The aim of the methodology I propose in this chapter is not to shed some light on the translators’ tasks or their endeavors; instead, it attempts to unveil translators’ ethos inscribed in the text while unraveling, revising, and re-envisioning the rhetoric ingrained in the translated passages. In other words, it does not aim to focus on the translators’ or the original authors’ autobiographical accounts, nor does it try to undermine or scrutinize their linguistic choices; rather it seeks to resituate translators’ ethos in a rhetorical discussion where they become the words they transcribe. By conferring meaning to their work by means of analyzing their rhetorical product, and not their individuality, we are still paying tribute to the work of these often-unrecognized figures. In her book Translation Studies, Susan Bassnett reiterates the lack of conversation pertaining to the multidisciplinarity of translation and reflects upon the current state of this field in academia. Despite conscious efforts of a select group of scholars, thinking about translators as an invisible entity remains a worldwide trend among readers; after all, Bassnett argues that “a vast majority of British or North American students read Greek and Latin authors
23 The choice of one translation versus another depends on other extraneous factors. It might simply have
to do with instructors’ preference of one text versus another. Oftentimes, they select the latest translation of their text of choice based on the assumption that it will probably relate better to the needs of
in translation or other texts whilst treating the translated text as if it were written in their own language” (14).
While much has been discussed about the integration of Translation Studies within the realm of other disciplines, very few scholars have endeavored to develop a grounding pedagogy that entwines translation with rhetoric. Lawrence Venuti remains one of the few scholars who have always striven to discuss the relevance of analyzing translators’ tasks in scholarly
discussions and in the classroom. Venuti’s account expresses his concern about the present state of pedagogical methods used in the analysis of translated texts. In his view, current conversation and interpretation of these texts leads to a biased understanding of the text. Venuti’s main preoccupation stems from an increasing number of students who continue to explore and interpret translation from a one-dimensional perspective and who mechanically dissociate
translators from their work, a move that not only reinforces their invisible role, but also positions them as pariahs of their own composition.
Venuti claims that the translator’s invisibility is a persistent tendency that refuses to acknowledge the contributions of translators. Venuti also implies that this invisibility is nurtured by editors who push translators to remain on the outskirts of their own work. His yearning for translators’ inclusivity led Venuti to posit a cross-disciplinary pedagogy of translation that he describes in The Scandals of Translation (1998). He asserts:
A pedagogy of translated literature can help students learn to be both self-critical and critical of exclusionary cultural ideologies by drawing attention to the situatedness of texts and interpretations. … Recognizing a text as translated and figuring this recognition into classroom interpretations can teach students that their critical operations are limited and provisional, situated in a changing history
of reception, in a specific cultural situation, in a curriculum, in a particular language. (Venuti, Kindle, Scandals, section 201)
While Venuti encourages educators to “develop course materials that cross disciplinary divisions between languages and periods,” his approach is integrally adhered to the examination of
translation as historically and culturally situated through the interpretation of a term he calls the remainder and that I will address further later.
In the same way as Venuti, the fulcrum of my methodology enables an interpretative act on the readers’ behalf. Scholars such as John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte claim that the act of reading is in itself a translation, a mode of collaboration and interpretation that activates the readers’ minds in a two-way process undertaking to understand and create knowledge. For these two scholars,
readers are transplanted into the atmosphere of a new situation that does not build just one clearly defined reality, but rather possibilities of various realities.
Reading reestablishes the uncertainly of the word, both as isolated phenomenon and as semantic possibility of a sentence, paragraph, or the context of the entire work. (Craft x)
By undertaking this methodology, readers are compelled to situate themselves in that undefined reality and explore the multitudinous dimensions of translation. The first step towards better understanding the terrain of translation starts with a closer examination on translators’ experiences and those who assist them in the process.
Translators have openly professed their struggle to come to terms with the final version of their translation. Other obstacles translators have to face are deadlines and self-doubt. For them, this open-ended process called translation is rather unsettling. Some translators have even
gone on to claim that, once they have completed their translation, they rarely revisit it (see Venuti Scandals). In such situation, the work of editors is crucial to mediate between translators and their texts. Paul names a few of these editors’ responsibilities.
[In] many cases the acquiring editor is not the person who will be working on the book on a line-by-line basis. Some editors deal only with structural changes, and work on getting the style and ‘flavour’ of the book right, while the nitty-gritty details are handed over to in-house or freelance copyeditors. (Paul 38)
Paul goes on to name some of the tasks that “good editors” are expected to do and not to do when revising the final copy of translated texts. In his view, editors should
1. Approach the text as an original book rather than a translation.
2. Bring a fresh pair of eyes to the text, pinpointing any areas that do not work, making suggestions about solutions to problems and discussing them with the translator.
3. Highlight inconsistencies, clichés, libel and repetition, and refer them back to the translator.
4. Correct any errors of spelling, grammar and punctuation, and ensure the text conforms to the publisher’s house style.
5. Show their editorial corrections to the translator, before it is too late to correct any errors that have crept in.
6. Respect the voice of the translator and treat him or her as they would any original author.
Conversely, editors should not
1. Rewrite the text in their own voice, changing vocabulary choices that the translator has made.
2. Over-Anglicize and sanitize the foreignness of the text.
3. Make changes that will not be visible to the translator and then send the edited text for typesetting without showing it to the translator (70-1).
About improving or revising his final rendition, translator William Weaver noted in “The Process of Translation” that “once a translation of mine is published, I never re-read it. I know that, if I did, I would soon be reaching for a pencil to make further additions and subtractions, in the futile pursuit of a nonexistent perfection” (Biguenet and Schulte, Craft 117). It is in light of this situation that we should call for more discussion about all of the voices that join to conform and consolidate the content translated texts.
In his article “The Rhetoric of Translation,” Peter France claims that “the dominant rhetoric of Britain, France, and many other cultures has been given the illusion of listening to the voice of the authors as he or she would have spoken had they been born in our time and place” (259). Following Venuti’s and France’s trains of thought, it is our responsibility as instructors to guide students and facilitate a way through which they will think about the original author as the seed that created the work but whose work has been revised, transformed and interpreted in the hands of translators and other possible contributors. By overlooking the dynamic function of translators, students will remain in the shadow of the full spectrum of meaning of translated texts and will have limited access to global literacy.