SCIENCE AND TRANSLATION – SUNDAR SARUKKAI

(Class Presentation: 12 March, 2011)

Sundar Sarukkai, the author of Translating the World, was trained in physics and philosophy. Within his essay “Translation and Science”, Sarukkai reviews the domains of translation and science because, for him, the activity of science shows striking similarities with that of translation.

Sarukkai’s primary definition of translation is that of any activity undertaken in response to an original. According to Sarukkai, for Science, that original is the world; and for translation (in the ordinary sense), it is the source text. Sarukkai contends that while there are differences between what is normally called translation and what is called science, on the level of abstraction, however, the similarities between them are overwhelming. While classical theories of both claim that they are quintessentially non-interventionist, Sarukkai argues that in fact, ‘both’ are necessarily mediated interpretations. The entire essay seems to be drawing connections and similarities between the activities of science and of translation, implying that the activity of science ‘is’ a translation.

In the essay, Sarukkai studies language in relation to science and suggests that one useful theme in studying this relation is that of ‘translation’. He observes that the idea of translation has appeared sporadically in philosophy of science, but feels the scrutiny is severely inadequate. Even when it is studied, he claims, it is only the “naive view of translation” that is taken into consideration. Such an approach, he feels, does not do justice to the complexities inherent in translation. And it is by paying heed to these complexities in translation that will allow one to realise the intrinsic link between science and translation.

He observes that science harbours a suspicion towards language (thus favouring the language of mathematics and symbols as opposed to ordinary spoken/written language). Similarly, language too harbours a suspicion towards translation and this has allowed the view that translation is “essentially a secondary activity, derivative and dependent on the idea of an original text”. He highlights the commonality of the two domains in their “naive views”: the naive view of translation harbours the belief that translations only change the language of the text but continue to keep its ‘essence’ intact; the naive view of science harbours the illusion that it can “distill ideas outside the purview of language”, thereby objectively transcribing the world.

Sarukkai’s immediate concerns regarding scientific discourse and translation are: science discourse has engaged with translation predominantly on the basis of the naïve view of translation. Philosophical and literary considerations of translation have been absent in scientific discourse – surprising, since the discourse has moved from one language system to another as well as deals on the level of textuality too. Translation has been invoked in various other contexts of science, he admits, such as the ‘incommensurability thesis’ for example, but has been inadequately studied. So he hopes to highlight the common grounds scientific discourse and translation share so as to draw attention to their similarities and thereby open the realm of translation within the philosophy of sciences to much needed debate.

The similarities between scientific discourse and translation are overwhelming for a number of reasons for Sarukkai. They are listed below:

*If translators are readers of the source text they translate, scientists are readers of “the book of nature”, which they then translate.

*Both, scientific discourse and translation subscribe to the ‘naïve view’ – regarding the ‘essence’ that remains unchanging and that can be captured and transferred objectively.

*In the philosophy of science, the idea of translation is implicit – in the context of interpretation, science is seen as “reading the book of nature”.

*The notion of ‘original’ is important to both domains – science attempts to write the text of the ‘original’ world, and it is in response to this that categories like ‘verification’ and ‘approximation’ arise.

*Roman Jakobson’s tripartite classification of types of translation – intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic – can be applied within the context of scientific discourse.

Intralingual Translation: translation within the same language – when we use different words and phrases to communicate similar meanings. These synonyms/synonymous phrases, however, will face the problem of equivalence in meaning since they can only be ‘similar’ and never the ‘same’ in meaning.
In science, the problems associated with incommensurability thesis arise here. The thesis responds to the belief that theories in science are ‘built’ upon each other, thereby implying that the concepts and entities referred to in one theory remain the ‘same’ when used in another theory, although in a different context. Incommensurability about theories maintains that it will not be possible, in general, to translate a term from an old scientific theory to a new one (because of the changing historical and differing social contexts in which the words first gained currency), if by translation is meant the complete carryover of meaning in these terms.

Interlingual Translation: involves rewriting a text in one language into another, thus converting a text written in the source language (SL) to one written in the target language (TL).
In science, when scientific texts get translated from one language to another it is interlingual translation. Scientific discourse is increasingly written in the language of English only fairly recently, and in the past, seminal works have been written in various other languages – German, Russian, and French, to name a few. It is indeed remarkable, notes Sarukkai, that these diverse texts in different languages have been rewritten and expressed in one language, English, with scarcely any mention of the problems present in translating from one language into another. They open up obvious questions such as why should the problems of translation not be present in translating scientific texts from other languages to English? Are the problems of equivalence, faithfulness, communication of meaning and so on not present in these texts? Or is it that they exist but are seen to be unimportant in the context of science? If so, who makes this judgment, and why?

Intersemiotic Translation: a translation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems – for example, articulating emotion through writing and portraying that same emotion through acting on stage in theatre; it is a translation on the multiple levels of semiotic systems – from one semiotic system (writing/textual) into another (acting/theatrical).
In science, scientific texts are essentially multisemiotic in nature, continuously moving from symbols to natural language (ordinary language used to write scientific discourses) and vice versa. Sarukkai draws attention to the fact that in the case of mathematics, there is always the ‘presence’ of intersemiotic translation in the way we continuously interpolate from symbols to natural language. The semiotic system of mathematics does not derive any meaning without prior reference to natural language. A ‘+’ symbol can function as addition only if it is interpreted (through natural language) as the act of adding elements to arrive at an accrued number. In reading and writing the scientific text, Sarukkai maintains, there is always a movement from one semiotic system to another. There is no other mechanism, other than translation, Sarukkai affirms, that can effectively explain how it is possible for us to generate ‘coherent’ meaning of such texts. The use of diagrams, figures, tables, charts, and so on are typically constituents of the scientific discourse that relates scientific activity to the concerns of intersemiotic translation.

Note 1: The common feature here between scientific discourse and translation, in the context of Jakobson’s classification, is that they share the problem of ‘complete equivalence’ – which is never possible for any of these three types.

Note 2: ‘Original’ for translation studies is a primary impulse and refers to the source text; for Science, it is the world as presented to us – hence science is also a translation.

While these ideas of translation studies are clearly present in scientific discourse, their presence appears to have been ‘erased’ – But how?

Understanding how science erases the presence of translation in intralingual translation: in opposition to the incommensurability thesis, the words that refer to objects allow for a common reference in different theories; these seem to function as ‘names’, thereby erasing the problem of equivalence. In this way, ‘names’ (when they are treated like proper names) do not get questioned but rather get ‘carried forward’ without debate. An ‘atom’, therefore, will remain an ‘atom’ regardless of the contextual implications it has gathered from its inception to date.

Understanding how science erases the presence of translation in interlingual translation: diverse texts in different languages have been re-written in English, but somehow problems of translation never gain attention. One reason, according to Sarukkai, is the subordinate position that natural languages are assigned in scientific discourse, privileging the language of mathematics; ‘insubstantial’ content (natural languages) Vs. ‘essential’ content (mathematical language).

Understanding how science erases the presence of translation in intersemiotic translation: scientific texts, for Sarukkai, prefer to gloss over the issue of translation to present a ‘unified’ text, as if the problem of translation across different semiotic systems is absent. Hence the tables and charts and diagrams are chosen to be read in conjunction with the supporting natural language texts, as one text in its entirety, rather than scrutinized in isolation.

Note: All three ways of erasing translation debates from science shows the idea of ‘invariance’ and the ‘invariant core’ (the unchanging essence), which are also ideas present in translation studies.

*Scientific texts are written in natural and symbolic languages – and also are not one uniform genre as is portrayed. Translation studies shows how the intermarriage of different genres is problematic and this too exists in science discourse, even if not paid adequate attention to.

*Since most scientific texts read like prose (introduction, chapter divisions…), Sarukkai uses Lawrence Venuti’s arguments of “minor literature” and “authorship” to understand scientific discourse better, especially in terms of articulating the tensions in translation.

Minor Literature: when a dominant standard dialect minoritizes its variables such as group/regional dialects, jargons etc. and foreignises the heterogeneity in favor of a dominant homogeneity, it creates a sense of ‘foreign-ness’ out of the heterogeneous minority. Although this ‘foreign’ component is very much a part of the dominant unit, it gets lost in translation and goes unnoticed.
In scientific discourse, the subjugation of natural language (as sub-text) in favor of the dominant mathematical language (which the discourse claims is the language of nature) can be seen as the ‘minor’ literature; and goes unnoticed in the process of translating the world.
For Venuti: “Good translation is minoritizing: it releases the remainder by cultivating a heterogeneous discourse, opening up the standard dialect and literary canons to what is foreign to themselves, to the substandard and the marginal.”

Authorship: Venuti speaks of authorship and legitimizing the ‘original’ in translation studies through the source text’s (legitimate) association with the ‘original’ author. In comparison, the translation is illegitimate in that it has an illegitimate association with the original author through the translator.
In scientific discourse, Sarukkai points out, scientists are never the original authors. They can only write, rewrite, and translate the world as original. The first authorship, the one who holds copyrights over the translation, is the world. Scientific discourse only opens up the text of the world, one that is already ‘written’.

In this sense, scientific discourse is always derivative and always a translation. Therefore, it is a ‘pseudotranslation’ in that it abdicates responsibility, and also bestows an ability to say something on somebody else’s behalf.

*Finally, Sarukkai uses the concept of ‘dubbing’ to draw parallels between science and literary concerns of translation. Dubbing presupposes the idea of an original and implies a translation that retains the ‘essence’, suggesting that in visual media, language plays a secondary role in comparison to the visuals in that it uses lip synchronization (visual) to cover up the dubbing (language) aspect. Dubbing also implies ‘multi-layering’ of texts – the larger question is, do all layers get translated? Or only the parts dominantly held as relevant?
In Scientific discourse too we see these parallels drawn by Sarukkai. Natural language plays a secondary role; multi-layers are seen through the multi-semiotic nature of the discourse, and the movement from one semiotic system to another involves the process of dubbing. Labeling of diagrams, figures and tables, for example, is similar to the process of sub-titling. Just as language is changed but the visuals are retained in dubbing, mathematical equations are many times retained but the ‘language’ related to the specific problems is changed.

Conclusion:
Thus, for Sarukkai, the task of reading of the world, as science undertakes, involves all these aspects of translation and needs to be studied in more detail to understand the sociological and philosophical nature of scientific discourse.

TRANSLATION STUDIES OUTSIDE THE LITERARY DOMAIN

(Class Note: 16 December, 2010)

Translation Studies as an academic discipline is still largely uncertain in terms of dwelling on the epistemology in translation. And this is probably one of the main reasons why translation is looked at as a secondary activity – derivative and dependent on the idea of an ‘original’ text. Translation Studies as a domain of knowledge production, too, has had very little scholarship. Also, nearly all translation theories are ‘literary theories’ which do not include translation questions regarding the Sciences.

As a result, during the translation studies classes, many questions regarding the scope of translation studies were raised with regard to whether it is limited only to the domain of literary studies or could it also be extended to all disciplines that used translations. More specifically, the aspect of translations within the Sciences was of special interest to the class. Would the politics of translation still be relevant to the domain of the Sciences? Is the scrutiny of problems in translation (especially political problems) a habit of the Social Sciences and not concerned with the Sciences? Is translation in Science, then, merely an act that will transfer content from one language to another and bypass the translation-problems associated with languages? Does that mean that scientific content is universal, objective and always translatable?

Going by Kantian epistemology, it appears to be so. Kantian philosophy is systematic and can be studied as distinct areas. They can be broadly classified based on his three seminal works as the areas of ‘Science’, ‘Ethics’, and ‘Aesthetics’: Critique of Pure Reason (structure of reason, metaphysics; ‘The Sciences’); Critique of Practical Reason (ethics; ‘The Social Sciences’); and Critique of Judgment (art, beauty, taste; ‘Aesthetics’). The discrete boundaries seem to avoid coinciding with one another. The Sciences will study matter (physics), changing matter (chemistry), matter that has life (botany), and matter that has life as well as consciousness (zoology). The Social sciences will be concerned with ethics; ‘how’ one must think, how one ‘can’ think. Aesthetics would look at how to experience pleasure and beauty of the arts without any value judgments. For Kant, philosophy doesn’t fit into any of these domains. Rather, philosophy will help reflect on these domains; hence, we have Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Social Sciences etc.

Traditionally, translation studies could be located within the domain of Aesthetics. The questions seemed to be roughly along the lines of whether the pleasure one got from the source text could be achieved in the same way in the translated text. Much of the theoretical discussions seem to be in the Aesthetic domain, which is not really about meaning but about aesthetic experience guised as meaning. However, there are the ethical questions that looks at the politics involved in translation, concerned with the domain of the Social Sciences. These kinds of questions seem not to encroach into the domain of the Sciences. This suggests that translation questions need to be different in the Kantian epistemology with regard to the Sciences as compared to those asked within Aesthetics and the Social Sciences. It also suggests that science translation should be easier since it is a descriptive domain. But if that is true, then why can’t science translation be universal?

It was in this context of reflecting on translation studies that the following questions/debates were raised in class:

*Should we translate science at all?
Well, Yes, because then theory/knowledge becomes accessible to that speech community, thereby allowing for further theory/knowledge production.

*Problems in science translation are different because it is a discipline entrained in experiment. So if the translation is wrong, the result will not be achieved or it may produce different results.

*Translating formulae seems to be problematic. Mathematical symbols and the number system have to become universalized in which case the target language may have to accommodate or even invent a different phonetic system to accommodate the formulae. For example, how would one translate E=mc2?

*Translation as a branch of linguistics can only be looked at in terms of a descriptive discipline (like Science) and cannot account for the questions of, say, ‘power’ coming from postcolonial studies because then, it goes into the domain of the social sciences which take up such questions.

Finally, it was strongly suggested that a study of translation theory be extended beyond the boundaries of literary translation debates and be compared with translation debates that exist within the other domains – especially that of the Sciences. One immediate proposal was to study work done by physicist and philosopher Sundar Sarukkai, such as “Translation and Science”. Perhaps crossing boundaries and venturing into different disciplines in this manner would be the key to unlocking the epistemological possibilities of translation studies.

The politics of post colonial translation - Harish Trivedi

the following is a write up on 'The politics of post colonial translation' by Rini Thomas
--------------

This particular excerpt discusses the politics of post colonial translation from hindi to english and vice-versa through the implications established by Harish Trivedi in his essay the politics of postcolonial translation. When postcolonial translation is discussed, the foremost idea that is to be addressed is, how it is crucial to assume not only chronological but also a qualitative difference between translations, both in the colonial and the postcolonial eras. This applies only to translations because the original literary works have a historical configuration which envisages the date of composition or publication. But in translations both the original text and the translated text have to be comprehended in terms of its historical co-ordinates. In doing so, there are a few questions which are addressed:
1) Are same kind of texts translated in postcolonial times?
2) Are different kinds of texts now beginning to be translated?
3) Whether the balance of cultural power is transacted in terms of reception and impact?
The process of translation involves interaction between two authors, languages, cultures and political implications. In this pretext the translating process is always a hegemonic one wherein the translation is superior and the source text is inferior as this is not just personal preference but also due to the impact set by the west (british). Coming to the point of discussion, in the act of translation when a literary work is being translated from hindi to english, the translator modifies, reframes and restructures the original work and the original author is falsified. The translations from hindi to english leave behind chunks of Indianness and this kind of a pattern is chosen by translators either foreign or Indian. This so happens in the ending of any literary work where the Indian sense gets subjugated and transfered to a western sense of ending.
Translations of a hindi text share common features of translatorial practices. This is a new formulation which is a whole culture into another. It identifies what gets translated and what may be sought to be translated. The cultural-national project of postcolonial translations in India have two contemporary aspects. They are translations of world literatures into hindi and translations from hindi to english. This is a politics of another kind. E.g. one of the hindi writers Rangey Raghav has translated fifteen Shakespearean works to hindi. Shakespeare is the most notable of all english writer. In translating Shakespeare’s works into hindi would bring in popularity and hindi gets a wider scope and wider audience. This is not because Rangey Ragav expressses his love of shakespeare but rather his love of hindi. Apart from this, there are many other young and rising hindi translators who have translated, the waste land by vishnu khare, the portrait of a lady by mohan rakesh, the stranger by rajendra yadav and many other writers discovered their talent as writers through translating such works of emminent European writers. In translating such works these translators bring home a remarkable power of conception by delineating human characters, European history to the sympathetic Indian reader. The next reason behind such kind of translations is becausee of the aspiration and desire than achievement or performance. Translating literary works from hindi to many other foreign languages not just english means that the history, the society, the culture of the language hindi has to get a global acclaimation.
Yet another reason behind Indian writers translating literary works from hindi to english and vice-versa is ultimately to reach beyond a larger readership. Sometimes there arises a question as to why many works from english have to be translated to hindi precisely because the readers get the original text than wait for the translated works. These are the different ‘politics’ that are discussed in this excerpt.

The History of Translation and its Trends in Thailand

the following write up on 'The History of Translation and its Trends in Thailand' is by Panom Kaewphadee
------------------

Translation can be traced back in terms of its origin to the time when the western powers spread their dominations around the world, and even earlier than that. Translation was a means to dominate and to learn about other cultures. Thailand, a country which supposedly has not been colonized, has its long history of translation from dealings with the western countries as well as its eastern neighbors. The need for translation in Thai history then arose with a necessity of communication with missionaries and representatives from many countries who either wanted to impose on the common people and the governing heads their influences or to do trades. The early forms of translation were mainly official documents to the royal governments or the kings themselves.
According to Ramayana: An Instrument of Historical Contact and Cultural Transmission between India and Asia (Desai, 1970), traces of Ramayana story were found as early as fourteenth century. These traces were mainly in the forms of temple architecture. It then implies that the Ramayana stories were translated to Thai earlier than fourteenth century and spread among the local population by means of oral traditions. The two epics from India; the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, are very important sources from which came Thai dance and art forms. It also means that the translations of religious texts like the Tripitakas from Pali into Thai were accomplished much earlier than that.
By the time of King Rama I’s reign, literatures from neighboring countries like China and Laos had already been well-known in Thailand, though they were mainly in oral forms. King Rama I ordered many well-known Chinese texts to be translated into Thai, chief among these texts was Sam Kok or Three Kingdoms. In the case of literature from Laos, many folktales were being circulated orally among the people of the northeastern highlands. It was not really translation which took place then. This is interesting in terms of language medium. Laos is the language spoken by the people who lived on the other side of the Mekong River which was also clearly understood by the people who populated the Thailand-side of the river. The literature from Laos which largely comprised Ramayana stories were blended in with the Thai Ramayana tradition, and became the most prominent topics of entertainment for the people.
In the reign of King Rama IV, there were already many foreigners in the royal court. These foreigners were in positions of power. They had influenced the king in terms of his innovative thinking. The king had sent many of his sons to be educated in England. One of these princes would later come to be known as King Rama V the Great who arranged his grand tour to European countries, and who brought an end to the slave systems. From then on, it was a tradition for the royal members to be sent to study in England or the US.
The reign of King Rama VI, the son of King Rama V, was called the Golden Age of Thai literature because it was blessed with the King’s talents and his interests in literature. The King himself had translated many texts ranging from Indian literature to English literature. We also see an emergence of novel as a genre in Thai literature with the first complete translation of Vandetta by Marie Corelli. King Rama VI also wrote many books dealing with Ramayana stories.
When we come to the reign of King Rama IX, or King Bhumibol, a large amount of Japanese literature has been translated into Thai, especially the unique Japanese genre called manga. These manga have been translated into Thai which has proved popular among the general population. What needs to be noted is the fact that only a few numbers of literary Japanese texts have been translated in Thai. The manga is much more popular. The most important of Japanese writers who has been translated is Haruki Murakami.
Apart from English, Chinese, and Japanese texts, we also see an emergence of texts dealing with philosophy being translated into Thai from the European languages like French, German, Italian, Russian and Spanish. A few examples of these texts are Cervantes’ Don Quixote from the Spanish, Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose from the Italian and Tolstoy’s War and Peace. These texts are mostly directly translated from their original languages with an exception for War and Peace which has been translated from an English translation.
With the trend of Korean romance becoming prominent among Thai youngsters, we find new translators emerging in a large number. These new faces in a field of translation target the young Thais. The translational products of these translators are often met with skeptical scornful comments from critics of the literary circle. The critics’ argument is that the translated texts produced by the young translators from Korean romance lack language efficiency and often appeal only to the young, mainly college and school girls. These texts lose their original meanings and flavors in the process of translations.
In a recently held seminar on translation and interpretation in Bangkok, a group of famous and well known writers and interpreters, along with experts in the field of translations, compares the positions of writers and translators in the literary and academic circles. Texts produced by writers and those which have been translated are held in the same position. One of the translators in the said seminar pointed out that writers are those who chronicle events in the society, translators, on the other hands, are those who ‘transmit’ messages from one culture to another. Thus translation is an important practice which requires the practitioners to be efficient in many aspects. A translator needs to have a thorough knowledge of the source language and also that of the target language. A translator needs to have flexibility while he is in the process of translation.
In comparison to literary texts scientific texts are rarely translated into Thai. For example, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has not been translated into Thai at all. On the other hand, works of Charles Darwin and Shakespeare have been found to be translated into Thai since the reign of King Rama VI. The king himself had rendered the play The Merchant of Venice of Shakespeare into Thai verses. Scientific texts are translated and used in academic syllabuses but otherwise it is rarely done. The scientific texts that get translated are those which have attracted the general readers, and those which do not deal with too difficult topics. The obstacles of translating scientific texts stem from the unique jargons used in those texts. It is often observed that jargons get translated and sometimes they are left as they are in the languages they were first written.
Throughout the history of translation in Thailand, there is a few works translated into other languages. A novel by the so-called Queen of Thai fictions Dhamayantri, Koo Kam was translated into English as Sunset at Chaophraya and also into Japanese. An award-winning The Happiness of Kati has been translated into English, Japanese and French. Another example is a political novel by the former Prime Minister of Thailand Krukrit Pramoj, Four Reigns. The novel has been both translated into English in unabridged and abridged versions in which parts of the story are cut. This leads to a trend that only the popular and award-winning books get translated, and the translation is done by native English speakers or, in some cases, with the help of the authors.
In conclusion, the trends of translation in Thailand lie heavily on domesticating the translated texts. The critics and translators in general agree that a translated text should be made to contain elements of the culture and language into which it is being translated, and at the same time retain its values and contents. The Thai critics and translators emphasize on the beautification of language. The language used should read smoothly and not to have a sense of foreign language in it that it is rendered unintelligible.
In recent years, many of the Thai fictions have had the opportunity of being translated into English or one or two of the far-eastern languages. It is hoped that in future the Thai literature would take its place in world literatures through means of translations.

References

Desai, Santosh N. “Ramayana: An Instrument of Historical Contact and Cultural Transmission between India and Asia.” The Journal of Asian Studies 30.1 (1970): 5-20. Web. 6 February 2011.
Jantasoka, Ponchai. “The Confession of Niida, in the world of Literature.” Life Style: Read & Write (2010) Bangkok Business. Web. 7 February 2011.
Panyapayatjati, Chatchawan. “Translated Works and Works of Fiction.” ArtGazinesArticles (2010). Web. 7 February 2011.

Contemporary Trends and Debate of Translation in Thailand

the following write up on 'Contemporary Trends and Debate of Translation in Thailand' is by Rungkan Leelasopawut
-------------

Translation, both commercially and literally, is an activity that is growing phenomenally in today’s globalized world. The study of translation, an interdisciplinary field known as Translation studies, has also developed enormously in the past twenty years. It interfaces with a wide range of other disciplines from linguistics to modern languages and Cultural studies and post-colonialism. With regard to the importance of translation in the globalization era, this paper aims to outline the trends and debate regarding the translation studies in the contemporary Thailand.
Translation of foreign texts into Thai had been manifested a long time ago. Such manifestations can be located in many Thai classical literary texts. The essential theme of these texts was often associated with aspects pertaining to religion and drama. However, characteristics of Thai classical literature resulted from the contact with southern China, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Laos, and Vietnam. Hence, what we know as Thai classical literature today is in fact the adaptation of her neighboring countries’ literatures rather than purely her own established literature. Such literatures tend to reveal the Thai cultures which have been influenced by other cultures. For instance, the varied Indian and Chinese cultures. Most of the Thai classical literatures are written in verse in different patterns.
The most prominent and well known Thai classical literatures consist of five different stories. These are The Romance of Khun Chang Khun Phaen, the Ramakian, the Romance of Inao, Sam Kok, and Phra Aphaimani. Among these texts, only The Romance of Khun Chang Khun Phaen, was composed based on pure Thai culture. The remaining were translated from Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, and western languages such as French and English.
Overview of the history of Thai classical literatures provides us the knowledge of most of Thai classical literatures which are borrowed from foreign literatures. Hence this duty significant information implies that the translation have long been practiced in Thailand for many centuries past. Although there were traces of translation in Thailand for many centuries, very few discussions regarding the history of translation, or its contemporary trends and debate on translation in Thailand have been published. However, for a certainly none have been discussed as an academic discipline until the present time, in part because so few people are active in this particular area. It would be hard to list out the number of Thai people who translate Thai literature into English or other languages. However, we could see a further number of Thai people translating foreign literatures into Thai language. If little is being discussed, as a result, even less is being published. This can be explained by the lack of awareness of Thailand and its literature in the world, at large.
In modern days, globalization seems to be the most prominent word which has a significant role of acting as catalyst to motivation or to drive us into the world of technology and computerized space. The impact of globalization also invades the space of translation as well, particularly in the translation space in Thailand. The impact of globalization is the functional determinant for the translator to choose “what to translate” and “to whom the translation is meant for”.
In Thailand, the paradigm shift of translation have been clearly presented through the corresponding selection of literary genre. In the past, many translated literatures in Thailand were generally dealing with religious and cultural themes, Buddhism and Hinduism in predominating over several others. Afterwards however, Western literature was introduced into the country, ever since, there have been constant translations mostly through the medium of English. More recently however, there has arisen a quest to write Thai novels and short stories in the Western style, some of Shakespeare's works such as Romeo and Juliet, The Merchant of Venice, and also a number of English and French plays. Many of them were adapted and staged, giving an impetus to a new kind of performance. Hence we will see many Thai literatures being translated from English and Sanskrit classical dramas, for instance, Sakuntala and Savitri. We could say that through the earlier kings’ geniuses and influences, a new era of Thai literature has evolved and developed up until now. However, this trends have been transcended/ been given a makeshift, As such, modern Thai readers tend to read the translated novels which have themes based on romance or thrillers, action packaged or etc.
In the present day, it is increasingly noted that many Thai individuals are taking marked interest in reading translated versions of the vampire romance of Stephanie Meyer's Twilight Saga, thriller stories; these are similar to those of Dan Brown's history-related mysteries, such as, cooking books, children's picture books, and Thai cultural heritage books. These makeshift trends of the readers’ interest from religious classical literary texts such as Ramakien to romance such as the Twilight Saga, and from Sanskrit to English and other European languages could be a possible the impact of globalization.
Today, translation need not be the sole means for the translation of literary texts. Plenty will be seen also a lot more in terms of the translation for business purposes. The source and target language of translation can nonetheless be varies. For instance, in Thailand, the upcoming of Japanese and Korean as target languages in translation is popular. This is because of business expansion in today’s world. Hence, we also see the shift of the translation purposes from entertainment to business and economic development in the competitive world we all live in at the present.
In the light of the argument above, we finally arrive at the significant axiom, Is there Any Debate of Translation in Thailand? The answer for this is “Yes, there is.” The reason for this is the recent, mode of effective translation which has been the focal point of the debate, for many critics regarding the translation in Thailand. In western world, over several centuries there has been a debate about how the text should be translated. Some may suggest that the text should be translated word to word, some suggest for sense to sense translation, and some for literal translation. In Thailand, A literal or "word for word" translation cannot be applied for the translation of foreign language into Thai or the other way around. If a translator tries to translate a saying or motto from English to Thai, that translated sentence would certainly end up being completely out of context which could possibly border on the nonsensical when read in Thai from English.
A translation of Thai verse into English is also another hot debate in the present time. There would be not much problem for Thai translator to translate other foreign poems into Thai verse, but it will not be practical for a foreign translator to transform Thai verses into English or any other languages. Many people could translate Japanese or Chinese literature into English, and they would succeed in doing it. But in terms of Thai verses, certainly few foreign translators could succeed in transforming the aesthetics of Thai verses into foreign languages. If they happen to translate Thai verses into English or other languages’, the result is the loss of either “content” or “form”. This is because very rarely translator could keep the balance between these two extremes when they translate Thai verses into foreign languages.
Error in translation is another aspect in the debate of translation in Thailand at the present time. Based on Nitaya Suksaeresup’s research on the error on translation, this paper aims at finding the sources of errors in translating from English to Thai. It is postulated that there are two major sources: the translator's erroneous reading of the English text and misinterpretation of English lexical meaning. The first one involves misunderstanding of the English text, while the second involves wrong propositional and expressive meanings.
Machine translation is another interesting topic for the debate on translation in the present scenario. This debate is not being discussed only in the Western part of the world but also a hot debate of translation in Thailand as well. Therefore the general outline of the debate on machine translation in Thailand is similar to the West. In Thailand, Translation shifted its focus dramatically from the translation of literary texts to other kinds of text and electronic Media as well. Today, we see that not only literary texts have been translated but also the movies, films and other kind of Thai texts. The replacement of the machine in translation has created a lot of difference between human translator and machine translator. This gives rise to the question whether machine translators could replace human translators? In Thailand, the problem with machine translation is that it cannot give a proper translation of the texts or movies. The machine tends to translate from word to word which the readers or the audiences could not make sense out of the translated text. Sometimes, the translated text has the meaning which seems to be out of context. The problems in machine translation form English to Thai or Thai to English can be found such as complex sentences cannot be translated, less vocabularies in the translation system, and the ambiguity between sentences and noun phrases is still unsolvable.
Generally, it is easy to translate foreign language into Thai language but it is more difficult to do otherwise. Machine translation is helpful but somehow it cannot give a better translation than what a human translator can give through accurate sound effects and expressions. The problems of translation in Thailand are mostly the same everywhere else.
Therefore, the contemporary trends of translation in Thailand are clearly shown that its shift has occurred because of the influence of globalization. Globalization is considered to be a major factor which has influences the shift of translation genre from past to present, the shift of the source language from Pali and Chinese to English and French and other languages, the shift of reader’s interest from traditional literature which has religious and cultural themes to western romance like Vampire romance etc. In terms of the debate on translation in Thailand, we see that the topics which are being discussed are not different than the debates on translation theory in the west.

Tagore’s Gitanjali and self translation

the following write up on 'Tagore's Gitanjali and self traanslation' is by Kusumika Mitra

------------------

Homi Bhaba in his ‘The Location of Culture’ quotes Walter Benjamin and says that “Translation passes through continua of transformation, not abstract ideas of identity and similarity”. Thus according to Walter Benjamin there can never be anything like a perfect translation and in turn nothing called an ideal translator. Benjamin believes that translation is not about similarity but a transformation. This same theory can be applied to even in the field of self translation. Literary self translation like translation itself is a process in which a text is translated from the source language to the target language with the only exception that the author of the text becomes the translator of the text. Since the source text is created by the author himself, it is not wrong to believe that the author should have a command over the text and thus if he is expected to translate his work, he should be able to do so perfectly since he has the best knowledge of the text. This however does not happen. Rabindranath Tagore’s Gitanjali is an example of the myth that self translation is the ideal translation.

Gitanjali is a collection of one hundred and three verses that the poet himself translated. Much has already been debated on the reasons behind these translations and on whether he deserved the Nobel Prize or not. However from the perspective of self translation it would not be out of place to try and locate Gitanjali as a piece of self translated work and try and understand through it, the politics of self translation. The first verse in the Bengali text reads:

Amare tumi ashesh korecho

Emni leela tobo

Furiye fele abare bhorecho

Jeebon nobo nobo

Tagore translated the same verse in English as:

Thou hast made me endless, such is thy pleasure

This frail vessel thou emptiest again and again,

And fillest it ever with fresh life.

When we try and compare the two verses, we see that though he has been successful in maintaining the overall meaning, he has made certain compromises and changes. First and foremost the structure of the verse itself has changed drastically. While writing in Bengali, he has used a rhyme scheme of abab; however while translating he does away with this rhyme scheme. Also ‘pleasure’ is not an equivalent translation of the Bengali word ‘leela’. ‘Leela’ is a religious term and is used to commonly refer to god’s game play with the human race and not so much pleasure. Another observation is his use of metaphors while translating into English. ‘jeebon’ (life) is translated as ‘frail vessel’. Going back to talking about the structure in verse XXX he takes two lines to express what he writes in five lines in Bengali.

Saathe saathe ke chole mor

Nirob anukaare

Chadate chai onek kore

Ghure feli, jaye je shore

Mone kori aapod geche

Aabar dekhi tare

The above lines he translates into English in just three lines:

But who is this that follows me in the silent dark?

I move aside to avoid his presence

But I escape him not.

This can be because of the fact that it is believed that Tagore gave more importance to ideas than to the structural framework. Thus he emphasized more on the lyrical qualities.

One of the main aims of translation (be it self- translated or not), is to convey the message as accurately as possible. When we read Gitanjali in English, it is very evident through words like ‘thou’, ‘thee’, ‘thy’ etc, that the verses are addressed to God. They can be seen as hymns or even prayers for God. However when we read the Bengali version of the same, we cannot dismiss the verses as just hymns sung to the almighty. They can also be seen as songs or poems written for a beloved. There is no archaism or loftiness in the way the verses have been written in Bengali. The tone is informal. Thus though the source text (Gitanjali written in Bengali in this case) can be interpreted in more than one way, Tagore consciously constructs the English translation in such a way that not many interpretations can be possible. One of the possible reasons behind this can be that Tagore was very concerned about his target audience (the west). He was aware that the west saw India as a land of mysticism. He wanted to build on it and thus we find Gitanjali (the English translation) to be full of mysticism and spiritual thoughts.

After reading his English translations, it would not be wrong to think that Tagore was keener on expressing his emotions rather than strictly translating his Bengali work. Thus he does not follow any particular pattern of translation. While translating some verses he follows a word to word translation, whereas on other occasions he follows the method of paraphrasing. Many critics believe that Tagore feared that the west would not be able to understand the cultural nuances of his country and thus he chose simple English word that though would not accurately match the Bengali one, would however succeed in putting across his emotions to the western readers.

Hence, Tagore as a self translator takes a lot of liberties while translating. His English version of the Gitanjali is less of a translation of the Bengali text and can be considered more of a trans- creation. Tagore’s Gitanjali contributes to the larger debate of whether self- translation is the ideal translation and it also questions the stance that the author/translator takes while translating his own work.

Guidelines for Writing New Articles in Wikipedia

Hi MA English Cultural Theory and Translation Studies Students,
Please go through the following links before you start writing articles in Wikipedia on the essays assigned to you as part of CIA 2.
1. Wikipedia Guidelines on writing wiki articles
2. WikiHow resource on How to Write a Wikipedia Article
3. Howcast video on how to create a Wikipedia article.
4. eHow resource on creating a new Wikipedia article
5. An article from searchengineguide

MEL 435a Translation Studies - MA English with Communication Studies Course Plan 2010-2011

Alloted Hours
Mon: 3-4
Wed:2-3
Thu: 12-1
Fri: 10-11



MEL 435a Translation Studies course plan. Click here to download.

Suggestions for a Prposed Centre for Translation

Following are the suggestions I had sent to a friend of mine who is planning to set up a Centre for Translation. I post the suggestion here so that similar such initiatives may find these suggestions useful.

-----

1. Translation of works: literary, scientific, sacred, theoretical/philosophical. To the best of my knowledge no translation centre in India has taken such a broad-based approach to translations. You could be not only the pioneer, but may also inspire such works in the future in different Bhasha languages.
2. Translation training workshops for different groups: teachers- local language and English, local language and state language, local language and French to translation texts from respective languages. The other groups could be students, youth, women, folk singers etc.
3. I hope the centre does not fall in the trap of only translating to the local language. At least in the literary realm the flow should be two ways.
4. Translation workshop of local language texts. You can invite translators from different languages- official and other – and put them in a week’s workshop or so during which they should translate at least one local language work in consultation with the local language writers, translators or scholars to their respective languages. Publication of such works needs to be followed up.
5. A similar workshop to translate works from other languages to the local language can also be thought of.
6. For literary texts, translate from diverse cultures: Afrikan, Latin American, Asia, Middle East, not necessarily from the dominant languages. This will enrich the local language further. The translations could also be done from the English versions.
7. Produce research on translation per se and translation in the local language
8. Evolve a textbook/coursebook for translation in the local language.
9. Build/develop resources for translation. This could be dictionaries, thesaurus, grammar books, books on translation studies, primary texts for translation, in the form of printed texts, videos, digital material. You need not necessarily buy them. You could request for photocopies from different individual – a cost effective and quicker way to build resources.
10. All the print publications should also be published simultaneously in the digital format on the centre’s website so that access to knowledge is made more democratic. It also ensures much wider reach. You could also publish them in scholarly databases such as Eprints
11. You could also get scholars to research on local cultural, social, political issues,  biodiversity, folklore and publish them in both the local language and translation.
12. There could be weekly two evening meetings. One, where people working with the centre present their work-in-progress and second, where invited speakers interact with the people at the centre on their on going research. The second category of people can be made to interact via skype or dimdim, which would take care of both financial constraints, logistic problems as well as give access to wider range of scholars.
13. You could have discussions with  Tejaswini Nirajana at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, who are also working in the area of translation to address the major issue of language divide in the context of higher education in India. They have come up with some fascinating insights on the translation scene, which would be beneficial to as well. 

More important than all the above….

One, translation projects of this nature can easily become tools of ulterior political agendas. For the example, the present centre can become a tool to subordinate regionalism to lager nation agendas of the state. While on the one hand it can be seen as a positive move, what one needs to be careful is the nature of such integration. In the process it should not be a situation where the national language, dominant cultures and religious outlooks are thrust on the region.

Two, translations in India have been largely thought of as literary translations. It is important to break that mode of approach. People who have tried to break that have landed into another trap, i.e., asking literary scholars to translate works in sociology, political theory and so on. Such practices have rendered translations highly unintelligible to the target audience.

A third issue is much more nuanced. Most translations in India have, easily and unintentionally, become Sanskritic. As a result, they sound very different to the general speakers of the language who are unable to connect to the text. Greater care needs to be taken of this aspect.

Four, the centre might do more productive work if it does not limit itself to Nepali. Instead, if it is able to simultaneously address the divides and histories of the indigenous tribes and take a more sensitive and nuances stand, it might preserve much more than breed more mono-cultural living and understanding at the cost of smaller and less politically visible communities. Taking into consideration the multi-lingual environment of Nepali, Tibetan, English, Hindi, and Bengali and also the contesting, dominating relationships between them would be more historically and ethically interventionist rather than trusting a single understanding into the programmes of the centre.