Introduction to Translation Studies Chapter 9 PDF

1 J. Munday, Introducing Translation Studies Chapter 9: Translating the foreign: the (in)visibility of translation (pp. 144-161) This chapter deals with cultural difference and the interface between the source culture and the foreign, linking ideology and dominant discourse to translation strateg...

1 J. Munday, Introducing Translation Studies Chapter 9: Translating the foreign: the (in)visibility of translation (pp. 144-161) This chapter deals with cultural difference and the interface between the source culture and the foreign, linking ideology and dominant discourse to translation strategies. Venuti: the cultural and political agenda of translation Venuti insists that the scope of translation studies needs to be broadened to take account of the value-driven nature of the sociocultural framework. Norms are not value-free. They include a diverse range of domestic values, beliefs, and social representations which carry ideological force in serving the interests of specific groups. The various players in the publishing industry: The publishers and editors who choose the works and commission the translations, pay the translators and often dictate the translation method. The reviewers’ comments indicate and to some extent determine how translations are read and received in the target culture. Each of these players has a particular position and role within the dominant cultural and political agendas of their time and place. The translators themselves are part of that culture, which they can either accept or rebel against. Venuti and the invisibility of the translator: Invisibility is produced (1)​by the way translators themselves tend to translate ‘fluently’ into English, to produce an idiomatic and ‘readable’ TT, thus creating an ‘illusion of transparency’ (2)​by the way the translated texts are typically read in the target culture. Venuti: A translated text is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer’s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text – the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the ‘original’. Venuti sees the most important factor for this as being “the prevailing conception of authorship.” Translation is seen as derivative and of secondary quality and importance.  2 Domestication and Foreignization: These two types of translation strategy concern both the choice of the text to translate and the translation method. Venuti sees domestication as dominating Anglo-American translation culture. Venuti bemoans the phenomenon of domestication as it involves an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to Anglo-American cultural values. This entails translating in a transparent, fluent, invisible style in order to minimize the foreignness of the TT. This type of translation leaves the reader in peace as much as possible, and moves the author towards him. Domestication further covers adherence to domestic literary canons by carefully selecting the texts that are likely to lend themselves to such a translation strategy. Foreignization entails choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language. The translator leaves the writer alone, as much as possible and moves the reader towards the writer. Venuti considers the foreignizing method to be an ethnodeviant pressure on target-language cultural values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text, sending the reader abroad. It is highly desirable to restrain the ethnocentric violence of translation. In other words, the foreignizing method can restrain the violently domesticating (colonizing) cultural values of the English-language world. The foreignizing method of translation, a strategy Venuti also terms “resistancy,” is a non-fluent or estranging translation style designed to make visible the presence of the translator by highlighting the foreign identity of the ST and protecting it from the ideological dominance of the target culture. Venuti insists on foreignizing or minoritizing translation to cultivate a varied and heterogenous discourse. For example, Venuti juxtaposes both archaisms and modern colloquialisms to jar the reader with a heterogeneous discourse. Although Venuti advocates foreignizing translation, he is also aware of some of its contradictions. For instance, it is a subjective and relative term that still involves some domestication because it translates an ST for a target culture and depends on dominant target-culture values to become visible when it departs from them. However, Venuti defends foreignizing translations. They are equally partial (as are domesticating translations) in their interpretation of the source text, but they do tend to flaunt their partiality instead of concealing it. Domestication and foreignization are “heuristic concepts” designed to promote thinking and research rather than binary opposites. How much does a translation assimilate a foreign text to the translating language and culture? How much does it signal the differences of that text?