The Translator’s Discourse and Voice in Chimamanda N. Adichie’s Half of a Yellow Sun

En este trabajo nos proponemos explorar la presencia discursiva del Traductor (Hermans, 1996; Schiavi, 1996; Suchet, 2013) en la novela Half of a Yellow Sun (2006) de la escritora nigeriana Chimamanda N. Adichie
(1977- ). En este sentido, y siguiendo la definición de estereotipo que plantea Amossy (1999, 2009, 2012) para dar cuenta de la perspectiva argumentativa del ethos, nuestro análisis intentará dar cuenta de las características híbridas, interlingües e interculturales que se manifiestan en el texto “original” a partir de las marcas de la heterogeneidad como expresión de la estrategia enunciativa-discursiva del ethos del Autor. De manera complementaria, analizamos los procesos de (auto) traducción (Ashcroft, Griffiths & Tiffin, [1989] 2002; Tymoczko, 1999; Spoturno, [2010] 2014) que intervienen en la versión en inglés y en la traducción al español de la obra realizada por Laura Rins Calahorra (2014). Más específicamente, nos interesa establecer la naturaleza de la presencia discursiva del Traductor como estrategia textual en relación con la (re) configuración del ethos del Autor. Finalmente, con el propósito de analizar las formas de la heterogeneidad (principalmente en la alternancia de lenguas inglés-igbo, en el uso de los proverbios y el cambio de código, entre otras variables) y evaluar la manera en que la traductora traslada estas marcas al español, examinamos si las elecciones traductológicas tienden a la homogeneización o a la heterogeneidad del texto original (Berman, 1985; van Leuven-Zwart, 1989, 1990; Bandia, 2006; Rodríguez Murphy, 2010), tanto en el nivel de la microestructura como de la macroestructura.

Palabras clave: heterogeneidad interlingüe, ethos del traductor, (auto) traducción, Adichie.

This paper aims at exploring the nature of the Translator’s discursive presence (Hermans, 1996; Schiavi, 1996; Suchet, 2013) in the novel Half of a Yellow Sun (2006) by the Nigerian writer Chimamanda N. Adichie (1977- ). In this respect, we will focus our analysis on the examination of the translation procedures intervening in the rendering of the “original” postcolonial hybrid text into the translated Spanish version carried out by Laura Rins Calahorra (2014). Following Amossy’s rhetorical model (1999, 2009, 2012), which draws on the idea of stereotype as having a crucial role in the argumentative construction of ethos, we will approach the analysis of the translator’s discourse and voice as a discursive enunciative subject in connection with the (re-)configuration of the Author’s discursive image or ethos of the original. Finally, on the analytical level, we seek to analyze instances of (self-)translation in the “original”and in the translated text (Ashcroft, Griffiths & Tiffin, [1989] 2002; Tymoczko, 1999; Spoturno, [2010] 2014), which exhibit forms of interlingual heterogeneity (mainly in proverbs, language change and code-switching) as well as evaluate how these forms are rendered into Spanish by the Translator in discourse. Thus, the ultimate aim is to assess if the Translator’s choices or shifts tend to the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the “original” text (Berman, 1985; Bandia, 2006; Rodríguez Murphy, 2010; van Leuven-Zwart, 1989, 1990) both on the micro and macrostructural level.

Keywords: interlingual heterogeneity, translator’s ethos, (self) translation, Adichie.

Chimamanda N. Adichie (1977- ) is a renowned Nigerian author, belonging to the “third generation”^[2] of Igbo women writers who have raised their voice in the modern African literature to decolonize preconceptions and challenge cultural and gender stereotypes. Within this framework, Adichie offers a new perspective of African history, women’s identity, and diasporic relations, which is articulated in an innovative style of narrative. She is considered the “21st century daughter of Chinua Achebe” (Uwakweh, 2010), the founding father of Nigerian literature. Her work includes three novels, Purple Hibiscus (2003), Half of a Yellow Sun^[3] (2006), and Americanah (2013), and a collection of short stories, The Thing around Your Neck (2009). She has received numerous awards and distinctions, including the Orange Broadband Prize for Fiction (2007) for Half of a Yellow Sun, which has been translated into thirty-seven languages.

In this study, we attempt to examine the implications of the peculiar choice of language derived from the postcolonial writing practice^[4] that defines Adichie’s narrative, both as regards the configuration of the Author^[5]’s ethos in the original English text and the re-enunciation by the Translator’s ethos in the Spanish version. Thus, in this first part, we provide an overview of Adichie’s specific use of the English language which is marked by the creative application of postcolonial strategies and which depicts her narrative as hybrid, interlingual and intercultural. Secondly, we shall analyze the notion of ethos as determining the image of the Author in the “original” text and its consequential argumentative force in order to further assess how the figure of Laura Rins Calahorra as Translator enacts the re-configuration of that image in the Spanish version, Medio Sol Amarillo^[6] (2014). In the last part of this study, we will examine the translation strategies employed in the rendering of some forms of interlingual heterogeneity in order to evaluate whether the Translator’s choices tend to homogeneity or heterogeneity of the “original” text (Berman, 1985; Bandia, 2006; Rodríguez Murphy, 2010; van Leuven-Zwart, 1989, 1990) both on the micro and macrostructural level.

In terms of language, Adichie writes mainly in Standard English, which helps her achieve an international readership; yet her narrative is interwoven with the vernacular Igbo language which allows her to speak about the peculiar African experience and signify difference within the context of a world language. This particular way of using the English language is subsumed under the umbrella of minor literatures as defined by Deleuze and Guattari ([1975] 1986).

Deleuze and Guattari ([1975] 1986) describe the language of minor literatures^[7] as consisting of a construct in which a major language (English, in the case of HYS) is affected by a strong deterritorialization factor and is subjected to a series of displacements carried out by a minor language (Igbo, in our case) in order to express new meanings in a new context. The primary characteristic of a minor literature is that it involves all the ways the language is affected by this deterritorialization. The second is that everything in them is political. In minor literatures, every single individual matter is immediately connected with politics, i.e. an individual problem ends up representing the political milieu of the entire community. The third characteristic is that everything has a collective value. In effect, what is uttered does not only refer to the subject of the statement but includes all subjects in a collective arrangement of utterances. In other words, the deterritorialization of the language allows the postcolonial writer to initiate a minor use of a major language. Specifically, in HYS, the minor Igbo language used creatively conquers the territory of the major English language to find a new voice which defines the African idiosyncrasy. In this way, HYS as a minor text uses language in a creative way (as we shall see later, proverbs, code-switching, or language change are among some of the postcolonial strategies employed throughout the novel to achieve this goal) in order to express new cultural-linguistic meanings. This means that it is not only content that matters in a minor literature but rather that it begins by “expressing itself” (Deleuze & Guattari, [1975] 1986), i.e. in the way distinctive discursive practices are exposed in the postcolonial text.

In this view, the hybridity exposed by the text creates —what Bhabha^[8] (1994) calls— a third-space of enunciation, or a space in-between two languages and two cultures where new identities emerge and old stereotypes and beliefs are dismantled in an arena of re-signifying meanings. In this new production of meaning, the other emerges in a discursive field defined by the minor Igbo language and culture but enclosed in the context of the major English language. Hence, otherness and cultural difference are made visible in this third-space of negotiation between two cultures and in the juxtaposition of two languages. In turn, these two languages —English and Igbo— engage in a dialogue which results in a “third code” (Bandia, 2006), or a “language in-between”: a creative translation from Igbo into English.

By virtue of the fact that Adichie uses features of interlingual heterogeneity in her narrative and postcolonial strategies of appropriation which reveal HYS as hybrid, intelingual and intercultural, the translation of this kind of double-voiced discourse necessarily requires different strategies from those used in the traditional western models of translation, as expressed by Bandia (2006) and Murphy (2010). In his study of postcolonial literature produced in African contexts, Bandia (2006) argues that the very own characteristics of these texts make African literature create innovative practices and, on account of this, he chooses to refer to this hybrid writing style as “translation as a metaphor.” By analogy to Bhabha’s notion of third space, Bandia (2006) coins the expression “third code”. In other words, he regards translation as a metaphor of transportation and relocation, a “carrying across physical, cultural or linguistic boundaries from a minor language and culture into a hegemonic one” (Bandia, 2006, p. 4). Consequently, not only does a creative translation need to transfer the linguistic and cultural meanings but it has to recreate the cadence and rhythm of the “in-between” language or “third code” (Bandia, 2006) with which they are written and, at the same time, allude to the presence of the other in discourse. In a similar vein, Berman (1985) has early maintained that postcolonial writing involves “the work on the signifier” or “word for word translation,” considered vital to the creation of a “third space”, a space of one’s own, a space to inscribe one’s identity and find one’s own voice within a global literary structure. In a complementary fashion, Murphy (2010) clarifies that the strategies employed should draw attention to the difference in the translated text without boasting about the different. To put it simply, the translation of heterogeneity in HYS should reflect the creative translation of English-Igbo in the “original”, transforming it into Spanish-Igbo in the translated text.

As indicated previously, the aim of this study is to explore the nature of the Translator’s discursive presence (Hermans, 1996; Schiavi, 1996; Suchet, 2013) in HYS focusing our analysis on the examination of the translation procedures intervening in the rendering of the “original” postcolonial hybrid text into the translated Spanish version carried out by Laura Rins Calahorra (2014). Accordingly, we will turn to the notion of ethos as paramount to analyze the Author’s image in discourse and how this is rendered in the translated text by Calahorra (2014) to build the Translator’s ethos.

In her attempt to delimit the notion of ethos, Amossy (1999, 2001, 2009, 2012) provides an integrated rhetorical model building up on the contributions of disciplines such as rhetoric (Aristotle’s art of persuasion^[9]), sociology (in the case of Bourdieu’s theory of language and power^[10]), and the pragmatic-semantic perspective adopted by Ducrot^[11] (1984) in the context of his theory of polyphony^[12], which identifies the configuration of the ethos inside the verbal exchange. For Ducrot (1984), within discourse and even in an utterance there might be a plurality of voices speaking simultaneously. In effect, he distinguishes between different enunciative subjects in discourse: the locuteur “as such” (L), who assumes the responsibility for enunciation and is designated as “being of discourse”, locuteur lambda (λ), or “Locuteur as being in discourse” only accessible through L, and the enunciators (E), i.e. the points of view introduced in discourse by the locuteur and with which the locuteur may or may not be identified. As Amossy (2001) points out, in his theory of polyphony, Ducrot illustrates the difference between the speaker (locuteur), to whom is imputed the responsibility for the utterance and to whom the ethos is attached, and the empirical author, who has produced it and is designated as being in the world. Yet, it should be made clear that this figure lies beyond the scope of Ducrot’s study. Furthering the analysis of ethos, Maingueneau (1999) focuses on the image of the self the speaker builds in discourse as being determined by what he calls “the scene of utterance.” This scene of utterance includes three complementary dimensions: the global scene (the type of discourse chosen by the speaker), the generic scene (attached to a gender as a discursive institution), and the scenography, designating a pre-existing scenario the speaker freely selects for the text. Thus, while the pragmatists’ ethos constructed is purely internal to discourse and the sociologists’ ethos is mainly inscribed in a symbolic exchange governed by external institutional positions, Amossy’s model for the construction of ethos is characterized by the notion of stereotype as playing a crucial role in fashioning the image of self. She maintains that in order to be recognized by the audience, the speaker and the audience have to be bound up with a doxa, linked to a shared representation or a fixed collective schema so as to gain argumentative authority. For her, the institutional status of the writer as “being in the world” and the verbal construction of the speaker (or locuteur) as “discursive subject,” far from being incompatible, overlap and strengthen one another. In this sense, she claims that the efficiency of speech is neither purely external nor purely or solely internal to discourse. Amossy (1999, 2012) concludes that the image of the Author is materialized in the literary text by an array of implicit beliefs, assumed stereotypes or pre-existing schemes held by members of a community, by the tone and style of writing as well as by the linguistic and encyclopedic competence of the speakers (or locuteurs).

In HYS, the doxa would be represented by the general opinions and beliefs associated with the Africans, the Biafran war, and the African modern women, which set collective patterns of reasoning between speaker and audience, or rather, between the Author as a discursive figure and the readers. In particular, we intend to determine whether the Author’ ethos contributes to unveil the doxological layers upon which beliefs and pre-existing schemas are built by adopting a particular viewpoint in discourse. Moreover, as we have already described, HYS exhibits interlingual, hybrid and intercultural patterns of language which create an image of self by the Author, who takes a discursive stance on the text. In this ideological viewpoint, alterity is acknowledged in the Author’s positioning with respect to the visibility of other discourses and the emergence of certain doxological assumptions. Another aspect to be considered in the construction of the image of self is that the Author may decide to translate, explain or expand the meaning of these unfamiliar features of heterogeneity (Tymoczko, 1999), mark them typographically on the discourse (through the use of inverted commas, glossing, quotations or italics, in direct or indirect speech), leave them unmarked diluting the other’s presence in discourse (Authier-Revuz^[13], 1984), or provide a self-translation. Each decision inevitably entails a consequence and, most importantly, constructs a specific image of self. Indeed, this set of features allows for the projection of an image of the enunciative subject which lays the basis for the expression and consolidation of other meanings and, at the same time, may encourage the demystification of certain stereotypes. To put it differently, in HYS, the construction of the image of Author assures enunciative authority, efficiency, and credibility in discourse as regards the visibility of heterogeneity to deconstruct long-standing beliefs and assert otherness.

Among the many critics that have been concerned about the need to incorporate the figure of the translator in the discussion of translated narratives since Venuti’s claim to produce foreignized texts and his adherence to the visibility of the translator, we should mention Schiavi (1996) and Hermans (1996), whose essays were written in parallel. Within the field of narratology, Schiavi (1996) locates the Translator’s presence as a counterpart to the notion of Implied Author with respect to the strategies chosen and in the way they position themselves in relation to the translated narrative. For Schiavi, “the Translator negotiates and intercepts the communication and transmits it —re-processed— to the new reader who will receive the message” (Schiavi, 1996, p. 15). By interpreting the original text, by following certain norms, and by adopting specific strategies and methods, the translator, according to Schavi, “builds up a new […] relationship between what we must call a ‘translated text’ and a new group of readers” (Schiavi, 1996, p. 7). Schiavi points out that the translator’s voice is “in part standing in for the Author’s and in part autonomous” (Schiavi, 1996, p. 2). As for Hermans (1996), he locates the Translator’s presence mainly on paratextual interventions as an index of a second voice, different from the original’s, co-producing the discourse through the use of notes, explanations or background information. He coincides with Schiavi in that the Translator’s presence depends on the translation strategy adopted and on the consistency with which it has been carried out. However, he highlights the importance of asserting the plurivocality of discourse in translation by destabilizing and decentering the speaking subject and producing hybrid, plural translated texts. Furthering the discussion, Suchet’s (2013) contribution is significant since although she accords with Schiavi (1996) that there must be a “Translator’s narrator” distinct from the Author’s in a translated text, she disagrees on naming this as “implied” because, as she states, implied instances are voiceless and not a single text is voiceless. Suchet (2013) argues that, in the case of translated texts, ethos is not attached to one speaker but characterizes an attitude of a “spokesperson” —in her own terms— towards the speaker they are representing and the represented speech. As she maintains, the ethos co-constructed by the reader and the translator gives a specific tone to the translation that does not correspond to any “real” voice beyond the text. She concludes that the voice we hear in a translation did not exist in the source text. In accordance with Bandia (2006) and Rodríguez Murphy (2010), Suchet (2009) considers that the hybridity that defines postcolonial texts necessarily requires new models of translation. In particular, she believes that the notion of ethos permits the characterization of translation as discursive strategies and a re-enunciation of the original, which becomes indicative of a certain ideological stance of the Translator.

We will now explore the enunciative procedures displayed in the original and in the translated Spanish version of HYS so as to account for the image of self created by the Author and further evaluate if the Translator’s re-enunciation of ethos tends to heterogeneity of the original or removes all traces of difference from the translated text and tends to homogeneity, making the language and culture accessible to the Spanish reader by denying alterity or transforming it (van Leuven-Zwart, 1989, 1990).

The novel tells the story of the impact of the Biafran war (1967-1970) on civilians’ lives. Adichie as Author presents the pitfalls of the war through the eyes of different characters, providing a patchwork description of the events narrated. Kainene and Olanna are two middle-class women who have received European education and are representative of diasporic language. They are educated, career-oriented and strong-willed, a combination that replaces the idea of domesticity that has long governed the stereotype of Igbo women in Nigerian literature, as expressed by Nadaswaran (2011). Ugwu, Igbo-born and uneducated, starts his schooling when he goes to Nsukka to work as a houseboy for Odenigbo, a wealthy university professor. Odenigbo also writes newspaper articles about African socialism and his voice is heard about colonial oppression. Richard is a white Englishman who lives in Nigeria, learns Igbo and loves Igbo culture. He very often writes articles about the suffering of the Biafran people and is an ardent supporter of the Biafran cause. As readers can notice, the variety of characters and viewpoints in the narration assure a plurality of voices which are also replicated in the language they employ. In turn, the register used, the selection of words, the grammatical structures and the speech reproduction (direct, indirect, or free), the recurrence of code-switching (English-Igbo and Igbo-English) and code-mixing are part of the Author’s discursive strategies to signify otherness and difference. However, these forms of heterogeneity do not only manifest themselves on the linguistic microstructural level but are also present on the macrostructural level of analysis. Heterogeneity is also conveyed through the relation between diverse narratives or the co-existence of certain genres, as in the case of formal written discourses —characteristic of the English language— and informal oral discourses —typical of the minor language. Additionally, the use of embedded formal genres discloses heterogeneity and pursues impartiality in the narration of historical events from within and from the standpoint of an Igbo-born, such as the historical essay “The Book” or “The World Was Silent When we Died.” This Book, which is integrated in the main narrative and generally appears at the end of each chapter, is later revealed as Ugwu’s reflections on the political turmoil of the time. Furthermore, the use of flashback techniques, the demystification of stereotypes (seen in the performative role of women, lovingly tormented men, and the Biafran war retold by Igbo-born people) are intermingled with features of orality representative of the Igbo language and culture such as songs, proverbs, onomatopoeia, interjections, and forms of address. All these forms are meant to evoke heterogeneity in discourse and serve to present the text as a palimpsest of voices reverberating from different backgrounds but resounding in the same arena.

In brief, the Author and the Translator as discursive subjects project a given image in discourse through this set of enunciative procedures. Both on the micro and macrostructural level, the ethos projected assures an heterogeneity of voices, viewpoints, languages and cultures which are replicated, with varying degrees, in the translated text.

Let us now analyze some examples of interlingual heterogeneity taken from the English version of the novel and its Spanish translation. As Ashcroft, Griffiths & Tiffin ([1989] 2002) have pointed out, code-switching is one of the most common strategies of linguistic variant that inscribes alterity and installs cultural distinctiveness. Tymoczko (1999) goes on to argue that these textual strategies used by the postcolonial authors not only mediate culture but language, since they struggle with linguistic interface and intercede between languages. Following Tymoczko (1999), imported or borrowed words further bring linguistic polyvalence and are the primary vehicles for inserting meaning from a colonized people’s native language into a text written in the colonizers’ major language.

So, in reference to the postcolonial strategies used, such as code-switching and code-mixing (see Table 1), the Translator re-enacts the other culture by integrating the words in the context of the major language or by mixing the two linguistic systems in the context of the same utterance as has been done by the Author. In general, we can thus state that heterogeneity is preserved and recreated in the translated text. However, if we examine the first example in Table 1, we can see that the Translator uses the form of address, “sah” —which resembles the Nigerian pronunciation— typographically marked in italics on the translated discourse, whereas in the English version, it appears typographically unmarked. Thus, the ethos created by the enunciative subject in HYS is somewhat different from the Translator’s ethos in MSA. In effect, Calahorra as Translator decides to emphasize the presence of the other in discourse, highlighting and demarking its “strangeness” through the use of italics (Authier-Revuz, 1984). Consequently, heterogeneity in the translated text is made noticeably visible on the surface level. On the contrary, in the following examples which are representative of the strategies adopted throughout the novel, the Translator maintains the same morpho-syntactic markedness as in the original, constructing and reproducing the same image of self as the Author’s. So, following Suchet (2013), although by and large the voice and image of the Translator consolidates the Author’s ethos, it is nevertheless inconsistent throughout the novel.

As regards typographically marked and unmarked lexicon, this is at times reproduced in the same manner as in the original with a few mismatched variants among all the examples. Non-translatable Igbo expressions, glossing, words referring to food, superstitions and festivals as well as Igbo songs (see Tables 2-5) are left untranslated in the Spanish version by Calahorra. In this case, we can therefore maintain that she tends to preserve heterogeneity. Igbo language and culture are transferred to the Spanish reader in the way and with the same level of challenge that the image of self of the Author has meant for the English reader. Nonetheless, the major instance of homogeneity in the translated text is produced by the rendering of onomatopoeic sounds (see Table 6). As pointed by van Leuven-Zwart (1989, 1990), the microstructural shifts that appear on the surface of the text with certain consistency and frequency in our analysis of the Spanish version affect the macrostructure on discourse level. In MSA, we can observe that in many instances the Translator decides to decode these onomatopoeic sounds by providing a functional equivalent verb or noun in the target language, erasing the traces of the original Igbo sounds and obliterating the other’s presence in the translated discourse. In van Leuven-Zwart’s terms, the semantic modulation or specification causes discourse to be more precise or specific. But the frequent and consistent use of this specification strategy may render the translation emotionally charged or evaluative. If we consider this instance in the original “her slippers making slap-slap sounds that echoed in the silent street,” we can notice that the Translator renders “slap-slap sounds” using the verb “resonar” to imply the hitting or striking of an object against a flat surface. However, according to the Real Academia Española, “resonar” means “hacer un sonido por percusión” o “sonar mucho”, which is not exactly the same quality of the sound evoked by the onomatopoeia in the English version. Hence, “el ruido de sus zapatillas resonaba en el silencio de la calle” makes the translated text more precise or specific in that it uses a verb rather than the replica of the sound, but it fails to cover the exact resonance of the continuous hitting against the surface.

In the following example, the onomatopoeic sound “Gom-gom-gom” is translated as “¡Pum! ¡Pum! ¡Pum!” in MSA, replicating the intended thud produced by the loud beating of an ogene. In this case, heterogeneity is reproduced through the election of an equivalent onomatopoeic sound in the Spanish language. Still, in another case in point, “the caw-caw-caw of some birds far off” or “the sharp ka-ka-ka of antiaircraft gunfire,” the Translator’s ethos tends to homogeneity since again the words chosen in Spanish involve an interpretation of the sounds that obliterate the vivid recreation of the sonorous atmosphere being described.

In short, the sounds are interpreted and decoded using specific words which belong exclusively to the Translator’s own interpretation and ideological stance. However, the strategies adopted for the rendering of onomatopoeia are not consistent throughout the whole narrative.

Proverbs involve various layers of meaning in African literature and are intrinsically heterogeneous in form and content. As part of the cultural heritage of the Igbo people, proverbs contribute to reinforce the oral discourse and introduce aspects of Igbo cosmology; but, more importantly, proverbs perform a crucial epistemological function as repositories of communal wisdom and knowledge, as mnemonic devices for effective communication, and as educational tools (Whittaker & Msiska, 2007). With reference to the use of proverbs, they appear mainly in conversations to enhance the value of orality and acclaim the cute appropriateness in their enunciation. They also reflect the wisdom of the elders in the art of conversation. They are generally introduced with the formula: “as the elders said…”. As regards language, proverbs encompass aspects of form and content that make their analysis substantially important. In connection with translation, they pose the translator quite a daring challenge since they present them with different choices at hand.

So, with respect to proverbs (see Table 7) and within the field of language, it should be noted that these double-voiced expressions involve a literal translation from Igbo to English first, and then, from Igbo-English to Spanish in what Tymoczko (1999) defines as evidence of intralingual translation. Similarly, Berman (1985) has referred to this discursive procedure as entailing “a work on the signifiers.” This foreignizing strategy rendering the words literally lets the other language and culture be visible in the original as well as in the translated text. This creativity in language also involves an operation of deterritorialization (Deleuze & Guattari, [1975] 1986), in that the minor language is made visible through the semantic content but is encapsulated in the morpho-syntactic and lexical form of the major language. Besides, following Spoturno ([2010] 2014), since proverbs in postcolonial texts evoke two layers of meanings representing the major language and culture on the morpho-syntactic level and echoing the minor language and culture on the semantic level, they confront the reader with the challenge of becoming aware of the existence of these two idiosyncrasies and they may be recognized when decoding them properly.

Now some extracts taken from the novel will be examined. In the first example, the two proverbs are uttered by an Igbo man whose son Nnaemeka has died at the Biafran war, and who holds a conversation with Richard, the white Englishman who spoke Igbo. Richard has come to Nnaemeka’s family to tell them that their son was killed in the Kano massacres. The father articulates the first proverb “He who brings the kola nut brings life,” which is a literal translation from the Igbo version “Onye wetara oji wetara ndu^[14].” Although the Author does not overtly present it as an intralingual translation, this postcolonial technique allows Adichie to focus on the Igbo language and culture through the rendering of a word-for-word translation into English, leaving the reader the task to unravel the layers of meanings masterfully concealed. In turn, Calahorra as Translator renders “He who brings the kola nut brings life” as “El que trae nuez de cola trae vida”, converting the Igbo-English version into a Spanish-Igbo counterpart. Neither the Author not the Translator has decided on a functional equivalent to render the content of the proverb and elucidate its decoding for the reader. To quote Berman (1985), the work on the signifiers both on the part of the Author and on the Translator helps the other language and culture be discernible, underlining its uniqueness and difference simultaneously. In Bandia’s terms, the literal translation also guarantees the reproduction of the third code which characterizes African literatures. As supported by Bandia (2006), the hybrid cultural and linguistic formations that blend indigenous and metropolitan traditions involve specific translation practices. In our examples, these translation practices are evident in the literal rendering of Igbo-English and Igbo-Spanish, respectively.

The last proverb pronounced by the speaker in this fragment (“Let the eagle perch and let the dove perch and, if either decrees that the other not perch, it will not be well for him.”) also stands as an example of intralingual translation from Igbo to English. As regards content, this proverb alludes to harmonious animal behaviour, which expands to a concordant living among humans within the Igbo community. As regards form, this proverb reproduces the literal translation from Igbo into English. The Igbo original version reads: Egbe bere Ugo bere, nke siri ibe ya ebela nku kwaa ya. However, there exists a more modern version that reads: Egbe bere Ugo bere, nke siri ibe ya ebela gosi ya ebe o ga ebe (Odoeme, 2011). Adichie is not concerned about finding a functional equivalent for this proverb in the English language. On the contrary, the Author creates and projects an image of heterogeneity within the context of a world language in order to point to the Igbo idiosyncrasy of communal life.

The second fragment shows that the original proverb in English is accompanied by the Igbo translation (“It did not kill me, it made me knowledgeable.” “O gburo m egbu, o mee ka m malu ife.”) overtly transcribed in discourse by the Author, exposing the other language and culture blatantly. In the same line, the Translator makes use of the literal translation procedure to render the English version of the proverb and transcribes the Igbo version into Spanish without any kind of modification.

From the preceding examination of these illustrative examples that are part of the corpus of HYS, it can be observed that, in the Spanish translation of proverbs carried out by Calahorra, heterogeneity is recreated by providing a literal translation in Berman’s terms, by recreating the letter of the foreign language and culture and also by reproducing the third code in Bandia’s terms. Creative writing in proverbs takes the form of rewriting as (literal) translation. In turn, the enunciative procedures adopted by the Translator re-enact the Author’s ethos in the translated text, evoking the same glimmer of heterogeneity that the original text has intended to produce in the readers.

It may be concluded that the translated ethos produced by the Spanish version is neither authoritative nor assertive in the intent of re-writing the original. Rather, the Translator’s discourse and voice (Schiavi, 1996; Hermans, 1996) seems to pursue mediation through the re-enunciation or re-configuration of the Author’s ethos in the Spanish language (Suchet, 2013). In reference to the postcolonial strategies used, the Translator re-enacts the other culture by integrating the other’s language in the context of the major language in the same way as has been done by the Author.

As for the proverbs that appear in the novel, they involve a literal translation from Igbo to English first, and then, from Igbo-English to Spanish in what Berman (1985) calls “a work on the signifiers.” The concepts of “original” and “translation” are thus blurred and intermingled. In this sense, Adichie-Author becomes a Translator and the original proverb also implies a literal translation from Igbo to English. Likewise, Calahorra-Translator becomes an Author in that she reinscribes the same meaning of otherness in the Spanish language by re-writing the “original translated proverb” in a form that echoes Igbo-Spanish in the target language. In effect, both the Author and the Translator make use of this foreignizing strategy which allows for the visibility of the other language and culture either in the “original” or the “translated” text.

Without overlooking the fact that the other’s presence is a little transformed in some cases, the Translator, as a discursive subject, does not deny otherness. Yet, there is not steady consistency in the strategies adopted for certain enunciative procedures in discourse. Specifically, there are many instances of homogeneity (van Leuven-Zwart, 1989, 1990), and a need to clarify the content of unfamiliar words or untranslatable forms of the Igbo language to the reader of the translation. On the whole, however, evidence shows that there is no intention to reduce heterogeneity.

In short, the Translator’s presence does not disrupt the text by incorporating background information or complementary notes (Hermans, 1996). Rather, the Translator’s ethos replicates the oral language (Rodríguez Murphy, 2010), reflects the creative and innovative style of the Author’s narrative as well as recreating the rhythm and cadence of the Igbo language, ensuring a hybrid, plurality of voices.

Adichie, C. N. (2014). Medio Sol Amarillo (L. Rins Calahorra, Trans.). Barcelona: Literatura Random House.

Amossy, R. (Ed.). (1999). Images de soi dans le discours. La construction de l’ethos. Lausana: Delachaux and Niestlé.

Amossy, R. (2001). Ethos at the Crossroads of Disciplines: Rhetoric, Pragmatics, Sociology. Poetics Today, 22(1), 1-23.

Amossy, R. (2009). La double nature de l’image d’auteur. Argumentation et Analyse du Discours 3, 1-13.

Ashcroft, B., Griffiths, G., & Tiffin, H. (Eds.). ([1989] 2002). The Empire Writes Back (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.

Authier-Revuz, J. (1984). Hétérogénéité(s) énonciative(s). Langages, 73, 98-111.

Bandia, P. (2006). African Europhone Literature and Writing as Translation. Some Ethical Issues. In T. Hermans (Ed.), Translating Others (pp. 349-361). Manchester- Kinderhook: St. Jerome Publishing.

Berman, A. (1985). Translation and the Trials of the Foreign. In L. Venuti (Ed.). The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 284-297). New York: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power (G. Raymond, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. ([1975] 1986). Kafka. Toward a Minor Literature (D. Polan, Trans.). Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.

Ducrot, O. (1984). El decir y lo dicho (S. Vassallo, Trans.). Buenos Aires: Hachette.

Eco, U. ([1979]1984). The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Hermans, T. (1996) The Translator’s Voice in Translated Narrative. In: Target, 8:1, pp. 23-48.

Maingueneau, D. (1999). Ethos, scénographie, incorporation. In R. Amossy, Images de soi dans le discours. La construction de l´ethos (pp. 75-100). París: Delachaux and Niestlé.

Maleki N. & Navidi, M. (2011). Foregrounding Achebe’s Things Fall Apart: A Postcolonial Study. Canadian Social Science, 7(6), 10-15.

Nadaswaran, S. (2011). Rethinking Family Relationships In Third‐Generation Nigerian Women’s Fiction. Relief, 5(1).

Odoeme, P. (2011). Human Rights and the Mission of the Church in Nigeria. Zurich and Berlin: Deutsche Nationalbibliothek.

Rodríguez Murphy, E. (2010). Traducir la diferencia a través del tercer código Things Fall Apart en España. Sendebar: Revista de la Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación, 21, 59-89.

Spoturno, M. L. ([2010] 2014). Un elixir de la palabra. Heterogeneidad interlingüe en la narrativa de Sandra Cisneros [Doctoral dissertation]. Retrieved from http://www.memoria.fahce.unlp.edu.ar/tesis/te.354/te.354.pdf

Suchet, M. (2009). Translating literary heterolingualism: Hijo de hombre’s French variations. In A. Pym & A. Perekrestenko (Eds.), Translation Research Projects 2 (pp. 151-164). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.

Suchet, M. (2013). Voice, Tone and Ethos: A Portrait of the Translator as a Spokesperson. In S. Taivalkoski-Shilov (Ed.), La traduction des voix intra-textuelles / Intratextual voices in translation (pp. 159-184). York: Vita Traductiva.

Tymoczko, M. (1999). Postcolonial writing and literary translation. In S. Bassnett & H. Trivedi (Eds.). Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice (pp. 19-40). London: Routledge.

Uwakweh, P. (2010). Breaking Gods. The Narrator as Revelator and Critic of the Postcolonial Condition in Purple Hibiscus. In W. P. Collins (Ed.). Emerging African Voices. A Study of Contemporary African Literature (pp. 53-74). Amherst/ New York: Cambria Press.

van Leuven-Zwart, K. M. (1989). Translation and Original: Similarities and Dissimilarities, I. Target 1(2), 151-181.

van Leuven-Zwart, K. M. (1990). Translation and Original: Similarities and Dissimilarities, II. Target 2(l), 69-95.

Whittaker, D. & Msiska, M. (2007). Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart. London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.

[1]* Traductora Pública Nacional en Lengua Inglesa y Profesora en Lenguas y Literaturas Inglesas por la Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Magíster en Traducción por la Universidad de Belgrano. Correo electrónico: andrea.lombardo19@gmail.com

Ideas, IV, 4 (2018), pp. 1-20

[2]. As Nadaswaran states, “Their writings provide a composite portrait of Igbo women that are educated, career-oriented and strong-willed, while being wives, mothers and daughters, a combination that replaces the idea of domesticity that has long governed the construction of women in Nigerian literature” (Nadaswaran, 2011, pp. 19-20).

[4]. It should be noted that a key feature in postcolonial writing is the creative way in which language is used. If we adhere to the terms coined by Ashcroft et al. ([1989] 2002), this creativity in language occurs when the English language is used innovatively as part of an appropriation strategy typical of postcolonial texts to fulfill specific purposes and convey other meanings. Or else, postcolonial writers use abrogation textual strategies which consist of rejecting the categories of the Standard English language and the idea that there is only one meaning “inscribed” in the words. This implies decolonizing the English language and writing with another English, one representing the minority languages. For a detailed account of the difference between these two textual strategies, see Ashcroft, B. et al., (eds.) ([1989] 2002) The Empires Writes Back. London and New York: Routledge. 2º edition.

[5]. We employ capitalization in the terms “Author” and “Translator” to refer to these figures as textual literary strategies following Eco’s conceptualization of Implied Author and Reader. For further reference, see Eco, U. ([1979] 1984).

[7]. It has to be noted that the authors use the terms “major” and “minor” language not with respect to the hierarchy of the languages themselves but with reference to the fact that these are languages that a majority or a minority speak within a certain geographical context.

[8]. For Bhabha (1994), hybridity emerges from reinscribing the past and relocating it in a hybrid new third space of enunciation where the representation of cultural difference is positioned in-between the colonizer and colonized.

[9]. In Aristotle’s terms, ethos designates the image of self built by the orator in his speech in order to exert an influence on his audience. This image is produced by a manner of speech rather than by its message: the orator does not claim his sincerity but speaks in such a way that his sincerity appears to the audience. Apart from ethos, the other two proofs are logos, referring to both discourse and reason, and pathos, meaning the emotion aroused in the audience.

[10]. As Amossy (2001) states, for Bourdieu (1991), the power of words derives from the connection between the social function of the speaker and his discourse. The notion of ethos is composed of the exterior authority enjoyed by the speaker and legitimated by their religious, political, intellectual or literary positions.

[12]. Polyphony, as defined by Ducrot (1984), means the presence and interaction of different voices in discourse even in the context of the same utterance.

[13]. Authier-Revuz (1984) defines unmarked revealed heterogeneity as manifesting itself in discourses in which there is no readily delimited frontier between the one and the other. Free indirect speech, irony, antiphasis, imitation, allusion, pastiche, reminiscence, and stereotype are informed examples of this kind of heterogeneity.

[14]. In the Igbo cosmology, the kola nut symbolizes peace, goodwill, gratitude, and authority. The Igbos were very hospitable to any visiting guest and offered them kola nuts, which were ceremoniously broken and shattered before any conversation (Maleki, N. & Navidi, M., 2011).

English	Spanish
“Good afternoon, sah! This is the child,” Ugwu’s aunty said. (…) “The houseboy, sah.” “Oh, yes, you have brought the houseboy. I kpotago ya.” (HYS, p. 15)	—Buenas tardes, sah. Éste es el chico —lo presentó la tía. —¿El chico? —El criado, sah. —Ah, claro, me ha traído al criado. I kpotago ya. (MSA, p. 8)
“Kedu afa gi? What’s your name?” Master asked, startling him [Ugwu]. (HYS, p. 15)	—Kedu afa gi? ¿Cómo te llamas? —le preguntó el señor sobresaltándolo. (MSA, p. 9)
“Do you want some bread?” Ugwu asked another man nearby, who sat hunched. “I choro bread?” (HYS, p. 103)	—¿Quiere un poco de pan? —le preguntó a otro hombre que estaba sentado cerca, con el cuerpo encorvado—. I choro pan? (MSA, p. 136)
“Yes, Ugwu. Look here, nee anya, do you know what that is?” (HYS, p. 16)	Fíjate en esto, nee anya. ¿Sabes qué es? (MSA, p. 10)

English	Spanish
“I told Master you will learn everything fast, osiso-osiso,” his aunty said. (HYS, p. 14)	—Le dije al señor que lo aprenderías todo muy deprisa, osiso-osiso —lo alabó su tía. (MSA, p. 7)
“Ngwa, go to the kitchen; there should be something you can eat in the fridge.” (HYS, p. 15)	—Ngwa, ve a la cocina. Encontrarás algo de comer en la nevera. (MSA, p. 9)
“Go well, jee ofuma. Greet Aunty and Uncle and Arize.” (HYS, p. 34)	—Que te vaya bien jee ofuma. Saluda de mi parte a los tíos y a Arize. (MSA, p. 38)

English	Spanish
His mother would be preparing the evening meal now, pounding akpu in the mortar (HYS, p. 16)	A aquellas horas su madre debía de estar preparando la cena, machacando akpu con la mano del mortero sujeta muy fuerte entre las suyas. (MSA, p. 11)
They were opportunities to find her bent over, fanning the firewood or chopping ugu leaves for her mother’s soup pot. (HYS, p. 17)	Siempre representaban una oportunidad de encontrarla agachada, bien avivando el fuego, bien cortando hojas de ugu para el caldo que hacía su madre… (MSA, p. 12)
His grand-mother had not needed to grow her favourite herbs, arigbe, because it grew wild everywhere. (HYS, p. 21)	Su abuela no tenía necesidad de plantar arigbe, su hierba favorita, porque crecía en estado silvestre por todas partes. (MSA, p. 18)
moi-moi (HYS, p. 64)	moi-moi (MSA, p. 83)
chicken boiled with uziza (HYS, p. 64)	el pollo hervido con uziza (MSA, p. 83)
ori-okpa festival (HYS, p. 65)	el festival ori-okpa (MSA, p. 83)

English	Spanish
… the mmuo (Mr. Richard said they were masquerades, weren't they, and Ugwu agreed, as long as masquerades meant spirits) paraded the village, flogged young men, and chased after young women. (HYS, p. 65)	... los mmuo (a los que el señor Richard llamaba «enmascarados», término que Ugwu aceptaba si se refería a «espíritus») danzaban por las calles azotando a los jóvenes y persiguiendo a las muchachas. (MSA, p. 84)
…when she had coughed and coughed until his father left before dawn to get the dibia… (HYS, p. 87)	…tosía y tosía sin parar, y su padre se había marchado a buscar al dibia… (MSA, p. 84)
Caritas, thank you, Caritas si anyi taba okporoko na kwashiorkor ga-ana. (HYS, p. 198)	Caritas, gracias, Caritas si anyi taba okporoko na kwashiorkor ga-ana. (MSA, p. 260)
Naba na ndokwa, Ugwu, naba na ndokwa. O ga-adili gi mma, Naba na ndokwa. (HYS, p. 260)	Naba na ndokwa, Ugwu, naba na ndokwa. O ga-adili gi mma, Naba na ndokwa. (MSA, pp. 350-351)

English	Spanish
His aunty walked faster, her slippers making slap-slap sounds that echoed in the silent street. (HYS, p. 1)	Su tía apresuró el paso; el ruido de sus zapatillas resonaba en el silencio de la calle. (MSA, p. 7)
Gom-gom-gom. “There will be a meeting of all Abba tomorrow at four p.m. in Amaeze Square!” Gom-gom-gom. “Abba has said that every man and every woman must attend!” Gom-gom-gom. (HYS, p. 134)	—¡Mañana, reunión en Aba a las cuatro de la tarde, en la plaza Amaeze! —¡Pum! ¡Pum! ¡Pum!—. ¡Mañana, reunión en Aba a las cuatro de la tarde, en la plaza Amaeze! —¡Pum! ¡Pum! ¡Pum!—. (MSA, p. 175)
The air was so still that, as they climbed out of the bunker, they could hear the caw-caw-caw of some birds far off. (…) The swift roar of planes and the sharp ka-ka-ka of antiaircraft gunfire came from above. (HYS, p. 192)	En el ambiente reinaba tal tranquilidad que al salir del refugio oyeron el canto lejano de unos pájaros. (…) El estruendo de los aviones y el sonido estridente del fuego antiaéreo le llegaba de arriba. (MSA, p. 252-253)

English	Spanish
“He who brings the kola nut brings life. You and yours will live, and I and mine will live. Let the eagle perch and let the dove perch and, if either decrees that the other not perch, it will not be well for him. May God bless this kola in Jesus’ name.” (HYS, p. 118)	—El que trae nuez de cola trae vida. Usted y los suyos vivirán, y los míos y yo también. Deja que el águila se pose en lo alto, deja que la paloma se pose también, y si uno de ellos no permite al otro hacerlo, no conocerá el bien. Que Dios bendiga esta cola en nombre de Jesús. (MSA, p. 154)
“Grandpapa used to say, about difficulties he had gone through, ‘It did not kill me, it made me knowledgeable.’ O gburo m egbu, o mee ka m malu ife.” (HYS, p. 238)	—El abuelo solía decir, acerca de las dificultades por las que tuvo que pasar: «Si no me matan, me harán más sabio». Ogburo megbu, o mee ka m malu ife. (MSA, p. 317)