Theory of Translation 1 Introduction

2.10.5 Lawrence Venuti: Translator’s Invisibility
One of the noteworthy American theorists in the recent era is Lawrence Venuti who 
critically examines the history, politics and economics of the norm of nativization of 
the translated text so as to make it appear original. He calls it ‘invisibility of 
translator’ in translation practice. Through his book ‘
Translator’s Invisibility
’ (1995), 
he contributes to translation studies by challenging the theoretical grounds of earlier 
translators and scholars who demand the ‘invisibility’ of the translator. He shows how 
the translators support the established beliefs about translations. In addition, he 
provides new methods to assess translations and suggests different approach for 
translators. He uses the term ‘invisibility’ to describe the translator’s situation and 
activity in contemporary Anglo-American culture: 
It [translator’s invisibility] refers to two mutually determining phenomena: One 
is an illusionistic effect of discourse, of the translator’s own manipulation of 
English; the other is the practice of reading and evaluating translators that has 
long prevailed in U.K. and the U.S. (Venuti, Invisibility, 1) 
The ‘illusionistic effect’ is the fluency of language used by the translator. A translated 
text is said to be acceptable by critics or readers when it is read fluently, when there is 
absence of any peculiarity of language and style. The writer and his writing become 
more visible, in proportion to the fluency of a translation and the invisibility of the 
translator. As a result, it seems transparent, giving the effect of the translation to be 
original, and not a translation. Venuti cites lots of quotations by various critics, 
reviewers and translators to show the prevalent notions regarding fluency of 
translation. These quotations show that a fluent translation is one which is written in 
current language, emphasizing “immediate intelligibility and the appearance of 
factuality” (Venuti, Invisibility, 1). 
Venuti raises serious objections to these prevalent beliefs in relation to the notions of 
‘invisibility’ and ‘transparency’. These notions enforce the translator for ‘a weird 
self-annihilation’ during the act of translation. Also, due to this situation, the source 

---

55 
text has to be ‘domesticated’ into the target language and culture. It tries to make the 
foreign familiar and gives the readers an experience of recognizing their own culture 
in the foreign, which is, ‘cultural imperialism’, as termed by Venuti. It marginalizes 
the translator and the translation, making them ‘subservient’ to the author and the 
source text. It leads to serious consequences as regard to the activity of translation. 
The linguistic and cultural peculiarities of the foreign text are removed which should 
be, in fact, the core of a translation work. In such a case, translation becomes “forcible 
replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that 
will be intelligible to the target language reader” (Venuti, Invisibility, 18). This 
relationship between the translation and the cultural and social conditions indicate 
‘the violence’ that exists in the very purpose and activity of translation, he asserts. 
Apart from raising serious questions regarding the practice of translation, he offers 
some suggestions to the translators and recommends some solutions for the analysis 
of the translations as well. He criticizes the prevalent ideas in translation practice and 
clearly stands for ‘foreignisation’ of translation. In his view, “the domesticating 
translation that currently dominates Anglo-American literary culture … can be 
challenged only by developing a practice that is not just more self-conscious, but 
more self-critical” (Venuti, Invisibility, 309). He appeals the reviewers to consider the 
canons of accuracy that the translator has set in the work. 
In short, Venuti’s model unshackles the translation and the translator from being 
‘subservient’ to the source text. He examines the various aspects of translation 
practice and asks for revision of the cultural, economic and legal codes that 
marginalize the translator (Venuti, Invisibility, 311). He questions the concept of 
‘originality’ and believes that both the source and the target texts are ‘derived’. The 
significance of the theory lies in the fact that it regards translation work as an 
“original work of authorship” (p. 311).