Engagement with Genette’s Paratext in Translation

With the publication of Genette’s English translation of Thresholds in 1997, an increasing number of translation scholars in the Anglophone world became interested in the study of paratext. In 1996, one year prior to the publication of the English translation of Thresholds, Hermans and Kovala published two essays in the academic journal Target, making them the first two researchers to publicly engage with Genette’s paratextual conceptualisation.

Hermann and Kovala explored the paratext of translations, arguing that the paratext acts as a site of intervention by making adjustments based on trending norms prevalent in the new realm.

Depending on the given time period and context, this so-called intervention can be of an ideological, political or sociological nature. Hermann and Kovala do not share Genette’s view that translations themselves are paratexts of an original text. Despite them being amongst the first scholars to engage with Genette’s term ‘paratext’ in translation studies discourse, interest in paratextual elements dates as far back as to the nascent days of translation studies in the

After the Target publications, subsequent publications of English articles and essays, discussing Genette’s paratext, paved the way for academic discussion of paratext in the Anglophone world. While the vast majority of subsequent research was primarily concerned with literary paratextual studies, an increasing number of researchers branched out to various other fields such as literary translation, news translation, audio-visual translation, music, film, as well as non-fiction literary genres including philosophical, political, sociological or religious texts. Nevertheless, the most extensively studied paratext in translation studies continues to be the internal peritext in the form of the translator’s foreword, afterword, footnotes, commentary, etc. (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2013, as cited in Batchelor, 2018, p. 26).

So-called external peritexts such as book covers, illustrations, titles, fonts and designs are not as extensively studied in translated literary works nor are epitextual elements of translated text such as magazine reviews, online reviews, etc. Existing research often conflates all paratextual elements treating them as one item, instead of focussing on the analysis of one.

This thesis will make a clear distinction between peritextual and epitextual analysis in order to establish their respective goals and functions. It will be argued that peritext is produced by patrons, often with the aim of realising ideological or commercial goals, whereas epitext is reflective of the reception and the ideological norms that shape it. A combined approach for peri-and epitext is advocated as this will provide more accurate and concrete insights into the presentation and reception of a text as well as the ideological and political norms within the target context.

Due to the abstract nature of the paratextual threshold, various academics have coined their own definitions and interpretations of paratext. While most related academic research draws from Genette’s conceptualisation, many scholars did not entirely agree with Genette’s definition, particularly with the notion that all paratext should comprise an authorial intention.

Subsequently, academics in translation studies further developed Genette’s theory or in some cases, coined their own definitions. Some scholars, for example Cecilia Alvstad (2003), Kos (2008) or Borgeaud (2011), regard illustrations or the name of the author as a form of paratext as these factors can also play a vital role in the promotion of literary works (as cited in Batchelor, 2018, p. 27).

Pellatt (2013) regards all peritextual and epitextual elements aimed at supporting a main text by providing context, reviews or commentaries of academics, translators or reviewers, as paratext. In short, it is the ‘supplementary’ function that determines the paratext, rather than the authorial intention (Batchelor, 2018). Similarly, Gild Bardaji, Orero & Rovira-Esteva (2012, as cited in Batchelor, 2018, p. 28) have contended that the paratext is ‘an area of thinking’ in which the peritext and epitext act as an extension of the main text.

In her publication What texts don’t tell (2002), Şehnaz Tahir-Gürçağlar critiques Genette’s claim that translations themselves are paratexts on the basis that Genette’s argument would presuppose that translations are inferior models of their originals. Tahir-Gürçağlar views this as problematic as this approach dismisses any contributions made by the translator or publisher and deems the authorial intention in translation as well as loyalty to the source text as the sole paratextual function. Furthermore, this approach fails to account for translated works that were more successful than their original publications and would dismiss Benjamin’snotion

that translations are vital in ensuring a literary work’s ‘afterlife’ (Benjamin, 1968 as cited in Disler, 2012).

Tahir Gürçağlar (2002) argues that viewing translation as paratext limits and impedes the potential for exploring further research channels. She posits that Genette’s notion of translation as paratext “runs counter to a perspective that regards translation as initiated in the target culture” and stands in stark contrast with postcolonial theories in translation studies.

Furthermore, this would deny the possibility that translation may differ from their original texts or that they can be acts of political intervention (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2002, p. 46).

Overall, Tahir-Gürçağlar rejects Genette’s conceptualisation of paratext, viewing it as restrictive and not conducive to further research. She advocates viewing translation as an entity separate from its original while treating any supplementary elements as “presentational materials accompanying translated texts and text-specific metadiscourses formed directly around them” (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2002, p. 44). Her approach removes Genette’s authorial intention from the paratext, thus rendering paratextual research in translation studies a fruitful domain of study.

However, Kathryn Batchelor (2018) disapproves of Tahir-Gürçağlar’s critique on Genette’s concept which views translation as paratext, arguing that a translation should merely

‘serve the original’ text ‘and nothing else’. While Batchelor does agree that Genette’s conceptualisation is inadequate as it is primarily concerned with the message of the source text, thus failing to explore the target context, she also deems Tahir-Gürçağlar’s approach as too extreme as Genette’s concept does not refute the fact that elements carrying paratextual meaning cannot be indicative of extra information. In fact, Batchelor (2018) argues that

Genette’s claim that the epitext, which encompasses translation as paratext, “consists of a group of discourses whose function is not always basically paratextual”. Instead, Genette suggests viewing the epitext’s functions as “occasions capable of furnishing us with paratextual scraps, though they must often be sought with a magnifying glass” (Genette, 1997, p. 356). Hence, viewing translation as paratext does not ignore any other channels that could be of interest to a researcher. Instead, the aim is to investigate how these channels present and contextualise the original texts (Batchelor, 2018).

In summary, the quintessence of a literary text, be it an original or translated text, is how it is received. As the reception is heavily reliant on the producing paratext, Genette’s conceptualisation of viewing translation as paratext is problematic as this is not a clear enough threshold for the target reader. Words and texts can bear different meanings in different contexts, and a translation on its own might not necessarily achieve the desired effect as originally intended, thus defying the literary purpose of the translated work (Batchelor, 2018).

In line with Herman (1996) and Kovala’s (1996) studies, this research analysis of paratextual material supplementing Wetlands will support their claim that paratexts are sites of intervention and that they are adjusted based on the trending norms circulating in the target culture. As will be seen in the case of Wetlands, the content of paratextual material was rewritten and tweaked based on the political and ideological norms in relation to women’s sexuality and feminism. With the internal peritext being the most widely studied paratext in translation studies (Tahir-Gürçağlar, 2016, as cited in Batchelor, 2018), great emphasis will also be placed on the study of external peritext and epitext with epitext encompassing online newspaper and magazine reviews. Existing research tends to treat peri- and epitext as one item,

and this thesis is a deliberate attempt to treat them as separate entities, with the goal of giving external peritext and epitext equal weighting in the translation studies discourse.

Peri- and epitext are both treated as paratext and in line with Pellatt’s argument (2013), they are viewed as having a supplementary function (a political function in the case of Wetlands), instead of merely serving an authorial function as stated by Genette. As Tahir-Gürçağlar (2002) posits, Genette’s approach is restrictive and would hinder any research into the political and ideological functions of paratext. Furthermore, in line with Alvstad (2003), Kos (2008) and Borgeaud’s (2011) argument (as cited in Batchelor, 2018), this thesis will demonstrate that the illustrations and the book publications’ cover designs, as well as the portrayal of the author, are indeed paratexts too.