ch2 - m. a. alo

Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations in Yoruba – English Translation

Alo, M.A., Department of English, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria

Abstract This study seeks to contribute to translation studies in two major ways. First, it explores the link between bilingual’s creativity and translation in English. Secondly, it analyses specific discourse and lexico-semantic innovations in a sample of Yoruba-English translations. These involve creative processes of extension of codes and discourse markers, compounding or linguistic hybridization, borrowing as well as semantic extension. Bilingual’s creativity becomes relevant at the points where the bilingual translator finds it difficult or impossible to get appropriate translation equivalents between ST and TT. L2 innovations function to ease the problem of transmissibility and equivalence; they also serve to enhance a better understanding of translated texts in English.

IntroductionThe use of language in general is creative. The bilingual L2 setting forms a potential site for investigating linguistic innovations not only in language acquisition, but also in translation. The existence of non-native or L2 varieties of English and the need to translate cultural concepts and experiences from indigenous languages into English in a manner that is contextually appropriate and meaningful make the creation of innovations in translations inevitable.

Previous works have identified a number of strategies often employed in the attempt to grapple with the numerous difficulties faced in translation. Whenever there is a gap between SL and TL, terminology may be qualified by loan words, neologisms or semantic shifts and circumlocution (Nida, 1985). Translation shifts may occur in the universal categories of unit, structure, class and system. These theoretical categories are as used in Halliday’s theory (Halliday 1961). Steiner (1975) talks of “permutation,” that is, the strategy of adapting themes from other cultures. In the L2 setting, studies on bilingual’s creativity in L2 acquisition and use, including translation have observed a number of lexico-semantic strategies, such as semantic extension, semantic shift, coinage and loan words (Kachru, 1987; Bamgbose 1998, 2004; Bamiro, 1994; Igboanusi, 2002. Works on translation from some Nigerian languages (for

M.A. Alo

instance, Yoruba) into other languages, like English, have often focused on lexical translation with illustrations of translation strategies like semantic shifts, transliteration and Nigerianisms (Oyeleye, 1995; Oladipo, 1995; Teilanyo, 2000). Translation strategies certainly go beyond the word level to embrace the phrase, sentence and discourse. These are no less a problem in translation of texts from Nigerian languages into English.

Linguists have observed that there are not only structural differences in languages and the distinct cultural assumptions associated with them, but there are also differences at the level of discourse and rhetoric between languages (Kaplan, 1966). The Whorfian hypothesis recognises that each language both embodies and imposes upon the culture a particular world view (Sapir, 1921; Whorf, 1956). Nature is, indeed, a kaleidoscopic continuum, but the grammar of each language serves both to classify reality into corresponding units and to define the fundamental nature of those units. Thus, the metaphysics embodied in the grammar of English, for instance, makes it possible to analyse sentences and the reality they express into agents, (subjects) actions, verbs, objects and instruments (Halliday 1994). English makes use of SVO word order, whereas Nigerian languages have structural peculiarities distinct from English (Owolabi, 1993).

Purpose of StudyThe purpose of this paper is to investigate specific discourse and lexico-semantic innovations in translation through a case study of a collection of Yoruba-English translations. The paper sets out to provide answers for the following questions:

(i) What are the peculiar linguistic problems and strategies evident in Yoruba-English translated texts?

(ii) What are the specific innovative linguistic devices used in Yoruba-English translations?

(iii) Of what effects are L2 creative innovations on Yoruba-English translated texts?

Sources of DataThe data for this investigation were derived mainly from four literary texts: three bilingual Yoruba-English plays (Oba Ko So/the King did not hang (1972) by Duro Ladipo, Omuti/The Palmwine Drinkard (1972) by Kola Ogunmola and Obaluaye by Wale Ogunyemi), and the fourth text (also containing extracts of

18

Creativity and Lexical/Discourse Innovations

bilingual Yoruba–English translations) is Yemi Elebuibon’s Ifa: The Custodian of Destiny (2004). These provided natural linguistic data for the analysis. They are translation texts in which indigenous socio-cultural meanings and Yoruba speech are projected in English. They contain speeches packed with Yoruba proverbs, idioms and rhythms. The focus is on specific discourse and lexico-semantic innovations and their underlying processes in translation.

Discourse, Pragmatics and TranslationOur approach to translation as discourse in this study covers lexical and pragmatic features in Yoruba – English translated texts. Within the framework of discourse pragmatics, locutions (i.e. specific linguistic forms) and their illocutionary force are considered. Scholars have argued that discourse analysis and pragmatics have clear application in translation (Newmark, 1981; Levinson, 1983).

The term discourse has come to mean different things to different people. It often refers to the way texts are put together in terms of product and form, sequential relationships, inter-sentential structures and organization. It is also concerned with the way texts hang together in terms of cohesion and coherence. Generally, the term discourse is linked with the study of language above the sentence level. Stubbs (1983:1) defines discourse as

The organization of language above the sentence or above the clause, and therefore…larger linguistic units, such as conversational exchanges or written texts. It is also concerned with language in use in social contexts, and in particular with interaction or dialogue between speakers

A reasonable interpretation of discourse might be that language users look at sentence structures to determine the meaning of individual words of the sentence before arriving at the message. This view assumes that one’s knowledge of word meanings is sufficient for comprehending discourse. But lexical knowledge is not enough for comprehension of discourse. Full comprehension results only when the hearer/writer has sufficient extra-linguistic information to use the cues from linguistic input to create some semantic context that allows him or her to understand utterances. This suggests that one may have knowledge of language and yet fail to understand

19

M.A. Alo

utterances, unless one is able to activate appropriate non-linguistic or contextual knowledge. This brings us to the issues of context and pragmatic meaning (speech acts, intention of speaker / writer, illocutionary force, truth value of propositions and presuppositions) in translation. Meaning in discourse pragmatics can be discovered at various levels: linguistic structure or form (a sound, a word, a phrase, a sentence or a whole text) and extra-linguistic contexts (i.e. social, inter-personal and cultural features).

Pragmatics is concerned with the relationship between language use and the extra-linguistic context (Levinson, 1983), in terms of “who says what?”, “in what situation or circumstances?”, the beliefs and presuppositions underlying utterances. Pragmatics is therefore interested at a level of meaning that is context-dependent.

Our interest here is the relevance of pragmatics to translation. Although the idea of constructing a translated text on the basis of meaningful equivalence to the original text appears to be the ideal thing, its application in actual practice is problematic. Scholars of translation recognize the problem of semantic equivalence between languages. Catford (1965: 21) refers to it as a “central problem of translation of translating theory”. Equivalence is described in different ways. Nida and Taber (1969) recognize two different types of equivalence: formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence concentrates on the message itself in form and content, whereas dynamic equivalence is concerned with equivalent effects. The problem with this distinction, as generally observed, is that there are not always formal equivalents between languages. From the linguistic perspective, Catford (1965) identifies and classifies translation types, based on the criteria of (a) the extent of translation, (b) grammatical rank and (c) the level of language involved, whether total or restricted. At the level of grammatical rank, equivalence between SL and TL may be sought at the level of morpheme, word or phrase (that is, rank-bound translation), whereas in unbounded translation, equivalence is not tied to a particular rank.

Equivalence may be determined on the basis of (a) reference or denotation, whereby the SL and TL words conjure up same or similar associative meanings in the minds of native speakers of the two languages, (b) context, that is, the SL or TL words can be used in the same set of contexts, (c) pragmatic function, (d) form, that is, the SL and TL words may have the

20


same or similar orthographic or phonological features. Baker (1992) explains the notion of equivalence, in terms of informative content and cohesive function in texts.

According to Nida and Taber (1969) translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning. For Emery (2004:149) the process is “the rendering of an SL text’s pragmatic meaning into a TL text in line with TL expectancy norms”.

The translator’s task, therefore, is to negotiate the pragmatic meaning of the ST and then re-negotiate this meaning into a TL code. The reader’s task then involves both interpretation of a text/author’s meaning (as expressed in a SL code) and analysis of the factors that govern the translator’s choice. Nida and Taber (1969) suggest three dynamic phases: (a) analysis of a source text (b) transfer of analyzed text material (c) restructuring of transferred text material. Types and Problems of Translation

In this section, some kinds of translation are examined with their specific problems and strategies.

Conceptual TranslationIt is a characteristic of languages that they impose certain

lexical categorization upon reality. Conceptual or lexical translation involves translation equivalents in which a category or concept in ST is replaced with an equivalent lexical unit in TT. Philosophical and cultural concepts present the problem of lack of complete correspondence between words and concepts in different languages. The English word “gentleman”, is not the exact equivalent of the Yoruba term Ọmọlúwàbí as is often translated. Recent studies have approached conceptual translation within the prototype theory, suggesting similarities in the prototype core of a concept between languages. The hypothesis is that translation displays prototype features (Lakoff 1987). Prototypical salience and variation of a concept may be culturally determined (cf. Alo 1989). Idiomatic Translation

Idiomatic translation involves the transfer of meaning from the ST to TT without necessarily retaining the structure of the source. The form may change because the primary objective is that the message remains unaltered. Words are deployed in

21

M.A. Alo

idioms in a peculiar way. Idiomatic translation in Larson’s view is “one which has the same meaning as the source language but is expressed in the natural form of the receptor language” (Quoted in Shuttleworth and Cowie. (1997:73) In Yoruba, the idioms, “Ó ta téru nipa” and “O térí gbasọ” mean “to die”. A literal Yoruba-English translation of the Yoruba idioms “O térí gbasọ” (He kicked “teru” - a kind of white cloth - will lose in colour and meaning.

Free Translation Free translation does not carry out a mechanical transfer of translation segments or units but the translator exercises freedom in adding to or cutting the number of words in the source text (ST). A variety of translation techniques, including lexical and syntactic adaptation may be used. But free translation has serious limitations. Translations are unduly free if they add extraneous information not found in the source text.

Literal Translation Literal translation goes beyond the lexical/conceptual level and involves sentential and propositional equivalence or sameness between ST and TL. The ST sentences structures and propositions with their peculiarities are replaced with equivalent TT structures. The Yoruba expression “Òrò púpò kò ńkún agbòn”, literally translated into English as “Many words do not fill a basket”, means or asserts that action is preferable to long speech or brevity is prized in speech in Yoruba.

Literary TranslationThis refers to the translation of creative works (prose,

poetry, drama, short stories and oral literature) in one language or dialect into another. A literary translation may serve to unfold a cultural life of a people as contained in their language. A significant feature of literature is the use of figurative language. Words are used in such a way that their figurative or associative meanings are evoked. A major issue in literary translation has to do with figurative equivalents between ST and TT. Transliteration

22


According to Catford (1965:66), in transliteration, SL graphological units are replaced by TL graphological units, but these are not translation equivalents.

The linguistic realisation of the phenomenon of transliteration takes different forms. For example, at the lexical level, a word or lexical item in an SL may be replaced by an item in the TL. This may coincide with lexical translation or conceptual translation. However, the concept embodied in the SL word may not be semantically equivalent to the TL item in the absolute sense. For example, the concept of “Ori” in Yoruba and its lexical translation equivalent ‘head’ in English are not same. Syntactic transliteration faces serious linguistic barriers, since human languages differ in terms of their syntactic structures and systems.

Pragmatic TranslationIn pragmatic translation, the focus is on the speaker’s actual

intention or message routed in the culture of the SL. Pragmatic translation is communicative in the sense of the speaker’s intention and what is meant by the use of specific words and sentences (Snell-Hornby, 1988). Pragmatic translation, therefore, involves translation of pragmatic functions of expressions and forms in the SL (e.g., speech acts, social greetings, politeness phenomena, swearing, moral and pragmatic beliefs and ideology) in the cultural environment (Hervey, 1998). In translating these, the translator employs pragmatic translation techniques based on contextual interpretation of SL meaning with a view to producing an appropriate perlocutionary effect on the reader. The Yoruba greetings Kára ó le o, Ìbà o, Odún á yabo are translated into English to express pragmatic functions or meaning in respectively as: “Hail, Your Majesty,” “I salute you.” and “I wish you a prosperous year.”

The foregoing is an attempt to examine certain types of translation and specific problems associated with each. In the following section, we consider the link between bilingual’s creativity in L2 and translation process.

Creativity in English as L2 The term second language (abbreviated as L2) refers to the second language of a bi/multilingual person. Technically speaking, a second language sieves several important functions within the environment in which it operates, including such

23

M.A. Alo

function for wider communication, education, governmental administration, politics and as lingua franca. It may also be used in some domains in which the first language is used (home, family, religious worship, social interaction, etc). This is the case of English bilingual and multilingual countries, for example, Nigeria, India, Ghana, Sierra Leone and many other commonwealth countries. English functions as a second language for speakers who have a first language (L1), which is usually an indigenous one. English as a second language in Nigeria manifests local colour observable at all levels of linguistic description. Among the factors that have contributed to this are the following:

(a) mode of acquisition (usually the classroom)(b) transfer of features from the indigenous languages(c) culture contact (including bilingualism and biculturalism)(d) sociolinguistic realities in the Nigerian environment.

Human creativity is observable in language use. Being creative itself, language has the potential to convey a limitless number of messages, thus, enabling its users to produce novel utterances. The creativity of a language user depends on how much can be exploited from the resources of language. According to Williams (1976:72), creativity

has a general sense of original and innovating and an associated special sense of productivity. It is also used to distinguish kinds of work, as in creative writing, the creative arts.

Studies of creativity in language use have often been done in the context of literary language (prose, drama and poetry), identified literary language with the use of figures of speech such as simile, metaphor, irony and hyperbole among others. Following the tradition of the Russian formalist school, literary creativity is characterised in terms of the deliberate use of unorthodox or deviant forms of language to foreground attention and meaning. For Mukarovsky and others, the function of the poetic language consists in the maximum foregrounding of standard language. Poetry must de-automatize or ‘foreground’ standard language by violating its norms. Rhyme, repetition, archaisms and foreign words help to de-automatize the spoken norm and procure literary language.

24


Within linguistic stylistics, linguistic creativity embraces both literary and non-literary texts such as advertisement and newspaper reporting. Style is the peculiar manner in which the language of a text is made to achieve a striking effect. Style is therefore a kind of art associated with creative imagination. Freeman’s (1970) division of linguistic stylistics includes: include (a) style as deviation from the norm (b) style as occurrence and convergence of textual patterns and (c) style as particular exploitation of a grammar of possibilities.

From the perspective of formalist linguistics, linguistic creativity as developed by Chomsky, refers to native speaker’s capacity “to produce or understand an indefinite number of new sentences” (Chomsky, 1957:15) and changes or transformations employed to change the form of a structure. Chomsky is concerned with how a native speaker would produce and understand sentences he had never previously heard or used. Chomsky’s sense of creativity is clearly technical. The understanding of bilingual’s creativity in L2 necessarily goes beyond Chomsky’s idea.

Kachru (1987:130) describes the characteristics of the bilingual’s creativity in L2 in terms of;

the facility and ease of mixing, switching, and the adoption of stylistic and discoursal strategies from total verbal repertoire available to a bilingual. One has to consider not only the blend of the formal feature, but also assumptions derived from various cultural norms and the blending of these norms into a new linguistic configuration with a culture–specific meaning system”.)

Nativisation may engender innovations at any level of language. Bamgbose (2004:612) categorises nativisation as (a) linguistic nativisation (b) pragmatic nativisation (innovation associated with context of situation to reflect the worldview, rhetoric and idiom and (c) creative nativisation. According to this view, creative nativisation manifests in two major ways.

Firstly, expressions may be coined to reflect the Nigerian experience or worldview: been-to (one who has traveled abroad, particularly to England), four-one-nine (the act of duping), etc. Secondly, the Nigerian native idiom may be translated into English to reflect the mood of the situation.

The term creativity suggests innovation, the human capacity to bring about new changes or transformations from

25

M.A. Alo

existing entities or objects and to solve problems. Innovations are often motivated and purposeful (Nicholls 1983). In the context of L2, innovation results from the process of nativisation of English in non-native English environments (Kachru, 1982). This is motivated by the need to use English to express socio-cultural concepts and experiences in the new environment (Bamgbose, 1998, 2004; Bamiro, 1994; Igboanusi, 2002). It is in the new soci.o-cultural environment that the innovations in the L2 derive their communicative value and meaning. The formations of new words (neologisms), and new meanings or semantic extension are aspects of linguistic innovation. Linguistic innovation may involve deliberate alteration of linguistic forms and usage, for instance, a word, idea or meaning “perceived as new by an individual or individuals to bring about improvement in relation to desired objectives” [Nicholls, 1983:4]. Thus, an existing word in English may acquire a new meaning in the process of translation.

In trying to cope with the problem of expressing features of the indigenous culture and to remain as culturally authentic as possible, L2 users and translators often resort to a variety of linguistic and discoursal strategies which, according to Kachru (1987), include:

(a) the use of non-native similes and metaphors (e.g. Yoruba, Kannada, Matay) which linguistically result in collocational deviation.

(b) The transfer of rhetorical devices for personalizing speech

(c) The translation (transcreation of proverbs, idioms, etc (d) the use of culturally dependent style(e) the use of syntactic devices

Non-native creative writers in English generally resort to a variety of such linguistic and discoursal strategies, as well as the use of native rhetoric and figurative language, proverbs, transliteration and translation. In the next section, we analyse some lexical/discourse innovations in Yoruba – English translation.

Analysis and Discussion of Features in Yoruba-English Translation

The analysis below covers two aspects of discourse features in Yoruba – English translation, that is, pragmatic use and

26


function of discourse markers, and lexico-semantic innovations. Our data base derives mainly from Yoruba literary texts translated into English by Yoruba – English bilinguals. These are texts in which indigenous socio-cultural meaning and discourse in Yoruba are projected in English. Lexico-semantic innovations in the analysis include coinages, lexical transfers, loan blends, semantic shifts, etc. Discourse- pragmatic innovations are reflected in the use of conversational gambits or markers (e.g. “thank you”, “yes”, etc.)

(a) Lexico- Semantic Features In this part of this paper, we consider some lexico-semantic and discourse innovations and their formation processes in translation. These include: coinages, lexical transfer, loan-blends and semantic shift.

(a) Coinages Coinages are newly coined words and expressions in English resulting from the prevailing socio-linguistic factors in the Yoruba land, in particular, and Nigeria, in general. Most of these coinages appear in the form of compound English words, which merely paraphrase the Yoruba concepts. English, coinages are the most productive process in the creation of new words in English as equivalents of Yoruba. The following coinages illustrate the process of compounding in translation:

Table 1 Courages

Yoruba: Source Text (ST) English: Target Text TT) Oba kò so The King did not hang

PageReference (PR)

27

M.A. Alo

Iyawo afeke’hin Sango gbe odo ijo’ko o Sango wole.

Sango’s last wife enters with his mortar-stool

2-3591

Ògbondoroko ló lèlùbó Ogbondoroko is the home of yam-flour

14-15

A ó jeka làlè We shall eat yam-paste tonight

14-15

E má sìkà láyé oTorí ará òrun

Don’t be wicked on earth Because of the heaven people

16-17

Kó o má gbàgbàdoKóo maa gbowóo bodè lówó awon èrò

Collect maize And collect gate-money from the travelers

36-37

Won gbé ìrùkèrè oyè lée lówó

The royal horsetail is given to him

46-47

Baba sogbá-sogbá The Chief calabash-carver 128-129Bíyán sogún odún e má màgbe sonù o Bókà sogbòn osù, e má jùú sígbó ó

If the pounded yam is twenty years old don’t throw it into the bush

136-137

Wón jùrùkèrè só kè The palm wine drunkard They threw up the horse tail

8-9

Ba bá fàpàrí isu ń hànlejò Owe ilé tóó lo ni

When one shows the yam head to the guests. It is a hint: “time to go home”!

24-25

Se o ri nnkan ida’na e? Do you find your bride-wealth

120-121

(d) Lexical Transfer This strategy involves the act of direct transfer of a lexical item from the SL to the TL. This is frequently done in the case of non-existence of a term and its referent in the TL and no other referent with a parallel function. In other words, rather than create a new word with the TL item, a translator decides to simply transfer the SL item

28


Table 2(a) Lexical TransferObaluaye ObaluayeYoruba Text English Text PR

Ògún Ogun 6-7Òsanyìn Osanyin 10-11Òpélé Opele 14—15

Kábíyèsí Kabiyesi 20-21Ìwòfà Iwofa 20-21Olorì Olori 22-23

Table 2(b) Lexical Transfer Obakoso The king did not hang

PRÀfeni ti kogílá ko lù, Àfeni Èsù n seLó lè ko l’Èsù,

Only one whom a devil strikes,Only one whom Èsù tricksCould confront/dare Èsù,

4-5

(e) Loan blends Loan-blends combine items from Yoruba and English to form new words. In loan-blends, the item from the source language (ST) and an item in English within the same semantic field from the target language are placed side-by-side to form a new word combination, usually a nominal group. In this type of combination, the English word functions as the headword while the Yoruba item functions as the modifier. The English item helps the reader to understand the meaning of the Yoruba item. Loan-blends provide a good source of the Yoruba tradition in the Yoruba-English translation. Examples are as follows:

Table 3(a): Loan Blends

Oba ko so The King did not Hang

29

M.A. Alo

PRÌlùu bàtá ati ijó Bata drums and dance 6-

7Wón ń fi ìlù so òrò ti Tìmì so

Gangan-drum, talking, reacts to Timi’s words

42-43

Bi Gbòónkáà ti ń pofò ni Ìwèfa ń fon fèrèè tóró

As Gboonkaa recites incantations, the Eunuch blows the toromogbe flute

70-71

A kì Í tàrònì láyà No one dares the aroni-spirit to a fight

70-71

Table 3(b): Loan BlendsOmuti The Palm Wine Drinkard

PRB’ílùu bàtá ti ń dún The bata drums 2-3Oluugbo, mo ti mú ìyé èsá Tée ní kí n lo mú wá dé!A ki I pasa!

Oluugbo, I have brought the feathers of the asa-birdWhich you said I should bring!No one kills the asa-bird!

36-37

Ìlùú wóròo bèrè Woro music 56-57

Èyí táa bá wí fógbó logbó ń gbóÈyí táa bá wí fógbó logbà ń Gbà

It is what we say to the ogbo tree that it hears (does)It is what we say to the ogba tree that it accepts.

58-59

Table 3(c): Loan BlendsIfa Ifa: the custodian of destiny

PRAnd if dundun drum refuses melody too We may then opt for abemoKin-n-kin

137

(f) Semantic ShiftTranslation shift, including semantic shift, is an unavoidable strategy of inter-lingual translation dictated by the inequalities between forms and their functions in the SL, and TL. The translator may employ shift in a number of ways. Certain English words and their corresponding reference are used as

30


rough equivalents or lexical cosmetics for Yoruba referents that do not exist in English.

Table 4: Semantic ShiftYoruba EnglishÈsù Trickster god of fate-(Obaluaye)Babaláwo Priest (Obaluaye pp 22 – 23)Orí Head (destiny) (FID p. 119)Omolúàbí Priest (-Obaluaye Players)Iyefun White powder (Obaluaye 18-19)Èrò Balm (Obaluaye)Olorì Queen (-Obaluaye pp 1-2)Bànté Undervest (FID pg 110)Àdó Little gourd: (Obaluaye pp 50 –51)Satani (Lati òdò satani)

“It was from another spirit”

The English word ‘Satan’ is interpreted as another spirit. In the context of Yoruba mythology, is held in high esteem as one of the principal divinities (Awolabu 1979). Èsù is seen as a link or a liaison officer between heaven and earth. This divinity maintains constant relationship between the super-sensible world and the human belongs by helping in the conveyance of sacrifices from the latter to the former. Therefore, Èsù, in the Yoruba context, does not connote devil or evil. It has a positive connotation. ‘Èsù’ is a good servant. This is contrary to the Christian or Muslim concept which regards Èsù as the “devil” or the “Shaitan” respectively. The negative notion is what is available in the TL (English).

In the above, ‘Èsù’, for example, is translated to mean “a trickster god of fate”, but in another context it may have another referent, “devil”. The trickster god translated from Èsù in the Yoruba context may have both negative and positive applications. Also, the word ori (head), which also has its referent in English as the physical head, goes beyond this in Yoruba to mean, somebody’s destiny. Also, “Olorì” has a corresponding referent in the TL (English) but with a different function from what it has in the SL. (Yoruba).

(b) Discourse Markers and Function: the use of “Yes” and “Thank You”

31

M.A. Alo

The process of exploiting available discourse and rhetoric devices in both languages, especially in relation to conversation gambits is observed. Conversation gambits form part of our phatic communion to get the social wheel going. Gambits are also used to introduce new ideas within conversations and to end the conversation well. As the analysis shows, there are some interesting features in the use of the conversational gambits of responding and accepting compliments, among several others, in Yoruba-English translations, the use of the expressions “yes” and “Thank you” in English and their translation equivalents in Yoruba, that is beeni and E seun. The table below presents data on the use of “Yes”.

32


Table 5(a) Discourse Markers: ‘Yes’Yoruba: Source Text (ST) English: Target Text (TT)Òmùtí The Palmwine Drinkard PAGESango: Hùn-hún!Timi: Dákun, má pe mo bá o lóyè mo pè o lórúko.

Sango: Yes, (I am listening)Timi: Please, don’t say when I met you with the title I called you by name.

12-13

Òmùtí GBOGBO: Húuùuun! Àkííkà!

The Palmwine DrinkardALL: Hmmmm! That’s right!

2-3

LANKE: (Pèlú èrín) Abéré ni loooto ‘o! Abéré ni.Okare ‘o! Abéré ni!

LANKE: (laughing) It is a needle, indeed! It is a needle.That’s right! It is a needle

6-7

GBOGBO: Un-hun! ALL: Yes….! (Go on!)ROPO: Àkííkà! ROPO: How true! (Yes) 14-15ALABA: (pelu ìbínú) O oo! Kí ló se tí gbogbo è fi le tó bá yi ke? À ‘a!

ALABA: (angrily) Yes …! What’s the matter? Strange!

16-17

OHUN ENIKAN: Un-hun! An-han!

VOICE: Yes…! Yes….!18-19

OBA ÌKÀ: Uun! CRUEL KING: Yes, (that’s all right).

102-103

Oba kò so:Sango: Hun-hun!

The King did not hangSango: Yes, (I am listening.)

12-1

Ohun’kan: En-en. Voice: Yes. 50-51Enikan: Béè ni. Somebody: YesGboonkaa: Béè ni. Gboonkaa: Yes. 62-63

Tone marks play an important role in using these Yoruba equivalents to show different meanings in the language. For instance, the term Hun-un with fall-rise tone marks indicate response to a call. The same term Hun-un with middle tone-mark indicates affirmation or confirmation of a statement or proposition. The English item “Yes” relates to different senses in Yoruba language. The variants, when used in different contexts can connote confirmation, affirmation, response or acceptance. These variants include: bee ni, Hun-hun, un-hun, O oo, An-han, Uun, Eneen, Huuuuun, Oooooooooo! O da, Òótó ni, ododo ni, hoo, hee ba, looto, Akiika (Ooto). Some of these variants are dialectical and their use and meaning are restricted to certain areas of Yoruba land. They can be used in both formal and

33

M.A. Alo

informal settings depending on the social level of the user. Factors such as age, sex, religion and intimacy, to some extent, do not constrain the use of “Yes” in Yoruba. Context becomes a fundamental factor in the interpretation of the Yoruba items. Sometimes, Akiika can mean “Yes” to affirm a claim. Apart from its meaning as “yes”, akiika may suggest a surprise or ironic use.

The variants bee ni, Un-hun, Oo, Een-en, Ooto ni, ododo ni, looto ni, are standard forms. They are used in both formal and informal situations. Their use cuts across all dialects, age, sexes and religions. The use of any of the variants in Yoruba land by an addressee signifies confirmation or affirmation of any statement made by the addresser. The use in this sense has no negative or offensive denotative meaning. However, at the level of pragmatic meaning, they may acquire negative connotations, e.g. doubt.

An-han, Uun, Huuuun, Ooo, O da (“Yes” in English) can all mean acceptance to a proposition or re-affirmation of a statement. The terms are used extensively among both the adolescent and adult of Yoruba users in both formal and informal settings. Oo, Ee-en, or Hun-un variants are used by an addressee as a response to a call by an addressee. They are used in both formal and informal settings. Their use is not restricted to elites too. However, other expressions such as mo nje, mo ndahun, mo nbo can also be used as equivalents for “Yes” among Yoruba adolescent users of the language. The choice of any of the variants depends on the user’s interactive setting. For instance, in some enlightened social settings, especially among the young students, the variants En-en, Hun-un, Oo, can be regarded as being local. He eba! is an inferior variant of the dialect and its use and meaning are restricted to certain groups of Yoruba speakers especially those in the Oke Ogun area. It is used to affirm or confirm a proposition. It can also be used as an affirmative response to a question. Its use cuts across ages, sexes or religion, but it is used in an informal setting, or among the lower social class speakers of the language. Ooo or Ooooooooo is used in a special way. It is commonly used among the spiritually possessed people especially the masquerades, the Sango, Ogun, Obatala and other lesser god worshippers in Yoruba land. It has a spiritual connotation as a response to a negative call (e.g. from sleep). The variant is used as a response to spiritual chants, incantations, talking drums, praise-songs, etc that highly

34


provoke emotional sensibility in the addresser. Its use cuts across sexes or genders but the setting is always religious and formal. It can only be used sarcastically in ordinary settings. The variant Akiika is only used among adult Yoruba users especially the elderly ones. Its other equivalent is Òótó ni, Òdodo ni, béè ni, or Oò púro. The setting is always formal. It is normally used in a discourse among elderly discussants. Young Yoruba users only use the term to mimic elders or playfully cajole a young interlocutor that tries to mimic elders.

The following excerpts from a Nigerian literary work illustrate some typical contexts and uses of “yes”:

(a) Yes? A sullen-looking clerk looked up from a file in front of him. This is the office of the A.C.C. Personnel (Expressing anger)

(b) Yes, I do. He is expecting me. Titus said, (Expressing irritation).

(c) I was saying that I don’t want to live in Ibala: Your home-town? Yes, my home-town. . From T. M. Aluko’s Kinsman & Foreman (Pp 14, 15, 23)

Table 5(b): Discourse Markers: The use of “THANK YOU” (English); E seun (Yoruba)

LANKE: E féé mo ìdíí rè tí mo se gbádùn emuu mu bí eléyi, àbí?

OHUN OMOBINRIN: O jàre! O jàre!

LANKE: You want to know why I like drinking palmwine so much, don’t you? GIRL’S VOICE: Thank you!

10-11

OKUNRIN: Aa! O sééé, o sééé!

MAN: Ah! Thank you, thank you, thank you.

48-49

BABA: ‘Oo FATHER: Thank you 64-65BABA: Oo, E jòwóò! FATHER: Thank you.

Please!72-73

BISI: Bàbá, mo mà dúpé púpò

BISI: Father, I thank you very much

86-87

AWON IWIN: ‘Ooooooooooo!

SPIRITS: Thank you! … 118-119

35

M.A. Alo

Oba ko so The King did not hangKabiyesi!Atóóbájayé!

Olówóo mi, okoò mi ‘o!Eni a ní ní I gbani!Oósa gba tèmi yè wò!

Sango: E seun!

Your Majesty!With whom one can associate and enjoy life!

My master, my husband!The one whom a person has is the one who saves him!O god, consider my case!Sango: Thank you!’

6-7

Table 5(c): Discourse MarkersOmuti The Palmwine DrinkardLóòtó, ba bá ti fàpárí isu n hànlejò,Òwe “ilé tóó lo” ni!

Truly, when one shows the yam-head to the guests, it is a hint: “time to go home”.

24-25

“Thank you” may be used ironically to mean the opposite of what the expression usually implies (that is appreciation or gratitude). This is the case here in Baba Oo: Father thank you. Again, context plays an important role here. The equivalents of “Thank you” in Yoruba are not restricted by such factors as age, sex, religion or social class, as such in terms of meaning. The variants are mainly used to express appreciation in Yoruba. Variants of “Thank you” in Yoruba include: O séé, or e séé, mo dúpé, or a dúpé, o seun, or e seun, e káre or o káre. The major difference among the age line is usually reflected in the preceding pronoun “e”, and “o”. The pronoun “e” as in e see (emphasis), or e seun, is used with the variant to address an elderly person while “o” (o seun or o séé) is used for a younger addressee. It is considered insulting, rude and uncultured for a younger addressee to use o seun, o séé, or o kare for an elderly addresser. The use of these variants is reserved for the elderly addressee and equal interlocutor in Yoruba. Even at times, equal interlocutors use e see or e seun for equals just to show mutual respect especially in an informal setting.

Again, the use of “a”, “e”, or “o”, mo as in e seun and o seun respectively is distinct for number (singular/plural). E seun or e see, e kare, are used to indicate plurality while o see, o kare are used to indicate a singular addressee or younger

36


person who is lower in status. But the singular pronoun can equally be used in some settings as honorific pronouns to show majesty, prowess strength, wealth, influence or very high sense of appreciation displayed by the speaker. The pragmatic or illocutionary force of “Thank You” as used by the King several times in this context is appreciation.

At times, the Yoruba uses of these equivalents may be sarcastic or ironic. In this sense, the term will not really mean or express the normal appreciative gesture but something else. Here, the use of the expression may connote perhaps failure of the addresser to discharge a duty, a responsibility, fulfill a promise, grandt an obligation, etc. The setting for the usage may be formal or informal.

The use of the expression “Thank you” has other functions: sarcasm, question, unserious remark. Variations in the use of “Thank you” occur in spoken English are made possible by means of intonation e.g. “Thank you” as a question has a rise intonation; whereas “Thank you” with a fall-rise intonation can mean sarcasm or may indicate unserious remarks. The ironic or sarcastic use of o séé, o káre or e káre (equivalents for English “Thank you”) depends on the mutual knowledge and contextual beliefs of interact ants.

Implications of L2 Innovations for TranslationAs the foregoing analysis shows, translators tend to make deliberate linguistic choices to achieve specific communicative goals. Linguistic innovations occur to ease the problem of equivalence and transmissibility of meaning between languages. How then does the translator handle innovations to achieve the translation/communicative objectives? How does the reader/hearer manage linguistic innovations for achieving effective interpretation of meaning in the TT? What kind of knowledge and skills must the reader/hearer possess to be able to understand TT? Of what use is innovation in the interpretation of translated texts by the reader?

As a product of the bilingual’s creativity in the use of L1 and L2 resources, linguistic innovations function as a significant translation strategy for negotiating meaning and enhancing the translation task. It therefore becomes important that both the translator and reader should be sensitive to innovative devices in translation. It is important that the translator should be skillful in managing innovations to achieve specific translation objectives. This requirement has to do with translational

37

M.A. Alo

competence, which subsumes linguistic encyclopedic, cultural and pragmatic knowledge. Innovations in translation also have some implications for the reader. They not only enable the reader to have access to the original substance, but also provide a better understanding of translated texts. For example, in some lexical combinations involving Yoruba and English (“bata drum” etc.), one of the constituents, in this case, “drum” would suggest a fair idea of what the Yoruba item “bata” means, (a kind of drum). To fully understand meaning in translation, readers need essential skills for decoding and interpreting discourse innovations and meaning in TT.

Conclusion This paper has attempted to draw a link between bilingual’s

creativity and translation. A major problem that confronts the translator is how to replace units in the SL with their equivalents in the TL. In this study, a number of linguistic and discourse innovations have been observed in Yoruba – English translations. These are often motivated by the need to handle specific problems, in particular in-equivalences resulting from linguistic and cultural differences between the two languages. The Yoruba texts which are translated into English encode cultural beliefs, experiences and values embedded in the Yoruba culture and language, making necessary linguistic and discourse innovations. These involve the use of words and expressions (including the extension of discourse forms and markers, for example “Thank you” and “yes”) in English to cover socio-cultural, idiomatic and pragmatic meanings in Yoruba. L2 innovations become purposeful in the hand of the translator in trying to negotiate meaning in the TT. They also serve to enhance better understanding of translated texts in English.

38


Works CitedAlo, M.A. (1989). “A Prototype Approach to the Analysis of Meanings of

Kinship Terms in Non-Native English. Language Sciences. 11(2) 159-176.

Bamgbose, A. (1998) “Torn Between the Norms: Innovations in World Englishes. World Englishes, 17, (1):1-17.

Bamgbose, A. (2004) “Negotiating English Through Yoruba: Implications for Standard Nigerian English” In Owolabi, K. and Dasylva, A. (eds) Forms and Functions of English and Indigenous Languages in Nigeria: A Festschrift in Honour of Ayo Banjo. Ibadan: Group Publishers. pp. 612-630.

Bamiro, E. (1994) “Lexical Innovation Processes in Nigeria English.” World Englishes, 13, (1):47-60.

Baker, M. (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London and New York: Routledge.

Catford. J.C (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London: Oxford University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: MoutonCooper, T. C. (1999). “Processing of Idioms by L2 Learner of English”

TESOL Quarterly, 33 (2) 233-262.Crystal, D. (1987). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Elebuibon, Y. (2004) Ifa: The Custodians of Destiny Ibadan: Penthouse

Publications (Nig).Emery, P. G. (2004) “Translation, Equivalence and Fidelity: A Pragmatic

Approach” Babel 50 (2): 143 -167.Firth, J.R. (1953) “Linguistics and Translation” In Palmer, F.R (ed) 1968)

Selected Papers of J.R. Firth London: Longman Press.Freeman, D. (1970). (ed) Linguistics and Literary Style. New York: Holt,

Rinehart and Winston Inc. Gikandi, S. (1991) “The Epistemology of Translation: Ngugi Maitigari

and the Politics of Language”. Research in African Literature (4): 161-167.

Gyasi, K. A. “Writing on Translation: African Literature and the Challenges of Translation” Research in African Literature. 30(2) 161-167.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1961) “Categories of the Theories of Grammar” Word. 17: 241– 92.

Halliday, M.A.K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language, London: Edward Arnold.

------------- (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.

------------- (1985, 1994) Functional Grammar. 2ndEdition. London: Edward Arnold.

39

M.A. Alo

Hervey, S (1998) Speech Acts and Illocutionary Function in Translation Methodology. In Leo Hickey (ed) The Pragmatics of Translation. Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. pp 10 - 24

Hickey, L. (1998). The Pragmatics of Translation. . Toronto : Multilingual Matters Ltd

Igboanusi, H. (2002) Igbo English in the Nigerian Novel. Ibadan: Enicrownfit Publishers.

Kachru, B.B. (1987). “The Bilingual’s Creativity: Discoursal and Stylistics Strategies in Contact Literatures” in Larry E. Smith (ed.) Discourse Across Cultures. New York: Prentice Hall. pp. 125-140.

Kaplan, R.B. (1966) “Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter- Cultural Education” Readings on English as a Second Language, edited by K. Craft, Cambridge Mass: Winthrop 245-262.

Kwofie, E. (1999) “On the Relationship of translator to Linguistics and stylistics” Eureka 13: 40-50.

Larson, M. (1984). Meaning-based Translation (A Guide to Cross-Language Equivalence) London: University Press of America.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mukarovsky, J. (1933). “Intonation comme factueur de rhythme Poetique”, Archives ne erlandaises de phonetique experimentale 8-9. 153-165.

Newmark, P. (1981) Approaches to Translation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Nicholls, A. (1983) Managing Educational Innovations London: Allen and Unwin.

Nida, E.A. (1985) ‘Translating means Translating Meaning’ Publication of FIT UNESCO, pp. 119-215

Oladipo, O. (1995). “African World Western Concepts: The Problem of Language and Meaning in Religio-Anthropological Interpretations of African World Views “In Owolabi, K (eds) Language in Nigeria: Essays in Honour of Ayo Bamgbose. Ibadan: Group Publishers. Pp 396-407.

Owolabi, D.K.O. (1993) ‘Yoruba In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 1st edn. Oxford: Pergaman Press Ltd

---------- (2004) “Developing a Strategy for the Formulation and Use of Yoruba Legislature Terms” In Owolabi K and Dasylva, A. (eds). Forms and Functions of English and Indigenous Languages in 22 Nigeria. Ibadan: Group Publishers. pp 397-413.

Oyeleye, A.L. (1987). Transference As A Stylistic Strategy: An Inquiry into the language of Achebe’s Things Fall and No Longer at Ease” ODU: A Journal of West African Studies 32. pp. 160-169.

40


---------- (1995) “Translation and the African Writer in English: A Sample Study of Achebe’s TFA and NLAE” In Owolabi, K (ed) Language in Nigeria: Essays in honour of Ayo Bamgbose. Ibadan: Group Publishers. Pp 364 -379

----------- (2004) (ed) Language and Discourse in Society. Ibadan: Hope Publications.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1988) Translation Studies: An Integrative Approach.Soyinka, W. (1982) The Forest of a thousand Daemons. (English

Translation of Ogboju Ode New Igbo Irunmale by D.O. Fagunwa Hong Kong; Thomas Nelson.

Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel. London: Oxford University Press.Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Blackwell: Oxford Teilanyo, D. I. (2000) “Some Lexico-Semantic Problems of Translation

in J. P. Clark’s The Ozidi of Saga in Kiabara. 6 (2):9-27.---------- . (2004) “Nigerian Literature and Nigerian Languages:

The Tasks before the Translator and the Writer In Oyeleye, A. L. (ed) Language and Discourse in Society Ibadan: Hope Publications. pp. 234-245.

Williams, R. (1976) Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Glasgow: Fontana.

Whorf, B. (1956) “Language, Mind and Reality” In Carroll (ed) Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee-Whorf. Massachusetts: The M/T Press.

41

ch2 - m. a. alo

Documents