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”.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
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]
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Local attitudes towards varieties of English
By Bushra Ahmed-Khurram
THERE is no hiding the fact that today in the world there are more nonnative speakers of English than there are native speakers. To give an estimate of users of English in the world today, David Crystal in his book English as a Global Language has written: “Three hundred and thirty-seven million to 450 million have English as their first language. Two hundred and thirty-five million to 350 million have English as a second language. A hundred million to 1,000 million have learned English as a foreign language.” The outcome of this situation is that English has become the property of its users native and non-native. That is to say neither England nor the United States “owns” the English language. This is exactly what David Crystal points out in his book when he says: “In a world where the largest English-speaking nation, the United States, has only about 20 per cent of the world’s speakers of English, no one, it seems, can ‘claim sole ownership’ of language.” The effects of this trend towards English have yet to be assessed, but they point towards the developing diversity of English. In fact, the evidence of this diversity can be seen in the varying dialects of British English, American English, Irish English, Scots English, Welsh English, Canadian English, Australian English, South African English, Caribbean English, Indian English, Bangladeshi English, Nepali English, Pakistani English and Sri Lankan English.
These new “Englishes” actually highlight international varieties of English and affirm the nations’ right to their own patterns and varieties of the language — the dialect of their nature or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style.
This is why in many cases, people who take on English for themselves and their children as a language in which they are going to get on, remain bilingual or trilingual. And also they blend English with their local usages. Singapore is a very good example of this, where one sees kinds of Chinese and Malay mixing in a kind of English, sometimes cheekily known as “Singlish”. Hybrids like “Singlish”, Deutschilsh, Italgish which are found all over the world seem to be carving out large territories for themselves within the English language front.
However, in Pakistan there is not much awareness among the members of society about the fact that English has forged its own linguistic and cultural identity in Pakistan and thus exists as a separate variety of English called Pakistani English as shown by a study that was undertaken to explore the attitudes of Pakistani learners toward English and its varieties.
The participants in the study presented here were students (13 male and 17 female) of a chartered accountancy institute in Karachi. All participants included in the study completed a questionnaire that assessed students’ attitude towards Pakistani English. Findings and discussion The findings of the study show that the participants, Pakistani speakers of English, accepted that Pakistani English exists but were determined to learn Standard English since it appears that they, overall, regarded Pakistani English as “wrong” English.
Item no 2 in the questionnaire that addressed students’ attitudes toward “international comprehensibility” showed that 26 out of 30 students were of the opinion that they need to use Standard English to be comprehensible internationally. The endorsement of this item by students can be the result of lack of exposure of these students to foreigners. That is to say, it is possible that these students have never come in contact with foreigners and have therefore taken a safe side by preferring Standard English since they had no idea how effective Pakistani English would be in the international arena.
Items 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 investigated students’ attitude towards standards of spoken and written English in Pakistan. Responses to item no 1 shows that 25 out of 30 students thought that Pakistanis need to modify the English language to make it suitable for use in Pakistan.
This opinion is also reflected in the students’ response to item no 3. The responses to item no 3 shows that 16 students advocated incorporating words from our culture(s) in English. However, it is noteworthy that 12 students were of the opinion that words from our culture(s) should not be included in English, highlighting the fact that these students preferred Standard English over Pakistani English.
In contradiction to what most of the students have said in response to items 1 and 3, the responses on the questionnaire, shows that the majority of students were of the opinion that the standards of English used in the newspaper, radio and television should be improved. To be exact, in response to item no 6, 22 out of 30 students thought that the standard of English used in Pakistani newspapers should be improved. Similarly, 21 students in response to item no 7 said that the standard of English used on radio and television in Pakistan should be improved.
This apparent contradiction in student’s responses can be explained through two possible explanations. First, even when these students preferred incorporating words from local culture to communicate with other Pakistanis for integrative reasons, they prefer exposure to Standard English probably for instrumental reasons. This explanation is also attested from the fact that 22 students out of 30 said that newsreaders and reporters who speak Standard English are good examples to others of how English should be spoken.
It must be noted that the newsreaders and reporters use English for instrumental reasons. Second, it is possible that students wish to learn Standard English for reasons of international comprehensibility and thus prefer Standard English over Pakistani English. Needless to say, they seemed to prefer exposure to Standard English through newspaper, radio and television.
Since in Pakistani society there are visible rewards for proficiency in English, a large majority of these students (24 out of 30) expressed the opinion that Standard English should be taught from grade one in primary school as shown by responses to item no 8 of the questionnaire. Responses to items no 9 and 10 makes it further clear that these students give a lot of importance to learning Standard English as a majority of them thought that those (including themselves) who do not speak and write Standard English should attend classes to learn it.
Furthermore, 21 students were also of the opinion that they would pay for extra tuition classes to make their children learn Standard English, even if they are proficient in Pakistani English. These results are consistent with the responses to the previous items and shows that when these students talk about learning English they basically talk about learning Standard English.
Items 12 and 13 asked the respondents whether they think their status in the eyes of others will be affected if they do not use Standard English. The responses to these items showed that these students preferred to learn and use Standard English as they (21 of them) thought that they would be regarded as uneducated by others if they will speak Pakistani English.
Similarly, 22 of the respondents thought that the other speakers of English would not respect them if they will speak Pakistani English. The responses to these items highlighted the fact that the issue of standard is very much related to the issues of prestige, status, recognition and respect. It appeared that these students prefer to learn and use Standard English since they feel others will respect them less if they would use Pakistani English. Conclusions The attitudes expressed by respondents generally indicate that most of them were of the opinion that using Standard English is important for international comprehensibility. In addition, they had conflicting attitudes about Pakistani English. While they were positive about incorporating words from local culture in English, they wished to emulate Standard English. They also preferred reading and listening to Standard English through media.
There is strong evidence that most respondents were positive about the suggestion that Standard English should be taught at the very beginning of formal education. Considering these findings, we may conclude that although Pakistani speakers of English feel the need of incorporating words from local culture in English, they are not very comfortable about using Pakistani English among themselves and with foreigners because most of them see Pakistani English as “mistakes” that have to be eradicated as shown by responses to item 4.
Furthermore, the prestige value of Standard English appears to outweigh the communicative value of Pakistani English here. Implications for teaching and further research This study has a few implications. It suggests that the Pakistani education system is probably preoccupied with eradicating mistakes in their students’ English, making them feel that they need to emulate Standard English to gain respect and prestige in society. Therefore, what is needed is to make learners feel confident in the use of Pakistani English which is only possible when the teachers and society will show respect towards Pakistani variety of English.
It is possible for Pakistani English to gain respect in the eyes of its users if educators as well as learners are made aware of the fact that though Americans, Canadians, Australians and the British all speak English, it is not the same English. People in Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, Nigeria, Vanuata and Rwanda also speak English, but again, not the same English. In addition, people even within Britain speak different varieties of English, including Welsh English, Scottish English, Irish English, Hiberto English and English English.
The realisation that the aim of learning a language is to become able to function in society can also help earn respect for Pakistani English.
The results of this study highlight the need to conduct further large-scale studies on the attitudes of teachers, learners and Pakistani towards Pakistani English.
Furthermore, it seems important that linguistics should undertake systematic study of the features of Pakistani English. Such a study would help us define Pakistani English and consequently make Pakistanis more confident about their use of Pakistani English. ¦ The writer teaches Applied Linguistics at the Department of English, University of Karachi.
THERE is no hiding the fact that today in the world there are more nonnative speakers of English than there are native speakers. To give an estimate of users of English in the world today, David Crystal in his book English as a Global Language has written: “Three hundred and thirty-seven million to 450 million have English as their first language. Two hundred and thirty-five million to 350 million have English as a second language. A hundred million to 1,000 million have learned English as a foreign language.” The outcome of this situation is that English has become the property of its users native and non-native. That is to say neither England nor the United States “owns” the English language. This is exactly what David Crystal points out in his book when he says: “In a world where the largest English-speaking nation, the United States, has only about 20 per cent of the world’s speakers of English, no one, it seems, can ‘claim sole ownership’ of language.” The effects of this trend towards English have yet to be assessed, but they point towards the developing diversity of English. In fact, the evidence of this diversity can be seen in the varying dialects of British English, American English, Irish English, Scots English, Welsh English, Canadian English, Australian English, South African English, Caribbean English, Indian English, Bangladeshi English, Nepali English, Pakistani English and Sri Lankan English.
These new “Englishes” actually highlight international varieties of English and affirm the nations’ right to their own patterns and varieties of the language — the dialect of their nature or whatever dialects in which they find their own identity and style.
This is why in many cases, people who take on English for themselves and their children as a language in which they are going to get on, remain bilingual or trilingual. And also they blend English with their local usages. Singapore is a very good example of this, where one sees kinds of Chinese and Malay mixing in a kind of English, sometimes cheekily known as “Singlish”. Hybrids like “Singlish”, Deutschilsh, Italgish which are found all over the world seem to be carving out large territories for themselves within the English language front.
However, in Pakistan there is not much awareness among the members of society about the fact that English has forged its own linguistic and cultural identity in Pakistan and thus exists as a separate variety of English called Pakistani English as shown by a study that was undertaken to explore the attitudes of Pakistani learners toward English and its varieties.
The participants in the study presented here were students (13 male and 17 female) of a chartered accountancy institute in Karachi. All participants included in the study completed a questionnaire that assessed students’ attitude towards Pakistani English. Findings and discussion The findings of the study show that the participants, Pakistani speakers of English, accepted that Pakistani English exists but were determined to learn Standard English since it appears that they, overall, regarded Pakistani English as “wrong” English.
Item no 2 in the questionnaire that addressed students’ attitudes toward “international comprehensibility” showed that 26 out of 30 students were of the opinion that they need to use Standard English to be comprehensible internationally. The endorsement of this item by students can be the result of lack of exposure of these students to foreigners. That is to say, it is possible that these students have never come in contact with foreigners and have therefore taken a safe side by preferring Standard English since they had no idea how effective Pakistani English would be in the international arena.
Items 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 investigated students’ attitude towards standards of spoken and written English in Pakistan. Responses to item no 1 shows that 25 out of 30 students thought that Pakistanis need to modify the English language to make it suitable for use in Pakistan.
This opinion is also reflected in the students’ response to item no 3. The responses to item no 3 shows that 16 students advocated incorporating words from our culture(s) in English. However, it is noteworthy that 12 students were of the opinion that words from our culture(s) should not be included in English, highlighting the fact that these students preferred Standard English over Pakistani English.
In contradiction to what most of the students have said in response to items 1 and 3, the responses on the questionnaire, shows that the majority of students were of the opinion that the standards of English used in the newspaper, radio and television should be improved. To be exact, in response to item no 6, 22 out of 30 students thought that the standard of English used in Pakistani newspapers should be improved. Similarly, 21 students in response to item no 7 said that the standard of English used on radio and television in Pakistan should be improved.
This apparent contradiction in student’s responses can be explained through two possible explanations. First, even when these students preferred incorporating words from local culture to communicate with other Pakistanis for integrative reasons, they prefer exposure to Standard English probably for instrumental reasons. This explanation is also attested from the fact that 22 students out of 30 said that newsreaders and reporters who speak Standard English are good examples to others of how English should be spoken.
It must be noted that the newsreaders and reporters use English for instrumental reasons. Second, it is possible that students wish to learn Standard English for reasons of international comprehensibility and thus prefer Standard English over Pakistani English. Needless to say, they seemed to prefer exposure to Standard English through newspaper, radio and television.
Since in Pakistani society there are visible rewards for proficiency in English, a large majority of these students (24 out of 30) expressed the opinion that Standard English should be taught from grade one in primary school as shown by responses to item no 8 of the questionnaire. Responses to items no 9 and 10 makes it further clear that these students give a lot of importance to learning Standard English as a majority of them thought that those (including themselves) who do not speak and write Standard English should attend classes to learn it.
Furthermore, 21 students were also of the opinion that they would pay for extra tuition classes to make their children learn Standard English, even if they are proficient in Pakistani English. These results are consistent with the responses to the previous items and shows that when these students talk about learning English they basically talk about learning Standard English.
Items 12 and 13 asked the respondents whether they think their status in the eyes of others will be affected if they do not use Standard English. The responses to these items showed that these students preferred to learn and use Standard English as they (21 of them) thought that they would be regarded as uneducated by others if they will speak Pakistani English.
Similarly, 22 of the respondents thought that the other speakers of English would not respect them if they will speak Pakistani English. The responses to these items highlighted the fact that the issue of standard is very much related to the issues of prestige, status, recognition and respect. It appeared that these students prefer to learn and use Standard English since they feel others will respect them less if they would use Pakistani English. Conclusions The attitudes expressed by respondents generally indicate that most of them were of the opinion that using Standard English is important for international comprehensibility. In addition, they had conflicting attitudes about Pakistani English. While they were positive about incorporating words from local culture in English, they wished to emulate Standard English. They also preferred reading and listening to Standard English through media.
There is strong evidence that most respondents were positive about the suggestion that Standard English should be taught at the very beginning of formal education. Considering these findings, we may conclude that although Pakistani speakers of English feel the need of incorporating words from local culture in English, they are not very comfortable about using Pakistani English among themselves and with foreigners because most of them see Pakistani English as “mistakes” that have to be eradicated as shown by responses to item 4.
Furthermore, the prestige value of Standard English appears to outweigh the communicative value of Pakistani English here. Implications for teaching and further research This study has a few implications. It suggests that the Pakistani education system is probably preoccupied with eradicating mistakes in their students’ English, making them feel that they need to emulate Standard English to gain respect and prestige in society. Therefore, what is needed is to make learners feel confident in the use of Pakistani English which is only possible when the teachers and society will show respect towards Pakistani variety of English.
It is possible for Pakistani English to gain respect in the eyes of its users if educators as well as learners are made aware of the fact that though Americans, Canadians, Australians and the British all speak English, it is not the same English. People in Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Singapore, Nigeria, Vanuata and Rwanda also speak English, but again, not the same English. In addition, people even within Britain speak different varieties of English, including Welsh English, Scottish English, Irish English, Hiberto English and English English.
The realisation that the aim of learning a language is to become able to function in society can also help earn respect for Pakistani English.
The results of this study highlight the need to conduct further large-scale studies on the attitudes of teachers, learners and Pakistani towards Pakistani English.
Furthermore, it seems important that linguistics should undertake systematic study of the features of Pakistani English. Such a study would help us define Pakistani English and consequently make Pakistanis more confident about their use of Pakistani English. ¦ The writer teaches Applied Linguistics at the Department of English, University of Karachi.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)