Culture as translation: intersemiosis and intersemiotic translation

Peeter Torop
Translating as an activity and translation as the result of this activity are inseparable
from the concept of culture. The translational capacity of culture is an important
criterion of cultures specificity. Culture operates largely through translational activity,
since only by the inclusion of new texts into culture can the culture undergo innovation
as well as perceive its specificity. After the expansion of the paradigm of postcolonial
and the related field of gender studies into translation studies, the borderline between
culture studies and translation studies has become fuzzier, yet at the same time, there
has emerged a visible complementarity. On the one hand, by the turn of the century, the
understanding of the cultural value of a translation text has grown deeper, especially in
respect to the importance of translations for the identity of the receiving culture. L.
Venuti has called the identity-forming power of translations this ability of translations
to participate, according to the necessity, both in ensuring cultures coherence or
homogeneity as well as in activating cultural resistance or cultures innovation
processes (Venuti 1998: 68).
On the other hand, culture theory, particularly in the area of cultural studies,
has again begun to value the concept of identity through culture. Due to the activity of
the topic of globalisation and the opposition of the global and the local, the
understanding has been reached once again that no society wishing to enact its
specificity can escape the consideration of cultural identity. The comprehension of the
utmost necessity of cultural identity for the perception of political, social, economic
and technological development has even been called the cultural turn: The fact that
cultural identity is the decisive factor in constructing the specificity of a certain society
could be called the cultural turn. It means a.o. that contemporary political and social
developments, but also economic and technological developments, whether they have a
global or rather a local nature, can only be understood via the concept of cultural
identity... (Segers 2000: 384385).
Although there are several disciplines engaged in the study of culture, we can
speak of neither a methodologically unified research into culture, nor of a general
theory of culture. As an object of study culture allows for too many different
definitions for this to be possible. In translation studies the possibilities of defining the
object of study are considerably more limited, but the problem of unified methodology

is bound to arise even here. Comparing the two fields, especially projecting the
development problems of translation studies upon cultural theory, comes most
naturally. Translation studies attempt to solve, although on a smaller scale, the same
problems that have been facing cultural theory for some time already. This happens
both on the object level and on the metalevel.
On the metalevel, attempts have been made in translation studies to regulate
the specific metalanguage, as difficulties in understanding have appeared between
different scholarly traditions of studying translation. Therefore calls have been made
that works in translation studies be written in a generally comprehensible language, in
the language of average scholarship, as it were. On the other hand, there have been
attempts to create a situation of methodological translatability in which different
translation theories could be compared or possibilities of interdisciplinary synthesis
could be searched for.
On the object level, the first problem is that of the secondary nature of
translation. The difficulties arising in writing a translation history clearly show that
proceeding from periods, translated authors, translated works or translators does not
guarantee a description concerning the content. If the works of an author have been
translated during a period of two hundred years and dozens of translations have been
made of them, it seems possible to arrange them all along a scale between good and
bad translation. However, the hundred years remaining between two translations do
not allow us to compare them in such a manner. A typology is required, based on the
distinction of different translation types according to certain characteristics. These
characteristics can be external, but they can also be derived from a general model of
the translation process.
Thus, the translation culture of a particular period can be viewed as a certain
number of translated texts in one case, or as a hierarchy of translation types in another
case. In the former case we can speak of the choice, cultural politics and cultural
repertoire, the functioning of translated texts in a new culture. In the latter case we can
discuss the translations themselves, translation methods and the translators works. In
the former case we can use very different languages of description, in the latter case we
need comparative terms to denote types of translation, and thus a relatively unified
metalanguage is required.
How is all this connected to the working mechanism of culture? The
connectedness can be observed from two aspects. The first aspect derives from the fact

that, thanks to Roman Jakobsons works, a semiotic turn took place on the borderline
between translation studies and cultural semiotics. The scope of translation as a term
widened and the methodology of translation studies started to change due to the
differentiation between three kinds of translation activities. R. Jakobson distinguished
intra-lingual translation or interpretation of verbal signs by verbal signs of the same
language (sign system). The translation within a system of signs is related to
paraphrasing, changing of genres and discourses. As a second type of translation R.
Jakobson mentioned inter-lingual translation that means interpretation of verbal signs
with the verbal signs of another language (sign system) and is thus translation in the
ordinary sense. As a third type of translation R. Jakobson suggested intersemiotic
translation or transmutation that means interpretation of the signs of a sign system with
the signs of another sign system. In this way, also translating literature into film or
theatre productions, the translatability of word into picture and vice versa became
visible to translation studies (Jakobson 1971).
To the three main types of translation, R. Jakobsons article adds the
understanding of translation process as two processes taking place simultaneously,
recoding and transposing. But the distinction between the changing and the retaining
processes forms only the individual or individual psychological aspect of translation,
although it is certainly impossible to create a model of translational activity without
this aspect. However, also the general cultural or cultural psychological aspect is worth
distinguishing. R. Jakobson stresses the semiotic value of all five senses in the human
society (All five external senses carry semiotic functions in human society
Jakobson 1971a: 701), bringing thereby communication and autocommunication closer
together. With respect to the study of communication processes, R. Jakobson stresses
the importance of distinguishing between homogeneous messages, i.e. those based on a
single sign system, and syncretic messages, i.e. those based on the combination of
several sign systems. The study of communication must distinguish between
homogeneous messages which use a single semiotic system and syncretic messages
based on a combination or merger of different sign patterns (Jakobson 1971a:705).
Thus the differentiation of three translation types proceeds from R. Jakobsons general
understanding of the communication process and the types of messages.
As a result of the semiotic turn several new conceptions arose within or on the
borderline of translation studies. James Holmes introduced the concept of

metaliterature in which all texts generated on the basis of one text were united into a
single system (Holmes 1988). Anton Popovic developed his own theory of metatexts
that also saw all secondary texts as a unified metacommunicative system. However, he
observed the same processes both on the level of whole texts, as well as on the level of
parts of texts. It is thanks to him that for instance quoting became analysable as a
translation activity. Linking communication and metacommunication allowed him to
create his own treatment of culture (Popovic 1975). Proceeding in the same direction
the present speaker has been expanding John Catfords notion of total translation and
observed within this framework different translation types that can all be described on
the basis of the model of a universal translation process. The types are textual
translation or ordinary translation; metatextual translation or description via criticism,
advertising and other texts of this kind; in-textual and intertextual translation or
transmitting or introducing a foreign word into a text, and extratextual translation or
translating out of a text, using other semiotic material, for instance, in adapting
literature to film (Torop 1995, complemented in Torop 2000).
The transformation of Jakobsons classification is also important. This was first
done by Gideon Toury who restructured Jakobsons schema for the Encylopedic
Dictionary of Semiotics. First and foremost, Toury differentiates between two types of
translation intrasemiotic translating and intersemiotic translating. Intersemiotic
translating involves translating from language to non-language. Intrasemiotic
translation can be divided into two subtypes intrasystemic translating and
intersystemic translating. Intrasystemic translation corresponds to Jakobsons
intralinguistic translation and intersystemic translation in its turn answers to
interlinguistic translation (Toury 1986).
The hitherto latest contribution to the development of Jakobsons classification
has been made by Umberto Eco in his book Experiences in Translation (2001). Eco
starts from Ch. S. Peirces influence on Jakobson. On the one hand, Eco emphasises
Peirces statement that meaning, in its primary sense, is a translation of a sign into
another system of signs (Eco 2001: 69). On the other hand, he shows that the
closeness of the concepts of translation and interpretation in Jakobsons case derives
from the impressionistic quality of Peirces metalanguage. Ch. S. Peirce uses
translation in a figurative sense: not like a metaphor, but pars pro toto (in the sense
that he assumes translation as a synecdoche for interpretation) (Eco 2001: 69).

Ecos own summary follows this logic translation is a species of the genus
interpretation, governed by certain principles proper to translation (Eco 2001: 80).
Ecos classification is, like that of Jakobsons, tripartite. Firstly, there is
interpretation by transcription. This involves simple substitution of codes as, for
example, in case of the Morse alphabet. Secondly, there is intrasystemic interpretation.
This, in its turn, can be divided into three subcategories: intrasystemic interpretation
within the same natural language (as, for instance, synonymy, definition, paraphrase,
inference, comment etc.); intrasystemic interpretation within other semiotic systems
(for instance, changing a piece of music from major to minor); and performance (for
example, the performance of a musical score or the staging of a ballet). Thirdly, Eco
introduces intersystemic interpretation that includes two types, one with marked
variation in the substance, and the other with mutation of continuum. Intersystemic
interpretation with marked variation in the substance includes three subtypes:
interlinguistic interpretation or translation between natural languages; rewriting (e.g.,
reworked versions of the same piece by the same composer, parody); translation
between other semiotic systems or intersystemic interpretation with very marked
differences in substance among non-linguistic systems (for instance, transforming a
colourful oil painting into a black and white reproduction). Mutation of continuum
includes parasynonymy and adaptation or transmutation. Parasynonymy can be
illustrated by amplifying the phrase that one over there by pointing at the object with
a finger. Adapting literature to film or to theatre belongs to adaptation or transmutation
(Eco 2001: 100128).
Several other, more local works, could be added to Ecos book that
emphatically announce intersemiotic translation as radical translation to be the best
means of lending meaning to any kind of translation activity. Intersemiotic translation
makes implicit aspects of interlinguistic translation explicit. Methodologically the
tradition that has its roots in Jakobson and in part also in Peirce has been characterized
by bringing the concepts of meaning, interpretation and translation close to one
another and viewing culture as a mechanism of translation.
Another aspect that can be linked to translation as a working mechanism of culture is
that of semiotics of culture, but in a fairly specific sense. It is the points of contact
between the traditions of M. Bakhtin and J. Lotman. Lotman and Bakhtin have been
juxtaposed and contrasted to each other, and this has happened on different levels. In

case of Bakhtin it is important that although he has not directly been concerned with
translation problems as such, scholars still find reasons to write about him in
connection with issues of translation (Emerson 1993, Robel 1995, De Michiel 1999).
Leon Robel emphasises that Bakhtin attributes to the language of literature (and, at the
same time, also the text) the capacity to operate as a metalanguage in translating from
one sign system into another. For him, the text is a set of translations that differ in their
meaning (Robel 1995). Margerita De Michiel, however, makes the translation text her
basis and sees it as a place of multi-level dialogism in Bakhtins system: A translation
text is a place where a dialogue takes place: between texts and practices, between
empirical practice and theoretical practice, between science and ideology. It is a dialogic place, for at least two different logics meet in it: those of two different
languages (De Michiel 1999: 695). L. Robel and M. De Michiel implicitly express a
most important dualism in Bakhtins logic.
The treatise published under the name of Valentin Voloshinov Marxism and the
Philosophy of Language suggests that
any element of an utterance that forwards a thought and is being foregrounded,
or even a full utterance is translated by us into corresponding context that is
different and active. Any understanding is dialogic. Understanding is contrasted
to utterance as a speakers words are contrasted to those of another speaker in
a dialogue. Understanding is looking for a counterword to the word of a
speaker. Only understanding of a foreign word seeks for a similar word in the
native language.
[
, ,
. .

. .

.] (Bakhtin 2000a: 436).
Several scholarly works have been dedicated to the comparison of M. Bakhtins and J.
Lotmans dialogisms (Shukman, Lachmann, Danow, Bonafin), but the simultaneity of
the dual understanding has not been stressed much. In essence, this is a situation in

which understanding is a process that on the one hand creates differences (word and
the counterword), and, on the other hand, similarities (word and its translation). And if
the dialogism of understanding is borne in mind, we can in principle talk about two
types of dialogue.
One of Bakhtins central concepts to denote the unique status of Dostoyevskis
novels in world literature is polyphony or polylogue. The characters of an ordinary
novel are, according to Bakhtins logic, objects of representation for the authors.
Dostoyevski, however, frees the characters from the authors sway over them and
makes them into independent subjects. This is accompanied by a multiplicity of
different subjects that allows us to speak about the polyphonic novel as coexistence of
several equal subjects and, by extension, also ideas, of a choir of different voices.
Against the background of polyphony, Bakhtin has listed three interconnected
phenomena as first discovered by Dostoyevski: firstly; a new way of representing
people, according to which a human being is an alien consciousness of full and equal
rights and of full meaning that has not been set in the finishing frame of reality
( ,
) and the interpretation of which,
accordingly, is a dialogic process. Secondly, the representation of the independent
development of an idea that cannot be separated from personality not within the
framework of a philosophical or some other system, but as a human event. Thirdly,
dialogism as a particular form of mutual influences of consciousnesses with equal
rights and meanings (Bakhtin 1996: 340341). According to this, polyphony as a
whole is an artistic will to unite several single wills, a will to reach an event(
, ) (Bakhtin 2000b: 29).
From the point of view of cultural analysis it must be admitted that any culture
is analysable in a polylogic manner or as a polylogue due to its heterogeneity. But
already in Bakhtins logic an important principle is revealed the polylogue of a
culture cannot be analysed as a sum total of monologues, for culture as a whole
operates through dialogic relationships between monologues and a polylogue is thus an
intertwined phenomenon. What is necessary to understand this intertwining is studying
and understanding the space in which it takes place, the cultural space. And, within this
space, it is necessary to understand the situation that creates dialogue or is
accompanied by dialogue to understand the event or the text.

Culture has its own sign systems or languages on the basis of which the
members of the culture communicate. Thus, one possibility to understand a culture is
to learn the languages of the culture, the sign systems operating within the culture. The
languages of culture are, however, apt to change and their signs are ambiguous. Thus
another possibility remains to approach the culture via events and texts that bind
different sign systems, yet have a general meaning or theme that can be described.
Even on the level of an ordinary natural language Bakhtin already a long time
ago brought forth the semiotic polarity of meaningfulness. He signified the poles with
the notions of theme and meaning. Bakhtin called the theme the highest real boundary
of linguistic meaningfulness, for only a theme is defined. Accordingly, he called
meaning the lowest boundary of linguistic meaningfulness for meaning does not mean,
but is a potential, an ability to have meaning within the framework of a theme (Bakhtin
2000a: 435436).
Bakhtins scholarly reception is related to these two poles as well. A polylogic
approach to culture still gives priority to the coexistence of different (linguistic,
cultural, semiotic etc.) autonomies and observes the differences of differences. A
dialogic polylogism gives priority to links and mixing of autonomies; and, beside the
differing of differences, it also observes the differences between samenesses or the
sameness of differences. This has been called heterology by Tz. Todorov who has
declared in a fit of polemics, heterology that makes the differences between voices
audible, is necessary; polylogy is dull and empty (Todorov 1982). One of the first
people to introduce Bakhtin to the world at large, Julia Kristeva, has stressed the
ambivalence of Bakhtins system; considering the same poles, she juxtaposed the
polyphonic novel with Menippean satire as a heterologic phenomenon.
To explain heterology as a concept we should return to the time when Bakhtin
was most active. Some dozen years before Bakhtin introduced the concept of
polyphony, a dictionary of musical terms A Guide to Concerts by B. Asafyev (1919)
was published in Russia. This booklet, that has had considerable influence on the
metalinguistic thought of its period, defines several concepts of the theory of music as
general and theoretical ones. When it is read through the prism of Bakhtins works that
were to follow, also the notion of heterophony opens up in this way. Heterophony is
not yet polyphony in its developed (articulated) form, in which each voice has an
independent meaning, but one of the stages in the transition to polyphony (in which all
voices form an intricate horisontal complex that is moving and continuously

changing) ( ()
(, ) ,
, [...]
(
) (Asafjev 1978: 3132). Thus, if we proceed from this
logic, polyphony creates a vertical dimension, a dimension of diverse voices differing
from one another.
An ethnological description of culture or one deriving from cultural
anthropology is first and foremost polylogic, for it fixes the cultural languages that
differentiate themselves intelligibly (i.e. can be described) and these are described in an
autonomous way. This is what Clifford Geertz opposed. Semiotics of culture, however,
started to fill an important gap to describe the complexes, the intertwining of the
languages of culture. J. Lotman drew distinctions between two different processes in
his description of culture. One is the specialisation of languages of culture (e.g. as the
autonomy in culture of photography or film as the result of new technical
developments). Another is the integration of languages of culture, that can be marked
firstly by the appearance of metadescriptions and autometadescriptions (or cultures
attempt to make itself conscious through criticism, theory, the media etc.); and,
secondly, by creolisation (merging of cultural languages), starting from experimental
cases (the transitions between literature- theatre-film) to the mergings on the levels of
the high and the low, of style and stylelessness, of genre characteristics (Lotman 2000:
572575).
Against the background of Lotmans synthesis, synthesis on a new level is
important. The analysis based on the description of pure phenomena or polyphonic
analysis, and the analysis based on impure (mixed) phenomena or heterophonic analysis
complete each other. This happens both on the level of the culture itself, as well as on
the level of describing the culture. It is no accident that U. Eco in his preface to J.
Lotmans work titled Universe of the Mind that was published in the United States in
1990 mentioned that the most interesting moment occurred when Lotman took up
analysis of the creolization of cultural codes.
Thus it is inevitable to have the two possible types of analysis continuously in
mind. Restricting oneself to impure systems only will reach, in its extreme version,
postmodernist simulacra, such as J. Baudrillards concepts of transaesthetics (arbitrary
reception of a work of art), transpolitics (differences between parties and ideologies

that cannot be told apart), transsexuality (the loss of the sexual dominant in culture,
approaching the state of a robot or a dummy etc), transeconomics (loss of accounting
in economic processes) (Baudrillard 1990).
When Lotman wrote in Universe of the Mind that an elementary act of
thinking is translation (Lotman 1990: 143), he also took the following logical step,
stating that elementary mechanism of translating is dialogue (Lotman 1990: 143).
What I would like to contend is that the situation that has arisen in translation
studies is in many of its aspects also a situation concerned with the theory of culture.
This has been grasped in the semiotics of culture by introducing intersemiosis beside
the concept of semiosis. This is not a tautology. Also, apprehensive attitudes are
apparent in case of several scholars. M. Riffaterre who dedicated a whole article to the
defence of intertextuality against hypertextuality can serve as an eloquent example. In
the former notion he sees a programme and a system that can be made explicit, in the
latter he notices but arbitrary links. His fear that a lack of system will be studied as a
system is actually fear of complementariness (Riffaterre 1994).
The changing nature of boundaries within a culture requires twofold
competence from the scholar engaged in cultural analysis the ability to analyse
autonomous phenomena and the ability to analyse creolisation, and mixtures, for it is
the proportion between autonomy and creolisation that best explains the present state
of a culture and its dynamics. In the discipline of semiotics of culture it comes naturally
to say that culture is translation, and also that translation is culture. However, in the
present context it should be added that translation activity is also an activity that
explains the mechanisms of culture and that translation itself is a concept that is
extremely loaded methodologically. Still, the fact that translation as a concept is loaded
does not mean it is metaphorised. Translation and translating are concepts concurrent
with an active culture and allow us in the situation of the scarcity of culture theoretic
means to approach the essence of cultural mechanisms in a way that the analysis of
both translation and translating as well as culture are enriched.
It is possible to describe culture as an infinite process of total translation,
where 1) whole texts are translated into other whole texts (textual translation), 2)
whole texts are translated into culture as various metatexts (annotations, reviews,
studies, commentaries, parodies, etc.) supplementing text translation or relating a
certain text to culture (metatextual translation), 3) texts or text groups are translated

10

into text units (intextual and intertextual translation), 4)

texts made of one

substance (for example, verbal) are translated into texts made of other substance (for
example, audiovisual) (extratextual translation). On the one side, the process of total
translation reflects the peculiarities of text communication in culture. On the other side,
it can be seen as an aspect of auto-communication of culture (cf.: Both Pierce and
Lotman find that the fundamental activity of semiosis underlying all texts is autocommunication which involves the reformulating of the message through new codes
and thus new meanings.. Portis-Winner 1994: 164).
Intersemiotic translation in R.Jakobsons sense becomes associated with all
manifestations of total translation. It can be autonomous in the case of screen
adaptation and complementary in the case of illustration or a photo accompanying a
newspaper article, etc. This approach complicates a comparison between the source
text and the target text, since a novel, for example, presupposes inclusion into the
history of literature and a screen adaptation of the novel - inclusion into the history of
cinema. Thus, intersemiotic translation increases the number of parameters of the
evaluation of translating activity.
Intersemiotic translation reflects the features of contemporary culture, where
the own as well as alien texts are translated into different types of texts and, as a
matter of fact, become intertexts and the description of the existence of text in culture
requires a topological approach. At the same time the intertextual process is included
into the intermedia process, and every text not only generates its meaning in different
sign systems, but materialises in different media. It is the process of intersemiosis in
which texts in different sign systems coexist as different texts and at the same time
represent a certain text, against the background of which shifts and digressions in the
plane of content and the plane of expression are interpreted.
Intersemioticity is one of the principles of texts generation and,
correspondingly, description of intersemiotic translation brings us closer to the analysis
of texts generation in contemporary culture at all. Permanent interveawing of texts,
discourses and media, i.e. messages and meanings, takes place in culture. It might be
said that culture is a permanent process of intersemiotic translation and even usual
interlinguistic translation proves to belong to the possible world of semiosis.

11

The intersemiotic dimension of culture follows from the partial concurrence of

signs of languages (sign systems) of different arts, first, at the level of separate
existence of these languages and texts in these languages (for example, the case of
theatre and cinema), second, at the level of mental interference, or the existence of a
separate text simultaneously in the form of texts of different types (the novel, film,
performance, picture, etc.), third, at the level of text projection on the presuppositional
textual or intertextual background. For example, speaking of drama, M.Esslin
distinguishes between sign systems common to all dramatic media and sign systems
confined to cinema and television (Esslin 1987). In the framework of visual poetry,
intersign poetry with intersign semantics and syntax appears, where a graphic picture is
meaningless without a verbal game (Menezes 1997). In cinema, for example, one may
speak of the intertextual dialogue between French literature and new wave French
cinema, where the spectator is expected to be competent in literature (Kline 1992).
Thus describing the semiosis of culture it is important to keep in mind the necessity of
recognition of signs and that semiosis in some sense is perception (Allott 1994). And
this perceptual unity of culture makes a basis for understanding of interlinguisticality,
intertextuality, interdiscoursivity and intermediality, i.e. intersemiosity of sign ontology
of separate texts of culture.
The process of intersemiotic translation actualises the general feature of
cultural communication - flowing of any translation process between the two
intertextual worlds. But these worlds are reflected in textual worlds which have their
own borders and autonomy. To understand possibilities of translatability, the principal
forms of the existence of texts and audiences encoded in them it is useful to typologise
intersemiotic translations proceeding not from their variegated abundance, but from a
general model of the translation process. The model ensures also the unity of
description, since the most differing translations are comparable against the
background of the general model and one can evaluate the particularities and dynamics
of a certain culture or cultural situation basing on the interrelation of different types of
translation. In culture, preliminary reading, reading and re-reading are at the same time
listening and viewing. Therefore the notions of semiosis and intersemiosis being also
complementary allow to describe various phenomena.

12

References
Asafjev 1978 = , . (
). . 2-. : .
Bakhtin 1996 = , . . . 5. : .
2000a. , . . .
. . : .
2000b. , . . . 2. : .
Baudrillard, Jean 1990. La transparence du mal: Essai sur les phnomnes extrmes. Paris:
Galilee.
Bonafin, Massimo 1997. Typology of culture and carnival: Note on the models of Bachtin and
Lotman. Russian Literature 41(3): 255268.
Danow, David K. 1991. The Thought of Mikhail Bakhtin: From Word to Culture. Houndmills:
Macmillan.
De Michiel, Margherita 1999. Mikhail M. Bakhtin: Prolegomena to a theory of translation.
European Journal for Semiotic Studies 11(4): 687698.
Eco, Umberto 1990. Introduction. In: Lotman 1990: 713.
2001. Experiences in Translation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Emerson, Caryl 1993. Translating Bakhtin: Does his theory of discourse contain a theory of
translation? Revue de lUniversit dOttawa 53(11): 1122.
Geertz, Clifford 1993. The Interpretation of Cultures Selected Essays. London: Fontana Press.
Holmes, James S. 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Jakobson, Roman 1971. On linguistic aspects of translation. In: Jakobson, R., Selected
Writings. 2. Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, ????.
1971a. Language in relation to other communication systems. In: Jakobson, R., Selected
Writings. 2. Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, 697708.
Lachmann 1995 = , . /
. In: , . . (), .
: -, 192213.
Lotman, Yuri M. 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: I. B.
Tauris.
2000. , . . -: -.
Popovic, Anton 1975. Problmy literrnej metakomunikcie: Teria metatextu. Nitra:
KLKEM.
Riffaterre, Michael 1994. Intertextuality vs. hypertextuality. New Literary History 25: 779
788.
Robel 1995 = , . .
11: 3741.
Segers, Rien T. 2000. The cultural turn: The importance of the concept cultural identity. In:
Geest, D. de; Graef, O. de; Delabastita, D.; Geldof, K.; Ghesquire, R.; Lambert, J.
(eds.), Under Construction: Links for the Site of Literary Theory (Essays in Honour
of Hendrik van Gorp). Leuven: Leuven University Press, 367388.
Shukman, Ann 1989. Semiotics of culture and the influence of M. M. Bakhtin. In:
Eimermacher, Karl; Grzybek, Peter; Witte, Georg (eds.), Issues in Slavic Literary and
Cultural Theory. Bochum: Universittsverlag Dr. Norbert Brockmeyer, 193207.
Todorov, Tzvetan 1982. La conqute de lAmrique: La question de lautre. Paris: ditions du
Seuil.
Torop 1995 = , . . rtu: Tartu University Press.
Torop, Peeter 2000. La traduzione totale. Modena: Guaraldi Logos.
Toury, Gideon 1986. Translation. In: Sebeok, Thomas (ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of
Semiotics, vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 11071124.
Venuti, Lawrence 1998. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference.
London: Routledge.

13

14