UNCOVERING TRANSLATION STRATEGIES USED IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE ENGLISH NOVEL ‘BRIDGET JONES’ DIARY’ BY HELEN FIELDING: THE BALANCE BETWEEN DOMESTICATION AND FOREIGNIZATION
Differences of delivering the text in translation is analyzed from the perspective of translation strategies, namely domestication and foreignization. Domestication here is considered as adapting foreign elements to the presupposed expectations of the target audience, while the foreignization, in contrast, focuses on alienating uncommon concepts in translation and avoiding the creation of familiarity. The analysis, first of all, considers differences in background of the target audience that might have affected the changes that the text undergone in translation. The analysis revealed that certain amount of semantic changes took place in order to reduce possible difficulties connected with fluency, nevertheless it was concluded that both domestication and foreignization were equally present in the analyzed text. It should also be noted that many of the analyzed language units were generalized, and it was difficult to consider them as a part of the given strategies because generalization does not really adopt the meaning semantically even though it certainly takes away the foreignness of the concepts.
Key words: translation, foreignization, domestication, Venuti, culture specific concepts, background information.
INTRODUCTION
When translating literary works where different readership is a target, translation faces a dilemma of whether to adopt the text to suit the presupposed background of the new audience or to keep the content and form of the original text. These two concepts are mainly expressed in the principals of Schleiemacher [1, 49] ‘to leave the author in peace as much as possible and to move the reader toward him; or to leave the reader in peace as much as possible and to move the author towards him’ and in the idea of a ‘translator’s invisibility’ of Venuti [2]. Their studies can be seen as focused on the strategies known as domestication and foreignization, usage of which should make a final product of translation presentable to the reader the way it would be received by the initial audience.
This paper is a translation analysis of the English novel ‘Bridget Jones’ Diary’ by Helen Fielding [3] by Moscvicheva A. [4]. The story is built around the life of a woman living in modern England in the 1990th, and focuses on problems of modern women such as loneliness or problems in private life. The choice to analyse the translation of this book can be reasoned by its association with the invisibility of a translator, since culturally loaded context does not seem to pose much of a challenge for its readability. Analysis of the translation should reveal that wide use of domestication can be seen mainly in the translation of concepts that exist in both languages but considerably differ from each other. Accordingly, foreignization should mostly be used with concepts that are presented in the original, but are not covered by world view or background of the target audience. Due to the limited scope of this paper, the analysis of the translation was narrowed down to one chapter.
MAIN PART
The idea of Venuti [2, 17] that ‘translation is re-writing’ can be considered especially when dealing with culturally loaded written works that may not necessarily be understood by readers from different culture on the same level. Therefore, any work during translation should undergo certain adjustments in regard to the differences in world view of the target audience. On the other hand, on the edge of globalization, when people should have some common knowledge and be aware of each other’s differences, the translation of literary work with minor changes of content can introduce culture-specific concepts understood by a source language audience as well as maintain the accuracy of the original text. On the basis of these two contradicting conditions, the idea of rewriting can be reflected by making certain decisions on which translation strategies are to be employed.
Here is an analysis of selected sentences of ST and their translation, which were chosen as broad examples of domestication and foreignization:
The way how translation presents certain information requires domestication: for example, in order to emphasize a word, the original text tends to italicize it, however, in the translation italics as a means of emphasis are avoided completely since it may not represent the same accent in printed texts written in TL, probably because this language has its own means to stress particular information. The other cases are the names of various things unknown to the target audience, for example food products, which just start with capital letters in the original, and are also taken into inverted double commas in translation. It can be seen that even though information is presented, with inverted commas and not with italics, this strategy corresponds to the domestication; therefore translations of these foreign names should be considered as a clear example of foreignization. According to the domestication strategy information like ‘Stilton’ and ‘EastEnders’, which requires a particular background, should have been adapted according to the assumed knowledge of the target audience, in other words, it should be replaced by names of local products. In our case the names are transferred with the help of transliteration and calque. It can be assumed that despite the introduction of culturally specific notions into TL through foreignization, the translator prioritized fluency. Therefore the translation gave some additional information identifying that ‘Stilton’ is a cheese and ‘EastEnders’ is a television programme. Since the given examples do not give any associations amongst target readers, giving additional clarifying information along with unknown notions is consistently used throughout the whole text. It can be assumed that total foreignization cannot be favoured with literary works, which are meant to entertain, but not to deal with gaining familiarity with a foreign culture.
Besides additions, there are also cases of information loss. The word ‘mince’ from the last example was generalized into ‘meat’ while ‘Christmas cake’ was rendered as ‘cake’, which is a common strategy that we can see throughout translated version of this novel. Since culturally specific notions such as those mentioned above are an essential part of the overall story, for the sake of fluent reading, most of them do not actually deliver the full meaning of the concepts. However, generalisation should not be considered as one of the means of domestication, even though in these cases it obviously takes away foreignness of the original. According to Venity [2, 25] this kind of re-writing can lead to confusion in semantics. Translation analysis of ‘mince pies’ from the same segment is something worth mentioning as an instance of domestication and/or foreignization. In case of ‘pie’, based on the concepts of ‘the signifier’ and ‘the signified’ [5, 37], it has a corresponding word in translation, though at the same time they might have different associations: English pies are assumingly much smaller than the corresponding translation in TL, and probably it was the reason of using translation which corresponds to diminutive or short form of a pie in this translation [6]. However, the same translated unit in TL can actually signify a totally different product and final translation is more than likely to be associated with ‘baked stuffed buns with meat’ [7]. It can be assumed that the translator preferred the domestication strategy here, however after closer analysis it is not clear what the strategy the translator used here: it is either an attempt to domesticate by replacing a typical English product with a local one, or a failure in foreignizing the text, which can be reasoned according to Baker [8, 68] by difficulties for a translator in ‘achieving the same sensitivity that native speaker has’, in our case probably in identifying that ‘mince pies’ actually do not contain any meat.
The similar confusion can be seen in the translation of the chapter’s heading ‘New Year’s resolutions’, which means ‘My plans for coming year’. In order to maintain fluency in the context, however, it was translated as ‘my plans for New Year’ which is more natural in TL but again may not actually mean the same. Since New Year is a huge celebration, it is usually planned in advance by target audience, therefore in this structure it can hold a meaning of plans only for one day but not for a whole year which is the case in the original. As a result, common belief that there is no perfect translation reveals itself in prioritizing fluency which leads to domestication, that in its turn can lead to the loss of foreignness of a text. Nevertheless, since examples such as ‘mince pies’ are considered to be a onetime case, they are not affecting the flow of the novel much, as in the following case:
The main idea of the ‘translator’s invisibility’ of Venuti [2, 24] is based on fluent readability of a translation, which can be considered as the main reason of domestication, examples of which are the words constructed by the author such as ‘half-million-pound property’ and ‘rich-butoverbred boyfriend’, that can be seen throughout the novel and indicate the way how the main character expresses her thoughts. Even though meaning does not pose much challenge, it is a specific structure which needs to be conveyed, since one can meet such compound words throughout the text; we can assume that they represent a particular perception of a main character. Respectively, according to Schleiermacher [1, 49], who favours foreignization, keeping particular language style of a text in translation would seem like imagining the author speak in TL. However, in the case of ‘half-million-pound property’, in order to be read easily, translation is transformed into a complex sentence which requires an additional verb. As a result the presentation style is sacrificed for the sake of fluency, and should be seen as domestication of the style of an author, but not the content. To keep the style, this strategy is mostly preferred by the translator in these kinds of cases throughout the whole novel. However from the example of ‘rich-but-overbred boyfriend’, it can be seen that sometimes the structure of a translated message allows keeping the form and content of an English compound words. Anyway, this kind of rare cases still should not be seen as representation of foreignization, but be considered as existing similarities of expressions in both languages.
Going back to the ‘re-writing’ concept, it has been mostly used with notions existing in both languages, but they are expressed in different ways. For example, interjections expressing emotions were domesticated depending on the context. One and the same expression can be translated differently depending on what emotional context it has been used in. Time and measuring identifications were also transferred into target measuring system, for instance, ‘11 p.m.’ — ‘23:00’, ‘from their twenties to thirties’ – ‘from the third decade into the fourth’, in Harvey Nichols Fifth
Floor — ‘оn the sixth floor of ‘Harvey Nichols’ and etc. The most extreme re-writing in the first chapter, which happened as a result of domestication can be seen from the following example:
The associations of ‘sending bouquet’ not being the same amongst the target audience, where flowers are sent mostly, for example, on the occasion of death, and in case of sickness, it is better to talk about ‘visiting’ a person instead. As a result of domestication in the beginning of a segment, it requires adjustments of the rest of the content: since it is a visit, ‘contact no’ was changed into ‘coordinates’; it seems like the name ‘Jones’ is widespread to look for in a phone book, which requires personal participation. But it is not a common name in the target audience, therefore in translation it has the meaning ‘to look for coordinates in files’.
Though it seems that the domestication strategy is accompanied with a loss or confusion of meaning, it is arguable whether foreignization strategy loses meaning. Domestication is actually preferable in cases of creating the same understanding of a situation among the target language audience. Even though there is a particular reliance on the background of the target reader to foreignize some information, translator is still aware of cultural diversity and generalizes the meaning quite frequently: 1. ‘In form of savings’ – ‘by spinning out money’: savings are a particular form of deposit account in the bank system of the UK, and probably lack of the translator’s own knowledge about the bank system of this country lead to only general transfer of meaning instead of domesticating when in the target bank system has an equivalent word for it; 2.
‘Like Will Carling’ – ‘like a champion athlete’; 3. ‘Silk Cut’ – ‘pack of cigarettes’; 4. ‘Dennis Healey eyebrows’ – ‘overgrown eyebrows’; 5. ‘Fingernails like Struwelpeter’ – ‘fingernails like those of a vampire’ etc. Over-generalization like this could be a reason for the fluent reading of the translation , which builds an association that domestication strategy was preferred by the translator. However, from the analysis of the first chapter it can be seen that both strategies were used equally. As it was mentioned in the introduction, despite being in favour of contradicting strategies, studies of Schleiermacher and Venuti can both be seen as focusing on the final product of translation should be accepted by the reader the way it would be received by the initial audience: either close to the original content, or close to the original effect. And generalisation can be accounted as neutral strategy which neither domesticates, nor foreignizes.
CONCLUSION
The analysis of the translation of the English novel ‘Bridget Jones’ Diary’ by Helen Fielding [3] by Moscvicheva A. [4] revealed that domestication and foreignization strategies discussed by Schleiemacher [1, 49] and Venuti [2] were used in balance: translation of concepts such as style of presenting information which exist in both languages but considerably differ from each other, were mainly domesticated, and concepts which are presented in the original, but are not covered by the background of the target language audience were foreignized with additional clarifying information. The level of fluency achieved in the translation was provided not only with the help of domestication, but also with wide usage of generalization, which was advised not to be considered as part of either domestication, or foreignization.
Closer analysis provided an important tool in clarifying the original first impression about translation strategies used in the text, in our case being in favor of domestication, which was later brought to over-generalization. This study can be a source of further research studies. As in the case of translating ‘mince pies’, the confusion whether it was an attempt to domesticate or a failure to foreignize raises the question of the translator’s own perception of an original text and how it can affect translation; whether foreignization strategy should always be accompanied with clarifying information; and whether generalization is a lazy translation or the only remedy.
REFERENCES
1 Venuti, Laurence (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd edn (London: Routledge). 2004. pp. 43–63
2 Venuti, Laurence. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (London and New York: Routledge). 2008.
3 Fielding, Helen. Bridget Jones’s Diary (New York: Viking). 1998.
4 Fielding, Helen. 1998. Bridget Jones’s Diary (New York: Viking) translated by Moskvicheva, A. Dnevnik Bridzhit Dzhons (Sankt-Peterburg: Amfora). 2007.
5 Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies, 2nd edn (London: Routledge). 2008.
6 Oxford Online Dictionaries
7 Multitran system for translators
8 Baker, Mona. In other words. A coursebook on translation, 2nd edn (London and New York: Routledge). 2011.
Б. Мизамхан1, T.M. Нурадилова2
Хелен Филиндингпен жазылған «Bridget Jones’ diary» атты ағылшын тіліндегі романның аудармасында қолданылатын аударма стратегияларын анықтау: доместикация мен форенизация арасындағы баланс
1, 2Абылай хан атындағы ҚазХҚжәне ӘТУ
Алматы, Қазақстан
Мәтіннің және оның аудармасындағы айырмашылықтар аударма теориясы, атап айтқанда, доместикация және форенизация стратегияларының тұрғысынан талданады. Мұнда доместикация мәдени концептілерді аудиторияның оны қабылдау деңгейіне бейімделу ретінде қарастырылады, ал форенизация кезінде, керісінше, аудиторияға жат түсініктердің өзгеше екенін көрсетуге баса назар аударылады. Талдау, ең алдымен, аударма барысында орын алған мәтіннің өзгеруіне әсер еткен аудиторияның фондық біліміндегі күтілетін айырмашылықтарды ескереді. Талдау мәтінді еркін оқумен байланысты қиындықтарды азайту мақсатында белгілі бір семантикалық өзгерістердің орын алғандығын көрсетті, дегенмен, талданған мәтінде доместикация және форенизация бірдей деңгейде қолданды деген қорытынды жасалды. Сондай-ақ, талданған көптеген тілдік бірліктердің жалпыланғанын атап өткен жөн, дегенмен оларды аталған стратегиялардың бір бөлігі ретінде қарастыру қиын болды, өйткені жалпылау, ұғымдардың бөтендігін жойғанымен, оларды семантикалық тұрғыдан бейімдей алмайды.
Б. Мизамхан1, T.M. Нурадилова2
Выявление стратегий перевода, используемых в переводе английского романа «Bridget Jones’s diary» написанной Хелен Филиндинг: баланс между доместикацией и форенизацией
1, 2КазУМОиМЯ им. Абылай хана,
Алматы, Казахстан
Различия в подаче текста в переводе анализируются с точки зрения стратегий перевода, а именно доместикации и форенизации. Доместикация здесь рассматривается как адаптация элементов иной культуры к предполагаемым ожиданиям целевой аудитории, в то время как при форенизации, напротив, основное внимание уделяется отчуждению необычных концепций в переводе и избеганию создания фамильярности. Анализ учитывает прежде всего ожидаемые различия в фоновых знаниях целевой аудитории, которые могли бы повлиять на изменения, которые текст претерпел при переводе. Анализ показал, что произошло определенное количество семантических изменений, чтобы уменьшить возможные трудности, связанные с беглостью чтения текста, тем не менее был сделан вывод, что и доместикация, и форенизация в равной степени присутствовали в анализируемом тексте. Следует также отметить, что многие из проанализированных языковых единиц были обобщены, и их было трудно рассматривать как часть данных стратегий, поскольку обобщение, безусловно, устраняет чуждость понятий, но так же и не адаптирует их с семантической точки зрания.