The Function of Translation in Domesticating the Discourse of Literary Theory and Criticism based on the Connections between Tone, Voice and Power

This paper discusses the role of translated works in the foreignization of the discourse of literary theory in Iran. New literary theories have encountered occasional objections. These theories have sometimes been accused of being alien to our tradition of literary criticism and sometimes of being meaningless ambiguity and complication. In addition to the natural complication of literary theories and the prerequisite knowledge of other fields – which makes their understanding even more difficult – translations have occasionally contributed to this difficulty. The ‘voice of translation’, as one the basic components, has always been a matter of importance to theorists and critics, some of whom believe that the translator can exclusivize and specialize a discipline of knowledge by deviating from the voice of the source text and by elevating the level of translation higher than the level of the general audiences’ understanding. In this way, translators can increase the discursive authority of that discipline. By presenting some examples of Persian translations of literary theory, we will show how elevating the target voice above the source voice can result in discursive dominance and wielding power over the audiences and, eventually, their subjugation to the discourse. 
 
Extended Abstract
 
1. Introduction
New literary theories have been regarded as irreconcilable with the tradition literary criticism in Iran and at times are considered highly complicated and ambiguous. While literary theories by nature might, to a degree, be difficult to understand, it seems that translations of works of literary theory have added to their complexity. ‘Voice’ in translation, as one of the most fundamental components, has been of great importance to theorists and critics. By changing the voice, or sometimes elevating it, the translator can make a text more difficult to understand for the general audience and thus make it more exclusive and add to the authority of the discourse in a specific field.
 
2. Theoretical Framework
Of different theories analyzing the relation between voice in translation and power, the theory of discursive presence offers great applicability. One of the greatest instances of the discursive presence of the translator can be identified in the omissions and additions they make. The main ideas in this theory have been used in the present article to analyze some important works of translation into Farsi.
 
3. Methodology
Though interconnected, “translation criticism” and the “appraisal of the quality of translation” are different in significant ways and it is necessary to consider the distinction between the two in translation studies. While the “appraisal of the quality of translation” compares and contrasts the source language and the target language, “translation criticism” falls more within the field of literary criticism and evaluates the functions and impact of translation on the target culture. The overarching aim of the present study is to critically examine translation and discuss the influence it has in both the target language and target culture. Appraisal of translation lies more in the field of linguistics whereas translation criticism belongs to the field of literary criticism and cultural studies.
 
 
4. Findings
The present study demonstrates that a specific discursive space is created by those translations that, in their aspiration for correctness, employ strange and unfamiliar equivalents. This discursive space affects subsequent translations. Moreover, the translations in which the tone is more technical and complicated than the original text are a means for displaying the translators’ power. The case studies in the present article show that at points some equivalents are either too much Persianized or too much Arabicized. Despite their technical use and meaning, some of the terms in the original language are among its ordinary words; nonetheless, some translators opt for alienating equivalents. This usually happens whenever the translators consider no boundaries for their discursive presence. Thus, the translations’ faults and inaccuracies tend to be justified by claims about the complexities of the original text and this is, in turn, used to procure credit and authority for otherwise bombastic translations.   
 
5. Conclusion
At times translators opt for equivalents that look strange or even incomprehensible to the speakers of the target language, while the original words in the source text are more readily understood by the readers in the source language. Thus, the voice in translation has a multifaceted connection with power relations. The power resulting from the translations of great works by great translators encourages other less-competent translators to use the same type of alienating language, making the audiences accept the discourse that they are involved in and think that they are experiencing an extraordinary phenomenon. The strangeness of the voice is thus connected with authority, which is used sometimes to justify the complicated and at times incomprehensible language in some Persian translations.