International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

APPLICATION OF HOUSE MODEL OF TRANSLATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT

ONR.K NARAYAN’S “HALF-A-RUPEE WORTH” AND IT’S TELUGU
TRANSLATION “ARDHARUPAYIVILUVA”.

Prof. MADUPALLI SURESH KUMAR NADUKUDITI SUDHEER KUMAR

Professor of English, Department of Assistant Professor of English
English, Bapatla Engineering College,
Acharya Nagarjuna University, Bapatla, Guntur (DT),
Guntur, A.P, India A.P., India

Abstract:
There are different Translation Quality Assessment tools. Most of them are theoretical
and didactic. Unlike other theorists, German Scholar Juliane House has proposed a
Translation Quality Assessment Method that is more practical in use. She believes that
Translation should not be assessed only on the basis of Linguistics. She proposes that the
assessment of the translation shall be done at the pragmatic and stylistics level too. Her
Functional-Pragmatic method of Assessing a Translation is a pioneer method. Translation
Quality Assessment is usually done to the target text but in House’s model, the source text
analyzed first in terms of Field i.e., Subject Matter, Tenor, i.e., geographical province of the
author, social role relationship among the characters and Mode i.e., stylistics etc. the same
procedure is repeated with the target text to find out any mismatches between the source text
and the target text.

In this paper, the first part explains essence of Translation Quality Assessment. The
second part of the paper explains the step-by-step procedure of Juliane House’s method. The
procedure is applied on R.KNarayan’s “Half-a-Rupee Worth” and for its Telugu Translation
“ArdhaRupayiViluva” to assess the quality of the text in the last part of the paper.

Abbreviations: SLT: Source Language Text, TLT: Target Language Text, TQA:
Translation Quality Assessment.

Key words: Translation, Quality, Assessment, House, Field, Tenor, Mode,

Translation Criticism.

Introduction:
Translation Studies is an important form of an art to communicate between various languages,
cultures and countries. The Target language readers or audience doesn’t know whether the Translation
is good or bad. They read or listen to the translation they understand whatever the message conveyed
through the Target Language Text. In spite of the source language text is of high quality one in terms
of message, or aesthetic values, if the translation is shoddy, the Target Language Readers do not have
the same effect as the source language readers. So, evaluating the Translation is a very important sub
field of Translation Studies, which is called Translation Quality Assessment, which falls under
Applied Translation Studies.

Volume VIII, Issue III, March/ 2019 Page No:842

International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

There are many ways of applying Translation Quality Assessment. The earlier
theories are more theoretical. Practical way of assessing the quality of a Translated work is
given by the experts like Reiss, Widdowson and Juliane House. In this paper, the researcher
wants to take Juliane House’s Translation Quality Assessment method to test the quality of
R.K Narayan’s Short Story “Half-a-Rupee Worth” and it’s Telugu Translation
“ArdhaRupayiViluva”. House’s model is not a quantitative method. House has chosen a Non-
quantitative method of Assessing translation as the main aim of assessment is to provide
feedback to translator but not to evaluate in terms of numbers.

Research Methodology:

House’s Model of Translation Quality Assessment:

(Adapted from House 2015:65)

Using the model of House’s Model, the following step-by-step procedure is used to
assess the text:

1. Choosing an excerpt from TLT and SLT.

2. Analyzing the source text based on the Register: Field, Tenor and Mode.
3. Stating the Genre of the text.
4. Stating the function of the text in terms of interpersonal and ideational
meaning
5. Repeating the same steps with the Target Language text to identify errors

Volume VIII, Issue III, March/ 2019 Page No:843

International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

6. Stating the quality of the Translation in terms of the textual analysis.

Application of the House’s Model:

Analysis of ST and TT and Statement of function:

Excerpt 1:

SLT: (English)

1. Those were days when Subbiah loathed the rice bags whichhemmed him in at
the shop; he longed for the crowded streets,cinemas, football matches, and
wrestling tournaments, which heglimpsed through the crowded shopdoor. But
his father more or less kept him chained to the shop and discouraged all his
otherinterests in life,
2. Saying, ‘Young fellows after ten should be horsewhipped. If they are not to
become brigands.’ He practised thistheory of child-training with such
steadfastness that in due course. the little man had no eyes for anything in life
except rice and nohead for anything except the price of grain, and he dreamt of
riceand thought of rice and spoke of rice.
3. When his father died, he filled his place so nicely that nobodycould notice the
difference:
4. Most people thought that the old manwas still there counting cash. Business
prospered.
5. Subbiah keptfive cows and buffaloes at home, whose milk, curds and butter,
he and his wife and five children consumed day and night andbecame rotund
and balloon-like.

TLT: (Telugu)

1. Aarojullotananikattipadesinaaabiyyambasthalanteashyinchukunevaadu.
Dyasanthakikkirisinaveedhulu, cinemalu, football aatalu,
mallayuddhalupaiundedhi. Vaatannitijanamthoidina tama
dukhanadwaramlonchichusevaadukaanitandri,
taanidukanaanikikattipadesijeevitham lo itharaanandalakuduramchesadu.
2. Ayana Antundevaadu, “Pillaludaaridopidivaallalagatayaruavvakunda undulate
vaallanigurrannikoradathokottinatluadamayinchali”. Ayana
eesiddanthannipaatinchipillalnielapenchadante,
eechinnapilladikiaataruvathajeevitham lo biyyyamtappainkemikanipinchaledu.
3. Tandrichanipoyakaaayanasthannanienthagabarthichesadante,
evvaruvaallidariMadhya tedhagamnichalekapoyaru.
4. Chalamandhi a
musalayaneakkadakurchunidabbululekkisthunnaduanukunevaallu
5. Vyaparammoodupuvvuluaarukayaluganadichindhi.
Subbaiahintidaggaraaidhuaavulu, gedhelupenchagaligadu, vaatipaalu, perugu,

Volume VIII, Issue III, March/ 2019 Page No:844

International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

vennaniathanu, ayanabharya,
aidhugurupillalubaagaanubhavinchigundramgaballon la lagatayarayyaru.

Analysis of the Original English Text along the lines of House Model of
Translation Quality Assessment:

Field:

The text presents a greedy father, who controls the wishes and whims of a young kid
and makes him to think and do like him and finally Subbiah becomes as greedy as his
father.He wanted the mind of his son to be programmed in congruence with his mind set
when his son as young as ten year old. Eventually, his son becomes just like him. The subject
matter is realized through the following linguistic means:

Lexical means:

1- ‘Loathe’ shows the intense hatred of Subbiah, 2- ‘horse whipped’ signifies the
intensions of his father; 2-steadfastness, denoted the rate at which his father could alter his
mind. 5-rotound and balloon like- shows the result of their greed and possessiveness.

Lexical fields: Human Relationships, greedy and selfishness, poor parenting.

Textual means: 2- ‘he dreamt of rice and thought of rice and spoke of rice’ shows the
how the young boy was trained by his father.

3- ‘He filled his place so nicely that nobody could notice the difference’ expresses the
function that he has become as greedy as his father.

Tenor:

Author’s Temporal, Geographical and Social Provenance:

As we all know, R.K.Narayan writes stories taking Malgudi, an imaginary town in

India. R.K Narayan is also known for his Indian English expressions. The text is narrated in
third person by the author.

Social-Role Relationship:

Characters in the excerpt do not have symmetric relationship. The father displays his
high handedness over his son.

Lexical means: 2-‘Young Fellows’ His father using this expression shows his high
handedness. 2-‘Brigands’ is another word that reflects the high handedness of his father.

Mode:

Medium: Complex.

Complex vocabulary such as 2-brigands, 1-loathe are used.

Volume VIII, Issue III, March/ 2019 Page No:845

International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Presence of Rhetoric: R.K Narayan’s mark of rhetoric is witnessed through 2-the

little man had no eyes for anything in life except rice and no head for anything except the
price of grain, and 5-he dreamt of rice and thought of rice and spoke of rice and consumed
day and night and became rotund and balloon-like.

Syntactic means: Coordinating conjunctions are used to express the cause and effect.
(3,4 and 4)

Genre: Short Story.

Statement of Function:

The function of the original text can be summed up as: the reader should get to feel
sorry for Subbiah at the beginning of the excerpt as he had to give up his interests for the sake
of his father. The readers should get to know the greedy and materialistic nature of his father.
The way in which Subbiah has become just like his father is to be described. The asymmetric
relationship between the father and son is to be depicted. The text depicts the way a father
kills the aspirations of their kid and how the kids gets to be trained by the parents.

ST and TT Comparison and Statement of Quality:

The Translator has done a very good job in translating the text into Telugu; however
there are a few mismatches, which lead to a few errors.

Field:1-he longed for the crowded streets,cinemas, football matches, and wrestling
tournaments, which heglimpsed through the crowded shopdoor is translated as
Dyasanthakikkirisinaveedhulu, cinemalu, football aatalu, mallayuddhalupaiundedhi.( his
concentration was only on crowded streets, cinemas football matches and wrestling
tournaments) The Telugu Translation has not expressed the sorry state of the kid. As there is
a lot of difference between a kid glimpsing at someone playing sports and having an eye for
it. The source text readers get the visualization that a kid is watching other kids playing and
he is restricted to the shop. Whereas in the target language readers reads it as the boy is
interested in it.

The translator has also skipped ‘kids after ten’, in ‘2’ , and translates it as kids should
whipped. By not mentioning after 10 years, the translator has intensified the field of the text
as the readers of SLT are not clear as the readers of TLT of what age kids are to disciplined
according to his father. It helps to the field of the text, if the readers interpret it as the kid is
younger than 10. But if the readers presume that the kid is around sixteen or seventeen year
old, the character doesn’t receive the same kind of the sympathy as the source language
readers.

Tenor: Social Role Relationship is well established. As Both the SLT and TLT are
originated in India. The translator has no problem in communicating the message across the
cultures. It is not uncommon in India that many parents get their kids to discontinue their
studies and get them to work. Parents forcing discipline on their kids is also not uncommon
in India.

Volume VIII, Issue III, March/ 2019 Page No:846

International Journal of Research ISSN NO:2236-6124

Mode:

Textual Mismatches: 1- longed for is translated as

2-‘the little man had no eyes for anything in life except rice and nohead for anything
except the price of grain, and he dreamt of riceand thought of rice and spoke of rice’Is
translated as 2-‘Ayana eesiddanthannipaatinchipillalnielapenchadante,
eechinnapilladikiaataruvathajeevitham lo biyyyamtappainkemikanipinchaledu’ (Back
Translation: He practised this theory to parent his son in such a way that the kid sees nothing
but Rice)

The repeated assurance of change that R.K Narayan depicted through 2- is a bit under
translated. The meaning is conveyed but the rhetoric of R.K Narayan is not matched through
the translation.

The word in 5-‘prospered’ is replaced with the Telugu proverb

‘moodupuvvuluaarukaayalu’ is a very good way of using expressing that the business has
prospered. But in the same 5- he and his wife and five children consumed day and night and
became rotund and balloon-like is translated as athanu, ayanabharya,
aidhugurupillalubaagaanubhavinchigundramgaballon la lagatayarayyaru. ‘anubavichu’ ( to
experience) is a covertly erroneous term as it is not a usual term used in the target language.

Statement of Quality: Apart from the minor mismatches, the translator has been
successful in translating the short story from English to Telugu.

Conclusion: Keeping the word limit of a research paper in mind, the researchers have
taken only one excerpt from the story to assess the quality of the short story; however, the
researchers wants to demonstrate how in-depth assessment could be done using House model
of Translation Quality Assessment.

References:
Primary Sources:
1. Narayan, RK. "Full Text Of "Indian Short Stories". “Half-a-Rupee Worth”.pg
55-61. Archive.org. N.p., 2019. Web. 12 Feb. 2019.
2. Bheemeswara Rao, Vemavarapu "ArdhaRupayiViluva." Sakshi. N.p., 2019.
Web. 12 Feb. 2019.
Secondary Sources:
1. House, Juliane. Translation Quality Assessment. London and New York:
Routledge, 2015. Print.

Volume VIII, Issue III, March/ 2019 Page No:847