PART 1. Receiving Context Analysis and Theoretical Standpoints in the translation of
2. Translating for Children in the US and the UK
2.1 Domestication vs. Foreignisation
85
86
a journey from one country/culture to another, where either the target reader or the original author is bound to leave his/her own context to move towards each other97.
When the source author moves to meet the target readers, his/her presence in the translated text is mediated in such a way that he becomes a contemporary of the target readers, speaking in their own language (domestication). On the contrary, if readers travel to meet the original author in his/her country, the translator’s mediation is evident in the way he/she communicates and shares with the readers his/her impression of the foreignness of the text.98 In either case, the translator is the figure that brings author and readers together, his/her voice is what speaks to the two extremes in the process of translation: “The two parties [author and reader] who are separated must wither meet at a certain point in the middle, and that will always be the translator, or else one must join up with the other completely.” (tr. Lefevere, 1992: 150)
Another interesting aspect of this dichotomy in translation presented by Schleiermacher is the need for coherence in the choice of a translation option between domestication and foreignisation, because a mixture of the two “would produce a highly undesirable result, so much so that the fear might arise that author and reader would not meet at all.” (tr. Lefevere, 1992: 149).
On the other hand, Venuti critically discussed Schleiermacher’s options in translation in terms of strategic choices that are not separated but can coexist in the same text. Venuti recognised that the “foreign” aspects of a text are not an evident mark
97 “Either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him. Or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him.”
(Schleiermacher [1813] tr. Lefevere, 1992: 149)
98 Readers are invited to experience the same feelings that the translator had the first time he/she read the foreign text, although in their own native language: “the translator, through his work, tries to replace for the reader the understanding of the original language that reader lacks. He tries to communicate his readers the same image, the same impression his knowledge of the original language has allowed him to acquire of the work as it stands.” (tr. Lefevere, 1992: 149-150)
87
inherent to the source text, but are always interpreted on the basis of the target values of the receiving culture99:
The “foreign” in foreignizing translation is not a transparent representation of an essence that resides in the foreign text and is valuable in itself, but a strategic construction whose value is contingent on the current target-language situation.
(Venuti, 1995: 20)
The “foreign” is subject to change as well as the target language into which it is translated, according to strategies that may change over time. Venuti studied the effects of domesticating and foreignising strategies in translation from an ethnocentric point of view where the source text in the English-speaking receiving context is often interpreted according to the cultural and linguistic norms of the target culture. Foreignising strategies, for Venuti, include different practices comprising – but not limited to – language shifts and the selection of source texts that are in contrast with the dominating canon of the target culture100. More importantly, domesticating and foreignising strategies vary according to the historical moment in which they take place because “a foreignising method is specific to certain European countries at particular historical moments [...] Anglo-American culture, in contrast, has long been dominated by domesticating theories that recommend fluent translating.” (Venuti, 1995: 20-21)
99 Venuti here refers explicitly to Antoine Berman’s theory of translation on the ‘cultural other’ that “can never be manifested in its own terms, only in those of the target language.” (Venuti, 1995: 20)
100 To exemplify this last aspect, it may be useful to recall the example of Elio Vittorini as editor in the second half of the 20th century for Giulio Einaudi Editore. Vittorini (1908-1966) created for Einaudi the book series I Gettoni, a publishing project aimed at promoting young emerging Italian authors. But in order to show the prolific literary production of the second half of the 20th century, Vittorini also accepted to include in the series some foreign authors in translation, allowing readers to catch a glimpse of the different writing styles and topics in Italy compared to the rest of the world. Thanks to this innovative publishing project, Vittorini seized the opportunity to promote authors and literary works unknown at that time in Italy, with the objective of broadening the horizons of his public and have an impact on the main literary Italian canon.
88
Venuti’s purpose in this case is to emphasise that English-speaking countries translate less than what they export101.
Venuti’s dichotomy gave rise to a long series of studies to test his theories (see Palopolski, 2011), and the contribution of descriptive translation studies on translation strategies demonstrated that translators cannot opt for either domestication or foreignisation tout court. Mona Baker, for example, discussed translation as a mixture of different methods occurring at the same time at different levels:
A translator’s decisions, contrary to Touryean type schemes102, is not the result of a simple, consistent, coherent overall strategy [...]. A translator’s behaviour is often the result of conflicting loyalties, sympathies and priorities – precisely because a translator, like any human being, does not have just one identity but many. He or she plays a multiplicity of roles and speaks simultaneously in a variety of voices, and he or she adopts a whole variety of strategies, often conflicting ones, in the space of even a single translation or a single stretch within a translation. (Baker, 2001: 16)
Precisely because translators do not operate in complete isolation from the society they live in, their decisions are based on their professional background, the cultural context they operate in, but also on the public they are going to translate for, or the purpose of the translation (Vermeer, 2000; Nord, 1991).
In the case of children’s literature in translation the broad strategies of domestication and foreignisation constitute the overall framework for the theoretical standpoints to be presented in 2.2. Concepts such as the correlation between literary systems that include translation as a peripheral activity (Even-Zohar, 1978, 1979, 1990;
Zohar Shavit, 1986) will help to illustrate the different standpoints related to the translation of children’s literature (Klingberg, 1986; Oittinen, 2000), and the voice of
101 On the other hand, European countries translate more than what they produce.
102 The schemes implied here are those of translational adequacy vs. acceptability, discussed by Toury (1980). For a fuller discussion, see further section 2.2.
89
the translator as an active mediator between original author and the public in the receiving culture (Hermans, 1996; O’Sullivan, 2005; Lathey, 2010).