HERMES

An Online Open-Access Research Journal of English Literature

ISSN 0975-3516. Vol.09 No.01 (January 2016): Pages 37.
http://english-sjc.com/hermes.html

CATEGORIZING TRANSLATION IN THE TRADITION OF

INTERPRETIVE COMMUNITY
Aditya Kumar Panda
National Translation Mission, Central Institute of Indian Languages, Mysore-570006

ABSTRACT
Translation is a category (as a product and as a process) that is recognized more in 20th
and 21st centuries, though it has been existing for centuries in various forms amidst
interpretive communities in India. It is not that a translation is completely unknown to
the readers, outside the phenomena translation technically; a reader knows about it as
a text or as a book. Indian communities have been reading translations of Sanskrit
classics in their languages (mother-tongues) in the form of adaptation / transcreation /
retelling. A community reads texts but does not read translation, though translation
exists. In the tradition of Indian interpretive communities, translation as a category is
not recognized. This paper will explore what that is known as translation to the
interpretive community and how to categorize translation in the tradition of Indian
interpretive community.

Keywords: Translation, Categorization, Classical texts, Interpretive Community

Introduction:
Translation is a category exists as a process for ontological purpose and as an
object in the form of a book. This category was thought upon, discussed more from 19th
century onwards in India and the elements to be supplied to make this category are all
those writings that have the following features: i) source writing (Source text) in a
language, ii) the existence of its counterpart (target text) in another language, iii)
writings may vary in forms, iv) new elements might have been added and some source
elements might have been deleted. This is why a retelling/transcreation/adaptation
came to be categorized as activities under translation. Translation also became a
pedagogical tool in India. In 80s, we got the discipline of Translation Studies which tried
to demarcate boundaries in each of these elements and gave a space to explore the
nature and function of translation. Recently, one of the mostly studied elements in this
field is readership. Readership generates an interpretive community. As far as the
translated Classical Sanskrit texts are concerned, there has been a tradition of readers in
Indian Interpretive Community. Readers for these classic texts are varied in nature. As
Stanley Fish rightly mentioned that a reader is a part of its own interpretive community,
he/she is not an isolated individual. He writes, it is interpretive communities, rather
than either the text or reader, that produce meanings (Stanley Fish, 1980). The
phenomenon of understanding meaning is not only sought in the source texts or target
texts or on the language but also in the reader. A reader plays a vital role in deciding the
meaning in translation.

Hermes by Department of English, St. Joseph's College (Autonomous), Tiruchirappalli,

India is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License.
 Hermes. Vol.9 No.1 (January 2016)

Discussion:
Translation is one of the possible acts after a text or a book is published. It is the
visible act in the after-life of a text. A reader may become a critic or a translator. Before
translating any text, a translator reads or listens to it first. So a translator is also a
reader. In the context of classical Sanskrit texts (here the reference is to the translation
of the Ramayana and the Mahabharata), a reader is an informed one. He/she may know
something about the text, about its stories, about its characters. Here, when a reader
knows something, it is his inclination towards the text; he/she may know something
that he wanted to know. In other words, a reader reads on his own and takes his own
stuff that suits him/her. So in his translation or interpretation, he/she may emphasize
upon the points that he/she wants to convey. A reader becomes a selective one who
shares such stuff with his/her interpretive community.
An interpretive community has some preconditions of being interpretive. Human
beings are interpretive creatures. They listen or read something that is voiced or
written, and then they understand it with their culture of acquired understanding. Such
acquisition of understanding takes place historically traditionally and socio-culturally. A
reader has always an understanding. He/she has the linguistic ability and the
sociocultural experience through which a reader lives, helps him/her in understanding
the texts.
Indian interpretive community treats most of the Classical Sanskrit texts, not as
written in a book form or forms, these texts occupy space beyond a form. These texts
are not single entities. They are woven of many texts (social, cultural, geographical,
astronomical etc.), many stories, myths, legends and so forth. These sub-texts (stories,
myths, legends etc) do exist in various regions of India traditionally. The so-called
translators of these classical texts weave the same with all these sub-texts and the
target language. This is why the category translation cannot apply to them. But
broadly, they are considered under retelling/adaptation/trans-creation. These sub-texts
trigger understanding in Indian interpretive community. They acquire an
understanding about these texts from various sources. Translation is one of the sources,
maybe it is the source that is available or it may make other sources available for
preparing the base for the acquisition of understanding. What is considered as
translation in the 20th century came to a rigid form for its identity, when authorship,
copyright, and naming the discipline came to play major roles.
Indian Interpretive community is a diversified one having its own experience of
reading a text and having opinions about it that cannot isolate sociocultural forces
which shape the mind and experience of the reader. Though diverse in nature, they have
their own interpretations of the classical texts. As far as classical Sanskrit texts are
concerned, they are the informed readers. These texts have been embedded in Indian
minds in such a way that they have become a part of Indian day-to-day activities. Some
of these communities live their lives as per the values described in these texts and this
way such phenomenon becomes texts in real life. They read these texts or not, they
know about the stories and the characters and the happenings from others. It is as

4
 Hermes. Vol.9 No.1 (January 2016)

Gadamer says, What has come down to us by way of verbal tradition is not left over but
given to us, told uswhether through direct retelling, in which myth, legend, and
custom have their life, or through written tradition, whose signs are, as it were,
immediately clear to every reader who can read them. So the text is traditionally
transferred from a generation to another, though most of these communities are not
aware of the nature of these texts. This is why one can answer what is the story of the
Ramayana but one cannot answer in which form it has been written or what are the
stylistic features of the same unless the respondent is a scholar. At the most, the elites
or the scholarly academia have the inclination or the need to know about the nature of a
text. Translation is such a form that has made the Ramayana or the Mahabharata
available but most of the interpretive communities are not aware of it. Translation and
its nomenclature were not there but it was there in the form of adaptation/trans-
creation/retelling. Most of the Indian Interpretive communities have been reading these
texts or following these texts without the knowledge of whether they are translations or
not. Translation, like the stylistic features of a text, is limited to the scholarly world or to
the academic world. A text that is to be categorized as translation is a development in
the 19th and 20th century academia. It wont be exaggerated if I say that we read or we
have read most of the world classics in translation.
Indian Interpretive Community can be considered as one that is scholarly, the
other one is scholarly but not academic and the third one is common community. The
first one is research-oriented, goes to the historical and cultural background of the texts,
discusses about the stylistic features of the same. As they are research oriented, they are
found more in colleges and universities. This community knows what a translation is.
The second type of Indian Interpretive Community is scholarly but not academic. There
are readers outside the academia who do the same activities as the first one does but
their purpose is not research or getting a degree. The third one is who reads and
understands the stories and stops there. The purpose of third category maybe religious
or passing the time, they read it in some occasion and they dont bother about the text-
types or types of genre. This category does not know or does not need to know whether
they are reading the texts in translation or not.
Availability of Classical Sanskrit texts in English get visible more as translation
but the availability of the same in Indian languages dont seem to be visible more as
translation. Indian languages have been existing together for a long time and English
came later. The foreignness of the language makes the English translation more visible
as translation to the Indian Interpretive Community and the closeness of the language
makes the translation less visible as translation to the same.
Indian Interpretive Community refers to a diversified community who share
common interpretation of the Sanskrit classical texts. People read these texts in groups
in villages and one interprets about it and others take part in the discussion. They may
argue with one another for some points but the person who reads these texts in-depth
dominates the group and others accept whatever he/she interprets until they have
some argument to counter with. All these activities surround over the translated texts

5
 Hermes. Vol.9 No.1 (January 2016)

which are treated as the original writings. The category, translation, was lost or one
can say that such categorizing was not there. Identity of the Ramayana or the
Mahabharata as translation was identified in 19th or 20th century. Above all, it has
become a category limited to academia.
In Indian academia, translation gets more visibility in literature. Some of the
Indian interpretive communities treat translation as something like a stylistic
phenomenon. Stylistically, they can identify translational qualities and consider
something as translation. From late 19th century onwards, the practice of writing
translated by or translation by on the 2nd page of the same or somewhere in the
book started in India. Translation as a topic in school curriculum was introduced in
language subjects in many Indian states in the 20th century. If one asks the common
man, what translation is? , he/she would say it is a practice in school subject.
Translation Studies as a discipline was established in late 20th century in India. But still
the discipline is more exercised in the department of literature across Indian
universities. It would be a research-worthy topic, if one explores why the identity of
translation has been thought of more in literature only, although translation is equally
visible in science or other subjects.
Categorizing translation is to identify it first. What is its identity? Was it there?
If yes, how was it there? Is it there? If yes, how is it there? Does categorizing matter to
the layman or to the common readers? Whether they call it translation or not, people
read them? Does anybody buy translation in book shops? They read books regardless of
the knowledge of their category (whether the books are original or translation).
Categorizing is of least importance for them. It is important for research community.
What does the word translation mean and refer to? There is nothing called,
translation, it is only the "translation relation" that causes scholastic research and study.
No text can be identified as translation unless there is an establishment of relationship
to another text. This comparative principle makes the phenomena called translation
exists. As a relationship, it has a space to exist. Without this relationship, no one can
actually define what a translation is. People read translations without knowing the fact
that they are reading translations. What matters to people is not whether this is a
translation or not, they want to read the texts. So far, translation can only be realized as
a field of research. It is only the researchers, students, teachers who talk about
translation. Technically, Translation is not meant for the people on the street. It is more
of a question of research, in-depth study. Nobody would like to know about what is the
Source text of this translation? Who translated? Nobody would like to read the Sanskrit
Mahabharata; nobody would like to know what is there. Everybody wants to read the
Mahabharata in his/her mother-tongue. It is only the scholar who can establish a
relation with the Source text and causes the research and discourse to take place. The
same is with Albert Camus's The Outsider or The Stranger. Translation can only be
thought up as a relation and as a relational phenomenon.

6
 Hermes. Vol.9 No.1 (January 2016)

Translation has many faces, some are recognized and some others are not
recognized at all. When one utters the word, "translation" in school or college or in any
day to day discussion, one thinks that it is something related to literature or sahitya. The
face of translation in the department of languages and literature is a well-known one. If
one goes to a higher secondary or upper primary Indian language medium school, one
will get translation as a part of English or Indian language subject. From this
background, people have considered the phenomena of translation as something
recognized and related to language and literature. After school education, translation
becomes a non-recognized subject. As it is prescribed only up to class 10th, after class
10th, its face becomes non-recognized, although it exists in other faces.
Conclusion:
Indian Interpretive community is a heterogeneous entity. They are not empty as
far as the understandings of major translated Sanskrit texts are concerned. Scholarly
interpretive community knows about these texts as translations whereas the
community of common readers or listeners knows about these texts as the original
texts. Translation exists in Translation Studies. It does not exist outside the Translation
Studies. Translation as a relation brings out the comparison. It is only with comparison
one can think about translation. When there is comparison, there is more than one
factor involved (maybe language or Source Text target text or approach etc.
Comparative principles are found more when someone does an in-depth study and
research. Translation is more of a research phenomenon. If one says, it exists outside
the translation studies; it is a text that is read by people not as a translation.
Works Cited
Fish, Stanley E. "Interpreting the" Variorum"." Critical Inquiry 2.3 (1976): 465-485.
Fish, Stanley Eugene. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive
communities. Harvard University Press, 1980.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. "Truth and method (G. Barden & J. Cumming, Trans.)." New York:
Seabury (1975).
Iser, Wolfgang. The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. JHU Press, 1980.
Iser, Wolfgang. The implied reader: Patterns of communication in prose fiction from
Bunyan to Beckett. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.