Domestication or foreignisation is also closely related to another aspect of translation, an aspect that approaches the same question from the translator’s point of view: transparency. “Domesticating and foreignising practices are equated with two types of translation, namely transparent or resistant translation” (Espindola & Vasconcellos 2006: 47). According to some scholars, translation can either be like a mirror, resistant, reflecting the TC, or like a pane of glass, transparent, showing the audience the source culture (SC): “Translation is said to be a reproduction, a copy, a replica, a mirror image of the original; or, it is a transparent pane of glass through which the recipients of the target text (TT) are able to gain access to the source text (ST)” (Ulrych 2000: 127). If it is transparent, that is, the translator is “producing the illusory effect of transparency”, it has a domesticating effect, bringing the SC closer to the TL audience (Venuti 1995: 5), while “[r]esistant translation breaks the illusion of a transparent discourse in translation, promoting the representation of other realities so as to recognize linguistic and cultural differences of foreign texts” (Espindola & Vasconcellos 2006: 47).