Food Translation: Cultural Issues in Translating Menus and Recipes - Essay Example

Food translation: Cultural issues in translating menus and recipes (Arabic-English) Introduction Globalisation, the growth in trade and commerce amongst nations and peoples, has resulted in prosperity, mobility, and uniform standards and expectations, all made possible because of advances in human communication and information technology (Micklethwait & Wooldridge, 2000). Translation is a crucial activity within the realm of human communication because it allows people with different languages to understand each other. That translation is important in a globalising world is noticeable by the growing presence of local products in foreign shops and foreign products in local shops. One need only look at an aluminium can that looks like a popular drink on the shelf of a supermarket in Bangkok, or the garbled translation at the back of a box of cereals to realise the value of correct translation principles and strategies. Having the wrong translation may prove dangerous and, in some cases, fatal. One important and crucial application of translation is in the understanding of recipes and menus because of the nature that food acquires in the mind of the person, be it an American sitting at a restaurant in Cairo or an Egyptian at a restaurant in Glasgow. For both, the menu informs whether the food would agree with the body and, in the case of the Egyptian, also with the soul. This paper on recipe and menu translation begins with discussing why translation is both a science and art, and the principal issues of subjectivity in translation and interpretation, foreignisation-domestication and visibility-invisibility. Translation as Science and Art Before writing was invented, human communication was done using words or sounds. Basic communication became possible amongst people because of "language", a set of symbols that follow rules of syntax and semantics shared by those with a common cultural identity. Language as an integral part of culture is a means to express a message and define the cultural identity of the message source along with non-verbal conventions, norms, and rules of conduct to which group members conform by virtue of their upbringing or any other process of socialisation (Snell-Hornby, 1999, 103). Language reflects culture, the people's beliefs, histories, behaviours, and ideologies. When different cultures interact, each culture develops and changes. Language development gives translation its important role: by allowing one culture to communicate with another, translation improves the way cultures understand and influence each other. That, at least, is the theory. The practice is complex and challenging because in translating from one language to another, it is not easy to capture precisely different cultural identities and make these easier for the other to understand. This is why translation is both a science and an art. Translation is a science because it follows objective rules and methods. It is also an art because it entails the re-production and re-creation of an original work (source text or ST) in a source language (SL) into a target language (TL) in a new work (target text or TT). The translation from ST to TT requires a complex set of knowledge and skills to re-produce the content, spirit, and context of the ST as faithfully as possible to enhance understanding and produce the intended effect. This is not easy because a faithful understanding of a culture is difficult for one not native to it. Translations must reflect the thought, feeling, and style of the SL as faithfully, flexibly, and satisfactorily in the TL, which means the TT must be close to the ST in form and substance, i.e., from the literary and linguistic points of view. Following the simplest rule of communication, the translator confronted with a ST must determine the original author's message, the meaning the author puts into that message, the author's intention, and how the author communicates that message (Venuti, 1995, 1-2). Throughout the whole translation process, the translator has to remember three aspects of utterance: verbal, syntactic, and semantic. The verbal aspect is shown by the words and sentences; the syntax is the interrelation of the parts of the text; and the semantic aspect evokes the theme and context of what is said (Venuti, 1994). Translators must reproduce the original style as much as possible, showing hidden connections and meanings in a way that speakers of the TL would understand. This is where meanings specific to nuances of cultural identities can get lost in the translation (Venuti, 1994). Subjectivity in Translation and Interpretation Translation can be distinguished from interpretation, which is similar in many ways. Translation is the conversion of written communication from books, documents, etc. from one SL to a TL. Interpretation can mean (Baker, 2000, 242): (1) the conversion from one spoken or conversed material from a SL to a TL, or (2) the range of meanings and level of understanding a translator would have on the ST to be translated Although translation and interpretation have similarities, the skills and abilities needed to do each well would differ because of the nature of the message: translators work on written material, whilst interpreters work on spoken material. Thus, the speaker's body language and the context of the message affect the meaning of what is said (Benjamin, 2000, 16-18). Translation, like interpretation, is subjective because the translator's identity, attitudes, experience, and character affect the reading of the ST and its interpretation, which needs a specific point of view and a personal position. Translation demands specific strategies of linguistic expression. There is no such thing as a neutral utterance and every translator assumes an intellectual, literary, linguistic, and emotional position. Such an intellectual position determines the translator's degree of subjective creativity, and the extent to which the translator exercises such creativity determines the degree to which readers of the TT appreciate the translated work. The translator's creative cognition is decisive and is affected by the attitudes towards the original text (ST), the translator's collective personal experience, judgment standards, values, and views, the understanding of the target culture and target readership, and the translator's intention, self-determination, initiative, and creative abilities. Any simple sentence can be translated and interpreted in different ways according to the psychological bias of the translator. A translator's subjectivity affects the way the ST is understood, how translation tools are used, the perception of the purpose of the translation, and how the target readers' needs are understood, without corrupting the ST's essence to fit a personal agenda. The translator has to consider cultural nuances of target readers, be sensitive, and do justice to what is translated and to those who would read and use the translation. Thus, a literary work must be translated in a way that evokes emotions similar to the poet who composed it. A problem exists when cultural standards differ, e.g., what is beautiful in one culture may not be so in another. This is the next challenge a translator faces: foreignisation or domestication and its effect on the translator's visibility. When cultures meet: Foreignisation-Domestication/Visibility-Invisibility Venuti (1994) first used the term cultural identity in the context of translation as a means of definition and differentiation. The phrase meant a constructed clich image or stereotype, an identity, that is based on real, often objective features that include both the notion of a subject's self-image and the way s/he is viewed from outside. Thus, he argued (p. 202) that "translation wields enormous power in constructing representations of foreign cultures." No one disagrees with this. Translation is one of the best windows through which anyone can understand or appreciate a foreign culture, be it through a literary or cinematic work, or through the culture's food habits. Whether the ST is a literary masterpiece or a restaurant menu, the first task of the translator is to determine the orientation of the work to be translated. Obviously, the goal of translation is to make ST intelligible to target readers in TL by converting the ST into TT. But how far may the translator go to accomplish this There is a problem because when ST is translated into TT, the cultural identity reflected in ST fades, not only because of the translator's subjectivity but because of the subjectivity of the ST author. Translating a poem would be affected by the purpose of both the author and the translator, for example transforming it from an ode to beauty into a range of literary works, such as a call to action, a lamentation of progress, or just a memory aid. Translation is powerful because it can change meanings. This brings up the strategic issues of domestication-foreignisation and the visibility-invisibility of the translator. These two sets of terminologies have dominated intellectual debates for years. One key issue has been that of whether the translator should remain invisible, invisibility describing the extent to which certain translation traditions tolerate the presence (i.e. intrusion or intervention) of the translator (Hatim, 2001, 45). Venuti (1995, 1) suggested that "invisibility" reveals itself in two related phenomena: (1) The effect of discourse or the translator's use of language, and (2) A practice of reading or the way translations are received and evaluated. A translation from one language into another normally involves three transfers (Hochel, 1991, 41): (1) From one natural language into another (2) From one era or period into another; and (3) From one cultural milieu into another. Each transfer can result in an invisible or domesticating translation where the TT is perceived as if it was originally written in the TL, within the target culture, and for the contemporary audience. These transfers can also result in a foreignising translation, which makes it obvious to the reader that the original literary work belonged to a different language, age and culture. Hatim (2001, 46) defines domestication as "an approach to translation which, in order to combat some of the alienating effects of the foreign text, tends to promote a transparent, fluent style" and foreignisation as a "translation strategy which deliberately breaks target linguistic and cultural conventions by retaining some of the 'foreignness' of the ST. Schleiermacher (1963) argued that a translator either "leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him" (Birdwood-Hedger, 2006, 7). Every translator has to choose between a domesticating and a foreignising method. Domestication reduces ST to TL cultural values whilst foreignisation brings those values to register the linguistic and cultural differences of the ST. Domestication makes the foreign author fit into the target culture, whilst foreignisation brings the target reader to the source culture. France (2000, 9) argued that domestication "has long been, and still remains, an essential criterion for judging the success of a translation" and that for most English readers, the "model of good writing was its preference for the familiar over the far-fetched, the concrete over the abstract, the single word over the circumlocution, the short word over the long, the Saxon word over the Romance. If one accepted a given stylistic doctrine as possessing a general validity, then translations could be all judged by their conformity to conservative literary taste." This means that readers judge a work of translation as good if they comfortably understand the exotic nature of a foreign culture from the TT. Such a judgment based on comfort is subjective because each one's interpretation of what is read is affected by what is known and familiar, which in turn results from their self-awareness and knowledge of their own culture. Venuti (1995, p. 67) defines domesticating translation as "a replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the foreign text with a text that is intelligible to the target language reader," and foreignising translation as a "translation that indicates the linguistic and cultural differences of the text by disrupting the cultural codes that prevail in the target language." He argued that the "domesticating tradition (of the past) rested on a double fidelity, to the SL text as well as to the TL culture, and especially to its valorisation of transparent discourse of translation. But this was clearly impossible and knowingly duplicitous, accompanied by the rationale that a gain in domestic intelligibility and cultural force outweighed the loss suffered by the foreign text and culture. Translators saw their domesticating method as the most effective way to produce (the most adequate) versions" (p. 68) and that this is the best way for "whatever beauty the most different times have brought forth to be enjoyed by all people, as purely and perfectly as is possible for a foreigner" (p. 109-110). Tymoczko (1999/2000) criticised this dichotomy by pointing out that a translation may be radically orientated to the source text in some respects, but depart radically from the source text in other respects, thus denying the existence of a single polarity that describes the orientation of a translation. In reality and in practice, however, translations must be a compromise between the two, domesticating the text in some aspects and foreignising it in others, the translator visible in some and invisible in others (Birdwood-Hedger, 2006, p. 7). Whichever is better depends on the reader's objective preferences and whether these are satisfactorily achieved by the translator's objectives. In the translation of a menu or recipe, a good work of translation is one that achieves the purpose for which the target text was made and at the same time conforms as closely as possible to the reader's objective preference: to arouse the reader's appetite by understanding information on what is about to be cooked, prepared, desired and eaten. Social and Cultural Dimensions of Food In addition to the difficulties and issues on the subject of translation, translating recipes and menus is complex because of what food signifies in any culture: the identities, differences, and the diverse social, psychological, and economic meanings inherent in the preparation, cooking, and ingestion of food. The food that people cook and eat reflect changing cultural patterns through time, the fragmentation and contraction of family structures, the community's social preoccupation with health and fitness, its assimilation of different cultural groups that have shed their ethnic identities into a majority culture, and the enculturation or passing of culture through language and socialisation from one generation to the next (Cook, Crang & Thorpe, 1998). Each culture has its own food habits, ways in which food is used, obtained, stored, prepared, served, and consumed. Thus what one culture would consider edible and appetising may be totally abhorrent in another (Verplanken & Faes, 1999). Good translators must possess a deep collective knowledge of the food habits of the source and target cultures to do their work well. Bread, a staple food in many parts of the world, is made from corn (Mexico), oats and barley (Scotland), rye and barley (Germany, Russia, and Scandinavia), or wheat (America and Canada). Bread is almost unknown in rice-eating countries in Indochina and parts of Asia because the grain is unsuitable for baking. Milk, a basic food in much of the world, comes from cows in America and Europe, Mediterranean goats, Indian buffaloes, camels in the Middle East, and yaks in Central Asia. The Japanese eat raw sushi whilst western cultures prefer them cooked. Westerners, however, eat raw oysters and clams, sea urchin (France), maguey worms (Mexico), and fresh locusts (Sahara). Each culture has characteristic patterns of the types of food it considers edible delicacies that other cultures may find disgusting (Cook, Crang & Thorpe, 1998). Religious convictions also impose restrictions. Thus, predominantly Hindu India, Sri Lanka, and Bali in Indonesia do not eat beef, Moslems and Jews do not eat pork or shellfish, and Christians do not eat meat for some weeks during the year. Local superstitions make some people believe seafood is good for the brain; vegetables clean the intestines; and dried fish causes worms (Indonesia). Add to these the growing trend for diets (South Beach, Atkins, Vegetarian, etc.) and one realises the diversity in food habits all over the world (Pelletier, 2000). Other very interesting aspects of food culture are the spices and seasonings used (chilli peppers, curry, and wasabi), how staple food are prepared (baked, mashed, or boiled potatoes and boiled or fried rice), and the drinks (milk, alcohol, fruit juices) taken with meals. The cultural differences attached to food and the nuances of their translations are reflected in several Internet blogs that deal with them with humour bordering on scandal, citing actual menus featuring exotic dishes from native lands (e.g., see Innocentenglish.com, 2007). The greater mobility in this age of globalisation has brought people from developed nations to interact with different cultures. Migrants from foreign (mostly developing) nations find themselves looking for their own local food where they are. These developments result in menus in the SL being translated into TT, with disastrous or humorous results. Instead of making it easier for customers to understand what they are about to eat, some translations may even dampen whatever appetite they had before reading the menu. A menu is not just a list of food items cooked in the kitchen. Food reflects the local culture, geography, and history of how a people cope with hunger, the bodily need for food, and appetite, the psychological desire for food based on pleasant memories of it. Food therefore has physical and psychological components that give it its social and cultural functions, making it a source of bodily health and a means for enjoyable social interaction (Roth & Townsend, 2005, 4-6). The food that people eat are determined largely by the plants and animals available, the climate of the area, the wealth of the society, local cultural patterns, religious restrictions, and even local superstitions based on people's beliefs on the effects that food have on the body, accounting for the diversity in food, nutrition, and diets the world over (Weil, 2000, 83-85). Every society has different food or nutritional habits that conform to their culture. For example, Arabic cuisine has its roots in tent cookery. Nomadic tribes could use only transportable foods such as rice and dates, or ambulatory stock like sheep and camels in their cooking recipes, which tended to be rough sketches rather than strict formulae. They also ate these kinds of food to provide their bodies with energy to finish their hard work in agriculture and shepherding; besides, it was the only food available in their dry desert places. Nowadays, this situation has changed, but not totally. The growing use of modern amenities and the diverse range of foods from other Arabic cultures like Lebanese, Moroccan, and Egyptian have resulted over the years in new forms of Arabic cuisine. Traditional forms of cooking such as grilling or baking underground continue to be used because modern substitutes do not produce the same results as traditional methods. Principles of Menu and Recipe Translation The main objective of translating menus and recipes is to provide information about the content or ingredients of the food to be cooked and the manner of preparation, as in recipe instructions, in such a manner as to be appetising, moving the reader to try it. This is not a simple task because of the way that source and target cultures differ and affect each one's perception of the ST and TT. Depending on the translator's SL and TL proficiency, knowledge of both cultures, skills of translation and attitudes towards the task, the TT may fail to achieve the objective of informing and appetising the customer. Good knowledge of the source culture would be the starting point, which includes knowing what the food is, its taste and preparation, and why it tastes good, e.g., seasoning, presentation, raw ingredient, manner of cooking, etc. A good translator should know the source culture's culinary history, such as legends on how the food was discovered and the traditional way the natives prepared and ate it. All these cultural nuances should be taken into account before embarking on the task of translation. Example of Menu Translation Take, for example, the following menu items and their corresponding translations that appeared in an Egyptian restaurant: Main Course LAHMET RAS (Meat of the Head) MADFOON (Interred) Dessert ZNOOD ESSET (Forearm of lady) OOM ALI (Mother of Ali) Table 1: Menu in Egyptian Restaurant with English Translation Anyone familiar with Arabic culture and cuisine would understand each dish, how delicious it is, the ingredients used, and why they are called that way in the SL. Looking at the TT, all these information are unfortunately lost, resulting in loss of appetite. "Lahmet ras" is the grilled and spiced sheep's head, a delicious traditional Arabic dish. "Lahmet ras" should perhaps be translated as "Grilled Head of Lamb." "Lamb" to westerners is more appetising than "sheep", so using this in the TT would be an acceptable form of domestication. Similarly, "Interred" is a mixture of rice and meat wrapped and cooked under the ground, with the rice steamed with the meat's natural juices and a mixture of exotic and fragrant spices. "Madfoon" could be better translated as "Boiled Rice with Lamb". Retaining the original Arabic terms and giving a short descriptive translation are an example of useful domestication and foreignisation. In this case, the ST could not be translated directly into TT without eliciting a certain level of disgust, even though this was not the intention of the translator who worked on the menu. This is one example where a compromise - the use of the ST with a good description in the TT - would be effective. Retaining part of the ST provides a foreignised notion, whilst the description in the TT is a manner of domestication, describing the food in a way that maintains its appetising character. An elementary mistake of transliteration, fidelity to the ST, SL, and TL, and ignorance of the cultural meanings of the TT led to mistranslation and misunderstanding. The possible result is loss of appetite, discouraging the customer from trying these delicious dishes. Since the translator was not aware of translation rules and was ignorant of the target culture and of what are deemed acceptable, the meanings of the ST (Arabic) were lost in the TT (English) and the objective of the translated menu was not achieved. "Znood esset" and is a sweet cake with cream, rarely found in the cuisine of other cultures. The name reflects Arabic culture where women or parts of their body are usually considered symbols of sweetness and perfection. Naming a dessert after a woman's arm is a complement and does not reflect any propensity for female discrimination or mutilation. Anyone familiar with Arab culture would not find problems with the translation or the food's description. "Ali's mother" is a delicious pastry pudding with raisins, coconut, and milk that was named, according to legend, after its inventor. Whilst compromise may equally apply, an imaginative translator might suggest "Sweet Delight" as an appropriate domestication for "Znood esset" and "Yummy Oom Ali" as a rhythmic and foreignised equivalent for the delicious pudding. Translation of Recipes More challenging is translating foreign recipes with instructions on how meals are to be prepared. Several obstacles could be found, requiring a deeper knowledge of the source and target cultures and languages because recipes are not only read but also mixed and tested, hoping that the results would be edible. First, original ingredients such as spices, seasonings, and a few exotic ingredients such as okra or sheep's stomach may be unavailable at the corner store or supermarket. The translator should be familiar with the source cuisine and its taste so that substitutes could be found, tested, and if their inclusion does not change the essence of the dish, recommended. Second, the cooking implements may change, not only in the translation from ST to TT but, considering even the same TT (like English), differing the terminologies used (frying pans or skillet; au bain-marie or double boiler). Depending on where the recipe book is to be sold, the translator also needs to make adjustments in the terms to be used, thus requiring an advanced knowledge of business considerations. Third, quantities and measurements used (English or metric) can cause problems because younger audiences are familiar with grams and litres whilst older ones are used to pounds, ounces, and teaspoons. In America, they prefer cups. Conclusion The unique nature of every language system poses a paradoxical situation between the use of the common translation principles and translator strategies, especially in the matter of menu and recipe translation. Part of the complex nature of translation work is due to the complexity of the social and cultural meanings of food that are unique to peoples and their geographies. A good translator must know well the translation principles and strategies to do a good and effective job. Reference List Baker, M. (2000). Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target, 12(2), 241-266. Benjamin, W. (2000). "The task of the translator." In The translation studies reader. L. Venuti (Ed.). London and New York: Routledge, 15-25. Birdwood-Hedger, M. (2006). Tension between domestication and foreignisation in English-language translations of Anna Karenina. Doctoral Thesis: University of Edinburgh. Cook, I., Crang, P. & Thorpe, M. (1998). Biographies and geographies: Consumer understandings of the origins of foods. Food Journal, 100(3), 162-167. France, P. (2000). "Translation studies and translation criticism." In The Oxford guide to literature in English translation. P. France (Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3-10. Hatim, B. (2001). Teaching and researching translation. Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd. Hochel B. (1991). "The cross-temporal and cross-spatial factors and the translation of literary language." In Translation studies: The state of the art. Kitty Van Leuven-Zwart & Tom Naajikens (Eds.) Amsterdam: Rodopi, 41-48. Innocentenglish.com (2007) "Funny menu mistakes." Updated 14 July 2007. Retrieved 7 September 2007, from: http://www.innocentenglish.com/funny-english-mistakes-bloopers/funny-menu-mistakes.html Micklethwait, J. & Wooldridge, A. (2000). A future perfect: The challenge and hidden promise of globalization. New York: Crown. Pelletier, K.R. (2000). The best alternative medicine. New York: Simon & Schuster. Roth, R.A. & Townsend, C.E. (2005). Nutrition & diet therapy. London: Thomson Learning. Schleiermacher, Friedrich (1963). "Uber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens." In Das Problem des Ubersetzens. Hans Joachim Storig (Ed). Darmstadt, 38-70 Snell-Hornby, M. (1999). Communicating in the global village: On language, translation and cultural identity. Current Issues in Language and Society, 6 (2), 103-120. Tymoczko, M. (1999). Translation in a postcolonial context. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Tymoczko, M. (2000.) Translation and political engagement. The Translator, 6 (1), 23-47. Venuti, L. (1994). Translation and the formation of cultural identities. Current Issues in Language and Society, 1, 201-17. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge. Verplanken, B. & Faes, S. (1999). Good intentions, bad habits, and effects of forming implementation intentions on healthy eating. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29 (5-6), 591-604. Weil, A. (2000). Eating well for optimum health. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Read More