This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
i
Yarmouk University
Faculty of Arts
Department of Translation
The Translation of the Theatre of the Absurd
Language through Beckett’s
Waiting for Godot""
By :
Rania Oun Ibbini
2008300020
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
The Translation of the Theatre of the Absurd Language through
Beckett’s "Waiting for Godot"
This study aims to explore the translatability of the Absurd expression through Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. Special attention will be paid when discussing the main problems that face translators during the translation process, which includes an evaluation of certain strategies used to translate Absurd expressions.
In order to achieve the research target, the researcher will discuss sixteen monologues in Waiting for Godot. This will shed the light on many problems that may face translators while rendering such monologues from English to Arabic.
Analyzing the previously mentioned cases, it was concluded that the translator opts to use different strategies in order to reflect the Absurd image, as close as one can achieve, from the ST on the target language audience.
It was found that translating such expressions requires a vast knowledge in the source and target cultures both in the western and eastern worlds. An adequate knowledge of the Absurd Theatre characteristics among the source and target cultures insures an acceptable and reliable rendering of the text pragmatic function, since any omissions or deletions in the translation of such expressions may produce a text which lacks the flavor of its original
Key Words: Translation, Dramatic Translation, Absurdity, Theatre of the
Absurd, Waiting for Godot, Samuel Beckett, Source Text (ST),
"a Chameleon Quality" since translation is "able to change its color and
shape, to translate itself into many different things"
Bakalla (1984) discusses Arabic literature over different periods.
He asserts that Arabic literature is one of the richest literatures in the
world. Its history goes back to more than fifteen hundred years and has
made substantial constitutions to other literatures through the world at
various periods in its history. In this respect, the task of translating
Arabic literature is hard due to the difficulty concerning reflecting the
same impact of the ST into the TT.
Catford (1965:1) defines translation as" an operation performed
in languages: a process of substituting a text in one language for a text
in another." Producing equivalence is the ultimate goal of the translator.
Dubois cited in Bell (1991:5) defines translation as:Translation is the expression in another (or target language) of what has been expressed in another, source language, preserving semantic and stylistic equivalence.
Bell also (ibid:6) defines translation as:Translation is the replacement of a representation of a text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in a second language.
Newmark ( 1988:48) states:The orienting purpose of any translation should be to achieve 'equivalent effect' i.e., to produce the same effect (in one as close as possible) on the relationship of the translation as was obtained on the relationship of the original. (This is also called 'equivalent response' principle. Nida calls it dynamic equivalence.
Holman and Boase –Beier (1999:7-8) state that translators in the
sense of literal translation must have the following characteristics:
Translators first of all have to be informed, attentive readers, literary critics sensitive to the relation between the SL text and the linguistic cultural environment in which it was exposed. They will want to know what role SL audience expectations and understanding played in the original writer's concern to earn the approval of his or her readers.
Students of translation may face many problems during the process
of translation, but the most important one is literal translation which
results from the lack of understanding the text. According to Fargal and
Shunnaq (1999:16): "literal translation is probably the oldest type of
translation practice. It involves the conveyance of denotative meaning
of phrases and sentences in a text from one language to another.
Therefore, literal translation works where there is correspondence
between the two languages in terms of semantics and structures."
As for the language of Waiting for Godot, Esslin (1980) points that
Niklaus Gessner tabulated ten modes of disintegration of language
observable in Waiting for Godot. They are as follows: simple
misunderstandings; double-entendres; clichés; repetition of Synonyms;
inability to find the right words; telegraphic style (loss of grammatical
structure, communication by shouted commands); no punctuation marks
where language loses its function; loss of meaning of single words;
inability to remember what has been said; and monologues as signs of
inability of communication.
Catford (1965) asserts that the ST and the TT items rarely have
the same meaning linguistically, but they can function in the same
situation. In total translation, ST and TT texts or items are translation
equivalents if they are used interchangeability in a given context. This
means that translation equivalence can nearly be established at the
sentence level. The sentence is the most grammatical unit that is directly
related to speech-function within a situation.
Emery (2004: 144) writes about translation, equivalence and
Fidelity saying:
[T]hese three interlinked terms-translation, equivalence and fidelity- are conventionally used and 'understood' but translation theorists have been reluctant to grant them much - or even any thing- in the way of theoretical status. Utilising the insights of pragmatic theory, this paper aims to do precisely that demonstrating how each term can be clearly defined in an intrinsic (i.e. non-relative) fashion. The terms are interdependent but would seem that the cornerstone or the heart of the problem is the concept of translation.
Newmark (1981: 146) points out that when there are a number of
synonyms in the source language, then the translator should choose the
word that stylistically fits its context not the word that translates the ST
item.
Bell (1991: 6) makes the problem of equivalence clearly known by
Texts in different languages can be equivalent in different degrees (fully or partially equivalent), in respect of different levels of representation (equivalent in respect of content, of semantic, of grammar, of lexis, etc.) and at different ranks (word-for-word, phrase-for-phrase, sentence-for-sentence)
Fargal and Shunnaq (1999:2-5) define translation as a project for
transferring meaning from one language to another. Their definition
includes the key concept "equivalence" in the process of translating.
They add that no translator could think of translation without taking this
concept into account since the notion of equivalence relates to the
ordinary senses of the verb to translate. Hence, the term equivalence is a
key term in the process of translation and " non- equivalence" poses a
central problem for translators.
Different definitions have been provided of translation, Newmark
(1981:7) states that “Translation is a craft consisting in the attempt to
replace a written message and / or statement in one language by the
same message and / or statement in another language ".
Nida and Taber (1969) explain the process of translating as the one
that consists of reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural
equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning
and secondly in terms of style.
Literary translation is one of the most difficult types of translation to
be translated. That is due to different types of literary texts such as
novels, plays, poems, novellas and short stories and each of which
requires a special knowledge to deal with in the process of translation.
Al - Safi (1994), among others, sees that, a literary work is dynamic
rather than static. Accordingly, a dynamic translation demands that the
translator should comply with the target linguistic system; the
translation should be appropriate, i.e. fit the context of the message; the
translation should be natural and free; the translation should be
acceptable to the target audience or literary readership, and it should
aspire to occupy a position in target literature as any other original
works of art.
To illustrate the difficulty of translating literary texts, Newmark
(1998:63) asserts that the translator may face a problem while dealing
with a literary text since the literary text has denotative and connotative
meanings different of the non-literary text. In this case he says:
Non-fiction ('informative texts') are concerned with reality and denotations, fiction with the imagination and connotations. Literary texts are ultimately allegorical and, more or less indirectly, a moral comment or criticism of life. Non-literary texts are concerned with facts, events and ideas without connotations. Literary texts are full of sound; non-literary texts are not.
The researcher, in this respect, turns to clarifying it in the translation
of some literary expressions especially those of the theatre of the
absurd. The theatre of absurd is a phrase invented by Esslin (1961) to
refer to the plays of such 1950’s characteristics as Eugene Ionesco,
Edward Albee, Jean Genet, Harold Pinter, and Sammuel Beckett.
problem of translation – practice is that of finding TT translation theory
is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation equivalence."
Dickins, Hervey, and Higgins (2002:19), refer to equivalence as
"Descriptively, 'equivalence' denotes the relationship between ST
features and TT features that are seen as directly corresponding to one
another, regardless of the quality of the TT."
Kenny (2001:77) further defines equivalence as a "relationship that
holds between the ST and the TT, which allows the TT to be considered
as a translation of the ST, and also it holds between the parts of the STs
and the TTs."
It is worth mentioning here that there are various types of translation
equivalence each of which has its distinctive function to apply in the
translated text. Nida (1964:156), for instance, differentiates between
formal and dynamic equivalence: In consideration to formal
equivalence, he states:
Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in both form and content. In such a translation one is concerned with such correspondence as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. Viewed from this formal orientation, one is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the source language.
Concerning the dynamic equivalence, Nida states that a translation
which attempts to produce a dynamic rather than a formal equivalence
is based upon ' the principle of equivalent effect. In simplified terms,
this equivalence type is not concerned with the maximum match
between the source message and the target message, but with the
achievement of a relationship between the receptor and the message like
that obtained between the original receptor and the message.
1.1.2. Waiting for Godot : General View
Samuel Barclay Beckett (13 April 1906 – 22 December 1989) was an Irish avant-garde novelist, playwright, theatre director, and poet, who lived in Paris for most of his adult life and wrote in both English and French …. He is one of the key writers in what Martin Esslin called the "Theatre of the Absurd". His work became increasingly minimalist in his later career. (Wikipedia)
"Beckett wrote in both French and English and is perhaps best
known for his plays, especially En attendant Godot (1952;Waiting for
Godot)." (Britannica)
Waiting for Godot is considered as the most famous example of the
Absurd Theatre, which adopted the idea on which the Absurd concept
stands on; namely the absence of fate or absolute which resembles in
the absence of Godot.
It is a tragicomedy consists of two acts. It was first published in
1956. It is a play about two vagabonds who impose on their wilderness
an illusion but desperately defended waiting. The Godot they wait for
is a vague figure at best and would probably be a disappointment to
them if he comes, but they have to persuade themselves that he will
Newmark comes with another theory of translating a dramatic work.
According to him, the main purpose of translating a play is to have it
performed successfully.
“Therefore a translator of drama inevitably has to bear the potential spectator in mind though, here again, the better written and more significant the text, the fewer compromises he can make in favour of the reader. Further, he works under certain constraints: unlike the translator of fiction, he cannot gloss, explain puns or ambiguities or cultural references, not transcribe words for the sake of local colour: his text is dramatic, with emphasis on verbs, rather than descriptive and explanatory. Michael Meyer, in a little noticed article in Twentieth Century Studies , quoting T. Rattigan, states that the spoken word is five times as potent as the written word – what a novelist would say in 30 lines, the playwright must say in five. The arithmetic is faulty and so,I believe, is the sentiment, but it shows that a translation of a play must be concise – it must not be an over-translation.” (Newmark 1988, p.172)
Literary translation is a difficult type of translation due to the
specific features of literary texts. This requires knowledge to render the
impact of the source text to the target audience.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1970) points out that literary
translation is:
a genre of literary creativity in which a work written in one language is re- created in another . Because literature is verbal, it is the only art that is subject to linguistic barriers, unlike music, painting, sculpture, or dance, the literary work is accessible only to those who know the language in which it is written. The specific characteristics of literary translation are defined by its place among other types of translation and by its relationship to original literary creativity.
In a study about the specific problems of literary translation, with
particular reference to the translation of dramatic texts, Bassnett
(1991:123) states that:
In trying to formulate any theory of theatre translation, Bogatyrev’s description of linguistic expression must be taken into account, and the linguistic element must be translated bearing in mind its function in theatre discourse as a whole.
To evaluate the above mentioned idea by Bassnett, it is worth
mentioning here that Bogatyrev (1971:517-30) cited in Bassnett
(1978:161-80) states that while discussing the function of linguistic
system, he declares that linguistic expressions in theatre is a structure of
signs constituted not only as discourse signs, but also as other signs.
Bassnett (1991) asserts that throughout the history of literary
translation less effort has been made in studying the problems of
translating prose. The main concentration is to discuss the issues of
translating poetry.
Lefever (1992) argues that a skillful literary translator should study
the nature of both languages. He is faithful and accurate where he does
not deviate and where he fills the gap with an appropriate equivalent
that protects the right of his own language while following the author's
Absurd originally means “out of harmony", in a musical context. Hence its dictionary definition: “out of Harmony with reason or propriety; incongruous, unreasonable, illogical". In common usage, “absurd” may simply mean “ridiculous” but this is not the sense in which Camus uses the word, and in which it is used when we speak of the Absurd … Ionesco defined his understanding of the term as follows: “Absurd is that which is devoid of purpose…cut off from his religious, metaphysical, and transcendental roots, man is lost; all his actions become senseless, absurd, useless”.
Historically, after tracing the foundation of postmodern literature
and arts in general, we found out that the main sense of absurdity plus
many other characteristics like disruption and humorous criticism are all
seem to emerge out of the chaos left by World War 11.
De Vasconcelos (u.d:441) points out:
It is therefore a clear emergence and consequence of certain economical and political conditions of life in Western post-war societies and is usually assumed as a rebellious outcry against all establishments, all meanings of pain, suffering, poverty and death, all assumptions of man as a rational being, all metaphors of divinity, of metaphysics, of intelligibility and order.
The Theatre of the Absurd which flourished in the western world
has also reflected its impacts on the Arabic literature, especially those of
the Egyptian drama as shown in Haj–Hussein (1997:1):
The feeling of the futility, meaninglessness, and purposelessness of human actions which characterizes the Theatre of the Absurd is noticeable in some of the works of these Arab dramatists. As the absurdists in the West started experimenting with new dramatic techniques and stage conventions, the Arab dramatists tried to introduce new innovations and practices into the traditional theatre in the Arab world.
Haj-Hussein (1997) attempts to analyze some of the plays of
Tawfiq Al-Hakim: (The Tree Climber, 1962) and
(Fate of Cackroach, 1966), and Yousif Idris's (The
Clowns,1964), and Salah Abd al-Sabur's (A Night
Traveller,1969) in order to trace how they were influenced by Samuel
Beckett and Eugene Ionesco, (i.e. the Theatre of the Absurd
playwrights). Finally, he concludes that there is an actual influence of
this theatre on Egyptian drama, and that of the four chosen plays only
one play, The Tree Climber could be considered as an embodiment of
the technique of the Absurd, the other three plays employ the techniques
of the Absurd Theatre only partially.
Micheal Cumming (2007-2008:9) describes the structure of
absurdist drama as a spaceship orbiting earth or also as a Ferris Wheel
revolving on an axle; both of which endlessly repeat their path. They
are tethered to the forces beyond their control. ( web 1)
To support the idea that has been shown above one should know
where it shows in Beckett's play Waiting for Godot; this can be clarified
in the following quotation:
The same is true of Vladimir and Estragon in Waiting for Godot. They wait for Godot at the beginning of the play, wait for Godot in the middle of the play, and wait for Godot at the end of the play. Godot never comes. So Vladimir and Estragon continue to revolve—but never evolve. They are caught in the absurdity of continuously moving but never progressing. (web 2).
As shown in Beckett (1986) the action and Language in Waiting
for Godot have a repetition and cyclic nature. Act two repeats and
parallels act One. Accordingly, Waiting for Godot appears to be as an
endless series of stage images as been realized by Vladimir, i.e., the
play starts with Vladimir and Estragon waiting for Godot and ends with
them still waiting for him.
The researcher finds out that throughout the play both Vladimir
and Estragon are either in contradiction or they echo each other and also
they ask and answer each other by short questions and answers. This
can improve the idea when Esslin (1980) says, "Language in Beckett's
plays serves to express the breakdown, the disintegration of language."
Accordingly, Oliver (1965) explains the idea of monotonous and
repetitious nature of reality which is emphasized in Beckett's play
Waiting for Godot to show that monotony is not used for its own sake; it
is used by the Absurdist dramatist, rather, as Oliver maintains," as … a
term which connotes an emotional response; it is, rather, a philosophical
assessment, the absurdist assessment of the value of all action." This
technique is found in the following example:
Estragon: In a ditch. Vladimir: (admiringly). A ditch! where? Estragon: (without gesture). Over there. Vladimir: And they did not beat you? Estragon: Beat me? certainly they beat me. Vladimir: The same lot as usual. Estragon: The same? I don’t know. Beckett (1986:9)