Pseudo-translation is the process of creating text that mimics a foreign language without the benefit of actual translation into another language. Usually the text has accents added to the characters or the form of the text changed so that it behaves in the application like a translation would, while still being recognizeably in English (or some other source language). Pseudo-translation is a technique needed for pseudo localization that is used in software localization. In contrast to the usual translation process it is the process of creating text that mimics a foreign language without the goal of expressing the source text meaning in the target language.

I will discuss this issue through the literary form known as ‘pseudotranslation,’because it allows me to exhibit the unique relationship between science and authorship.In order to expose the lack of critical engagement with the foreign, Venuti(1998: 33) introduces the discussion of pseudotranslation, which is “an original composition that its author has chosen to present as a translated text.” In the field oftranslation, such a move is useful, “since it involves a concealment of authorship,”which, “inevitably provokes a reconsideration of how an author is defined in anyperiod, leading either to a reactionary imposition of the dominant conception or toan unsettling revision that sparks new literary trends” (Ibid., 34). Something similar happens constantly in the scientific discourse. The claims of science , as far as authorship is concerned, are articulated in the following manner.The world is the original author. Science merely speaks that which is already written in the text of this world. Thus science and scientists abdicate the responsibility that is due to the original author. This also implies that science speaks for the world and does not, by itself, add anything to what the world says. Therefore, the scientific narrative of the world is not a construction of the practitioners who are embedded in a history and culture, but is merely a ‘revelation’ of the text of the world.

In contrast,the sociological critique of science tries to place the responsibility of the discourse on the scientists themselves by suggesting that scientific discourse is co-constituted by their narrative of the world, which is ‘contaminated’ by the historical and cultural positions they embody. As far as the question of authorship is concerned, the scientific discourse presents itself on the order of pseudotranslation. The traditional displacement of the author in scientific texts, and the cultivated image of the discoverer as one who merely speaks about the wonder of nature, are best captured by this image ofpseudotranslation.

Pseudotranslation implies an abdication of responsibility. It also bestows an ability to say something on somebody else’s behalf. The discourse on technology, by scientists and technocrats, follows a similar argumentative pattern. The explicit realization that scientific narrative should be seen as pseudotranslationimplies that this narrative of the scientists should itself be acknowledged as ‘original’ rather than displace this ‘originality’ to the voice of the world. If this position of the scientific discourse as pseudotranslation is tenable, then it would be more in tune with the claim that scientific narrative is one narrative of the world; one translation of the world.

The Pseudo Translation custom culture is another custom culture that is created without drawing upon any existing culture or region information. The purpose of this custom culture is to provide support for the pseudo translation ,in which developers and testers can use a culture other than the developer’s own culture, can test that the application is globalized and localized, and still can be able to use the application without having to learn another language. The complete code for the pseudo translation custom culture is not shown here because it is identical to the previous example, except that the values are different.

The pseudo translation custom culture values themselves are important only because they must not be the same as those of an existing culture. This allows developers and testers to observe that globalization and localization are occurring.

An important factor inliterary publishing is the increase in books set in a non-English-language culture butwritten in English. These texts offer access to a foreign culture without incurring theadded expense of translation, and, as such, are attractive to publishers. We may also speculate that fiction written by an Anglophone writer for an Anglophone audience is less likely to contain cultural material which will make the reader uncomfortable than might a translation. These texts might be considered pseudotranslations, although not strictly pseudotranslations in Toury’s sense in that they are in no way explicitly stated to be translations, nor do they seem aimed at bringing something new into thetarget culture. However, to consider translation, with Susan Bassnett, as “not so much as a category in its own right, but rather as a set of textual practices with which the writer and reader collude” may permit us to read these texts as a variant on the pseudotranslation in that in some ways they behave and are consumed as translation.

We might expect the advent of “real” translations to pose a threat; in fact, the most interesting feature of the relationship between translated fiction and pseudotranslations is the high degree of interdependency they exhibit.