REPRESENTING AFRICA THROUGH TRANSLATION:

FERDINAND OYONO’S UNE VIE DE BOY AND LE VIEUX

NÈGRE ET LA MÉDAILLE IN ENGLISH

Felix Nkwatta Awung

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements in respect of the doctoral degree

Doctor of Philosophy
in the subject of
Language Practice
in the
Department of Linguistics and Language Practice
in the
Faculty of Humanities
at the
University of the Free State
Bloemfontein, South Africa

Promoter: Prof Kobus Marais

Co-promoter: Prof Paul F. Bandia

January 2018
DECLARATION

I, Felix Nkwatta Awung, declare that the research thesis that I herewith submit for the
doctoral degree Doctor of Philosophy qualification in Language Practice at the
University of the Free State, is my independent work, and that I have not previously
submitted it for a qualification at another institution of higher education.

…………….........………. ………………………………
Felix Nkwatta Awung Date

ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my profound gratitude to my promoter, Prof Kobus Marais,

without whom this research would not have been completed. His support, guidance
and patience, and constructive feedback were immensely useful. I am equally
indebted to my co-promoter, Prof Paul Bandia, for his insightful guidance. His
knowledge, experience and direction were immensely valuable to me.

My gratitude goes to John Reed, James Currey and Keith Sambrook for accepting to
participate in the study. The information they shared during the interviews was very
resourceful. It is unfortunate that John Reed passed on before I completed the thesis.
May his soul rest in peace.

I would like to thank the Faculty of Arts and Design of the Durban University of
Technology, for supporting me with TDG funding that catered for some of the cost
related to my studies.

I am also grateful to my colleagues and friends: Ebenezer Talla, Sibusiso Dlamini,

Michael Mombe, Tasneem Seedat, Maleshoane Rapeane-Mathonsi, Sylvia Zulu and
Tankiso Motjope-Mokhali, whose support and advice have been invaluable assets
throughout the course of my research.

Finally, I would like to thank my wife and children for their love, understanding and
patience.

iii
ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to use Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological approach in

investigating the social factors that influenced the translation of Ferdinand Oyono’s
Une Vie de Boy (1956) and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille (1956). It is argued in the
study that the decisions made in the process of translating Une Vie de Boy and Le
Vieux Nègre et la Médaille were influenced by the social forces prevalent in the
literary field at the time the translations were produced. This is why Bourdieu’s model
has been adopted; it offers us the tools with which to understand the dialectic
relationship between social agents and the fields in which they operate. It has thus
been used in the study to demonstrate that there was a mutually influential
relationship between the actions of the agents involved in the translations of Une Vie
de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille and the field in which the works were
translated. In this regard, the study has done a macro-level and a textual level
investigation of the actions of the agents involved in the translations of Une Vie de
Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille.

At the macro-level, the study has mapped out the positions that made up the
structure of the African literary field in which the translations were produced, the
agents who occupied the said positions, and how this was influential to translation
action at both the macro-level and the textual level. The findings reveal that John
Reed’s role in The African Writers Series as a critic, an advisor and a translator
contributed in constructing the field of African literature in which Oyono’s novels were
translated, which in turn constrained his actions during the translation of the two
novels. This study also argues that translation action at the textual level is
constrained by the norms of the target literary field, as well as the translator’s
individual habitus. In this regard, an examination has been done on John Reed’s
strategies in the translation of culture-bound terms in Une Vie de Boy (1956) and Le
Vieux Nègre et la Médaille (1956). The data reveals that the translator’s actions were
influenced by a complex combination of the norms of the field, his individual habitus,
as well as other constraining factors.

Key terms: Literary translation, Pierre Bourdieu, translation agents, African literature
in European languages, culture-bound terms, Une Vie de Boy, Le Vieux Nègre et la
Médaille, The African Writers Series, John Reed.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS............................................................ viii
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the study ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research problem .................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Aim of the research ................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Research questions ................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Research methodology .......................................................................................... 3
Data collection instruments...................................................................... 5
Data analysis ........................................................................................... 6
1.6 Significance of the study......................................................................................... 6
1.7 Scope of the study .................................................................................................. 7
1.8 Outline of chapters ................................................................................................. 7
Chapter 2 TOWARDS THE SOCIOLOGY OF TRANSLATION .................................... 8
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8
2.2 The emergence of the sociological turn in translation studies ............................... 8
2.3 Translation studies from the 1950s ...................................................................... 11
2.4 The sociological turn in translation studies .......................................................... 20
2.5 Outline of Bourdieu’s social theory ....................................................................... 22
Bourdieu’s theory of practice ................................................................. 23
The notion of field .................................................................................. 24
The notion of habitus ............................................................................. 27
The notion of capital .............................................................................. 29
Criticisms of Bourdieu’s theory .............................................................. 33
Bourdieu’s model in translation studies ................................................. 35
2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 40
Chapter 3 AGENCY IN TRANSLATING AFRICAN LITERATURE IN
EUROPEAN LANGUAGES ......................................................................................... 41
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 41
3.2 Conceptualising agency ....................................................................................... 41
3.3 Agency in translation studies................................................................................ 43
3.4 Agency and the translation of African literature ................................................... 54
v
 The translational nature of African literature .......................................... 56
Translating African literature in European languages ............................ 57
3.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 65
Chapter 4 THE CONTEXT OF PRODUCING UNE VIE DE BOY AND LE VIEUX
NÈGRE ET LA MÉDAILLE IN ENGLISH..................................................................... 66
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 66
4.2 Research methodology ........................................................................................ 66
Research design.................................................................................... 68
Data collection instruments.................................................................... 70
Data analysis ......................................................................................... 71
Limitations ............................................................................................. 72
4.3 The context of translating Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille ... 72
The African literary field in the 1950s and 1960s ................................... 73
4.3.1.1 Original works of African literature in European languages .... 74
4.3.1.2 African literature and the publishing sector ............................. 77
4.3.1.3 African literature in translation ................................................ 79
4.3.1.4 Reception and the translation of African literature .................. 80
Agents of the translations of UVB and LVNM ........................................ 82
4.3.2.1 The publisher-agent of UVB and LVNM in English ................. 82
4.3.2.2 The translator-agent of UVB and LVNM in English ................. 92
4.3.2.3 Implications for agency in translation studies........................ 103
4.4 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 105
Chapter 5 TRANSLATING THE CULTURAL WORLDVIEW OF UNE VIE DE BOY
AND LE VIEUX NÈGRE ET LA MÉDAILLE INTO ENGLISH ................................... 107
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 107
5.2 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 107
Data collection: Culture-bound terms .................................................. 107
Data selection criteria .......................................................................... 109
Data analysis: Field and habitus .......................................................... 110
5.3 Textual analysis of the translations of Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et
la Médaille........................................................................................................... 112
Synoptic overviews of Ferdinand Oyono’s novels ............................... 112
5.3.1.1 The author ............................................................................ 112
5.3.1.2 Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille .............. 113
The translation of culture-bound terms in UVB and LVNM .................. 114
5.3.2.1 Proverbs ............................................................................... 115
5.3.2.2 Idiomatic expressions ........................................................... 121
5.3.2.3 Ideophones and expressive lengthenings ............................. 127
5.3.2.4 Forms of address .................................................................. 133
5.3.2.5 Use of vernacular words and expressions ............................ 136
vi
 5.3.2.6 Distorted words ..................................................................... 139
5.3.2.7 Invectives .............................................................................. 143
5.3.2.8 Semantic shifts ..................................................................... 147
5.3.2.9 Proper names ....................................................................... 151
5.3.2.10 Hybrid language forms .......................................................... 154
5.3.2.11 Race-related terms ............................................................... 159
5.4 Implications for agency in translation studies..................................................... 163
5.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 167
Chapter 6 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 168
6.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 168
6.2 Synopsis of the study ......................................................................................... 168
6.3 Research questions revisited ............................................................................. 170
6.4 Contributions of the study ................................................................................... 172
6.5 Suggestions for future research ......................................................................... 174

LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................. 176

Appendix A EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH JAMES CURREY AND KEITH
SAMBROOK ............................................................................................................... 189
Appendix B EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH JOHN REED................................................ 196

vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AWS African Writers Series

HB Houseboy

LT Literal translations

LVNM Le Vieux Nègre et La Médaille

ST Source text

TOMM The Old Man and the Medal

TT Target text

UK United Kingdom

USA United States of America

UVB Une Vie de Boy

viii
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

This study aims to adopt Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological model to investigate John
Reed’s translations of Ferdinand Oyono’s Une Vie de Boy (1956) and Le Vieux
Nègre et La Médaille (1956). Translation has contributed greatly to African literature.
However, while much has been said and written about the success of such works,
little attention has been given to the translators who have bridged the intercultural
gaps to make these works available in various languages, thereby representing the
original authors in the target language cultures. Because literature portrays the
norms, beliefs, and traditions of a particular society, its language is bound to be firmly
embedded in the culture of that society. It is therefore interesting to examine how the
translators of literature have managed to succeed in cutting across the world views of
the various authors from one language to another. This is even more intriguing in the
case of African literature written in European languages, since the original texts are
in themselves a form of translation, initially conceived in the African languages of the
authors before being rendered into the European languages (Ojo, 1986). Such is the
case with Ferdinand Oyono’s Une vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille in
English.

The fact that Reed’s translations of the two novels fall within what Bandia (1993,
2008) calls a “two-tier translation”, which is a translation of what is, in itself, a form of
translation, gives the research a dimension which has not received much attention
from researchers in the field of African literary translation. Given that every
translation activity takes place within a specific social context, I argue that decision-
making in the translation process is influenced by social factors and a sociological
approach is needed to understand the nature and extent of the influence of the said
social factors on the translation activity. It is in this regard that I adopt Bourdieu’s
theoretical framework because it offers a lens through which to examine how
translation agents construct, and are constructed, by the field in which they operate.
The study thus examines the mutually influential relationship between the literary
field in which the English translations of Oyono’s Une vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre

1
et la Médaille were produced, as well as the macro-level and textual level actions of
the agents involved in the translation process.

1.2 Research problem

Recent research in translation studies has underscored the role of the translator as
an agent. In this regard, Baker (2006), Tymoczko (2007), Bandia (2008) and Gentzler
(2008) , among others, assert that a translator is not just a conduit of a message from
one language to another, but someone who is very much involved in the power
interplay that determines the decision-making leading to the translated product. What
this implies is that translators are agents of mediation who represent the original
‘other’ in the target language culture. The efficiency of such a representation is
determined, as Sturge (2007) says, by the degree of the difference between the
source and target cultures. Relating to translating African literature in European
languages in particular, Bandia (2008:159) holds that the agency role of the
translator is even more significant given that s/he is dealing with “a peculiar source
text that is uncharacteristically different from most source texts translated between
relatively close or non-distant languages and cultures”. Given such peculiarity, it
would be of interest to find out how similar or different are the forces that influence
productions in this literary system to those that influence their translations. It is within
this context that this study has as a research problem the investigation of how the
translator of Ferdinand Oyono’s Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille
into Houseboy (1966) and The Old Man and the Medal (1967), respectively, has
succeeded in his role as agent of cultural mediation, in representing the cultural world
view of the author, and the social forces that influenced his translations.

1.3 Aim of the research

This study aims to investigate how social factors influenced the actions of the
translator of Ferdinand Oyono’s Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille
(hereafter referred to as UVB and LVNM) into Houseboy and The Old Man and the
Medal (hereafter referred to as HB and TOMM), respectively. The study adopts
Bourdieu’s theoretical framework to examine the mutually influential relationship
between the literary field and the translation actions.

2
1.4 Research questions

To achieve the aim of the study, the following research questions are addressed:

- How can Bourdieu’s social theory help to explain translation actions in the
production of Oyono’s Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille in
English?

- What role do literary and cultural aspects play in building up a picture of

Ferdinand Oyono’s world view?

- What are the strategies the translator uses to represent the cultural world view
of the source texts in the target texts, especially as his European background
is very remote from the world of the source texts?

- What are the social factors that influence the choices the translator makes in
terms of his strategies, and how do they conform to or conflict with relevant
theories on the subject?

1.5 Research methodology

This study adopts a sociological conceptual framework, which provides for the study
of social phenomena by looking at the relationship between the agents involved in
the phenomena and their social context. In this regard, the study focuses on the
relationship between the social context and the agents involved in the English
translations of UVB and LVNM, and the impact of that relationship on the actions of
the agents involved. As a result, the methodological approach that I adopt is context-
based in nature, given that I am looking at the social context of the translation activity
and its influence on the actions of agents at the macro-level as well as textual level of
the translation process.

It is worth mentioning that the debate on the most appropriate model of

translation research has been a central theme of the discipline in recent years, with
scholars advancing different approaches that focus on different aspects of translation
(Angelelli & Baer, 2016; Mellinger & Hanson, 2017; Pym, 1998; Saldanha & O’Brien,
2013; William & Chesterman, 2002). While most studies tend to focus on one aspect
of translation activity or another, in my view an integrated approach would be more
appropriate as it provides a comprehensive study of translation phenomena. It is for
this reason that I have adopted what I call an ‘integrated context-based model’, which

3
enables me to analyse the translator’s agency by situating it within a field that
integrates the context, the process, the agents, and the products, in a mutually
influential network. This is in line with Bourdieu’s social theory which underpins this
study, and which provides for the study of social phenomena by looking at the
dialectic relationship between agents’ actions and their respective social contexts.

This study is qualitative in nature and adopts an exploratory and explanatory

paradigm. According to Creswell (2014:4), qualitative research studies the human
experience from a holistic and individual perspective and provide a framework within
which to capture the experiences as they occur within the context of the humans
concerned. In this regard, this research sets out to study the experiences of John
Reed as a translator of African literature, with the specific case of the novels of
Ferdinand Oyono. I have therefore adopted an exploratory and explanatory paradigm
in order to investigate the context within which Reed translated UVB and LVNM, and
also to analyse the causal factors that led to the production of the translation. I have
also adopted an explanatory research approach with the aim to determine the
relationship between the various factors that influenced the nature and impact of
agency in Reed’s translations.

The study adopts a case study method in which the data that was collected and
analysed focused on the translations of a chosen translator. A case study is a
method that enables a researcher to study anything from an individual, an institution,
a product, or a process (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2013). According to Susam-Sarajeva
(2009:40), this research method has been applied extensively in translation studies
to study translation-related activities, products, or individuals in real-life situations,
which can only be analysed or understood within their specific contexts. The
research therefore focuses on the role of John Reed as an agent in the English
translations of Oyono’s two novels, and the social factors underpinning those
translations. The advantage of using a case study method is that the method is
intensive, flexible, and contextual (Susam-Sarajeva, 2009:39).

The choice of the translation of UVB and LVNM as a case study is because, in
the context of the translation of African literature between European languages which
foregrounds this study, the translator was one of the first translators, and remains
one of the most successful to have worked in this literary category (Currey, 2008).
Using his works as a case study is intended to understand the context within which
4
the novels were translated, so as to obtain useful insights into the roles of other
agents involved and their influence on the textual level actions of the translation
process.

Data collection instruments

The data for this research is made up of primary and secondary sources. Primary
sources have to do with information from the translator and publisher of the texts
under study, as well as the binary corpus from the source and target texts. The
secondary sources are made up of documentary information on the context of
producing the translations. The information from the translator and the publisher was
collected through internet-mediated interviews. I sent open-ended questions to the
translator and the publisher through emails, and they returned their responses
through the same means.

The advantage of using this method is that it enabled the participants to answer
in their own time, which made it more convenient for me to get more detailed and
thoughtful responses. I therefore sent them the questions without putting pressure on
them, and they returned the responses a few days later. This gave them time to
consult their records and collaborators, so as to respond in the most detailed and
informed manner possible. The use of unstructured questions also meant that the
participants could provide as much information as possible on the subject under
discussion (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2013). It also meant that room was provided for
follow-up questions to be asked based on the information provided by the
participants. In this regard, a second set of questions were sent to the translator after
he responded to the first ones, and the aim was to extract further information on the
issues that were being studied.

The corpus data was collected through manual extraction in which culture-bound
terms from the source texts were collected with their translations in the target texts,
with the aim of understanding the transfer processes of the translator at the textual
level of the translations. The terms collected from the two novels were grouped
together, given that the two novels were published in the same year, and the
translations were done by the same translator at around the same time, and
published in the same year. The terms were thus presented together, specifying the
texts from which they were extracted

5
 Secondary sources were also used in this study, and these were collected
through a documentary method. These secondary sources mainly had to deal with
the social and cultural context within which the translations under study were
produced. As such, historical documentation, as well as critical works pertaining to
the contexts of the source texts and the target texts, were processed for information
that could throw light on the author, the social environment, and the publication and
reception of the source texts, and also on the environments of the target texts. This
documentation was mostly in the form of books and internet-generated articles.

Data analysis

The data collected was presented using an integrated context-based approach in

which the data was analysed in a twofold way. The first part of the analysis had to do
with the context data, while the second part involved the corpus data. The context
data was partitioned into two sections, in which the social context of the production of
the translation was analysed, followed by an analysis of the findings from the
interviews with the translator and publisher. The corpus data was analysed through a
binary comparison of the source and target texts. This was done using a sociological
method in which micro-textual translation processes were analysed against the
background of social factors that might have influenced decision-making. This mainly
had to do with the translation of the culture-bound discourse. In this regard, culture-
bound terms were manually identified from the source texts and compared with their
renditions in the target texts, accompanied by an explanation of the sociological
factors that might have influenced the decisions of the translator.

1.6 Significance of the study

This study explores the agency role of the translator in representing the other with
the intention that it would contribute to the current literature in the domain of
translation in general and particularly translation research. Furthermore, the study
throws light on how the actions of translation agents are influenced by social factors
prevalent in the field of the translation production. Lastly, the study produces new
data that highlights the context within which the translation of African literature is
done.

6
1.7 Scope of the study

This study adopts a case study method. Although the results of a case study can
offer lenses through which to understand different contexts, they cannot be
generalised (Susam-Sarajeva, 2009:53). In this regard, the findings of the study of
Reed’s translations of UVB and LVNM may not be generalised to other contexts.

1.8 Outline of chapters

This study is structured into six chapters:

- Chapter 1 introduces the study and the reasons for undertaking it.

- Chapter 2 focuses on Bourdieu’s social theory and sociological approaches to

translation studies.

- Chapter 3 deals with the conceptualisation and application of agency as a

theoretical framework.

- Chapter 4 focuses on the social context within which the translations were
produced.

- Chapter 5 focuses on the corpus of the study with an analysis of the culture-
bound terms in the two novels in question, and the strategies used by the
translator to translate them from French into English.

- Chapter 6 outlines the conclusions of the study and analyses the contributions
of the research to research in translation studies.

7
Chapter 2
TOWARDS THE SOCIOLOGY OF TRANSLATION

2.1 Introduction

This study adopts Bourdieu’s theoretical framework to analyse the translations of

Ferdinand Oyono’s UVB and LVNM. Sociological approaches have increasingly
become important to translation studies as they allow for an analysis of translation
that goes beyond the individual text to look at the social influences that determine
various aspects of translation. My argument is that the decisions made in the process
of translating UVB and LVNM were influenced by the social forces prevalent in the
literary field at the time the translations were produced. I therefore intend to analyse
the social forces that influenced the actions of John Reed through the course of his
translations of Oyono’s two novels, and how his actions also contributed in shaping
the literary field within which he operated. It is for this reason that I adopt Bourdieu’s
sociological theory as a framework as it would enable me to look at how the literary
field constructed, and was constructed by, the agents involved in the translation of
the two novels.

This chapter sets the preamble to the conceptualisation of agency as a

theoretical framework in line with Bourdieu’s model, by situating it within sociological
approaches to translation studies. In this regard, the chapter begins with a historical
overview of developments in translation studies, leading to the sociological turn in the
discipline, then delves into the sociological approaches and their implications for
translation studies.

2.2 The emergence of the sociological turn in translation studies

This study adopts Bourdieu’s concepts of field, habitus and capital to investigate
agents’ actions in translation. In talking about the field, Bourdieu (1971:66) argues
that it is the result of a historical process of autonomisation and internal
differentiation, and as such cannot be studied without associating it to the historical
and social conditions under which it was developed. The implication that this has for
translation studies is that every theoretical shift in its evolution is the result of
historical events that take place in the discipline prior to the period under
consideration.

8
 It is therefore my contention that the study of the sociological turn in translation
studies needs to look at the historical processes that led to its development. It is in
this regard that research in translation studies is increasingly highlighting the need to
explore the history of the discipline (Bandia, 2006; Pym, 1998; Santayo, 2006).
Bastin and Bandia (2006:9) assert that while the past thirty years have seen a
significant increase in research activities relating to the history of translation, the area
deserves more attention than it is currently receiving. What is worth mentioning about
translation history and translation studies is that, while translation has been going on
since people speaking different languages began interacting with each other, the
conceptualisation of translation history as an academic discipline is quite recent. It is
in this regard that Santayo (2006:13) argues that there are still many gaps in
translation history, and translation studies is still far from having at its disposal a
global and globalising vision of what the translating activity has been throughout its
approximately 4500 years of history. He further adds that although parts of this
history have been well-charted, there still remain vast unknown territories in that
universal history; territories which concern not only places and time, but also whole
fields of enquiry and research (Santayo, 2006:13).

This clearly highlights the fact that translation studies would not be complete
without a comprehensive historical exploration of what translation activities have
been like from the traceable period when people from different language
communities started to interact with each other, as well as the social role of
translators in bridging cultural gaps throughout the course of human history. While
most scholars share Santayo’s argument on the need to fill the gaps in translation
history, such a consensus does not exist in the manner in which they think this has to
be done. Some scholars hold that such research should form part of research on
translation studies, while others such as Bandia (2006) and Pym (1998), argue that it
should constitute a discipline on its own with its own specialists and methodologies:

Given the seriousness of the translation historian’s task and in light of recent
developments in translation studies, it is indeed within reason to seek to establish
translation history as an autonomous discipline with its own objectives and
methodologies (Bandia, 2006:14).

Another issue that seems to divide scholars of translation studies is that of the
periodisation of translation activities. Notwithstanding the recent interest in translation

9
history, most of the research still finds it difficult to precisely situate the period that
marks the beginning of translation activities in history. According to Foz (2006:138):

[T]he various periodizations applied to this phenomenon over the course of the last
fifty years demonstrate a variety of differing points of view and approaches. While
some of these focus on practices, others prefer to reflect upon the surrounding
theories.

This shows the need for research in translation history to uncover more facts so as to
highlight the issue of periodisation. What is noteworthy here is that even with the
periodisation debate, most of what is written focuses on documented evidence from
history. According to Santayo (2006:13), translation activities started approximately
4 500 years ago. This claim is probably based on the archaeological evidence of
bilingual scripts found in the Sumerian civilisations dating back to the same period.
This, however, raises the question as to whether there were no language contacts to
suggest translation before the advent of the culture of writing.

Historical evidence points to the prehistoric migration of different people with

different languages thousands of years before the period indicated by Santayo
(2006), and it can be logically claimed that such contacts could not have been
successful without language mediation, thereby suggesting translation activities.
While any claim of translation activities in the prehistoric period can only be a matter
of assumption due to the absence of documented evidence, it would equally be
creating gaps in translation history in neglecting it as not constitutive of any
translation activity. It is in line with this that Bandia (2005:959) asserts that while
research work by missionaries and explorers show evidence of translation activities
in Africa before colonial times, it should be noted that such activities had been going
on for a lengthy period among the many different language communities of the
continent before European contact, and this has been lost to documentation as a
result of the fact that African communities had an oral culture rather than one based
in writing.

Another gap that should be mentioned about translation history has to do with the
fact that most of what has been written, tends to focus more on translation practised
mostly in formal contexts, which significantly neglects the multilingual interactions
that have been going on between language communities away from the formal
situations of institutional negotiations or mediations. Research in translation studies
10
has recently begun to focus on activities in the informal sector (Gentzler, 2008;
Marais, 2014), and given that such activities have always been going on, it would be
necessary that translation history explores the contributions of the informal sector to
the development of the discipline.

It is thus clear that much still has to be done for a comprehensive history of
translation to be available, and this would require a more detailed research with
specific focus on the area of study. It is my argument that such attention to the
history of translation would highlight the social contexts within which translators have
historically functioned as mediators between different cultures throughout the course
of human history. My intention here has been to argue that even though I focus on
the documented evidence of the theorisation of translation, a scholarly injustice is
being done to what has not been documented, but which has contributed to the
evolution of what today constitutes translation studies. The next session discusses
activities in the areas of the practice and theory of translation from the 1950s,
because it is the period that marked the emergence of translation studies as an
academic discipline (Tymoczko, 2007:18).

2.3 Translation studies from the 1950s

Translation has played a crucial role in both the political and cultural evolution of
human history. The practice goes back a long time in history and has greatly
contributed to the various stages of human evolution by being very much involved in
the expansion of empires, dissemination of educational and philosophical knowledge,
and the spread of dominant religions. However, intellectual reflections on the
discipline before the twentieth century are only dotted in history, and these reflections
are not theory per se, but practical guides on how to approach translation
(Tymoczko, 2007:18).

Furthermore, most of the intellectual reflections on translation prior to the period

after World War II were dominated by issues of free versus literal translation and that
of translatability versus untranslatability (Munday, 2008; Robinson, 2002; Venuti,
2012). Translation studies emerged as an academic discipline after World War II
(Venuti, 2012; Tymoczko, 2007), and this explains why the historical perspective
presented in this study begins in the 1950s. It is therefore, my contention that this
period is a significant starting point for events that have shaped the evolution of

11
translation studies and thereby contributed to the emergence of the sociological
approaches to the study of the discipline. It is in this regard that I present a critical
overview of the major shifts that have contributed to the development of the
sociological turn in translation studies, such as the linguistic approaches, the
functionalist approaches, the system-oriented approaches, and the cultural
approaches.

The 1950s marked a significant period for translation studies, as studies in the
discipline flourished, culminating in translation developing into an academic discipline
(Snell-Hornby, 2006:20). The pace was set by scholars from predominantly linguistic
traditions who focused primarily on linguistic models to conceptualise translation. The
central theme of studies at the time was the problem of equivalence, and the different
approaches that emerged have significantly contributed to what translation studies
has become. The structuralist linguist, Roman Jakobson, was one of the major
influential theorists of the early days of modern translation studies. Jakobson (1959)
argues that any comparison of two languages implies the examination of their
translatability, and as such, translation should be closely guided by linguistic science.
Concerning the concept of equivalence in meaning between words in different
languages, he argues that there can be no full equivalence between two words
(Jakobson, 1959). The focus of Jakobson’s argument is on the function of language,
and the interlinguistic differences that exist between different languages (Munday,
2008:37). He thus looked at translation as a practice underpinned by linguistic
constraints to which translators should find solutions.

The problem with Jakobson’s view is that translation involves more than linguistic
transfer (Snell-Hornby, 2006:21), as there are factors other than linguistic factors that
influence translation activities. It is my view that there is an implied ‘social factor’ in
Jakobson’s linguistic argument because it involves humans, who are socialised
individuals. I therefore contend that Jakobson’s linguistic view of translation has
social implications in the sense that the encoding and decoding of the language signs
he talks about is bound to be affected by the social system of the individuals
involved.

Another prominent theorist, Eugene Nida, continues with Jakobson’s notion of

equivalence, and further elaborates on it by arguing that there are two basic types of
equivalence: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence (Nida & Taber, 1969).
12
Formal equivalence is translation in which the target text resembles the source text
as closely as possible in both form and content, while dynamic equivalence is about
conveying the message in the target language as naturally as possible, in order to
elicit the same response from the receptor as that of the source text receptor. Nida
advocates for dynamic equivalence as the most effective translation procedure, as it
goes beyond correct communication of information to include the receptor’s response
to the message. His views were very much influenced by his Bible translation project,
and hardly went beyond that to look at other areas of translation (Venuti, 1995:22).
His approach was thus source-text oriented as his aim was to ensure that God’s
words were passed across to other languages unviolated (Gentzler, 2001:46). His
focus on dynamic equivalence was thus to ensure that receptors of the Bible
message in different language communities would respond to the message in the
same way as the source text receptors. Venuti (1995:21) has criticised Nida’s
approach for being too source-text oriented, thereby overlooking the differences that
exist between the language systems of the source and target texts.

Despite the limitations of Nida’s focus on linguistic factors, his dynamic

equivalence approach in my view has social implications, as it introduces the notion
of the receptor’s response to the translated message. I argue that the receptor’s
interpretation and response to a message is influenced by social factors in the
receptor’s social environment. Therefore, although Nida does not advocate for social
factors to be considered in translation, it is difficult to see how his receptors would
react to a message purely based on linguistic factors.

John Catford (1965), on his part, asserts that translation involves a relational
activity between two languages and as such should be considered as a branch of
comparative linguistics. He looks at translation from the angle of communication
operating within a specific context and at different levels. He upholds the equivalent
concept and argues that the concept can be divided into two types: formal
equivalence and textual equivalence (Catford, 1965:27). He also introduces the
notion of translation shifts, which are the differences in language structures that
come into play when a message is translated from the source language into the
target language (Catford, 1965:73). His focus was thus on the comparative structures
of languages and his approach in the discourses of translation (Tymoczko, 2007:29).

13
 Snell-Hornby (1988:20) has criticised Catford’s approach as inadequate and too
simplistic to address the more complex problems of real-time translation. Despite the
limitations that may exist in his approach, Catford’s views have been influential in
translation studies, especially with regard to the enlargement of the boundary of
machine translation (Joshua, 2008:4). I contend that although Catford’s approach
focuses primarily on the linguistic aspects of translation, it does have social
implications given that the operations of the linguistic choices are carried out by
humans, whose social environments always affect the decisions they make.

The linguistic period is thus a very significant turn in translation studies as it sets
the pace for what would become an academic discipline. In spite of their
shortcomings as a result of their over-reliance on linguistic principles to explain
translation, linguistic theories have continued to influence translation studies.
Translator training continues to heavily rely on linguistic theories and aspects of
linguistics continue to attract the attention of scholars in the discipline (Saldanha,
2008:149). It is, however, my contention that while linguistic approaches offer a
framework within which to understand the linguistic operations that underpin
translation processes, they do not explain the social factors that influence translators’
actions during translation activities.

In the 1970s, translation theorists started drifting away from the linguistic
approaches in favour of approaches that took broader issues of social and cultural
contexts into consideration. Translation studies increasingly put more emphasis on
target-text oriented theories as opposed to source-text oriented theories, with the
inclusion of cultural factors as well as linguistic elements in the translation training
models (Gentzler, 2001:26). This saw the emergence of functionalist approaches,
which considered the purpose of a translation in a given target culture to be the
determining factor in how a translation is done and evaluated (Munday, 2008:72).

Katharina Reiss (1977) initiated the functionalist approach, with the aim of
systematising translation assessment (Munday, 2008:72). She built on the
equivalence concept to argue that translation equivalence should operate at a
functional level and not a linguistic level. She contends that different text types have
different functions, and translation should be done following the function of the text
involved (Pym, 2009:47). This implies that a translated text should recreate the
function of the original, without focusing on the equivalence of the linguistic
14
components of the source and target texts. Reiss’ views marked a significant shift
from the linguistic approaches by going beyond linguistic factors to focus on the
function of texts (Reiss, 1977).

The functionalist approach was further taken up by Hans Vermeer, who worked
with Reiss to develop the skopos theory (Reiss & Vermeer, 1984). The skopos theory
is more target-text oriented and contends that the dominant factor of every translation
is determined by its target text function (Reiss & Vermeer 1984:96). This implies that
the purpose of a translation is to fulfil a particular function in the target text culture,
whose audience is certainly different from that of the source text. As such, a source
text can generate different translations to suit different target audiences. A translation
is therefore more prospective than retrospective (Snell-Hornby, 2006:54), as the
target text takes precedence over the source text. In this regard, Nord (1997:74)
argues that the act of translation is determined by the purpose of the translation, and
translation assessment needs to focus on whether the translation meets the intended
function that the translation was meant to achieve in the target text. This implies that
the translator is no longer tied to the source text, as one text can be translated in
different target texts to fulfil different functions (Pym, 2009:43). The significance of
the functionalist approaches is that the determination of the purpose of a translation
should be the focus in the translation of a text, or its assessment.

It is my contention that purpose determination has sociological implications

because it brings into play the agents involved in a translation activity, such as the
translator, the client, and the receptor, and how they all affect the translator’s actions
during the translation process. I, however, argue that functionalist approaches are
insufficient to explain translation action as they do not consider the social factors that
constrain the actions of the translator and other agents involved in a translation.

Views on translation studies further shifted in the 1970s beyond the linguistic
factors and developed into descriptive and systemic approaches (Hermans, 1999:9),
which put emphasis on the role of translation in the target system and the norms
underpinning translation decisions. Even-Zohar (1978) initiated this approach in his
poly-system theory, which was taken up by Gideon Toury in his Descriptive
translation studies and beyond (Toury, 1995). Drawing from the works of the Russian
formalist, Tynjanov’s literary systems, Even-Zohar developed the poly-system theory
in the 1970s with the aim of resolving translation problems related to Hebrew
15
literature (Shuttleworth, 1998:176). The approach argued that translation is carried
out in a context of a ‘poly-system’ of various systems which are interdependent and
partly overlap, but functions as a structured whole (Even-Zohar 1990:12). Even-
Zohar’s intention was to explain the place and function of translated texts in the
general literary system of a given culture. He therefore sees a literary system as
inter-systemic, as it brings together different sociocultural factors, institutions, and
agents. Translation is thus perceived as one of the interdependent systems of the
literary system and can either occupy a central or peripheral position within a target
literary system, depending on the role it plays in the said system.

What is significant in Even-Zohar’s approach, is that it introduces the issue of the

context of translation and how this constrains the decisions and actions of the agents
involved. It is in this regard that I contend that the poly-system theory has
sociological implications in that it highlights the role of the context of translation
activities and the agents involved therein. Despite the poly-system theory’s
contribution to the expansion of translation studies, the approach has been criticised
for being too systemic and text-bound, without taking into consideration the social
actors involved in translation activities (Hermans, 1999; Wolf, 2007b). I concur that
Even-Zohar’s approach focuses on the systemic nature of literary texts, and as such
does not provide a model with which to explain the actions of the various agents
involved in translation activities.

Toury (1980) built on the poly-system theory to develop a descriptive approach to

translation studies, which introduced the concept of norms as the factors that
constrain decision-making during translation activities (Liang, 2010:35). His goal was
to explain the hierarchical factors that constrain the translation product (Gentzler,
2001:127). Toury (1995) argues that translations are shaped by norms of the target
system, which influence decision-making at every stage of the translation process,
both at the level of text selection to be translated and the choice of strategies during
the transfer process.

Toury (1995:56) distinguishes three types of norms that are operative at different
stages of the translation process: preliminary norms, initial norms, and operational
norms. Preliminary norms refer to the factors that determine the selection of texts for
translation, as well as how the translation would fit into the target system; initial
norms refer to the initial decision of the translator to either submit himself/herself to
16
the source text or target text norms; while operational norms refer to the decisions
made by the translator with regard to the strategies to adopt during the translation
process.

Toury argues that an in-depth analysis of these norms would throw more light on
the behavioural patterns involved in translation activities (Wolf 2007b:9). Toury
developed his concept by comparing the different translations of an original text by
different translators at different periods in history (Gentzler, 2001:128). What is
significant in Toury’s approach is that it shifts the focus of translation studies from the
normative perspective to a descriptive approach, which takes translation as it is and
tries to determine the various factors that may account for its particular nature.
Furthermore, the view of norms as social factors that constrain the behaviours of
agents involved in translation activities, raises the issue of the ‘social’ in translation
and would become very influential in the development of sociological approaches to
translation studies (Wolf, 2007b). Toury’s (1995:250) argument that norms are
internalised by translators and enable them to respond spontaneously to translational
situations is synonymous to Bourdieu’s notion of habitus (see section 2.5.3), which is
internalised by agents to become their mechanism of perceptions and actions.

Despite the significant contribution of Toury’s theory to translation studies, his

approach has been criticised for being too general and not able to explain the
irregular choices made by translators (Gouanvic, 2005:158). It is in this regard that
Yannakopoulou (2008:4) has argued that Toury’s approach does not offer a model to
explain translation actions that go contrary to the prevalent norms. Furthermore, Wolf
(2007b:9) contends that while norms can explain a wide range of elements in
translation behaviour, Toury fails to link them to the sociocultural factors that
condition the said norms. I concur with Wolf that although norms are important
factors that can be used to explain translational actions, their conceptualisation
should consider the sociocultural factors that define their specific context. This
implies that the norms may be adhered to or not, and these decisions are themselves
constrained by social factors in the context within which the agents involved operate.
It is for this reason that I contend that sociological approaches are more suited to
explain translation actions because they do not only look at how norms constrain the
actions of agents, but also how agents, through their actions, shape the norms of the
field.

17
 Toury’s descriptive translation approach culminated in what was referred to as
the manipulation school, which made its mark by the publication of a compilation
edited by Theo Hermans in 1985, titled The manipulation of literature. Studies in
literary translation. This was not a school per se, but a movement that brought
together scholars who shared a common descriptive approach to translation, and an
interest in the norms that constrain translation activities (Gentzler, 2001:132). Their
aim was to use different case studies to demonstrate that literary translation should
adopt a descriptive, target-oriented, functional, and systemic approach (Hermans,
1985). The manipulation scholars contributed in expanding the study of translation as
an interdiscipline, as was evidenced in Lefevere’s concept of translation as rewriting,
which is constrained by issues of poetics, patronage, and ideology (Hermans,
1999:43).

This was a significant expansion on how to look at translation as it brought into

play sociocultural factors such as power relations, institutions, ideology, and agents,
which all constrain translation activities. It is in this regard that Wolf (2007b:10)
contends that Lefevere underscored important social dimensions in his views, which
were significant in the emergence of sociological approaches to the study of
translation. I therefore argue that by going beyond textual factors to look at macro-
textual factors that constrain translation actions, descriptive translation studies'
approaches were influential in the development of sociological trends in translation
studies. Their over-reliance on systemic factors does not, however, offer sufficient
tools with which to explain the actions of the agents involved in translation activities.
It is for this reason that I contend that sociological approaches are more suited to
explain the actions of translation agents.

At the beginning of the 1990s, translation studies took a major shift in embracing
cultural perspectives in the theorisation of the discipline. This developed mostly from
the systemic approach of the manipulation school, especially with Lefevere’s (1985)
rewriting concept which brought into play the role of power, culture, and ideology in
constraining translation actions. The major provision of this cultural turn in translation
studies is that it criticises the linguistic approaches by arguing that translation should
go beyond language and focus on the interaction between translation and culture,
and on the way culture impacts and constrains translation, as well as on the larger
issues of context, history, and convention (Snell-Hornby 2006:49). Like the

18
descriptive approaches, it focuses on the target text and treats a translation as
independent of the original. This approach was first embraced by Bassnet and
Lefevere (1990), who argue that the cultural context of a translation has a significant
bearing on the strategies to adopt and the nature of the final product. In the words of
Bassnet and Lefevere (1998:3):

[W]e are no longer 'stuck to the word', or even the text, because we have realised the
importance of context in matters of translation. One context is, of course, that of
history. The other context is that of culture. The questions that now dominate the field
are able to dominate it because research has taken a 'cultural turn', because people
in the field began to realise, some time ago, that translations are never produced in a
vacuum, and that they are also never received in a vacuum.

In other words, the cultural context within which a translator works, the intended
function of the translation in the target text culture and the cultural expectations of the
target text audience are the factors that shape the nature of a translation, and not the
languages involved. Another important aspect of the cultural school of translation is
that it views translation as re-writing. Taking from the post-structuralist approaches, it
considers a translation to be independent of the original, given that the original is
produced within a given cultural context that is different from the one in which the
translation is produced or intended. In this regard, Lefevere (1998:93) argues that:

Translation never takes place in a vacuum; it always happens in a continuum, and the
context in which the translation takes place necessarily affects how the translation is
made. Just as the norms and constraints of the source culture play their part in the
creation of the source text, so the norms and conventions of the target culture play
their inevitable role in the creation of the translation.

The cultural turn was also significant in the sense that, for the first time, the translator
became an important object of translation studies. Previous theories had always
focused on the translator’s objectivity, but cultural translation argues that the
translator’s role is a subjective one, thus making him an important component of the
translation chain. This is made particularly evident by cultural theorists such as
Venuti, who argues that the translator should break the chains of his invisibility by
translating in a way that gives the translation a place in the target culture. Venuti
(2004:1) introduces the notions of foreignisation and domestication as approaches
that can best highlight the translator’s role as a cultural mediator. It is however, my

19
argument that while the cultural turn underscores the sociocultural contexts of
translation, it does not give much insights into the social factors that influence the
role of the translator in a translation activity.

Interdisciplinarity of cultural approaches dominated the 1990s and the early parts
of the 2000s and inspired other approaches which, though coming under other
appellations, were very much in the ambit of the cultural trend as they addressed
different aspects of asymmetrical power relations in cultural systems (Munday,
2008:131). Such was the case with gender-based approaches, which aimed at using
translation to address the complexities of gender and culture (Simon, 1996),
postcolonial approaches which focused on the role of translation in addressing the
power imbalances between colonised societies and the colonial authorities (Cronin,
1996; Niranjana, 1992; Tymoczko, 1999), and power-related approaches, which
looked at the role of translation in issues of cultural and ideological dominance and
resistance (Baker, 2006; Gentzler & Tymoczko, 2002; Venuti 1995). The power-
related issues provided the impetus for the social view of translation phenomena,
leading to the sociological turn (Wolf, 2007:12b), which has dominated the last two
decades of translation studies.

2.4 The sociological turn in translation studies

In recent years, research in translation studies has been marked by an increasing

attention on the role of translators and the social factors that influence the production
and consumption of translations (Gouanvic, 2005; Hermans, 2007; Inghelleri, 2005;
Pym, 2006; Tyulenev, 2014; Wolf, 2012). The social aspect of translation has always
been present in reflections on translation phenomena, but it is only recently that
studies started incorporating social factors in the conceptualisation of the discipline
(Simeoni, 2005). This sociological turn emerged as result of the limitations of text-
bound approaches in addressing the social role of agents involved in translation
phenomena (Wolf, 2007b). With Even-Zohar and Toury’s system-oriented
approaches introducing the idea of the ‘sociocultural’ in the study of translation, the
discipline opened itself up to a more interdisciplinary perspective which culminated in
the cultural turn in translation studies (Liang, 2010:27). The cultural turn marked an
expansion of the interdisciplinary views on translation studies by addressing broader
questions related to the translation phenomena (Wolf, 2007b:3). In this regard,
studies started drawing from different methodological tools to address the
20
multifaceted aspects of translation phenomena. It is this trend that led to the adoption
of sociological approaches to the study of translation, signalling the emergence of a
sociological turn which has dominated the discipline since the late 1990s (Hanna,
2016:2). This sociological turn views translation as a social practice carried out by
agents who are influenced by various social factors. Wolf (2012:10) has framed the
context of the sociological implications of translation studies in the following words:

On the one hand, the act of translating, in all its various stages is undeniably carried
out by individuals who belong to a social system; on the other, the translation
phenomenon is inevitably implicated in social institutions, which greatly determine the
selection, production, and distribution of translation, and, as a result, the strategies
adopted in the translation itself.

The relevance of this assertion is that it views translation as a socially constrained

activity, which does not take place in a vacuum, but is situated within a specific social
context whose configurations inevitably influence the translation process.
Consequently, translation analysis needs to adopt approaches that highlight the
interactional network of the social forces that constrain the translation process.

Wolf (2007b) argues for a sociological approach to the discipline by portraying

that, although social aspects have until recently been neglected by translation
research, they have historically always been part of translation. Through an overview
of the major works that have shaped the sociological turn in translation studies, Wolf
(2007a/b:13) conceptualises translation sociology as constitutive of three angles:
sociology of translation agents, sociology of the translation process, and the
sociology of the translation product.

These different angles are not separated from each other, as they overlap and
interconnect, but rather serve as lenses through which to better perceive the
interactional forces that regulate translation activities. Wolf (2012:1) further argues
that sociological approaches have shifted the focus of translation studies to under-
researched areas of the discipline, such as institutional impact on translation
practice, working conditions, as well as aesthetic and political questions. According to
Wolf (2012:11), these approaches have led to the adoption of methodological tools in
translation research, which deliver valuable results:

21
 The adoption of sociological analytical tools has deepened, on the one hand, our
understanding of the mechanisms that underlie the manifestations of translatorial
invisibility. On the other hand, these tools have helped us identify the interactional
relations that exist between the external conditions of a text’s creation and the
adoption of various translation strategies during the translation process in the
narrower sense.

The relevance of Wolf’s argument lies in the fact that she highlights the dialectic
relationship that exists between translation agents and their social contexts, given
that the agents construct, and are constructed, by their contexts. This shows the
relevance of analysing the behaviour of translators as the result of the relationship
they share with their contexts. Scholars who have studied translation phenomena
using sociological approaches, have predominantly used the works of Anthony
Giddens (Van Rooyen, 2013), Bruno Latour (Buzelin, 2005; Kung, 2009), Niklas
Luhmann (Hermans, 2007; Tyulenev, 2010), and Pierre Bourdieu (Gouanvic, 2005;
Hanna, 2016; Inghilleri, 2005; Liang, 2010; Simeoni, 1998; Wolf, 2007b).

It is my contention that Bourdieu’s approach is more suitable for the current study
because it enables me to look at translation agency in the light of the dialectic
relationship between the context and the agents involved in the translation of UVB
and LVNM into English.

2.5 Outline of Bourdieu’s social theory

The work of Pierre Bourdieu has been highly influential in translation studies in the
last two decades, as can be testified by the number of research studies drawn from
his conceptual tools (Gouanvic, 2005; Hanna, 2016; Inghilleri, 2005; Liang, 2010;
Simeoni, 1998; Wolf, 2007b). Through his key concepts of field, habitus and capital,
Bourdieu has contributed in shaping the way translation studies attempts to
conceptualise the complex nature of translation phenomena (Hanna, 2016:1).

It is in this regard that I adopt his theory in the current study, because it enables
me to analyse the complex issue of agency, especially with regard to the mutual
dependence of translation agents and their social contexts. Bourdieu’s conceptual
tools of field, habitus, and capital therefore enable me to look at how the literary field
in which the English translations of UVB and LVNM were produced, constrained the
actions of the agents involved in the process, and how the actions of these agents

22
also contributed in shaping the said field. Furthermore, the fact that Bourdieu’s theory
has been so widely applied to translation studies, allows me to be able to compare
my application with what other scholars of translation studies have done. In what
follows, I do a critical overview of Bourdieu’s notions of field, habitus, and capital in
order to highlight their relevance to translation analysis, and their suitability to the
study of Reed’s translation of UVB and LVNM into English.

Bourdieu’s theory of practice

The origin of Bourdieu’s theory can be traced to the prevalent philosophical trends in
France in the late 1950s and the 1960s, during which theoretical thinking centred on
the dualism of objectivism versus subjectivism (Liang, 2010:59). Objectivism, or
structuralism, viewed human action as trapped and determined by the social
structure, while subjectivism or agency viewed the individual as the instigator of all
action (Hanna, 2016:16). Bourdieu sought to reconcile this binary opposition by
proposing a social theory grounded on structuralist constructivism or constructivist
structuralism (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992:11). He argues that agency and structure
are mutually dependent given that the agents construct, and are constructed, by their
social contexts (Bourdieu, 1977). This implies that while the actions of agents in a
particular field are constrained by the rules of the field, the agents also shape the
rules of the same field through their actions. Bourdieu therefore perceives agency not
as the opposition between the individual and the structure, but rather as a dialectic
relationship between the two. Bourdieu (1984:101) illustrates this conceptualisation
by using the formula:

[(habitus) (capital)] + field = practice

The concepts of field, habitus and capital are thus at the centre of Bourdieu’s theory,
and he developed them as fruitful tools with which to explain the relational forces that
generate human behaviour and actions (Lahire and Wells, 2010:444). His theory has
come to influence academic research in a wide variety of disciplines, including
translation studies (Gouanvic, 2005; Inghilleri, 2005; Wolf, 2007b). This section thus
examines the notions of field, habitus, and capital, followed by an overview of how
they have been increasingly applied to translation studies within the sociological turn
of the discipline.

23
 The notion of field

Bourdieu developed the concept of field in opposition to the structuralist and systemic
models, which were the prevalent tools for the representation and explanation of
social reality at the time, and which he criticised for limiting themselves to describing
the material realities of the social world, without taking into consideration the role of
social agents in constructing these realities (Hanna, 2016:20). He therefore sought to
show that the structure was not independent of the actions of social actors and vice
versa. He defines a field as:

a network, or a configuration, of objective relations between positions. These

positions are objectively defined, in their existence and in the determinations they
impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their present or potential
situation … in the structure of the distribution of species of power (or capital) whose
possession commands access to the specific profits that are at stake in the field, as
well as their objective relation to other positions (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992:97).

In this regard, a field is seen as a relatively structured domain of a specific activity

within which different agents occupy a set of positions that relate to each other and
respect a particular hierarchy. It is autonomous, and its functions are guided by its
own rules and institutions, which are imposed on the occupants of the field, who both
recognise and respect the rules (Warde, 2004:12).

There are therefore different autonomous fields, such as the fields of religion,
economics, education, law and literature, and their autonomy is determined by the
constraints and control mechanisms that apply to the activities of the specific field,
and which differentiates it from other fields (Bourdieu, 1991:177). The field is made
up of objective positions which are occupied by different actors and institutions who
compete for the legitimate resources which the field offers (Bourdieu & Wacquant,
1989:40). ‘Objective positions’ implies that the positions are occupied based on the
volume and structure of the capital or resources that the agent has accumulated in
relation to other actors occupying other positions in the same field (Hilgers &
Mangez, 2014:10). The field is therefore an arena of struggle in which agents
compete for the interests which they recognise as accruing from the field (Hanna,
2016:21).

24
 This implies that there is a hierarchical structure in the positions of the field, and
agents seek to accumulate resources that would enable them to move to a position
of greater influence on the activities of the field, thereby creating a situation of
struggle or competition, in which agents then strive to conserve or transform the
structure of the field (Bourdieu, 1985:734). Agents possess different resources
(capital) and dispositions (habitus) with which they enter the field, and which
determine the positions they take and the leverage they have on the relations of the
field. The boundaries of each field are determined by the limit to which the impact of
the field’s struggles can be felt, and agents from other fields can bring with them the
capital and habitus acquired in another field (Warde, 2004:12). The ability of the
capital and habitus from one field to enable an agent to go through the ‘barriers of
entry’ (Bourdieu & Wacquant 1989:39) of another field, would indicate the extent to
which the influence from of a field can stretch to another. This implies that the capital
and habitus with which an agent enters a field would enable him/her to either modify
the field’s structure, or they would be modified by the field, depending on whether the
agent occupies a higher or lower position of influence. What this means is that the
actions of the agents of a particular field indeed shape the structure of that field, just
as these actions are themselves constrained by the structure of the field. It is this
dialectic relationship between structure and agency that forms the hallmark of
Bourdieu’s theory, and the reason for which I contend that the approach is suitable
for analysing how translation agents are constrained by their social context, while
they also contribute in shaping the social context through their actions.

In my application of the field concept to this study, I view translation as belonging

to the literary field. This is because translation is a means by which publishers
introduce foreign works to target audiences (Sapiro, 2008; Serry, 2002). This implies
that the agents involved in the translation of literature are also situated in the literary
fields in which cultural works are produced (Bourdieu, 2002). The agents involved in
the translation of literary works range from the translator, the commissioner, the
publisher, editors, the source text author, as well as the target text audience. These
agents occupy different positions, which determine the role they play in the field. The
amount of influence they further have on the activities of the field would also depend
on the amount of leverage they can weigh in to influence the activities in order to gain
or preserve their interest in the field. The author is, for instance, considered to be
superior to the translator, but inferior to the publisher, who in turn may be inferior to
25
the readership, which is in turn subservient to institutional policies such as
censorship. The relationship between these agents is one of power struggles, in
which each of them consciously or unconsciously strives to dominate the field in
order to foster their interests. The interest in this case may be material or symbolic in
the sense that the agents may be striving for economic benefits or social or
professional recognition. An author may be writing in order to get promotion or
economic benefits, a translator may translate in order to promote a particular
ideology, while a publisher may be in business for profit making or for ideological
reasons.

A particular political system may set up publishing houses just for the promotion
of works on its ideologies. Writing about the literary field, Africa, Currey (2008)
highlights the fact that the literary field that emerged in Africa during the period prior
to and after independence, publishers were interested in supplying the educational
market, which had been hitherto dominated by Western works. Such was the case of
the African Writers Series (AWS), which was set up to produce books for the school
curriculum in Africa. Its target market was the Anglophone countries of Africa and, as
such, the translations they commissioned and published were from other languages
into English. Their intention was to make economic profit from the lucrative market,
and they therefore sought to publish works that would be acceptable to the
readership or political institutions of the target countries. It is therefore my contention
that the translation of Oyono's works was done within a particular field which was
functioning according to particular norms, and whose activities were influenced by
the relational network of the different agents involved in the field.

Bourdieu’s model also indicates that a field may equally contain subfields which
have boundaries separating them from other subfields of the same main field
(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992:104). This implies that a field like ‘religion’ may contain
subfields such as Christianity, Islam, or Judaism. With regard to translation, some
scholars have questioned whether it constitutes an autonomous field or a subfield,
given the fact that it plays a subservient and invisible role with regard to other fields
(Sela-Sheffy, 2005; Simeoni, 1998). It is, however, my argument that translation can
be both a field and a subfield. With regard to translation as a field, Hermans
(2002:243) argues that:

26
 when we use the term ‘translation’ or its counterpart in another language, it indicates
a socially recognizable and recognized category, both a known concept and a socially
acknowledged practice.

This clearly paints a picture of translation as an autonomous field, given that it has its
own autonomous rules which are known by the agents of the practice, and there exist
institutions to uphold and conserve those rules. In the same vein, Wolf (2007b)
argues that because translation has rules that are respected by the professionals
involved in the practice, it does indeed constitute a field. On the other hand,
translation functions as a subfield when it is situated in a larger field. Taking the field
of literary production, for instance, translated literature constitutes a subfield which
can be differentiated from the subfield of original writings.

While I agree that translation can function as an autonomous field, it is my view

that this is not easily applicable to the translation of literary works. This is because of
the intricate link between the translation of literature and the general literary field, as
well as the overlapping roles of the agents involved in literary translation. It is in this
regard that for the context of this study, I consider translation as belonging to the
general field of African literature in which the translations of UVB and LVNM were
produced. This is because the translations by Oyono were commissioned and
translated within the context of publishing literature written by Africans, and the
translator himself was first a literary agent to whom translation was only a secondary
activity. It is within this context that I analyse the translations of Oyono’s novels within
the field of African literature, the positions and role of the different agents involved,
such as the author, publisher, and translator, and how these factors influenced the
translator’s decision-making during the process.

The notion of habitus

The notion of habitus is intricately linked to that of field, and neither can be discussed
without reference to the other. This is because the habitus is a product of the field,
while the habitus of agents in itself conditions the nature of the field. Bourdieu
(1977:72) defines habitus as:

systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to

function as structuring structures, that is, as principles of generation and structuring of
practices and representations that can be objectively ‘regulated’ and ‘regular’ without

27
 being in any way the product of obedience to rules, objectively adapted to their goals
without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the
operations necessary to attain them and, being all this, collectively orchestrated
without being the product of the organizing action of a conductor.

In this vein, habitus is the set of dispositions that are internalised in an individual or
group of people operating in the same social space, and which guide an individual’s
principles of perception and response in the interaction with other agents of the field.
This implies that the way we respond to situations, is conditioned by our internal
dispositions, which shape our appreciation of life.

Bourdieu (1990:53) argues that habitus is a product of history, which deposits the
lived experiences of an individual in their biological organisms, where they become
instruments of “thought and action, and tend to guarantee the ‘correctness’ of
practices and their constancy over time, more reliably than all formal rules and
explicit norms”. What Bourdieu (1990:56) implies here is that the experiences of
individuals are stored in their memory and subsequently influence their actions and
perceptions at later stages in life. Habitus is thus internalised history which is
acquired at two levels, the primary and the secondary. The primary level is during
childhood, when an individual acquires a disposition from their immediate
environment. A child would internalise his/her lived experiences from what is
gathered from socialising experiences in the family and immediate environment.

The second level of habitus acquisition is done through education and later life
experiences. What this implies is that our internal dispositions that condition the way
we act and respond to situations is the product of our accumulated history from
infancy to the moment of action or perception. Our taste, preferences, and
assessment of what is right or wrong are more a result of unconscious behaviour
coming from our internalisation of history than the result of calculated choices.
Applying the habitus notion to translation studies would provide a tool with which to
explain the causality of the strategies and preferences of the agents involved in the
practice. For example, a translator may choose or refuse to translate a given text
because it goes contrary to the ideological values of the translator; these ideological
values are the product of the translator’s lived experiences and education. The same
applies to a commissioner or publisher who may make similar choices in relation to a
work to be translated or published.

28
 Regarding Reed’s translation of Oyono’s works, this study examines the extent to
which Reed’s habitus as a European, born and raised in the United Kingdom (UK),
who later worked in Africa and became involved in the liberation struggle, could have
influenced his interest in Oyono, whose works are a denunciation of the ills of
colonialism. In the same way, the study examines how the habitus of James Currey,
the publisher of the works, could have influenced his interest in African literature,
leading to commissioning Reed to do the translations.

Another important element of habitus that Bourdieu (1990) extrapolates is that

there is individual and shared habitus. Individual habitus is peculiar to an individual’s
lived experiences, while shared habitus is the internalised common history of a
community or social class. This implies that people who share commonly lived
experiences, such as siblings or a homogeneous community, tend to portray
symmetrical patterns of behaviour. The fact that one sport is more popular in a
particular country or community than another is because of the lived history of each
of the countries or communities in relation to that sport. A literary work may be
accepted or rejected by a particular community because the shared history has
internalised common dispositions to assess what is good or bad.

In Africa Writes Back, James Currey (2008:61) reports that when the English
translation of Mongo Beti’s Mission Terminée (1957) was introduced into the school
literature curriculum in East Africa in 1964, protests erupted not only because of the
sexual scenes it contained, but especially because of its anti-clericalism. Most
schools at the time were run by missionaries and the system had inculcated a clerical
habitus in the people, which influenced their assessment of the morality of literature.
This illustrates to what extent the collective habitus of the target system can influence
the reception of a translation product and, by extension, the decision to translate or
publish it. This study explores the extent to which the target audience could have
played a role in Reed’s translation of Oyono’s works.

The notion of capital

Another concept used by Bourdieu (1986) to explain the functioning of the field is that
of capital. He borrowed the term from the Marxist concept of capital, but expanded on
it with the aim of showing that social struggles are more than just financial utility and
economic capital (Joas & Knobl, 2013:15). This is also intricately linked to the field

29
and the habitus, and each of the concepts can only be fully understood with the
incorporation of the other. Bourdieu (1986:241) defines capital as:

accumulated labor (in its materialized form or its ‘incorporated,’ embodied form)
which, when appropriated on a private, i.e., exclusive, basis by agents or groups of
agents, enables them to appropriate social energy in the form of reified or living labor.

What this implies is that the agents involved in the field’s activities possess a certain
amount of resources or endowments, which enables them to participate in the
activities, and this participation is also aimed at appropriating more resources that
are at stake in the field. This capital includes, but is not limited to, the economic
sense of material or monetary resources (Bourdieu 1986:241). It is a determining
factor in the structuring of the field and the agents’ habitus, given that it is what
conditions the positioning of the agents in the field, as well as the goal for which the
agents employ their dispositions to achieve.

Bourdieu (1986:243) distinguishes four convertible types of capital: economic,

cultural, social, and symbolic capital. Economic capital refers to the material assets
and financial revenues of an agent, which can easily be converted into monetary
form. It is an important driving force of the activities in the field. A writer may be in the
business for financial benefits, just as a private publishing company for economic
profit. Their interest would thus influence their activities in the field, as well as their
interactions with other agents in the field. The establishment of European publishing
houses in Africa in the period after World War II was to foster economic as well as
cultural interests (Davis, 2013). This implies that their decision to select texts for
publication was based on the extent to which those texts were aligned to their
interests. Publishing houses therefore become a factor that constrains the actions of
writers, as well as those of translators. It is in this regard that this study seeks to
discover the interest that motivated the publisher’s decision to commission and
publish the translations of Oyono’s novels. The study also looks at how financial
benefits could have influenced the translator’s decision to translate the works.
According to Bourdieu (1986:17), cultural capital exists in three forms:

In the embodied state, i.e., in the form of long-lasting dispositions of the mind and
body; in the objectified state, in the form of cultural goods (pictures, books,
dictionaries, instruments, machines, etc.) … and in the institutionalized state, a form
of objectification which must be set apart because, as will be seen in the case of

30
 educational qualifications, it confers entirely original properties on the cultural capital
which it is presumed to guarantee.

This implies that for the case of translation, the competencies of a translator, or a
writer are acquired with time and they can be objectivised in the works they have
produced, such as translated and published works. In the same way, the
competencies acquired can be institutionalised by the award of academic
qualifications as proof that those competencies have been acquired. For example,
translator training institutions and certification bodies do accord institutionalised
forms of cultural capital to professional translators.

Bourdieu (1986:243) also asserts that cultural capital can be converted to

economic capital in certain conditions. This can be related to when a publisher pays
a writer to write a literary work for publication, or when a writer earns money from the
sales of his/her works. In the same light, when a translator is paid for his/her work,
the cultural capital embodied in him/her is converted into economic capital. With
regard to this study, I argue that John Reed had acquired a certain amount of cultural
capital, which influenced the publisher to approach him for the translation of Oyono’s
works. With regard to social capital, Bourdieu (1986:248) defines it as:

the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a
durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance
and recognition – or in other words, to membership in a group – which provides each
of its members with the backing of the collectively-owned capital, a ‘credential’ which
entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word.

This implies that there are certain benefits that an individual can accumulate as a
result of the people or institutions s/he is connected to, and the volume of the social
capital possessed depends on the capital accumulated by the individual, as well as
that accumulated by the people or institutions in his/her network (Bourdieu
1986:249). This social network can be in the form of a family name, a social class, a
school, or a professional body. As such, a politician from a prominent family would
have higher chances of being elected than one from a less known family. In the same
way, a translator, writer or lawyer who belongs to a prominent professional body
would be more likely solicited than one who belongs to a less prominent one. This is
relevant to this study in that, based on his profile as an academic, a literary critique
and a translator, I contend that John Reed was connected to a significant network of

31
people and institutions involved in the production and publication of African literature.
The study thus examines how this might have been an influential factor in his
translation of Oyono’s works.

The final form of capital that Bourdieu (1989:17) talks about is symbolic capital.
This is not an independent form of capital, but rather “the form that various species of
capital assume when they are perceived and recognised as legitimate”. It is thus
accumulated based on the recognition that the other agents of the field accord to the
other accumulated forms of capital possessed by an individual or institution. In other
words, a millionaire is accorded high societal status because the field acknowledges
the fact that wealth is important and worth acquiring. In the same way, the status of
an intellectual or prominent writer is the result of the society’s recognition of the
importance of the cultural capital they have accumulated. This is equally the case
with a publishing house which is accorded a particular status based on the amount
and nature of works it has published.

The English translation of Mongo Beti’s Mission Terminée was little known when
published, but when the AWS published it in 1964, it sold far more than the French
original (Currey, 2008:61). This was as result of the prominence the AWS had
gained, thus its symbolic capital. In the case of translation, a translator may acquire
symbolic capital as result of the amount of his/her translations that have been
published, or the academic qualification s/he possesses. This is relevant to the
subject of this study in that the translations of Oyono’s works were not the first works
John Reed had translated with regard to African literature, and this study examines
the role of the status he had acquired might have played in the publisher
commissioning him to do the translations.

In conclusion, Bourdieu’s social theory demonstrates that social actions are the
results of the following factors: the social space within which the action takes place,
the different agents in the social space, the positions occupied by the different
agents, the dispositions of the agents, the resources accumulated by the agents, and
the interest at stake in the social space. The implication of this to the notion of
agency is that, rather than being an oppositional relationship between the agents and
the structure, agency operates in a dialectic relationship between the agents and
their social contexts. It is this view that I adopt in the current study to contend that
translation agency is more complex than the binary opposition in which the agent
32
acts against the rules of the field; it rather has to do with the way translation agents
construct and are constructed by the contexts within which they operate. It is in this
regard that the study looks at the relationship between Reed and his context, and
how the context constrained his actions in the translation of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM.
The study also looks at how Reed’s actions contributed in shaping the literary field
within which he worked.

Criticisms of Bourdieu’s theory

Despite the appeal of Bourdieu’s theory, there have been some criticisms about his
works. One of the most prominent critics of Bourdieu has been Bernard Lahire
(2003), who criticised Bourdieu’s theory for lacking in detail. On the concept of the
field, he asserts that Bourdieu’s conceptualisation is too limited to explain the rather
broad framework within which agents operate. He questions Bourdieu’s assertion
that the field is autonomous and argues that Bourdieu fails to indicate what
constitutes the boundary of one field from another, especially given the fact that most
fields are actually heterogeneous in nature (Lahire & Wells, 2010:447). He further
asserts that Bourdieu ignores the fact that some agents might belong to more than
one field at the same time, and their activities in one field might have an impact on
their actions in the other field (Lahire & Wells, 2010:446). He links this to the notion of
capital to say that contrary to Bourdieu’s claim of capital being accumulated from the
field, the capital possessed by some agents in the field is actually accumulated from
another field to which they belong (Lahire & Wells, 2010:448).

Regarding the notion of habitus, Lahire (2003:334) argues that Bourdieu’s

conceptualisation is flawed in the sense that it does not explain the manner by which
the lived experiences of an individual are internalised in that individual. He further
asserts that Bourdieu seems to suggest that the lived experiences of an individual
are internalised in that individual as a homogeneous unit of dispositions that
determines the individual’s actions. He disagrees with this and argues that the
habitus is rather heterogeneous in nature, given the fact that individuals are exposed
to different, and, at times, contradictory experiences which are all internalised and
condition the individual to act or react differently in different situations (Lahire &
Wells, 2010:448). I disagree with Lahire’s criticism that Bourdieu ignores the
possibility of agents belonging to more than one field.

33
 Bourdieu’s view that agents enter a field based on whether they possess the
necessary capital and habitus to be effective in the field (Bourdieu & Wacquant,
1992:107) indicates that this capital and habitus must have been acquired in another
field. This therefore does not exclude the possibility of the agents belonging to more
than one field. In this light, an academic who is also a writer may simultaneously
belong to the fields of education and literature.

With regard to the criticism on Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, I also disagree with
Lahire that Bourdieu ignores the heterogeneity of the habitus. While Bourdieu does
not expressly say that the habitus is heterogeneous, it is my view that when he talks
of the cognitive and motivating structures that make up the habitus (Bourdieu,
1977:78), he is implying that the habitus is like a black box into which different
experiences fit in as mechanisms that influence different actions and perceptions in
given situations. The heterogeneity of the habitus is therefore implied in Bourdieu’s
conceptualisation. Furthermore, it is my argument that while Lahire disagrees with
Bourdieu on specifics, he does not deny the existence of the field, in which there are
agents who occupy positions and possess capital that determine their actions.
Neither does he deny the fact that the habitus is a causal factor of the actions of an
individual. I therefore maintain the argument that Bourdieu’s theory is an important
framework that allows us to understand the social factors that influence the actions of
agents involved in translation activities.

King (2000:421) has also criticised Bourdieu’s notion of field as undermining the
agency of individuals, given that individuals are constrained by their social relations,
which limits their ability to act beyond the limits of what is permissible within the
network of relations. He also asserts that Bourdieu’s notion of habitus is indicative of
the fact that agents do not have any free will to act and are instead constrained by
social forces. He argues that this notion makes agents’ actions to be deterministic in
nature, thereby taking Bourdieu back to the objectivism versus subjectivism problem,
which he claims to resolve with this notion.

Jenkins (1982:273) has further criticised Bourdieu’s starting off with a rejection of
determinism, just to end up in it with his concept of habitus. He argues that the
concept lacks clarity, especially with regard to the relationship between the field and
the habitus. With regard to the criticisms by King and Jenkin, I argue that Bourdieu’s
conceptualisation of the field and the habitus clearly indicates that, while agents’
34
actions are constrained by the nature of the field and their habitus, this does not
curtail rational choices on the part of the agents (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992:126).

Bourdieu (1989:45) resolves the misconception that the habitus is contrary to

rational choice by asserting that the habitus determines both the unconscious and
rational choices of agents because all rational choices on the part of individual
agents are based on principles which are still influenced by their habitus. This implies
that the principle of reasoning that leads an individual to make the choice to conform
to or ignore the constraining norms of a society, is based on the disposition of free
will that the individual has acquired over a given period.

Based on my views regarding the criticisms of Bourdieu’s theory, I contend that

the theory is an appropriate tool that will enable me to achieve the aim of this study.
This is based on the fact that there is a field in which the translations of Oyono’s
novels were produced, there are clearly identified agents in different positions in the
said field, each endowed with different forms of capital and there is the individual
habitus of the agents and the collective habitus of the literary field that influence the
actions of the agents involved in the translations of the two novels under study.
Furthermore, I opt for Bourdieu’s theory because it has been widely used in
translation studies (Gouanvic, 2005; Hanna, 2016; Inghilleri, 2005; Liu, 2012;
Simeoni, 1998; Wolf, 2007b), which is evidence that it has been tested and proven to
be a useful tool in translation analysis.

Bourdieu’s model in translation studies

Bourdieu’s theory has been applied to translation studies to show the relationship
between translation agents and their social contexts. Such an approach views
translation as an activity in which the translator is not just a marginalised neutral
actor, but an active agent who shapes and is shaped by the context in which s/he
operates.

In this light, Gouanvic (2005; 2010) argues that Bourdieu’s social theory is very
significant when applied to translation analysis. Taking the case of literature, he
argues that Bourdieu’s notion of field applies to the context of production of a
translation, in which the literary field is made up of literary traditions of a society, the
publication policies, the readership culture, and the norms or laws governing literary
production. Through an investigation of the French translations of American literary

35
works in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Gouanvic (2005:154) claims that the
production of original and translated literature in France was clearly subject to the
dictates of politics in the former century, than the latter, because the French literary
field had not developed into the same level of autonomy in the nineteenth century as
in the twentieth. He further argues that in the interwar years, the French literary field
was more resistant to political constraints than the American system, thereby
compelling some American authors to emigrate to France to have their works
translated and published (Gouanvic, 2005:153). Gouanvic’s argument is significant in
that it highlights the extent to which social factors, which are situated at the macro-
textual level, are influential in the production of literary works and their translation. It
underscores the fact that some works may be more susceptible to selection for
translation than others because of the social factors prevalent in the particular field.

This is relevant to the current study in that it looks at the factors that led to the
decision to translate Oyono’s novels into English. Gouanvic (2005:157) also looks at
Bourdieu’s concept of habitus and argues that the choices of translators can better
be explained by looking at their habitus instead of the norms of the literary system,
because norms cannot explain the spontaneous of unconscious actions taken by
translators. Using the example of three different translators of American literature into
French, he argues that the difference in the habitus of the translators led them to
having different literary preferences, and this was influential in the texts that were
selected for translation, as well as the translation strategies they adopted. This
implies that the translators contribute in shaping the target literary field selecting texts
that are introduced to the target field through translation (Milton & Bandia, 2009:1)
and their habitus is a determining factor in this regard.

Inghillleri (2005) asserts that Bourdieu’s theory has been applied to translation to
put more focus on the translators themselves, and their roles as social and cultural
agents who are actively involved in the production of textual and discursive practices.
She also argues that the relevance of Bourdieu’s social theory to translation studies
is that it has led to a “sociological approach to the discipline which encourages an
interest in the role of agents of institutions involved in translation activity” (Inghilleri,
2005:126). Furthermore, she highlights the fact that Bourdieu’s theory has
contributed in the theorisation of translation studies in a way that calls for the analysis
of the product along the lines of social practices and relevant fields in which they are

36
constituted, that they be viewed as functions of social relations based on competing
forms of capital tied to local/global relations of power, and that translators and
interpreters be seen as both implicated in and able to transform the forms of practice
in which they engage. In it is this regard that this study examines the role of the
various agents involved in the translation of Oyono’s novels, and how their
interactions influenced the translator’s choices and strategies.

In the same vein, Wolf (2007b) argues that adopting Bourdieu’s model in
translation analysis provides a deeper understanding of the socially regulated nature
of the translation process, and the social responsibility of translation. Based on an
overview of the application of Bourdieu’s theory translation studies, she asserts that
the model is relevant as it highlights the agents in the production and reception of
translated works, as well as their role in shaping the power relations that are inherent
in translation activities. According to her, the factors that influence the production of a
translation are “socially driven and re-organised within networks that condition the
very specific interplay of the different mediating agencies.” (Wolf, 2007:140). Wolf’s
opinion is relevant to the understanding of the agency role of the translator and other
actors involved in the translation process, and this relate to the subject of this study,
which seeks to explore the role of the translator as an agent and the factors that
influence his agency.

Hanna (2016) has applied Bourdieu’s sociological model to investigate the

sociocultural dynamics of the production, dissemination, and consumption of the
Arabic translations of Shakespearean tragedies in Egypt. He argues that Bourdieu’s
theory enables us to situate translation action within the context of the interplay
involving different social forces that constrain the selection of texts for translation and
the actual decisions taken by translators at micro-textual level (Hanna, 2016:201).
Using two different modes of drama production, he contends that the social
construction of theatre in Egypt influences the actions of the agents of its production
and translation. Hanna (2016:12) identifies two modes of drama productions which
are heteronomous and autonomous and claims that while heteronomous drama
conforms to the expectations and needs of the wider general audiences, autonomous
drama appeals more to the elite sectors of theatre consumers as well as readers of
published drama translations. This has direct implications on the translation
strategies in that the translators will be less constrained by the linguistic and

37
aesthetic aspects of the texts if it is destined for heteronomous production, and more
constrained when it comes to autonomous production.

Hanna’s views are significant in that they highlight the role of target audience
literary preferences in influencing translation decisions both at macro-textual and
micro-textual levels. What this means is that the expectations, or norms, of a literary
field are a constraining factor that shapes the actions of the agents involved in the
translation of works in the said field. It is, however, my contention that the literary
preferences of an audience are themselves shaped by the literary works which are
produced by the agents of the field, including authors, publishers, and translators.
The field and its agents are thus in a dialectic relationship in which the agents
construct, and are constructed, by the field. It is in this regard that the current study
looks at the relationship between the literary field and the agents involved in the
translation of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM.

Jinyu Liu (2012) highlights the fact that the application of Bourdieu’s theory to
translation studies would underscore the central role of translators in the translation
process. He argues that the translator’s habitus is acquired through an internalised
social and cultural history, and it influences the activities of the translator in relation to
the forces of the field of translation. Using the case of Yan Fu, and how his
translations helped in the enlightenment of the Chinese people, he demonstrates
how the application of Bourdieu’s model to translation analysis can place the
activities of the translator in a social context, and highlight the fact that an analysis of
a translator’s habitus can explain how the choices made during the translation
process are not always conscious strategies, but the effect of a specific internalised
identity. What is significant in Liu’s study is that it highlights the role of the translator
in constructing the target field through his/her translation choices. Yan Fu contributed
in shaping the cultural taste of the Chinese through the introduction of Western ideas
and lifestyles that were contained in the works he translated. He was influenced in
doing this by his habitus which he had acquired through his experiences in the
evolution of Chinese society. This implies that he was a constructed and constructing
agent of the field in which he operated. It is in this regard that I contend that
translation agency operates in a dialectic link between the agents and their social
contexts.

38
 Garcés and Blasi (2010) attempt to link Bourdieu’s model to translation analysis
by asserting that translation is situated within the context of a field of different agents,
and it is the translator’s habitus that enables him or her to act in a particular manner
in relation to the other agents. Focusing on public service interpreting and translation,
they argue that the translator’s adherence or divergence to translational norms is
dependent on the habitus of the individual translator. The significance of this
assertion is in the fact that the decisions taking during the translational negotiation
process, be they conscious or unconscious, are always influenced not only by the
translators’ habitus, but also by his or her relationship with the other agents of the
translational field, whose activities are also the result of their habitus.

Vosloo (2007) demonstrates that an application of Bourdieu’s ideas to translation

studies can highlight the fact that while a translator’s actions are influenced by his/her
habitus, such action is also facilitated or constrained by the prevailing translational
field. Focusing on the case of Antjie Krog as a translator, argues that the translator’s
actions are regulated through schemes which are the result of social and cultural
internalisation, and which influence the various choices the translator makes in order
to achieve his or her goal. Such schemes, or habitus, function on “different levels in
differing social, cultural, ideological, and personal spaces” (Vosloo, 2007:87). Her
argument is significant in that it underscores the role of the field and the habitus in
influencing translation action, which is relevant to this study as it examines the role of
the literary field and the translator’s habitus in determining translation decisions.

Liang (2010) uses Bourdieusian social theory to explain the individual and
collective practices found in the literary field of fantasy fiction translation in Taiwan.
She argues that unlike the poly-system model, which recognises the social nature of
the translation practice, but overlooks the roles of the individuals involved in the
practice, Bourdieu’s model highlights the role of these individuals by taking into
account “the personalised social and cultural history of translation agents and leads
to a better understanding of the tension behind individual choices made during the
translation process” (Liang, 2010:40). This is significant in that in as much as
translation is situated within a system of production whose functioning is determined
by the various forces involved, the translator is himself or herself an important agent
whose role is to blend the forces into a single unit of production.

39
2.6 Conclusion

The aim of this chapter has been to present a framework for the conceptualisation of
agency from a Bourdieusian perspective. My argument is that decisions made
through the course of translation activities are influenced by social forces, thereby
requiring a sociological approach to unearth these social factors which foreground
translation actions. In this regard, I have presented a historical overview of translation
studies leading to the advent of the sociological turns in the discipline. The purpose
has been to illustrate that the application of sociological theories to translation studies
does not appear in a vacuum but is the result of the different shifting turns that have
marked the evolution of the discipline. I have then elaborated on Bourdieu’s concepts
of field, habitus, and capital, followed by how they have influenced current research
in translation studies. The aim has been to show that translation agency operates in
a dialectic relationship between translation agents and their social contexts, in which
the agents construct, and are constructed, by the contexts. Translation activities can
therefore be explained by analysing the field in which the translation takes place, the
agents involved and the forces they possess, as well as the nature of the interplay
that takes place between the agents and the context and how this impact on the
translator’s behaviour during the translation process. This has provided a framework
within which I conceptualise agency as a theory in translation studies and how it can
be applied in the analysis of John Reed’s translation of Ferdinand Oyono’s UVB and
LVNM, which will be the focus of the next chapter.

40
Chapter 3
AGENCY IN TRANSLATING AFRICAN LITERATURE IN
EUROPEAN LANGUAGES

3.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter, I argued for a sociological approach to the study of

translation studies. I began by presenting an overview of the trends in translation
studies leading up to the sociological turn of the discipline. This was to show that the
sociological approach to translation studies emanated from the different shifting turns
that have marked the evolution of the discipline. I then argued for a Bourdieusian
model in the analysis of a translation process and demonstrated that this approach is
appropriate because it provides a good framework within which to understand how
the different agents involved in the translation process construct, and are
constructed, by the social contexts within which they operate. It is this focus on the
agents of translation that has given rise to the concept of agency in translation
studies. In this chapter, I intend to critically examine the notion of agency as it has
been applied to translation studies, and its relevance to the translation of African
literature, in general, and the novels of Ferdinand Oyono, in particular. This will
enable me to explain the agency role of John Reed in his translations of UVB and
LVNM.

3.2 Conceptualising agency

The concept of agency in translation studies can be traced back to the works of
Eugene Nida (1952) on Bible translation, the descriptive approaches of Even-Zohar
(1978) and Gideon Toury (1995), and the cultural approach of André Lefevere
(1992). Translation agency in these cases focused on the role that translation plays
in its receiving culture and the systemic factors controlling the practice of translation.

With translation studies going social as result of the broadening perspectives

ushered in by system-oriented and cultural approaches, the concept of agency began
to attract more attention in studies of translation phenomena (Wolf, 2007b). In recent
years, the concept has increasingly become a central theme in translation studies,
with scholars focusing more on how translation agents construct, and are
constructed, by their social contexts (Baker, 2007; Khalifa, 2014; Koskinen, 2010;

41
Marais, 2014; Milton & Bandia, 2009; Pym, 1998; Tymoczko, 2010; Wolf, 2006).
However, while many translation scholars have demonstrated how the notion of
agency plays out in translation, the concept remains a slippery one about which there
seems not to be an agreement of what it is or what constitutes it (Khalifa, 2014:13).

Milton and Bandia (2009), for example, have demonstrated how translation
agents are making decisions that are impacting on the cultural and literary systems of
receiving cultures. They however do not expand much on the notion of agency as
their approach mainly focuses on the agency role of translation, in contrast to
‘translators’, in changing cultural and linguistic policies and practices (Milton and
Bandia, 2009:1). In the same way, Baker (2006), Pym (1998), Tymoczko (2010) and
Wolf (2007b) have all demonstrated that agency is imbedded in translation and
should constitute a framework for translation analysis, without giving much detail as
to what agency is nor who is an agent. Kinnunen and Koskinen (2010:6) have
attempted to fill this gap in the agency debate by proposing what they consider
agency to mean, namely “the ability and willingness to act”. They explain that
willingness refers to the internal state and disposition of an agent, while ability refers
to the constraints within which an agent is required to make a choice.

Finally, acting relates to exerting an influence on an activity or someone. This

conceptualisation of agency is significant in that it touches on the social context of
agency as well as its intentionality. This is expressed in their use of the words ‘ability’
which has social implications as it involves the power relations between the individual
and the structure, and ‘willingness’ which relates to conscious reflexivity and
intentionality of action implications (Kinnunen and Koskinen, 2010:6). While agreeing
with Khalifa (2014) that their conceptualisation is quite comprehensive, it is my view
that it shows the binary opposition between agency and structure in which the
individual acts in opposition to the structure, rather than their interdependence. It is
thus my argument that for agency to have its full value as a theory in translation
studies, there need to be more detailed studies focusing on the mutually influential,
causal relationship between the social environment of translations and the actions of
the agents involved.

For this study, I conceptualise agency in line with Bourdieu’s relational model
which highlights the dialectic relationship between agency and structure. Bourdieu’s
theory seeks to overcome the binary opposition between objectivism and
42
subjectivism, or structure and agency, by demonstrating that the two are
interdependent (Bourdieu, 1977:4). He explains this through his notions of ‘field’ and
‘habitus’, in which the constraints of the field shape the actions of the agent, while the
actions of the agents also contribute in constructing the field (Bourdieu & Wacquant,
1989:40). It is in line with this reasoning that I view agency not in terms of the binary
opposition between the subjective agent and the structural constraints, but in terms
of a dialectic relationship between the agent and the structure. I therefore argue that
there is an interdependent relationship between the social and the individual agent,
given that individual actions are determined by social constraints, which are
themselves shaped by individual actions. It is in this light that I argue with Wolf
(2007b:132) that translation agency has to do with how the social constructs the
agent and is constructed by the actions of the latter.

Drawing on this assessment, I perceive agency in translation studies to be a

theoretical framework which studies translation by analysing the social context of a
translation activity and how this influences the actions of the agents involved in the
process, and the impact of the agents’ decisions and actions on the social
environment of the translation product. This dialectic influence between the social
context within which the translation agents operate and the actions of the said agents
are in line with Bourdieu’s dialectic relationship between the field and the agents, and
it underscores the mutually influential relationship between the social context and the
actions of agents at the macro-level and textual level of translation phenomena. In
other words, the context of a translation activity affects what happens at the macro-
textual and the textual levels, which in turn also have an impact in shaping the same
context of the translation phenomenon.

This is the position I adopt in this study, and I will thus be looking at the role of
John Reed as an agent, his position in the relevant literary field, his relationship with
other agents of the field such as the publisher, and how these factors – which are
social in nature – influenced his decisions and actions, as well as the impact of these
decisions and actions on the translations of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM.

3.3 Agency in translation studies

In this section, I look at how the concept of agency has been applied to translation
studies. I analyse agency at both macro-textual and textual levels. I therefore look at

43
the social factors that influence the decisions or actions that are taken prior to the
translation of the texts, as well as those taken at the textual level, and the impact of
these decisions or actions in shaping the literary field. This offers me a context within
which to explore the dialectic relationship between the social context of the
translation of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM, and the actions taken at both macro-textual
and textual levels of the translation process.

Milton and Bandia (2009:3) assert that translation operates within the context of
cultural conflict in which Western cultures are dominating minority cultures. They
argue that, in this context, translators from minority cultures become agents of
resistance and identity creation who are using translation to enable their dominated
cultures to resist. These translators adopt linguistic strategies that enable them to
assert their cultural identities by subverting the dominant global languages into which
they translate.

The implications of Milton and Bandia’s argument are that translators’ actions at
textual level are influenced by the broader social context which is characterised by
the conflict between dominant and dominated cultures. It is this social environment
that influences the choices that the translators make during the translation process,
which in turn contributes in shaping the social context of the receiving culture through
the valorisation of the identities of the dominated cultures. The agency of the
translators in this case is thus relational as it is determined by the social contexts in
which the translators find themselves and thus impacts on the receiving
environments by exposing them to particular cultural identities.

Venuti (2012, 2013) adopts a more activist stance to this view. He asserts that
translation is carried within a social context marked by linguistic and cultural conflicts,
which influence translation decisions from text selection to transfer strategies.
Venuti’s argument comes from his desire for translation to serve as a resistant tool to
the English domination of minority cultures. He advocates that translators assert their
agency by choosing texts and strategies that would give them increased visibility and
enable them to shape the way translation is perceived. Such visibility, according to
him would come from adopting foreignising translation strategies that would enable
the translations to impose themselves on the dominant target cultures and alter the
way cultural hierarchies unfold in the field of translation (Venuti, 2012:1). The
implication of Venuti’s argument is that translators can change the general perception
44
of translation as a subordinate entity, not only by adopting certain strategies, but also
by actively choosing the texts to translate, as well as the language combinations.
This means that translators need to be cognisant of the social contexts within which
they operate and contribute, through their actions, to shape the ideological
hierarchies of the field of operation. He further argues that the actions of translators
in this regard will contribute in shaping perceptions around the notions of culture and
translation, also highlighting the sociological hierarchies in the relationship between
cultures and languages.

Venuti’s view seems to suggest that translators have a fair amount of free will,
which they can exercise as they wish in order to achieve certain aims. I believe that
his views are based on his personal experiences as an American theorist and
translator working in a context in which there is economic security, and the
languages and cultures involved are globalised European languages (Tymoczko,
2000:39). His argument may therefore not be applicable to the context of other
regions of the world, such as Africa, where the countries have less economic power
and the language cultures do not have the same levels of visibility as global or
Western languages. It is thus my contention that Venuti’s argument ignores the fact
that translators’ agency is constrained or facilitated by social factors, be they human
or institutional. The ability of translators or other agents to exercise the powers he
claims they possess depends on the social factors constraining the translators’
actions. His views are, however, valuable in that they underscore the impact of
translations in constructing the social, especially with regard to shaping the narrative
of translation and its role in valorising minority cultures.

Venuti (2013:182) further shows the impact of the social on the translation
process by arguing that the translator’s interpretation of the source text is always
influenced by the social environment in which s/he is affiliated. In other words, during
the translation process, the social comes out from within the individual (Tyulenev,
2014:8) to influence whatever action or decision is taken. This is synonymous with
Bourdieu’s (1990:54) argument that agents’ actions are determined by the habitus,
which is the social that has been deposited in the biological individual to constitute
the mechanisms of perception and action. Translation actions are thus influenced by
the social context that constructs the agents involved, and who also contribute in
constructing the same social context by their actions. Venuti’s argument is relevant to

45
the context of African literature in European languages, in which resistance to
European cultural domination is one of the prevalent themes (Bandia, 2008), thereby
having significant implications for the translation strategies of translators of such
literary texts. This is the nature of Ferdinand Oyono’s texts, and this study explores
the strategies that Reed adopts in the translations and the social factors that
influence his choice of the said strategies.

Another scholar who adopts an activist stance in the agency of the translator is
Mona Baker (2006, 2010), who asserts that translation is involved in the never-
ending global ideological and military conflicts, which are fuelled by narratives that
uphold or undermine the ideologies underpinning the conflicts. She argues that
translational actions are influenced by this social context of conflicts, and decisions
made by the translators reflect their dissociation or empathy with one narrative
position or another (Baker, 2006:105). She defines narratives as “public and personal
stories that we subscribe to and that guide our behaviour” and argues that they are
bound to influence the translator’s interpretation of the utterances s/he has to deal
with (Baker, 2010:25). Baker’s narrative concept has significant implications for
agency. Her claim of the translator’s perceptions being shaped by narratives and the
translator’s actions contributing in shaping narratives demonstrates the relational
nature of how the social constructs the agent and vice versa.

This is synonymous with Bourdieu’s view of the social field constructing agents’
habitus, and also being constructed by the latter. What this implies is that agents who
come from different social backgrounds would have different perceptions and act
differently because their senses of perception and action, or habitus, have been
shaped by different narratives. Another significant aspect of Baker’s argument is the
fact that she highlighted the explicit or conscious agency of the translator. In other
words, translators consciously contribute in resisting or elaborating selected
narratives, and one way of doing this, according to Baker (2006:105), is through
framing, which she defined as “an active strategy that implies agency and by means
of which we consciously participate in the construction of reality”. This process of
framing works by drawing on:

practically any linguistic or non-linguistic resource, from paralinguistic devices such

as intonation and typography to visual resources such as colour and image, to

46
 numerous linguistic devices such as tense shifts, deixis, code switching, use of
euphemism, and many more (Baker, 2006:111).

The point worth noting in Baker’s notion of framing is that it offers another strategy
with which the translator can assert his/her agency. In other words, the translator can
limit the intervention at textual level, and use paratextual framing to mark his/her
agency position. Hermans (2007:55) also takes up this argument by asserting that
the translator can use paratextual or paralinguistic frames to either dissociate or
associate himself/herself from the author’s ideology.

In recent years, Baker has drifted from a descriptive position on agency toward
that of activism as she advocates that the translator needs to be conscious of the
powers they wield and define their own place in global conflicts. She thus sends out a
rallying call to translators and interpreters to “volunteer their time, to invest
emotionally and intellectually in projects designed to undermine dominant discourses
and to elaborate more equitable and peaceful narratives of the future” (Baker,
2010:34). This implies that translators have a moral responsibility to resist the
ideologies that are inflaming conflicts around the world, by initiating, accepting, or
rejecting assignments. This raises the issue of the leverage that translators hold in
the power relations underpinning translation activities. The linguistic assets of
translators make them valuable bridges of communication and, at times, the only
access route that the target audience has to the source text. Refusal to translate may
thus block that access and confine the source text narrative to its immediate world.

Initiation is also important in the sense that the initiator plays a more determining
role in decision-making relating to the translation; as such, the translator’s agency
role is further enhanced when s/he initiates the project. Although Baker throws light
on the agency of translators in the context of global conflicts, it is my view that her
claim of the powers that translators wield is exaggerated. The translator’s free will
can only go as far as the constraints of his/her social environment allows. A translator
working in North Korea would not be able to exercise the same free will in decision-
making as one working in Europe. In the same way, a translator working in Africa
whose main priority is to provide for his/her family, would not have the luxury to be
actively involved in ideological conflicts. It would therefore be beneficial for translation
studies to go beyond the “Western analysis of reality” (Marais, 2014:144) and look at

47
the agency implications in what translators are doing in different contexts of the
world.

Gentzler and Tymoczko (2002) also take an activist stance in their

conceptualisation of the agency of translators. They argue that translators are
actively involved in the selection of texts to translate, as well as strategies of
translation. Their intention in this case is to demonstrate that there are always
dimensions of power inherent in the relationship between the translator, the
commissioner, the author, as well as the source and target texts. They assert that
translation is not merely a faithful reproduction of the original, but rather:

a deliberate and conscious act of selection, assemblage, structuration – and even in

some cases, of falsification, refusal of information, counterfeiting, and the creation of
secret codes. In this way, translators, as much as creative writers and politicians,
participate in the powerful acts that create knowledge and shape cultures. (Gentzler &
Tymoczko, 2002: xxi).

Two major things stand out in this argument: the idea of falsifying, refusing, and
counterfeiting information; and the idea of comparing translators to creative writers
and politicians. The first case is of great significance because the argument seems to
suggest that translators can indeed withhold information or misinform the target
audience. This argument raises ethical issues, but my question is whether translators
can appropriate all the powers alluded to if their environment of operation does not
allow it. Can the translator’s leverage in text selection in a particular social context be
transferred to another context? It is thus my view, that while translators do indeed
possess the ability to participate in a more active way in macro-level translation
decisions, this invariably depends on factors in the specific context that would either
facilitate or constrain the extent to which this power can be exerted. This implies that
the actions of the translator or the other agents involved in the process are
constrained by the specific field in which they operate. In the same way, the textual
level actions of the translator result in shaping the perceptions and preferences of the
recipients, and this contributes in determining the pre-textual dynamics of the
translation process, since taste or preference determines production (Bourdieu
1993:51).

In other studies, Tymoczko (2007, 2009) also advocates for an enlargement of

the borders of translation studies, to liberate the discipline from the dominance of
48
Eurocentric models. She argues that Eurocentrism has stifled the translator’s agency
by defining translation as just a transfer process. She asserts that this
conceptualisation places a lot of control on the message, and an incorporation of
other models of translation would help break the chains of control around the source
text message. The reason for this is that “exposure to other models of translation
helps translators develop self-reflexivity, which is essential for empowerment and the
exercise of ethical agency” (Tymoczko, 2009:414). The value of Tymoczko’s
argument lies in the fact that she advocates for a broader approach to translation
studies, which in turn may reveal different contexts, texts and agents involved in
translation activities beyond Western frontiers. This would provide a better
understanding of the social factors underpinning the actions of translators and the
impact their actions are having in the communities in which they operate. She
therefore conceptualises agency as having to do with the empowerment of
translators to act as agents of both resistance and construction of cultural and
ideological identities. Using the case of the translation of Irish literature, she argues
that Irish translators resorted to strategies of textual manipulation in order to resist
the cultural and ideological perceptions that had been constructed by British colonial
discourse. The translators in this way became empowered agents of social change
by engaging in the “radical manipulation of texts, constructing cultural images and
identities, fostering self-definition, and creating knowledge through their work”
(Tymoczko, 2007:200). Her views underscore the causal link between the
sociocultural factors of the translator’s context of operation and the actions or
decisions s/he takes in the translation process. They also highlight the impact of the
translator’s actions in shaping cultural and ideological perceptions in the target
system. This shows the mutually influential relationship between the translator’s
actions and the context within which s/he works.

It is in this regard that I argue that translation agency is context specific as

different translation contexts are bound to have different social factors underpinning
the actions of the agents involved in the process. In this regard, a study of the
translation of Oyono’s novels, which brings together a European translator and an
African text of a peculiar nature, would likely reveal interesting agency relations that
would contribute to the conceptualisation of translation studies.

49
 Marais (2008, 2014) has also made a significant contribution to the notion of
agency in translation studies. He upholds the view that the neutrality of translators is
illusionary, and that translators’ individualities always lead to biased interventions on
their parts in translation activities (Marais, 2008). Marais (2014), however, laments
the fact that the agency debate, as it has been carried out by scholars, has been
reductionist in nature, drawing mostly from Western critical theory. He thus argues
that a more complex approach is needed for translation studies to investigate other
areas of agency which have been neglected by the Western underpinnings of the
discourse on agency (Marais, 2014). In other words, like Tymoczko (2007) has
argued for the enlargement of translation studies, Marais is arguing for an
enlargement of the theorisation of agency. His contention is that Western notions
should not be the only lenses through which to perceive the agency of translators,
because there are other domains of less visibility, but in which translators are also
making significant impact on societies (Marais, 2014:144). The implication of Marais’
argument is that while translation studies is fighting to free itself from the cage of
invisibility, it risks creating an asymmetrical situation in which the rays of visibility
would shine on some areas and be cut off from others. Marais uses the case of the
informal economy in South Africa as an example, arguing that translators are playing
a significant role in advancing the development agenda in the informal sector of
multilingual communities. Marais’ argument is relevant to translation studies in Africa
because the continent is predominantly informal, and the communities are
characterised by dense multilingualism. Translation and translators are thus
important assets that facilitate trade, governance, and service delivery in the
communities.

The peculiar social context within which African translators work, means that the
social factors that influence their work are different from what prevails outside the
continent. Translation agency in this case is thus bound to be different because the
causal and intended factors are different. This is relevant to the present study in that
the texts involved in the study emerged from an African context, where literary texts
have been said to be more hybrid in nature (Bandia, 2008:114) and thus different
from the typically homogeneous texts that have informed Western notions of
translation.

50
 Munday (2012), on his part, has argued that translators are not mere neutral
conduits of source text messages for they make intervening decisions during the
translation process which cause them to be biased, either towards the source text or
the target text. Translators are therefore interested participants whose actions are
“constrained and directed by extratextual factors” (Munday, 2012:2). Munday’s
contention is that the social is always present in the decisions that translators make
at the textual level. Unlike the more activist stance adopted by some translation
studies scholars (Baker, 2010; Tymoczko, 2007), he argues that translation decisions
are constrained by extratextual factors, which to me are social in nature. The
translator’s free will or that of other agents depends on the extent to which it is
facilitated or limited by the social environment within which the action takes place.
The notion of the ‘interested representer’ (Munday, 2012:2) is also significant in the
sense that it highlights the importance of ‘purpose’ in the conceptualisation of
agency. This is in line with Bourdieu’s view that the actions of agents are motivated
by the interest that they seek to accumulate in the field (Bourdieu, 1986).

Although Munday’s concept of interest is not expressed in the same economic

terms as that of Bourdieu, it underscores the fact that agents do not act for the sake
of action for there is always a goal that motivates the action. The relevance of
Munday’s argument is that it creates a causality link between the translator’s social
environment and the decisions s/he makes at the textual level. These decisions may
range from choosing a specific word as opposed to another in deciding to add or
leave out a segment of the text. This implies that different translators who translate
the same text would most likely make different intervening decisions based on their
different social backgrounds. In other words, the different habitus and social positions
of translators enable them to intervene in a specific way to shape the translation
product. This is significant to this study in the sense that it is my argument that
Reed’s habitus was a determining influence in the translation decisions he made in
translating the works of Oyono.

Another scholar who has applied agency at the translation process level is
Hermans (2007), who asserts that translators are never neutral, given that
translations will always have the subjected positions of the translators inscribed in the
choices they make at the textual level of translation. According to him,

51
 [t]he translating subject cannot be elided or eliminated from translations because, as
a form of text-production, translating requires the deployment of linguistic means in
the host language, and this will involve dimensions other than those of the original. As
a result, the translator’s utterances are necessarily marked, revealing a discursively
positioned subject (Hermans, 2007:28).

This implies that a source text translated by different translators would produce
different target texts, and such differences would be as a result of the different
linguistic choices or preferences that the different translators would have made. As
such, faced with different options, a translator would opt for particular intervention
preferences to resolve textual challenges during translation, which implies agency on
the part of the translator. Hermans (2007) further argues that translators also
intervene to mark their visibility in translations through annotations. This meta-
discursive approach enables the intervening agent to impose his/her presence
throughout the translation because:

By adopting a position vis-à-vis that body of translations the translator marks not only
a discursive presence but also a critical viewpoint. And since translations necessarily
contain these positionings, they speak about themselves, with more or less emphasis
(Hermans, 2007:51).

The significance of Hermans’ argument lies in the highlight he places on the

subjective position of the translator that renders his/her presumed neutrality an
illusion. I contend that such subjectivity is determined by the translator’s habitus,
which has been constructed by his/her social environment. I therefore argue that the
translator’s interpretation and perception of situations are informed by his/her socio-
cultural and professional background and it would be beneficial for translation
analysis to focus on the causal relationship between the said background and the
choices made by the translator during the translation process. It is in this regard that
the present study explores those social factors that make up Reed’s background and
their influence on his translations of Oyono’s works.

Tyulenev (2014:6) also weighs in on the intervention debate by asserting that

translators are mediators whose works always “bear an imprint of their socialisation,
sometimes invisible even to translators themselves”. This, according to him, is as a
result of the fact that translators are first and foremost individuals whose
individualities have been shaped by their historical social experiences. These

52
experiences, or habitus, tend to influence the decisions made by the translators,
since “every translation decision is always an interface between the translator’s own
individuality and the society of which s/he is a part” (Tyulenev, 2014:11). He thus
argues that, in order to understand the causal forces of translation decision, there
needs to be a meticulous analysis that takes into account the social context within
which the translator works. Tyulenev’s argument underscores the fact that the
translator’s habitus is a major causal factor of the conscious and subconscious
decisions made during the translation process. Another significant point to his
argument is that he advocates for an analysis of the translational context in order to
understand translation decisions, thereby focusing translation studies on the agent
translator. This is relevant to the focus of this study in which I argue that the
subjective social identity of the translator is always present in his/her decisions, and
this needs to be taken into consideration when analysing any translation product.

It is thus my view that agency needs to be conceptualised as being relational

rather than oppositional to structure. Agency is always underpinned by structural
factors that construct the agent’s capacity to act, and the structure itself is
constructed by the practices of the agents involved. It is for this reason that I draw on
Bourdieu (1977:72) to argue that the claims of free will usually associated with the
actions of individual agents are therefore exaggerated because any capacity to act is
situated within a social context that either facilitates or limits the extent of the said
actions. Any free will or power that translation agents may be thought to possess is
thus dependent on the social environment which shapes the actions of the agents.

In this regard, a translator’s role in deciding on which text to translate or not may
be a question of free will, but this free will would only be effective if the social context
of operation is favourable to it. In the same way, the translator may want to exercise
his free will in making textual level decisions, but this would ultimately depend on
social factors such as the commissioner, the target audience, and even the
translator’s economic needs. Marais’s (2014:144) argument that “Western notions of
high visibility” should not be the only angle from which to define agency is therefore
very valuable because the free will exercised by a translation agent in Asia, for
example, may be ineffective in Africa because the social factors underpinning the
agent’s actions are different. It is in this light that I look at how Reed’s textual
decisions in the translations of UVB and LVNM were the result of the social factors

53
involved in the context of the translations, such as the nature of the literary field, the
agents involved as well as the translator’s habitus.

3.4 Agency and the translation of African literature

This section looks at the relevance of agency to African literature produced in

European languages so as to create a theoretical context within which to analyse
Reed’s translations of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM.

Translation has played a significant role in the development of global literature

(Lefevere, 1995). This highlights the role of translators as agents of representation,
who introduce foreign literary systems into the different cultures of the world. In this
process of literary representation, translators have not just been simple conduits of
transfer, rather they have actively been involved in text selection, as well as in
adopting strategies that introduce new forms into the literary systems of the target
culture (Milton & Bandia, 2009). The dominance of literary translation in the
translation theory debate is evidence of the significant role of the agents of the
subdiscipline in the development of translation studies. While much of the debate on
literary translation has focused on Western literary traditions, recent studies have
expanded the frontiers of the discipline to incorporate other literary translations in the
discipline (Bandia, 2008; Gentzler, 2008; Kung, 2009). This has contributed in
bringing to light different contexts of agency, which have enriched the
conceptualisation of translation.

The translation of African literature dates to the periods when oral narratives
were represented in the form of pictograms or hieroglyphs (Bandia, 2008:159).
Translation in this case was more semiotic than linguistic, since it had to do with
transferring meaning from one code of expression to another. Apart from the old
writing systems and practices of interlinguistic translation in Africa prior to
colonisation, translation can be traced in the activities of the griots, who were
multilingual praise singers attached to the courts of African kings (Bandia, 2005).
These griots were expert agents who mediated between different communities during
peace treaties, trade, or marriage arrangements. Their agency role was thus crucial
in that their interventions were instrumental in ending conflicts and forging
relationships. While there is no question as to the existence of translation practices in
these periods of African history, there is not enough evidence to fully analyse their

54
implications for translation studies. It may thus be beneficial for translation studies to
take up on Santayo’s (2006:13) suggestion that an extensive historical study is
needed in order to have a comprehensive picture of the discipline.

The written form of African literature began with the arrival of European
missionaries to the continent, and the literature at this point was mostly in African
languages (Bandia, 2005). This literature has, however, received limited attention in
translation studies, which has predominantly focused on the literature produced in
European languages by Africans who went through the Western educational system
(Marzagora, 2015). African literature in European languages has agency implications
by its very nature, given that it is produced within a social environment that shapes its
form and function. Wa Thiongo’o (1986:4) argues that African literature cannot be
understood without the social forces that condition its production. The implication of
this is that the different agents involved in literary production are influenced by their
social environment, which they aim to also influence through their works. The social
context in this regard refers to the political and cultural domination by the colonial
West that African writers sought to resist by adopting a style of writing and by
addressing the social issues affecting their communities. It is this context of the social
influencing literary actions, and vice versa, that highlights the agency implication of
African literature. The agency involved in the translation of such literature is even
more significant with regard to the role of translation in the said literature.

I therefore contend that African literature offers a peculiar context for translation
studies because the literary tradition of the continent is different from the Western
tradition in terms of its form and function; this difference is required to constitute the
basis of analysing the role of the various agents involved in translation activities in
this literary system. It is in this regard that the study of the translation of Oyono’s
UVB and LVNM offers a relevant context to look at the agents involved in the process
and the social factors influencing their actions. In what follows, I present the agency
implications that can be drawn from the nature and function of African literature in
European languages in order to show the causal link between social factors and
agents’ actions in the production of this category of literature. This is relevant to the
current study because it focuses on how the social context and the actions of the
agents involved in the translations of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM are mutually
influential.

55
 The translational nature of African literature

African literature in European languages offers a peculiar characteristic in that it is

written by authors for whom the languages of production are not their native
languages (Bandia, 2008). This results in a source text that is different from the
homogeneous source text produced by a native speaker of the European language in
question.

The major difference in the African literary source text is that the text is greatly
influenced by the oral tradition of African communication patterns (Bandia, 2008;
Gyasi, 2003). This has led to some scholars claiming that African literature in
European languages is a form of translation in which African writers conceive their
ideas in their native languages before translating them into the European languages
in question (Bandia, 1993; Gyasi, 2003). Bandia (2008) has, however, underscored
the risk of confusing the translational process involved in African literature text
produced in a European language and the interlingual translation of African literature
between European languages. Bandia (2008:166) argues that the intercultural
translation approach involved in African literature in European languages is not
always a translation per se, but a creative aesthetic and linguistic strategy through
which the writers seek to reconcile the imperative to write in global languages and
the need to preserve their cultural identities. Such an approach has a reparatory
function (Bandia, 2008) as the writers seek to reclaim the cultural identities of their
communities which have been eroded by colonial domination. The dynamics involved
in the translation of such texts are therefore likely to be different from those involved
in texts from Western traditions, which are predominantly homogeneous. The
problem with this argument is that it seems to neglect the fact that the form of
language used in African literary production in European languages may also be the
result of the evolution that the foreign language undergoes due to the influence of the
local African context, which leads to a transformation in the language.

This then raises the question as to whether the manner in which European
languages are used in African literature is different from the way the said languages
are spoken in the language communities from which the authors originate. It should
be observed that some writers, such as Amadou Kourouma (1987), have themselves
asserted the fact that they adopt a translation form of writing in their texts. Others
such as Henri Lopez (1982) instead attribute their style to an adoption of the

56
discursive patterns prevalent in their African communities in which European
languages had been domesticated to take a more local flavour. It is thus my
argument that while it is obvious that African literature in European languages
involves a form of translating African thoughts, the authors have also significantly
adopted the discursive patterns of their communities in the way they use European
languages. Talking about the way French has been domesticated in Francophone
African communities, Bandia (2014:7) has this to say:

The extension of the French language and culture beyond its hexagonal territory
meant that the new French geopolitical reality, which could be felt in the four corners
of the planet, had to account for the various cultural encounters with other traditions.
French began to take on the local colours and flavours of the cultures and traditions
encountered in its new and expansive ecology.

The implication here is that the French language used by writers may not
necessarily, or totally, be the result of a translational endeavour on the writer’s part,
but an adoption of the discursive trends in his/her language community. Bandia
(2012:42) also argues that the pluri-linguistic nature of African societies results in the
European languages, which are the official languages, being heavily influenced by
local languages, leading to a heteroglossic version, which is in turn adopted by some
writers. This again is an indication that there has been a historical evolution of
European languages in Africa, resulting in discursive patterns which blend the
languages with the local ones, and the process is continuing. I therefore argue that
the description of African literary texts needs to explore instances in which authors
deliberately manipulate European languages and cases where discursive trends from
African communities have found their way into literary texts. Given the peculiar
nature of this literature, it is my contention that the agency implications involved are
peculiar to the social context that underpins the African literary system. An analysis
of the translation of such texts should therefore focus on the social factors that
influence literary productions and the impact that the actions of the agents involved
has on the wider environment.

Translating African literature in European languages

This section focuses on studies that have been done on the translation of African
literature in European languages and explores the agency implications of these

57
translation activities and their relevance to Reed’s translations of Oyono’s UVB and
LVNM.

The agency role of translators and translations, has steadily attracted the
attention of research on translation studies in Africa (Bandia, 2009, 2014; Batchelor,
2009; De Kock, 2003; Kruger, 2011; Marais, 2014; Marais & Feinauer, 2017; Mazrui,
2016; Meintjes & Inggs, 2009; Naudé, 2011; Van Coller & Odendaal, 2007; Van
Rooyen, 2013; Vosloo, 2007). Most of the studies in this regard have focused on
literary translation, with only a small number of scholars focusing their studies on
other areas (see for example Marais, 2014; Mazrui, 2016; Naudé, 2011 and Van
Rooyen, 2013). A case in point is the recent publication edited by Marais and
Feinauer (2017), titled Translation studies beyond the postcolony, which sheds light
on the social role of translation in Africa, as well as the manner in which the social
peculiarities of the continent can shape the conceptualisation of translation.

Regarding African literature in European languages, which is the focus of the

current study, most of the translation research (Appiah, 1993/2004; Gyasi, 1998;
Osei-Nyame, 2009) has focused on descriptions of the nature of the literature, and
prescriptions on how it should be translated, with only a few exceptions (Bandia,
2008; Bush, 2012) looking at the agency of the translators involved in translation
activities. The absence of research on the translators’ agency in African literature
does not mean that there are no agency implications in literary translation on the
continent. On the contrary, given the peculiar context of African literature and its
peculiar nature, the agency role of translators is likely to be even more significant. It
is in this regard that I argue that it would be beneficial for translation studies to
explore the different angles of agency that may be involved in the subdiscipline.

One of the rare scholars to have analysed the translation of African literature in
European languages from the angle of agency, is Ruth Bush (2012), who argues that
the translation of African literature in European languages takes place within a
context in which different agents seek to defend their interests. According to her:

The political, aesthetic and commercial stakes of translators and publishers, as well
as those of writers, are key to understanding the construction of ‘African literature’ as
a commodity in the global literary marketplace (Bush, 2012:513).

58
Bush therefore places the translation of African literature within a sociological context
in which the translator is not just a neutral transmitter of the source text message, but
an interested agent in the translation process. Using the cases of the translations of
Tutuola’s The Palm-Wine Drunkard (1952) and Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958),
she demonstrates how the leverage that a translator and/or publisher has on the
literary field can influence the production of a translation, as well as its reception in
the target language.

By comparing the influence of Queneau, the translator, and Gallimard, the

publisher, of Tutuola’s novel to their counterparts in Achebe’s novel, Bush (2012:522)
said that “the translator’s presence in the text and para-text is dependent on his or
her existing symbolic capital together with that of the publisher”. Her argument
highlights the translator’s position within a network of power relations, whose
intervention determines the way his/her representation of the source text author is
received in the target text community. Another important aspect in Bush’s argument
is the fact that symbolic capital is a determining factor in the extent to which the
translator can assert his/her visibility. These factors are significant to the type of
literature in question, given that most of the publishing houses that published the
original works and the translations were European institutions. The translations were
thus commissioned by these houses, which raises the question as to whether the
translators’ allegiances rested more with the publishers or the authors, or even
themselves, and whether these macro-level social factors are bound to influence the
actions of the translator at textual level.

Bandia (2008:161) argues that in translating African literature in European

languages, the translator’s ability to “grasp and transmit the author’s communicative
intent” is more important than his or her fluency in the target language. He
recommends that such a translation should adopt a three-tier approach in which the
translator has to:

journey with the writer through the labyrinth of orature that informs his writing, through
the strategies of representation of Otherness, and subsequently part ways with the
writer in order to recreate in another colonial language those instances of orality and
post coloniality that are fundamental to the European text (Bandia, 2008:174).

The flagship of Bandia’s argument is that due to the peculiar nature of African
literature in European languages, a source-text oriented approach is more
59
appropriate to translate it. He therefore echoes Venuti’s view of a foreignisation
approach as a mechanism of according more visibility to the source text. While
Venuti and Bandia both advocate foreignisation, the motivations for their views are
different. Venuti perceives foreignisation as a means with which to resist the
dominance of the Anglo-American culture, while Bandia sees it a means to reclaim
African cultural values which have been eroded by years of cultural imperialism from
Europe. Bandia therefore views African literature in European languages as having a
reparatory function, which needs to be maintained in the translations of the literary
works concerned. This argument goes contrary to the dominant trends in literary
translation, which have argued that the target text norms are the determining factors
of any literary translation (Hermans, 1999; Lefevere, 1992; Toury, 1995). It thus
raises questions of acceptability if the aim of the translation is a faithful
representation of the original. How would a translator transpose the cultural world
view of the source text into a different language system for a different type of
audience? In this regard, Bandia (2008:161) asserts that an African translator, rather
than a European one, is better suited for such a translation, given that s/he would be
“intimately familiar with the logos of African culture”. The problem with this argument
is that it seems to suggest that Africa is a homogeneous system with the same
cultural patterns and any African can grasp the world view of another. What would
make someone from Lesotho to understand the world view of a Senegalese more
than the way a European would understand it? How can a hybrid form produced in a
different part of Africa be understood in another?

While my focus is not to weigh in on who is better placed to translate a given text,
it is my view that Bandia’s argument has agency-related implications, given that he
raises the issue of the role of the translator’s social context in influencing textual level
decisions. Given the fact that this genre of literature is a means of resisting cultural
domination, the textual level actions of the translator are significant as they have an
impact in asserting the cultural identities of the source text authors’ communities. In a
later publication, Bandia (2012) highlights how the hybrid identity of African literature
has evolved into a more plurilingual one, and underscores the implication of this
evolution for translation studies. According to him, the heterogeneous nature of
contemporary postcolonial literary works in Africa reflects the realities in the societies
from which the authors originate:

60
 [C]ontemporary postcolonial fiction captures in writing previously untranscribed
speech usually of those marginalized by a neo-colonial elite, as these are works
attuned to issues of class, language, and power (Bandia, 2012:430).

In other words, these societies have experienced changes in the type of challenges
they face in their daily existence, and literary productions have reflected the changes
through the “creation of heterogeneous and plurilingual discourse [that signals] a
clear break with the hegemonic language of colonisation or the elite” (Bandia,
2012:422). These heterogeneous formations are different from the hybrid formations
of colonial literature that have been discussed earlier (Bandia, 2008; Gyasi, 1998), in
the sense that they do not only adapt oral tradition for the foreign language or
introduce a few words from local languages into the text, as they involve an
admixture of different languages and cultures against a backdrop of social hierarchy
(Bandia, 2012:422). Bandia (2012:425) then argues that these texts question
Western notions of homogeneous binary texts in translation, and open up new
perspectives on translation strategies:

How does one translate a heterogeneous text? Which target language(s) or variet[ies]
of language should be chosen? How does one maintain the power balance between
these languages or language varieties? … How should a translating language be
constructed to deal with a heterogeneous text? Would such a translating language
have the same sociocultural and ideological significance as the language of the
source heterogeneous text? Who is the target readership of a heterogeneous text?

The implications here are that revolution and self-representation are the bedrock of
heterogeneous language in African literature, and the decisions of a translator of
such texts are bound to either be dissociative or associative of the ideologies
involved. Furthermore, the issue of target readership is important, given that the
language used is peculiar to specific social contexts and a corresponding context
may not exist in the target text. Bandia’s argument also implies that African writers
are influenced by the realities of their social contexts and this underscores the need
for this social context to be considered when translating such texts, as well as when
analysing their translations.

Furthermore, the issue of hybrid formations in literary texts, and their ideological
underpinnings, are interesting avenues within which to explore the agency role of
translation. The translations of such texts need to maintain their composite and

61
heteroglossic nature by paying attention to the language varieties and the power
inequalities they represent (Bandia, 2012:430). What this argument implies is that a
translation is the representation of the original, and the translator is required to
endeavour to present a true picture of the source text realities. Considering that the
translator is a “socialised individual” (Tyulenev, 2014), my argument is that the
choices s/he makes in the representation process, especially when texts have
ideological undertones, would be influenced by his/her habitus which has been
constructed by his/her social environment. The social environment is thus needed to
understand the factors that influence the translator’s choices. It is in this regard that
this study is about exploring the social factors which influenced decisions made by
the agents involved in Reed’s translations of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM.

Gyasi (1998) has also underscored how important the form of African literature in
European languages is to its translation. According to him (1998:10), African writers
who write in European languages reproduce the oral poetics of African literature by
adapting the European language to the expression of their African identity. He thus
considers these writers as creative translators who translate their African thoughts
and objects into foreign languages (Gyasi, 1998:10). He then argues that translating
such literary texts demands a new approach, in which the translator would have to be
able to transpose the linguistic features and cultural realities of the source text into
the target language. He asserts that:

What the critical translator of African literature has to keep in mind is that he or she is
translating a whole culture into a different language, just as the African writers
themselves have done in their writings (Gyasi, 1998:20).

This argument echoes that of Bandia (2008) in highlighting the language formations
that constitute African literature in European languages. His prescriptive approach to
the translation of such texts also leaves unanswered the question related to whether
the translator’s allegiance would not be influenced by his habitus. While this
argument seems to be born of the intention to do justice to the source text of African
authors, I contend that there are other social factors, and interests, that may
undermine the translator’s ability, or will, to be a faithful representer of the source text
author.

62
 Appiah (1993/2004), on his part, has argued that in African literature, the
language used is inscribed in a specific sociocultural context, and the interpretation
of meaning always has to take the sociocultural context into consideration. He further
asserts that meaning within the said context can be deciphered from either the literal
meaning or the author’s intentional meaning, and that in order to fully understand a
literary text produced in such a context, the reader needs to have a full grasp of the
language of the said text so as to be able to identify the full meaning of the words,
phrases and sentences of the text (Appiah, 1993:422). Appiah’s claim of the
centrality of meaning in African literature is important, especially when dealing with
the text type on which this study is focused, which deviates from the homogeneous
texts that have informed Western notions of translation. To translate such texts,
Appiah (1993:427) recommends a ‘thick translation’ approach that would ensure that
the full meaning of the source text is carried over to the target text. He explains that
such an approach involves the full understanding of the source text, and the use of
paratextual features such as annotations and glosses (Appiah, 1993:427). The
significance of this argument is that it highlights the fact that the translator’s visibility,
through interventionist annotations, can contribute in framing the meaning of a text.
This is similar to the arguments of agency scholars such as, Baker (2006) and
Hermans (2007), who have underscored translators’ use of framing to actively
participate in translation projects.

The problem with Appiah’s argument is that it is situated within the framework of
translation for language teaching, and the use of paratextual features may be
cumbersome to the target text reader outside a classroom context. Furthermore, he
does not seem to consider the fact that the use of annotations actually provides the
translator the power to determine which message gets to the target reader, and this
may be different from the intended message of the source text author. It is thus my
argument that the position of the author vis-à-vis the source text world is a factor that
may determine the way s/he represents the author’s world view in the target text.

Claramonte (2014:243) has focused on the role of African literature in European

languages in combatting social ills by contending that African literature does not only
tell a story but serves as the voice of the downtrodden who have been marginalised
by those in power. African literature is therefore underpinned by ideological
undertones which shape its production, as well as its translation. Focusing on the

63
concept of heteroglossia in African literature in European languages, she argues that
the authors’ subversive use of the European languages is a deliberate attempt to
recapture their identities in the face of cultural and linguistic domination from the
coloniser. To her, these writers perceive the issue of language as a political one, and
the Western imposition of a monolingual system as an attempt to erode their very
existence (Claramonte, 2014:250). They thus seek to resist this domination by using
the European languages in a way that reaffirms their cultural identities and resists
colonial domination.

Claramonte (2014:258) argues that translation in this case is a process of cultural

representation in which translators are “agents who speak to the other, on behalf of
the other”, but which may become an act of collusion in which decisions are made in
line with the interest of the dominating power. Claramonte’s argument is important in
that it throws light on the political implications of African literature, and the difficulty
for translators of such text not to be biased in their representation of the source text
realities. She also raises the issue of the effect of the translator’s identity on the
choices made, by asserting that the representation of the source text would be
faithful or biased depending on the disposition of the translator involved (Claramonte,
2014:258).

I attest that her views are significant in that they underscore the power relations
prevalent in the social context of literary production in Africa, and the impact this is
bound to have on the actions of the agents involved in production. The agency of the
agents in this context is determined by the social factors in place. Her work also
highlights the agency role of translators who play a social role in speaking out in the
interest of the masses. Her argument on the role of the translator’s identity in
decision-making is also symmetrical to Bourdieu’s concept of habitus which is
shaped by the agent’s social environment and influence his/her perceptions and
actions. This is relevant to this study in that it is my argument that the decisions
made during the process of translation are influenced by the habitus of the translator
involved.

The translation of African literature in European languages therefore offers an

interesting context within which to conceptualise agency in Bourdieusian terms. This
is because the field of its production brings together institutional and individual
agents with competing interests and these factors affect the actions that are taken by
64
the authors, publishers, translators, and other agents that are involved in the
production process. Furthermore, there are agency-related implications in the role
that translators in Africa play in shaping the political, cultural, and economic
environment of the different communities. African literature has a social commitment
role and its translators are thus agents who are contributing in asserting the values of
African communities and improving their economic and political situations. Bourdieu’s
theory therefore offers an appropriate framework within which to understand how the
agents of African literature are constructed by the social factors of the literary field,
and how this field is constructed by the actions of the agents. It is in this regard that
this study looks at the social factors that underpin the actions of the agents involved
in the translation of UVB and LVNM, and the impact of the said actions on the
translation product.

3.5 Conclusion

The aim of this chapter has been to critically examine how the notion of agency has
been applied to translation studies, with special emphasis on the translation of
African literature in European languages. The chapter started with a
conceptualisation of ‘agency’ as a theoretical framework in translation studies,
followed by an analysis of how the concept has been applied in the discipline. It
ended with the implications of agency to African literature, in order to show the
relevance of adopting it as a framework for this study. This enables me in the next
chapter to examine how agency played out in the context within which Reed’s
translations of Oyono’s novels were produced.

65
Chapter 4
THE CONTEXT OF PRODUCING UNE VIE DE BOY AND LE VIEUX NÈGRE ET LA
MÉDAILLE IN ENGLISH

4.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter, I argued for the agency theory in the analysis of Reed’s
translations of Oyono’s novels. I demonstrated that there is a dialectic relationship
between agency and its social context, because agents construct, and are
constructed, by the social context within which they operate. This chapter offers an
analysis of the context of the production of Reed’s translation of UVB and LVNM from
a Bourdieusian perspective. It therefore looks at the field in which the translations
were produced, the agents involved, the social causality of the agents’ actions, and
the effects of the said actions. The chapter begins by explaining the methodology I
adopted for the study, followed by an analysis of the data pertaining to the field of
literary production, and the mutually influential relationship between the field and the
actions of the agents involved in the translations.

4.2 Research methodology

This section explains the research approach and processes that were used in the
study. It therefore outlines the purpose of the study, the research design and the
processes of data collection and analysis.

This study adopted a sociological conceptual framework, which provides for the
study of social phenomena by looking at the relationship between the agents
involved in the social phenomena and their social context. In this regard, the study
focuses on the relationship between the social context and the agents involved in the
English translations of UVB and LVNM, and the impact of that relationship on the
actions of the agents involved. As a result, the methodological approach that I
adopted was context-based in nature, given that I had to look at the social context of
the translation activity and its influence on the actions of agents at the macro-level
and textual level of the translation process. It is worth mentioning that the debate on
the most appropriate model of translation research has been a central theme of the
discipline in recent years, with scholars advancing different approaches that focus on
different aspects of translation. In this regard, Pym (1998) has focused on a historical

66
approach to the study of translation phenomena; William and Chesterman (2002)
have mapped the field of translation research as constituting of the processes,
contexts, products and agents involved in translation activities; Saldanha and O’Brien
(2013) have argued for a comprehensive approach that looks at the product, the
process, and the context of translation phenomena; Angelelli and Baer (2016) have
argued for a poststructuralist approach to conducting research in translation and
interpreting; and Mellinger and Hanson (2017) have focused on quantitative methods
in the study of translation and interpreting.

Most studies in translation activities tend to focus on one of the three main areas
that have emerged: the product, the process, and the context (Saldanha & O’Brien,
2013). Product-based approaches focus on the translated texts, either in comparison
with the source texts or in relation to their impact in the target culture; the process-
based approach looks at the cognitive processes that take place during the transfer
process, while the context-based approach focuses on the macro-level factors that
influence decision-making involved in the translation activity.

It is my argument that none of the focus areas of study identified can fully be
studied without reference to the other. In other words, an analysis of the product
would inevitably involve an understanding of decision-making and contextual factors
that led to the product having a particular nature; in the same way, the process
cannot be studied without referring to the contextual factors influencing the decisions,
as well as the outcome of those decisions in the form of the product. Furthermore,
any observation of the translation context would refer to the impact of the said
context on the process and also the product. It is for this reason that I have adopted
what I have named an ‘integrated context-based model’, which has enabled me to
analyse the translator’s agency by situating it within a field that integrates the context,
the process, the agents, and the products in a mutually influential network.

This is in line with Bourdieu’s social theory which underpins this study and which
provides for the study of social phenomena by looking at the dialectic relationship
between agents’ actions and their social contexts. I thus adopted this approach
because it is in my view the appropriate lens that enables me to study how the
agents involved in the translations of UVB and LVNM constructed and were
constructed by their social context. It is this model that enabled me to design the

67
relevant methods for the collection and analysis of data on the study of Reed’s
translations of UVB and LVNM.

Research design

This study is qualitative in nature and the purpose is both exploratory and
explanatory. According to Creswell (2014:4), qualitative research studies the human
experience from general, as well as individual perspectives, and provides a
framework within which to capture human behaviour within particular contexts. In this
regard, this research sets out to study the actions of the agents involved in the
translations of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM into English. A research purpose enables the
researcher to select the appropriate conceptual and methodological tools for the
study (Creswell, 2014). I therefore adopted an exploratory and explanatory approach
for this research because I intended to investigate the social context within which
UVB and LVNM were translated, the causal factors that influenced the actions of the
agents involved, and the social effects of the actions taken during the translation
process. According to Blaikie (2010:70), an exploratory research seeks to investigate
the nature of a phenomenon and provide a better understanding of it. It is relevant in
cases where little information has been uncovered about what is being studied. This
explains why explanatory research was adopted in the study, because there is no
evidence of any study on agency in John Reed’s translations of Ferdinand Oyono’s
works.

I therefore sought to investigate new information on the concept of agency with

regard to the translations of UVB and LVNM into English. I also adopted an
explanatory research approach because I sought to analyse the relationship between
the various factors that influenced the nature and impact of agency in Reed’s
translations. An explanatory approach enables the researcher to outline the causal
relation between the different aspects of a study (Blaikie, 2010:71). I thus sought to
explain the factors that influenced the role of John Reed as an agent in his
translations of UVB and LVNM.

The study adopted a case study method in which the data that was collected and
analysed, focusing on particular translations by a particular translator. Robert Yin
(2009:18) defines a case study method as:

68
 an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and
within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon
and context are not clearly evident.

This implies that a case study is a method that enables a researcher to study
anything from an individual, an institution, a product, or a process (Saldanha &
O’Brien, 2013). According to Susam-Sarajeva (2009:40), this research method has
been applied extensively in translation studies to study translation-related activities,
products, or individuals in real-life situations, which can only be analysed or
understood within their specific contexts.

This research therefore focuses on the mutually influential relationship between

the actions of the agents involved in the English translations of UVB and LVNM and
their social context. The advantage of using a case study method is that the method
is intensive, flexible, and contextual (Susam-Sarajeva, 2009:39). This implies that
because the study focuses on a single unit, it offers more in-depth analysis, thereby
giving the researcher more insights into the case under study. The flexibility of the
method also enables the researcher to use data from different sources in analysing
the phenomenon. The choice of the English translations of UVB and LVNM as a case
study is because in the context of translation of African literature between European
languages, which foregrounds this study, John Reed was one of the first translators
and remains one of the most successful to have worked in this literary category
(Currey, 2008).

Using Reed’s works as a case study was intended to understand what social
factors influenced his actions, as well as the social effects of his translations, to
provide useful insights into the concept of agency in translation studies in general
and, particularly, the translation of African literature. Although the case study method
has been criticised as its results cannot be generalised, the findings of a case study
can offer lenses through which to better understand other contexts (Susam-Sarajeva,
2009:53). In this regard, while the results of the study of the English translations of
UVB and LVNM may not be generalised to other contexts, they provide information
that can offer an understanding of different translation cases which take place in
similar contexts. They also provide useful information on the understanding of the
roles of translation agents in translation phenomena.

69
 Data collection instruments

The data for this research is made up of primary and secondary sources. Primary
sources have to do with information from the translator and publisher of the texts
under study, as well as the corpus from the source and target texts. The secondary
sources are made up of documentary information on the context of producing the
translations.

The information from the translator and the publisher was collected through
internet-mediated interviews. Interviews are a straightforward data collection tool in
which the researcher extracts information from the participant(s) through a question–
answer process (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2013). The main advantage of the interview
method in data collection is that it provides the researcher with privileged access to
the participant(s) thoughts and perspectives regarding a subject, which may not
always be accessed through other methods of study (Saldanha & O’Brien 2013:169).

When it comes to internet-mediated interviews, the questions–responses process

takes place over the internet, with there being no direct physical contact between the
researcher and the participant. According to Saldanha and O’Brien (2013:187),
internet-mediated interviews can either be done through asynchronous or
synchronous communication. Asynchronous communication consists of email-
mediated communication, while synchronous communication is done using voice-
over internet protocols. For this study, I used the asynchronous method in which I
sent unstructured questions to the translator and the publisher via email, and they
returned their responses through the same means.

The advantage of using this method is that it enabled the participants to answer
in their own time, which made it more convenient for me to extract more detailed and
thoughtful responses. I therefore sent them the questions without putting pressure on
them, and they responded a few days later. This allowed them the necessary time to
consult their records and collaborators, aiding them in responding in the most
detailed and informed manner possible. The use of unstructured questions also
meant that the participants could provide as much information as possible on the
subject under discussion (Saldanha & O’Brien, 2013). It also meant that room was
provided for follow-up questions to be asked, based on the information provided by
the participants. In this regard, a second set of questions were sent to the translator

70
after he responded to the initial questions; the aim was to get further information on
the issues that were being studied.

The corpus data was collected manually. In this regard, culture-bound terms from
the source texts were collected with their translations in the target texts, with the aim
of understanding the transfer processes of the translator at the micro-textual levels of
the translations. The terms collected from the two novels were grouped together,
given that the two novels were published in the same year, and the translations were
done by the same person at around the same time and were also published in the
same year. The terms were thus presented together, specifying the texts from which
they were taken.

Secondary sources were also used in this study and were collected through a
documentary method. These secondary sources dealt mainly with the social and
cultural context within which the translations under study were produced. As such,
historical documentation, critical works pertaining to the source texts contexts, and
the target texts contexts were processed for information that could throw light on the
author, the social environment, and the publication and reception of the source texts,
as well as the target texts environments. This documentation was mostly in the form
of books and internet-generated articles.

Data analysis

The data collected was presented using Bourdieu’s field approach, which in my view
offers an integrated context-based perspective on the study of translation
phenomena by looking at the actions of agents in relation to their social context. In
this regard, the data collected was analysed in twofold, with the first part of the
analysis focusing on the field of production, while the second part involved the
product or corpus data.

Bourdieu’s concept of field asserts that the field is structured into positions
occupied by different agents whose actions are constrained by their habitus, the
capital they possess and the way they relate to the other agents (Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992). It is in line with this that the data on the field was analysed
pertaining to the field of African literature within which the translations of UVB and
LVNM were produced, the positions that made up the field, the agents that occupied

71
those positions, and the habitus and capital that influenced the actions of the agents
involved.

This was partitioned into two sections in which the structure of the field was
analysed, followed by an analysis of the findings from the interviews with the
translator and publisher, who were the main agents involved in the translations under
study. The corpus data was analysed through a comparison of the source texts to the
target texts, in which textual level transfer processes were analysed against the
backdrop of social factors that might have influenced decision-making. This part of
the analysis is explained in Chapter 5.

Limitations

This study is a case study that focuses only on the English translations of UVB (HB)
and LVNM (TOMM). The findings of the study may therefore not be applied to other
contexts. A study of other translation projects in which Reed was involved may reveal
additional information pertaining to his agency. In the same way, a study of other
translators in different contexts may reveal information that may challenge the
argument of this study. Furthermore, the findings are limited to the period during
which Reed did the translations, and a similar study in a different historical period
may provide different information on the translator’s agency.

The methodological framework that I adopted thus enabled me to design an

appropriate method of data collection and analysis that was effective in accessing
and processing relevant information on agency in the translations of UVB and LVNM.
The analysis of the data collected is discussed in the next section as well as the
following chapter.

4.3 The context of translating Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la
Médaille

This section presents an analysis of the structure of the field in which the translations
of Oyono’s novels took place, and the influence it had on the actions of agents
involved in the translations. It begins with a presentation of the field of African
literature in the 1950s and 1960s, because this is the period in which the novels and
their translations were produced. It then looks at the various agents of the field and
the positions they occupied, with the aim of finding out how the structure of the field

72
constrained the actions of the agents at both macro-level and textual level of the
translation process.

With regard to the literary field, the data analysed is secondary data that was
collected through documentary sources, and which focused primarily on the social
context of the production of the translations of UVB and LVNM. I therefore carried out
an analysis of the historical setting of the source text, as well as that of the target
text, in which I looked at the sociocultural and political context of the African literary
tradition in the late colonial and early independent periods. Concerning the actions of
the agents involved in the translations, which will be discussed in the second part of
this section (4.3.2), the data analysed came from the interviews with John Reed and
James Currey, who was heading the Heinemann’s AWS that commissioned the
translations of the two novels. This enabled me to understand the factors that
influenced the macro-level decisions taken by the publisher and the translator, and
the impact this had on the translator’s actions at the textual level of the translation
project.

The African literary field in the 1950s and 1960s

This section analyses the African literary field in the 1950s and 1960s as it is the
period in which UVB and LVNM were published. It also marks the time when African
literature was just beginning to make its mark on the international stage (Ogundipe,
2015:77). Bourdieu (1991) asserts that a literary field is one of cultural production,
which is structured by the objective positions occupied by the different agents of the
field.

It is in this regard that I analysed the historical, sociocultural and political context
of the African literary field in the late colonial and early independent periods as a
means to identify the positions structuring the field and the agents occupying those
positions. I argue that the positions that shaped the literary field during the period
under study were original works, publishing houses, translated works, and target
readership. The agents who occupied these positions were authors, publishers,
translators, and readers. These are the factors I considered in analysing the
translations of UVB and LVNM, and the aim was to find out how these factors
influenced the actions of the agents involved in the translations, as well as the impact
of these actions on the literary field.

73
4.3.1.1 Original works of African literature in European languages

This section looks at the position in the literary field occupied by original works of
African authors writing in European languages. The aim is to explore the relationship
between the content and context of source texts and the decisions of agents situated
at the publishing and translation levels of the literary field. This is because I contend
that the content, form, and reception of a literary work are key factors that influence
the decision of a publisher or translator to have a text translated for a foreign
audience. Translation decision can therefore not be fully understood without
considering source-text factors which have an influence on those decisions.

The term ‘African literature’ used here has been subject to academic debate, as it
seems to suggest the homogeneity of literary productions from the various part of the
continent (Ogundipe, 2015). Adeoti (2015) has, however, argued that African
literature in European languages is born of the historical, sociocultural, and political
realities that are common to African communities. This implies that, due to a shared
history of colonisation, the early stages of modern African literature were
characterised by productions that presented similarities in form and content, which
made it logical to perceive the literature under the same category. It is within this
context that I have used the term ‘African literature’ in the present study. The literary
publications of this period have been classified under the ambit of postcolonial
literature (Bandia, 2008; Batchelor, 2009; Gyasi, 2006), with the term referring to
literary productions whose major themes have to do with the cultural and political
resistance to colonialism, as well as resistance to the misery brought upon the
masses by the new authorities of the independent era.

My intention is not to dwell on post-colonialist perspectives, but to situate the

production of Oyono’s novels within a broader context of literary production at a
particular moment in history. Oyono’s UVB and LVNM shared common features with
other writings by authors from the different language societies of colonised Africa, in
that they primarily focused on the discontent of the colonised Africans regarding the
policies and practices of the colonial authorities. According to Bandia (2014:9):

What makes the experience of postcolonial francophone literature somewhat

exceptional is the fact that it is conceived as a discourse of resistance, of
empowerment and representation of the multiple voices that had been silenced or

74
 marginalized for far too long by colonialist or imperialist practices and through
hegemonic encroachment.

Although Bandia’s assertion refers to Francophone Africa, the situation was similar to
that of the non-Francophone colonies of Africa. A good demonstration of this is that
Oyono’s LVNM has been compared to Achebe’s Things Fall Apart (1958) in terms of
the ways in which the authors present different protagonists who react differently to
the colonial authorities (Mumba, 2007). In Achebe’s novel, the protagonist resists the
white man’s encroachment to the end, while in LVNM the protagonist allows himself
to be fooled for a long time before realising the ills of the system.

Resistance and contestation were thus dominant themes of African literary

productions in the 1950s, which was the period in which Oyono’s two novels were
published. Literature thus became a tool for resisting this domination and reasserting
the cultural and political expression of Africans that had been suppressed by years of
colonial subjugation (Bandia, 2008). In other words, authors from countries under the
domination of different European powers used different experiences to propagate this
theme of resistance. What this implies is that the production of African literary works
in European languages was influenced by ideological factors and it is my contention
that these factors had an influence on the decisions that were made by translators
and publishers to translate some of the works or not.

Culture was another important feature of African literature in European

languages. Colonialism had led to the denigration of African culture, which was
perceived as primitive and backward in the face of Western culture, and early African
writers sought to correct the negative impression by valorising African ways of life in
their works (Bandia, 2008). As such, the beliefs, traditions, and customs of African
people are show-cased with the implicit intention of demonstrating that they are in no
way inferior to European culture and are even considered superior in some cases.
When the catechist in Mongo Beti’s Le Pauvre Christ de Bomba (1956) renounces
polygamy in church but marries two other wives in secret, the author is ridiculing
Western values in the face of African culture. When Meka in Oyono’s LVNM secretly
visits Mami Titi for the native gin which has been decreed ‘unholy’ by the church,
Oyono is upholding African ways of life as opposed to the imposed Western Christian
teachings. In the same vein, Chinua Achebe celebrates African culture in the face of
the marauding Western ways of life through his portrayal of the social cohesion,

75
beliefs systems, rituals, and customs of the Igbo community in Things Fall Apart
(1958).

It is thus my argument that the cultural content of African literature is not a neutral
portrayal of the lifestyle of African communities, but rather an instrument with which
postcolonial authors sought to resist the dominance of imposed Western cultures on
the African way of life. Research on African literature has shown that the need for
cultural exchange was an important factor in influencing the decisions to publish the
translation of works from one European language to another (Batchelor, 2009; Milton
& Bandia, 2009). This implies that source-texts factors have an influence on the
decisions made regarding the translation of literary works.

Another important feature of African literature in the 1950s and 1960s was the
peculiarity of its language style. Research has underscored the centrality of language
in the production of African writings in European languages (Bandia, 2008; Batchelor,
2009; Bush, 2012; Gyasi, 2003). In this regard, Batchelor (2009) has argued that
African writers use language as a tool of resistance and identity formation. In the
same vein, Bandia (2008) contends that the linguistic aesthetics of African literature
is the result of the encounter between the European languages and the authors’
traditional oral inspiration. This highlights the fact that the colonial experience of
imposing European languages on Africans led to African writers opting to write in the
colonial languages but adapting these languages to effectively portray their cultural
world views. This gave the literature an identity that made it different from other texts
produced in the European languages because the cultural realities of the authors
resulted in their texts having a hybrid form. Writers resorted to the oral traditions of
Africa to produce texts that valorised the oral culture of communication in African
societies. As such, their works portray an abundant use of proverbs, fables, puns,
metaphors, and other rhetorical devices (Bandia, 2008:29). I contend that while this
adaptation of the European languages in African literature was a form of resistance
to the colonial experience on the part of the authors who sought to reject the
imposition of Western media of communication on their societies, it was also a
reflection of the domestication of colonial languages that prevailed in the way African
communities used these languages in real-life situations. The language of African
literature therefore has ideological implications; it is therefore my argument that this
aesthetic factor has an influence on the decision of a publisher to commission a

76
translation, the strategies used by the translator, and the manner of reception of the
translated work.

4.3.1.2 African literature and the publishing sector

This section looks at the role of publishing houses in the selection, translation, and
production of translated works of African authors writing in European languages. The
aim is to explore the influence that the publisher of the English translations of UVB
and LVNM had on translation action at both the macro-level and textual level.

The publishing sector was an important factor in influencing the actions that were
taken in producing the English translations of UVB and LVNM. Research has
underscored the crucial role that publishing houses play in the production of
translated works, by making decisions that constrain the actions of the agents
involved in cultural productions (Heilbron, 2008; Milton & Bandia, 2009; Sapiro, 2008;
Serry, 2002; Venuti, 2013). In this regard, Milton and Bandia (2009) have argued that
publishing houses are agents who use translation to shape the literary taste of target
readers.

Using the case of Heinemann’s AWS, Milton and Bandia (2009:4) contend that
their selection of texts for translation was motivated by their desire to give more
visibility to African literature. Venuti (2013) has also argued that while publishers
usually base their decisions on the taste of their target market, they can also
influence the taste of the market by exposing chosen translations to readers. In the
same vein, Heilbron (2008) contends that publishing houses are important agents of
the promotion and reception of translated works in a target system. Based on the
study of Dutch works in the French book market, Heilbron reveals the role economic,
ideological, and political factors play in the selection of foreign works for translation
and publication. Also, Serry (2002) has shown how the selection of works for
translation by the French publisher, Le Seuil, was influenced by the state of the
literary field in which the publisher was seeking to develop an image. In order to
compete with more prominent publishing houses, Le Seuil resorted to publishing
foreign works to improve on its image in the publishing sector. Translation was thus
used to gain symbolic capital, which transformed into economic capital in the long run
as the publishing house’s reputation grew and it started attracting more renowned
original authors. On her part, Sapiro (2008:154) has argued that publishers play a

77
crucial role in the circulation of translated works. She contends that while economic
gains remain the main driving force behind the actions of publishing houses, new
publishers tend to use translated works as an innovative way to gain recognition and
compete with more established publishers.

The publishing industry is thus an influential centre of power in the production of

translated literary works. Regarding the context of UVB and LVNM, the publishing
experiences were not very different in the Francophone world of the source texts and
the Anglophone system of the target texts. For Francophone African writers in the
1950s, it was difficult for their works to be accepted for publication by the publishing
houses in France because the works were considered inferior in nature in terms of
content and language (Bandia, 2014). This led to some educated elite from the
French colonies, who were based in France, to set up small publishing institutions to
provide an outlet to the works of writers from the colonies.

The most prominent of these publishing houses was Présence Africaine, founded
in 1949 by the Senegalese Alione Diop (Frioux-Salgas, 2009). The aim of this
publishing house was to offer a platform for the expression of the political and cultural
views of people from the colonies whose voices had been supressed by colonial
domination and censorship (Frioux-Salgas, 2009:5).

Mainstream publishers in France also began to publish the works of some writers
from the colonies but would market them on different shelves as minority literature
(Bandia, 2014). It was within this context that UVB and LVNM were published by
Julliard in 1956. In the Anglophone system of colonial Africa, works written by
Africans were also marginalised in Europe. Publishing houses did not think that
European readers could be interested in the works of African authors and that African
readers could only be interested in educational books (Currey, 2008:2). There was
thus little room for creative works from Africa.

This situation changed with African countries gaining independence, as there

was now an appetite on the continent for literary works produced by Africans. It was
within this context that the AWS was set up in 1962 to publish the English works of
African writers (Currey, 2008:1). This publishing house was to become the main
vehicle of African literature in English, as it published originals and translations of the
works of African writers from different parts of the continent. It was in line with its

78
African agenda that this publisher commissioned and published the English
translations of UVB and LVNM in 1956 (Currey, 2008:60).

4.3.1.3 African literature in translation

This section looks at the place of translated works in African literature. The aim is to
situate the position of translation in the African literary field and its impact on this
field.

Translation is situated at the intersection of different literary systems (Pym,

2009). This implies that translation is the bridge that connects the target text system
to that of the source text. Translation is therefore the means through which the
source text gains access to the target text system and the target text readers get
introduced to the source text. It is in this regard that Bourdieu (2002) contends that
translation is the instrument that facilitates the circulation of literary works from one
culture to another. This indicates that translation is an important factor of the
international literary field, as it occupies a position that involves agents whose actions
influence other factors of the field.

The agents of translation are not limited to translators, but also involve
publishers, editors, and advisors, who each play a role at different stages of the
translation process. The publisher selects the text and the translator to translate it, as
well as how to publish the translation; the editors assess the quality of the translation
on behalf of the publisher and recommend possible amendments, while the advisors
recommend works that are worthy of translation for a particular audience. These
agents do not work in exclusive positions, as some of them may belong to different
positions in the field, thereby playing more than one role in the translation process. It
is thus possible to find cases in which the translator is also an advisor and the
advisor is also the editor, thereby highlighting the interconnectedness of translation
with other disciplines and the impact that it can play in influencing translation action.
This is the situation that applies to the translation of African literature in the period
covered by this study, as most of the works were translated by people who also
worked as literary critics, editors, advisors, and educators (Currey, 2008). This
implies that the influence of such double agents went beyond the textual level, as
they could advise on the selection of texts and shape the mind-set of the readership
through their functions as critics and educators. It is in this regard that I argue in line

79
with Wolf (2007b) that translation action constructs and is constructed by the social
contexts of the agents involved.

With regard to the translation of UVB and LVNM, Reed was not only a translator,
but also a literary critic, a language and literature educator, as well as an advisor to
the AWS. It would thus be of interest to explore the impact of his multifunctional
identity in the translation process.

In this section, I have outlined the structure of the literary field in which the
translations of UVB and LVNM were produced. I have argued that the positions that
made up the field were the source texts system, the publishing sector, the target text
system, and the translation sector. I have also argued that these factors were bound
by a mutually influential relationship in the sense that the nature of the source texts
and the expectations of the target readership constrained the decision of the
publisher to select a text for translation and how to publish the translation. The
textual level actions of the translator and the labelling actions of the publisher both
influence the reception of the translations, while the decisions of the publisher
influence the actions of the translator.

4.3.1.4 Reception and the translation of African literature

This section discusses the reception of the translations of African literary works. The
aim is to explore the role of the target audience in influencing the selection and
translation of literary works.

In his article on the international circulation of cultural goods, Bourdieu (2002)

asserts that translated texts do not travel with their contexts and recipients of such
texts reinterpret the texts based on the norms of the target system. This explores
how the reception of an original text cannot be expected to be the same as that of the
translation, because the factors conditioning literary reception in the target system
are different from those of the source text system. In this regard, readers appreciate
a translated work against the norms of their own literary culture, because translation
decontextualises a text from its uniquely constitutive factors such as language,
cultural values, and literary conventions (Venuti, 2013:161). This implies that the
successful reception of a source text, or the absence thereof, does not automatically
translate into an equivalent success in the reception of the target text since the
experience of the reader of a translation is radically different from that of a source
80
text. The agents of translation therefore need to consider the issue of reception
during the translation process.

It is in this regard that I contend that the reception of a translation is an important

factor that influences the actions of translation agents. I therefore perceive reception
as a position in the literary field, which is occupied by agents such as editors,
reviewers, academics, and common readers of literary works. Reception, or
readership, of translated literature is influential in the translation process in the sense
that it constrains the actions of the publisher in the selection of texts to be translated,
the translator to translate them, and the manner through which to present them to the
readership. Reception also influences the actions of the translator in that the target
audience constrains the strategies used by the translator. The agents who make up
the readership of translated works are themselves constructed by their social
environment in the sense that their literary tastes are shaped by the literary traditions
to which they have been exposed (Bourdieu, 1984). This underscores the dialectic
relationship between the different positions and agents of the literary field in the
sense that, while the target audience reception shapes the actions of translation
agents in the literary field, the literary preferences of the said target audience are
themselves constructed by the realities of the field. It is against this backdrop that I
look at the readership of the literary field in which Reed translated the works of
Oyono.

The target readership of the AWS, which commissioned the translations of UVB
and LVNM, was made up for the book markets of the British colonies in Africa, as
well as for the international literary markets (Currey, 2008:3). In Africa, their target
was the educational sector, as well as those who read for leisure. In this regard, the
publisher wanted to discard the view which was held by the British publishing
industry of the time, that books in Africa were only for education and not for Africans
to enjoy and enhance their understanding of the various ways of life of other Africans
(Currey, 2008:2). Unlike their Francophone counterparts, whose primary purpose
was to convince their colonial masters of the cultural values of Africans, African
authors writing in English were more interested in producing works for the African
readership (Bandia, 2014:7). UVB and LVNM were thus translated for an audience
that was not identical to that of the original audience. The literary preference of this
readership was closely related to their social context, characterised by the

81
nationalistic discourse that sought to resist Western political and cultural domination,
while upholding the political and cultural values of Africa. Readers were thus
interested in literary works that reflected these nationalistic themes (Batchelor, 2009).
The literary publications of the AWS were therefore assured of a favourable reception
because the readers could easily identify with the works which were reflections of
their social realities. It is my contention that this assurance of a positive reception
was influential in the commissioning of the English translations of UVB and LVNM,
and it underscores the influence of the target audience in constraining the actions of
the publisher and the translator in the process of producing translations of literary
works.

It could therefore be argued that the positions that structured the African literary
field of the 1950s and 1960s were original works, publishing houses, translated
works, and target readership, of which the main agents were the authors, publishers,
translators, and readers. With regard to translated works, which is the focus of this
study, the main agents involved were the publishers who selected the works and the
translators who translated them. It is in this regard that I chose to interview the
publisher and translator of the translations of UVB and LVNM.

Agents of the translations of UVB and LVNM

This section focuses on the analysis of the interviews that I conducted with James
Currey and Keith Sambrook of the AWS (see Appendix A), who commissioned and
published the translations of UVB and LVNM, and with John Reed who translated the
works (see Appendix B). The aim was to understand the reasons behind their
actions, and to relate them to the factors of the field within which they were working.

4.3.2.1 The publisher-agent of UVB and LVNM in English

This section focuses on the analysis of the results of my interview with James Currey
of the AWS, who published the English translations of UVB and LVNM.

My interview with the publisher, James Currey, was aimed at discovering the
social factors that constrained the actions of the AWS in selecting, commissioning,
and producing the translations, which are the subject of this study. This is because I
consider the publisher-commissioner of literary translation as an important agent in
the translation process; it is him/her who decides on what is selected for translation,

82
who translates it, and decides how it is published (Bourdieu, 2002). I was particularly
interested in the publishing agenda of the AWS, the initiation of the translation
project, the choice of the translator, the translation process, and the target audience
response. My interaction was with Currey, to whom I sent the questions by email,
who in his response indicated that he had answered the questions with the help of
Keith Sambrook, who had handled the contractual aspects of the project with the
translator (see Appendix A). He also referred me to his autobiography on his work
with the AWS for the first five questions of the interview as well as any other related
information pertaining to the activities of the publishing house. Consequently, the
book – discussed below – became another source of data which I used in the study.

Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Wacquant (1992) contends that the actions of agents
are always aimed at interests that they have in the field. I thus sought to find out the
interest that was driving the actions of the AWS in the literary field and how this was
influential in the decision to commission the translations of UVB and LVNM. The first
question I therefore asked Currey was about the publishing agenda of the AWS. For
an answer to this question, Currey referred me to his book, Africa Writes Back: The
African Writers Series and the Launch of African Literature (2008). The book reveals
that when Heinemann Educational Books chose Africa as one of its major markets, it
set out to publish works written by Africans that could replace European books in the
educational sector of African communities. This ambition was initially championed by
Keith Sambrook and Chinua Achebe:

They wanted students in African schools and universities to be able to read

imaginative work by Africans; and they were determined to introduce African writers
to an international literary audience (Currey, 2008:xv).

The passion to give African writers a voice and exposure to the international
readership was shared by Currey, who joined the publishing house with the special
assignment to run the AWS (Currey, 2008:5). What is important here is the fact that
institutional agenda is usually shaped by the individual perspectives of those who
work for the institution. When a publishing house sets a mission for itself, it relies on
the individuals working therein to ensure that the mission is correctly carried out
(Bourdieu, 2002). This show that the extent to which the agenda of a publishing
house is pursued, depends on the extent to which those working for it adhere to the
mission of the publisher. Given that every agent in the field possesses capital and

83
habitus that influence their actions, it is my contention that the agents working for the
publishing house may preserve or modify its agenda if their interests are aligned with
those of the publishing house. It is in this regard that it could be argued that while
Heinemann was more interested in European books, the coincidental recruitment of
Sambrook and Currey, who both shared a common passion for African literature,
contributed in introducing and sustaining an African agenda within the publishing
house.

This agenda led to a variety of African literary works being published and
exposed to an international audience. The agenda also contributed substantially to
the growth of literary translation on the continent. These factors collectively led to the
commissioning of UVB and LVNM as English translations for publication through the
AWS. It shall be seen in the section on the interview with Reed that he had a
personal interest in African literature, which came about as result of his work in the
discipline for 17 years. I would argue that through the course of his work in Africa,
Reed had acquired a habitus that predisposed him to have an interest in the
promotion of African literature. I therefore contend that the shared interest of
Sambrook, Currey, and Reed was influential in the actions that led to the translation
of the two novels. This underscores the extent to which the actions of agents
involved in translation activities are influenced by other agents in the field, and in my
view Reed’s interactions would not have yielded the same results if he was dealing
with a publisher or commissioner who had a different view regarding the content and
style of his translations.

Another question for which I was referred to Currey’s book for answers, had to do
with the reason behind his personal interest in African literature. The aim of the
question was to find out how his background might have contributed in shaping the
habitus that made him, a non-African, to be passionate about African literature. The
book revealed that Currey’s family was connected to the anti-apartheid movement in
South Africa:

His family connections made him curious about the realities of the regime in South
Africa. His poet father and writer mother were both born in South Africa. A forebear,
who went to Natal in 1849, started a newspaper and wrote cantankerous articles in
the Natal Witness about the colonial government’s treatment of the Zulus (Currey,
2008: xvii).

84
Currey himself worked in Cape Town for The New African during the period of the
Sharpeville Massacre and the Rivonia Trials. This brought him into contact with
writers of resistance to apartheid, leading him to also become involved in the anti-
apartheid struggle through publishing (Currey, 2008: xvii). It could therefore be said
that his background had endowed him with a habitus that made him to be
ideologically opposed to the marginalisation of indigenous Africans. This further
instilled in him the willingness to contribute to a more just world by giving a voice to
the voiceless, hence the desire to give African writers a medium through which to tell
their own stories.

Bourdieu (1977) asserts that the habitus of an agent is acquired from the
formative years in the family setting through the educational system and other social
experiences. It could be argued that Currey’s habitus had been nurtured by the
historical experiences of his family and his professional background, which shaped
his perspective on colonial injustices and the resistance they engendered. This
habitus could have contributed in creating a harmonious relational network with the
other agents of the translation project, who were his colleague, Keith Sambrook, and
the translator, John Reed, since they all shared a common interest regarding African
literature. This harmonious relationship thus became a facilitating mechanism for the
translator’s actions during the translation process, given that there was little room for
resistance or conflict between the translator and the publisher.

I also asked James Currey about the target readership of the AWS publications.
This was to enable me to understand the extent to which the anticipated reception
was influential in the commissioning of the translations of UVB and LVNM. He again
referred me to his book for an answer, and it revealed that the publications of the
AWS were mainly destined for the book markets of the British colonies in Africa, but
also for the international literary markets (Currey, 2008:3). The publisher’s intention
was thus to change the perception that books in Africa were only destined for the
educational sector and not for the leisure of African readers or their general
understanding of the realities of life on the continent (Currey, 2008:2).

I contend that the AWS sought to revolutionise the publishing agenda in Africa,
and by so doing shape the mindsets of the target readership into appreciating works
written by fellow Africans. The publisher also had the intention to carve a place for
African literature in the international literary market to change the public’s perception
85
regarding the inferiority of African literature. In my view the interest of the AWS in
literature that challenged the cultural, ideological, and political dominance of Africa by
the West, positioned the publishing house as an institutional agent of resistance in
the conflict between dominating and dominated systems.

This created a favourable context for the actions of John Reed in the translation
process, given his personal empathy with resistance literature in general, but also the
nature of Oyono’s novels, in particular. The success of this agenda was evident in
the fact that the AWS publications played a major role in African literature being
introduced in the curriculum of Western universities (Currey, 2008: xxv). This
highlighted the fact that while the literary preferences of the target system constrain
the actions of publishing houses, publishers can also introduce new texts to readers
in a way that shapes their literary tastes (Bourdieu, 2002). It is in this regard that I
argue that translation agency is constrained by the social factors that are prevalent in
the field of the translation in which the translation agents operate.

I then asked Currey about the types of texts that were usually chosen for
translation by the AWS. He responded that the AWS depended on a group of
advisors on deciding which works were most appropriate for translation. These
advisors were usually literary critics, educators, writers, and translators. To ensure
that the translations read fluently in English the publishers used other advisors to
advise them in this regard. This indicates that other agents of the field have an
influence on the actions of translators in the sense that even when a translator is
influential in the initiation of a translation, the process from the selection to the
reception of a translation involves other agents of the field who constrain the actions
of the translators. It is in this regard that Heilbron and Sapiro (2007:101) assert that
the translation of a literary work is shaped by the agents of intermediation who are
situated at different levels of the translation process.

Given the competing interests that underpin the actions of the different agents of
the field (Bourdieu, 1985), the actions of these other agents situated in different
positions of the field are bound to constrain the translator’s agency. It is thus my
contention that the literary field in which UVB and LVNM were translated involved
different agents of intermediation in different positions of the production network, and
the actions of these agents had a bearing on the actions of the translator both at the
macro-level and textual level of the translation project.
86
 I asked Currey about the policies that guided the publication of translated
works by the AWS. He responded that the AWS started publishing translations after
being advised by John Reed and Clive Wake that there were remarkable books in
French that were being published in France and that could also be translated and
published by the AWS.

Reed and Wake would later become the main translators and translation advisors
of the AWS and translated works would play a major role in the success of the AWS
(Currey, 2008:59). The role of Reed and Wake in this situation underscores the fact
that the actions of the translator agent are not limited to the textual level, but also
take place at the macro-textual level of the translation process. The fact that the
publishers had not known about the existence of a rich African literature in French
until they were informed by the translators (Currey, 2008:59), demonstrates that
rather than being neutral conduits of message transfer from one language to another,
translators are agents who are involved in translation projects at different levels of
the process. This is in line with Baker’s assertion that as agents, many translators do
initiate their own translation projects and actively select texts for translation (Baker,
2006:105).

The fact that the publishers accepted Reed’s advice demonstrates that trust had
been established between him and the publishers, which came as result of the prior
opinion the publishers had of the translator, given that they had been working
together before in the production of original literature in the target language (Currey,
2008:59). In other words, Reed had accumulated cultural and symbolic capital
through the course of his experiences in the literary field and this capital was
influential in making the publishers embrace his ideology. This underscores the fact
that the extent to which the translator’s actions can have an impact on the field
depends on the amount of cultural and symbolic capital s/he has accumulated in a
field of activity.

Heilbron and Sapiro (2007:102) have argued that the literary translator is
different from other translators because s/he usually doubles as a literary critic or
academic and this gives him/her a stronger individualism in translational interactions.
It is in this regard that I argue that Reed’s influence in the initiation of the translation
project was facilitated by his multifunctional capacity, which enabled him to act as an
advisor and translator at the same time. The fact that he was an advisor to the
87
publisher on foreign works put him in position to significantly influence the selection
of the texts which he deemed good for translation. It also suggests that he had more
freedom in decision-making at the textual level of the translation, since there was
little likelihood that his translational choices would be questioned.

I also questioned Currey about what motivated the AWS’s commissioning of the
translations of UVB and LVNM. Bourdieu (1985) argues that the actions of agents
are always motivated by the interest they seek to accrue from the field. I therefore
sought to know the interest that motivated the publisher’s decision to publish the
translations of the two novels. His response was that the novels were outstanding
when compared to English literature published in Britain and the United States of
America (USA) and they were also humorous and addressed critical social issues.
The answer indicated that the publisher’s interest in producing the English
translations of the novels was both economic and ideological. The AWS wanted
works that could meet international standards so that the works would sell in the
global market and generate economic capital for the publishing house. In the same
vein, the publisher’s appreciation of the social issues addressed by the novels is an
indication of the alignment of the works with his ideological interest. This implies that
the publisher was not only interested in economic capital accumulation but was also
an agent of ideological propagation. Currey’s response to my question was obviously
based on the report that Reed had submitted to AWS in order to influence their
decision to publish the translations of the novels, since they did not know of the
existence of the two novels prior to being advised by Reed and Wake. The report
indicated that “both books are extremely funny, yet at the same time a comment even
bitterer than Beti’s on the colonial regime in the Cameroons” (Currey, 2008:60).

Reed’s report suited the agenda of the publishers, which was aimed at producing
literature that was resistant to the cultural, ideological, and political domination of
Africa by the West. This implies that had the novels been based on issues not related
to the publishers’ area of interest, they might have been rejected and the translations
would not have been produced. This highlights the dialectic nature of agency in
which agents mutually influence each other. The translator influenced the publisher’s
decision in the selection process of the translation, and the decision to
commissioning of the translations led to the textual actions of the translator. This
underscores the fact that the agency of translators is not limited to the textual level of

88
the translation process, as they also actively take part in the selection process
(Baker, 2006; Tymoczko, 2007).

I then asked Currey about the nature of the negotiations that went on between
the publisher and the translator prior to the commencement of the project. Bourdieu
(1985) asserts that the relationship between the different agents of a field are
characterised by a struggle for competing interests. This implies that translation
action takes place within the context of a network of power relations, which have an
influence on the translator’s actions. The aim of my question was therefore to find out
the power relations that existed between the publisher and the translator, and the
impact that it might have had on the translation process. Currey responded that the
translations were initiated by Reed himself, who had translated excerpts of one of the
novels, and this attracted the attention of the publisher to commission for the
translation of the two novels.

The interview with the translator reveals more details about the transactional
aspect of the project as it indicates that the final decision was based on the report he
was asked to submit, which convinced the publisher regarding the content and form
of the novels. It also reveals that the publisher and the translator signed a contract
containing the cost of the project and the timeframe required for its completion. The
implication of this is that the macro-textual level transactions, which are social in
nature, have an impact in the actions of translation agents, because the transactions
create the working conditions of the translation project, which have an influence on
the actions of the translator during the translation process (Wolf, 2007b). Financial
remuneration reflects the economic capital possessed by the publisher and gives him
leverage in the negotiation with the translator on the terms of the project. Also, an
unfavourable timeframe for the completion of the project may put the translator under
pressure and lead him/her to make decisions that s/he would not have made in a
more favourable working context. It is in this regard that I contend that the publisher
occupies a higher position in the literary field, which enables him to have a
considerable influence on the actions of the translator.

Nord (1997) contends that it is the commissioner of the translation who decides
on the guidelines that the translator has to follow to ensure that the translation
functions as intended. This implies that the brief is a tool of power in the hands of the
commissioner, which constrains the actions of the translator. I therefore sought to
89
find out if the publisher put in place such mechanisms to constrain the translator’s
actions. I therefore asked Currey if any guidelines or briefs were given to the
translator to guide the translation process. Currey’s response was that no guidelines
or briefs were given to the translator, since the translator had initiated the translation
himself and the publisher had been pleased with the excerpts that had been
translated. This again highlights the place of trust in the negotiations that happen
between the commissioner and the translator and how the trust factor can influence
the extent of the translator’s agency. I therefore argue that while the commissioner or
publisher is unarguably a powerful agent in the translation network, the extent to
which such power can influence the agency of a translator, depends largely on the
profile of the translator in question. Had the publisher been dealing with a translator
less prolific than Reed, there is a strong likelihood that the level of trust would not
have been the same and there would have been more control measures put in place
to guide the translation process. I therefore contend that Reed’s symbolic capital was
an influential factor during his transactions with the publisher.

I equally questioned Currey about the quality assessment of the translations

before publication. This was to enable me to understand the extent to which the
translator’s actions at textual level met the expectations of the publisher. His
response was that there was trust in the fact the translations would be good because
they knew that Reed was working in consultation with Clive Wake. This once more
highlights the extent to which a translator’s profile, or symbolic capital, can instil trust
in the commissioner or publisher, as well as in the target audience. Such a situation
creates more room for the translator’s agency, since his/her ability to make decisions
is enhanced by the trust factor. In a context of ideological conflict underpinning
translation (Baker, 2006), a translator with the level of trust that the publisher gave to
Reed becomes a powerful agent who may take decisions to either resist or
propagate a particular ideology. In addition to trust, Currey responded that the AWS
also relied on the assessment of the advisors of the publishing house, who all
testified that the translations read smoothly in English. One of the advisors expressed
his opinion on UVB in the following words:

I’ve now read this translation which I consider terrific. As for the diary itself I know
nothing quite like it in the use of details, good humoured mischief and precision …

90
 Somehow, purists will try to guard schools against it – which will be a pity – but the
general reader will be acquiring a rare gem in African literature (Currey, 2008:60).

This again highlights the fact that the decisions made by translators during the
translation process may be subjected to another centre of power, which may approve
or reject it. The translator’s agency in this case becomes dependent on the facilitating
or constraining factors of the field. It is in this regard that Marais (2014:89) asserts
that translation agency has to do with how individual actions influence the actions of
other individuals. This implies that the actions of the translator are underpinned by
the mutually influential actions of other agents in the field. Had the publisher’s
advisors not been pleased with the translations, the works may not have been
published, or changes would have been made to them prior to publication. Thus, in
my view the decisions of these agents of the publishing sector were influential in
facilitating the agency of John Reed in the process of translating UVB and LVNM.

The last question I asked the publisher was about the reception of the published
translations. Bourdieu (2002) contends that the expected reception of a literary work
is an influential factor in the publisher’s selection of a work to be translated, the
translator to translate it and the manner by which to present the work to the potential
recipients. My intention was therefore to understand the extent to which the
translator’s decision met the target audience’s expectations. Currey responded that
the reception was significantly positive as there were excellent reviews in leading
journals, good sales to public libraries, and the works were adopted in the curricula of
universities in the UK, the Commonwealth, and the USA.

The immense success of the translations could be said to be an indication of the

impact of Reed’s decisions during the translation process, since every translation
targets a receiving audience and the legitimacy of the translator’s choices can only
come with a positive reception of the resulting product by the target audience. The
reception of the translations also highlights the impact of the agency role of the
translator in propagating ideology and contributing in shaping the mindset of the
receiving culture (Baker, 2006; Milton & Bandia, 2009).

The fact that the translations were read by a vast number of readers implies that
the ideological content of the works reached many people and gave them a particular
perspective of reality that could influence them in one way or another. It is actually

91
because of the ideological underpinnings of translations that there has been political
censorship of some translated works. Such was the case with Mongo Beti’s English
translation of Mission Terminée (1957), which provoked an uproar when it was
included in the school curriculum in East Africa as result of the sexual and anti-
religious content of the novel, leading to the novel being finally pulled out of the
syllabus because of the protests (Currey, 2008).

It was certainly with this in mind that Currey, in his response, added that he was
surprised that the apartheid regime in South Africa did not ban the translation of UVB
because of the relationship between the houseboy and the white boss. This suggests
that the publisher was conscious of the ideological content of the works, and by
accepting to publish it he was promoting the ideological content, which made him a
facilitating factor to the translator’s agency. It could thus be argued that the reception
of the translations of UVB and LVNM highlights the way translation agents construct,
and are constructed, by their social context in the sense that while the expected
reception of the translations may constrain the actions of the publisher and the
translator, the choices of the translator and publisher also shape recipients’ literary
tastes. This underscores the dialectic relationship that exists between agents and
their field of activities (Bourdieu, 1977).

4.3.2.2 The translator-agent of UVB and LVNM in English

This section focuses on the analysis of the results from my interview with John Reed,
who translated UVB and LVNM into English.

I questioned John Reed about how he became involved in translation with the
intent to discover how his historical experience could have contributed in moulding
his translational habitus. He responded that he encountered the act of translation
initially through the translation exercises he did as a student. He started translating
professionally while working in Zambia (Northern Rhodesia), when Oxford University
Press commissioned him and Wake to translate Senghor’s poems into English. After
this, he and Wake were again contracted by Currey to translate the works of African
Francophone poets into English. This is an important point in that it is the same
publisher who commissioned the translations of UVB and LVNM. The implication in
this case is that he had acquired a significant amount of symbolic capital as result of
his earlier translations and this made the publisher to believe that his translations of

92
Oyono’s novels would be a good business decision. Reed also revealed that he had
translated other novels and poems by Francophone Africans, as well as poems from
German and Latin. An important revelation from Reed was that he not only translated
when commissioned, but initiated translations for his own interest and pleasure. His
English translations of the works of German and Latin poets were not commissioned
by anyone, but were initiated by his own interest.

It is worthy to note that these German and Latin translations were never
published, and in my view the reason was because the works could not attract the
interest of the field in which he was working, given that the dominant trend in the
African literary field at the time was the publication of works by African authors aimed
at addressing the socio-political and cultural realities of African communities. What is
relevant about Reed’s historical profile is that he had a genuine interest in literature,
and his competence in different languages had exposed him to different literary
cultures. According to Venuti (2013:13), these are relevant assets to a translator, and
they need to be explored to facilitate an understanding of the translator’s agency
during the translation process, given that the cultural and linguistic resources that a
translator internalises during the course of his/her career constitute the translator’s
latent thinking and manifests itself spontaneously during the translation process. This
is in line with Bourdieu’s concept of habitus which is the internalised history of
independent agents that functions as the mechanism of perception and action
(Bourdieu, 1990:56). It is thus my argument that Reed’s past experiences in the
translation of literary works had endowed him with a translational habitus that was
influential in his translations of UVB and LVNM.

I also asked Reed about his interest in African literature in general, and the works
of Ferdinand Oyono, in particular. The aim was to establish his ideological position
vis-à-vis the source and target text and see the extent to which this influenced his
decisions during the translation process. Bourdieu (1985) contends that the actions
of agents are always underpinned by the interest that they seek to accumulate in the
field. It is in this regard that Baker (2006) has underscored the fact that acts of
translation always involve the mediation of ideology and the decisions made by the
translator are influenced by his/her position in relation to the ideology in question.
Reed responded that his interest came as result of 17 years of experience in
teaching English in Southern Africa, since literature was part of the English

93
curriculum. His work thus exposed him to African literature, which most likely ended
up shaping his perspective of African writings in a certain manner.

About Oyono, Reed responded that he was attracted to Oyono’s novels because
of the style, as well as the colonial experiences they contained and which he could
identify with since they were similar to what was happening politically and socially in
Zimbabwe where he was working. It could thus be argued that Reed’s African
experience had enabled him to develop a habitus that could appreciate the literary
and ideological norms of the African literary field at the time. Bourdieu asserts that
when an agent’s habitus is aligned with the structure of the field, the agent functions
with the ease of a fish in water (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992:127). I would therefore
argue that Reed’s exposure to African literature and colonial experience had
endowed him with a habitus that shaped his actions as an interested “representer of
the source words of others” (Munday, 2012:2), since he could relate to what African
societies were going through, and what African writers were addressing in their
works. Reed was therefore not simply a linguistic mediator between two literary
systems but was very much an interested agent who aimed to disseminate and
promote African literature and its inherent ideologies. This underscores the dialectic
nature of agency in the sense that Reed was constructed by his social context, and
at the same time his work was contributing to constructing the same social
environment.

The next question to the translator had to do with the initiation of the translation
project. This was because research in translation studies has underscored the role of
translator-agents at the initiation stage of translation projects (Baker, 2006; Nord,
1997; Venuti, 2013). A translation always starts with the initiation of the project by an
individual or institution that has a particular interest in having the translation
produced. In most cases this is done by a commissioner, who may be a publisher, a
political institution, or an interested individual. However, translators have been said to
initiate their own projects for one reason or another (Baker, 2006; Venuti, 2013).

It was in this regard that I sought to know who initiated the translations of UVB
and LVNM. John Reed responded that he had initiated the translations by translating
excerpts of LVNM in an article which he published in the Makerere Journal 7, titled
“Between two worlds: some notes on the presentation by African novelists of the
individual in modern African society” (Reed, 1963:1-14), which aimed to demonstrate
94
the psychological trauma that indigenous Africans suffered at the hands of European
colonisers. This indicates that the initiation came as result of the translator’s interest
in contributing to the agenda of resistance to the colonial system that was recurrent
in the 1950s and 1960s.

When one considers the dominant themes of the works published by the AWS, it
becomes obvious that the publisher’s interest in the translation was not only related
to the flow in the style of the translation, but also in the ideology of the source text
author, which was harmonious with the ideology that he was selling in his
publications and which indeed was feeding a burgeoning appetite and market for
anticolonial literature. The translator in this situation contributed in the propagation of
this resistance discourse by initiating a project that would have far-reaching impact
on the anticolonial literary field of the target language. This, in itself, indicates an
agency role of the translator who can decide to translate a particular work or not, so
as to either support or contest a particular ideology. It is in this light that Gentzler and
Tymoczko (2002:xxi) assert that translation is “a deliberate and conscious act of
selection, assemblage, structuration, and fabrication”. In the same light, Baker
(2006:105) highlights the fact that rather than being “passive receivers of
assignments”, many translators and interpreters actually “initiate their own translation
projects and actively select texts and volunteer for interpreting tasks that contribute to
the elaboration of particular narratives”. I would therefore argue that Reed was an
agent whose actions contributed to constructing the African literary field. This was
possible due to his position as a literary scholar whose critical work attracted the
interest of the AWS, as well as a translator whose translation actions contributed in
shaping the target literary field.

I then questioned the translator about his relationship with the source texts’ world
so as to know how this could have influenced his understanding and transfer of the
source texts. His response was that he neither had any contact with the author nor
the publisher of the source texts. Bourdieu (2002) asserts that the production of
original and translated works is influenced by different social factors, which must be
taken into consideration when interpreting the works. Venuti (2013) has also argued
that what the translator transfers to the target language is in fact his/her interpretation
of the source text. Such an interpretation would depend on the nature of the contact
between the translator and the source text world. This implies that a full grasp of the

95
context of the production of a source text is necessary for the interpretation of the
text.

It is in this regard that Bandia (2008:161) has underscored the fact that the
peculiar nature of African literature requires that any translation of such literature be
carried out by a translator who is “intimately familiar with the logos of African culture”,
because a European translator “may not be able to internalize the deep structures of
African sociocultural reality”. Reed’s physical experience of Africa was mostly in
Southern Africa where he lived and worked; he only scantily travelled to other parts
of Africa, without ever being to Cameroon where the novels are set. It is thus my view
that his grasp of the source texts could not be the same as that of someone who had
lived in the sociocultural setting of the source texts.

Sturge (2007:22,24) argues that in order to have a comprehensive understanding

of the source text culture, an “emic approach” is necessary, because meaning is
context specific, and as such its representation should be done “through an
interpretative reconstruction of the original words’ linguistic context, cultural context
and immediate setting”. To therefore say that exposure to one part of Africa is
sufficient to fully grasp the sociocultural realities of other parts of the continent is
holding onto the erroneous assumption that Africa is homogeneous. It could,
however, be argued that the years of exposure to African literature had given Reed
significant insight into the embedded realities of African literature.

This is particularly relevant in the sense that, as he stated in his response, he

had been exposed to many works of Francophone and Anglophone literature
produced by African authors and could fully grasp the world views of different African
writers. Furthermore, the fact that most of the works of African literature that were
translated between European languages were read and studied as originals in the
target cultures (Bandia, 2008:160), may imply that there was a high degree of
similarities between the African world views of the different colonial communities. It is
thus worth asserting that even though Reed’s familiarity with African literature
enabled him to understand the world view of Oyono’s source texts, this may not have
been enough to give him a full grasp of the source texts world, and an analysis of the
product will reveal how this influenced the nature of his intervention at the textual
level.

96
 I further asked Reed about the practical decisions and actions he took during the
translation process. This was to enable me to relate these actions and decisions to
the social context within which he was working to understand the factors that
influenced those decisions. His response was that he was first asked to submit a
specimen of a few pages to the publisher and when it was approved, he started
translating the novels manually and page by page. This must have put a significant
amount of pressure on the translator and might have had a bearing on his decision-
making in the transfer process. He also said that he was given four months within
which to finish the first novel and he finished it within the slated timeframe.

While I cannot ascertain whether translating manually and the timeframe

allocated were convenient or not, they give an indication of the conditions under
which the translator worked, and it is my contention that working conditions have an
influence on the decisions made by a translator during the translation process.
Unfavourable working conditions may lead to stress, which may influence the
translator to make choices that s/he might not have made in more favourable working
conditions. Although technological advancements of today have significantly
enhanced translators’ ability to deliver results in tight deadlines, since translators now
have computers and facilitating software to make their work easier, I contend that the
issue of working conditions remains significant in the translation industry, even
though it has not received much attention from translation research. Another
important information from Reed was that during the course of the translation, he
consulted Wake on issues relating to the French language. This implies that Reed’s
decisions at some point were likely influenced by the advice received from Wake.

The relevance of this is that it raises the issue of teamwork in translation studies,
given that translators do not always work individually, but may work as teams for the
same translation project. Such a situation is likely to lead to a conflict of agency
positions, since the translators involved would be individuals who may not have been
socialised in the same way. In the case where the agents involved share the same
objective, the situation will lead to what Palumbo (2009:9) calls ‘collective agency’,
which is a situation in which agents of the same field have similar habitus and
interest. Given that Reed and Wake had been working together on many translation
projects, it is my view that they had collective habitus and interest rather than
conflicting ones. This was evident in the fact that the decision to seek Wake’s advice

97
was made by Reed himself and not imposed on him, which implies that he chose
Wake because he knew that they shared something in common as far as African
literature and translation were concerned. It is in this regard that I would argue that
Reed’s relationship with other agents of the literary field had an influence on his
actions during the translation process.

I additionally asked Reed about the way he handled the issue of cultural transfer
and the challenges he faced therein. This was to enable me to find out which
interventions he made in order to represent the cultural aspects of the source texts in
the target language, given that translation is not only a linguistic exercise, but also
involves the mediation of the cultural realities underpinning the languages concerned
(Bandia, 2008:161). He responded that he did not find it difficult because French and
English functioned similarly, if not identically, in their colonial settings.

Again, this indicates an assumption of homogeneity in the colonial experiences of

Africa. It is worth recalling that the French and British colonial systems differed
significantly from each other, implying that the language of the coloniser functioned
differently too (Abdulaziz, 2003:185). The French policy was that of assimilation,
which aimed to convert Africans into black French persons. There was thus a
vigorous policy of cultural transformation aimed at eroding the African culture and
replacing it with that of the French. Africans were therefore educated to dress, eat,
talk, and even think like the French. The French language was to be embraced by
the colonised Africans, leading to a process of domestication of the language,
especially among the uneducated. The result was a French version that was limited
to a specific sociocultural region. The British colonial system, on the other hand,
implemented an indirect rule system without attempting to transform the culture of the
colonised. In this case, English was more a language of administration and
education; it was never intended to replace the African languages (Abdulaziz,
2003:185).

This difference in functionality implies that the local varieties of French and
English that emerged in the respective colonial settings, were different in nature.
Reed’s assertion that the French and English colonial systems were closely similar
can be said to be presumptuous and such an impression might have led to
misinterpretations of certain aspects of the source texts, which might have impacted
the translation choices he made. Reed did, however, admit that he encountered
98
challenges dealing with terms relating to climatic seasons, given that he was more
familiar with the seasons of Southern Africa and might have confused them in his
translations. This underscores what has been raised before, that a translator needs
to be quite familiar with the source text world in order to fully grasp it and represent it
in the target language. He also admitted that he faced a challenge on the translation
of French titles, since there were no direct equivalence and thus resorted to
maintaining the French titles in the translations. Such a decision inevitably led to the
creation of new linguistic forms in the target language. Milton and Bandia (2009)
have argued that translators are agents whose choices contribute in shaping the
literary poetics of the target system. It could therefore be said that Reed’s lexical
choices in the translation process contributed in shaping the already heteroglossic
nature of English in the African colonies.

The next question to Reed had to do with the target audience for which his
translations were destined. This is significant in that the receiving culture of a literary
work is instrumental in determining the strategies that the translator adopts during the
transfer process (Even-Zohar, 1978; Hermans, 2007; Nord, 1991a; Toury, 1995). In
this regard, Bourdieu (2002) argues that the recipients of translated works interpret
the texts in accordance with the norms of the field of reception. This implies that
decision-making in the translation process is required to take into account the target
readers’ expectations. I therefore sought to know the extent to which the target
audience influenced the choices that Reed made in the translation process. He
responded that for each novel a hardback edition was produced for the international
literary audience and a paperback edition for the African market. The hardback
version was published under Heinemann in the UK, while the paperback was
published under the AWS. The two readership audiences in this case were different,
since the African audience had expectations like to be different from those of the
international audience. It is, however, my view that the AWS publications that were
destined for the global market were meant to occupy peripheral positions in the
global literary poly-system (Even-Zohar, 1978), and, as such, the main target
audience of the AWS remained the African readership. In response to how he sought
to satisfy his audience, Reed stated that he intended to produce English versions of
the texts that would give the readers an experience corresponding to that of a
Francophone reader of Oyono’s originals.

99
 The question that arises in this regard is to know how Reed could ascertain the
impression of the ‘Francophone reader’ without carrying out a study to find out if all
Francophone readers have the same impression of a novel written in French. I would
argue that Reed’s assessment of the original audience response to the original texts
was presumptuous, and he relied on his personal impression to make the
assessment. This is compounded by the fact that he admitted to never having read
any informative or critical works on Oyono’s novels before translating them. It could
therefore be said that he was interpreting the social context of the source text with a
habitus that had been developed in a different context or field. This is in line with
Venuti’s (2013) assertion that what a translator translates is not so much the
message of the source text as his/her interpretation of it. It could thus be argued that
what Reed transferred to the target language culture was his perception of Oyono’s
world view to the target language, and this perception had been shaped by the
habitus underpinning his understanding of the source texts’ realities.

The following question I put to Reed had to do with the aftermath of the
translation and its reception by the target audience. Bourdieu (2002) contends that
the actions taken during the translation process have an influence on the reception of
a translated work by the target readers. I therefore sought to know Reed’s perception
of the impact of his decisions on the receiving culture. He responded that upon
completing the translations he sent the typescripts to the publisher where they were
edited for grammar and readability, but not for accuracy. What this implies is that
target language fluency is the hallmark of the reception of translated literary works. It
is in this regard that Even-Zohar (1978), Hermans (2007) and Toury (1995) have
argued that factors of the target system constrain translation. I, however, argue with
Bourdieu (2002) as well as Milton and Bandia (2009) that the strategic choices made
during the translation process can shape the target audience reception of translated
works. This is because literary taste is socially constructed, and individuals
appreciate cultural products based on the works they have been historically exposed
to (Bourdieu, 1984). Reed also said that he did not receive any feedback on the
editing, and this implies that the publisher either accepted everything he submitted as
satisfactory or made corrections to the target texts without consulting him. The fact
that he did not say that he noticed any changes to his translations when they were
published means that his submissions were accepted as they were.

100
 This again highlights the role of the network of agents in influencing actions in the
literary field. I would contend that Reed’s symbolic capital had put him in an
influential position in the literary field, and this made it possible for the other agents to
have trust in his decisions. His translation agency was thus facilitated by the position
he occupied in the field, and the capital he had accumulated in the course of his
professional life. With regard to the successful reception of his translations, he said
that the reception was positive since the works had long print runs in the UK as well
as the USA. What this indicates is that the actions taken during the translation
process met the expectations of the target readership and it highlights the impact of
Reed’s agency in shaping the target audience’s construction of reality. It could be
argued that Reed’s actions had such a positive reception because his professional
experience had endowed him with a habitus that was harmonious to the norms of the
Anglophone African literary field. The task of translating to an audience, to which he
had significant exposure was thus like “a fish in water” (Bourdieu & Wacquant,
1992:127).

Concerning remuneration for his services, Reed informed me that upon

completing the project, he was paid his due in a lump sum, as was the practice. In
this regard, he received £100 for UVB and £150 for LVNM. The royalties from the
published translations went to the author of the original texts and the translator’s
name was printed on every copy that was produced and sold. While it is not my
intention to say whether the amount paid, and the manner of payment were
appropriate, the issue of remuneration is an important one as it highlights the place of
economic power in translation activities. The translator’s agency may be influenced
by the prospect of economic benefits that may lead him/her to shift allegiances in the
context of conflicting ideologies. I contend that translators do have economic needs
just like other professionals, and situations may arise in which these needs conflict
with the translators’ personal ideologies. Translation studies therefore needs to
explore the role economic power plays in positioning a translator as an agent of the
translation process and, in order to do so, it should take into consideration how this
role may differ from one society to another.

The economic situation of the West is different from that of developing countries
and, as such, the impact of economic power on the translators would not be the
same. It would be difficult for a translator in Africa whose immediate priority is to

101
satisfy his/her economic needs to adopt the same resistance stance to translation in
the face of ideological conflict like Venuti or Baker would do. In the same way, a
translator who translates for leisure would be more likely to assert his/her agency
than one who translates for a living. In the case of Reed, evidence points to the fact
that translation was not his primary activity and the money that came from it could not
have had any significant impact on his literary and ideological interests. The issue of
royalties of translation works going to the author of the original works also highlights
the extent to which translators and translations are made invisible in the field of
literary production. It is my contention that this marginalisation of translators is as
result of the ignorance of consumers of translated works with regard to the creative
choices that underpin the translation process. It is in this regard that Venuti
(2013:244) asserts that:

Despite recent generations of highly accomplished translators, despite the existence

of awards and cultural organizations that recognize and support the work of
translators, despite the emergence of translation studies as an area of research and
teaching in academic institutions, the fact is that literary translation continues to be
grossly misunderstood, undervalued if not discounted or neglected, and persistently
exploited.

This implies that translation occupies a subordinate position in the literary field, as it
is perceived to be nothing but a mechanism of transfer from one linguistic system to
another. It is for this reason that some scholars (Baker, 2006; Tymoczko, 2007;
Venuti, 2013) have advocated for more agency on the part of the translator as a
means to change the perception of the discipline and minimise the level of its
marginalisation. It is, however, my contention that such assertiveness on the part of
translators will depend on the context within which they work, because their actions
will be constrained by the social factors of their contexts of operation.

The interviews with John Reed and James Currey thus highlighted the actions of
the publisher and the translator in the process of producing UVB and LVNM in
English. This has implications for translation agency, which will be discussed in the
next section.

102
4.3.2.3 Implications for agency in translation studies

In this section, I intend to demonstrate the implications which the analysis of the
context of producing the translations of UVB and LVNM has for agency in translation
studies. The analysis was done on the basis that an agent’s actions are constrained
by factors in the field within which the agent operates. These factors are the positions
that make up the field, the agents involved, the habitus of the agents and the capital
they possess (Bourdieu, 1984). It was in this regard that the translator and publisher
were interviewed, with the aim of understanding how they constructed and were
constructed by the social context in which they worked. The findings of the analysis
revealed significant implications for the agency role of translators at macro-textual
and micro-textual levels of translation activities.

The first agency implication from the data was that of the context of agency. The
context is important because, as it has been argued throughout this study, translation
agency is foregrounded in the mutually influential and causal relationship between
the social context of translation phenomena and the actions of the agents involved. It
is in this regard that I argue for a Bourdieusian approach to the study of agency,
because it views agency not only in light of the conflict between the individual and the
context, but rather in light of the interdependency of the two (Bourdieu, 1977). This
implies that the agency of a translator is constrained by the context within which s/he
operates, as that is the space in which his/her capital and habitus can exert
influence, since the same influence may not have the same effect in a different
context.

The African literary context within which Reed worked had shaped his habitus
and enabled him to accumulate relevant capital. This put him in an influential position
in the literary field and facilitated his ability to exert his agency at all levels of the
translation project. I believe that if Reed had to translate in a different context, he
would not have been able to exert the same influence as he did in the translations of
UVB and LVNM. This highlights the fact that different sociocultural contexts need to
be taken into account when conceptualising agency in translation studies (Marais,
2014; Tymoczko, 2007).

Another important implication for agency that can be drawn from the analysis has
to do with the extent of translators’ involvement in translation projects. Baker (2006)

103
and Venuti (2013) assert that translators are not just passive receivers of
assignments, but they can initiate their own translation projects. It is my contention
that the extent of the translator’s involvement depends on his/her context of operation
and the level of influence s/he has in the said context. John Reed was the main
initiator of the translations in that he translated part of the works for his own purpose
before the translation caught the interest of the publisher who then commissioned
him to translate the two novels. By translating an excerpt of one of the novels, he
gave visibility to the source text and it was this visibility that led to the two novels
being translated and subsequently being read by the wide audience that the
translations attained. It could be argued that had Reed published the article
containing the translated excerpt in a different context, it would not have attracted the
same attention.

It is for this reason that I have argued that his translations of Latin and German
works were never published because they did not fit into the expectations of the
African literary field in which he was working. Furthermore, the fact that Reed, as an
advisor to the AWS, also influenced the publisher of the existence of interesting
literary works in French, meant that his involvement in the selection of works for
translation was influential, given that his advice led to the AWS commissioning the
translations of many works written by Francophone writers, among which were UVB
and LVNM. This highlights the fact that the translator’s agency is not limited to the
textual level but can extend to the initiation level of translation (Baker, 2006;
Tymoczko, 2007; Venuti, 2013).

Therefore, from my viewpoint, Reed’s involvement at the initiation level was

facilitated by the position he occupied in the literary field. His role as an academic, a
critic, an advisor and a translator endowed him with significant symbolic capital which
enabled him to be an influential agent at different levels of the translation process. It
is in this regard that I maintain that the agency of the translators of literary works
tends to be more significant than with other translators because, beside translations,
literary translators usually perform other functions in the literary field (Bourdieu,
2002). This underscores my argument for a context-specific approach to the study of
agency in translation studies.

The translator’s interactions with the publisher also highlighted an aspect of

agency. The agency of an individual is always foregrounded in the individual’s ability
104
to exert an influence over the other agents of the field (Bourdieu & Wacquant,
1992:98). Throughout his interactions with the publisher, Reed exerted significant
influence on the latter, given that most of his suggestions were rarely contested.
Reed’s background as an expert in African literature had endowed him with the
cultural and symbolic capital that translated into the trust shown in him by the
publisher. This highlights the fact that the translator’s ability to have leverage on a
translation project depends on the profile of the translator, given that the
commissioner may not show the same amount of trust in one translator as s/he
would show in another. What this implies is that the conceptualisation of agency in
translation studies does not only have to look at the context, but also needs to
consider the individual profiles of translator-agents, since the identity of the translator
inevitably affects his/her ability to exert influence on other agents.

Another important aspect of agency that emerged from the analysis of the
context of the translation was the target audience reception as a centre of power
against which to measure the translator’s agency. Bourdieu (2002) has argued that
since a translated work does not travel with its original context, translation agents
should consider the expectations of the target audience in making decisions during
the translation process. A translation is meant to be read and if it is not read, then the
translator’s agency is destined for a stillbirth. It is therefore the target audience’s
acceptance of a translation that legitimises the translator’s agency by enabling it to
impact on the readership in an intended or unintended manner. The wide
acceptability of the translations of UVB and LVNM enabled Reed’s actions to reach
its finality and highlights his agency in the construction of reality by shaping the
mindsets of the target readers (Milton & Bandia, 2009). What this means for
translation studies is that the target audience can either legitimise or limit the impact
of a translator’s agency, and my argument is that the finality of a translator’s agency
depends on the constraining factors prevalent in the context within which the
translator operates.

4.4 Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to analyse the context of the production of the English
translations of UVB and LVNM. It began with an explanation of the methodology that
was adopted for the study. This was then followed by an analysis of the data
pertaining to the field of the translations’ production and the roles of the publisher-
105
agent and the translator-agent in the translation project. The aim was to understand
the actions of the agents at the macro-level of the translation process. The analysis
revealed that rather than being an invisible conduit in the translations of UVB and
LVNM, Reed was an active agent who was involved in decision-making from the
initiation to the finalisation level of the project. His agency was foregrounded in a
dialectic causal relationship in which he constructed and was constructed by his
social context. The next chapter focuses on Reed’s decisions at the textual level and
their impact on the translation product.

106
Chapter 5
TRANSLATING THE CULTURAL WORLDVIEW OF UNE VIE DE BOY AND LE
VIEUX NÈGRE ET LA MÉDAILLE INTO ENGLISH

5.1 Introduction

This chapter seeks to analyse the impact of the translator’s agency at the textual
level of the translation process. Having established the translator’s agency in the field
of the translation activity in the previous chapter, this chapter looks at how the
translator’s agency manifested itself in the choices he made in transferring the
cultural worldview of UVB and LVNM into English. This is done through a
comparative analysis of the culture-bound terms in the source texts and their
translations in the target texts. The analysis is done by using the Bourdieusian
concepts of field and habitus, which offers us the tools to understand the mutually
influential relationship between translation actions at the textual level and the factors
of the field in which the translator works. The chapter starts by looking at the
methodological approach that was used in collecting and analysing the data, followed
by an overview of the novels under study, before delving into the analysis of the data.

5.2 Methodology

This section focuses on the method that was used to collect the data analysed in this
chapter, as well as the tools that were used in the analysis. It therefore looks at
culture-bound terms, which make up the data, and the concept of habitus, which is
the concept used in analysing the data.

Data collection: Culture-bound terms

The textual level analysis of this study focused on culture-bound terms selected from
UVB and LVNM and their translations into English. I chose culture-bound terms
because these terms are embedded in the source-text cultures, and their translations
into a foreign cultural system can be very challenging to translators (Baker, 2011;
Newmark, 1988). Culture-bound terms are words which express a concrete or an
abstract concept which may be unknown in the target language culture (Baker,
2011). These terms therefore pose translation challenges because of the absence of
direct equivalence for them in the target culture. The explanation as to what
constitutes culture-bound terms has been provided by different translation scholars
107
(Baker, 2011; Ivir, 2004; Newmark, 1988). Newmark (1988) has classified them into
ecology, organisations, customs, ideas, material culture, gestures, habits, and social
culture. Baker (2011:21), on her part, categorises them into religious beliefs, social
customs or types of food. The use and translation of culture-bound terms in literature
has attracted the attention of research in translation studies. In this regard, Nord
(1991a) has looked at the translation of culture-specific items in the translation of
German literature, and Davies (2003) has studied the translation of culture-specific
references in the Harry Potter books into different languages.

With regard to African literature, Kruger (2012) has focused on the translation of
cultural aspects in children’s literature in South Africa; Bandia (2008) has elaborated
on the cultural underpinnings of translating Francophone African literature into
English; and Suh (2005) has looked at the translation of culture-bound terms in the
self-translation of the plays of Guillaume Oyono Mbia. These scholars, with the
exception of Suh (2005), do not elaborate on the classification of culture-bound
terms, but rather discuss the concept as part of the issues related to the translation of
cultural components in literature. Suh (2005:144) classifies culture-bound terms into
the following categories: ideophones, distorted words and names, loan words from
Oyono Mbia’s native Bulu language, proverbs and wise sayings, swearwords,
allusions and symbolic signifiers, forms of address, repetition, and stylistic calques. In
my view, the classification of culture-bound terms by these scholars overlaps, as they
generally consider the same concepts, even though they may refer to them in
different words. I, however, think that Suh’s (2005) categorisation is more relevant to
this study because it applies to the same Cameroonian and Bulu sociocultural
context, which is the setting of the two novels of this study. It is in this light that I draw
on his categorisation for this study, and then add terms which are, in my view, not
covered by his categorisation.

Regarding the translation of culture-bound terms, different approaches have

been suggested by translation researchers (Baker, 2011; Ivir, 2004; Nord, 1991a;
Venuti, 1995). In this regard, Baker (2011) proposes a list of strategies that can be
adopted, ranging from cultural substitution, omission, paraphrase, and the use of
loan words. Similarly, Ivir (2004) argues that the challenge of translating culture-
bound terms can be met with the use of strategies such as borrowing, definition,
literal translation, substitution, lexical creation, addition, and omission. Nord (1991a)

108
argues for a target reader-oriented approach by focusing on how different strategies
are used in translating culture-specific items, depending on the age, social status, or
educational background of the target readers. Venuti (1995) offers a broader
perspective to meeting the challenge of translating culture-bound terms in his
foreignisation versus domestication approach, in which he argues that the strategies
that a translator adopts are determined by whether such a translator seeks to be
source-text or target-text oriented.

In other words, the strategies proposed by Baker (2011) and Ivir (2004) can fit
well into Venuti’s approaches as each would either give the translation a foreignised
or domesticated outlook. While the aim of this study is not to elaborate on the
translation strategies of culture-bound terms that have been exposed in translation
studies, it is worth mentioning that Venuti’s approach has been quite influential in
translation studies (Myskja, 2013). While some critics of the approach have argued
that a translation cannot be wholly foreignised or domesticated (Tymoczko,
2007:211), it is my opinion that Venuti’s notions have to be seen in terms of
predominance and not absoluteness. In other words, a text cannot be absolutely
foreignised or domesticated, but can portray an outlook that is predominantly
foreignised or domesticated. This is relevant to the translation of African literature in
that it has been described as a form of translation, which foreignises the cultural
world view of the author, and its translation needs to adopt a similar foreignising
approach in order to continue maintaining the said cultural world view (Bandia, 2008).
I contend that the decision to foreignise or domesticate, is an issue of agency in
which the translator’s choice is constrained by factors in the literary field in which
s/he works, as well as his/her individual habitus. It is in this regard that I use the
concepts of field and habitus to analyse the translations of culture-bound terms in
UVB and LVNM into English.

Data selection criteria

In analysing the translation of culture-bound terms, it is necessary to first classify the

terms under different categories before selecting the specific examples to be
analysed (Alkhawaja, 2014). It is in this regard that I first read UVB and LNVM to
manually pick out the culture-bound terms in the novels and then I read the published
translation of the novels, Houseboy (HB) and The Old Man and The Medal (TOMM),
to pick out the translations of the culture-bound terms. I then drew on Suh’s (2005)

109
categorisation to classify the culture-bound terms used in UVB and LVNM, to which I
added terms that I thought were not covered by his classification. I therefore came up
with the following categories for the analysis: proverbs, idioms, ideophones and
expressive lengthening, forms of address, vernacular words, distorted words,
invectives, and names to which I added semantic shifts and hybrid language
formations (see also Bandia, 2008). Finally, I added a category for race-related
terms, because I believe the perception of otherness in race relations is culture-
specific as it has to do with the attitude of a people towards other people and cultures
(Faiq, 2004). After classifying the culture-bound terms into different categories, I then
randomly selected examples from each category in an extensive manner, to ensure
that there was representativeness and reliability in the data selected.

Data analysis: Field and habitus

Habitus-based analysis of textual level processes of translation is increasingly

attracting the interest of sociological-oriented translation scholars (Gouanvic, 2005;
Sela-Sheffy, 2014; Yannakopoulou, 2008; Wolf, 2013). The argument for this
analytical approach is that a textual and discourse-oriented analysis tends to focus
on norms that guide the translator’s strategies and do not consider the impact of the
translator’s agency in decision-making in the translation process, which seems to
imply that the translator remains submissive to the dictate of the norms (Gouanvic,
2005).

Habitus-oriented scholars thus argue that the micro-textual analysis of translation

need to focus on the translator’s habitus rather than on the translational norms,
because translation strategies are not always the result of deliberate objective
choices but come from subjective and unconscious decisions made by the translator.
In this regard, Gouanvic (2005) has underscored the role of the social trajectories of
translators in influencing the decisions that they make during the process of a
translation activity. He contends that it is important to trace these trajectories to
understand the decisions made by translators, because the said social trajectories
are the constitutive elements of the habitus that underpins the actions of translators.
Yannakopoulou (2008) also argues that while translation studies as a field has
recently focused on the concept of habitus. This focus has mostly concentrated at the
contextual level of the translation process, with little being done at the micro-level.
She does argue that a habitus-based analysis of the macro-level and micro-level

110
translation practices would shed more light on the factors that influence translation
strategies, than analytical approaches that are limited to the context. The significance
in her argument lies in the fact that she highlights the importance of not limiting
sociological analyses of translations to the contextual factors, but also to consider
micro-level factors.

This argument is relevant to this study in that an integrated approach is adopted

in which the analysis focused on both the context of the translation production and
the micro-textual processes of the translation products. Simeoni (1998) has also
argued that, rather than seeing norms and habitus as separate angles of translation
analysis, they should be associated with each other because norms are in fact the
result of the collective habitus of the agents of a particular translation field. This
implies that norms that guide translators’ strategies come as result of the
experiences to which the translators of a given field have been historically exposed. It
is thus their collective habitus that leads to the establishment of rules, the norms that
condition perceptions, and actions in the field of translation. On her part, Wolf (2013)
has asserted that translation decisions can be explained by looking at the habitus of
the translator involved in a specific historical moment. In terms of literary translators,
she contends that external factors have an impact on the development of the
translators’ habitus, since many of them practice translation as a second profession.
Her argument is significant in that it highlights the fact that the habitus is
heterogeneous in nature, and the habitus acquired from another field can cause an
action in a specific field.

It is in line with the arguments elaborated above that this study adopts a habitus-
based approach to analyse the translations of John Reed. This is done according to
Bourdieu’s (1977:86) notion of collective and individual habitus, because it is my view
that textual level translation action is influenced by both the habitus that the translator
acquires from the field of practice, and his/her individual habitus which s/he acquired
before entering the field. Collective habitus refers to the habitus shared by agents of
the field who have been exposed to the same experience, while individual habitus
refers to the habitus resulting from an individual agent’s exposure to experiences that
single him/her out of the other agents of the field (Gouanvic, 2010).

This notion has been applied to translation studies to refer to the concepts of field
habitus and individual habitus (Sela-Sheffy, 2014), or translational habitus and
111
translatorial habitus (Yannakopoulou, 2008). Field or professional habitus can be
associated with norms in the sense that it is shared by members of a field and
determines the perceptions and actions of the agents of the chosen field, while
individual or translational habitus determines the agent’s deviation from the field
habitus. I therefore analysed Reed’s translation of culture-bound terms in UVB and
LVNM as resulting from the habitus acquired in the literary field, as well as the
individual habitus. For the sake of clarity, I use the term ‘field’ to refer to the habitus
acquired from the translator’s experience in the field, and which is likely to be shared
with other agents of the same field, and ‘habitus’ to refer to his individual habitus,
which he acquired from his social background prior to entering the literary field in
which he worked (Wolf, 2013). The analysis was done by putting the source texts
terms and their translations side-by-side, followed by a description of the translator’s
actions and the social factors that influenced the actions.

5.3 Textual analysis of the translations of Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux
Nègre et la Médaille

This section focuses on the analysis of Reed’s translation of culture-specific terms in

UVB and LVNM. The section begins by giving synoptic overviews of the two novels
under study, followed by a description of what constitute culture-bound terms in the
the novels. This will then be followed by an analysis of the strategies that Reed used
in translating the culture-bound terms, with an explanation of how the strategies
adopted, were influenced by his habitus.

Synoptic overviews of Ferdinand Oyono’s novels

This section presents a brief overview of the author’s biography and the two novels
that constitute the subject of the study.

5.3.1.1 The author

Ferdinand Oyono was born in 1929, in the village of Ngoulemakong in the south of
Cameroon. His father worked for the colonial administration. At a tender age, his
mother, who was a devout Christian, left his father because of his polygamous
lifestyle. Oyono was thus raised by his mother and he attended missionary schools
and served as an altar boy, while also singing in the church choir. After completing
the first part of his education in Ebolowa, he worked for the missionaries as a Boy (or
servant), before the colonial administration sent him to France, where he obtained his
112
Baccalaureate in 1950. He then worked as a television actor before continuing his
studies in Law at the Sorbonne and Diplomacy at the Ecole Nationale
d’Administration, Paris, France. When Cameroon gained Independence from France
in 1960, he joined the administration in a long diplomatic and political career where
he worked as an ambassador, UNICEF director, and minister in the Cameroonian
government. In 2010 (at age 80), he collapsed and died during the official visit of the
United Nations Secretary General to Cameroon.

Oyono’s upbringing greatly influenced his writings; his works focus on the
realities of African societies during colonisation, with the exposure of the hypocritical
subjugation and exploitation of the African masses by the political and religious
authorities of the French colonial system. His most famous works, Une Vie de Boy
and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille were published in 1956, while Chemin d’Éurope
was published in 1960. A final novel, Pandemonium, is said to have been withdrawn
from the publisher, and it is alleged that it was because the novel was an even more
biting attack on the French colonial system. Oyono did not want to antagonise the
French as he had become part of the Cameroonian political system which was then
still very attached to France (Everson, 1998:383).

5.3.1.2 Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille

Ferdinand Oyono’s first novel, Une Vie de Boy, was published by Julliard in Paris in
1956. The publication of Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille followed shortly after. Both
novels denounce the ills of French colonialism in Africa, in general, particularly in
Oyono’s native Cameroon.

UVB presents the colonial situation in which colonial rule was first presented as
something beneficial to Africans, while it was intended to subjugate, humiliate and
exploit them. The novel narrates the story of Joseph Toundi, a young African who
works for a white colonial administrator. Toundi initially regards his association with
the white administrator as a lucky opportunity for him, which puts him above his
African peers. However, he subsequently learns the dark side of colonialism through
unfortunate events that see him finally running away from Cameroon to die in
neighbouring Spanish Guinea. His statement “What are we black men who are called
French” (Oyono, 1956a) highlights the deceptive ideals of French colonialism as
something meant to bring civilisation and development to Africans, thereby elevating

113
them to the same level as the French. The story is told by Toundi himself in a diary
he keeps, a culture he learns from his white master. The novel is written in a simple
and satiric style, very much embedded in the cultural orality of the author. The fact
that the preamble to the story states that the story was written in Ewondo (a
language of central Cameroon) highlights the author’s intention for the style to carry
much of his native oral structure.

LVNM tells the story of Meka, and old man who embraces the French colonial
system with open arms. He donates his land to the Roman Catholic mission for the
construction of the local church, abandons his traditional beliefs by converting to
Christianity and his two only sons die while fighting for France in World War II. When
the colonial administrator informs him that he is going to be honoured with a medal of
friendship for all the sacrifices that he has made to France, Meka naively believes in
the illusion that he will become friends to the French. On the day of the medal award,
he is made to stand under the scorching sun in his uncomfortable leather shoes for
hours waiting for the arrival of the French commander, while all the white guests at
the event are sitting in the shade. At the reception offered by the French to mark the
event, Meka drinks and gets drunk; amidst a storm that rages that night, he loses his
way and wanders into the white neighbourhood, where he is arrested and thrown in
prison. All of this takes Meka on a journey of reawakening in which he realises that
everything the French do is to dominate and exploit the Africans. When he is
released, he is determined to go back to the traditional way he used to live before the
arrival of the French colonial system.

The two novels of Oyono were written around the same time (1950s) and both
tell the same story of French domination and exploitation. Some characters also
appear in both novels, making them appear to be two parts of the same story. Both
novels have been translated into different languages; UVB has been published in
fourteen languages (Waliaula, 2013:1). The English translations of the two novels
were done by Reed and published in 1966 by Heinemann in the AWS, respectively
as Houseboy and The Old Man and the Medal.

The translation of culture-bound terms in UVB and LVNM

This section focuses on the culture-bound terms in UVB and LVNM and their English
translations as HB and TOMM. The examples for each category are put alongside

114
their English translations, and the translator’s actions are described using the
Bourdieusian concepts of field and habitus.

5.3.2.1 Proverbs

According to Bandia (2008:72), proverbs convey universal truth and provide a rich
source of imagery and pithy expression that can be quite apt in expressing ideas that
would otherwise require more elaborate forms of discourse. Their use is
contextualised within a specific culture and reflects the world view and cultural
heritage of a community. This implies that proverbs are culture-bound, and
knowledge of the cultural and situational context of their use is necessary to fully
understand them. Proverbs constitute an integral part of the discursive patterns of
African communities, and this has influenced the works of African writers who use
proverbs in their works as a means of preserving the cultural world view of their local
communities.

For African writers in European languages, the use of proverbs is often done
through a literary translation of the proverbs from their native languages into the
European languages in which they write (Bandia, 2008). Even when some of the
proverbs have direct equivalents in the European languages, these writers prefer to
translate literally in order to valorise their cultural heritage. The translation of
proverbs has been a central theme in translation studies and attention has focused
on the challenges inherent in their translation as result of their culture-specific nature
(Shehab & Daragmeh, 2014). Such a challenge would thus be more apparent in
African literature, as the interpretation of the proverbs would not only require the
understanding of the source-text language, but also an understanding of the cultural
context from which the proverbs are drawn. Below are instances of Oyono’s use of
proverbs and their translations by John Reed. The source text (ST) proverbs are
followed by literal translations (LT), before the target text renditions (TT), so as to
provide a clear understanding of the translator’s strategies in the transfer process:

i) ST: ‘La bouche qui a tété n’oublie pas la saveur du lait’ (LVNM, 17).

LT: The mouth that has sucked does not forget the taste of milk.

TT: ‘The mouth that has sucked never forgets the taste of milk’
(TOMM, 10).

115
Here Meka is expressing the difficulty of turning away from the old habit of drinking
the indigenous gin, arki. It is a common drink in his community, especially for its
medicinal effects, but with the coming of the European administration and religion,
the drink has been outlawed. This does not, however, stop the community from
brewing and drinking it clandestinely as is the case with Meka. Reed used a
foreignising approach translating the proverb (i), which, in my view, enabled him to
maintain the author’s cultural world view reflected in the original. In as much as it
may be argued that the expression ‘never forgets’, is stronger than the original
‘n’oublie pas’, which directly translates into ‘does not forget’, it does not affect the
general meaning expressed by the proverb. It could therefore be argued that Reed’s
translation fits into the nature of the African literary field into which he was translating,
which was characterised by productions that valorised the cultural world views of the
authors.

ii) ST: ‘La marmite dans laquelle on a préparé le bouc garde longtemps
son arôme’ (LVNM, 103).
LT: The pot in which the goat is cooked keeps its smell for a long time.

TT: ‘It is a long time before the pot where the goat is cooked loses the
smell’ (TOMM, 93).

Meka uses this proverb (ii) to express his self-importance in reminiscing that he
comes from the lineage of great men, and that greatness is still flowing in his blood.
In the translation, Reed again maintained the source text author’s world view. He,
however, altered the sequence of the proverb to read differently from the original,
without affecting the message or the source text’s cultural world view. The alteration
has to do with the translator’s use of modulation in changing the point of view from
‘keeping its smell’ to ‘not losing the smell’, and it could be said that he was aiming for
the translation to read more fluently to his target readers. Reed’s action in this case
highlights the non-neutrality of the translator during the translation process (Munday,
2012:2). I would therefore argue that despite the alteration, the translation preserves
the local colour of the source text, thereby ensuring that the text is aligned with the
style that is characteristic of productions in the target literary field.

iii) ST: ‘Le chimpanzé n’est pas le frère du gorille’ (LVNM, 168).

LT: The chimpanzee is not a brother to the gorilla.

TT: ‘The chimpanzee is no brother to the gorilla’ (TOMM, 151).

116
This proverb (iii) is used to explain the fact that although white people may pretend to
embrace black people, they would never really accept them as equals. The proverb
thus justifies why Meka has been so badly treated by the white administrators directly
after being given a medal, which supposedly makes him a friend of the white man. In
his translation, Reed also used a foreignised approach by producing a literal rendition
of the original proverb, and it could be said that this had a reparatory impact (Bandia,
2008) in that the cultural world view of the source text is preserved in the translation.
It could therefore be said that his action in this case was aligned with the nature of
the African literature in European languages that was been produced in his field of
operation.

iv) ST : ‘Nous mangions en silence car la bouche qui parle ne mange pas’
(UVB, 19).
LT: We ate in silence, for the mouth that eats does not talk.

TT: ‘We eat in silence, for while the mouth speaks it does not serve
for eating.’ (HB, 1).

This proverb (iv) is used to express the fact that talking while eating is not a good
habit. Though the proverb is also used in the Cameroonian culture to imply that ‘if
you bribe someone, s/he would not report your crime’, I would stick to the one
referring to the eating habit because that is the context within which it has been used
in the novel. The narrator uses the proverb in the novel to describe the reason for
their silence while eating.

In the translation, Reed maintained the message and local cultural colour of the
source text. However, he altered the way the message is expressed by making it
more explicit, thereby making it sound more like a statement than a proverb. This
could cause the reader of the translation to overlook the proverbial expression
because it reads more like a normal sentence than a proverb. It could equally be
argued that Reed’s intention was to make the meaning clearer to the target reader,
since a literal translation does not so much express the simultaneity of the action that
the proverb refers to and instead sounds as if the mouth that does one action is
incapable of doing the other. Reed thus altered the source text to suit the linguistic
structure of the target system (Hermans, 2007), to meet the expectations of the
target readers. Reed’s target audience was the target market of the AWS, which was
made up of Anglophone Africans on the continent, as well as the international literary

117
audience (Currey, 2008). This might suggest that Reed’s target readers had different
expectations, because the interest of African readers could not have been attracted
by the same things that would attract an international reader to African literature.

I would, however, argue that the readership expectations of Reed’s translations

were the same as those that had been shown for the works of African authors writing
in European languages. This is because, while the Anglophone African readership
could easily identify with the literary productions in Africa, the international audience
had also come to recognise the peculiar nature of African works that had become
part of the global literary poly-system. It could therefore be said that by aligning his
translation with the style of the African literary field, Reed was satisfying the
expectations of both the African and international audiences.

v) ST: ‘Les fantômes ne murmurent pas sans qu’il pleuve la nuit’ (LVNM,
39).

LT: Ghosts do not mutter without it raining at night.

TT: ‘If the ghosts mutter it will rain in the night’ (TOMM, 31).

This proverb (v) is used to express a cause-and-effect situation. In this case, it is

used to explain that everything happens for a reason. Nkolo has come into
Engamba’s home almost out of breath and started asking questions. This makes the
listeners impatient and worried about what he is about tell them. Engamba then uses
the proverb to tell his people to calm down and listen to Nkolo, for there must be a
reason as to why he has come to them. The proverb portrays the belief system of
Oyono’s Bulu community, where notions of ghosts and ancestors are part of their
customs. Reed’s translation preserves the cause-and-effect message of the proverb,
as well as the cultural world view of the source text. It was, however, observed that
the translator altered the negative form of the original to an affirmative form in the
translation. This could be viewed as the translator’s intention to clarify the ambiguity
contained in the literal translation, in which it is not clear whether it is the ghosts’
action that brings about rain or vice versa. It could therefore be argued that Reed’s
translation eliminates the ambiguity, thereby making the meaning clearer to the target
readers.

vi) ST: ‘Je serai le boy du chef des Blancs : le chien du roi est le roi des
chiens’ (UVB, 34).

118
 LT: I shall be the boy of the chief of the Whites: The dog of the king is
the king of dogs.

TT: ‘I shall be the Chief European’s boy. The dog of a King is the King
of dogs’ (HB, 20).

Toundi uses this proverb (vi) to express his joy at becoming the commandant’s
houseboy, as it would elevate him above the other Africans in his community, since
the King’s dog is the most important dog in the kingdom. This seems to suggest the
inferiority complex that characterised the way in which Africans perceived themselves
in relation to Europeans. However, Toundi is not as naïve one might think, and his
expression in this case is likely intended to ridicule the ignorance of the Europeans
who believe that the social standing of an African who associates with them is
automatically elevated. Reed adopted a foreignising approach in translating the
proverb, and this could be viewed as his intention to ensure that both the world view
of the source text and the author’s satire are preserved in the translation. One could
therefore contend that the translation in this case is aligned with the poetics of the
African literary field, where language was used in a peculiar way by authors to
express the asymmetrical social relationship between the European colonialist and
indigenous Africans.

vii) ST: L’œil va plus loin et plus vite que la bouche, rien ne l’arrête dans
son voyage (UVB, 70).

LT: The eye goes farther and faster than the mouth, nothing stops it on its
journey.

TT: The eye goes farther and faster than the mouth, nothing stops it
(HB, 60).

This proverb (vii) is used as a piece of advice to express the fact that it is not always
good to tell the world the secret things that you know about other people. In this case
the guard tells Toundi that he saw their boss’ wife bringing her lover home the
previous night when her husband was away. He uses the proverb to show that he
knows he is not supposed to say what he saw, but he is obliged to confide in Toundi.
This indicates the way domestic employees working for white colonialists used to
undermine the rules of confidentiality by exposing the secrets of their employers as to
ridicule them.

119
 It can be observed that Reed adopted a foreignised approach in the translation,
thereby ensuring that the cultural world view of the source text is preserved in the
translation. Reed, however, omitted a segment of the second part of the proverb by
leaving out the journey part in the literal translation and just said ‘nothing stops it’.
The use of omission as a translation strategy is to eliminate source text information
that is considered irrelevant to the translated message (Chesterman, 2016). This
would imply that Reed believed that the words ‘on its journey’ are irrelevant to the
translated message. It could be argued that although this intervention might deprive
the target readers of the journey metaphor contained in the original, it still preserves
the cultural world view expressed in the source text.

viii) ST: La femme est un épi de maïs à la portée de toute bouche pourvu
qu’elle ne soit pas édentée (UVB, 77).

LT: The woman is a cob of maize at the reach of every mouth, unless it is
toothless.

TT: A woman is a cob of maize for any mouth that has its teeth (HB,
71).

The proverb (viii) here is used to express the belief that women are weak and can
easily give in to the sexual advances of any man who is bold enough to approach
them. In this case, the proverb is used to refer to the extra-marital affair of the
commandant’s wife, who has been held in very high esteem by the natives since her
arrival from Europe, until they discover that it takes just a short while for her to start
having an affair. The proverb thus suggests that to win a woman’s heart is not as
difficult as some might think. It can be observed that Reed used a foreignising
approach in his translation to preserve the cultural world view expressed in the
original. He, however, used modulation to alter the point of view expressed in the
‘toothless mouth’ to that of the ‘mouth that has its teeth’. It could be argued that
Reed’s intention in this case was to pass across to the target reader the notion of the
‘mouth’s ability to act’, which he thought would be better expressed by saying ‘a
mouth that has its teeth’ instead of the literal rendition ‘a mouth deprived of teeth’.

ix) ST: Hors de son trou, la souris ne défie pas le chat (UVB, 92).

LT: Out of its hole, the mouse does not defy the cat.

TT: ‘Outside his hole the mouse does not defy the cat’ (HB, 87).

120
The proverb (ix) is used as a piece of advice for people to avoid getting into conflict
with those who are in more powerful positions than themselves. In this case, the cook
is advising Toundi to avoid doing anything that would annoy his boss’ wife for that
would land him in trouble. The proverb is drawn from the African world of fables and
portrays the author’s world view in relation to power relations in the society. Reed
also uses a foreignising approach in translating this proverb, and it could be said that
it enables him to preserve the source text message and cultural world view in the
translation, thereby aligning his translation with the poetics of the African literary field
in which fables were prevalent.

In conclusion, it can be observed that in translating the proverbs used by Oyono,

Reed’s actions were influenced by factors of the African literary field in which he was
working, such as the literary poetics and the expected reception of the target
readership. This led him to predominantly adopt a foreignising approach as a means
to recreate the author’s cultural world view and align with the literary expectations of
the target readership.

5.3.2.2 Idiomatic expressions

Idiomatic expressions are one of the most widely recognised categories of culture-
bound terms. The challenge of translating idiomatic expressions stem from the fact
that they are fixed expressions whose meaning cannot be deciphered from the
individual lexical items that constitute them (Baker, 2011:63). In the case of African
literature in European languages, African writers use idiomatic expressions through
the process of linguistic calque (Suh, 2005) in which they translate them literally from
their native languages into the European language of translation. This ensures that
their cultural world views are preserved in their writings. Such is the case with Oyono
who makes use of a wide variety of idiomatic expressions from his native Bulu culture
in his novels. Below are instances of Oyono’s use of idiomatic expressions in UVB
and LVNM, and their translations by John Reed. The source text (ST) expressions
are followed by literal translations (LT) before the target text renditions (TT), to give a
clear understanding of the translator’s strategies in the transfer process:

i) ST: Bosse de vache! Sa tête me revient! (LVNM, 14).

LT: Hump of a cow! His head is coming back to me.

TT: By the cow’s hump! Now I remember that face (TOMM, 7).
121
The first part of the idiom (i) is an exclamation of surprise; the speaker is surprised
that he could not recognise Meka. In his translation, Reed rendered the exclamatory
part literally, while transforming the second part to make the message clearer. He
used ‘face’ instead of ‘head’ and ‘remember’ instead of ‘coming back’. This makes it
easier for the reader to understand than would have been the case if the translation
was done literally. It could therefore be argued that his choices in this case were
influenced by the expected reception of the target readership of the African literary
field in which he was working. Reed confirmed in the interview that his translation
choices were guided by his intention to give the target readers the same experience
as the source text readers. It could also be argued that his previous work with the
AWS had given him a good idea of the target readership for which he was
translating, as well as the literary expectations of the said readership, and these were
influential in the textual decisions he made.

ii) ST : Père, tu es là-dedans? (LVNM, 18).

LT: Father, are you in there?

TT: Father, are you alright? (TOMM,12).

The speaker uses this idiomatic expression (ii) to address Meka whom he sees
behaving abnormally, so he seeks to know if something has taken control of Meka’s
mind to make him behave the way he is doing. It is thus an expression to ask if
someone is feeling okay. In the translation, Reed neutralised the idiom and opted for
clarity in the message. He therefore prioritised the meaning over the form of the
idiom, thereby sacrificing the cultural world view of the source text. This implies that
his translation was not aligned with the form of orality inherent in the aesthetics of the
African literary field (Bandia, 2008; Gyasi, 1998). Given that the literary expectations
of readers are shaped by the works they have been exposed to (Bourdieu, 1984),
Reed’s action in this case could not have been to satisfy the African readership,
because the taste of this readership was in harmony with the literal productions of the
African literary field.

This raises the question of what might have influenced this case of inconsistency
in Reed’s decision-making. It could be said that his habitus as a non-African led him
to make a decision that was more aligned with his social background than with the
poetics of the African literary field in which he was working. This underscores the fact

122
that while a translator may set out to follow a particular approach, his individual
habitus may influence him/her to make decisions that are contrary to the said
approach (Tyulenev, 2014). One could therefore argue that the time spent working
on African literature cannot compensate for a non-African’s ability to fully capture the
cultural world view of African literature in translation. It is in line with this that Bandia
(2008) contends that the translator most suited for such a task needs to be an African
who is closely familiar with the logos of African literature.

iii) ST: J’ai compté les nattes du toit … répondit-elle (LVNM, 20).

LT: I counted the matting of the roof … she replied.

TT: I counted the matting in the roof, she said (TOMM ,13).

The expression (iii) means that the speaker had a sleepless night. Kelara uses it to
express the fact that she did not sleep at all since her husband was summoned by
the commandant and they were kept awake by wondering what the purpose of the
summons was. Reed used a foreignising approach in the translation to preserve the
cultural world view of the source text, which was in line with the norms of the African
literary field in which he was working.

iv) ST: C’était maintenant au cœur de remplacer la bouche fatiguée

(LVNM, 2).

LT: It was now time for the heart to replace the tired mouth.

TT: The mouth had tired itself with talking and now the heart must
take its place (TOMM, 13).

The idiom (iv) above expresses the idea that when people have talked about a
subject for too long, it is good to drop it, even though they would still be thinking of it.
It is used to describe the situation between Meka and his wife who have spent the
night talking about the commandant’s summons and decided to avoid talking about it
again in the morning, though it was still troubling them. In the translation, Reed
altered the expression by making it more explicit, and it could be said that his
intention was to make it clearer to the target reader. One could therefore argue that
his intervention in this case was intended to preserve the idiomatic nature and
cultural world view of the source text, while ensuring that the translation was clear to
the target readers.

123
 v) ST: Tout ce qui le touche me touche aussi, nous avons le même sang et je
peux parler pour sa bouche (LVNM, 39/40).

LT: Anything that affects him affects me too, we have the same blood and
I can speak for his mouth.
TT: Anything that concerns him concerns me as well, we have the same
blood and I can speak for his mouth (TOMM, 32).

This idiomatic expression (v) refers to a situation in which one person speaks on
behalf of another. In this case, Mbogsi is defending his action after being accused by
the others of being pompous and not letting Engamba, who has received a surprise
guest, speak for himself. He argues that he and Engamba have a lot in common,
which allows him to be able to speak on behalf of the former. The expression
portrays the cohesion and solidarity that underpin the relationship between the
members of the community. Reed translated the idiom literally, thereby faithfully
representing the cultural world view of the author, and this aligned the target text to
the aesthetic norms of the African literary field in which he was working.

vi) ST: Il avait encore cinq femmes et allait briser les pattes de l’antilope
pour la sixième fois (LVNM, 45).

LT: He already had five wives and was going to break the legs of an
antelope for the sixth time.

TT: He already had five wives and was going to break the legs of the
antelope for the sixth time (TOMM, 37).

This expression (vi) refers to getting married for the sixth time. The idiom is drawn
from the fauna and the hunting tradition of the author’s Bulu community. Given the
very culture-bound nature of the expression, the author uses footnotes to explain that
the idiom is the equivalent of a honeymoon in the Western tradition. Engamba uses
the idiom to express his envy of Nkolo who is about to get married to his sixth wife.
This also portrays the marriage customs of Oyono’s Bulu culture, which was
predominantly polygamous. Reed translated the expression literally, which enabled
him to preserve the tradition and belief system of the author’s society, as well as
maintaining the cultural world view of the source text. He also translated the
footnotes to provide the target text reader the same understanding of the expression
as was given to the source text reader. Reed’s action in this case could therefore be
said to have been influenced by the nature of literary works, as his translation was

124
intended to preserve the author’s world view, while making sure that the translated
text was clear to the target readers.

vii) ST: Nous allons vivre en attendant ton retour (LVNM, 52).

LT: We shall live while waiting for your return.

TT: We shall only be living for you to come back (TOMM, 44).

This idiomatic expression (vii) refers to waiting impatiently for someone to come
back. Engamba and his wife are leaving for Doum to be part of Meka’s medal award
ceremony, and the villagers are confused as to how this new development will affect
their lives. They are thus anxious for Engamba to come back from the ceremony with
information that would clarify the situation. It is this anxiety that is expressed by
Mbogsi through the use of the above-mentioned idiom. While the translation is not a
literal rendition of the source text, it still evokes the local colour and sense of anxiety
expressed in the source text. I would therefore argue that Reed’s intervention in
altering the text was intended to make it easier for the target reader to understand,
while ensuring that the cultural world view of the author is not lost.

viii) ST: Ça c’est son habitude quand il veut manger la bouche (UVB, 55).
LT: That is his habit when he wants to eat the mouth.
TT: He always does that when he wanted to be mouthing me (HB, 43).

This idiom (viii) is used to express the act of kissing. Sophie uses it to express her
disappointment that her white lover is only nice to her when he desires to kiss her or
sleep with her. The expression is thus a reflection of the society’s perception of the
notion of kissing in which lovers ‘eat each other’s mouths’. In the translation, Reed
has altered the text in a way that the image of ‘eating the mouth’ has been
eliminated. This makes the translation give a vague rendition of the source text
message, as ‘mouthing me’ would not directly be understood to mean kissing but can
instead be understood as having a verbal fight with someone. Reed’s intervention in
this case may thus lead the target text reader to interpret the message differently
from what was understood by the source text reader. Given that his translation was
based on his interpretation of the source text, it could be argued that his lack of
sufficient exposure to and knowledge of the author’s culture influenced his
misinterpretation of the message. This is because the message that is transferred to
the target audience is based on the translator’s interpretation of the source text
125
message (Venuti, 2013). This implies that Reed’s identity as a non-African affected
his ability to fully understand and transmit the communicative intention of the source
text (Bandia, 2008). In Bourdieusian terms, one could say that the time spent in the
African literary field was not enough for him to acquire the habitus necessary to fully
understand the local world view expressed in African literature.

ix) ST: Il m’appelle « mon chou », « mon chevreau », « ma poule » (UVB,

55).

LT: He calls me my cabbage, my kid (young goat) and my chicken.

TT: He calls me ‘my cabbage’, ‘my chicken’ (HB, 43).

These (ix) are not African idioms, but French idiomatic expressions which are used to
express affection to a lover. Sophie is telling Toundi of the romantic words her white
lover calls her when he is about to make love to her. The author’s use of these
French idioms produces humour, as result of the backlash provoked by introducing
foreign concepts to African societies. Sophie initially thinks that the words are rude,
for in her culture it is rude to address people by food or animal names. This backlash
is echoed in another scene in the novel (Oyono, 1956a:68) when Bikokolo is
narrating his first love encounter with a white woman. The woman called her ‘mon
petit poulet’ (my little chick) and he takes offence, until the woman explains that it is
an expression of affection in her culture. Reed’s translation is a literal rendition of the
source text words. This maintains the cultural divide and humour generated in the
source text. The humour is even stronger in the translation because the words are
not associated with the expression of affection. Reed also omitted the second idiom
in the sequence ‘mon chevreau’ (my kid). The social causality of this action on the
part of the translator cannot be ascertained, given that there could have been no
negative effect in maintaining the words in the translation. It is thus my view that such
an action could have been the result of other factors, such as intuition (Robinson,
2015) or biological factors like fatigue (Marais, 2014).

The question of why the editing process did not spot the inconsistency can,
however, be explained by social factors. It has already been argued that Reed had
accumulated significant symbolic capital from his work in the field and this was an
enabling factor in ensuring that his actions were accepted unchallenged by other
agents of the translation process. This raises the question as to whether some of the
translations would still have been accepted had they been rendered by a translator
126
occupying a position in the field inferior to that of Reed? This underscores the role of
the power relations between agents of the literary field on the actions of translators at
textual level (Bourdieu, 2002).

In conclusion, in translating the idiomatic expressions in UVB and LVNM, Reed

adopted a foreignising approach that enabled him to faithfully represent Oyono’s
cultural world view in the target texts. Most of his actions were therefore influenced
by factors of the African literary field in which he was working. The analysis, however,
revealed that, in addition to social factors, other factors also influenced the decisions
of Reed, thereby implying that the causality of translation action is rather complex in
nature (Marais, 2014).

5.3.2.3 Ideophones and expressive lengthenings

Ideophones are interjectory words that convey an idea-in-sound (Suh, 2005). These
are lexical items that express emotions during a conversation through a combination
of sound and meaning (Noss, 2003:41). Many African languages make use of these
ideophones to express different types of emotional reactions, including, but not
limited to, surprise, fear, disgust, disappointment, admiration, and appreciation
(Finnegan, 2012). This has influenced the works of African writers who use
ideophones to give their characters authentic African identities (Mphande, 2002).
Given that African ideophones are culture-bound (Storch, 2013), African authors
writing in European languages use the Roman alphabet to represent these
ideophones in a way that a reader who is foreign to the author’s culture would be
able to produce the same sounds of the ideophones. Ferdinand Oyono makes use of
ideophones drawn from his Bulu language in UVB and LVNM for emotional and
emphatic purposes. Examples of the use of ideophones in UVB and LVNM and their
translations are analysed below (The same abbreviations apply as above):

i) ST: Il s’asseoir sur un lit ! cria un énergumène.

Môooooot ! répondit l’assistance en imitant le bruit sourd des fesses sur
un lit de bambou (LVNM, 17).

TT: ‘He sits on a bed,’ came a maniacal shout.

‘Moooooooot,’ cried everyone else imitating the dull sound of buttocks
coming down on a bamboo bed (TOMM, 11).

127
The bolded word in this ideophone (i) echoes the sound produced when someone
sits down. The author uses the ideophone to create humour, as well as to portray the
conviviality of traditional African life. In his translation, Reed faithfully transferred the
same ideophone into the target language, thereby maintaining the same message
and producing the same effect of humour as in the source text. Thus, in my view
Reed’s intention here was influenced by the poetic nature of the African literary field.

ii) ST: Pas tout à fait sampagne, dit-il, mais même chose, chfchfchfchfchfch
… (LVNM, 56).

TT: ‘Not sampaagne,’ he said, ‘but same thing.’ He then went

‘fchfchfchfchfch’ (TOMM, 47).

This ideophone (ii) echoes the sound produced by opening a bottle of champagne.
The speaker uses it to tell his boss that the drink is similar to champagne in that it
produces the same sound when opened. Reed maintained the same lexical
ideophone in his translation in an attempt to preserve the same local colour and
produce the same sound effect. However, the translation ignores the fact that
between French and English, different letter combinations tend to produce different
sounds. The letter combination ‘ch’ in French produces the [ ʃ ] sound, while in
English it produces the [ ʧ ] sound. Given that the [ ʃ ] sound in English is produced by
the ‘sh’ letter combination, one would have expected the translator to have
something like ‘fshfshfshfshfsh’. I would contend that this discrepancy does not
change the sound effect produced in the target text as it is easy for the target readers
to associate the ideophone to the sound to the same concept of opening a
champagne bottle. This is because the African literary field was characterised by
writings in which authors writing in European languages regularly introduced words
from their different indigenous languages into their writings (Gyasi, 1998). This
implies that the readership of African literature had become familiar with this style of
writing.

iii) ST: Aaaaaaaaaaakiéééééé! … s’exclama-t-il. Tu oses dire que tu n’as rien

fait? (UVB, 25).

TT: ‘Aaaaaaaaaaakiaaaaay! he roared. ‘You dare say you haven’t done

anything?’ (HB, 10).

The ideophone (iii) is used to express shock or bewilderment. In this case, Toundi’s
authoritarian father uses it to express his shock at hearing his son talk back when he

128
punishes him. The message contained in the expression can be deciphered from the
description that the author gives immediately after the ideophone, which explains that
it is an exclamation. This helps the reader to understand the ideophone in its cultural
context. In his translation, Reed maintained the ideophone in the target language,
thereby preserving the local colour of the source text. It can also be observed that
unlike the previous example, he adapted the letter combination in his translation to
ensure that the same sound is produced in the target text. The inconsistency
between the translations of the two examples are thus a demonstration of the fact
that translators do not always follow the norms they set out to follow, as the factors
that constrain translation action are rather complex in nature (Marais, 2014).

Apart from ideophones, the author of the source texts makes use of expressive
lengthenings (Schnoebelen, 2012) to reflect his cultural world view. Expressive
lengthenings are different from ideophones in that they are normal words spoken in a
manner by which particular sounds have been lengthened in order to express
emotions of approval, disapproval, disgust, or emphasis (Blevins, 2004). They are
also used to call out to people in a distant location from the speaker. Instances of
expressive lengthenings in UVB and LVNM are as follows:

iv) ST: … je vous prie d’oublier les paroles de l’esclave de tout à l’heure !
Ououououobliéééééééééé ! cria l’assistance, oublié ! (LVNM, 122).

TT: ‘I ask you to forget the words of the slave just now!’
‘Fooooorgotten,’ the company shouted, ‘forgotten’. (TOMM,110).

The bolded word above is a lengthening of the word ‘oublié’, which means ‘forgotten’
in English. It indicates an emphatic and emotional response to what the speaker has
just said. The author uses the expression to portray aspects of public speaking in his
Bulu culture. In the translation, Reed recreated the lengthened expression of the
source text by coining one out of the English equivalent of the initial word. It can be
observed that while the source text lengthening is done on both the initial and final
vowels of the words, Reed’s translation lengthens only the initial vowel. Given that
different phonological patterns between different languages, it is difficult to represent
the sound effects of one language in another (Nnamani & Amadi, 2015). This could
be said to be the reason Reed coined an expressive lengthening from the equivalent

129
English word to preserve the author’s world view, while at the same time producing
the same effect in the target readers as that of the original.

v) ST: O tous les Mvemas! tonna Nti.

Yéééé é é é é é é …! Répondit l’assistance (LVNM, 169).

TT: ‘O Mvemas!’ thundered Nti.

‘Yeeeee-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e!’ replied the people (TOMM, 152).

The expression in bold above is a lengthened version of the word ‘yé’, which is drawn
from the author’s native language and means ‘yes’. Just like the previous word, it
indicates an emotional and emphatic response and portrays the aspects of public
speaking in Oyono’s Bulu culture. Reed translated the expression by recreating the
lengthening, thereby preserving the world view of the source text and producing the
same effect on the target text reader like that of the original. Reed’s lengthening is,
however, longer than that of the original, which raises questions on the reasons for
his decision. Could his decision have been influenced by the norms of the field or his
individual habitus? I would argue that Reed’s decision in this case could not have
been influenced by the norms of the translating field because the effect on the target
readers would have been the same as that of the original if he had maintained the
same length of the original expression in the translation.

The validity of this argument is evidenced in his translations of most of the

ideophones that have been analysed above, in which he maintained the same length
of the original stretched sounds in his translations. His choice could therefore not
have been influenced by an intention to align with the norms of the field. His decision
could also not be said to be influenced by his habitus as it is difficult to see what he
would want to achieve by this change in the length of the original expression. One
could therefore argue that his action in this case is an indication of inconsistency on
the part of the translator, which suggests that in addition to social constraints, other
factors need to be incorporated in analysing a translation activity, because
translational reality is rather complex to be explained from one perspective
(Tyulenev, 2012).

vi) ST: … Mais qui de vous a rencontré la main d’un Blanc dans un même plat
de nourriture ?

130
 Personne, personne, persooooooooooooooonne ! Vociféra l’assistance
(LVNM, 123).

TT: ‘But has anyone here ever come across a white hand in the same dish
of food?’
‘No one, no one, Nooooo one!’ the company shouted. (TOMM, 110).

In this expression (vi), the second vowel in the word ‘personne’, has been lengthened
to produce a strong emotional response to the question of the speaker. Apart from
portraying the nature of public speaking in the author’s culture, the expression also
reflects the intensity of the bitterness that the colonised Africans feel towards the
white colonialists. In the translation, Reed recreated the lengthening in the vowel of
the English word ‘no’. Given that the French word ‘personne’ means ‘no one’ in
English, Reed left the word ‘one’ in its real form and limited the lengthening to the
first one, and one could argue that his intention was to make the translation more
fluent to the target readers, while preserving the content and effect of the source text
expression.

vii) ST: Le Blanc a-t-il un frère dans cette assistance ?

Noooooon ! Repartit toute l’assistance avec encore plus de force (LVNM,
167).

TT: ‘Has the white man a brother in this company?’

‘Nooooooooooo!’ the whole company rejoined more loudly than ever
(TOMM, 150).

In this expression (vii), the vowel sound of the French word ‘non’ has been
lengthened to produce a strong negative response to the speaker’s question. Just
like in the previous example, this expression portrays the aspects of public speaking
in the author’s native culture, as well as the bitterness that the people feel against the
white colonial authority. The response indicates a rejection of the French policy of
assimilation, which was supposed to create fraternity between the French and the
people from their colonies. Reed translated the expression by using an English
equivalent in which the vowel sound of the word ‘no’ is lengthened, and it could be
said that this enabled him to preserve the content and effect of the original
expression.

viii) ST: – Aaaaaaaaaaagathaaaaaa ! … C’est ainsi que Binama comme un

muezzin, appela sa femme depuis la case à palabres (LVNM, 68).

131
 - Ououououououoiiiii! … répondit-elle (LVNM, 68).

TT : ‘Aaaaaaaaaaagathaaaaaa! …’ This was how Binama, like a muezzin,

called his wife from the indaba hut (TOMM, 58).
‘Yeeess! …’ She replied (TOMM, 58).

This example (viii) portrays the nature of communication in the Oyono’s Bulu culture.
In this case, Binama is calling out to his wife from a distant, and the wife responds in
the same manner. As such, the vowels in the name ‘Agatha’ have been lengthened,
as well as those in the French response word ‘oui’, which means ‘yes’ in English. The
lengthening of the words indicates the pitch of the speakers as they try to make their
distant listener hear them. In the translation, Reed maintained the lengthening in the
name ‘Agatha’ as it is in the original, given that the name also exists in the English
culture. He also recreated the lengthening of the word ‘oui’ by lengthening the
English equivalent ‘yes’. His translation therefore preserves the content and effect of
the source text in the target texts.

ix) ST: De Gaulle, j’arrive, cria-t-elle, J’aaaariiriiiiive … (LVNM, 72).

TT: ‘De Gaulle, I’m coming,’ she shrieked, ‘I’m cooooooming’ (TOMM,
62).

This example (ix) is similar to the previous one in that it reflects a situation in which
someone is pitching his or her voice in order to talk to another person in a distant
location. In this case Agatha is talking to her son from a distance. The vowels in the
French word ‘j’arrive’ have thus been lengthened to pitch the voice so as to carry her
message to her son. Reed recreated the lengthened expression by lengthening the
first vowel of the English word ‘come’. This has ensured that the author’s cultural
world view and the source text effect are preserved in the translation. I therefore
contend that Reed’s action in this case was influenced by the target readers’
expected reception of the translation.

In conclusion, in translating the ideophones and expressive lengthenings of

Oyono’s source texts, Reed recreated them in a way that preserved the cultural world
view of the author, as well as the effect of the source texts. This implies that Reed
was most influenced by the target readers’ expected reception of the translation.
Given that the target readership is a factor of the field of literary production
(Bourdieu, 2002), I would argue that his actions in this regard were influenced by the

132
literary field in which he worked. There was, however, a case of inconsistency in his
translation decision, which underscores the complex nature of translation
phenomena. This implies that a complexity approach is required for a comprehensive
understanding of translation action.

5.3.2.4 Forms of address

One aspect of Oyono’s use of culture-bound forms is in his use of terms of address.
In many societies, the words used to address people are embedded in the cultural
norms of the societies in question because they reflect the custom of human
relationships in the specific cultures (Kruger, 2012:193). Oyono thus uses words that
are specific to his Bulu culture, as well as those brought into the culture by the
colonial system. Examples of culture-bound forms of address used by Oyono are
analysed below. The source text (ST) words again are followed by literal translations
(LT) before the target text renditions (TT), to give a clear understanding of the
translator’s strategies in the transfer process:

i) ST: Je n’aime pas les histoires, petit (LVNM, 13).

LT: I don’t like trouble, little one.
TT: ‘I don’t like these scenes, dearie (TOMM, 6).

The term above (i) comes from ‘petit frère’, which means ‘little brother’ and it is used
to address a younger person in an affectionate manner. Mami Titi uses it to soften up
the young man who is reluctant to give up his seat to an older man. In his translation,
Reed opted for an equivalent endearing word in English, and it could be argued that
this is because the original word is more of French than Bulu, and the translator did
not see the need to export this cultural world view as he did in other cases involving
the author’s Bulu culture. He therefore chose an English equivalent that would enable
him to produce a text that would be easy for the target readers to understand, while
at the same time preserving the cajoling function of the original word.

ii) ST: Dans la tribu des Yemvams, il est mon beau-frère par mon beau-
frère (LVNM, 27).
LT: In the tribe of the Yemvams, he is my brother-in-law by my brother-in-
law.

TT: In the Yemvams tribe, he is my brother-in-law by my brother-in-law

(TOMM, 20).

133
The expression in this case (ii) is used to address a person who comes from the
same village or community as one’s spouse. Meka uses it to refer to someone who
comes from the same village as his brother-in-law. The expression indicates the
nature of family relationship in Oyono’ Bulu culture, where the concept of family is
quite extended. The use of the expression may not be easy for a reader not exposed
to the African context to understand, as it is shrouded in the oral tradition of the
author’s culture (Bandia, 2008; Batchelor, 2009; Gyasi, 2003). Reed translated the
expression in a literal way so that the local colour and the way of life of the author’s
culture are preserved in the target text; this aligned his translation with the logos of
literary productions of African authors writing in European languages.

iii) ST: Passants ! venez partager notre modeste repas, cria-t-il (LVNM, 66).
LT: ‘Passers-by! come and share our humble meal’, he shouted.
TT: ‘Travelers! Come and share our humble meal,’ he called (TOMM, 56).

The expression (iii) is used to address a passer-by. In this case, Binama is calling out
to the people he sees passing by his house to come and share their food. This shows
the spirit of solidarity prevalent in Oyono’s culture. One does not need to know
someone before inviting him or her over for a meal, for everyone is supposed to be
nice to any other person in the community. In the translation, Reed chose ‘travelers’,
instead of using the English word ‘passers-by’. It could be said that the reason for
this is that ‘passers-by’ would have made the word very ‘English’, thereby
neutralising the author’s local colour contained in the original. Also, ‘travelers’ is more
appropriate in this case because the people in question are actually travelling on a
long journey, and not just neighbours who are passing by the speaker’s house. The
second reason is further justified in Reed’s translation of a variant of the same form
of address later in the same novel: ‘O homme qui passe!’ (LVNM, 177). Here, he
translated it as ‘O man that passes.’ I would therefore contend that his preference for
‘travelers’ in this case enabled him to make meaning clearer, while at the same time
preserving the cultural world view of the source text in his translation.

iv) ST: O homme ami ! que la tienne soit aussi bonne ! répondit le passant …
(LVNM, 177).

LT: O man friend! May yours also be good, replied the passer-by.
TT: ‘O man who is a friend, may yours also be good,’ said the man
(TOMM, 157).
134
This expression (iv) is used to address a man that someone meets on his way. It
again portrays the social cohesion prevalent in the author’s culture in the sense that
the word ‘friend’ is used on someone that is not known to the speaker. Engamba
uses it in this case to address the man he meets on his way. Reed used a
foreignising strategy in the translation, and it could be argued that this enabled him to
faithfully represent the author’s cultural world view in the target text, and also
ensured that his translation was aligned with the poetics of the African literary field in
which he was working.

Another example of Oyono’s use of culture-specific forms of address can be seen

in the use of French titles as in the following cases: M. Kobbingôlôm (LVNM, 27);
M. Foucouni (LVNM, 54); M. Janopoulos (UVB, 39); and M. Moreau (UVB, 70).
The ‘M.’ attached to the names is the abbreviated form of the French title ‘Monsieur’.
Reed maintained the French title in his translation as follows: M. Kobbingôlom
(TOMM, 20); M. Foucouni (TOMM, 45); M. Janopoulos (HB, 27); and M. Moreau
(HB, 60). Reed thus opted to preserve the French title instead of using its English
equivalent ‘Mister’ and its abbreviation ‘Mr.’ This choice enabled the translation to
preserve the class difference which is more expressed in the French ‘Monsieur’ than
in the English ‘Mister’. This is further demonstrated in the case where Toundi is
addressed as ‘Monsieur Toundi’ (UVB, 85/97) by his boss’ wife, which Reed also
translates as ‘Monsieur Toundi’ (HB, 80/94). Toundi is warned by his fellow African
that when a white person starts addressing an African with such an honorific title, it
means that trouble is brewing for the African in question.

One could therefore argue that Reed translated the French titles in a way that
preserves the portraiture of the class difference that exist in the source texts between
the white colonialists and the Africans, and which was a dominant theme of African
literature (Batchelor, 2009), which implies that his actions in translating French titles
were thus influenced by the norms of the literary field in which he worked.

In conclusion, I would argue that Reed’s translations of the forms of address

used by Oyono was influenced by the field in which he worked, as his choices
enabled him to faithfully represent the author’s cultural world view in the target texts.

135
5.3.2.5 Use of vernacular words and expressions

African writers in European languages are known to use words from their native
languages. These writers resort to code-mixing and code-switching when words or
expressions do not have equivalents in the European languages and are also
untranslatable into the languages of their writings (Bandia, 2008:109). Code-mixing is
when a foreign word is introduced into an utterance, which code-switching is when a
speaker introduces a foreign expression into his/her speech (Bandia, 1996). Given
that the use of such indigenous words may pose a problem of understanding to a
foreign reader, some authors do resort to cushioning, which is a strategy in which the
meaning of the words is explained in context or by footnotes or endnotes (Suh,
2005:147). In UVB and LVNM, Ferdinand Oyono has used words from his native
Bulu language to refer to local concepts that cannot be translated, and also to
preserve the cultural identity of his Community. Examples of Oyono’s use of his
native Bulu words and their translations are analysed below:

i) ST: Accroupis sur les talons, assis sur des cases vides, ils sirotaient leur
arki tout en causant bruyamment (LVNM, 12).
TT: They squatted on their heels or sat on packing cases, sipping their arki
and talking boisterously (TOMM, 6).

The word is the name of the indigenous gin that is enjoyed by the local community.
The brewing and consumption of this drink is banned by the colonial authority and
the Christian church, but the people continue to brew and enjoy it clandestinely. It
becomes a symbol of cultural resistance by which the people resist the colonial
attempt to kill their culture. In his translation, Reed maintained the same native word
in the target text to ensure that the cultural world view of the source text is preserved
in the translation. I thus believe that his action in this case was influenced by the
poetics of the African literary field in which he worked.

ii) ST: Massés à proximité du Cercle européen, nous nous sommes

éparpillés dans les massifs d’essessongos (UVB, 40).
TT: Massed near the European Club we were beginning to infiltrate into the
clump of essessongo trees (HB, 27).

The highlighted word in this case refers to ‘elephant grass’. The grass has some
traditional significance to the author’s culture as it is seen in the case where Meka
uses it to ward off ill luck (LVNM, 142). It is probably because of this traditional role of
136
the grass that the author prefers to use a native word to express it. Reed also
maintained the word in his translation to recreate the author’s cultural world view in
the target texts, but added the word, ‘tree’ to his translation, which does not exist in
the original word. It could be said that this addition was as a result of Reed
misinterpreting the concept in the source text to mean that essessongo is a tree, and
not a grass, which is what the original word refers to. I would argue that this
misinterpretation of the source text meaning was due to Reed’s lack of sufficient
exposure to the cultural settings of the source text, which would have enabled him to
grasp the full meaning of the concept (Bandia, 2008). This implies that his experience
working in the African literary field was not enough to endow him with the habitus
necessary to fully grasp the logos of African literature in European languages.

iii) ST: Son ombre se projeta sur le mur lézardé de l’aba ou couraient deux
araignées (UVB, 22).
TT: His shadow was thrown on to the cracked wall of the aba. Two spiders
were running over it (HB, 5).

The word in this case refers to the traditional hut. Oyono’s use of the word is again
his desire to valorise the world view of his native Bulu culture. In this case, the
meaning of the word is left to be guessed from the accompanying lexical items ‘mur
lézardé’ which means ‘cracked wall’. Reed has carried over the same Bulu word in
his translation and this had the impact of recreating the native Bulu culture of the
author that is valorised in the source text. It could therefore be argued that Reed’s
translation in this case was influenced by the poetics of the literary field, as he
preserved the source text style as well as the inherent world view expressed by the
author.

iv) ST: Les Blancs regardaient les danseurs de bilaba (UVB, 53).

TT: The white men were watching the bilaba dancers (HB, 41).

The highlighted word in this example refers to a traditional Bulu dance. Oyono uses it
to portray the traditional ways of life in his Bulu culture. In this case, he uses a
footnote to explain the type of dance in question, thereby helping the reader to easily
understand the text. The use of a footnote to clarify meaning in this case is probably
to avoid the ambiguity that may arise from the word, since it may refer to a song, an
instrument or a dance. In his translation, Reed carried across the same Bulu word,

137
and it could be said that this enabled him to recreate the same cultural world view of
the source text in his translation. He equally used a footnote to explain the meaning
of the word.

v) ST: Eh bien, Meka, aurait pu leur faire voir qu’il em … la médaille qu’on
allait lui donner en se présentant là-bas … tout simplement avec … un
bila ! (LVNM, 185).

TT: Well, Meka could have shown them what they could do with the medal
they were going to give him – by turning up – with nothing on … except a
bila! (TOMM, 165).

In this example, the highlighted word refers to a cache-sexe in the author’s native
language. Here Engamba is creating humour in suggesting that Meka would have
disrespected the whites by going for his medal award ceremony dressed in nothing
but a cache-sexe, so that the white administrator would have been forced to stoop to
pin the medal on the cache-sexe. The author also uses a footnote in this case to
explain the meaning of the word. Although it is humorous, Oyono uses this instance
to pass across the message that the Africans have always been the ones bowing to
Western cultural assimilation, and it would be good if the situation could be reversed.
The white man stooping to pin a medal on a traditional cache-sexe would thus
symbolise a situation in which a white man respects African tradition. This implies
that the word does not only portray the cultural world view, but also an ideological
one. Reed uses the same word in his translation, and also includes a footnote to
explain the meaning of the word. It could be said that his intention was to preserve
the ideological and cultural world views of the author. This aligned his translation with
the norms of the African literary field in which writers use language as means with
which to express the cultural and ideological world views of their local communities.

vi) ST: Pour eux, je n’étais plus que le «Ngovina ya ngal a ves zut bisalak
a be metua» (UVB, 102).

TT: ‘For them I was «Ngovina ya ngal a ves zut bisalak a be metua»
(HB, 98).

This example involves the author’s use of code-switching. The incidence occurs
when the commandant is confronting his wife about her extra-marital affair. He tells
her that the natives are all aware of the affair and are mocking him in their language.
Oyono uses cushioning to explain that the Bulu words mean ‘the Commandant

138
whose wife opens her legs in ditches and in cars’. By using this code-switching,
Oyono seeks to portray the fact that the commandant has been brought down from
his high status to the same level as the natives as a result of his wife’s behaviour.
Reed maintained the code-switching in the translation, thereby preserving the cultural
world view source text author. His action, I believe, was thus influenced by the
African literary field in which he was working.

In conclusion, in translating the native Bulu words that Oyono uses in UVB and
LVNM, Reed maintained the same words in the target texts, thereby ensuring that
the cultural and ideological world views of the author are preserved. He did this
consistently for all the instances of the use of native words, except for the case of
essessongo, where his misinterpretation of the word led to a mistranslation in the
target text. His actions were thus constrained by factors of the literary field in which
he worked, except for the case of essessongo, where his decision was influenced by
his individual habitus.

5.3.2.6 Distorted words

In UVB and LVNM, there are a number of words that have been distorted from their
real forms. The function of this distortion is to provide humour, but also to show the
failure of the Western colonial authority to impose foreign concepts on the Africans.
The Africans find it difficult to pronounce the words in French as they are supposed
to be, and they therefore distort them in a way that makes them more natural to the
phonetic system of their native language. This implies that such words are culture-
bound, as they cannot be understood out of the specific cultural context of their
usage. Below are examples of Oyono’s use of distorted words followed by their
translations:

i) ST: Après le ‹‹kanon›› et la ‹‹mistayette››, la bombe à fumée ! (LVNM,

29).

TT: First the gun, then the machine gun and now the smoke bomb!
(TOMM, 22).

The first words are a distorted form of the French word ‘canon’, in which the speaker
makes the [k] sound stronger than in the original word, as a result of the influence of
his native language. The author thus uses the letter ‘k’ instead of the ‘c’ to mark this
difference in the pronunciation of the sound. The second word is a distortion of the

139
French word ‘mitraillette’, which means ‘machine gun’. The first thing that stands out
in Reed’s translation is that ‘canon’ is translated as ‘gun’. In my view, the translator
preferred this word to the direct equivalent ‘cannon’ because it would not fit well in
the gradation of items listed in the expression. The speaker is talking about how
white people keep upgrading the weapons they manufacture to more dangerous
levels, and the translation portrays that ascending gradation more than the original.
Given that the weapons in question are of Western origin, it is my contention that
Reed’s habitus as a European influenced his interpretation of the original text as a
misrepresentation of ‘cannon’ and ‘gun’, which led him to opt for the latter in the
translation.

Another important aspect of Reed’s translation of these distorted words is that he

neutralised the distortions in the target text, thereby neutralising the humour, as well
as the cultural clash contained in the original words. It could be said that his choice in
this case was because by reproducing the same distortion in the target text, readers
would not have understood the meaning behind the distorted words, given that
sounds at the root of the distortions are not the same in the target text words as in
the original. He therefore opted to translate the words in a way that would be
understood by readers of the target system.

ii) ST: C’est là que j’ai rencontré M. Kobbingôlôm, mon acheteur de cacao
habituel (LVNM, 27).

TT: There I met M. Kobbingôlôm, who is my usual cocoa buyer

(TOMM, 20).

The distortion in this case has to do with a European name which is mispronounced
by the speaker. The original name is the Greek name ‘Krominoupoulos’. The author
uses a footnote to clarify the real name, since it is foreign to the source text readers.
Reed’s translation maintains the original distortion, which in my view was because
the original word is also foreign to English, so the distortion can apply to the target
language of the translation. His use of footnotes also ensures that the target readers
of the translation get the same understanding of the name as the author intended the
source text readers to do.

iii) ST: … Meka donna son prénom ‹‹Laurent›› qu’il prononçait ‹‹Roron›› et
que le brigadier écrivit ‹‹Roro›› sur répétition de son second (LVNM, 142).

140
 TT: … Meka gave his christian name, Lawrence, which he pronounced
‘Roron’ and which the sergeant wrote Roro at the dictation of his assistant
(TOMM, 127).

Here, Meka cannot pronounce the name ‘Laurent’ he was given at baptism, and this
shows the failure of the French colonial attempt to assimilate Africans into French
culture. In his translation, Reed maintained the distortion, thereby preserving the
humour. He, however, translated the real name ‘Laurent’ with its English equivalent
‘Lawrence’, and this affects the way the distortion is created with the final vowel. The
final vowel in ‘Laurent’ is rounded, while it is spread in ‘Lawrence’. It is thus difficult to
see how the spread vowel leads to the round vowel in the distortion. It could,
however, be argued that Reed was more interested in giving the target readers the
same humour and sarcasm of the source text, and this made him to ignore the
discrepancy between the translated name and its distortion.

iv) ST: C’est le vin d’honneu’, mon commandant, dit-il avec un large sourire,
le vin d’honneu’ seulement (LVNM, 55).

TT: ‘It is the drinks sah’, he said with a wide smile. ‘Just the drinks …
(TOMM, 47).

In this case, the speaker mispronounces the French word ‘honneur’. The term ‘vin
d’honneur’ refers to the drinks that are served to special guests at an event in French
culture. The speaker’s distortion of the word again indicates the failure of the French
colonial system to assimilate Africans into the French culture. Reed’s translation
neutralises the distortion as Reed opted for the English word ‘drinks’. This is probably
because there is no equivalent concept of ‘vin d’honneur’ in the English culture. It
can, however, be observed that Reed used a Pidgin word ‘sah’ to translate ‘mon
commandant’, instead of the English equivalent ‘sir’, and it could be said that his
intention was to compensate for the loss of the distortion by introducing a word that
portrays the speaker’s inability to speak the European language fluently. I would
therefore argue that Reed’s translation ensures that the language distortion in the
source text has been preserved in the target text.

v) ST: Sampagne! dit-il (LVNM, 55).

TT: ‘Sampagne! he said (TOMM, 47).

141
Just like in the previous example, the speaker in this case mispronounces the word
‘champagne’. It can be observed that Reed used the same distorted word in his
translation, and it could be said that this was made easy by the fact that the English
word is actually borrowed from French and its pronunciation maintains the initial
French consonant [ʃ] instead of using [ʧ], which would be more natural in English. I
would therefore argue that by using the same sound to recreate the distortion of the
source text, Reed’s intention was to ensure that the nature of the distortion and its
effect on the reader are preserved in the target text.

vi) ST: En avant, marsssse! Commanda l’homme (UVB, 51).

TT: ‘Forward marsss!’ ordered the man (HB, 40).

In this case the guard mispronounces the French word ‘marche’, which means ‘to
march’ in English. The guard is giving an order to the pupils to ‘march’ during the
reception of the commandant. In the translation, Reed maintained the
mispronunciation of the source text word. However, the distortion may be more
difficult to be understood in the translation, given that the source text sound from
which the distortion is made [ʃ] is closer to [s] than it is to the target text sound [ʧ].
One could argue that Reed saw that this would not affect the target text readers’
ability to understand the original word from which the distortion emerged, because
the discrepancy is minimised by the context described by the word. This implies that
his intention was to ensure that the target readers get the same effect of humour as
the source texts readers.

vii) ST: Pour faire singe, il n’y a que missié! dit Sophie en s’esclaffant (UVB,
56).

TT: ‘No one can pull faces like Monsieur,’ said Sophie shrieking with
laughter (HB, 45).

In this example, Sophie mispronounces the French title ‘Monsieur’ when talking
about her white lover. The English equivalent of the title is ‘Sir’ or ‘Mister’. Reed
chose to use the original French word in the translation, thereby neutralising the
distortion that appears in the original. Reed’s choice in this case is difficult to explain
as it is not consistent with the other ways he has translated distorted words. One
would have expected him to use the English equivalent as he did in the examples (i)
and (iv) discussed above, or he would have maintained the French distortion as he

142
did in the other examples that have been analysed. This example underscores the
question of the ability of translators to be consistent with a particular approach during
the process of a translation activity, which implies that causality in translation action
is complex in nature (Marais 2014).

viii) ST: Pli d’arcol … dit-il en posant bruyamment le bocal sur la table, pli
d’arcol … (UVB, 120).

TT: ‘Some more arcoo,’ he said, ‘some more arcoo’ (HB, 120).

In this case, the medical doctor mispronounces the French words ‘plus’ and ‘alcool’,
which means ‘more’ and ‘alcohol’ in English, respectively. The irony here is that one
would not expect a medical doctor who has been educated in the Western tradition to
mispronounce words in the same way as the uneducated villagers have been doing.
The author in this case intends to portray the extent to which the French assimilatory
policy has failed, as even those Africans educated in the Western system have not
fully fitted into their cultural system. In the translation, Reed recreated the distortion
by distorting the word ‘alcohol’, while leaving the words ‘some more’ in their original
forms. It could be said that this recreation enabled him to maintain the cultural
backlash and humour that are evoked in the original, thereby ensuring that the
author’s world view is maintained in the target text.

It can thus be concluded that in translating the distorted words used by Oyono in
UVB and LVNM, Reed’s actions were predominantly influenced by the field in which
he worked, as his choices enabled him to recreate the distortions in a way that the
target readers would understand, and the author’s cultural world view would be
preserved.

5.3.2.7 Invectives

Invectives are insults which are expressed in the form of verbal denunciation or
attack using acerbic and abusive language (Kodah, 2012:1). They are a
manifestation of verbal hostility and the meaning of the words used to express the
insults, are usually context-bound. This implies that an invective may not be
understood out of its cultural context. Oyono makes use of invectives in UVB and
LVNM to portray situations of hostility between the characters of his novels. Some of
the instances of the use of invectives in the novels are analysed below:

143
 i) ST: Qu’est-ce qu’il se croyait, ce petit-fils de pygmées ? (LVNM, 122).

LT: Who did he think he was, this grandson of pygmies?

TT: Who did he think he was, this grandson of the pygmies? (TOMM,
109).

This insult is expressed during the reception that follows Meka’s medal award. One
of the servants to the white administrator asks the Africans to drink responsibly and
this provokes the anger of the speaker who throws insults at him. The pygmies are a
forest-dwelling community neighbouring the Bulu people in the south of Cameroon.
They are marginalised and stigmatised because of their attachment to nature and
their physical appearance. Addressing someone as the grandson of the pygmies is
therefore an insult that would only be understood within the context of the
relationship between the Bulus and the pygmies. Reed used a foreignising approach
in translating the invective, and it could be said that his intention was to preserve the
cultural world view of the source text author in the target text, while at the same time
fitting into the poetics of the literary system into which he was translating.

ii) ST: Nos oreilles ne souffriront plus des paroles d’un esclave, un chien
d’esclaves (LVNM, 122).

LT: Our ears will no longer suffer from the words of a slave, a dog of
slaves

TT: Now our ears will no longer suffer the words of a slave, the dog of a
slave (TOMM, 110).

The insult in this example takes place at the same scene as the previous example.
One of the speakers also insults the servant as the dog of a slave. This portrays the
class system in the Bulu culture, in which slaves used to be considered as the lowest
class of people. The image of a dog is also portrayed here to be that of an animal
which is held in very low esteem by human beings. Calling someone a dog would
therefore indicate that the person has no value. It is even worse when someone is
called the dog of a slave. Reed translated the expression literally, and I would argue
that this maintains the denigrating sense of the insult and also preserves Oyono’s
Bulu cultural world view that is expressed in the source text.

iii) ST: Lève-toi ! Cochon malade! (LVNM, 137).

LT: Get up! Sick pig!

144
 TT: Get up you pig! (TOMM, 122).

This invective is uttered by the guard who arrests Meka after the medal award
ceremony. When Meka falls as a result of the forceful way in which he is handled, the
guard insultingly asks him to get up. Reed omitted the qualifier ‘sick’ in his
translation, and it could be said that even though the effect of the invective is still
preserved in the target text, the omission alleviates the intensity of the insult. Could
Reed have been aiming for fluency, and if so, what makes the translation more fluent
that the source text in this case? I would contend that Reed omitted the source text
qualifier in his translation because his primary intention was to ensure that the target
text preserved the effect of the invectives, and not to translate every element of the
source text expression. His target readers would therefore get the same effect on the
invective in this case as the source text readers did, even though they would miss out
on some details of the source text.

iv) ST: Ô rat qui profite d’une nuit d’orage pour piller le quartier européen!
(LVNM, 138).
LT: Oh rat which takes advantage of a stormy night to loot the European
neighbourhood.
TT: You have used the storm as a cover to come loot the European area.
(TOMM, 123).

This example takes place at the same scene as in the previous example. The same
guard continues to insult Meka by calling him a rat who has come to steal in the white
neighbourhood. In his translation, Reed omitted the insult completely, and it can be
observed that this intervention on the part of the translator gives a different message
to the target text reader than what is given to the source text reader. Omission as a
translation strategy is used when something in the source text is considered
irrelevant in the target text by the translator (Chesterman, 2016). Could it then be
said that Reed considered the invective in the source text as irrelevant to the
message? I would argue that the insult in the source text is an important part of the
message, and its omission would make the target readers to miss out on the effect
that the invective that would have been felt by the source text reader. Reed’s
decision in this case could therefore only be an indication of inconsistency on his
part, and this highlights the fact that translators are not always consistent with the
norms they set out to follow, as the factors that constrain their actions are complex in
nature (Marais, 2014).
145
 v) ST: Meka le traita de fils des règles (LVNM, 148).

LT: Meka called him a son of menses.

TT: Meka called him a child of the woman’s curse (TOMM, 133).

The invective is expressed by Meka when he is locked up in the police cell. This
insult reflects the belief system of the author’s Bulu community regarding
menstruation, which is considered a period during which it would be abominable for a
child to be conceived. ‘Menstruation’ does not appear in the translation as Reed
opted to replace it with the expression ‘the woman’s curse’. Unlike other cases in
which Reed’s decisions have been to make meaning clearer in the target texts, it
could be argued that this translation instead makes meaning less clear as the reader
is likely to wonder what the woman’s curse is that the text is referring to. I would
contend that Reed’s decision was influenced by his desire to neutralise the vulgarity
expressed by the original word by using a less vulgar word, so as to give the target
readers a more politically correct translation. This implies that this choice was
influenced by his opinion of what was proper or improper to say and had nothing to
do with the poetics of the African literary field, in which writers did not shy away from
vulgar expressions. In Bourdieusian terms, one would say that his action was
influenced by his individual habitus, in the sense that his avoidance of vulgar
expressions could be said to be the result of how his social background had shaped
his perception of what was decent or indecent.

vi) ST: Espèce de fainéant ! de paresseux ! cria Madame (UVB, 79).

LT: species of an idler! Of a loafer!
TT: Idle creature! You lazy idle loafer! Shrieked Madame (HB, 73).

The invectives in this case are more of standard French origin, but whose meaning is
easy to understand in the African cultural context. In this incidence, the wife of the
colonial administrator finds her laundry man asleep and pours insults on him. The
situation is aggravated by the fact that she is bitter because she knows that all her
servants are aware of her extramarital affair. In this translation, it can be observed
that Reed preserved the message of the first part of the insult, while adding more
meaning to the message of the second part. The first part could thus be said to be a
faithful representation of the source text message. It can, however, be observed that
Reed combined three different words of insults to translate what is just one insult in

146
the original. Any of the words lazy, idle or loafer could have been used to translate
the French word ‘paresseux’, but Reed combined them, and it could be argued that
this makes the invective in his translation stronger than that expressed in the original.
I would argue that Reed’s decision in this case was motivated by his intention to
produce a translation that was fluent to the target readers, while preserving the effect
of the source text, given that a literal one might have minimised the effect of the
invective.

In conclusion, Reed’s translation of invectives in UVB and LVNM indicates that

he was influenced by both the literary field, which enabled him to preserve the
cultural world view of the source texts, and also by his individual habitus, which
influenced his interventions in the texts in a way that makes some of the target text
messages to be different from those of the source texts.

5.3.2.8 Semantic shifts

According to Bandia (2008:102), a semantic shift is a situation in which “a European-

language word is assigned a new meaning that can only be understood within the
native African context in which it is used”. This implies that the new meaning of the
European language words are no longer native to their European native speakers, as
they have been indigenised into the semantic realities of the African speaker’s native
language. This form of language use is characteristic of African literature in European
languages, in which African writers adapt European languages to express their
African thoughts (Vakunta, 2011). Such is the case with Ferdinand Oyono, who has
indigenised French Words and expressions into his Bulu context in order to convey
his cultural world view. Below are instances of the use of semantic shifts in UVB and
LVNM, and their translations by John Reed. The source text (ST) expressions are
followed by literal translations (LT) before the target text renditions (TT), so as to give
a clear understanding of the translator’s strategies in the transfer process:

i) ST: Comme aujourd’hui, c’était la journée des palabres, reprit Meka, la

véranda de la Résidence était pleine quand j’y suis arrivé (LVNM, 25).

LT: As today was the day of deliberations, Meka went on, the veranda of
the Residence was crowded when I got there.

TT: ‘As it is the day for indaba’, Meka went on, ‘the veranda of the
Residence was crowded when I got there” (TOMM, 18).

147
This highlighted expression refers to the day when the village or community council
meets. This meaning can only be understood in an African context, for the word
‘palabre’ in French simply means ‘endless discussion’. The word has thus been
localised to refer to something that is culture-bound within the speaker’s community.
In the translation, Reed used the word ‘indaba’, which is a Zulu word to translate
‘palabre’. ‘Indaba’ is the direct equivalent of ‘palabre’ as used in the source text, but it
cannot be understood by a target reader out of Southern Africa. This implies that the
translation could create confusion in the minds of readers who might not understand
the meaning of ‘indaba’, especially as there are no footnotes or annotations (Appiah,
1993/2004) to explain the word. Reed’s use of the word could have been influenced
by the fact that he lived in Southern Africa for many years and was thus exposed to
the concept of indaba. It could therefore be argued that his action in this case was
influenced by his individual habitus, given that his interpretation of the source text
was informed by the past experiences he had been exposed to, and which were
contributing to shaping his perception of the reality he faced at the time of the
translation.

ii) ST: Un rat-panthère s’échappa d’un fourré, traversa la piste à toute allure
et disparut dans un buisson (LVNM, 157).

LT: A rat-panther escaped from a thicket, ran across the path and
disappeared into a bush.

TT: A panther-rat ran out of a thicket, darted across the path and
vanished into a bush (TOMM, 141).

In this case, two French words ‘rat’ and ‘panther’ have been blended to refer to an
animal in the author’s cultural context. The word may thus not be understood out of
the author’s context of usage, since he has adapted it to express his cultural world
view. Reed adopted a literal approach in the translation, and it could be said that this
enabled him to align his translation with the African literary field by faithfully
representing the source text concept, thereby preserving the author’s cultural world
view.

iii) ST: Pour apprécier le rat palmiste cuit à la citronnelle, aux aubergines
sauvages et aux piments comme celui-ci, il faut le manger sans autre
chose (LVNM, 82).

LT: To appreciate palm rat cooked with lemongrass and wild egg-fruit
and peppers like this you must eat it by itself
148
 TT: To appreciate palm-squirrel cooked a la citronelle with wild egg-fruit
and pimentoes like this you must eat it by itself (TOMM, 71).

The term in this case refers to a culinary item in the author’s culture, which consists
of an edible rodent prepared with lemongrass. Food items are culture-bound in the
sense that different cultures have different culinary traditions which do not always
have equivalences in other cultures. In other words, even though this item is written
in French, a native French speaker would not understand it as it has been localised
in the author’s native culture. In the translation, the name of the rodent, rat palmiste,
is translated by the use of the equivalent term in English, palm-squirrel; but the
French term cooked à la citronelle, which refers to the spice used in the cooking, is
maintained in the target text. One could thus say that Reed’s translation introduced a
foreign expression in the target text, which was not present in the original. I would
argue that the reason for translating the term in this way was because the translator
wanted to maintain the attractiveness of the dish, which could have been lost with the
use of the English equivalent ‘cooked with lemongrass’. He therefore opted for an
exotic term that would preserve the attractiveness of the dish as expressed in the
original text. This implies that he wanted the target readers to respond to the
translation in the same way as the source text readers could have done (Nida and
Taber, 1969).

iv) ST: Il comprenait deux gâteaux de maïs bien croustillants, une pâte de
concombre et un morceau de vieille vipère cuite à point (LVNM, 33).
LT: It consisted of two very crisp maize cakes, cucumber paste and a
piece of well-cooked left-over viper.
TT: It consisted of two very crisp maize cakes, cucumber paste and a
scrap of left-over viper, cooked to perfection (TOMM, 26).

This example also has to do with a food item. The word refers to a local dish made of
mashed maize that is wrapped in banana leaves and then cooked until it boils
(Awung, 2014:27). Reed translated it literally, which may be misleading to the target
text reader who could actually interpret the term as a baked dish, just like a cake is
baked in the Western tradition. Reed’s action in this case could be explained by the
fact that he did not have enough exposure to the cultural context of the source text
author in order to understand the meaning of the term. He thus interpreted it based
on the European concept of ‘cake’, thereby misrepresenting the author’s cultural
world view in his translation. This implies that his action was influenced by his social

149
background as a European whose experiences in the African literary field were not
enough for him to fully grasp the way African writers used European languages in
their works.

v) ST: Attendez la boule de banane, dit Kelara (LVNM, 82).

LT: Wait for the banana ball’, said Kelara.
TT: ‘Wait for the banana dumplings’, said Kelara (TOMM, 71).

This example equally refers to a local food item in the author’s Bulu tradition, which is
a dish of mashed bananas that is served with sauce. In the translation, Reed
translated ‘boule’ with the English word ‘dumplings’. It can be observed that while the
two words may be similar with regard to the shape of the item, they do not refer to
the same thing. The target text word in English refers to something that is baked,
while the food item in the source text is boiled and then mashed. The translation thus
gives the impression that the item in question is some kind of banana pastry, which is
not the case. It could be argued that Reed’s interpretation in this case was again
influenced by his sociocultural background, which led him to misunderstand the world
view of the source text author.

vi) ST: C’était l’heure de repas habituel de bâtons de manioc au poisson

(UVB, 19).

LT: It was time for the usual meal of fish and cassava batons.

TT: It was the time of the day for the customary meal of fish and cassava
sticks (HB, 1).

The highlighted term is also a local food item in the author’s culture. It refers to a
local dish of cassava paste wrapped in banana leaves in the shape of a baton and
cooked (Awung, 2014:27). Reed’s translation could be said to be misleading to the
target reader in that the term ‘cassava sticks’ may give the impression that the
people in the novel were eating the sticks or stems of cassava plants. I would argue
this mistranslation was again caused by Reed’s insufficient exposure to the author’s
cultural setting, which left him with only his European sociocultural background as the
lens to interpret the world view of the source text author.

In conclusion, it could be argued that in translating French terms depicting local

items in the author’s culture, Reed’s actions were constrained by his individual
habitus, as he relied on his European sociocultural background to interpret the world
150
view of the source texts author. This led to him making decisions that portray a
different picture in the target texts from what the reality is in the source texts.

5.3.2.9 Proper names

The translation of names can be a challenging task because of the cultural

implications attached to them (Fernandes, 2006; Tymoczko, 2016). According to
Tymoczko (2016:223), names should not be taken as “islands of repose”, which
should be carried across to the target text without any changes, given that there are
semantic, semiotic, and phonological implications imbedded in names. This implies
that the common practice of leaving source text names unchanged in translation may
lead to misrepresentations in the target text. It is within this context that the strategies
that Reed used in translating proper names in UVB and LVNM were analysed.

In translating the names of people and places, it can be observed that Reed
maintained most of the source text names in the translation as can be seen in the
following examples: Akomo (UVB,19; HB, 1); M’foula (UVB, 20; HB, 2); Toundi
(UVB, 24; HB, 9); Dangan (UVB, 28; HB, 14); Meka (LVNM, 9; TOMM, 3); Kelara
(LVNM, 9; TOMM, 3); Doum (LVNM, 16; TOMM, 10); Zourian (LVNM, 46; TOMM,
38); Moreau (UVB, 70; HB, 60); Salvain (UVB, 62; HB, 52); and Foucouni (LVNM,
54; TOMM, 45). It could be argued that Reed’s strategy in this case ensured that the
cultural setting of the world of the source text authorwas preserved in the
translations. When it comes to Western, or baptismal, names of African characters,
Reed translated them by using English equivalents as in the cases of Ignace (LVNM,
21), translated as Ignatius (TOMM, 14), and Laurent (LVNM, 142), translated as
Laurence (TOMM, 127). It could be said that the effect of this choice is that it makes
it easier for the target readers to identify with the Christian names in English to better
grasp the assimilatory aspect of Western religion.

One could, however, argue that Reed’s translations lead to the phonological
misrepresentation of some of the names, given that the same orthography does not
produce the same sounds in English and French. This is particularly noticeable in the
letter combination ‘ou’ which gives the sound [u], but which is more likely to give the
sound [au] in English. Reed admitted to this misrepresentation in the interview by
acknowledging that it would have been better if he had translated the name ‘Toundi’
as ‘Tundi’ because many target text readers tend to pronounce it as [taundi]. Other

151
examples in this regard can be seen in Doum (LVNM, 16; TOMM, 10) and Zourian
(LVNM, 46; TOMM, 38). Reed’s translation in this case gives the target readers a
misrepresentation of the sound sequences of the names in the source texts, and this
underscores the need to consider the phonological aspect of names when translating
them (Tymocsko, 2016:224).

When it comes to nicknames, Reed seemed to adopt a different approach from

the one indicated above. This is because nicknames are usually descriptive in nature
and have semantic implications which needs to be reflected in the translations (Nord,
2003). The nicknames used by Oyono portray the relationship between the Africans
and representatives of the colonial administration, which implies that they reflect the
anti-colonial theme of the novels. Reed thus adopted a foreignising approach in his
translations as can be seen in the following examples:

i) ST: Il s’y rendait quelquefois pour aller se faire piquer à la Crève des
Nègres (LVNM, 11).

TT: Though he sometimes went in to have himself injected at the Black

Man’s Grave … (TOMM, 5).

The nickname in this case is used to describe the hospital, which is neglected by the
white colonial administration because it caters only for black patients. The author
uses the nickname to portray the colonial system’s disregard for the welfare of
Africans. Reed’s translation ensures that the descriptive references of the nickname,
as well as the inherent anticolonial sarcasm are preserved. It could thus be argued
that his action in this case was influenced by the literary field, given that his decision
was aligned with the thematic focus of the African literary field, as well as the target
readers’ expected reception of the translation.

ii) ST: On l’a trouvé ensanglanté, écrasé sur sa motocyclette par l’une des
branches du fromager géant que les indigènes appellent Le broyeur des
Blancs (UVB, 30).

TT: They found him bloody and crushed on his motorcycle by the side of a
branch from the giant cotton tree that the natives call the ‘Hammer of the
whites’ (HB, 16).

The bolded nickname above (ii) refers to the village tree and the danger it poses to
people using the road. The name portrays the fact that the villagers know of this
danger and avoid it, while the whites do not and fall victim to it. Just like in the

152
previous example, it could also be said that Reed’s translation in this case ensures
that the functional reference of the nickname is preserved, thereby ensuring that the
target text readers get the same effect of the nickname as the source text readers
did.

iii) ST: Nous nous assîmes sur les marches de l’entrée et il me demanda ce
que je pensais de Zeuil-de-Panthère (UVB, 39).

TT: We sat down on the entrance steps and he asked me what I thought of
Panther-Eye (HB, 25).

The nickname in this example is in Français petit-nègre (a term referring to how

uneducated Africans communicated in French) and it stands for ‘les yeux de
panthère’, which means ‘panther eyes’. It is a nickname given by the natives to the
commandant because of his piercing eyes which remind them of a panther. The
description reflects the awe in which the Africans hold the colonial administrator. It
can be said that Reed’s translation preserves the descriptive reference of the
nickname, even though the target text refers to only one eye while the original refers
to both eyes. I would argue that this does not affect the message in the sense that
the target readers would still be able to grasp the descriptive and functional
references of the name.

iv) ST: La nuit dernière, le quartier indigène a reçu la visite de Gosier-

D’Oiseau, le commissaire de police (UVB, 37).

TT: Last night the location had a visit from Gullet, the Chief of Police (HB,
24).

The bolded name is the nickname the natives give to the police commissioner. The
name humorously describes his rather long neck, ‘Gosier-D’Oiseau’ which means
‘bird’s neck’. It can be observed that in his translation, Reed recreated the nickname
by coining a new one which also refers to the bearer’s long neck. It could be argued
that Reed opted for this choice because he thought that a literal translation would not
have produced the same humorous effect as the source text did, so he coined the
term ‘Gullet’ in order to give the target readers the same effect that the source text
readers had. The word ‘gullet’ does not, however, refer only to a bird and it could
therefore be said that this might make the translation to lose the reference of the
source text nickname. I would, however, argue that this does not affect the message
of the text because the context explains the reason for which the commissioner was

153
given the nickname, thereby ensuring that the descriptive reference of the name and
the humour it generates are not lost to the target readers.

In conclusion, it could be argued that Reed translated proper names in UVB and
LVNM in a way that preserved the semantic value and cultural setting of the source
texts, even though he seemed to have paid little attention to the phonological aspects
of the names. This implies that his actions in the translation of proper names were
influenced by the literary field in which he was working.

5.3.2.10 Hybrid language forms

African writers in European languages tend to use more than one language in their
writings, which reflect the multilingual nature of their societies (Bandia, 2008:140).
Such is the case of Oyono, who has resorted to a style of hybrid language use that
reflects the way language was experienced in the Cameroonian society during
French colonisation. Such language use is culture-bound, and one needs to be
sufficiently exposed to its context of usage in order to understand it. Translating such
hybrid language use would also be challenging as the target system may not reflect
the same hybrid language use (Bandia, 2012:425). It was in this regard that Reed’s
translations of hybrid language formations in UVB and LVNM were analysed as
evidenced in the examples below.

A) Le français petit-nègre

Français petit-nègre refers to the way uneducated Africans spoke the French
language. It is a broken form of French which was used by the local employees to
communicate with their European employers or with other Africans from different
parts of the French colony. Oyono uses this hybrid language form to portray the
impact of a foreign culture on Africans, as well as the class difference between
Europeans and Africans in the French colonies. John Reed translated all cases of the
use of Français petit-nègre by using Pidgin English as can be seen in the examples
below:

i) ST: J’espère que tu as compris pourquoi je ne pourrais attendre que

« petit Joseph pati roti en enfer » (UVB, 35).
TT: ‘I think you see why I can’t wait till «small Joseph go burn in hell »’
(HB, 22).

154
 ii) ST: Y en a vérité, Sep, dit encore le grade noir (UVB, 38).
TT: ‘It is true, sah,’ said the N.C.O. again (HB, 25).

iii) ST: ─ Movié ! s’exclama le garde, Zeuil-de-Panthère cogner comme

Gosier-D’Oiseau! Lui donner moi coup de pied qui en a fait comme
soufat’soud … Zeuil y en a pas rire … (UVB, 39).
TT: ‘Man,’ said the sentry, ‘Panther-Eye beat like Gullet. Him kick me
bam! Go like dynamite. Panther-Eye no joke’ (HB, 25).

iv) ST: Il baragouina qu’il avait trente ans de métier et que « lui y en a touzou
bon ksinier » (UVB, 58).
TT: He went on about his thirty years of experience, and how he had been
‘all time very good cookboy’ (HB, 47).

v) ST: Mon z’ami, dit Gosier-d’Oiseau en imitant faussement le petit negre,

nous pas buveurs indigenes! (UVB, 60).
TT: ‘Man,’ said Gullet in a poor imitation of pidgin, ‘we no be native
drinkers.’ (HB, 49).

The effect of Reed’s use of Pidgin English to translate Français petit-nègre, is that it
produces an equivalent hybrid language form that was prevalent in the English
colonies of West Africa. The problem with this strategy is that the two language forms
in question are not equivalent to each other as they are different in nature and
function, and different in their respective societies of usage (Bandia, 2008). While
Français petit-nègre was a form of broken French, Pidgin English is not ‘broken
English’, as it is a creole whose origin can be traced back to the fifteenth century with
the arrival of Portuguese slave merchants on the West African coast. The language
then developed and grew from a pidgin into a creole with combination of different
African and European languages, with its current English-based form being the result
of the extended presence of the British in the West African region (Awung, 2013:7).
The two languages can therefore not be considered as equivalent, especially as
Pidgin English was also spoken in non-British colonies such as Cameroon, which
explains why Oyono also uses it in UVB and LVNM (Awung, 2014:27)., as shall be
seen in the example that follows.

Bandia (2008:197) has argued that the translation of heteroglossia in African

literature between European languages involves a process of conversion in which the
oral tradition of a colonial source language is transferred into another colonial
language in a manner that is appropriate for the receiving language culture. This
155
implies that in translating a language form such as Français petit-nègre into another
European language, the translator has to find a language form which has an
equivalent function in the receiving language culture. It could therefore be said that
Reed considered Pidgin as having the same function in the target language culture
as Français petit-nègre did in the Francophone culture of the source text, especially
as Anglophone writers from West Africa, such as Achebe, use Pidgin in their writings
to portray class asymmetry between speakers of English and Pidgin. It thus seems
that Reed saw Pidgin as having the same diglossic relationship with English as
Français petit-nègre had with French in Africa.

B) Pidgin English

As mentioned in the previous example, Oyono also makes use of Pidgin English in
his novels to reflect the hybrid nature of discursive patterns in the Cameroonian
society in general, particularly his Bulu community. Reed maintained the Pidgin
English expressions in his translations as can be seen in the examples below:

i) ST: Comment aurait-il pu oublier l’africa-gin dont quelques gouttes lui

étaient tombées sur la langue a un âge ou il n’avait pas de poils sur le
ventre … (LVNM, 17).
TT: How then could he forget the Africa-gin, drops of which had fallen on
his tongue at a time before there was hair on his belly … (TOMM, 10).

ii) ST: Le nuage de poussière ocre qui tachait son pantalon de drill et le
paquet de stock-fish qu’il portait sous le bras témoignaient qu’il revenait
de la ville. (LVNM, 37).
TT: The coating of ochre dust that stained his his khaki trousers and the
bundle of stock-fish he had under his arm showed he was coming back
from the town (TOMM, 29).

iii) ST: Washman! Washman! Appela-t-elle (UVB, 79/87).

TT: ‘Washman, washman,’ she called (HB, 73/82).

His translations in this case could be said to have preserved the nature of discourse
in the culture of the source texts author. There are, however, two instances in which
he translated the word ‘washman’ by using the standard English word ‘laundryman’,
as can be seen below:

i) ST: Nous autres washmen sommes comme les docteurs, nous touchons
tout ce qui répugne à un homme normal … (UVB, 87).

156
 TT: We laundrymen are like doctors, we touch the things that disgust
ordinary men (HB, 81).

ii) ST: Toutes celles que j’ai servies ont toujours confié ces choses au
washman comme s’il n’était pas un homme … (UVB, 87).
TT: Everyone I have worked for has handed these things over to the
laundryman as if he wasn’t a man at all … (HB, 81).

This case of inconsistency could suggest that while he might have intended to
respect the norms of the field, there were moments when other factors influenced
him to unconsciously make decisions which were inconsistent with the norms. This
underscores the fact that translators are not always consistent in the choices they
make during a translation activity, because the causality of translation action is
complex in nature (Marais, 2014:44).

C) Loan words from foreign languages

Oyono also uses loan words from foreign languages, predominantly from Latin and
Spanish, in UVB and LVNM. The Latin words are mostly religion-related, and reflect
the Cameroonian colonial society, in which the Roman Catholic Church was a
dominant religious institution which worked hand-in-hand with the French colonial
administration. The natives were thus compelled to learn to say prayers and other
religious utterances in Latin, and Oyono uses them both for comic effect and to
satirise the religious colonisation of African societies. The use of Spanish words is
limited to UVB, and it occurs in the part of the story that is set in Spanish Guinea,
where Toundi escapes to. In most cases, Reed translated the foreign words by
maintaining them in the target texts as can be seen in the following examples:

i) ST: Le père Vandermayer chanta enfin l’Ite missa est (UVB, 47).
TT: Father Vandermayer at last sings the Ite missa est (HB, 34).

ii) ST: Il écarta les mains comme un prêtre disant ‹‹Dominus vobiscum››
(UVB, 72).
TT: He spread his hands like a priest saying ‘Dominus vobiscum’ (HB,
62).

iii) ST: Madre de Dios ! jura Anton en se signant (UVB, 20).

TT: ‘Madre de Dios,’ said Anton, crossing himself (HB, 2).

157
 iv) ST: Mais aussitôt qu’ils nous quittaient, nos amis de rencontre oubliaient
leur mine dramatique et nous lançaient un jovial ‹‹Buenas tardes›› (UVB,
20).
TT: Then as they left us, they suddenly forgot these dramatics and shouted
a jovial ‘Buenas tardes’ after us (HB, 2).

v) ST: Y en a été ‹‹uno alumno››, me dit gravement celui qui l’avait trouvé
(UVB, 23).
TT: The man who found it said gravely, ‘He must have been uno alumno’
(HB, 5).

It could be said that by maintaining the foreign words in his translations, Reed sought
to preserve the hybrid nature of language use in the source texts’ community. Just
like in the previous category, there are also two instances in which he translated
foreign expressions by using the English equivalents as in the following examples:

i) ST: Il fit encore un signe de croix, récita un ‹‹pater›› et un ‹‹ave››, puis

termina en suçant son pouce (LVNM, 135).
TT: He crossed himself again and said Our Father and a Hail Mary. Then
he sucked his thumb (TOMM, 120).

ii) ST: Encore l’un de ces Françés … On annonce qu’un Françés est au
plus mal et qu’on n’est pas sûr qu’il passera la nuit (UVB, 20).
TT: ‘Another poor Frenchman … it says a Frenchman is very ill. They do
not think he will last the night’ (HB, 2).

In the first example, the Latin words for the Lord’s Prayer and the prayer to the Holy
Mary are translated by using their English equivalents, which makes the meaning
clearer. In the second example, the Spanish word for ‘Frenchman’ is translated using
its English equivalent. Oyono’s use of the word in the ‘Françés’ is to express the
ironical situation of Cameroonians under French colonial rule. The French officially
made Africans in their colonies to believe that they had become French citizens,
while at the same time subjecting them to different forms of abuse and exploitation. It
could be argued that Reed’s intention to use the English word in his translation was
to ensure that target readers did not overlook the irony contained in the source text,
which might have been the case if the Spanish word was used.

In conclusion, it could be argued that Reed adopted a translation strategy that

recreated the hybrid language formations of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM, which implies
that his actions were influenced by the literary field in which he worked. He, however,
158
showed inconsistency in some of his choices, especially in the translation of some
Pidgin English and foreign language terms, thereby highlighting the complexity of the
causality of his actions.

5.3.2.11 Race-related terms

UVB and LVNM are portraitures of the ills of French colonial practices in Cameroon
and the racial injustices of the system. There are thus words and expressions in the
two novels that depict the race relations between blacks and whites in French
colonial Cameroon. These terms are considered culture-bound because they are
embedded in the specific sociocultural context of their usage. Their full meaning may
thus only be grasped through an understanding of their cultural context of usage.
Given that race-related discourse is part of a wider ideology on race, the translation
of such discourse is bound to have ideological implications. I therefore sought to
analyse the strategies that Reed used in translating race-related terms in Oyono’s
novels, and the implications of the strategies for agency in translation. I focused on
terms with racial undertones that refer to places and people as can be seen in the
examples below. The source text terms are followed by literal translations (LT) before
the target text renditions (TT), so as to give a clear understanding of the translator’s
strategies in the transfer process:

A) Terms referring to places

The terms with racial undertones that refer to places are the names of the different
neighbourhoods in which the natives and the whites live. The two most common
examples are the terms ‘quartier indigène’, also referred to as ‘quartier noir’; and ‘la
ville des Blancs’, which are used in the instances below:

i) ST: Chez Mammy Titi qui habitait le quartier indigène, c’était déjà la ville
(LVNM, 11).
LT: At Mammy Titi’s, who lived in the indigenous neighborhood, it was
already in town.
TT: Madam Titi lived in the African location and once you reached her
place you were already in town (TOMM, 5).

ii) ST: Mes hommes fouillent le quartier noir (UVB, 107).

LT: My men are searching the black neighborhood.
TT: My men are searching the location … (HB, 105).

159
 iii) ST: Dominant ce dernier, la ville des Blancs, bâtir sur la colline
limitrophe, était en vue (LVNM, 12).
LT: Dominating the latter, the town of the Whites, built on the adjacent
hill, was in sight.
TT: The European town, built on the adjacent hill came into sight,
dominating the location (TOMM, 5).

The use of these words in the source texts is to portray the discriminatory practices
of the French colonial system, which pretended to embrace the Africans, but set up
different neighbourhoods for blacks and whites. The words therefore highlight the
ideological aspects of the novels, and the translator’s actions in this would indicate
his association or dissociation with the ideological world view of the author of the
source texts (Baker, 2006). The translation of the terms indicates that Reed has
preserved the racial undertones expressed in the original texts, thereby giving the
target readership the same picture as that of the source texts.

There is, however, a discrepancy between the translations and the sociocultural
setting of the source texts, because the target words apply more to the Southern
African context than to the Cameroonian context, in which the source texts are set. It
is worth stating that while the French colonial system also had discriminatory
practices as were witnessed in apartheid South Africa, the separation of living areas
in the French colonies was more a practice than an official policy. Words like ‘African
location’ or ‘African township’ (HB, 109) would therefore not be easily understood in
the same way in the context of Oyono’s colonial Cameroon. Reed revealed in the
interview that he spent seventeen years living and working in Southern and Northern
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe and Zambia) with regular visits to South Africa, and this could
explain why he used terms which were mostly applicable to Southern Africa to
translate the terms in question.

Gouanvic (2010) and Wolf (2013) have argued for the need to trace the trajectory
of translators in order to understand the actions they take during translation. This
implies that the habitus of translators, which is constituted from their social and
professional experiences, is a determining factor in translation action. It could thus be
argued that Reed’s exposure to Southern Africa had endowed him with a habitus that
influenced his interpretation of race-related issues in Oyono’s novels.

160
B) Terms referring to people

Other terms that have racial undertones are the words used to refer to people of
different races in Oyono’s novels. The most common words used are ‘les Blancs’,
‘les Noirs’ and ‘les nègres/ négresses’; which are used in the following instances:

i) ST: Mais … tu es avec des Blancs … (UVB, 112).

LT: But … you are with Whites…
TT: But … You’re with Europeans … (HB, 110).

ii) ST: Elle voulut suivre les Blancs mais le garde la repoussa (UVB, 113).
LT: She wanted to follow the Whites but the guard pushed her back.
TT: She tried to follow the Europeans into the house but the constable
pushed her back (HB, 111).

It can be observed that in the translations, Reed chose to neutralise the racial
undertones of the original words by opting for the words ‘Europeans’ and ‘Africans’,
which are less race-specific, and it could be said that this gives his target texts a
different message from the source texts, as the target readership is likely to overlook
the racial divide that is prevalent in Oyono’s source texts world. This implies that
Reed rewrote the text in a way that dissociated him from the source text author’s
ideological position (Baker, 2006). By substituting racially charged words with more
neutral ones, the translator made a decision that did not seem to align with the
literary field in which racial conflict was a major theme of the literary production.

It could be argued that Reed considered Oyono’s racially charged words to be

offensive, and he therefore sought to be politically correct by offering the target
readers a less insensitive text. While Reed’s translations in this case seems to have
denied the target readers access to the racial tensions expressed in the source texts,
his actions underscore his role as an interested agent during the translation process,
who opted to dissociate from the ideological world view of the source text author.
While Reed used the neutralising approach in most of the instances in which these
words were used, there were, however, a few cases in which ‘les Blancs’ was
translated as ‘the whites’, as exemplified below:

i) ST: Nous étions beaucoup de Noirs à regarder les Blancs s’amuser

(UVB, 40).

LT: We were many Blacks watching the Whites enjoying themselves.

161
 TT: There were a fair number of Africans there to watch the whites
enjoying themselves (HB, 27).

This inexplicable inconsistency on the part of the translator once more highlights the
fact that translators do not always stick to a uniform pattern of actions during a
specific translation process, which implies that the causality of translation action is
complex in nature and cannot be explained from a single conceptual angle (Marais,
2014:44).

When it comes to the more racially charged word ‘les nègres’, Reed again
adopted a neutralisation approach as can be seen in the following examples:

ii) ST: Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille (title of LVNM).

LT: The Old Negro and the Medal.
TT: The Old Man and the Medal (title of TOMM).

iii) ST: Pauvre France! … dit encore Gosier-d’Oiseau. Les nègres sont
maintenant ministre à Paris! (UVB, 63).
LT: Poor France … said Bird’s Neck. Negros are now Ministers in Paris!
TT: ‘Poor France’, said Gullet. ‘Natives are now Ministers in Paris!’ (HB,
52).

iv) ST: Comment aurait-il pu me reconnaitre? Pour les Blancs, tous les
nègres ont la même gueule (UVB, 41).
LT: How could he recognize me? Four the Whites, all Negros have the
same mouth.
TT: How could he recognize me? All Africans look the same to them (HB,
28).

v) ST: Qu’est-ce que tu veux, nous autres négresses ne comptons pas pour
eux (UVB 40).

LT: What do you want? We Negros do not mean anything to them.

TT: Well, what do you expect? We don’t mean anything to them (HB, 27).

The first example (i) has to do with the title of LVNM in which Reed chose to replace
the word ‘negro’ with ‘man’. The title of a cultural work is a source of attraction as it
gives the reader an idea of what to expect in the work (Shi, 2014). The original title of
LVNM clearly gives the signal of a story of race relations, and it could be said that by
taking out the word ‘negro’, Reed eliminates this signal in the translation. While the

162
source text title may attract anyone interested in race relations, the translation may
not, and this would undermine the impact of the author’s works as some readers of
the target system may not have the same urge to read the novel as they would have
done if the title was different.

In examples (ii) and (iii), Reed chose to substitute the word ‘Negros’ for ‘natives’
and ‘Africans’, respectively. In the last example (v), he chose to omit the race-related
word by using the word ‘we’ instead of ‘we Negros’. He seems to have adopted these
strategies in order to neutralise the racial undertones of the source texts’ words
without changing the messages. It could, however, be said that the translations
present a different ideological world view from that of the source texts. I would argue
that in his effort to be politically correct in his use of words, Reed misread Oyono’s
use of language as being insensitive, and this led him to eliminate the criticism of
racism that is inherent in the source text.

In conclusion, in his translations of race-related terms, Reed seems to have been

influenced by his social background, or individual habitus, to adopt an approach
which enabled him to neutralise the racial undertones of the source texts’ discourse.

5.4 Implications for agency in translation studies

In this section, I intend to demonstrate the implications which the analysis of John
Reed’s translation of culture-bound terms in UVB and LVNM have for agency in
translation studies. The analysis was done on the basis that the decision-making of
the agent -translator at the textual level of a translation is influenced by the habitus of
the translator, which is acquired from the literary field, as well as his/her individual
habitus, which is acquired prior to his/her entering the field (Sela-Sheffy, 2014; Wolf,
2013). For the sake of clarity, I use the term ‘field’ to refer to the shared habitus of the
literary field, and ‘habitus’ to refer to the individual habitus of the translator. This is
because translators working in the same field do not have the same social
background (Sela-Sheffy, 2014), which implies that their actions cannot be the same,
given that they are not only regulated by their shared habitus, but also by their
specific individual habitus. I therefore used ‘field’ and ‘habitus’ as the analytical
concepts of the translator’s textual level actions, and the effects of those actions on
the English translations of UVB and LVNM.

163
 With regard to the field as a constraining factor of translation action, the analysis
revealed that Reed’s textual actions were influenced by factors within the African
literary field, both at the level of interpreting the source texts and at the transfer level.
It is worth mentioning that the translator’s decision-making at the textual level
operates at the interpretation and transfer phases (Yannakopoulou, 2014). At the
interpretation phase, the translator processes the source text message and
reconciles himself/herself to the fact that s/he has understood the message as it was
intended by the source text author.

It is in this regard that Venuti (2013) has argued that the translator’s interpretation
of the source text is the first level of the translation process. At the transfer phase,
the translator makes the necessary choices to ensure that the target text reader
receives and understands the message according to the intention of either the author
or the translator himself/herself. This implies that the actions s/he takes at the textual
level contribute in constructing social reality (Milton & Bandia, 2009), given that it is
through him/her that foreign texts are introduced into the target system (Bourdieu,
2002). This implies that the translator’s agency at the textual level operates both at
the interpretation and the transfer stages, where the translator’s decision-making
takes place.

With regard to Reed’s reading of Oyono’s source texts, it could be argued that his
interpretation was predominantly influenced by the habitus which he had acquired in
the African literary field. The interpretation of a source text requires a habitus which
regulates the way an individual deconstructs and makes sense of things (Hermans,
2007). This implies that for Reed to have the full understanding of the cultural and
ideological world view of Oyono’s source texts, he had to go through a process of
deconstructing the source text message in a way that enabled him to reconcile
himself to the fact that the linguistic, cultural, and ideological elements that needed to
be transferred had been grasped. He therefore needed to have a habitus that was
aligned to the method and style of the African literary field in which he was working.

The long period of time he spent working as a literary academic, critic, and
translator of African literature seemingly exposed him to the poetics of African
literature and this endowed him with a habitus that enabled him to interpret and
understand the source texts messages. It could be argued that this led him to
produce translations that were to a large extent a reflection of the source texts. This
164
does not, however, seem to have been enough for him to have a full grasp of the
cultural world view expressed in the source texts, as his European background led
him to misinterpret some of the source text messages.

The field was also the main factor which constrained Reed’s actions at the
transfer level of the translation process. In his own words, he said he intended to give
the target text readers the same impression that the source text readers had. This led
him to adopting predominantly foreignising strategies as was evidenced in his
translations of the culture-bound terms. It could be argued that Reed’s decision to opt
for foreignising strategies was influenced by the habitus he had acquired from his
exposure to the poetics African literature at the time of his translations. African
literature in European languages is peculiar in terms of content, form, and purpose,
and the translators of this literature need to grasp its peculiarities (Bandia, 2008;
Gyasi, 2003).

I would contend that, while Reed’s translations show cases of misinterpretation

and mistranslations as result of his European background, the period he spent
working in the African literary field exposed him to the norms of the African literary
field and this did endow with a habitus that led him to adopt strategies that aligned
his translations with the prevalent poetics of the African literary field at the time. His
actions were thus constrained by the nature of literary productions in the field, as well
as the expected reception of the translations in the aforementioned field. This
enabled his translations to have a reparatory function in the target system (Bandia,
2008) by preserving the cultural identity of the source texts, and this positioned him
as a constructed and constructing agent (Wolf, 2007b) of the African literary field.

There are other textual actions of Reed that could be said to have been
influenced by his individual habitus and not by the habitus he had acquired through
the incorporation of the norms of the field in his mind and practice (Sela-Sheffy,
2014:43). This implies that even though the field conditioned his actions to follow a
certain pattern, there were instances in which his primary habitus interfered with this
pattern and influenced him to make a decision that was not aligned with the norms of
the literary field in which he worked. This was demonstrated at both the interpretation
and transfer levels of the translation process. At the interpretation level, Reed’s
individual habitus could be said to have influenced his interpretation, or
misinterpretation, of certain concepts that made up the cultural world view of the
165
source texts, such as native words, semantic shifts, language varieties, food items,
and race-related terms. This led him to misrepresent the source text expressions in
the translations, thereby giving the target text readers a different account of the
source text realities. This was particularly evident in his decision to neutralise some
of the terms with racial undertones, as well as some invectives, including the cases
where some terms were translated using South African-related terms. This implies
that his choices in this case were influenced by the primary habitus which he brought
with him to the field of African literature in which he was working.

It is in this regard that Tyulenev (2014:6) has argued that translation strategies
always bear an imprint of the translator’s socialisation, which may be visible or
sometimes invisible, to the translators themselves. This implies that the translator’s
habitus is shaped by both the history of his involvement in a given field of activity as
well as his/her individual history, which makes him different from other agents
involved in the same practice of the same field (Gouanvic, 2005; Wolf, 2007a). It is in
this light that I contend that the causal factors of the translator’s agency are never
homogeneous, given that the disposition for such agency may be coming from
different sources. It is therefore necessary to trace the collective and individual
trajectories of translators in order to understand the causality of their actions during
translation activities (Gouanvic, 2010).

The analysis of the culture-bound terms in UVB and LVNM also revealed
inconsistencies in Reed’s choices, in the sense that he used different target words to
translate the same source word. Examples of this could be seen in the cases where
he used different sound effects in different instances to translate the same sound,
and also when he neutralised some race-related terms in some instances but
maintained them in others. These inconsistencies in the translator’s decision-making
suggest that, in addition to the influence of the field and individual habitus, there may
be other external factors influencing the decision-making of a translator. This implies
that translation is a complex phenomenon and linear logic is insufficient to explain
every action involved (Marais, 2014). It is in this regard that Robinson (2015) has
argued that some translation actions are done by intuition rather than calculation, and
Chesterman (2007:178) has asserted that the decisions of translators during the
translation process are the result of the joint influence of the habitus and other
external factors. This implies that the causal factors of the translator’s agency are

166
complex, and translation studies needs to adopt a complexity approach (Marais,
2014:92), in other words, to understand the manifestation of agency in translation
activities.

5.5 Conclusion

The aim of this chapter was to analyse the impact of the translator’s agency at the
micro-textual level of the translation process. Using Bourdieu’s notions of field and
habitus, I looked at the manifestation of agency in the strategies that Reed used to
transfer Oyono’s cultural world view into English, and the impact of his actions on the
literary field. I focused on the analysis of culture-bound terms and I did a comparison
of the source texts’ terms and their English translations. The analysis suggests that
Reed’s strategies were influenced by the habitus he had acquired in the course of his
professional life in the African literary field, as well as his individual habitus, which he
brought with him into the field. It was further revealed that in addition to his habitus,
other external factors also influenced some of the decisions he made during the
translation process, implying that the causal factors of translation agency are
complex. The next chapter will provide a general conclusion to the study and make
recommendations that can contribute to agency-based research in translation
studies.

167
Chapter 6
CONCLUSION

6.1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to summarise the key points which have been addressed in
the study. The research questions are revisited to see how they have been
addressed in the study, and the contributions of the study to research in translation
studies have been highlighted. Finally, suggestions are made for the interest of future
research.

6.2 Synopsis of the study

This study has adopted Bourdieu’s theoretical framework to analyse the translations
of Ferdinand Oyono’s UVB and LVNM. The study has analysed the social forces that
influenced the actions of John Reed at the macro-level and textual level of the
English translations of UVB and LVNM, and how his actions also contributed in
shaping the literary field within which he operated. This is because I contend that
there is a mutually influential relationship between the actions of translation agents
and their fields of operation. In this regard, Bourdieu’s theoretical model has enabled
me to look at how the literary field constructed, and was constructed, by the agents
involved in the translations of Oyono’s UVB and LVNM.

The study starts by situating the sociological approach to translation phenomena

within the shifting turns of the field of translation studies. This is done in Chapter 2,
which focuses on the review of the conceptual evolution that has characterised the
discipline leading to the sociological turn. I have therefore looked at other
approaches to the study of translation phenomena and their limitations, which
motivated the choice of a sociological approach. I have also explained the choice of
Bourdieu’s theoretical approach as the appropriate lens through which to understand
the dialectic relationship between the actions of translation agents and their field of
operation. I have thus explored studies using Bourdieu’s theoretical framework to
show that this approach is a valid tool with which to study agents’ practices in the
field of translation studies.

168
 Chapter 3 focuses on the concept of agency in translation studies and explains
why Bourdieu’s conceptualisation of agency is appropriate for the study of agency in
translation phenomena. I have thus looked at the limitations of the way agency has
been conceptualised in order to demonstrate how Bourdieu’s approach is a valid tool
with which to explore the concept in translation studies. The main limitation of other
approaches to agency have been identified as being the conceptualisation of agency
as the binary conflict between structure and agency, which undermines the way both
ends influence each other. It is in this regard that the study has drawn on Bourdieu’s
approach which looks at agency as the result of the dialectic relationship between the
actions of agents and the fields in which they operate. This has enabled me to look at
the mutually influential relationship between the literary field in which UVB and LVNM
were translated, and the macro-level and textual level actions of the agents who were
involved in the process.

Chapter 4 looks at the context of the production of the English translations of

UVB and LVNM. It therefore analyses the structure of the field in which the two
novels were produced, and the role of the translator in constructing the said field. In
this regard, the chapter looks at the different positions that structured the literary
field, the agents who occupied those positions, and the effect of their interactions on
the practices of the field. The chapter starts with a methodological framework
adopted for the study, followed by an analysis of the data relating to the macro-level
actions of the translator and the publisher. I have thus explained the research design,
the data collection instrument, as well the way the data used in the chapter was
analysed. The analysis revealed that John Reed’s role in the AWS as a critic, advisor
and translator contributed in constructing the field of African literature in which
Oyono’s novels were translated, which in turn constrained his actions during the
translation of UVB and LVNM.

Chapter 5 focuses on the analysis of the textual level data of the study. It looks at
the translation of culture-bound terms in the two novels through the lenses of
Bourdieu’s concepts of field and habitus. The chapter starts with a methodological
section which explains the methods of collecting and analysing the data involved in
the chapter. I therefore explained the concept of culture-bound terms in translation
studies, and explain the method used in selecting the categories discussed in the
chapter. I also explained why Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is a valid tool with which

169
to study translation action at textual level, because it underscores the way collective
and individual norms influence the decisions of translators during the transfer
process. The analysis revealed that Reed’s actions at the textual level were
influenced by a complex combination of the field, his individual habitus, as well as
other factors as explained in the chapter.

6.3 Research questions revisited

The aim of the study has been achieved in that the findings have demonstrated that
at both the macro-textual and textual levels of the translation of UVB and LVNM into
English, there was a dialectic relationship between the actions of the translation
agents and the social context in which they worked. This has been done by
addressing the research questions that guided the study in the following manner:

1. How can Bourdieu’s social theory help to explain translation actions in the
production of Oyono’s Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille in
English?

Bourdieu’s theory provided tools with which to explain social actions. In this study, I
have argued that translation is a social phenomenon and the factors underpinning its
practice are social in nature. Bourdieu’s theory offers the tools with which to
understand the dialectic relationship between social agents and the fields in which
they operate. It has thus been used in this study to demonstrate that there was a
mutually influential relationship between the actions of the agents involved in the
translations of UVB and LVNM and the field in which the works were translated. This
has been done through use of Bourdieu’s tools of field, capital and habitus, in which it
has been explained that the actions of translation agents construct, and are
constructed, by the field in which they work.

In this regard, the study has mapped out the positions that made up the structure
of the African literary field in which the translations were produced, the agents who
occupied the said positions, and how the interactional relationship between the
different agents was influential to translation action at both the macro-level and
textual level. The findings revealed that the positions that structured the literary field
in which the texts under study were translated, were the original works, publishing
houses, translated works and target readership, while the agents who occupied the
said positions were authors, publishers, translators, and readers, respectively.

170
2. What role do literary and cultural aspects play in building up a picture of
Ferdinand Oyono’s world view?

Oyono’s works fall within the ambit of postcolonial African literature. This literature
was heavily influenced by the social, cultural, and political context in which it was
produced. Given its nature as a literature of resistance to Western colonisation,
culture occupies a central role in its production, as the authors sought to reclaim their
cultural identity from the assimilation of the West. It is in this regard that, although the
literature was produced in the European languages of their colonisers, the authors
ensured that these languages were heavily influenced by their local culture. They
therefore resorted to oral traditions and produced texts that portrayed an abundant
use of proverbs, fables, puns, metaphors, and other rhetorical devices. This is the
nature of Oyono’s novels, as they reflect the resistant function of African literature of
the time.

3. What are the strategies the translator uses to represent the cultural world view of
the source texts in the target texts, especially as his European background is very
remote from the world of the source texts?

The translator used a predominantly foreignising strategy to translate the works of

Ferdinand Oyono into English. This was facilitated by the fact that he had spent
many years working in the literary field as a literary educator, critic, and translator,
and this had enabled him to acquire the habitus that enabled him to understand, to a
great extent, the literary norms of the field. However, the study also revealed that the
time spent in the African literary field could not offer the translator a total grasp of the
cultural view of the source text author, as there were cases in which some source
text messages were misinterpreted, leading to translations that deviated from the
source text. This was evidenced in Reed’s translation of some native words,
semantic shifts, language varieties, food items, and race-related terms.

4. What are the social factors that influence the choices the translator makes in
terms of his strategies and how do they conform to or conflict with relevant
theories on the subject?

The social factors that influenced Reed’s translation strategies have been explained
through Bourdieu’s notions of field and habitus. Reed’s adoption of a foreignised
approach has been explained as the result of his intention to adhere to the norms of

171
the African literary field in which he was working. He had acquired these norms
through the many years in which he had worked in the field. However, some of
Reed’s actions have been attributed to his personal habitus which he acquired out of
the African literary field. This has been seen in cases in which he neutralised some of
the invectives and terms with racial undertones, as well as in cases where some
words were translated using South African-related terms. Terms from a different
geographical region have been used to translate, as well as in cases where his
interpretation of the source texts was influenced by factors out of the field, thereby
leading to some instances of the translations deviating from the intentions of the
source text author.

6.4 Contributions of the study

This study contributes to trends in the sociological study of translation phenomena by

applying Bourdieu’s theoretical framework to the empirical study of translation. As far
could be established, there has been no study that applies Bourdieu’s theory to the
study of African literature, especially the works of Ferdinand Oyono. It is therefore
important to look at the factors that structure the African literary field, the agents
involved in the production of literary works and the factors that influence the actions
of translation agents.

In this regard this study contributes to the field of translation studies in various
ways. First, the study contributes to a broader understanding of the concept of
agency in translation studies by shifting the focus of translation agency, from one of
agency versus structure, to one in which agency and structure share a mutually
influential relationship. In this regard, the agents construct the structure, which in turn
constrain their actions. Still on the concept of agency, the study also underscores the
context-specific nature of agency in translation studies, by demonstrating that the
influence of an agent in one context may not apply to another context because the
agent’s habitus and capital may not have the same recognition in different contexts.
The study therefore highlights the need to broaden the frontiers of translation studies
in order to unearth different contexts of translation agency, so as to have a
comprehensive understanding of the concept.

Furthermore, this study contributes in demonstrating that a combined macro-

textual and textual level analysis is necessary for a comprehensive understanding of

172
the actions of agents involved in translation activities. It underscores the fact that a
translation product is not only the result of textual level actions, as there are actions
situated at the macro-textual level that have a significant impact on the process and
product of translation.

The study equally contributes by demonstrating that Bourdieu’s concepts of field,

habitus, and capital are valid tools for the analysis of translation phenomena in
contexts other than European. This contributes in the shift from Eurocentric
perspectives on translation studies to approaches that incorporate experiences from
different parts of the world.

In addition, the study contributes in validating the application of Bourdieu’s social

theory to the study of social phenomena. This has been done by looking at
translation as a social practice and explaining the actions of the agents involved and
how those actions relate to the social context in which the agents operate.

The study also contributes in focusing the study of translation activities on the
social agents involved in the process, instead of the systemic factors that constrain
the actions. Until recently, translation studies have focused on the textual processes
or the systemic factors that influence those processes, with little attention being paid
to the role of the social agents in the process. This study therefore contributes in
research that focuses on the role of the human agents involved in translation
phenomena.

Another significance of the study is that it contributes to the translation of African

literature by looking at the context of the translators involved. Much has been written
on the context of the authors of original literary works, but little has been said about
the contexts of the translators who contribute in disseminating these works to foreign
audiences.

The study also contributes to an understanding of the diversified nature of the

habitus as a causal factor of social action. Unlike many studies which tend to look at
the habitus of an agent as a homogeneous mechanism of perception and action, the
study demonstrates that different stages of an agent’s historical experiences
endowed him/her with a particular habitus, which leads to the agent’s habitus being
made up of different aspects, which can each influence the agent’s actions differently
in different situations.
173
6.5 Suggestions for future research

Given that there are limitations to what this study has been able to cover, future
research could apply the sociological approach to other areas of translation studies.
In this regard, while the study has applied Bourdieu’s sociological theory to the study
of the translation of the novels of Ferdinand Oyono, it would be beneficial for further
research to apply the same model to study other genres of translation. The
Bourdieusian approach can, for example, be applied to the study of theatre or poetry
translation in Africa, to discover the social contexts in which they are produced, and
the role of the human agents involved in the production thereof.

Furthermore, this study applied a sociological approach to the study of the

translation of African literature, with specific focus to Bourdieu’s sociological
approach. It would, however, be beneficial to apply other sociological models, such
as Bruno Latour’s actor-network theory, Niklas Luhmann’s systems theory, or
Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory, to the study of literary translation in Africa.
Such studies may reveal new information on other ways in which social factors could
influence the actions of translation agents.

The study has looked at the context of translations that were done in the 1960s.
It would be necessary for research to apply Bourdieu’s model to the study of more
recent translations of African literature to explore the factors that structure the current
field and the actions of the social agents involved in translation activities in recent
years. Also, the study has looked at the translations of John Reed and how his
habitus influenced his actions in the translation process. It would be necessary for
translation studies to look at the trajectories of other translators of African literature to
see how different trajectories could have influenced the actions of the translators
involved in the translation of African literature. In addition to translators, it would also
be beneficial for research to look at trajectories of other human agents involved in
African literature, such as the authors and publishers, to discover how their habitus
constrained their actions and this may impact on the translations of works they
produce.

Worth mentioning, is the fact that the findings of the study have revealed that
factors other than the field and habitus could have influenced some of the actions of
the translator at the textual level. It would therefore be beneficial for translation

174
studies to adopt a more complex approach to the study of agency so as to unearth
the different factors that come into play during the translation process.

Finally, the study has focused on the translation of African literature between
European languages. It would be necessary for other studies to apply the
sociological approach to the study of literary translation involving an African and a
non-African language. This is likely to reveal new information on the social factors
underpinning the phenomenon, as well as the role of the agents involved in the
activity.

175
LIST OF REFERENCES

Abdulaziz, M. (2003). The history of language policy in Africa with reference to

language choice in education. In: Ouane, A. (Ed.), Towards a multilingual culture
of education. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute for Education, pp. 181-199.

Achebe, C. (1958). Things fall apart. Oxford: Heinemann.

Adeoti, G. (2015). Introduction: Present tension in future tenses – Re-writing Africa

into the twenty-first century. In: Adeoti, G. (Ed). 2015. African literature and the
future. Dakar: CODESRIA. pp. 1-14.

Alkhawaja, L.A. (2014). The role of social agents in the translation into English of the
novels of Naguib Mahfouz. Doctoral thesis, Birmingham: Aston University.

Angelelli, C.V. & Baer, B.J. (2016). Researching translation and interpreting. New
York: Routledge.

Appiah, K. (1993/2004). Thick translation. In: Venuti, L. (Ed.). The translation studies
reader. London: Routledge, pp. 417-29.

Awung, F. (2013). The pidgin alternative in the English medium educational system
of Cameroon. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities.
3(4):6­11.

Awung, F. (2014). Agency in translating Une vie de Boy into English: Exploring
translator identity and translation strategies. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics
Plus, Vol. 43, pp. 17-30.

Baker, M. (2006). Translation and conflict: A narrative account. London: Routledge.

Baker, M. (2007). Reframing conflict in translation. Social Semiotics, 17(2):151-169.

Baker, M. (2010). Translation and activism: Emerging patterns of narrative

community. In: Tymoczko, M, (Ed.). Translation, resistance, activism. Amherst
and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. pp. 23-41.

Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation. New York: Routledge.

Bandia, P.F. (1993). Translation as culture transfer: Evidence from African creative
writing. Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction, 6(2):55-78.

Bandia, P.F. (2005). Esquisse d’une Histoire de la traduction en Afrique. Meta:

Journal des Traducteurs / Meta: Translators' Journal, 50(3):957-971.

176
Bandia, P.F. (2006) The Impact of postmodern discourse on the history of translation.
In: Bastin, G.L. & Bandia, P.F. (Eds.). Charting the future of translation history.
Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 45-58.

Bandia, P.F. (2008). Translation as reparation: Writing and translation in postcolonial

Africa. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Bandia, P. (2009). Translation matters: Linguistic and cultural representation. In:

Inggs, J. & Meintjes, L. Translation studies in Africa. London: Continuum, pp. 1-
20.

Bandia, P.F. (2012). Postcolonial literary heteroglossia: A challenge for

homogenizing translation. Perspectives: Studies in translatology, 20(4):419-431.

Bandia, P.F. (2014). Introduction. In: Bandia, P.F. (Ed), Writing and translating
francophone discourse: Africa, The Caribbean, diaspora. Amsterdam & New
York: Rodopi, pp.1-17.

Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (1990). Translation, history and culture. London: Frances
Pinter.

Bassnet, S. & Lefevere, A. (1998). Constructing cultures: Essays on literary

translation. Clevedon/Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Bastin, G.L. & Bandia, P.F. (2006) Charting the future of translation history, pp. 1-10.

Batchelor, K. (2009). Decolonizing translation: Francophone African novels in English

translation. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Beti, M. (1957). Mission Terminée. Paris: Buchet-Chastel.

Blaikie, N. (2010). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation (2nd edition).
Cambridge: Polity Press.

Blevins, J. (2004). Evolutionary phonology: The emergence of sound patterns.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1971). Systems of education and systems of thought. In: Young, M.F
(Ed.). Knowledge and control: New directions in the sociology of education.
London: Collier-Macmillan, pp 865-906.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. (Translated by Nice, R.).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment taste. (Translated

by Nice, R.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and
Society, 14(6):723-744.

177
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. (Translated by Nice, R.) In: Richardson, J.
(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York:
Greenwood Press, pp. 46-56.

Bourdieu, p. 1989. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1):14-
25.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. (Translated by Nice, R.). London: Polity
Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1992). Language and symbolic power. (Translated by Raymond, G. &

Adamson, M.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (2002). Les conditions sociales de la Circulation Internationale des

Idées. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 145 :3-8.

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1989). Towards a reflexive sociology: A workshop with

Pierre Bourdieu. Sociological Theory, 7(1):26-63.

Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:

The University of Chicago Press.

Bush, R. (2012). Le Monde s’effondre? Translating anglophone African literature in

the world republic of letters. Journal of Postcolonial Writing, 48(5):512-525.

Buzelin, H. (2005) Unexpected allies. The Translator, 11(2):193-218.

Catford, J.C. (1965) A linguistic theory of translation: An essay on applied linguistics.

London: Oxford University Press.

Chesterman, A. (2007). Bridge concepts in translation sociology. In: Wolf, M. &

Fukari, A. (Eds). Constructing a sociology of translation. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 171-186.

Chesterman, A. (2016). Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation

theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Claramonte, C.A. (2014). Translating hybrid literatures from hospititality to hospitality.

European Journal of English Studies, 18(3):242-262.

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th edition). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Cronin, M. (1996). Translating Ireland. Translation, languages, culture. Cork: Cork

University Press.

178
Currey, J. (2008). Africa writes back: The African writers series and the launch of
African literature. Oxford: James Currey.

Davies, E.E. (2003). A goblin or a dirty nose? The Translator, 9(1):65-100.

Davis, C. (2013). Creating postcolonial literature: African writers and British

publishers. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

De Kock, L. 2003. Translating ‘Triomf’: The shifting limits of ‘ownership’ in literary

translation, or, Never translate anyone but a dead author. Journal of Literary
Studies, 19(3/4):345–359.

Even-Zohar, I. (1978/2000). The position of translated literature within the literary

polysystem. In: Venuti, L. (Ed.). 2000. Translation studies reader. London & New
York: Routledge, pp. 192-7.

Even-Zohar, I. (1990). The position of translated literature within the literary

polysystem. Poetics Today, 11(1):45-51.

Everson, V. (1998). Ferdinand Oyono. In: Parekh, P.N. & Jagne, S.F. (Ed.).
Postcolonial African writers: A bio-bibliographical critical sourcebook. Westport:
Greenwood, pp. 382-386.

Faiq, S. (2004). The discourse of intercultural translation. Intercultural

Communication Studies, 13(3):33-46.

Fernandes, L. (2006). Translation of names in children’s fantasy literature: Bringing

young readers into play. New Voices in Translation Studies, 2:44-57.

Finnegan, R. (2012). Oral literature in Africa. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.

Foz, C. (2006). Translation, history and the translation scholar. In: Bastin, G.L. &
Bandia, P.F. (Eds.). Charting the future of translation history. Ottawa: University
of Ottawa Press, pp. 131-144

Frioux-Salgas, S. (2009). Présence Africaine. Une Tribune, un Mouvement, un

Réseau. Gradhiva, 10:4-21.

Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary translation theories. Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto &

Sydney: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Gentzler, E. (2008). Translation and identities in the Americas: New directions in

translation theory. New York: Routledge.

Gentzler, E. & Tymoczko, M. (2002). (Eds.). Translation and power. Amherst &
Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.

Gouanvic, J. (2005). A Bourdieusian theory of translation, or the coincidence of

practical instances. The Translator, 11(2):147-166.

179
Gouanvic, J. (2010). Outline of a sociology of translation informed by the ideas of
Pierre Bourdieu. Mon, II (2):119-129.

Garcés, C.V. & Blasi, L.G. (2010). Bourdieu and public service interpreting and
translation: Towards a social theory in PSIT. MonTI. Monografías de Traducción
e Interpretación, 2:1-13.

Gyasi, K.A. (1998). Maintaining an African poetics: Translation and/in African

literature. Translation Review, 56(1):10-21.

Gyasi, K.A. (2003). The African writer as translator: Writing African languages
through French. Journal of African Cultural Studies, 6(2):143-159.

Gyasi, K.A. (2006). The Francophone African text: Translation and the postcolonial
experience. New York, Peter Lang.

Hanna, S. (2016). Bourdieu in translation studies: The socio-cultural dynamics of

shakespeare translation in Egypt. New York: Routledge.

Heilbron, J. (2008). Responding to globalization: The development of book

translations in France and the Netherlands. In: Pym, A, Shlesinger, M. &
Simeoni, D. (Eds.) Beyond descriptive translation studies: Investigations in
homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.
187-198.

Heilbron, J. & Sapiro, G. (2007). Outline for a sociology of translation: Current issues
and future prospects. In: Wolf, M & Fukari, A. (Ed). 2007. Constructing a
sociology of translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company, pp. 93-108.

Hermans, T. (1999). Translation in systems: Descriptive and systemic approaches

explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Hermans, T. 1985. Introduction: Translation studies and a new paradigm. In:

Hermans, T. (Ed.), The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation.
New York: Routledge, pp. 7-15.

Hermans, T. (2002). The production and reproduction of translation: System theory

and historical context. Translations: (Re)shaping of literature and culture.
Istanbul: Bogazici University Press, pp. 175-194.

Hermans, T. (2007). The conference of the tongues. Manchester: St Jerome

Publishing.

Hilgers, M. & Mangez, E. (2014). Introduction to Pierre Bourdieu's theory of social

fields. In: Hilgers, M. & Mangez, E. (Eds). Bourdieu’s theory of social fields:
Concepts and applications. London & New York: Routledge. pp. 1-35.

180
Inghilleri, M. (2005). Special issue on Bourdieu and the sociology of translation and
interpreting. The Translator, 11(2):159-299.

Ivir, V. (2004). Translation of culture and culture of translation. Studia Romanica et

Anglica Zagrabiensia, 47&48:117-126.

Jakobson, R. (1959/2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In: Venuti, L. (ed.).

The translation studies reader. London & New York: Routledge, pp. 113-118.

Jenkins, R. (1982). Pierre Bourdieu and the reproduction of determinism. Sociology,

16(2):270-281.

Joas, H. & Knobl, W. (2013). War in social thought: Hobbes to the present. Princeton
& Oxford: Princeton University Press.

Joshua, S. (2008). Translation: Its brief history and theory. In: Ray, M.K. (Ed.).
Studies in translation. New Delhi: Atlantic, pp. 1-8.

Khalifa, A.W. (2014). Rethinking agents and agency in translation studies. In Khalifa,
A.W. (Ed.), Translators Have Their Say? Translation and the Power of Agency,
Selected papers of the CETRA Research Summer School 2013. pp. 9-17.

King, A. (2000). Thinking with Bourdieu against Bourdieu: A ‘practical’ critique of the
habitus. Sociological Theory, 18:417-433.

Kinnunen, T & Koskinen, K. (2010) Translators’ agency: Introduction. Tampere

Studies in Language, Translation and Culture, Series B4, Tampere: Tampere
University Press, pp. 4-10.

Kodah, M.K. (2012). The aesthetics of invective: Reflections on the use of verbal
violence in the Suns of Independence of Ahmadou Kourouma. Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 3(5):1-8.

Koskinen, K. (2010). Agency and causality: Towards explaining by mechanisms in

translation studies. In: Kinnunen, T & Koskinen, K. (Eds.). Translators’ agency.
Tampere: Tampere University Press, pp.165-187.

Kourouma, A. & Magnier, B. (1987). Entretiens avec Ahmadou Kourouma. Notre

Librairie, 87:12.

Kruger, H. (2011). Postcolonial polysystems: Perceptions of norms in the translation

of children’s literature in South Africa. The Translator, 17(1):105-136.

Kruger, H. (2012). Postcolonial polysystems: The production and reception of

translated children’s literature in South Africa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.

181
Kung, S. (2009). Translation agents and networks, with reference to the translation of
contemporary Taiwanese novels. In: Pym, A. & Perekrestenko, A. (Eds.).
Translation Research Projects 2. Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, pp.
123-138.

Lahire, B. (2003). From the habitus to an individual heritage of dispositions. Towards

a sociology at the level of the individual. Poetics, 31:329 -355.

Lahire, B. & Wells, G. (2010). The double life of writers. New Literary History,
41(2):443-465.

Lefevere, A. (1985). Why waste time on rewrites? The trouble with interpretation and
the role of rewriting in an alternative paradigm. In: Hermans, T. (Ed.), The
manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. London: Croom Helm,
pp. 215-243.

Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting and the manipulation of literary fame.

London: Routledge.

Lefevere, A. (1995). Introduction: Comparative literature and translation.

Comparative Literature, 47(1):1-10.

Lefevere, A. (1998). Translation practice(s) and the circulation of cultural capital:

Some aeneids in English. In: Bassnett & Lefevere, A. (Eds.), Topics in
Translation. Constructing Cultures: Essays on literary translation. Johannesburg:
Multilingual Matters Ltd., pp. 41-56.

Liang, W.C. (2010). Constructing the role of human agents in translation studies:
Translation of fantasy fiction in Taiwan from a Bourdieusian perspective. Doctoral
thesis. Newcastle: University of Newcastle.

Liu, J. (2012). Habitus of translators as socialized individuals: Bourdieu’s account.

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(6):1168-1173.

Lopez, H. & Saivre, D. (1982). Entretien avec Henri Lopes. Recherche, Pedagogie et
Culture, 59/60:120-122.

Marais, K. (2008). The language practitioner as agent: The implications of recent

global trends in research for language practice in Africa. Journal for New
Generation Sciences, 6(3):33-44.

Marais, K. (2014). Translation theory and development studies: A complexity theory

approach. New York: Routledge.

Marais, K. & Feinauer, I. (Eds). (2017). Translation studies beyond the postcolony.
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

182
Marzagora, S. (2015). Literatures in African languages. Journal of African Cultural
Studies, 27(1):1-6.

Mazrui, A. (2016). Cultural politics of translation: East Africa in a global context.

London: Routledge.

Meintjes, L. & Inggs, J. (2009). Translation studies in Africa. London: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Mellinger, C.D. & Hanson, T.A. (2017). Quantitative research methods in translation
and interpreting studies. New York: Routledge.

Milton, J. & Bandia, P. (Eds.). (2009). Agents of translation. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Mphande, L. (2002). Ideophones and African verse. In: Smith, P.O. & Kunene, D.P.
(Eds). Tongue and mother tongue: African literature and the perpetual quest for
identity. Trenton & Asmara: African World Press, pp. 59-74.

Mumba, N. (2007). Alienation and the individuation experience: A study of select

characters from the novels of Achebe, Oyono and Thiong'o. Master’s
dissertation, University of Zambia.

Munday, J. (2008). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. New

York: Routledge.

Munday, J. (2012). Evaluation in translation: Critical points of translator decision-

making. London and New York: Routledge.

Myskja, K. (2013). Foreignisation and resistance: Lawrence Venuti and his critics.
Nordic Journal of English Studies, 12(2):1-23.

Naudé, J.A. (2011). From submissiveness to agency: An overview of developments

in translation studies and some implications for language practice in Africa.
Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 29(3):223-241.

Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall

International.

Nida, E. (1952). God's Word in man's language. Michigan: Harper.

Nida, E. & Taber, C. (1969/2003). The theory and practice of translation. Boston:
BRILL.

Niranjana, T. (1992). Siting translation: History, post-structuralism, and the colonial

context. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.

183
Nnamani, F.U. & Amadi, A.I. (2015). The problems of translating African oral literary
texts into their Western equivalents. International Journal of Community and
Cooperative Studies, 3(2):78-83.

Nord, C. (1991a). Scopos, loyalty and translational conventions. Target, 3(1):91-109.

Nord, C. (1991b). Text analysis in translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches

explained. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nord, C. (2003). Proper names in translations for children: Alice in Wonderland as a

case in point. Meta, 481(2):182-196.

Noss, P. (2003). Translating the ideophone: Perspectives and strategies of

translators and artists. In: Overlord, A.E., Priebe, R.K. & Tremaine, L. (Eds). The
creative circle: Artist, critic, and translator in African literature. Africa World Press,
pp. 40-58.

Ogundipe, S. (2015). African literature and the anxiety of being in the twenty-first
century. In: Adeoti, G. (Ed). African literature and the future. Dakar, Codesria. pp.
77-88.

Ojo, S. (1986). The role of the translator of African written literature in inter-cultural
consciousness and relationships. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 31(3):291-299.

Osei-Nyame, K. (2009). The politics of ‘translation’ in African postcolonial literature:

Olaudah Equiano, Ayi Kwei Armah, Toni Morrison, Ama Ata Aidoo, Tayeb Salih
and Leila Aboulela. Journal of African Cultural Studies, 21(1):91-103.

Oyono, F. (1956a). Une Vie de Boy. Paris: Julliard.

Oyono, F. (1956b). Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille. Paris: Julliard.

Oyono, F. (1966). Houseboy. London: Heinemann.

Oyono, F. (1967). The old man and the medal. London: Heinemann.

Palumbo, G. (2009). Key terms in translation studies. London/New York: Continuum

International Publishing Group.

Pym, A. (1998). Methods in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Pym, A. (2006). On the social and the cultural in translation studies. In: Pym, A.
Shlesinger, M. & Jettmarova, J. (Eds). Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and
Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.
1-26.

184
Pym, A. (2009). Humanizing translation history. Hermes – Journal of Language and
Communication Studies, 42:23-49.

Reed, J. (1963). Between two worlds: Some notes on the presentation by African
novelists of the individual in modern African society. Makerere Journal, 7:1-14.

Reiss, K & Vermeer, H. (1984/2013). Towards a general theory of translational action

skopos theory explained (Translated by C. Nord). New York: Routledge.

Reiss, K. (1977/1989). Text types, translation types and translation assessment.

(Translated by Chesterman, A.). In: Chesterman, A. (Ed.), Readings in
Translation Theory. Helsinki, Finland: Finn Lectura, pp.105-115.

Robinson, D. (2002). Becoming a translator: An introduction to the theory and

practice of translation. London & New York: Routledge.

Robinson, D. (2015). The Dao of translation: An East–West dialogue. London and

New York: Routledge.

Saldanha, G. (2008). Explicitation revisited: Bringing the reader into the picture.
Trans-kom, 1(1):20-35.

Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S. (2013). Research methodologies in translation studies.

Manchester: St Jerome.

Santayo, J. (2006). Blank spaces in the history of translation. In: Bastin, G.L. &
Bandia, P.F. (Eds.), Charting the future of translation history. Ottawa: University
of Ottawa Press, pp. 11-44.

Sapiro, G. (2008). Translation and the field of publishing: A commentary on Pierre

Bourdieu's “A conservative revolution in publishing”. Translation Studies,
1(2):154-166.

Schnoebelen, T. (2012). Do you smile with your nose? Stylistic variations in Twitter
emoticons. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 18(2):115-
125.

Sela-Sheffy R. (2005). How to be a (recognized) translator: Rethinking habitus,

norms, and the field of translation. Target, 17(1):1-26.

Sela-Sheffy, R. (2014). ‘Translators’ identity work: Introducing microsociological

theory of identity to the discussion of translators’ habitus. In: Vorderobermeier, G.
M. (Ed.), Remapping habitus in translation studies. Amsterdam & New York:
Rodopi. pp. 43-55.

Serry, H. (2002). Constituer un catalogue littéraire: La place des traductions dans

l'histoire des Éditions du Seuil. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales,
144(1):70-79.

185
Shehab, E. & Daragmeh, A. (2014). A context-based approach to proverb translation:
The case of Arabic into English translation. Translation Review, 90(1):51-68.

Shi, X. (2014). The English film title translation strategies. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, 5(3):606-610.

Shuttleworth, M. (1998). Poly-system theory. In: Baker, M. (Ed). Routledge

Encyclopedia of translation studies. London: Routledge. pp. 176-177.

Simeoni, D. (1998). The pivotal status of the translator's habitus. Target, 10(1):1-39.

Simeoni, D. (2005). Translation and society: The emergence of a conceptual

relationship. In: St. Pierre, P. & Kar, P.C. (Eds). In translation. Reflections,
refraction, transformations. Delhi: Pencraft International, pp. 3-14.

Simon, S. (1996). Gender in translation: Cultural identity and the politics of

transmission. London & New York: Routledge.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam &

Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The turns of translation studies: New Paradigms or shifting

viewpoints? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Storch, A. 2013. Secret manipulations: Language and context in Africa. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.

Sturge, K. (2007). Representing others: Translation, ethnography and the museum.

Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Suh, JC. (2005). A study of translation strategies in Guillaume Oyono Mbia’s plays.
PhD Thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa.

Susam-Sarajeva, S. (2009) The case study research method in translation studies.

The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 3(1):37-56.

Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for
Poetics and Semiotics.

Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: John

Benjamins Publishing Company.

Tutuola, A. (1952). The palm-wine drinkard. London: Faber and Faber.

Tymoczko, M. (1999). Translation in a postcolonial context. Manchester: St Jerome.

Tymoczko, M. (2000). History, translation and postcolonialism. In: Sherry, S. & St.
Pierre, P. (Eds), Changing the terms: Translating in the postcolonial era. Ottawa:
University of Ottawa Press. pp. 33-52.

186
Tymoczko, M. (2007). Enlarging translation, empowering translators. Manchester: St.
Jerome Publishing.

Tymoczko, M. (2009). Why translators should want to internationalize translation

studies. The Translator, 15(2):401-421.

Tymoczko, M. (2010). Ideology and the position of the translator: In what sense is a
translator 'In n'. In Baker, M. (Ed.), Critical readings in translation studies. Oxon:
Routledge, pp. 213-228.

Tymoczko, M. (2016). Translation in a postcolonial context: Early Irish literature in

English translation. New York: Routledge.

Tyulenev, S. (2010). Is translation an autopoietic system? MonTI, 2:345-371.

Tyulenev, S. (2012). Applying Luhmann to translation studies: Translation in society.

London: Routledge.

Tyulenev, S. (2014). Translation and society: An introduction. New York: Routledge.

Vakunta, P.W. (2011). Indigenization of language in the African francophone novel: A

new literary canon. New York: Peter Lang.

Van Coller, H.P. & Odendaal, B.J. (2007). Antjie Krog's role as translator: A case
study of strategic positioning in the current South African Literary polysystem.
Current Writing: Text and Reception in Southern Africa, 19(2):94-122.

Van Rooyen, M. (2013). Structure and agency in news translation: An application of

Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory. Southern African Linguistics and Applied
Language Studies, 31(4):495-506.

Venuti, L. (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. London:

Routledge.

Venuti, L. (2004). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. London & New
York: Routledge.

Venuti, L. (2012). The translation studies reader. New York: Routledge.

Venuti, L. (2013). Translation changes everything: Theory and practice. London &
New York, Routledge.

Vosloo, F. (2007). ‘Inhabiting’ the translator's habitus: Antjie Krog as translator.

Current Writing: Text and Reception in Southern Africa, 19(2):72-93.

Wa Thiongo’o, N. (1986). Decolonising the mind: The politics of language in African

literature. Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers.

187
Waliaula. K.W. (2013). The afterlife of Oyono’s “Houseboy” in the Swahili schools
market: To be or not to be faithful to the original. Publication of the Modern
Language Association of America, 128(1):178-184.

Warde, A. (2004). Practice and field: Revising Bourdieusian concepts. CRIC

Discussion, Paper 65. Manchester: Centre for Research on Innovation and
Competition.

William, J. & Chesterman, A. (2002). The map: A beginner’s guide to doing research
in translation studies. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

Wolf, M. (2006). Translating and Interpreting as a social practice – Introspection into

a new field. Übersetzen – Translating – Traduire: Towards a “social turn”.
Munster, Hamburg, Berlin, Vienna & London: LIT, pp. 9-19.

Wolf, M. (2007a). Introduction: The emergence of a sociology of translation. In: Wolf,

M. & Fukari, A. (Eds.), Constructing a sociology of translation. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.

Wolf, M. (2007b). The location of the "translation field". Negotiating borderlines

between Pierre Bourdieu and Homi Bhabha. In: Wolf, M. & Fukari, A. (Eds.),
Constructing a sociology of translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.

Wolf, M. (2012). The sociology of translation and its 'activist turn'. Translation &
interpreting studies. The Journal of the American Translation & Interpreting
Studies Association, 7(2):129-143.

Wolf, M. (2013). Prompt at any time of the day …: The emerging translatorial habitus
in the late Habsburg Monarchy. Meta: Translator’s Journal, 58(3):504-521.

Yannakopoulou, V. (2008). “Norms and translatorial habitus in Angelos Vlahos’

Greek translation of Hamlet”. Translation and its others. Selected Papers of the
CETRA Research Seminar in Translation Studies 2007.

Yannakopoulou, V. (2014). The influence of the habitus on translatorial style: Some

methodological considerations based on the case of Yorgos Himonas’ Rendering
of Hamlet into Greek. Remapping Habitus in Translation Studies, 40:163-182.

Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and method. (4th edition). London:
SAGE Publications.

188
Appendix A
EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH JAMES CURREY AND KEITH SAMBROOK

Email interview with James Currey

Felix Awung <[email protected]>

[email protected] [email protected]

08/21/12 3:29 PM

I am a PhD student and my research is on francophone African literature translated

into English and published in the African Writers Series. The research involves
talking to the actors concerned, who in my case are John Reed and James Currey.

I would therefore be grateful if you could give me James Currey's email address for
the said purpose.

Regards,

Felix

Lynn Taylor <[email protected]>

Felix Awung Jaqueline Mitchell

08/21/12 3:59 PM

Dear Felix Awung

I will forward your details to James Currey.

with regards

Lynn Taylor, Managing Editor & Commissioning Literature, Theatre & Film
James Currey an imprint of Boydell and Brewer Ltd
www.jamescurrey.com
49 Courtland Rd, Oxford OX4 4HZ
Tel: +44 (0)1865 777458

James Currey <[email protected]>

189
[email protected]

08/23/12 à 11:24 AM

Dear Felix Awung

I should be pleased to talk to you about the subject. Are you in France at the
moment? You could interview me by telephone from there.

Are you planning to visit Oxford? You are welcome to interview me if you do.

Or would you hope to interview me by email?

Are you in touch with John Reed and Clive Wake? I can forward emails to them if
helpful.

Do you know Ruth Bush who is doing work on a doctorate at Oxford on translation of
Francophone novels?

With good wishes

James Currey

Felix Awung <[email protected]>

James Currey

08/24/12 à 12:15 PM

Dear Mr Currey,

I am indeed very delighted to get in touch with you. I am actually based in Lesotho
and doing my doctoral research at the University of the Free State in South Africa.
My topic is "Representing Africa through Translation: Ferdinand Oyono's Une Vie de
Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille in English". The framework is on agency,
that's why I need the agents involved (especially the translator and publisher) to tell
their side of the story. I am already in touch with John Reed and have conducted two
email interviews with him. Your name emerges from the interview and I have also
been reading on you. I have read your interview with Nourdin Bejjit, which is very rich
in information, but would like to ask you a few questions myself. This has to be by
email due to my situation of residence.

While I prepare the questions, I would like to thank you once more for accepting my
request.

190
Kindest regards.
Felix

Felix Awung <[email protected]>

James Currey

08/25/13 11:11 AM

Dear James,

I hope you are fine. Last year I wrote to ask if I could interview you in relation to your
involvement in the publication of African Francophone writers (especially Ferdinand
Oyono). Sorry for having been silent since then, which was due to the fact that I
suspended my research because I was relocating to South Africa and needed time to
settle down. I have now resumed the research and would like to know if you are still
willing to let me interview you.

I am also trying to lay hands on the book Africa Writes Back: The African Writers
Series and the launch of African Literature, which I am sure will give me more
information on the role of the ARS in what I am doing. Please confirm that you are
willing to address my questions before I forward them to you.

Kindest regards,

Felix

James Currey <[email protected]>

Felix Awung

08/27/13 à 7:48 PM

Dear Felix Awung

It is very important news that you interviewed Professor John Reed before his death.

I shall be glad to answer your questions if you email them to me.

AFRICA WRITES BACK; THE AFRICAN WRITERS SERIES AND THE LAUNCH OF
THE AFRICAN WRITERS SERIES is easily available in South Africa as it was co-

191
published by Wits University Press (ISBN 978-1-86814-472-3). Pages 59 to 71 are
about Francophone writers. I had a great deal of interchange with Beti and Sembene
but, I am afraid, very little direct contact with Oyono. But give me the questions and
I'll do my best.

Yours

James Currey

Felix Awung <[email protected]>

James Currey

03/02/14 12:01 PM

Dear James,

This is a follow-up to my request to interview by email on the publication of Ferdinand

Oyono's works in English. I do not know whether some of the questions would be
better addressed by Keith Sambrook, who you say commissioned the translations;
but if that is the case, I would be glad if you could forward them to him, or kindly give
me his email address.

While thanking you for accepting to answer my questions, accept my kindest regards.

Felix

Questions on John Reed’s translations of Oyono’s HouseBoy and the Old Man
and the Medal
1. How and why did you become involved in African literature?
2. How did the AWS come about, and what were the main reasons behind its
coming into existence?
3. Where there guiding principles in place to determine the types of literature to be
accepted for publication in the AWS?
4. Which types of texts were targeted in the publications of the AWS?
5. Which specific readership was the target of the AWS?
6. To what extent were works of the AWS accepted in the European literary
mainstream?
7. What policy guided the publication of translated works in the AWS?

192
8. Which types of literary works were considered suitable for translation under the
ARS?
9. Who decided on the translators to translate the works, and was there a criteria for
choosing the translators?
10. What motivated your decision to have an English translation of Ferdinand
Oyono’s novels?
11. Which kind of negotiations took place between AWS and the John Reed before,
during and after the translation?
12. Were there any negotiations between Julliard and Oyono himself in view of
translating the novels?
13. Was the John Reed given any briefs or guidelines to follow during the translation
process?
14. How was the quality of the translation assessed before publication?
15. How was the reception of the English translation of the novels when they were
published?

Dear Felix Awung

Please use AWS for the African Writers Series (not ARS)

Questions 1-5 Please get answers from AFRICA WRITES BACK (Wits UP) I have
written extensively

I have talked through questions 6 to 15 with Keith Sambrook

Questions on John Reed’s translations of Oyono’s HouseBoy and the Old Man
and the Medal

16. How and why did you become involved in African literature?
17. How did the AWS come about, and what were the main reasons behind its
coming into existence?
18. Where there guiding principles in place to determine the types of literature to be
accepted for publication in the AWS?
19. Which types of texts were targeted in the publications of the AWS?
20. Which specific readership was the target of the AWS?
21. To what extent were works of the AWS accepted in the European literary
mainstream?

193
22. What policy guided the publication of translated works in the AWS? Clive Wake
and John Reed told Keith Sambrook about remarkable books already published
by general publishers in France (As Caribbean writers were being published in
London in fifties)
23. Which types of literary works were considered suitable for translation under the
AWS? Novels in particular. Poetry as well
24. Who decided on the translators to translate the works, and was there a criteria
for choosing the translators? Reed and Wake advised. As did Abiola Irele and
Gerald Moore. The criterion was that the book should read smoothly in English.
25. What motivated your decision to have an English translation of Ferdinand
Oyono’s novels?

THEY WERE SOUTSTANDING COMPARED WITH ENGLISH FICTION

PUBLISHED IN BRITAIN AND AMERICA. And funny. And socially sharp

26. Which kind of negotiations took place between AWS and the John Reed before,
during and after the translation? Reed translated Vie de Boy on his own initiative.
That was so good that Keith Sambrook agreed he should translate Le Vieux
Negre.
27. Were there any negotiations between Julliard and Oyono himself in view of
translating the novels? I think not. They probably just were pleased to tell him
that the rights were sold to a well-established London publisher. Authors can ask
to see the translation but rarely do.
28. Was the John Reed given any briefs or guidelines to follow during the translation
process? No. See answer to question 11
29. How was the quality of the translation assessed before publication? We knew
that John Reed was closely advised by Clive Wake. Keith Sambrook judged that
the translation flowed and was easily readable in English (He could read the
French). Aig Higo in Nigeria was overwhelmed by reading the book.
30. How was the reception of the English translation of the novels when they were
published? Excellent reviews in leading journals. Good sales to public libraries
Before long reading list adoption in Universities in Britain, the Commonwealth
and America. SURPRISING IN VIEW OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
BOY AND THE MADAM THAT IT WAS NOT BANNED IN SA.

194
Felix Awung <[email protected]>

James Currey

03/09/14 11:21 AM

Dear james,

Many thanks for your answers and please do also extend my appreciation to Keith
Sambrook.

Regards.

Felix

195
Appendix B
EMAIL INTERVIEW WITH JOHN REED

Felix Awung <[email protected]>

[email protected] [email protected]

01/06/11 à 10:39 AM

Dear Sir,

I got your address from Prof. Chris Dunton. I am doing a PhD research on your
translation of Une Vie de Boy and Le Vieux Nègre et la Médaille. The focus of my
study is on the context within which the two novels were translated, and my data
collection involves interviewing the translator and the publisher. I would therefore be
grateful if you accept to allow me to interview you. I would also like to know if after
the first series of questions, you would be available for any further questions or
clarification that I might need.

Kindest regards.

Felix Awung

[email protected]
[email protected]
01/06/11 7:27 PM
Dear Felix

I am glad we are in touch at last. I heard from Chris Dunton you would like to ask me
some questions about my Oyono translations last year. I will need a day or two to
see what records I have relating to the contract with Heinemann and the African
Writers Series. I dealt with James Currey, who as you will know is still active in
publishing and has written a book about the founding of AWS. I will then try to
answer as fully as I can the questions you will ask. Of course I will be happy to make
myself available for further discussion.

With best wishes for your work,

John Reed

196
Felix Awung <[email protected]>

[email protected]

01/11/11 8:37 AM

Sir,
I am very grateful at your reply and eager to have your input.
My questions are as follows:
- Who made the decision for you to translate the works?
- What role did the author and the publishers (of the original and the translations)
play in your translation of the works?
- For which audience were the works translated?
- What did you do to understand the world view of the source texts?
- What determined the translation strategies you used or choices you made in the
process of your translation, especially in relation to culture-specific concepts?
May you have a wonderful New Year.
Felix

[email protected]
[email protected]
01/13/11 7:10 PM
Dear Felix

Thank you for your New Year Greetings, which I return. I hope your work goes well in
the new year.

Before I try to answer your questions, I should mention that just before I completed
my contract at the University of Zambia to return to England, in 1974, I made a folder
of all my correspondence with Heinemann Education Books and OUP and between
Clive Wake and myself that dealt with African writing, and left these as a manuscript
collection in the University of Zambia Library. I thought that if in the future there was
scholarly interest in the early publication of African literature in English, it would most
likely be from within Africa and in this I seem to have been right. I mention this
because in most cases I do not have the actual letters to which I refer, and am
dependent on entries made in my diary. Whether this collection would still be
available in the University of Zambia Library I do not know.

197
Who made the decision for you to translate the works?

On 18th October 1963 while I was in London, on study leave from my post in the
English Department of the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, I received
a letter from Keith Sambrook of Heinemann Educational Books. The letter contained
the contract for a Book of African Verse which Clive Wake and myself had edited. In
the letter, I was asked who had made the translations of the passages from Oyono
which I had quoted in an article I had recently published in the Makerere Journal 7
(pp1-14) Between Two Worlds:Some notes on the presentation by African novelists
of the individual in modern society. I replied that I had made the translations myself
for the article. I was then asked to write two reports, one on each of the two novels,
which HEB could use to base a decision about their suitability for inclusion in the
African Writers Series. On the 7th January 1964 I had lunch with Keith Sambrook, at
which he asked me if I would be interested in translating one of the novels, and I
agreed. This was formally settled at a lunch on 24 April shortly before I returned to
Africa. It was agreeed I should start with Une Vie de Boy and try to have a translation
ready by the beginning of September. He mentioned a fee of £100 and I think it was
£100 I was eventually paid. Back at the University I began to work on the translation
on 2nd June

What role did the author and publishers play?

I had myself no communication with the French publishers nor with Oyono himself.
What I have written above gives an idea of the role of Heineman Educational Books,
with whom I was already working wth Clive Wake in compiling A Book of African
Verse for them.

For which audience?

For each novel, a hard back edition was published by the main firm, William
Heinemann, either shortly before or simultaneously with the paperback edition in the
African Writers' Series.The hardback edition would have been added to the
Heinemann Novels list and had a sale to the circulating libraries. But the main point
of the publication was the AWS volume and the sales of this series were dominantly
in Africa.

What did you do to understand the world view of the source text?

198
At the time I did not think of the translation at all in these terms. I felt I could produce
an English version of the text that would give its reader an experience corresponding
to that of a francophone reader of Oyono's original. Any successful reading of a novel
must I think involve a grasp of its author's world view. I had read in my life a good
many novels in English and French and had recently read all the novels I could lay
my hands on written by Africans in the two languages I could read, (as well as much
other writing, poetry obviously but also memoirs and autobiographical writings,
journalism). As for the colonial situation in the novels, I had lived in Southern
Rhodesia since 1957, a society deeply divided, socially and legally, on racial
grounds. In the first long vacation of my teaching at the University of Rhodesia and
Nyasaland, December to March I had travelled to Nigeria and stayed with my brother
and sister in law, both then teachers in Nigerian Secondary Schools (Ado Ekiti),
shortly before full Nigerian Independence. I had travelled out to Rhodesia by sea to
Cape Town and up by rail to Salisbury so I had at least visited Apartheid South
Africa. I had not at the time I made the translation myself employed an African house
servant, but living as a stall member in a student residence on campus I had plenty of
opportunity to observe white management of for example kitchen staff.

What determined the translation strategies I used.

It seemed to me the French Colonial System in the novels closely resembled the
British colonial system, the language of which I some experience of. I was aware of
the great climatic and seasonal differences between West and Southern Africa, and
my greater familiarity with the southern African climate may in places have made my
translation misleading.

I left French colonial titles alone and did not attempt to render them into their
approximate British equivalents. (I regret however not respelling Toundi as Tundi as
English speakers are likely to pronounce Toundi as if the first syllable rhymed with
sound or ground)

At this distance in time I do not recall any difficulties with culture specific concepts but
perhaps you could draw my attention to any inappropriate renderings you have
noticed.

Please do not hesitate to to ask more detailed questions or ask me to elaborate any
of the above.

199
With best wishes,

John Reed

200
Felix Awung <[email protected]>

[email protected]

01/17/11 8:23 AM

Sir,
Thanks a lot for the very resourceful information. Your answers will fill many gaps
that had been left hanging in my research. Of course, I shall come back to you with
more questions and further clarifications, and I thank you for your availability.
Kindest regards,
Felix

Felix Awung <[email protected]>

[email protected]
10/03/11 10:59 AM
Dear John,

I hope you are well. I am writing as a follow up to the interview on your translation of
Ferdinand Oyono's works. I have the following additional questions to which I would
like to have your answers:

- What brought you to translation? I.e. why and when did you start to translate?

- Are there other works you have translated (novels, poetry etc)?

- Have you translated in any other language combination apart from French into
English?

- What motivated your interest in African literature? Do you have a special affinity
with Africa/Cameroon?

- How did you translate Oyono ? E.g. did you read the whole book, study the book,
read books about the book; did you rework it many times, let someone read the
translation? What were the constraints?

- What attracted you to the works of Oyono in the first place?

- In your translations of Oyono, what were your views on cultural difference?

- Did the norms of the receiving culture influence your translation strategies?

201
- What purpose guided the course of the translations? Did you have any personal
interest in the message you wanted to pass across?

- Did some words/passages pose difficulties in the translations? What do you do

when stuck for a word or reference? Which passages did you rework most?

- Did the publishers put you under a lot of pressure?

- How did the editing process with Heinemann go? Did you produce many drafts?

- What about critics? Were their comments useful?

- How did you feel when you received the published works?

- What happens after publication? Is it the end?

De : [email protected]
À : [email protected]
Envoyé le : Mercredi 5 octobre 2011 12h03
Objet : Some Answers on Oyono

Dear Felix

Here are the answers to your questions in as far as I can give them without looking
up documents and records or going through the text of the translations. I am off for
three weeks holiday tomorrow, but do come back if you wish for clarifications later
on.

Apart from school exercises, I suppose French into English translation for me took off
in the work I did with my colleague, Clive Wake, at the University College of
Rhodesia and Nyasaland on the study of African literature in the two languages,
which led to our being commissioned by Mr James Currey, who was then a publisher
at Heinemann Educational Books and starting up the African Writers Series, to
submit an anthology of African poetry, which would include francophone poets
translated into English. This was A Book of African Verse which came out in 1964. In
the same year Oxford University Press brought out Leopold Sedar Senghor, Selected
Poems, translated and introduced by Wake and myself. There have been a number
of other books by us of translations from Senghor, In the African Writers Series we
also did French African Verse, which gives the poems in the original French with our
202
English translations 'en face' (1972) and a volume of selections from the Malgasy
poet, Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo (Translations from the Night,1975)

By this time our cooperation was at a distance, as Clive Wake was teaching at the
University of Kent, and I was at the University of Zambia. We also cooperated as
translators of two novels, Mongo Beti's L'Habitude de Malheure, and Willims
Sassine's Wirriyamu, both in the AWS.

I have made translations into English verse of Bertold Brecht's Hauspostille, and of
the Latin poem, De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, but neither of these have been
published.

My interest in African literature arose I suppose from seventeen years of teaching

English in Africa from 1957 until 1974, first in Rhodesia and then in Zambia.

I had of course read Une Vie de Boy and I think I wrote about it and other African
novels in an article. As I remember I was asked if I was interested in doing a
transaltion for the AWS by James Currey, and if I was to submit a specimen of a few
pages. I was contracted then to produce a complete translation, and I set about it,
handwriting an English version, page by page. I doubt if there was criticism about
Oyono for me to read, certainly I did not read any. I was still in Rhodesia and I
suppose I consulted Clive Wake on points of French language. I don't remember
asking anyone to read the whole novel in my translation before I sent it to the
publishers. I saw Oyono's novels as well written and telling stories against
colonialism which I found all around me in Rhodesia. Of course there were
differences, since Rhodesia had a white settler population which ruled the country,
though it was still technically a colony of Britain. I do not think I found a cultural
problem in translating from French into English since these two languages functioned
similarly if not identically in the two colonial systems. In both Oyono's novels the
source of comedy are the misunderstandings between masters and servants,
something which has been a staple in both French and English literature and goes
back at least as far as Roman Comedy.

I found some difficulty in translating the vocabularies referring to patterns of seasonal

change in West as distinct from Southern Africa, and I have in places I am told have
used English terms current in Southern Africa but which would not be readily
understood in English speaking West Africa. My brother was teaching at this time in

203
Nigeria and I had stayed with him so I had some familiarity with the terminology for
West African climate conditions.

I don't now recall any passages which gave me difficulty but I might be reminded if
reread my translation.

I produced a typescript of my translation and sent it to London within the deadline. I

assume it underwent some sort of editing by the publishers as all books do. I think for
translations this editing is for grammar and readability, not for accuracy to the
original. I have sometimes while reading a book in French consulted the published
English translation and found that the passage I was interested in has just been left
out.

For a translation you are paid a lump sum. As I remember I got £100 for Houseboy
and £150 for The Old Man and the Medal. Royalties on sales, very properly go to the
author. On the other hand the translator's name is printed in every copy sold and the
translation of Houseboy has had long print runs both in the UK and in America.

Do come back for further clarifications, though as I say I will be away for the next
three weeks,

With all good wishes for your work

John Reed

204