Abstract

Shakespeare’s ‘Othello’ is mostly known as the play of jealousy, whereas 21st century readings foreground the themes of racism and misogyny, which also involve threat and impoliteness. The study examines how threat manipulation re/shapes aspects of the play over time intra-culturally, as a manifestation of a changing society. It uses naturalistic data deriving from two Greek target versions of the play (1968, 2001) and a questionnaire addressing bilingual respondents with respect to how they perceive racist, sexist or misogynic implications. Findings show that the latest version heightens threat to construct racism, sexism and misogyny on the part of Iago. The earlier version never reaches the level of offensiveness of the latest one, and questionnaire respondents confirm these findings. The significance of the study lies in that it shows translation to be a platform for variation, where identities are reshaped to reflect and construct societal change.

Keywords: Otello, Iago, racism, sexism, misogyny, threat

1. Introduction

The cultural turn in translation studies directed scholars’ and translators’ attention to cultural and political aspects of the translating experience (Munday 2001: 127): it focused – among other topics – on gender and postcolonialism. Racial otherness, misogyny and female agency have also emerged as investigation topics. The paper examines how these themes emerge through translation in shaping characters’ threatening discourses in one of Shakespeare’s most important plays, ‘Othello, The Moor of Venice’. Set in Venice and Cyprus, the play is about a Moorish military commander Othello who is manipulated by his officer, Iago, into suspecting that his wife Desdemona is betraying him. Othello becomes jealous, murders Desdemona and commits suicide. The study analyzes two Greek versions of the play which are 33 years apart (1968 and 2001).

The study examines relational/interpersonal dynamics, as an overarching category, to study relationships between characters and particularly focuses on construction of threat, in order to spot meaningful differences in the way threat emerges in the interpersonal dynamics between characters, in the two target versions. For instance, it examines how Iago addresses Othello, with respect to how he constructs narratives of racism and otherness.

Findings provide valuable insights in (1) tackling readings of the play informed by contemporary theories of culture (e.g., feminist studies) with respect to a literary piece of the canon, in (2) highlighting intra-cultural variation in the implementation of such readings, and in (3) acknowledging the power of translation to manifest new readings of the play.

2. Literature review

Translation and pragmatics have merged in the literature to form an interdisciplinary area which benefits both translation studies (by lending it a theoretical apparatus) and pragmatics (by offering an additional arena [translated data] which can widen the scope and potential of pragmatics (Hickey 1998, Locher and Sidiropoulou 2021). Analysis of interpersonal relations has been an important strand in pragmatics, but when trying to figure out the specifics of the area, one seems to be faced with some degree of confusion, due to the number of scholars who have attempted to put their hands on this field (Spencer-Oatey 2011: 3565-3578). As suggested, translation adds another arena, where interpersonal relations may be studied, so the study focuses on threat to reveal aspects of the relational dynamics in the two versions.

A key word in today’s societies is ‘inclusion’ and ‘integration’, while scholars highlight the importance race and ethnicity play in society and daily lives (van Dijk 2004 and 2015, Schaefer 2008). Non-inclusion may induce conflict, even in the subtext, and threat awareness. Othello, being of Moorish descent and often portrayed as having darker skin, runs the risk of being non-included in his context, and the question arises how conflict is induced in the target versions and how translators have depicted racial bias (non-inclusion) in the way he is treated.  In literary production, non-inclusion may be intentional, for activating drama (as the case is in ‘Othello’), so it is highly interesting for translation scholars to examine how conflict builds up in a target language intra-culturally and how target versions portray characters.

Othello, often portrayed as having darker skin, is depicted as an outsider, distinct from the Venetians. While his race remains ambiguous, critics suggest that the characterisation ‘Moor’ referred to dark-skinned people. Wodak and Reisigl (2015) suggest that racism is about  the marking of natural and cultural differences between allegedly homogeneous groups, about the hierarchization and negative evaluation, the justification of power differences, exploitation and exclusion. They also suggest that discourse may both contribute to the (re)production of racism and fight against it. The study will show how TTb translator manipulates Iago’s discourse to create racist overtones with reference to Othello, shaping a negative portrayal of Iago.

In addition to racist discourse, scholars have focused on sexism and how instances of sexist language occur. Mills (2005, 2008) suggests that there are two forms of sexism in language: ‘Overt’ sexism is clear and unambiguous, while ‘indirect’ sexism is based on meaning and interpretation of utterances made explicit via a pragmatic perspective. The question arises whether translators use options which allow in/direct sexist implications in the Greek versions to activate drama. The study also examines how Iago’s sexist discourse is rendered in the two Greek target versions, for instance, how he addresses women (Emilia or Desdemona) or refers to them.

Both racism and sexism manifest themselves through impoliteness in discourse; sexism is impolite behaviour towards fe/male gender. Scholars have focused on how offensive discourse targeted at men or women is manifested, and on its role in language and society. One factor that gives rise to impolite discourse is unequal power relations (Culpeper 1996: 354), which is indeed the case with men and women in this play, e.g., between Emilia (Iago’s wife) and Iago. Culpeper (1996: 356) identifies several impoliteness strategies and face threatening acts performed in a clear or indirect way, both damaging addressees’ positive face; the question is how translators have signalled the face-damaging discourse, when Iago speaks.

Lakoff (1973: 73) acknowledges that “[l]inguistic imbalances are worthy of study because they bring into sharper focus real-world imbalances and inequities. They are clues that some external situation needs changing”. In fiction, translated or not, we need to understand these imbalances in order to be able to develop situationally-appropriate discourses. How emancipated will women appear? For instance, the 2001 target version frames Emilia, Iago’s wife, as a more dynamic character, as opposed to the 1968 target version, where Emilia is more submissive and less independent. Lakoff’s (1975) model of how women’s language is mitigated or weakened includes – among others – use of language phenomena like (1) ‘weaker’ expletives, (2) ‘trivializing’ adjectives, (3) tag questions, (4) mitigated requests. For instance, Emilia’s TTb discourse appears to be more impolite and offensive, bending expectations of femininity and subservience towards Iago, which would probably be expected of her.  

3. Methodology

Hermans (1985) considered the translation of literary texts as ‘one of the most significant branches of Comparative Literature’ which needs a broad methodological position.

The study first uses naturalistic evidence drawing on two Greek target versions of Shakespeare’s play, Othello (Vassilis Rotas 1968, and Errikos Bellies 2001), which are 33 years apart. It examined the whole play and focused on Iago’s scenes, where the threatening, racist and sexist discourse emerges, like in the scenes where Iago discusses with Othello, Emilia and Desdemona, or where Emilia and Desdemona converse, allowing implications of female agency and identity.

The study then designed a questionnaire addressing 16 respondents (15 MA postgraduate students in translation, and a PhD student in translation and linguistics) who were not familiar with the aims of the study. The assumption was that respondents’ background in translation and linguistics would allow them to adequately perceive the nuances between alternative target options and provide expla­nations on the implicatures they generate.

The questionnaire questions present the context of the relevant fragment pairs and enquire which one of the versions favour stronger behavioural patterns like intrusion, showing respect, showing boldness, or which fragment is more racist or misogynist by providing women characters with less agency.

4. Data analysis

The study sets different categories of data analyses (i.e., comparison of target versions by the researcher – etic approach) and responses to questionnaires, realizing the emic approach, where questionnaires elicit lay people’s view on the meaning potential of options. The same extracts analyzed in the examples of section 4, were assessed by respondents through the questionnaire.

The data were examined with respect to shifts arising between the target versions. The shifts were categorized along four thematic axes which emerged out of the contrastive analysis, namely, (1) shaping threat in male interactions (manipulating through threat, along with threat and racial Otherness) and (2) shaping threat in male-female interactions (manifested through sexism and misogyny situations).

4.1 Shaping threat in male interactions

In examples 1-4, Iago attempts to convince Othello, who loves his wife dearly that she has been unfaithful to him, when she has not.

4.1.1 Iago: Manipulating through threat

Iago pictures jealousy as a green-eyed monster. Both Greek versions have opted for the mythical child-eating monster, ‘lamia’, to translate ST ‘monster’, and heighten the effect the ST item ‘green-eyed monster’ may have had in Greek, if translated literally. In TTb, the creature doesn’t have green eyes (as in ST and TTa), but rather ‘poisonous eyes’ (‘φαρμακερά’), which portrays a wilder, more threatening situation, and thus Iago’s influence is assumed to be higher. Threat is also enforced in TTb through the creature’s behaviour, which ‘torments’ (TTb) rather than ‘mocks’ (TTa) the body it feeds on.

In example 2, TTb item ‘τα μάτια σας δεκατέσσερα’ (keep your eyes peeled) conveys a higher threat than TTa ‘Τα μάτια σου στην γυναίκα σου’ ([have] your eyes on your wife). TTb item suggests that the situation requires higher vigilance and attention, on the part of Othello, painting Iago as a more scheming figure. 

Another difference between TTa and TTb (Greek has a tu/vous distinction in the verbal system) is the TTa singular imperative translating ST item ‘observe’ vs. the TTb plural imperative, which signals respect to Othello’s high status. It is a typical strategy of the TTb translator, Errikos Bellies, who seems to strategically heighten the contrast between a character’s polite behaviour (Sidiropoulou 2020) vs. their mean intentions, e.g., Iago’s intention to threaten and manipulate Othello. The contrast ‘politeness-impoliteness’ in the behaviour of the same character creates more suspense as to the interpersonal dynamics between interlocutors and makes the audience more attentive. Example 2 shows an instance of this.

Iago’s plural form of address in TTb is one of Sorlin’s (2017) manipulation strategies, namely, the use of politeness to enhance the Other's face, and in doing so, to conceal the Speaker's (Iago’s) self-interest.

The next subsection analyses how awareness of addressee’s racial Otherness may motivate threatening discourse.

4.1.2. Threat and racial Otherness

In example 3 (Act I, Scene 1), Iago talks to Rodrigo and expresses his discontent for not having been promoted as Othello’s lieutenant. The question arises how ST item ‘his Moorship's ancient’ may be rendered and which rendition may be more offensive and ironic. In example 3, TTb option makes Iago appear more ironic towards Othello and thus shapes a more threatening attack. The irony emerges from the contrast between the expected item ‘της Αυτού Mεγαλιότητος’ (Ηis Highness) and the creative item ‘της Αυτού Μαυρότητος’ (His Black Highness) where ‘black’ conveys negative connotations, incompatible with ‘Highness’.

In example 4 (Act I, Scene 1) there are references to Othello by different characters in the play and the question arises which target version most intensely attacks Othello’s racial ‘otherness’. TTb offers more offensive options, articulating a more racist narrative: in TTa all characters use ‘μαύρος’ (black) for ST item ‘Moor’. TTb uses ‘Μαυριτανός’ (Mauritanian) instead, leaving ‘μαύρος’ (black) to Iago’s calculating soliloquies or his devious dialogues with Cassio and Roderigo. TTb elaborates on rendition of the item ‘Moor’ by using negative references to Othello, translating one item of the ST.

The TTb options manifest TTb translator’s intention to signal that Iago’s motives are not solely jealousy and ill-ambition, but also racism and despise towards otherness. Iago is made to be using his “linguistic repertoire in order to intentionally cause offence” (Limberg 2008) to Othello.

4.2 Shaping threat in male-female interactions: Sexism and misogyny

The section shows that the two versions raise sexist and misogynous implications. For instance, the relationship between Iago and Emilia is shaped differently, in that TTa assumes high power distance between Iago and Emilia (‘Να μη μαλώνεις’ [Do not you chide]), which is degrading for Emilia, whereas TTb ‘[μ]η μου μιλάς απότομα, Ιάγο’ ([d]on’t talk to me abruptly Iago) assumes a stronger female figure, a more vocal Emilia, doing justice to female emancipation and heightening awareness of female agency. Likewise, Iago’s TTb item ‘[τ]η βλακεία που πάντα κουβαλάς’ [t]he stupidity you always carry (with you)’ – translating ST item ‘[t]o have a foolish wife’ – is a low tenor expression, too derogatory for Emilia, evidently manifesting Iago’s misogynist and sexist behaviour.

Emilia’s TTa ‘Don’t scold me’ carries ideological assumptions which may be taken as 'common sense' (Fairclough 2001), but which help sustain existing power relations. Emilia’s TTb ‘Do not speak to me rudely’ is an attempt of the translator to cancel the weak female stereotype and create an empowered Emilia.

In example 6, TTb more intensely manifests Iago’s sexist identity through repetition: the TTb item ‘to darken her virtue, to make it pitch black’ refers to the darkening-the-virtue desire twice and thus makes the threat more ominous.

The section highlights how target versions assume different levels of threat awareness in order to shape misogyny and racism in the play.

5. Questionnaire: The emic perspective

As suggested, the researcher’s (etic) perspective is cross-checked with lay people’s assessment of polite and impolite language options (emic perspective), through a questionnaire.

The Questionnaire comprised six questions (see Appendix), drawing on the six examples in the analysis section; it was administered in a postgraduate classroom, with questionnaire data selected after completion of the task. Questions 1 and 2 asked respondents to assess the level of threat assumed in the Ta and TTb versions of Iago’s words to Othello. This would show perception of the implicatures following from Iago’s words, who in the TTb version raises threat to manipulate Othello. Questions 3 and 4 examined portrayal of the racism towards Othello’s ‘otherness’. Questions 5 asked respondents to assess Iago’s behaviour towards his wife and question 6 sought to assess respondents’ perception of Emilia’s female identity portrayal, manifested through discourse. Figure 1 shows that lay people assess TTb as more offensive.

As suggested, the relational dynamics between Iago and other characters has been utilised as an overarching category encompassing FTAs which preserve or enhance racist and sexist discourse. The results provide important insights with respect to the level of threat favoured in the Greek target versions.

Figure 1. Perception of ‘threat’ in Iago’s Face Threatening Acts (FTAs) favouring, racism and sexism

The sixteen valid replies to the questionnaire seem to confirm the results of the etic analysis in section 4:

Questions 1 and 2 confirm that Iago’s scheming personality and capacity to manipulate Othello is according to the respondents heightened in TTb (2001), as shown in Figure 1.

Questions 3 and 4 results show that  TTb (2001) makes use of more offensive and threatening discourse on the part of Iago and other characters, highlighting Othello’s racial otherness, as opposed  to TTa (1968) which does not make any attempt at interfering with the impact of Othello’s ‘otherness’.

Questions 5 results show that sexist and misogynic language prevails in Iago’s discourse, in TTb, because the translator constructs a more threatening discourse when Iago addresses Emilia (his assumingly less powerful wife), or when he refers to Emilia (in a soliloquy).

Another shift between TTa and TTb relates to shaping Emilia’s identity, in question 6. Respondents agreed that TTa item ‘μη μαλώνεις’ shapes a more submissive Emilia, acknowledging Iago’s power. By contrast, TTb option displays female agency and dynamism on the part of Emilia, painting a more empowered version of her.

Questionnaire results confirm that the two versions use different levels of threat, whose impact present-day audiences can acknowledge.

6. Discussion and significance of research

This paper has analysed the relational dynamics between Iago and other characters in the play, examining how levels of threat shape Iago’s character, Othello’s ‘otherness’ and Emilia’s identity in two Greek versions of Shakespeare’s play ‘Othello’. As the cultural turn in translation studies favoured readings of classic pieces which fleshed out motifs of plot which were previously neglected, the study showed that the 2001 version did justice to themes of racism, ‘otherness’, sexism, misogyny, female empowerment and agency. In examining Spanish target versions of ‘Othello’, Ezpeleta-Piorno (2009) identifies different ideologies in target versions, born out of the core of values and beliefs and “the longstanding set of prejudices against Islam shared by Renaissance England and Spain” (2009: 55).

A question is why the issues that are identified in the 2001 target version are portrayed differently in the 1968 one. The assumption is that evolving societal conventions, ‘inclusion’ and equity rights discouraged impoliteness from shaping racism, otherness, sexism.

The study contributes to the relatively small body of work produced in the intersection of translation-pragmatics-Shakesperean plays, investigating manipulation of threat and showing how underlying discriminatory ideologies, such as racism and sexism may manifest themselves in multiple ways in a target language. As van Dijk (2002: 11) argues, ideologies have complex effects on discourse, and it would be wise for scholars to understand how they inform the relational dynamics in pragmatics. Moreover, through translator expertise, we get parallel evidence on discourses of manipulation, racism, sexism and female agency, cross-culturally and intra-culturally.

TTb (2001) is more informed of contemporary readings, e.g., when framing Emilia, who is said to be the feminist in this play; her words against Iago display that she respects herself manifesting personal agency, rather than dependency as TTa version does, where Emilia’s character is more passive and submissive.

Limitations of the study may regard the number of the questionnaire respondents or the small sample examined. However, the small sample is assumed to be indicative of a larger set of instances in the data, which fall into the categories of shifts referred to.

An open research problem could be for translator scholars to test Sorlin’s (2017) theory of manipulation strategies: namely, to what extent they apply in translated fiction, cross-culturally or intra-culturally. The strategies are three:

(1) The use of politeness to enhance the Other's face, and in doing so, to conceal the Speaker's self-interest (and protect her own face). In this case, the TTb translator applied the strategy, for instance by using plural forms of address (showing respect) to conceal Iago’s self-interest, 

(2) On record Self-Face Threatening Act that involves a cost to Self, in view of a (postponed) higher gain (for Self). The question arises whether there are such behavioural patterns in the play, and

(3) Self-enhancement that paradoxically has an impact on the Other's sense of self-esteem. Iago is made to be applying this strategy, especially in enhancing suspicion in Othello’s mind. As aggravating strategies may be applied differently cross-culturally (Rigalou 2020), in translation, it would be worth examining which strategies of manipulation may be preferred in source and target versions of texts.

Strategies of manipulation in fiction may be interrelated with emotion, which may affect the appeal of a target version in a target environment. Alba-Juez (2021) suggests that there is a  relationship between emotion and phenomena like stance taking, (im)politeness, swearing, humour or irony and evaluation. Emilia’s heighted female agency in TTb (example 6) may be an instance of ‘stance taking’ resisting Iago’s heightened ‘impoliteness’ and ‘evaluation’. Perhaps the heightened threat in TTb is what makes the text so appealing, raising emotion.

The study shows that there is a lot to be pragmatically adjusted in rendering the relational dynamics between characters in theatre translation, which shows the significance of a pragmatically oriented view in translation studies.

•  Previous article
• Next article