Translational Studies in Comparative Literature

When translational studies came up in 19^th century, it was seen as a threat to literature. The translational studies focused on to translate the original works in different other languages. In this practice, it was observed that when an original language was translated into another language, the translated text became biased, and meanings could be changed as meanings tended to be arbitrary. In these practices, either the main idea was misunderstood or sub-outlined are misjudged. Translational work tended to be either explicit or implicit. Literary critics termed the translational work as subsidiary, derivative, secondary in nature, a process of transferring one context into another, and an inferior copy. It was also observed that the essence of the idea always changed.

According to Hillarie Belloc, a famous literary critic,

The art of translation is a subsidiary art and derivative on this account it has never been granted the dignity of original work.

These critics were also of the view that when an original work was translated, it was amazing to judge the translated works. The original work was stated as source system and translated work was termed as translation, adaptation, imitation or original in the target system. Text is always a source and translation is a target. 

Evan Zohar noted that translational studies appeared to have played a major role in the development of national cultures. And, this fact was ignored by these kind of critics. It is important to know that before him, the earlier critics considered translated works as inferior copy, subsidiary or biased, but he supported, praised and gave an emphasis to the translated works. That’s why,

Evan Zohar termed those critics who were against translational studies as 'uninitiated' and 'novice'. Before him, there was no research on the functions of translated literature. For example, the Renaissance has generally perceived as a time of intensive translational activity, yet any systematic assessment of what was translated, why, by whom and how has not taken place. Foreign literature was not only translated into English, but it was proved a light for the British writers to follow. At that point, where were these critics? Why they ignore that translated works? Here, at this point, Zohar gives his own concept of translation studies, which is explained below.

Evan Zohar’s Concept of Translation Studies

He argues that certain conditions determine high translation activity in a culture. He identifies three major conditions;

1. When a literature is in its early stage of development.
2. When a literature perceives itself to be peripheral and weak.
3. When there are turning points, crises, and literary vacuums.

Stages of Translation Studies

1^st Phase: 

The first phase involved a series of direct challenges to the established discourses on translation. In earlier stage, the theory of equivalence as sameness was given by the critics. According to this theory, translation takes place on a vertical axis between identically placed systems. In addition, there is no hierarchal relationship among source system (text), target system (translation) and culture. On contrary, Poly system theory, was introduced by Evan Zohar. According to him, the place of literature is,

Literature According to him is a kind of system. Literature is a part of social, cultural, literary, and historical framework. Every nation has its own Poly system which includes high and low literatures, different styles and genres, canonized or un-canonized works and different studies.

Moreover, Zohar rejected the idea of earlier critics about the theory of equivalence as saying,

Systems are never identically positioned, and that notions of superiority or inferiority of a text or of a literary system are always in play.

2^nd Phase:

This phase concerned with the relationship among translational studies, mapping and tracing the patterns of translational activity.

The significant development is the second stage, which marks a definite move from structuralist origins of Poly system theory and a step forward or the road towards post structuralist translation studies has been the work carried out on the figurative language used by translators was evidenced in preface correspondence and statements about their work generally.

Here the relationship between source text and target translation was observed as:

• The idea of dominance of the source text.
• That translator as slave the servant of the source text.

3^rd Phase:

Third phase is metaphoric language of translators. This phase can be termed as post-structuralist stage. It is the phase where critics hold the view about translational activity as,

To engender a work a new. Engender, I say, because the ancient writers have to be decomposed by profound and penetrating reflection in order to be reconstituted by a similar process; just as meat must be decomposed in our stomachs in order to form our bodies.

In this sense, source text must be decomposed or undergo a process of textual manipulation in order to be transformed into another language. As one critic said,  

Translation as one of a range of process of textual manipulation, where the concept of plurality replaces dogmas or faithfulness to a source text and where the idea of the original is being challenged from a variety of perspectives.

Andre Lefevere purposes that translation should be studied alongside what he calls rewritings. According to him translation within a framework needs to be seen as an important literary strategy. Bessnett and Lefevere restate the goal of translational studies as:

Translation has been a major shaping force in the development of world culture and no study of comparative literature can take place without regard to translation.

Criticism on Translational Studies

First group of scholars hold the views;

1. Translation as a marginal activity.
2. Rejecting the Poly system group.
3. They hold the notion of literature as a universal civilizing force.
4. Such scholars are Eurocentric in outlook.

Second group of scholars are of the opinion;

1. They argue that translation studies should shake off its links with the comparative literature that the two have nothing in common and have different concerns and methodologies.
2. They argue, comparative literature is still caught up in formalist coils, state of constant crisis, the state of uneasiness can only damage the new emergent discipline of translation studies. 
3. For comparative literature: comparison is there.
4. For translation studies: it concerned with the text, context, practice, theory, intercultural transfer, ideological implications.
5. Writing does not happen in a vacuum, it happens in a context and the process of translating texts from one cultural system to another is not a natural, innocent, and transparent activity.
6. Translation is a transgressive activity. It has played a fundamental role in cultural change.

A critic, Andre Lefevere said, 

Translation is not just a window opened on another world… Translation is a channel opened…through which foreign influences can penetrate the native culture, challenges it and even contribute to subverting it.

We should look up on translation studies as the principle discipline from now on, with comparative literature as a valued but subsidiary subject area. I believe that the theory has carried out vital roles in that it increased the level of awareness about “translated literature as a particular literary system” and drew attention to the relationship between translated literature and other systems.