A Postcolonial –Poststructuralist Approach

Translation and the Cultural Dimension

A Postcolonial –Poststructuralist Approach

Abstract

This paper aims at investigating the importance of the cultural dimension in translation in the aftermath of the emergence of postcolonial and poststructuralist approaches as two significant strategies that can be utilized in translation theory and practice. It surveys and analyzes the recent developments in translation studies vis-à-vis postcolonial and poststructuralist perspectives. It shows how postcolonial translation theorists have different views as to who controls translation work across-culturally: the target-language culture or the ideology of a few hegemonic powers. It also shows how Derrida’s original theory of deconstruction and his pioneering work on translation have opened new horizons for postcolonial theorists.

Writing in the early twentieth century, the American linguist Edward Sapir put forward what is called the “relativity hypothesis” which postulates that every language imposes on its speakers a different world view. What follows from this hypothesis is that intercultural communication is hard if not impossible. As Sapir puts it:

No two languages are sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same social reality. The world in which different societies live are distinct worlds not merely the same world with different labels attached.

(Sapir ١٩٥٦: ٦٩)

Likewise, Benjamin Lee Whorf (١٩٤٠) asserted that his experience of American and Hopi culture suggested to him that the cultures and thought processes were markedly different because their languages were so different. This led him to establish what he called the “linguistic relativity principle” which means that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars toward different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world.

(Whorf, ١٩٥٦: ٢٢١)

In other words, language was viewed as having a direct influence on thought; thought is in the grip of language.

However, Sapir’s and Whorf’s strong views have been met with great reservations especially by the proponents of the cultural model in translation who define meaning in terms of its cultural fields and contexts. For them language is culture and translation is the interpretation and rendering of the worldview of one people or nation to another. Even more, Chomskyan grammar, as Traugott and Pratt observe, “stresses language as a psychological entity with universal characteristics, rather than as a culture-specific entity” (١٩٨٠: ١٠٩).

Recognizing the radical differences among languages and cultures, Eugene Nida (١٩٦٤:٢) put forward the view that despite all the differences that may hinder one to communicate adequately in one language what has been said originally in another, “that which unites mankind is much greater than that which divides”. Accordingly, there is a basis for communication even among disparate cultures (Ibid. ٢). Before Nida made this often quoted pronouncement, Roman Jakobson had argued that all human experience is linguistically conveyable across cultures (١٩٥٩: ٢٣٢). Indeed, all translators have always been aware of the various problems posed by linguistic and cultural differences. Nevertheless, they have been practising translating against all the odds. For example, when early Arab translators were faced with great difficulties emanating from wide linguistic and cultural gaps, they borrowed many words from foreign languages or provided extensive notes to the translated texts to explain any problems arising from cultural differences. Thus, the Arabic terms “musiqa” (music) and “falsafa” (philosophy), for example, have foreign origins, as they did not exist in Arabic when Arab translators tried to render the original foreign terms into Arabic. These terms and the like were first borrowed from foreign languages and were later naturalized in the Arabic language. Moreover, instead of following a word-for-word translation, they often opted for rendering the spirit rather than the letter of the text, which helped them overcome obstacles resulting from widely separate cultures (Shomali ١٩٩٦: ٧-٩; ١٥٧-١٥٨). It is also noticeable that in the interest of cultural or national identity, most languages tend to prefer coining to foreign borrowings or transfers.

Modern translation theorists such as Catford (١٩٦٥) Nida (١٩٦٤) Savory (١٩٥٨), New Mark (١٩٨٨), Wills (١٩٨٢) and Lefévere (١٩٩٢) have underscored the fact that translators need not only language competence in two languages but also a good knowledge of the cultures of the languages concerned.

For them, cultural gaps should not hinder the attempts to translate across languages for these gaps can be narrowed and cultural objects or concepts can be matched in one way or another. To facilitate the translation process, they have suggested various solutions such as using componential analysis, applying case grammar to translation, using the most appropriate method of cultural transposition such as literal translation, transference, cultural borrowing, calque, communicative translation and cultural transplantation as well as utilizing the techniques of semiotics, pragmatics and other relevant reighbouring disciplines (see Sandor Hervey and Ian Higgins ١٩٩٢; ٢٨-٤٠). As a matter of fact, translation studies, as Susan Bassnett (١٩٩٢) points out, brings together work in a variety of fields including linguistics, literature, psychology, anthropology and above all, cultural studies.

The objective of this paper is to investigate the problem of translating across cultural boundaries from a predominantly postcolonial/postructuralist perspective. Drawing upon these two approaches, the paper intends to explore recent developments in translation across-culturally over the past ٢٠ years or so.

Since the ١٩٨٠s, a kind of postcolonial/poststructuralist branch of translation studies has been focusing attention on the question of ideology and the role it plays in shaping the translation activity worldwide. One of the main questions raised by the proponents of this approach is: Who controls translation? Actually, this question has been answered differently by two opposing groups of theorists, even though some of them, like André Lefevere (١٩٩٢), has contributed to both sides of the argument as we shall see later. The first group, which is best represented by Susan Bassnett (١٩٩٢), Gideon Toury, ١٩٩٥) and Adnré Lefévere (١٩٩٢), has been exploring the impact of the target-language system on what

gets translated. The second group, best represented by Lawrence Venuti (١٩٩٥), Richard Jacquemond (١٩٩٢), Douglas Robinson (١٩٩٧) and partially by André

Lefévere, has been dealing with the impact of colonization and Western hegemony on cultural transfers across cultural barriers. While the first group believes that translation is largely controlled by the target culture (mostly third world countries), the second group views translation as being dominated by first world countries, particularly Britain and America.

Arguing that translation studies have shifted attention from the study of translatability and rule-giving translation theory to a more descriptive approach to translation, Susan Bassnett points out that the concentration now is on intercultural communication, acculturation and history of translation (١٩٩١: xiixiii).

For her, the “old hackneyed evaluative approach” has given much ground to what she calls the “manipulation approach” focusing on the fortunes of the text in the target culture (Ibid.). In this way, much attention has shifted from the linguistic elements of the target text to the reception of the source text in the target culture. Bassnett concludes that “translation studies have begun to lose its overly European focus” (xiv). Instead of being Euro-centric, translation studies has been developing rapidly in third–world countries, including, of course, the Arab world. It is this rapid development and all-inclusive expansion of translation outside Europe that apparently leads Bassnett to maintain that the target–language culture has now greater leverage in determining the activity of translation around the world. As a consequence to this trend, translators are expected to take into their consideration the cultural environment of the target language before embarking on their translations. It is also necessary to look differently at the world and to reconsider the ideals and the value systems of the source language and their acceptability in the target-language culture. In short, the whole theory of translation studies has been revised in the light of the principles and techniques of post-colonialism which, among other things, call for a reappraisal of the relationship between the colonizing powers and their former colonies.

Postcolonialists believe that the imperialism of the West has left its indelible imprint on the life of the East which has been marginalized through the power of discourse, to use the words of the French philosopher Michel Focault

(١٩٧٢). Inspired by Focault’s (١٩٧٢: ١٣٣) conception of how discourse constitutes power, postcolonial theorists have begun to see the translation scene as being dominated by the concepts and control of a more powerful culture over a less powerful one. According to Focault, certain discourses have shaped different forms of knowledge to the extent that they are passed as the “truth”. In this way, the dominant discourse has succeeded in subjugating, marginalizing and even silencing the “Other”.

Focault’s The Archeology of knowledge, (١٩٦١) Frantz Fanon’s The

Wretched of the Earth (١٩٦١) and Edward Said’s Orientalism (١٩٧٨) and

Culture and Imperialism (١٩٩٣) constitute the groundwork for all anti-colonial studies. The general belief among postcolonialist theorists is that as colonization encompasses the transformation of the social consciousness, decolonolization must involve not only the liberation of the land but also the liberation of the mind. By working through some ingrained sets of so-called “facts”, the dominant force controls the cultural system, the ideology of a dominated force. The only solution for this problem is that the dominated power must pull itself up and assert its own identity. In other words, third-world countries are seen as trying to preserve their indigenous cultures, and to put up tough resistance to any form of cultural invasion. This is why such cultures have been looked at as controlling intercultural translations the world over, assuming that a marginalized culture tends to translate more works than a more central, more influential, one.

In his book, Translating Literature, André Lefevere (١٩٩٢) explores, among other things, the reception and integration of a source language text in a

target–language text. Arguing that translation is a kind of “acculturation”,

Lefévere (١٩٩٢: ١٢) asserts:

Translation can teach us about the wider problem of acculturation, the relation

among different cultures that is becoming increasingly important

for the survival of our planet, and former attempts at acculturation-translation

can teach us about translation.

In his study, Lefevere investigates the relations among different cultures over the

ages including the purposes of translations, the readership and the way

translation affects the people of the target culture. He argues that ideology

determines what can be translated: “Whether an audience is reading the Bible or

other works of literature, it often wants to see its own ideology and its own

universe of discourse mirrored in the translation.” (١١٨). In other words, the

target–language readership tries to create the world in its own image, translating

only what fits in with its own ideology and cultural system. Lefevere goes on to

say that throughout different periods of human history, different cultures have

been trying the necessary amendments to the translated texts, omitting, adding or

adapting to their needs what they deem necessary (١١٨-١٢٠). In other words, the

target –language audience, whether it belongs to a “superior” or to an “inferior”

culture, imposes its will on what can or should be translated (Ibid. ١١٦) and

consequently controls the translation practice.

For the proponents of the cultural approach, translations are not made in

a vacuum; translators operate under ideological constraints that converge to

determine the selection of texts, the stratigies of translating and the outcome of

translation activity. As it happens, translators are often faced with two

conflicting loyalties: the source text on the one hand (author), and the target

language/culture on the other (reader). In his studies of culture and its relation to

Translation and the Cultural Dimension A Postcolonial –Poststructuralist Approach

٤٨

translation, Lefevere (١٩٩٢) cites various instances throughout history which

show how translations were shaped and modified by ideological considerations.

For example, many translators of the classics state that they took grant liberties

in their translations of their sources, modifying, expanding or cutting short the

original to fit the expectations of their target readership and to conform to the

requirements of their patrons or commissioners. Another example cited by

Lefevere is the French translator of Richardson’s Pamela whom he quotes as

saying:

I have suppressed English customs where they may appear shocking to other

nations, or made them conform to customs prevalent in the rest of Europe …

To give the reader an accurate idea of my work, let me must say, in

conclusion, that the seven volumes of the English edition, which would

amount to fourteen volumes in my own, have been reduced to four (١٩٩٢:

١١٨).

An equally interesting example of how idealogy impacts translation is that of

Carlyle, an Early English Arabist in the ١٩th century, omitting the word diman

“dung heap” from his translation because “it is hardly what a Victorian translator

would regard as proper and definitely not as poetic” (١٢٧). And finally, it is

worth mentioning the well-known example of Fitzgerald’s translation of the

Persian poet, Omar Khayyam, in which the translator tried to “rewrite the source

text or to improve on the original to make it conform to the Western literary

conventions and cultural norms of the time.

Actually, Lefeveres definition of ideology refers to the translator’s

ideology or the ideology imposed upon the translator by his community, culture

or by his “patronage.” Lefevere defines “patron” as the person, the people or

institution who commission or publish translation (١٩٩٢: ١١٦-١١٧). In Lefever’s

view, ideology and current poetics join forces to dictate the translation strategy

and the solution to the problems incurred. A good example given by Lefevere to

illustrate how ideology affects language use and translation is the various

euphemistic translations of some “taboo” words in classical literature. On

encountering such terms, argues Lefevere, translators often resort to euphemistic

words or expressions to secure acceptance in their culture and to avoid any

embarrassment they may cause. He goes on to say that in addition to giving

euphemestic terms, translators also often resort to glossing and to justificatory

notes.

All the above mentioned instances demonstrate the important role that

ideology plays in determining and shaping the translation outcome and even

language use. Such rewriting and reshaping, before and after the translation act,

in Lefever’s view, boils down to ideological pressures on the translator and the

translation.

Indeed, the question of ideology and its relation to translation and

language has been a central issue in recent translation theory and translation

Damascus University Journal, Vol.٢٠, No. (٣+٤), ٢٠٠٤ Tawfiq Yousef

٤٩

studies. For instance, in the interests of cultural and national integrity, some

translations try to reverse the effects of borrowing (negative ones), requiring that

foreign borrowings be replaced by lexical terms derived from forms in the native

language. Arabic is a good example. For instance, instead of using such foreign

terms as “computer” and “fax”, Arabic prefers to use “Hasub” and “nasoukh”

instead, as these equivalents derive from Arabic origin. Another interesting

instance of how ideology affects language is the well-known attempt of the

French government in the ١٩٦٠s to replace recent English borrowings such as

“hot dog” “weekend” and “drugstore” with French equivalents.

Actually, Lefévere makes other insightful remarks about how a target

culture receives new translations from a source culture. In his opinion, though

the target culture may at first resist translations from a dominant source culture,

it eventually accepts into its ideological system foreign elements from a different

culture. Citing Victor Hugo’s ideas about a culture’s initial negative reaction to

translation, Lefévere argues that cultures try to protect their own world against

images or notions that are radically different “either by adaptations or by

screening them out” (١٢٥). Indeed, all cultures exercise a great deal of

censorship when translating from other cultures, adding, inserting or omitting

material that would render the text conform to the norms of acceptability,

comprehensibility, suitability and even the prejudices of the target-language

culture.

On the other side of this controversial debate about who controls

translation, there is a group of translation theorists who maintain that it is the

hegemony of some powerful countries that determines and shapes translation

work. As mentioned earlier, Lefevere seems to be subscribing to this view as

apparent in his survey of translation practice over a long spectrum of

intercultural communication. As he puts it: “Members of ‘superior’ cultures tend

to look down on members of ‘inferior’ cultures and to treat cavalierly the

literature of those cultures” (١١٩). Thus, as any foreign culture imposes its own

restrictions on transcultural transfers, so does a “superior” culture impose its

constraints on what can be translated from what it sees as an “inferior” culture,

thus adding yet another type of constraints to those imposed initially by the

target-language culture qua culture. Indeed, one of the most important points

raised by Lefevere is the impact that the norms of the target culture have on the

attempts to translate from another culture, especially when the source culture

happens to see itself as a “superior” culture. As Lefevere (١٩٩٢: ١٢٠) puts it:

The attitude that uses one’s own culture as the yardstick by which to measure

all other cultures is known as ethnocentricity … All cultures have it but that

only those who achieve some kind of superiority flaunt it. An ethnocentric

attitude allows members of a culture to remake the world in their own image,

without first having to realize how different the reality of that world is. It

Translation and the Cultural Dimension A Postcolonial –Poststructuralist Approach

٥٠

produces translations that are tailored to the foreign culture exclusively and

that screen out whatever does not fit in with it.

Lefévere cites the case of Arabic texts when there are attempts to translate them

into English as a telling example of Western cultural ethnocentricity. He argues

that translation from Arabic into Western languages have not been so widespread

simply because in Arabic there is no epic tradition and the lyric is predominant,

contrary to the situation in Western culture where the epic has always been

accorded the highest status among Western literary traditions which rank the

lyric on a lower scale. Lefevere explains this phenomenon by asserting that it is a

matter of poetics in the sense that the qasida, the classical genre of Arabic poetry

looks totally out of place in Western poetics as it is measured by the yardstick of

the Western literary tradition from which it is different (١٢٩-١٣٠). One may add

that it is a poetics embedded in ethnocentricity.

Like Lefévere, Douglas Robinson (١٩٩٧) and Richard Jacquemond

(١٩٩٢) have dealt with the question of translatability from a more powerful

source culture into a less powerful target culture. Robinson (١٩٩٧: ٢٣٤) rightly

points that a dominated culture will invariably translate far more of a hegemonic

culture than the latter from the former. Both Robinson and Jacquemond are

interested in the power differentials between cultures, that is the hegemonic or

the dominant versus the less powerful or the dominated cultures. As Robinson

explains, Jacquemond maintains that the translator from a hegemonic culture into

a dominated one actually “serves the hegemonic culture in its desire to integrate

its cultural products into the dominated culture.” (ibid: ٢٣٤). Obviously, this

phenomenon serves as a good example of how the source hegemonic culture

controls translation. Even more, wherever a target culture desires to translate

from the source culture, that desire is shaped and controlled by the source culture

itself. By the same token, the translator from a dominated culture into a

hegemonic one serves the objectives of the hegemonic culture by complying

with its dictates and norms of translatability. The fact is, as Jacquemond asserts,

“a hegemonic culture will only translate those works by authors in a dominated

culture that fit the former’s preconceived notions of the latter” (qtd. in Robinson

١٩٩٧: ٢٣٥). A good case in point is the translation of Nawal Sa’dawi’s novels

from Arabic into English. It is true that Sa’dawi comes first among all modern

Arab writers, including Najib Mahfouz, in being the most translated Arab writer.

Whether this popularity among Western readership is based on literary merits or

some other factors is, of course, a controversial matter. Nevertheless, one can

safely say that part of her novels’ popularity is their feminist orientation, their

overtly sexual overtones and their treatment of some themes in Arab culture that

are appealing to Western readers.

One of the most succinct introductions to postcolonial tranlsation

studies has been offered by Lawrence Venuti (١٩٩٥). Basing his argument on

Damascus University Journal, Vol.٢٠, No. (٣+٤), ٢٠٠٤ Tawfiq Yousef

٥١

recent statistical figures, Venuti (١٩٩٥: ١٤) argues that “translation patterns point

to a trade imbalance with serious cultural ramifications”. He further explains that

the ratio of British and American book production to the number of translations

is in direct apposition to the publishing and translation practices in other

countries. British and American book production, he maintains, “increased

fourfold since the ١٩٥٠s, but the number of translations remained roughly

between ٢ and ٤ percent of the total” (١٢). In Venuti’s view hardly do Anglo-

American publishers publish English-language translations of foreign books

(١٤). This imbalance, he adds, has diverse and far-reaching consequences on

what gets translated. Venuti attributes this situation to the publishers who have

been exploiting Anglo-American hegemony over international translations.

“Foreign publishers,” he maintains, “have exploited the global drift toward

American political and economic hegemony in the postwar period, actively

supporting the international expansion of Anglo-American culture” (١٥). As a

consequence to this trend, many less privileged cultures have been suffering

from cultural marginality and hardly has anything been translated from them into

Anglo-American culture.

Venuti’s views are clearly embedded in postcolonial poststructuralist

discourse. Apart from the studies of Said (١٩٧٨), Fanon (١٩٦١) and Focault

(١٩٧٢), Venuti draws upon the theory of deconstruction expounded by Jacques

Derrida in the early ١٩٨٠s. According to Derrida’s deconstructive theory, all

discourse is subject to the play of “difference” (see Derrida ١٩٨١; Raman Selden

١٩٨٩; Terry Eagleton ١٩٩٦) and consequently meaning is deferred and

indeterminate. Venuti defines translation as “a process by which the chain of

signifiers that constitutes the source language is replaced by a chain of signifiers

in the target-language text which the translator provides on the strength of an

interpretation” (١٧). Apparently taking his cue from Derrida’s idea that meaning

is always differential and deferred, never present as an original unity, Venuti

goes on to say that

meaning is a plural and contingent relation, not an unchanging

unified essence, and therefore a translation cannot be judged according to

mathematics-based concepts of semantic equivalence or one-to-one

correspondence. (١٨).

Accordingly, appeals to notions of “fidelity” and “freedom” or canons of

accuracy in translation will not do. Relying on this argument, venuti concludes:

“The validity of a translation is established by its relationship to the cultural and

social conditions under which it is produced and read” (١٨). Obviously, such a

poststructuralist view of translation foregrounds the cultural dimension at the

expense of the linguistic one.

Translation and the Cultural Dimension A Postcolonial –Poststructuralist Approach

٥٢

What is more interesting in Venuti’s approach is his distinction between

two different translation strategies: “domestication” and ‘foreignization”. For

him, domestication occurs when the foreign text undergoes a forcible process of

modification and adaptation to meet the ideology, the canons, and the taboos and

codes of the target-language culture. Accordingly, the foreign text is

reconstituted “in accordance with values, beliefs and representations that preexist

in the target language, always configured in hierarchies of dominance and

marginality, always determining the production, circulation, and reception of

texts” (١٨). It is worth mentioning here that Venuti is referring to a hegemonic

target-language culture rather than to a dominated culture, more specifically the

Anglo-American culture. In his opinion, when a hegemonic culture does

translate works produced by a dominated culture, these works are subjected to a

vigorous process of sifting and scrutiny that makes them look esoteric,

mysterious and untranslatable to the target–language readership in contrast with

the accessibility to the masses of the works translated by a dominated culture

from a hegemonic one. This strategy is similar to what Lefévere calls

“ethnocentricity” (١٢١).

Against this strategy, Venuti posits the method of foreignization

according to which the values and the norms of foreign texts are kept unchanged

as much as possible so that the recipient moves towards them. Contrary to the

domesticating method which is ethnocentric, the foreignizing method is

ethnodeviant, resisting any reduction of the foreign text to target-language

cultural values, sending the reader towards them. In this way, a cultural “other”

is preserved. However, for Venuti, this cultural otherness of the translated text

“can never be manifested in its own terms, only in those of the target language”

(٢٠) Hence, the “foreign” text’s value will be contingent on its reception in the

target language and in this way disrupting the values of the target culture. As

Venuti puts it:

In its effort to do right abroad, this translation method must do wrong at home,

deviating enough from native norms to stage an alien reading experience –

choosing to translate a foreign text excluded by domestic literary canons, for

instance, or using a marginal discourse to translate it. (٢٠)

On the other hand, foreignizing translation can serve, as Venuti explains, as a

measure to stave off the “hegemonic English-language nations and the unequal

cultural exchanges in which they engage their global others” (٢٠). It is welcomed

now more than ever before in the wake of the recent upsurge in postcolonial and

poststructural developments in philosophy, literary criticism and psychoanalysis.

From a postcolonial perspective, foreignizing translation is a form of resistance

against imperialism, cultural hegemony and ethnocentricity.

Damascus University Journal, Vol.٢٠, No. (٣+٤), ٢٠٠٤ Tawfiq Yousef

٥٣

In the light of postcolonial and poststructuralist theories, it is easy to

find fault with policies, procedures and practices traditionally held to be true and

tenable. Postcolonial theorists assume that the world is in a process of recovering

from the suppression and subjugation of the colonial period which was based on

imperialism and the marginalization of the other. They are, as mentioned earlier,

keen on liberating the world from the impact of colonization. In the postcolonial

discourse, the colonized or the other strives to become the subject. By

deconstructing the dominant discourse, postcolonial and poststructuralist

theorists try to reconstruct the relationship between the dominant and the

dominated. Here again, the ideas of Jacques Derrida concerning difference

become of great significance. As well known, Derrida’s deconstructive strategy

is based on reversing the hierarchical order of a specific piece of discourse by

discerning a chink, a weak point in the supposedly impeccable discourse. The

idea is to show that these hierarchies are the products of a particular system of

meaning and can therefore be easily undermined. The result is that the other side

of the hierarchical pair is proven to be as essential as what is considered the

origin. In Derridean terms, it is difficult to think of an origin without wanting to

go back beyond it.

Deconstruction can, therefore, be used to undermine the discourse upon

which ideologies are based. As Terry Eagleton points out, “ideologies like to

draw rigid boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not, between self

and non-self, truth and falsity … central and marginal, surface and depth” (١١٥).

Consequently, they become easily vulnerable to deconstructive analysis which

tries to capitalize on the weak points, the impasses of meaning that texts in

general are said to be replete with. Deconstruction challenges the idea of a fixed

centre, a hierarchy of meanings or a solid foundation and it is these notions

which are put into question by Derrida’s deconstructive principles of endless

differing and deferring.

Derrida’s views form the core of poststructuralism and play a key role

in postcolonialism. Some translation theorists have embraced Derrida’s notions

to reappraise the situation of translation studies in the postcolonial era. Susan

Bassnett, for example, proposes a new approach to translation markedly different

from the nineteenth-century notion of translation which was, in her view, “based

on the idea of a master-servant relationship paralleled in the translation process”

(xv).

As both Lefévere and Bassnett point out, this meant that translators

either “improved” and “civilized” the text or approached it with humility, (see

Lefévere ١١٨-١١٩; Bassnett xv). Bassnett proposes that the new approach should

be linked to the view of translation propounded by Derrida in his article in

Difference in Translation (translated ١٩٨٥). In that article, she says, “Derrida

Translation and the Cultural Dimension A Postcolonial –Poststructuralist Approach

٥٤

argues that the translation process creates an ‘original’ text, the opposite of the

traditional position whereby the ‘original’ is the starting point” (xv). Apparently,

such a deconstructive view has signalled the appearance of what has been called

the poststructuralist branch of translation studies that sees the relationship

between target-language and source-language texts in terms of Derrida’s notions

of difference already outlined in this discussion. One of the most obvious

manifestations of this new outlook can be seen in the fact that translation studies

has begun to lose its overly European and Anglo-American focus. Indeed,

translation studies have been developing rapidly in many parts of the world

outside Europe and the USA. Moreover, postcolonial studies have contributed to

the expansion of translation byond traditional linguistic equivalence to

encompass new areas connected with the recent themes of ideology, intercultural

communication and their ramifications.

This poststructuralist approach to translation is clearly evident in

Venuti’s comprehensive study of the history of translation (١٩٩٧), especially in

his introductory chapter where he attempts to deconstruct Nida’s approach to

translation. Drawing upon Derrida’s idea of difference, Venuti argues that Nida’s

approach “masquerades as true semantic equivalence when it in fact inscribes the

foreign text with a partial interpretation, partial to English-language values,

reducing if not simply excluding the very difference that translation is called on

to convey” (٢١). Venuti contends that Nida’s concept of “dynamic equivalence”

which professedly aims at “complete naturalness of expression and tries to relate

the receptor to modes of behaviour relevant within the context of his own

culture” actually involves domestication translation. The fact is that relevance to

the target-language culture is established in the translation process (not initially

in the source-language text) by replacing source-language features which are not

recognizable with target – language ones that are” (٢١). In other words, the aim

of producing in the ultimate receptor a response similar to that of the original

receptor can be achieved only by imposing the English – language cultural

values on the recipient culture. In venuti’s view, this results in “masking a basic

distinction between the source- and target– language texts which puts into

question the possibility of eliciting a ‘similar’ response” (٢١).

Furthermore, Venuti deconstructs the notion of “accuracy” propounded

by Nida and other theorists of the Anglo – American tradition. Challenging

Nida’s claim that the dynamically equivalent translation “means thoroughly

understanding not only the meaning of the source text but also the manner in

which the intended receptors of a text are likely to understand it in the receptor

language”, Venuti contends that in its attempt to generate an equivalent effect in

the target – language culture, dynamic equivalence translation is initiated and controlled by the target - language culture. Therefore, there is no fair exchange

of information; rather, there is “an appropriation of a foreign text for domestic

purposes” (٢٢) Dynamic equivalence, Venuti concludes, is inherently affected by

“ethnocentric violence” just like any other type of translation process. Thus, by

this kind of Derridean deconstructive analysis, we are shown how Nida’s

concept of dynamic equivalence is contradicted by the exclusionary values of his

cultural elitism. Consequently, Venuti’s approach can be utilized to analyze

other approaches to translation, putting into question many notions which have

been for long circulated as facts and truths, provided that it is not carried to an

extreme. To give only a few examples, such concepts as equivalence, fidelity and

many others have been coming under attack in recent translation studies.

To conclude, translation studies have moved, over the past ٢٠ years or

so, from a traditional concern with linguistic elements and language equivalence

to new areas that foreground the cultural dimension in the translation process.

Postcolonial and poststructuralist approaches have played a key role in bringing

about these new developments. In the postcolonial era several theorists have

been considering the cultural dimension in translation from different and even

opposing perspectives. Basing their argument on the rapid spread of translation

studies and translation activity in third-world countries, some theorists maintain

that it is the target-language culture which controls intercultural translations. By

contrast, a group of theorists who argue that the translations from English into

other languages far exceed the total of translations from any other language into

English maintain that it is the hegemonic powers which control translation crossculturally.

Whether it is the target culture or the hegemonic powers that have the

keys to the transnational transactions on the global level, the fact remains that the

cultural dimension constitutes an integral and perhaps the most essential part of

any translation strategy.

Translation and the Cultural Dimension A Postcolonial –Poststructuralist Approach

٥٦

Bibliography

Bassnett- McGuire, Susan. ١٩٩٢. Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.

First Published ١٩٨٠.

Catford, J.C. ١٩٦٥. A Linguistic Theory of Translation Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Derrida, Jacques. Positions. ١٩٨٢. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

____________. “Le Tour de Babel.” In Joseph F. Graham (ed.) Difference in Translation.

١٩٨٥. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. ١٦٥-٢٠٨.

Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory. ١٩٩٦. London: Blackwell. First Published ١٩٨٣.

Fanon, Frantz. ١٩٦١. The Wretched of the Earth. Harmondsworth. Penguin.

Focault, Michel. The Archeology of Knowledge. ١٩٧٢. London: Tavistoctock

Publications.

Harvey, Sander and Ian Higgins. ١٩٩٢. Thinking Translation. London and New York:

Routledge.

Hatim, B. and I. Mason. ١٩٩٠. Discourse and the Translator. London and New York:

Longman.

Jakobson, Roman. ١٩٥٩. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation” in R.A. Brower (ed.)

١٩٥٩. On Translating. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Kharma, Nayef. ١٩٩٧. Translation. Amman: Al-Quds Open University.

Lefevere, Andre. Translating Literature. ١٩٩٢. New York: The Modern Language

Association of America.

Newmark, Peter. ١٩٨٨. A Textbook of Translation. New York and London: Prentice Hall.

Moore-Gilbert, Brant (ed.). ١٩٩٧. London and New York: Longman.

Nida, Eugene. ١٩٦٤. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Robinson, Douglas. ١٩٩٧. Becoming a Translator. London: Routledge.

Said, Edward. ١٩٧٨. Orientalism. London: penguin.

__________. ١٩٩٣. Culture and Imperialism. London. Chatto and Windus.

Sapir, E. ١٩٢١. Language. New York: Harcourt Brace. Reprint Harvest Books, ١٩٤٩.

Savory, Theodore. ١٩٥٨. The Art of Translation. London: Tonathan Cape.

Selden, Raman. ١٩٨٩. Practising Theory and Reading Literature. New York and London:

Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Shaheen, Mohammad. n.d. Theories of Translation and their Application. Amman: Dar al-

Thaqafa Library.

Shomali, Qustandi. ١٩٩٦. An Introduction to Translation. Jerusalem: Arab Studies

Society.

Shunnaq, Abduallah et al. ١٩٩٨. Issues in Translation. Irbid: Irbid National University

and Jordanian Translators, Association.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Mary Louise Pratt. ١٩٨٠. Linguistics for Students of

Literature. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.

Venuti, Lawrence. ١٩٩٥. The Tronslater’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London

and New York.

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. ١٩٤٠. Language, Thought and Reality. In Selected Writings of

Benjamin Whorf. Ed. John B. Caroll. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press,

١٩٥٦.

Wills, W. ١٩٨٢. The Science of Translation. Tubingen. Narro..

Received ١٧/٦/٢٠٠٢