Creativity, Translation and Trans-creation

Translation Studies, as a new discipline, has borrowed many of its concepts, notions, metaphors and
theories from other fields. The very concept of creativity is originated from Cognitive Sciences that are
inclined to investigate positive artistic meanings in non-scientific contexts i.e. literature. Generally,
creativity is attached with literary translations but for researchers, it is involved in translational tasks i.e.
relating to cognitive problem-solving. Some scholars relate creativity with literary products for their
originality and give translations the status of derivative form of writings, therefore, creativity is perceived
intrinsic by contrast. This brings into question the definition of creativity per se. This part of literature is
addressing the relation of creativity in translational phenomenon and how it leads to trans-creational
action.

Creativity, translation and transcreation is discussed by many researchers (Katan 2016; Jasakelanen,
2012; Balacescu and Stefinik, 2003; Berman, 1999; Vieira 1999; Nida, 1998; Newmark, 1998, 1995
&1993; Ballard 1997; Lal 1996; de Campos 1992; Lakoff,1990; Delisle,1988; Mackenzie,1988; De man,
1986; Rosch’s, 1977).

Creativity is omnipresent scenario and it is not easy to define it in words but can be recognized with its
properties such as rareness, uniqueness, outstanding quality, fluency and non-literariness. Though it is not
possible to set up a sufficient definition of translational creativity, yet two criteria meet up the term under
consideration namely_ novelty and adequacy. The first is taken as “a manifestation of exceptional
performance that exceeds translational routines and also includes translational shifts” whereas the
adequacy is defined as “the skopos acceptability.” Creativity is not an issue in itself rather it is very much
concerned with the translator’s world (Lakoff, 1990).

As pointed out by Jääskeläinen (2012) that creativity plays a role whenever there is no ready-made
answer. To ascertain the decisive place of creativity in translation, it is inevitable to shed some light on
concepts of creative translating. Literature on creative translation gives briefing on the merits of literal
vs. free translation when literal translation was not further acceptable. Though literal translation transfers
all the meanings of the original without any omission, deletion and addition yet more importance is given
to re-writing. Ballard (1997) also puts forward the idea that rewriting in another linguistic system means
“creating” and any deviation from literal translational structures is indicative of “creativity.” Although
“creation” and “creating” are primeval terms in translation yet more refined exploration is required in this
paradigm. The very term also challenges the concept of ‘equivalence’ and retrace the impulses of
originality and crafting in translation. More to say, translation is not mere a quality of paralleling rather
this form of equalization is the inferior copy of text.
For remaking or recreating unique linguistic competence is required as de Man (1986) says “translations
undo the original.” The act of undoing the originals is posed by three constraints namely text type,
translator’s experience and competence, translation agency. The first involves the type of text to be
translated, the second deals with translator’s proficiency and efficiency of translating and the third one the
environment in which task is being performed. These constraints seem ideal for creativity but it is not
necessarily found there. An experienced professional working setting is somehow mechanical and robotic
where translation is rule governed and skill is more honored than creativity. In this kind of environment
translational solutions are more automated than creative. For instance, french verbal nouns, when
translated into English, become automatically verbs but there are some certain places where these ready-
made solutions do not work and more creative trigger is needed. A complex text holds up to automated
solutions and focus on style maintenance leads to extensive rewriting.

In addition, Mackenzie (1988) gives an ad hoc approach of using problem solving strategies that are
creative in nature where translator is brought into conscious effort of making creative solutions/decisions.
As Berman (1999) describes that a translator can test inventiveness and newness in text but he must
respect the fundamental bond of linking a translation with its original. His concept delimitates creativity
with rewriting and sets a boundary between creative translation and mere adaptation.

Ballard (1997) is of the view that it may seem strange to talk about creativity in relation to translation
when we know how much we like to emphasize that it is a second activity. But translation requires a great
deal of work within the target language, which makes the translator a true creator. Similarly, Balacescu
and Stefinik (2003) mark a distinctive line between the approaches to creativity in translation as a
problem solving tool and as a novel aspect of translation/translator. The former includes machine
translation (with 0° of creativity), skopos theory, comparative stylistics and hermeneutical approaches.
Latter, consists of 17th C notion of belles infidels, manipulation school and translator’s creative license
for ideological ends (Cannabalistic theory, feminist theory, postcolonial theory). In short, these two
divergent approaches are the cause of tension between scholars. This dispute brings the very definition of
translation into question and that’s why a broad spectrum of theories and methodologies has been
reserved for translator’s creativity.

As Delisle (1988) says that human translation is distinctive because of his trait of creating.

Theories of creativity, during the recent years, claim to be promising to overcome drawbacks of
translational procedures to get “a creative translational product.” Also Rosch’s (1977) prototype
semantics was a step ahead to problematic aspects of word meaning. He was a psychologist and with his
colleagues, he developed the concept of prototype to classify entities. His work became popular amongst
linguist (Labov, 1973; Lakof, 1987; Taylor, 1989) and they relate this idea to the meaning making i.e.
semantics process. In addition, Fillmore’s (1985) scene and frames semantics is laid on the idea that
language system or “system of linguistic choices” known as “frames” and “scenes” are basically the
visual transactions to whom frames refer back. Scene-and-frames trigger one another and builds meaning.
Considering the above mentioned theories, KuBmaul’s (2000) present a combo to classify translational
shifts and divided them into 7 types of creative translation procedures: Change of frames, framing,
picking of scenic elements from one frame, picking of scenic elements from one scene, change of scene,
enlarging of scene and reframing. Though it proved to be a milestone to the process of meaning making,
yet it remained partly abstracted because of the fuzzy use of word frame.

Nida (1998) sees creative translational process in the socio-linguistic perceptive. He allows change in
style, grammar, cultural expressions, compensations and adjustments to the original. He opposes
‘translation as imitation’ as done in legal, religious and classic texts. He prioritizes translation as a
dynamic process that change constantly, with the change in time and space and creativity lies in this
dynamism. However, he also points out some sociolinguistic constraints that influence the style of
translating a text creatively: the register, skopos, medium etc. Describing what is governed by rule and
what is creative in the translation of style, Newmark (1995 & 1998) argues that translation is continuously
vibrating between rule and intuition. It is a balancing act, a juggling twice with five changing factors:
languages, cultures, traditions, readerships, and settings; and five universal factors that keep it steady:
reality, logic, morality, aesthetics and pure language. Also, Newmark (1993) views creativity in
opposition to imitation, as “creativity in translation starts where imitation stops”. He also argues that the
wider the choices, the more creativity is required. On the other hand, dynamic equivalence which roots up
the sub-text, the hidden agenda, or ‘re-creation’, is pre-eminently target-text oriented and more creative
than formal, or literal equivalence. He views creative translation as a matter of a play of words and a
‘peculiar’ stylistic/linguistic combination of lexical and grammatical choices and structures (p.40).

Recent studies on translation are less focused on literary aesthetics and special attention is given to
culture, economics and political turns. The most recent turn is “transcreational turn” (Katan, 2016).
Against this context, the idea of trans-creation is here borrowed from Pound’s “make it new” or “energy
of language”, Lal’s “Avatar”, Haroldo de Campos’ “transcreation” and Brazilian Cannibalism theory. The
term trancreation is in use since 1957, when Lal (1996), an Indian poet and scholar, discussed this term to
explain the English translation of classical Sanskrit dramas. He opined that he, in his translations, had
tried to preserve the spirit of enriched Hindu culture rather than language itself. The trans-creative
tradition was also found in Brazilian literary contexts where de Campos (1992) encouraged the new
creative approach. For him, transcreation is a radical operation that not only reproduce the form of the
original as sound pattern, but also provide appropriate form of translational local tradition. In addition,
Vieira (1999) recovered the notion of cannibalism in translation. This metaphor is strongly used in
Brazilian Translation studies community. This anthrographical ritual is used as verbal weapon that means
the energy of the text to be translated is completely devoured by the translator and a new purified and
energized soul is invigorated to it. So, translation is a creation that makes the source superior, demystifies
hidden agendas and give value to translation itself.

The growing flow of information, in this digitalized world of reading and writing, is changing the concept
of “text” insofar “original text”.

The rising dilemma is whether translations should be taken as transfer or as creation. It is also a proven
fact that transfer of linguistic competence is never pure and if so, it is mere repetition. In the same wake,
creative act is never wholly free. The most modern sense of translation is transformation: concept of
change in inter-lingual operations to achieve the adequacy in translation. This study is fairly recent, seeks
to analyze the linguistic performance of reconstruction of STs. As a product, translations are being
studied, criticized and judged but postmodernist wave has changed the concept of translation. Translation
is narrowed down in its definition. Being trans-creative is something beyond
transformational/translational process. Tran-creation starts where translation ends. Errors in translation
i.e. breaking rules of grammar and spelling become norms of trans-creation. Trans-creative activity is
more creative, original and bold than translations.

In addition, Katan (2016) demarcated the two polarized worlds of trans-latere and trans-creare. The latere
refers to the translator’s attention in finding correspondent word in target language to make the transfer
communicated. The creare is pertained to the focus on creating the most adequate text to make the
transfer communicative. Trans, in translational situation, means “to interpret, “to transcend”, “to
expound” or “to explain (what is difficult)”. Trans-latere is responsible for “carrying messages across”
and trans-creare is an artist who produces a text and design it according to the needs of consumers and
users. He maintained that traditional translator/ion is trapped in constraints of Codes of Ethics and turned
to ‘technicians’ and ‘translating machines’. They have been deprived of their authorial voice. While on
the other hand, trans-creators make the text reborn and set free from labels of mechanics.

Both theoretical and empirical evidences in the above sections clearly correlate creation with translation
entering into the domain of trans-creation. It is pinpointed that a significant exert has been made for
decades in remaking translational tradition; creative for target cultures.

Stylistic Trans-creation
The recent stylistic situations and researches in contemporary trends have been changing and drifting
from its original concept since last decade. The scholarly literature is so scattered that the discipline of
stylistic studies seems unorganized. Although, Swift’s (1720) ‘proper words in proper place’ and
Buffon’s (1753) ‘style is the man himself’ and Coleridge’s (1818) ‘the art of conveying the meaning
appropriately and with perspicuity’ are thought provoking understandings to style, yet a comprehensive
attribution is required. Though etymological trails are found within rhetoric but stylistics is actively in
practice in literature and linguistics and forming a new term; literary linguistics. Initially, stylistics was
taken as the study and analysis of the use of language of literary and non-literary texts or as Halliday
(1967) pointed out "a linguistic study of the literary text". Here, a question arises whether stylistics
merely focuses ‘the use of language’ or we should also keep in mind ‘the creative use of language?’

In prose, language remains silent and stretches throughout the text. This is where linguistics enters in
prose to meet with the challenge of identifying unobtrusive language of prose. Language role in
conceptualization of realities is crucial. There have been new perceptive of looking at language in terms
of psychology and sociology. If there is a single connector which unites characteristics of these discipline,
it is stylistics. Stylistics is the tendency to explore the underlying patterns of the language system from
coding to interpretation of meaning. That is the reason many linguists recommend stylistics for the
objective and mechanical analysis of language. It checks, foregrounds and validates the utterances of
pragmatic functions.

Creativity has proven to be the inevitable feature of style. In the course of discussion, it is necessary to
define what is meant by stylistic features which are derived from the idea of markedness. Leech  and Short
(1981) define it as the occurrence of linguistic and stylistic category (feature) in the text. They
differentiate linguistic features e.g. noun, verbs, questions and color terms etc. and stylistic features e.g.
personification, alliteration and balanced terms etc. (p.64). Exploring stylistic features is a complex
phenomenon but this is describable in linguistic terms. Similarly, Ghazala (2011) calls stylistic features to
be linguistic and draws our attention to the idea that all linguistic features are not stylistic, but every
stylistic feature is linguistic.’ Potentially, stylistics covers an inventory of features. A linguistic feature
becomes a stylistic feature when it is frequently used and develop language skills to enable
author/translator to be sensitive and sensitized to language use and function.

Though it is difficult to define creativity in words. But words can indicate what is in mind. As Bockting
(1994) says, ‘mind style is concerned with the construction and expression in language of the
conceptualization of reality in a particular mind.’ Here the researcher is more concerned with the use and
practice of creative stylistics in translation studies but before offering a proper definition first make it
clear what is creativity in stylistic insight. Bockting’s definition takes us towards the spontaneous and
intuitive level of intelligence to produce creative artistic literary work. Stylistics focuses on the texts or
group of texts distinctive and investigates deviations from linguistic norms that trigger artistic effects and
reflect creative ways of using language. So, the proposed definition of stylistics is ‘stylistics is the study
of creative use of linguistic competence’ by the author/translator. In other words, recreating a text on
stylistic patterns is stylistic creativity in translation. Also we know that linguistic competence is the result
of creativity that performs further stylistic functions. Thence, calling creativity as a stylistic feature is
very much justified. From the discussion above, it is questioned that creativity finds its place in style but
how? Answering to this, there is a checklist of creative processes for creative stylistic awareness i.e.
intention, theme, motif, text type, setting, characterization, point of view, narrative structures, tense and
aspect, syntactic, lexical, phonological and graphological choices, symbolisms, metaphors, cohesion and
coherence and textual patterning (p.159).

The present research is concerned with translations of prosaic fiction and it is easy to see and perceive
any reason why stylistics possibly has close connections with translation: both are concerned about the
fine semantic detail of content and how it very well may be viewed as a reflection of a writer’s written
decisions and as the source of impacts on readers (Boase-Beier, 2014). Karlgren (2012) maintains that
both are more than what they are about.

The comparative stylistic analysis and stylistic study of a literary translated work help identifying the
significance of style in producing meanings. It seems important to use stylistics in studying the ability of
the translator in transferring the stylistic features of its original equivalence (Meriem & Sara, 2015). The
translator serves as creator and creator settles on decisions how to choose and arrange the material he
wants to present. He selects among accessible equivalent words and syntactic developments, focuses on
the target group for the content and settles on his decisions in different ways and for different reasons.

Here, creativity is not taken in the sense of ‘creating something out of nothing’ or ‘recreating’ in the sense
of converting the source text’s implied meanings to target language. Creativity is a rare trait that needs
intelligence, innovation, simultaneous thinking. These traits are not rare at all rather their presence at a
time in a person is rare. In the meanwhile, in literature it’s the author and in translations it’s the translators
whose use of language and style direct to the literary creativity. Language is a medium to the literary
thought and expression. Modern linguists describe this as the creative aspect of language or linguistic
creativity. “An essential property of language is that it provides the means for expressing indefinitely
many thoughts and for reacting appropriately in an indefinite range of new situations” (Chomsky, 1965,
p. 6). There is a linking feature of creativity which binds both literature and linguistics. This aspect
studies selective and creative processes through which literary intentions and stylistic variants on different
linguistic levels are converged into the final form of text.
Precisely, stylistics bridges the widening gap of creativity in original and translated texts. Stylistic
patterning in terms of creation in translated texts is less focused. This research tries to address the
progression and exploration of unexplored area of style of creative translating.

For the study of literary text, idea of deviation works as important element. To create stylistic
distinctiveness, it is compulsory for a part of language to deviate from norm of comparison. According to
Leech (1981), deviated norm is absolute norm which is operating for the language as unabridged, or may
be that norm work as relative norm which is provided by those set of text which are observed as
comparable. Levin (1965) gives an additional difference in this construction, among the statistical
deviations and determinate. In simple words statistical deviation is the measure of quantitative linguistic
modifications between norm and domain while on the other hand deviation of determinate is non-
quantitative. Deviation is perceived as inconsistency between the rules allowed and the language system’s
conventions and what will occur in the text during determinate deviation. This type of literary style study
is considered significant for this research specifically for the fiction writing.

Deviations are considered at three different level in literary text; at first, where text deviates from
language norm as totality considers as primary deviation, whereas in secondary compositional deviation
in literary texts and finally where the tertiary deviation occurs from internal norms to a text. Primary
deviation has two major forms: in first form choices are allowed according to the rules and conventions of
the language and its use and the writer goes beyond these available choices. On the other hand where
choice is allowed by language and the writer refutes himself to choose the freedom and constantly uses
the same items. This gives results from some predicted frequency and in the appearance of linguistic
items.

Internal deviation which comprises the structures of language within the text set off from those norms
which the text itself led us to expect. It is recognized by its comparison with the previous context. The
purpose of internal deviation is to demonstrate that why the usual and prosaic places of language gets
unexpected place and importance in literary context.

Linguistic deviation is perceived as a “creative language” (Leech, 1969) which varies from the norms of
fictional convention or ordinary speech, such a deviation generates elements of attention and amazement.
Deviation and categories of deviation is a broader concept but in this research certain deviation from
some linguistics level is debated here. Inside the linguistics level of realization, the concept of
phonological and graphological deviation where former is the kind of deviation from conventional poetics
such as elision, apocop, aphesis, and latter deviation comprises of capitalization, visual patterning,
punctuation, spacing, etc. Sematic deviation influences the readers to focus on figurative interpretation in
literal expressions. This research is concerned with Lexical deviation which occurs when a novel word is
coined in the language, it is converted in unusual way or through affixation a new word is formed. Many
word used in English literature are lexically deviated and this study traces out those widely used words in
English translation of Urdu fiction. It accounts for the writer/translator’s lapse of the normal confines of
the lexical properties of his language. i.e. when the rules of lexical creation and patterning with a superior
generality are applied than normal, violating the usual ranges of choice. There are numerous ways for the
writer/translator to deviate from the lexical norms in his language, like (Neologism, compounding,
affixation, unusual collocation functional shift).

This study hypothesizes some fundamental assumptions from above debate that translations transcends or
explain (what is difficult of) source texts and trans-creators produce and design sources according to the
needs of skopos. Trans-created texts are highly creative and patterned in unconventional, distinctive,
peculiar and variant style. Translational and trans-creational texts are demarcated as the former is
mechanical and rule governed activity and the latter is free from labels of mechanics. What are considered
errors in translations, set the norm for trans-creation.

In trans-creational language some lexical features of the source language (SL) are retained and some are
deviated from it. The act of retention is considered somehow “non-standard” (Hopkinson, 2007) and
Lecercle (1990) calls this “non-standardness” as the remainder of a translator that ranges of phonological,
lexical and syntactic variations. He further elaborates that social dialects, slangs, neologisms, puns,
stylistic innovations and foreign word loaning enhance communication. In translational perceptive,
remainder complicates the lexical equivalent and communicates domesticating process which intends to
make text intelligible for target readership. Under the remainder, he places deviation as a foreignizing
process where deviation from standard dialect is considered the feature of trans-created tradition.

Many a researches are conducted in this regard and a relevant literature of these open class parts of
speech is addressing some related issues. Ya-hui (2015), Dahami (2012) and Tarighi and Rabi (2018)
carry out researches related to open class part of speech. Ya-hui (2015) conducts a study to find out the
distinction between ENG-CH parts of speech conversion. The phenomenon of conversion of English
nouns into Chinese verbs during translation is being studied. The study is conducted on a mini-corpus
prepared by the researcher. The study concludes that only six types of nouns are the most common noun
conversions in translation. This division varies according to genres, their stylistic requirements and
characteristics of readership.

Dahami (2012) examines the differences and similarities between the adjectives of English and Arabic.
The study analytically evaluates different kind of adjectives used in English and Arabic as well as their
similarities and differences and the difficulty in their translational procedures. Furthermore, it also aims to
shed a light upon the way to make a comparison like this understandable. The research concludes that
English language is rich in adjectives and it has many forms in English but in Arabic there are simple
adjectives. In English adjectives are independent but in Arabic these are dependent on nouns and that’s
why there are some issues in translating the adjectives from English to Arabic.

Tarighi and Rabi (2018) conduct a study which is focused on the translation of phrasal verbs of English
into Persian to analyze the percentage and frequency of those eleven procedures of translation which are
used by Persian translators. The aim was to determine the most favored method of Persian translators to
translate phrasal verbs in terms of textual and contextual parameters. Persian language belongs to the
Indo-European family and it has not typical syntactic and sematic features of phrasal verbs which are
present in English but not in Persian. This is where a Persian translator faces the difficulty to translate
these marks. A corpus based study of Brown’s (2013) Inferno is conducted that is based on the Baker’s
(2011) translation strategies on non-equivalence of word level. In this study 401 phrasal verbs were
extracted from 34 chapters of novel and translation of these phrasal verbs were analyzed. It is made clear
that equivalent procedures are used in high frequency in the data.