week 7

To which extent is Lawrence Venuti’s Foreignizing Approach to Translation is Estranging?

To a certain degree, the so-called fluency in any kind of translated work is the criteria which makes it acceptable to the eyes of the readers, critics, reviewers, professionals, publishing house owners, and so forth in a given target society. Still, it is surprising to see how a fluent translation, in other words, a translucent translation appropriated –or even naturalized– according to the taste of domestic values, is perceived as a repercussion of the foreign author’s own poetics and intentions, and moreover, allows the reader of a target culture to enjoy the taste of the original work. However, fluency in a translated text not only impedes the translator from reflecting his/her style, aesthetics and world view on the translated work, but also peels away the peculiarities of the source text hence the socio-cultural elements which can enrich the target culture to some degree. The prevailing opinion regarding the fluency in a translated work has been one of the most fundamental aspects of the American translation scholar Lawrence Venuti’s approach to translation: “The more fluent the translation, the more invisible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text” (1994: 16). Venuti’s statement also reflects how the scholar himself puts emphasis on the significance of the foreign text; thereby he, in the words of Susan Bassnett, “calls for translator-centred translation, insisting that the translator should inscribe him/herself visibly into the text.” (1998: 25).

Venuti’s call for a translator-centred translation is indicative of scholar’s advocacy of the choices of the translator in a given translation project. In this sense, one may think of Venuti’s approach similar to the translation scholars (i.e. Katharina Reiss) who regard translation as a decision making process. What distinguishes Venuti’s approach from the ones of the other translation theorists is Venuti’s (re)evaluation of the notions of domestication and foreignization which have their very roots in the theories of the German scholar Friedrich Schleirmacher in the sense of “reader-to-author” and “author-to-reader” approaches (cf. Robinson: 2002 228). Venuti advocates foregnizing, resisting, and estranging translation against domestication in order to raise “an opposition to the global hegemony of English”, and regards good translation as minoritizing one which “releases the remainder by cultivating a heterogeneous discourse, opening up the standard dialect and literary canons to what is foreign themselves, to the substandard and marginal” (1998: 10-11). From this point of view, one can see the dual features inherent in Venuti’s approach to the study and practice of translation: favouring the source text for the sake of the target text, or to put it more clearly; Venuti, while being source-oriented in theory, in practice, actually develops a target-oriented approach.

In order to support his arguments regarding the notion of minorizing translation along with resisting translation, Venuti gives a coherent example, namely, his own translation of the nineteenth-century Italian writer Tarchetti’s novel Fosca. Venuti’s foreignizing strategy includes using archaic words and mixing Britishisms with the contemporary American language. In addition to that, by employing paratextual materials (i.e. an introduction), Venuti aimed at showing right from the start what his intention was to the reader/s. In this respect, Venuti’s approach –precisely speaking, the way he develops his arguments with respect to the study and practice of translation– evokes the early translation theoreticians, such as Etienne Dolet and John Dryden who used their own experiences during the course of building their ideas (cf. Robinson:2002 95-97, 171-175).

Even though Venuti’s main points of arguments stem from the notions of fluency and foreignization versus domestication, the extension and the impacts of his ideas on the research done on the study and practice of translation was enormous. Yet, how Venuti regards “fluency” merits further attention. Venuti, as Douglas Robinson argues, “doesn’t seem to be interested in exploring where the ethos of fluency come from, what social needs might have motivated its formation and given it ideological pride of place” (1997: 99). Within this context, one may think how Venuti takes fluency for granted, and in a way, merely uses this fact –indeed it is a fact– as a point of commencement in order to develop his arguments. Similarly Venuti, while putting forward his criteria regarding the (marginal) literary works to be translated, looks as if he is neglecting the works pertaining to contemporary literature which to a certain degree might comprise peripheral features when compared to the ones that Venuti regards as marginal.

When Venuti’s theoretical writing is read with his foreignizing approach in mind, one can infer how the notion of fluency which the scholar draws heavily upon becomes one of the most problematic aspects of his approach. Venuti’s theoretical writings are written in a fluent manner; so fluent that one might even become suspicious how the scholar himself advocates a foreignizing translation strategy. When looked from the vantage point of view of how the thoughts in human brain are reflected (by means of being subject to many changes) to the act of writing, one can regard how the act of writing itself becomes a sort of translation. And in this sense, Venuti’s theoretical writings become the translations within the academic system. Indeed, when Venuti’s writing style is taken into account, one can see how it reads fluently and lacks of the estranging, alienating, foreignizing, and resisting style which the scholar himself puts momentous emphasis on. From this perspective, one can infer how Venuti adheres to the academic discourse and refrains from developing a peculiar style (one thinks of Toury here) which can go hand in hand with his theoretical assumptions.

On the whole, Lawrence Venuti’s illuminative approach to the study and practice of translation is indeed a fruitful one –and if can be put into practice– can enhance the target culture to a certain degree. Furthermore, when one thinks of the idea/s of Venuti regarding the importance of marginal literary works –although his definition of marginal and peripheral should either be extended or clarified– can be a useful tool in terms of introducing literary components in a target culture. Moreover, the empirical data which will these translation products will provide, might be the subject of descriptive studies that can be undertaken within the realm of Translation Studies.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bassnett, Susan, “When is a Translation not a Translation?” in, Bassnett Susan and Lefevere, André (eds.), Constructing Cultures, Multilungual Matters, Clevedon, 1998, 25-40

Robinson, Douglas (ed.) Western Translation Theory: from Herodotus to Nietzsche, St. Jerome, UK, 2002

Robinson, Douglas, What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions, The Kent State University Press, USA, 1997

Venuti, Lawrence, “The Translator’s Invisibility: The Evidence of Reviews”, In Other Words: Journal of the Translator’s Association, No: 4, 1994, pp. 16-22

Venuti, Lawrence, The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference, London-New York: Routledge, 1998