See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339843294

Translation Identity: A Theoretical Perspective

Conference Paper · September 2017

CITATIONS READS

2 3,234

1 author:

Maha Tahir Eesa

University of Al-Qadisiyah
24 PUBLICATIONS 5 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Maha Tahir Eesa on 11 March 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Translation Identity: A Theoret-
ical Perspective

‫ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ‬:‫ﻫﻮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﱰﲨﺔ‬

Assist. Prof Maha Tahir Eesa, Ph,D

University of Al_Qadisiyah
College of Education

‫ﻛﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﱰﺑﻴﺔ‬/ ‫ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﺔ اﻟﻘﺎدﺳﻴﺔ‬/‫ ﻣﻬﺎ ﻃﺎﻫﺮ ﻋﻴﺴﻰ‬.‫د‬.‫م‬.‫ا‬

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

Abstract

Since translation is a process of transformation or rewriting of a textual material from one

language into another, it is a transformation or rewriting of identity. This recreated identity
is tripled .The translator is plagued with three identities: his (subjective or social identity),
the writer›s, and the reader›s (role or professional identity); i.e., the Self and the Other.
The question is which identity has priority over the other in translation? Given the fact that
the translator himself approaches a text with orientation, this requires to search the topic
from different perspectives of identity: subjectively, socially and professionally. In case that
the translator fails to reach reconciliation between the three identities he may resolve to a
translation that is ethnocentric (or centered using domestication strategy), or to a decentered
one (using foreignization strategy). This ultimately depends on how the translator approaches
the text and the a�tude with which he sees himself, target culture, and his profession.
In the age of globalization and cultural communication , and in the context of translating
between various cultures , the translator (in search of one of aforementioned identities or
another) may opt to choose between foreignization and domestication strategies in which
the identity of the target culture and source (or local) culture is respectively preserved.
Cosmopolitanism may represent an approach that resolves the identity struggle triggered
by (conflicting) various cultures. This paper exposes different concepts of identity and goes
through Michael Cronin›s(٢٠٠٦) micro-cosmopolitan perspective to approach translation and
identity in a way that guarantees cultural affirmation in emphasizing interconnectedness and
calling for having a polyidentity rather than having either.

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 9

 ‫‪TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE‬‬

‫ﻣﻠﺨﺺ اﻟﺒﺤﺚ ﺑﺎﻟﻠﻐﺔ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ‪:‬‬

‫ﻃﺎﳌــﺎ ان اﻟﱰﲨــﺔ ﻫــﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴــﺔ ﲢﻮﻳــﻞ او ﻛﺘﺎﺑــﺔ ﻣــﺎدة ﻧﺼﻴــﺔ ﻣــﻦ ﻟﻐــﺔ اﱃ أﺧــﺮ￯ ﻓﻬــﻲ‪ ،‬اذن‪ ،‬ﲢﻮﻳــﻞ او إﻋــﺎدة ﻛﺘﺎﺑــﺔ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻳــﺔ‪ .‬وﻫــﺬه اﳍﻮﻳــﺔ اﳌﻌــﺎد ﺧﻠﻘﻬــﺎ ﺗﺘﻀﺎﻋــﻒ ﺛﻼﺛــﺎ ﻓﺎﳌﱰﺟــﻢ ﻣﺒﺘــﲆ ﺑﺜــﻼث ﻫﻮﻳــﺎت‪ :‬ﻫﻮﻳﺘــﻪ )او اﳍﻮﻳــﺔ اﻟﺬاﺗﻴــﺔ‬
‫واﻻﺟﺘﲈﻋﻴــﺔ(‪ ،‬وﻫﻮﻳــﺔ اﻟﻜﺎﺗــﺐ‪ ،‬وﻫﻮﻳــﺔ اﻟﻘــﺎرئ )وﻳﺮﺗﺒﻄــﺎن ﲠﻮﻳــﺔ دور اﳌﱰﺟــﻢ او اﳍﻮﻳــﺔ اﳌﻬﻨﻴــﺔ(‪ ،‬أي اﻟــﺬات‬
‫واﻵﺧــﺮ؛ واﻟﺴــﺆال ﻫــﻮ ﻷي ﻣــﻦ اﳍﻮﻳــﺎت اﻷﻓﻀﻠﻴــﺔ ﻋــﲆ اﻷﺧــﺮ￯ ﻋﻨــﺪ اﻟﱰﲨــﺔ؟ وﺣﻴــﺚ ان اﳌﱰﺟــﻢ ﻧﻔﺴــﻪ ﻳﺪﻧــﻮ ﻣــﻦ‬
‫اﻟﻨــﺺ ﺑﻮﺟﻬــﺔ ﻧﻈــﺮ ﻣﻌﻴﻨــﺔ ﻓﻬــﺬا ﻳﺘﻄﻠــﺐ ﺑﺤــﺚ اﳌﻮﺿــﻮع ﻣــﻦ ﻣﻨﻈــﻮرات ﳐﺘﻠﻔــﺔ ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻳــﺔ‪ :‬ذاﺗﻴــﺎ واﺟﺘﲈﻋﻴــﺎ وﻣﻬﻨﻴــﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓــﺈذا ﻣــﺎ ﻓﺸــﻞ اﳌﱰﺟــﻢ ﺑﺘﺤﻘﻴــﻖ ﺗﺴــﻮﻳﺔ ﺑــﲔ اﳍﻮﻳــﺎت اﻟﺜــﻼث ﻓﻘــﺪ ﻳﻠﺠــﺎ اﱃ ﺗﺮﲨــﺔ ﻣﺘﻤﺤــﻮرة ﻋــﲆ اﳍﻮﻳــﺔ او ﻣﻨﺤﺮﻓــﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻬــﺎ‪ .‬وﻫــﺬا ﻳﻌﺘﻤــﺪ ﲤﺎﻣــﺎ اﻟﻜﻴﻔﻴــﺔ اﻟﺘــﻲ ﻳﻘــﱰب ﲠــﺎ اﳌﱰﺟــﻢ ﻣــﻦ اﻟﻨــﺺ وﻧﻈﺮﺗــﻪ ﻟﻨﻔﺴــﻪ وﻟﻠﺜﻘﺎﻓــﺔ اﳍــﺪف وﳌﻬﻨﺘــﻪ‪.‬‬
‫وﰲ ﻋــﴫ اﻟﻌﻮﳌــﺔ واﻟﺘﻮاﺻــﻞ اﻟﺜﻘــﺎﰲ وﰲ ﺳــﻴﺎق اﻟﱰﲨــﺔ ﺑــﲔ ﺛﻘﺎﻓــﺎت ﳐﺘﻠﻔــﺔ ﻗــﺪ ﳚﻨــﺢ اﳌﱰﺟــﻢ )ﰲ ﺑﺤﺜــﻪ ﻋــﻦ ﻫﻮﻳــﺔ‬
‫دون أﺧــﺮ￯( اﱃ اﻻﺧﺘﻴــﺎر ﺑــﲔ اﺳــﱰاﺗﻴﺠﺘﻲ اﻟﺘﻐﺮﻳــﺐ واﻟﺘﻘﺮﻳــﺐ واﻟﺘــﻲ ﲢﻔــﻆ ﻓﻴﻬــﺎ اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓــﺔ اﳍــﺪف او اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓــﺔ اﻷﺻــﻞ‬
‫)او اﳌﺤﻠﻴــﺔ( ﻣﺘﻮاﻟﻴﺘــﲔ‪ .‬وﻗــﺪ ﻳﻠﺠــﺎ اﳌﱰﺟــﻢ اﱃ اﳌﻨﻬــﺞ اﻟﻜــﻮﲏ او اﻟﻌﺎﳌــﻲ ﻟﻴﺤــﻞ ﻣﺴــﺄﻟﺔ اﳍﻮﻳــﺔ اﳌﺘﻮﻟــﺪة ﻣــﻦ اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓــﺎت‬
‫اﳌﺘﺼﺎرﻋــﺔ اﳌﺘﻨﻮﻋــﺔ ‪.‬ﻳﻌــﺮض اﻟﺒﺤــﺚ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴــﲈ ﳐﺘﻠﻔــﺔ ﻟﻠﻬﻮﻳــﺔ وﳜــﻮض ﰲ ﻣﻨﻈــﻮر ﻣﺎﻳــﻜﻞ ﻛﺮوﻧــﲔ ‪ ٢٠٠٦‬ﻟﻴﻌﺎﻟــﺞ‬
‫اﻟﱰﲨــﺔ واﳍﻮﻳــﺔ ﻣﻌﺎﳉــﺔ ﺗﻀﻤــﻦ ﺗﺮﺳــﻴﺦ اﳍﻮﻳــﺔ اﻟﺜﻘﺎﻓﻴــﺔ ﺑﺪﻋﻮﺗــﻪ اﱃ اﻟﺘﺄﻛﻴــﺪ ﻋــﲆ اﻟﱰاﺑــﻂ وﺗﻌــﺪد اﳍﻮﻳــﺔ ﺑﺤﻴــﺚ‬
‫ﻻﺗﻜــﻮن اﺣــﺪ￯ اﺛﻨﺘــﲔ‪.‬‬

‫‪10‬‬ ‫‪Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference‬‬

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

1.0. Iden�ty

Iden�ty, (from Latin: identitas «sameness»), as defined in The Cambridge Dictionary

of Philosophy , refers to “the relation each thing bears just to itself”.

Identity has been defined differently along the scale of time .Views to it in the latest
three or four decades differ tremendously with different disciplines and different perspec-
tives. It is formulated differently by humanities scholars as a facet of individual or as a kind
of transaction between individuals. The former view comprises many notions among which
the following definitions arise. It is “objectively defined as location in a certain world and can
be subjectively appropriated only along with that world. ... [A] coherent identity incorporates
within itself all the various internalized roles and a�tudes” (Berger and Luckmann, 1966:
132). One’s identity is defined by the “commitments and identifications which provide the
frame or horizon within which [one] can try to determine from case to case what is good, or
valuable, or what ought to be done, or what [one] endorse[s] or oppose[s] “ (Taylor,1989:
27). In the same vein, Wendt sees identities as “relatively stable, role-specifc understandings
.(and expectations about self” (1992, 397

The la�er view also sees identity through different notions. Clifford raises the point
that identity is not conceived as a boundary to be maintained but as a “nexus of relations
and transactions actively engaging a subject” (1988:344). Identities are as “people’s concepts
of who they are, of what sort of people they are, and how they relate to others” (Hogg and
Abrams, 1988: 2).Yet, this does not make identity a fixed point of thought rather an ambiv-
alent one best interpreted as a process of relationship of the self and the other. It describes
the way individuals and groups define themselves and are defined by others on the basis of
race, ethnicity , religion, language, and culture”(Deng ,1995: 1). Identity refers to the ways
in which individuals are distinguished in their social relations with other individuals (Jen-
kins,1996:4).By convention, Katzenstein sees identity as pointing to “references mutually
constructed and evolving images of self and other” (1996: 59)

Surveying the above-mentioned notions, Fearon (1999:10) argues : “the word ‘identity’
as used today has two distinct but intertwined meanings… the two senses may be designated
‘social’ and ‘personal’ identity” .The social identity refers to

a social category , a group of people designated by (a) label(s) commonly used

either by the people designated, others, or both. This is the sense employed when
we refer to ‘American,’ ‘French,’ ‘Muslim,’ ‘father,’ ‘homosexual,’ ‘worker,’ ‘pro-

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 11

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

fessor,’ or ‘ci�zen’ as iden��es… [As for] the personal iden�ty [it] is a set of a�ri-
butes, beliefs, desires, or principles of ac�on that a person thinks dis�nguish [her/
him] in socially relevant ways

(ibid: 10-1)

In the same vein, it “has become a partial and indirect substitute for ‘dignity ,’ ‘honor,’
and ‘pride’.”(ibid: 11) that social identity (membership in a social category) might enter into
or partially constitute personal identity, through any of them (ibid). “Thus, ‘identity’ can in-
voke not just a social category (content plus membership rules) but also the unarticulated
ways that social identity constitutes personal identity”(ibid: 16).

1.1. Personal Iden�ty

The personal identity is defined in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as dealing
with “philosophical questions that arise about ourselves by virtue of our being people”.

Interest in personal theory belongs to philosophers in the late 17th century as John Locke
(for whom memory is central to personal identity) and David Hume (there is no real identity,
only psychological continuity).Their interest lied in consciousness and questions of our own
existence and the conditions for personal identity over time. Personality is not a permanent
but a transient thing, and it is consciousness alone which constitutes personality.

In recent decades the foundational theorists of psychological perspective on identity

are Kurt Lewin, Erik Erikson, James Marcia and later on Ruthellen Josselson, Arthur W. Chick-
ering and Linda Reisser ; and many others who emphasized individual’s mental processes
.The self, for them, is embedded in mental processes that arise from individual’s experiences
of a single self or a singular identity. Personal identity is looked at through individual’s mental
processes arising from individual’s experiences of a single self or a singular identity, and per-
sonality traits people have (Goldmane, 2014: 16).

Hogg et al. (2004:251) describe personal identity “as self-construal in terms of idio-
syncratic personality a�ributes that are not shared with other people [‘I’] or close personal
relationships that are tied entirely to the specific other person in the dyadic relationship
[‘me’ and ‘you’]” ;and has li�le to do with group processes.

They also point to Brewer and Gardner’s (1996) distinction between the three aspects

12 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

of the self: “individual self [defined by personal traits that differentiate self from all oth-
ers], relational self [defined by dyadic relationships that assimilate self to significant other
persons], and collective self [defined by group membership that differentiates ‘us’ from
‘them’]” (ibid: 253).

Analysis of personal identity in terms of person’s existence and identity over time could
be referred to as the diachronic problem of personal identity whereas the synchronic prob-
lem covers the features or traits that characterize a given person at one time (Nimbalkar,
2011: 268).

From the perspective of personal identity emerged the social identity theory

Social Iden�ty

The social identity perspective was originated by Tajfel’s work (1959) on perceptual ef-
fects of categorization and later research on prejudice, social categorization , discrimination,
intergroup conflict, ethnocentrism, social comparison, and intergroup relations research that
in collaboration with John Turner integrated around the concept of social identity. He defines
it as the individual’s knowledge of belonging to “a certain social groups together with some
emotional and value significance …of this group membership (Tajfel, 1972: 292).

There are two motivations that guide social identity: self-enhancement and uncer-
tainty reduction .In self-enhancement “People strive to promote or protect the prestige and
status of their own group relative to other groups because group evaluation is self-evaluation
…in salient group contexts, the self in self-enhancement and self-esteem is the collective self
,social identity” (Hogg et al. ,2004:255) . As for uncertainty reduction:

people strive to reduce subjec�ve uncertainty about their social world

and about their place within it—they like to know who they are and how to
behave, and who others are and how they might behave… self-conceptual
certainty, renders others’ behavior predictable and therefore allows one to
avoid harm and plan effec�ve ac�on. It also allows one to know how one
should feel and behave.

(Ibid:256)

Brewer (2001) sees social identity as having four types:

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 13

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

1. Person-based social identities in which Individual group members internalize prop-

erties of groups as part the of self-concept.

2. Relational social identities that define self in relation to specific other people with
whom one interacts in a group context.

3. Group-based social identities which are equivalent to the collective self or social
identity as traditionally defined.

4. Collective identities that refer to a process whereby group members engage in social
action to forge an image of what the group stands for and how it is represented and
viewed by others, and not only share self-defining a�ributes.

Referring to these types Hogg et al., (2004: 253) state that the debate is still “whether
relational selves or relational social identities should count as social or personal identities.”
In fact both personal identity and social identity are linked implicitly.

As social categories, identities could be of two classes: role identity and type identity.

1.3.Role Iden�ty and Type Iden�ty

Discussing these types of identities, Fearon states :

Role iden��es refer to labels applied to people who are expected or obligated
to perform some set of ac�ons, behaviors, rou�nes, or func�ons in par�cular
situa�ons. For example, taxi driver, toll collector, mother, father, president,
professor, businessman, student.

(Fearon, 1999: 17)

In social identity one becomes like others in the group seeing things from their perspec-
tive while in role identity one acts to fulfill the expectations of the role. Thus, “the basis of
social identity is in the uniformity of perception and action among group members , while
the basis of role identity resides in the differences in perceptions and actions that accompa-
ny a role as it relates to counterroles” (Stets and Burke,2000:226).

Fearon (1999:17 ) gives some examples of type identity as national identities and oth-
er labels given to “ persons who share or are thought to share some characteristic or char-

14 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

acteristics, in appearance, behavioral traits, beliefs, a�tudes, values, skills [e.g,.language],

knowledge, opinions, experience, historical commonalities [like region or place of birth] ,
and so on”

1.4. Professional Iden�ty

This identity refers to one’s professional self-concept based on a�ributes, beliefs, values,
motives, and experiences (Ibarra, 1999; Schein, 1978) , a�achment and sense of belonging
(Rothausen, et al., 2015).It is defined in terms of professiolization by Goldenberg and Iwasiw
as :

a complex and interac�ve process by which the content of the professional role
(skills, knowledge, behaviour) is learned and the values, a�tudes, and goals
integral to the profession and sense of occupa�onal iden�ty which are charac-
teris�c of a member of that profession are internalized

(1993: 4)

Highlighting the importance of institutional logic, Webb (2015:15) asserts the need
for considering the “normative notions of value, worth and justification as central to consider-
ations about professional identity”. In this context he refers to Sayer’s notion of value as being
based on repeated particular experiences that valuations of actions are “habits of thinking to
which we become commi�ed or emotionally a�ached” (Sayer,2011 quoted in Webb,2015 :15).

Webb(2015: 3) adds that “Professional identity is not a stable entity; it is an on-going

process of interpretation and customisation which is shaped by contextual workplace factors…
[It]does not come ready-made but is continually fashioned in the movements along ways of
organisational and professional life”

Being embedded in a mix of different modes of institutional reasoning or “rationalities”,

Webb (ibid:12) views professional identity as being connected to workplace cultures and public
institutions.

Dent and Whitehead elaborate that “being professional suggests a context of meaning
and values, whereby the lawyer, judge, lecturer, human resource manager, banker and so on is
experientially located through the particular narratives and discourses which accrue with and
around that identity position” (2002: 5).

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 15

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

1.5.Cultural Iden�ty

As is well known, cultural identity is determined through difference from others. The
terms cultural identity and personal identity emerged gradually in social sciences a�er the
second World War. Cultural identity is a social phenomenon and in this sense it is different
from the personal phenomenon in that the la�er takes its shape in the childhood before a
person gets socialized into society .At the same time the personal identity is a social and
cultural phenomenon and personal and cultural identities are sociocultural phenomena (Jari
Kupiainen & John Sevänen2004:6-7,). Thus, the distinction between them is vague.

Segers and Viehoff (1999:34-35) give the following dimensions for cultural identity:

1. National ,ethnic ,religious and linguistic diemension.

2. The role of sexual behavior and self-definition in social life.

3. Generation in that persons of the same generation have the

same experience of the world.

4. Persons social positions as family and kinship ties and their

places in wider social hierarchies.

5. Organiztional-Corporative dimension determined by persons

places in working life and network of work place.

The cultural identity is determined by the core identity and the immediate cultural con-
text (Markus and Nurius, 1986). Cultural identities may be responsive to situational contexts
evaluated differently in different cultures. In loose cultures such as that in the United States
li�le awareness exists of cultural identity and relatively low value is placed on maintaining
an American identity whereas for members of tight cultures, cultural identity and its ele-
ments are salient and clear (Sussman,2000:370).Collective self-aspects frequently coexist
with cultural identity, including gender, ethnicity, and race. (ibid:358)

Sussman states that an individual’s self-defined cultural identity may differ from the
perception of others (ibid) .Moreover, awareness of membership in a particular social group
which is an element of social identity is not essential to cultural identity, which itself may be
unrecognized by its members.

16 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

1. Transla�on and Culture

In the age of globalization, in which language represents an important barrier in

communication , translation becomes the base of cultural communication since it “enables
language to cross borders and helps intercultural exchange and understanding” (Munoz-Cal-
vo,2010: 2). For this reason, there is a great need for “bicultural translators and interpreters
to translate across diverse languages and cultures, to act as mediators …and as necessary
intercultural communicators” (ibid). “Translation is the creation of a language of mediation
between various cultures”(Torop and Osimo, 2010: 383); and the mediator should be com-
petent enough to render them.

2. Iden�ty and Transla�on

Basically, translation is a triad of three members with conflicting identities: the author,
the translator and the reader. It is seen quadri by Nord (2002 :35) who sees translation as
an intercultural communicative interaction involving four participants: source-culture sender,
commissioner of a translation or initiator, translator, and target culture receivers. The point
worth focus is the identity of translation that results from the complex interaction and conflict
between the identities of members or participants of translation process.

Translation, for Bauman (1993:47-61), is an act of individual moral responsibility which is

based on an asymmetrical relation with the Other. The responsibility for the Other is not based
on reciprocity rather it is a kind of ambivalent relations or dichotomies that govern the world
in terms of an asymmetrical power relations. As such, translation is done so that the otherness
of the Other is appreciated (in foreignization). Brisset (1996:346) sees translation as “an act
of reclaiming, recentering of the identity “.These views focus on one kind of identity: personal
iden�ty.

Cronin (2006:1) asserts: “translation must be at the centre of any a�empt to think about
questions of identity in human society”, which is a call for having a social iden�ty. The contri-
bution of translation is paramount in describing both how certain forms of identity have come
into being and how they are being shaped” (ibid: 3)

Nord tries to build a trusting relationship between the partners in the translational inter-
action , a confidence that strengthens the translator’s social prestige as a responsible and trust-
worthy partner(2006 :34). Professionlism is the responsibility translators have toward their
partners (ST authors, commissioners of translation and TT receivers) as mediators between

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 17

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

two cultures. She sees loyalty as an “interpersonal category referring to a social relationship
between people who expect not to be cheated in the process”(ibid: 33).The iden�ty transla-
tors have in this sense is professional. . A professional translator deserves to be trusted by the
initiator whether s/he belongs to the source culture or target culture. The sender expects the
translator to respect his communicative intention and the receiver expects to read a translation
that corresponds to his expectations (ibid: 37).

Pym (2012) also sees translators as having professional responsibility in occupying an

intercultural space between St and TT cultures. Such (professional) translators collectively for-
mulate the goal of the profession in that the main responsibility of translators is to ensure and
enhance cultural cooperation. The role (and type) iden�ty they have as translators requires to
have a collective responsibility towards their profession.

Referring to the undeniable role in shaping cultures and national identities Mu-
noz-Calvo (2010: 5) states that translation is “the vehicle that may make compatible the
strengthening of our group identity and consequent knowledge of our own culture with
the sharing and learning of other cultures”(cultural iden�ty)

3.1 The Translator’s Iden�ty

The translator plays a powerful role to manage conflict and, therefore, the ethi-
cal principle is needed because “they could easily deceive their partners without any-
body noticing_ sometimes just by ‘faithfully’ translating what the source text says”(ibid:
36). A loyal translator should make sure that none of the participants (sender, initiator,
translator, and receiver) is deceived or damaged.

The means for cross-cultural communication is translation and, in this, it plays

an influential role in drawing cultures and national identities. In this sense, the process
of translation is a process of identification or constructing identities. It “can transform
identities … brought about by birth , culture and … community values and norms (Pir-
ouznik,2007:1).In translating, the translator constructs, reconstructs or deconstructs
identities. The identity of any translated work is a reflection of one or more of three
identities: the writer, the translator and the reader’s identity. Identity is not only re-
flected through textual features but through examining “perceptions and experiences
of identity both by writers and readers” (Matsuda, 2015: 141).The reader transacts a
text according to his or her characteristic identity.

18 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

The translator’s cultural identity is a determining factor in cross-cultural trans-

lation and since the translated text is a component of a target culture, cultural identity
is marked by the translator’s success in displaying “specific national cultural charac-
teristics” and expressing their “contents with nation color” (Shi-rong and An-na, 2012
:1767). And to achieve this, the “translator should have the ability to interpret the
original materials from cultural insights, grasping well the self-cultural identity and re-
producing original text for target readers who lack relative cultural information” . This
makes translation a “dynamic process of cross-cultural communication in which the
translator’s cultural identity would be established” (ibid:1768).Thus, the translator has
to get rid of self-ethnocentrism and superiority. He should also “know well languages
and cultures of both two sides, grasp adeptly the self-cultural identity, and dialectically
use foreignization and domestication in translation”(ibid:1771)

The relationship between translation and globalization has arisen over the past
ten years that the “pressures placed on translators working in a globalized context
amount to a professional identity crisis”(Kaspsaskis, 2011:162)

Cronin sees translation as an essential condition of the cultural dominance and

an “agent of centripetal globalization” .For him, questions of language, identity, power,
multiculturalism and interculturalism; and the relationship of their dimension of local
and global are very much to the fore in the realm of migration and translation .

Migration policies are divided into policies of translational assimilation and trans-
lational accommodation (Cronin, 2011:128).He explains the difference as follows:

Under a regime of transla�onal assimila�on, the stated objec�ve of

the state is that migrants will only qualify for ci�zenship if they can demon-
strate sa�sfactory proficiency in the language of the state, and policies will
be generally aimed at encouraging migrants to assimilate as rapidly as pos-
sible to the dominant or official language of the country, to translate them-
selves in other words into the language of their hosts. On the other hand,
a regime of transla�onal accommoda�on is one which acknowledges the
importance of linguis�c and cultural diversity in a society and the contribu-
�on of language and culture to the psychological and social well-being of

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 19

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

migrants and therefore supports transla�on prac�ces as a way of protect-

ing diversity while ensuring communica�on

(ibid)

Cronin studied the role of translation theory and practice in the globalized world
of cross-cultural communication and presented a micro-cosmopolitan approach to
translation and identity which is the perspective that this paper brings into focus.

3. Cronin’s ( Micro-)Cosmopolitan Approach

In Translation and Identity (2006) Michael Cronin grounds the contemporary
translation theory and practice on cosmopolitanism. For him, the vision of cosmopol-
itan writers travels from the margins to the centre of the literary world and overlooks
the importance of the local dimension and the inevitable interconnection between lo-
cal and global communication systems (Polezzi, 2011:176).He calls for a micro-cosmo-
politan perspective that draws near the centre and periphery ,the local and the global
in translation practice.

Believing in the ideal of seeing humanity as belonging to a simple moral commu-

nity, it was possible for Cronin (2006:14) to oppose the notion of macro-cosmopolitan-
ism with micro-cosmopolitanism as a “framework for thinking about translation in a
“progressive, enabling and non-exclusive fashion”. He states that micro-cosmopolitan
and macro-cosmopolitan thoughts share a number of core ideals such as concern for
freedom, openness to and tolerance of others and respect for difference. Yet, they dif-
fer in foregrounding other perspectives and in “freeing cosmopolitanism from a histor-
ical vision and a set of ideological presuppositions that threaten both its survival as a
necessary element of human self-understanding and its ability to speak meaningfully
to many different translation situations across the planet” (ibid). There is another rea-
son for preferring the micro-cosmopolitan perspective associated with nation-states in
which inhabitants (of these smaller political units) find themselves “subject to a double
bind”: either they “abandon…national identification… [and] embrace the cosmopolitan
credo [or they] persist with a claim of national specifity” to place themselves “outside

20 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

the cosmopolitan pale, being … incapable of openness to the other” (ibid: 14).

Thus, Cronin finds the macro-cosmopolitan approach hardly persuasive and “dis-
abling both intellectually and politically”(ibid: 15),and he calls for a micro-cosmopoli-
tan one. The la�er approach “does not involve the opposition of smaller political units
to larger political units (national or transnational).It is one which seeks to diversify or
complexify the smaller unit. In other words it is a cosmopolitanism not from above but
from below.”(ibid).

He links micro-cosmopolitanism to what he calls “fractal differentialism” (Cro-

nin,2006 :16-21) that “expresses the notion of a cultural complexity which remains
constant from the micro to the macro scale. That…the same degree of diversity is to
be found at the level of entities judged to be small or insignificant as at the level of
large entities “(ibid).It is a notion inspired from mathematics by the paper (1977) of the
French mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot who asks about the length of the coastline of
Britain. There are shapes and fractals that make this finite space have infinite length. It
is the same notion that Cronin calls for to underlie the fractal travelling of the intercul-
tural researcher in translation studies within his micro-cosmopolitan approach.

As he believes, the “fractal notion of travel bears directly on translation” (Cro-

nin,2000 :17).Translation phenomenon, he states, is present across different scales of
inquiry and the “ sensitivity to language details is partly then a function of the interac-
tion between the two modes of travel”: horizontal and vertical. He states:

[if] transla�on is conceived of primarily as transla�on into the mother

tongue…,then the translator is, from the point of view of mother-tongue
competence, first and foremost, an intralingual traveler. S/he must hor-
izontally [going to different regions, countries where the mother tongue
is spoken] and ver�cally [historical sense of language, awareness of de-
tail of place] explore the complex spread of language

(ibid:19)

Cronin states that the diversity as enriching a community and a country is a

key element in micro-cosmopolitan literature, but this “diversity should not be opposed
to identity by a dismissive macro-cosmopolitan moralism”(2006:18).

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 21

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Discussing the same point Gavioli and Baraldi (2012: 13) assert that Cronin’s no-
tion of “negentropic cosmopolitanism” ,which refers to translation and interpretation
as a cultural enrichment, comprises the possibility that they have to introduce new per-
spectives and cultural forms that are alive in a different cultural dimension and not only
understood. Some cultural differences, by necessity, require partial or non-rendition
due to the complexity of language and culture. In this sense, translation produces new
forms of cultures to create intercultural connection and produces new forms. It fosters
the cultural diversity (ibid).

Thus, the micro-cosmopolitan approach “provides a conceptual framework for

be�er articulating and understanding the relationship between the local and the global
,the particular and the universal ,the self and the other at the core of contemporary
thinking on translation”(Lane-Mercier,2008:242)

22 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

4. Micro-cosmopolitanism between Foreigniza�on and Domes�ca�on

Building his views on Schleiermacher’s choice of whether to domesticate or foreignize ,the

modern sense of domestication and foreignization is formulated by Lawrence Venuti’s The
Translator’s Invisibility(1995), in his focus on the intercultural role that translation plays. His
aim is

to force translators and their readers to reflect on the ethnocentric violence of

transla�on and hence to write and read translated texts in ways that recognize the
linguis�c and cultural differences of foreign texts…[T]o elaborate the theore�cal,
cri�cal, and textual means by which transla�on can be studied and prac�ced as a
locus of difference, instead of the homogeneity that widely characterizes it today .

(Venuti, 2008: 34)

In foreignization ,” foreignizing translation seeks to restrain the ethnocentric violence of

translation…[It]is a form of resistance against ethnocentrism and racism, cultural narcissism
and imperialism, in the interests of democratic geopolitical relations”(ibid: 16). As for domes-
tication, the author is brought back home in an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to
receiving cultural values (ibid:15).They represent two strategies that translators choose on an
ideological basis.

In foreighnizing a text, “the translator intentionally disrupts the linguistic and genre expec-
tations of the target language in order to mark the otherness of the translated text” (Myskja,
2013: 3). The case is opposite in domesticating a text in which the translator “strives for a style
as indistinguishable as possible from a text originally wri�en in the target language; fluency
and ‘naturalness’ are prioritized “(ibid)

“Through adopting domestication strategy, the translator’s cultural identity is established

and highlighted, at the same time, spreading in maximum his own nation characteristics, thus
further promoting the cross-cultural communication between east and west”. (Shi-rong and
An-na, 2012: 1769).Translation, in this sense is, viewed as a localization process. It is a “positive
transcultural act that supports cultural and linguistic diversity instead of suppressing it “ (Dany-
te, 2017:11).

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 23

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Going through these opposite strategies that formulate the translator’s work in the context
of cultural specifity shows the extent to which the micro-cosmopolitan approach is compre-
hensive in treating issues debated over them. The micro-cosmopolitan approach contextualiz-
es translation between the global and the local and revaluates their hybridity. It is progressive
and undermines “conventional wisdom”, that it takes a view from below and from the present
moment. It has an anti-essentialist direction diversifying and complexifying; and not exclusive
.It shares some characteristics with the macro-cosmopolitican approach that of: openness, tol-
erance, freedom support and respect of difference (Brogan,2009:23). In this sense it is a for-
eignizing approach that domesticates since it is :

One that operates from below rather than from above by situa�ng cul-
tural and linguis�c foreignness, difference and exchange [read: transla�on]
within the local, henceforth perceived in all its dynamic complexity ,as well
as its poten�al for interconnectedness and solidarity on both the local [in-
ward] and global [outward] dimension. It … avoids reduc�ve na�onalism,
disincarnated , condescending macro-cosmopolitanisms and neo-imperi-
alis�c transna�onalisms in an a�empt to ‘define specifity through and not
against mul�plicity’”

(Lane-Mercier,2008: 242)

24 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

5. Conclusion
Any translation is a reflection of identity .It either reflects the source culture
or the target culture. The cultural identity of any translation by necessity corresponds
to one of the following identities: identity of the writer, the reader or the translator.
During translation process, the translator could follow foreignization or domestication
strategy. In this sense, he may follow assimilation or accommodation in which the trans-
lator either be indulged in the target culture, or preserves the source culture. In order
to act positively and be professionally faithful, the translator has to be bias to his pro-
fessional identity rather than to the personal or social ones. There should be an eclectic
approach that underlies the work of the translator to account for all these aspects that
are essential to his work. The micro-cosmopolitan perspective ,discussed here, covers
all the dimensions required in this process. It proposes a polyidentity that could not be
shorthanded into one dimension at the expense of others. In emphasizing connected-
ness it gives new insights and definition for intercultural communication, which is a
basic aim of translation.

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 25

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

Bibliography

• Audi ,Robert (ed.).1999.The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.,2nd edition Cam-

bridge university press.

• Bauman, Zygmunt .1993.Postmodern Ethics, Blackwell, Oxford and Cambridge.

• Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of

Reality. New York: Doubleday .

• Brewer, M. B. 2001. The many faces of social identity: Implications for political
psychology. Political Psychology,22, 115-125

• Brisset,A.1996. A Sociocritique of Translation. Toronto : University of Toronto

Press.

• Brogan, Brendan M. 2009.”Vietnameseness in Translation: A Micro-Cosmopoli-

tan Approach” Unpublished MA thesis .Montreal: Concordia University.

• Clifford, James. 1988. The Predicament of Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.

• Cronin, Michael.2000. Across the Lines: Travel, Language, Translation .Cork: Cork Uni-
versity Press.

• --------------------- .2006.Translation and Identity .Oxon : Routledge.

• ----------------------.2011.”Globalization”in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation

Studies 2nd ed. Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha (eds). London: Routledge Tay-
lor & Francis Group . 126-130.

• Danyte,Milda.2017. “Translation and Other Transcultural Acts: Resistance to Lan-

guage Imperialism in the Age of English “ in Otherness: Essays and Studies 3.1
.Reached on 30/7/2017 at:

h�p://www.otherness.dk/journal/otherness-essays-studies-31/

Deng, Francis M. 1995. War of Visions: Conflict of Identities in the Sudan. Washing- •
.ton, DC: Brookings

26 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

• Dent, M. and Whitehead, S. 2002. Managing Professional Identities :Knowledge, Per-

formativities and the ‘New’ Professional. London: Routledge.

• Fearon ,James D.1999. What Is Identity (As We Now Use The Word)? Stanford Uni-
versity.

• Gavioli, Laura & Claudio Baraldi.2012.”Understanding Coordination in Interpreter-Medi-

ated Interaction” in Coordinating Participation in Dialogue Interpreting. Eds. Laura Gavi-
oli & Claudio Baraldi. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.1-22)

• Goldenberg D, and Iwasiw C.1993.”Professional socialization of nursing students

as an outcome of a senior clinical preceptorship experience”, Nurse Education
Today, 13(1): 3 -15.

• Goldmane, Linda.2014.”Sports activities’ influence on students’ identities and

social interactions” .Unpublished MA thesis. Aalborg University.

• Hogg, Michael and Dominic Abrams. 1988. Social Identifications: A Social Psy-
chology of Intergroup Relations and Group Processes. London: Routledge.

• Hogg, Michael A., Dominic Abrams, Sabine O�en and Steve Hinkle.2004. “The
Social Identity Perspective: Intergroup Relations, Self-Conception, and Small
Groups” in Small Group Research. Vol. 35:3, 246-276

• Jenkins, Richard. 1996. Social Identity. London: Routledge.

• Kapsaskis. 2011 .”Professional Identity and Training of Translators in the context

of Globalization: The Example of Subtitling” in The Journal of Specialized Trans-
lation .16: 162-184.

• Katzenstein, Peter, (ed). 1996. The Culture of National Security: Norms and Iden-
tity in World Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

• Kupiainen, Jari, Erkki Sevanen and John A. Stotesbury. 2004.Cultural Identity in Tran-
sition: Contemporary Conditions, Practices And Politics Of A Global Phenomenon.
New Delhi : Atlantic publisher and distributors

Lane-Mercier, Gillian. 2008.”La Formation en Traduction : Pedagogie, docimologie et •

.technologie” in TTR 21(1) :241-247

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 27

 TRANSLATION IDENTITY: A THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

• Markus, H. R. and P.Nurius.1986.”Possible selves” in American Psychologist.

41:954–969.

• Matsuda, Paul Kei.2015.”Identity in Wri�en Discourse in Annual Review of Ap-

plied Linguistics.35:140-159

• Munoz-Calvo, Micaela and Carmen Buesa-Gomez (eds).2010. Translation and

Cultural Identity: Selected Essays on Translation and Cross-Cultural Communica-
tion. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.

• Myskja, Kjetil.2013 “Foreignisation and Resistance: Lawrence and His Critics” in

Nordic Journal of English Studies 12(2): 1-23}.

• Nimbalkar,Namita.2011.”John locke on personal identity” in Brain ,Mind and

Consciousness.1(9) :268-275.

• Nord, Christiane .2002.’Manipulation and Loyalty in Functional Translation’ in

Translation and Power, Special Issue of current Writing 14/2(ed.) Ileana Dimitriu
,32-44.

• _______________. 2006.’Loyalty and Fidelity in Specialized Translation’.Conflu-

encias Revista de Traducao Cientifica e Tecnica. 4, 29-41.

• Pirouznik, Mehrnaz.2007.”Identity in Translation :Religion, Ideology, Politics”.

Unpublished MA thesis ,Islamic Azad University Science and Research Centre.

• Polezzi, Loredana.2011.”Mobility” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation

Studies eds : Gabriela Saldanha & Muna Baker. London: Routledge Taylor and
Francis Group 172-177.

• Pym, Anthony. 2003. Translational Ethics and Electronic Technologies .

• Shi-rong ,Zhang &Tao An-na. 2012. “Analysis on Translator’s Cultural Identity in

Intercultural Communication Translation from the Example of Chief Job’s Love
Le�er” in US-China Language.10 (11):1766-1771.

Stets, Jan E and Peter J Burke “Identity Theory and Social Theory” in Social Psychology •
Quarterly.2000.63 (3) :224-237

• Sussman, Nan M.2000. “The Dynamic Nature of Cultural Identity Throughout Cultural

28 Proceedings of Fourth International Academic Al-Ameed Conference

 ASSIST. PROF MAHA TAHIR EESA, PH,D

Transitions: Why Home Is Not So Sweet” in Personality and Social Psychology Review
. 4 (4) : 355–373

• Tajfel, H. (1972). “Social categorization”. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction à la psychol-

ogie sociale.1: 272-302).

• Taylor, Charles. 1989. The Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy reached at : h�ps://plato.stanford.edu/

• Torop, Peeter and Bruno Osimo.2010. “Historical Identity of Translation: From

Describability To Translatability Of Time” in Trames .14 (4): 383-393

• Venuti Lawrence. 2008.The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation.

Oxon : Routledge.

• Webb, Stephen A.2015.Professional Identity and Social Work .( Key note presen-
tation to 5th International Conference on Sociology and Social Work: New Direc-
tions in Critical Sociology and Social Work:

Identity, Narratives and Praxis in August 2015 at Glasgow Caledonian University)

• Wendt, Alexander. 1992.”Anarchy is What States Make of It.” International Orga-

nization.46:391-426.

Thilhujja 1438 October 2017 29

View publication stats