Written Task SL Sample ('Digging')

Rationale

Rationale

This written tasks links to my study of literature (Part 4: critical study). Through the study of translation, I have come to understand the importance and interrelationship that exists between language, contexts, and meanings. Here, I have attempted to translate Seamus Heaney’s poem ‘Digging’ into Mauritian Creole, whilst maintaining the ‘essence’ of Heaney’s original. My translation is preceded by a preface (in English) that explains the choices I have made. Initially, I attempted to translate ‘Digging’ into French, but it lacked a certain intensity I observed in Heaney’s use of language. Heaney’s poems express vivid thematic concerns such as “heard versus herd”, underlying the differences between the poet and earlier generations, as well as a sense of family tradition. Moreover, Heaney’s poem evokes prominent habitual concerns relating to his distinct environment, expressed through the use of strong guttural words. Translating ‘Digging’ requires a deep awareness of Heaney’s idiosyncrasies, whereby his language choices include ‘raspy’ onomatopoeia, alliteration, metaphor, and cacophony. This translation also requires a profound understanding of the rural Irish cultural context of the poem, expressed through a sense of community identity in the vernacular.

Mauritian Creole shares (with rural Ireland) a dialect expressive of cultural belonging. Creole is ideal in evoking a sense of cultural tradition, having an authenticity evoking rural history and custom, very similar to the rural dialect of Heaney’s poem. My translation aims to resemble Heaney’s original through replicating stylistic features and colloquialisms.

Moreover, in translation, I tried to capture the misfortune of African slaves in Mauritius to parallel the division between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Those unaware of the history of both countries may miss this if innocent to the specific historical contexts. I decided to really highlight sectarian conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, and between slaves and French colonists in Mauritius.

300 words.  

Written Task

Written Task

Preface:

This translation of Seamus Heaney’s poem, ‘Digging’ into Mauritian Creole reveals how different meanings are generated in the two different languages. This is shown in the language of the poem, the translation of regional references, the various sounds and rhymes in the poem, and awareness of the intended audience for the poem.

Through translation, the language of the poem and the way in which it is translated shows how meaning is generated differently in the two languages. Creole, originally the language of African slaves, is, in itself, a very rural language. Hence the language, in translation, aims to capture the equivalent of Heaney’s ‘authentic rural Catholic Northern Irish experience’. Moreover, as a stable, natural language, developed from the mixing parent languages, there are many colloquial words in the translation, mimicking Heaney’s own style. In line 3, for example, the word ‘percant’ translates as ‘piercing through’, corresponds to the rural digging of potatoes, so that that the drills pierce the ground in the search for potatoes. The word, ‘percant’, emphasizes the action of the shovel, puncturing the soil and penetrating through the earth. An alternative word such as ‘penetrant’, meaning ‘to penetrate’ would have lacked the intensity of the digging action Heaney expresses.

In line 2, to translate the expression ‘snug as a gun’, I decided to use the literal translation of ‘tight’ rather than ‘snug’ because ‘snug’, in Creole, suggests comfort. Instead, I wanted to show Heaney’s firm grip on the pen, symbolizing strength and power in using the pen. Thus, I wrote, ‘serré kouma ene fizi’ to emphasize a ‘tight’ rather than ‘snug’ grip on the pen.

In order to show the closeness between generations and the historical tradition of potato digging in the family, I used the expression ‘Mor Pa’ rather than ‘Mo Pere’ to translate ‘my father’, since the former suggests a closer affinity between father and son. Similarly, when Heaney writes ‘Just like his old man’, I used the expression ‘ziste kouma sorpa’ which, once again, shows the harmonious relationship between generations. Choosing the expression, komme som papa’, would not have shown this.

Throughout Heaney’s poem, he highlights the closeness of his community, where people share a familiarity with each other. Heaney writes, ‘more than any other man in Toner’s bog’. However, in Mauritius, you will not find peat bogs, and tight communities are uncommon. Thus, I transposed  ‘Digging’ to the rural village of Bambous, a place known for a fuller sense of community belonging.

Heaney uses very guttural language in ‘Digging’ to accentuate intensity rather than expressive beauty. I therefore used the word ‘creuser’ to substitute for ‘digging’ since in French and in Creole the ‘cr’ sound seems rough and throaty.

Furthermore, ‘pommes de terre’, meaning ‘potatoes’, is too extended and lyrically expressive. It lacks the harsh quality of Heaney’s writing, and fails to communicate the ‘stone cutter quality’ that Heaney is said to have admired in Yeats. Thus, instead, the word ‘patates’ was used, with the ‘ta’ sound providing a more obviously severe and simple sound.

Whilst Creole was and is used by most people in Mauritius, I decided to use, where possible, the language brought from Africa by slaves. The slaves lacked refined literary education, and used more straightforward, simple, colloquial words. So, for example, the word ‘bananné’ is a widely known Mauritian idiom, meaning ‘years’ which the slaves imported. It has a smooth, lyrical sound, and is closer to the simple, typically phonic language of Creole.

The translation of Heaney’s poem, ‘Digging’, ultimately, requires an awareness of the ways in which meaning can be made in different languages, and an understanding of the influence of historical and cultural contexts on meaning. Only when this is understood, can translation, and its choices, begin.  

‘Creuser’

Entre mo lé doi ek mo pouce,

Mo plime la meme, serré kouma ene fizi.

Sou mo la fenêt, ene bruit percant

Pé formé kan la pelle pé enfoncé dan gravier;

Mor pa p creusé. Mo gette li par en bas

Jiska ki li p creuser entre bane flere

Courbé pou vingt bananné

Li p incline ar rythme de bane perceuses

Avec zot li p creuser pou banne patates

Sa botte, installé lor la bêche la, so genou

Presser contre la manche en bois,

Li pé creuser bane longues raciness, enterré profondément

Pou re-aller bane patates ki noune fek cueillir

Contant so fresere dan nou la main.

Bon Dleu, ki li konne manipule so la pel

Juste kouma sor pa.

Mo grandpere ti kave creuser plis de patates

Ki aucène zommes dans Bambous.

Ene zour, mone apporte li dilai dans ene boutey,

Bousonné negligement eke ne papier. Line prend li

Et ine boir li, après line continuer

A incsizer et transfer soignezment, soulevant la terre

Deriere so zepol, en cresant et cresant

Pour bon la terre. Creusant

L’oder froid do moule des bannes patates, son de la

Tourbe trempé, bannes coupes breves

Dans bannes raciness vivantes dans mo la tete.

Mais mo pena ene le pelle pour suivre zommes kouma zot.

Entre mo lé doi ek mo pouce,

Mo plime la meme.

Mo pou creuser are li.

Word Count: 851

Criterion A - Rationale - 2 marks

The rationale explains how the task is connected to the coursework.

2 out of 2 The rationale is clear for the most part. There is some very slight confusion, or lack of clarity. However, the language is generally sound and sophisticated, and any obfuscation is limited. Minor issues notwithstanding, the rationale should be awarded full marks.

Criterion B - Task and Content - 8 marks

The content of a task should lend itself well to the type of text one chooses. The task should demonstrate an understanding of the coursework and topics studied. Finally, there should be evidence that the student has understood the conventions of writing a particular text type.

5 out of 8 This is a challenging Written Task to assess. In one sense, it is rather poorly conceived; after all, the Written Task, partly in Creole, assumes an understanding that an examiner cannot have. Simply put, part of what is to be assessed is not in English. At the same time, much or most of the Written Task is written in English. A ‘preface’ seems like a germane, authentic text that would or could precede a poem or poetry in translation. If one regards this aspect of the Written Task, the work of the student is often extremely refined, showing an excellent awareness of how language, culture, and context conflate. It seems, that for the student doing this work, some really deep learning has taken place. The student is well within the word limit; some additional supporting examples, therefore, would further reveal the student’s understanding of the text (‘Digging’) and the topic of translation.   

Criterion C - Organization - 5 marks

The task is organized effectively and appropriately with a regard for the text type. There must be a sense of coherence.

4 out of 5 The task is organized, and the student uses transitional words and phrases effectively. The presentation of ideas seems a little too erratic to justify top marks in this criterion.

Criterion D - Language - 5 marks

The language of the task must be appropriate to the nature of the task. This means that students use an appropriate and effective register and style. Whatever the nature of the task, ideas must be communicated effectively.

4 out of 5 Clearly, part of the Written Task cannot be assessed (see Criterion B). The language that can be assessed – and there is much of it – is very fluent and accurate, and there is a good sense that the student is adopting the kind of academic register appropriate to this text type.