1. Venuti and the “invisibility” of the translator
LESSON 8

2. The “invisibility” of the translator (1/2)
LAWRENCE VENUTI The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation (1998)
INVISIBILITY  the term he used “to describe the translator’s situation and activity in contemporary British and American culture”
This “invisibility” depends on:
The way translators tend to translate an idiomatic and readable TT, creating an “illusion of transparency”
The way translated texts are usually read in the target culture
(Munday, 2001: 217)

3. The “invisibility” of the translator (2/2)
“A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or non-fiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers and readers when it reads fluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities makes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects the foreign writer’s personality or intention or the essential meaning of the foreign text – the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not in fact a translation, but the “original”
(Venuti, 2008: 1)
BUT WHY?
Because translation, according to Venuti, is still seen as derivative and of secondary quality and importance.
(Munday, 2001: 218)

4. Domestication vs Foreignization (1/3)
Linked to the concept of the translator’s invisibility
TWO TYPES OF TRANSLATION
DOMESTICATION FOREIGNIZATION
(Munday, 2001: )
Translating in a transparent, fluent, “invisible” style, in order to minimise the foreignness of the text.
Following Schleiermacher: “a translation that leaves the reader in peace as much as possible, and moves the author toward him”
It entails “choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are excluded by dominant cultural values in the target culture”. In Schleiermacher’s words, “leaving the writer in peace as much as possible and moves the reader toward him”.

5. Domestication vs Foreignization (2/3)
Venuti considers foreignizing practices to be “highly desirable […] strategic cultural intervention”,
HOW?  with a non-fluent, estranging or heterogeneous translation style designed to make visible the presence of the translator and to highlight the foreign identity of the ST.
N.B.: “Domestication and foreignization are considered to be NOT binary opposites, but part of a continuum, and they relate to ethical choices made by the translator in order to expand the receiving culture’s range”
(Munday, 2001: )

6. Domestication vs Foreignization (3/3)
“The terms 'domestication' and 'foreignization' indicate fundamentally ethical attitudes towards a foreign text and culture, ethical effects produced by the choice of a text for translation and by the strategy devised to translate it, whereas the terms like 'fluency' and 'resistancy' indicate fundamentally discursive features of translation strategies in relation to the reader's cognitive processing.”
(Venuti 2008, 19)
(Munday, 2001: )

7. References
MUNDAY, J Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London and New York: Routledge. VENUTI, L. 1995/2008. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge. VENUTI, L. 1998b. The Scandals of Translation: Towards and Ethics of Difference. London and New York: Routledge.

8. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
PROF.SSA LAURA LIUCCI