The Translator as Communicator

8
CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION
1 For work on translation and text typologies that roughly falls within this orientation,
see, for example, Emery (1989), Zyadatiss (1983). See also Hatim and Mason
(1990), where this text typology is described.
2 This is seen from a translation perspective in Sa’adeddin (1989). The theoretical
framework is explored in detail in the work of Prothro (1955) and Kaplan (1966).
9
IDEOLOGY
1 While accepting Fairclough’s (1989:17) view that discourse is ‘social practice
determined by social structures’, we believe, with Pennycook (1994) that a proper
place has to be accorded to individual human agency.
2 Thus: ‘foreignizing translation in English can be a form of resistance against
ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism and imperialism, in the interests of
democratic geopolitical relations’ (Venuti 1995:20).
3 Zabalbeascoa (1993) comments on such a situation in Catalonia, where ‘a number
of intellectuals and politicians have acted as a mouthpiece for such reactions. Their
argument is that a high percentage of foreign programmes (typically from the
206 NOTES

---

USA) is not only propagandistic regarding the themes, sociocultural values and
messages contained in them, but also pernicious regarding the way in which they
influence and change the forms and expressions of the vernacular.’
4 Cf. 
Chapter 2
, p. 32, regarding the dynamism involved in repetition.
5 A fuller analysis of this translation, including the perspective of the Eastern
rhetorical tradition, is to be found in Hatim and Mason (1991).
6 Parallelism: ‘repeating a structure but filling it with new elements’ (Beaugrande
and Dressler 1981:49).
7 Intention processes: ‘Action processes may be…subdivided into intention
processes (where the actor performs the act voluntarily) and supervention processes
(where the process just happens)’ (Simpson 1993:89).
8 Over-lexicalization: ‘the availability, or the use, of a profusion of terms for an
object or concept’ (Fowler 1986:154).
9 See, for example, Gumperz (1982:59–99).
10 A fuller analysis is provided in Mason (1994).
11 The terminology employed here is that used by Simpson (1993:91–2), who defines
relational processes as processes of being; and lists the participant roles in such
processes as carrier (‘roughly, the “topic” of the clause’) and attribute (‘a
description or comment about the topic’).
12 For the purposes of this text sample, the translation provided in square brackets
attempts to represent the dynamic force of the ST expression; it is, in Newmark’s
terms, a communicative translation. The published translation appears, as usual, on
the right-hand side of the page.
13 Cf. also Muñoz Martín (1995), whose critique of Venuti (1995) includes the point
that a foreignizing translation is in itself an attempt to re-educate and adopt a
position of authority, i.e. power, over the reader of the target text.