The Presence and Image of the Translator in Narrative Discourse : towards a Definition of the Translator ’ s Ethos

This paper aims at exploring the configuration of the discursive image or ethos attached to the enunciative subject assuming the responsibility for the enunciation of translated narrative (Ducrot 1984; Amossy 1999, 2009, 2012). Our concern will be the study of the modeling of ethos affecting the Translator, understood here not as an empirical subject but as a discursive one. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is two-fold. On a theoretical and methodological level, this paper intends to elaborate the category of Translator’s ethos by articulating contributions from two distinct but related areas, translation studies (Schiavi 1996; Hermans 2010 [1996]) and discourse studies (Ducrot 1984; Amossy 1999, 2009, 2012), in an attempt to further explore an already posed question in the field of translation studies: “Exactly whose voice comes to us when we read translated discourse?” (Hermans 2010 [1996]: 197). On the analytical level, this interdisciplinary approach will be exemplified by the analysis of Chicana novel Caramelo or Puro Cuento by Sandra Cisneros (2002a) and its corresponding translation into Spanish carried out by Liliana Valenzuela (Cisneros 2002b). In examining the construction of ethos, our approach will combine textual, contextual and paratextual analyses of the texts. Key words: Translator’s Ethos, Translation, Implied Translator, Translated Narrative Discourse 1. Images and Agency in Translated Narrative Discourse Following Oswald Ducrot (1984), this paper aims at exploring the configuration of the discursive image or ethos attached to the enunciative subject assuming the responsibility for the enunciation of translated narrative discourse. According to Ducrot, who draws on classical rhetoric, within the universe of the utterance, this image results from the enunciative subject’s discursive activity and involvement (Ducrot 1984: 201). Our concern in the first place is to elucidate the configuration of the ethos linked to the Implied Author (Chatman 1990), i.e. “the agency within the narrative fiction itself which guides any reading of it” (74), in order to see how this configuration is recreated in translated narrative through the agency of yet another discursive figure: the Translator. In other words, the focus of attention will be the study of the modeling of ethos affecting the Translator, understood here not as an empirical subject but as a discursive one. Accordingly, the purpose 1 This research was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET, Argentina). Part of this paper was written during a research stay at the University of Potsdam (Potsdam, Germany) in 2014, which was sponsored by the Deutscher Akademischer Austausch Dienst (DAAD). 2 In Ducrot’s terminology, this figure is called Locuteur. María Laura Spoturno – “The Presence and Image of the Translator in Narrative Discourse...” © Moderna språk 2017: 1 174 of this paper is two-fold. On a theoretical and methodological level, this paper intends to elaborate the category of Translator’s ethos by articulating contributions from two distinct but related areas of study, translation studies (Schiavi 1996; Hermans 2010 [1996]) and discourse studies (Ducrot 1984; Amossy 1999, 2009, 2012), in an attempt to further explore an already posed question in the field of translation studies: “Exactly whose voice comes to us when we read translated discourse?” (Hermans 2010 [1996]: 197). On the analytical level, this interdisciplinary approach will be exemplified by the analysis of the nature and constitution of the ethos attached to the Implied Author and the Implied Translator in the Chicana novel Caramelo or Puro Cuento by Sandra Cisneros (2002a) and its corresponding translation into Spanish carried out by Liliana Valenzuela (Cisneros 2002b). In examining the construction of ethos, our approach will combine textual, contextual and paratextual analyses of the texts. 2. A Theoretical and Methodological Proposal 2.1 The Contribution of Translation Studies As noted by translation scholars Giuliana Schiavi (1996) and Theo Hermans (2010 [1996]), narratological models (Booth 1983 [1961]; Genette 1972; Chatman 1978, 1990; Eco 2010 [1979]) treat originals and translations as if they shared a common origin and nature, without making a case for the translator’s presence in the translated work. Schiavi and Hermans are responsible for two complementary proposals, originally published in Target in 1996, which account for the translator’s intervention in the makings of the translated narrative text. These authors elaborate on key concepts such as the notions of Implied Translator and discursive presence. The notion of Implied Translator, put forward by Schiavi (1996: 14-16), runs parallel to that of Implied Author as proposed by Chatman (1978: 146-154; 1990: 74-77) and should be understood as the agency organizing and directing the message to a target audience not sharing the language and cultural norms of the original readers. As much as the Implied Author, the Implied Translator establishes a set of presuppositions affecting the norms and standards governing his or her work. These norms relate to the institution of the Implied Reader of the translation, an entity which naturally differs from the Implied Reader attributable to the source text. According to Schiavi, the communicative situation taking place in translated narrative should be explained in terms of two different addressers, the Implied Author and the Implied Translator, and their relation with 3 An early mention of this term, albeit under a different perspective and playing a secondary role, is registered in Frank (1992: 372). 4 For expressive reasons, the terms “Author” and “Implied Author”, “Translator” and “Implied Translator” will be used interchangeably to refer to the textual entities which produce the source and target texts respectively. Likewise, the terms “ethos” and “(discursive) image” will be employed alternatively. The words “writer” and “translator” will be used to refer to the empirical subjects writing and translating in the real world. 5 The discussion of translation norms is beyond the specific scope of this paper. On this subject, see Toury (1995), Chesterman (1993) and Pym (2008). María Laura Spoturno – “The Presence and Image of the Translator in Narrative Discourse...” © Moderna språk 2017: 1 175 the Implied Reader of the translation. In Schiavi’s words: “A translation is different from an original in that it also contains the translator’s voice, which is in part standing in for the author’s and in part autonomous” (1996: 3). In a complementary fashion, Hermans (2010 [1996]) posits the importance of the translator’s discursive presence or voice in translated fiction. In discussing the literary translator’s style, Baker (2000: 244-246) argues that if we are to claim that literary translation is a creative rather than a reproductive activity, the focus of analysis needs to be placed on the translator and not on the author. However, as acknowledged by Venuti (1995), the ideology of transparency often affecting translated discourse implies denying the specific voices which come to existence in translation. According to Hermans (2010 [1996]: 198-200), the translator’s voice is an index of the translator’s discursive presence, which is overtly seen when its intervention is indisputable, for instance through the introduction of translator’s notes or commentary, and through the inclusion of glossaries, which generally try to bridge the gap between the Implied Reader of the original and that of the translation. Other than these paratextual elements, the voice of the translator can also be identified when the translation attempts at recovering and recreating instances of self-reflexiveness in which the source text seems to rely or evoke the target language to accomplish its communicative mission and also in cases of socalled “contextual overdetermination”, that is, when form, content and context become so inextricably related that translation becomes (almost) impossible. The following examples, which were taken from Caramelo or Puro Cuento and its Spanish rendition, illustrate these two cases: “She calls her ‘tú,’ the familiar ‘you.’ Not ‘usted,’ which is like bowing. ‘Tú.’ —Hey, you, she says in Spanish. ... When Mother is especially disgusted, she calls her ‘my cross,’ ‘mi cruz’” (Cisneros 2002a: 342). / “Le dice «tú». No «usted», que es como hacer una caravana. «Tú». —Oyes, tú —le dice en español ... Cuando mamá está particularmente indignada, le llama «mi cruz»” (Cisneros 2002b: 357, translated by Liliana Valenzuela). However, the translator’s discursive presence is not always traceable, as many times it is “wholly assimilated into the Narrator’s voice” (Hermans 2010 [1996]: 209). Still, even when the translator’s voice is not ostensible as such, the Implied Translator should always be imputed discursive responsibility for the act of enunciation in dealing with translated narrative discourse. Our work takes Schiavi’s and Hermans’s fundamental contributions as a starting point but attempts at explaining a discursive phenomenon falling outside their categories, that of the Translator’s ethos. In discussing the notion of ethos, our methodological proposal acknowledges the need to differentiate the 6 Other scholars such as Baker 2000; O’Sullivan 2003; Munday 2007; Saldanha 2008 and DeaneCox (2014) have discussed the notions in these two papers. Recently, Boyden (2014) questions the validity of the Implied Translator favoring the analysis of the translator’s involvement in the angle from which the narrative is told rather than the translator’s intervention as such in translated fiction. In line with Schiavi’s proposal, here we will provide evidence for the relevance of the Implied Translator and his or her ethos in the analysis of translated narrative discourse. María Laura Spoturno – “The Presence and Image of the Translator in Narrative Discour


Images and Agency in Translated Narrative Discourse
Following Oswald Ducrot (1984), this paper aims at exploring the configuration of the discursive image or ethos attached to the enunciative subject assuming the responsibility for the enunciation of translated narrative discourse. 2According to Ducrot, who draws on classical rhetoric, within the universe of the utterance, this image results from the enunciative subject's discursive activity and involvement (Ducrot 1984: 201).Our concern in the first place is to elucidate the configuration of the ethos linked to the Implied Author (Chatman 1990), i.e. "the agency within the narrative fiction itself which guides any reading of it" (74), in order to see how this configuration is recreated in translated narrative through the agency of yet another discursive figure: the Translator.In other words, the focus of attention will be the study of the modeling of ethos affecting the Translator, understood here not as an empirical subject but as a discursive one.Accordingly, the purpose the Implied Reader of the translation.In Schiavi's words: "A translation is different from an original in that it also contains the translator's voice, which is in part standing in for the author's and in part autonomous" (1996: 3).
In a complementary fashion, Hermans (2010Hermans ( [1996]]) posits the importance of the translator's discursive presence or voice in translated fiction.In discussing the literary translator's style, Baker (2000: 244-246) argues that if we are to claim that literary translation is a creative rather than a reproductive activity, the focus of analysis needs to be placed on the translator and not on the author.However, as acknowledged by Venuti (1995), the ideology of transparency often affecting translated discourse implies denying the specific voices which come to existence in translation.According to Hermans (2010Hermans ( [1996]: 198-200)]: 198-200), the translator's voice is an index of the translator's discursive presence, which is overtly seen when its intervention is indisputable, for instance through the introduction of translator's notes or commentary, and through the inclusion of glossaries, which generally try to bridge the gap between the Implied Reader of the original and that of the translation.Other than these paratextual elements, the voice of the translator can also be identified when the translation attempts at recovering and recreating instances of self-reflexiveness in which the source text seems to rely or evoke the target language to accomplish its communicative mission and also in cases of socalled "contextual overdetermination", that is, when form, content and context become so inextricably related that translation becomes (almost) impossible.The following examples, which were taken from Caramelo or Puro Cuento and its Spanish rendition, illustrate these two cases: "She calls her 'tú,' the familiar 'you.'Not 'usted,' which is like bowing.'Tú.' -Hey, you, she says in Spanish.… When Mother is especially disgusted, she calls her 'my cross,' 'mi cruz'" (Cisneros 2002a: 342)./ "Le dice «tú».No «usted», que es como hacer una caravana.«Tú».-Oyes, tú -le dice en español … Cuando mamá está particularmente indignada, le llama «mi cruz»" (Cisneros 2002b: 357, translated by Liliana Valenzuela).However, the translator's discursive presence is not always traceable, as many times it is "wholly assimilated into the Narrator's voice" (Hermans 2010(Hermans [1996]]: 209).Still, even when the translator's voice is not ostensible as such, the Implied Translator should always be imputed discursive responsibility for the act of enunciation in dealing with translated narrative discourse.
Our work takes Schiavi's and Hermans's fundamental contributions as a starting point but attempts at explaining a discursive phenomenon falling outside their categories, that of the Translator's ethos. 6In discussing the notion of ethos, our methodological proposal acknowledges the need to differentiate the 6 Other scholars such as Baker 2000;O'Sullivan 2003;Munday 2007;Saldanha 2008 andDeane-Cox (2014) have discussed the notions in these two papers.Recently, Boyden (2014) questions the validity of the Implied Translator favoring the analysis of the translator's involvement in the angle from which the narrative is told rather than the translator's intervention as such in translated fiction.In line with Schiavi's proposal, here we will provide evidence for the relevance of the Implied Translator and his or her ethos in the analysis of translated narrative discourse.actualization of the Implied Author from that of the narrator.The Implied Author is not only responsible for the story that is being told, but also for the titles, epigraphs, notes and the like, which exceed the narrator's domain of action, the narrator being one of the instruments of the Implied Author (Chatman 1978: 148).The Implied Author gives the narrative text its internal logic and direction.Our claim is that there is a discursive image or ethos that can be attributed to the Author, considered as the textual entity originating the source text, and a different ethos, which is configured around the figure of the Translator.The construction of the Translator's ethos, however, implies partially recreating the image of the Author as well, taking into account both its discursive and institutional materiality.
As will be noticed, other scholars have also introduced the Aristotelian notion of ethos in translation studies from various methodological perspectives : Simeoni  1998; Gouanvic 2001, 2007; Inghilleri 2003, 2005; Sela-Sheffy 2005; Buzelin  2005; Flynn 2007; Wolf 2007; Suchet 2010, 2013; Vorderobermeier 2014, among  many others. 7However, Myriam Suchet's 2010Suchet's , 2013 proposal is the most relevant to the present study as it also articulates contributions from discourse studies (Ducrot 1984;Amossy, 1999Amossy, , 2001;;Authier-Revuz 1984, 1995) in dealing with the concept of ethos in a corpus of heterolingual literary texts and translations.Following the narratological model put forward by Genette (1983), Suchet centers her study on the narrator for the analysis of ethos in translated fiction.According to Suchet, ethos is understood as a differential category, projecting the negotiation between two speakers, the author and the translator, rather than the discursive image that can be attached to the figure of the Translator.In her view, infused by interactional pragmatics, the role of the reader is crucial for the actualization of ethos.The reader has to imagine the tone of a voice, whose only existence is textual (Suchet 2013: 12).As a consequence, Suchet's proposal does not favor the autonomy of the translated text or the centrality of the figure of the Translator.As opposed to this conception, we will contend: (1) that the Implied Author operates at a different, more comprehensive level than that of the narrator; (2) that the translated text is autonomous as it recognizes a different creator from that of the original text, both at the textual and extratextual levels; (3) that the Implied Translator is the agency originating the translated text and the discursive figure that can be imputed responsibility for discourse enunciation in translated fiction; and (4) that the Implied Translator is, therefore, the discursive entity to which ethos is attached in translated narrative discourse.

The Contribution of Discourse Studies
The notion of ethos was defined by Aristotle in Rhetoric as the most efficient proof of persuasion, having both a moral and discursive meaning.According to Aristotle (1941: 4468-4477), discourse offers three distinct but related proofs of persuasion.Proofs which are related to the speaker's character and image (ethos), those which are meant to trigger a certain reaction on the part of the audience (pathos), and those which reveal the arguments and workings of discourse itself (logos).In its moral meaning, ethos refers to the speaker's virtues and ethical attributes whereas its discursive implication relates to the speaker's character or positioning, which should be in keeping with the topics, argumentative goals and style of their discourse.As pointed out by Eggs (1999), these two meanings must be understood in a complementary fashion as they are the two phases constituting all argumentative activity (31-32). 8n the field of linguistics, the discursive variant of the concept of ethos was re-elaborated by Ducrot in 1984.Within his pragmatic-semantic approach, ethos stands as the discursive image which is attached to the enunciative subject to whom is imputed the responsibility for the enunciation of the utterance.More recently, this category has been subject to further elaboration by linguists such as Maingueneau (1999Maingueneau ( , 2002Maingueneau ( , 2013Maingueneau ( , 2014) ) and Amossy (1999Amossy ( , 2001Amossy ( , 2009Amossy ( , 2010Amossy ( , 2012)). 9The latter presents an interdisciplinary approach, informed by philosophical, enunciative, pragmatic and sociological aspects alike.Drawing from Bourdieu's theory (1982), Amossy (1999Amossy ( , 2001) ) articulates the category of ethos by recognizing its linguistic origin and materialization while placing it in a given institutional and cultural setting.In her view, an analysis of ethos must make a key distinction between discursive ethos and prior ethos.The notion of discursive ethos is identifiable with Ducrot's description and, therefore, refers to the discursive image which is projected in discourse as a result of the enunciative subject's activity and commitment.On the other hand, when formulating the notion of prior ethos or image, Amossy draws attention to the importance of considering the previous ideas and knowledge of the interlocutor, in other words, the image the addressee has of the orator before he or she actually starts speaking.Previous ideas play a fundamental role in the global configuration of discursive authority.In fact, the notion of ethos relates to that of stereotype, defined as the operations enabling a view of reality through pre-existing cultural representations, which, in turn, evoke fixed and collective schemes (Amossy and Pierrot 1987).Understood in this fashion, stereotypes play a significant part not only in the selfrepresentation of the enunciative subject but also in the representation that they make of their audience, which eventually comes to influence their own image and discourse.For instance, the image of a presidential candidate will not be the same when speaking to the members of her party about her long-term economic strategies as when addressing this topic on a presidential debate or campaign event in front of a different audience and conditioned by different institutional factors.By the same token, the audience is inevitably affected by the previous ideas and knowledge they have of the speaker.Thus, ethos is to be articulated in the interaction between the prior ethos or image each of the participants of the communicative act has of the other person, involving linguistic and extralinguistic schemes and representations, and the discursive ethos, which inescapably relates to the discursive modalities configuring the image of the enunciative subject as a whole.
To sum up, the analysis of ethos implies examining both the pre-discursive and discursive levels.At the pre-discursive level, the focus should be on the speaker's institutional status and their relative position in a certain field, which legitimate their saying, as well as on the image or collective stereotypical representation the audience may have of the speaker, before they even take the floor.At the discursive level, the analysis should center on the enunciative subject's image, arising from the different discursive and generic devices employed by the speaker.The manner in which speakers re-elaborate the previous knowledge the audience may have will also impact on the overall configuration of the speaker's ethos (Amossy 2012: 95-96).

Ethos in Narrative Discourse
When applied to the study of narrative discourse, the configuration of ethos, which should be understood in connection with the Implied Author, calls for further development.Interested in the problem of the Author's ethos, Amossy (2009) elaborates on the double nature of the Author's image, the Author being an imaginary figure of a discursive-textual existence different in nature from the empirical subject or writer.10According to Amossy, the Author's image is configured as a result of the interrelation of images belonging to both the intratextual (discursive) and extratextual (pre-discursive) levels.This double nature relates, on the one hand, to the category of Author's ethos, the image projected in the narrative text of its creator, and, on the other, to the image of the writer and his or her work built by third parties in various institutional, academic, literary and cultural fields as well as by the writer himself or herself.Two spaces are, thus, defined: an intratextual space, associated to the literary work per se, and an extratextual space connected to the literary metadiscourse. 11s shown in Figure 1, at the intratextual level, the Author's ethos becomes apparent through the operations and devices staged in the narrative text.Among these, we find: the kind of narrators staged in the text and of the pair narrator/narratee (i.e. the narrator's addressee), the choice of a language over another, the depiction of characters, the plot, the treatment of certain subjects, and the nature and function of paratextual elements, as well as the characterization of the Implied Reader, the other stance that is immanent to the narrative text (Chatman 1978: 150-151).It is from all these interconnected images, which are crystallised in the novel or story, that the Author's ethos is globally built in narrative discourse.Amossy's hypothesis also concerns the reception of the literary piece since the dynamic interrelation of these images determines the interaction between the reader and the function of the piece in the literary field.
In the case of the extratextual level, the focus is on the representation of the writer's person in various fields generated by third parties or by himself or herself.This representation responds to different imperatives: literary, cultural, historical, political and economic.Methodologically speaking, this image is central in the scene of literary communication as it affects the way readers react to a certain literary work.The writer's own activity within the literary metadiscourse involves, for instance, the manner in which writers negotiate their image in interviews, lectures, and so on (Amossy 2009: 3-4).This image, which belongs in the extratextual space, is different in nature from that created within the literary work and from the image created within the literary metadiscourse by third parties.For Amossy (2009: 4), however, there are spaces in the literary work, the paratext, for example, in which writers are authorized to speak in their own names.
In this paper, we wish to differentiate our position from Amossy's on this particular point.We will argue, instead, that the nature and status of the voice evident in the preface of a literary work, even when this is signed with the name of the writer, responds to the creation of that imaginary figure called Implied Author and not to that of the real-life writer.Thus, from this methodological perspective, when considering the ethos affecting the entity taking responsibility for the global enunciation of the narrative text, we are not thinking of the narrator or the empirical subject but of the Implied Author.The Author's discursive image or ethos results from multiple discursive and pre-discursive operations.

Towards a Definition of the Translator's Ethos
Translated narrative discourse requires the reformulation of Figure 1 with the introduction of the notion of Translator's ethos.The Translator's ethos may be defined as the discursive image which is attributed to the textual entity and agency originating and directing the translated text, that is, the Implied Translator.As shown in Figure 2, the Implied Translator subsumes part of the features characterizing the Implied Author in the source text.In the creative practice of literary translation, the text establishes a new authorial image through a set of operations and mechanisms, which include the reconfiguration of the pair narrator/ narratee, the use of a certain language/s or language varieties, the resourceful use of paratextual elements, and the institution of an Implied Reader of the translation.As a new discursive-textual entity, the Implied Reader of the translation is built upon linguistic, literary, and cultural parameters, which differ from those affecting the constitution of the Implied Reader of the source text.
As in the case of the Author's ethos, the configuration of the Translator's ethos arises from two distinct but related levels: the discursive, textual level and the prediscursive, extratextual level.At the discursive, textual level, the Translator's ethos is discernible through the analysis of different aspects of the translated text, some of which speak of a more patent intervention and visibility of the Implied Translator than others.On the whole, the modeling of the Translator's ethos can be determined from the enunciative activity and commitment attributed to the Implied Translator.More specifically, the Translator's ethos may be studied through the analysis of common translator's paratextual elements (notes, introductions, epilogues), which ostensibly signal the Translator's positioning and activity within translated narrative discourse.The comparison between originals and translations is also a valid means to identify and characterize the Translator's ethos.However, it should be noticed that while the translator's paratext is potentially accessible to all readers, the analysis of originals and translations is usually reserved to the scholar.
At the pre-discursive, extratextual level, it is crucial to examine the shaping of the prior ethos, including variables such as cultural and institutional settings and the previous ideas and knowledge the reader is expected to have of a certain writer and translator.It will also be of interest to assess the status of the writer and the translator in the literary, cultural and translation fields, at home and abroad, as these will condition the image readers may have, before they actually start reading a translation.When discussing translated narrative discourse, this question becomes particularly complex as the image of the writer and that of the translator, considered here as empirical subjects, are socially, culturally, historically and even politically built.When texts written by well-known writers, such as Edgar Allan Poe or Virginia Woolf, are translated by prominent writers, such as Julio Cortázar or Jorge Luis Borges, the disposition of the actual readers of the translation appears to be influenced by their knowledge and even opinion of the translators/writers.This fact will also influence the commission of the translation as well as the contractual conditions and licences.The extratextual level also includes the metadiscursive construction (reviews, critical appraisal, interviews, articles) created by third parties and also by the translator through statements upon their own work (notes, interviews, articles).Finally, the analysis of the discursive constitution of translated narrative discourse entails the introduction of the category of the Implied Reader of the translation (Schiavi 1996), whose creation falls within the sole responsibility of the Translator.

The Example of Sandra Cisneros's Caramelo
The question of the Translator's ethos is of particular interest in the case of the translation of minority literary texts.According to Deleuze andGuattari (1986 [1975]: 16-17), minority literatures are defined in opposition to major, canonical literatures.Three distinctive and interconnected characteristics distinguish these writings: the deterritorialization of a major language, which is used to voice a minority literature; the political component; and the collective value of enunciation.Minority as much as postcolonial texts display devices typically associated with the translator's work (Rudin 1996: 59-73;Tymoczko 1999: 23-25).Among these devices, the most relevant include the use of paratextual devices such as footnotes, end-notes and even translator's notes, introductions, epilogues, and glossaries, meta-enunciative reflections and commentary which contribute to bridge the gap between the writer's world, culture and language, and the reader's.
Chicana writer Sandra Cisneros is no exception to this rule.Quite early in her literary career, she defined herself as a cultural mediator or translator, in between cultures, communities and languages: "The two cultures are at great odds with each other and perhaps my job is to be that translator for each community to see itself in a new light" (in Rocard 1995: 588); "We're amphibians and bridges to communities at war with each other, but it's our job in the new millennium to help bridge and translate.Otherwise we all die" (in Oliver-Rotger 2000: 3).This selfimage generated by the writer in various interviews, that is, at the metadiscursive level, relates to the configuration of the Author as a translator in the narrative text: "She uses the Spanish word hijos, which means sons and children all at once" (Cisneros 2002a: 29); "Like all novitiates, Soledad sincerely believed the piropos Narciso tossed her, a word in Spanish for which there is no translation in English, except perhaps "harassment" (ibid.: 156).
Caramelo or Puro Cuento 12 is Cisneros's third book of fiction.Innovative and highly experimental, the novel, which aims at relating North America identity and history to Latin America, is regarded as Cisneros's magnum opus (McCracken 2015: 3).Caramelo was simultaneously published in the US in English and Spanish translation in 2002 by Random House (in the collections Alfred A. Knoft and Vintage Español, respectively) 13 .It was Cisneros herself that chose Liliana Valenzuela to translate her novel into Spanish (Sastre 2003).Both the English and the Spanish versions were well received by the public and the critics in the US and Spain. 14In Caramelo, Cisneros's experimentation comprises the elaboration of distinctive writing techniques such as a creative use of glosses and other metalinguistic operations whose recurrence contribute to modeling the Author's ethos: "¿Quién vive?A voice called out from under the darkness of the portales.The question meant -Whose side are you on?Madero?Or Huerta?" (Cisneros 2002a: 129); different forms of translation: "I'm not here.They've forgotten about me when the photographer walking along the beach proposes a portrait, un recuerdo, a remembrance literally -¿Un recuerdo?A souvenir?A memory?" (ibid.: 4); and the introduction of Spanish idiomatic expressions, sayings and proverbs through literal translation: "… everyone has congratulated Father on his birthday.-¡Felicidades!Happinesses!," "Like the Mexican saying goes, he who is destined to be a tamal, will find corn shucks falling from the sky" (ibid.: 48 and 210 respectively).Another prominent feature of Caramelo is the construction of border enunciative spaces within the paratextual dimension, particularly the exhaustive use of long epigraphs and end-notes, which will be exemplified in the analysis of the translated text in 4.
Thus, in Caramelo, the image of the Implied Author can at times be identified with that of the commentator, who needs to explain cultural and linguistic 12 Henceforward, Caramelo.
13 Sandra Cisneros is one of the most prominent figures of the Latina community in the US.Her work may be said to be part of the mainstream literary landscape.However, her position as a writer remains marginal, which is particularly visible in the non conventional and creative use of language described in this paper. 14For further reference to this novel and its reception, see McCracken (2003McCracken ( , 2015)); Jiménez Carrá (2005); Johnson González (2006); Gutiérrez y Muhs (2006); Melgar Penías (2012); Ontiveros, (2014), among many others.meanings or with that of the translator, who has to render a cultural, written or oral text, originally known to him or her in Spanish, rather than just tell a story in English.Cisneros's discourse conveys new border meanings in English, inextricably related to her Latino cultural heritage, with which it is possible to identify the Implied Author.Given the editorial success of her first novel in 1984, The House on Mango Street, Cisneros was already a renowned writer in the US when Caramelo appeared in 2002.The configuration of the prior ethos associated with the Author is influenced by the knowledge and ideas readers might have had about the writer before actually reading the novel.In turn, the writer elaborates on these previous ideas to configure her own textual, self-presentation or ethos within the narrative text.At a different level, this affects the situation of the Translator in the target text.

The Translator's Ethos at Work
At the pre-discursive, extratextual level, it is crucial to note that Liliana Valenzuela is a well-established translator, poet and essayist, the recipient of the 2006 Alicia Gordon Award for Word Artistry in Translation, and a past Director of the American Translators Association (2005)(2006)(2007)(2008).In fact, she is regarded as one of the best translators of major Latino writers, having successfully carried out the translation of many significant and discursively complex texts by writers such as Gloria Anzaldúa, Julia Álvarez, Cristina García, Denise Chávez, and Sandra Cisneros (López Ponz 2010: 62, 245;Joysmith 2010: 88).Her position and status in the literary and cultural fields, both in the US and Mexico, adds to the image of the expert translator, generated by third parties as well as by the translator herself, as can be seen in her website page (Xica Media 2016).Valenzuela is a notable translator and poet, who can be hired through her well-known agent, Stuart Bernstein. 15Being widely known and respected by writers, critics and translators alike, Valenzuela's intervention in a translated work anticipates and, in a way, even guarantees its quality (López Ponz 2010: 62, 296).The prior ethos associated to the Translator is, thus, of paramount importance having an influence not only on the way a translated text is received by the public and the critics but also on the way it is translated.
The image of the Translator built at the pre-discursive, extratextual level is in line with her presence at the discursive level.Having a positive self-image, Valenzuela's presence is readily acknowledged in the translated novel in a number of ways, both within the text and the paratext.Regarding the paratextual space, the fact that her name is printed in the book cover is further reinforced by the introduction of a Translator's epilogue and also by the biographical note on the Translator appearing next to the Author's.These equally long biographical notes add to the relative status of Author and Translator in the target literary and cultural fields.As stated in the credits page, Valenzuela is the only holder of the copyright of the translation.The Translator's presence is further revealed through her work in the paratext.The two-page Permissions Acknowledgements section, translated from the English version without any form of adaptation concerning the contents that were excluded in the Spanish translation, exposes a moment of distraction which makes the Translator quite visible.For instance, in the Spanish version, the epigraph to Chapter 39, which, in the source text, offers the song "Júrame" followed by a literal translation into English, is reduced to a monolingual presentation.Yet, the credits in the Spanish translation mention both versions of the song.This is one of the cases characterized by Hermans, in which the presence of self-contradictions in the target text makes the Translator more visible (2010 [1996]: 198).
In translating Caramelo, the Translator has been allowed to include a five-page epilogue, which is placed at the end of the translated novel.An analysis of the epilogue contributes to the identification of the distinctive features characterizing the ethos of the Translator when the latter is speaking in this capacity to her readers.In this epilogue, the Translator builds a self-image which relates to the spaces of legitimacy and authority, portraying the Translator as a competent professional: "Cuando comencé a traducir Caramelo, la novela de Sandra Cisneros, me sentí tan maravillada como abrumada ante la magnitud y complejidad de la empresa," Valenzuela 2002: 463.(When I started translating Caramelo, Sandra Cisneros's novel, I felt both amazed and overwhelmed at the magnitude and complexity of the enterprise). 16This image is also linked to a space of intimacy, built around the reference to personal information regarding the making of the translation and the direct mention of family members: "Mi madre … me preguntó si alguien me podría ayudar.Le respondí que esto era algo imposible, ya que hay que mantener un estilo propio, un mismo ritmo y una misma musicalidad de principio a fin" (463).(My mother … asked me if anyone could help me.I replied that it was impossible since one has to stick to one's own style, one same rhythm and musicality from beginning to end).This discursive procedure contributes to define the figure of a sympathetic Reader of the translation who will understand the problems faced when translating this novel and forgive the errors the translation may potentially present.
The legitimacy and authority attributable to the Implied Translator are established not only through the use of certain nouns, adjectives and adverbs ("me sentí maravillada"; "magnitud y complejidad de la empresa"; "imposible", seleccionar la palabra justa"; pude comprender mejor," 463-464; "herramientas valiosas", "complejo contexto cultural y social," 17 464) but also through the overall tone and disposition of character the text projects of its producer.Making explicit the qualification, aptitude and knowledge the Translator has to successfully do the translation of Caramelo configures an ethos that is identifiable with the image of the poet, thereby claiming authority not only as a translator but as an author: "Jugar con las palabras es parte de mi oficio de poeta, y esto me permitió moverme con libertad para seleccionar la palabra justa" (463).(Playing with words is part of my job as a poet and that is what gave me freedom to select the right word).Also, the Translator portrays herself as an anthropologist, and therefore a connoisseur of the cultures involved: "Mis estudios de antropología y folclor también fueron herramientas valiosas para ayudarme a interpretar y a traducir el complejo contexto cultural y social de los personajes" (464).(My studies of anthropology and folklore were also invaluable tools to help me interpret and translate the complex cultural and social context of the characters).The image of the Translator is further built in relation with her cultural identity, presented here as an advantage to interpret and translate the novel: "También por el hecho de ser mexicana, originaria de la Ciudad de México, así como habitante de la frontera de los Estados Unidos, pude comprender mejor el mundo que Cisneros describe en su novela, mundo que ambas compartimos" (463-464).(Besides, being Mexican, from México City, and as an inhabitant of the United States borderland, I was able to better understand the world Cisneros describes in her novel, a world we both share).In addition, the Translator constructs a discursive image of herself as the ideal reader of the source text and, consequently, the best possible translator for the novel in question: "Un traductor es quizá el lector más cercano que una obra pueda tener" (464).(A translator is probably the closest reader a book can have).
Incidentally, the epilogue contributes an ethical statement regarding the notion that translation is an autonomous activity and a solitary art, which imposes a binding agreement: "Por mi parte, y en colaboración con la autora, es un honor ofrecer a los lectores de habla hispana una versión fidedigna, a mi leal saber y entender, de una novela que seguramente habrá de enriquecer la literatura chicana y el acervo cultural de todos los latinos y, por ende, la literatura estadounidense y mundial" (467).(As for me, in collaboration with the author, it is an honour to provide Spanish-speaking readers with a faithful version, to the best of my knowledge, of a novel which will surely enrich Chicana literature and the cultural heritage of all Latinos and, consequently, US American and world literatures).As deliberately shown in the epilogue, the task of the Translator is further guaranteed by the Author, who is presented as sharing responsibility for the translation and even directly collaborating with the Translator to make the translation "sing as beautifully" as the original: "Le estoy agradecida infinitamente a Sandra Cisneros, quien me ayudó con cuestiones de significado que sólo la autora podría pescar …, y asimismo con su oído de poeta para lograr que ciertos pasajes cantaran tan melodiosamente como en el original" (ibid.).(I am eternally grateful to Sandra Cisneros, who helped me solve meaning issues which only the writer could grasp…, and also, to her poet's ear [that helped me] make some fragments sing as beautifully as in the original).As will be noticed, the modeling of the Translator's ethos relies on the image of the legal translator as well.This is particularly evident in the use of the specific jargon of legal translation, which seems to both authorize and guarantee the quality of the translation: to the best of her knowledge and belief, the Translator offers together with the Author a true version of the source text for her potential Spanish speaking readers. 18n conclusion, the epilogue projects a discursive ethos of Translator as an experienced, leading and faithful professional, capable of appreciating the source text, identifying the main difficulties for its translation, choosing the right word and designing the correct strategy to deal with each and every aspect of its inherent discursive complexity.In this composition, the Translator's ethos relates to the legal obligation of the professional to achieve a faithful and equivalent version of the source text, which ends up shaping the notion of translation governing the workings of the text and the duty of the Translator before her readers.
A comparative analysis of the source and target texts allows us to see how the Translator's ethos is fashioned within the universe of the translated novel and also to observe whether the image created in the paratext effectively corresponds with that configured within the narrative text: (1) Once Aunty tried to kill herself because of Uncle Fat-Face.-My own husband!What a barbarity!A prostitute's disease from my own husband.Imagine!Ay, get him out of here!I don't ever want to see you again.¡Lárgate!You disgust me, me das asco, you cochino!You're not fit to be the father of my children.I'm going to kill myself!Kill myself!!! Which sounds much more dramatic in Spanish.-¡Me mato! ¡¡¡Me maaaaaaaatoooooo!!! (Cisneros 2002a: 11) (Una vez tía casi intenta matarse por culpa de tío Chato.¡Mi propio marido!¡Qué barbaridad!Una enfermedad de prostituta de mi propio marido.¡Imagínate!Uy, ¡sáquenlo de aquí!No te quiero volver a ver nunca.¡Lárgate!¡Me das asco, cochino!No mereces ser el padre de mis hijos.¡Me voy a matar!¡¡¡Me voy a matar!!! Lo cual suena mucho más dramático en español.¡Me mato! ¡¡¡Me maaaaaaaatoooooo!!!) (Cisneros 2002b: 11, translated by Liliana Valenzuela) Example1 illustrates a case in which the translated text provides redundant or inadequate information, thus revealing the Translator's presence, even for the reader who is not comparing source and target texts.As can be seen, the fragment "Kill myself!!! Which sounds much more dramatic in Spanish.-¡Me mato! ¡¡¡Me maaaaaaaatoooooo!!!" (Cisneros 2002a: 11) is empty of meaning in the Spanish translation in which everything the character says is actually rendered in Spanish.The narrator's reflection and evaluation of the different expressive values of English and Spanish is crucial for the construction of ethos in this narrative.In the source text, the example shows that English, the other language, is often not sufficient to voice the characters' feelings.As opposed to other passages in this translation, the Translator does not preserve any English terms or expressions, which may help the reader, implied and real, to recreate the linguistic tension the original establishes.As the agency organizing the target text, the Translator tends to homogenize the fractures distinguishing the discourse in the novel.In contrast, example 2 illustrates the use of compensation techniques, which attempt to restore the character's bilingualism and interculturalism.The use of bilingual strategies and regional varieties of Spanish in the translation is intended to recreate the language of the border and also the character's discursive image: (2) I'm never going anywhere with you again, you big fat liar!Never!What do you take me for?Zoila, please, don't make a scene.No seas escandalosa.Be dignified... Lárgate.Scram!I'm warning you, don't come near me! (Cisneros 2002a: 84) (Yo nunca volveré a ir contigo a ningún lado, ¡nunca!¡you big fat liar! ¡Mentirosote!¡Nunca!¿Quién crees que soy? Zoila, por favor, no hagas una escena.No seas escandalosa.Sé digna... ¡Lárgate!¡Te advierto, no te me arrimes!¡Scram!) 19 (Cisneros 2002b: 87, translated by Liliana Valenzuela) Interestingly enough, the variety of Spanish used in the dialogues -Mexican, colloquial and sometimes non-standard, as specified in the Translator's epilogue (Valenzuela 2002: 465)-contributes to shaping not only the character's ethos but also the Translator's.In effect, in example 2 the translator's intervention becomes apparent as the device chosen to recreate Zoila's discursive identity seems to contradict the Author's general linguistic and cultural characterization of Zoila as a Chicana and not as a Mexican woman.In the source text, Zoila is readily associated with her capacity for code-switching and also for speaking a standard variety of English as opposed to other characters in the novel, such as her husband, Inocencio, who can only speak a non-standard variety of English.More specifically, in example 2, the insult "Mentirosote" embeds Zoila's words within Mexican discursivity, as can also be acknowledged in the following fragment: "'tas lurias dice mamá.… Mamá agarra el teléfono y empieza a hablar su inglés-inglés, el inglés que hablar con los güeros, gangoso y quejumbroso, con las sílabas alargadas como ropa mojada en el tendedero: Uh-huh.Yesssss.Mmmhhhmm.That's right, " Cisneros 2002b: 391, translated by Liliana Valenzuela.(You're nuts, Mother says.… Mother gets on the phone, and starts talking her English English, the English she speaks with los güeros, nasally and whiny with the syllables stretched out long like wet laundry on the clothesline.Uh-huh.Yesssss.Mmmhhhmm. That's right, Cisneros 2002a: 376).Example 2, thus, shows that within the realm of the translated text the Translator's ethos may not fully adjust to the Author's image, providing evidence of their autonomy in interpreting and recreating the source text.
The recurrence of these devices -the employment of expressions, onomatopoeic words in English, and so on-adds to the modeling of the Translator's ethos.It should be noted that the recreation of the Author in the translated text implies reconstructing the figure of an intercultural mediator: "Aquí debo insistir en usar la palabra lunares, literalmente lunas, pero quiero decir moles o pecas o beauty spots, aunque ninguna de estas palabras llega a capturar el equivalente en español con sus sensibilidad de encanto y poesía," Cisneros 2002b: 108, translated by Liliana Valenzuela.(Here I must insist on using the word lunares, literally 'moons,' but I mean moles, or freckles, or beauty spots, though none of these words comes close to capturing the Spanish equivalent with its sensibility of charm and poetry , Cisneros 2002a: 103).By means of these devices, the Translator defines an attentive Implied Reader for the translated text, a Reader who should be able to discern that the characters were actually speaking in English and that literary discourse mostly developed in that language in the source text.The Reader, who is made to explore new linguistic and cultural territories, is made aware that he or she is reading a translation.
As noted earlier, a creative use of paratextual devices makes for one of the most salient features of Caramelo.The numerous end-notes of the novel are worthy of attention.The Author employs this device, indistinctly signalled through different indexes -the asterisk (*), the dagger ( †), and also the double dagger ( ‡)to present historical, cultural, political and linguistic information, which is many times central for the plot of the novel.The notes also offer a renewed perspective on mainstream discourses and the revision and vindication of stories, characters, and events, which have traditionally been given little relevance.Although the presence or absence of notes is often editorially established, in this case, in which we know the translator enjoyed great liberty, the fact that the Spanish version of the novel does not employ the usual translator's explanatory notes may add to the image of the competent professional portrayed in the epilogue, who can solve all the difficulties posed by the novel within the limits of the translated text.Besides, if the Translator's intention was to achieve visibility and recognition, including translator's notes in a novel that makes an extensive use of end-notes would not contribute to that end as these would be confused with the Author's notes.This, however, has not prevented the Translator from using notes creatively in the translated text: ( The use of notes, such as the one in example 3, creates a particular reading dynamics in the original, posing a set of interpretive demands for the Implied Reader of the source text.The note conveys a conflicting view regarding the unfair circulation of cultural goods in different strata of society, with a clear suggestion as to the unequal conditions of the barrio where the characters live.The mention of US prominent journalist Studs Terkel becomes the object of commentary in the note. 21As may be observed, in the target text, the already long note, translated from the original, contains two further sub-notes, which are the Translator's sole responsibility.These notes, which add to the complex reading dynamics of the text, do not only provide information about the historical and cultural background, a common thing for many of the notes in Caramelo, but also include a political opinion on the events and public figures mentioned, which is absent in the source text.This strategy exceeds the realm of explicitation, as understood by Vinay andDarbelnet (1995 [1958]: 8), that is, the procedure used by the translator to make explicit information which is implicit in the source text.By including these notes, the Translator is displaying writing techniques readily associated with the Author's ethos, even if the origin of the notes is not to be found in the Author's work.For the Reader, the clue that these are not authorial notes is given by the symbols used as indexes: the section symbol ( §) and the double bar symbol (), which are not included in the Author's notation system. 22 Both source and target texts demand an alert reader, who, at this stage in the novel, will have tried to figure out if there is a connection between the different types of notes and the symbols used to index the notes.This is why the appearance of these indexes in the translation, which are not used anywhere else in the text, should attract the reader's attention.The first note, which explains the reference to Studs Terkel, is intended to bridge a cultural gap since the implied and also the potential Spanish-speaking reader of the translation might not know about this influential twentieth century figure of the US cultural and political landscape.This intervention promotes a different image of the Author in the translation and modifies the construction of the Implied Reader, which, in the translation, is not expected to know of the existence of Terkel.The Translator instructs the Reader on a new cultural fact emphasizing the vindication of the margin.This intervention generates a new reading instruction while it provides evidence of the Translator's presence in the text.
As the agency directing the reading of the target text, the Translator projects quite a didactic image.The addition of these notes implies some explicitation of the source text but also the introduction of more unambiguous ideological positive commentary regarding Studs Terkel, as well as a derogatory presentation of the figures of Richard Nixon and his vice-president Spiro Agnew.The collaboration between writer and translator has, in this case, resulted in a modification of the Author's ethos in the translation and a (con-) fusion of source and target texts.The devices employed in example 3 attempt at reproducing those used in the source text as if compensating for some inevitable losses.
The presence of a translator's note would give the translator "visibility" in a conventional way but it would also generally imply the impossibility of surreptitiously introducing political and ideological meanings as if they were part of the source text.Consequently, the Translator portrays a self-image more related to that of the Author, whose notes must be read and cannot be skipped if one is to make sense of the novel.

Conclusions
In this paper, we have offered a definition of the notion of Translator's ethos by articulating the concepts of Implied Translator and discursive presence put forward by translation scholars Giuliana Schiavi (1996) and Theo Hermans (2010Hermans ( [1996]]), and the concept of ethos elaborated by linguists Oswald Ducrot (1984) and Ruth Amossy (1999Amossy ( , 2001Amossy ( , 2009Amossy ( , 2012)).We have defined the Translator's ethos as the discursive image that can be attributed to the Implied Translator, the agency originating and directing the reading of translated narrative discourse.This authorial figure subsumes part of the traits attributed to the Implied Author of the source text but has full discursive responsibility for the enunciation of the translated text.The configuration of the Translator's ethos results from two distinct but related levels: the discursive, intratextual level, which focuses on the discursive activity and commitment shown by the Translator within the translated text, and the pre-discursive, extratextual level, which refers to the cultural and institutional settings and the previous ideas or knowledge readers may have of a certain text, writer and translator, as well as to the image produced by third parties or by the writer or translator about themselves within the scope of metadiscourse.
The analysis of Liliana Valenzuela's Spanish version of Sandra Cisneros's novel Caramelo has provided evidence for the characterization of the Translator's ethos.The case study has shown that Author and Translator organize the linguistic and cultural itineraries of their characters following different criteria and parameters, an event having consequences which affect various levels: (1) the Author's ethos, discourse and intent are modified in the target text; (2) the Implied Reader of the translation is faced with new interpretive demands; (3) translation stands as a first order activity; (4) the Translator's ethos is traceable within the translated text.More specifically, it has been established that the construction of the Translator's ethos may be determined from the study of the paratextual sections typically attributed to the Translator, the comparison of source and target texts and also from scrutiny of the target text.The correlation between the composition of the Translator's ethos in the textual and paratextual dimensions of the novel has been made evident in the analysis.At the pre-discursive, extratextual level, the Translator's image is built within the metadiscourse by the work of third parties or by the translator herself.In effect, Valenzuela's status in the cultural and literary fields at home and abroad contributes to shaping the ethos of the Translator as this conditions the way she does her job and the expectations readers may have before they actually read the translated text.The singularity of the Translator's ethos corresponds with the creation of a new Implied Reader for the translation as well.
The notion of Translator's ethos, which comprises both the category of Implied Translator and that of discursive presence, promotes a key distinction between the image of the narrator and that of the Author or the Translator in originals and translations, a distinction that becomes central when pursuing the analysis of translated narrative discourse.In response to Maingueneau's observation (2014) regarding the lack of specificity of ethos studies in literary discourse, this new category attempts at providing a more satisfying characterization of ethos in connection with a specific type of discourse and enunciative subject, that is, the Translator.

Figure 2 :
Figure 2: Translator's Ethos within Translated Narrative Discourse Until the older boys bring home their college textbooks.She readsFreire, Fromm, Paz,  Neruda, and later Sor Juana, Eldridge Cleaver, Malcom X, and Chief Joseph.She begins a subscription to Mother Jones and The Nation.She tears out pages of political poetry and tapes them to our refrigerator.She listens faithfully to Studs Terkel on WFMT and pastes Spiro Agnew's face on our dartboard.Mother clips the slogan of a national ad campaign and tapes it on the bathroom mirror: "A mind is a terrible thing to waste."Reader'sDigest, Mc, Call's, Good Housekeeping, y el equivalente a un año de National Geographic, una suscripción de regalo de su hermana.«Apolo15 explora las montañas de la luna».«Esospopulares pandas».... Studs Terkel, un locutor de radio de Chicago que ha sido galardonado con un premio Pulitzer, coleccionó más de 9000 entrevistas en su carrera, creando un nuevo género de historias orales que documentaba las voces de los grandes pensadores así como del hombre de la calle.Fue responsable de llevar la cultura y el pensamiento intelectual a las vidas de incontables ciudadanos comunes y de transformar sus vidas.Spiro Agnew, vicepresidente de Richard M. Nixon, abandonó su cargo público desacreditado por un escándalo financiero.Su nombre, al igual que el de Nixon, se convirtió en un chiste durante su vida.)(Cisneros2002b: 257-259, translated by Liliana  Valenzuela) -Tú -me dice mama con esa voz de «es una orden», -ayúdame a sacar estas porquerías.Hasta que los muchachos mayores traen a casa sus libros de texto de la Universidad.Lee a Freire, Fromm, Paz, Neruda, y más tarde a Sor Juana, Eldridge Cleaver, Malcom X, y el Jefe Indio Joseph.Se subscribe a Mother Jones y a The Nation.Arranca páginas de poesía política y las pega en nuestro refrigerador.Escucha fielmente a Studs Terkel § en la estación WFMT y pega la cara de Spiro Agnew en nuestro tiro al blanco.Mamá recorta el lema de una campaña publicitaria nacional y lo pega al espejo del baño: «Es lamentable dejar que una mente se desperdicie».... §