Leppihalme (1997, p. 70). The following section introduces Leppihalme’s lists of strategies for translating allusions.
2.7.4. Strategies for translating Allusions
According to Leppihalme (1997, p. 24) there is a difference between PN allusions and KP allusions. She also noted that potential strategies for these two groups are slightly different. She again proposed this is due to the fact that it is often possible to retain a PN unchanged, whereas KP requires a change in wording. In fact, there is no criterion comparable to the treatment of PN for translating KPs. KPs are hardly ever retained untranslated, the ‘retention’ (literally) of a KP then make no sense in this case. Nor is there in most cases only one standard translation available, the use of which could be labeled a retentive strategy; rather, due to synonyms, variations of word order, etc, KPs can mostly be translated in a variety of ways. However, the translation strategies that Leppihalme offers for translating KP allusions are as follows (1997, p. 84):
A. Use standard translation
B. Literal translation /minimum change
C. Addition extra-allusive guidance (including typographical means)
D. Footnotes, endnotes and other explanations outside in the text itself.
E. Simulated familiarity, internal marking (marked wording or syntax)
F. Replace by preformed TL item
G. Reduction to sense (making the connotations overt but dispensing with the KP itself)
H. Re-creation using a variety of techniques
Strategies mentioned for case of PN allusions are divided in three categories with subcategories including:
1. Retain name
(1a) Retain unchanged, or in conventional TL form
(1b) Retain unchanged with added guidance
(1c) Retain unchanged with detailed explanation
2. Replace name
(2a) Replace with different source language (SL) name
(2b) Replace with different target language (TL) name
3. Omit name
(3a) Reduce to sense/meaning of the name
(3b) Omit name and allusion completely
The conventional TL forms or required changes of PNs has regarded (as in strategies 1 and 2), Newmark (1988, p. 215) remarks that wile people’s first names and surnames are normally retained and unaltered. According to him (1988), where connotations are significant the best method is first to translate the word that underlies the SL PN into a new SL and then to naturalize the translated word back into a new SL PN (p. 215). However, Newmark (1988) warns that this method can only be used when “the character’s name is not yet current among an educated TL readership” (p. 46). Furthermore, Leppihalme also identified two seldom used strategies that the translator has at his/her disposal (1) throwing up of one’s hands in desperation and (2) replacing an untranslatable passage with a message that explicitly states the situation (1997, p. 84).
Figure 2.1: A Minimax ordering of strategies for key-phrase allusion (Leppihalme, 1997, P. 107)
Figure 2.2: A Minimax ordering of strategies for proper names allusion (Leppihalme, 1997, P. 106)
• Standard translation(A) and minimum change(B)
The minimax strategy for transcultural KP allusions is standard translation. The transcultural allusion has connotations in the target culture as well, so that even in translation the allusion offers competent readers the pleasure of recognition and the chance to participate in the literary process, comparable to a ST reade’s participation (Leppihalme, 1997, P. 115). Leppihalme (1997, P. 115) notes; “some semi-allusive descriptions of involving names generally unfamiliar to TT readers could perhaps be omitted with little loss; however, even such descriptions may partly work”. She allows accessional use of omission only when readers may be unaware of connotations of the name, and descriptions convey a basic point (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 115). She noted that however, if the author of the ST has provided her/ his readers with fairly detailed descriptions about the character, the translator can omit the KP here, assuming that the authorial descriptions would suffice to help TL readers get the author’s point (Leppihalme, 1997, p.115).
• Guidance external marking(c)
Leppihalme (1997, p.116) pointed out extra-allusive additions resemble the ways ST authors sometimes signal allusion to call attention to the fact that a phrase is borrowed rather than original. She believed that this can take the typographical form of inverted commas or italics. The italics emphasis that the words have been used before with special meaning, in case potential readers of the passage might think that the repetition of the word indicated the character’s annoyance at being asked to make decisions. She also noted that italics or inverted commas could be used in translation. The signal may also take the form of an introductory phrase; in this way a TT reader could infer that a puzzling expression in the text was perfumed-information that competent ST readers would possess as part of their cultural literacy (Leppihalme, 1997, P. 117).
• Internal Marking(E)
Leppihaleme (1997, p. 118) argued that internal marking or what might be called simulated familiarity can sometimes be achieved by using lines from an existing translation of a classic to translate an allusion are clearly poetry. Therefore, she believed that the allusion can also be made more visible by using italics (Leppihalme, 1997, P. 118).
• Replacement by preformed TL item(F)
In this strategy Leppihalme (1997, p. 118) views the replacement of a SL allusion by TL specific allusion as an alternative that is seldom effective. She also notes: “TL specific allusions disturb the desired illusion in translation that TL readers are able to experience a foreign word despite the language barriers (Leppihalme, 1997, p.118).” On this strategy she argued that this should not be confused with a standard translation, which implies a greater degree of lexical similarity between SL and TL versions; rather, here an idea acknowledged in both cultures (a fool hardy or pointless action) is conveyed by different images in the two languages (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 118).
• Reduction to sense by rephrasal(G)
Reduction strategy is “to call the readers’ attention to an allusion, translators sometimes use external marking. This can take for instance typographical form of inverted commas or italics (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 117).” She believed that the italics used by translator to emphasize that the italicized words are allusive references borrowed from a previous text (Leppihalme, 1997, P. 117).
On the other hand, Leppihalme (1997, p. 117) pointed out that this strategy is used when the translator, unable to find an appropriate equivalent for the allusion s/he has to translate, conveys the SL author’s point (in using that allusion) by the means of reducing it to its sense. She also discussed the reduction of allusion to sense usually leads to repeated and hence not creative allusions and this strategy can be considered for brief allusions to slogans in domestic politics, local advertising campaigns and the like, which would mean little or nothing to the TL audience Leppihalme (1997, p. 117).
Recreation strategy “is usually a time-consuming strategy. In a wide sense, all translation can be regarded as recreation; for a change of language means recreating a situation (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 122).” But Levine (1975) “views recreation as inventions and changes which a translator has to make wile translating problematic elements such as allusions and invented words from SL to TL (p. 270).” On recreation strategy he also notes; “we took liberty of creating them in places where there where not an
y, or in places where they did exist but where we could not find near equivalents (p. 270).”
In short, if the translator of allusion is regarded as a decision-making process where the translators should decide what is the most appropriate strategy to use, Leppihalme (1997, p. 124) suggests that all available strategies must be charity and put it priority order such a priority ordering could be based simply on observation and on how translators deals with allusion.
Omission, as noted earlier under PN allusion, should be the translator’s last resort, knowing that there are instances. For example: homonymic word play, where no other strategy may be appropriate. This strategy is allowed to be used when the loss caused by an omission is negligible in the context and the use of other strategies would lead to vagueness and obscurity (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 121).
2.7.5. Complication of translating Allusive Texts
Leppihalme (1997, p.110) argued that there are two complicated factors in translating allusive text:
1. It is probable that the readers of the translation cannot make much of the number of allusions, even if the source is given, because the connotations of those allusions are not activated in the reading process (Leppihalme, 1997, p. 110).
2. Readers of translations are not a homogenous group, and some of them will probably spot and enjoy allusions if they are given a chance to do so, but will resent being written down to in the form of additional explanations (for an extreme example, not even a translation, see Leppihalme, 1997, p. 110).
Taking this pact into account, this study intends to investigate how the translators of two major English translations of Mantiq ut-Tair have dealt with allusions, namely KPs allusions. But since Mantiq ut-Tair is a poetic text, the researcher felt the need to address the issue of poetry translation a subcategory of literary translation-before proceeding to next chapter.
2.8. Poetry Translation
Poetry translation is the most important factor which has been investigates in the present study. As Newmark (1988, p. 163) maintained that poetry is the most personal and concentrated form of texts, in which no redundancy or phatic language is seen. Moreover; he asserted that in comparison with any other type of text, word has greater importance in poetry and is considered as the first unit of meaning while the second one is not the sentence or the proposition but is the line. Hence, there is a unique double concentration of units. And the translator ought to preserve the integrity of both the lexical unit and the lines. Accordingly, Lefevere (1992) elaborated more on this issue and regards translation as ‘rewriting’ by means of which new concepts, genres, and devices are introduced to the target literature. He also stated: “the history of translation is the history also of literary innovation, of the shaping power of one culture upon another (Lefevere, 1992, p. xi).”
2.8.1. Translatability of poetry
“The central question that all studies of the translation of poetry have asked, implicitly or explicitly, is whether poetry can be translated or not (Baker, 1998, p. 194).” Baker (1998) pointed out that some related views argued that it may seem obvious that it can, for poetry has always been widely translated. In fact, translated poetry plays such a large part in the literature of most cultures that it is taken very much for granted (Baker, 1998, p. 194). But the opposite view on translatability of poetry is that poetry translation is difficult or even impossible arises from the coincidence of two assumptions:
1. Translated poetry should be poetry in its own right
2. Poetry is difficult, cryptic, ambiguous and exhibits a special relationship between form and meaning”(Baker, 1998, p. 194).
“These two assumptions together have led many writers such as Weissbort and Raffel to suggest that the translation of poetry, more than that of any other genre, demands both special critical abilities and special writing abilities (Baker, 1998, p.194).” She elaborated that translated poetry aims are to say that the aim of its translation is to carry