L2 Translation and Directionality in Translation Studies

The practice of translation into a non-mother tongue, or L2 translation, has not received enough attention in Translation Studies as a whole.Footnote ¹ Translation Studies in general, as a discipline, is largely Western and anglophone, thus many of the authors within it have been fortunate enough to be able to ignore this issue, since this is not a challenge they have had to face. Coming from a Global South country, or less hegemonic language (Brazilian Portuguese), it is easier for me to see the relevance of L2 translation, for a number of reasons. L2 translation is taught in the context of less hegemonic countries and languages almost as much as L1 translation, and both practices find their place in translators’ professional lives. Of course, this is much more common in technical and scientific translation, as the demand in these fields is much more dynamic than in literary translation. According to Beeby (Reference Beeby Lonsdale1998): ‘Directionality only began to be studied at the end of the twentieth century when some scholars in countries where A→B translation is common practice questioned the assumption (particularly widespread in English-speaking countries) that B→A translation was the only viable professional option’ (Beeby, Reference Beeby Lonsdale1998:84).

Even so, the study of L2 translation specifically is not comparable in quality and quantity to the studies and theories centring on L1 translation, both technical and literary. However, from the 1990s onwards, there has been a stronger focus on L2 translation and its differences to the practice of L1 translation into English specifically, and within several frameworks and different fields in Translation Studies. In approaching the practice of translation into a foreign language, there seems to be a lack of terminological consistency. ‘L2 translation’ (Pavlović, Reference Pavlović2007), ‘inverse translation’, ‘service translation’ (cf Newmark, Reference Newmark1988:3), and ‘translation into a non-mother tongue’ (Pokorn, Reference Pokorn2005) are some of the many terms used to define this practice.Footnote ² All of them focus on a hierarchy of languages and on direction in translation. In some languages, the terms used to define L2 translation are derogatory (see Petrova). In Brazilian Portuguese as well as in some Francophone contexts, an L2 translation is a ‘version’ of something, not even deemed translation proper. According to Stewart, in one of the earliest articles to review the L1 translation norm:

These recent studies have contributed to the field immensely, by clarifying different but converging issues around the practice and helping to deconstruct preconceived and prejudiced ideas around translation into a non-mother tongue. They have fed on each other, and this mutual dependence is unsurprising given that not enough has been said on the topic. This situation, in turn, means that only a small group of researchers has delved into this under-researched and undervalued area. Such a situation both helps and at the same time makes the translator and/or researcher interested in this topic shy away from probing into it: there is so much to be said, but there is almost no existing theory about it. To make this claim, however, it is necessary to present these studies and how they have contributed to not putting L2 translation in a corner. That is what I aim to do in the following section.

(In)visibility of L2 Translation Studies

Not only the practice of literary L2 translation but also the study of it is obscure both in the market and in academia. For that reason, and because of the lack of a coherent terminology for the practice, finding these translations and studies proves a challenge. Now, I would like to point out that there are obvious limitations of scope and access to see how directionality is viewed in other contexts, including when those studies are written in a less widely diffused language, or when these studies are not easily found due to access constraints, different use of keywords, and so on. Another limitation includes the study of L2 translation in other areas, such as in Early Modern and Medieval Studies, history, and so on when the many possible areas that could deal with examples of L2 translation do not properly dialogue and thus drive a wedge into the works of trying to better understand this practice under an interdisciplinary light.

In the real world, translation contracts or codes of good practice and translation ethics often spell out a preference for L1 translation, especially, but not exclusively in relation to, literary translation. One example here would be the UN Nairobi declaration. At the beginning of the declaration, one can find the following definition of translation: ‘the term “translation” denotes the transposition of a literary or scientific work, including technical work, from one language into another language’ (1976:39). Here we cannot find a directionality. Further on, however, we encounter the following statement: ‘a translator should, as far as possible, translate into his own mother tongue or into a language of which he or she has a mastery equal to that of his or her mother tongue’ (1976:42). It seems then that even in legal documents pertaining to the act of translation and translation as a profession there is the need to explain that what one means by translation is specifically the translation from a foreign language into the translator’s mother tongue. The mother tongue bias shows itself here as it will repeatedly in translation norms.

The L1 translation preference is reflected in many uncontested norms and in implicit views on directionality in the history of Translation Studies. These implicit views and norms must be unpicked, and this implicit discourse that naturalizes the norm of L1 translation ends up forming our ideas about what is natural and what is expected in translation. Within Gideon Toury’s proposal of norms in translation, we could consider the L1 translation norm as extratextual; in that it is not contained within the actual translated text or the source text, it is a prescriptive rather than descriptive norm.Footnote ³ In this respect, it might be useful to view the L1 translation norm as a ‘translation meme’, as defined by Chesterman in The Memes of Translation (Reference Chesterman1997). Taking the definition of a meme as the cultural equivalent of a gene and, therefore, as a unit of cultural transmission, of mere replication or imitation (Dawkins Reference Dawkins1976), memes, in this context, can be viewed as ideas that spread like genes. According to Chesterman, ‘ideas that turn out to be good ideas survive; i.e., those that are conducive to the survival of their carriers’ (Chesterman, Reference Chesterman1997:6). If we take the norm of L1 translation as a translation meme, this idea would have to be a good idea for someone, that is, conducive to the survival of a specific practice or a standard. It is not that difficult to make the connection between the L1 translation meme, in the context of L2 (literary) translation into English’ and the survival of the hegemony of the English language and those who are considered its native speakers.Footnote ⁴ Resistance and open adoption of the L1 translation meme may come from an inability to conceive of a different situation, or even a defensive move. Those who benefit from this meme are not necessarily consciously doing so with an aim to uphold this practice. Therefore, studies that either defend or propose to make visible the practice of L2 translation, which is a reality that has been invisible for too long, are trying to break the L1 translation meme.Footnote ⁵ With it, perhaps the idea of L2 translation is conducive to the survival of minor linguistic communities and turns out to be a good idea after all.

An Overview of L2 Translation Studies

It is not difficult to understand why, among scholars of L2 translation, and Translation Studies scholars in general, there are so many academics living a life between languages and cultures. Many of these scholars are non-native speakers of English who, however, work in English-speaking countries and universities or head English-language undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in their native countries (such as Pokorn, Marmaridou, and Zahedi);Footnote ⁶ others, even though native speakers, talk from the point of view of the periphery, the periphery of the empire (such as the Australian scholar Campbell), or even other non-hegemonic languages and cultures (Grosman, McAlester, Kelly, Pavlović). All these scholars have experienced translation into a non-mother tongue. They try to understand why L2 translation, especially of literary texts, has been considered a second-class citizen in the world of translation. Native or non-native speakers of English alike, they all write in English, and have studied translation into English from the most varied languages. This small club of L2 translation researchers and the many linguistic and theoretical variations and approaches within the group show that this is a rich area of Translation Studies.

It is important to name the studies that deal with translation into a non-mother tongue and place them in context. The texts in this cluster have different goals, and this is maybe one of the reasons why there is not as of now a unified theory of L2 translation. Some, like Campbell (Reference Campbell1998), talk about L2 translation with the aim of looking at the development of translation competence but also to render visible the practice of L2 translation on the outskirts of the empire (in his case, Australia).Footnote ⁷ Others, like McAlester (Reference McAlester, Dollerup and Loddegaard1992, Reference McAlester, Schäffner and Adab2005), use it to look for improved translation assessment criteria for student translators. Marmaridou (Reference Marmaridou1996), one of the first to talk openly about translation out of the mother tongue, presents a study which focuses on understanding and proper translating of conceptual metaphors by native and non-native translators, comparing these two groups. Zahedi (Reference Zahedi2013) offers a literature review of the different studies on L2 translation, relying heavily on Allison Beeby’s definition of directionality (Reference Beeby Lonsdale1998) and Beeby’s overview of the status of the practice in Translation Studies.

One of the most groundbreaking studies, and one which has received a great deal of attention, is Pokorn’s (Reference Pokorn2005) study of L2 literary translation in the specific case of Slovenia. Like Zahedi, although lengthier and with a practice approach as well, Pokorn delves deep into the problematic of the mother tongue. Her study is divided into different parts. The first part can be seen as a manifesto and offers many good arguments for the adoption of a more flexible, open view of literary L2 translation. The second part, less theoretical and more methodological/practice-based, is specific to existing cases of translation of Slovene literature into English. In Pokorn’s own study, which follows her review, native speakers of English were shown these translations. They looked for inaccuracies, unnaturalness, and lack of fluency, and tried to guess which texts were translated by native speakers and which were not. The study proves that L2 translators performed equally well; most readers could not spot the non-native translations. The problems with this study are mainly that these are existing translations, and therefore it is not possible to analyse directionality from a procedural point of view, nor can one ask the translators for their attitudes and opinions towards the practice of translating into a non-mother tongue. Pokorn also focuses a great deal on a translator’s status as native or non-native ‘speaker’ and on the acceptability of the translated text to native readers of the target language, that is, English. It would be interesting to see texts translated from English into Slovene to see if the perceived naturalness would be the same when received by Slovene native speakers. However, Pokorn makes convincing points that are advantageous when proposing that L2 translation should not be second class.

There have been two conferences and consequently two sets of conference proceedings dedicated entirely to the topic of translation into non-mother tongues: in May 1997 in Ljubljana and the 2002 Forum on Directionality in Translating and Interpreting in Granada. The two conferences generated two books: Translation into Non-Mother Tongues in Professional Practice and Training (2000), and La direccionalidad en traducción e interpretación. Perspectivas teóricas, profesionales y didácticas [Directionality in translation and interpreting. Theoretical, professional, and didactic perspectives] (2003). The fact that L2 translation has only explicitly been the topic of a few studies in the last two decades goes to show that it is a theme of growing interest, but also that scholars in minority, peripheral, or less-widely diffused language communities have been able to slowly start breaking the mould of Translation Studies in a context which opens more possibilities for the study of cultures, multilingualism, and displacement.

Kelly et al. (Reference Kelly, Nobs, Sánchez and Way2003), the outcome of the 2002 forum in Granada, provides a good number of studies around directionality, specifically translation into L2 or L3, concluding that there is a call for deeper and more empirical knowledge concerning directionality in translation. In the second part, the authors point to a need for more empirical studies backing these findings, as well as a closer connection between directionality and the concept of translation competence. The authors question the obvious distinction between general and specialized translation, arguing in counterpoint for a more general approach to teaching translation sub-competencies that can articulate between one another and so avoid forming overly specialized translators but rather subjects with a more general competence in translation (Beeby; Rodriguez & Schnell; Narvaez, etc.). The authors also call into question the fact that, traditionally, directionality is only thought of when dealing with inverse translation, whereas it is an important component of every act of translation. Part five of Kelly et al. (Reference Kelly, Nobs, Sánchez and Way2003) focuses specifically on translation teaching and the multilingual classroom. In thinking directionality in the traditional, strict way, a multilingual translation class is viewed as presenting many problems. The studies in this part try to test this view. Tsokaktsidu concludes that the presence of exchange/international students in translation classes is positive overall. In Lucas’s study focusing on legal translation, he agrees with Tsokaktsidu in concluding that in a multicultural classroom, with multiple counter-directionalities in the group, the diversity of linguistic profiles is positive. Galiano, with a more methodological approach, asserts, however, that the presence of a variety of different L1s in a translation class makes it necessary to adapt the methodology of directionality to the reality of the classroom.

In the collection Translation into a Non-Mother Tongue (2000), the proceedings of the 1997 conference in Ljubljana entirely dedicated to L2 translation, we find a varied number of studies on the practice. More theoretical than the works found in Kelly et al. (Reference Kelly, Nobs, Sánchez and Way2003), this Element focuses more on the status of the practice in theoretical Translation Studies and in the contexts of multiculturality and plurilingualism in Eastern Europe, among others. The studies range from the issue of translation competence, sub-competencies and the teaching of genre literacy in translation (Prunč; Kiraly; Bretthauer, Geiser, Roiss), Lingua franca English or international English as a target language for translation (Snell-Hornby; Orel Kos; Kovacic), and translation teaching and L2 translation (Wussler, Mackenzie and Vienne, Koberski, Pedersen) to the importance of decision-making and confidence for translation teaching and practice (Kralová). Grosman argues that translation is a central instrument of intercultural communication. The impact of translated works in a dominant receiving culture, according to him, is often perceived as negative. In conclusion, he states that non-mother tongue translation from less-widely disseminated languages could help preserve cultural diversity. Similarly, Pokorn argues that the advantage of fluency in the target language that TL natives have can often be counterbalanced by their insufficient knowledge of the source culture or source language, so L1 translation is not automatically superior to L2 translation. In his study, Dollerup talks about the score of proficiency in a target language on a scale. When dealing specifically with the translation of literary texts, he argues that shortcomings of the non-native speaker translator are obvious, because reading literature is an aesthetic experience and only those speakers who move within the 90–100 per cent of the fluency spectrum can reach this level of stylistic perfection. One could argue, just as well, that stylistic perfection is an idealized view of style, and fails to account for style as an idiosyncratic feature of translation and literature.Footnote ⁸ The idea of 100 per cent fluency can also be argued against. Among the existing L2 Translation Studies, it is possible to see a general refusal of this ideal of fluency and style.

All the studies found in Grosman et al. (Reference Grosman, Kadric, Kovaĉiĉ and Snell-Hornby2000) therefore conclude that translation teaching should include L2 translation because it is a reality, especially in settings of less-widely diffused languages. The reality of the profession calls for better training in specific skills for translation into a non-mother tongue, and this training will provide a necessary base for the practice. Therefore, the mother tongue of the translator is not as important as sufficient and holistic training in different directions of translation, and fluency in genre-specific styles is more important than fluency in the language in general. The majority of the studies in the collection point to the positive outcome of L2 translation teaching activities, and thus to a positive outcome for L2 translation carried out by properly trained professionals and users of the languages in question. It is also a trend within all the studies mentioned that the specific translational context is the key to analysing translation performance.

Saber Zahedi, in the article ‘L2 Translation at the Periphery: A Meta-Analysis of Current Views on Translation Directionality’ (Reference Zahedi2013), puts forward a review of literature around the topic of L2 translation. Carrying out such a review is often seen in studies which deal with the topic of L2 translation, which is lacking in theorization and is, in general, excluded from translation theory. What is most interesting in this is how he differentiates between implicit and explicit views on translation directionality. It is Zahedi’s aim to show how implicit views that can be found in the scholarly literature about translation have created L1 translation as the norm. Zahedi (Reference Zahedi2013), Pokorn (Reference Pokorn2005), and Beeby (Reference Beeby Lonsdale1998) are some of the L2 translation scholars who provide an overview of how L2 translation has been received in texts dealing with theorizing translation, both before and after the advent of Translation Studies as a discipline. They divide these assumptions around L2 translation into explicit and implicit. The explicit views are usually found in recent Translation Studies texts, where an author may completely disregard or deny the worth of translating into a non-mother tongue. The implicit views are usually seen in older translation theory, and hint at a preference for L1 translation, thus making the reading audience internalize the idea that translation should ideally be carried out from a L2 into a L1. This distinction proves useful to see how ingrained these ideas are in our thinking about the practice of translation. Therefore, I chose to adopt the division between explicit and implicit ideas proposed by Zahedi, and expand them with other examples, which I will explore in the following section.

Explicit Views on Translation Directionality: The Perfect Idealized Bilingual Translator

The L1 translation norm is explicit in some writings and implicit in many others. The way these implicit claims deny the value of L2 translation is largely through ignoring the practice altogether, and only when criticizing or comparing the translator’s ability in their ‘own language’ and the ‘foreign language’ can these ideas be seen. Pokorn (Reference Pokorn2005) argues:

Here, Pokorn touches on the element of choice, which is central to the exophonic principle, going beyond assumptions of what languages a translator works best with, or the best/more traditional direction of translation. The assumptions made when thinking about directionality and when defining a good translator/translation are based on the idea of the infallibility of the native speaker, and of a perfectly bilingual translator. Such an idealized translator is always the inferred translator in these theories. At the same time, if a translator is a perfect bilingual, then directionality would not be an issue. Furthermore, we will explore the issue of bilingualism and bilanguaging, and it will become clearer how the idealized perfect bilingual of translation theory does not hold water. Some Translation Studies scholars, such as Anthony Pym, have discussed at length on defining translation competence, translation teaching, and the tendency of Translation Studies to rely on an idealized translator, in his defence of a minimalist approach to translation competence (Pym, Reference Pym2003). Pym also questioned the concept of the ideal translator often involved in discussions around translation expertise (Pym, Reference Pym, Snell-Hornby and Gambier1996). In a defence of a translator-centred view of translation, Załiwska-Okrutna (Reference Załiwska-Okrutna, Thielen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk2008) postulates that ‘since translation involves human minds, real or ideated, but not idealized, the theory of translation cannot confidently depend on postulates and requirements for an ideal translator or ideal translation, with no provisions made for individual mistakes, lack of skill or expertise’ (Reference Załiwska-Okrutna, Thielen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk2008:111).

Linguists such as Sydney Lamb also pointed out that each individual’s cognitive system is unique and that understanding these systems must consider the real individual and not the ideal one (Lamb, Reference Lamb1992:26). An idealized translator also reflects an idealized view of fluency. This unrealistic view of fluency and the status of languages in the translator’s mind makes it harder to understand translation in non-hegemonic contexts. Such a point of view is somewhat detached from the reality of translation – it fails to hold its truth in the real world. Translation is happening every day, every hour, carried out by native and non-native speakers alike, and so the practice is not exclusive to the context of the perfect bilingual. In fact, according to Pokorn, ‘since the claim that native speakers have an infallible ability to distinguish native speakers from non-native speakers used to pass unchallenged in applied linguistics, the majority of translation theorists accepted it and consequently demanded that texts be translated only into the translator’s mother tongue’ (Pokorn Reference Pokorn2005:114).

The issue with the idealized translator or native speaker who always, infallibly, is capable of distinguishing nativeness and naturalness in a target text is also raised by Meta Grosman (Reference Grosman, Kadric, Kovaĉiĉ and Snell-Hornby2000). Such an issue highlights the correlated issue of whom the translation is being done for, and why naturalness is so desirable, which are also constant debates in Translation Studies in general. One important thing to notice, however, is that a translation can and might not be focused solely on the target readership. The studies that dismiss the practice of literary L2 translation seem to assume that the target text is all there is to it. On that, Grosman argues:

This view is closely related to the idea of native-speaker authority, or native-speakerism, assuming that native speakers are inherently better at their native language than a second language speaker. Such a view is very common in those studies that assume a directionality and a perfect bilingual subject, and which deny the variety of proficiency among speakers of any language, and more strongly, genre- and context-specific proficiency. Many Translation Studies scholars have dismissed the practice of L2 translation on the grounds that it does not sound natural, or that the results fail to read like a native text. These scholars, however, do not offer a definition of nativeness in the use of a language or in the interpretation of a text.Footnote ⁹ That seems to be the problem with many theorists who claim the unacceptability of the practice. Pokorn criticizes this lack of definition when she concludes that

In a pivotal thesis on the topic, Pavlović (Reference Pavlović2007) opens with a statement which helps us to see the researcher’s stance:

Coming back to Pokorn, it is this golden rule which kept translation scholars from openly recognizing and encouraging the practice of L2 translation. It is also the rule responsible for the lack of theories and studies focusing on this specific type of translation. These ideas assume an idealized native speaker, as well as a perfect bilingual subject. In fact, Pokorn focuses on these assumptions and their failure to connect with reality. Before introducing the problematic of the perfect bilingual, she concludes, on the topic of an ideal native speaker, that

These assumptions of idealized linguistic subjects as L1 translators are not explicitly expressed in Translation Studies. One can see from the very beginning of the discipline that translators have been increasingly asked to be more perfectly bi- or multilingual and multicultural subjects. In his seminal work on the linguistics of translation, Catford claims that ‘discovery of textual equivalents is based on the competent bilingual informant or translator’ (Catford, Reference Catford1965:27). That is, he does not define this informant/translator as perfect, but as a competent bilingual who can identify equivalencies in translation.

In contemporary Translation Studies, the ideal(ized) translator is a bi- or multicultural subject. For Gutt (Reference Gutt1990) and Bell (Reference Bell1991), for example, the translator is not only bilingual but also bicultural, cross-culturally competent in both language in general and specific communicative skills. This trend has continued in more recent theories of translation, such as with the Cultural Turn in Translation Studies, identified/inaugurated by Bassnett and Lefevere (Reference Bassnett and Lefevere1998), who idealize a high degree of expertise in both cultures involved in the act of translation. This demand for expertise by the translator not only extends to linguistic and cultural knowledge but also to a knowledge of various fields, registers, and discourses (Neubert & Shreve, Reference Neubert and Shreve1992; Snell-Hornby, Reference Snell-Hornby, Dollerup and Loddegaard1992; Cao, Reference Cao1996). In Skopos theory, according to Vermeer (Reference Vermeer1978), whether such an idealized bilingual and multicultural subject exists is irrelevant. Even if directionality is not openly regarded as an issue (perhaps because it is not an issue at all), would this theory contradict the dominant trend of the L1 translation norm? After all, if the skopos is fulfilled, the direction of translation does not seem to pose a problem, or at least it is not important from this theoretical viewpoint. Twisting the core of the L1 translation norm, if we take Christiane Nord’s proposition that ‘the translator might not even belong to the addressed audience or the addressed culture’ (Nord, Reference Nord, Buffagni, Garzelli and Zanotti2011:24) when performing L1 translation, and this is seen by the scholar as a ‘drawback’, then couldn’t we argue that L2 translation works best precisely because the translator is part of the intended audience of the source text?

The rule against L2 translation generally hinges on ‘naturalness’ and ‘authenticity’. Scholars like Newmark (Reference Newmark1988), Samuelsson-Brown (Reference Samuelsson-brown1995), Chesterman (Reference Chesterman and Mauranen2004), and Duff (Reference Duff1989) view L2 translation as unnatural, often blaming native language interference. Newmark, in his Textbook of Translation, states: ‘Translating into your language of habitual use is the only way you can translate naturally and accurately and with maximum effectiveness’ (Newmark, Reference Newmark1988:3), thus suggesting L2 translators produce unnatural outputs. He avoids using ‘native speaker’ or ‘mother tongue’, but scholars like Zahedi argue that these claims lack objective data, and show a clear bias (Zahedi, Reference Zahedi2013:45).

Marmaridou (Reference Marmaridou1996) examines directionality through cognitive linguistics. She finds that translation into a L1 yields better results, with L2 translations being more sign-oriented than sense-oriented. However, her study is flawed as it disallowed dictionary use, which does not reflect real-world translation (Marmaridou, Reference Marmaridou1996:50). Translation competence, as noted by Pym (Reference Pym2003), involves more than just lexical knowledge; it includes problem-solving and extra-linguistic skills. David Bellos, in turn, offers a more positive view on L2 translation, emphasizing the translator’s comfort with the target language over native status (Bellos, Reference Bellos2016:63–64). Some scholars, like Michael Cronin in Translation and Identity (Reference Cronin2006), do not explicitly address directionality, but use less-loaded phrases, avoiding ‘natural’, ‘own’, and ‘mother tongue’, for example. Lawrence Venuti (Reference Venuti1998), despite advocating for foreignizing translation, does not discuss the translator’s mother tongue, indicating a possible openness to L2 translation (Pokorn, Reference Pokorn2005:33).

Studies outside the European/Western context are emerging. Wang (Reference Wang2009, Reference Wang2011) highlights China’s policy of outward translation by preferring native Chinese translators. In the Arabic context, Jamoussi (Reference Jamoussi2015) discusses L2 translation as essential for cultural export. Di Giovanni & Dirar (Reference Di Giovanni and Chelati Dirar2015) examine directionality in African translation history, focusing on missionary activities. They reference Bandia’s distinction between horizontal pre-colonial, and vertical colonial translation practices, noting the ideological basis of colonial translations. These recent studies indicate a growing academic interest in directionality. However, the field of L2 translation remains underdeveloped, with many norms against it based on unproven claims, even with historical evidence showing that L2 translation was more common than often assumed.

Directionality in Translation Process Research

In the field of translation process research (TPR), there has been an attempt to study directionality by empirical means. Translation process research is a subfield of Translation Studies which deals with the cognitive processing of translation, and uses research tools such as key-logging, eye-tracking, think-aloud protocols, machine translation, and even, in some cases, fMRI screening. Often, TPR triangulates data collected through these tools with other interdisciplinary data, such as cognitive tests (e.g. working memory), textual analyses, surveys/questionnaires, among others. Topics that are highlighted and prioritized in this subarea include the differences between novice and expert translators, time and structural constraints, and decision-making and problem-solving. Directionality is also a topic that can be found in such studies. The neutral way in which directionality is often tested in TPR also means that, in most cases, there is no value judgement on which directionality is better. Maybe Literary Translation Studies could take a leaf out of TPR’s book and study directionality with a more neutral outlook, seen as a reality and a field for empirical work, for testing hypotheses rather than making general, unbacked claims. The present work is not within TPR. However, it is with a short overview of L2 translation and directionality studies within the area of TPR that I aim to show how such a practice can be seen explicitly in a more balanced light.

By and large TPR that deals with directionality does so with the aim of testing potential differences in the translation process between different directionalities, not deciding on which direction is the better one. A value judgement between groups or participants is not usually the goal of empirical endeavours, but it is important to point out that most of these studies exist precisely because different translation directionalities are a reality of the profession, something that the L1 translation norm ignores. Directionality studies within TPR, by focusing on cognitive data, are more preoccupied with understanding the different cognitive paths, loads, and strategies involved in translating into different directions. Similarly to what happens in Bilingual research, directionality in TPR is tested empirically to understand where the differences, if any, lie. As is usual in this type of research, an important attribute to separating the groups under scrutiny is experience: experts versus novice translators. Some studies, like Whyatt (Reference Whyatt2019), concluded that text type had more of an impact on task time than directionality, but that, overall, the latter did not have a statistically significant effect on task time. According to the author, ‘Directionality effects interplay with text-type effects, and possibly with the translators’ individual experience and working style’ (Whyatt, Reference Whyatt2019:94). Whyatt’s findings diverge from other similar studies in the area, such as Buchweitz & Alves (Reference Buchweitz and Alves2006), according to whom

However, as Whyatt contends: ‘The difference in the findings can be explained by many factors, including the number of participants, language-pair specificity and the length or intensity of professional experience in providing L1 → L2 translation’ (Reference Whyatt2019:94). And, in fact, other studies in TPR reached similar results to those of Whyatt (da Silva et al., Reference da Silva, Alves, Schmaltz, Jakobsen and Mesa-Lao2017). Revisiting Buchweitz & Alves, the issue of time and effort in translation, even though vital for technical translators, has different implications for literary translators. Deadlines exist and do govern the work of literary translators. However, literary translation jobs arguably have longer timelines, making strict deadlines and daily wordcount less influential.

Most TPR dealing with directionality aims to test task time and cognitive effort, some with noticeable differences between what TPR researchers call DT (direct translation) and IT (inverse translation), L1 and L2 translation, respectively. Even for those studies which concluded that there was a significant time deficit in the L1-L2 direction compared to L2-L1, with reservations, one could argue that the agent affected in this transaction would be the translator, not the final text. For example, Stasimioti et al. (Reference Stasimioti, Sosoni and Chatzitheodorou2021) found that L2-L1 was less demanding than L1-L2, but that directionality did not imply differences in quality. Interestingly, research has shown that directionality also impacts other cognitive aspects. For example, Jia et al. (Reference Jia, Cheng and Wang2023) found that directionality significantly affects translator anxiety levels, influencing cognitive load and task processing. Additionally, studies by Pietryga (Reference Pietryga2022) indicate that students perceive L2 translation as more cognitively demanding and challenging, especially regarding vocabulary and terminology, although these preferences may evolve with training. Is this anxiety influenced by the L1 translation norm? As the study shows, this anxiety affects cognitive load, so going against what is considered natural in translation directionality may cause the difficulties relevant to said directionality. In many of these studies, the conclusion is that more research on the topic is needed, as well as the caveat that such conclusions are limited and influenced by many factors, such as the idiosyncrasies of the translators involved and of specific language combinations. According to Ferreira & Schwieter:

There is, however, one last topic to heed upon concluding this section. That is, the fact that in the literature of TPR studies dealing with directionality, once again, most of this work has been carried out and written in English, by non-native speakers of English, in countries that do not have English as one of their official languages: Whyatt’s (Reference Whyatt2019) and Pietryga’s (Reference Pietryga2022) work in Poland; Pavlović’s in Slovenia; Buchweitz & Alves (Reference Buchweitz and Alves2006), Ferreira (Reference Ferreira2013, Reference Ferreira2014), and Fonseca (Reference Fonseca2014) in Brazil; Wang (Reference Wang2009, Reference Wang2011), Chang & Chen (Reference Chang and Chen2023), and Jia et al. (Reference Jia, Cheng and Wang2023) in China; Stasimioti et al. (Reference Stasimioti, Sosoni and Chatzitheodorou2021) in Greece; Shin (2021) in Korea; Hagemann (Reference Hagemann2019) in Germany; and Malkiel (Reference Malkiel2004) in Israel; among several others spread around the globe. Directionality being studied and described through exophonic writing seems to be a tried and tested reality in many contexts.

Summation

The scholars whose studies were reviewed in the first part of this section all agree on one issue: that directionality is often invisible, ignored by Translation Studies at large. The very fact that a gathering of opinions and studies on directionality in this area does not yield a sufficient number of results and that most of these call for more studies is telling of the current status of L2 translation within Translation Studies. In many cases, the term which draws these studies together is directionality, as there are many differing views on which other terms to use: L2 translation, A-B translation, IT, non-native translation, and so on. A cornerstone in the L1 translation norm is that a translator’s relationship with language is fixed and unchanging. Alongside relationship with language, we can add translation competence and second language fluency, which are also not fixed, nor unchanging. As Trainor puts it:

This begs the question, once again, of who benefits from dogmas such as the L1 translation norm. In what way would Translation Studies be weakened or severely affected as a discipline by allowing translators to translate into a second language or be trained in it. Questions such as these have yet to be answered, and the answer may lie in (1) a greater dialogue between the many areas within the discipline of Translation Studies, which often do not benefit from an exchange between themselves (and thus remain monodisciplinary in an inherently interdisciplinary area), (2) a closer look at the foundations of such monological tenets, and (3) looking at L2 translators as the agents, and not at the translated text, to understand how they see their practice.

Monophones and Mother Tongues: Creating the Native

The first part of this section will concern itself with the coming-of-age of the monolingual ideal. This contrasts with the second part, which will deal with all that is multiple and all that defies monolingual and monocultural ideals. With Yildiz’s (Reference Yildiz2012) proposition of a post-monolingual paradigm, we follow onto less monotopic views of language. The aim of this section is to show both the charged history of these concepts surrounding languages and their recency. These concepts may also serve certain viewpoints that do not take the plurality of language practices into consideration. My argument here is that translation should no longer uphold such outdated values.

The Post-monolingual Condition

Yasemin Yildiz, in her book Beyond the Mother Tongue (Reference Yildiz2012), also offers an analysis of multi- and monolingualism from a historical approach. According to the author, monolingualism is a relatively recent phenomenon, but a highly successful one, aided and based on a monolingual paradigm that obscured from view the multilingual nature of Europe both in the present but also in the past. It is believed that this paradigm had its onset at the end of the eighteenth century.Footnote ¹⁵ The monolingual bias and monolingual habitus of our modern way of thinking affect the construction of individuals and their proper subjectivity, the formation of disciplines and institutions, and imagined collectives, culminating in a most base/essential sense in cultures and nations.

But what is the post-monolingual paradigm? This term, introduced by the author, uses the prefix ‘post’ in a historicizing approach as temporally dominated, that is, it signifies the period since the emergence of monolingualism as the dominant paradigm, which first occurred in late eighteenth-century Europe. (Yildiz, Reference Yildiz2012:4). This paradigm, however, spread in different ways across varied contexts, so the term would also need a more flexible character in order to define the period or the paradigm both temporally after monolingualism as a dominant ideal, but also the tension between mono- and multilingual contexts. In this sense, according to Yildiz, the post-monolingual paradigm ‘refers to the unfolding of the effects of the monolingual and not to its successful overcoming or transcendence’ (Yildiz, Reference Yildiz2012:4). It offers, at the same time, with ‘post’, a critical function to the dominance of the monolingual habitus, a struggle against, a rupture. In the author’s own words, ‘postmonolingual in this study refers to a field of tension in which the monolingual paradigm continues to assert itself and multilingual practices persist or reemerge. This term therefore can bring into sharper focus the back-and-forth movement between these two tendencies that characterizes contemporary linguistic constellations’ (Yildiz, Reference Yildiz2012:5).

The German context, which is considered to be one of the founding grounds of the monolingual paradigm, also offers nowadays many counteractions to the monolingual bias. In the political turmoil that were the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, German thinkers such as Herder, Humboldt, Schleiermacher, and Wagner, to name a few, started spreading the romantic notion of a natural language tied to a nation, a people, a Volk. According to anthropologist Susan Gal (Reference Gal1993), language started to be seen as an object, with particular attributes, after the romantic reaction to the Enlightenment. Herder saw language as emanating from a particular people. According to Yildiz, ‘the multiplication of languages is not an issue for this Herderian view as long as each language is conceived as distinct and separate and as belonging to just one equally distinct and separate people’ (Yildiz, Reference Yildiz2012:7).

In the chapters that constitute Yildiz’s monograph, the author explores several examples of writers in the German-speaking context who are in some way or another negating the monolingual paradigm of German: Franz Kafka, Theodor Adorno, Yoko Tawada, Emine Özdamar, and Feridun Zaimoğlu. She argues that all of these authors see mother tongue in the German context in a different way, be it as a site of alienation, identity, exclusion, inclusion, or violence. These authors do not negate or move against German but rather show how German in their context is different from the public discourse around the homogeneity of the German language. According to Yildiz:

These authors, and in fact others who could be added to this roster, are destabilising the connection once thought inherent and indivisible between language and ethnicity. This connection forgets that it portrays language as a standardized system, rather than as a social and cultural practice. If language is seen as the latter, language as a practice is one of the multiple ways the post-monolingual paradigm proposes its major transgressions. Again, as stated by Yildiz:

As we see in this quote, Yildiz raises the issue of German as a lingua franca. The study of the world’s lingua francas and its many historical, political, cultural implications is a rich area which looks closely at how national languages become deterritorialized and turn into a global, international language, yet not necessarily culture-free (Hülmbauer et al., Reference Hülmbauer, Böhringer and Seidlhofer2008; Baker, Reference Baker2009; Cogo, Reference Cogo2012). English, as the perceived major lingua franca in many contexts, has its own area of studies – English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). There are different perspectives within the area, some arguing that those who speak ELF should not be considered learners, but users, while some criticize the native-speakerism still present in the teaching of EFL. The study of lingua francas is a fast-evolving discipline, due to the very dynamic nature of the objects of study. For this reason, and so as not to expand tangentially in another terminological direction, a mention of lingua franca as a move towards deterritorializing languages will suffice. There is a need for more studies on translation and lingua francas and the many gatekeeping practices in place. For the time being it is important to notice that in a post-monolingual paradigm the connection between language and nation is no longer straightforward. This connection moves away from essential ideas about a language and its natives and into the many ways in which languages in use are changed by different languaging practices.

At this textual crossroads I would like to bring back a provocation from Pokorn’s (Reference Pokorn2005) study to foreground how the themes and topics raised in this section connect to the issue of L2 translation. As she puts it:

As Pokorn eloquently posits, these ‘uncritically accepted concepts’ must be unpacked, repeatedly, and translation practitioners and theoreticians must come to terms with evolutions in other disciplines regarding these myths which sustain the beliefs still rampant in Translation Studies, especially when talking about literary translation. We must be wary of norms which exclude such a great number of people from the communities of interpretation and action within literary translation. Literary Translation Studies, into English especially, must face various privileges, prejudices, and dangerously excluding practices which are still acting to keep some translation practices, such as L2 translation, as a suboptimal outlier in the translation world.

Bilinguals or Multilinguals?

In this subsection, I will explore key concepts beyond monolingualism – those that try to name and understand when people use more than one language. In this overview, the reader will encounter several terms: bilingual, languaging, bilanguaging, multilingualism, plurilingualism, translingualism, translanguaging, and exophony. There is discussion around the differences between the various terms: both in definition and in application, and I intend to give an overview of the main issues. However, the aim is not to create further confusion, adding another species to this fauna of terminology. The objective here is to foreground the multiplicity of language practices, the inherent monolingual bias even in multilingualism studies and approaches. The studies and issues foregrounded here will also show the epistemic weakness in trying to forcefully tie these concepts down in favour of language order and of a linguistic utopia (Pratt, Reference Pratt, Fabb and Al1987) still prevalent in Translation Studies.

Exophony and Language as Prosthetics

The idea of performance, especially when contrasted with competence, is thematically tied to something external, an addition, outside of the self. Performance is how competence actually is realized in the world – a distinction similar to theory versus practice. The term exophony, with the prefix ‘exo’, presupposes a similar outwardness. Because of this, I will explore the concept of exophony at this textual crossroads.

And Who Translates the Translator?

James Holmes’s seminal essay ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’ (1972/Reference Holmes and Holmes1988) is often regarded as the foundation of Translation Studies. Holmes advocated for a translation sociology, emphasizing the importance of understanding the agents behind the translation process rather than solely focusing on the translation product. Andrew Chesterman furthered this discourse by advocating more strongly for sociological studies in translation, proposing ‘The Name and Nature of Translator Studies’ (2009), referencing Holmes’s work. Chesterman critiques the predominant focus on the function of translation, derived from Skopos Theory, while neglecting the translator’s approach, termed telos in the same theory. Translation Studies historically overlooked the cognitive, social, and cultural constraints on translators’ work until the cultural turn in the 1990s brought attention to these issues. Descriptive translation studies revealed power structures but failed to acknowledge translators as active agents (Prunč, Reference Prunč, Wolf and Fukari2007). Translation process research integrated cognitive aspects but lacked consideration of social determinants until the late 1990s’ sociological turn, spearheaded by Theo Hermans. Scholars like Michaela Wolf and others applied sociological concepts, particularly Bourdieu’s habitus, to analyse translation and translators, leading to the emergence of translation sociology (or TranslaTOR Studies).Footnote ²¹ Wolf (Reference Wolf, Wolf and Fukari2007) delineates three sociologies: of agents, process, and cultural product. According to Schögler (Reference Schögler and Odell Korgen2017), translation as a social practice encompasses micro-, meso-, and macro-structural factors, elucidating the dynamics between translators, institutions, and broader societal developments. Klaus Kaindl’s (Reference Kaindl, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021) collection on Literary Translator Studies underscores the need for specific research on literary translators’ practices, reflecting an interdisciplinary approach within Translation Studies. Despite its heterogeneity, translation sociology underscores the interconnectedness of agents, processes, and products in translation, offering a rich framework for studying L2 translation and exophony.

Heilbron (Reference Heilbron1999) introduces the concept of a world system of translation (referencing Wallerstein’s world system theory). By viewing translations as ‘a function of the social relations between language groups and their transformations over time’ (1999:430), Heilbron emphasizes the importance of understanding translation dynamics within a larger systemic context. He suggests that translations offer indirect access to an emerging world language system, highlighting the complex interplay between linguistic communities and multilingual speakers. Therefore, using polysystemic lens, translation is seen as transnational cultural exchange, revealing power structures and core periphery tensions within the global flow of translated books. Heilbron’s analysis underscores the significance of comprehending the various subsystems and levels of agency in the translation process to grasp the complexity of the international translation system and its impact on cultural dynamics.

The varying role of translation in different language groups further elucidates the intricate relationship between translation and social dynamics. Heilbron’s sociological perspective emphasizes the socio-historical context and power dynamics shaping translation practices. The centrality of certain languages in the international translation system, particularly English, influences the distribution and diversity of translated works. Heilbron’s analysis also sheds light on the role of cultural institutions and economic factors in facilitating translation flows and shaping literary markets. However, discrepancies in translation statistics highlight the complex interplay between centrality in the world-book system and the proportion of translations in national book production, suggesting that cultural importation is contingent upon a language group’s global significance rather than solely its cultural richness.

For L2 translation this complex literary translation eco- and polysystem has important implications. When minority, endangered, indigenous, or otherwise less-widely diffused languages are translated into a hyper-central language such as English, the risks of cultural appropriation, exoticization, and erasure, among others, are high and must be debated. In World Literature there is already an ongoing debate about this topic, and translators of colour have spoken publicly about these risks as well. It is important to make clear that L2 translation presents itself (both in theory and in practice) through translators of less-widely diffused languages, known by fewer (or no) native English users capable of translating from them to a high standard. In these contexts, historical relay, or indirect translation, has been used, but maybe more interestingly, collaborative translation has turned out, in some cases, to be an answer to these ‘problems’.Footnote ²² Pokorn (Reference Pokorn2005) presents a more in-depth analysis and defence of collaborative translation regarding L2 translation practices. Perhaps in future research a specific question about collaboration in L2 translation would be beneficial to understanding this practice better and framing it in a way that dialogues with exophonic translation.

The Translator’s Habitus

In Chesterman’s (Reference Chesterman, Wolf and Fukari2007) exploration of translation sociology, he contends that translation research offers quasi-causes, not grounded in lawlike regularity, due to the translator’s cognitive mediation. This emphasis on human agency places translation sociology at the forefront, focusing on the translator’s practice, discourse, and habitus. Borrowing from Bourdieu (Reference Bourdieu1977), habitus in translation sociology refers to the amalgamation of external and structural factors with the translator’s agency, serving as a lens through which societal influence shapes individual dispositions and responses. Bourdieu’s conceptualization of habitus transcends the dichotomy between structure and agency, illustrating how societal structures inform an individual’s disposition and capacity to navigate social demands. Furthermore, habitus operates as a dynamic system of dispositions that evolves over time and context, influenced by external forces such as migration and specialized training (Wacquant, Reference Wacquant, Medvetz and Sallaz2018:3). By understanding habitus, researchers gain insight into how social conditions shape individuals’ beliefs, behaviours, and practices in translation, highlighting the complexity of social dynamics within the translator’s domain.

In the context of literary translation, the translator’s habitus plays a pivotal role in shaping both translation decisions and the positioning of translated works within different cultural systems. Scholars like Wolf (Reference 71Wolf1999, Reference Wolf and Hermans2002, Reference Wolf, Bonito Couto Pereira and Guarnieri Atik2003) and Matter-Seibel (Reference Matter-Seibel and Wolf2006) have applied Bourdieu’s framework to analyse various aspects of literary translation, including ideological contexts, feminist translation, and the impact of gender on translation practices. For instance, Matter-Seibel’s (Reference Matter-Seibel and Wolf2006) study on Margaret Fuller’s translations of German literature into English demonstrates how the translator’s habitus can import new ideas and influence societal discourse. Similarly, Schweiger’s (Reference Schweiger and Wolf2006) investigation into the relationship between author and translator reveals how the translator’s habitus can affect the reception and positioning of foreign authors within different literary systems. These studies underscore the significance of the translator’s habitus in shaping not only translation practices but also the cultural and social impact of translated works within diverse linguistic and literary contexts. Applying such a view of habitus to this work, for example, we could say that the L1 translation norm entered these social strata of translation theory and practice resulting in dispositions through which the practice of translating into a second language became discouraged. L1 translators who are also monolingual anglophones have been discouraged from trying this direction of translation and thus also assume that such must be the reality of all translators. To put it simply, if I cannot do it, no one can. However, L2 translators seem to fight against such restrictive, normative views. The habitus of translators, in general, as we have seen, can be changed when exposed to external forces. What would be the external forces necessary to change such a strong habitus-informing rule like the L1 translation norm?

The Translator: Real or Ideal?

The two historically known habiti of the translator are, as defined by Erich Prunč (Reference Prunč, Wolf and Fukari2007), Priests and Pariahs. The author points out two diametrically opposed and somewhat schizophrenic expectations placed upon translators and translations, both within Translation Studies and in wider society. Translators are both at the centre and at the margins of our transcultural exchanges. Prunč proposed that, historically, translators position themselves somewhere on this spectrum where the poles are either subservient or carriers of the truth. According to his definition,

Therefore, translators can act as gatekeepers as well, choosing who can enter their realm and be accepted as their peers, as well as defining the limits and quality of literary culture and practice. This translator-priest holds power in their literacy. In literary translation, this is a translator who can become a mentor for emerging translators, win awards, and get competitive grants. In publishing, sometimes a successful literary translator may become the head of a publishing house or an acquisitions editor, for example.Footnote ²³ Translators who enjoy prestige, be it because of their connections, the language they translate from/into or other factors, often hold what translation sociologists call a ‘symbolic capital’ over others in the profession. As Prunč puts it:

Therefore, this prestige that Prunč speaks of may also come from some translators’ access to highly coveted language combinations and is also dependent on some contextual determinators. For example, prestigious awards like the International Booker Prize can result in renewed interest in a language, author, or literature (e.g. translator Daisy Rockwell and author Geetanjali Shree for the Hindi novel Tomb of Sand (2021), International Booker Prize and Nobel Prize winner Olga Tokarczuk (in translation by Jennifer Croft) in 2018–19). Similar external factors that may affect prestige and demand for certain language combinations include the status of the translator; for example, Ann Goldstein’s decades-long work for the prestigious New Yorker magazine and her translations of Elena Ferrante’s Neapolitan Quartet which contributed to the recent Ferrante Fever.Footnote ²⁴ Another example presented by researcher Motoko Akashi (Reference Akashi2018, Reference Akashi, Hansen and Tsang2021; Hadley & Akashi, Reference Hadley and Akashi2015) is that of Haruki Murakami’s work as a translator of US literature into Japanese and his celebrity status in Japan. His celebrity status is so substantial that a book series with his translations was created in Japan, titled Haruki Murakami Translated Library, with his name mentioned on the cover in order to boost sales.

Prunč also defines the other end of the spectrum – that of the translator-pariah – as follows:

In this respect, there is, however, a deep precipice between literary and technical (or often called ‘professional’) translators, especially in their self-fashioning. Some studies in translation sociology deal with literary translators constructing an image of themselves as very distinct in their practice when compared to translators of non-literary texts. Sela-Sheffy (Reference Sela-Sheffy2016), for example, looked at Israeli cases, but some of her conclusions could be expanded to other contexts:

This counter-professionalisation ethos that Sela-Sheffy speaks of works well with the image of literary translators as artists but does not do much for their professionalization. The very fact that Translation Studies creates the same division between literary translation and ‘everything else’ does not help us see that, if we look closely, there is an underlying translationality to all translations, no matter if they are technical or artistic. On this gap between literary and non-literary translators, Sela-Sheffy relates:

Here, Sela-Sheffy creates a further two archetypes: the artist and the natural translator, putting community interpreters and high-status literary translators at opposite ends of the spectrum. In between, we may have anything ranging from literary translators who are published by smaller presses or have publications in not-for-profit journals to audiovisual translators, localisation professionals, and court interpreters. In the pool of translators interviewed for my thesis, at least half of them are literary translators whose main source of income is, according to them, non-literary translation. These subjects, then, are found somewhere in between this spectrum, aspiring to a translatorial occupation that encompasses the artistic but who, for financial sustainability, need to do the ‘dirty work’ of non-literary translation.

It follows that Prunč and Sela-Sheffy’s categorizations are not equivalent. There are those in the literary translation world who act as the ‘quintessential servant’ and claim translation is merely a labour of love, as much as there are others who see themselves as the artist-translator. Sometimes, whether consciously or unconsciously, literary translators may position themselves as superior to their non-literary colleagues, or, to use Prunč’s terms, position themselves as the priests/artists to the other’s pariah.

Levels of Consecration

On the degrees of consecration and the work of exophonic translators, Lindqvist (Reference Lindqvist and Wolf2006) offers, in her analysis of the Swedish field of literary translation, a model which will be useful and taken into consideration in this Element. Positioned agents in the field of literary translation have control over the symbolic capital, in this case the cultural capital of translation, and assign value to other agents. Therefore, the agents’ position and status in the field is determined by their level of access to cultural capital. According to Lindqvist, ‘an interesting step towards a description of translation as a social practice is to map out the consecration mechanisms of the posited fields under study’ (Reference Lindqvist and Wolf2006:67). Consecration, taken from the Catholic tradition, means to bestow upon someone a merit, usually to be made or considered sacred. A specific field can have a structure of consecration mechanisms for the agent in that field to reach the highest point of consecration.

In the case of literary translators in the UK, for example, we have the Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire recently awarded to translator Daniel Hahn. Being accepted as a fellow of the Royal Academy or British Academy can also work as consecration mechanisms. These peaks in the consecration scale are context-specific, as Lindqvist points out that in the Swedish context of high-prestige literary translation these would translate to an appointment as honorary professor of translation by the government. However, these are also bound by source-language prestige in the specific context. In the UK, for example, most of the high-prestige literary translators translate from European languages such as French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, and Scandinavian. If it is true that in order to describe and analyse translation as a social practice these mechanisms need to be mapped out, then in order to have a sociology of translation it is necessary to carry out analyses of the fields in which translation circulates and of the agents involved in the process.

In this sense, investigating the positioning of exophonic translators in these power dynamics and different systems can be fruitful for understanding who these participants in the translation world are. Here, it is worth expanding on Lindqvist to highlight the consecration mechanisms in the specific case of exophonic translators. Inspired by Bourdieu’s autonomous fields, Lindqvist constructs a general model for reconstruction of consecration mechanisms, which she separates into four phases, in order from a lower degree to a higher degree of consecration: the investment phase, the initiation phase, the recognition phase, and the confirmation phase. To be considered a translator, a newcomer needs to invest in education, visibility, improvement, networking, and alliances with positioned agents, be those colleagues, publishers, professors, and in general opinion-makers. In many cases this comes in the form of professionalisation courses – at universities or specific translation institutes – and in the form of workshops. Of course, translators usually come to the profession via different routes, but this is one of the most traditional. The initiation phase usually consists of similar steps as the investment stage – it means for most contexts entry-level jobs, some freelancing and pitching books for publishers and journals. When a translator has a published work, they can be considered to have entered the recognition phase. With a few published works, the translator, according to Lindqvist, then becomes a positioned agent in their field, able to influence, at least to a small degree, others. After moving beyond the recognition phase, and

This discussion on consecration takes us back to high-status literary translators and their symbolic capital. It is not difficult to see how those who possess such capital do not necessarily want to part with it and will inevitably decide on those who can and cannot make the same art largely through norms based on their own subjectivity. This means that some consecrated, high-status translators who do not feel comfortable translating into an L2 might unconsciously assume this is true for the whole profession, and result in gatekeeping literary translation basing it on the trite L1-direction dictum.

Norms and Dispositions

Since habitus is a term that deals closely with dispositions of social groups, often professional, as is the case of translator habiti, then a discussion about norms, albeit brief, needs to take place at this stage. Gideon Toury and Theo Hermans (Reference Hermans1999, Reference Hermans, Wolf and Fukari2007) are the two main contributors to the idea of norms in translation. In Toury’s theory, translation is a norm-governed activity which considers two sets of norm systems: that of the source and of the target language – what he calls ‘initial norms’ (Toury, Reference Toury1995:56). Toury splits these norms into preliminary norms (viz. translation policy and directness of translation) and operational norms (viz. matricial norms and textual-linguistic norms). Since Toury’s proposal, these norms are seen as product norms and process norms. Andrew Chesterman (Reference Chesterman1997) takes Toury’s translation norms and proposes his own: expectancy norms (equivalent to product norms) and professional norms (equivalent to process). According to him, expectancy norms are those which are largely dependent on the target language and culture of a translation and could determine whether a translation is considered acceptable or not. He concludes by saying that ‘[e]xpectancy norms, then, are not static or permanent, nor are they monolithic. They are highly sensitive to text-type – not all text-types are necessarily expected to conform consistently to fluent standard usage – and they are open to modification and change’ (Chesterman, Reference Chesterman1997:67). The other type of norm, the professional norms, according to him, are those often voiced by certain actors in the translation process. As he puts it, ‘the norm authorities par excellence are perhaps those members of the society who are deemed to be competent professional translators, whom the society trusts as having this status, and who may further be recognized as competent professionals by other societies also’ (Chesterman, Reference Chesterman1997:67). These norm authorities will then set the standards which others in the profession will follow. Such standards include textual and linguistic strategies, for example.

Following this categorization, the L1 translation norm would find itself within the preliminary norms that Toury speaks of and both of Chesterman’s proposed expectancy and professional norms. A study on literary exophonic translation would therefore concern itself with how these translators deal with norms against their practice, which are external to the micro-decisions of the actual texts involved, concerning itself then with the behaviour, normative or not, of L2, or exophonic translators. To conclude, Toury asserts:

Therefore, the existence of norms is necessary to regulate a system such as that of translation, but we must never ignore the fact that there is non-normative behaviour. In the case of L2 translation and the question of directionality, one must ask perhaps if this non-normative, disruptive behaviour of translating against the grain would not have the potential to change the very norms they are fighting against. However, again, coming back to Toury’s citation, not all are ‘allowed’ to introduce such changes.

An Exophonic Translation Sociology?

Therefore, translation sociology helps us shed light on the subject doing the translation, and the context in which it happens. Since the aim of my study is to see how exophonic translation can be innovative because it focuses on creative aspects, attitudes, and relationship to the text and languages/cultures involved, the field of translation sociology plays an important part. Toury accounts for the fact that normative formulations ‘imply other interests, particularly a desire to control behaviour – i.e. to dictate norms rather than merely account for them’ (1995:55). This occurs partly when descriptive turns into prescriptive. Scholars are yet undecided on when exactly the L1 translation norm turned from descriptive to prescriptive, perhaps it was born the latter. However, as Toury puts it: ‘Normative formulations tend to be slanted, then, and should always be taken with a grain of salt’ (Toury, Reference Toury1995:55). The habitus of the L2/exophonic translator is where we can see a major difference between these and other translators. The fact that exophonic translators are going against the directionality norm in Translation Studies and the translation market points to an overall influence on their beliefs about language and translation, with hopes that rules about translation are more descriptive, empiric, embodied, and thus more concerned with the actual agents behind this practice.

Exophonic Translation or Exophonic TranslaTORs?

We know that the history of how L2 translation has been seen in Translation Studies has been invisible at best, fraught with assumptions and lack of evidence to support the L1 translation norm. We also know that in adjacent fields like applied linguistics, multilingualism studies, and postcolonial studies, the debunking of the native speaker myth has been happening for quite a while and progressed in ways that have not been taken on by Translation Studies. We know that in Literary Translation Studies the L2-L1 directionality is the default. The expanding field of Translator Studies has made it possible, making available new methods, and opened new research avenues that can be applied to exophonic translation. In this Element, my goal is to propose that, considering what we have seen in this element, literary L2 translation can be structured around the exophonic outlook, and use methods from translation sociology to further the field. At this point in time, understanding of the problems involved in a L1 norm in translated literature is still at its infancy. Thus, our answers are limited. The invisibility of L2 translations makes for a lack of knowledge around existing L2 literary translations in the market. The existing attempts at an answer are limited to understanding the people behind these translations, and their views on their practice. I can mention a few examples here of translators who we could say, with some degree of certainty, would accept the exophonic outlook, or label. These are, of course, limited to those I have encountered, in languages that I can more or less access, and in varying degrees of consecration in the literary market. We have a few representatives across different languages, such as Anton Hur, Amaia Gabantxo, Bruna Dantas Lobato, Julia Sanches, and Jeremy Tiang, among several others. Bruna, for example, is a US-based Brazilian author and translator who recently won the 2023 National Book Award for her translation of The Words That Remain, by Stenio Gardel and published Blue Light Hours (2024), her first novel in English. Sanches is a prolific translator of Portuguese, Spanish, and Catalan into English, with many awards and nominations to her name; Amaia Gabantxo is a Basque translator and musician who often takes on challenging translation projects and champions her minority language in translation. Anton Hur is prolific award-winning translator and author who has been shortlisted for the International Booker Prize more than once and sits on prestigious awards’ judging panels. Other examples include Kotryna Garanasvilli, Antonella Lettieri, Kairani Barokka, Cecilia Rossi, Nariman Youssef, Emily Yae Won, Marta Dziurosz, Alice Olsson, and the list could truly go on and on. What unites all these translators mentioned here would perhaps be not having a straightforward answer to what is their L1 or L2, or challenging the L1 translation norm and proving that the practice of exophonic translation is not only a reality but can also result in creatively rich outcomes in literary translation. The study of literary exophonic translation should ideally focus on the translator and their attitudes to the text and to language as opposed to a textual analysis based on naturalness, fluency, and acceptability by the native speaker/reader. A close reading or a text-based analysis can greatly contribute to our understanding. However, one must leave their L2 prejudices behind and strive to be less native-speakerist when analysing translation outputs.