

































Grenier

91

Confronting Potential Cultural Barriers 
in Translated Works

Olivia Grenier, Ball State University

“Confronting Potential Cultural “Confronting Potential Cultural 
Barriers in Translated Works” reflects Barriers in Translated Works” reflects 
upon the stylistic choices of Maxine upon the stylistic choices of Maxine 
Hong Kingston and Sandra Cisneros Hong Kingston and Sandra Cisneros 
in their respective works, “No Name in their respective works, “No Name 
Woman” and “Woman Hollering Creek.” Woman” and “Woman Hollering Creek.” 
Both strategically include either moments Both strategically include either moments 
of or full iterations of translation of or full iterations of translation 
culturally and linguistically. When culturally and linguistically. When 
incorporating translation at any degree, incorporating translation at any degree, 
a potential barrier could arise: a barrier a potential barrier could arise: a barrier 
from comprehension, a barrier from from comprehension, a barrier from 
translation, a barrier between author and translation, a barrier between author and 
reader, or a barrier between cultures. reader, or a barrier between cultures. 
Throughout this essay, I will be Throughout this essay, I will be 
discerning the stylistic choices of discerning the stylistic choices of 
Cisneros and Kingston concerning Cisneros and Kingston concerning 
their inclusion of translation but also their inclusion of translation but also 
their overarching storylines to evaluate their overarching storylines to evaluate 
whether their work disrupts the presented whether their work disrupts the presented 
cultural barrier or whether the presented cultural barrier or whether the presented 
cultural barrier disrupts their work. cultural barrier disrupts their work. 

Truly reading literature extends beyond 
mere reading; it can become a type of  
conversation, but in order to embrace 
that rapport between the author and the 
reader, the text must be made available. 
When reading literature that has been 
translated in the sense of  culture and 
language, the expectation of  the reader 
varies. Cultural nuances that exist within 
the native language of  a text may be 
lost in translation. Few, if  any, languages 
offer a seamless translation, which makes 
literary conversations challenging due to a 
presented linguistic barrier. Cultural barriers 
are often presented alongside linguistic 
barriers. Translation offers a sense of  
mobility between the author’s culture and 
the reader’s experience. However, in order 
for a text to be accessed by a multitude of  
readers, its translation is not free from a 
type of  debt to the original language and 
culture. Translation can either be halting 
to the reader, or translation can be a type 
of  avenue, a border that, when crossed, 



leads to newfound understanding.These notions are dually expressed in Sandra Cisneros’s 
“Woman Hollering Creek” and Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No Name Woman.”
 “Woman Hollering Creek” is peppered with Cisneros’s Spanish culture through 
implementing various words and phrases. These moments serve as a transmission of  culture, 
and they are successful due to the words and phrases being identified with italics and then 
followed by an English translation. This specific strategy welcomes a monolingual reader, or 
a reader who is not well-versed in the Spanish language, into the story alongside Cleófilas. 
Cisneros assures the reader that they do not need to extend their mind further than the 
page since the translation is made readily available. However, with this strategy of  coupling 
Spanish with English, one language may be put at a deficit. Maxine Hong Kingston’s “No 
Name Woman” is the telling of  a family story from a Chinese-American protagonist. In 
comparison to “Woman Hollering Creek,” Kingston’s text is entirely translated in the sense 
of  culture. “No Name Woman” was written in English; however, it was written by an author 
with a Chinese-American perspective. Kingston was able to comprehensibly transmit her 
Chinese culture in an American society. However, that was not achieved without some 
community backlash. “No Name Woman” begs the question of  whether or not cultural ties 
were severed or weakened in order to construct a Chinese story for an American audience. 
When discerning the effects of  translated texts, it begs the question of  whether the literary 
conversation is mutually enriching to both the author’s culture and the reader’s experience. 
Cisneros and Kingston disrupt the cultural and linguistic barriers of  translation with specific 
stylistic choices that welcome, rather than exclude, the monolingual reader into the literary 
conversation while still respecting the native cultures of  their texts and staying true to their 
own linguistic liberties as authors.
 Translation presents the possibility that there will be discrepancies on a linguistic 
level. Unique grammar and semantic structures will not always be seamlessly transitioned 
into a different language, which could impede the reader’s comprehension and thus their 
connection with the literature. Translation of  culture presents the possibility that certain 
expressions of  cultural niceties may be subdued in order to uphold the comprehensibility 
of  the literature. Both presentations are confronted with a positional cultural barrier. Allison 
Fagan says that as authors negotiate their own linguistic identities, there is now “the question 
of  whether, and when, and how much to translate” (58). In this sense, translation can offer 
a type of  mobility in itself  to evoke a crossing of  borders (Fagan 58). Bolaki commends 
translation for gifting language a form of  mobility, but recognizes a “debt” that is bound 
to the original text (40). The intention of  production implores the literary conversation to 
ask whether this construction is simply trying to resolve translation conflicts for the sake of  
presenting a coherent story. Cisneros displays this favorable type of  mobility by representing 

Grenier

92



both Spanish and English in “Woman Hollering Creek.” While the essence of  a barrier is to 
present a divide, Cisneros is able to create a harmony between languages. Cisneros’s opening 
paragraph is one sentence that sets up the scene for her female protagonist, Cleófilas 
Enriqueta DeLeón Hernández. Along with the culturally significant character names, 
Cisneros begins the coupling of  Spanish and English early on. This sets the precedent for 
the importance of  this “marriage” between Spanish and English: “...over several miles of  
dirt road and several miles of  paved, over one border and beyond to a town en el otro lado –on 
the other side –already did he divine the morning...” (Cisneros 43). The Spanish words are 
italicized and followed by an English translation, which maintains the plot and heightens 
the cultural significance of  the story. Through the coupling of  Spanish and English, the 
reader is further introduced to Mexican culture due the English translation being provided 
by Cisneros, which supports her intention of  welcoming a variety of  readers into the cultural 
and literary experience that is “Woman Hollering Creek.”
 Extending beyond the literal words on the page which form this connection between 
Spanish culture and English readers, Cisneros’s opening line sets up the very barriers, 
linguistic and cultural, that are central to the plot of  her story. Cisneros’s newlyweds are 
moving from Mexico to Texas. While the characters are literally crossing borders, the 
layout of  the words on the page also displays the border between Spanish and English 
languages that Cisneros was able to bridge with an em dash. Cisneros’s literal and stylistic 
choice to present barriers showcases her implicit intention not to divide but to harmonize 
languages. When confronting potential cultural barriers in translated works with harmony 
in mind, there appears to be a “reconciliation” between languages as opposed to a form of  
domination in Cisneros’s work.
 Deciding to incorporate translation could be a type of  double reward for both the 
monolingual and multilingual reader, which Kingston and Cisneros portray respectively in 
their texts. Torres says that “much of  the Latino/a literature written in English in the US 
incorporates Spanish at some level” which is exemplified in “Woman Hollering Creek” (76). 
Throughout “Woman Hollering Creek,” Cisneros identifies her culture by italicizing Spanish 
words and then following them with an English translation, like when she notes the title of  
popular telenovela “Tú o Nadie. ‘You or No One’” (44). This display of  language could cast 
Cisneros’s culture as the “other,” as a cultural barrier itself. However, when looking at the 
translation above, instead Cisneros is welcoming the reader into the cultural conversation with 
Cleófilas and her neighbors by translating the title of  the television show they watch. So, in 
that regard, Cisneros’s culture is not at a deficit, instead she is acknowledging the barrier and 
providing a bridge.
 Torres continues to say that in the United States, the presence of  Latinx immigrants 

Grenier

93



is increasing, which suggests that the coexistence of  languages in literature is also 
representative of  “literary language actualizing the discourse of  the border and bilingual/
bicultural communities” (76). Inclusion does not promote exclusion. Cisneros’s intentional 
inclusion of  Spanish into her text represents her culture and the culture of  her characters 
without excluding the reader or “othering” her native language. Torres says that frequently 
“these Latinized texts tend to provide special pleasure to the bilingual reader; monolingual 
readers may not have complete access to the text and while they can often decipher the 
meaning from context, sometimes they must resort to a dictionary” (83). Torres notes that 
a dictionary or a reference book may not help find the translation for which readers are 
searching, which only strengthens the cultural barrier that is present with translated works. 
However, Cisneros writes in a way that is accessible to both monolingual and bilingual 
readers. The English translations after her Spanish words and phrases are a stylistic strategy 
that dually supports the reader’s comprehension and combats the presented barrier. While 
most of  the Spanish words and phrases are translated, there are few that stand proud in 
italics absent of  an English follower: “telenovela episode,” “...going to go to the farmacía and 
buy a hair rinse,” and “Bad luck. Mal aire” (Cisneros 44; 51). These words and phrases are 
still definable by the monolingual reader through context clues, which makes for a more 
academically enriching reading experience. With that, the bilingual reader is doubly enriched 
because, while these words and phrases are defined, their familiarity serves as a point of  
personal relevance which allows the reader and the characters to not only see culture but see 
themselves in one another. Cisneros’s co-existence of  languages dismantles the presented 
cultural barrier by harmonizing cultures but also by welcoming and embracing the readers.
 This skillfully incorporated point of  personal relevance for the bilingual reader is 
also seen through Cisneros’s incorporation of  the Mexican myth, La Llorona. Cisneros 
writes, “The natives only knew the arroyo one crossed on the way to San Antonio, and 
then once again on the way back, was called Woman Hollering, a name no one from these 
parts questioned, little less understood ...the townspeople shrugged because it was of  
no concern to their lives how this trickle of  water received its curious name” (46). The 
monolingual readers of  “Woman Hollering Creek” are similar to the townspeople in this 
way. The inclusion of  Spanish and the premise of  this cultural myth is not a concern to the 
comprehensibility of  the story, but to a bilingual reader the story will now have a new layer 
of  cultural depth. The monolingual reader, or reader who is unfamiliar with the myth, will 
gain general knowledge through Cleófilas’s thought process: “Is it La Llorona the weeping 
woman? La Llorona who drowned her own children. Perhaps La Llorona is the one they 
named the creek after, she thinks...” (Cisneros 51). With Cisneros’s skillful writing, “Woman 
Hollering Creek” reveals a door for connection to its bilingual readers without excluding its 

Grenier

94



monolingual readers, which supports a mutually enriching reading experience.
 Maxine Hong Kingston establishes similar cultural realities to Cisneros in “No 
Name Woman” through the personal curiosity of  her first-generation Chinese-American 
protagonist’s retelling of  a family story. The “story to grow up on” is a devastating tale 
about how her aunt was humiliated and excluded from her own family and village due to 
her pregnancy outside of  marriage. This rejection led her to commit suicide, killing herself  
and the newborn baby. The notion of  storytelling and community are leading factors in 
Kingston’s text. It is from this story that the protagonist “believed that sex was unspeakable 
and words so strong and fathers so frail that ‘aunt’ would do my father mysterious harm” 
(Kingston 6). This maturing female is lead astray about the nature of  sex; she correlates 
sex and her aunt with harm. Her mother is trying to instill fear into her because she, like all 
women, has the potential to become pregnant. Unplanned pregnancy is a risk of  further 
humiliation for this family, as they warn their daughter, “Don’t humiliate us” (Kingston 6). 
The cultural connections within Kingston’s preamble are evident due to the female, first-
generation protagonist. These connections may have been lost if  “No Name Woman” was 
not formatted this way. Kingston’s way of  transmitting culture offers a sense of  mobility that 
has the ability to unify cultures.
 Bolaki writes that while Kingston “has been praised for extricating Chinese myth 
...through her translations...” she has also been “condemned for twisting and distorting 
the meaning of  the original in order to please her white sisters” (42). The criticisms of  
Kingston’s work may stem from the footnote, “Transcription errors may remain,” which 
alludes to there being moments of  the text not all will understand due to the cultural 
barrier translation creates. However, “No Name Woman” was originally written in English 
(Kingston 7). So, these “transcription errors” are cultural, not linguistic. Yes, ‘No Name 
Woman’ translated well, as Bolaki suggests, but beyond accessibility, Kingston was able to 
create a space for culture to reside in a prolific way. Diverse literature presents the possibility 
of  a cultural barrier to arise, but the intention of  the authors like Kingston to create such 
spaces of  cultural translation could dismantle that barrier before it becomes invincible.
 The barrier of  cultural transmission is prevalent in Kingston’s “No Name Woman” 
due to her representing her own identity as a Chinese-American woman. The story reveals 
how a Chinese woman’s community harasses her to the point of  suicide, a death the 
family does not mourn. Instead, it is a death that allows for dismissal of  the woman’s prior 
existence entirely in order to free the community of  her wrongdoings. Kingston writes, , 
“Those of  us in the first American generations have to figure out how the invisible world 
of  the emigrants built around our childhoods fits in a solid America” (2). While the “us” in 
this quoteis grouping the character in the story to others who had to assimilate to American 

Grenier

95



customs, the “us” can also extend beyond the text to represent Kingston herself  as a 
Chinese woman in America.
 Kingston’s syntax in her quote represents the barrier of  culture. The dichotomy 
between “invisible” and “solid” presents a cultural barrier, while the verb “fits” evokes the 
possibility of  harmony. Bolaki notes that this remark appears early in Kingston’s work, 
which requires the reader to quickly map out the invisible world from the solid world: 
“[The quotes] apparently rigid distinction between the “invisible” and the “solid,” which 
one quickly maps onto China and America respectively” (40). This polarity suggests a type 
of  divide between cultures which Bolaki says conveys “a sense of  incommensurable, and 
thus untranslatable, differences” (40). Kingston does not let the cultural barrier deter her 
protagonist and her readers from embracing the two cultures that characterize her adult 
life. By including the verb “fits” in “...how our childhood fits in solid America,” Kingston 
authorizes a sense of  possible appeasement. Kingston is grappling with the sentiment of  
culture through her protagonist, who relates to the reader’s point of  view because of  her 
outsider status. Kingston’s narrator, who closely resembles Kingston herself, is transcending 
borders and disrupting cultural barriers by revealing newfound insights to her own 
personhood while trying to comprehend her aunt’s life story. Kingston’s intentional stylistic 
choice with syntax disrupts barriers while transmitting culture to the reader.
 Literature welcomes a conversation between the author and the reader, but is one 
required to do more? Fagan reminds that there is an inherent mistrust with translation. 
With Latinx literature, Fagan says there are “interpretive possibilities by manipulating the 
role of  Spanish in English (and vice versa)” (59). Translation poses as a barrier in itself  
due to the perils of  translating culture. Torres notes that in “Woman Hollering Creek,” 
Cisneros translates “la consentida” as “princess,” which is not a direct translation; the direct 
translation of  that Spanish phrase would be “the spoiled one” (Torres 85). This particular 
translation shows priority to the monolingual reader’s comprehension as opposed to the 
understandability of  the culture. Fagan describes the translation of  the author’s work and 
the access to readers as a type of  “fight for control over linguistic identity” (59). Translation 
allows for accessibility and a heightened range of  readership, but that may expose the 
original text to a type of  debt. However, is this debt to the original text or to the reader’s 
experience? While Cisneros’s inclusion of  Spanish followed by an English translation does 
welcome the monolingual reader, Torres says that with that translation strategy, readers “do 
not have to leave the comfortable realm of  his/her own complacent monolingualism” (78). 
But shouldn’t readers be deemed skillful enough to resolve any difficulty in a text instead 
of  the author spoon-feeding them? Not necessarily, according to Torres: “main--stream 
readers expect to gain access to other worlds, not be made aware of  their limitations” (82). 

Grenier

96



For Kingston, she embraces the curiosity of  other cultures through her Chinese-American 
protagonist’s own personal conflict between hearing her family’s portrayal of  her aunt and 
her own desire to retell her story: “My aunt haunts me –her ghost drawn to me because 
now, after fifty years of  neglect, I alone devote pages of  paper to her, though not origamied 
into houses and clothes” (Kingston 7). Both Kingston and Cisneros dismantle the cultural 
barriers presented by translation by actively wanting to welcome a variety of  readers to their 
texts. In this sense, translation does present a cultural barrier, but one that is permeable by 
artistic intention.
 This permeation prompts the question of  why might an author feel the need, or 
the want, to include a second language or transference of  culture into their text? Fagan 
mentions that while “opposing one language to the other suggests a clear-cut equivalency 
that potentially distracts readers from the complexities of  existing between or among 
languages,” the inclusion of  two languages, although with the intention of  presenting the 
languages as equals, may create a barrier within itself  (59). With two languages to view and 
digest, they could be a distraction as opposed to a helping hand. Fagan continues to say, “But 
the glossary, when examined closely, can also work to unintentionally or even subversively 
highlight those linguistic complexities” which is what Cisneros achieved (59). Cisneros in 
“Woman Hollering Creek,” confronted the potential linguistic barrier with harmony in 
mind. While mindful of  the possible complications of  coupling Spanish and English in one 
story, Cisneros mindfully and skillfully intertwined the two languages to produce a more 
realistic and significant story not only for readers but also for her own identity. The purpose 
of  translation is to welcome, not to exclude, which is a sentiment Kingston also represents. 
Kingston presents transition in a cultural rather than linguistic sense, which results in a more 
assimilative translation (Bolaki 44). With the culture of  Kingston’s story being rooted in a 
dominating, patriarchal society, translation in a similar sense can be a tool of  domination. 
However, for Kingston, she strategically decided to choose harmony. As Bolaki notes, “...
translation can be better described as a lost-and-found space” (55). Keeping with that 
belief, for Kingston, more was found than lost. Kingston’s work may have been criticized 
for distorting the meaning of  the original story, but the attempt to tell Chinese stories in an 
American context welcomes more readers to the literary conversation (Bolaki 39; 42). Both 
authors wanted to include translation into their texts, into their stories, to welcome a wider 
audience to experience their culture.
 Translation gives texts mobility, but also a sense of  evolution. Instead of  forming a 
barrier, translation demands flexibility. The inclusion of  culture and native languages within 
a text alongside the overarching English-American frame could either exist comfortablyor 
uncomfortably depending on the author’s stylistic intentions. For Kingston and Cisneros 

Grenier

97



alike, both authors achieved a balance of  culture that harmonized language and disrupted 
the distinct culture barrier by embracing their native culture while simultaneously welcoming 
the monolingual reader. When confronted with a border, Kingston and Cisneros created 
a bridge. As Bolaki said in response to “No Name Woman” translating well, “I propose 
another phrase ...one that articulates, in its very assertion, the promise and perils of  
translation: ‘Something gives.’” This “gives” could denote one text being at an expense 
from another, but when concerning Cisneros and Kingston, this “gives” is more in 
association with that of  a gift. Translation gives culture a widely accessible expression. These 
authors were able to transmute the presented barrier into a border that fostered newfound 
understanding for the readers while remaining truthful to the author’s moments of  culture. 

Grenier

98



Works Cited

Cisneros, Sandra. “Woman Hollering Creek.” Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories, New 
York: Vintage Books, 1992, pp. 44-56.

Bolaki, Stella. “’It Translated Well’: The Promise and the Perils of  Translation in Maxine 
Hong Kingston’s The Woman Warrior.” MELUS, vol. 34, no. 4, winter 2009, pp. 39-
60. Gale Literature Resource Center, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A214711140/Li-
tRC?u=munc80314&sid=summon&xid=34a040e9.

Fagan, Allison. “Translating in the Margins: Attending to Glossaries in Latina/o Litera-
ture.” Journal of  Modern Literature, vol. 39, no. 3, spring 2016, pp. 57-75. Gale Lit-

erature Resource Center, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A458680420/LitRC?u=-
munc80314&sid=summon&xid=58e5357f  .

Kingston, Maxine Hong. “No Name Woman.” The Woman Warrior: Memoirs of  a Girhood 

among Ghosts. New York Vintage Books, 1989. Accessed as PDF File.

Torres, Lourdes. “In the Contact Zone: Code-Switching Strategies by Latino/a Writers.” 
MELUS, vol. 32, no. 1, spring 2007, pp. 75+. Gale Literature Resource Center, https://
link.gale.com/apps/doc/A164423122/LitRC?u=munc80314&sid=summon&x-
id=ddfaf7e1.

Wang, Jennie. “The Myth of  Kingston’s ‘No Name Woman’: Making Contextual and In-
tertextual Connections in Teaching Asian American Literature.” The Johns Hopkins 

University Press, vol. 59, no. 1, 1996, pp. 21-32. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/
pdf/44378291.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A766b317cab91f690007ce93c5abb3017.

Grenier

99


