Social And Ethnic Groups

In contrast, TT2 translator applied Venuti‟s foreignization approach along with Aixela‟s intratextual gloss strategy. She translated cajun as ―Fransız asıllı bir Cajun‖, which literally translates as a “Cajun of French origin‖. In this way, she not only kept the CSI but also managed to introduce it to target text readers by “including her gloss as an indistinct part of the text so as not to disturb the attention of readers” (Aixela, 1996, p.

62). Moreover, she allowed her readers to taste the exotic flavor of the CSI by means of explicitness and managed to become a visible translator.

Example 57

ST The hate groups were too obvious. (p. 55) TT1 Nefret grupları pek göz önündeydi. (p. 56) TT2 Nefret grupları çok ortadaydı. (p. 64)

TT1 TT2

Applied Strategy (Venuti)

Foreignization Foreignization

Applied Strategy (Aixela)

Conservation (Linguistic translation)

Conservation (Linguistic translation)

Given that the United States consists of various racial, ethnic and social groups, it is no wonder that there may arise controversies and disagreements among them. A hate group could be defined as “an organization whose goals and activities are primarily or substantially based on a shared antipathy towards people of one or more other different races, religions, ethnicities/nationalities/national origins, genders, and/or sexual identities”(https://www.adl.org/). Based on the data provided by Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), there are currently 1020 hate groups currently operating in the United States (https://www.splcenter.org). It is necessary to note that hate groups are a phenomenon peculiar to the US and there are even some concepts and laws revolving around hatred such as hate groups, hate speech and hate crimes.

Conversely, the concept of hate groups is currently nonexistent in Turkey even though the concepts of hate speech and hate crimes came to be used in Turkish. The analysis clearly demonstrates that both TT1 and TT2 translators employed Venuti‟s foreignization approach via Aixela‟s linguistic translation method. In other words, they preferred to use a reference in the target text that had a very close denotation to the source CSI and still considered as belonging to the source culture system.

Example 58

ST ...hunters, animal lovers, white supremacists¹, black supremacists², tax protestors, loggers, farmers.... (p. 2)

TT1 ….vergilere itiraz edenler, ormancılar ve çiftçiler... (p. 7)

TT2 ....hayvan severler, beyazların üstünlüğüne inananlar¹, siyahların üstünlüğüne inananlar², vergi protestocuları, orman iĢçileri, çiftçiler...

(p. 6 )

TT1 TT2

Applied Strategy (Venuti)

1Domestication

2Domestication

1Foreignization

2Foreignization

Applied Strategy (Aixela)

1Substitution (Deletion)

2Substitution (Deletion)

1Conservation (Intratextual Gloss)

2Conservation (Intratextual Gloss)

As mentioned in the previous example, there are more than a thousand hate groups operating in the US. Grisham refers to two of the most extremist ideas that these hate groups revolve around in his work, namely white supremacists and black supremacists.

It is necessary to make a definition of them before setting out for the analysis. A white supremacist, as the names suggests, refers to a person who believes that white race is superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races. In contrast, a black supremacist is someone who opposes to this belief and believes in the superiority of the black race over other races. The analysis of the two CSIs above shows clearly that the TT1 translator adopted Venuti‟s domestication by means of deleting them. He might have thought that it would be not relevant enough to send readers abroad by introducing them in the target text, whereby he remains invisible as a translator. In contrast, the TT2 translator employed Venuti‟s foreignization approach in that she translated both CSIs by means of intratextual gloss strategy offered by Aixela. In her effort to make explicit the CSIs, she might have thought it relevant enough to explicate them via a gloss as „indistinct part of the text‟

that would not disturb readers‟ attention. Therefore, her approach allows her to remain visible as a translator.

Example 59

ST Everyone, it seemed, but the Rotarians¹ and the Boy Scouts² . (p. 4) TT1 Rotaryenler¹ ve izciler² dıĢında neredeyse herkes. (p. 10)

TT2 Rotary kulüpleri¹ ve İzciler² dıĢında neredeyse tüm gruplar.(p. 8)

TT1 TT2

Applied Strategy (Venuti)

1Foreignization

2Domestication

1Foreignization

2Domestication Applied

Strategy (Aixela)

1Conservation (Repetition)

2Substitution (Absolute universalization)

1Conservation (Intratextual Gloss)

2Substitution (Absolute universalization)

A Rotarian refers to a member of Rotary International, which is a civilian service club established in the United States in 1905 by Paul P. Harris, a Chicago attorney (https://www.britannica.com). Subsequently, The Boy Scouts of America (the BSA) is

“one of the largest Scouting organizations in the United States of America and one of the largest youth organizations in the United States, with more than 2.4 million youth participants and nearly one million adult volunteers” (https://www.scouting.org). It is important to remind that Rotary International operates in Turkey as well and that Turkish readers are already familiar with both Rotary International and rotarian as there are pre-established translations of them in Turkish, Rotary Kulübü and rotaryen, respectively. When we look at the translation of the Rotarians, we can see that both TT1 and TT2 translator adopted Venuti‟s foreignization approach; however, their translation strategy offered by Aixela slightly differs in that the TT1 translator applied repetition strategy by using its pre-established translation in Turkish. The TT2 translator resorted to an intratextual gloss in which she explicated the Rotary International rather than its member.

As for the analysis of the second CSI, i.e., The Boy Scouts, we can see that both translators employed Venuti‟s domestication approach via Aixela‟s absolute universalization strategy. However, the TT1 translated it as “izciler” (scouts) and used a lowercase letter, which does not allow readers to understand it as a proper noun. He might have thought that deleting the connotation of the CSI and replacing it with a non cultural item in the target text would not influence the basic meaning of the source text.

Likewise, the TT2 translator applied the same strategy with only one difference by translating it with an uppercase letter, which might be useful for readers to comprehend that the word is a proper noun that refers to an organization in the source culture.

However, it is evident that both translators remained invisible by replacing the source

CSI with a neutral reference in the target text, which in turn led to the loss of the cultural connotation.

Example 60

ST The Klan¹, …. Even the IRA². (p. 4) TT1 Ku Klux Klan¹… ve hatta IRA². (p. 10)

TT2 Ku Klux Klan¹... . Hatta İrlanda Cumhuriyet Ordusu². (p. 8)

TT1 TT2

Applied Strategy (Venuti)

1Foreignization

2Foreignization

1Foreignization

2Foreignization

Applied Strategy (Aixela)

1Conservation (Repetition)

2Conservation (Repetition)

1Conservation (Repetition)

2Conservation (Linguistic translation)

Stack (2019) reports that there are over 1000 hate groups active in the US (https://www.nytimes.com) and Grisham makes a reference to another pair of them in this example, namely Ku Klux Klan and IRA. The Ku Klux Klan commonly called the KKK or the Klan, is one of the foremost notorious American white supremacist hate groups in the US. The IRA is the second hate group that Grisham refers to, which stands for The Irish Republican Army. When we look at the analysis of the first CSI, it is crystal clear that both translators applied Venuti‟s foreignization approach and kept as much as they could of the original reference by means of Aixela‟s repetition strategy. Moreover, they translated the CSI with its unabridged version, namely Ku Klux Klan instead of the Klan. Such a preference might arise from the fact that Turkish readers are already familiar with Ku Klux Klan rather than Klan.

As for the analysis of the second CSI, i.e., the IRA, both translators employed Venuti‟s foreignization approach. However, their strategies offered by Aixela slightly differ. The TT1 translator resorted to Aixela‟s repetition strategy by keeping its original acronym form in the target text as well. His “respectful” approach might allow the foreignness of the CSI to be felt among Turkish readers. On the other hand, the TT2 translator employed Aixela‟s linguistic translation strategy by explicating the acronym in such a way that it is still viewed as pertaining to the source culture system. Her strategy makes

use of the reference whose denotation is close to the source text albeit with target language system version. Hence, target text readers feel that the CSI belongs to the source culture system. Finally, the analyses of both CSIs demonstrate the fact that both translators remain visible as translators by employing Venuti‟s foreignization approach.