post-colonial_translation

46 G.J.V. Prasad
his childhood based entirely on the English alphabet but with a distinct
meaning in Punjabi: ‘BBG T POG, PK I C’ (Bibiji, tea peeoji / Peekay ai
see) – where a lady is asked to have tea and replies that she has already
had some (ibid.). Bilingualism gives rise to what Singh calls ‘kichdi
language’ in the popular press. This permeation of one language by
another is a natural by-product of the bilingual situation, but not
everyone sees it as desirable or even inevitable. Ketaki Kushari Dyson,
who writes in both Bengali and English, makes a distinction between a
writer who is creatively bilingual and one who is creatively monolingual
however many languages s/he may know. Her standpoint is clear in her
chastisement of Rushdie:
Salman Rushdie interlards his English with Urdu words and
phrases as a naughty teenager interweaves his speech with
swearwords, but he cannot write a book in Urdu . . . . He may be a
cosmopolitan, but he is a monolingual writer. His use of Urdu
adds colour to his texts, but does not lead us to an Indian
intellectual world. Had he been an artist in Urdu, I doubt if he
would have used the language to pepper his English in the facetious
way he does now.
(Dyson 1993: 178–9)
Dyson seems to hold the view that a true bilingual would have
perfect control over two or more linguistic systems and manage to
keep them separate from each other. Her objection to the use of Urdu
words in an English text is similar to that of monolinguals and implies
that languages can be kept pure and inviolate. A further implication
is that there is no serious artistic intent in Rushdie’s use of Urdu,
‘only a desire to add local colour’. A bilingual may be defined as a
person who has two linguistic systems which s/he uses for
communication in appropriate situations. In a bilingual or
multilingual situation ‘transfer’ or ‘interference’ is inevitable. This
transfer will work both ways, each language influencing the other.
One system may be more dominant than the other in the relationship
of give and take but this may be as much a question of the relative
competence of the speaker’s as of the social prestige or power of the
languages. On the other hand, a person may use English terms while
speaking Tamil not because her/his English is stronger but because
English is the language of prestige and power and may also signal a
context (e.g. a formal situation or official business). As Elizabeth
Tonkin says, ‘language is always a part of human culture, and its