Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
In the title, Sherry Simon (1996) refers to linguistic aspects of gender as opposed to biological or social gender. Linguistic gender breaks down into semantic and grammatical gender: semantic gender corresponds to a referent’s biological sex; grammatical gender is assigned even to inanimate nouns. English follows a natural gender system, where the assigned gender corresponds to the perceived sex of the referent where inanimate objects are neuter in gender; French follows a grammatical gender system where gender is assigned to all nouns. The title suggests that since grammatical gender is a ‘structural obligation of language’, it cannot become ideologically charged. However, grammatical gender also has a semantic basis, which becomes particularly evident when we consider that human nouns referring to women are feminine and nouns referring to men are masculine. The title does not realize the full subjective and ideological potential of grammatical systems: calling language ‘mechanical’ suggests a level of dispassionate objectivity both in the production of the source text and in the translation process. Yet, it is evident that both translators and authors are subjective individuals, likely to be affected by conscious or unconscious gender biases. Therefore, translators should be very wary of the latent gender prejudice contained in language and of imposing their gender prejudice in translation.
I agree with Sherry Simon (1996) when she says that ‘[grammatical] gender is not normally considered an important element for translation’, not because it belongs to the ‘mechanics of language’ but because the meaning which masculine and feminine gender categories carry is not immediately apparent. Grammatical gender is not arbitrary; the way nouns are categorized as masculine or feminine and how language users subsequently view them is influenced by the gender prejudice that informs biological gender stereotypes. It was only in the seventeenth century that the Academie Francaise decreed that the rule of ‘accord de proximity’ should be replaced by the rule of ‘la superiority masculine’. If there were ten women in a room and one man, masculine pronouns and adjectival agreement would have to be employed to speak of the ensemble. Justifying the decision, the Academie Francaise called the masculine, ‘le genre le plus noble’ demonstrating clear ideological bias behind the decision. Similarly, in English, the singular non-gendered ‘they’ was used for several centuries in English literature but was met by strong criticism in the 19th century following a drive to have the sex-indefinite ‘he’ made current instead. Evidence shows that gender categories are personifications of objects according to stereotypically masculine and feminine traits. Studies that explore associations between objects and masculinity or femininity generally ask participants to rate objects on scales of binary semantic pairs such as ‘strong week’ or ‘active-passive’ with surprisingly consistent results. Therefore, we can conclude that grammatical gender carries and reflects biological gender prejudices, making grammatical gender a potential vehicle for meaning and thus a potential consideration in translation. However, it is essential to add the caveat that any association between biological and grammatical gender will be a rather faint one. Though both grammatical and biological gender are informed by the same set of stereotypes, the prejudices surrounding grammatical gender categories are at best an echo of those surrounding biological gender. Given that the association’s grammatical gender elicits lie latent in language, the category is likely to be most pertinent in translating literary or poetic texts that bring semantic, phonic, or otherwise linguistic associations to the fore.
A translation that accounts for the underlying associations between grammatical and biological gender has to be very attentive to preserving latent networks of meaning. Traditional ‘equivalence’ theory recognizes the problem that latent networks of meaning pose. Jakobson (1959) asserts that there is ordinarily no full equivalence in translation since each code-unit will have non-transferable associations and connotations and in a similar vein, Nida (1964) plots the myriad context-dependent associations with the word ‘spirit.’ However, a translation that highlighted the underlying gender biases accompanying grammatical gender (when the source text did not initially do so) would highlight accepted structures of thought, making them appear jarring and unnatural. Traditional equivalence or ‘equivalent effect’ could not hope to do such a thing since it is grounded in a ‘poetics of transparency.’ The translator is expected to render the source text as closely as possible without letting it slip that the target text is indeed a translation. Nida (1964), for instance, writes that ‘linguistic appropriateness is noticeable only when absent’ and quotes J.H. Frere (1820) as saying that ‘the language of translation ought to be pure, impalpable and invisible.’ Frere and other equivalence theorists’ insistence that the translator should remain invisible poses an ethical problem for feminist translators: translating in an ‘impalpable’ way would be to reproduce the historical sexism in language, contributing to an already healthy store of sexism therein.
Since the cultural turn in the 1980s, there has been a recognition that translation is an inherently transformative process. Translators are encouraged to be visible: clear about the means they have used to adapt the source text and honest about how their own subjective experience has informed their translation. Post-structuralism, and Derrida’s theory of difference, have proved instrumental in instigating the shift from translation as ‘hermeneutics’ to translation as ‘communication’. Difference reimagines the interplay between a code unit and its ‘underlying connotations and associations’ noted by Jakobson (1959) and Nida (1964). The concept of difference contends that meaning is never fully present: each signifier refers to another, creating an endless chain of meaning. All meaning is generated through a process of transformation, of translation from one concept to another. Poststructuralism incites two significant and related ramifications for feminist translation. First, the author’s word is no longer sacred since it is a translation of other pre-existing ideas. In these terms, the feminist translator can conceivably reframe, or transform, an androcentric text in terms of her own experience and have her work considered valid. Second, the status of translation changes from something derivative or of secondary importance to something which bolsters and expands upon the meaning of the ‘original’. Lori Chamberlain (1988) writes very convincingly about how translation has traditionally been semantically, grammatically, and socially gendered as feminine – a derivative of the male or masculine original. She is particularly critical of George Steiner’s (1975) influential model of translation which frames good translation as ‘faithful’ and the translator as ‘violent’. The implicit gender associations tied with translation are akin to those tied to grammatical gender. Exposing the androcentric ideology that underpins translation, has allowed translation theorists to break away from stale debates around literal and free translation, around whether a translation should be ‘belle’ and ‘infidale.’
The cultural turn ‘defines translation as a process of mediation which does not stand above ideology but works through it’: translators inevitably make subjective choices, when this process happens transparently, these decisions can enrich rather than impoverish our understanding of the source text. If the translation has been gendered as feminine, women have also been labeled as ‘translations.’ Susanne de Lotbiniare-Harwood (1991) asserts: ‘I am a translation because I am a woman.’ We can thus extend our definition of translation to a metaphoric that encompasses all discourse that sits awkwardly within the context of another, dominant discourse. Michele Causse (1989) experiments with grammatical gender, making latent sexism apparent by feminizing words not typically feminized in French. Playing on the French expression ‘nul n’est cense ignorer la loi’, Causse writes: ‘nulle ne l’ignore, tout est langage’ . We can frame this kind of manipulation of language on Bakhtin’s (1981) terms, as parody. Parody subverts dominant monoglossia by signifying differences despite similarities. Similarly, ‘feminist discourse involves the transfer of a cultural reality into a new context as an operation in which literary traditions are variously challenged in the encounter of differing modes of textualization.’ To illustrate what Godard (1989) means, it is helpful to look at an example taken from Suzanne Romaine’s Communicating Gender (1999), a literal translation from German to English that reads as follows:
‘Gretchen: Wilhelm, where is the turnip?
Wilhelm: She has gone to the kitchen.
Gretchen: Where is the accomplished and beautiful English maiden?
Wilhelm: It has gone to the opera.’
This sketch derives its humor from the confusion between grammatical and natural gender: between two differing language systems, two different ‘modes of textualization.’ The confusion between natural and grammatical gender in these examples is akin to the confusion between ‘male subjectivity’ and ‘female subjectivity’ that Causse (1989) triggers. Like Bakhtin’s concept of parody, translation refers both to the original text and away from it. The disjunct between source text and translation opens up a space for comparison, juxtaposition, dialogism, and, ultimately, the production of new meaning. Therefore, grammatical, semantic, and social gender are given added significance through translation. By comparing our linguistic gender systems with those of other languages, our understanding of the prejudices inevitably contained within our system is enriched.
Whether and how the translator chooses to communicate latent sexism is also a significant decision. Translators of clearly sexist texts – like The Bible or Homer’s Odyssey – are reluctant to level out sexism by using more gender-inclusive language, fearing that ‘adjustment to contemporary norms softens the harsh and intransigent message of a truly patriarchal document’ (Sherry Simon, about The Bible). Emily Wilson (2019) writes of her translation of Homer’s Odyssey that she was wary of being too visible as a translator, wanting instead to ‘make the ethical problems of the original as visible as possible.’ Wilson writes, for example, how she aimed to keep the expression of problematic values’ at arm’s length’ through irony and Homeric epithets – these saw Odysseus variously described as ‘scheming’, ‘ly, ing’ or ‘calculated’. The Penelopiad is Margaret Atwood’s (2005) creative re-writing of The Odyssey from Penelope’s perspective. Rather instinctually, we recognize that Atwood’s and Willis’ Odyssey are very different ‘kinds’ of translation. We might frame this difference in terms of how closely each translation engages in ‘communication’ with the source text. Where Willis states that ‘all [her] words are responses to Homer’s words although like all translators, [she weaves] them into [her] own, entirely different piece of cloth’. Conversely, Atwood writes that ‘Homer’s Odyssey is not the only version of [the Odysseus myth] and that ”the story as told in The Odyssey does not hold water: there are too many inconsistencies.’ I think it is significant that Willis talks of her translation process using the metaphor of a ‘piece of cloth’ while Atwood suggests that The Odyssey ‘doesn’t hold water’, i.e., is ‘porous’. The word ‘text’ is derived from the Latin ‘textus’, ’tissue, or literary style’. Combining Atwood and Willis’ metaphors, we can say that the fabric from which the text is woven will inevitably be porous since holes are a by-product of the weaving process. ‘Seeing where those holes appear and where the text is rent may rob the work of its materiality, may shake the foundations of the model-builders, but deconstruction persists in performing its act of discovering the holes that are ‘always already’ in the text’. Atwood is concentrating on The Odyssey’s ‘holes’ because she wants to ‘shake the foundations’ of its androcentric model. Willis takes a more balanced approach, more subtly undermining the poem by adding her own ‘cloth’, rather than tearing away at the old. In some way, Atwood’s translation is a representation of the negative space which is not ‘positively’ represented by The Odyssey. Willis and Atwood have approached The Odyssey from wildly different perspectives, ‘entering into conversation’ with radically different elements of the ST. Atwood translates the androcentric text into a gynocentric one; she re-genders The Odyssey. That kind of radical experimentation with gender is likely only possible in translation that seeks to seriously undermine the
This essay has tried to show that linguistic gender is not neutral but carries gender bias. Translating loaded terms can be a minefield; to navigate that minefield, we must first be aware that we are treading on potentially dangerous ground. The cultural turn and feminist theorists have brought an increased focus on linguistic gender categories and how these may communicate sexist ideologies. Translation has the potential to endow grammatical and semantic gender with increased significance: through juxtaposition, latent gender prejudices become more visible. However, in the grand scheme of things, linguistic aspects of gender are often not top considerations. Grammatical gender systems are very ingrained in language; experimenting with them in translation (where the source text did not already do so) is likely to upheave the source text radically. While the goal of texts that experiment with grammatical gender is often to jar the reader, commercial texts and commercial translations mostly do not intend to do so. Since sexism in grammatical gender is a reflection of biological gender prejudices, translators are often likely to find it more effective to highlight gender prejudice through techniques like those used by Willis in her translation of The Odyssey.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.