Norms and translation - Racism, violence and disability in the Finnish (re)translations of Fran

Deane-Cox (2014:9) points out that the social nature of translation as well as the network of social, cultural and political practices influencing translation can be discussed from the per-spective of norms. Deane-Cox (ibid.) further notes that this is due to the popularity gained by Gambier’s (1994:416) argument that translations are reflections of the norms of their time. Re-translation is therefore an update, which is required because of the changes in the audience, their tastes, needs, and competences (Gambier 1994: 413 in Susam-Sarajeva 2003:4). Brownlie

(2006: 150) claims that retranslations are needed because the previous translation is unaccepta-ble, as it no longer fits the contemporary language or ways of thinking and behaving. The ques-tion of what is considered appropriate at a specific place at a specific time is a part of the aca-demic and public debate about (re)translation, and appropriateness is in its turn linked to norms.

Brownlie (2006:150) argues that translations are affected by ideologies and norms of a specific culture at a specific time. According to Brownlie (2006:150), ideologies refer to sets of beliefs whereas norms are rather related to practices. Brownlie (2006:150) further argues that the definition of ‘norm’ is ambiguous. On the one hand, the term is used to refer to what is usual or habitual and, on the other hand, to describe what is acceptable. In Chesterman’s (2007:

357) definition, a norm is a society’s or a community’s sense of what is a correct way to act.

According to this view, a norm always contains a shared idea of appropriateness, and thus a typical practice is not the same thing as a norm. Moreover, a norm is characterized by regularity and intersubjectivity, and a community needs to have the means to criticize those who break norms (Chesterman 2007: 358–359). According to Puurtinen (1995:48), conventions are typical and preferred actions in a given situation. What differentiates them from norms is that ignoring them does not lead to sanctions while breaking a norm does. Norms, in general, are thus more binding and constraining than conventions. However, as Puurtinen (1995: 48) explains, there is not a full agreement on the distinction between a norm and a convention, since one scholar’s definition for a convention can be the same as another scholar’s definition for a norm.

According to Brownlie (2006: 150), the main sets of norms that affect translation of literary texts are literary, linguistic, and translation norms. Thus, translation and the selection of text to be translated is linked to the mainstream views of acceptable or good literature. In the case of children’s literature, translation is influenced by what kind of language and themes are considered appropriate for children. Therefore, the question is not just about translation or lin-guistic norms but also about cultural and social norms.

Toury (2012a:82) has classified translation norms into 1) initial norms, 2) pre-liminary norms and 3) operational norms. Prepre-liminary norms guide the general translation policy as well as the directness of translation. Translation policy refers to the factors that govern the systematic selection of text types and even individual texts that are translated into a language and a culture at a particular time and place. Directness of translations refers to the tolerance of translation from an intermediate language, i.e. other languages than the source text: is it allowed to begin with, and if so, what languages and text types can be or cannot be translated from an

intermediate language? Preliminary norms thus influence what kind of texts are acceptable to be translated. As Chesterman (2007: 360) argues, the strongest preliminary norm determines whether a text can be translated, or more precisely, whether a translation can be published.

The initial norm is connected to the choice of whether the translation follows the norms of the source text and the source text culture or the norms of the target culture and lan-guage (Toury 2012b:170). As Puurtinen (1995:43) notes, the initial norm refers to the overall choice between adequacy and acceptability. The concept of adequacy refers to source-oriented approach, and it is used to describe how accurately the meanings of the source text are repro-duced in the translations. Acceptability, on the other hand is connected to a target-oriented ap-proach, and it refers to whether a translation fits the norms and conventions of the target lan-guage and culture (Toury 2012:171; Puurtinen 1995:23, 41). Chesterman (2007: 360) reminds that the decision regarding the initial norm depends on several factors, such as the purpose of the translation, the commissioner’s expectation, and prevailing translation tradition. It needs to be remembered that different text types may favor or require different norms. For instance, the initial norm governing the translation of legal texts and advertisements may not be the same.

Operational norms govern the translator’s decisions during the translation pro-cess (Toury 2012b:172). Toury (2012b:172–173) makes a distinction between matricial norms and textual-linguistic norms. Matricial norms regulate how the linguistic material of the trans-lation is presented, for example, the way a text is segmented into passages. Textual-linguistic norms control the selection of the source-text material that will be formulated into the target text. In other words, they determine what parts of the source text are included in the translation.

Toury (2012b:172–173) further argues that some textual-linguistic norms can apply to transla-tions in general or to a specific text type. In addition, some norms may be the same that govern the production of non-translation text, but that is not necessarily the case.

As Toury (2012b: 171) points out, in actual instances of translation norms are used systematically, but not absolutely. This means that if the selected initial norm dictates that the norms of the source text are followed, there may nevertheless be instances in which the norms of the target language are followed.

14 2.5 Changing and coexisting norms

As Venuti (2004:28), Van Coillie (2006:132) as well as Chesterman (2007: 362) remind, trans-lation norms are learnt from educational institutions, authors, publishers, and other possible agents involved in translation training and the translation industry. Because norms are inher-ently social and cultural constructs, they are not constant or static. The changing of norms re-quires, however, that they are made visible and contested. The same institutions that maintain and teach translation norms can also be the ones who question, transform, negotiate and chal-lenge them (Toury 2012b: 174). The change may be gradual, which means that several norms can coexist or compete with one another. Toury (2012b:175) makes a distinction between dom-inant, prevailing mainstream norms, remnants of previous norms, and new norms that are form-ing.

Puurtinen (1995:44) points out that translation norms often change together with the constraints and convention of the target literature. As an example, she mentions the Finnish translations of William Faulkner’s novels. In the earliest versions of the 1940s, the translated text matched the traditional Finnish idea of what a novel is, and the language did not aim to create similar effects as the modernist techniques, such as deviant word formation, used in the source text. Modernization of the conventions of the Finnish language and literature in the 1960s influenced the later retranslations and the translators were able to introduce new tech-niques to reach a structural similarity with the source text. Therefore, it can be said that the target culture’s normative expectation and ideas of what a literary text is were mirrored the translation. In addition, since literature and translated literature are parts of society, cultural and social ideas of acceptable language, themes, and representations affect which type of literature is written and translated and which translation strategies are preferred.

Puurtinen (1995: 45) further reminds that translation norms do not necessarily match the literary norms of a given culture at a given time. For instance, in translated poetry, the norms of the target literature can be broken in order to achieve adequacy. Moreover, Koskinen and Paloposki (2015:75) point out that it is possible that norms are deliberately bro-ken in a retranslation. Puurtinen (1995:45), however, claims that in this regard, children’s liter-ature is less flexible, as the linguistic norms of the target language are more likely to be fol-lowed.

15 2.6 Studying translation norms

As Toury (2012b:170) argues, the problem with studying norms is that the norms which govern social behavior are rarely explicated or verbally formulated. This means that people know how to behave or how to not behave in a situation specific to their culture, but it is hard to define and to name the norm that guides their behavior and actions. According to Chesterman (2007:363), the normative approach can be criticized because norm as a concept is considered ambiguous and too abstract. If norms cannot be given a rigorous definition, and their existence is not always easy to empirically show, it is also very difficult to claim that a certain translation or translation strategy is a consequence of a specific set of norms.

According to Toury (2012b: 176), (translation) norms can be studied from peritextual and epitextual material. This means that in addition to the source texts and its trans-lations, critiques, reviews as well as comments such as preface and footnotes can be included in the research material. In addition, Toury (2012b:177) argues that researchers need to be crit-ical when they study, for instance, introductory chapters which may contain the explanations as well justifications for chosen translation strategies. Such texts may be studied as examples of what is said about the translation rather than as neutral accounts of the process. Lathey (2006:2) similarly reminds that what is said in an introductory text may not be the whole picture of the process or as the text represents the writer’s interpretation of the text and the translation project. The researcher should be skeptical, and the paratextual material can also be treated as texts that reflect, for example, certain discourses of translation. Lathey (2006:2) further notes that when it comes to children’s literature, translators rarely make themselves visible, and when they do, they usually justify their choices in the preface or introduction.

The translation process and the involvement and roles of different agents is rarely explicated in translated literary texts. For instance, a reader or a researcher does not necessarily have access to the editor’s or publisher’s comments and wishes or the details of the commission.

The finished, published book often contains no information about how the translator has been advised to translate, for instance, racist expressions, nor is there information about whether the translator considers some of their choices as the best possible alternative or a compromise.

Especially when there are no peritexts or other extratextual material available, the translated text needs to be considered a product in which the source text, source culture, target culture or (translation) norms and practices as well as the individual style and choices of the author and the translator intersect. However, as Brownlie (2006:156) warns, there is always the possibility

of oversimplification when trying to explain phenomena such as style, explicitation, and omis-sions as ideological, normative or typical of a specific culture. There may be many reasons for translating a book or several factors that affect what the translation is like, such as translators’

personal styles as well as publisher’s commercial interest. Therefore, it is not always possible to reduce the translation strategies or choices to the linguistic, cultural, and translation norms of the target culture. I would argue that this is applies especially when one or a few texts are studied, as it is hardly possible to make very broad generalizations. Nevertheless, translations are products of their culture and they do, to some extent, always either intentionally or uninten-tionally reflect the linguistic, cultural, literary and translation norms and conventions of their time and place.

2.7 Domesticating and foreignizing

The concepts of foreignizing and domesticating translation strategies often go hand in hand with the retranslation hypothesis. Simply put, foreignizing refers to preserving the elements of the original cultural context such as names, whereas domestication refers to the adaptation of the culture-specific terms and other elements (Paloposki 2011:39). Thus, domestication and foreignizing depict a similar idea of two opposing strategies as the contrast between a source-oriented and a target-source-oriented translation.

Lawrence Venuti (1995; 1998) criticizes the distinction between domesticating and foreignizing. He claims that all translations are to some extent domesticating since they are conveyed through the language, meanings, representations, and discourses of the target culture (Venuti 1995, 1998; Koskinen and Paloposki 2015:74). According to Venuti (1998:75), the values of the target-language culture are imposed on the translation, and translations construct a representation of foreign cultures rather than merely mediate them. As Faiq (2007: 211–213) argues, this means that foreign cultural values and elements are often expressed in ways that are familiar in the dominant western culture (Faiq 2007: 211-213). Therefore, translations may reflect and further reinforce cultural power relations, sometimes even stereotypical images of the foreign. Moreover, translation can reveal something about the dominant norms, hierarchies of the target language as well as the target language culture.

According to Venuti, (1995:20) foreignness is also context-bound as different el-ements can be unfamiliar in the target-language culture at a specific time. A rather concrete

example of this is how the names of food items in the initial Finnish translation of Carroll’s book Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland are translated differently than in the later (re)transla-tion. This is partly because the food items and the source text-culture were unfamiliar and thus

“foreign” in the target culture at the time of the initial translation (Oittinen 1997:45).

According to Venuti (1995:20), a foreignizing translation can create an impres-sion of foreign by disrupting the prevailing cultural codes of the target language. A foreignizing translation deviates from the norms of the target language by using, for example, a marginal discourse, but it still does this from within the target language. While foreignized translations can be considered to reflect the target-language values, they are nevertheless less transparent (Venuti 1995:34) than domesticating translations. Therefore, they may question the target-lan-guage norms as well as to make readers more aware that they are reading a translation. In Ve-nuti’s (1998:11) view, translations that aim to resist, break and uncover the dominant target culture values are called minoritizing. Minoritizing strategy, as the name implies, includes the use of non-standard and alienating language and it aims to disrupt the dominant discourse of translation and literature of the target culture. Venuti’s views of foreignizing and minoritizing thus differs from the idea of many source text oriented approaches, since the purpose would not be to reproduce the source text but to create an impression of foreignness.

Oittinen (2000:75) is critical towards the idea of foreignizing as promoting dis-turbance when it comes to children’s literature, since it does not take the special needs of a child audience into account. In addition, Oittinen (2000:75) criticizes the assumption that readers generally look for fluent translations because that view does not consider the possible multiple readers; for instance, scholars might find the domesticated children’s literature repulsive.

Koskinen and Paloposki (2015:75) also note that there are various and sometimes even con-flicting reasons as well as ways to use a foreignizing translation strategy. Sometimes foreigniz-ing is not a conscious choice but is caused by the interference from the source text.

What needs to be remembered is that Venuti (1995; 1998) focuses mainly on the Anglo-American translation and publishing practices, which in his view predominantly prefer a translator’s invisibility, transparency and fluency. However, as Venuti (1995) himself points out, the amount of translations into English is considerably smaller than the amount of transla-tions from English into other languages, which indicates an imbalanced cultural exchange. It might be claimed that domestication and foreignization have different implications in a culture that heavily exports its cultural products than in a culture that mostly receives influences, let alone cultures and languages that are marginal. Thus, it is important to discuss the choice of

foreign or domestic values in the larger context of cultural import as well as translation policy.

Emmerich (2017:7–8) refers to Venuti’s view as she describes how her own English translation The Few Things I Know About Glafkos Thrassakis from Greek was modified and shortened to meet the publisher’s needs. Emmerich (2017:8) further expresses that some might find it unset-tling that a work from a relatively minor language was reshaped for an American audience that represents a dominant target language and culture.

Both Venuti (1995, 1998) and Berman (2009) prefer foreignizing strategies, but while Venuti (1995:1998) stresses the importance of resistance and breaking the illusion of transparency, Berman regards foreignizing as an ethical choice. In Berman’s (1984:287 in Koskinen and Paloposki 2015:74) view, a bad translation is ethnocentric and adds domestic attitudes to foreign texts, whereas a good translation strives to limit ethnocentrism: a foreigniz-ing strategy and retranslation are thus ways of resistforeigniz-ing an inward-lookforeigniz-ing stance.

When foreignizing and domesticating are discussed on an abstract level, there is a danger of slipping into relativism. On a concrete level, researchers may sometimes be faced with problems when studying and defining, for example, which lexical, syntactical or semanti-cal features indicate whether a translated text or parts of it have been domesticated or for-eignized. In addition, Kruger (2012:189) notes that translated text may contain, for example, both domesticating and foreignizing lexical elements, and it can be difficult to solve which category a (re)translation, as a whole, represents.

2.8 (Re)translation, time and ageing of a text

As Koskinen and Paloposki (2015:202–203) point out, time and ageing are integral parts of the discussion and discourses concerning retranslation. After all, retranslation as a term has a tem-poral dimension since it refers to a translated text that follows the initial translation or a previous retranslation or retranslations. As Koskinen and Paloposki (2015: 68) argue, on the one hand, (re)translations are justified because the previous (re)translation is considered aged or dated especially in terms of language. According to Susam-Sarajeva (2003:2), this means that as time has passed, culture and language have changed, and a translated text no longer fits the conven-tions of the target language and culture or the expectation on the target audience. On the other hand, retranslations are justified because the previous (re)translation(s) are not considered to convey the source texts properly (Koskinen and Paloposki 2015: 68).

Susam-Sarajeva (2003:2) claims that while the source text oriented approach is also connected to time, it contains an assumption of progress as well. As time passes, the initial translation is succeeded by a retranslation or retranslations that are usually better because the translators are more equipped and skilled to produce a translation which is more faithful and closer to the original than the previous (re)translations (Koskinen and Paloposki 2015: 236).

Susam-Sarajeva (2003: 2) argues that in this case the English verb to succeed carries both its meanings, i.e. to come after somebody or something and to be successful. However, it may be discussed whether the idea of progress is ingrained in the target text oriented approach as well.

Could it be so that the previous (re)translations are regarded as dated partly because language or society are thought to have been evolved since their publication?

Koskinen and Paloposki (2015: 68) note that the two justifications may contradict each other, as one of them suggests that a retranslation responds to the changes in a culture or a language, and the other implies that a retranslation aims at transferring the elements of the

In document Racism, violence and disability in the Finnish (re)translations of Frances Hodgson Burnett's The Secret Garden (sivua 16-0)