Rethinking Translator’s Invisibility: Domestication as an Assertion of Local Identity

Hsin-hsin Tu

A globalized world has brought with it increasing contacts and interactions

among people from different regions; yet, paradoxically, in terms of the issue of

translation exchange, English still remains the dominant force that cancels out cultural

differences. Lawrence Venuti is right to point out the imbalance between the works

translated into and out of English, and thus call for visibility in translation. At the

same time ‘domestication’ takes on different forms and has different meanings for

dominant cultures and non-dominant cultures: while the dominant domesticates others

in translations, the non-dominant more or less replicates. This is how the world is

translated and transformed into a roughly unified, globalized whole.

Out of this paradigm of globalized translation exchange, a potential crisis looms

in spite of the way the coming of globalization has been celebrated. With the

dominant cultures’ high exposure, the non-dominants have the need to keep up with

‘what’s going on’ and translate as well as absorb dominant ideas to the extent that

these ideas are internalized. This is how the dominant cultures have been reinforced

willingly in the non-dominant ones. In this sense, domestication has a different

meaning for the two sides. For the dominant cultures, it is a way to erase the foreign

and smooth out the translated works; for the non-dominant cultures, on the contrary, it

is a way to absorb the foreign and accommodate themselves to it. The crisis of

globalization occurs in this kind of double-canceling of the non-dominant. Distinctive

characteristics need to be explored and manifested as a way to demonstrate local

voices. In terms of literary translation, works with explicit subjectivity are of

particular interest because they show, in the process of translation, not merely what is

said in the original work, but along with it, how the guest culture can possibly be

understood in the host culture.

This paper takes as a case study a Chinese translation of Chinua Achebe’s Things

Fall Apart. It adopts an alternative approach to Venuti’s proposal of translator

visibility in order to argue how a translator’s subjectivity (visibility) is demonstrated

in a different mode in a non-dominant culture. This then becomes a means for the

non-dominant culture to assert its own identity in the face of the pressures brought to

bear on it by the dominant culture.

Key words: translation studies, globalization, subjectivity, Venuti, Achebe

English Hegemony and Globalization

1

The term globalization started to circulate widely during the latter half of the

1980s. Although Venuti’s work The Translator’s Invisibility is not a direct reflection

on the phenomenon, it nevertheless targets a significant aspect/significant aspects of

this global trend. Placing himself in the center of Anglo-Saxon culture, Venutihe

attempt to confronts the conventional practice of translation within an English-

speaking culture by . He pointings out two possible problems that ensue from the

naturalization of translation. For English speakers, naturalization as an approach this

will mean a closure toward the outside world as well as a tendency to overlook the

intrinsic difference of others— both will eventually hinder the development of the

hosttheir culture. Venuti’s point is self-reflective and ethical; yet, at the same time, it

should not be seen as a paradigm because of a very simple fact: Venuti is speaking

within the center of the culturally and linguistically dominant. Already, a lot of

research has been done based on Venuti’s argument which fails to meet the same

degree of self-reflection, and which imposes his observation on a territory of a very

different nature. One only needs to google the words “translator” and “invisibility” to

discover many instances of research conducted along the binary of “domestication”

and “foreignization,” regardless of whether the cases studied are within or outside the

sphere of English-language culture. Among those numerous works, some are aware of

the problem of the applicability of the binary, while others accept it whole-heartedly

without giving it much thought. Let us bear in mind the fact that the question of

whether translation process and strategy should be divided by domestication and

foreignization remains unsolved, for there are those who are reluctant to accept a

clear-cut division. Let us also bear in mind another fact, namely that the situation of

English-speaking culture doesn’t always apply to other cultures, and yet, this self-

evident fact tends to be overshadowed by the desire to flow with the current tide of

globalization.

Michael Cronin has been one of the first to tackle the issue headway. He

attempts to come up with a pragmatic attitude toward the impact of globalization on

non-English speaking cultures, which is a better starting point for those outside the

dominant circle. To use the word “dominant” is risky. Isn’t Chinese one of the

predominant languages of the world? In terms of the population of Chinese users,

there is no doubt about its influence; yet, as Michael Cronin points out, English is the

single dominant language in the world today. When compared or contrastescontrasts

with it, any other language can be justifiably put in the place of the non-dominant, and

that includes Chinese. It is fair to say all the cultures and languages in the world are

under the influence of globalization; nevertheless, this is where the similarity ends

between the dominant and the non-dominant. As far as English-speaking cultures are

concerned, the closure to the foreign threatens to put their development at a standstill,

but that danger currently remains merely a potential one, one that is yet to eventuate.

2

On the other hand, the impacts for non-English cultures are more immediate and

sometimes may even amount to a matter of survival. Michael Cronin again warns:

Minority languages that are under pressure from powerful major

languages can succumb at lexical and syntactic levels so that

over time they become mirror-images of the dominant language.

Through imitation, they lack the specificity that invites imitation.

As a result of continuous translation, they can no longer be

translated. There is nothing left to translate. (Cronin 2003: 141)

To argue that Chinese culture is being threatened by the trend of globalization is

of course an exaggeration, but the need to ride on the global (English) wave does

mean that Chinese is facing similar problems shared by the non-dominant cultures.

We may take Venuti’s research as an example. Despite the fact that the translator’s

invisibility is a common phenomenon in the English-speaking world, the same can not

simply be applied to the rest of the world.

The Question of (In)visibility

It is proposed here that the real scenario for the non-dominant cultures goes

beyond the issue of (in)visibility. First of all, the non-dominant culture, during the

process of translating English works, can not ignore the fact that their translation

situations are different from that which pertains in an English-speaking culture:

simply put, the non-dominant translates, for the most part, for the sake of keeping

itself abreast with the English-speaking world. As the English language has long ruled

as the hegemony, and general knowledge about it is prevalent, where is the ‘trial’ of

the foreign for the non-dominant when English-speaking cultures are not at all

unfamiliar? When mentioning the influence of English on other languages, Michael

Cronin has pointed out that as other languages take in more terms, expressions, and

neologisms from English, these languages fail to go through the trouble of expanding

themselves in terms of their capacity as a tool for thought. By easily adapting

themselves to the global lingua franca, non-dominant languages, and not just the

minor languages, are at the same time adjusting themselves to the dominant cultures,

regardless of whether this is willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously,

thus conforming to a global universality. Thanks to the development of the Internet,

the expedient of borrowing English words is justified in most cultures except for a

handful few. What is more, there is no longer an obvious time lag in information

transmission: some business communications or news releases occur in real time;

even publishers can distribute a new book simultaneously in different markets

throughout the world. In other words, English language and culture is part of the

factors that determine up-to-datedness. Whereas to English culture, Verfremdung in

3

translation practice is a trial leading to self-elevation, as far as other cultures are

concerned, it is not so much a trial as a necessity. A question more to the core of

culture exchange is the high degree of visibility of English, which no other culture can

afford to turn a blind eye to.

Things are more complicated for the non-dominant when English is used as a

bridge between other cultures. One of the biggest dangers is that when Anglo-Saxon

culture becomes a global umbrella, we find more and more situations where Chinese

have to experience other cultures via English. This points to the fact that our

understanding of other regions is established mostly through the reflection of the

hegemony. Is this a form of second-hand translation? Spivak has pointed out that all

third world literatures are turned into a ‘tranlatese,’ where a female writer from

Pakistan would sound similar to a Taiwanese male writer (Venuti 2004: 378) If that is

the case, one wonders, how does a Pakistani understand a Taiwanese, or vice versa?

The chance is that both parties will have to get to know each other’s literature through

English and what they know and what they think about each other is determined by

how they are presented in English. Naturally, one can easily retort that the situation is

not a conspiracy on the part of Anglo-Saxon culture, and equally point out the two

parties should take the responsibility for mutual understanding in the fashion of ‘thick

translation.’ This is true, but one also needs to consider the question of accessibility in

a pragmatic way. There is no denying that English as a lingua franca serves as a

channel for different regions, which offers a first impression of other cultures that

otherwise have very little contact. Therefore, besides the ideal situation where there is

a one-on-one culture exchange, we should not ignore that in reality, globalization has

transformed the world into an all-to-one scenario. What should be a spectrum of

cultural variety seems to turn into a picture of the global English perspective that

leads to the invisibility of other cultures.

These are the reasons why Venuti’s binary is unable to offer a sufficient

explanation to the situations elsewhere, nor should foreignization be applicable as an

ethical attitude toward translation, at least not for any language paired with English.

Venuti’s idea of foreignization can be traced back to Antoine Berman, and all the

way to Schleiermacher and the tradition of German Romanticism. There is no need

for any doubt about the good will and ethical attitude behind the proposal for a

foreignization strategy in translation; however, this view fails to address the reality

that cultural exchanges are not implemented on an equal footing——translation is

never generated from a vacuum, and there exists in cross-culture communication a

kind of ‘class struggle.’ Early post-colonial studies failed to address the issue of class;

likewise, translation studies will not be complete unless we cover the sociological

aspect and focus on the issue of equality. Venuti’s reflection on English hegemony in

the field of translation is a welcome warning but the issue he raised should remain in

its local scope; to apply it to a global scope is problematic.

4

Translator’s (In)visibility

For Venuti, the translator’s invisible status in Anglo-Saxon culture is attributed to

several factors. The number of works translated into English only make up an

insignificant proportion of its publishing market. With respect to publication,

translated books remain marginal; compared with other European countries, translated

works in Anglo-Saxon culture appear to have a smaller share. The scenario in other

cultures is rather different. In a culture where, annually, translated works outnumber

non-translated ones, translation’s visibility becomes higher accordingly. Even though

this fact doesn’t necessarily translate into a higher visibility of the translator, the

reader from a target language will have a better tolerance to different kinds of

translation strategies. More often than not, what determines a translated work’s

reception is not the translation strategy or quality; rather, it has much to do with

marketing.

If one puts the number of worldwide English users into consideration, it is clear

that the end-users of translation will have, to a greater or lesser extent, some

knowledge of the English language. Translation is a unidirectional act, but with a

potential bilingual readership (English users as well as learners), translators’

performance is more likely to be examined by the public. In this sense, even when a

translator employs a ‘domestication’ strategy, their translated works are never really

domesticated and the translator remains visible.

The word Übersetzung (to take something over) can operate in two opposite

directions, hence the saying about taking the reader to the author or taking the author

to the reader. This formula is fit for humanistic speculation, yet is it is only valid

when placed in a “vacuum” that ignores anyleaves the reality- check out. To take the

reader to the author (source culture), it would imply that the reader has no easy access

to understanding of the other. With the ubiquity of the English language, a large part

of the world has relatively easy access to its culture, irrespective of the different

means and different degrees of exposure.

In an epistemological sense, human beings learn new things by projecting the

known on the unfamiliar. Isn’t the nature of translation a form of domestication

anyway? Schleiermacher’s “Verdeutshen” and “Verfremdung” will remain at a

humanistic level and the translator’s (in)visibility will give way to the translator’s

interference or subjectivity.

Negotiation with the Hegemony and the Others

Exactly a decade ago, in a CILS Seminar held at Aston University, the issue of

translation in the global village was brought up; particular interest was centered on

“cultural identity.” Ten years later, it remains a concern despite the situation being

made different by September 11, with the hegemony reflecting more on its dealings

with others. Even though everyone will agree that globalization and localization

5

(globalism and tribalism) are ‘two threads running through our lives,’ through the

practice of cross-cultural communication, the two threads will converge, and the

meeting point can serve as a reflection of the non-dominant’s cultural identity. We

may take Starbucks as an example. It is an international coffee chain with a very

strong presence in Taipei, the capital of Taiwan, with similar settings the world over.

Apart from selling its cosmopolitan-international atmosphere, the chain also caters for

local needs, offering a traditional moon cake during the Chinese Mid-Autumn

Festival, but with a coffee-flavored filling in place of the more traditional sweet red

bean paste. The new breed of moon cake can then, to a certain extent, be seen as an

example of a demonstration of local identity. In the process of translation, the

assertion of cultural identity is more complicated than pastry making. Even more

complicated is the situation where a Chinese translator in Taiwan wants to introduce

an African literary work.

Why can translating an English work be seen as an act of negotiation? While

keeping up with the hegemony, one still attempts to retain one’s identity so as not to

lose oneself in the process. Particularly when we need to bypass English to bring

home an African work, who are we dealing with? Will either end of the translation be

reduced to a simplified version of an English perspective?

Things Fall Apart: A Case Study

African literature is largely an unexplored area in Taiwan; yet, it is interesting

that Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe’s work Things Fall Apart has been translated

three times in Taiwan (in 1976, 1980, and 1990). The 1980 version is worth particular

attention with respect to the unique translation strategy its translator applied. By

today’s standards, Anna Young’s translation will no doubt fall into the category of

“domestication”, perhaps even an extreme example of that. Yet, her interference is far

from an act of disregard to the native culture of the Ibo tribe in Nigeria.

By sinicizing Achebe’s work, Young’s version created a confusion. If the reader

has no prior knowledge of its translated status and goes straightaway into the story, it

is possible for one to wonder whether they have a copy of a translation or an original

in hand. The language of Anna Young’s version is richly Chinese, with culturally-

specific usages1

and a traditional storytelling style. Even the translation of Ibo terms is

infused with a distinctive feature of the Chinese language in which phonetic

translation may go through semiotic translation into graphic characters, which will be

explained later. From Venuti’s viewpoint, Anna Young’s sinicization of Achebe’s

work may be held as an indifference to the other culture because her translation

appropriated the original and then transformed it into something like a Chinese work

on African rural life. Even though Achebe’s work is written in English, one can easily

1 Anna Young uses terms like 東道主、府上、劉弟保家的二姑娘, which all carry distinctive culture character.

6

ague from either side whether his works belong to the English hegemony. Here, I

maintain that his works depict the experience of Nigerians and should therefore

represent its native culture. As Mona Baker has pointed out, Achebe’s language is

simple and his English comprises a significant variety of Nigerian usages, and is thus

an example of a hybrid work. Coming from a former British colony and brought up

with an English education, Achebe once admitted his writing style was the only way

he could express his own experience. Achebe’s language is in fact a translation of an

oral tradition into an English written form. In this sense, it is hard to determine a

foreignization or domestication translation strategy for a Chinese translator, which

proves the limits of the Venuti binary.

Achebe’s language in Things Fall Apart is very simple, yet the book describes a

social structure that is as complex and sophisticated as anywhere. Achebe’s

motivation for writing the book is to present a different side of Africa from what was

depicted in Conrad’s The Heart of Darkness, restoring its own culture and customs. In

Anna Young’s case, her way of reading the work may be very different from

Americans. Underneath the simple language, the translator sensed the deep-rooted

traditions and order in Ibo society and identified with the experience it went through

of early western influence.

Through simple language, Achebe was able to convey the oral tradition of the

Ibo people. Even though Anna Young resorted to a more complicated style, her

choice is not totally incompatible. Chinese story-telling 說書 was a popular form of

entertainment for the public in China, whose history can be traced back to the Song

Dynasty (960-1276). It usually took place in a public venue like a teahouse, where a

story-teller would charm the listeners with stories. Given its entertaining nature, the

style is a mix of colloquial and literary forms; together, a good story text must stress

the beats and rhymes of the language as well as offer an intriguing historical or

legendary content so as to hold the listeners’ attention. Anna Young’s decision to

place the Ibo oral tradition within the framework of the Chinese story-telling genre

helps to connect the two cultures through their oral performance art. In several scenes

where there are more actions, the translator will use onomatopoeia to create drum

beats, providing the reader with an aural sound effect. In addition, the translator

employs some rhetorical techniques to bring the image closer to the reader. Another

way of featuring the oral tradition of Achebe’s work is the employment of sentence-

final particles in Chinese to enrich a sense of interpersonal communication. This helps

to convey various tones and emotions that allow readers to fully immerse themselves

in a world that is both remote in difference and close similar in social surroundings.

This all works to present a picture of an African tribe that is both colorful and full of

life, an effect that is in certain respects different from Achebe’s original.

In the description of the characters from the novel, Anna Young sometimes

projects some well-known Chinese characters. For example, Unoka, the father of the

7

main character, maintains a happy-go-lucky attitude toward life and enjoys drinks,

music and companies. In stark contrast to his ambitious son, he worries very little

about gaining a title or achieving success; not even his debt-stricken poverty will stop

him from having a good time. In Anna Young’s translation she here alludes, for the

character of Unoka, to the famous fourth-century poet Tao Yuanming, for the latter

often expressed his contentment with a idyllic life as well as drink and company.

Anna Young’s handling of Unoka instills the work with an interesting perspective:

instead of treating Unoka as a total loser as opposed to his son, there is an element of

sympathy for Unoka’s way of life and it adds more to the conflict of values between

the characters.

The above examples of Anna Young’s translation should not merely be read as

examples of substitution of cultural scenes; rather, the translator’s intention was to

create an image of tribal life that was rich with its unique customs and complex with

its own social structures. In short, Anna Young wanted to dig further into the

seemingly simple language structure used by Achebe and to bring forth, on her own

part, a heightened sense of the depth and richness of African culture. Even though

Anna Young employed a strong Chinese sense in her translation, she also made a great

effort to bring her readers closer to Ibo. It’s understandable that the Ibo terms Achebe

used in his work would appear to be ‘alien’ to most English speakers, and thus the

writer provided a glossary in the end of the book. Our translator could have been

content with using this glossary, yet she was willing to go further by consulting a

native speaker of Ibo. More than that, the translator paid great attention to the choice

of Chinese characters to represent both the meaning and the sound of specific cultural

terms in an “intimate” way of juxtaposing the two cultures. One example of that is her

dealing with the term “obi”, which means ‘the large living quarters of the head of the

family’ according to the glossary provided by Achebe himself. However, in the novel,

Achebe further describes how the main character Okonkwo’s three wives each has a

hut of their own, forming a ‘half-moon’ behind the master’s hut ‘obi.’ In Anna

Young’s translation, she selected two Chinese characters with similar sounds to each

of the two syllables of the term. The two Chinese characters ‘ao bi’ (凹蓽) can be seen

as a symbol: The first character gives the idea of how the master hut was located in

the indented part of the curve formed with other huts, and the second character

indicates the material used for the hut and the building’s simplicity. Anna Young’s

careful choice of words for the culturally specific Ibo terms resulted from her close

reading of the text and a desire to represent the Ibo culture in its details, and when

compared with the two other existing translations in Taiwan, one has to admire Anna

Young for her translation project of bringing the two cultures together.

The Translator’s Interference

8

Translators as real persons have their own agendas and interests, as we are

reminded by Anthony Pym, and hence we will always find interference on the part of

translators in the texts; the translator in this study case is no exception. Anna Young

has only done two translations, Black Like Me by John Howard Griffin and Things

Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. Her choice of translation surely reflects her personal

concerns with racial issues and the status, which no doubt has something to do with

her personal experience as an immigrant to the U.S. in the 1970s and her sympathy

toward other minority groups. Perhaps more importantly, she was motivated by the

destiny shared by peoples undergoing drastic a drastic cultural transformation at a

certain historical moment. In the preface to her translation of Things Fall Apart she

admitted Achebe’s work reminded her of the history of China for the past hundred

years. During this period Chinese culture underwent the severe impact of Western

influences: old values were challenged, there was the disruption of the younger

generation from traditional life, and chaos and confusion came with the new changes.

She noted that she couldn’t help feeling sympathy with the rupture that the tribal

people experienced, which perhaps explains her strategy for translating Achebe’s

novel.

A better understanding of Anna Young helps to explain why she chose to deal with

Achebe’s work with this distinctive strategy. Why did Anna Young turn the simple

language into such a rich and colorful world? One the one hand, she joined Achebe’s

appeal to change the image of Africa as a barbarous and uncivilized land, despite their

having different audiences to address. For Achebe’s part, it was almost a ‘writing

back,’ bringing out the long existing African culture that had been much neglected by

Western writers. For Anna Young’s part, what was more at stake was to overrule the

stereotype of Africa in local Chinese culture, which was and to a large part still is a

result of seeing the world through the point of view of the dominant culture. By the

time Anna Young’s translation was published, Taiwan had transited from an

agricultural society to an industrial one; therefore, the rural scenes in Achebe’s novel

recalled a recent past and generated a sense of nostalgia. Even though the pre-

industrial life was simpler, that society was by no means devoid of liveliness or

energy, which is why Anna Young preferred to elevate the work and bring out the

richness of the Ibo world depicted in the novel in a bid to celebrate African culture.

Bypassing English?

There is no denying that for non-dominant cultures, particularly in the situation

where there is little direct contact between two regions, the most immediate way to

get to know the other side is through the channel of English. Hence, the only African

writers that we in Taiwan know are those whose works have been either written or

translated into English. Furthermore, it is no exaggeration to say that the only

Taiwanese writers or Chinese writers that have been introduced to Africa are also via

9

the path of English. This limitation of cultural exchange is the reality that we have to

live with as non-dominant in the globalized world. With respect to the works on/from

Islamic culture in Taiwan, the majority of them are translated from English, with a

few exceptions that are from French. Under these circumstances, our knowledge and

understanding of the Islamic world is merely a reflection, if not a distortion, from the

perspective of the West, and this phenomenon functions in the fashion of having a

Western interpreter assuming a quasi-omniscient knowledge and mediating between

two separate non-Western cultures. Any translator who sees herself as serving the

aims of cultural communication will have to deal with these issues with heightened

awareness and sensitivity.

Having to resort to English as the easiest channel to reach another non-dominant

culture, a translator will need to engage in a close reading of the text and keep a

distance from English at the same time, always being alert that there might be

something that is being excluded from English. There is one scene in Thing Fall Apart

where a young boy is to be killed. He is told that he will be taken back to his native

village after years of living in Umuofia as a hostage. Totally unaware of his own fate

and feeling uneasy about his homecoming, he starts singing a nursery rhyme.

Although Achebe wrote the book in English, he deliberately left the nursery rhyme in

the Ibo language without ‘translation’ or giving his English readers any hint as to the

content of the song. Achebe’s intention, perhaps, is to leave a space that remains silent

and impenetrable for English readers, but Anna Young, for her part, translates the

nursery rhyme directly from Ibo into Chinese. On the one hand, the translator can

easily be accused of meddling in this affair, for she did break the silence and make the

work more transparent. But on the other hand, Anna Young’s act also reflected the fact

that she was willing to take the trouble. In this case, Anna Young can be called an

intimate reader of the original in the process of cultural communication, or a

busybody from the point of literary poetics, depending on where one stands. Yet,

Anna Young’s merits lie in her attempt to understand the world depicted by Achebe

not just by how it is presented in English, but by going a step further to explore it. To

undermine the blockage effect of English in cross-cultural communication, translators

working between non-dominant cultures should always go a step further and try to

discover more from the text, tracing certain distinctive customs or practices, being

more in sympathy with the problems and challenges that the other non-dominant

culture has to face in adjusting itself to the global whole. This will help the translator

from a non-dominant culture to be more sensitive.

Is it possible to bypass English? Yes and no. Of course there are chances for non-

dominant cultures to have direct contact and we should promote the idea so as to

make the word globalization live up to its name. Yet at the same time, one can not and

should not ignore the reality that English does serve as an easy access to get to know

other cultures.

10

An opposite way for Venuti’s proposed ethics

If one follows Venuti’s idea that dominant cultures should employ foreignization

for translation of cultural others, how would this work in translation be done in non-

dominant cultures? Surely the same criterion doesn’t apply to a non-dominant culture.

As America has become the world’s only superpower and the Anglo-American culture

the dominant force in the globe, the rest of the world can hardly expect to have the

same degree of significance to the dominant culture as the dominant culture is to

them. Venuti has pointed out translation into English tends to conform to certain ideas

or values that fit the mainstream; which for any culture dealing with English means

their unique cultural identities will be toned down to fit their expectations of the

dominant. That is when the first process of diminution takes place. When the non-

dominant work, in adapting itself to the trend of globalization, adjusts its expectations

so as to better accommodate English culture and language as it is, trying to reflect the

dominant ‘as it is’, thus the second process of diminution takes place, only this time it

is a conscious act on the part of the non-dominant culture. It is in these situations that

the non-dominant’s presence as opposed to the dominant is cancelled out twice, in

both directions. Michael Cronin puts it this way:

If translation has traditionally suffered from lack of visibility then there

is a sense in which translators working in minority languages are doubly

invisible at a theoretical level. (Cronin 2003: 140)

If we leave Venuti’s binary of domestication and foreignization aside and focus on his

pursuit of more ethical dealings in translation, shouldn’t the non-dominant at least try

to assert itself in the process of cultural communication from time to time? Naturally,

this idea of reversing Venuti’s proposal of translator’s invisibility to benefit the non-

dominant will probably go against translation norms in non-dominant cultures, just as

Venuti’s appeal for foreignization goes against the norms of Anglo-American culture.

In a bid for non-dominant cultures to keep a balance in the struggle of influence

with the dominant, they can not be content with merely keeping abreast with the

latter; nor can seeking their presence in the dominant culture be the only pursuit in the

process of cultural communication. Instead, the non-dominant needs to work on

establishing its presence as well as asserting its subjectivity in its own cultural

identity. Translation is a zone for two or more cultures to meet; it is therefore a place

for the translator to re-negotiate the relationship between self and other. With the

translator’s interference, the non-dominant culture will not have to lose itself too

quickly to the dominant culture. That is why this paper suggests domestication is a

way to preserve local cultural identity amid the trend of globalization, which is by no

means going against the ethical concerns of Venuti: A different positionality requires a

11

different strategy. To achieve this goal, it is not to say that all translations done in

Taiwan should take an approach similar to that of Anna Young. After all, the

fundamental value of the ‘trial from the experience’ should never be ruled out, and

this applies to any culture around the globe.

Asserting subjectivity through domestication

It is recognized that all translation is shaped according to factors that go beyond

linguistic transposition and that all translators more or less express their subjectivity

in their works, and because of this, one may it can be argued that the issue of

translator’s subjectivity is of little significance. However, to make such a claim is an

underestimation of the translator’s potential as well as a denial of an active role to the

translator. Subjectivity is something that is always living and kicking, but it never

remains stabilized. When facing an outside influence that overpowers the self, one can

opt for conformity or resistance; however, in a globalized world, neither will ensure

the survival of the overpowered. The only way for secure survival will mean adopting

both approaches.

We may take literary translation in Taiwan as an example. The market is not

short of works that conform to the global dominant, and yet, there are only a few

attempts to bring the works closer and juxtapose the two cultures on an equal footing.

In this light, there should be a least some encouragement for the translator to try an

alternative approach and confidently resort to resources provided by her own

language and culture. This will certainly help to destabilize the norm. Anna Young’s

transformed Achebe’s work and presented an African world rich in sound, color and

life, and at the same time, she projected a very traditional Chinese culture onto that

world, reviving a poetic sense of the local literary culture. In reading her translation,

the reader would be moved by the plot as well as the sentiment that had been aroused

by the translator’s sophisticated writing style. Besides, the ability to domesticate a

foreign literature also indicates the fact that the target culture is capable of re-

presenting the work, accommodating all the unique expressions, distinctive use of

languages, particular human experiences, or creative thoughts. In another context,

Spivak talked of looking forward to giving a lecture on Deconstruction at the

University of Jadavpur in Bengali, seeing it as a test case for post colonialism(ibid.:

406). Beneath the surface of the two rather different examples one can find a similar

agenda: apart from arguing the native culture is not in any sense inferior to the more

powerful one, there is an attempt to prove this fact through their distinctive ways of

cross-cultural communication. Anna Young’s translation was not shy about Chinese

identity or her sympathy to Ibo culture. In an ontological sense, her strategy may seem

to betray Achebe’s work because she deviated from the original, but to see things

from a different angle, there is no question that her translation is a resistance to the

strong Anglo-American influence and it is more politically correct.

12

It goes without saying that ‘domestication’ here does not refer to crude and

thoughtless omissions and alterations, but a painstaking work to bring the two parties

together and a will to see things with ‘one’s own eye’ so as to make judgments on

one’s own. Even though this attitude contradicts Venuti’s appeal to the translator’s

visibility, we must allow this for the non-dominant to have a voice to conduct ‘self-

talk’ so as to cultivate a stronger degree of self-awareness. Without a better

understanding and a high confidence in oneself, a non-dominant culture is susceptible

to losing itself in a cultural communication that is far from reciprocal. .

Localization and Domestication

Strange to say that similar cases to Anna Young’s are scarce in the era of

globalization. If one agrees on seeing the 1980s as the beginning of globalization,

why is it that translations of a similar nature, of which Anna Young’s is such an early

example, are so scarce? Indeed examples of translator’s interference are abundant, yet

we have to make a distinction between the act of ‘localization’ and ‘domestication.’

Here ‘localization’ refers to a respond to ‘globalization,’ aiming for the adapting of an

international brand to suit each region’s cultural appropriateness or adding a pinch of

local flavor to win the market through a sense of familiarity. The dubbing of the

American animated sitcom South Park in Taiwan tried to reflect the diversity of

English accents and ethnic backgrounds by adopting different local dialects. This

helps to connect the local audience and provide some amusement. This is a common

approach for people to experience a global commodity in their own ways, and it also

allows people from different regions to participate in a sense of global homogeneity.

Domestication can be seen as a stronger version of localization in which a foreign

work is transplanted and cultivated in the target land. The result of domestication is

that the end product’s identity as a foreign import is often unrecognizable; with its

original character adapted to the target culture, what comes out is an equal

representation of the two forces or a hybrid. To domesticate a foreign work will

require a higher degree of ambition from the part of the translator or that such a norm

exists in the target culture. In Anna Young’s case, her ambition was obvious;

therefore, domestication indicates a stronger desire to assert subjectivity.

Why is it that in the area of globalization there are few translation examples to

demonstrate a domestication strategy in Taiwan? One reason might be that

globalization and localization is a pair force that determines the flow of trade and

technology. Even though what localization offers is a variant as opposed the

globalization, it also offers an illusion that the local is tightly connected with the

global. The locals are thus contented with their situation without a deep understanding

that the so-called ‘connection’ is established purely in an economic sense. That

explains the lack of resistance through the practice of translation. Domestication, on

the other hand, can be a result of self-reflection on one’s situation, a form that

13

reasserts one’s position and identity. Anna Young’s translation, along with a few

other works of similar nature, was produced in a specific cultural political background

in Taiwan. The sense of anxiety in Chinese cultural identity urged some translators to

treat translation as a zone to renegotiate with the world and raise its self image. What

is interesting is that translation seems to be a more effective way than creative writing

to assert subjectivity in the target culture. This is perhaps not something beyond

comprehension. Nowhere can two cultures have a more direct and intensive

confrontation than in the field of translation; where else can a culturally-conscious

person better express their anxiety and display their great expectations as to their own

cultural identity?

In more recent translations in Taiwan, there are examples of the translator’s strong

interference2

. The attempt is to claim a thick translation to the original, but the overall

strategy remains on a pragmatic level with a stress on the language variants and social

identities. More often than not, this kind of interference will lead to an inconsistency

in terms of translation strategy simply because the translator addresses the ‘local,’

rather than the big picture.

The Dominant and the Non-dominant

We have now examined Venuti’s idea for its applicability to the non-dominant, and

now it is only appropriate to conduct the same examination to Chinese culture. For the

language pair of English and Chinese, Anglo-America’s hegemony is no doubt on the

upper hand; so much so that there is still need for Chinese culture to exercise the

power of resistance to it. Yet, when the language pair is of, shall we say, Thai and

Chinese, the latter will clearly be the dominant one. This shows that the role of the

dominant and the non-dominant is a relative one, and as the situation changes, so

should a different strategy be taken. Venuti’s work is valuable for us despite the fact

that it is from the hegemonic center; when we reflect on our cultural linguistic

situation and our dealing with some even less dominant cultures, don’t we also

employ blindness (invisibility) to others? In the Taiwanese publishing market, there is

hardly any literary translation from Thai, a recent exception being The Judgment by

Chart Korbjitti. The attitude toward Southeastern Asia in Taiwan is one of neglect, if

not ignorance. As Chinese enjoys a position as one of the dominant cultures of the

region, we should be careful not to turn a blind eye to the others in the same way as

Anglo-American culture does to other cultures.

It is fair to say that all cultures in the world have to be aware of the dual roles (the

dominant and the non-dominant) they play in the power struggle. In the constant

changing of positions between self and other we have live up to the ethical call to treat

2 Other examples include 杜連魁, a rewrting of The Picture of Dorian Gray, 印度現代短篇小說選, with the translator’s ambition to redirect the attention to Indian literature and to restore Chinese literature through his choice of strategy, as well as 科學怪人, which is translated into Taiwanese.

14

others in the way one wants to be treated. It would be hypocritical to have a double-

standards toward Anglo-American culture on the other one hand and Chinese culture

on the other.

Translation versus Self-reflection

Even though translation is a dual act, each single performance is a uni-

directional. To see the practice holistically, particularly in the era of globalization, we

need to be tolerant of alternative approaches so as to bring out the heteroglossia (in

terms of languages, translation strategies, and the positionalities) of a true global

spirit. Anna Young’s translation has the characteristics of ethnocentrism but also

“hospitality,” which doesn’t fit into any single discourse of translation studies

(perhaps skopos theory is the only exception) but it displays a stern agenda. To better

comprehend her significance, one needs to put her situation into consideration, and

only then can we realize her strategy as both a self-assertion and an ultimate respect

toward a remote culture. One of the risks of translation in the globalized world is a

lack of a self-affirmative act from the non-dominant culture and a failure to recognize

the fact that localization is nothing but a way to prepare the local to adapt itself to the

global whole. The apparent cultural specificity demonstrated in localization attends

largely to the surface only, offering an easy path to losing one’s deeper cultural roots

amid the strong anxiety to conform to a globalized world. Let us refer to Steiner’s

hermeneutic translation procedures. While all translations go through the first two

steps (initial trust and aggression), only some actually implement the latter two

(incorporation and compensation). To be able to incorporate the original that has been

uprooted, the translator will have to resort to their goodwill and respect to the cultural

others in order to preserve the body of the work and embody it in her rendition. With

more care and personal commitment, the translator will then compensate the original

by bringing a spirit to the body of translated work. More translation of a similar nature

should be encouraged. This applies particularly to translation across the non-dominant

cultures, for it points to a way of braving the waves of globalization.

Rethinking Translator’s Invisibilty

Venuti’s idea is much quoted in the field of translation studies, with translator’s

visibility and invisibility, foreignization and domestication as the most frequently

mentioned terms. In contrast, it is to be noted that Venuti does offer minority

languages and cultures some strategies for resistance to Anglo-American culture. In

the chapter ‘Call for Action,’ he wrote:

The ethnocentric violence of translation is inevitable: in the

translating process, foreign languages, texts, and cultures will

always undergo some degree and form of reduction, exclusion,

inscription. Yet the domestic work on foreign cultures can be a

15

foreignizing intervention, pitched to question existing canons at

marginal in the target-language culture, but translate it with a

canonical discourse (e.g. transparency). Or a translator can

choose a foreign text that is canonical in the target-language

culture, but translate it with a marginal discourse (e.g.

archaism). In this foreignizing practice of translation, the value

of a foreign text or a discursive strategy is contingent on the

cultural situation in which the translation in made.(Venuti

1995: 310)

What should be emphasized is the phrase ‘foreignizing intervention,’ a way to

subvert. Even though Venuti called for action to resist the Anglo-American hegemony,

in a bid to break it from its self-destructive translation practice, the minority cultures

or the non-dominant cultures can join these forces. By consciously taking up a

foreign/alien/unfamiliar approach, the cultures outside the Anglo-American hegemony

will have a chance to speak up for themselves in a way they see fit.

16

Reference:

Achebe, Chinua (1992) Things Fall Apart. New York: Knopf.

Appiah, Kwame Anthony (2004) “Thick Translation”, in Venuti (ed) 389-401.

Aveling, Harry (2006) “Ethical Issues in Translation”, Ideya, Vol.8, No.1, September, 73-81.

Baker, Mona (2005). Translation and Conflict. London and New York: Routledge.

Bassneet, S. and Trivedi, H. (eds) (1998) Post-colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London and

New York: Routledge.

Berman, Antoine (1995) Pour Une Critique des Traductions: John Donne. Paris:

Gallimard.

Berndth, Lindfors, (ed.) (1991) Approaches to Teaching Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. New York: The

Modern Language Association of America.

Bielsa, Esperanca (2005) “Globalisation and Translation. A Theoretical Approach”, Language and

Intercultural Communication, Vol. 5: 2, 2005, 131-144.

Borges, Jorge Luis (2004) “The Thousand And One Nights”, in Venuti (ed) 94-108.

Cronin, Michael (2003) Translation and Globalization. London and New York: Routledge.

_____(2006) Translation and Identity. London and New York: Routledge.

Hung, Eva (2005) Translation and Cultural Change: Studies in History, Norms, and Image Projection.

Amsterdam : John Benjamins.

Gyasi, Kwaku A. (1999) “Writing as Translation: African Literature and the Challenges of Translation”,

Research in African Literatures 3:2. 75-87.

Niranjana, Tejaswini (1992) Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context.

Berkeley/Los Angeles/Oxford: University of California Press.

Spivak, Gyatri Chakravorty (2004) “The Politics of Translation”, in Venuti (ed) 369-389.

17

Venuti, Lawrence (ed.) (1992) Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London and

New York: Routledge.

_____ (1995) The Translator´s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York:

Routledge.

_____ (1998) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference. London and New York:

Routledge.

_____ (ed) (2004) The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge.

_____(2005) “Translation, History, Narrative”, Meta/Meta, Volume 50, numéro 3, août 2005, 800-816.

楊安祥 譯《支離破碎》。台北：商務印書館，1970。

Websites:

Rollason, Christopher (2004) “Translating a Transcultural Text - Problems and Strategies: On the

Spanish Translation of Vikram Chandra's 'Love and Longing in Bombay'

http://www.fl.ul.pt/est2004

18