Tourism, according to Cronin (Cronin 2000: 1), “is fast becoming the world’s most important item of trade”. As more of us travel further afield, so interlingual translation becomes crucial in furthering that trade through promoting destinations and guiding tourists once they have arrived. From the viewpoint of the tourism provider and of the tourist herself, accessibility is key. But this accessibility does not take the host destination into account, and hence ignores issues of neo-colonialism, acculturation and environmental sustainability. Translation can balance the colossal might of the forces driving tourism and the, often hidden, needs of the local destination. It can mediate between the global and the local, and can protect or further erode local differences, needs and indeed identity. To mediate requires a sensitivity, or ‘mindfulness’ (Langer 1989), and also an ‘insider’ (Katan 2016) understanding of both the local host and the international visitor worlds. Without mediation, translation creates a lingua-cultural ‘environmental bubble’ (Cohen 1972) seamlessly transporting the international tourist to her destination, and safely back again with no need for the tourist to leave his or her comfort zone. The foreign destination is made familiar through acculturation and transculturation, further isolating the tourist from actual contact with the local community, and hence furthers the subaltern position of the tourist destination, whereby the local becomes a service appendage to the global. Translation may not be in a position to change the reality of the growth in mass tourism, but it is in a strong position to mediate. Yet is the tourism sector that suffers most from mindless translation. Language incompetence and ignorance of the networks of socio-cultural connections that make the text meaningful to its original addressees are the main factors. It will also be argued here that the admirable global drive in tourism to ‘go local’, and to promote community participation to ameliorate some of the strongest criticisms against its unbridled growth has not factored in translation – which is also going more local. As community participation increases (e.g. rural, farmhouse and more remote destinations in the Third and Fourth world) so translation also becomes more local, artisan and improvised. Tourism translation, when carried out professionally may be seen to encompass the abilities required of commercial translation, public service but also literary translation, given the need to persuade. And all three aspects may be apparent within the same translation. In terms of text function, Greimas’ Model of Action will be adapted to discuss translation strategy and issues affecting the vouloir (the promotional and literary), the savoir (the dissemination of knowledge) and the pouvoir faire, the enabling of the tourist to act as if a local insider, and the enabling of the local community to act on the international tourist. A key issue in attracting international tourism, is how to translate local vouloir distinctions, ways and values to attract both for an international readership and for a particular targeted lingua-culture. This task highlights the question of who actually ‘translates’: a translator, a localiser or indeed a copywriter. The mindful/mindless distinction requires the translator to be aware of how the vouloir carries with it ethical and moral issues relating to, for example, tourist (un)restrained consumption and instant gratification as well as pandering to the cultural outsider’s stereotypical or Disneyfied views of the host culture and environment. Regarding the savoir function, the translation of specialised language and knowledge for the international tourist (such as art and architecture) require particular popularisation strategies. These strategies also need to be used when considering socio-cultural knowledge that is tacit for the local insiders, but is not available to the international, and hence outsider, tourist. Here, questions for the mindful translator revolve around engagement with the text and cognitive overload. Of particular interest is the pouvoir faire function, which, in translation, should enable the local community as much as the global With regard to the local, a translation should enable the destination to re-present itself in a way that is consonant with its own reality (practices, values and ideals). Texts are rarely written for translation, and insiders themselves do not necessarily know much if anything about the intended reader’s reality. Firstly, mindful translator will look for the hidden gaps between the local contexts and the international (or lingua—cultual specific) contexts to create translations that fully represent the local. Secondly, the outsider tourist, through translation should also be enabled so that s/he can act as if s/he were a local, an insider. However, ‘insidering’, familiarising the different, a fine art. The international tourist is in need of practical information concerning public services and tourist information. A faithful translation becomes inaccessible due to the foreinness and opaqueness of the foreign terms and related practices, while a domesticated translation will allow for savoir understanding but an inability to act locally. Difficulties in ‘insidering’ also result from the mindless translation of valued local practices by the insider community or through the literal translation of local and nationalistic stance promoted at cultural heritage sites, but which may well be counterproductive when translated mindlessly. Finally, tourism translation, far from broadening the mind necessarily simplifies the culture-bound complexities of the place and its communities to compensate for a lifetime spent in that language and culture, necessarily availing itself of the familiar and the stereotypical. This is partly due to the fact that the difference the tourist destination represents, and what attracts the foreign tourist to the “place”, is often imbued by its language variety. In translation, the original language is automatically effaced, distorted or at least problematized, resulting in an impoverishment of appreciation of the destination, and an ever more superficial tourist gaze (Urry and Larsen 2011). An extreme case would be the attempt to translate either the vouloir or the pouvoir faire functions of a text on immaterial cultural heritage, such as dialect. Cohen, Erik. 1972 “Towards a Sociology of International Tourism”. Social Research 39 (1): 164-182 Cronin, Michael. 2000. Across the Lines: Travel, Language, Translation. Cork: Cork University Press. Katan, David 2016 “Translating for Outsider Tourists: Cultural Informers Do It Better”, Cultus 9(2) 63-90. Langer, Ellen. 1989. Mindfulness. Cambridge (MA): Perseus. Urry John and Svein Larsen. 2011. The Tourist gaze 3.0, Los Angeles: Sage.

Translating Tourism

David Katan
2021-01-01

Abstract

Tourism, according to Cronin (Cronin 2000: 1), “is fast becoming the world’s most important item of trade”. As more of us travel further afield, so interlingual translation becomes crucial in furthering that trade through promoting destinations and guiding tourists once they have arrived. From the viewpoint of the tourism provider and of the tourist herself, accessibility is key. But this accessibility does not take the host destination into account, and hence ignores issues of neo-colonialism, acculturation and environmental sustainability. Translation can balance the colossal might of the forces driving tourism and the, often hidden, needs of the local destination. It can mediate between the global and the local, and can protect or further erode local differences, needs and indeed identity. To mediate requires a sensitivity, or ‘mindfulness’ (Langer 1989), and also an ‘insider’ (Katan 2016) understanding of both the local host and the international visitor worlds. Without mediation, translation creates a lingua-cultural ‘environmental bubble’ (Cohen 1972) seamlessly transporting the international tourist to her destination, and safely back again with no need for the tourist to leave his or her comfort zone. The foreign destination is made familiar through acculturation and transculturation, further isolating the tourist from actual contact with the local community, and hence furthers the subaltern position of the tourist destination, whereby the local becomes a service appendage to the global. Translation may not be in a position to change the reality of the growth in mass tourism, but it is in a strong position to mediate. Yet is the tourism sector that suffers most from mindless translation. Language incompetence and ignorance of the networks of socio-cultural connections that make the text meaningful to its original addressees are the main factors. It will also be argued here that the admirable global drive in tourism to ‘go local’, and to promote community participation to ameliorate some of the strongest criticisms against its unbridled growth has not factored in translation – which is also going more local. As community participation increases (e.g. rural, farmhouse and more remote destinations in the Third and Fourth world) so translation also becomes more local, artisan and improvised. Tourism translation, when carried out professionally may be seen to encompass the abilities required of commercial translation, public service but also literary translation, given the need to persuade. And all three aspects may be apparent within the same translation. In terms of text function, Greimas’ Model of Action will be adapted to discuss translation strategy and issues affecting the vouloir (the promotional and literary), the savoir (the dissemination of knowledge) and the pouvoir faire, the enabling of the tourist to act as if a local insider, and the enabling of the local community to act on the international tourist. A key issue in attracting international tourism, is how to translate local vouloir distinctions, ways and values to attract both for an international readership and for a particular targeted lingua-culture. This task highlights the question of who actually ‘translates’: a translator, a localiser or indeed a copywriter. The mindful/mindless distinction requires the translator to be aware of how the vouloir carries with it ethical and moral issues relating to, for example, tourist (un)restrained consumption and instant gratification as well as pandering to the cultural outsider’s stereotypical or Disneyfied views of the host culture and environment. Regarding the savoir function, the translation of specialised language and knowledge for the international tourist (such as art and architecture) require particular popularisation strategies. These strategies also need to be used when considering socio-cultural knowledge that is tacit for the local insiders, but is not available to the international, and hence outsider, tourist. Here, questions for the mindful translator revolve around engagement with the text and cognitive overload. Of particular interest is the pouvoir faire function, which, in translation, should enable the local community as much as the global With regard to the local, a translation should enable the destination to re-present itself in a way that is consonant with its own reality (practices, values and ideals). Texts are rarely written for translation, and insiders themselves do not necessarily know much if anything about the intended reader’s reality. Firstly, mindful translator will look for the hidden gaps between the local contexts and the international (or lingua—cultual specific) contexts to create translations that fully represent the local. Secondly, the outsider tourist, through translation should also be enabled so that s/he can act as if s/he were a local, an insider. However, ‘insidering’, familiarising the different, a fine art. The international tourist is in need of practical information concerning public services and tourist information. A faithful translation becomes inaccessible due to the foreinness and opaqueness of the foreign terms and related practices, while a domesticated translation will allow for savoir understanding but an inability to act locally. Difficulties in ‘insidering’ also result from the mindless translation of valued local practices by the insider community or through the literal translation of local and nationalistic stance promoted at cultural heritage sites, but which may well be counterproductive when translated mindlessly. Finally, tourism translation, far from broadening the mind necessarily simplifies the culture-bound complexities of the place and its communities to compensate for a lifetime spent in that language and culture, necessarily availing itself of the familiar and the stereotypical. This is partly due to the fact that the difference the tourist destination represents, and what attracts the foreign tourist to the “place”, is often imbued by its language variety. In translation, the original language is automatically effaced, distorted or at least problematized, resulting in an impoverishment of appreciation of the destination, and an ever more superficial tourist gaze (Urry and Larsen 2011). An extreme case would be the attempt to translate either the vouloir or the pouvoir faire functions of a text on immaterial cultural heritage, such as dialect. Cohen, Erik. 1972 “Towards a Sociology of International Tourism”. Social Research 39 (1): 164-182 Cronin, Michael. 2000. Across the Lines: Travel, Language, Translation. Cork: Cork University Press. Katan, David 2016 “Translating for Outsider Tourists: Cultural Informers Do It Better”, Cultus 9(2) 63-90. Langer, Ellen. 1989. Mindfulness. Cambridge (MA): Perseus. Urry John and Svein Larsen. 2011. The Tourist gaze 3.0, Los Angeles: Sage.
2021
9780815359456
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11587/447717
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact