Conclusion

It is clear from this discussion that it is difficult to pin down the nature of translations by nomenclature. For instance, Lal’s transcreations could very well be termed adaptations. These difficulties in differentiating between various processes point to the fact that translation is not a simple interlingual transfer of meaning. If we accept the idea that translation is a form of rewriting, then the nature of originality and creativity of authors and translators would have to be interrogated. We also perceive that translation need not be a linguistic affair, but could be within one single sign system. Cultural rewrites of texts that occur across genres and art forms are today considered to be translations by translation theorists, but not studied in great depth or detail within the translation framework.

Assignments

        1. What are the various ways in which a story can be retold?

       2.Think of an example of how a retold text, like the Amar Chitra Katha version of Kalidasa’s           Sakuntalam is modified to suit its contemporary readers.

References

Lal, P. “Preface” to Shakuntala. Great Sanskrit Plays in Modern Translation. 1957. New York: New Directions, 1964.

Lefevere, Andre. “Beyond Interpretation” or the Business of (Re)Writing. Comparative Literature Studies, Vol.24, No.1 (1987): 17 – 39

“Mother Courage’s Cucumbers: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature”. The Translation Studies Reader. Ed. Lawrence Venuti. London: Routledge, 2000: 233 – 249