glish translations of KP allusions in Attar’s
Mantiq ut-Tair. Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair which has been translated by Nott (1954), Darbandi and Davis (1984) was used in the study. It also considered the strategies by Leppihalme (1997, p. 96) which two translators utilized when doing the job in order to transfer the meaning of the ST into TT. The present study compared two English translations of Mantiq ut-Tair with each other to find out what translation strategies have the translators used to convey the intertextual allusive items to the TT and to what extent the true sense of KP allusion in Mantiq ut Tair has been transferred to English. The results showed that when dealing with KP allusions present in the ST which are absent from the TL, translators often resort to different strategies ranging from standard translation, minimum change, omission, replacement, reduction, recreation to the simulated familiarity strategies. The most frequently used strategies by the translators were standard translation, minimum change and omission. These strategies contribute to semantic, cultural, contextual, and literal translation of allusions. The researcher also found that the translations were subject to almost all different strategies except use of footnotes strategy. This thesis also made a comparison between the first translation and the second one to find out which one is more standard than the other with respect to the translation of intertextual references. The second translation of Mantiq ut- Tair by Darbandi and Davis to some extent was more literal than the first translation by Nott. Therefore, other factors such as familiarity with Islamic culture, verses, traditions and the translators’ ideas for which the translations are carried out are needed to explain the translator’s choice of different strategies. The findings of the study suggested that due to the fact that KP allusions and intertextuality are more complicated issues, only Nott could successfully transfer the intended meaning of the original poetry text in Mantiq ut-Tair to TL reader.
List of Abbreviations
SL= Source language
The concept of intertextuality was first introduced by Julia Kristeva in an essay entitled “Word, Dialogue and Novel”, in 1966, to describe the way all language and all literature are constructed from previous utterances to form mosaics of quotations (Kristeva, 1986, p. 37). “Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts (Beaugrande & Dressler, 1981, p. 10).” In other words, Hatim (1997) also argued intertextuality is one of the basic forms of relations that are presence of one text in another one – a quote would be the most obvious example (p. 29).
Meanwhile, Fairclough (1992) noted that intertextuality points to how texts can transform prior texts and restructure existing conventions (genres, discourses) to generate new ones (p. 270). “A text is no longer considered as the container of meaning, but as an intertextual space in which a number of elements are combined, absorbed or transformed (Cascallana, 2006, p. 98).” However, Schäffner & Holmes (1995, p. 58) argued that the influences of intertextuality and the relationship between text and context predispose a target audience to associate specific content with text presented through a given medium.
According to Lefevere (1992), translating poetry can be considered different from translating other text types, in the sense that one translating poetry is not engaged in a single level to deal with but a fourfold process including: language, ideology, poetics and universe of discourse at each of which particular problems arise to involve him with (p. 88).
1.2. Intertextuality and Allusion
Hatim and Mason (1997) described intertextuality as an “all pervasive textual phenomenon” (p. 29) or it is a precondition for the intelligibility of texts (p.80). Hatim (1997) identified the intertextual context of a text as all the other relevant prior texts which the various textual clues in a given utterance conjure up for a given language user on a given occasion of use (p. 200). On the other hand, Plett (1991, p. 5) has opposed the intertext to the text, which is a useful approach: In his view “A text may be regarded as an autonomous sign structure, delimited and coherent (1991, p. 5).” He also argued that boundaries of a text are indicated by its beginning, middle and end, its coherence by the deliberately interrelated conjunction of its constituents (1991, p. 5). Plett also noted that an intertext is characterized by features that exceed it. It is not delimited, but de-limited, for its constituents refer to constituents of one or several other texts (1991, P. 5).
While Genette (1997, p, 1) has outlined a terminology to describe intertextuality. One of the terms he has coined is the architext, which he describes as: “the entire set of general or transcendent categories from which emerges each singular text.” However, Allen (2000, p. 96) allows that Genette does not seek to identify the stable system of literature, but merely investigates the links in the architextual network. In fact, Allen cites Genette as having described his own poetics as open structuralism (Allen, 2000, p. 100). It is thus clear that Genette identifies an intertextual identity, where the segment inserted in the text equals that of the ST and intertextual deviance where the two are not identical (Plett, 1991, p. 9).
Meanwhile, Plett’s point of departure is the structure and system of the text itself. Therefore, the surface level concerns itself solely with the syntactic part of the text. The second level, however, of the deep structure, is concerned with what lies implied within the text, what the reader may deduce from it (Plett, 1991, p. 10). This is term for “the textual transcendence of the text, which defined as ‘all that sets the text in a relationship, whether obvious or concealed, with other texts’ (Genette, 1997, p. 1).”
According to Abrams (1999, p. 8) allusion is one of the aspects of intertextuality. He argued that allusion is a reference, explicit, or indirect, to a person, place, or event, or to another literary work or passage (Abrams, 1999, p. 8). Furthermore, Perri (1978, p. 295) added allusion is one of the ways in which references can be established between texts, whether literary or others, or indeed from the world outside of textuality.
Generally speaking, Leppihalme (1997, p. 10) has discussed allusion and divided it into two kinds of allusion that is PN allusion (with name in it) and KP allusion (without name). She argued taking a first step toward identifying the equivalence of KP allusions and knowledge a professional translator must have talent in finding them in both languages (1997, p. 10). She discussed there are several challenges for translators to face on the way to rendering of KP allusion and using strategies in it. Therefore, this study intends to find out what strategies have been used by Nott (1954), Darbandi and Davis (1984) in rendering KP Allusions of Mantiq ut-Tair of Farid ud-Din Attar.
1.3. Statement of the Problem
Translation is certainly a skill that could be learned and intertextuality is not separated from it. If translation is transferring a literary work into a different language, intertextuality can be regarded as a kind of translation which transfers a literary work into a different context. The intertextual context of the ST which may be unfamiliar to the TL audience, poses many problems to the translator. For example, KP allusions are one of the translator’s pr
oblems because of their meaning ambiguity in another culture. In order to solve these problems translators should be aware of the use of appropriate strategies and to have a comprehensive knowledge on different kinds of allusion in different texts to achieve a good translation. The present study investigated a particular problem in the translation of poetic texts that are constructed on the basis of intertextual references, namely KP allusions. It actually focused on the way different translators have dealt with intertextual references in the English translations of Mantiq ut-Tair of Farid ud-Din Attar.
1.4. Significance of the Study
Intertexuality is a problematic factor in translation studies. Therefore, it could be considered as one of the most challenging factors to measure and quantify the translator features because the ignorance of intertextuality and translation strategies has caused a lot of problems in translating poetry text. The present study aimed at building a foundation in order to provide allusive references, namely KP allusions to find out how translation strategies in poetic text can help translators in this respect to open horizons on to new and unknown shores of translation studies.
1.5. Research Questions
The present study intended to find answers to the following questions:
1. What translation strategies have the translators of Mantiq ut-Tair used to convey the intertextual allusive items to the TL?
2. To what extent has the true sense of KP allusions in Attar’s Mantiq ut-Tair been transferred to English?
1.6. Definition of Key terms
Allusion: “Refers to a variety of uses of performed linguistic material in either its original or a modified form, and PN to convey often meaning (Leppihalm, 1997, p. 8).” According to Barton and Hudson (1997), an allusion is an indirect or explicit reference by one text or another text, to a historical occurrence, or to myths and legends (p. 9).
Intertextuality: “The production of meaning from the complex relationships that exists between the text, other texts, and the readers can be referred to as intertextuality (Cascallana, 2006, p. 98).”
Key-phrase: “Allusion containing no proper name apparently taxis all turn into pumpkins at mid- night (Leppihalme, 1997, p.10).”
Strategy: “A sequence of operations the translator put into use while trying to fulfill an aim (Loescher, 1991, p. 68).”
Poetry: “A form of literary art in which language is used for its aesthetic and evocative qualities in addition to or in lie of its appearing meaning (Oxford, 2008, p. 973).”
This chapter will review the literature that is related to intertextuality and allusion in more detail. As discussed in the introductory chapter it will begin by describing the concepts of intertextuality. The main focus of the present study is on allusion as a certain type of intertextuality. This chapter also will review forms of allusions and the strategies suggested for translating them.
2.2. History of Intertextuality
The concept of intertextuality was first introduced by Kristeva in an essay entitled “Word, Dialogue and Novel”, in 1966, to describe the way all language and all literature are constructed from previous utterances to form mosaics of quotations (Kristeva, 1986, p. 37). “Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered texts (Beaugrande; Dressler, 1981, p. 10).” On the other hand, (Fairclough, 1992, p. 270) argued intertextuality points to how texts can transform prior texts and restructure existing conventions (genres, discourses) to generate new ones. But, Kristeva (1986, p. 40) used intertextuality and the text to critique the classical logic with its emphasis on singularity and the monologic. Therefore, she made a Bakhtinian point when she argued the minimal unit of poetic language was at least double, not in the sense of the signifier/signified dyad,