Dear Gomatam Mohana Charyulu,

Gutt's theory of translation recognizes two trends in translation; namely, source text orientation and target text orientation. There are translators who adhere and stick to idiosyncratic features of the original text highlighting what Venuti  calls " translator's visibility ". By contrast, there are translators who adopt a target text orientation stepping beyond linguistic models and resorting to cultural models of translation making the translator invisible. The proponents of lexical/formal correspondence and semantic models of translation abhor translators' violation of faithfulness to the original language (e.g., Catford &Newmark ). However, scholars like Even Zohar and Gideon Toury  adopting a poly-system theory of translation believe that translation shifts are not errors; rather, they are part of a process which is embedded in two different world cultures. It is true that the literature of every nation has its own specifications and  canonical forms and they are all worthy of attention. However, translation of literature from one language into another involves an inter-systemic rivalry so that certain forms become obsolete in target language because of socuiocultual facts.As such, translation of literature should not involve a slavish reproduction, rather; a version, imitation, or adaptation. On this basis, you are right to impose shifts based on your own target language cultural specifications if such changes are justified ( see also works by Snell- Hornby ; Bassnet and Lefevere).

Best of luck,

R. Biria

Reza has good comments.

From the "ordinary person" perspective, I think that the reader of literature wants the story to be faithful to the original. But most people understand that a precise literal translation is probably not the most readable.  Translate the ideas faithfully, but make artistic use of language to do this.  

I definitely agree with freedom in translation as long as it doesn't change the original meaning/idea.

There is now quite a lot of literature available on domestication and foreignization (see e.g. Outi Paloposki's article on this topic in Handbook of Translation Studies vol. 2, ed. by Yves Gambier & Luc van Doorslaer, 2011).

I don't think that it's possible to give a single, unconditional answer to Gomatam's question about whether "they accept" such domesticating adaptations in the west; rather, it seems to me that this is one those issues that need to be considered on a case by case basis, there sometimes being an explicit prohibition on the part of the commissioning party "not to change anything when translating" while in some other cases translators may be asked to adapt their translations as they see fit to make the emerging target text as easily comprehensible as possible.

Anyway, I truly enjoyed reading the comments above.

Best,

Pertti

Dear friends, I am very happy and overjoyed with your prompt reply. thank you all. I would like to add another point to my previous question. hoping the same response. Translators freedom, sometimes, overlap the ideas of the SL and give a way to misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the original text. Original text of  Megasthenes "INDICA" is not available any where in the world. But there are many translation of the such a book in various languages of the world. I wonder !!! Very very wonderful thing is most of the historians in India take "INDICA" as a base for history. wikipedia says,"Indika (Greek: Ἰνδικά; Latin: Indica) is an account of Mauryan India by Megasthenes. The original book is now lost, but its fragments have survived in later Greek and Latin works. The earliest of these works are those by Diodorus Siculus, Strabo (Geographica), Pliny, and Arrian (Indica)". My point is can we take a translation as a source for our argument on historical or literary issues?

Dear Gomatam,

There is a difference between translation and adaptation. In the Roman era, Greek works were sometimes rewritten by the author in his own terms in the name of translation; but this was more of adaptation rather than translation. Greek literary works have been adapted into various cultures. In that case the theme remains or basic message remains, but the names of characters, the idioms, etc are all adapted to the new environment or culture. Such adaptations would bear the name of the new writer not that or the original writer. 

The modern trend in translation proper is fidelity or faithfulness to the original (source) text and language. Therefore, I find no justification in altering the idiomatic or figurative texture of the source text, not to talk of altering the theme. I believe the translator ought to retain the theme or other literary dimensions of the original. If s/he wants to an adaptation, them let him/her declare it so. Even when the source text is anonymous (as possible with the Sanskrit texts), the translator still owes it a duty to retain the contents and style of the original. This is what s/he owes the source text and the reader who would like to see how the original text really was like. Otherwise, let him/her call it an adaptation, not a translation.

Wishing you well.

While I agree with Diri I Teilanyo that there is a difference between translation and adaptation, I'm not sure that there is any one "modern trend in translation proper". If you look at the available literature on translation studies - a lot of which is written by people who are also practicising translators - you can readily ascertain that fidelity to the source text (or even to the source culture) is not always the main goal.

This is so especially in those cases where the translator chooses to or is required to translate a text in a way which lays emphasis on the eventual functionality and/or cultural/social comprehensibility of the target text, in which case such a goal-oriented translation is deliberately made to deviate in selected respects from the source text. For a brief introduction to this skopos theory of translation, see e.g. Christina Schäffner's article Skopos theory in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (1998 or later). For some more detailed accounts of functional, goal-oriented translation in a skopos theoretical framework, see e.g. Christiane Nord, Translation as a purposeful activity (Manchester: St. Jerome, 1997) or Jeremy Munday, Introducing translation studies: theories and applications (Routledge, 4th ed., 2016). For one explicit juxtaposition of fidelity and functionality through change, please see Christiane Nord, "Function and Loyalty in Bible Translation" in Apropos of Ideology (ed. by María Calzada Pérez, Routledge, 2003).

As regards the question of whether translations can serve as sources of arguments on historical or literary issues, I think translations have served this function on a number of occasions for quite some time. For example, many classical Greek texts only survive in translations, and we still debate various social, historical and literary issues on the basis of those translations. Of course, in these cases there is always the caveat that the arguments presented are based on what we believe are reasonably accurate or correct or appropriate translations...

As any translation is the fact of literary tradition in its own language - it has to be adequate first of all to this tradition. If this means any deviation from original - than it means so. With all the effort to be as polite to the original as possible.

There's a saying in Italian: traduttore, traditore. This implies that whoever embarks on a translation often will betray the original text. I agree with the idea of an adaptation which is something that we see in movies that are based on literary works. The director, in this case, can take as much liberty as he or she wishes since the film is merely based on the work and does not purport to translate it. This is not the case with literary translation where all attempts possible should be made to preserve the intent of the author's work, which must be carefully discerned and presented in the translation. The idea is to preserve the meaning while also trying to give a good indication of the style of the author.. The best way to do this is to study critical works about the work being translated, if such works are available, and have a good understanding of the historical and social background of the text, which invariably are present.

I think the translator must keep close to the original text within their reach (translation, adaptation, paraphrase, explanatory footnotes, etc.). So that he does not replace the author, but add his personal note to translation (that is why great works are translated periodically into the culture of humanity, each translation bringing something new, something special to the original text). By following two parallel translations (and having access to the original language ...) we can more easily appreciate the effort, success or loss of a translator or another in this titanic work. Finally, without wanting to minimize the work of translators, essential, vital to any culture, we must not forget that the author of Iliad is Homer, or that Cervantes wrote Don Quixote, etc., and not the dozens, the hundreds of translators…

I would like to comment on both questions. Since there still is no unified standard of "good" or "quality" translation in the vast field of Translation Studies and the individual scholars and their theories often contradict each other, there is no definite answer to the "healthy" extent of adjustments or shifts employed by the translator (with literary texts in mind, of course). I personally quite like the notion of Popovič and his shifts on the micro- and macro- stylistic level of the text, but see those still as a sort of guide to my personal decision-making. When dealing with the texts from more distant history, you have always have to account for the effect this very translation is to achieve - whether to stay true to the original as much as possible to convey the maximum of the source text features, or make the meaning and message come through to the target audience and make them enjoy reading the ancient text in a language they can understand without feeling inadequately educated - that means a lot of additions, editorial remarks, adaptation etc.

The second part is a logical continuation - every translation is an original piece of writing, especially when the translator has no chance whatsoever to discuss the issues that are opaque in the original with the author of the source text. In a very strict meaning, if all we have is fragments of the translations, there is no original that we might speak of. Whether these translations are being trusted to be true to their source and to be a reliable ground you may base your historical or literary argument upon is up to the individual parties of the debate to decide upon.

The question is somewhat confusing.  If we are talking about sentence construction, then one may alter the structure so as to keep the content as appropriate as possible.  Languages are not a one-to-one match.  They structure differently.  If you are talking about the style in a narrative, this would be a way of truncating part of the tools of expression of the text.  Style is a part of the Theme and may even be its most important part.  Take satire for instance, a change of style may change the irony embedded in the original and which may be its core.  So unless you specify what you mean by "a change from the original", the answers may vary from a yes to a moderate no!

Dear Gomatam,

Translation is a serious business that demands both linguistic competence in the two languages and creativity or 'creative competence' if you like. This is why translations are counted for differently as an additional work by a scholar. So I suggest you go all out and work it out.

Chuka

Translation is widely recognized as a creative and communicative engagement of a work, its contexts and audiences. This results in another work that represents but may not really replicate it. You would have to creatively engage the text being translated and achieve a representative new work while being watchful not to violate and sabotage the original work by turning out a work that goes in a totally different direction.

Please take a look at my work on the poem Tam o' Shanter by Robert Burns, which is very relevant to your question. There is a translation and an article about the translation challenges.

* a new translation of Tam o' Shanter, which you will find on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-nBVIHJIAE

* a monograph on the influence of Old Norse on the poem

* a short article about the translation

* a slide set of the translation

All found here:

https://hcommons.org/members/markperkins/