<Article>

Framing cultural images:
Japanese translators and their translations of Hebrew children's literature(文化イメージを形づくる―ヘブライ児童文学の邦訳と翻訳者たち―)
Elena Baibikov(バイビコフ･エレナ)

Abstract
This article aims to show how critical analysis of the textual and extra-textual sources allows to trace thedynamics of maintaining and (trans)formation of cultural representations and images in translation. I
proceed from the assumption that the import of Hebrew children's literature into Japanese can be studied asa channel of manipulating existing cultural representations and introducing alternative ones. Here, the focus
is on the nascent cultural relations between Israel and Japan—two highly modernized but relatively
marginal and remote cultures1. I believe the course taken by agents of a Hebrew Israeli culture within
Japanese culture, whose relations to outsiders have always been complex, can help decipher mechanisms ofintercultural rejection and acceptance (of cultural representations, images and even repertoires ) far beyond
the particular cases involved.

The frame belongs then to the space of the observer rather than of the illusory, threedimensional world disclosed within and behind. It is a finding and focusing device
placed between the observer and the image. But the frame may enter also into theshaping of that image...
Meyer Schapiro (Schapiro 1985:212)

1. Introduction
As national literature constitutes a prominent and inseparable part of national culture2, the field oftranslated literature is designed to serve a typical arena for conducting an imagological study on cultural
images and representations being (re)produced and maintained through translated texts. The discursive
praxis of translating, I believe, serves as an important source through which intercultural power balance,
cultural subjectivity and imagination are revealed.
It seems that translation of children's literature appears to be one of the promising areas ofimagological interest3, for children’s literature conveys the very basis of stereotyped/stereotyping
information about natural and social world as it perceived in a given culture. It aims to "shape the minds" of1

『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)its age-specific addressees (e.g. Shavit, 1986, 2009). Thus, in every given stage of the process of translating(from the very beginning: when selecting original text and choosing translation strategy) translators ofchildren’s literature engage in an elaborate game of (trans)forming cultural images by the means of—andin accordance with the needs of—target language and culture.
The question of text selection is very crucial here, and as previous research shows the structure ofimported text corpora is strongly influenced by the pre-existing (in target culture) image of the source
culture and literature (Seifert, 2005, 2007). This rather systematic interaction between images andtranslation takes place, as the researcher states, on two additional levels: “the level of translation (the role
played by individual translators and their image-boundinterpretations of the text) and the level ofreception (including marketing, reviews, awards and so on)” (Seifert, 2007: 222). In her work Martina
Seifert focused primarily on the levels of selection and reception. In what follows I would like to explore
what happens on the so-called ‘translation level’ where translators act as cultural agents, who ensure thepassage of ideas and practices from one group to another (Even Zohar, 2005). Thus, placed in thisperspective, translators are likely to have the status of professional mediators of culture goods,
representations and images (e.g. Pym, 2004).

2. Historical contextualization
In Imagology: History and method Joep Leersen (Leersen, 2007) lists different categories ofnecessary contextualization for imagological study. In the introductory section I briefly touched upon apragmatic contextualization of my research and here I would like to contextualize it historically.
Official relations between Israel and Japan began in 1952, when Japan recognized Israel as anindependent state. Since then, as it is stated on Japan Ministry of Foreign Affair’s website (MOFA website2013) , “exchanges have deepened and broadened not only in the political and economic arenas but also inareas such as cultural and intellectual exchange...” In the field of literature, however, it took about 40 years
until the “cultural and intellectual exchange” mentioned above became comparatively visible.
The relations between the two countries have been strained from the very beginning. In Israel theimage of Japan as one of the allies of Nazi Germany during the WWII was rather unattractive, Japan in its
turn refrained from developing strong relations with Israel since it was heavily dependent on Middle Eastoil from Arab countries (Katz, 2007). By early 1960’s, however, some people in Japan became fascinatedwith Kibbutz ideology. In 1963 Japan Kibbutz association was founded and in just a few years grew to
30,000 members. The groups of volunteers from Japan began to arrive to Israel as early as from 1964
(Kapner & Levine, 2000)4. But the general Japanese public was unaware of the existence of Israel until
1967, until the Six-Day War (also known as Third Arab-Israeli War or an-Naksah in Arabic ). The war
created unfavourable public opinion towards Israel in Japan. Furthermore, the Japanese Red Army – amilitant leftist group, that was founded in 1971 in Lebanon where it cooperated closely with Popular Front
for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) – planned and committed a terrorist attack in Lod Airport in Israel in1972 (JNPA website 2013). Later, in October 1973 the Fourth Arab-Israeli war began and Japan felt heavy
diplomatic and political pressures from both Arab countries and USA. Against the background of world
economic crisis these pressures resulted in escalation of anti-Israeli sentiment in Japan that reached a fever
pitch in 1982 with the beginning of Israel-Lebanon war. By the late 1980s, relations between two countries

2

Framing cultural images

began to gradually improve. According to Japanese MOFA’s site (MOFA website 2013) in 1992 first Japan
Cultural Festival was implemented in Israel and 1993 is designated as the initial year of intellectual
exchange programs.
The improving and growing cultural relations between Israel and Japan in recent years are reflected,
inter alia, in the increase in published translations, the direct as well as the ‘second-hand’ ones. According
to UNESCO Index Translationum, from 1979 to 1991 there was no single direct translation from Hebrew
into Japanese published as a book5– the four volumes translated during this period were in fact translations
from languages other than Hebrew. For the following period from 1992 to 2008 there are 73 directtranslations (about 75% from the total of 96 titles including biblical translations and translation of Talmud).
Children's literature constitutes about 60% of the first-hand translated fiction corpus: 20 out of 32 titles.
It will be interesting to compare these figures with the data on all translated children’s literature in
Japan. For example in 1999, translations of children’s literature counted for 28% of all translated literatureand in 2004 it stood for 42% (Honyaku Shuppan Report 2005). Thus, in the case of Israeli-Hebrew
literature the percentage is much higher. To understand why children’s literature makes up a remarkably
large part of the whole corpus of Israeli-Hebrew literature translated into Japanese and how this fact isrelated to the (trans)formation and circulation of cultural images and representations we should examine
more carefully two main points:
1) the general condition in the field of literary translation in post-war Japan2) the mediating role played by translators.

3. Shifts in national discourse and its impact on a literary translation
Following WWII a slow process of replacement of the ‘main actors’ in the field began: scholars
and writers who were once the driving force behind the translation projects were gradually replaced byprofessional translators and publishers (Miyata, 2000). This process was accompanied by an additional
development, namely the change in attitudes of Japanese translators towards ‘faithfulness’ and readabilityof translations. In other words, noticeable changes of translation norms occurred in Japan. It occurred
during 1970s – the years of fast economic growth and further strengthened the independence of Japan as astate. According to Yuri Furuno (Furuno, 2002) in the early period, translators “had been more concernedwith fidelity and literal translation”, however “from 1970s onward they became more concerned with
comforting the Japanese cultural and linguistic norms”. This move from a rather ‘foreignizing’ approach tothe ‘domesticating’ one was, of course, related to such factors as Japan’s growing cultural confidence, therapidly developing publishing industry and commoditization of literary translations that by the end of
1970s had become popular amongst a broader audience.
Noboru Miyata (Miyata, 2000) in his autobiographical monograph “The ways of postwar
translations—When translators were gods” describes an additional process of change that finally brought
American literature to be placed in the very center of the translated literature system in Japan6. It is very
symptomatic for the period of late 1970s-early 1980s when the national discourse was maintained within
the paradigm of ‘internationalization’, according to which Japan has been assigned a leading role in theinternational context, so people could feel secure enough to develop ideas and theories in the vein of ‘selforientalism’ (Iwabuchi, 2005). The economical prosperity of Japan at that time was a very important factor
3

『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)

which helped to keep a clear-cut distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’. It made possible the claim of‘Japanese cultural uniqueness’.
On the other hand following the burst of the ‘bubble economy’ in early 1990’s, there emerged a
new social paradigm of ‘globalization’ and ‘multinationalism’ in Japan and by the late 1990’s-early 2000’s
gained wide popularity. Falling deeper and deeper into crisis, Japan could not be perceived as ‘unique’anymore—it turned to be just “another nation” among many other nations participating in one global
system. National discourse was, then, re-shaped, the clear-cut distinctions between ‘us’ and ‘them’ nolonger existed, and that is precisely why these distinctions must be revealed and explainedby thecomparison between ‘Japanese’ and the multicultural ‘Other’ (Iwabuchi, 2005).
The publishing industry was affected by the new paradigm. In the early 1990’s many new literary
series were established for introducing foreign literature from previously unfamiliar ‘peripheral’ cultures.
Israeli-Hebrew literature finally found a suitable niche: most of the translations from Hebrew—children’s
literature as well as fiction for adults—appeared in these series, such as “World literature” and “Foreign
literature” by the SAERA publishing house who specializes in children’s literature, “Literary adventures”
by Kokushokanko-kai publishers, “New world literature” by Iwasaki publishers and others.
The existence of this center/periphery dichotomy (with American literature in the center and small
ethnic literatures in periphery) within the translated children’s literature system created in the course oftime a situation where central positions in the system were occupied by projects with a high commercial
potential and designed mostly as a source of entertainment. Such projects were initiated by publishers
themselves and the main factor influencing the decision to undertake these projects was the provencommercial success of the author or his/her works (as in case for example of German writer Michael Endeor British best- and longseller “Harry Potter”).
The periphery, then provides a challenge and a place for individual initiative of translators. In mostcases translators of children’s literature in Japan select the original texts by themselves7, following somevery general guidelines of the publishers regarding the topical area of the translations. Here, I would like tointroduce briefly the Japanese translators of Israeli-Hebrew children’s literature. I believe that theirpersonal profiles and life stories are highly relevant to their role as cultural agents who manipulate cultural
images through the literary text.

4. Japanese translators of Hebrew literature
4.1 Translators’ profile
Translation of Israeli-Hebrew literature into Japanese began about 20 years ago and still is done by
the 'first generation' of translators. The number of Japanese translators who specialize in Modern Hebrew isvery limited. According to the reports of translators themselves and the data collected through the analysis
of comparatively large corpus of published translations, there are seven active professionals in the field8.
Unfortunately, for a long time there were no new names in the field. The youngest of the translators is in
his mid-forties. The group is rather heterogeneous in terms of professional occupation: there are two
university professors, two Hebrew language teachers, a freelance translator, a literary editor and a caféowner included in the group. They have varied academic backgrounds, religious beliefs and political views,
but all of them have experienced living in Israel for comparatively long period of time (at least for one

4

Framing cultural imagesyear). In addition all of them consider translation to be a very important cultural and social activity andregard it as a very promising channel of cultural influence in the public sphere.
For my current research, I have chosen to focus on two translators who are most active in the fieldof children’s literature. Natsuu Motai—prior to focusing most of her efforts into translation—worked many
years as an editor in a children’s book publishing company. In 1998 she received the Israeli prize fortranslation. Noriko Higuchi – is a former nursery teacher and is now a café owner. She lives in a small
village near Mount Fuji. Noriko raised a son, who did his graduate work in the city of Beer Sheva and 5
years later successfully defended his Ph.D dissertation on the Ethiopian community in Israel. Both of thesetranslators encountered Israeli-Hebrew culture for the first time many years ago while participating in thevolunteer project of Kibbutz movement in 1960s. Together with translating Israeli-Hebrew literature, theyalso act as promoters of Israeli culture by giving lectures, writing essays and even by serving Israeli food(as in the case of Noriko Higuchi).
As previously noted, Israeli-Hebrew literature ranks on the very periphery of the Japanesepublishing markets. Therefore, it is mainly the entrepreneurial initiative of the translators themselves toassure that the translation enterprise continues.They select original texts for translation and negotiate withpublishers personally to persuade them to pursue specific translation projects.
4.2 Translators’ reasoning behind the selection of an original text
During my interviews, the respondents repeatedly mentioned that Israel is too small, too remoteand too unfamiliar for Japanese people to share common cultural stereotypes with Israelis. The generalimage of Israel in Japan is rather negative. Ordinary Japanese people usually have no knowledge of Israeli
culture, literature and history. Their main source of information about Israel is news headlines (whether on
TV or in newspapers), where Israel is, traditionally, seen through its political hardship and everlasting
ethnical conflicts, which is, obviously, only one of many possible representations of Israel in mediascape.
For translators it is very important to provide their readership with a representation alternative tothat found in the public discourse. They see translation as a cultural and educational activity through which
they can mediate general information about everyday (or what they sometimes refer as ‘normal’) life of
Israelis. This approach to translation points to specific principles in text selection, which appears to behighly important in this context ( to know that the options at translators’ disposal are limited: they are notcomposing a new text, but representing the existing one – as a cultural and textual entity – by means of thetarget language). What is needed here, are texts in Modern Hebrew (not literary, but rather the vernacular),clearly informing the unfamiliar reader about the complex reality of secular contemporary Israel. With
regards to the background of both translators, it appears that children’s literature best serves the translators
goals.

5. Sources
The interviews with translators showed that in the case of Israeli-Hebrew children’s literature thetopical area of translations is confined to a limited number of topics: such as the Holocaust, the Israeli-Arab
conflict and social problems within the Israeli society9. Here, I will examine two books from the third
category, which, I believe, is more relevant to the goals of present research, which deals with Israeli
5

『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)society per se and unlike the two other categories does not focus on the various aspects of victimization(Jewish people as victims: Holocast/Inquisition category; or Israelis as victimizers: Jewish/Arab conflict).
The first story is “Letters to a special child” by Galila Ron-Feder Amit10, that was published in
1999 and was the first book of the third category (i.e. social problems within Israeli society)11. The second
story is “To myself” by the same author; the book was published in 2006 and is seemingly the last book of
the third category. Seven years is not a long period of time and yet it allows examining the sources insomewhat diachronic perspective.
To achieve a better understanding of specific cultural images and representations aimed to create
an alternative image of Israelis and mediated through translation, I will analyze the translations on the threefollowing levels:
1) Content (plot, structure)2) Illustrations (visual solutions)3) Translation ( examples of specific linguistic solutions)
5.1 “Letters to a special child”“‘Letters to a special child’ is a touching correspondence between two children – a healthy,
normal girl and a disabled boy with cerebral palsy. It begins when the teacher gives her
students a unique assignment, to correspond with children who are different. Noa writes thefirst letter to ‘a child I do not know’ and tells him about herself. The second letter is written
by Dudi who tells Noa about his special world, his disability, the treatment he gets, andabout his brother who is a normal child. The book ends with an epilogue describing the
successful meeting of the two children. Noa tells her mother how important her relationshipwith Dudi is…” (IHTL database).
5.1.1 Structure
I believe that the story serves the translator’s purpose almost ideally—it works as a specificchannel to introduce ‘normal’ Israeli life through Noa’s letters. Noa is a normally functioning student in thefifth-grade; in her letters she describes all her daily experiences to Dudi who is disabled: from swimmingclass and play with friends to visiting a bank together with her parents. The very structure of the selected
original text gives an additional clue to the translator’s guiding principle that could be conceived as “nottoo strange, not too familiar.” It is generally easier to understand something previously unknown comparedto the background of something well-known. To create ideal conditions for mediating the alternative
cultural images, the translator should ‘frame’ these images with a certain ‘frame of reference’ that willserve, in the words of Meyer Schapiro, as “a finding and focusing device placed between the observer andthe image”. The cultural images introduced through the translated text are like framed pictures, presented toa reader’s observation. Frame is what makes an image work and the translator serves as a frame-maker.
Here, the structural peculiarities of the story serve on a macro level as a‘frame of reference’ for theJapanese reader, as the art of letter-writing appears to be an integral part of traditional Japanese culture (seee.g. Rüttermann, 2006).

6

Framing cultural images

Based on Umberto Eco's argument (Eco, 1986:199) we might call it a ‘common frame’—“datastructures for representing stereotyped situations” that locates “unfamiliar” elements. Here the "unfamiliar"
element is a communication with a disabled person and it is a very problematic communication case in thecontext of Japanese culture12. And why it is problematic? Japanese culture is widely referred to as “Cultureof Aimai” or “Ambiguous culture” (see e.g. Oe, 1994; Davis and Ikeno, 2002; Berglund, 2004 and manyothers). The principle of Aimai (Equivocation) is often discussed as one of the basic principles ofinterpersonal communication in Japanese society.

As Davis and Ikeno state “to express oneself

ambiguously and indirectly is expected in Japanese society" (Davis and Ikeno, 2004:9).
Of course, equivocation is not something specifically Japanese. A cross-cultural study insituational theory of equivocation by Miyamoto-Tanaka and Bell shows that in certain, especially conflictsituations it happens to be quite common communication strategy in other languages as well (MiyamotoTanaka and Bell, 1996). And yet, their interesting findings on the difference in equivocation between
conflict and nonconflict conditions (this difference was 1.5 greater for Americans subjects than forJapanese subjects) might still imply some culture-based peculiarities of the role equivocation plays incommunication process (Tanaka and Bell, 1996:282).

To 'clarify' "aimai" language, communication counterparts should employ various non-verbal
forms of communication and that is why, after all, "Japanese people are sensitive to what is not expressedverbally” (Berglund, 2004:94). However it is obvious that a handicapped or disabled person is not capable
to fully and masterly implement the non-verbal skills of interpersonal communication. Thus, a person witha disability inevitably fails to create a non-verbal context which is so crucial for successful interpersonalcommunication. Moreover, in some cases disability can cause a person to be incapable of communicating
verbally as well. As a result, a communication with a disabled person is a priori perceived as unsuccessful
and unfavorable. Which is especially true in the case of teenagers—children at the age of 12-1313—who,
being on the verge of developing into young adults, aim at perfection in everything, including
communication skills. Seeing from the perspective of interpersonal communication the ‘Letters for a
special child’ represents an alternative view on communication with the disabled and questions the existing
self-image of Japanese culture as “aimai culture”.
The book does not depict the ideal picture of untroubled communication14. For Noa, the fifthgrader, it’s not easy to communicate with her ‘special’ pen-pal. In the beginning she worries about hurting
Dudi’s feelings by writing to him as though he was normative. She tries to apply a degree of selfcensorship while writing to Dudi, but then she realizes that it only complicates the situation. She, then,writes to Dudi very frankly:

After reading your letter a couple of times I went to ask for advice from Aliza theteacher. I told her that I am afraid to hurt your feelings and then I asked her whether
she thinks I should write you kind of “pitiful” letters or maybe I should ignore
completely the fact of you being different and special. Aliza the teacher advised me towrite you as if you were a normal child, because if I won’t do so you will stop writing
me by yourself. “There is no child in this world who wants people to pity him all the7

『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)

time”. That’s what she told me. I agree with her.15 (“Michtavim leYeled aher”, 1988:33)
During interviews the translators defined ‘frankness’, ‘openness’ and ‘straightforwardness’ as themost prominent and attractive characteristics of Israelis16. This part of the letter is the manifestation of thegirl’s ‘true voice’ and “frankly” is the key word here. The strongly articulated sincerity of the girl in thestory is set against Japanese aimai way of communicating, in that it not only questions the image ofreader’s ‘cultural self’, but also shapes the positive image of ‘the other’. The 'positiveness' of the image is
supported and reinforced by the story's happy ending (in terms of interpersonal communication) and by thefact that behavioral norms in Japan are gradually changing (“as Japan moving, inexorably it seems,
towards transparency and single standards, similar to those found in American society” (Berglund, 2004)

5.1.2 Illustrations
The question of similarity takes us back to the principle of “not to strange, not to familiar”. As
previously mentioned, the epistolary structure of the book is a ‘frame of reference’ for Japanese readership.
Another frame of reference is provided through the visual solutions, namely illustrations.
The importance of the illustrations in translated literature is revealed by the fact that mosttranslations of children’s literature from Hebrew to Japanese are published with new illustrations (produced
by Japanese illustrators) and not with the original ones. The reasons may be aesthetics, but it also implies
that the ‘self-image’ and the visual ‘self-representation(s)’ existing in source culture do not serve thetranslators’ goals as cultural agents17 and that is why they must be modified.
In his illustrative “frame of reference” Yuki Ando, the illustrator of “Mochiron henji womattemasu” (a Japanese translation of “Letters to a special child”), creates a “feeling of similarity” as
opposed to emphasizing the cultural difference. The similarity does not apply to traits of Japanese culture,
but aims toward a general notion of the ‘western foreigner’ (who, although being a stranger, is obviously
more familiar to Japanese people than a completely unknown Israeli.)
For example, a view of the room where the disabled boy, Dudi, lying ill in his bed (see Pic. 1)18
includes wooden floor, a cultural ‘marker’ of Western (European)19. While common Israeli home floors are
made of stone tiles. In comparison, the illustration by Gili Avidor from original Hebrew publication shows
another floor pattern which will be easily recognized as stone tiles by Israeli readers (see Pic. 2)20
Through the illustrations one may learn not only about particular room interior but in a broader sense,
about the world of objects and also about basic (yet culture- specific) everyday activities, such as reading andwriting.

8

Framing cultural images

Pic. 1 ©Yuki Ando

Pic. 2 ©Gili Avidor

On the illustration featuring Noa reading
Dudi’s letter (see Pic. 3)21, the letter as written in
Hebrew should be written from right-to-left. However,when observing the image more closely, one mightnote that it is written from left-to-right, as in English,
German, Russian and many other—culturally ‘familiar’for Japanese readership—languages.

Thus, theillustration of an Israeli child reading a letter, creates acultural image conforming to a ‘normal’, ‘familiar’foreigner.

5.1.3 Translation“Fidelity to the original text” is perceived as a
virtue by all translators whom I interviewed. However,“the “fidelity’ might be exercised only to a limited
extent, since there are a linguistic norms that I have toobey to” (a non-published interview with Natsuu Motai,
Pic. 3 ©Yuki Ando2009). Often, the changes that target text undergoes

due to ‘linguistic’ discrepancies between the source and the target languages are masterly fitted to thetranslator’s intentions and aspirations as a ‘cultural advocate’. Here are two examples.
9

『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)

In her first letter, Noa describes to Dudi a very popular game among Israeli teenagers widely
known as “Emet o hova” (“Truth or Dare”). During the game, the players are given a choice between
answering a question truthfully or performing a "dare" (usually kissing a player of the opposite sex), bothtasks are determined by the other players. The player must decide whether to reveal her secret (if shechooses Truth) or to submit to the Dare which can be sometimes embarrassing. “Secrets Sharing” in thisgame plays a very important role in the development of the social and communicative skills in children andyouth (e.g. Katriel, 1991:191). In the Japanese translation, the game appears under the name of “Truth orLie”. The modification of the game’s name might be explained as a linguistic need to create a stable
construction with symmetric dichotomy (such as in “Sukikirai” (Love and Hate) or “Uraomote” (Back sideand front side) games, but, this change is meant to highlight the concept of ‘truth’ and a ‘truthful’expression of one’s feelings, which is perceived by the translator as one of the main communicative
characteristics shared by Israelis.
Another example is the translation of the story’s title. The title in Hebrew “Michtavim leYeledaher” (lit. “Letters to a different child”) was omitted and replaced with the new Japanese title “Mochiron
henji wo mattemasu” (lit. “Sure, I am waiting for your answer”). The omission and the following
replacement allows the translator to avoid a linguistic riddle of translating the Hebrew word “aher” that has
a wide range of meanings (including “another, different, special, varying, the other) as at the same time it
shifts the focus to the communicational aspects of the story. Letters are not only written, they are also read,appreciated and answered.
5.2 “To Myself”“After his parents abandoned him, teenager Zion was raised by his grandmother in a poor
neighborhood. He started to hang out with young delinquents. Now he’s been placed in fostercare with the Sharoni family—he tells his story. At first, Zion behaved badly. The Sharoni’s
middle-class lifestyle was strange and he sneered at their studious and musical son, Nir.
Slowly he grew to like and admire their cultivated life. A visit home set him back and his oldfriends made fun of him. Finally, he ran away and met Batya, a free spirit who offered him
comfort and friendship.” (IHTL database)

5.2.1 Structure
The annotation above, although adequately summarizing the story’s plot-line, completely ignores
the structural aspect of the text that was written in the form of a diary. Here again, the structure of the story
appears as a “familiar” element for Japanese reader, this time as being far reminiscent of Japanese literary
tradition “Nikki Bungaku”22. There is no evidence for the strict structural or poetic similarities between the
Hebrew story under investigation (namely ‘To Myself’) and Japanese literary diaries yet, I believe, theform of a diary provides eligible ‘frame of reference’ to introduce “new” socio-cultural characteristics:
ethnical diversity (as opposed to Japan’s ‘ethnical homogenity’23) and social inequality (as opposed to aview of Japan as a ‘land of happy middle class’24).

10

Framing cultural images

Originally, “El Atsmi” (“To Myself”) was published in 1976, twelve years earlier than “Letters tospecial child”. In Japan they appear in opposite order. The main reason being that as a story “El Atsmi” isless universal and more ‘Israeli’: the number of characters both main and secondary is much larger which
implies “excessive” usage of foreign names; the geographical scope of the book is also significantly wider(in “Letters to a special child” a plot develops in Jerusalem only, while in “El Atsmi” multiple geographicallocations within and outside Israel are mentioned, such as Beit Shean, Haifa, Acres, Morocco). In the mid1990’s, the Japanese book market was still not ready for such a book on minority and culturally peripheral
Israeli-Hebrew society.
The translation of “To Myself” was published in
2006, when the social paradigms of ‘globalisation’ and‘multinationalism’ that emerged in the wake of 21st century
in Japan, had already established themselves. In this context,
the story “To Myself” introduced the image of ethnicallyheterogeneous Israeli society and prompted a revision of theself-image of a highly homogeneous society, existing among
the Japanese.

5.2.2 Illustrations
Compared to the visual solutions found in Japanesetranslation of “Letters to special child”, the illustrations by
Masako Saito,

still reveal a

degree of conformity inrepresenting Israel as a ‘familiar’ foreigner (see Pic. 4) 25.
They are much more culturally charged, featuring typicalIsraeli landscapes and cityscapes with palm trees and even
Hebrew letters (without any translation being provided) (seePic. 5 & 6)26. The illustrator makes a reasonable effort toexpose Japanese readership to alternative cultural surroundings.

Pic. 4 ©Masako Saito

5.2.3 Translation
The newly emerged reality shaped by two social paradigms mentioned in previous sections was
likely to affect not only the text selection process, but also the textual level of translation. A comparison
between the Japanese translation of the story and literary imports into other languages (such as English andFrench) shows that the Japanese translator created a much more cross-cultural translation, trying tofaithfully follow the original plot, keeping in the text the original geographical locations and the personalnames of the characters27 . She retains in the text some of the linguistic features that are not exclusive to theJapanese language. For example, she follows the Israeli name order (the surname appears after the name)and not the Japanese name order (the surname appears before the name) (“Boku-ni yoroshiku”, 2006:10).
However the ‘not too strange, not too familiar’ translation principle remains relevant.

11

『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)

Pic. 5 ©Masako Saito

Pic. 6 ©Masako Saito

In the source, the Hebrew text features the hero, an Israeli Jewish boy who was brought to Israel
from Morocco at the age of 6 months and it explains the origin of his name in the following manner:
I was given the name “Zion” because “Zion” is another name for the Land of Israel. My
grandfather missed the Land of Israel very-very much, he didn’t stop talking about it andabout us going to live there. (“El Atsmi”, 1976:13)

The translator leaves the name of the hero (Zion) in the text as it is with its reference to the Tanakh(The Old Testament) transcribing it biblically (“shion”, as it appears in the Japanese translation of the Old
Testament) and not phonetically (“tsion”, as it sounds in Hebrew). However, she omits the explanation on
the name’s origin from the target Japanese text: this logic of ‘naming’ is too strange and confusing for theJapanese reader, unfamiliar with Jewish history, tradition and religion.
Another interesting and significant (in imagological perspective) transformation of the text
exhibited by the translator, is a replacement or omission of the parts of the text where Arabic characters or
Arab language are introduced. The Arab house helper Masuda (“El Atsmi”, 1976:15) transformed into—à
la française—Anette , and the advice of Zion’s good friend as it appears on page 26 “… and if their sissy
boy will say the words you don’t understand, you curse him in Arabic! ” (“El Atsmi”, 1976: 26) iscompletely omitted.
The translator, Noriko Higuchi, deliberately omits the textual “markers” of Israeli-Arab conflictfrom her translation because it is not the representation of Israel she is looking for as a translator. The frameof her translation was designed to shape another image. “Through the medium called literature—she wrote

12

Framing cultural images

in her blog in April 2008—I want to introduce feelings and thoughts of Israelis, their daily lives—all thesethings that can’t be seen because they are shadowed by endless Israeli-Palestinian conflict.… I willcontinue the effort of digging out the fine and healthy Israeli stories, translating and publishing them or, atleast putting them on the internet. That is my intention.”28

6. Conclusion
Translator Natsuu Motai in one of her interviews speaks of translations as “windows” throughwhich one might see “unfamiliar and intriguing views” as shown to him by the translator, who first looked
through the same window29. A window is also a kind of frame that provides a certain perspective – a‘translator’s perspective’. I agree with Radegundis Stolze (Stolze, 2004:43) who sees translation as “anopen process towards an optimal solution” and therefore understands it not in the context of a relationshipbetween texts, but in terms of translator’s perspective.
Through a critical analysis of the textual and extra-textual sources I sought to trace the dynamics offormation, maintenance and/or transformation of cultural representations and images (both of the self andthe other) introduced via Japanese translation of Israeli-Hebrew literature. However, the images andrepresentation are not introduced by themselves—there are people who work to introduce them.
Translators act as importers of culture, cultural experiences and repertoires (at least they perceive
themselves as people ‘with mission and vision’) and through their translations they aim to create analternative set of representations and images, sometimes opposite and sometimes complimentary to theprevailing public discourse on a target culture in a source culture (in this specific case on Israel in Japan).
The translations serve translators’ end in their entirety: on the structural, textual and visual levels and as a
corpus of goal-relevant texts.

............................................
Acknowledgements: The part of this research was supported by the S. Daniel Abraham Center for International
and Regional Studies, Tel Aviv University, and by the Faculty of Humanities, the Porter Chair of Poetics andSemiotics, and the Bernstein Chair of Translation Theory, all at Tel Aviv University, as well as the Israeli
Ministry of Absorption.
............................................
About author: Dr. Elena Baibikov is a literary translator from Japanese into Russian for the past several years
specializing mostly in children's literature (among her translations "Usagi no me" by Kenjiro Haitani,"Hiroshima no pika" by Toshi Maruki etc.) and an independent scholar in the multidisciplinary field ofTranslation Studies.
............................................

Endnotes
1.

The observation of emerging cultural relations at their very initial stages is of utmost importance andindispensable from the point of view of imagological research in order to understand what agencies are
involved with creating new and transforming old images and discourses in a target culture. Additionally, thespecific case of Israel and Japan allows to investigate the cross-cultural traffic not from a 'central culture' toa 'peripheral' one (as for example in Aronoff 2000, Kaufmann & Patterson 2005 and many others), but

13『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)

rather between two relatively marginal cultures.
2.

Literature also plays a formative role for when it comes to social subjectivity. “Culture means the domain ofsocial subjectivity <…> Literature played a key part in shaping this social subjectivity” (Eagleton 2000)

3.

For more detailed account on growing impact of imagology in the field of children's literature see O'
Sullivan 2011.

4.

This interesting development is highly crucial for this research, since three out of seven active translators of
Israeli-Hebrew literature in Japan arrived to Israel for the first time with these groups in 1960s. I will discuss
it later in what follows.

5.

However, there are number of direct translations that were published before 1986 in different collections andperiodicals. See for example Japanese translations of Agnon’s stories by Takamitsu Muraoka that appearedin 15th volume of “Nobel Prize-winners Collection” (Noberu sho bungaku zenshu 1971: 227-391).

6.

On the position of translated literature within literary polysystem see Even Zohar 1990.

7.

One of the translators I interviewed noted that only four out of 23 published translations that she performed
were selected by publisher in advance.

8.

I met and held interviews with all seven of translators, active in the field. It must be said, though, that thetranslators have different level of expertise. Some produced only a single translation; others completed andpublished more than dozen translations.

9.

All translated titles fall in one of these three categories with exceptions made only for such worldly
celebrated authors as Amos Oz, Uri Orlev and Alona Frankel. (Uri Orlev received “Hans Christian Andersen
Award for his contributions to children's literature” in 1996; Frankel several times was a shortlisted nomineeof the same award.)

10. Galila Ron Feder Amit (1949- ) - Israeli writer. For the period of seven years she was foster-mother to 10
children from broken homes, and she recorded her experiences in a fictional series that was broadcast on
radio and adapted for the stage and TV. The film, To Myself, won First Prize at the Frankfurt Children`sFilm Festival. (ITHL Authors database)
11. Chronologically it was the fourth book for children translated from Hebrew into Japanese. “Nadia” - the firsttranslated book (published in 1992) dealt with Israeli-Arab conflict. Next two stories (a non-fictional and afictional one) described the experience of children through Holocaust.
12. For more detailed account on legal and social aspects of disabled peoples’ life in Japan see Wiess, 2010.
13. As to ability to equivocate, according to Bavelas, Black, Chovil & Mullett developmental studies suggestthat children up to the age of 12 or 13 can handle conflict situation through equivocation, but only in thefamiliar situations. Generalized scripts that allow for equivocation in novel conflict situations emerge
sometime thereafter (Bavelas et al., 1990)
14. Some readers praises the book exactly for this, see e.g. the review of the book on Jardin Soleil Reading
Website (see Online Sources section).
15. Unless otherwise indicated, translations are mine.
16. The examination of the readers’ reflections and reviews (i.e. a reception level by Martina Seifert’sclassification) published on Amazon.co.jp website and in personal blogs shows that the readers also accept
this point of view and praise Dudi and Noa for being “frank” and “explaining their feelings and views
clearly” (see e.g. Jardin Soleil reading Website and Amazon.co.jp Reviews in Online Sources section).
17. Although the translators are not those who produce the illustrations, however (according to the interviews)
they are actively engaged in the process as cultural experts, consultants and critics.

14

Framing cultural images

18. A fragment of Yuki Ando’s illustration from “Mochiron henji wo mattemasu” (1999: 51).
19. Japanese traditional flooring is made of straw mats called “tatami”. However in ‘westernized’ contemporary
Japan the material that is most widely used to cover a floor is wood-like linoleum or laminate tiles.
20. A fragment of Gili Avidor’s illustration from “Michtavim leYeled aher”, (1988: 35)
21. A fragment of Yuki Ando’s illustration from “Mochiron henji wo mattemasu”, (1999: 127).
22. For more detailed account on the tradition of Japanese literary diaries see Miller, 1987
23. For discussion on Japanese cultural and ethnic homogeneity see Burgess, 2010
24. In early 1990’s Kenichi Ohmae noted that “more than 90% of the people (in Japan) consider themselves
middle class and reasonably happy about their life.” (Ohmae, 1991)
25. A fragment of Masako Saito’s illustration from “Boku-ni yoroshiku” (2006:3)
26. A fragment of Masako Saito’s illustration from “Boku-ni yoroshiku”, (2006: frontispiece; 2006:88).
27. For example in French translation the name of the hero was changed from Zion (culturally highly charged
Jewish name) into Yoav. Instead of living in peripheral Beit Shean (as Zion from the original story does)
Yoav lives in Jerusalem. English translation (or rather an adaptation?) is even more radical—the story
happens with a boy called Mike and takes place in Boston.
28. See Higuchi Noriko, blog, 2008.
29. An interview was published in November issue of monthly webzine “Gekkan Jidou Bungaku Honyaku”(Children’s Literature in Translation) in 2000. See Motai Natsuu, interview, 2000.

Originals and Translations
Ron-Feder Amit, Galila. (1976). El atsmi [To Myself]. Herzeliya: Milo
Ron-Feder Amit, Galila. (1988). Michtavim leYeled aher[Letters to a special child]. Jerusalem: Dagan
Ron-Feder Amit, Galila. (1999). Mohchiron henji wo mattemasu[Letters to a special child]. Motai Natsuu (trans.)
Tokyo: Iwasaki shoten
Ron-Feder Amit, Galila. (2006). Boku-ni yoroshiku[To Myself]. Higushi Noriko (trans.) Tokyo: SAERA

References
Aronoff, Myron. (2000). “The 'Americanization' of Israeli Politics: Political and Cultural Change.” Israel Studies.
5(1), 92-127.
Bavelas, J.B., Black, A., Chovil, N., & Mullettt, J. (1990). Equivocal communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Berglung , Jeff. (2004). “Japan – Its people, its language, its culture”. Annual report of faculty of human &cultural studies. 52-101.
Burgess, Chris. (2010). “The 'illusion' of homogeneous Japan and national character: Discourse as a tool totranscend the 'myth' vs. 'reality' binary”.

The Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, available online at

http://japanfocus.org/-Chris-Burgess/3310 (accessed on 21.05.2013)
Davis, Roger. & Ikeno, Osamu. (2002). The Japanese mind: understanding contemporary Japanese culture.
Tokyo: Tuttle Publishing.
Eagleton, Terry. (2000). The idea of culture. Oxford-Melbourne-Berlin: Blackwell Publishers
Eco, Umberto. (1986). "Casablanca: Cult Movies and Intertextual Collage." Travels in Hyper Reality. William
Weaver (trans.) 197-211. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. (2005). “Laws of cultural interference.” In Even-Zohar Itamar 2005. Papers in Culture
Research. Tel Aviv: Porter Chair of Semiotics [Electronic Book, available online at http://www.even-15

『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)

zohar.com] (accessed on 21.05.2013)
Even-Zohar, Itamar (1990). "The Position of translated literature within the literary polysystem." Poetics Today,
11(1), 45-51.
Furuno, Yuri. (2002). "Japanese Translation in the 1970s: a Transitional Period" Japanese Studies. 22 (3). 319326.
Hassell, R (1985). Haragei: Speaking from the gut in Black Belt Magazine, January 1985 edition.
Honyaku Shuppan Repoto. (2005). Shuppan Geppou . 47(7), 4-11.
Iwabuchi, Koichi. (2005). “Multinationalizing the multicultural: The commodification of ‘ordinary foreign
residents' in a Japanese TV talk show”. Japanese Studies. 25(2). 103-118(16).
Kapner, D.A. & Levine, S. (2000). “The Jews of Japan”. Jerusalem letter. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs:
online edition. Available online at http://www.jcpa.org/jl/jl425.htm (accessed on 21.05.2013)
Katriel, Tamar. (1991). Communal webs: communication and culture in contemporary Israel. New York: State
University of New York Press.
Katz, John. (2007). Israeli-Japanese Relations 1948-1963. Tel Aviv: Saar.
Kaufman, Jason & Orlando Patterson. (2005). “Cross-National Cultural Diffusion: The Global Spread of
Cricket.” American Sociological Review 70(1), 82-110.
Leerssen, Joep. (2007). "Imagology: History and Method" in Beller, Manfred, and Joep Leerssen(eds.), Imagology: the cultural construction and literary representation of national characters. A criticalsurvey, 17-32, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Miller, Marilyn Jeanne. (1987). “Nikki bungaku: Literary diaries: Their tradition and their influence on modern
Japanese fiction”. World Literature Today, 61( 2), 207-210.
Miyamoto-Tanaka, K. and Bell, R. A. (1996). "Equivocation in America and Japan: A Cross-National
Comparison of the Effects of Situational Conflict and Status", Communication Research 23 (6), 261-296.
Miyata, Noboru. (2000). Sengo honyaku fuunroku: Honyakusha ga Kamigami data jidai. Tokyo: Hon no Zasshi
sha
Noberu sho Bungaku Zenshu 15. [Nobel Prize-winners Collection] (1971). Tokyo: Shufu no Tomo sha.
Oe, Kenzaburo. (1994). “Nobel Lecture: Japan, The ambiguous, and myself.” Available online at
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1994/oe-lecture.html (accessed on 21.05.2013)
Ohmae, Kenichi. (1991). The borderless world: Power and strategy in the interlinked economy . New York:
Harper Perennial.
O’Sullivan, Emer. (2011). “Imagology meets children’s literature”. International

research in children’s

literature 4(1), 1-14.
Pym, Anthony. (2004). “On the Social and the Cultural in Translation Studies.” (draft, online publication)
available at http://www.tinet.org/~apym/on-line/research_methods/sociocultural.pdf (accessed on 21.05.2013)
Rüttermann, Markus. (2006) “'So That We Can Study Letter-Writing': The Concept of Epistolary Etiquette inPremodern Japan”. Japan Review. Journal of the International Research Center for Japanese Studies 18. 57128.
Schapiro, Meyer. (1985). "On some problems in the semiotics of visual art: Field and vehicle in image-signs." ”
In Innis, R. E. (ed.). Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology, 206-225. Bloomington: Indiana Press University.
Seifert, Martina. (2005) “The image trap: The translation of English-Canadian children’s literature into German.
In O’Sullivan, E., Reynolds, K. and R. Romoeren (eds.). Children’s literature global and local: Social andaesthetic perspectives. 227-239, Oslo: Novus Press.

16

Framing cultural images

Seifert, Martina. (2007). “Selecting Canadiana for the Young: The German Translation of English CanadianChildren’s Literature.” In Luise von Flotow and Reingard M. Nischik (eds.). Translating Canada, 219–42.
Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.
Shavit, Zohar. (1986). Poetics of children's literature, Athens and London : The University of Georgia Press,
Shavit, Zohar. (2009). "Hebrew children's literature". Modern Hebrew Literature, 5, Israel at 60: Retrospective& Renewal, 29-35.
Stolze, Radegundis. (2004). ‘Creating, Presence in Translation’ in G. Hansen, K. Malmkjaer and D. Gile (eds.).
Claims, Changes and Challenges in Translation Studies. 39-50. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Wiess, Thomas. (2010). “Disability in Japan” Disabled World.com Health and Disability News available at
http://www.disabled-world.com/news/asia/japan/japan.php (accessed on 21.05.2013)

Online Sources (accessed on 11.08.2013)
Amazon.co.jp Reviews http://www.amazon.co.jp/product-reviews/426504171X
Higuchi Noriko, blog, 2008
Index

http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~QI6K-YSKW/norikolib9.html

Translationum,

UNESCO

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-

URL_ID=7810&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
ITHL (Institute for the translation of Hebrew literature)
Galila ron Feder Amit:

http://www.ithl.org.il/page_14555“Letters to a special child” http://www.ithl.org.il/book_info.asp?id=670“To myself” http://www.ithl.org.il/page_14557
Jardin Soleil Reading Website relieur.net/livre/etranger/ron_feder_amit.php
JNPA (Japan National Police Agency) website, Archives section, Movements of the Japanese Red Army and the"Yodo-go" Group: http://www.npa.go.jp/archive/keibi/syouten/syouten271/english/0301.html
MOFA

website,Regional

Affairs

Section,Middlehttp://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/israel/data.html#basic
Motai Natsuu, interview, 2000 www.yamaneko.org/bookdb/int/nmotai.htm

17

East:

Japan-Israel

Relations:『翻訳研究への招待』No.9 (2013)18