Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation: Written By: Maria Presented By: Mohamed

Post-colonial writing and
literary translation
Written by: Maria TYMOCZKO
Presented by: Mohamed AHARCHI
Outline:
 Translation as metaphor for post-colonial writing

 The differences between Literary translation and Post-Colonial
literature
 Interpretation
 Translation problems in Translation and Post-colonial writing
 Implicit vs explicit
 The cost of Frontloading and Hegemony
 Patronage, the reader and internationaliaztion
Translation as metaphor for post-colonial writing
 Due to Post-colonial writing being new, critics lack the vocabulary

and cognitive processes to deal with it. Metaphor is a good way to
tackle the subject.
Ex: the car as a horseless carriage.
 She compares the post-colonial writing to a house of mirrors where

both the author and the reader are at danger of getting lost and
confused in its reflections.
Mirror metaphor
 "1 Corinthians 13:12 King James Version (KJV)

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I
know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
 'It is a symbol of Irish art. The cracked looking-glass of a servant.'
 Caliban’s mirror
 Translation as a metaphor for post-colonial writing
Translation = translat (in latin) = carried across
 Post-colonial writing can be seen as a form of translation where

relics (historical, mythic and literary elements) are carried across
from one spot of worship (soure culture) to a more central and and
secure spot (target culture) in order to be preserved and find a new
life.
Role of translation
 Translation not as a metaphor for the transportation across physical,

cultural or linguistic boundaries but as an analogue for post-colonial
writing
 Since the critical literature in the field of literary translation is rich,

it will illuminate our understanding of post-colonial literature.
Differences between Literary
translation and Post-colonial
literature
The task of the translator and the PC writer:
 Translators transpose a text while PC writers transpose a culture (a metatext).
 Culture (language, history, social system, legal framework, material culture)
 In the case of many former colonies the writer's work might include multiple
languages and cultures.
 the translator is limited in this sense.
 However according to perspectives from general systems theory the translator
deals with the same linguistic and cultural factors and complexities as the writer.
The parameters of constraint
 A translator deals with a linguistically and culturally fixed text. In such quest, the
problem of faithfulness to the source text arises. On the other hand, the PC writer
chooses what to transpose.
 Example:
they might choose to highlight aggressive and unfamiliar elements of the culture or
mute the cultural differences to create a feeling of universality. The same goes for
the linguistic elements. they can be defamiliarized, domesticated or circumvented
all together.
 authors are somewhat constrained by history, myth, ideology, patronage and
affiliation.
The range of paratextual commentary:
 The translator explains the literary and cultural background of the

work to an audience using commentary in the form of introductions,
footnotes, critical essays, glossaries, maps and so on. The translator
can change multiple textual levels at the same time.
 It is not uncommon for the PC writers to use postscripts,

introductions and essays in order to comment on their own texts. Or
includes maps and glossaries to describe the cultural context of their
work.
 Despite, the translator handling the information load, the linguistic
and the cultural features of the souce text (e.g. objects, customs,
historical and literary allusions) which are unfamiliar to the
receiving audience, Full transmission is impossible.
 No literary text can contain an entire culture just in the same way
that no translation can represent a source text.
Interpretation
 Selectivity is essential in the production of any literary work.

 Literary translations are simpler than their source texts.
 Post-colonial writings are simpler than the cultural fields they discuss
 The process of interpretation that both the translator and the PC

writer go through is ideological and controversial.
 Authors and translators are condemned to political criticism from
the audience which in certain might even lead to death threats.
Example: Salman Rushdie
 Such pressures are only emphasized by the famous Italian quote:
'Traduttore, traditore' = 'Translator, traitor'
 (This is why most PC writers choose to live abroad)
 However, translation is less heated now than before.

Translation problems in translation and Post-
colonial writing
 Such problems deal with perturbations in the lexis of a translation.
 Source culture features are encoded with specific lexis items
which are unfamiliar and have no equivalents in the receptor
culture.
 Features of the source culture cover:

 Material culture (foods, tools, garments)
 Social structures (customs and law)
 Features of the natural world (plants, animals and weather features)
Solutions
In this case the translator either:

 Omits the reference and finds some equivalent in TC.
 Imports the word untranslated
 adds an explanatory footnote
 uses a rare or difficult word in the TL
Similar features are found in the lexis of post-colonial texts

Examples:
 Ex 1: Introduction of African Words with explanation
‘he…paid ten shillings towards his esusu, a kind of savings among friends
whereby each member of the group collected contributions in turn ’
(Joys of Motherhood / Buchi Emercheta)
 Ex 2: Words understood by context
Plants (e.g.Mwariki)
Tools (Panga and Jembe)
Lexical anamolies in both LT & PCW
Features are associated with:

 variant semantic fields for words
 non-standard frequency distributions of particular lexemes
 non-standard patterns of collocation.
Examples
Ex 1: Ngugi’s use of the term ‘taste’

‘Did he himself taste other women, like Dr. Lynd?’(Grain
of wheat)
Ex 2: Achebe’s use of unusual collocation

‘She is our wife..’
Implicit vs Explicit elements
 In Cases where unfamiliar cultural elements such as myths, customs

or economic conditions are presupposed by a text but not located in
it.
 Explicit inclusion in the translation
 Paratextual devices (footnotes, introductions and so on.)
Ex:
‘The Feast of the New Yam was held every year before the
harvest began, to honor the earth goddess and the ancestral spirits
of the clan. New yams could not be eaten until some had first
been offered to these powers…’ - Achebe
Hegemony
 The act of leaving unfamiliar cultural knowledge implicit is when

translating a text from a dominant culture source text to a minority
culture audience is a form of control.
 Why?
Because it defines the necessities and norms for public discourse.
 How can the amount of explained cultural knowledge can tell us
about the intended audience?
The cost of Frontloading
 According to Tymoczko, Frontloading in Post-colonial

literarture and translations compromises the status of the
text.
 In this case, the text begins to read more like a didactic or
instructional work rather than imginative literature; such
texts do no live to the standards of the Western literature.
The delimma of the PC writer and translator
 Over-explanation and under-explanation lead to compromising

the audience.
 Suprpressing the distinctive qualities of the writer’s culture and

language leads to compromise of cultural affialiation. (Similar to
fidelity)
‘Bringing Text to audience’
vs.
‘Bringing audience to text’
Post-colonial writing
Severe demands on Conformity to the dominant

the audience culture’s linguistic and
cultural expectations
The greater the reputation of the author the more demands they can place on
their audience
Importance of patronage, readers and
Internationalization
 Patrons determine the parameters of what is translated and
what is published.
 Receptor theory (readers are an essential factor of the

production of literary texts)
 International audience is the American audience
 Success resides in the use of the English lg
Ngugi’s struggle and linguistic shift
“I came to realize only too painfully that the novel in which I had
so carefully painted the struggle of the Kenya peasantry against
colonial oppression would never be read by them. In an interview
shortly afterwards in the Union News. . . in 1967, I said that I did
not think that I would continue writing in English: that I knew
about whom I was writing, but for whom was I writing?”
(Ngugi 1993: 9–10)
Innovation formalism in Post-colonial literature
 Example:
Joyce in Ulysses imports the standards of the Irish epic,
elements of Irici poetic form, characteristics of Irich prose ,
and structures of Irish nattrive genres into his English-
language masterwork
From ‘imperial humiliation to a native weapon’

Final notes
 Through this comparison between translation and post-colonial

literature, the charactersics, goals and challenges of the latter
became more defined.
THANK YOU!

Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation: Written By: Maria Presented By: Mohamed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation: Written By: Maria Presented By: Mohamed

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation: Written By: Maria Presented By: Mohamed

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Post-colonial writing and

 Translation as metaphor for post-colonial writing

 Due to Post-colonial writing being new, critics lack the vocabulary

Ex: the car as a horseless carriage.

 She compares the post-colonial writing to a house of mirrors where

 "1 Corinthians 13:12 King James Version (KJV)

 Post-colonial writing can be seen as a form of translation where

 Translation not as a metaphor for the transportation across physical,

 Since the critical literature in the field of literary translation is rich,

 The translator explains the literary and cultural background of the

 It is not uncommon for the PC writers to use postscripts,

 Selectivity is essential in the production of any literary work.

 The process of interpretation that both the translator and the PC

 (This is why most PC writers choose to live abroad)

 However, translation is less heated now than before.

 Features of the source culture cover:

In this case the translator either:

Similar features are found in the lexis of post-colonial texts

 Ex 1: Introduction of African Words with explanation

 Ex 2: Words understood by context

Features are associated with:

Ex 1: Ngugi’s use of the term ‘taste’

Ex 2: Achebe’s use of unusual collocation

 In Cases where unfamiliar cultural elements such as myths, customs

 The act of leaving unfamiliar cultural knowledge implicit is when

 According to Tymoczko, Frontloading in Post-colonial

 Over-explanation and under-explanation lead to compromising

 Suprpressing the distinctive qualities of the writer’s culture and

Severe demands on Conformity to the dominant

 Receptor theory (readers are an essential factor of the

From ‘imperial humiliation to a native weapon’

 Through this comparison between translation and post-colonial

You might also like