Samaneh Farhadi
Abstract
1. Introduction In the not so long history of translation studies, scholarship has always had pride of place in the act of translating. Essentially, the weight and authenticity of a translated work may be measured in the amount of research done about and around the work. In other words, the deeper the ...
Read More
1. Introduction In the not so long history of translation studies, scholarship has always had pride of place in the act of translating. Essentially, the weight and authenticity of a translated work may be measured in the amount of research done about and around the work. In other words, the deeper the translator’s research on a work, the more vivid the essence of the text involved, including, among others, its meaning, content, and function. Translation is usually based on the common assumption that the source and target texts are, in one way or another, typically identical; yet, more often than not, translation fortified by scholarship may generate a translated text which may surpass the original, so much so that it may function quite independently. We may also come across translators who not only rely on research while translating, but also depend on research prior to translation. In this article, the author explores both the process and product in Behzad Ghaderi Sohi’s (re)translations of Henrik Ibsen’s dramas by focusing on two aspects of his work, namely, research and dramaturgy before, during, and after the translation process. 2. MethodologyThe present study is qualitative in nature and means to show the role of research and dramaturgy in Ghaderi’s work. After a review of the translator’s authorial, scholarly background, interests, and attitudes, a specific categorization of three (interrelated) elements - para-textuality, intertextuality, and textuality has been contrived to be applied to a data-based exploration of his (re)translations of five Ibsen’s dramas, 1)The Wild Duck, 2) Ghosts, 3) Rosmersholm, 4) Little Eyolf, and 5) When We Dead Awaken, to eventually draw conclusions about the impact force of research and dramaturgy employed by the translator. 3. DiscussionBased on a close reading of the above mentioned texts, the author argues that paratextual parameters as employed by Ghaderi, can be divided into three sub-categories: a) introductions, b) criticisms, and c) footnotes. The first category includes comprehensive prefaces/introductions tagged to the texts by him (or, where necessary, other Ibsen scholars/translators) to promote his readership’s knowledge of Ibsen’s world, in general, and the translated work, in particular. Such detailed introductions typically cover literary analyses of each and every given dramas, with a view to establishing their dialectical relationships within the overall cycle of Ibsen’s plays. The second sub-category of paratextuality (i.e., criticism), refers to explanations and critical points made by Ghaderi within (or prior to) his own translations, sometimes also fortified by making references to other translators’ works. Being quite familiar with the art of dramaturgy, Ghaderi recognizes translation as a kind of performance, yet a linguistic performance. He has illustrated the linguistic processes involved and the problems ahead of the craft of translation as much as he can, aiming at sharing with his readership the strategies and solutions he has already managed to apply to such problems. Such information can be beneficial to researchers and for educational purposes. Footnotes, as the third sub-category of paratextuality, have been further sub-divided, in their own rights, into two different forms: sometimes, the proper names appear in the footnotes while, at other times, potential readers have been provided with certain additional explanations. At another level, Ghaderi’s translations further reflect the role of research and dramaturgy in terms of intertextuality. In a constant attempt to ensure reasonable reactions on the part of his readership, Ghaderi tries to (re)shape the given drama’s meaning by making frequent genealogical and prototypical references to other texts around it; in other words, he resorts insistently to intertextual analyses, be it inner or outer intertextuality. By “inner intertextual analysis”, the author means the interrelationships among different dramas written by Ibsen while "outer intertextuality" refers to the relations of Ibsen’s dramas with other writers’ literary works. Finally, the last analytical layer used in exploring Ghaderi’s (re)translations has been labeled as textuality. An assessment of Ghaderi’s performance at text level displays his success in not neutralizing language varieties of the source texts at both macro and micro levels. Reflecting the informal and colloquial speech forms in writing, recreating language varieties at the two levels of language user and language use, achieving idiomatic renderings and emphasizing on performativity of the target dramatic texts rather than their mere literary aspects, among others, are the most important characteristics of Ghaderi’s translations at the level of textuality. 4. ConclusionAs stated earlier, the present article has been an attempt to show the role of research and dramaturgy in Behzad Ghaderi Sohi’s (re)translations of five Ibsen’s dramas. Ghaderi’s works reflect at least five different translation strategies employed in rendering Ibsen’s dramas. He has adopted a specific approach which does not necessarily result in so-called faithful renderings – he has his own views about faithfulness - but entails creating experience-driven translations, experiences derived from the translator’s deep and close readings of dramatic literature, in general, and, of Ibsen’s dramas, in particular. The provision of introductions, criticisms, and footnotes as well as his unique, detailed explanations at the intertextual level offer sufficient evidence that he, as a translator, has always been anxious to consider the significance of research in translation. Bearing in mind the significance of such qualities as reflecting informal and colloquial forms in the written variety of language or recreating linguistic varieties at both levels of language user and language use, the author suggests that a thorough examination of Ghaderi’s translations may always be inspiring for students and scholars because it shows his focus on the representation of essential elements of drama on a stage, that is, the final arena for dramaturgy.
Samaneh Farhadi; Alireza Khanjan
Abstract
1. IntroductionIn recent years, thanks to efforts made by such scholars as Maria Tymoczko, translation studies has started a movement towards reacting to Euro-centrism in the discipline. The movement stresses the necessity for internationalization of translation theory and the significance of taking ...
Read More
1. IntroductionIn recent years, thanks to efforts made by such scholars as Maria Tymoczko, translation studies has started a movement towards reacting to Euro-centrism in the discipline. The movement stresses the necessity for internationalization of translation theory and the significance of taking into account translation traditions all over the world. The authors of the present paper do believe that if we, too, as the Iranian, are going to play a decent role in the expansion of the translation theory and development of translation studies, then we should first achieve a comprehensive knowledge of translation traditions all through the Iranian cultural history. In line with the necessity for such type of research, we have tried to show that Sa'di in his book, Gulistan [Flower Garden], besides being an author and a poet, has functioned as a translator as well. In so doing, the paper has been inspired by the theoretical framework of 'micro-history' in order to provide appropriate answers to three essential questions: (1) Has Sa'di ever made use of the art of translation in his Gulistan? (2) If yes, what translation strategies have been employed by him and is it possible to compare such strategies with recent achievements of translation studies as a modern discipline? And (3) Is Sa'di’s translation approach in conformity with the dominant translation norms of the time?2. MethodologyThe present study is qualitative in nature as inspired by the analytical framework of micro-history. In order to understand Sa'di's responses to cases of linguistic hybridity throughout the text of Gulistan, all Arabic expressions, sentences and poems have been studied in full to see if such hybrid forms have anything to do with translation.3. DiscussionBased on the data collected, we have argued that there are 4 different types of inter-lingual translation in Gulistan: (1) zero translation, (2) hidden translation, (3) free translation, and (4) source-oriented translation. ‘Zero Translation’, as intended in the paper, involves some verses of the holy Quran as well as expressions and poems that Sa’di has preferred or has been obliged to keep them in their original Arabic form without any Persian translations. We may possibly attribute Sa’di’s zero-translation strategy to the high frequency of occurrence of such Arabic expressions in the Persian language community of the time resulting in the intertextual familiarity of the target readers in question, so as to say that, Sa’di has felt no need for rendering such expressions into Persian. Some cases of zero translation in Gulistan refers to Quran verses and Nabavi Hadiths where such a decision may be attributed to Sa’di’s observation of the past literary, religious, and cultural tradition, on one hand, and his being in line with literary and cultural norms agreed by some influencing figures of literature of the time, on the other. In an attempt to find a solution for resolving the religious or normative impasse of translation of holy texts, Sa’di resorts to another strategy labeled as ‘Hidden Translation’ where the original form of the Quran verse or the Nabavi Hadith is absent and Sa’di has only mentioned its translation. Hidden translation, as intended in the paper, refers to any fragment that has passed through the filter of translation but its target version has been hidden by any reason(s). In other words, in hidden translation, there is a source text but there is no formal co-occurrence of the two texts (i.e., the source and target texts) involved. The third type of translation in Gulistan is ‘Free Translation’. We have found out, through analyzing the data, that the most frequent translation tendency in Gulistan has been free translation; a finding that can be analyzed within the scope of ‘self-translation’ framework. Self-translation is a text “authored by a writer who can compose in different languages and who translates his or her texts from one language into another” (Hokenson & Munson, 2007, p.1). And finally, the last type of translation employed in Gulistan is what we have labeled as ‘Source-oriented Translation’. In this type of translation, Arabic expressions have been translated into Persian through a formally and semantically close rendering in a way that Sa’di has not only sufficed to the transfer of the themes in question but has also recreated as precisely as possible the meaning of each and every single Arabic expressions in the form of Persian equivalents and even Persian grammatical structures.4. Conclusion As stated earlier, Sa’di has experienced different translation strategies in rendering Arabic expressions and sentences. In limited cases, he has adopted a more faithful approach to the source text resulting in a ‘source-oriented’ translation while in most cases, he has resorted to a ‘free translation’ method, more specifically in rendering his own writings within a self-translation process. The co-existence of both plain, uncomplicated prose translations as well as magnificent rhymed translations in Gulistan provides sufficient evidence that Sa’di, as a translator, has always taken into consideration his own high-level standards of authorship. What we may acquire by examining Sa’di’s translations, more specifically his unique source-oriented translations from Arabic to Persian or vice versa, shows that a distinguished translator can potentially and simultaneously pay attention to both the source and the target systems without decreasing the quality of the resulting work. This capability is exactly why one may rank Sa’di as a top global translator all through the history of translation.
