Translating the Key Concepts of Derrida’s
Deconstruction in Marathi
Abstract
This paper has examined the strategies of translating English occurrences
of the key concepts of deconstruction into Marathi. To this end, Deconstruction
as a thought and practice is introduced- evoking implications to translation
theory. Translations of the key concepts of deconstruction in Marathi were
reviewed along with examples from Marathi writings. The paper takes the
relevant key concepts from Jacques Derrida’s works. Taking only professional
translators, the paper considered the Marathi different translations of these
key concepts. A comparison is drawn between the key concepts and their Marathi
translations. The translations were, analyzed-focusing on the strategies utilized.
Conclusion showed that there is a wide divergence between the various
translations. The fact that some renderings are somewhat intelligible enough
and others are dissatisfying is attributed to whether the key concepts in
question were studied in its cultural context. Most of the renderings, however,
accounted for at least one of the meanings each key concept abounds with.
Interpretation as a translation strategy was found to be the most convenient
procedure in dealing with Derrida’s key concepts. This strategy requires giving
an equivalent and glossing it with as much information as possible. It also examines the difficulties a translator of a
deconstructive text encounters, namely the threefold dilemma: translating
referential association of a deconstructive key concept into the target
culture; finding the appropriate equivalent; and considering the diverse target
cultural types of audience which might or might not recognize the options a
translator has worked to render.
Therefore, in translating texts or appropriating concepts,
translators might engage in a sort of modification and eventually render versions
matching the new contexts in which the concepts are redeployed. To do so, a
translator might develop a strategy to come up with a product that matches the
needs of the target audience; a strategy that could result in restructuring the
source text with all of its complexities and temporal and spatial elements.
Key Words:
deconstruction, supplement,
dissemination, grammatology, différance, trace, arche-writing, supplement, indeterminacy,
and logocentrism.
Deconstruction is a key concept coined by Jacques Derrida to describe a
reading approach which searches for the meaning of a text to the point of
engaging the underlying structure on which a text is apparently founded, and
that this structure is unstable or impossible. Deconstruction generally attempts to demonstrate that a text is not a
conclusive unit but one of several conflicting and contradictory meanings; that
any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links
these interpretations; and that the variance of these interpretations is
irreducible.
It might be plausible to note that Deconstruction- as a key concept and as a practice- has preoccupied a very
little scholarly work in the last two decades among the Marathi intellectuals.
It is, however, interesting to note that most of these scholarly works have
focused mainly on the theoretical aspect of Deconstruction, while the practical aspect has regrettably been neglected.
Derrida’s theory of Deconstruction builds on the work of the French structuralist Ferdinand de
Saussure. In his Course
in General Linguistics (1965),
Saussure differentiates between what he calls la parole (actual speech) and la langue (language system). A linguistic sign, according to Saussure,
consists of two inseparable parts: the signifier translated in Marathi as ‘चिन्हके’(a sound image or a graphic mark) and the signified
translated in Marathi as ‘चिन्हिते’ (the concept associated with it). Harischandra
Thorat translates these concepts as ‘चिन्हित’ and ‘स्वनिम’ respectively. However, the relation
between the two is arbitrary. Another point of view Sassure makes is that signs
are deferential, since they generate their meaning only as a result of their
difference from other signs. The meaning of the sign is also relational It is
defined by its relation to its opposite. Derrida elaborates on Saussure’s ideas
on signs saying: The play of differences supposes, in effect, syntheses and
referrals which forbid at any moment, or in any sense, that a simple element be
present in and of itself, referring only to itself. Whether in the order of
spoken or written discourse, no element can function as a sign without
referring to another element which itself is not simply present. The inter-weaving
results in each "element"-phoneme or grapheme-being constituted on
the basis of the trace within it of the other elements of the chain or system.
Traditionally, Derrida argues, the Western thought is built
on a binary structure of superior and inferior. Deconstruction questions this binary view and suggests a different reading:
In a traditional philosophical opposition we have not a peaceful coexistence of
facing key concepts but a violent hierarchy. One of the two key concepts dominates
the other (axiologically, logically, etc.), occupies the commanding position.
To deconstruct the opposition above all, at a particular moment, is to reverse
the hierarchy (Derrida:
Positions, 1981: 41). Usually, the superior key
concept depends on the inferior in keeping its meaning. This act of opposition
and differentiation expels those which are conventionally considered inferior
and doomed to be in the periphery. This allows the superior- which is in the
center- to stand out and be privileged. For Derrida though, there is no such
thing as pure truth that is completely independent. When you read a text, you
add to it an understanding of the meaning, and it is not necessarily the same
sense that the author intended.
Kathleen Davis’ Deconstruction and Translation suggests methods in which many practical and theoretical
problems of translation can be rethought in the light of insights from Derrida.
If there is no one origin, no transcendent meaning, then there is no stable
source text. Derrida’s ideas are used to build new approaches to translation
within translation studies. With regard to translation, Deconstruction considers all possibilities: how people get to meaning comes
from their knowledge of multiple meanings attached to a word. Deconstruction gives translation an aspect of relativism through which
people can choose the most appropriate option for a particular context. The
interpretations of a text, therefore, multiply over and over and the meanings
grow endlessly. With every new reading, there is a new meaning.
Deconstruction rejects fixed referential meanings and clearly defined
cultural entities. This has had a decisive impact on the conceptualization of
intercultural transfer, intercultural confrontation and translation. Thus
cultures are no longer regarded as homogenous entities, but refracted by
variation and blending with foreign cultures. “Research on interpretation,
translation, and mediation between cultures can be thought of as the core of
the humanities. Cultural encounters and translations are becoming ever more
conspicuous aspects of the human reality” (Skylv, 1993).
Deconstruction calls into question the credibility of theoretical scenarios
that assume an original meaning. Derrida’s basic assumption is that there is no
fixed thing against which other things are judged. Instead, he builds his
theory of Deconstruction
on the mismatch and the non-existence
of an origin. What really exists, according to Derrida, is different links of
signifiers- including the original work and its translations- that are
connected in a symbiotic relationship, where both the original and the
translated version supplement one another.
Interest in Western culture, American in particular, in the Indian
world appears to be on the rise. Part of the interest is in evidence, as
knowledge of English is sometimes considered a prerequisite to get a job, to
join an educational institution, or to succeed in the job. Academically,
translation from English into Indian languages, a variety of issues of cultural
differences and intercultural communication appears certain. Therefore,
research into translating postmodern texts into Indian languages has lately
proliferated.
Translation has always contributed to the formation of Indian
intellectual work which seeks universality, but, at the same time, strives to
retain its privacy, heritage and cultural characteristics. Yet transferring
knowledge into Indian languages is still subject to insoluble problems. The
difficulties are multiple, some of which are due to the nature of translation
itself: mainly the inability to transfer the original text from one language
into another, accurately and faithfully. This problem is often attributed to
the lack of corresponding key concept system in the target language. There is
also the scarcity of dictionaries. Further, texts are often translated in
isolation from their theoretical context: for example, translating Derrida’s Writing and Difference
in isolation from his other works, i.e.
overlooking the element of inter-textuality. The problem of cultural matrix
differences is another major obstacle to a successful translation. All these
factors have resulted in the multiplicity of the Indian languages and equivalents
for the same key concept. Though considerable efforts have been made to
overcome these difficulties, it is not easy to resolve and eliminate, once and
for all, these hindrances to successful translation.
In Being
and Time (1978), and Early Greek
Thinking (1985), Heidegger talks about the
theory of translation. His works were one of the first attempts to break the
lethal force of the metaphysical approaches in translation, where one can
identify the beginnings of the practice of Deconstruction in translation (Gentzler, 1993). According to the deconstructionist
approach, people think at the margins of the language and follow the language
sub-corridors, rather than follow the main road agreed upon. In translation,
people should not search for the original message, but for multiple forms and
points of time and space that casually overlap. According to this view, the
theory of translation aims to protect the differences and revitalize language
and thus opens new horizons of thinking (Gentzler, 1993: 160). Deconstructionists
view differences, slips of the tongue, additions and deletions as part of each
text. Both deconstruction and translation theory focus on real, not imaginary,
texts when they put forward a theory or propose a solution. One of the inherent
properties of things is the inability to cover everything and detect all
details, and language is not an exception.
“There is always something more to be done or to be said: After
I write my book for a particular purpose and a particular audience, someone
else can give a straightforward interpretation of it with that purpose and
audience in mind. Once I have published the book, it is no longer simply mine.
It may be taken up by other audiences or used for other purposes. The points of
deconstruction are to show where something has been omitted, not because of the
blindness of the author, not because the critic is smarter or better, but
because that is the way things are. There are always things I don't know,
though in a very real way that I don't know them is part of what I know.”
(Faulconer, 1998).
Andrew Benjamin begins his Translation and the Nature of
Philosophy (1989) by citing and translating
Derrida: “With the problem of translation we are dealing with nothing less than
the problem of the passage to philosophy”. Though Deconstruction does not provide a theory of translation, it uses
translation in two situations: first, to ask questions about the nature of
language and second, to come as close as possible to the concept of difference.
Thus, the nature of such thinking becomes important for theorists of
translation. The whole project of Deconstruction has a complex relationship with the theory of translation.
Jacques Derrida claims that translation and Deconstruction are intertwined and cannot be separated. The elusive presence
of Différance is quite clear: “translation practices the difference between
signified and signifier” within the possible limits where this is possible or
at least seems possible. Derrida addresses problems relating to the possibility
or impossibility of translation. According to Derrida, all philosophy is mainly
concerned with the concept of translation: “The Origin of philosophy is
translation or takes the thesis of translatability” (Derrida, McDonald, Kamuf
& Ronell, 1988: 120). This means that philosophy and translation hold
similar assumptions as to what things mean. In the deconstructionist thinking,
translation occupies a primary position that effaces the traditional ways of
thinking that historically dominated the perceptions of translation and
philosophy.
The key to applying deconstructive thought to translation is
shown in the process which moves beyond a hierarchical opposition of original
and translation. According to this process, the difference is not an obstacle
to translation. The translator presupposes an existence of plurality which multiplies
with every new reading of a text. “By denying the existence of truth, origin
and center, deconstruction deprives us of the comfortable fallacy of living in
a simple and understandable world. We lose security, but we gain endless
possibilities, the unlimited play of meanings” (Koskinen 1994: 446).
The relationship between the source text and the target text
is reciprocal one of mutual transformation. As such, the borderlines between
the ST and the TT are concealed as the existence of the ST becomes intertwined
with that of the TT. The idea of originality, therefore, becomes obsolete and
is no longer sustainable. This is because every reading of a text renders a different
meaning, which, in turn, triggers other meanings. The product of this chain of
change is open-endlessness. For Derrida, this means that every reading requires
a different translation. For deconstructionists, the original texts are
rewritten over and over through translation which re-builds the original.
Derrida is trying to demolish the traditional concept of originality and
unified entity and, instead, proposes that critics focus on relations between
texts and contexts. According to him, an author’s work is bound by some factors
including time and space which the author doesn’t have control over. Derrida
would prefer not to think of the author as an individual, but as a series of
self attitudes not determined by harmony as much as by gaps, lack of continuity
and interruptions. In such an approach, translators will learn how to focus on
gaps and differences to get to the possible meaning.
Translation augments and modifies the original, which,
insofar as it is living on, never ceases to be transformed and to grow. It
modifies the original even as it also modifies the translating language. This
process--transforming the original as well as the translation--is the
translation contract between the original and the translating text (Derrida: The Ear of the
Other, 1985:122). Deconstructionists propose
that the theory of translation should expand its borders and reconsider its
dereliction. In any text there is nothing but the interaction of language with
itself. This openness to the absolute nothingness dismantles the metaphysical
theories of translation and opens the way to thinking about something that is
denied by the language. For Derrida, translation is not merely a crossing over
to understand something, but also a forum to exercise that crossing. “Instead
of translations fixing the same meaning, they can also allow a further room for
play; extend boundaries and open up new avenues for further difference”
(Gentzler, 1993: 160-161).
If the translator neither restitutes nor copies an original,
it is because the original lives on and transforms itself. The translation will
truly be a moment in the growth of the original, which will complete itself in
enlarging itself. And if the original calls for a complement, it is because at
the origin, it was not there without fault, full, complete, total, identical to
itself. (Derrida, Psyche, 2007: 211).
As Davis (2001:14) outlines, “meaning is an effect of
language, not a prior presence merely expressed in language. It therefore
cannot be simply extracted from language and transferred.” Since this meaning
is deferred in the original text, it also remains postponed in the translated
work. Translation is approached not in terms of signifiers and signification,
but in terms of what words produce by means of a free play. Derrida reclaims
the power of signifiers: “at the beginning of translation is the word. Nothing
is less innocent, pleonastic (extra) and natural, nothing is more historical
than this proposition, even if it seems too obvious” (Derrida: What is a
relevant translation, 2001:180).
Translation theory has always involved one specific problem
in translation: those translations are not the same as their originals. This is
why translation scholars have always been preoccupied with the notion of
equivalence (formal, dynamic, functional or cultural) when assessing
translation. Deconstruction
questions the notions of equivalence
and faithfulness in translation. Equivalence is no longer a norm or a purpose
in translation practice. The aim of translation cannot be reduced to producing
a TT that is equivalent to the ST. In practice, translation focuses on the sets
of relations between the ST and the TT without claiming to calculate the
precise underlying meaning because such a meaning does not exist:
Deconstruction uses a number of key concepts coined or deployed by Derrida,
such as Jean Jacques Rousseau’s supplement, Mallarme’s dissemination, Ignace Gelb’s grammatology, Plato’s pharmakon-
stuffing them with new senses that sometimes seemingly contradict one another.
This paper cannot do justice to all the key concepts that crop up in Derrida’s
works. However, it seems appropriate to consider few deconstructive key concepts
as it is unnecessary to enumerate all. The study can only address the key concepts
in Derrida’s discourse and use them as examples of the other key concepts that
illustrate the deconstructive thought. In particular, this paper will deal with
deconstruction,
différance, trace, supplement, inde key conceptinacy,
grammatology, dissemination and
logocentrism.
These are the most challenging key concepts
for translators, as the reader will come to see.
Derrida used Deconstruction
without giving it a definition. This might be attributed to the fact that
Derrida intentionally didn’t want to close off the openness of the key concept.
However, some scholars and references tried to produce approximate definitions
of the concern: Illustrating his key concept Deconstruction, Derrida emphasizes that it is “the undoing and decomposing
of structures, in a certain sense more historical than the structuralist
movement it called into question, was not a negative operation. Rather than
destroying, it was also necessary to understand how an ‘ensemble’ was
constituted and to reconstruct it to this end.” (Derrida: Acts of
Literature, 1991: 21).
The translator might adopt the function intended by the ST
writer or s/he might take the ST key concept out of its context (isolating it
from its theoretical background and time and space setting), giving it a new
realization, thus manipulating the source text key concept. All, however, are treated as
translations, regardless of how the translator, driven by context, employed the
concerns. In a nutshell, there is no such yardstick to judge a translation in
terms of how much literal or how much dynamic it was. The Marathi translation
of the deconstruction shows a difference of stress and punctuation for instance
‘वि-रचना’ by Harischandra Thorat and ‘विरचना’ by Milind Malshe and Ashok Joshi.
Thorat might have intentionally hyphenated the prefix and root word to mean
recreation by an act. The controversy between critics over
what it means “to deconstruct’ is congruous with Derrida’s concept of
indefiniteness and multiplicity of meaning. It is no wonder then to find so
many versions of the same key concept. Since a key concept is open to populous
interpretations, its meaning is never definite. It is cumulative, built up in
the form of layers in which one layer of meaning elaborates on the former and
adds to the one to come.
Différance is the most important and enigmatic key concept Derrida
coined. The method of Différance
works to postpone the traditional
practice of referring, and to infinitely delay significance. Différance does not restrict the evolution of language and systems of
thought, but is based, instead, on forward movement in accordance with the
requirements of the context of the language. Différance encompasses differing and deferring. The former refers to
the distinguished nature of contexts and the latter signifies the suspension of
the meaning of a sign that is not discovered: “The structure of the sign is de key
conceptined by the trace or track of that other which is forever absent” (Taylor
and Winquist, 2000:289). To explain what he means by differing and deferring,
Derrida coins the word ‘Différance’ in his book Margins of Philosophy
(1982). This key concept refers not to
what is found (the language), but to what is absent, and thus undermines any
method that defines the concept of presence. The notion of différance
“designates the impossible origin of difference in differing and of differing
in difference” (Culler, 1983: 162).
Taking a moderate, integrated view, it is quite possible to
say that some renderings of Différance were
very much close to the original key concept. For a Marathi reader, though, some
translations might still be ambiguous. What makes Derrida’s the key concepts special
is the multiplicity that each concern suggests- as none of his key concepts has
a single, transparent meaning. It is safe, then, to conclude that any
equivalent which does not consider this deferral logic will be lacking. Différance is not merely difference or deferring, thus the translation
as भे_द, भेद, and भेदक्रिडा, by Gangadhar Patil (2002), Milind Malshe (2007) and
Harischandra Thorat (2005) respectively might clash with Derrida’s assumption
of diversity- that one single meaning cannot cover all the shadings of the key concept.
Therefore, the strategy of partial translation fails to
account for this key concept. On the other hand, one cannot be sure of how the
target reader will receive coined words like भे_द, भेद, and भेदक्रिडा, unless the
audience is familiar with Derrida’s thought ( in this case, footnoting becomes
essential). Additionally, bringing a word along with its Latin characters into
a Marathi is a questionable strategy due to the fact that not all Marathi speaking
readers know Latin script. Harischandra Thorat’s thought-for-thought strategy
that rendered ‘भेदक्रिडा’ might do justice to the key concept, might account for both elements
of differing and deferring, might assume the essential components found in the
source key concept, might bring about some of the underlying signification of
the original key concept and might also
pass straight into the target language.
Grammatology is a key concept coined by Ignace Gelb (1952). It refers to
the scientific study of writing systems or scripts. In his book Of Grammatology (1976), Derrida introduced many of his concepts on writing.
He discusses the writings of Ferdinand de Saussure, Jean-Jacques Rousseau,
Claude Lévi-Strauss, Étienne Condillac, Louis Hjelmslev, Edmund Husserl, Roman
Jakobson, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, André Leroi-Gourhan, and William
Warburton. This work by Derrida is considered as the foundation stone for his
school of Deconstruction. Derrida shows how writing has always been taken as inferior
to speech in Western philosophy. Of Grammatology comes to turn this tradition into its opposite.
One remarkable fact about Derrida’s concern is that unless a
translator studies Derrida’s work thoroughly, s/he won’t be able to figure out
the real meaning of a concern. Those who correlated Grammatology with grammar or syntax didn’t study the key concept the way
it should have been studied. They admit that they have not studied the book Of Grammatology, hence the major distortion of the key concept. The problems
associated with the translation of the title can be diagnosed as follows:
translating the key concept in isolation from its context. The meaning of the key
concept is accumulated by reading further into the book Of Grammatology. The functional translation- with the rendering ‘लेखनमिमांसा’ (the scientific study of writing) by Milind Malshe in Marathi -
is the only strategy that rendered the key concept attentively.
A Supplement
is something which is added to
something else in order to improve it or complete it; something extra
(Cambridge Advanced Lerner’s Dictionary). Derrida often coins new key concepts or
reemploys old ones. As an example, he reuses the Supplement in Rousseau. Derridan Supplement means both replacement and addition: it supplements and
supplants. It either adds something to something that is incomplete or comes to
replace something else that is unable to be present (Of Grammatology, 144). When there is a lack in what is supplemented, a Supplement is usually brought in. A Supplement serves as an aid to the original. Writing, for example, is a
supplement of speech: “if supplementarity is
a necessarily indefinite process, writing is the supplement par excellence
since it proposes itself as the supplement of the supplement, sign of a sign,
taking the place of a speech already significant” (Of Grammatology, 281). Supplement is
not less controversial than the former key concepts, but with fewer options
that might be attributed to the fact that the key concept had an equivalent before
being employed by Derrida. The key concept was rendered more literally.
Looking into rendition of Supplement into Marathi as ‘पूरक’, one might postulate two propositions: first, whether the concern
has been given a single word equivalent- in this case the match is inevitable.
Second, whether the rendering involves the two elements of supplementarity,
namely: replacement and completion. In his book Positions (1981, 43), Derrida
says the Supplement is “undecidable…without ever constituting a third key
concept, the supplement is neither a plus nor a minus, neither an outside nor
the complement of an inside, neither an accident nor essence.” In Of Grammatology,
he says: “What is added is nothing because it is added to a full presence to
which it is exterior. Speech comes to be added to intuitive presence (of the
entity, of essence… and so forth); writing comes to be added to living
self-present speech” (167). It is outside the thing and it is not part of it.
Derrida used this key concept in two of his early books, namely
Writing
and Difference and Of Grammatology. In addressing a binary opposition, Deconstruction exposes a trace which can be seen as a crack in the structure.
Trace
is the “mark of the absence of a
presence, an always already absent present” (Of Grammatology, xvii). “The trace is not a presence but is rather the
simulacrum of a presence that dislocates, displaces, and refers beyond itself”
(Derrida, Speech
and phenomena: 156).
The key concept ‘arche-writing’
is used by Derrida to describe a form of language which cannot be
conceptualized within the ‘metaphysics of presence.’ Arche-writing is an
original form of language which is not derived from speech. Arche-writing is a
form of language which is unhindered by the difference between speech and
writing. ‘Arche-writing’ is also a condition for the play of difference between
written and non-written forms of language. Derrida contrasts the concept of
“arche-writing” with the “vulgar” concept of writing. The “vulgar” concept of
writing, which is proposed by the “metaphysics of presence,” is deconstructed
by the concept of “arche-writing.” Malshe translates this concept in to Marathi
as ‘मुल-लेखन’,
or ‘आदि लेखन’ whereas
Thorat adds another version as ‘मूळ-लेखन’ accepting the second
one. These concepts stands equivalent to the Derrida’s concept of arche writing.
Derrida says that the Trace is
always being erased: Always differing and deferring, the trace is never as it
is in the presentation of itself. It erases itself in presenting itself, muffles
itself in resonating, like the writing itself, inscribing its pyramid in difference (Derrida, Margins of philosophy: 23). Any kind of presence, then, is important only because
it is marked by a Trace: “Language makes the movement of signification possible
only if each element that is said to be ‘present’ appearing on the stage of
presence, is related to something other than itself but retains the mark of a
past element and already lets itself be hollowed out by the mark of its
relation to a future element. This trace relates no less to what is called the
future than to what is called the past, and it constitutes what is called the present
by this very relation to what it is not, to what it absolutely is not” (Derrida: Speech and Phenomenon 142-3).
The Trace for
Derrida is the general structure of the sign and the general structure of
experience (Harry Staten, 1980: 19.) For Derrida, sign is the play of identity
and difference: “half of the sign is always not there, and another half is not
that” (Derrida, Of
Grammatology: xvii). The sign never leads to an
extra-linguistic concept; it leads to another sign, one replacing the other.
People do not feel the presence of a thing through a sign, but through the
absence of other presences. This is done by means of guessing.
Example:
“Man in his essence is the memory of Being, but of Being.
This means that which in the crossed intersected lines of being puts thinking under the claim of a more
originary command.”
For Derrida, Trace is
a force of disruption. In his addressing of that which is under erasure, Derrida explains his concept behind Trace. A writer writes a word and, looking at it again, s/he
crosses it out, replacing it with another word. When s/he wants to print out
the text, s/he retains the crossed out word under erasure (e.g. strong
powerful). In the printed out version, both strong and powerful appear in the
text. Why? It is probable that Derrida wanted to say that the under erasure has been replaced by a word that seems more convenient.
However, keeping the crossed-out word there will prompt the reader to think
that the word under erasure still has its effect on the other word or on the
text in general. The second option is the present, while that under erasure is
the absent. Yet, one might ask: is it really absent? The answer is no. Another might ask: is it present? Again the answer is no. What is it then that something is neither absent, nor
present, a third might wonder? Is it a sign, a signal, a trace, a track, a
ghost, etc? It is quite likely for one to do guesswork in to a Marathi thus
considering a concern translated in simplest way is like ‘खुण’ (roughly: a mark/ the presence). But,
Thorat exceeds beyond this simple translation of this concern as ‘माग’ intentionally and reasons that one needs
to understand the concept of Trace of
Derrida. The inter-weaving results in each
"element"-phoneme or grapheme translated as translated as ‘वाचा’
being constituted on the basis of the trace within it of the other elements of
the chain or system which can be termed
as phonocentricism or graphocentricism
‘वाचाकेंद्रवाद’ or ‘ध्वनीकेंद्रवाद’. Both the terms seems to awake the
sense of Derrida’s concept and stands equivalent.
“The
word dissemination implies a link between the wasteful dispersal of semantic
meaning and semen” (Powell, 2000:108). There are a myriad of contexts for a
text and, therefore, every new reading brings a new understanding and gives a
new meaning. A meaning of a text, thus, can never be exhausted; there will
always be something new to be said or to be added. Derrida reworks Dissemination to refer to this process: “If one takes the expression plurality of
filiations in its familial literality, then this
is virtually the very subject of Dissemination” (Derrida, Points,
1995: 224). Once a text is published, it begins its journey of dissemination- a
journey to no end: We are playing on the fortuitous resemblance of seme and semen.
There is no communication of meaning between them. And yet, by this floating,
purely exterior collusion, accident produces a kind of semantic mirage: the
deviance of meaning, its reflection-effect in writing, sets something off ...
it is a question of remarking a nerve, a fold, an angle that interrupts totality:
in a certain place, a place of well determined form, no series of semantic valences
can any longer be closed or reassembled ... the lack and the surplus can never
be stabilized in the plenitude of a form” (Derrida: Positions, 1981: 45-46). As such, Dissemination is a scattering of the signified, such that an unequivocal
meaning cannot, by any means, be assigned to a text or a term. Now that a
literal translation is quite reasonable for the word while the term remains
disputable- it might be adequate to elaborate on the usage when it is
transformed into Marathi.
Dissemination is a game of meanings. This implies that
meaning is dispersed, since every concept can be connected through any sort of
connotation to other concepts. Dissemination refers both to the dispersal and
the loss of meaning. With every new context, a new meaning emerges and an old
meaning dies. Having analyzed the meaning of the
key concept this way, it can be concluded that a thought-for-thought
translation strategy can deliver विस्तार, प्रसार, प्रसारण, फैलाव, विखुरण, विखरणे, (back translation: dispersal and loss
of meaning), which quite calculates the precise meaning of the source text
concern. Not far from Dissemination, Indeterminacy, in literature, occurs when the ending of a story is not
wrapped up entirely; there are still questions to be answered. It also holds when
the author’s original intention is not known; in other words, it is when an
element of a text requires the reader to decide on its meaning (Britannica).
Derrida discussed the key concept Indeterminacy in Plato's Pharmacy (1972).
He employed this concept as he discussed how loose and illusive in nature meaning
is. As Dennett (1996, 408) puts it: “meaning, like function on which it so
directly depends, is not something determinate at its birth.”
Derrida used it to refer to the characteristic of uncertainty.
According to Indeterminacy
principle, textual elements will have a
multiplicity of possible interpretations as the author’s meaning is not
straightforward. Derrida takes the Greek word pharmakon to reason his idea of Indeterminacy: pharmakon
means remedy and it also means poison,
it cannot be taken as pure remedy or pure poison. Inde key conceptinacy results
in non-standardized interpretations. From a deconstructive point of view, truth
is something quite incomprehensible and meaning is often approximate. Unlike the
key concepts discussed so far, the renderings of Indeterminacy were very much non-convergent. Modern Standard Marathi has
adopted the English language technique which is used to mark the opposite of
some words. In English, the opposite of violence, for example, is nonviolence;
the opposite of academic is nonacademic; the opposite of visible is invisible;
etc. Modern Indian language like Marathi has come to benefit from this
technique with the other Indian languages अहिंसा (nonviolence),
गैरशैक्षणिक (nonacademic),
अदृश
(invisible) and अनिरधार्यता,
(Indeterminacy). Stripping the word Indeterminacy off the negation prefix in-, what is left is Indeterminacy. By the same token, removing the ‘अ’ from अनिरधार्यता,
what is left is निरधार्यता (decisiveness).
This key concept can be taken as an equivalent for
this term. The word de key indeterminacy has the Marathi, अनिरधार्यता, as a reasonable equivalent. Having settled on the fact that ‘अ’ is a good
match for in-, the translator’s job, then becomes easy: s/he needs only to add ‘अ’ to निरधार्यता to
get a resulted the term like अनिरधार्यता.
Logocentrism is the general assumption that there is a realm of “truth” existing
prior to and independent of its representation by linguistic signs. Logocentrism encourages us to treat linguistic signs as distinct from and
inessential to the phenomena (Encyclopedia Britannica). Logocentrism is recently used to refer to the tendency of some texts to
believe that there is an articulate relation between the signifier and the signified
or between a word and a meaning. Derrida uses this concept frequently to refer
to the western cultural way of understanding that, he argues, was “instituted
by Plato. Western Logocentrism
privileges language over nonverbal
communication and it privileges speech over writing” (Dictionary of Postmodern Terms).
“In his critique of Logocentrism, Derrida examines what he considers to be a fundamentally
repressive philosophical tradition, one based primarily on that notion of a center (logos in this case) which Deconstruction continually sets out to discredit. Essentially, Logocentrism is the desire for a centre or original guarantee of all
meanings, which, according to Derrida, has characterized Western philosophy
ever since Plato” (The Literary Encyclopedia).
“Logocentrism is the attitude that logos (the
Greek term for speech, thought, law, or reason) are the central principle of
language and philosophy” (Powell, 1997: 33). “The Greek word logos can just mean ‘word’, but in philosophy it often denotes an
ultimate principle of truth or reason” (Literary Dictionary). Derrida's
criticism of Logocentrism
is an attack on the belief that words
mirror the world. If texts do not refer to the world then it is impossible to
obtain a basis for meaning and truth by means of language.Logic, reason, mind
and word, each of which might account for one part of what Logocentrism means; however, each one by itself does not entirely include
all aspects of Logocentrism. From this standpoint, one would search for a concept that
covers all of these. It is inappropriate to narrow down the meaning of the concept
to only word
centrism (शब्द केंद्रवाद), decentralization (विकेंद्रीकरण)
logic
centrism (ज्ञानकेंद्रवाद/विवेककेंद्रवाद), mind-centrism
(मनःकेंद्रवाद) or speech
centrism (वाचाकेंद्रवाद/ ध्वनिकेंद्रवाद). Those who borrowed the word logos into Marathi were unable to give it an appropriate
equivalent. It is a convenient strategy to naturalize a term, but it is more
important to describe it, so as the target reader will have access to the original
meaning.
Translators who used logos,
with or without the word ‘विवेक’ and ‘ज्ञान’, should have taken into consideration
that such a new concern needed more illustration. It is hard to presume that
‘logos’ has a one-to-one equivalent in Marathi. The context in which this term
occurs determines the meaning. Taking the concept out of its original context
might manipulate the concept behind concept. Nonetheless, considering the
concept in one context would account for only one of its meanings, leaving the
others intact. It is probable that Derrida wanted to draw the reader’s
attention to the reference body that people usually take as the Center of
everything. As such, this center sometimes figures as a word. In another
context, it is the logic. On other occasions, it is the reason. Therefore, what
a translator needs is to contextualize the concept for relevant meaning(s). In
general, though, a translator can opt for the most comprehensive rendering that
is bound to reveal any misunderstandings. Harischandra Thorat’s ‘विवेककेंद्रवाद’
(back translation: traditional
referencing principle) does not seems as accurate as a translation of a concern
(given the difficulty of dealing with key conceptinology) can be. Further, he also
adds words as probable equivalent referring its usage from greek language as शब्द, भाषण, युक्तिवाद, स्पष्टीकरण तत्वप्रणाली
प्रशंसा,
गणन,
प्रमाण, मोजमाप, बाजू घेणे, तत्व and विवेक. But, Milind
Malshe translates this concern as ‘ज्ञानकेंद्रवाद’ which seems to
be the most relevant, equivalent and appropriate to key concept the very
concept of Logocentricism.
It is perhaps helpful to remind the reader of my initial
assumption that- as is perhaps natural with translating a controversial writer-
there are some blemishes in translations. A superficial reading of Derrida
would render a premature version that skews the intention behind the any
concerns. Strategies behind some of these renderings, therefore, appear to be
of doubtful validity. More broadly, it is obvious that translators who took the
key concepts in passing without discussing them in details could only bring
forth bizarre key concepts that are unintelligible.
Translation is a complex process. It involves the de key determination
of specific, workable strategies, the development of a specific plan of action,
and the diligent study of the writer’s context. Translation is not only the
linguistic transfer but also the communication of culture which provides the
base of cognition and the way the world is construed. Therefore, target
language readers may get wrong impressions if translators overlook the issue of
culture as the backbone for understanding a foreign text. It is that Derrida’s
works have a long inheritance of past philosophical thoughts wrapped up inside
them. His philosophy is a successor of western philosophy, though with a very
much different orientation.
One gets the sense that there aren't definitely set ways in Indian
languages and specially Marathi to render Derrida’s concerns. The nine key concepts
discussed in this paper are good examples; since they abound with much
intricacy. Problems in translating his key concepts arise because the key
concepts Derrida used or reused are very closely associated with his
peculiarity of using words. No one can fully get the hang of Derrida’s the key
concepts without a sensible knowledge of his key philosophical ideas. In a
broad sense, few translators have taken the trouble to study Derrida’s writings
in their historical and cultural background.
Deconstructive concerns’ ramifications do not have their
relevance directly in the sphere of literature; rather, they are grounded in
philosophy and religion in specific. They, then, necessitate a lot of
of-consequence decisions which have to do away with many conceivable
alternatives.
Works Cited:
Allison,
D. (1973). Introduction. In Jacques Derrida's Speech and Phenomena. Evanston:
Northwestern University press.
Arrojo,
R. (1998). The Revision of the Traditional Gap between Theory & Practice
& the Empowerment of Translation in Postmodern Times: The Translator,
4 (1), 25- 48.
Baker,
M. (1992). In other words: A Coursebook on Translation.
London and New York: Routledge.
Benjamin,
A. (1989). Translation and the Nature of Philosophy. London: Rutledge.
Caputo,
D.(1996). Deconstruction in a Nutshell: A Conversation with Jacques
Derrida.
New
York: Fordham University Press.
Culler,
J. (1981). The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Davis,
K. (2001). Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester : St. Jerome.
Derrida,
J. (1972). Plato’s Pharmacy. In Dissemination. London: Athlone Press.
Ferdinand
De Sassure (1976). Of Grammatology.
Translated and with an Introduction by Gayatri C. Spivak. Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
Letter
to a Japanese Friend. In Writing and Différance, ed.(1981) David
Wood and Robert Bernasconi. Warwick: Parousia Press.
Writing
and Difference.
London: Routledge (1981).
Dissemination. Trans. Barbara
Johnson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1983.
Gentzler,
E. (1993). Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge.
Heidegger,
M. (1978). Being and Time. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. (1985).
Lucy,
N. (2004). A Derrida Dictionary. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nida,
E. (1982). The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill Academic
Publications.
Nida,
E. (1964). Principles of Correspondence. In Venuti, L. The Translation Studies
Reader. London: Routledge.
Norris,
C. (2002). Deconstruction: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.
Powell,
J. (1997). Derrida for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing.
Dr.
Harischandra Thorat (2005), ‘साहित्याचे संदर्भ’ Mauj
Publishing House, Mumbai.
Milind
Malshe and Ashok Joshi (2007), ‘आधुनिक समीक्षा- सिद्धांत’ Mauj Prakashan
and Marathi Dept University of Mumbai.
Authors:
1. Satyawan S Rao Hanegave
Research Scholar, Department of English,
University of Mumbai.
2. Dr. Sudhir
Nikam
Research Guide, Department of English,
University of Mumbai.
