A Narrative Account on the Translatorial Prefaces to the Fictions Translated into Persian

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 7, Volume 50, Issue 4, February 2018, Pages 140-167   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v50i4.67972

Author

Maryam Hosseinzadeh^*

Department of Translation Studies,, Islamic Azad University, Qaemshahr, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
Emphasizing on the value of prefaces as a paratextual device that shapes the mediation among books, authors, and readers, Genette (1987) underlined that each paratextual element has its own history which is worth broad and comprehensive investigations. Based on a narrative account, translatorial prefaces are considered as the story of translators, the story of self, and an “ontological” narrative according to Somers and Gibson (1993, p. 2). Everyone not only has a story, but also has a right to tell his/her story (Bamberg, 2011). Baker (2006) brought the genre, translatorial preface, to the fore as a framing tool. She referred to framing as a way for individuals to “consciously participate in the construction of reality” (p. 106).  Foregrounding the agency of translators, she (2006) asserted that narratives construct realities rather than merely representing them.

2. Methodology
The current study aimed to investigate the translatorial prefaces and their changes during the last sixty years in Iran. Therefore, a representative corpus was required. The corpus included one hundred and four randomly sampled translatorial prefaces written by Iranian translators to the first published editions of their translations of fictions from different languages into Persian during the years 1330-1390. To analyze narratives in a discursive context as translatorial prefaces, a threefold model was devised, examining the form, content, and function of the prefaces. In analyzing the form of the prefaces, the translatorial prefaces were investigated in terms of their title, length, setting, pagination, and signature. The findings of this part were mostly quantitatively analyzed. The second phase of this study was a content analysis which mostly entailed a qualitative approach. To analyze the content, the six-phase thematic analysis method proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) was applied. The findings of the first two folds were fed into an interpretative functional approach, drawing on the categorization introduced by Dimitriu (2009).

3. Discussion
To start with a general thesis, it can be claimed that based on the findings of the study, translatorial prefaces have been earning more prominence as time passes; the number of prefaces seemed to be following an increasing trend from 1330 to 1390, hence the reframing strategy of “selective appropriation”, introduced by Baker (2006, p. 71), has been at work, not only throughout the form, content, and function of prefaces, but also from the very beginning with the decision on writing or not writing a preface. The translators’ decision to initiate a preface is one of the main determining steps toward visibility.
The findings of data analyses in all the three folds of form, content, and function can be divided into the concepts which showed meaningful changes, and the ones that remained unchanged or did not follow any meaningful change. Considering the titles or labels of translatorial prefaces revealed that among the five main types of titles, the title “Translator’s”+ a generic term was the most frequent one in the past sixty years. “Translator’s Introduction”; “Translator’s Note”; and “Translator’s Preface” were first, second, and third most frequently observed titles; however, “Translator’s Note” showed an increasing trend during the last sixty years and was utilized more significantly in the last two decades. Concomitant to the rise in the use of the term “Note” in the titles, the length of translatorial prefaces also followed a decreasing trend during the last sixty years. This change was more prominent during the last two decades under study.
Investigating the content of the prefaces demonstrated that “presenting / recommending the text” has been the most frequent theme in all decades. Finding that the “biographical or critical information on the author” has been the second most frequent theme in sixty years was expressive of the status of the source author; however, the focus on critical information on the author has overtaken the biographical aspect through time. Not only has the amount of biographical information decreased, but also cases were observed where their position had changed from the beginning to the end of the prefaces. This change in the emplotment is not of course void of significance. The themes related to the status of the source text and the author have indicated a gradual wane in the last two decades under study. On the other hand, the theme of “readership”, as the fourth most frequent theme in the last sixty years, seemed to be consequently gaining more popularity. The prominence given to readership may not be only because readers were gaining more importance, but also because translators were becoming more conscious of their role in mediating their own narratives to readers through their translatorial prefaces. The theme of “strategies of translating” as the third most frequent theme and as an answer to the theme “difficulties/problems of translating” did not show any quantitatively meaningful change but indicated some qualitative changes.
To conduct a macro analysis, the findings of the form and content analyses were fed into a function analysis. Working out eight distinct functions based on the three main functions introduced by Dimitriu (2009), the researcher found that despite the long-established and still present dominance of informative/descriptive function, the struggle of explanatory function for dominance especially during the last two decades is not ignorable. In other words, translators’ prefaces have been displaying indications of a change from the narratives valuing source text analyses, source authors, and the socio-cultural contexts of the source to the ones pursuing the target text and translators’ problems, strategies, and decision makings.

4. Conclusion
Translatorial prefaces to literary texts, mostly those with explanatory function, are valuable sources to be studied by critics as well as readers because they provide a detailed account, nowhere else available, of the translators’ meeting with texts. Critics and readers can avail themselves from one more narration of a text provided by translatorial prefaces as an effective reframing device. Any change in the Meta/Master narratives on translator and translation must start from within the narratives of translators themselves. This must be the concern and responsibility of the translators, before all, to increase the public awareness and (re)construct the conceptual and Meta narratives which represent translators’ identities and status.
 

Keywords

Translatorial Preface; Paratext; Narrative Theory

References

انوری، ح. (1382). فرهنگ فشردة سخن. تهران: سخن.

Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London & New York: Routledge.

Bamberg. M. G. W. (2011). Narrative analysis. In H. Cooper (Ed.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 111-130). Washington: American Psychological Association Press.

Bassnett, S., & Lefevere, A. (1990). Translation, history and culture. London: Printer Publishers.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Creswell, J. W. (2006). Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/13421_Chapter4.pdf

De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2012). Analyzing narrative: Discourse and sociolinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dimitriu, R. (2009). Translators’ prefaces as documentary sources for translation studies. Perspective, 17(3), 193-206.

Genette, G. (1987). Paratexts: Thresholds of interpretation (J. Lewin, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lefever, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. London & New York: Routledge.

Li, X., & Cheng. S. (2011). The analysis of translators from the perspective of deconstruction. Asian Social Science, 7(5), 258-262.

Mishler, E. (1995). Models of narrative analysis: A typology. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5, 87–123.

Nannetti, M. (2006). Name of translator in publications (books or other). Translation Article Knowledgebase. Retrieved from http:// www.proz.com/ translation- articles/ articles/ 1039/ Narrative-State%20of%20the%20 Art,%20 Introductory%20 Remarks.pdf

Somers, M. R., & Gibson, G. D. (1993). Reclaiming the epistemological other: Narrative and the social constitution of identity. Retrieved from http://deepblue.lib. umich.edu/ bitstream/ handle/ 2027.42/ 51265/ 499.pdf? sequence=1

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.

Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London & New York: Routledge.