Literary Translation: Recent Theoretical Developments
Sachin Ketkar
With implicit or explicit presuppositions about `literariness, the discipline of literary studies manages to delimit its domain, specify and sanction its methodologies and approaches to its subject. These notions of `literariness’ are crucial for the theoretical thinking about literary translation. In this paper, I have attempted to analyze various recent theoretical positions to the study of literary translation and sought to understand them in the context of the overall shift in the field of literary studies in the last three decades of the twentieth century. The recent developments in the literary studies have radically questioned the traditional essentialist notion of `literariness' and the idea of canon from various theoretical perspectives. I have contrasted the traditional discourse on literary translation with the recent discourse in order to highlight the mutation in the established notion of `literariness' and its impact on translation theory.
The traditional essentialist approach to literature, which Lefevere (1988:173) calls `the corpus' approach, is based on the Romantic notion of literature that sees the author as a quasi-divine `creator' possessing `genius'. He is believed to be the origin of the creation that is original, unique, organic, transcendental and hence sacred. Translation then is a mere copy of the unique entity, which by definition is uncopy-able. As the translator is not the origin of the work of art, he does not possess `genius', and he is considered merely a drudge, a proletariat, and a shudra in the literary Varna system. This traditional approach is a result of the Platonic-Christian metaphysical underpinning of the Western culture. The deeply rooted asymmetrical dichotomy of `original' versus `copy' is the reason why the West has been traditionally hostile and allergic to the notion of `translation'.
The traditional discussion of the problems of literary translation, based on the `corpus' approach revolves around the activity of translating. It considers finding equivalents not just for lexis, syntax, or concepts, but also for features like style, genre, figurative language, historical stylistic dimensions, polyvalence, connotations, denotations, cultural items and culture-specific concepts and values. The choices made by the translators suchlike the decision whether to retain stylistic features of the source language text or whether to retain the historical stylistic dimension of the original become all the more crucial in the case of literary translation. In the case of translating poetry, the decision of the translator whether the verse should be translated into verse or into free verse or into prose becomes vital. Most of the scholars and translators like Jakobson (1991:151) believe that in the case of poetry though it is “by definition impossible ...only creative transposition is possible...". The creative dimension of translation comes to fore in the translation of poetry though nobody seems to be sure of what is meant by creativity in the first place. The word is charged with theological-Romantic connotations typical of the `corpus' approach to literature.
The questions around which the deliberations about translation within such a conceptual framework are made are rather stereotyped and limited: as the literary text, especially if a poem is unique, organic whole and original the very notion of translatability is questioned. Should translation be `literal' or `free'? Should it emphasize the content or the form? Can a faithful translation be beautiful? The answers to the question range from one extreme to the other and usually end in some sort of a compromise. Renowned writers and translators gave their well-known dictums about translations, which reflected these traditional beliefs about it. For Dante (1265-1321) all poetry is untranslatable (cited by Brower 1966: 271) and for Frost (1974-1963) poetry is `that which is lost out of both prose and verse in translation '(cited by Webb 203) while Yves Bonnefoy says `You can translate by simply declaring one poem the translation of another" (1991:186-192). On the other hand theorists like Pound (1929, 1950), Fitzgerald (1878) say" ...the live Dog is better than the dead Lion", believe in freedom in translation. The others like Nabokov (1955) believe “The clumsiest of literal translation is a thousand times more useful than prettiest of paraphrase". Walter Benjamin, Longfellow (1807-81), Schleriermacher, Martindale (1984), seem to favour translation that is much more faithful or prefer foreignizing the native language. However, most of the translators like Dryden are on the side of some sort of compromise between the two extremes. The focus of this kind of thinking about translation was on how the process of translation, how one should or does translate.
Lefevere has pointed out that most of the writings done based on the concept of literature as a corpus attempt to provide translators with certain guidelines, do's and don'ts. These writings are essentially normative even if they do not state their norms explicitly. These norms, according to Lefevere, are not far removed from the poetics of a specific literary period or even run behind the poetics of the period (1988:173). Even the approaches based on the `objective' and `scientific' foundations of linguistics are not entirely neutral in their preferences and implicit value judgments. Some writings on translation based on this approach are obsessed with the translation process and coming up with some model for description of the process. As Theo Hermans (1985:9-10) observes that in spite of some impressive semiotic terminology, complex schemes and diagrams illustrating the mental process of decoding messages in one medium and encoding them in another, they could hardly describe the actual conversion that takes place within the human mind, `that blackest of black boxes'. Lefevere notes, the descriptive approach was not very useful when it came to decide what good translation is and what is bad.
Most of recent developments in translation theory look for alternatives to the essentialist approaches. Instead of considering literature as an autonomous and independent domain, they conceptualize it in much broader social and cultural framework. They see literature as a social institution related to other social institutions. Borrowing their analytical tools from various social sciences like linguistics, semiotics, anthropology, history, economics, and psychoanalysis, they scrutinize the complex interconnections between poetics, politics, metaphysics, and history. They are also closely allied to the discipline of cultural studies, as discussed by Jenks (1993:187), in using culture as a descriptive rather than normative category and in working within an expanded concept of culture, which rejects the `high' versus low stratification.
`Paradigm shift' to use Theo Hermans' phrase or the `Cultural turn' in the discipline of translation theory has made a significant impact in the way we look at translation. Translation is perceived as a form of intercultural communication raising the problems that are not merely at the verbal level or at the linguistic level. As Talgeri and Verma (1988:3) remark, a word is,' essentially a cultural memory in which the historical experience of the society is embedded. The awareness that one does not look for merely verbal equivalents but also for cultural equivalents, if there are any, goes a long way in helping the translator to decide the strategies he or she has to use. Translation then is no longer a problem of merely finding verbal equivalents but also of interpreting a text encoded in one semiotic system with the help of another. The notion of `intertextuality' as formulated by the semiotician Julia Kristeva is ailluminating in this regard. She points out that any signifying system or practice already consists of other modes of cultural signification (1988:59-60). A literary text would implicate not only other verbal texts but also other modes of signification like food, fashion, local medicinal systems, metaphysical systems, traditional and conventional narratives like myths, literary texts, legends as well as literary conventions like genres, literary devices, and other symbolic structures. To state that the elements of the text, specific to the culture and the language, are untranslatable is almost tautological. While the whole enterprise of finding cultural equivalents raises awareness of the difference and similarities between the cultures, it also brings into focus the important question of cultural identity. Else Ribeiro Pires Vieira (1999:42) remarks that it is ultimately impossible to translate one cultural identity into another. So the act of translation is intimately interlaced with the questions of cultural identity, difference and similarity.
A rather interesting approach to literary translation comes from Michel Riffaterre (1992: 204-217). He separates literary and non-literary use of language by saying that literature is different because i) it semioticicizes the discursive features e.g. lexical selection is made morphophonemically as well as semantically, ii) it substitutes semiosis for mimesis which gives literary language its indirection, and iii) it has "the` textuality' that integrates semantic components of the verbal sequence (the ones open to linear decoding)-a theoretically open-ended sequence-into one closed, finite semiotic, system" that is , the parts of a literary texts are vitally linked to the whole of the text and the text is more or less self contained. Hence, the literary translation should “reflect or imitate these differences". He considers a literary text as an artefact and it contains the signals, which mark it as an artefact. Translation should also imitate or reflect these markers. He goes on to say that as we perceive a certain text as literary based on certain presuppositions we should render these literariness-inducing presuppositions. Though this seems rather like traditional and formalist approach, what should be noted here is that Riffaterre is perceiving literariness in a rather different way while considering the problems of literary translation: `literariness' is in no way the `essence' of a text and a literary text is, for Riffatere one that which contains the signs which makes it obvious that it is a cultural artefact. Although he conceives of literary text as self-contained system, Riffatere too, like many other contemporary approaches sees it as a sub-system of cultural semiotic system. However, if one is to consider Riffatere's notion of `text' in contrast to Kristeva's notion of intertextuality one feels that Riffaterre is probably simplifying the problem of cultural barriers to translatability.
The assumption that literary text is a cultural artefact and is related to the other social systems is widespread these days. Some of the most important theorization based on this assumption has come from provocative and insightful perspectives of theorists like Andre Lefevere, Gideon Toury, Itamar Evan -Zohar, and Theo Hermans. These theorists are indebted to the concept of `literature as system' as propounded by Russian Formalists, Czech and French structuralists, and the Marxist thinkers who considered literature as a section of the `superstructure'. Beginning with idea that the study of literary translation should begin with a study of the translated text rather than with the process of translation, it analyzes the role, function and reception of the translated text in the culture in which it is translated on the one hand, and the role of translating culture in influencing the `process of decision making that is translation.' Fundamentally descriptive in its orientation (Toury 1985), this analysis of translation as a process and product in the context of the literary politics of the culture is extremely important and influential approach to the study of literary translation.
Lefevere maintains, `Literature is one of the systems which constitute the system of discourses (which also contain disciplines like physics or law) usually referred to as a civilization, or a society (1988:16).' Literature, for Lefevere, is a subsystem of society and it interacts with other systems. He observes that there is a `control factor in the literary system which sees to it that this particular system does not fall too far out of step with other systems that make up a society ' (p.17). He astutely observes that this control function works from outside of this system as well as from inside. The control function within the system is that of dominant poetics, `which can be said to consist of two components: one is an inventory of literary devices, genres, motifs, prototypical characters and situations, symbols; the other a concept of what the role of literature is, or should be, in the society at large.' (p.23). The educational establishment dispenses it. The second controlling factor is that of `patronage'. It can be exerted by `persons, not necessarily the Medici, Maecenas or Louis XIV only, groups or persons, such as a religious grouping or a political party, a royal court, publishers, whether they have a virtual monopoly on the book trade or not and, last but not least, the media.' The patronage consists of three elements; the ideological component, the financial or economic component, and the element of status (p.18-19). The system of literature, observes Lefevere, is not deterministic but it acts as a series of `constraints' on the reader, writer, or rewriter. The control mechanism within the literary system is represented by critics, reviewers, teachers of literature, translators and other rewriters who will adapt works of literature until they can be claimed to correspond to the poetics and the ideology of their time. Significantly, the political and social aspect of literature is emphasised in the system approach. The cultural politics and economics of patronage and publicity are seen as inseparable from literature.
`Rewriting' is the key word here used by Lefevere as a `convenient `umbrella-term' to refer to most of the activities traditionally connected with literary studies: criticism, as well as translation, anthologization, the writing of literary history and the editing of texts-in fact, all those aspects of literary studies which establish and validate the value-structures of canons. Rewritings, in the widest sense of the term, adapt works of literature to a given audience and/or influence the ways in which readers read a work of literature.' (60-61).The texts, which are rewritten, processed for a certain audience, or adapted to a certain poetics, are the `refracted' texts and these, maintains Lefevere, are responsible for the canonized status of the text (p179). `Interpretation (criticism), then and translation are probably the most important forms of refracted literature, in that they are the most influential ones' he notes (1984:90) and says,
` One never translates, as the models of the translation process based on the Buhler/Jakobson communication model, featuring disembodied senders and receivers, carefully isolated from all outside interference by that most effective expedient, the dotted line, would have us believe, under a sort of purely linguistic bell jar. Ideological and poetological motivations are always present in the production, or the non production of translations of literary works...Translation and other refractions, then, play a vital part in the evolution of literatures, not only by introducing new texts, authors and devices, but also by introducing them in a certain way, as part of a wider design to try to influence that evolution' (97).
Translation becomes one of the parts of the `refraction' "... the rather long term strategy, of which translation is only a part, and which has as its aim the manipulation of foreign work in the service of certain aims that are felt worthy of pursuit in the native culture..." (1988:204). This is indeed a powerful theory to study translation as it places as much significance to it as criticism and interpretation. Lefevere goes on to give some impressive analytical tools and perspectives for studying literary translation,
`The ideological and poetological constraints under which translations are produced should be explicated, and the strategy devised by the translator to deal with those constraints should be described: does he or she make a translation in a more descriptive or in a more refractive way? What are the intentions with which he or she introduces foreign elements into the native system? Equivalence, fidelity, freedom and the like will then be seen more as functions of a strategy adopted under certain constraints, rather than absolute requirements, or norms that should or should not be imposed or respected. It will be seen that `great 'ages of translation occur whenever a given literature recognizes another as more prestigious and tries to emulate it. Literatures will be seen to have less need of translation(s) when they are convinced of their own superiority. It will also be seen that translations are often used (think of the Imagists) by adherents of an alternative poetics to challenge the dominant poetics of a certain period in a certain system, especially when that alternative poetics cannot use the work of its own adherents to do so, because that work is not yet written' (1984:98-99).
Another major theorist working on similar lines as that of Lefevere is Gideon Toury (1985). His approach is what he calls Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS). He emphasizes the fact that translations are facts of one system only: the target system and the target or recipient culture or a certain section of it serves as the initiator of the decision to translate. Consequently, translators operate primarily in the interest of the culture into which they are translating. Toury very systematically charts out a step-by-step guide to the study of translation. He stresses that the study should begin with the empirically observed data, that is, the translated texts and proceeds from there towards the reconstruction of non-observational facts rather than the other way round as is usually done in the `corpus' based and traditional approaches to translation. The most interesting thing about Toury's approach (1984) is that it takes into consideration things like `pseudo-translation' or the texts foisted off as translated but in fact are not so. In the very beginning when the problem of distinguishing a translated text from a non-translated text arises, Toury assumes that for his procedure `translation' will be taken to be `any target-language utterance which is presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds'. In this approach, pseudotranslations are `just as legitimate objects for study within DTS as genuine translations. They may prove to be highly instructive for the establishment of the general notion of translation as shared by the members of a certain target language community'. Toury's procedure is descriptive, empirical and inductive, beginning with the observed facts and then moving towards uncovering the strategies and techniques used by translator and the implicit notion and presupposition of equivalence rather than treating the notion of equivalence as given. The concept of constraint puts him in the company of Lefevere. The essential question is not of defining what is equivalence in general, whether it is possible or not, or of how to find equivalents, but of discovering what is meant by equivalence by the community or group within the target culture.
These approaches are also extremely useful in the area of comparative literary studies and comparativists like Durisin (1984:184-142) whose approach is in many ways similar to Lefevere and Toury in focusing on function and relation of literary translation in the target or the recipient culture. He is of opinion that it is impossible to speak of theories of translation without applying the comparative procedure, as the aim of analysis of a translation is to determine the extent to which it belongs to the developmental series of the native literature. He like the other two theorists discussed, considers the translation procedure as well as the selection of the text being ` primarily determined by the integral need of the recipient literature, by its capacity for absorbing the literary phenomenon of a different national literature, work, etc. and for reacting in a specific manner (integrational or differtiational) in its aesthetic features' as well as the norm of time.
This type of theorization is far from the traditional paradigm of translation theory obsessed with the ideas of fidelity and betrayal, and the notions of `free' vs. literal translation. Thanks to the development of powerful theoretical models by proponents of the polysystem approach to literary translation, translation studies can boast of becoming a discipline in its own right. It emphasizes the reception of a translated text instead of its production.
However, the problem with Leferverian system is its terminology. The words `refracted' and `rewriting' presuppose that a text can be written for the first time and that it exists in a pre-non-refracted state. These presuppositions take him dangerously close to the very `corpus' based approach he is so vigorously attacking. Perhaps Derridian philosophy can explain why one is always in danger of belonging to the very system of thought one is criticizing. Another obvious limitation of these types of theories is that they are rather reductionist in their approach. Though Lefevere maintains that the system concept holds that the refracted texts are mainly responsible for the canonized status of the corpus and the intrinsic quality alone could not have given canonized status for them, he fails to point out the exact features and qualities of the literary text, which solicit refractions. Then there are problematic words like` the system' which Lefevere points out `refer to a heuristic construct that does not emphatically possess any kind of ontological reality....' and `is merely used to designate a model that promises to help make sense of a very complex phenomenon, that of writing, reading and rewriting of literature...(1985: 225).
Besides these theories are descriptive and hence have a limited use for the translator as well as translation criticism, which is a rather neglected branch of translation studies till date. Lefevere says that translation criticism hardly rises much above, `he is wrong because I'm right level...'(1984:99). He also points out that it is impossible to define once and for all, what a good translation is just as it is impossible to define once and for all what good literature is. And " critic A, "judging" on the basis of poetics A' will rule translation A "good" because it happens to be constructed on the basis of the principles laid down in A'. Critic B, on the other hand, operating on the basis of poetics B', will damn translation A" and praise translation B', for obvious reasons..."(1988:176). He believes," Translators can be taught languages and a certain awareness of how literature works. The rest is up to them. They make mistakes only on the linguistic level. The rest is strategy." (1984:99).The perspective, of course, is that of a value relativist and a culture relativist, which seem to be the politically correct and `in' stances today.
An ambitious and insightful essay by Raymond van den Broeck, `Second Thought on Translation Criticism: A Model of its Analytic Function' (1985) attempts to go beyond the mere descriptive and uncourageous approach of Lefevere and Toury after incorporating important ideas from their theories. Like Toury and Lefevere, Broeck stresses the importance of examination of the norms among all those involved in the production and reception of translations and remarks that it is the foremost task of translation criticism to create greater awareness of these norms but he also gives room for the critic's personal value judgements. The critic may or may not agree with the particular method chosen by the translator for a particular purpose. He is entitled to doubt the effectiveness of the chosen strategies, to criticize decisions taken with regard to certain details. To the extent that he is himself familiar with the functional features of the source text, he will be a trustworthy guide in telling the reader where target textemes balance source textemes and where in the critic's view, they do not. However, he must never confuse his own initial norms with those of the translator (p.60-61). Broeck attempts a synthesis of the target culture oriented inductive - descriptive approach and the notorious task of evaluating translation and the result is indeed very useful and commendable, as translation evaluation is a neglected branch of translation studies. As opposed to the descriptive approach is Venuti's The Translator's Invisibility (1995). He examines historically how the norm of fluency prevailed over other translation strategies to shape the canon of foreign literatures in English. He makes a strong case for `foreignness' and `awkwardness' of the translated text as a positive value in the evaluation of translation. He also criticizes the polysystem and Descriptive Translation Studies approaches for by attempting to be empirical, objective and `value free' in their approaches, they eschew ethics and politics of translation (1997).
The more recent literary theories like New Historicism are interested in reading the contexts of power relations in a literary text. In his critical exposition of New Historicism and Cultural materialism, John Brannigan (1998) states, `New Historicism is a mode of critical interpretation which privileges power relations as the most important context for texts of all kinds. As a critical practice, it treats literary texts as a space where power relations are made visible '(6). Such a perspective when applied to the texts that communicate across cultures can yield very important insights and open an exciting way of thinking about translation.
Tejaswini Niranjana's book Siting Translation, History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context (1995) examines translation theories from the postcolonial perspective. She maintains that in a post-colonial context the problematic of translation becomes a significant site for raising questions of representation, power, historicity, the asymmetry and inequality of relations between peoples, races, languages. In translation, the relationship between the two languages is hardly on equal terms. Niranjana draws attention to the fact that translation is between hierarchically related languages and that it is a mode of representation in another culture. When the relationship between the cultures and languages is that of colonizer and colonized, "translation...produces strategies of containment. By employing certain modes of representing the other-which it thereby also brings into being--translation reinforces hegemonic versions of the colonized, helping them acquire the status of what Edward Said calls representations or objects without history '(p.3). She points out in the introduction that her concern is to probe `the absence, lack, or repression of an awareness of asymmetry and historicity in several kinds of writing on translation' (p.9).
Bassnett and Trivedi (1999) believe that the hierarchic opposition between the original work and translation reflects the hierarchic opposition between the European colonizer culture and the colonized culture. This hierarchy, they observe, is Eurocentric, and its spread is associated with the history of colonialization, imperialism and proselytization. Because of these historical reasons, radical theories of translation have come up in the former colonies. Recalling how members of a sixteenth century Brazilian tribe called Tupinamba ate a Catholic priest, an act which could have even been an act of homage, Bassnett and Trivedi suggest that the metaphor of `cannibalism' could be used for the act of translation as it is one of the ways former colonies might find a way to assert themselves and their own culture and to reject the feeling of being derivative and appellative `copy', without at the same time rejecting everything that might be of value that comes from Europe. Else Ribeiro Pires Viera has considered the translation theory of Haroldo de Campos, a renowned Brazilian translator who uses very interesting metaphors for translating like, perceiving translation as blood transfusion and vampirization which actually nourishes the translator and thus subverting the hierarchic polarities of the privileged original and inauthentic translation in a post colonial context.
The study of translation practice and theory in the context of globalization is crucial significance for a multilingual, post-colonial nation like India. Paul St.-Pierre (2002) and Lawrence Venuti (1998) have made some insightful reflections on the relationship between translation practices and the processes of globalization. St.-Pierre points out the problems of making generalized observations regarding the relationship between globalization and translation. As against Venuti’s generalized observation that globalization results in more capital being spent on translation into the regional languages, Paul St.-Pierre calls attention to the fact of increasing emphasis on translations from Indian languages like Oriya into English. This is says is due to the place of English in a multilingual, post-colonial society like India. He notes the important contradiction in the situation like this where the processes of globalization are threatening the local languages and cultures on the one hand and at the same time it also valorizes the regional and the local by considering it worthy of translation and publication by important publishers.
There is a distinctive stress on the social and political contexts in the recent approaches to translation studies and the problematic and politics of gender is a very important context to the study of any cultural phenomenon. A very significant statement on `The Politics of Translation' from feminist perspective comes from Gayatri Chakaravorty Spivak (1998:95-118) who conceives of translation as an important strategy in pursuing the larger feminist agenda of achieving women's `solidarity'. ` The task of the feminist translator is to consider language as a clue to the working of gendered agency.' Translation can give access to a larger number of feminists working in various languages and cultures. She advises that a translator must `surrender' to the rhetoricity of text, as translation is the most intimate act of reading. This act for Spivak is more of an erotic act than ethical. She also advises that one's first obligation in understanding solidarity is to learn other women's mother tongue rather than consider solidarity as an `a priori' given. Spivak also shows concern for the` Third World' illiterate women and the first task of the feminists is to learn their language rather than impose someone's conception of solidarity and feminism on them. ` There are countless languages in which women all over the world have grown up and been female or feminist, and yet the languages we keep learning by rote are the powerful European ones, sometimes the powerful Asian ones, least often the chief African ones' Translation for Spivak is no mere quest for verbal equivalents but an act of understanding the other as well as the self. It also has a political dimension, and as it is a strategy that can be consciously employed. She uses the feminine metaphors of submission, intimacy, and understanding for theorizing about translation. Thus theorizing about translation itself receives a feminist slant.
Lori Chamberlain exposes the gender bias behind the tag `les belles infideles' attached to translation which means that translation is like a woman, unfaithful when pretty and not beautiful when faithful. She comments, `for `les belles infideles', fidelity is defined as an implicit contract between translation (as woman) and original (as husband, father or author). However, the infamous `double standard' operates here as it might have in traditional marriages: the `unfaithful' wife/translation is publicly tried for crimes the husband/original is by law incapable of committing. This contract, in short, makes it impossible for the original to be guilty of infidelity. Such an attitude betrays real anxiety about the problem of paternity and translation; it mimics the patrilinear kinship system where paternity-not maternity-legitimizes an offspring '(Cited by Susan Bassnett, 1993:141). Traditional notion of fidelity and beauty implicit in the traditional thinking about translation is seen to be closely associated with patriarchal establishment, which exploits women. Barbara Godard, another feminist translation scholar who makes a connection between feminist translation work and post modernist translation theory remarks, ` As feminist theory has been concerned to show, difference is a key factor in cognitive processes and in critical praxis... The feminist translator affirming her critical difference, her delight in interminable rereading and rewriting flaunts the signs of her manipulation of the text. Womanhandling the text in translation would involve the replacement of the modest, self-effacing translator (Cited by Susan Bassnett 1993:157). This position is in contrast to Spivak's position of intimate surrender to the rhetoric of the original. Godard's translator is far more assertive of the gender difference and aggressively womanhandles the original text.
There seem to be three main perspectives, which have influenced translation theory in the recent years. The first perspective sees translation theory as a branch of applied linguistics, the second perspective understand translation theory as a branch of applied linguistics and the third perspective sees translation as a branch of cultural studies.
Though extremely insightful, these approaches are always in danger of being very simplistic and reductive. The linguistic approaches have branched off into areas like the machine-translation theory, or what is known these days as the corpus -based translation studies. However, Hewsoon and Martin (1991) have attempted to bridge the gap between these two types of theoretical perspectives. They formulate a two-tier model for analyzing and explaining the translation phenomenon. While the first tier focuses on the range of linguistic possibilities available to the translator and the choices, he or she makes while the second tier deals with the institutional, cultural contextual factors that influence the range of choices as well as the actual decisions made by the translator. Basil Hatim and Ian Mason (1990:3) also attempt to bridge the gap between the linguistic approaches and the approaches that emphasize the target culture system or the political dimension of translation as a product. They view translation as a process involving the negotiation of meaning between producers and receivers of texts and consider translating as a communicative process that takes place within a social context. Corpus translation studies or CTS seeks to combine the cultural studies model and the concepts from corpus linguistics and computational linguistics. This approach aspires to be rigorously scientific by using the statistical tools, computers and database to uncover the some general laws of translation. However, a comprehensive General Theory of Translation where all the approaches agree on a single infallible approach is neither possible nor is it necessary.
WORKS CITED
Andre Lefevere. That Structure in the dialect of men interpreted' in E.S.Shaffer (ed.).1984, pp.87-100
____________`Why Waste Our Time on Rewrites? The Trouble with Interpretation and the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm' in Hermans Theo (ed.).1985 pp.215-243
__________`Essays in Comparative Literature: A Systems Approach. Calcutta: Papyrus, 1988
Anuradha Dingwaney, and Carol Maier.(eds.) Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and cross-cultural Texts. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 1996
Basil Hatim and Ian Mason. Discourse and the Translation. London and New York. Longman: 1990, p.3
Chris Jenks, Culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1993 p.187
R. Brower (ed.) On Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.1966 p.271
Durisin, Dionyz. Theory of Literary Comparatistics. Bratislava: Veda Publishing House of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1984 pp.184-142
Else Ribeiro Pires Vieira. `Liberating Calibans: Readings of Antropofagia and Haroldo de Campos' poetics of Transcreation' in Bassnett and Trivedi (eds.) 1999, pp. 95-113
Fitzgerald in Brower (Ed) 1966, p.277
Gayatri Chakaravorty Spivak `The Politics of Translation' in Tutun Mukherjee ed. Translation: From Periphery to Centerstage, 1998, pp. 95-118
Gideon Toury ` In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Semiotics and Poetics, 1980.
_________ `Translation, Literary Translation and Pseudotranslation' in E.S.Shaffer (ed.).1984, pp.73-85
_________`A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies' in Hermans Theo(ed.). 1985, pp.16-42
John Brannigan. New Historicism and Cultural Materialism. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS, and London: Macmillan Press Ltd.1998, p.6
Julia Kristeva, ` The Revolution in Poetic Language' (trans.) Margaret Waller, New York, Columbia U.P 1984,pp.59-60 in Raman Selden(ed.). The Theory of Criticism: From Plato to the Present. London and New York, Longman, 1988.
Lance Hewson and Jacky Martin. Redefining Translation : The Variational Approach. London and New York: Routledge, 1991.
Lawrence Venuti. . The Translator's Invisibility: A history of translation. London and New York: Routledge, 1995
_______________ The Scandals of Translation. Towards an Ethics of Difference, New York: Routledge, 1998
________________` Unequal developments: Current trends in Translation Studies', Comparative Literature, Fall 1997
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3612/is_199710/ai_n8766312
Maria Tymoczko, Computerized Corpora and the future of Translation Studies, Meta XLIII, 4, 1998,
http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1998/v43/n4/004515ar.html
Martindale, C. ` Unlocking the word-hoard: in praise of metaphase' in E.S.Shaffer(ed.).1984, pp.47-72
Nabokov in Brower (ed). 1966, p.291
Paul St-Pierre, `Translation in an Era of Globalization’ in Journal of Contemporary Thought, Summer 2002, Vadodara, ed. Prafulla Kar et. al, Guest Editor Paul St.-Pierre.
Raymond van den Broeck, ` Second Thoughts on Translation Criticism A Model for its Analytic Function' in Hermans Theo(ed.). 1985 pp.54-62
Riffaterre, M. `Transposing Presuppositions on the Semiotics of Literary Translation' in R.Schulte and J.Biguenet (eds.) 1992 pp.204-217
Robert Frost Interviews with Robert Frost ed. E.C. Latham 1967, p.203 cited by Timothy Webb in The Violet in the Crucible: Shelley and Translation'.
Roman Jakobson,` On linguistic aspect of translation' in R.Schulte and J.Biguenet (eds.) 1993. p.151
Shaffer, E.S. (ed.). Comparative Criticism. Vol.VI, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984
Schleriermacher, F .'From "On the Different Methods of Translating" Translated by Waltraund Bartscht.' in R.Schulte and J.Biguenet (eds.) 1993.pp.36 -54
Schulte, R and Biguenet. J. (eds.) Theories of Translation: An anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago, University of Chicago, 1992.
S. Ramakrishna (ed.). Translation and Multilingualism. PostColonial Contexts, Delhi: Pencraft International, 1997
Susan Bassnett, Comparative Literature A Critical Introduction, Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: Blackwell, 1993 p.141
Susan Bassnett and Harish Trivedi. Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and NY: Routledge, 1999. pp.1-4
Talgeri, P and Verma. SB Literature in Translation from Cultural Transference to Metonymic Displacement. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan, 1988. p.3
Tejaswini Niranjana, Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1995
Theo Hermans. .(ed.). The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. New York: St.Martin's Press, 1985. Pp.9-10
Y. Bonnefoy, `Translating Poetry' in R.Schulte and J.Biguenet (eds.), pp.186-192
This article appeared on http://www.translationdirectory.com