Sözlü Anlatı Çevirisi: Kaavad ve Phad Ekseninde Görsel Anlatı

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 12 Sayı: 1-2, 85 - 98, 28.12.2018

Divya Joshi

Öz

Walter
J. Ong’un çalışmaları, sözlü anlatı çalışmalarının temelini oluşturur. Bu
çalışmalar, yazılı dilin gücüne ve kayda değer başarısına rağmen çoğu dillerin
yazıya hiçbir zaman dökülmemiş olduğunu ve sözlü anlatının dilin temelinde
kalıcı olduğunu göstermektedir (Ong 7). Ramanujan, Mahabharata Destanı’nı hiç okumamış oldukları için Hindistan’daki
herkesin bildiğini dile getirir ve böylece Hindistan’daki sözlü ifadenin ve
sözlü geleneklerin önemini vurgular. Sözlü geleneğin yeni araç ve türlere
dönüştürülmesi, Hint anlatı geleneğinde alışılmadık değildir. Sözlü anlatı
aktarıldığında veya deşifre edildiğinde sosyal/kültürel bağlamı özümser ve bu
her bir anlatı/yeniden anlatı/kültürel aktarım ve yeniden yaratım süreci ile
yeni bir anlam kazanır. Bu makale, Phad
ve Kavaad gibi hikaye anlatımı geleneklerine
atıfla Rajastan’da bilinen halk masalları ekseninde çevirinin rolü ve çevirinin
sözlü anlatı ile olan ilişkisini irdeler. Bu makale aynı zamanda, sözlü anlatı
ile çevirinin arasındaki kesişimi, kişisel ve kolektif bilinç yapılarını, sözlü
anlatı çevirisinde yakınsak ve ıraksaklığı inceler.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Sözlü anlatı, anuvaad, lok, söz, dil, yeniden anlatı

Translating Orality: Pictorial Narrative Traditions with Reference To Kaavad and Phad

Öz

Walter
J. Ong’s work is crucial for the study of orality, and highlights that a great
majority of languages are never written despite the success and power of the
written language and that the basic orality of language is stable (Ong 7). When
A. K. Ramanujan claims that everybody in India knows The Mahābhārata because nobody reads it,
he is also emphasizing the power of orality and oral traditions in India (qtd.
in Lal).
Transmuting oral forms into new mediums and genres is not unknown to Indian
narrative traditions. Orality when transmitted or deciphered imbibes a portion
of its social/cultural contexts and resembles a nomadic metaphor that finds new
meaning with each telling/re-telling/transcreation. My paper deals with the
role of translation and its relationship with orality, as embodied in the folk
legacy of Rajasthan with reference to the oral traditions of storytelling like Phad and Kaavad. The paper looks at the intersections between orality and
translation, the structures of individual and collective consciousness,
convergences and divergences in translating orality.

Anahtar Kelimeler

orality, anuvaad, lok, word, language, re-telling

Kaynakça

• Ananthmurthy, Udupi Rajagopalacharya. “What Does Translation Mean In India.” The Writer as Critic; Essays in Literature History and Culture, edited by Jasbir Jain, Rawat Pub., 2011. Apte, Vaman Shivram. Sanskrit English Dictionary. Star Publication, 1996. Ben-Ami, Issachar and Joseph Dan, editors, “The Idea of Folklore: An Essay,” Studies in Aggadah and Jewish Folklore, Folklore Research Center Studies VII, The Magnes Press, 1983. Bhartrhari. The Vâkyapadîya, Critical texts of Cantos I and II with English Translation. Translated by K. Pillai., Motilal Banarsidass, 1971. Coward, Harold. Derrida and Indian Philosophy, State University of New York Press, 1990. Coward, Harold. Sphota Theory of Language, Motilal Barasidaas, 1980. Devy, Ganesh N. In Another Tongue: Essays on Indian English Literature. Macmillan, 1995. ——. “Translation Time” International Conference Translation across Borders: Genres and Geographies, Caesurae Collective Society. Maulana Azad National Urdu University, 09-10 October 2018, Hyderabad. Key Note Address. Ghosh, Amitav. “The Indian Story”: Civil Lines 1. Ravi Dayal Publisher, 1994. Gopinathan, Mohanty. “Translation, Transcreation and Culture: The Evolving Theories of Translation in Hindi and other Modern Indian Languages,” http://www.soas.ac.uk/literatures/satranslations/Gopin.pdf. Friedlander, Peter. “Oral to Manuscript Transitions.” Oral Tradition, vol. 29, no. 2, 2015, pp. 187-202, journal.oraltradition.org/articles/download/29ii?article =friedlander. Sarma, Dhurrjati and and A. Homen Singh. “Storytelling and Puppet Traditions of India.”www.academia.edu/949813/Storytelling_and_Puppet_Traditions_of_India. Sabnani, Nina. “The Kaavad storytelling tradition of Rajasthan.” www.idc.iitb.ac.in /resources/dt-july-2009/kaavad.pdf World Oral Literature Project. “Definitions and Understandings of Oral Literature.” www.oralliterature.org/about/oralliterature.html. Rocher, Ludo. “Orality and Textuality in the Indian Context.” Sino-Platonic Papers. vol. 39, October 1994, www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp049_india_oral_ transmission.pdf. Krishnaswamy, Natesan, Sunita Mishra and Raman Venketesh, Ram, editors, India’s Language Philosophy, Pearson, 2013. Lal, Amrith. “The Maha Tradition” economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/ 1630272.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst. Lord, Albert. The Singer of Tales, Harvard University Press, 1960. Merrill, Christi Ann, “Are We the Folk in This Lok?; Usefulness of the Plural.” Translation: Poetics and Practice, edited by Anisur Rahman. Creative Books, 2002. pp. 67-79. Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy. Routledge, 1982. Ramanujan, Attipate Krishnaswam . “Repetition in The Mahābhārata.” Essays on The Mahabharata, edited by Arvind Sharma., Motilal Banarsidass, 2007, pp. 419-443. ——. “Who Needs Folklore?: The Relevance of Oral Traditions to South Asian Studies.” South Asia Occasional Paper Series, no. 1. University of Chicago: University of Hawaii, 1990. Simon, Sherry and Paul St. Pierre, editors, Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era, University of Ottawa Press, 2000. Singer, Milton. When a Great Tradition Modernizes: An Anthropological Approach to Indian Civilization. University of Chicago Press, 1972. Sreekumar, Muthuswamy. “A comparative study of Sphota theory of language and F.D. Saussures theory of sign.” University of Calicut, 1998, shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/31822. Victor, E. Taylor and Charles E. Winquist, editors. Encyclopedia of Postmodernism. Routledge, 2001.