1. Introduction

All through the history of translation studies, translating proper names (henceforth, PNs) has been confronted with one critical question: whether to translate the PNs or not? If yes, how, if not, why. As a general premise, it has been argued that since the PNs are regarded as a part of the culture of any language and society, it seems to be resistant to translation, if not untranslatable. As another premise, it can be argued that the PNs can be categorized into different labels, some translatable because they have equivalents in the TL; some resistant to translation because one part of it may have an equivalent, and another part may have no equivalent in the TL; some untranslatable because there can be found no one to one correspondence between the PNs in the SL and the TL. Regarding the translatability of the PNs, two challenging questions might be raised: how the PNs have been rendered into another language through the strategies applied by the translators; and whether or not these strategies have something to do with the kinds of translation the translators have done.  (for example, see Hermans (1996); Schiavi (1996); Baker (2000); Bosseaux (2000)).

Aside from the strategies used by the translators in translating the PNs, the critical issue is how these strategies have something to do with the kinds of translation a translator may produce as the final product. As the translator may make some changes in the process of translating, whether using obligatory or optional shifts, the strategies may be connected, in one way or another, to how the translator may project his discursive presence in the process of translation. Furthermore, how the translator shows his discursive presence may be related to how the translator may employ some recurring patterns in using language, designated as the translator’s linguistic habits. How the translator uses some strategies, say for translating the PNs, may be connected to how he may use his linguistic habits in the form of some recurring linguistic patterns. These recurring patterns of the translator’s linguistic habits are called ‘the translator’s style’ for lack of a better term. As the ‘thumbprint’ (Baker, 1996), the style can be regarded as the recurring patterns of the translator’s linguistic habits, yielded mainly from the shifts made by the translator at the micro-level structure of the TT. If they get frequent, these shifts may affect the kind of translation as the final product, i.e., foreignized/domesticated translation. As its primary concern, this paper tries to show there is a direct relationship between the strategies used by the translator and the way the translator may show his style (Baker, 2000), hence, his discursive presence (Bosseaux, 2000) and preferably, his voice (Hermans, 1996) in the translated narrative texts.

It seems that there should be a correlation between the way a translator uses domesticating/foreignizing strategies and the way he shows his discursive presence/absence in the process of translating into another language in that it can be related, in one way or another, to the shifts a translator may intend to make in an optional and obligatory way. Shift or better, ‘translation shifts,’ as firstly used by Catford (1965), among others, is defined as any change that takes place in the process of transferring the SL meanings into the TT and is thus a central concept in the study of translations: 

Shifts in the translation are known as those changes which occur or may occur in the process of translation. Most of the time, they result from dealing with the systemic differences between ST and TT languages (Baker et al. (1998, p. 226)).

Hence, the study of shifts needs to distinguish between1) obligatory, 2) optional shifts, and 3) non-shift. Obligatory shifts may affect the final product, hence, the translator’s discursive presence, voice, and style at the micro-level in the TT. On the other hand, the optional shifts may occur without any linguistic or cultural necessity obliged by the translator. Furthermore, non-shifts may have shift-like impacts since they involve transferring an unchanging element into a different language and culture. Each shift may increase or decrease the ST and the TT distance. This ‘distance’ relates to how a translator may use domesticating/foreignizing strategies. The more the translator uses domesticating strategies, the more the distance is increased between the ST and the TT; the more the translator may use foreignizing strategies, the more the distance is decreased between the SL and the TT. As for non-shift, it may also act as a means of foreignization than domestication.

Of these three kinds of shift, it seems that the optional shift has a way to do with the translator's discursive presence; hence, his voice and style in that it is through this shift that the translator intends to interfere in the TT through the various options he has at his disposal from the repertoire of the TL. In other words, he becomes much more active and involved in translation through the dynamic action he does as the main agent of the translation. Optional shifts thus always affect the agency of the translator. As the main translation agent, the translator may do many things to make his translation ready for the readership. Of the various things the translator may do, one important and determining thing is how the translator makes a ‘choice’ among the linguistic options the TL puts at his disposal. Another challenging issue is how the translator may repeat, consciously or unconsciously, some recurring patterns in using such linguistic items. The translator may use shifts, mostly optional but sometimes obligatory, to bring about some recurring linguistic patterning, rarely consciously, all through translation. If this recurring linguistic patterning gets frequent, it becomes a part of the linguistic ‘habit’ of the translator as the main agent of the translation. This linguistic ‘habit’ if getting frequent, becomes the “thumbprint” (Baker, (2000, p. 245)) of the translator, setting the path for what has been called ‘the translator’s style’ in translation studies in recent years. As the thumbprint, the style has been defined as some unconscious and uncontrollable patterning of the translator’s linguistic habits through the shifts he may make in translation. In this sense, the translator’s style is made of the optional choice selected from the repertoire of the TL. Therefore, to claim that style is a choice is to claim that there is an agent who selects the specific structures over others at his disposal among the repertoire of the TL. In addition, when the translator feels free to make an optional ‘choice,’ he intends to show that he is attempting to make room for himself in the TL to emphasize his discursive presence, and preferably, his voice, in the target language and culture, on which Hermans (1996) and Schiavi (1996) have elaborated.

The individual translator’s presence, voice, and style may lead to what Venuti (2008) has termed the translator’s visibility in The Translator’s Invisibility. The way the translator attempts to make ‘choice’ through optional shifts may lead to his visibility in his translation. In this sense, (in) visibility relates to the translator’s foreignizing/domesticating strategies. The more the translator becomes visible, the more he has used foreignizing strategies, and the more he has used domesticating strategies, the more he becomes invisible in his translation. Also, (in) visibility may be connected, in one way or another, to the translator’s style: the more visible the translator becomes, the more his style is popped up; the more he becomes invisible, the more his style is faded away. 

In sum, it seems that foreignizing/domesticating strategies are connected, in one way, to the optional shifts the translator makes, and, in another way, to how the translator may project his discursive presence, voice, and style in the translated texts. Furthermore, how the translator uses these strategies may be connected to how he may use his linguistic habits in the form of some recurring linguistic patterns. This paper tries to show that the way the six Persian translators of Woolf’s two novels, i.e., The Waves (TWS, 1963) and to the Lighthouse (TTL, 1927), have translated the PNs might be connected to the translators’ style through foreignizing/domesticating strategies they have used through the optional shifts employed in the process of their translations. This paper takes Leppihalme’s model as its theoretical framework to see what the six Persian translators have done while translating the PN into Persian in these two novels.

2. Review of the Related Literature

As for the related literature on translating the PNs, a lot of papers have been written in recent years in which they have tried to tackle the topic in different, challenging ways (for instance, see Ahanizadeh, 2012; Anabisarab 2009; Bosseaux, 2000; Zabir & Haroon, 2018; and Zarei & Norouzi 2014, among others). Bosseaux (2000) is one of the earliest translation scholars who have tackled translating the PNs in Woolf’s TWS and not TTL. Yet none of these studies have approached translating the PNs based on Leppihalme’s Procedures and Venuti’s foreignizing/domesticating strategies concerning the translator's discursive presence, voice, and style, especially Woolf’s two novels.

3. Method

As for translating the PNs, different models and approaches have been suggested, with Leppihalme’s (1997) model and Venuti’s (2008) two main strategies, among others. Leppihalme (1997) proposes the most basic translation strategies for the PNs: “to keep the name unaltered, to change it, and to omit it” (pp. 78-9; see the following diagrams and tables). According to Leppihalme, "the solution of retention of the names as such (ia)… was adopted in close to 70% of instances. Most of the names were naturally unchanged but were appropriate both lexical and orthographical changes are required" (p. 99). Leppihalme believes that moving from (ia) toward (iiib) shows that the translators have used minimum effort to get maximum benefits. As an applicable, comprehensive, and friendly-used model, Leppihalme’s model consists of three main components, subdivided into sub-groups that can be easily numbered, counted, and quantified. More than that, this model can encompass other strategies suggested by previous scholars. Last but not least, it can be put on a continuum ranging from foreignizing to domesticating strategies presented by Venuti. ‘Retention of the name’ (I) is the nearest strategy to foreignization and the farthest from domestication; ‘replacing the name by the TL name’ (iib) is the nearest strategy to domestication and farthest from foreignization. Between strategy (I) and strategy (iib), there are different ranges of foreignizing/domesticating strategies. ‘Omission’ strategy (III), especially (iiib), is the freest strategy, showing that the translator has preferred not to translate the PNs. The following diagram is self-evident:

Table 1

Leppihalme’s Model Related to Venuti’s Strategies

The important point is that the translator’s discursive presence, voice, and style can mainly be related to foreignizing strategies; however, the translator can keep the writer's original style using domesticating strategies.

3.1 Corpus 

Two novels by Woolf, along with the six respective Persian translations, are selected: The Waves and To the Lighthouse, the former translated by Daryush (1977), Najafipour (1998), and Ghebraei (2012) and the latter by Bejaniyan (1991), Hosseini (1994), and Keyhan (2008). Firstly, the proper names of the main characters of the two novels are chosen and compared with their respective Persian equivalents. Secondly, the proper names of the places and locations are randomly selected from two novels and their corresponding Persian equivalents. Thirdly, the proper names of the plants and the flowers are randomly chosen. Finally, the proper names are seen in two novels and their six Persian translations. 

3.2. Data analysis

As it is clear from table number 2, the three Persian translators have tried to translate the original PNs using ‘retention of the name,’ save for some minor changes in the phonemes of some names such as ‘Virgil,’ ‘Elvedon,’ ‘Louis,’ and ‘Lucretius.’ Comparing the three translators, Daryush has attempted to keep the French pronunciation of the PNs.

Table 2

PNs in Three Persian Translations of TWS

Table 3

PNs in Three Persian Translations of TTL

3.2.1 PNs of Places in the Waves (TWS)

As Tables 2 and 3 show, the translators have applied different foreignizing/domesticating strategies in different ways and proportions. Najafipour has mostly tried to keep the original names in his translation. Daryush and Ghebraei used ‘retention’ and ‘replacement’ strategies simultaneously.

Table 4

PNs of Places in TWS

3.2.2 PNs of Places in TTL

As for translating the proper names of the places and geographical locations, the three translators of TTL have mostly tried to keep the original names with some minor changes.

Table 5

PNs of Places in TTL

3.2.3 General PNs in TWS

As for translating the general proper names, the three translators of TTL have mainly tried to keep and replace the original names with some other names.

Table 6

General PNs in TWS

3.2.4 PNs of Flowers in TTL

As for translating the proper names of the flowers, the three Persian translators of TTL have replaced the original names with the appropriate Persian equivalents.

Table 7

PNs of Flowers in TTL

3.2.6 PNs of Foods in TWS

As for translating the proper names of the foods, the three Persian translators of the Waves have mostly replaced the original foods with the appropriate Persian equivalents.

Table 8

PNs of Foods in TWS

As the data collection shows, the six Persian translators of Woolf's two novels have used different foreignizing/domesticating strategies through other ‘choices’ they have made via optional shifts at their disposal from the repertoire of the Persian TL. The two following tables show how the Persian translators of the waves and TTL have used Leppihalme’s strategies, respectively.

Table 9

Total PNs in TWS Based on Leppihalme

Table 10

Total PNs in TTL Based on Leppihalme

3.2.7 Tables Explained

• The procedure iaa, i.e., ‘the retention of phonetic and graphological of a name,’ has been repeated 35 times in TWS and 67 times in TTL.
• The procedure iab, i.e., ‘changing the phonetic and graphological of a name,’ has been repeated 33 times in TWS and 31 times in TTL.
• The procedure iib, i.e., ‘replacing the name by a target language name,’ has been repeated 23 times in TWS and 21 times in TTL.
• The procedure, iibd, i.e., ‘replacing a name by a different name in the TL’, is used 13 times in TWS and eight times in TTL.
• The procedure, Iiia, i.e., ‘omission of the name but transferring the sense by another means,’ has been used two times in TWS and just once in TTL.
• The procedure, iia, i.e., ‘replacing the name with another SL name,’ has been repeated twice in TWS and 4times in TTL.
• The procedure, iiba, i.e., ‘replacing the name by a target language name plus some information and guidelines,’ has been used seven times in TWS and TTL.
• The procedure, iibc, i.e., ‘the replacement of a noun without any explanation,’ has been repeated just once in TWS.
• The procedure, iiic, i.e., ‘the omission of a part of a noun without any explanation,’ is used twice in TWS and once in TTL.
• The procedure, iba, i.e., is repeated ten times just in TTL.
• The last procedure, ibb, is repeated three times in TTL.

As the two tables show, each Persian translator of Woolf’s two novels has attempted to use Leppihalme’s strategies differently. The following table demonstrates the total Frequency of the application of Leppihalme’s strategies in the six Persian translations of the two novels:

Table 11

Total Frequency of Strategies in Six Persian Translations Based on Leppihalme

The following diagram (figure 1) shows the distribution of the strategies used by the six Persian translators of Woolf’s two novels based on Leppihalme’s model.

Figure 1. The Distribution of the Strategies 

The following table shows how each Persian translator of Woolf’s two novels has used Leppihalme’s strategies in different proportions.

Table 12

Total Frequency of Strategies Used by Each Translator Based on Leppihalme

4. Discussion and Results

As the tables and diagrams indicate, the six Persian translators of Woolf’s two novels have used Leppihalme’s strategies in translating the PNs in different propensities. However, this question is raised: how should these frequencies and propensities be related to foreignizing/domesticating strategies and to the translators’ discursive presence, voice, and style in another way?

As mentioned earlier, different strategies have been suggested for translating the PNs by various scholars, Newmark, Baker, Leppihalme, among others. However, translating the PNs, in one way or another, can be connected to two main strategies as proposed by Venuti: foreignizing/domesticating strategies. Interestingly enough, these strategies can be associated with the shifts made by the translators in translation. However, the point is that the preferably optional shifts that the translator makes can be related to some recurring patterns of the linguistic habits of the translator. If these linguistic habits get frequent, they can result in the translator’s style, presence, and, preferably, a voice in the translated texts. In this sense, the strategies used by the translators for translating the PNs, as an aspect of the culture of any society, can reveal a way to the translator’s discursive presence, voice, and style in the translated texts in the TL. One main reason to raise such a claim is that the shifts the translators make, consciously or unconsciously, can be connected to the linguistic habits of the translators through a few recurring patterns they might have elected among the repertoire of their TL. Oddly enough, these recurring patterns of the translators’ linguistic habits might lead to what Baker (1992) has designated as ‘universal features of translation,’ typically taking place in the translated texts rather than the original texts and that is "not the result of interference from specific linguistic systems” (Baker 1992, p. 243). Baker (1996) has identified the four universals of translation: explication, simplification, leveling out, and normalization (see Horri (2009) for a detailed explanation of these universals). Of these universals, normalization can be related to domesticating strategies in that the translator keeps this tendency to ‘exaggerate features of the target language and conform to its typical patterns’ (Baker 1996, p. 183). In this sense, normalization finds a relationship with those strategies Leppihalme has termed ‘replacement’ (II) with its different subcategories (iia, iib, and iic). For instance, the way the six Persian translators of Woolf’s two novels have tried to replace the SL PNs with some TL PNs shows that they have been attempting to normalize the oddity of the SL with the typical patterns of the TL. Generally, as defined by Baker (1992; 1996; 1998) and studied by other scholars, the four universals of translation provide a challenging theoretical framework for studying the translator’s discursive presence, vice, and style in the translated texts.

Interestingly, to show how translating the PNs through the shifts that the translators make can be related to the foreignizing/domesticating strategies as well as the translator’s discursive presence, voice, and style, it is necessary to make a profile for each Persian translator to allow us to come up with some new findings regarding the translator’s voice as defined by Hermans (1996) and Schiavi (1996) and the translator’s style as defined by Baker (1996; 2000), among others. Hopefully, the translator’s profile can give us a snapshot of the personal strategies used by the translator.

4.1 TWS’ Persian Profile

The three Persian translators have translated the three Persian translations of Woolf’s TWS in different periods: Daryush, Najafipour, and Ghebraei. 

Figure 2. Daryush’s profile

Also, Daryush has tried to keep the writer’s original style and voice, using much more foreignizing strategies.

Figure 3. Najafipour's profile

    As the numbers show, Najafipour has used foreignizing strategies with high propensity. It reveals that he has wanted to keep the original names, keeping the writer’s original style and voice in the TL.

Figure 4. Ghebreie’s profile

Ghebraei’s translation has tried to keep the writer’s original style and voice and put his thumbprint as his style in the translation, using foreignizing and domesticating strategies in different ways. Ghebraei has tried to keep the writer’s original style and voice and his discursive presence and voice in his translation.

4.2 TTL’s Persian Profile

As for its Persian translations, TTL has been translated thrice by different translators: Bejaniyan, Hosseini, and Keyhan. The translators have used the following procedures:

Figure 5. Bejaniyan’s profile

As the numbers show, Bejaniyan has used foreignizing strategies with high propensity. It reveals that she has wanted to keep the original names, keeping the writer’s original style and voice in the TL.

Figure 6. Hosseini’s profile

As for Hosseini’s translation, he has tried to keep the writer’s original style and voice and put his thumbprint as his style in the translation, using foreignizing and domesticating strategies differently.

Figure 7. Keyhan’s profile

As the diagrams show, the translators have used both foreignizing/domesticating strategies with various propensities. Compared with the other two translators, Hosseini has tried to keep the writer's original voice and discursive presence and voice in his translation. 

Now, comparing the strategies used by the three Persian translators of TWS, we can see that Najafipour has primarily used foreignizing strategies, and Ghebraei has used foreignizing and domesticating strategies, though with different propensities. Hence, Ghebraei seems to use normalization more than Najafipour. Such a claim can be said for both Bejanyian’s and Hosseini’s translations, respectively: Bejanyian shows a tendency to leave the original text as it is and make it sound foreign (no mention of the fact that how she has changed the overall meaning of the original text at the macro-level); Hosseini shows a clear pattern of domestication or normalization. Hence, Hosseini can be said to normalize more than Bejanyian. Both Daryush and Keyhan have tried to keep the middle ground in using the strategies though they have shown a tendency to foreignize strategies with a higher propensity. Oddly enough, some findings of this paper can be compared with what Bosseaux (2000) has found regarding two French translations of Woolf’s TWS.

Regarding Venuti’s two strategies, sometimes the translators, by adding strange and unfamiliar elements such as translating the PNs literally without giving further explanation, have tried to both familiarize and defamiliarize their translation, making the process of reading their translations both easy and difficult for the Iranian readership, thereby revealing both the original writer’s voice and style as well as their discursive presence and voice in the translated text. However, some believe that foreignization, such as transliteration of the original words, preserves the spatial sense of the original text. Others believe that these elements expose the reader to the words of the TL and facilitate the discovery of the meaning of the words according to the context of the translated text. It seems that it is possible to find some relationships between the strategies used by the translators and their discursive presence, voice, and style in the translated texts.

5. Conclusion

It may be argued that the six translators’ tendency to both keep and change the characteristics of the SL and the TL through, for example, preserving phonetic and written form on the one hand, and replacing a name with a similar name on the other, could show both the writer’s style and the translators’ discursive presence, voice and style. In general, the whole point of the translator’s stylistics is that the translator has to make some changes, engravings, and manipulations to convey the author’s stylistics, which results in the translator’s stylistics. The translator should preserve his style to recreate the author’s style in the TL. Moreover, the main point behind the translator’s stylistics goes back to the presence or absence of the translator in the translated texts.

This paper tried to study the six translators’ discursive presence, voice, and style in the Persian translations of Woolf’s TWS and TTL by examining the way these translators have used different foreignizing and domesticating strategies via the optional shifts they have made in the process of translating various categories of the PNs. Such a careful examination allows us to talk about the role and the status of the translator as the main agent of the translation as a social activity, on the one hand, and to promote the status of the translation as the final product of that agent as a creative activity and not a ‘derivative activity’ forcing the translators to stay hidden behind their translations and inferior to the original creator. As far as translation goes beyond translating just the linguistic items of the SL and becoming part of the culture of any society, the translator has this chance to make optional choices to show his strategies. If the optional shifts get frequent, they can show the translator’s discursive presence, voice, and style in his translation. One reason indicates that each translator can produce his specific version of the same text because he can make many choices in his repertoire.