible truth. Anyone … conducting the same stylistic procedure
ought to arrive at the same results” (p. 4).

(III) Aesthetic Properties of Text

It can be assumed that stylistics originated in attempting to describe the aesthetic
properties of the text that appeal to the senses, particularly in poetry. This kind of
approach may generally form the stylistic analysis of the formal properties of the text,
particularly poetic texts. As the range of texts is extended, this approach no longer
forms such an essential part of all analysis.

2.13.4.7 Stylistics and Pragmatics: Language in Use

The traditional notion of stylistics revolved around the individual styles of the writers.
The reading experience in the past was largely ‘text bound’. It followed an
interpretation of Whorf’s hypothesis that our world view is conditioned by language.
However, the recent researches in the field of pragmatics show that ‘meaning’ is the
result of ‘interpretation’. Therefore, a text cannot have a single, invariant meaning for
all readers in view of the fact that pragmatics is the study of language in ‘use’, i.e.,
other elements than grammar. Elizabeth Black explains the various elements which
are crucial to the interpretation of literary discourse. They are: context, deictic
expressions, pronouns and articles, and tense (Black, 3-6).

(I) Context
Context is a situation. In a literary text, the beginning provides the necessary
orientation into the discourse. The title, appearance, author or even a publisher may
provide many hints to the reader and ‘contextualize’ it to some extent. Afterward, the
listener or the participants enrich and give meaning to the discourse.

(II) Deictic Expressions

Deictics are ‘pointing ‘words. They include tensed verbs, personal pronouns,
demonstratives (these, those), and time and place expressions such as now, then, here,
there etc. These words relate our linguistic expressions to the current situation. In
novels, the deictic expressions play a different role than in ordinary language.

(III) Pronouns and Articles

The sender of a message (I) cannot be identified with the writer or the reader, and so
on. The definite article is usually used to refer to items already known. So, when it is
used at the beginning of a text, the reader is informed of what is a part of the ‘known’
of the fictional discourse. The deictics are used to establish ‘the spatio-temporal’
perspective of a narrative.

(IV) Tense
The normal narrative tense in a novel is simple past, but it is a ‘generic marker’ and
not temporal marker. In dialogues in a novel, however, tense has its temporal value.
As the novels are often told by a narrator who relates events as though they are part of
real happenings, the narrative tense is simple past. The perfect tenses have a deictic
function within the fictional discourse and other tenses do not have these function.
The language of a literary discourse differs interestingly from a standard language.
The pragmatic interpretation of a perfect tense differs from the interpretation of the
simple past (Black, 3-6).

2.13.4.8 Stylistic Challenges in Translation

The discussion above shows that a literary writer has a number of choices in creating
a text. Although these choices shape the meaning of the text, they could also be
looked at as various styles. To translate a text, these stylistic choices of the writer
have to be taken into consideration by the translator. The creation of the stylistic
nuances in the translation create host of problems for a translator. The literary
language in the texts has a function of foregrounding. The features of the
‘foregrounded’ text are not found in the standard language as discussed above. As a
result, the corresponding translation in the TL runs a risk of producing ‘strange’ text.

From the point of view of the target language too, the ‘systemic differences’ and
cultural diversities between the two languages pose certain complexities to the
translator. The target text with its aesthetic values could become incomprehensible,
strange or odd for the target reader. Also, the different kind of readership of the source
language and the target language may also create difficulty.
In addition to the challenges in literary translation practice, there are some theoretical
issues related to the nature of translation which remain problematic. When the literal
translation cannot work, the translator may strive for compensation to translate the
stylistic features of the ST which are culturally distant. Here, we again come across
Popovic’s concept of ‘shift of expression’ in the act of translation. These shifts,
according to Popovic, are the most important aspect of translation and show the
directions of the movements of values of expression in translation:

The identification of the shifts of expression and their semantico-stylistic

interpretation should be considered as the most important aspect of translation
analysis (Shift, 85).

2.14 A Sum-up
To sum up, the ever-changing nature of language and its dependence on context create
issues in creating translation equivalence. The challenge of maintaining ‘accuracy’
and ‘fidelity’ also creates an additional dilemma in the mind of translator.
Consequently, the shifts occurring in the act of translation are not only inevitable, but
justifiable as well. Further, they are essential to create semantically equivalent texts in
spite of the differences between the two languages and cultures.

The present research study contains “the identification of the shifts” and their
“semantico-stylistic interpretation” as a necessary framework for the investigation of
the translated works. The succeeding chapters offer a practical study of the select
translated texts from Marathi into English in the light of six linguistic criteria:
Phonology, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, Sociolinguistics, and Stylistics. The
study aims to point out how the translators struggle to reproduce parallel characters
and eventually overcome the difficulties in creating a linguistically parallel, culturally
meaningful and socially successful target texts.