The correspondence between SLT to RLT in the intra lingual translation of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (Nevill Coghill’s translation), with Parallel Study of Parimezhalagar Urai of Thirukural. The degree of pursuit that recent literary scholars have towards studying Chaucer is waning. Their consideration of the master’s work as drudgery is due to the labour that one is expected to put in for an effective understanding. By and large, it led to the near complete omittance of original Chaucer, by the wholistic dependence on Nevill’s translation. While Coghill has helped to some extent, the correspondence between the original text and the translation is not accurate. Orthographical differences form the height of difference between the medieval English (Chaucer’s south east midland dialect) and modern English. (Duc – Duke; Wysdom – Wisdom). They in turn produce difference in the sound value, by removing what is authentically original. i.e., the pronunciation that imbibed in it the old eloquence (affected by French speaking English noblemen) that pleased the ear. The significant phoneme lost being the [x] as in bach, lock (Scottish English). Nevill’s translation does not have the richness of schwa used extensively in the original work of Chaucer. Chaucer on archaic vocabulary says as, You know also …show more content…
It expands the target audience from what the work originally was capable of reaching, covering time phases, cultural lags, lingual growth of the people of the same language of the original. The emotions especially sense of humour and pathos is received in depth through the translation than the original, as they readily relate themselves with the phrases of the translation (part 3 of K.T, the lines corresponding to orison of the three characters Arcita, Palamon and Emily are comprehensible in
Raffel, Burton. and Alexandra H. Olsen Poems and Prose from the Old English, (Yale University Press)Robert Bjork and John Niles,
In his Canterbury Tales, Chaucer fully explicates the cultural standard known as curteisye through satire. In the fourteenth century curteisye embodied sophistication and an education in French international culture. The legends of chilvalric knights, conversing in the language of courtly love, matured during this later medieval period. Chaucer himself matured in the King's Court, and he reveled in his cultural status, but he also retained an anecdotal humor about curteisye. One must only peruse his Tales to discern these sentiments. In the General Prologue, he meticulously describes the Prioress, satirically examining her impeccable table manners. In the Miller's Tale Chaucer juxtaposes courtly love with animalistic lust, and in various other instances he mentions curteisye, or at least alludes to it, with characteristic Chaucerian irony. These numerous references provide the reader with a remarkably rich image of the culture and class structure of late fourteenth century England.
Regarding the translation of Beowulf into English and foreign languages, both verse and prose, in 1815 a Latin...
Boardman, Phillip C. "Geoffrey Chaucer (c. 1343-1400)." Enduring Legacies: Ancient and Medieval Cultures. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson Custom Pub., 2000. 430-54. Print.
Lambdin, Laura C. and Robert T. Lambdin, ed. Chaucer's Pilgrims: An Historical Guide to the Pilgrims in the Canterbury Tales. London: Greenwood Press, 1996.
The Canterbury Tales, written by Geoffrey Chaucer, has gone through many adaptations. Some authors decided to translate the story into verse, while others chose to write the as a narrative in prose. Although all adaptations are based off the same story, they are vastly different and can be the result of opposing interpretations of the original work. After reading a text translated by Nevill Coghill (referred to as Version I) and a text translated into a narrative by a different author (referred to as Version II), it is obvious that for each similarity they share, there are many more differences in language, syntax, and imagery as well.
Beidler, Peter G. "Chaucer's Tales" Chaucer Review Vol: 34, Issue: 4. April 01, 2000. 388-397
Tatlock, John S.P., and Arthur G. Kennedy. A Concordance to the Complete Work of Geoffrey Chaucer. Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1963.
Mandell, Jerome. Geoffrey Chaucer : building the fragments of the Canterbury tales. N.J. : Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1992.
“Geoffrey Chaucer is considered to be one of the most relevant poets in the history of English literature.” “Along with the most-known writing
Chaucer, Geoffrey. The Canterbury Tales: Riverside Chaucer Third Edition. Ed. Larry D. Benson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,1987. 3-328 Secondary
If one has ever read the General Prologue of Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales, they will find the attitude of Chaucer to be very opinionated and complex toward the members of the clergy. Some of the clergy consists of the Monk, the Prioress (also known as the nun), and the Friar. Chaucer has gone into depth of each one of these members in each section of the Prologue. From reading each section and analyzes his attitude towards each member, it is portrayed that Chaucer has a complex attitude of appreciation and dishonesty towards the members of the clergy.
...speare Did to Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde." Shakespeare Quarterly 9.3 (1958): 311-319. Web. 12 November 2013.
The work of the translator stars with the reading of the ST: he has to study the lexicon, the grammatical structure, the communicative intention of the writer, and of course the cultural context in which is developed the ST, in order to identify the best translation strategy able to express the original intention.
It is said that three great poets came out of 14th century Italy: Giovanni Boccaccio, Francis Petrarch, and Dante Alighieri. Geoffrey Chaucer, the Father of English literature, and widely regarded as the greatest English poet of the Middle Ages, was no doubt familiar with all three. Upon reviewing Boccaccio’s work, one would see themes borrowed heavily from Petrarch and Dante, but neither would be as apparent as Boccaccio’s influence. In many ways, Chaucer strove to emulate Boccaccio. This is very apparent in The Canterbury Tales, of which many tales were drawn directly from The Decameron. Interestingly, there is no proof of this, as Chaucer never directly quotes Boccaccio, but the stories are so strikingly similar that parallels must be drawn. More fascinating are the contrasts in the work, which paint a picture of each author’s view of the literary world. Ultimately, the most valuable insight into the mind of Chaucer could be gained from an analysis of how Chaucer treats Boccaccio’s Decameron, noting where Chaucer deviates from the original, and how new emphasis is placed on themes deemed less important by Boccaccio.