Response Paper on Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation by Maria Tymoczko
In Post-colonial Writing and Literary Translation, Maria Tymockzo sets out to explore the commonalities and differences between literary translations and post-colonial writing. The first difference she points out at is that the post-colonial writers are not just transposing a text like the translators are but that they ground their work on an entire culture, which is composed of a language, a cognitive system, a literature, a material culture, a social system, a legal framework , a history and so forth (1999:20). Tymoczko, who defines the translator’s domain, i.e. the source-text, as somewhat limited compared to that of the post-colonial writer, goes on to explain that as far as their tasks are concerned the two “writers” share a similarity in that while the translator deals with a text, the post-colonial writer tackles with a metatext of culture itself. (1999:21)
In the sense of such a “metatext”, Tymoczko argues that the post-colonial writer is fairly free in choosing which cultural elements to reflect in his/her work as opposed to the translator, who is bound by some parameters of constraint since s/he deals with a “fixed text” which includes various cultural and linguistic givens and thus leaving him/her with the problem of “faithfulness” (1999:21) Dealing with a source text which is already dense with cultural elements specific to the source culture, the translator may either end up with an “obscured or muted” (1999:21) text and be less faithful or produce a text that carries the risk of overflowing with information which might be difficult for the receiving audience to digest. Then, the translator is presented with a set of choices as to which elements to preserve (or not) in translation (1999:22) just like the post-colonial writer who makes decisions as to which cultural elements to elevate or assimilate, which I believe is an argument that may be extended as to re-evaluate both the translator’s and the post-colonial writer’s role as decision makers as well as cultural experts. In that sense, I believe that although Tymoczko seems to be constantly drawing attention to the distinctions between the translated and post-colonial writing, she, at the same time, implies that they are actually not that far from each other in that they share the same constraints brought upon by their intercultural nature. Yet again, the fact that both of these types of intercultural writing make use of the paratextual elements, such as footnotes, introductions, critical essays and maps in order to be more explanatory for the receiving end, (1999:22) indicates another similarity in the strategies employed by their writers while also pointing at a need for filling in the gaps that emerge from linguistic and cultural constraints, especially in the case of translations. This brings along the issue of “complete” translation. For Tymoczko, it is impossible to render a source text fully with every bit of its aspects and that the “obligatory shifts”, in Anton Popovic’s terms, are inevitable due to either linguistic aspects or unfamiliar cultural features of the source text that leaves the translator with great information load. (1999:23)
Tymoczko goes on to draw an analogy between the translator’s rewriting of a text and minority-culture writer’s representing the home culture in a metatext, stating that just like translations post-colonial writings cannot transpose everything in the literary format they choose(1999:23). The selection of features of a particular source text by the translator, such as his/her privileging genre or form over those of content or language is just as valid in the case of post-colonial writers, who will tend to simplify their work to be more “clear” via elevating some aspects of the home culture over others. (1999:24) As a result, the source text gets rewritten in various ways in the hands of different translators, just like the source culture gets rewritten by its writers, leading to various different interpretations.
Another strategy adopted by the writers of post-colonial texts, which is addressed by Tymoczko is that customs, beliefs and myths which might be unfamiliar for the prospective target readers from a dominant culture tends to be explained explicitly, like in translations. However, if the work is intended for an audience that shares the same culture, those aspects generally remain implicit. (1999:28) In the former situation, both translators and post-colonial writers end up with texts full of unintelligible material to the international readers, thus necessitating what Andre Lefevere prefers to call “professional readers”, who are equipped with enough knowledge to decode but only make up a small part of the readers’ world. As far as the latter strategy is concerned, there is always the possibility of producing texts with large amounts of explicit information, (1999:29) which always carries the risk of tiring the reader away, thus reaching a small minority again. Finally, I think that Tymoczko rightfully refers to a somewhat neglected fact regarding the reception of post-colonial writings and their translations in the literary world. She deems it ironic that cultural elements preserved and conveyed through linguistically and stylistically inventive ways developed by the post-colonial author receives praise while the same tactic employed by the translators faces rejection. (1999:36). In that respect, I agree with Tymoczko and believe that re-evaluation of translation strategies and their dynamics through an analysis of post-colonial literature can lead to a better understanding of the translator’s role as a decision maker and rewriter, whose rendition of the source text can be just as powerful as the author in shaping or reshaping the image of the culture it belongs to.
References:
Tymoczko, M., “Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation” in Post-Colonial Translation Theory and Practice (edited by Bassnett S. and Trivedi H.), Routledge, London and New York:1999.
In Post-colonial Writing and Literary Translation, Maria Tymockzo sets out to explore the commonalities and differences between literary translations and post-colonial writing. The first difference she points out at is that the post-colonial writers are not just transposing a text like the translators are but that they ground their work on an entire culture, which is composed of a language, a cognitive system, a literature, a material culture, a social system, a legal framework , a history and so forth (1999:20). Tymoczko, who defines the translator’s domain, i.e. the source-text, as somewhat limited compared to that of the post-colonial writer, goes on to explain that as far as their tasks are concerned the two “writers” share a similarity in that while the translator deals with a text, the post-colonial writer tackles with a metatext of culture itself. (1999:21)
In the sense of such a “metatext”, Tymoczko argues that the post-colonial writer is fairly free in choosing which cultural elements to reflect in his/her work as opposed to the translator, who is bound by some parameters of constraint since s/he deals with a “fixed text” which includes various cultural and linguistic givens and thus leaving him/her with the problem of “faithfulness” (1999:21) Dealing with a source text which is already dense with cultural elements specific to the source culture, the translator may either end up with an “obscured or muted” (1999:21) text and be less faithful or produce a text that carries the risk of overflowing with information which might be difficult for the receiving audience to digest. Then, the translator is presented with a set of choices as to which elements to preserve (or not) in translation (1999:22) just like the post-colonial writer who makes decisions as to which cultural elements to elevate or assimilate, which I believe is an argument that may be extended as to re-evaluate both the translator’s and the post-colonial writer’s role as decision makers as well as cultural experts. In that sense, I believe that although Tymoczko seems to be constantly drawing attention to the distinctions between the translated and post-colonial writing, she, at the same time, implies that they are actually not that far from each other in that they share the same constraints brought upon by their intercultural nature. Yet again, the fact that both of these types of intercultural writing make use of the paratextual elements, such as footnotes, introductions, critical essays and maps in order to be more explanatory for the receiving end, (1999:22) indicates another similarity in the strategies employed by their writers while also pointing at a need for filling in the gaps that emerge from linguistic and cultural constraints, especially in the case of translations. This brings along the issue of “complete” translation. For Tymoczko, it is impossible to render a source text fully with every bit of its aspects and that the “obligatory shifts”, in Anton Popovic’s terms, are inevitable due to either linguistic aspects or unfamiliar cultural features of the source text that leaves the translator with great information load. (1999:23)
Tymoczko goes on to draw an analogy between the translator’s rewriting of a text and minority-culture writer’s representing the home culture in a metatext, stating that just like translations post-colonial writings cannot transpose everything in the literary format they choose(1999:23). The selection of features of a particular source text by the translator, such as his/her privileging genre or form over those of content or language is just as valid in the case of post-colonial writers, who will tend to simplify their work to be more “clear” via elevating some aspects of the home culture over others. (1999:24) As a result, the source text gets rewritten in various ways in the hands of different translators, just like the source culture gets rewritten by its writers, leading to various different interpretations.
Another strategy adopted by the writers of post-colonial texts, which is addressed by Tymoczko is that customs, beliefs and myths which might be unfamiliar for the prospective target readers from a dominant culture tends to be explained explicitly, like in translations. However, if the work is intended for an audience that shares the same culture, those aspects generally remain implicit. (1999:28) In the former situation, both translators and post-colonial writers end up with texts full of unintelligible material to the international readers, thus necessitating what Andre Lefevere prefers to call “professional readers”, who are equipped with enough knowledge to decode but only make up a small part of the readers’ world. As far as the latter strategy is concerned, there is always the possibility of producing texts with large amounts of explicit information, (1999:29) which always carries the risk of tiring the reader away, thus reaching a small minority again. Finally, I think that Tymoczko rightfully refers to a somewhat neglected fact regarding the reception of post-colonial writings and their translations in the literary world. She deems it ironic that cultural elements preserved and conveyed through linguistically and stylistically inventive ways developed by the post-colonial author receives praise while the same tactic employed by the translators faces rejection. (1999:36). In that respect, I agree with Tymoczko and believe that re-evaluation of translation strategies and their dynamics through an analysis of post-colonial literature can lead to a better understanding of the translator’s role as a decision maker and rewriter, whose rendition of the source text can be just as powerful as the author in shaping or reshaping the image of the culture it belongs to.
References:
Tymoczko, M., “Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation” in Post-Colonial Translation Theory and Practice (edited by Bassnett S. and Trivedi H.), Routledge, London and New York:1999.
1 yorum:
Dear Deniz,
Your response is indeed informative regarding the content of the article you are tackling here. What lacks, though, is your personal view on the subject. You seem to agree with many of the points that Tymoczko raises and I also agree that her article draws attention to a potentially fruitful parallelism. However, many of the aspects of post-colonial writing may also be valid for literature in general. For instance, the idea of decision-making by the part of the translator/writer and the foregrounding of certain cultural elements. Isn't this valid for all writing?
Yorum Gönder