Page 25 - Translation Journal July 2015
P. 25
essment, especially against the backdrop of culture specificity, remains a matter of immense import to this article.
8) Translation quality and African cultural and literary specificity
A major problem faced by translators is how to deal with cultural specificity, given that translation is generally viewed both as an act of
interlingual communication and as a process of cultural transfer (Dayan Liu, 2012:39). The cultural and literary peculiarity of African expression
has been investigated and confirmed. Okpewho (1992:367) for instance states that “on the basis of fieldwork done in Liberia…literacy
has made no appreciable difference in the modes of oral thinking in a traditional [African] society”.
Mindful of cultural and literary specificity, scholarship has proposed two major approaches to translating them, namely foreignisation
and domestication. Whereas, it is known that the West employs both the domestication (target text-oriented) and foreignisation (source
text-oriented) macro-strategies (Morávková 1993; Ladouceur 1995; Merino 2000; Aaltonen 1993 & 2000:4; Upton 2000; Kruger 2000;
Espasa 2000), justifying what Snell-Hornby (1988:112/1995) for instance calls situation of source text and function of the translation,
the African translation ‘province’ has tenaciously opted for a clearly foreignising macro-strategy.
African creative writing, characterised by linguistic open-endedness (see Wanchia, 2013) calls for a specific African translation
perspective that defeats a blind and generalised application of acquiesced frameworks as testified below:
• Okpewho (1992:182-294) opts for a transcription of African creative writing that strives “to reproduce with a degree of
faithfulness….the peculiar circumstances…”, and wisely retain “the narrator’s exploitation of the geographical setting of the place”
as well as the “idiom of the time”, for “the narrative text is the product of the genius of the artist or artists working within a particular
context” (Okpewho 1992:300), else it will become typically un-African and engender the questioning of “the authenticity of the
translation”.
• For Bandia (1993:57), the translator of African works, ought to “preserve the original function of the source text in its culture”, as
“the translator of African works is mainly concerned with preserving the “situation of the source text”. He (1993:57) terms this “a
carry-over of African sociolinguistic and sociocultural values into the European Language”, and further insistently states that
Translating African creative works is a source-text oriented translation process in which the target language, the
European language, is modified to accommodate the African world-view. This process goes far beyond merely
substituting linguistic and cultural equivalents. It is a negotiating process in the sense that two divergent sociocultural
systems that are in contact attempt to arrive at a happy solution in expressing the African world-view in the European
language. This negotiating process is made possible through translation techniques such as calques, semantic and
collocational shifts (Bandia 1993:74).
• Still from the African ‘province’, Suh (2005:201) posits that African post-colonial writers make a conscious attempt to sustain an
authentic African discourse, albeit in a foreign language. It emanates from their own cultural and intellectual background, passed
through the matrix of their own cultural background. Suh (2008:116-117) then concludes that foreignisation is more suitable for the
translation of African creative writing.
• Summer-Paulin (1995:519-719) joins African scholars like Ade Ojo (1986), and Kourouma (in Koné 1992) to posit that translators
working with languages of remote cultures such as African traditions should preferably be source-text oriented (literal translation)
since that constitutes a reflection of both a cultural system and social organization of a specific community that recreates a
particular atmosphere and way of thinking.
• Finally, Berman (1985:59, in Bandia 1993:57).) proposes “l’adhérence obstinée du sens à sa lettre [obstinate adherence of
meaning to the letter] “ which allows translators of African literature, for the most part, to
translate African thought literally into European languages, since they understand the significance of the rapport between
“sens” and “forme.” As noted by Berman (1985, p. 36), “littéralité” is not necessarily “mot à mot,” neither is it “calque.”
Literal translation, as practised by translators of African creative writing, is an example of what Berman means when he
asserts that meaning and form are inseparable.
From the above, it is clear that African creative writing has a clear preference for semantic, overt and “literal” translation
(foreignisation) in which formal equivalence takes priority over dynamic equivalence (domestication). That is the reason why this article
concludes with the pertinent question that follows.
9) Conclusion
From the above discussion, one is wont to ask the question “whose translation quality then? This is appropriate because both
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 25
8) Translation quality and African cultural and literary specificity
A major problem faced by translators is how to deal with cultural specificity, given that translation is generally viewed both as an act of
interlingual communication and as a process of cultural transfer (Dayan Liu, 2012:39). The cultural and literary peculiarity of African expression
has been investigated and confirmed. Okpewho (1992:367) for instance states that “on the basis of fieldwork done in Liberia…literacy
has made no appreciable difference in the modes of oral thinking in a traditional [African] society”.
Mindful of cultural and literary specificity, scholarship has proposed two major approaches to translating them, namely foreignisation
and domestication. Whereas, it is known that the West employs both the domestication (target text-oriented) and foreignisation (source
text-oriented) macro-strategies (Morávková 1993; Ladouceur 1995; Merino 2000; Aaltonen 1993 & 2000:4; Upton 2000; Kruger 2000;
Espasa 2000), justifying what Snell-Hornby (1988:112/1995) for instance calls situation of source text and function of the translation,
the African translation ‘province’ has tenaciously opted for a clearly foreignising macro-strategy.
African creative writing, characterised by linguistic open-endedness (see Wanchia, 2013) calls for a specific African translation
perspective that defeats a blind and generalised application of acquiesced frameworks as testified below:
• Okpewho (1992:182-294) opts for a transcription of African creative writing that strives “to reproduce with a degree of
faithfulness….the peculiar circumstances…”, and wisely retain “the narrator’s exploitation of the geographical setting of the place”
as well as the “idiom of the time”, for “the narrative text is the product of the genius of the artist or artists working within a particular
context” (Okpewho 1992:300), else it will become typically un-African and engender the questioning of “the authenticity of the
translation”.
• For Bandia (1993:57), the translator of African works, ought to “preserve the original function of the source text in its culture”, as
“the translator of African works is mainly concerned with preserving the “situation of the source text”. He (1993:57) terms this “a
carry-over of African sociolinguistic and sociocultural values into the European Language”, and further insistently states that
Translating African creative works is a source-text oriented translation process in which the target language, the
European language, is modified to accommodate the African world-view. This process goes far beyond merely
substituting linguistic and cultural equivalents. It is a negotiating process in the sense that two divergent sociocultural
systems that are in contact attempt to arrive at a happy solution in expressing the African world-view in the European
language. This negotiating process is made possible through translation techniques such as calques, semantic and
collocational shifts (Bandia 1993:74).
• Still from the African ‘province’, Suh (2005:201) posits that African post-colonial writers make a conscious attempt to sustain an
authentic African discourse, albeit in a foreign language. It emanates from their own cultural and intellectual background, passed
through the matrix of their own cultural background. Suh (2008:116-117) then concludes that foreignisation is more suitable for the
translation of African creative writing.
• Summer-Paulin (1995:519-719) joins African scholars like Ade Ojo (1986), and Kourouma (in Koné 1992) to posit that translators
working with languages of remote cultures such as African traditions should preferably be source-text oriented (literal translation)
since that constitutes a reflection of both a cultural system and social organization of a specific community that recreates a
particular atmosphere and way of thinking.
• Finally, Berman (1985:59, in Bandia 1993:57).) proposes “l’adhérence obstinée du sens à sa lettre [obstinate adherence of
meaning to the letter] “ which allows translators of African literature, for the most part, to
translate African thought literally into European languages, since they understand the significance of the rapport between
“sens” and “forme.” As noted by Berman (1985, p. 36), “littéralité” is not necessarily “mot à mot,” neither is it “calque.”
Literal translation, as practised by translators of African creative writing, is an example of what Berman means when he
asserts that meaning and form are inseparable.
From the above, it is clear that African creative writing has a clear preference for semantic, overt and “literal” translation
(foreignisation) in which formal equivalence takes priority over dynamic equivalence (domestication). That is the reason why this article
concludes with the pertinent question that follows.
9) Conclusion
From the above discussion, one is wont to ask the question “whose translation quality then? This is appropriate because both
Translation Journal - July 2015 | 25
