Computer-assisted language learning (CALL) is a form of computer-based learning which carries two important features: bidirectional learning and individualized learning. It is not a method. CALL materials are tools for learning. The focus of CALL is learning, and not teaching. CALL materials are used in teaching to facilitate the language learning process. It is a student-centered accelerated learning material, which promotes self-paced accelerated learning.
CALL originates from CAI (Computer-Accelerated Instruction), a term that was first viewed as an aid for teachers. The philosophy of CALL puts a strong emphasis on student-centered lessons that allow the learners to learn on their own using structured and/or unstructured interactive lessons. These lessons carry 2 important features: bidirectional (interactive) learning and individualized learning. CALL is not a method. It is a tool that helps teachers to facilitate language learning process. CALL can be used to reinforce what has been learned in the classrooms. It can also be used as remedial to help learners with limited language proficiency.
Computers have been used for language teaching ever since the 1960s. This 40-year period can be divided into three main stages: behaviorist CALL, communicative CALL, and integrative CALL. Each stage corresponds to a certain level of technology and certain pedagogical theories. The reasons for using Computer-assisted Language Learning include: (a) experiential learning, (b) motivation, (c) enhance student achievement, (d) authentic materials for study, (e) greater interaction, (f) individualization, (g) independence from a single source of information, and (h) global understanding. The barriers inhibiting the practice of Computer-assisted Language Learning can be classified in the following common categories: (a) financial barriers, (b) availability of computer hardware and software, (c) technical and theoretical knowledge, and (d) acceptance of the technology.
Merits:
Many language instructors feel that the use of technology changes the dynamics of their classrooms. Numerous studies have been done to determine whether or not this is actually true. In one study (Tiene and Luft, 2001-2002), it was reported that the use of computers encouraged the students to cooperate with one another. And because students had the opportunity to work on their own, teachers were able to individually assist students who needed more help. This learner-centered approach also allowed students to follow their own interests and progress at their own pace resulting in a higher motivation for the tasks at hand. Tiene and Luft (2001-2002, p. 13, 60) summarized the benefits of using technology in the classroom as follows:
• improved technology skills for both teachers and students
• better individualization of student assignments
• more emphasis on independent student work
• student interaction increased and cooperative learning was enhanced
• teachers felt better able to dynamically present materials to the class with technology
• working in the technology-rich environment was rewarding for teachers
• teachers perceived themselves to be more effective
• student learning seemed to have been enhanced
Demerits:
The following are some of the possible problems language teachers and students may encounter when trying to use computer network technology and its tools for the purpose of language teaching and learning.
First of all, given the nature of the Web, the reality that anyone with access to it can upload information on it, it is inevitable that there is room for incorrect information which we may somehow and sometimes come across. This means that users should always question the reliability of the available information on the Web.
Another issue to consider is that teacher’s knowledge of information technology is also crucial in determining the success of implementing computer network technology in language teaching. A certain level of technical expertise is required from teachers in order to use this technology in teaching. However, language teachers, usually feel an anxiety for the computer due to little experience with computers and insufficient computer skills.
Another thing is the problem of information overload. Finding the information we want is not an easy task at all. Searching for material online can sometimes be quite time-consuming and frustrating.
In addition, technology is not always as reliable as it should be. As we all know, technical considerations for Internet based instruction include computer types, network connections, data transfer rates, etc. The nature of the network systems and computers themselves can sometimes be a disadvantage.
Last but not least, we should also consider the fact that computer network faults, especially when attacked by viruses such as the recent virus Sasser, can cause loss of data, and even leads to loss of resources. This will be a problem to teachers and students if our teaching depends too much upon the network.
Despite its own limitations and disadvantages, it should be realized that the educational potential of the computer network technology is immense with the benefits as previously mentioned. However, it is the responsibility of language teachers to fully understand its assets as well as liabilities so as to make the most of the computer technology and its tools in enhancing the language teaching and learning process.
Roles of teacher and students:
Although the integration of CALL into a foreign language program can lead to great anxiety among language teachers, researchers consistently claim that CALL changes, sometimes radically, the role of the teacher but does not eliminate the need for a teacher altogether.
Instead of handing down knowledge to students and being the center of students’ attention, teachers become guides as they construct the activities students are to do and help them as students complete the assigned tasks. In other words, instead of being directly involved in students’ constructions of the language, the teacher interacts with students primarily to facilitate difficulties in using the target language (grammar, vocabulary, etc.) as use the language to interact with the computer and/or other people.
Teacher encouragment to students to participate and offering praise are deemed important by students. Most students report preferring to do work in a lab with a teacher’s or tutor’s presence rather than completely on their own.
Students, too, rather than passively absorbing information, negotiate meaning and assimilate new information through interaction and collaboration with someone other than the teacher, be that person a classmate or someone outside of the classroom entirely. Learners also learn to interpret new information and experiences on their own terms. However, because the use of technology redistributes teachers’ and classmates’ attentions, less-able students can become more active participants in the class because class interaction is not limited to that directed by the teacher. Moreover more shy students can feel free in their own students'-centered environment. This raises their self-esteem and their knowledge will be improving. If students are performing collaborative project they will do their best to perform it within set time limits.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Translation of Poetry
Translation of Poetry
Translation is of two types:
• Literary and non-Literary translation
Literary translation
• Literary translation, especially poetry is more problematic to translate, due to its use of rhetoric/figure of speech.
Is Poetry Translatable?
• There are two views concerning translation of poetry:
• One view is that when poetry is translated its essence is lost, as Robert Frost said: “poetry is what gets lost in translation.”
• Prof. H. G. Widdowson, in his book: Systems and the Translation of Poetry (1975) presents his view that translation of poetry is extremely difficult due to its “patterning of sound and sense into a single meaning.”
• So the opponents say that when poetry is translated, its meter is distorted and its tone is disturbed and pleasure disappears, as every language has its own meter and music. As poetry abounds in figure of speech and it has its own unique syntactic, semantic and phonological pattern. It involves both linguistic
( sound pattern of words, rhythm, rhyme etc) and non-linguistic aspects ( ideas, images, symbolism etc.)
• It is easier to translate poems in free verse than those poems that follow strict meter and rhyme. As in the case of classical poetry or ancient poetry.
• But those who favour translation of poetry say that if poetry is untranslatable, then we would be deprived of large number of poetical works that are masterpieces. But they have also view that poetry should be in verse translation, when it is in prose it loses its effect.
Why poetry is difficult to translate?
• Difficult to find Exact Equivalence
• It is very difficult to find exact equivalence, even if translator has profound knowledge if SL and TL. He can’t produce replica of the original text.
Form and Structure are Inseparable
• It is difficult to find equivalence both in structure and meaning.
• What poetry requires retaining is the emotions, feel of language, hidden meanings and stylistic devices.
Grammatical Differences
• Grammatical differences also pose certain problems as every language follows different pattern in prose and poetry.
Stylistic Peculiarities
• Stylistic peculiarities need to be preserved in poetry, as it embodies the psychological and emotional effect. Translator needs to create total effect of the text.
• Poetic structure should also be retained. Rhythm, rhyme and meter, sounds, onomatopoeia, tone etc are very important devices in poetry and that should be retained in TL to retain the aesthetics of the verse.
Nuances of Word’s Meanings
A translator should be careful about the nuances of word’s meanings.
• A translator can be confused which from the numerous meanings can be used.
• He can have also difficulty in finding equivalent in the target language.
Connotations
• It involves semantic structure of both individual words and texts. It might be text bound or culture bound. Cultural and contextual figurative devices like metaphor, metonymy and allusion, allegory involve analysis at manifold level. As the use of black is used as metaphor for unnaturalness, cruelty, infidelity etc.
• It involves deep structure and hidden meanings.
• Cultural, historical and ideological references work in interpretation of connotations. Metaphorical expressions might be universal are cultural specific that might be or different in various cultures.
Translation of Works
THE HOLLOW MEN
by T. S. Eliot
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when 5
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar 10
Shape without form shade without colour,
Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes to death's other Kingdom
Remember us--if at all-- not as lost 15
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
Paradise Lost
By Milton
Of man’s first disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat, [ 5 ]
Faiz Ahmad Faiz
Faiz Ahmad Faiz
Last night, your lost memories crept into my heart
as spring arrives secretly into a barren garden
as a cool morning breeze blows slowly in a desert
as a sick person feels well, for no reason.
My Heart, My Traveler
Translated by Hamid Rahim Sheikh
My heart, my fellow traveler
It has been decreed again
That you and I be exiled,
go calling out in every street,
turn to every town.
To search for a clue
of a messenger from our Beloved.
To ask every stranger
the way back to our home.
In this town of unfamiliar folk
we drudge the day into the night
Talk to this stranger at times,
to that one at others.
How can I convey to you, my friend
how horrible is a night of lonliness *
It would suffice to me
if there were just some count
I would gladly welcome death
if it were to come but once.
Perveen Shakir Poems Translated by Alamgir Hashmi
A Message
It’s the same weather.
The rain’s laughter
rings in the trees, echoes.
Their green branches
wear golden flowers
and smile thinking of someone.
The breeze is a scarf, again the light-pink.
The path to the garden that knows us
is looking for us.
The moment of moon-rise
is waiting for us.
Pink Flowers
Pink flowers blossomed
in the season I met you.
With your attentions they are opening again,
though these wounds had healed already.
How long could the columns support
these houses shaken to their foundations?
That old strangeness came back,
as if our meetings had been done.
The body was still hotfoot with its infatuations,
the feet bruised on the way.
Shikwa:
by Allama Iqbal
Why should I abet the loss, why forget the gain,
Why forfiet the future, bemoan the past in vain?
Hear the wail of nightingale, and remain unstirred,
Am I a flower insensate that will not say a word?
The power of speech emboldens me to speak out my heart,
I'll sure be damned, I know, if fault my God.
Hear, O Lord, from the faithful ones this sad lament,
From those used to hymn a praise, a word of discontent.
Enternally were you present, Lord, eternally omniscent,
The flower hung upon the tree, but without incense.
Be Thou fair, tell us true, O fountsin head of grace,
How could the scent spread without the breeze apace?
The world presented a queer sight ere we took the stage,
Stones and plants in your stead were worshipped in that age.
Man, being inured to senses, couldn't accept a thing unseen,
How could a formless God impress his senses keen?
Tell me, Lord, if anyone ever invoked Thy name,
The strength of Muslim arm alone restored Thy fame.
There was no dearth of peoples on this earth before,
Turkish tribes and Persian clans lived in days of yore;
The Greeks and the Chinese both bred and throve,
Christians as well as the Jews on this planet roved.
But who in Thy holy name raised his valiant sword,
Who set the things right, resolved the rigmarole?
We were the warrior bands battling for Thy cause,
Now on land, now on water, we the crusades fought.
Now in Europe's synods did we loudly pray,
Now in African deserts made a bold foray.
Not for territorial greed did we wield the sword,
Not for pelf and power did we suffer the blows.
Had we been temped by the greed of glittering gold,
Instead of breaking idols, would have idols sold.
We impressed on every heart the oneness of our mighty Lord,
Even under the threat of sword, bold and clever was our call.
Who conquered, tell us Thou, the fearful Khyber pass?
Who vanquished the Imperial Rome, who made it fall?
Who broke the idols of the primitive folks?
Who fought the kafirs, massacred their hordes?
If the prayer time arrived right amid the war,
With their faces turned to Kaaba, knelt down the brave Hejaz.
Mahmud and Ayaz stood together in the same flank,
The ruler and the ruled forget the difference in their rank.
The rich and poor, Lord and slave, all were levelled down,
All became brethern in love, with Thy grace crowned.
We roamed the world through, visited every place,
Did our rounds like the cup, serving sacred ale.
Forget about the forests, we spared not the seas,
Into the dark, unfathomed ocean, we pushed our steeds.
We removed falsehood from the earth's face,
We broke the shackles of the human race.
We reclaimed your Kaaba with our kneeling brows,
We pressed the sacred Quran to our heart and soul.
Even then you grumble, we are false, untrue,
If you call us faithless, tell us what are you?
You reserve your favours for men of other shades,
While you hurl your bolts on the Muslim race.
This is not our complaint that such alone are blesse,
Who do not know the etiquette, nor even can converse.
The tragedy is while kafirs are with houries actually blest,
On vague hopes of houries in heaven the Muslim race is made to rest!
Poverty, taunts, ignominy stare us in the face,
Is humiliation the sole reward of our suffering race?
To perpetuate Thy name is our sole concern,
Deprived of the saqi's aid can the cup revolve and turn?
Gone is your assemblage, off your lovers have sailed,
The midnight sights are no more heard, nor the morning wails;
They pledged their hearts to you, what is their return?
Hardly had they stepped inside, when they were externed.
Thy lovers came and went away, fed on hopes of future grace,
Search them now with the lamp of your glowing face.
Unassuaged is Laila's ache, unquenched is Qais's thirst,
In the wilderness of Nejd, the wild deer are still berserk.
The same passion thrills the hearts, enchanting still is beauty's gaze,
You are the same as before, same too is the Prophet's race.
Why then this indifference, without a cause or fault?
Why with your threatening looks dost thou break our heart?
Accepted that the flame of love burneth low and dim,
We do not, as in your, dance attendance on your whims;
But you too, pardon us, possess a coquettish heart,
Now on us, now on others, alight your amorous darts.
The spring has now taken leave, broken lies the lyre string,
The birds that chirped among the leaves have also taken wing;
A single nightingale is left singing on the tree,
A flood of song in her breast is longing for release.
From atop the firs and pines the doves have flown away,
The floral petals lie scattered all along the way.
Desolate lie the garden paths, once dressed and neat,
Leafless hang the branches on the naked trees.
The nightingale is unconcerned with the season's range,
Would that someone in the grove appreciates her wail.
May the nightingale's wail pierce the listeners' hearts,
May the clinking caravan awaken slumbering thoughts!
Let the hearts pledge anew their faith to you, O Lord,
Let's re-charge our cups from the taverns of the past.
Through I hold a Persian cup, the wine is pure Hejaz,
Thought I sing an Indian song, the turn is of the Arabian cast.
Translation is of two types:
• Literary and non-Literary translation
Literary translation
• Literary translation, especially poetry is more problematic to translate, due to its use of rhetoric/figure of speech.
Is Poetry Translatable?
• There are two views concerning translation of poetry:
• One view is that when poetry is translated its essence is lost, as Robert Frost said: “poetry is what gets lost in translation.”
• Prof. H. G. Widdowson, in his book: Systems and the Translation of Poetry (1975) presents his view that translation of poetry is extremely difficult due to its “patterning of sound and sense into a single meaning.”
• So the opponents say that when poetry is translated, its meter is distorted and its tone is disturbed and pleasure disappears, as every language has its own meter and music. As poetry abounds in figure of speech and it has its own unique syntactic, semantic and phonological pattern. It involves both linguistic
( sound pattern of words, rhythm, rhyme etc) and non-linguistic aspects ( ideas, images, symbolism etc.)
• It is easier to translate poems in free verse than those poems that follow strict meter and rhyme. As in the case of classical poetry or ancient poetry.
• But those who favour translation of poetry say that if poetry is untranslatable, then we would be deprived of large number of poetical works that are masterpieces. But they have also view that poetry should be in verse translation, when it is in prose it loses its effect.
Why poetry is difficult to translate?
• Difficult to find Exact Equivalence
• It is very difficult to find exact equivalence, even if translator has profound knowledge if SL and TL. He can’t produce replica of the original text.
Form and Structure are Inseparable
• It is difficult to find equivalence both in structure and meaning.
• What poetry requires retaining is the emotions, feel of language, hidden meanings and stylistic devices.
Grammatical Differences
• Grammatical differences also pose certain problems as every language follows different pattern in prose and poetry.
Stylistic Peculiarities
• Stylistic peculiarities need to be preserved in poetry, as it embodies the psychological and emotional effect. Translator needs to create total effect of the text.
• Poetic structure should also be retained. Rhythm, rhyme and meter, sounds, onomatopoeia, tone etc are very important devices in poetry and that should be retained in TL to retain the aesthetics of the verse.
Nuances of Word’s Meanings
A translator should be careful about the nuances of word’s meanings.
• A translator can be confused which from the numerous meanings can be used.
• He can have also difficulty in finding equivalent in the target language.
Connotations
• It involves semantic structure of both individual words and texts. It might be text bound or culture bound. Cultural and contextual figurative devices like metaphor, metonymy and allusion, allegory involve analysis at manifold level. As the use of black is used as metaphor for unnaturalness, cruelty, infidelity etc.
• It involves deep structure and hidden meanings.
• Cultural, historical and ideological references work in interpretation of connotations. Metaphorical expressions might be universal are cultural specific that might be or different in various cultures.
Translation of Works
THE HOLLOW MEN
by T. S. Eliot
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when 5
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar 10
Shape without form shade without colour,
Paralyzed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes to death's other Kingdom
Remember us--if at all-- not as lost 15
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
Paradise Lost
By Milton
Of man’s first disobedience, and the Fruit
Of that Forbidden Tree, whose mortal taste
Brought Death into the World, and all our woe,
With loss of Eden, till one greater Man
Restore us, and regain the blissful Seat, [ 5 ]
Faiz Ahmad Faiz
Faiz Ahmad Faiz
Last night, your lost memories crept into my heart
as spring arrives secretly into a barren garden
as a cool morning breeze blows slowly in a desert
as a sick person feels well, for no reason.
My Heart, My Traveler
Translated by Hamid Rahim Sheikh
My heart, my fellow traveler
It has been decreed again
That you and I be exiled,
go calling out in every street,
turn to every town.
To search for a clue
of a messenger from our Beloved.
To ask every stranger
the way back to our home.
In this town of unfamiliar folk
we drudge the day into the night
Talk to this stranger at times,
to that one at others.
How can I convey to you, my friend
how horrible is a night of lonliness *
It would suffice to me
if there were just some count
I would gladly welcome death
if it were to come but once.
Perveen Shakir Poems Translated by Alamgir Hashmi
A Message
It’s the same weather.
The rain’s laughter
rings in the trees, echoes.
Their green branches
wear golden flowers
and smile thinking of someone.
The breeze is a scarf, again the light-pink.
The path to the garden that knows us
is looking for us.
The moment of moon-rise
is waiting for us.
Pink Flowers
Pink flowers blossomed
in the season I met you.
With your attentions they are opening again,
though these wounds had healed already.
How long could the columns support
these houses shaken to their foundations?
That old strangeness came back,
as if our meetings had been done.
The body was still hotfoot with its infatuations,
the feet bruised on the way.
Shikwa:
by Allama Iqbal
Why should I abet the loss, why forget the gain,
Why forfiet the future, bemoan the past in vain?
Hear the wail of nightingale, and remain unstirred,
Am I a flower insensate that will not say a word?
The power of speech emboldens me to speak out my heart,
I'll sure be damned, I know, if fault my God.
Hear, O Lord, from the faithful ones this sad lament,
From those used to hymn a praise, a word of discontent.
Enternally were you present, Lord, eternally omniscent,
The flower hung upon the tree, but without incense.
Be Thou fair, tell us true, O fountsin head of grace,
How could the scent spread without the breeze apace?
The world presented a queer sight ere we took the stage,
Stones and plants in your stead were worshipped in that age.
Man, being inured to senses, couldn't accept a thing unseen,
How could a formless God impress his senses keen?
Tell me, Lord, if anyone ever invoked Thy name,
The strength of Muslim arm alone restored Thy fame.
There was no dearth of peoples on this earth before,
Turkish tribes and Persian clans lived in days of yore;
The Greeks and the Chinese both bred and throve,
Christians as well as the Jews on this planet roved.
But who in Thy holy name raised his valiant sword,
Who set the things right, resolved the rigmarole?
We were the warrior bands battling for Thy cause,
Now on land, now on water, we the crusades fought.
Now in Europe's synods did we loudly pray,
Now in African deserts made a bold foray.
Not for territorial greed did we wield the sword,
Not for pelf and power did we suffer the blows.
Had we been temped by the greed of glittering gold,
Instead of breaking idols, would have idols sold.
We impressed on every heart the oneness of our mighty Lord,
Even under the threat of sword, bold and clever was our call.
Who conquered, tell us Thou, the fearful Khyber pass?
Who vanquished the Imperial Rome, who made it fall?
Who broke the idols of the primitive folks?
Who fought the kafirs, massacred their hordes?
If the prayer time arrived right amid the war,
With their faces turned to Kaaba, knelt down the brave Hejaz.
Mahmud and Ayaz stood together in the same flank,
The ruler and the ruled forget the difference in their rank.
The rich and poor, Lord and slave, all were levelled down,
All became brethern in love, with Thy grace crowned.
We roamed the world through, visited every place,
Did our rounds like the cup, serving sacred ale.
Forget about the forests, we spared not the seas,
Into the dark, unfathomed ocean, we pushed our steeds.
We removed falsehood from the earth's face,
We broke the shackles of the human race.
We reclaimed your Kaaba with our kneeling brows,
We pressed the sacred Quran to our heart and soul.
Even then you grumble, we are false, untrue,
If you call us faithless, tell us what are you?
You reserve your favours for men of other shades,
While you hurl your bolts on the Muslim race.
This is not our complaint that such alone are blesse,
Who do not know the etiquette, nor even can converse.
The tragedy is while kafirs are with houries actually blest,
On vague hopes of houries in heaven the Muslim race is made to rest!
Poverty, taunts, ignominy stare us in the face,
Is humiliation the sole reward of our suffering race?
To perpetuate Thy name is our sole concern,
Deprived of the saqi's aid can the cup revolve and turn?
Gone is your assemblage, off your lovers have sailed,
The midnight sights are no more heard, nor the morning wails;
They pledged their hearts to you, what is their return?
Hardly had they stepped inside, when they were externed.
Thy lovers came and went away, fed on hopes of future grace,
Search them now with the lamp of your glowing face.
Unassuaged is Laila's ache, unquenched is Qais's thirst,
In the wilderness of Nejd, the wild deer are still berserk.
The same passion thrills the hearts, enchanting still is beauty's gaze,
You are the same as before, same too is the Prophet's race.
Why then this indifference, without a cause or fault?
Why with your threatening looks dost thou break our heart?
Accepted that the flame of love burneth low and dim,
We do not, as in your, dance attendance on your whims;
But you too, pardon us, possess a coquettish heart,
Now on us, now on others, alight your amorous darts.
The spring has now taken leave, broken lies the lyre string,
The birds that chirped among the leaves have also taken wing;
A single nightingale is left singing on the tree,
A flood of song in her breast is longing for release.
From atop the firs and pines the doves have flown away,
The floral petals lie scattered all along the way.
Desolate lie the garden paths, once dressed and neat,
Leafless hang the branches on the naked trees.
The nightingale is unconcerned with the season's range,
Would that someone in the grove appreciates her wail.
May the nightingale's wail pierce the listeners' hearts,
May the clinking caravan awaken slumbering thoughts!
Let the hearts pledge anew their faith to you, O Lord,
Let's re-charge our cups from the taverns of the past.
Through I hold a Persian cup, the wine is pure Hejaz,
Thought I sing an Indian song, the turn is of the Arabian cast.
Techniques of Humour
INTRODUCTION
The Oxford Dictionary defines humour as that quality of action, speech or writing which excites amusement, oddity and comicality; the faculty of perceiving what is ludicrous or amusing or of expressing it. The essence of humour is contrast. Humour arises from the perception of the incongruities of life, from the writer’s awareness of the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be. Humour arises when anything in thought; word or action falls below the normal level. It may also arise from incongruities of character or incongruities of situation.
Henry Fielding, the father of English novel, is one of the greatest humourists in English Literature. The same comic spirit which permeates his plays is also evident in his novels. As he informs us, the author upon whom he modeled himself was Cervantes; it is not surprising, therefore, that the comedy should be his method. Fielding’s humour is wide in range. It arises from the coarsest farce to the astonishing heights of the subtlest irony. On one side is his zestful description of various fights and, on the other, the grim irony of Jonathan Wild. Higher than both is that ineffable, pleasant, and ironic humour that may be found everywhere in Tom Jones but is at its best in Joseph Andrews where it plays like summer lightning around the figure of Parson Adams—an English cousin of Don Quixote. Joseph Andrews, which appeared on the scene in 1742 as a reaction against Richardson’s Pamela, is a novel rich in humour. It illustrates every shade and variety of humour. The novel is a classical example of a literary work, which started as a parody and ended as an excellent work of art in its own right. In Fielding we see many species of humour. Below is the description of different aspects and techniques of creating humour in the novel.
Humour of character is the highest kind of humour. There is enough of humour of character in the novel. A number of characters are definitely humorous in conception. Parson Adams, Mrs. Slipslop, Parson Trulliber and Beau Didapper are all humorous creations as in their thoughts, words or actions; they are below the normal or the expected level. Parson Adams’ character is fully exploited by Fielding. His very appearance is ridiculous. No body can believe that he is a parson. No body likes to respect him before he tells that he is a parson. Even when people know that he is a parson, they like to make fun of him. He has a ‘comical’ face, with bearded chin and deeply wrinkled cheeks’ a fist ‘ rather less than the knuckle of an ox’, with a wrist ‘which Hercules would not have been ashamed of’. His legs are so long that they almost touch the ground when he rides on horseback. He is a very forgetful man. He leaves for London to sell his sermons but forgets the precious manuscripts at home and does not discover the fact till he has accomplished half the journey. At one inn he forgets to settle the account for his horse’s keep and from another he marches away completely forgetting the horse itself. In addition to his absent-mindedness, he has funny mannerisms. When he is excited he begins to dance in the room, begins to groans when he is grieved and shouts ‘Heureka, heureka!’ when a happy idea strikes him.
Mrs. Slipslop’s appearance also provokes laughter. She has a large nose but small eyes. She is very short and her one leg is shorter than the other as Fielding explains:
She was not at this time remarkably handsome; being very short, and rather too corpulent in body, and somewhat red, with the addition of pimples in her face. Her nose was likewise too large, and her eyes too little; nor did she resemble a cow so much in her breath as in two brown globes which she carried before her; one of her legs was also a little shorter than the other, which associated her to limp as she walked.
In spite of all that she considers herself a lovable and rebukes Joseph when he does not reciprocate her love. Parson Trulliber is also described in similar terms:
He was indeed one of the largest men you should see, and could have acted the part of Sir John Falstaff without stuffing. Add to this, that the rotundity of his belly was considerably increased by the shortness of his stature, his shadow ascending very near as far in height when he lay on his back, as when he stood on his legs. His voice was loud and hoarse, and his accents extremely broad; to complete the whole, he had a stateliness in his gait, when he walked, not unlike that of a goose, only he stalked slower.
Then there is Beau Didapper, with his narrow shoulders and spindle shanks, who when Horace is quoted, observes that ‘he did not understand Welsh’.
Farce is humour arising from situation, and it is marked by exaggeration. It arises loud laughter, and does not require intelligence of any high order to be appreciated. The keynote of a farce is exaggeration to arouse broad horse laughter. Shaw’s plots are full of sudden inversions, exaggerations and comic situations. Joseph Andrews is a string of farcical situations. Several situations are farcical and boisterous. There is, for example, the fight scene at the inn where the passengers stop, interrupting the story of Leonora. Joseph falls from his horse and gets injured. He sits by the fireplace in the kitchen and the innkeeper’s wife is rubs his knee. This makes the innkeeper angry because he thinks that his wife is neglecting other guests. He is a little rude to Joseph as well and Parson Adams rebukes him for this. Here the fight starts in which every one is punching everyone. Finally the innkeeper’s wife throws hog’s blood on Parson Adams. At this stage, Mrs. Slipslop enters the battle and makes it more comic as Fielding says:
This good gentlewoman, not being of a temper so extremely cool and patient as perhaps was required to ask many questions on this occasion, flew with impetuosity at the hostess’s cap, which, together some of her hair, she plucked from her head in a moment, giving her, at the same time, several hearty cuffs in the face; which by frequent practice on the inferior servants, she had learned an excellent knack of delivering with good grace.
In another scene Parson Adams exhibits a new instance of his absent-mindedness. He forgets that he was riding a horse.
Mrs. Slipslop desired the coachman to overtake him, which he attempted, but in vain; for the faster he drove the faster ran the parson, often crying out, ‘Aye, aye, catch me if you can’; till at length the coachman swore he would as soon attempt to drive after a greyhound, and, giving the parson two or three hearty curses, he cry’d, ‘softly, softly, boys,’ to his horses, which the civil beasts immediately obeyed.
So parson Adams takes it as a competition and runs fast without looking behind and loses his way. In another scene, he goes to meet Parson Trulliber, who by mistake considers him a hog dealer and sends him into the hogs’ shed where he is thrashed by the hogs. The situation where the hounds of the squire tear at Parson Adams’ cassock is again farcical. In another place Beau Didapper, in an attempt to rape Fanny, mistakenly jumps into Mrs. Slipslop’s bed. She being virtuous finds an opportunity to prove her chastity to her mistress and begins to cry. In the mean time Parson Adams, sleeping in the next room comes there, wearing only a nightshirt. He considers Beau Didapper a woman because of his delicate skin and of Mrs. Slipslop’s beard and starts punching the latter severely. At the end of this fight every body goes back, Adams takes the wrong turn and ends up in Fanny’s room, where he climbs into bed with Fanny. He sleeps with her all the night but fails to realize that she is a woman.
As the cat or lap-dog of some lovely nymph, for whom ten thousand lovers languish, lies quietly by the side of the charming maid, and, ignorant of the sense of delight on which they repose, meditates the future capture of a mouse, or surprisal of a plate of bread and butter, so Adams lay by the side of Fanny, ignorant of the paradise to which he was so near.
Fielding’s ability at writing comic scene is fully evident here. But here farce assumes slightly moralistic overtones.
Fielding also uses exaggeration in the description of different characters. Exaggeration means “The act of making something more noticeable than usual” or “Making to seem more important than it really is”. For example, Parson Adams is introduced to us in such a way:
Mr. Abraham Adams was an excellent scholar. He was a perfect master of Greek and Latin languages; to which he added a great share of knowledge in the Oriental tongues; and could read and translate French, Italian, and Spanish. He had applied many years to the most severe study, and had treasured up a fund of learning rarely to be met with in a university.
But the matter of fact is that he has only one manuscript of Æschylus, which is his favourite book and keeps with him wherever he goes. Steeped in classical authors, he shows a stubborn lack of interest in modern writings. He is unacquainted with the history of the last thousand years. Ignorant of what Shakespeare or Pope had to offer, he meets Joseph’s quotation from Macbeth with the remark that nothing but heathenism was to be had from plays. Numerous examples of exaggeration can be cited from the novel.
Humour grows satiric when there is moral indignation and a desire to reform and correct. Satirical humour, however, pervades all the writings of Fielding. Dudden remarks, “It was, indeed, his favourite method of criticizing lighter vices and follies. As to his employment of this instrument, he very seldom used it to expose or ridicule individuals. Derisive attacks on individual persons seemed to him indecorous. His humorous satire was therefore directed, first, against various classes or groups (parsons and doctors, beaus and booby-squires, waiting-maids and fine ladies; Methodists and Jacobites); secondly, against contemporary society in general; and thirdly, against humanity as a whole”………. “This humorous satire is instructive and corrective. Its object, as Fielding put it, is ‘to hold the glass to thousands in their closets, that they may contemplate their deformity, and endeavor to reduce it’.” If men can once be made to realize how foolish or wrong they are, there is some hope that, for very shame, they will attempt amendment. Some examples can be quoted in this regard. In a scene the stage-coach passengers confront the naked and wounded Joseph. The postilion heard the groans of Joseph and stopped the coach. The coachman, however, urged him to go on, as they were late. A lady passenger intervenes and asks the coachman to stop and investigate. The postilion got down and soon came back to say that it was a naked man lying wounded in the ditch. “O J-sus! cried the lady, A naked man! Dear coachman, drive on and leave him.” What a spurious sense of modesty or virtue this is. Here every passenger is striped of spiritually naked in his confrontation with the naked human being symbilised by Joseph. The satire is obvious in each passenger’s reaction. The lady’s false delicacy, the old gentleman’s cowardly selfishness, and the equally selfish lawyer’s cautiousness, are all exposed. Again when postilion helps Joseph with his shirt and condemns the passengers for not helping Joseph in this situation, he is rebuked by the passengers. The society of the day comes in for plenty of ridicule by Fielding. The corrupt and hypocritical clergy, magistrate, lawyers, doctors, similarly come in for attack. But through particular examples, through the individuals like Lady Booby, Mrs. Slipslop, Parson Trulliber, Parson Barnabas, the Squire of Fools and the Squire of False Promises, general human follies are satirized. What is note worthy, is that Fielding is never bitter in the description of persons and the incidents. Most of the time he keeps laughing and goes on making us laugh. He tries to make the wicked and the corrupt laugh at themselves so that they may realize their follies he tries to teach his lessons by the method of amusement.
Fielding also uses ironical humour. Irony in its simplest form, is the deliberate use of words, which literally express a meaning opposite to that which the speaker really desires and intends to convey; as when for the purpose of ridicule, laudatory expressions are employed to indicate condemnation. According to Dudden, we find two kinds of ironical humour in Fielding’s work. “There is a light and sportive irony, flavoring and salting scores of passages in the novels and communicating a sharp but pleasurable sting to the mind of the reader. It criticizes but not condemn. On the other hand, there is a grim species of irony, which is employed when the author is sternly intent on castigating what is false and wrong”. In Joseph Andrews, some examples of such humour can be noted. For example, the patriot boasts of his patriotism and wants to hang the cowards but he himself turns tail when a scoundrel tries to rape Fanny. Parson Adams and a Roman Catholic priest are of the opinion that money is useless but they have no money to pay their bill. They are laughed at. Adams’ learned advice to Joseph on moderation and philosophical acceptance of misfortune is thrown to the winds when his own son is reported to be drowned. There are of course, sharp touches of irony in Mrs. Slipslop’s portraiture and Lady Booby’s excuses. We have been neglecting Mrs. Slipslop, who at long last has had not one but two men in her bed (simultaneously!), but who has been forced by circumstances to reject them both. The sex-starved maiden, with her mountainous breasts and her spur of the moment virtue, has been soundly trounced.
Occasionally Fielding parodies the epic style to produce humour. He conceived Joseph Andrews as a comic epic in prose like Homer’s lost Margites. The comic epic employs the light and the ludicrous in fable and action. It preserves the ludicrous in sentiment and diction. In the preface, he observes the source of the ridiculous:
The only Source of the true Ridiculous (as it appears to me) is Affectation. But tho' it arises from one Spring only, when we consider the infinite Streams into which this one branches, we shall presently cease to admire at the copious Field it affords to an Observer. Now Affectation proceeds from one of these two Causes, Vanity, or Hypocrisy: for as Vanity puts us on affecting false Characters, in order to purchase Applause; so Hypocrisy sets us on an Endeavour to avoid Censure by concealing our Vices under an Appearance of their opposite Virtues.
Moreover he differentiates comic-epic and serious epic as:
Now a comic Romance is a comic Epic-Poem in Prose; differing from Comedy, as the serious Epic from Tragedy: its Action being more extended and comprehensive; containing a much larger Circle of Incidents, and introducing a greater Variety of Characters. It differs from the serious Romance in its Fable and Action, in this; that as in the one these are grave and solemn, so in the other they are light and ridiculous: it differs in its Characters, by introducing Persons of inferiour Rank, and consequently of inferiour Manners, whereas the grave Romance, sets the highest before us; lastly in its Sentiments and Diction; by preserving the Ludicrous instead of the Sublime. In the Diction I think, Burlesque itself may be sometimes admitted; of which many Instances will occur in this Work, as in the Descriptions of the Battles, and some other Places, not necessary to be pointed out to the Classical Reader; for whose Entertainment those Parodies or Burlesque Imitations are chiefly calculated.
The funny situation of the bloody fight in which Parson Adams gets doused in hog’s blood is described in Homeric terms. Similarly Joseph’s encounter with the dogs let loose on Parson Adams is also described in epic-style. Here the use of grand style to describe situations which are essentially ridiculous in themselves produces the comic effect.
CONCLUSION
The pith and marrow of above said is that Henry Fielding was a master of the various forms of humour—farce, satire, irony, humorous characterization, and the parody. At the same time, his humour is of the Shakespearean and Chaucerian genre—benign, tolerant, genial and very much spontaneous. Humour arises naturally; it is never contrived. Coleridge is right when he compares Fielding’s humour with that of Richardson and comments, “There is a cheerful, sunshiny, breezy spirit that prevails everywhere strongly contrasted with the close, hot, day-dreamy continuity of Richardson”. He grips the attention of the readers by his amusing situations and humour. He has been very appropriately called “a laughing philosopher”.
The Oxford Dictionary defines humour as that quality of action, speech or writing which excites amusement, oddity and comicality; the faculty of perceiving what is ludicrous or amusing or of expressing it. The essence of humour is contrast. Humour arises from the perception of the incongruities of life, from the writer’s awareness of the discrepancy between what is and what ought to be. Humour arises when anything in thought; word or action falls below the normal level. It may also arise from incongruities of character or incongruities of situation.
Henry Fielding, the father of English novel, is one of the greatest humourists in English Literature. The same comic spirit which permeates his plays is also evident in his novels. As he informs us, the author upon whom he modeled himself was Cervantes; it is not surprising, therefore, that the comedy should be his method. Fielding’s humour is wide in range. It arises from the coarsest farce to the astonishing heights of the subtlest irony. On one side is his zestful description of various fights and, on the other, the grim irony of Jonathan Wild. Higher than both is that ineffable, pleasant, and ironic humour that may be found everywhere in Tom Jones but is at its best in Joseph Andrews where it plays like summer lightning around the figure of Parson Adams—an English cousin of Don Quixote. Joseph Andrews, which appeared on the scene in 1742 as a reaction against Richardson’s Pamela, is a novel rich in humour. It illustrates every shade and variety of humour. The novel is a classical example of a literary work, which started as a parody and ended as an excellent work of art in its own right. In Fielding we see many species of humour. Below is the description of different aspects and techniques of creating humour in the novel.
Humour of character is the highest kind of humour. There is enough of humour of character in the novel. A number of characters are definitely humorous in conception. Parson Adams, Mrs. Slipslop, Parson Trulliber and Beau Didapper are all humorous creations as in their thoughts, words or actions; they are below the normal or the expected level. Parson Adams’ character is fully exploited by Fielding. His very appearance is ridiculous. No body can believe that he is a parson. No body likes to respect him before he tells that he is a parson. Even when people know that he is a parson, they like to make fun of him. He has a ‘comical’ face, with bearded chin and deeply wrinkled cheeks’ a fist ‘ rather less than the knuckle of an ox’, with a wrist ‘which Hercules would not have been ashamed of’. His legs are so long that they almost touch the ground when he rides on horseback. He is a very forgetful man. He leaves for London to sell his sermons but forgets the precious manuscripts at home and does not discover the fact till he has accomplished half the journey. At one inn he forgets to settle the account for his horse’s keep and from another he marches away completely forgetting the horse itself. In addition to his absent-mindedness, he has funny mannerisms. When he is excited he begins to dance in the room, begins to groans when he is grieved and shouts ‘Heureka, heureka!’ when a happy idea strikes him.
Mrs. Slipslop’s appearance also provokes laughter. She has a large nose but small eyes. She is very short and her one leg is shorter than the other as Fielding explains:
She was not at this time remarkably handsome; being very short, and rather too corpulent in body, and somewhat red, with the addition of pimples in her face. Her nose was likewise too large, and her eyes too little; nor did she resemble a cow so much in her breath as in two brown globes which she carried before her; one of her legs was also a little shorter than the other, which associated her to limp as she walked.
In spite of all that she considers herself a lovable and rebukes Joseph when he does not reciprocate her love. Parson Trulliber is also described in similar terms:
He was indeed one of the largest men you should see, and could have acted the part of Sir John Falstaff without stuffing. Add to this, that the rotundity of his belly was considerably increased by the shortness of his stature, his shadow ascending very near as far in height when he lay on his back, as when he stood on his legs. His voice was loud and hoarse, and his accents extremely broad; to complete the whole, he had a stateliness in his gait, when he walked, not unlike that of a goose, only he stalked slower.
Then there is Beau Didapper, with his narrow shoulders and spindle shanks, who when Horace is quoted, observes that ‘he did not understand Welsh’.
Farce is humour arising from situation, and it is marked by exaggeration. It arises loud laughter, and does not require intelligence of any high order to be appreciated. The keynote of a farce is exaggeration to arouse broad horse laughter. Shaw’s plots are full of sudden inversions, exaggerations and comic situations. Joseph Andrews is a string of farcical situations. Several situations are farcical and boisterous. There is, for example, the fight scene at the inn where the passengers stop, interrupting the story of Leonora. Joseph falls from his horse and gets injured. He sits by the fireplace in the kitchen and the innkeeper’s wife is rubs his knee. This makes the innkeeper angry because he thinks that his wife is neglecting other guests. He is a little rude to Joseph as well and Parson Adams rebukes him for this. Here the fight starts in which every one is punching everyone. Finally the innkeeper’s wife throws hog’s blood on Parson Adams. At this stage, Mrs. Slipslop enters the battle and makes it more comic as Fielding says:
This good gentlewoman, not being of a temper so extremely cool and patient as perhaps was required to ask many questions on this occasion, flew with impetuosity at the hostess’s cap, which, together some of her hair, she plucked from her head in a moment, giving her, at the same time, several hearty cuffs in the face; which by frequent practice on the inferior servants, she had learned an excellent knack of delivering with good grace.
In another scene Parson Adams exhibits a new instance of his absent-mindedness. He forgets that he was riding a horse.
Mrs. Slipslop desired the coachman to overtake him, which he attempted, but in vain; for the faster he drove the faster ran the parson, often crying out, ‘Aye, aye, catch me if you can’; till at length the coachman swore he would as soon attempt to drive after a greyhound, and, giving the parson two or three hearty curses, he cry’d, ‘softly, softly, boys,’ to his horses, which the civil beasts immediately obeyed.
So parson Adams takes it as a competition and runs fast without looking behind and loses his way. In another scene, he goes to meet Parson Trulliber, who by mistake considers him a hog dealer and sends him into the hogs’ shed where he is thrashed by the hogs. The situation where the hounds of the squire tear at Parson Adams’ cassock is again farcical. In another place Beau Didapper, in an attempt to rape Fanny, mistakenly jumps into Mrs. Slipslop’s bed. She being virtuous finds an opportunity to prove her chastity to her mistress and begins to cry. In the mean time Parson Adams, sleeping in the next room comes there, wearing only a nightshirt. He considers Beau Didapper a woman because of his delicate skin and of Mrs. Slipslop’s beard and starts punching the latter severely. At the end of this fight every body goes back, Adams takes the wrong turn and ends up in Fanny’s room, where he climbs into bed with Fanny. He sleeps with her all the night but fails to realize that she is a woman.
As the cat or lap-dog of some lovely nymph, for whom ten thousand lovers languish, lies quietly by the side of the charming maid, and, ignorant of the sense of delight on which they repose, meditates the future capture of a mouse, or surprisal of a plate of bread and butter, so Adams lay by the side of Fanny, ignorant of the paradise to which he was so near.
Fielding’s ability at writing comic scene is fully evident here. But here farce assumes slightly moralistic overtones.
Fielding also uses exaggeration in the description of different characters. Exaggeration means “The act of making something more noticeable than usual” or “Making to seem more important than it really is”. For example, Parson Adams is introduced to us in such a way:
Mr. Abraham Adams was an excellent scholar. He was a perfect master of Greek and Latin languages; to which he added a great share of knowledge in the Oriental tongues; and could read and translate French, Italian, and Spanish. He had applied many years to the most severe study, and had treasured up a fund of learning rarely to be met with in a university.
But the matter of fact is that he has only one manuscript of Æschylus, which is his favourite book and keeps with him wherever he goes. Steeped in classical authors, he shows a stubborn lack of interest in modern writings. He is unacquainted with the history of the last thousand years. Ignorant of what Shakespeare or Pope had to offer, he meets Joseph’s quotation from Macbeth with the remark that nothing but heathenism was to be had from plays. Numerous examples of exaggeration can be cited from the novel.
Humour grows satiric when there is moral indignation and a desire to reform and correct. Satirical humour, however, pervades all the writings of Fielding. Dudden remarks, “It was, indeed, his favourite method of criticizing lighter vices and follies. As to his employment of this instrument, he very seldom used it to expose or ridicule individuals. Derisive attacks on individual persons seemed to him indecorous. His humorous satire was therefore directed, first, against various classes or groups (parsons and doctors, beaus and booby-squires, waiting-maids and fine ladies; Methodists and Jacobites); secondly, against contemporary society in general; and thirdly, against humanity as a whole”………. “This humorous satire is instructive and corrective. Its object, as Fielding put it, is ‘to hold the glass to thousands in their closets, that they may contemplate their deformity, and endeavor to reduce it’.” If men can once be made to realize how foolish or wrong they are, there is some hope that, for very shame, they will attempt amendment. Some examples can be quoted in this regard. In a scene the stage-coach passengers confront the naked and wounded Joseph. The postilion heard the groans of Joseph and stopped the coach. The coachman, however, urged him to go on, as they were late. A lady passenger intervenes and asks the coachman to stop and investigate. The postilion got down and soon came back to say that it was a naked man lying wounded in the ditch. “O J-sus! cried the lady, A naked man! Dear coachman, drive on and leave him.” What a spurious sense of modesty or virtue this is. Here every passenger is striped of spiritually naked in his confrontation with the naked human being symbilised by Joseph. The satire is obvious in each passenger’s reaction. The lady’s false delicacy, the old gentleman’s cowardly selfishness, and the equally selfish lawyer’s cautiousness, are all exposed. Again when postilion helps Joseph with his shirt and condemns the passengers for not helping Joseph in this situation, he is rebuked by the passengers. The society of the day comes in for plenty of ridicule by Fielding. The corrupt and hypocritical clergy, magistrate, lawyers, doctors, similarly come in for attack. But through particular examples, through the individuals like Lady Booby, Mrs. Slipslop, Parson Trulliber, Parson Barnabas, the Squire of Fools and the Squire of False Promises, general human follies are satirized. What is note worthy, is that Fielding is never bitter in the description of persons and the incidents. Most of the time he keeps laughing and goes on making us laugh. He tries to make the wicked and the corrupt laugh at themselves so that they may realize their follies he tries to teach his lessons by the method of amusement.
Fielding also uses ironical humour. Irony in its simplest form, is the deliberate use of words, which literally express a meaning opposite to that which the speaker really desires and intends to convey; as when for the purpose of ridicule, laudatory expressions are employed to indicate condemnation. According to Dudden, we find two kinds of ironical humour in Fielding’s work. “There is a light and sportive irony, flavoring and salting scores of passages in the novels and communicating a sharp but pleasurable sting to the mind of the reader. It criticizes but not condemn. On the other hand, there is a grim species of irony, which is employed when the author is sternly intent on castigating what is false and wrong”. In Joseph Andrews, some examples of such humour can be noted. For example, the patriot boasts of his patriotism and wants to hang the cowards but he himself turns tail when a scoundrel tries to rape Fanny. Parson Adams and a Roman Catholic priest are of the opinion that money is useless but they have no money to pay their bill. They are laughed at. Adams’ learned advice to Joseph on moderation and philosophical acceptance of misfortune is thrown to the winds when his own son is reported to be drowned. There are of course, sharp touches of irony in Mrs. Slipslop’s portraiture and Lady Booby’s excuses. We have been neglecting Mrs. Slipslop, who at long last has had not one but two men in her bed (simultaneously!), but who has been forced by circumstances to reject them both. The sex-starved maiden, with her mountainous breasts and her spur of the moment virtue, has been soundly trounced.
Occasionally Fielding parodies the epic style to produce humour. He conceived Joseph Andrews as a comic epic in prose like Homer’s lost Margites. The comic epic employs the light and the ludicrous in fable and action. It preserves the ludicrous in sentiment and diction. In the preface, he observes the source of the ridiculous:
The only Source of the true Ridiculous (as it appears to me) is Affectation. But tho' it arises from one Spring only, when we consider the infinite Streams into which this one branches, we shall presently cease to admire at the copious Field it affords to an Observer. Now Affectation proceeds from one of these two Causes, Vanity, or Hypocrisy: for as Vanity puts us on affecting false Characters, in order to purchase Applause; so Hypocrisy sets us on an Endeavour to avoid Censure by concealing our Vices under an Appearance of their opposite Virtues.
Moreover he differentiates comic-epic and serious epic as:
Now a comic Romance is a comic Epic-Poem in Prose; differing from Comedy, as the serious Epic from Tragedy: its Action being more extended and comprehensive; containing a much larger Circle of Incidents, and introducing a greater Variety of Characters. It differs from the serious Romance in its Fable and Action, in this; that as in the one these are grave and solemn, so in the other they are light and ridiculous: it differs in its Characters, by introducing Persons of inferiour Rank, and consequently of inferiour Manners, whereas the grave Romance, sets the highest before us; lastly in its Sentiments and Diction; by preserving the Ludicrous instead of the Sublime. In the Diction I think, Burlesque itself may be sometimes admitted; of which many Instances will occur in this Work, as in the Descriptions of the Battles, and some other Places, not necessary to be pointed out to the Classical Reader; for whose Entertainment those Parodies or Burlesque Imitations are chiefly calculated.
The funny situation of the bloody fight in which Parson Adams gets doused in hog’s blood is described in Homeric terms. Similarly Joseph’s encounter with the dogs let loose on Parson Adams is also described in epic-style. Here the use of grand style to describe situations which are essentially ridiculous in themselves produces the comic effect.
CONCLUSION
The pith and marrow of above said is that Henry Fielding was a master of the various forms of humour—farce, satire, irony, humorous characterization, and the parody. At the same time, his humour is of the Shakespearean and Chaucerian genre—benign, tolerant, genial and very much spontaneous. Humour arises naturally; it is never contrived. Coleridge is right when he compares Fielding’s humour with that of Richardson and comments, “There is a cheerful, sunshiny, breezy spirit that prevails everywhere strongly contrasted with the close, hot, day-dreamy continuity of Richardson”. He grips the attention of the readers by his amusing situations and humour. He has been very appropriately called “a laughing philosopher”.
History of Translation
History of Translation
Translation is the interpreting of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text " that communicates the same message in another language.
The text to be translated is called the "source text," and the language that it is to be translated into is called the "target language"; the final product is sometimes called the "target text."
context
1. the rules of grammar of the two languages
2. their writing conventions &
3. their idioms
there exists a simple word-for-word correspondence between any two languages, and that translation is a straightforward mechanical process; such a word-for-word translation, however, cannot take into account context, grammar, conventions, and idioms.
The art of translation is as old as written literature. Parts of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, among the oldest known literary works, have been found in translations into several Asiatic languages of the second millennium BCE. The Epic of Gilgamesh may have been read, in their own languages, by early authors of the Bible and of the Iliad.
The ancient Greek word for interpreter/translator is Hermêneus, directly related to the name of the god Hermes. Its many further meanings—mediator, go-between, deal-broker, marriage-broker—open up a window onto the work of interpreters during prehistory.
We may project the existence of interpreters as far back into prehistory as separate languages and dialects may have existed
some European translators have campaigned for St. Jerome as the patron saint of translation
Several current schools of Linguistics have their grounding in ancient Greek works on grammar, but as we shall see, the Greeks themselves, following Plato, looked to two authorities where language was concerned: grammarians and interpreters.
The first important translation in the West was that of the Septuagint,[1] a collection of Jewish Scriptures [1] J.M. Cohen, "Translation," Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 27, p. 12.
Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC
Throughout the Middle Ages, Latin was the lingua franca of the western learned world. In the 9th-century Alfred the Great, king of Wessex in England, was far ahead of his time in commissioning vernacular Anglo-Saxon translations of Bede's Ecclesiastical History and Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy
Alfred's translation of The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius was the most popular philosophical handbook of the Middle Ages.
Large-scale efforts at translation were undertaken by the Arabs. Having conquered the Greek world, they made Arabic versions of its philosophical and scientific works. During the Middle Ages, some translations of these Arabic versions were made into Latin, chiefly at Córdoba in Spain
The first fine translations into English were made by England's first great poet, the 14th-century Geoffrey Chaucer, who adapted from the Italian of Giovanni Boccaccio in his own Knight's Tale and Troilus and Criseyde
The first great English translation was the Wycliffe Bible (ca. 1382), which showed the weaknesses of an underdeveloped English prose
at the end of the 15th century would the great age of English prose translation begin with Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur—an adaptation of Arthurian romances so free that it can, in fact, hardly be called a true translation.
Wyclif's Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle English that were made under the direction of, or at the instigation of, John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395
in Renaissance Italy, a new period in the history of translation had opened in Florence with the arrival, at the court of Cosimo de' Medici, of the Byzantine scholar Georgius Gemistus Pletho shortly before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (1453
The Elizabethan period of translation saw considerable progress beyond mere paraphrase toward an ideal of stylistic equivalence, but even to the end of this period—which actually reached to the middle of the 17th century—there was no concern for verbal accuracy.
In the second half of the 17th century, the poet John Dryden sought to make Virgil speak "in words such as he would probably have written if he were living and an Englishman."
Throughout the 18th century, the watchword of translators was ease of reading. Whatever they did not understand in a text, or thought might bore readers, they omitted. They cheerfully assumed that their own style of expression was the best, and that texts should be made to conform to it in translation.
The 19th century brought new standards of accuracy and style. In regard to accuracy, observes J.M. Cohen, the policy became "the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text," except for any bawdy passages and the addition of copious explanatory footnotes
In advance of the 20th century, a new pattern was set in 1871 by Benjamin Jowett, who translated Plato into simple, straightforward language. Jowett's example was not followed, however, until well into the new century, when accuracy rather than style became the principal criterion.
History of Translation
The first important translation in the West was that of the Septuagint,[16] a collection of Jewish Scriptures translated into Koine Greek in Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. The dispersed Jews had forgotten their ancestral language and needed Greek versions (translations) of their Scriptures.
Throughout the Middle Ages, Latin was the lingua franca of the western learned world. The 9th-century Alfred the Great, king of Wessex in England, was far ahead of his time in commissioning vernacular Anglo-Saxon translations of Bede's Ecclesiastical History and Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy. Meanwhile the Christian Church frowned on even partial adaptations of the standard Latin Bible, St. Jerome's Vulgate of ca. 384 CE.[17]
In Asia, the spread of Buddhism led to large-scale ongoing translation efforts spanning well over a thousand years. The Tangut Empire was especially efficient in such efforts; exploiting the then newly-invented block printing, and with the full support of the government (contemporary sources describe the Emperor and his mother personally contributing to the translation effort, alongside sages of various nationalities), the Tanguts took mere decades to translate volumes that had taken the Chinese centuries to render.[citation needed]
Large-scale efforts at translation were undertaken by the Arabs. Having conquered the Greek world, they made Arabic versions of its philosophical and scientific works. During the Middle Ages, some translations of these Arabic versions were made into Latin, chiefly at Córdoba in Spain.[18] Such Latin translations of Greek and original Arab works of scholarship and science would help advance the development of European Scholasticism.
The broad historic trends in Western translation practice may be illustrated on the example of translation into the English language.The first fine translations into English were made by England's first great poet, the 14th-century Geoffrey Chaucer, who adapted from the Italian of Giovanni Boccaccio in his own Knight's Tale and Troilus and Criseyde; began a translation of the French-language Roman de la Rose; and completed a translation of Boethius from the Latin. Chaucer founded an English poetic tradition on adaptations and translations from those earlier-established literary languages.[18]
The first great English translation was the Wycliffe Bible (ca. 1382), which showed the weaknesses of an underdeveloped English prose. Only at the end of the 15th century would the great age of English prose translation begin with Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur—an adaptation of Arthurian romances so free that it can, in fact, hardly be called a true translation. The first great Tudor translations are, accordingly, the Tyndale New Testament (1525), which would influence the Authorized Version (1611), and Lord Berners' version of Jean Froissart's Chronicles (1523–25).[18]
Meanwhile, in Renaissance Italy, a new period in the history of translation had opened in Florence with the arrival, at the court of Cosimo de' Medici, of the Byzantine scholar Georgius Gemistus Pletho shortly before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (1453). A Latin translation of Plato's works was undertaken by Marsilio Ficino. This and Erasmus' Latin edition of the New Testament led to a new attitude to translation. For the first time, readers demanded rigor of rendering, as philosophical and religious beliefs depended on the exact words of Plato, Aristotle and Jesus.[18]
Non-scholarly literature, however, continued to rely on adaptation. France's Pléiade, England's Tudor poets, and the Elizabethan translators adapted themes by Horace, Ovid, Petrarch and modern Latin writers, forming a new poetic style on those models. The English poets and translators sought to supply a new public, created by the rise of a middle class and the development of printing, with works such as the original authors would have written, had they been writing in England in that day.[18]
The Elizabethan period of translation saw considerable progress beyond mere paraphrase toward an ideal of stylistic equivalence, but even to the end of this period—which actually reached to the middle of the 17th century—there was no concern for verbal accuracy.[19]
In the second half of the 17th century, the poet John Dryden sought to make Virgil speak "in words such as he would probably have written if he were living and an Englishman." Dryden, however, discerned no need to emulate the Roman poet's subtlety and concision. Similarly, Homer suffered from Alexander Pope's endeavor to reduce the Greek poet's "wild paradise" to order.[19]
Throughout the 18th century, the watchword of translators was ease of reading. Whatever they did not understand in a text, or thought might bore readers, they omitted. They cheerfully assumed that their own style of expression was the best, and that texts should be made to conform to it in translation. For scholarship they cared no more than had their predecessors, and they did not shrink from making translations from translations in third languages, or from languages that they hardly knew, or—as in the case of James Macpherson's "translations" of Ossian—from texts that were actually of the "translator's" own composition.[19]
The 19th century brought new standards of accuracy and style. In regard to accuracy, observes J.M. Cohen, the policy became "the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text," except for any bawdy passages and the addition of copious explanatory footnotes.[20] In regard to style, the Victorians' aim, achieved through far-reaching metaphrase (literality) or pseudo-metaphrase, was to constantly remind readers that they were reading a foreign classic. An exception was the outstanding translation in this period, Edward FitzGerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1859), which achieved its Oriental flavor largely by using Persian names and discreet Biblical echoes and actually drew little of its material from the Persian original.[19]
In advance of the 20th century, a new pattern was set in 1871 by Benjamin Jowett, who translated Plato into simple, straightforward language. Jowett's example was not followed, however, until well into the new century, when accuracy rather than style became the principal criterion.[19]
Translation is the interpreting of the meaning of a text and the subsequent production of an equivalent text " that communicates the same message in another language.
The text to be translated is called the "source text," and the language that it is to be translated into is called the "target language"; the final product is sometimes called the "target text."
context
1. the rules of grammar of the two languages
2. their writing conventions &
3. their idioms
there exists a simple word-for-word correspondence between any two languages, and that translation is a straightforward mechanical process; such a word-for-word translation, however, cannot take into account context, grammar, conventions, and idioms.
The art of translation is as old as written literature. Parts of the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh, among the oldest known literary works, have been found in translations into several Asiatic languages of the second millennium BCE. The Epic of Gilgamesh may have been read, in their own languages, by early authors of the Bible and of the Iliad.
The ancient Greek word for interpreter/translator is Hermêneus, directly related to the name of the god Hermes. Its many further meanings—mediator, go-between, deal-broker, marriage-broker—open up a window onto the work of interpreters during prehistory.
We may project the existence of interpreters as far back into prehistory as separate languages and dialects may have existed
some European translators have campaigned for St. Jerome as the patron saint of translation
Several current schools of Linguistics have their grounding in ancient Greek works on grammar, but as we shall see, the Greeks themselves, following Plato, looked to two authorities where language was concerned: grammarians and interpreters.
The first important translation in the West was that of the Septuagint,[1] a collection of Jewish Scriptures [1] J.M. Cohen, "Translation," Encyclopedia Americana, 1986, vol. 27, p. 12.
Jewish scholars first translated the Torah into Koine Greek in the third century BC
Throughout the Middle Ages, Latin was the lingua franca of the western learned world. In the 9th-century Alfred the Great, king of Wessex in England, was far ahead of his time in commissioning vernacular Anglo-Saxon translations of Bede's Ecclesiastical History and Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy
Alfred's translation of The Consolation of Philosophy of Boethius was the most popular philosophical handbook of the Middle Ages.
Large-scale efforts at translation were undertaken by the Arabs. Having conquered the Greek world, they made Arabic versions of its philosophical and scientific works. During the Middle Ages, some translations of these Arabic versions were made into Latin, chiefly at Córdoba in Spain
The first fine translations into English were made by England's first great poet, the 14th-century Geoffrey Chaucer, who adapted from the Italian of Giovanni Boccaccio in his own Knight's Tale and Troilus and Criseyde
The first great English translation was the Wycliffe Bible (ca. 1382), which showed the weaknesses of an underdeveloped English prose
at the end of the 15th century would the great age of English prose translation begin with Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur—an adaptation of Arthurian romances so free that it can, in fact, hardly be called a true translation.
Wyclif's Bible is the name now given to a group of Bible translations into Middle English that were made under the direction of, or at the instigation of, John Wycliffe. They appeared over a period from approximately 1382 to 1395
in Renaissance Italy, a new period in the history of translation had opened in Florence with the arrival, at the court of Cosimo de' Medici, of the Byzantine scholar Georgius Gemistus Pletho shortly before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (1453
The Elizabethan period of translation saw considerable progress beyond mere paraphrase toward an ideal of stylistic equivalence, but even to the end of this period—which actually reached to the middle of the 17th century—there was no concern for verbal accuracy.
In the second half of the 17th century, the poet John Dryden sought to make Virgil speak "in words such as he would probably have written if he were living and an Englishman."
Throughout the 18th century, the watchword of translators was ease of reading. Whatever they did not understand in a text, or thought might bore readers, they omitted. They cheerfully assumed that their own style of expression was the best, and that texts should be made to conform to it in translation.
The 19th century brought new standards of accuracy and style. In regard to accuracy, observes J.M. Cohen, the policy became "the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text," except for any bawdy passages and the addition of copious explanatory footnotes
In advance of the 20th century, a new pattern was set in 1871 by Benjamin Jowett, who translated Plato into simple, straightforward language. Jowett's example was not followed, however, until well into the new century, when accuracy rather than style became the principal criterion.
History of Translation
The first important translation in the West was that of the Septuagint,[16] a collection of Jewish Scriptures translated into Koine Greek in Alexandria between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. The dispersed Jews had forgotten their ancestral language and needed Greek versions (translations) of their Scriptures.
Throughout the Middle Ages, Latin was the lingua franca of the western learned world. The 9th-century Alfred the Great, king of Wessex in England, was far ahead of his time in commissioning vernacular Anglo-Saxon translations of Bede's Ecclesiastical History and Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy. Meanwhile the Christian Church frowned on even partial adaptations of the standard Latin Bible, St. Jerome's Vulgate of ca. 384 CE.[17]
In Asia, the spread of Buddhism led to large-scale ongoing translation efforts spanning well over a thousand years. The Tangut Empire was especially efficient in such efforts; exploiting the then newly-invented block printing, and with the full support of the government (contemporary sources describe the Emperor and his mother personally contributing to the translation effort, alongside sages of various nationalities), the Tanguts took mere decades to translate volumes that had taken the Chinese centuries to render.[citation needed]
Large-scale efforts at translation were undertaken by the Arabs. Having conquered the Greek world, they made Arabic versions of its philosophical and scientific works. During the Middle Ages, some translations of these Arabic versions were made into Latin, chiefly at Córdoba in Spain.[18] Such Latin translations of Greek and original Arab works of scholarship and science would help advance the development of European Scholasticism.
The broad historic trends in Western translation practice may be illustrated on the example of translation into the English language.The first fine translations into English were made by England's first great poet, the 14th-century Geoffrey Chaucer, who adapted from the Italian of Giovanni Boccaccio in his own Knight's Tale and Troilus and Criseyde; began a translation of the French-language Roman de la Rose; and completed a translation of Boethius from the Latin. Chaucer founded an English poetic tradition on adaptations and translations from those earlier-established literary languages.[18]
The first great English translation was the Wycliffe Bible (ca. 1382), which showed the weaknesses of an underdeveloped English prose. Only at the end of the 15th century would the great age of English prose translation begin with Thomas Malory's Le Morte Darthur—an adaptation of Arthurian romances so free that it can, in fact, hardly be called a true translation. The first great Tudor translations are, accordingly, the Tyndale New Testament (1525), which would influence the Authorized Version (1611), and Lord Berners' version of Jean Froissart's Chronicles (1523–25).[18]
Meanwhile, in Renaissance Italy, a new period in the history of translation had opened in Florence with the arrival, at the court of Cosimo de' Medici, of the Byzantine scholar Georgius Gemistus Pletho shortly before the fall of Constantinople to the Turks (1453). A Latin translation of Plato's works was undertaken by Marsilio Ficino. This and Erasmus' Latin edition of the New Testament led to a new attitude to translation. For the first time, readers demanded rigor of rendering, as philosophical and religious beliefs depended on the exact words of Plato, Aristotle and Jesus.[18]
Non-scholarly literature, however, continued to rely on adaptation. France's Pléiade, England's Tudor poets, and the Elizabethan translators adapted themes by Horace, Ovid, Petrarch and modern Latin writers, forming a new poetic style on those models. The English poets and translators sought to supply a new public, created by the rise of a middle class and the development of printing, with works such as the original authors would have written, had they been writing in England in that day.[18]
The Elizabethan period of translation saw considerable progress beyond mere paraphrase toward an ideal of stylistic equivalence, but even to the end of this period—which actually reached to the middle of the 17th century—there was no concern for verbal accuracy.[19]
In the second half of the 17th century, the poet John Dryden sought to make Virgil speak "in words such as he would probably have written if he were living and an Englishman." Dryden, however, discerned no need to emulate the Roman poet's subtlety and concision. Similarly, Homer suffered from Alexander Pope's endeavor to reduce the Greek poet's "wild paradise" to order.[19]
Throughout the 18th century, the watchword of translators was ease of reading. Whatever they did not understand in a text, or thought might bore readers, they omitted. They cheerfully assumed that their own style of expression was the best, and that texts should be made to conform to it in translation. For scholarship they cared no more than had their predecessors, and they did not shrink from making translations from translations in third languages, or from languages that they hardly knew, or—as in the case of James Macpherson's "translations" of Ossian—from texts that were actually of the "translator's" own composition.[19]
The 19th century brought new standards of accuracy and style. In regard to accuracy, observes J.M. Cohen, the policy became "the text, the whole text, and nothing but the text," except for any bawdy passages and the addition of copious explanatory footnotes.[20] In regard to style, the Victorians' aim, achieved through far-reaching metaphrase (literality) or pseudo-metaphrase, was to constantly remind readers that they were reading a foreign classic. An exception was the outstanding translation in this period, Edward FitzGerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (1859), which achieved its Oriental flavor largely by using Persian names and discreet Biblical echoes and actually drew little of its material from the Persian original.[19]
In advance of the 20th century, a new pattern was set in 1871 by Benjamin Jowett, who translated Plato into simple, straightforward language. Jowett's example was not followed, however, until well into the new century, when accuracy rather than style became the principal criterion.[19]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)