TÍNH NỘI ĐỊA HOÁ VÀ NGOẠI LAI HOÁ TRONG BẢN DỊCH ANHVIỆT HÃY VỜ NHƯ CHUYỆN NÀY CHƯA TỪNG XẢY RA CỦA TÁC GIẢ JIM BENTON

‘Domestication’ andor ‘foreignization’ plays a critical role in translation and it depends on the translator’s choice about whether and to what extent they are employed in any translation. In light of Venuti’s theory on ‘domestication’ and ‘foreignization’, ‘Let’s Pretend This Never Happened’ written by Jim Benton and its translation by Phong Linh were chosen for analysis. Combining three models by Peter Newmark, Espindola, and Aixela, and the researcher’s categories, instances of culturespecific items, wordplay, and syllables from the translation were extracted for analysis by comparison and contrast, and expert consultation. The frequency of domestication and foreignization was also discussed. The study found out that foreignization was much more predominant than domestication. Of 45 instances, there are only 8 domesticated instances. Only common expressions were more domesticated than foreignized. Foreignization seems more advantageous than domestication in the current context when the target readers are more capable of English and the informationsearching demand is explosive.

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

DOMESTICATION AND FOREIGNIZATION IN THE ENGLISH-VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION OF JIM

BENTON’S LET’S PRETEND THIS NEVER HAPPENED

Supervisor: Nguyen Ngoc Ninh, M.A.

Student: Duong Thi Ngoc Anh

Course: QH2010.F1.E21

HANOI – 2014

ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHOÁ LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

TÍNH NỘI ĐỊA HOÁ VÀ NGOẠI LAI HOÁ TRONG

BẢN DỊCH ANH-VIỆT HÃY VỜ NHƯ CHUYỆN NÀY CHƯA TỪNG XẢY RA CỦA TÁC GIẢ JIM BENTON

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: ThS Nguyễn Ngọc Ninh Sinh viên: Dương Thị Ngọc Anh

Khoá: QH2010.F1.E21

HÀ NỘI – NĂM 2014

I hereby state that I: Duong Thi Ngoc Anh, QH2010.F1.E21, being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper.

Hanoi, 2014

Duong Thi Ngoc Anh

Firstly, my sincerest gratitude goes to my supervisor, Ms Nguyen Ngoc Ninh for her wholehearted encouragement and support during the last several months The graduation paper cannot be completed without her.

Secondly, I would like to express my thanks to my classmates, class QH2010.F1.E21, for their advice and encouragement when I was really under pressure.

Thirdly, gratefulness and love are sent to my mother From the bottom of my heart, I owe her for all the things she has done for me.

Lastly, I send my thanks to the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education and all the teachers in the division of Translation and Interpreting for supporting students for the last four years

‘Domestication’ and/or ‘foreignization’ plays a critical role in translation and itdepends on the translator’s choice about whether and to what extent they are employed

in any translation In light of Venuti’s theory on ‘domestication’ and ‘foreignization’,

‘Let’s Pretend This Never Happened’ written by Jim Benton and its translation by

Phong Linh were chosen for analysis Combining three models by Peter Newmark,Espindola, and Aixela, and the researcher’s categories, instances of culture-specificitems, wordplay, and syllables from the translation were extracted for analysis bycomparison and contrast, and expert consultation The frequency of domestication andforeignization was also discussed The study found out that foreignization was muchmore predominant than domestication Of 45 instances, there are only 8 domesticatedinstances Only common expressions were more domesticated than foreignized.Foreignization seems more advantageous than domestication in the current contextwhen the target readers are more capable of English and the information-searchingdemand is explosive

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

ABSTRACT ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iii

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Rationale of the study 1

1.2 Aims of the study 4

1.3 Research questions 4

1.4 Scope of the study 4

1.5 Significance of the study 5

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 6

2.1 Foreignization and domestication 6

2.1.1 Definitions of domestication and foreignization - Venuti’s theory 6

2.1.2 Studies on domestication and foreignization 9

2.1.3 Domestication or foreignization 10

2.2 Culture-specific items 12

2.2.1 Definition of culture-specific items 12

2.2.2 Categories 13

2.3 Linguistic aspects 17

2.3.1 Wordplay 17

2.3.2 Characteristics of English and Vietnamese languages’ syllables 18

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 21

3.1 The reasons to choose the book ‘Let’s Pretend This Never Happened’ 21

3.2 The book ‘Let’s Pretend This Never Happened’ 21

3.3 The readership of ‘Let’s Pretend This Never Happened’ 22

3.4 Data analysis methods and procedures 23

3.4.1 Coding 23

3.4.2 Grouping 23

3.4.3 Analyzing 23

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 25

4.1 Culture-specific items 25

4.1.1 Proper names and nicknames 25

4.1.2 Common expressions……… 31

4.2 Linguistic aspects 32

4.2.1 Wordplay 32

4.2.2 Syllables 34

4.4 Quantitative discussion 35

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS 39

5.1 Major findings and implications 39

5.2 Limitations 39 5.3 Recommendation for further research 40 REFERENCES 41

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Page

Table 2 Categories proposed by Espindola (as cited in Matielo) 14-15Table 3 Categories proposed by Aixela (as cited in Brasiene 2013) 15-16

Figure 3 Domestication and foreignization in culture-specific items 37

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This chapter explains why domestication and foreignization are chosen for thepresent study Aims of the study are presented as the destination to reach The tworesearch questions, the scope and significance of the study are also provided

1.1 Rationale of the study

Literary translations have recently received huge attention from Vietnamese

readers with notable works including ‘Da Vinci Code’ (Mật Mã Da Vinci) translated

by Do Thu Ha, ‘La carte et le territoire’ (Bản đồ và Vùng đất) translated by Cao Viet Dung, ‘The Things They Carried’ (Những Thứ Họ Mang) translated by Tran Tien Cao Dang and ‘The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring’ (Đoàn Hộ Nhẫn )

translated by Dang Tran Viet, Nguyen Thi Thu Yen, and An Ly Discussions weregenerated surrounding translation errors, translation equivalence, and the “degree” ofthese translations “Degree” here refers to how much a translator should follow theoriginal

The two most recent and heated debates are about the “degree” of the

translations of ‘The Things They Carried’ and ‘The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship

of the Ring’ “The dumb cooze never writes back” in ‘The Things They Carried’ is the

most controversial sentence The translator Tran Tien Cao Dang faithfully translatedinto “Con mặt l** ngu đ** bao giờ trả lời”, which encountered huge objection fromVietnamese readers for its obscenity Nguyen (2013), a Vietnamese modern poet,claimed that no matter how exactly the sentence was translated, Vietnamese readerswould never accept that because it would not be regarded as literature in Vietnameseculture

Besides, the translation of characters’ names in ‘The Lord of the Rings: the

Fellowship of the Ring’ has also raised a heated discussion Thu (2013) wrote:

Vietnamese readers got accessed to the movie first and got familiar withthe English names before the publication of “Đoàn Hộ Nhẫn”, sodiscussion is inevitable That “Proudfoot” is translated into “Bàn Chân

Oách”, “Dady TwoFoot” into “Bố Hai Chân”, or “Paddifoot” into “ChânĐạp Bùn” is said to be awkward and meaningless

In this case, Vietnamese readers do not appreciate the translation of proper namesalthough they might read more easily in Vietnamese There are two flows of opinion,one from the readers, the other from the translators and scholars The readers of thebook apposed that names of the characters should not be translated They think thattranslating makes the translation far less interesting than the original book Mr MinhTuan, a lecturer at Hanoi University of Science and Technology, said that for instance,that “Proudfoots” was translated into “Bàn Chân Oách” and “Proudfeet” wastranslated into “Đôi Chân Oách” made him understand nothing about the wordplay ofthese two words in the original Domestication was not good all the time (Thu, 2013)

In contrast, the translators of the book said that it was required by the authorand many scholars said that the readers could feel the translation better An Ly, one of

the three translators of ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ claimed that if English names

were kept the same, Vietnamese readers, especially those who were not good enough

in English could not clearly understand the original Translating the names was aimed

to help Vietnamese readers to have a more appropriate assess and convey the author’sintention (Thu, 2013)

From the two examples, it can be seen that being faithful to the original work orbeing friendly with the target readers is opposed by the target readers of the two books,which excites the researchers to carry out a study on this translation issue

In addition, many translators have raised their voices after many discussions onliterary translations One seminar on translation in publishing was held by Nha NamPublishing House and French Cultural Center Many eminent translators agreed withthe idea of the professional translator Le Hong Sam on the “degree” of translation that

“[t]ranslation is a faithful duty that needs creativity”, which means translators shouldfollow the original work but need to be flexible because “the boundary between thesacredness, honor, and humor is delicate, each translator needs to clearly determine his

or her own approach of ‘degree’” The translator Trinh Lu contributed that formerly,translators used to “domesticate” names of persons and landscapes in order for thetarget readers to read more easily but now with the readers’ increase of awareness andqualification, being faithful to the original is inclined to dominate (Anh, 2013).

Translator Luong Viet Dung agreed with Trinh Lu that in the beginning ofVietnamese translation, the popularly used strategy was adaption, even foreign nameswere domesticated so that Vietnamese readers could remember That strategy wassuitable with the readers at that time Gradually, it has changed to adoption – stick tothe original (Ly, 2013) Adaption means “the process of changing something, forexample your behavior, to suit a new situation” (Hornby 2010, p.16) Accordingly,adaption in translation means changing foreign elements like foreign names intoVietnamese so that Vietnamese readers do not feel strangeness in the translation.Conversely, adoption means accepting foreign elements or sticking to the original

The above discussion is related to an aspect of translation studies which isdomestication and foreignization The former is similar to adaption and the latterresembles adoption According to Trinh Lu and Luong Viet Dung, domestication iscurrently less being used instead of foreignization; however, there are no systematicstudies to prove it They also do not point out how foreignization and domesticationare presented Studies on domestication and foreignization are mainly in translationsfrom English into other languages rather than Vietnamese or vice versa These studiesonly mainly focus on culture-specific items Therefore, the researcher would like to

conduct a study named “Domestication and foreignization in the

English-Vietnamese translation of Jim Benton’s Let’s Pretend This Never Happened” to

discover more profoundly in this aspect

The work chosen to be investigated is the translation of ‘Let’s Pretend This

Never Happened’ by Jim Benton The first reason is that the translation is recently

translated in 2009, which can represent the trend of the translating profession to someextent The second reason is that the translation is very popular and gets much

attention from the readers who are interested in not only the contents but also thetranslating aspect The third reason is the translator of the work, Phong Linh, is theprofessional one in the translating village of Vietnam.

1.2 Aims of the study

This major aim of the present study is to analyze the culture-specific items,

wordplay and syllables of ‘Let’s Pretend This Never Happened’ in the Dear Dumb

Diary series to find out how foreignization and domestication are presented and which

translation strategy, domestication and foreignization, is more predominant This study

is not aimed to judge the translation but only commenting on the instances ofdomestication and foreignization

1.3 Research questions

The present study seeks answers to the following questions:

Question 1: What kind of language items were foreignized or domesticated in the translation of ‘Let’s Pretend This Never Happened’?

Question 2: Which strategy, domestication or foreignization, is more predominant in the translation of ‘Let’s Pretend This Never Happened’?

1.4 Scope of the study

This is a small case study to deeply investigate the instances of domestication

and foreignization in the English-Vietnamese translation of ‘Let’s Pretend This Never

Happened’ by translator Phong Linh This book is the first book of the Dear Dumb Diary series by Jim Benton The first nine books have been translated into Vietnamese

so far; however, the researcher only takes the first into consideration because this is aqualitative research of which the effort was made to investigate the issue with depthand thoroughness The researcher does not count the number of domestication andforeignization instances to make generalizations about trends Instead, in-depthanalysis is carried out on each instance of domestication and foreignization related toculture-specific items, wordplay, and syllables to answer the two research questions

1.5 Significance of the study

Firstly, this study is hoped to provide a clearer view on foregnization anddomestication in English to Vietnamese translations It does not stop at defining whatthey are but also specifically analyzes the instances so that people of interest can learn

or use as a source of reference

Secondly, this study can be a source of materials for teaching and learningabout domestication and foreignization theories in the subject of Translation Studies IIfor interpreting and translating students and teachers of translation in the Faculty ofEnglish Language Teaching Education Students can find useful analysis of instances

of domestication and foreignization in this study Moreover, teachers may also findsome theories useful for their teaching

Thirdly, translators can find a way to deal with domestication andforeignization in certain cases as the instances appearing in the studied translation can

be found in other books or materials

Finally, this study plays a role as an initial study on domestication andforeignization in English to Vietnamese translations It is hoped that this study wouldintrigue other researchers to spend their time and effort taking more investigation intothis aspect so that it can be further accomplished

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides an overview on Venuti’s point of view of domesticationand foreignization Some studies on domestication and foreignization are presented toreview what has been discussed and generate ideas for the present study Culture-specific items, wordplay and syllables are selected for analysis The definitions,characteristics and categories are discussed to form a ground for the later findings anddiscussion

2.1 Domestication and foreignization

2.1.1 Definitions of domestication and foreignization

The terms ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’ could be traced back withGoethe (as cited in Venuti 1995, p 104):

There are two maxims in translation: one requires that the author of aforeign nation be brought across to us in such a way that we can look onhim as ours; the other requires that we should go across to what isforeign and adapt ourselves to its conditions, its use of language, itspeculiarities

The first idea is about ‘domestication’ when the author is brought across to the targetculture The latter idea is about ‘foreignization’ which requires the target readers to goacross to adapt to the author’s environment

However, the idea of ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’ is more well-knownwith the theologian and philosopher Friedrich Schleiermacher When mentioning thechoices that a translator can make, Schleiermacher (as cited in Venuti 1995, p 20)stated that:

There are only two Either the translator leaves the author in peace, asmuch as possible, and moves the reader toward him Or he leaves thereader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author toward him With this definition, the translator has two choices One is that the translator can keepthe original as much as possible, forcing the target readers to feel foreign flavors,which means he is using foreignization strategy; or he can domesticate the original sothat the target readers can be more relaxed to read the translation, which means he is

using domestication strategy It seems that domestication and foreignization formulatetwo sides in which the translator acts as a mediator sitting on the fence to reconcile theeasy readability with the presence of the author’s culture It is hard for the translator tosit firmly on the fence, he either leans over this side or the other In his definition,Schleiermacher also points out that there is no absolute domestication orforeignization, the translator can only move “as much as possible” to satisfy one side

Compared to Goethe’s definition, Schleiermacher’s seems less specific in terms

of foreignization when it mentions the source culture’s conditions, the use of SL, andthe peculiarities Yet, these criteria are still obscure in details

‘Domestication’ and ‘foreignization’ are then strongly developed by Venuti

with ‘The Translator’s Invisibility’ first published in 1995 Venuti (1995, p.14) described the invisibility of the translators in contemporary Anglo-American culture:

A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judgedacceptable by most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it readsfluently, when the absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiaritiesmakes it seem transparent, giving the appearance that it reflects theforeign writer’s personality or intention or the essential meaning of theforeign text—the appearance, in other words, that the translation is not infact a translation, but the ‘original’

Domestication makes the translator invisible because the target readers perceive thetranslation as the original The translation in this situation is so transparent that there is

no sign of foreignness and the readers pay no attention to the appearance of thetranslator as Norman Shapiro (as cited in Venuti 1995, p 1) claimed:

A good translation is like a pane of glass You only notice that it’s therewhen there are little imperfections-scratches, bubbles Ideally, thereshouldn’t be any It should never call attention to itself

‘Imperfections’ here means the foreign elements in the translation The Englishreaders cannot realize a translation because it is too fluent in their language

However, that is not Venuti’s definition of domestication He did not coin outexactly the definition of ‘domestication’ and ‘foreignization’; he only stated that “themore fluent the translation, the more invisible the translator, and, presumably, the

more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text” (Venuti 1995, p.2) and

“foreignizing translation signifies the difference of the foreign text,” (Venuti 1995, p.20) At this point, he agreed with Schleiermacher that there is no absolutedomestication or foreignization A more domesticated translation means a more fluentone read by the target readers A more foreignized translation is composed of moreforeignness Venuti (2012, p 105) also pointed out his opinion of domestication andforeignization:

The terms “domestication” and “foreignization” do not establish a neatbinary apposition that can simply be superimposed on “fluent” or

“resistant” discursive strategies […] Both sets of terms demarcate aspectrum of textual and cultural effects that depend for their descriptionand evaluation on the relation between a translation project and thehierarchical arrangement values in the receiving situation at a particularhistorical moment

‘Domestication’ and ‘foreignization’ form a spectrum of effects, which means adomesticated instance may still reserve some foreign flavor or vice versa

For example, there is a conversation on the road between a nephew and hisuncle:

Nephew: - Good morning, Jason!

Uncle: - Hi!

And the researcher suggests two versions of translation:

Cháu: Chào buổi sáng, chú Jason!

Chú: Chào cháu

Cháu: Chú đi đâu đấy ạ?

does not require an answer; it is a kind of Vietnamese greeting Version 1 also can beconsidered domesticated as it adds ‘chú’ before ‘Jason’ and ‘hi’ is translated into ‘chàocháu’ instead of ‘chào’ only Most importantly, the reason version 1 is moreforeignized is version 1 keeps the form of English greeting Vietnamese readers canfeel the difference or the foreign flavor here.

It can be concluded that domestication is a translation strategy in which thetranslator makes the translation as much fluent and transparent as possible, which helpthe target readers enjoy the translated work at ease Meanwhile, foreignization meansretaining something foreign in the target text, making the target readers to feel thatforeignness

The problem in defining ‘domestication’ and ‘foreignization’ is that there are nocriteria for determining what can be foreignized and what can be domesticated.Tymoczko (as cited in Myskja, p 7) criticized Venuti’s concepts that “necessary andsufficient criteria for foreignization are never established.” Based on the definition anddiscussion, the researcher decides to focus on culture-specific items, wordplay, andsyllables that can conjure up the difference and make the translator to choose between

‘domestication’ and ‘foreignization’

2.1.2 Studies on domestication and foreignization

Many studies on domestication and foreignization have been carried out;however, they mostly research on the translations from English into other languages orvice versa Some major studies will be presented to show what they are about

The first is A Diachronic Study of Domestication and Foreignization Strategies

of Culture-Specific Items in English-Persian Translations of Six of Hemingway’s Works by Esamail Zare-Behtash and Sepideh Firoozkoohi This study was conducted

on the translation of six of Hemingway’s works over the period of 1950s and 2000s.The study found out that domestication was pervasive during that time

Another study is Domestication and Foreignization: An Analysis of

Culture-Specific Items in Official and Non-Official Subtitles of the TV Series Heros by Rafael

Matielo and Elaine B Espindola This study was carried out in the translation ofsubtitles from English to Portuguese The result was that foreignization was used morefrequently than domestication

One more study is A Comparative Study of Translation Strategies Applied in

Dealing with Culture-Specific Items of Romance Novels before and after the Islamic Revolution of Iran by Mansoor Fahim and Zaha Mazaheri This study analyzed the

culture-specific items of the translations from English to Persian It found out thatbefore the Revolution, foreignization was dominant and vice versa domestication wasmore prevalent after the revolution

Many other studies are on this issue like Domestication and Foreignization? A

Comparative Study on Three Translation of Wenxin Diaolong by GaoHan, which

focused on title, key terms, rhetorics, and grammatical features Foreignization and

Domestication in the Croatian translations of Oscar Wilde’s the Picture of Dorian Gray by Goran Schmidt, which analyzed culture-specific items and syntax Or Tension between Domestication and Foreignization in English-language Translations of Anna Karenina by Maya Birdwood-Hedger, which analyzed culture-specific aspects with a

variety of variables like cultural lacunas, culture-specific gestures, participles andgerunds, idioms, non-equivalence of semantic fields, words denoting measures, names,personal pronouns, word order, puns

It can be seen that most of the studies work on culture-specific items Somework on other aspects in grammar, syntax Like those studies, the present study alsoanalyzes culture-specific items Besides, the researcher takes wordplay and syllablesinto consideration

2.1.3 Domestication or foreignization

Right in the definitions, the strengths of the two strategies are revealed.Domestication brings the author to the target reader, which means the reader does nothave much work to do except for enjoying the translation because it is transparent andfluent Nonetheless, the target readers do not have a chance to get access to new

cultures and languages In contrast to the targets’ relaxation, translators are underpressure to produce a fluent translation They need to manage in their capacity ofmother tongue to accomplish their mission; then the target language can be fullymobilized.

On the other hand, Lefevere (1992, p 68) stated that:

Languages benefit greatly if skillful translators dare to give some foreignfigure of speech or style to their nation, as long as it does not deviate toomuch from that nation’s customs and general way of life They can alsoimitate the language of the original, using it as a kind of matrix, andinvent or construct new well-formed words to enrich the language theytranslate into

Languages are different from each other Accordingly, when foreignization bringssome foreign elements to the translation and the target readers accept them and applythem appropriately, then the target language will be more diverse However, Lefeverementions “not deviate too much”, which benefits the target language It can be inferredthat if the target language is deviated too much, it will be challenged In the context ofVietnam, the reduction of Vietnamese language purity is raising a heated discussion.English is used everywhere, Vietnamese newspapers have recently discussed thepurity reduction of Vietnamese language with the invasion of foreign languages,especially English Minh (2013) claimed that English is used in everyday activitieslike ‘ok’, ‘no’, ‘yes’ or even the English words having the equivalence in Vietnameselike showbiz, gameshow, rocker, scandal, stress, etc

Schleiermacher (as cited in Venuti 1995) also commented on the foreignizingtranslation strategy that:

A foreignizing translation strategy can be useful in building a nationalculture, forging a foreign-based cultural identity for a linguisticcommunity about to achieve political autonomy, it can also undermineany concept of nation by challenging cultural canons, disciplinaryboundaries, and national values in the target language

He only mentioned the possibility, not an assertion, that the foreignizing translationstrategy can be beneficial or harmful If challenges can be overcome, the target

language will benefit from the foreign flavors or the linguistic and cultural differences

in the translation

‘Domestication’ or ‘foreignization’ has its own advantages and disadvantagesand translators play a vital role in choosing one of them However, the translator has tothink of his readers as one of the most important factors to the success of a translation

as Koskinen (2000, p 67) pointed out that “audience expectations and the constraintsset by the receiving culture play an important role in the decisions of domestication orforeignization.”

Foreignization is more frequently used instead of domestication as Venuti(1995, p 20) argued that foreignization is “highly desirable today, a strategic culturalintervention in the current state of world affairs, pitched against the hegemonicEnglish-language nations and the unequal cultural exchanges.” In Vietnam, twoeminent translators, Trinh Lu and Luong Viet Dung, also support this idea asmentioned in the rationale This does not mean foreignization is dominant todomestication The strengths and weaknesses are discussed above

2.2 Culture-specific items

One of the most difficult challenges a translator has to face is culture-specificitems because of the cultural differences presented in such items When it comes tocultures, the translator has two options, foreignization or domestication, to transfer themeaning of the items

2.2.1 Definition of culture-specific items

Newmark (1988) called CSIs cultural words He distinguished cultural wordsfrom universal ones Universals are considered having “no translation problem”;meanwhile, cultural words involve “a translation problem unless there is culturaloverlap between the SL and the TL (and its readership)” (Newmark 1988, p 94)

‘Die’, ‘live’, ‘star’, ‘swim’ and almost ubiquitous artefacts are classified intouniversals These words can be easily translated into any language ‘Dacha’ is taken as

an example of a cultural word In Vietnamese, ‘dacha’ is kept the same as dacha with

some explanation Dacha is a kind of house in the suburbs of Russia This kind ofhouse does not exist in Vietnam Originally, dacha was granted to the Russian personswho had contributions to the nation At that time, dacha meant ‘a granted land’ Now,many Russian people have dacha as their second home ‘Dacha’ can literally betranslated into ‘nhà ngoại ô’ so that Vietnamese readers can understand the superficialmeaning However, ‘nhà ngoại ô’ in Vietnam are not a second home to a family; theybelong to the persons who live in the suburb as their first house Dacha encounterstranslation problem, so it is called a cultural word according to Newmark’s definition.

Culture-specific items are also defined as “cultural identities which do not havedirect equivalents in another culture,” (Halloran, as cited in Fahim & Mazaheri 2013)

Or Nord (as cited in Fahim & Mazaheri 2013) defines CSIs (he called themculturemes) as “a cultural phenomenon that is present in culture X but not present (inthe same way) in culture Y.” CSIs are also termed by Aixelá (as cited in Fahim &Mazaheri 2013) as follows:

Those textually actualized items whose function and connotation in asource text involve a translation problem in their transference to a targettext, whenever this problem is a product of the nonexistence of thereferred item or of its different intertextual status in the cultural system

of the readers of the target text

All the definitions agree that there is no direct equivalence of a CSI in the targetlanguage and translation problems are unavoidable That is why the translator needs tohandle with these items The translator can make them understandable to the targetreaders or leave them alone and make the readers see the differences in the targetlanguage In other words, the translator can choose to foreignize or domesticate CSIs

to move the author to the reader or vice versa move the reader to the author

2.2.2 Categories

Many categories are proposed, the researcher chooses the categories of threeprestigious translation researchers who are influential in the translation world

Table 1 Categories proposed by Peter Newmark (1988)

(1) Ecology Flora, fauna, winds, plains, hills

(2) Material culture (artefacts) Food, clothes, houses and towns, transport

(3) Social culture – work and leisure Reggae, rock

(4) Organizations, customs,

activities, procedures, concepts

Political and administrative, religious artistic

(5) Gestures and habits Cock a snook, spitting

These are some categories offered by Newmark (1988, p 95) He said that theywere some, which means not all categories are presented Newmark (1988, p 96)suggested “two translation procedures which are at opposite ends of the scale” to dealwith CSIs The first way is transference, which means keeping CSIs as the originalwithout any change; the second way is utilizing componential analysis, transferencecombined with “an appropriate descriptive-functional equivalent,” (Newmark 1988, p.96) Regarding domestication and foreignization, choosing transference means thetranslator highly foreignizes CSIs because “it emphasizes the culture and excludes themessage”; in the meantime, choosing componential analysis means less foreignizationbecause it is “based on a component common to the SL and the TL” and “ has not thepragmatic impact of the original,” (Newmark 1988, p 96)

Espindola (as cited in Matielo) also proposed 10 categories of CSIs presented in

the below table

Table 2 Categories proposed by Espindola (as cited in Matielo n.d.)

(1) Toponyms a place name, a geographical name, a proper name of locality,

region, or some other part of the Earth’s surface or its natural orartificial feature;

(2) Anthroponym

s

ordinary and famous peoples’ names and nicknames and namesreferring to regional background which acquire identificationstatus;

(3) Forms of

entertainment

amusement or diversion including public performances or shows,

it also encompasses hospitality provided, such as dinners, parties,

something special which marks a religious occasion;

This classification seems more specific than Newmark’s One difference is that

it mentions toponyms (place names) and anthroponyms (people’s names), which areonly two types of proper names Newmark’s categories do not cover proper names.Names of schools, religions, characters… are similar to other proper names intranslation problems Therefore, these two classifications need a reconciliation, whichleads to the following classification by Aixela Aixela (as cited in Brasiene 2013)classified CSIs into two categories which are proper names and common expressions

Table 3 Categories proposed by Aixela (as cited in Brasiene 2013)

Proper names include both conventional names that do not have any meaning in

themselves and names that are loaded with certain historical andcultural associations

Common

expressions

cover the world of objects, institutions, habits and opinionsrestricted to each culture, which cannot be included in the field of

proper names.

Grenz (2005, p 274) claimed that “a proper name is an unmeaning mark which

we connect in our minds with the idea of the subject, in order that whenever the markmeets our eyes or occurs to our thoughts, we may think of that individual object.”According to Simmons (1997), a proper name has two distinctive features: (1) it willname a specific item, (2) it will begin with a capital letter no matter where it occurs in

a sentence Proper names are restricted to cultures They are normally not translatedbecause they “do not require translation into another language,” (Vendler, as cited inGhadi 2010) English and Vietnamese names are totally different Any Vietnamesepeople who can read are able to differentiate English names from Vietnamese ones.English names are not pronounced in the same way of written form, so English-Vietnamese translators used to familiarize them by transcribing the pronunciation sothat Vietnamese reader could at least read those names like Luân Đôn, Mátxcơva Thesituation has changed when English names are often kept as the original The

following part is going to discover how the translator of ‘Let’s pretend this never

happened’ deals with proper names.

According to Aixela as cited in Brasiene 2013, common expressions areexcluded from proper names Common expressions also do not possess two features ofproper names Not every common expression is CSIs as defined above

Based on the categories proposed by Peter Newmark, Espindola and Aixela, thepresent research will study on the following fields:

7 Names of local institutions

Common expressions:

1 Food and drinks;

2 Measuring system and currencies;

3 Scholastic reference;

2.3 Linguistic aspects

Besides cultures, languages themselves also contain so many problems intranslating because languages are different from one another The translator has to becareful selecting appropriate words for the translation

2.3.1 Wordplay

2.3.1.1 Definition

There are many definitions of wordplay Chiaro (as cited in Vandaele n.d.)defined “the term wordplay includes every conceivable way in which a language isused with the intent to amuse.” This definition is too broad Readers only can see thepurpose of wordplay is to amuse

Delabastina (as cited in Vandaele n.d.) defined wordplay as follow:

Wordplay is the general name for the various textual phenomena inwhich structural features of the language(s) are exploited in order tobring out a communicatively significant confrontation of two (or more)linguistic structures with more or less similar forms and more or lessdifferent meanings

He also claimed that whether serious or comical, wordplay creates linguisticproblems of translatability because different languages have different meaning-formdistributions and a structural and typological dissimilarity of SL and TL increases thelinguistic untranslatability of puns This definition is more specific and will be used forthis study

For the fact that wordplay is also a problem of translation, the researcher willstudy on the translation strategies, specifically foreignization and domestication,applied to deal with this phenomenon