paper -208 Assignment

Hello Readers,

This blog is a my assignment blog.

 Name :- Aditi Vala

MA Sem :- 04

Batch :- 2020-2022

Roll no. :- 01

Enrollment No. :- 3069206420200018

Paper No. :- 208 (Comparative Literature & Translation Studies )

Topic :- INTRODUCTION:

HISTORY IN TRANSLATION

Email id :- valaaditi203@gmail.com

Submitted to :- S.B.Gardi Department Of English,MKBU

Introduction 

Translation Studies - Translation is a discipline in its own right: not merely a minor branch of comparative literary study, nor yet a specific area of linguistics but a vastly complex field with many far-reaching ramifications. Translation is perceived as an intrinsic part of the foreign language teaching process, it has rarely been studied for its own sake. Translation Studies is an emerging discipline of research and profession in the Twenty first century. It has emerged and flourished as a new field with a lot of ideas springing from anthropology, philosophy, literature, linguistics, literary studies, lexicology, semiotics, computer science and many other fields. Both written and spoken translations have played a crucial role in inter-human communication throughout history. The term “translation studies' ' was coined by the Amsterdam-based American scholar James S. Holmes in his paper “The name and nature of translation studies  this is considered as a foundational text for this discipline. The word translation itself derives from a Latin term meaning "to bring or carry across".

First fall give a introduction about the Niranjana.

The 1980s was a decade of consolidation for the fledgling discipline known as Translation Studies. Having emerged onto the world stage in the late 1970s, the subject began to be taken seriously, and was no longer seen as an unscientific field of enquiry of secondary importance. Throughout the 1980s interest in the theory and practice of translation grew steadily. Then, in the 1990s, Translation Studies finally came into its own, for this proved to be the decade of its global expansion. Once perceived as a marginal activity, translation began to be seen as a fundamental act of human exchange. Today, interest in the field has never been stronger and the study of translation is taking place alongside an increase in its practice all over the world.

The electronic media explosion of the 1990s and its implications for the processes of globalization highlighted issues of intercultural communication.

Tejaswini Niranjana is the author of Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism and the Colonial Context (Berkeley, 1992), Mobilizing India: Women, Music and Migration between India and Trinidad (Durham, 2006), and Musicophilia in Mumbai (forthcoming, 2019).

She is co-founder of the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, which offered an innovative interdisciplinary PhD programme from 2000-2012. During 2012-16, she headed the Centre for Indian Languages in Higher Education at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and was Indian-language advisor to Wikipedia. She has been Visiting Professor at the University of Chicago and Yonsei University, Seoul; and a Fellow at the Asia Research Institute (NUS-Singapore), the Institute de Etudes Avancees (Nantes, France), and the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin (Germany).

The contribute in article 

For a while now, some of the most urgent debates in contemporary cultural and literary studies have emerged out of the troubled interface of poststructuralist theory and historical studies. In its most basic formulation, the problem is that of articulating radical political agendas within a deconstructive framework. For a discipline like literary studies, the raison d'être of which is the analysis of representation, the critique of representation coming from within has engendered profoundly self-reflexive anxieties. 

She begins by addressing what she sees as deconstructive criticism's failure to address the problem of colonialism, as well as the neglect by translation studies to ask questions about its own historicity. Contemporary critiques of representation have not extended themselves to the point of questioning the idea of translation, of re-presenting linguistic meaning in interlinguistic transfers.

Some key point of the Article

Situating Translation :-

Translation As Interpellation

 

The Question of History

Her purpose is to make a modest beginning by examining the “uses” of translation. The rethinking of translation becomes an important task in a context where it has been used since the European Enlightenment to under- write practices of subjectification, especially for colonized peoples.

Translation functions as a transparent presentation of something that already exists, although the "original" is actually brought into being through translation. Paradoxically, translation also provides a place in "history" for the colonized.

She was, therefore, discuss the pertinence of the critique of historicism to a world undergoing decolonization, given the enduring nature of Hegelian presentation of the non-West and the model of teleological history that authorizes them, a questioning of the model could underwrite a new practice of translation.

Another aspect of post-structuralism that is significant for a rethinking of translation is its critique of historicism, which shows the genetic (searching for an origin) and teleological (positing a certain end) nature of traditional historiography.

A critique of historicism might show us a way of deconstructing the "pusillanimous" and "deceitful" Hindus of Mill and Hegel. Her concern here is not, of course, with the alleged misrepresentation of the "Hindus." Rather, I am trying to question the withholding of reciprocity and the essentializing of “difference” (what Johannes Fabian calls a denial of coevalness) that permits a stereotypical construction of the other.

Conventionally, translation depends on the Western philosophical notions of reality, representation, and knowledge.

So further discussion about  It is in the context of this crisis that Tejaswini Niranjana's examination of translation as critical practice is made possible. Her analysis seems to amplify and elaborate the possibilities of the claim made by other postcolonial theorists like Gayatri Spivak and Homi Bhabha, as well as feminists such as Jane Gallop and Nancy K. Miller, that deconstruction can be used in politically enabling ways. Insisting that a questioning of humanist or Enlightenment models of representation and translation "can underwrite a new practice of translation . . . reinscribing its potential as a strategy of resistance", Niranjana persuasively shows that a critique of presence can be taken to its limits and yet not incapacitate the interventionist critic.

Some Example :

Niranjana cites powerful examples from the post-colonial context to show how translation was "a significant technology of colonial domination"; the use of translation to codify Hindu law, for instance, is revealed as imperialist cathexis, "to create a subject position for the colonized" which would "discipline and regulate the lives of" Hindu subjects. In other words, the notion of "original" text was itself used to fashion the native's essence-an instance of colonialism's attempt to erase heterogeneity.

Jones's disgust is continually mitigated by the necessity of British rule and the "impossibility" of giving liberty to the Indians. He brings up repeatedly the idea of "Orientals" being accustomed to a despotic rule. In his tenth annual discourse to the Asiatic Society, he says that a reader of "history" "could not but remark the constant effect of despotism in benumbing and debasing all those faculties which distinguish men from the herd that grazes; and to that cause he would impute the decided inferiority of most Asiatic nations, ancient and modern."27 The idea of the "submissive" Indians, their inability to be free, and the native laws that do not permit the question of liberty to be raised are thus brought together in the concept of Asian despotism.

Conclusion 

Since it is part of her argument that the problematics of translation and the writing of history are inextricably bound together, She should briefly go over Spivak's main points regarding the "Subaltern historians.  Many of his works have been adapted for films and TV shows. The translator serves as a mediator between cultures and systematizes and generalizes the process of translation. A group of individuals, professional translators, linguists, and literary scholars exchange their views on translation and its power to influence literary traditions and to shape cultural and economic identities. Their strategic use of post-structuralist ideas may help us see more clearly how the notions of history and translation she wish to reinscribe are not only enabled by the post-colonial critique of historiography but might also further strengthen that critique.

Work cited

Niranjana, Tejaswini. SITING TRANSLATION HISTORY, POST-STRUCTURALISM, AND THE COLONIAL CONTEXT. The Regents of the University of California, 1992.

Sharma, Shivnath Kumar. “The Role and Scope of Translation Studies in the 21 Century.” IOSR, no. 2279-0837, p. 4. Online, https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Conf.TS/Volume-1/1.%2001-04.pdf. Accessed 18 March 2022.