Crosscultural Transgressions

Research Models in Translation Studies II

Historical and Ideological Issues

Edited by

Theo Hermans
First published 2002 by St. Jerome Publishing

Published 2014 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, NewYork, NY 10017, USA

Rautledge is an imprint af the Taylar & Prancis Group, an infarma business

© Theo Hermans and Contributors 2002

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or
by any electronic, mechanical, or other me ans, now known or he re after invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience
broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical
treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In
using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of
others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assurne any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

ISBN 13: 978-1-900650-47-2 (pbk)

Cover design by
Steve Fieldhouse, Oldham, UK

Typeset by
Delta Typesetters, Cairo, Egypt

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record ofthis book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Crosscultural transgressions : research models in Translation Studies II: historical and
ideological issues I edited by Theo Hermans.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 1-900650-47-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)
1. Translating and interpreting--Research--Methodology. 1. Hermans, Theo.
P306.5 .C76 2002
418'.02'072 - dc21
2001006630
Contents
Preface 1
Theo Hermans

Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 9

Research Methods in Translation Studies
Maria Tymoczko

The Quest for an Eclectic Methodology of Translation Description 26

Edoardo Crisajulli

What Texts Don't Tell 44

The Uses of Paratexts in Translation Research
$ehnaz Tahir-Gür<;aglar

Translation Principle and the Translator's Agenda 61

A Systemic Approach to Yan Fu
Elsie Chan

Systems in Translation 76
A Systemic Model for Descriptive Translation Studies
Jeremy Munday

A Model of Structuralist Constructivism in Translation Studies 93

Jean-Marc Gouanvic

Translatability between Paradigms 103

Gramsci's Translation of Crocean Concepts
Derek Boothman

Translation as Terceme and Nazire 120

Culture-bound Concepts and their Implications for
a Conceptual Framework for Research on Ottoman
Translation History
Saliha Paker

Power and Ideology in Translation Research 144

in Twentieth-Century China
An Analysis of Three Seminal Works
Martha Cheung
Tlaloe Roars 165
Native Ameriea, the West and Literary Translation
Gordon Brotherston

Culture as Translation - and Beyond 180

Ethnographie Models of Representation in Translation Studies
Michaela Wolf

A 'Multilingual'and 'International' Translation Studies? 193

$ebnem Susam-Sarajeva

Notes on Contributors 208

Index 211
Preface
Poor Holmes! Intrigued by what others overlooked, he gathered his evidence into
a speculative but coherent whole, a bold and lucid vision which he set down
in crisp, disciplined paragraphs. The construction had everything going for it. An
object of inquiry had presented itself, a critical mass of hungry investigators was
itching to take it on, all that was needed was a sense of purpose and a sound meth-
odology. That was what the vision fleshed out. In 1972 Holmes wrote it up, in an
elegant essay that has come to be seen as one of the founding documents of
the emergent discipline of translation studies. ‘The Name and Nature of Transla-
tion Studies’ outlined a branch of the human sciences that would combine
observation and explanation, description and prediction, fieldwork and theory.
The discipline would systematically quarry, catalogue, document and explicate the
phenomena of translation.
Perhaps the discipline lacked discipline. Maybe it proved too rich for its own
good. Or the climate changed. At any rate, while the study of translation received a
momentous boost from Holmes’ pioneering blueprint, it did not develop along the
measured lines of accumulation and progression he foresaw. The explosive growth
of interest in translation in recent decades has brought in its wake a proliferation of
types and areas of research. Translation studies today look more varied and volatile
than Holmes can ever have imagined. Even the discipline’s name is now less as-
sured than it once seemed, as at one end the field embraces travel, sign language
and intercultural pragmatics while on the other ‘translation’ has come to encompass
all forms of crosscultural and intracultural negotiation.
Like its companion volume (Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Trans-
lation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited by Maeve Olohan), the present
collection charts old and new territory. It deals with research in translation, its na-
ture, aims, range, procedures, contexts and modalities. The focus is more specifically
on historical and ideological issues, from epistemological questions of historiography
to the politics of language – often in combination. The aim is to offer a sampling of
approaches and case studies that, together, reflect innovative directions in and raise
pertinent questions about current translation research.
The volume falls into roughly two parts. The first part (chapters 1-7) is primarily
concerned with elaborating and updating the methodological toolbox of translation
description and history. In part two (chapters 8-12) issues of ideology are more in
the foreground. There is no sharp dividing line separating the two halves. Both
parts tackle not just the question how to do research on translation, but some of the
underlying issues as well: why certain questions are asked, who asks them, with
what aim, in which language, and why that matters.
What all the contributions have in common is a strong self-reflexive element.
The heart-searching and self-examination have as their object both the speculations
2 Crosscultural Transgressions

about methodology and the more politicized scrutiny of the institutional positioning
of research and scholarship, but they extend to the epistemology of representation –
which here includes the representations produced by translators and by those who
write on translation.
All the essays are also mindful of their desire to capture the unphotographable:
assumptions and motivations, relations and agency, the social and intellectual forces
which elude direct observation and must be inferred. Much attention is paid to this
process of triangulation and its conditioning, to the reporting of findings and inter-
pretations, and to the constructed nature of the ensuing edifice. They know, too, the
limitations of research models and frameworks. Paradigms have their blind spots,
and conceal as much as they reveal.
Maria Tymoczko’s linking of micro-level and macro-level investigation serves
as a reminder not only of the perennial problem of marrying texts with contexts – so
simple in theory, so hard in practice – but also of the expanding purview of transla-
tion research, for which the micro is becoming miniaturized and the macro a matter
of geopolitics. In rehearsing the ground rules of scholarly research, Tymoczko throws
dictionary definitions of ‘hypothesis’ and ‘theory’ at the reader, stresses such things
as clarity of focus and replicability of procedure, and recalls that research is con-
ducted within certain paradigms. But she goes much further. She acknowledges the
social positioning of researchers and the institutional constraints within which trans-
lation research is conducted. In this respect she takes note of those other eminently
crosscultural disciplines, anthropology and ethnography, and the crisis of represen-
tation as experienced there in recent decades – a key event also referred to in Michaela
Wolf’s contribution (chapter 12).
That crisis – how to offer a representation of a cultural practice without doing
violence to it – has led to ironic modes of academic writing. The irony stems from
the awareness of transgression, from the knowledge that any representation is com-
promised and therefore problematic, but that we cannot do without representations.
It is an irony that pervades not only ethnography but also such disciplines as
historiography, sociology and critical linguistics. In a crosscultural field like
translation studies, the material we work on consists of representations of texts in
other codes, languages, scripts, traditions, thought-worlds; in turn, our studies offer
representations of those representations. The appreciation of the problematic
nature of representation feeds a self-reflexive stance, the translation scholar’s criti-
cal double.
Edoardo Crisafulli’s meta-level discussion, straddling theory and methodol-
ogy, testifies to the continuing quest for a viable framework for historical research.
Sceptical of hasty generalizations and the idea of detached observation dear to much
descriptive work, Crisafulli aims at a reassessment of descriptive studies and argues
for what he calls ‘historical empiricism’, which seeks to combine descriptivism and
hermeneutics, the quantitative and the qualitative, the historical and the political,
the empirical and the ideological. Such a form of eclecticism, he suggests, will be
Hermans: Preface 3

able to do justice to the unique occurrence, the special case, that which is histori-
cally significant but does not fall into a pattern – the singular, the creative – not at
the expense of the transindividual but as a complement to it. Like Jeremy Munday
(chapter 5), Crisafulli is willing to see his proposals put to the test and ends up with
a actual checklist.
Ôehnaz Tahir-Gürça—lar is similarly preoccupied with issues of methodol-
ogy and historiography. Her investigation of translation norms as manifested in
twentieth-century Turkish renderings from European languages has led to a par-
ticular interest in the paratexts of translation. The essay brings Gérard Genette’s
terminology to bear on the matter, but not after a critical disagreement in which
Tahir-Gürça—lar takes issue with Genette’s characterization of translations as
paratexts and thus as subordinate – a view she regards as unnecessarily restrictive.
Tahir-Gürça—lar’s study illustrates the potential that paratexts offer for research.
Their assertions and judgements, their covert and overt polemics, their very vo-
cabularies are indicative of the way the nature, function and boundaries of translation
are perceived, and thus allow the researcher to construct the underlying conceptions
of translation. At the same time, the paratexts shed light on the sociocultural world
in which the texts were produced.
Insofar as scholarly comments also live paratextually off original and translated
texts, Tahir-Gürça—lar pays heed to the implications of the descriptive terminology
used by the researcher. Genette distinguishes, for example, between authorial and
allographic prefaces; the former are written by the author of the book in question,
the other by a third party. As Tahir-Gürça—lar astutely notes, calling a translator’s
preface ‘allographic’ disempowers that translator as the authorial voice of the trans-
lated text. The terms of our descriptions release more than just descriptions.
Elsie Chan’s essay about the Chinese translator Yan Fu takes its cue from Even-
Zohar’s polysystem theory, but builds equally on André Lefevere’s work on
patronage, ideology and institutions. The aim however is not to confirm or disprove
the validity of a theoretical apparatus but to use elements of it to prise open the
social, political and cultural environment of Yan Fu’s famous three terms describ-
ing the requirements of good translation. The essay focusses on agency, in the form
of the complex interplay between the translator’s agenda and the social and cultural
forces around it. Where the range of meanings of Yan Fu’s terms, their historical
echoes and their interrelations are at stake, Chan is mindful that writing about this
in English brings its own problems of translation and representation.
Jeremy Munday’s article, which takes up Maria Tymoczko’s emphasis on sys-
tematic and replicable studies, is entirely methodological. Munday operates close to
Gideon Toury’s vision of descriptive studies as following a set of explicit analytical
procedures. In this respect he continues the tradition of Kitty van Leuven-Zwart,
combining a clearly defined linguistic model with more interpretive moves. Like
Van Leuven-Zwart, Munday derives his linguistic arsenal from Halliday’s systemic-
functional grammar, but his tool is not restricted to narrative texts and it avoids both
4 Crosscultural Transgressions

the formal identification of units of comparison and the pigeon-holing of transla-

tion shifts that made Van Leuven-Zwart’s model conceptually problematic as well
as cumbersome to apply. Another advance on Van Leuven-Zwart is Munday’s flex-
ible deployment of computer technology and corpus linguistics to take care of
number-crunching and suggest aspects that might repay closer examination. It also
goes beyond previous models in its attempt to tie description to explanation, draw-
ing on political and sociocultural contexts to supply motivations and reasons for the
patterns observed. Not only is the model fully illustrated with an analysis of a text
by Gabriel García Márquez in three English translations, but Munday, like Crisafulli,
provides checklists to facilitate further applications and testing.
The sociocultural context which Munday incorporates into his model but does
not elaborate, receives detailed attention in Jean-Marc Gouanvic’s approach.
Gouanvic builds on Pierre Bourdieu’s cultural sociology, indeed his Sociologie de
la traduction (1999) is the major example of a Bourdieu-inspired brand of transla-
tion studies to date. The essay in the present collection serves as an introduction to
Bourdieu’s key concepts of habitus, field and trajectory, heuristic tools which are
here illustrated with a case study of two twentieth-century French translators of
American fiction. An unusual feature of Gouanvic’s historical analyses is that they
are process-oriented or, more precisely, production-oriented. Their focus is on the
shaping of specific translations, texts which emerge with a certain form, at a certain
moment, in a certain context, as the outcome of singular trajectories. The question
of agency resurfaces here, as the concepts of habitus and trajectory connect the
individual translator’s actions with the social forces that make up the field in which
he or she operates. For all their differences, Gouanvic has much in common with
Crisafulli in that both are in search of explanatory models to relate the individual to
the collective and the singular to the social and historical context.
For Derek Boothman, translation happens not just between different natural
languages but also intralingually between theoretical or conceptual frameworks,
that is, between paradigms. The case in point is Antonio Gramsci translating terms
and concepts from the idealist philosophy of his compatriot Benedetto Croce into
his own Marxist frame of thought. Even the terms denoting the two ‘languages’
involved are fluid: Gramsci also speaks of translating from speculative into histori-
cist or ‘realist historicist’ language. Interestingly, the process can be viewed in both
directions, as Gramsci equally regards Croce’s philosophy as the ‘retranslation’ into
idealist terms of the ‘realist historicism’ of his own Marxist philosophy of praxis.
In patiently scrutinizing how Croce’s concept of ethico-political history is as-
similated into Gramsci’s notion of historical block, and how Croce’s dialectic of
‘distincts’ is rendered applicable to Gramsci’s discourse about levels of the super-
structure, Boothman makes it clear that what we are witnessing is not a matter of
matching term for term and concept for concept, but a complex philosophical and
ideological negotiation whereby the other’s terms and concepts are not just renamed
but inspected, reinterpreted, criticized, rearranged and relocated in a different
Hermans: Preface 5

intellectual idiom and tradition. As Boothman is at pains to stress, terms are embed-
ded in conceptual structures, which are themselves historical entities. Gramsci himself
raises the issue of homology in this connection. While translation between ho-
mologous structures or systems may be possible, structures that are not homologous
present serious problems of commensurability and hence translatability. On a dif-
ferent note Boothman reminds us that for Gramsci translation comprises an
experiential side. Translating is a act of engagement. The hermeneutics of under-
standing requires more than a coldly intellectual routine, it calls for commitment,
respect and, as Gramsci puts it, feeling.
Gramsci’s labour of translation could stand as a prototype for the crosstemporal
and interparadigmatic translation of the concepts and vocabulary of translation
and translation studies. This becomes especially evident in Saliha Paker’s essay.
At one level this is a study in historical semantics, preoccupied as it is with the
meanings of various Ottoman terms denoting practices that seem to correspond to
‘translation’and ‘imitation’. But it goes beyond that. In its search for reasons why
certain aspects of Ottoman cultural history have received such scant attention from
scholars, the essay delves into the institutional and therefore the political and ideo-
logical determinants of modern Turkish scholarship and research. On an
epistemological level it recognizes that the modern academic study of translation,
as a product of the contemporary world and of certain intellectual traditions, nec-
essarily operates with particular, culture-bound concepts of translation – which
however do not automatically equip us to deal with the extent of past practices
and their attendant metalanguages. Those practices may show family resemblances
with latter-day concepts of translation, paraphrase, imitation, but they cannot be
reduced to them, and they cluster differently in the contemporary metadiscourses.
On top of this comes the matter of the reporting language. Like the majority of
contributors to the present volume, Paker is alive to the ironies of articulating in
English the cultural tradition she feels part of. She has to translate the historical
terms handed down by the primary material as well as the nuances and distinctions
pertaining to those terms, and the vocabulary employed by modern Turkish scholar-
ship to cover them. In what language is ‘translation’ to be understood, and what
does it translate? The issue has a political as well as an epistemological face. Paker
knows the need for ‘frontloading’ – the term is Tymoczko’s, and Ôebnem Susam-
Sarajeva (chapter 12) will take it up: writing in English about Turkish imposes a
need to provide basic background information in a manner and to a degree that does
not apply to some of the more visible western cultures English-language scholar-
ship regards as its ‘normal’ theatre of operations. The choice of a disciplinary vehicle
reveals asymmetries of power between languages.
Paker’s forays into the multilingual world of Ottoman culture also lead her to
challenge the comfortable equation of one culture, one nation, one language – the
ground for the binarism that used to dominate a translation studies given to thinking
in discrete terms of sources here, targets there, and translations speeding from one
6 Crosscultural Transgressions

to the other. Instead, she tries to get a grip on her material via the fuzzier concept of
a hybrid intercultural contact zone where several languages and a variety of literary
forms of different provenance and allegiance intermingle.
Like Saliha Paker’s, Martha Cheung’s article is concerned with the forces act-
ing on translation research as much as those acting on translation itself. Cheung
extracts the political subtext from three central moments in the discipline’s insti-
tutional history in China. Her tack is political in more respects than one. Apart
from unpacking the ideological load of scholarly work, she flags up the immediate
context – Hong Kong’s return to Chinese sovereignty in 1997 – which makes it
imperative for her to push politics to the top of her agenda.
This conscious self-positioning supports the interpretive effort. The three texts
Cheung examines do not flaunt their political message, it has to be teased out by
means of a focussed reading and pertinent contextualization. Once the angle has
been set, she is able to discern agency in translation research, reading the appar-
ently sedate work of scholars and philologists as ideologically charged interventions
in the institutional and sociocultural formations from which it springs and to which
it returns.
Gordon Brotherston’s essay is an eye-opener of a different order. With refer-
ence to two specific pre-Cortesian examples Brotherston demonstrates the
challenge which Native American scripts pose even the specialist interpreter. They
defy linear reading. They are coded and relate to their world in ways utterly unfa-
miliar to most modern readers. They should make translation scholars sit up and
think. How much can be taken for granted about forms of information storage
and transmission, about modes of meaning generation? It may no longer be the
case that most of what is said and written today about translation is based on a
handful of Indo-European languages and alphabetic scripts, but the complexities of
notation and expression manifested in these Native American texts alert us to di-
mensions well beyond the assumptions underpinning vast swathes of current
translation research.
There are other lessons to be learnt. Deciphering visual texts and attempting
to convey in, say, English, what they state in their own notation, would seem to
be eminently a form of translation. If so, claims about so-called universals and
laws of translation – the laws of explicitation, simplification, standardization –
begin to look bewilderingly thin, and betray their over-reliance on a painfully re-
stricted range of text types, time-frames and scripts. In this respect too
Brotherston’s article should prove salutory. The implications of an engagement
with documents like these are, again, political as well as linguistic, cultural and
philosophical. It is hard to remain blind to the reasons why so few documents of this
nature survive and why so little is known about the traditions that produced them.
Michaela Wolf engages with the overlap between ethnography and translation
in the context of postcolonial theory, deconstruction and cultural studies. Harking
back to the ‘writing culture’ debate among anthropologists in the 1980s, she homes
Hermans: Preface 7

in on the representation of ‘otherness’ by both ethnographers and translators, and

on the filters of language, discourse and power such representations bring into play.
The theoretical frame in which Wolf considers these questions seeks to escape the
dead weight of binary distinctions and work instead with more fluid, non-essentialist,
dynamic categories: the ‘self’ is continually being constituted in a syncretic process
of intertextuality and transformation, and culture is thought of as pluricentric and
the outcome of constant negotiation – indeed of translation. In this context it is the
itinerary travelled, the route towards the representation that gains prominence and
becomes the site of reflection and interest, just as such provisional, unstable, fuzzy
notions as the ‘in-between’ or Homi Bhabha’s ‘third space’ become sites of enuncia-
tion. Studying translation in accordance with these models demands more than attention
to issues of context and power. It places an onus on researchers to recognize the
constructed nature of their own discursive representations, the location of their re-
search, and the implications of their selection and handling of texts and topics.
Critical consciousness-raising of this type accompanies a great deal of contem-
porary scholarly research and reporting in the wake of gender and postcolonial
studies. It also informs Ôebnem Susam-Sarajeva’s article, which fixes on the poli-
tics of intellectual discourse in the global market place. The asymmetric power
relations between the world’s languages of scholarship privilege centres rather than
peripheries. As in the economic sphere, peripheries supply raw materials – objects
of intellectual curiosity – while the terms of the trade – academic standards, pres-
tigious degrees, allegedly universal models – are decided in the centre. As
Susam-Sarajeva shows, language is only one aspect of this imbalance. Theories,
methodologies, paradigms tend to be exported from the centre, imported by the
periphery; they enhance their range and validity by being tested out first in ‘famil-
iar’ then in ‘exotic’ conditions. The postcolonial world however is one where the
superiority of western models and modes of thought no longer goes unchallenged –
even if, ironically, the challenge may need a language like English to secure inter-
national resonance.
A translation studies that was truly international and multilingual would resist
the dominance of a single disciplinary language. It would thereby gain in depth
and diversity, and thus in intellectual vigour. It would be a discipline committed
not just to translation but to translating. It would translate itself, deliberately,
passionately.

Theo Hermans
8 Crosscultural Transgressions

References

Holmes, James (1988) ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’ [1972], in his
Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam:
Rodopi, 67-80.
Olohan, Maeve (ed) (2000) Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation
Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, Manchester: St Jerome.
Connecting the Two Infinite Orders
Research Methods in Translation Studies
MARIA TYMOCZKO

Abstract: Using as an analogy the seventeenth-century crisis of knowledge

spurred by the development of the telescope and the microscope, this paper
argues that a similar crisis in knowledge itself has occurred with the
intellectual developments of the twentieth century. Two new infinite orders
have opened up: the virtually inexhaustible possibilities suggested by
segmenting texts into smaller and smaller units, and the equally inexhaustible
possibilities offered by the relationship of texts to layer upon layer of context.
Translation studies reflect the new shift in the debate between those who
assert the preeminence of linguistic approaches to translation and those
who advocate primarily cultural studies approaches to translation. This
article argues for research methods that combine both approaches, offering
examples of how such research should proceed in translation studies.

The history of optics and optical engineering is a long and complex one. To the
ancients, vision and the principles of image formation were mysterious, with debate
engaged about whether something moved from the object seen to the eye, or from
the eye to the object seen.1 By the early medieval period, pragmatics had advanced,
and simple lenses were in use as magnifiers; some centuries later, by the fourteenth
century, eyeglasses had been developed. From the use of simple lenses for magnifi-
cation, however, it was more than a thousand years until the first compound
microscope was invented in about 1590 by Zacharias Janssen, a young Dutch lad,
together with his father, makers of spectacles. Though it gave only small magnifica-
tion, their invention paved the way for all subsequent investigations depending on
optics, from our understandings of the minute workings of both animate and inani-
mate matter to our knowledge of the cosmos.
In Middelburg in the year 1608, together with Hans Lippershey, Zacharias Janssen
also made the first telescope. A year later, in 1609, Galileo learned of the invention,
and himself constructed a telescope with threefold magnification, soon improving
its magnification to the power of 32. Galileo was a mathematician who by then had
already made great discoveries regarding the laws of motion; although he had be-
come convinced of the Copernican model of the universe (namely that the planets
revolve around the sun) early in his career, he had been deterred from avowal of the
theory by lack of positive proof and by fear of ridicule. In 1609 Galileo turned his

1
For additional background on the references to optics and to Galileo in this essay, see Drake
(1980) and Encyclopedia Britannica (15th ed.) entries on ‘Galileo’, ‘Medicine, History of’, ‘Op-
tical Engineering’, and ‘Optics, Principles of’.
10 Crosscultural Transgressions

telescope to the skies to observe astronomical bodies, the first person to do so in

part because he had devised a method of checking the curvature of the lenses he
used, thus permitting sufficient accuracy of resolution for astronomical observa-
tion. By the end of 1609, he began announcing a major series of discoveries, including
the mountains of the moon, the satellites of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, the rings
of Saturn, and sunspots (which he showed were on the rotating sun), all of which
validated the Copernican theory.
In 1610 Galileo discovered a means of adapting his telescope to the examination
of minute objects, but he only became acquainted with the compound microscope
in 1624 when he saw one in Rome. With characteristic ingenuity, he introduced
several improvements in the construction of the microscope. He was the first to lay
stress on the value of measurement in this science, replacing theory and guesswork
with accuracy. In fact, Galileo’s most far-reaching achievement was perhaps the
re-establishment of mathematical rationalism against Aristotle’s logico-verbal
approach, insisting that the “Book of Nature is written in mathematical charac-
ters”, thus laying the foundation of the modern experimental method.2 This
emphasis on measurement in all scientific observation effaced the distinction
that had been drawn between methods appropriate to cosmic realms and the
sublunary realm of humanity.
The telescope was used by Galileo to challenge dominant theories of the cosmic
order, and this in turn undermined accepted theological doctrines. Ultimately Gali-
leo was summoned to Rome, tried by the Inquisition, ordered to recant and forced
to spend the last eight years of his life under house arrest. The Jesuits perceived the
danger of his scientific methods and discoveries, insisting to the Pope that Galileo’s
doctrines could have worse consequences for the established system “than Luther
and Calvin put together”.3 Thus, in the seventeenth century, the invention of the
microscope and the telescope precipitated a crisis of knowledge that went far be-
yond optics. The domains of both science and religion were exploded as people
attempted to integrate the realms opened by the new scientific tools into pre-
existing structures of thought.
In some ways the extent of the crisis is not altogether surprising. In Indo-
European languages knowledge has always been connected with sight and vision,
with the same lexical roots giving rise to words in both domains. To see is to know.
In the second half of the seventeenth century, Pascal wrote about the shattering
implications of these new realms of vision, referring to them as “les deux infinis”
(‘the two infinities’) in his Pensées in 1670, and arguing in ‘Misère de l’homme
sans Dieu’ (1690) that without God, man could be at best miserable and lost be-
tween these two infinities of existence, knowledge and vision. Jonathan Swift’s

2
Cf. Encyclopedia Britannica 7.851; Drake 1980: 70.
3
Encyclopedia Britannica 7.852.
Tymoczko: Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 11

Gulliver’s Travels (1726) owes something to the optical discoveries of the seven-
teenth century, projecting man into both gigantic and minuscule realms, and in 1752
Voltaire played on the two infinities in his story Micromégas, with his gigantic hero
from Sirius adventuring in smaller and smaller orders of magnitude, of which the
smallest he can apprehend is that of our own. Despite such imaginative explora-
tions of the issues during the Enlightenment, one sees traces of the religious crisis
and anxiety precipitated by the two infinities well into the nineteenth century. The
intellectual crisis caused by the developments in optics was, thus, long lasting, tak-
ing three centuries to resolve, and its solutions set the terms of our own scientific
inquiry and contemporary religious frameworks.
I take my title from this cultural crisis caused by optics, which I have elaborated
upon at some length here, because I believe that something very similar has hap-
pened in the last century or so in the realm of the humanities and the social sciences.
The analogy with the earlier development of knowledge is appropriate for several
reasons. First, of course, the revolution that has happened in our time has been
modeled upon the earlier scientific revolution. Scientific attitudes and methods that
can be traced to the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, epitomized by
Galileo’s dictum about the Book of Nature being written in mathematical charac-
ters, have come to characterize the social sciences and increasingly the humanities
as well, from linguistics and history to literary studies. The humanities and social
sciences also live by metaphors from optics, metaphors like ‘the universe of dis-
course’ that is used to contextualize social interactions or the prefixes ‘micro-’ and
‘macro-’ used routinely by everyone from economists to those who analyze poetics.
More importantly, from the earlier revolution in knowledge we have learned to
see – and hence to know – differently in all fields. To turn more narrowly to the
subject at hand, with the explosion of knowledge in both linguistics and social
theory, for example, it is no longer possible to approach any text in a simple or
unproblematized manner, least of all translations which de facto link two languages
and two cultures. In a sense two new infinite orders have opened up: the virtually
inexhaustible possibilities suggested by segmenting texts into smaller and smaller
linguistic units, and the equally inexhaustible possibilities suggested by the rela-
tionship of texts to layer upon layer of context, including the context of other texts.
Moreover, as in the seventeenth-century crisis of knowledge, we have come to rec-
ognize that there are more than one equally valid ways to see and describe the same
phenomena, depending on intellectual context.
An example from the natural sciences will illustrate my meaning here. The bio-
logical and chemical descriptions of the workings of an organism complement each
other – becoming increasingly inseparable in fact – and are complemented in turn
by taxonomy and naturalist descriptions. Thus in the realm of biology, we could
have many different but equally valid descriptions of the entity wolf, including the
following. There is wolf from the viewpoint of physiological description, looking at
the animal as a biological system. There is wolf from the viewpoint of chemical and
12 Crosscultural Transgressions

biochemical descriptions, giving a chemical breakdown of the composition of its

body or a description of its physiological systems in terms of biochemical pro-
cesses. There is wolf from the viewpoint of taxonomic descriptions, setting the animal
in the context of other canines, carnivores, and so forth. And there is wolf as the
naturalists or ecologists would describe the animal, setting it in the context of the
environment it inhabits. In the same way we approach social and humanistic do-
mains with the recognition that data can be viewed and described in valid ways
from a variety of perspectives, with a variety of tools. Different fields or disciplines
offer different ways of seeing, conceiving and knowing phenomena that are not
competitive but mutually enlightening and reinforcing.
If we look at the domains opened up by turning a microscope on language, so to
speak, we would have to include fields such as the following. There would be phon-
ics and phonetics, with their insights about phonemes, allophones, and other aspects
of phonology. New prospects have opened up in morphology and syntax, including
the insights offered by transformational grammar about surface and deep structures
of language. The field of semantics has burgeoned, developing indispensable con-
cepts and tools, not the least of which pertain to semantic fields and sense relations
in languages. Awareness and analysis of the varieties of language have deepened,
sensitizing us to features not only of socioeconomic and geographic dialects, but
linguistic registers and specialized languages as well. Greater understanding has
developed of the maintenance and persistence of linguistic norms, as well as varia-
tion from and evolution of such norms. These various domains have in turn found
expression in comparative linguistics, spurring inquiry about the ways that lan-
guages differ in these various respects. Obviously this is a very cursory and
representative survey of the fields developed for the microscopic linguistic analysis
of texts, and I’m sure that I’ve omitted some essential domain near and dear to the
heart of every reader. They illustrate, however, how these microscopic analyses of
language have opened up our understanding of the activity that is most paradig-
matically human in ways that are not only more profound but also characterized by
greater and greater degrees of delicacy.
When we turn to the macroscopic investigations of language and text – those
that can be seen by turning a telescope on the larger and larger contexts of a text and
of humanity, so to speak – the explosion of knowledge has been equally impressive.
Increasingly the specifics of language can be seen in ever widening contexts includ-
ing the following. Both semiotics and semiology have approached human language
as a system of signs that can be located within other systems of signs and within
larger contexts of communication and cognition as well. Sociolinguistics has ex-
plored functional aspects of language, including linguistic practices pertaining to
gender and class. Study of the illocutionary force of utterances (or speech acts) and
questions of modality have illuminated the relationship between language and still
other social practices. The study of literacy practices and of orality and oral literature
Tymoczko: Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 13

has shed light on many facets of the relationship between oral and written language,
as well as oral and written cultures. Exploration of discourses has opened up the
relationship of language to structures of knowledge and social organization, includ-
ing hierachies and power relations. Investigations pertaining to intertextuality have
explored the relationship of texts to texts, showing how the context of textuality
itself shapes both the production and reception of texts. And systems analyses have
shown the relationship of text to multiple social contexts (including materialist con-
ditions, economics, governments, ideologies, and so forth), unpacking the relationship
of textual practices and textual systems to many other cultural and social contexts.
Again this is only a cursory survey of a few of the new perspectives and tools that
have developed in the last century and that are representative of the possibilities of
macroscopic investigations of texts.
Important areas of inquiry have also emerged that combine both micro- and
macro-perspectives and that are informed by both modes of analysis. Thus, for ex-
ample, the understanding of language and texts has been affected by such domains
as the field of language acquisition – a field with both microscopic and macro-
scopic dimensions – which has investigated the linguistic mechanics of language
acquisition as well as the sociolinguistic aspects of the process. The radical shifts
in ways that meaning is modelled is another such domain that combines both
micro- and macro-approaches, from the Whorfian hypothesis that has led to an
understanding of how a person’s language community influences the very struc-
tures of perception, with the ensuing implication that meaning is language specific,
to the philosophical revolution in the modeling of meaning as other than a Platonic
relationship between word and object, in favor of theories of reference, truth value,
language games, and so forth. And, of course, anthropology and folklore have
drawn on both microscopic and macroscopic approaches to language and text, in
turn influencing each other.
It should be noted here that there are differences as well as similarities between
the two revolutions in knowledge that I am discussing. One difference is that the
revolution of the last century has generated much less anxiety than the revolution
that began in the seventeenth century. Largely because the second revolution built
upon the earlier scientific revolution that had been in process for three hundred
years, it has been experienced more as a birthright than a threat. Moreover, the
earlier revolution in optics had essentially two tools – the microscope and telescope,
one each for micro- and macro-investigations. It took centuries to develop exten-
sions of these primary tools – the electron microscope and radio telescope, for
example. But in this more recent revolution in humanistic knowledge and the social
sciences, whole classes of tools have been developed for the investigation of the
most minute and the largest phenomena, as the listings above indicate. In a very
short time, multiple intellectual tools have been generated for viewing and under-
standing the humanities and social sciences, tools that sometimes even, paradoxically,
seem to compete and overlap in their domains.
14 Crosscultural Transgressions

The seventeenth-century revolution in optics differs in yet another respect from

the current situation. One conception of the old infinite orders can be seen in some
treatments of the theme: the belief that at every order of magnitude, the same world
organization would be replicated. So in a drop of water there might be a solar sys-
tem or galaxy like that of our own, with the minute inhabitants of that galaxy facing
the sorts of issues that we ourselves face. Conversely, our galaxy at times could be
conceived of as being akin to a drop of water in a larger universe, where again the
social arrangements were played out on a larger scale. By contrast, we have learned
in the intervening time that there is generally no such replication as we change
orders of magnitude. Instead phenomena seen from different orders of magnitude
generate multiple descriptions and varying data; thus, the investigation of things
from different perspectives is not only useful, but essential, with as a goal a unified
field that can link these varied orders of magnitude and the descriptive materials
they generate.
Clearly translation studies reflects this recent revolution in social and humanist
knowledge. The proliferation of scholarship in translation studies can be correlated
with the development of these various new fields and their approaches to language,
texts and culture, and the extension of their insights to the processes and products
of translation. Indeed, almost every development pertaining to language or text has
some relevance to translation studies. Moreover, because translation studies involves
not only theory but practice, it has been fertile ground for applications of both lin-
guistic and contextual approaches to texts; not surprisingly, applied versions of most
of the various proliferating perspectives on language, text and culture have ap-
peared within translation studies. In turn, scholars inside and out of translation studies
have come to realize that translation could offer important data that could be used to
test emerging theoretical structures in many domains touched by this new revolu-
tion in knowledge. Such scholars and theoreticians range from W.V.O. Quine to
Homi Bhabha.
This more recent revolution in knowledge, with its two new infinite orders, is
also at the heart of the debate in translation studies about the validity of linguistic
approaches versus cultural studies approaches to translation. Ironically we can
say that those in translation studies who assert the exclusive validity of either
approach are in the position of seventeenth-century scientists who might have
asserted the exclusive validity of the perspective offered by either the microscope
or the telescope, rejecting the discoveries opened by the other. The ridiculousness
of such a posture is obvious at this juncture, yet many of our colleagues find it
difficult to accept both infinite orders of our time and they persist in denying the
validity and utility of one of them.
In the remainder of this essay, I would like to explore the rationale for research
that connects the two infinite orders and to suggest some practical methods that will
do so. If large translation effects investigated by cultural studies approaches to trans-
lation are the result of small word-by-word, sentence-by-sentence and text-by-text
Tymoczko: Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 15

decisions by translators that can be analyzed with contemporary linguistic tools,

then research methods in translation studies will generally benefit from connecting
those two realms. Frequently it will be not only helpful but actually essential to
identify and retrace linguistic specificities of textual construction, so that transla-
tion effects are understood as products of textual construction and production. Only
if one believes that the data from another order of magnitude will replicate those
data generated by the level one is working on, will a researcher reject other tools for
viewing the subject matter and other perspectives, but research on texts in the last
half century has shown that such replication is rarely the case.
In what follows I am basing my examples on research methods for descriptive
studies of translations as products, rather than translation as process, but the princi-
ples I articulate here are transferable to other types of research in translation studies.
I take descriptive studies as my domain because this has been the subject of my own
research; hence it is what I know most about and can speak about with a measure of
authority.
In conducting research on translation,4 as is the case with other textual studies, it
is a given that one cannot look at most texts exhaustively. The meaning of a text
(whether oral or written in origin) as an organized artifact and as an object in a
social context is in many, many respects overdetermined. Thus, any extended text
offers too much information to the researcher to be distilled into a normal academic
‘unit’ – whether the unit is a class presentation, a conference paper, an article or a
chapter of a book. The researcher therefore must select what is to be investigated
and must focus the research, and the prime method of focus or selection is the re-
search design, as is standard in research and scholarship in most fields. Although a
researcher may at times replicate the research design of another study or use estab-
lished research protocols for a particular purpose, normally each project will require
a specific research design.5

4
For the purposes of this paper, I am using Gideon Toury’s very broad definition of translation:
“a translation will be any target language text which is presented or regarded as such within the
target system itself, on whatever grounds” (Toury 1982: 27; cf. Toury 1980: 14, 37, 43-45). Only
such a broad definition can cover research in translation studies as a whole, which is the topic of
this paper, and Toury’s formulation of this definition (in part synthesizing the work of his prede-
cessors) was one of the major breakthroughs that has led to the explosion of research in translation
studies in the last two decades. As Pym (1998: ch. 4) has pointed out, however, in most cases a
more narrow definition of translation will be incorporated into the research design, so as to re-
strict and define the field of study, a topic to be discussed further below. For another recent
discussion of this question of definition, see Hermans (1999: ch.4).
5
Here I would like to underscore the criticisms of Hermans (1999: ch. 5) about exhaustive and
totalizing programmes of research that have been undertaken in translation studies. Such pro-
grammes may generate a great deal of information, but much of what is generated may be of little
use in addressing questions relevant to specific texts and contexts. Mechanical and exhaustive
methods of this sort are seldom productive in humanistic research, any more than they are in the
natural and social sciences, and their results rarely justify the effort they require. As Pym (1998:
16 Crosscultural Transgressions

A normal feature of a research design is that the researcher must know what
she wishes to find or what she expects to find – that is, the research must begin
with and be based upon a hypothesis.6 It is important to make the distinction be-
tween a hypothesis7 and a theory.8 A theory provides the paradigm (cf. Kuhn 1962)
within which whole programmes of research proceed; within such a theory or
paradigm, a hypothesis is a specific extension of knowledge that is to be tested. If
a researcher is unaware of this distinction and oblivious of theory – focusing only
on hypotheses – when constructing a research design, it does not mean that she
has no theory. Rather it signifies that the research is being conducted within some
dominant theoretical framework or controlling paradigm of which the researcher
may not be fully conscious.9
In descriptive studies one usually wishes to answer questions such as the follow-
ing. What relationship exists between two cultures at a certain point in time? Has
that relationship changed over time and, if so, how has it changed? What is the
position of translators in the source and/or receiving culture? What impact did a
specific translation have on its receiving culture? What impact did the source and/
or receiving cultural context have on the translation methods and product? How did
the translation manipulate or shift the source and/or receiving culture, and how did
the receiving and/or source culture manipulate the translation? What patterns of
translation choices can one discern, or, to put it another way, what norms were
adopted in the course of translation? How do those norms intersect with the cultural
impact of the translation and with the cultural expectations within which the trans-
lation was produced?
Questions such as these provide the large structures within which the specific
hypothesis of a case study is framed; the hypothesis in turn acts as a guide for where
to start and what texts to focus on. We should observe that in translation studies, as

49-50) notes, one needs just enough information to confirm or deny the pertinent hypotheses
governing one’s research. Although programmatic schemes may provide good reminders of things
a researcher should think about, they cannot substitute for the development of a specific research
design pertinent to each given project.
6
We could digress into a discussion of scientific method at this point, to justify this statement,
but I am assuming that readers of this book understand that research is not a walk in the park
during which one happens to notice random interesting views.
7
Defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “an assertion subject to verification or proof”,
including “a conjecture that accounts, within a theory or ideational framework, for a set of facts
and that can be used as a basis for further investigation”.
8
Defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as “a system of assumptions, accepted principles,
and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of
a specified set of phenomena”. Those who suggest the need for a “concrete theory” specific to
each research project fail to make the distinction between theory and hypothesis; see Hermans
(1999: 71) for additional criticisms of the concept of a “concrete theory”.
9
Hermans (1999: 34) notes that no focused observation is possible without a theory to tell the
observer what to look for and how to assess the significance of what is observed.
Tymoczko: Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 17

in textual studies in general, there is not usually a single hypothesis, but rather a
cluster of hypotheses. Thus, in my investigations of the translation of early Irish
heroic tales into English, I hypothesized that there would be some problem areas for
the translator, in view of the highly politicized context of translation and the consid-
erable differences between source and receiving cultures. In my initial hypothesis
these problem areas included the type of heroism displayed, the sexual and scato-
logical content of the texts, the distinctive form of Irish hero tale which mixes poetry
and prose, the textual ‘disarray’ resulting from oral variants recorded in the written
documents (as well as degradation caused by the complex textual history and age of
the manuscripts), and the humour typical of early Irish literature. I was able to con-
struct this complex hypothesis on the basis of my knowledge of early Irish literature
and culture and also on the basis of my knowledge of the reception context, includ-
ing the mores of the Victorianized, highly religious culture in Ireland at the turn of
the twentieth century, in which an extremely hostile climate of colonization had
undermined the very idea of Irish culture and in which colonial values had been
introjected by the Irish themselves.
In answering such questions and in testing hypotheses, a researcher can approach
the research from two directions: from the macroscopic direction, by looking at the
big picture, by turning a telescope on the culture, so to speak; or from the micro-
scopic direction, by looking at the particularities of the language of a translation
through a microscope, as it were. Ultimately, however, in my view the best work
shows a convergence – working toward the macroscopic from the direction of the
microscopic, or vice versa, so that one’s data from the macroscopic level are com-
plemented and confirmed by data from the microscopic level.
Let us suppose that one begins from the direction of a macroscopic framework,
asking some large and ideally important questions that might be typical of a cultural
studies approach.10 It is the hypothesis that will determine the research design, in-
cluding where to begin and what working definition of translation to adopt.11 Then
in a descriptive study – assuming the hypothesis itself does not concern a particular

10
I would second Pym’s insistence (1998: ch. 2) that research should be done on questions of
importance and that importance should be a guiding criterion for deciding on scholarly engage-
ment altogether.
11
Working definitions are adopted on the level of research design, whether one’s research in-
volves a large or small number of translations. Here Pym is right (1998: ch. 4) that working
definitions are essential to delimit research, but wrong in attacking Toury’s theoretical definition
of translation, most clearly formulated in Toury’s early work. The importance of Toury’s initial
definition of translation is theoretical: it delineates a position for accepting a broad range of
translations in studies of translation, permitting any culture’s definition of translation to be treated
as equally valid. This definition operates on the level of theory; on the level of research hypoth-
esis, however, any researcher may and usually even must limit the scope of inquiry for practical
reasons. At the same time, it is incumbent on the researcher to make the limits of the inquiry
explicit for the reader and recipient of the research.
18 Crosscultural Transgressions

translation – the first task is obviously to identify one or more relevant and reveal-
ing translations to investigate. The translations will be chosen because they set in
high relief the cultural or ideological issues related to the cultural interface at hand.
In turn, because it is impossible (and usually irrelevant) to study exhaustively the
full text of one or more translations, the second task will be to pick perspicuous
passages that will serve to test one’s hypothesis or hypotheses.
Thus, to give examples from my own research and that of my students, in
Mahasweta Sengupta’s study of Tagore’s translations of his own poetry, she fo-
cused on transformation of genre in the erotic devotional poem, because she reasoned
that these poems would present multiple problems of cultural interface in India’s
colonial context in the early twentieth century.12 In my own research, I tested my
hypotheses by locating a passage in an Irish hero tale that contained heroic material,
but that also was scatological and humorous, presenting generic problems as well in
the form of a difficult but powerful poem.
Once such texts and passages are identified, the task is to look for linguistic
anomalies and perturbations reflecting the cultural issues that are being investigated.
This is the actual point at which one is gathering data, and one must devise ways to
record the data systematically. In looking for textual evidence, one should have
either a mental or formal checklist of the various linguistic levels to watch: phonol-
ogy (as reflected in names or borrowed words, for example), lexis, semantics,
morphology, grammar, syntax, idioms, metaphors, register, dialect, and so forth.
One should also consider physical aspects of the translation as object at this stage,
including the form of publication, publisher, series and publishing context, cost,
binding, title, illustrations and typeface. In my experience, if the research design is
well conceived and one has chosen productive passages from signficant transla-
tions, one generates an enormous amount of raw data relatively quickly. As an
example, in about two or three weeks of analyzing translations in 1979, I generated
enough rough data to map out the territory for most of the articles I published in the
next decade related to the translation of early Irish literature into English, data that
served as well as the basis for my Translation in a Postcolonial Context (1999).
It is important to be open to surprises at this stage of research. One may discover
different translation effects from those anticipated in one’s hypotheses or sought in
one’s research design, some of which may occur on the macroscopic level. For
example, one may discover that there is a temporal significance in the pattern of
publications, or that there are gross manipulations that were completely unantici-
pated (say, zero translation). Alternatively one may discover no data to support one’s
hypotheses, necessitating either refinement of the design (say, choice of different
texts or different passages within the texts selected) or abandonment of the hypoth-
esis altogether. At the same time, as is the case in most research in the natural sciences,
absence of results is itself usually significant and can often be worth writing up.

12
See Sengupta (1990, 1995).
Tymoczko: Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 19

That is, negative evidence is still evidence, though of a hypothesis different from
the one motivating the initial research.
What is more typical than lack of data in a well designed research plan is an
overabundance of data that must then be organized and analyzed. Usually one also
finds textual elements that corroborate one’s hypothesis that were not part of the
explicit programme of the research design. In working on Irish sagas, for example,
I did not set out to look for translation effects in the area of material or social cul-
ture, nor did I plan to gather evidence on the treatment of names. But in looking for
the data related to my research design, I noted in passing unexpected variance in the
translations of those elements and began to collect the additional data as well, though
in a less systematic way. The result was ultimately two additional chapters of my
book, but these could only be undertaken after a review of the materials in which
the new data were collected systematically. In gathering and assessing evidence, it
is important to remember that zero translation of texts or segments of texts is usu-
ally highly significant, and must be carefully noted and recorded.
The alternate path to research of this sort is to begin on the microscopic textual
levels. One might hypothesize, for example, that two languages had vastly different
material bases, devising a reseach plan to investigate those differences as expressed
in translation. One would then scan specific translations for linguistic anomalies
and perturbations related to these linguistic areas and interrogate the resulting pat-
tern in terms of macroscopic cultural significance. One might ask, for example,
what do these small-scale textual elements signify in terms of large-scale ideologi-
cal or cultural positioning? This was the direction I went when I discovered the very
peculiar patterns for representing Irish names in Standish O’Grady’s History of Ire-
land: The Heroic Period and realized that they were driven by the extreme
phonological differences between Old Irish and Modern English. One can often
tease out cultural implications from materials that one may at first be tempted to
dismiss as random eccentricities of individual translators. In undertaking research
that proceeds in this direction, it is often helpful to keep the discourses associated
with theories of representation in mind. One should ask, for example, what image
of the source text does this textual presentation cast for the receiving audience and
what is the ideological or cultural implication of that image? When one works in
this direction, from the level of the word to the level of cultural significance, one
must also remember to be wary of attributing intention to the translator: one can
always argue for the meaning and significance of particular textual elements, but
such significance does not necessarily indicate conscious authorial intention in a
translation any more than it does in any other text. Thus, translation choices may be
a function of cultural norms and textual choices may be driven by unconscious
motivations of the translator, as is the case with any author.
Translations like other organized texts tend to be self-referential, establishing
their own linguistic norms and conventions. As readers we tend to learn such con-
ventions, adapting and assenting to them with relative ease. Thus our training as
20 Crosscultural Transgressions

readers works against our ability to do research on the microlevels of translations:

we must actually work to keep the conventions of a particular translation
defamiliarized so as to be able to perceive the translator’s norms and choices. Be-
cause of the tendency to assent to the self-referentiality of texts, it is often extremely
difficult to analyze a single translation perspicaciously in reference to the source
text. Comparing two or more translated versions of the same source text or several
translations of similar text types may make the norms of any given translation much
more perceptible.13
Once these steps have been completed, the preliminary data have been amassed.
It is wise at this point to identify the emerging patterns that one will concentrate on
and then to go back over the texts one is working with so as to check one’s data
systematically, to make sure that one has correctly noted all instances of a particular
pattern, that one has not ignored contradictory evidence, and so forth, before pro-
ceeding to analysis of the data and conclusions. It is at this point that one also fills
in systematically the data that were not anticipated by the original hypothesis but
that were discovered during the process of data collection, as was the case of trans-
lations of names in my own research, as I have already mentioned.
A basic requirement of sound research in any field is replicability, and in trans-
lation studies this principle is equally valid. A wise researcher will test conclusions
by actually attempting to replicate results herself – by examining other relevant
passages of the translations being worked with, by looking at translations of other
texts presenting similar cultural configurations, and so forth. One can also seek
verification of the results of one’s research by examining paratextual documents
such as translators’ introductions, statements about translation from the cultural
context, and contemporary reviews of the published translation. And once confir-
mation comes from these various research strategies, it usually expands the scope
of the initial research as well, suggesting further avenues to explore in the texts.
Well designed research programmes have a gratifying way of developing positive
feedback loops and becoming self-sustaining.
There is a cautionary note to be added here about the type of confirmation to
expect. Increasingly it is being realized in translation studies that translation strate-
gies are not consistent. Because of the metonymic aspects of the process of translation,
translators privilege certain aspects of the source text over others, just as they privi-
lege certain areas of resistance in their translations while conforming to dominant
norms in other respects (see Tymoczko 1999, chapters 1 and 10). Researchers do-
ing studies of translation should be alert to such inconsistencies, expecting to uncover
them in the process of research; rather than abandoning a hypothesis when such an
inconsistency is revealed, the researcher should analyze and explicate the fragmen-
tary nature of the translation strategy as the hypothesis is pursued.

13
Cf. Pym (1998: 106ff) who sees the comparison of translations as more profitable than the
comparison of source text and target text.
Tymoczko: Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 21

There are two other important aspects of research that must be considered in the
research design in translation studies, as in all fields. The first has to do with sample
size: general conclusions must be based on a sufficiently large sample to justify any
extension of conclusions to other situations. Achieving an adequate sample size is
not always easy in translation studies, particularly when one is dealing with a unique
translation of a source text, translations of the work of a single author, the output of
a single translator, and so forth. One reason my own research utilized the example
of Táin Bó Cúailnge is that there were ten translations of the text ranging over the
better part of a century, as well as numerous adaptations, refractions and rewritings.
These translations offered a sample of sufficient size to suggest reliable conclu-
sions; few other texts in Irish have been so widely and persistently translated, and
there is no other extended Irish heroic narrative that would have served as such a
basis of research.
A second principle to keep in mind in making a research design in translation
studies, as in other fields, is the necessity for a control group. This is a standard of
research that is often difficult to incorporate into one’s design in translation studies,
because there may be few comparable groups of translations or translators to those
one is researching. In certain situations (say when one is investigating a single trans-
lation) working with a second translation of the same text will offer a small control
sample – and a sample that is often more helpful than using the source text as the
control and reference point, because of the issue of self-referentiality of translations
that I referred to earlier. In some circumstances a different set of passages within
the source text from those one is researching can act as the control group: one can
pick passages that are neutral with respect to the issues being investigated. In some
cases a control group of parallel texts can be used, either within the same source
culture or in an alternate source culture. In the case of translations of early Irish
heroic tales, for example, one might use as a control group translations of Beowulf
or of La Chanson de Roland or even of Icelandic sagas. In certain circumstances
the control group for such a study might be another genre of the same source litera-
ture. But often I have found that for the sort of non-quantified research that is most
common in translation studies it is sufficient to use a sort of virtual control group: to
draw comparisons with parallel translation situations that are already established in
translation studies scholarship. Such comparisons are threaded through my own
published research on translation, and they are there in part to compensate for a
more rigorous experimental control sample. These issues of sample size and control
group are especially essential to address in situations where translation materials
are fragmentary, sparse or incomplete.14

14
There is an exception that proves the rule: if the structure of the hypothesis that one is pursuing
is to establish a counterexample to a position taken as a theoretical or empirical commonplace in
translation studies, then obviously a single case study or a very small sample will be sufficient.
Such hypotheses are parallel to certain forms of mathematical proof or logical proof, where a
22 Crosscultural Transgressions

Clearly what I have outlined here is an empirical programme of research, but to

be empirical is not necessarily to be objective.15 In fact all research, including sci-
entific research, is subjective, influenced by ideas and beliefs related to subject
positions, frames of reference, interpretation, mental concepts and received mean-
ings. This realization undermined the philosophical doctrine of positivism in the
beginning decades of the twentieth century. In the natural sciences the turn away
from positivism is particularly associated with the ascendancy of Heisenberg’s un-
certainty principle, having to do with the impact of the observer and the act of
observation upon the data observed in studies of sub-atomic particles, and Gödel’s
incompleteness theorem, having to do with frames of reference in mathematics.
Moreover, increasingly since World War II, natural scientists have spoken out on
issues pertaining to subjectivity, urging, for example, awareness of the social posi-
tioning of scientific research and scientific conclusions, and stressing the importance
of social responsibility in research. Similar realizations led to the crisis of represen-
tation in anthropology and ethnography in the twentieth century, as well as other
reconsiderations of basic research in the social sciences, history, and so forth.16
Translation studies is not exempt from these issues, and it would be a serious intel-
lectual anachronism to aspire to be ‘objective’ in one’s research. One can and should,
however, aspire to be self-aware about one’s subject position and its influence upon
a research programme, as well as to interrogate one’s presuppositions. And one can
and should try to be a responsible member of the human community as a whole, as
well as to have good values within the largest frame of reference one is capable
of. Even so, research inevitably will be conducted within intellectual and social
frameworks – including the normal intellectual tools of models, theories and
paradigms – that will undermine pure ‘objectivity’ (cf. Kuhn 1962). In this regard,
in fact, translation studies may be at an advantage compared to many fields, includ-
ing most fields of the natural sciences, because translation studies routinely involve
not just inquiry but meta-inquiry in the course of research. Hence the field itself

single counterexample can either demolish a putative theorem or establish a theorem (if the argu-
ment itself proceeds by imagining the contrary case).
15
The American Heritage Dictionary defines empirical as “relying upon or derived from obser-
vation or experiment”, where objective is “of or having to do with a material object as distinguished
from a mental concept, idea, or belief”.
16
See the discussion in Hermans (1999: 144-50) on aspects of research in translation studies and
other fields that make it inevitably partial and, hence, subjective. Hermans argues (1999: 146)
that the absence of a clear dividing line between object-level and meta-level is a special feature
of translation studies that undercuts its objectivity, but in my experience the same sorts of argu-
ments could be extended to most fields including the natural sciences and even, in some cases,
mathematics. Luhmann’s argument discussed by Hermans (1999: 150) should be viewed in a
sense as a recapitulation of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem applied to the humanities and social
sciences and, hence, as an articulation of a problem in lay terms that has been delineated even
more rigorously in such fields as mathematics and physics.
Tymoczko: Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 23

encourages the interrogation of frames of reference, including those of the researcher,

potentially making one’s biases more perceptible and making it more possible to
enlarge one’s frame of reference.17
There is a reciprocal relationship between theory and research outlined in the
research method under consideration. Theory informs the hypotheses that guide
research, but in turn the results of research interrogate and refine theory. Such
reciprocity can be expressed in terms of Charles Peirce’s three forms of logical
reasoning: deduction, abduction and induction.18 In a sense through a process of
deduction, the theoretical framework of the research leads to the initial postulates
upon which the research is based. The researcher uses abduction – the only mode
of reasoning in Peirce’s view to introduce new ideas into intellectual inquiry, the
creative force of research – to create the hypothesis that guides the construction of
the research design from these postulates.19 In turn data are gathered relevant to the
hypothesis and, through induction from the data, the researcher then tests both the
hypothesis and, ultimately, the theory behind the hypothesis as well. Thus a rigor-
ous research programme will be inherently self-reflexive, seeking congruence in
theory and data through the exercise of all three forms of logical reasoning expli-
cated by Peirce.20 This self-reflexive process will be stronger if both micro- and
macro-concerns and approaches are integrated at each stage of the research and at
each level of logical reasoning.
Much of what I have said here, though taking examples from descriptive studies
of translation, can be generalized to other types of research in translation studies
also, including empirical research about the processes of translation. And I believe
that it has implications for pedagogy as well. Certainly in our era when two new
infinite orders have opened to us, it makes little sense to teach students the tools of
only one of those orders. When teaching how to do research in translation, a teacher
will best serve students by instructing them in the full range of issues and by
modeling how to connect microscopic investigations with macroscopic ones, us-
ing the two orders of magnitude as mutually reinforcing domains to secure strong
conclusions. Similarly in teaching students to translate, it will be helpful to teach
them not only microscopic techniques but to teach them to assess the other infinite

17
Pym (1998: 27ff., 123-24, and passim) argues that a researcher’s subjectivity is important
because it informs the decision to work on specific topics and to choose topics that have impor-
tance for the present.
18
For a convenient summary of these aspects of Peirce’s thought, see Gorlée (1994: 42 ff).
19
One reason that some programmatic research in translation studies seems to issue in “flat-
tened” conclusions may be the absence of abduction – hence creativity – associated with
the formulation of a specific hypothesis to be tested.
20
The domain covered by research is also an essential factor in constructing durable theory that
will be applicable to the general or arbitrary case, rather than being restricted to the dominant
social conventions of the researcher’s context; for a more detailed consideration of this point, see
Tymoczko (1999: 32ff).
24 Crosscultural Transgressions

order as well, so they can best contextualize their own translation processes and
products, teaching them to understand the cultural implications of their translation
choices and to make informed choices. This will not only permit them to best serve
their target audience, but to be self-aware about their ideological commitments and
entanglements also.
I will conclude by reiterating the ridiculousness of the refusal to engage with
both infinite orders that have opened in our time for examining and analyzing texts
and cultures. The essential gesture of those in translation studies who attempt to
split cultural studies from linguistics – or vice versa – is such a refusal. This gesture
is tantamount to putting on blinders willfully, refusing the views and perspectives
of alternate optical instruments. It is as if one of Galileo’s contemporaries had used
either the microscope or the telescope but denied the validity of phenomena re-
vealed by the other. If one’s hypothesis is valid, the different perspectives associated
with different orders of magnitude should mutually reinforce each other, acting as
confirmation and substantiation of one’s conclusions. There is very little to fear
here except perhaps one’s own ignorance of the range and strengths of the tools and
techniques that have been developed in both infinite orders opened by the revolu-
tion in knowledge in our time.
I believe that the gesture of refusal is often based on the fact that we do not yet
control all the new disciplines and methods that were pioneered in the second half
of the twentieth century in particular. In some cases we don’t even have definitive
names for various approaches to texts, never mind a taxonomy of disciplines that
will allow students and teachers alike to survey the field of methods and tools to be
mastered. All this is complicated by rapidly changing technologies that often inter-
sect with the expansion of intellectual perspectives. It may take us a while to sort
this all out, but awareness of our position between the two infinite orders is a first
step in the resolution of the issues before us and in our ability to conduct research in
translation studies with the most powerful means at our disposal.

References

Drake, Stillman (1980) Galileo, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Encyclopedia Britannica (1974) 15th ed, Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton.
Gorlée, Dinda (1994) Semiotics and the Problem of Translation, with Special Reference
to the Semiotics of Charles S. Peirce, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches
Explained, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Pym, Anthony (1998) Method in Translation History, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Sengupta, Mahasweta (1990) ‘Translation, Colonialism, and Poetics: Rabindranath Tagore
Tymoczko: Connecting the Two Infinite Orders 25

in Two Worlds’, in Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere (eds) Translation, History
and Culture, London: Pinter, 56-63.
----- (1995) ‘Translation as Manipulation: The Power of Images and Images of Power’,
in Anuradha Dingwaney and Carol Maier (eds) Between Languages and Cultures:
Translation and Cross-cultural Texts, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
159-74.
Toury, Gideon (1980) In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv: Porter Institute
for Poetics and Semiotics.
----- (1982) ‘A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies’, Dispositio 7 (special is-
sue The Art and Science of Translation, ed. André Lefevere and Kenneth David
Jackson), 22-39.
Tymoczko, Maria (1999) Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature
in English Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Connecting the Two Infinite Orders
Drake, Stillman (1980) Galileo, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Encyclopedia Britannica (1974) 15th ed, Chicago: Helen Hemingway Benton.
Gorlée, Dinda (1994) Semiotics and the Problem of Translation, with Special Reference to the Semiotics
of Charles S. Peirce, Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained,
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kuhn, Thomas (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pym, Anthony (1998) Method in Translation History, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Sengupta, Mahasweta (1990) ‘Translation, Colonialism, and Poetics: Rabindranath Tagore in Two
Worlds’, in Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere (eds) Translation, History and Culture, London: Pinter,
56–63.
Sengupta, Mahasweta (1995) ‘Translation as Manipulation: The Power of Images and Images of Power’,
in Anuradha Dingwaney and Carol Maier (eds) Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and Cross-
cultural Texts, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 159–174.
Toury, Gideon (1980) In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and
Semiotics.
Toury, Gideon (1982) ‘A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies’,Dispositio 7 (special issue The Art
and Science of Translation, ed. André Lefevere and Kenneth David Jackson ), 22–39.
Tymoczko, Maria (1999) Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English Translation,
Manchester: St. Jerome.

The Quest for an Eclectic Methodology of Translation Description

Baker, Mona (1993) ‘Corpus Linguistics and Translation studies. Implications and Applications’, in Mona
Baker , Gill Francis and Elena Tognini Bonelli (eds) Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair,
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 233–250.
Baker, Mona (1996) ‘Corpus-based Translation Studies: the Challenges that Lie Ahead’, in Harold
Somers (ed) Terminology, LSP and Translation, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 175–186.
Baker, Mona (1998) ‘Translation Studies’ in Mona Baker (ed) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation
Studies, London & New York: Routledge, 277–280.
Bassnett, Susan (1991) Translation Studies, London & New York: Routledge.
Cameron, Deborah (1995) Verbal Hygiene, London & New York: Routledge.
Crisafulli, Edoardo (1996) ‘Dante’s Puns in English and the Question of Compensation’, The Translator
2(2): 259–276.
Crisafulli, Edoardo (1997) ‘Taboo Language in Translation’, Perspectives 5(2): 237–256.
Crisafulli, Edoardo (1999) ‘The Translator as Textual Critic and the Potential of Transparent Discourse’,
The Translator 5(1): 83–107.
Crisafulli, Edoardo (2000) ‘The Divine Comedy’, in Olive Classe (ed) Encyclopedia of Literary Translation
into English, London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 339–344.
Delabastita, Dirk (1991) ‘A False Opposition in Translation Studies: Theoretical versus/and Historical
Approaches’, Target 3(2): 137–152.
Delabastita, Dirk (1994) ‘Focus on the Pun: Wordplay as a Special Problem in Translation Studies’, Target
6(2): 223–243.
Gentzler, Edwin (1993) Contemporary Translation Studies, London & New York: Routledge
Haack, Susan (1993) Evidence and Inquiry, Oxford: Blackwell.
Harvey, Keith (1995) ‘A Descriptive Framework for Compensation’, The Translator 1(1): 65–86.
Hermans, Theo (1985) ‘Introduction. Translation Studies and a New Paradigm’, in Theo Hermans (ed)
The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation, London & Sydney: Croom Helm, 7–15.
Hermans, Theo (1995) ‘Toury’s Empiricism Version One’, The Translator 1(2): 215–223.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Holmes, James (1988) Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Lambert, José (1991) ‘Shifts, Oppositions and Goals in Translation Studies: Towards a Genealogy of
Concepts’, in Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens (eds) Translation Studies: The State of the
Art, Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi, 25–37.
Lefevere, André (1992) Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London & New
York: Routledge.
Milroy, J. (1992) Language, Variation and Change, Oxford: Blackwell.
Norris, Christopher (1997) Against Relativism. Philosophy of Science, Deconstruction and Critical Theory,
Oxford: Blackwell.
Preti, Giulio (1975) Praxis ed empirismo, Turin: Einaudi.
Pym, Anthony (1998) Method in Translation History, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Taylor, Talbot J. (1990) ‘Which is to be Master? The Institutionalization of Authority in the Science of
Language’, in John E. Joseph and Talbot J. Taylor (eds) Ideologies of Language, London & New York:
Routledge, 9–26.
Toury, Gideon (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Venuti, Lawrence (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility, London & New York: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (1998) The Scandals of Translation, London & New York: Routledge.

What Texts Don't Tell

Benjamin, Walter (1968) ‘The Task of the Translator’ [1923], in Illuminations, trans. Harry Zohn , London:
Jonathan Cape, 69–82.
Bogenç Demirel, Emine and Hülya Yılmaz (1998) Tercüme Dergisinde Çeviri Eleştirisi’ (Translation
Criticism at the Tercüme Journal), Çeviribilim ve Uygulamaları (Translation Studies and Its Applications),
December 1998, Ankara: Hacettepe Üniversitesi, 93–106.
Conan Doyle, Arthur (1981) ‘His Last Bow’, in The Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes, London: Penguin
Books.
Denizaltı nın Planı (1944) Istanbul: Güven Yayınevi.
Genette, Gerard (1997) Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. Jane E. Lewin , Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems, Manchester: St. Jerome.
İnönü, İsmet (1941) Preface to translations by the Translation Bureau.
Kovala, Urpo (1996) ‘Translations, Paratextual Mediation and Ideological Closure’, Target 8(l): 119–147.
Lefevere, André (1992) Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London & New
York: Routledge.
Mann, Thomas (1945) Tonio Kröger, trans. Mehmet Karasan , Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
Niranjana, Tejaswini (1992) Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism and the Colonial Context,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Pym, Anthony (1998) Method in Translation History, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Roberts, Thomas J. (1990) Aesthetics of Junk Fiction, Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Stevenson, R.L. (1944) Dr. Jekyll ile Mr. Hyde, trans. Zarife Laçiner , Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basımevi.
Stoker, Bram (1940). Drakyola, Kan İçen Adam, trans. Selami Münir Yurdatap , Istanbul: Güven Basimevi.
Swift, Jonathan (1946) Gulliver’in Seyahatleri I–II, trans. İrfan Şahinbaş , Ankara: Milli Eğitim Basimevi.
Toury, Gideon (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yücel, Hasan Âli (1940) ‘Önsöz’ (Preface), Tercüme, No. 1, May 1940, 1–2.
Yücel, Hasan Âli (1941) First Preface to translations by the Translation Bureau.
Yücel, Hasan Âli (1944) Second Preface to translations by the Translation Bureau.
Yurdatap, Selami Münir (1943) Baytekin ile Tarzan, Istanbul: Güven Basımevi.

Translation Principles and the Translator's Agenda

Chang, Nam Fung (1998) ‘ Yi “zhongshi” wei mubiaode yingyong fanyixue – Zhongguo yilun chuantong
chutan [An Applied Discipline Obsessed with ‘Loyalty’ – On the Chinese Tradition of Translation Studies]’,
Journal of Translation Studies 2: 29–41.
Chang, Nam Fung (ed) (2000) Translation Quarterly 15, Special Issue on Translation Studies in China:
Past and Future.
Chau, Simon S. C. (1986) ‘Fanyide zhunze yu mubiao [Standards and Goals of Translation]’, Zhongguo
fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal] 3: 46–50.
Chen, Fukang (1992) Zhongguo yixue lilun shigao [A History of Chinese Translation Theory], Shanghai:
Waiyu jiaoyu chubenshe.
Chu, Chi Yu (2000) ‘Lun “xin da ya” shuo zai Zhongguo chuantong fanyi lilun zhongde weizhi [The Place
of ‘xin-da-ya’ in Chinese Translation History]’, Translation Quarterly 15: 1–18.
Even-Zohar, Itamar (1990) Polysystem Studies [Poetics Today 11, 1], Durham: Duke University Press.
Even-Zohar, Itamar (1997) ‘Factors and Dependencies in Culture: A Revised Draft for Polysystem Culture
Research’, Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 24(1): 15–34.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems: Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained,
Manchester: St. Jerome.
H.U. Shi (1979), ‘ Wushi nianlai Zhongguozhi wenxue [Chinese Literature over the Past Fifty Years]’, in
Hu Shi Wencun [Essays by Hu Shi], 4 vols., Taipei: Yuandong tushu gongsi, II, 180–261, first published
1922.
Lambert, José (1997) ‘Itamar Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Studies: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on
Culture Research’, Canadian Review of Comparative Literature 24(1): 7–14.
Lefevere, André (1992) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London:
Routledge.
Lefevere, André (1999) ‘Composing the Other’, in Susan Bassnett and Harish Trivedi (eds) Post-Colonial
Translation, London: Routledge, 75–94.
Liang, Qichao (1988) Zhongguo fojiao yanjiu shi [History of Chinese Buddhist Studies], Shanghai: Sanlian
shudian, first published 1920–4.
Liang, Qichao (1990) ‘ Jieshao xinzhu “Yuanku” [Introducing the New Translation of “Origin of Wealth”]’, in
Niu and Sun (eds), 266–268, first published 1902.
Liang, Qichao (1998) Qingdai xueshu gailun [Introduction to Qing Scholarship], Shanghai: Guji
chubenshe, first published 1921.
Liu, Ching-chih (1981) Fanyi lunji [Essays on Translation], Hong Kong: Sanlian shudian.
Luo, Xinzhang (1984) Fanyi lunji [An Anthology of Translation Theory], Beijing: Shangwu yingshu guan.
Ma, Zuyi (1984) Zhongguo fanyi jianshi – wusi yiqian bufan [A Concise History of Translation in China:
Before the May Fourth Movement], Beijing: Duiwai fanyi chubenshe.
Niu, Yangshang , and Sun, Hongni (eds) (1990) Yan Fu yanjiu ziliao [Research Materials on Yan Fu],
Fuzhou: Haixia wenyi chubenshe.
Qian Zhongshu (1979) ‘ Lin Shude fanyi [Lin Shu’s Translations]’, in Jiuwen Sibian [Four Old Essays],
Shanghai: Guji chubenshe, 62–95.
Schwartz, Benjamin (1964) In Search of Wealth and Power: Yen Fu and the West, Cambridge, Mass:
Belknap Press.
Shen, Suru (1998) Lun “xin da ya” – Yan Fu fanyi liluan yanjiu [On Xin, Da, Ya: Study on Yan Fu’s
Translation Theories], Beijing: Shangwu yingshu guan.
Shuttleworth, Mark and Moira Cowie (1997) Dictionary of Translation Studies, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Toury, Gideon (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Venuti, Lawrence (1998) The Scandals of Translation: Towards a Ethics of Difference, London:
Routledge.
Wang, Dongfeng (1999) ‘ Zhongguo yixue yanjiu: shiji mode sikao [Chinese Translation Studies: Century-
end Contemplation]’, Zhongguo fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal] 1: 7–11, 2: 21–23.
Wang, Zuoliang (1982) ‘ Yan Fude Yongxin [Yan Fu’s Intentions]’, in Fu Yanyi mingzhu [ On Yan Fu and
His Famous Translations] (eds. Shangwu yingshu guan bianji bu [Commercial Press Editors], Beijing:
Shangwu yingshu guan, 22–27.
Wong, Wang Chi (1997) ‘Chongshi “xin da ya” – lun Yan Fu de fanyi lilun’ [‘Xin, Da, Yaȁ: On Yan Fu’s
Translation Theories], Journal of Translation Studies 1: 36–62.
Yan, F.U. (1973) ‘General Remarks on Translation’ [in Tianyanlun, 1898], trans. C. Y. Hsu , Renditions 1:
4–6.
Yan, F.U. (1990) ‘ Yu Liang Rengong lun suoyi “Yuanku” shu [Reply to Liang Qichao’s Critique on the
translation of “Origin of Wealth”]’, in Niu and Sun (eds), 123–125; first published 1902.
Yan, F.U. (1998) Tianyanlun [On Evolution], Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji; first woodblock print 1898.
Systems in Translation
Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London & New York: Routledge.
Baker, Mona (1995) ‘Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and Suggestions for Future Research’,
Target 7(2): 223–243.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (1986) ‘Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation’, in J. House and S.
Blum-Kulka (eds) Interlingual and Intercultural Communication, Tübingen: Gunter Narr: 17–35.
Brown, M. (1994) The Reception of Spanish American Fiction in West Germany 1981–91, Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
García Márquez, Gabriel (2000a) ‘Náufrago en tierra firme’, El País 19.3.2000: 6–7.
García Márquez, Gabriel (2000b) ‘Torn in the USA’, The Guardian Review 25.3.2000: 1–2.
García Márquez, Gabriel (2000c) ‘Shipwrecked on dry land’, The New York Times 29.3.2000: Op. Ed.
García Márquez, Gabriel (2000d) ‘Shipwreck on dry land’, Granma International Digital Edition, 21.3.2000.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic, London & New York: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1985, 2nd edition 1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward
Arnold.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason (1990) Discourse and the Translator, London & New York: Longman.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason (1997) The Translator as Communicator, London & New York: Routledge.
Hermans, Theo (1995) ‘Tourys Empiricism Version One’, The Translator 1(2): 215–223.
Holmes, J.S. (1988) Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
House, Juliane (1977) A Model for Translation Quality Assessment, Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
House, Juliane (1997) Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited, Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Jones, S. (1991) Text and Context: Document Processing and Storage, London: Springer.
Lambert, José and Hendrik van Gorp (1985) ‘On Describing Translations’, in T. Hermans (ed) The
Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, London & Sydney: Croom Helm, 42–53.
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty van (1989) ‘Translation and Original: Similarities and Dissimilarities, I’, Target 1(2):
151–181.
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty van (1990) ‘Translation and Original: Similarities and Dissimilarities, II’, Target 2(1):
69–95.
Munday, Jeremy (1997) Systems in Translation. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Bradford.
Nord, Christiane (1991) Text Analysis in Translation, trans. C. Nord and P. Sparrow , Amsterdam: Rodopi,
originally published 1988.
Scott, M. (1999) Wordsmith (software), 3rd edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View, London & New York: Routledge.
Sinclair, J.M. (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, C. (1990) Aspects of Language and Translation: Approaches for Italian-English Translation,
Udine: Camponette.
Toury, Gideon (1980) In Search of a Theory of Translation, Tel Aviv: Porter Institute.
Toury, Gideon (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Vinay, J-P. and J. Darbelnet (1958/1977) Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de
traduction, Paris: Didier.

A Model of Structuralist Constructivism in Translation Studies

Berman, Antoine (1986) ‘L’essence platonicienne de la traduction’, Revue d’esthétique, Nouvelle série 12:
63–73.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1983) ‘The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed’, trans.
Richard Nice , Poetics 12: 311–356.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1989) ‘Social Space and Symbolic Power’, trans. Loïc J. D. Wacquant , Sociological
Theory VII(1): 14–25.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) The Logic of Practice, trans. Richard Nice , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (2000) Pascalian Meditations, trans. Richard Nice , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chapdelaine, Annick (1994) ‘Transparence et retraduction des sociolectes dans The Hamlet de Faulkner’,
TTR/Études sur le texte et ses transformations VII(2): 11–33.
Coindreau, Maurice-Edgar (1974) Mémoires d’un traducteur. Entretiens avec Christian Giudicelli, Paris:
Gallimard.
Duhamel, Marcel (1972) Raconte pas ta vie, Paris: Mercure de France.
Gouanvic, Jean-Marc (1999) Sociologie de la traduction: La science-fiction américaine dans l’espace
culturel français des années 1950. Arras: Artois Presses Université.
Gouanvic, Jean-Marc (2000) ‘Polemos et la traduction: la traduction de The Grapes of Wrath de John
Steinbeck’, Athanor, new series, X(2): 268–279.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Holmes, James S. (1988) ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’ [1972], in his Translated! Papers
on Literary Translation and Translation Studies (ed. R. van den Broeck ), Amsterdam: Rodopi, 67–80.
Lefevere, André (1998) ‘Translation Practice(s) and the Circulation of Cultural Capital. Some Aeneids in
English’, in S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere (eds) Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation,
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 25–40.
Siméoni, Daniel (1998) ‘The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus’, Target 10(1): 1–39.
Venuti, Lawrence (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation, London & New York:
Routledge.

Translatability between Paradigms: Gramsci's Translation of Crocean Concepts

Bobbio, N. (1998) ‘Croce maestro di vita morale. Conversazione con Norberto Bobbio’, in P. Bonetti (ed.)
Per conoscere Croce, Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 35–43.
Boothman, Derek (1999) ‘Ipotesi linguistiche sui Quaderni del Carcere’, in R. Medici (ed.) Gramsci e i
linguaggi della politica, Bologna: CLUEB, 39–62.
Boothman, Derek (2000) ‘LUomo’ (editorial title), supplement to Rinascita della Sinistra, II (12): xvii.
Butterfield, Herbert (1949) The Origins of Modern Science 1300–1800, London: Bell.
Caponigri, A. Robert (1955) History and Liberty, the Historical Writings of Benedetto Croce, London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Carr, H. Wildon (1917) The Philosophy of Benedetto Croce, London: Macmillan.
Cospito, G. (1990) Struttura-sovrastruttura nel pensiero di Gramsci. Variazioni sul ‘problema
fondamentale’ della filosofia della praxis, unpublished degree dissertation (supervisor Eduardo
Sanguineti), University of Genova.
Croce, Benedetto (1917) Materialismo Storico ed Economia Marxistica (3rd edition), Bari: Laterza. English
version (1966 reprint) Historical Materialism and the Economics of Karl Marx, trans. C.M. Meredith ,
London: Cass.
Croce, Benedetto (1920) Nuori Saggi di Estetica, Bari: Laterza. English version The Essence of
Aesthetics (1921), trans. D. Ainslie , London: Heinemann.
Croce, Benedetto (1926) Cultura e Vita Morale (2nd edition), Bari: Laterza.
Croce, Benedetto (1946) ‘Economico-Political History and Ethico-Political Hiltory and The Unending
Struggle between State and Church’, in Politics and Morals, trans. S.J. Castiglione , London: Allen and
Unwin, 67–77 and 125–130.
Croce, Benedetto (1950, 4th ed.) ‘Reminiscenze ed interpretazioni’, in Conversazioni Critiche, Second
Series, Bari: Laterza, 291–302.
Engels, Friedrich (1967) Preface to Vol. III of Marx’s Capital, New York: International Publishers.
Francioni, G. (1984) L’Officina Gramsciana, Napoli: Bibliopolis.
Gensini, Stefano (1991) ‘Modernità e linguaggio in Gramsci’, in V. Calzolaio (ed.) Gramsci e la modernità,
Napoli: Cuen, 71–81.
Goldmann, Lucien (1977) Lukács and Heidegger, trans. W.Q. Boelhower, London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Gramsci, Antonio (1957) ‘Translation of Scientific and Philosophic Idioms’, in The Open Marxism of
Antonio Gramsci, trans. C. Marzani , New York: Cameron Associates, 59–64.
Gramsci, Antonio (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks, eds. and trans. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell
Smith, London: Lawrence & Wishart, and New York: International Publishers.
Gramsci, Antonio (1975) Quaderni del carcere, ed. V. Gerratana , Torino: Einaudi.
Gramsci, Antonio (1984) ‘Notes on Language: Translatability of scientific and philosophical language
(linguaggi)’, trans. Steven R. Mansfield , in Telos 59, 136–140.
Gramsci, Antonio (1985) Selections from Cultural Writings, eds. David Forgacs and G. Nowell Smith ,
trans. Boelhower, W.Q. , London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Gramsci, Antonio (1995) Further Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Derek Boothman,
London: Lawrence & Wishart, and Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. and J.R. Martin (1993) ‘Some Grammatical Problems in Scientific English’ in Writing
Science: Literary and Discursive Power, London & Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press, 69–85.
Jakobson, Roman (1971) ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’, Selected Writings Vol. II, The Hague &
Paris: Mouton, 261–266.
Kuhn, Thomas (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: Chicago University Press (2nd
ed.).
Kuhn, Thomas (1974), ‘Logic of discovery or psychology of research? and Reflections on my Critics’, in A.
Musgrave and I. Lakatos (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, London & New York: Cambridge
University Press (corrected edition), 1–23 and 231–278.
Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, London: Verso.
Marx, Karl (1970) ‘1859 Preface’ to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, trans. S.W.
Ryazanskaya , London: Lawrence & Wishart, 19–23.
Mure, G.R.G. (1967) ‘The Economic and the Moral in the Philosophy of Benedetto Croce’, occasional
paper, Centre for the Advanced Study of Italian Society, University of Reading.
Orsini, Gian N.G. (1961) Benedetto Croce, Philosopher of Art and Literary Critic, Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Passerini, Luisa (2000) ‘Discontinuity of history and diaspora of languages’, New Left Review (II) 1:
137–144.
Ponzio, A. (1976) ‘Introduzione’ to V.N. Vološinov , Il marxismo e la filosofia del linguaggio, trans. N.
Cuscito and R. Bruzzese , Bari: Dedalo.
Putnam, Hilary (1975) ‘Is Semantics Possible?’, in Mind, Language and Reality (Philosophical Papers Vol.
II), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139–152.
Ravà, Adolfo (1909) Introduzione allo studio della filosofia di Fichte, Modena: Formiggini.
Roberts, D.D. (1987) Benedetto Croce and the Uses of Historicism, Berkeley & Los Angeles: California
University Press.
Roll, E. (1949) A History of Economic Thought, London: Faber & Faber.
Romagnuolo, M.R. (1987–8) ‘Questioni di nomenclatura: Materialismo storico e filosofia della prassi nei
Quaderni del Carcere’, Studi filosofici X–XI, Napoli: Bibliopolis.
Rossi-Landi, F. (1983) Language as Work and Trade, trans. M. Galli Adams et al., South Hadley (Mass.):
Bergin & Garvey.
Vološinov, V. N. (1973), Marxism and the Philosophy of Language, ed. and trans. L. Matejka and I.R.
Titunik , New York: Seminar Press, (first published Leningrad, 1929 and 1930).
West, C. (1997) La filosofia americana, trans. F.R. Recchia Luciani , Roma: Editori Riuniti; originally The
American Evasion of Philosophy. A Genealogy of Pragmatism (1989).

Translation as Terceme and Nazire

Andrews, Walter G. (1985) Poetry’s Voice, Society’s Song, Ottoman Lyric Poetry, Seattle & London:
University of Washington Press.
Andrews, Walter G. (1997) ‘Ottoman Lyrics: Introductory Essay’, in Walter G. Andrews , Najaat Black ,
Mehmet Kalpakli (ed. & trans.) Ottoman Lyric Poetry. An Anthology, Austin: University of Texas Press,
3–23.
Andrews, Walter G. (2002) ‘Starting Over Again: Some Suggestions for Rethinking Ottoman Divan Poetry
in the Context of Translation and Transmission’, in Paker (2002:15–40).
Apak, Fundagül (1999) Gülistan’ ın “Gemideki Köle” Hikayesi: Tercümelerdeki Bağlaçlar (The tale of ‘The
slave on the boat” in Gülistan: conjunctions in the translations), unpublished M.A. thesis, Boğaziçi
University, Istanbul.
Berk, Özlem (1999) Translation and Westernisation in Turkey (from the 1840s to the 1980s), unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Centre for British and Comparative Cultural Studies, University of Warwick.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1996) ‘Culture, In-Between’, in Stuart Hall and Paul Du Gay (eds) Questions of Cultural
Identity, Sage Publications, 53–60.
Bloom, Harold (1983) Kabbalah and Criticism, New York: Continuum.
Çelebioğlu, Amil (1999) Türk Edebiyatında Mesnevi – XV. yüzyila kadar (The Mesnevi in Turkish
Literature – to the fifteenth century), İstanbul: Kitabevi.
Dilçin, Cem (1991) Mes’ud bin Ahmed, Süheyl ü Nev-bahar, İnceleme-Metin-Sözlük, (Critical edition of
Mes’ud bin Ahmed’s Süheyl ü Nev-bahar) Ankara: Atatürk Kültür Merkezi Yayınlarā.
Dilçin, Cem (1993) ‘Mantıku’t-Tayr’ın Manzum Çevirileri Üzerine Bir Karşilaştırma’ (A comparison of the
verse translations of Mantıku’t-Tayr), Fakülte Dergisi Sayı 369, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi, Dil ve Tarih-
Coğrafya Fakültesi.
Diriker, Ebru (1997) ‘Mehmed Fuad Köprülü: Tarih Boyunca Çeviri ve Çeviri Eserlere bir Bakiş’ (Mehmed
Fuad Köprülü’s views on translation and translated literature), in Hasan Anamur (ed) Hommage a Hasan
Ali Yücel / Anma Kitabı, İstanbul: Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, 89–98.
Drory, Rina (1994) ‘Al-Harizi’s Maqamat: A Tricultural Literary Product?’ in Roger Ellis and Ruth Evans
(eds) The Medieval Translator 4, Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 66–85.
Hermans, Theo (1995) ‘Toury’s Empiricism Version One’, The Translator 1(2): 215–223.
Holbrook, Victoria R. (1994), The Unreadable Shores of Love, Turkish Modernity and Mystic Romance,
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Holbrook, Victoria R. (2002) ‘Concealed Facts, Translation and the Turkish Literary Past’, in Paker
(2002:77–107).
Kafadar, Cemal (1995) Between Two Worlds, The Construction of the Ottoman State, Berkeley & Los
Angeles & London: University of California Press.
Kayaoğlu, Taceddin (1998) Türkiye’de Tercüme Müesseseleri (Translation Institutions in Turkey),
İstanbul: Kitabevi.
Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad (1966) Edebiyat Araştırmaları (Studies in Literature) Vols. I–II, İstanbul: Ötüken.
Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad (1993) Türk Edebiyatnda İlk Mutasavvıflar (The first mystics in Turkish literature)
Ankara: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı. (first published 1934).
Lefevere, André (1990) ‘Translation: Its Genealogy in the West’, in Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere
(eds) Translation, History and Culture, London & New York: Cassell, 14–28.
Levend, Agah Sirri (1984) Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi (History of Turkish literature) Vol. I (Introduction), Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu (first published 1971).
Özkan, Mustafa (1993) Mahmud b. Kadi-i Manyas, Gülistan Tercümesi (Critical edition of Mahmud b.
Kadi-i Manyas’ translation of Gülistan) Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları.
Paker, Saliha (2002) (ed) Translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture, Istanbul: Boğaziçi University
Press.
Paker, Saliha and Zehra Toska (1997) ‘A Call for descriptive Translation Studies on the Turkish Tradition
of Rewrites’, in Mary Snell-Hornby , Zuzana Jettmarova and Klaus Kaindl (eds) Translation as
Intercultural Communication, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 79–88.
Pratt, Mary Louise (1992) Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation, London & New York:
Routledge.
Pym, Anthony (1998) Method in Translation History, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Pym, Anthony (2000) Negotiating the Frontier. Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History,
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Rorty, Richard (1989) Contingency, Irony and Solidarity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem (2002) Translation and Travelling Theory. The Role of Translation in the
Migration of Literary Theories Across Culture and Power Differentials, Doctoral thesis in Comparative
Literature, University College London.
Tahir-Gürçağlar, Şehnaz (2001) The Politics and Poetics of Translation in Turkey: 1923–1960, Doctoral
thesis in Translation Studies, Boğaziçi University, Istanbul.
Timurtaş, Faruk K. (1980) Şeyhi ve Hüsrev ü Şirin, İnceleme – Metin (Critical edition of Şeyhi’s Hüsrev ü
Şirin), İstanbul: Istanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları No.2670.
Tolasa, Harun (1983) Sehi, Latifi, Aşık Çelebi Tezkirelerine göre 16.yy’da Edebiyat Araştırma ve Eleşirisi
I, (Literary enquiry and criticism in the 16th century according to the critical biographies of Sehi, Latifi and
Aşık Çelebi), İzmir: Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları No.4.
Toska, Zehra (2002) ‘Evaluative Approaches to Translated Ottoman Turkish Literature in Future
Research’, in Paker (2002:58–76).
Toska, Zehra and Kuran-Burçoğlu, Nedret (1996) ‘ Ferideddin-i Attar’ın Mantıku’t-Tayr ının 14., 16., 17.,
20. Yüzyıllarda Yapılmış Türkçe Yeniden Yazımları’ (14th, 16th, 17th and 20th century rewrites of
Ferideddin-i Attar’s Mantıku’t Tayr), Journal of Turkish Studies= Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmalar í: Abdülbaki
Gölpınarlı Hatıra Sayısı 20(2), 251–265.
Toury, Gideon (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Power and Ideology in Translation Research in Twentieth-Century China
(1968) ‘Hu Shi’, in Howard L. Boorman (ed) Biographical Dictionary of Republican China, New York:
Columbia University Press, Vol. II, 167–174.
(1988) ‘Luo Xinzhang’, in Lin Hui (ed) Zhongguo Fanyijia Cidian [Dictionary of Chinese Translators],
Beijing: China Translation and Publishing Corporation, 420–421.
Baker, Mona (ed) (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London & New York: Routledge.
Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi (eds) (1999) Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice, London
& New York: Routledge.
Chen, Fukang (1992) Zhongguo Yixue Lilun Shigao [Draft History of Chinese Translation Theory],
Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Cheyfitz, Eric (1991) The Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from The Tempest to
Tarzan, New York: Oxford University Press.
de Barry, William Theodore (ed) (1960) Sources of Chinese Tradition, New York: Columbia University
Press.
Even-Zohar, Itamar (1978) ‘The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem’, in his
Papers in Historical Poetics, Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
Fawcett, Peter (1998) ‘Ideology and Translation’, in Baker (ed), 106–107.
Flotow, Luise von (1997) Translation and Gender: Translation in the ‘Era of Feminism’, Manchester: St.
Jerome.
Grieder, Jerome B. (1970) Hu Shih and the Chinese Renaissance: Liberalism in the Chinese Revolution,
1917–1937, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason (1997) The Translator as Communicator, London & New York: Routledge.
Hermans, Theo (1985) ‘Introduction. Translation Studies and a New Paradigm’, in T. Hermans (ed) The
Manipulation of Literature, Studies in Literary Translation, London & Sydney: Croom Helm, 7–15.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems. Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained,
Manchester: St Jerome.
Holmes, James S. (1988) ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’ [1972], in Translated! Papers on
Literary Translation and Translation Studies (ed. R. van den Broeck ), Amsterdam: Rodopi, 67–80.
Hsia, C. T. (1961) A History of Modern Chinese Fiction 1917–1957, New Haven & London: Yale
University Press.
Hu, Shi (1917/1991) ‘Wenxue Gailiang Chuyi’ [Tentative suggestions for literary reform], in Yang Li (ed)
Hu Shi Wencui [A Selection of Hu Shi’s Writings], Beijing: Zuojia Chubanshe, 3–13.
Hu, Shi (1919/1953) ‘Xinsichao de Yiyi’ [The meanings of xin sichao], in Hu Shi Wencun [Collected
Essays of Hu Shi], Vol.1, Taipei: Yuandong Tushu Gongsi, 727–736.
Hu, Shi (1926/1995) ‘The Renaissance in China’, in Zhou Zhiping (ed) A Collection of Hu Shih’s English
Writings, Taipei: Yuanliu Chuban, 197–217.
Hu, Shi (1927/1998) Guoyu Wenxue Shi [A History of Guoyu [national language] Literature], in Ou-Yang
Zhesheng (ed), Vol. 8, 3–137.
Hu, Shi (1928/1998) Baihua Wenxue Shi [A History of Baihua [vernacular] Literature], in Ou-yang
Zhesheng (ed), Vol. 8, 139–390.
Hu, Shi (1934) The Chinese Renaissance: the Haskell Lectures, Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Hu, Shi (1939/1993) Sishi Zishu [A Self-account at Forty], Beijing: Zhongguo Wenlian Chubanshe.
Hu, Shi (1983) Hu Shi Koushu Zizhuan [Dr. Hu Shi’s Personal Reminiscences] (Interviews, compiled,
edited and translated, with a translator’s preface, by Tang Degang ), Taipei: Zhuanji Wenxue Chubanshe.
Kelly, Jeanne and Nathan K. Mao (1979) ‘Translators’ preface’, in Qian Zhongshu Fortress Besieged,
trans. Jeanne Kelly and Nathan K. Mao , Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press, xi.
Kong, Qingmao (1992) Qian Zhongshu Zhuan [Biography of Qian Zhongshu], Nanjing: Jiangsu Wenyi.
Lefevere, André (1992) Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London & New
York: Routledge.
Lu, Xun (1935/1980) ‘Introduction’, in Zhao Jiabi (ed), Vol. 4, 1–17.
Luo, Xinzhang (1983/1984) ‘Woguo Zichengtixi de Fanyi Lilun’ [A system of its own – our country’s
translation theories], in Luo Xinzhang (ed), 1–19.
Luo, Xinzhang (ed) (1984) Fanyi Lunji [An Anthology of Essays on Translation], Beijing: Commercial
Press.
Luo, Xinzhang (1990/1996) ‘Qian Zhongshu de Yiyitan’ [Qian Zhongshu’s art of translation], in Fan Xulun
and L.I. Hongyan (eds) Ch’ien Chung-shu Survey 1996, Beijing: Social Sciences Documents Publishing
House, 144–168.
Mao, Dun (1935/1980) ‘Introduction’, in Zhao Jiabi (ed), Vol. 3, 1–32.
Mao, Dun (1954/1984) ‘Wei Fazhan Wenxue Fanyi Shiye he Tigao Fanyi Zhiliang er Fendou’ [Let us work
hard for the development of literary translation and for the improvement of quality and increase in output],
in Translators’ Notes, Editorial Department (ed), 1–16.
Mao, Nathan K. (1979) ‘Introduction’, in Qian Zhongshu Fortress Besieged, trans. Jeanne Kelly and
Nathan K. Mao , Bloomington/London: Indiana University Press, xiii–xxix.
Mao, Zedong (1956) Talks at the Yenan Forum on Art and Literature, trans. Editorial Department of
Foreign Languages Press , Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
Niranjana, Tejaswini (1992) Siting Translation. History, Post-Structuralism and the Colonial Context,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ou-Yang, Zhesheng (ed) (1998) Hu Shi Wenji [Collected Works of Hu Shi], Beijing: Peking University
Press.
Qian, Zhongshu (1964) ‘Lin Shu de Fanyi’ [The Translations of Lin Shu], in Wenxue Yanjiu Jikan
[Anthology of Literary Studies], Vol. 1, Renmin Wenxue Chubanshe, 267–295.
Qian, Zhongshu (1975) ‘Lin Ch’in-nan Revisited’, trans. George Kao , Renditions 5 (Autumn 1975): 8–21.
Simon, Sherry (1996) Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission, London &
New York: Routledge.
Translators’ Notes, Editorial Department (ed) Fanyi Yanjiu Lunwenji: 1949–1983 [Selected Papers in
Translation Studies: 1949–1983], Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Tymoczko, Maria (1999) Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Early Irish Literature in English Translation,
Manchester: St Jerome.
van Dijk, Teun A. (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Venuti, Lawrence (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation, London & New York:
Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence (1998) The Scandals of Translation: Towards an ethics of difference, London & New
York: Routledge.
Wang, Xiaoming (1993) ‘Yifen Zazhi he Yige “Shetuan” – Lun “Wusi” Wenxue chuantong’ [A magazine
and an ‘organization’ – on the ‘May Fourth’ literary tradition], in Chen Guoqiu (ed) Zhongguo Wenxueshi
de Xingsi [Reflections on Chinese Literary History], Hong Kong: Joint Publishing, 149–185.
Wu, Lianghuan (1980) ‘Letter to the Editors’, Fanyi Tongxun [Translators’ Notes] 1980(2): 25.
Wu, Ming (1997) ‘Luo Xinzhang’, in Lin Huangtian (ed) Zhongguo Fanyi Cidian [A Companion for Chinese
Translators], Wuhan: Hubei Jiaoyu Chubanshe, 452.
Xu, Zhimo (1935/1980) ‘Shoujiu yu “Wan” Jiu’ [Abiding by tradition and flirting with tradition], in Zhao Jiabi
(ed), Vol. 2, 227–233.
Yan, F.U. (1973) ‘General Remarks on Translation’, trans. C. Y. Hsu , Renditions 1 (Autumn 1973): 4–6.
Yi, Zhuxian (1987) Hu Shi Zhuan [Biography of Hu Shi], Hubei: Renmin Chubanshe.
Zhao, Jiabi (ed) Zhongguo Xinwenxue Daxi [Anthology of Modern Chinese Literature], 10 Vols.,
Shanghai: Liangyou Tushu Gongsi.
Zhi, Qian (224/1984) ‘Fa Ju Jing Xu’ [Preface to the Dharmapada], in Luo Xinzhang (ed), 22.

Tlaloc Roars
Bassnett, Susan and Harish Trivedi (eds) (1999) Post-colonial Translation: Theory and Practice, London
& New York: Routledge.
Boone, E. and W. Mignolo (1994) Writing without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the
Andes, Durham: Duke University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996) The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, Cambridge: Polity.
Brotherston, Gordon (1979) Image of the New World: The American Continent Portrayed in Native Texts,
London: Thames & Hudson.
Brotherston, Gordon (1992) Book of the Fourth World: Reading the Native Americas through their
Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brotherston, Gordon (1995) Painted Books from Mexico, London: British Museum Press.
Brotherston, Gordon (2000) ‘Indigenous Intelligence in Spain’s American Colony’, Forum for Modern
Language Studies xxxvi: 241–253
Campos, Haroldo de (1975) A arte no horizonte do provável, São Paulo: Perspectiva, 3rd ed.
Clifford, James (1988) The Predicament of Culture: 20th-Century Ethnography, Literature and Art,
Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
Collier, Gordon (1992) Us/Them: Translation, Transcription and Identity in Post-Colonial Literary Culture,
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Delisle, Jean and Judith Woodsworth (eds) (1995) Translators Through History, Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Derrida, Jacques (1967) De la Grammatologie, Paris: Minuit.
Goody, Jack (1968) Literacy in Traditional Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herrick, E. M. (1975) ‘A Taxonomy of Alphabets and Scripts’, Visible Language 8: 5–32.
Jansen, Martin (1992) Origen e historia de los reyes mixtecos [Vienna Codex], Mexico: FCE.
Karttunen, Frances (1994) Between Worlds: Interpreters, Guides and Survivors, New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
León-Portilla, Miguel (1986) Coloquios y Doctrina Cristiana, Mexico: UNAM.
León-Portilla, Miguel (1989) ‘Have we really Translated the Mesoamerican “Ancient Word”?’, in Swann
(ed), 313–338.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1967–74) Mythologiques, 4 vols. Paris: Plon.
Marcus, J. (1992) Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda, History and Myth in Four Ancient
Civilizations, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Mason, Ian (1994) ‘Discourse, Ideology and Translation’, in R. de Beaugrande , A. Shunaq and M. H.
Heliel (eds) Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East, Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamns, 23–34.
Niranjana, Tejaswini (1992) Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism and the Colonial Context,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Nowotny, K. A. (1961) Tlacuilolli: Die mexikanischen Bilderhandschriften, Stil und Inhalt, Berlin: Gebr.
Mann.
Oseki-Dépré, I. (1999) Théories et pratiques de la traduction littéraire, Paris: Colin.
Pound, Ezra (ed) (1969) Fenollosa. The Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry [1936], San
Francisco: City Lights.
Sahagún, Bernardino de (1997) Primeros memoriales, ed. by T. Sullivan , H.B. Nicholson , A.J.O.
Anderson , C.E. Dibble , E. Quiñones K ., W. Ruwet , Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Swann, B. (ed) (1992) On the Translation of Native American Literatures, Washington: Smithsonian
Institution.
Venuti, Lawrence (1998) The Scandals of Translation. Towards an Ethics of Difference, London:
Routledge.
Vieira, Else (1998) ‘New Registers for Translation in Latin America’, in P. Bush and K. Malmkjaer (eds)
Rimbaud’s Rainbow. Literary Translation in Higher Education, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 171–195.
Volkovitch, M. (1997) ‘Atelier d’écriture’, Assises de la traduction littéraire XIV.
Wolf, E. (1984) Europe and the People without History, Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California
Press.

Culture as Translation – and Beyond

Asad, Talal (1986) ‘The Concept of Cultural Translation in British Social Anthropology’, in Clifford and
Marcus (eds), 141–164.
Assmann, Aleida (1996) ‘The Curse and Blessing of Babel; or, Looking Back on Universalisms’, in Budick
and Iser (eds), 85–100.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris (1999) ‘1 + 1=3? Interkulturelle Beziehungen als “dritter Raum”’, Weimarer
Beiträge 45(4): 518–531.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris (ed) (1997) Übersetzung als Repräsentation fremder Kulturen, Berlin: Schmidt.
Bassnett, Susan (1998) ‘The Translation Turn in Cultural Studies’, in Bassnett and Lefevere (eds),
123–140.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris and A. Lefevere (eds) (1990) Translation, History and Culture, London & New
York: Pinter.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris and A. Lefevere (eds) (1998) Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary
Translation, Clevedon etc.: Multilingual Matters.
Berg, Eberhard and M. Fuchs (1993) ‘Phänomenologie der Differenz. Reflexions stufen ethnographischer
Repräsentation’, in Berg and Fuchs (eds), 11–108.
Berg, Eberhard and M. Fuchs (eds) (1993) Kultur, soziale Praxis, Text: Die Krise der ethnographischen
Repräsentation, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Bhabha, Homi K. (1994) The Location of Culture, London & New York: Routledge.
Budick, Sanford (1996) ‘Crises of Alterity: Cultural Untranslatability and the Experience of Secondary
Otherness’, in Budick and Iser (eds), 1–22.
Budick, Sanford and W. Iser (eds) (1996) The Translatability of Cultures: Figurations of the Space
Between, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Clifford, James (1986) ‘Introduction: Partial Truths’, in Clifford and Marcus (eds), 1–26.
Clifford, James and G. E. Marcus (eds) (1986) Writing Culture. The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography,
Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
Crapanzano, Vincent (1986) ‘Hermes’ Dilemma: The Masking of Subversion in Ethnographic Description’,
in Clifford and Marcus (eds), 51–76.
Dingwaney, Anuradha (1995) ‘Introduction: Translating, Third World, Cultures’, in A. Dingwaney and C.
Maier (eds) Between Languages and Cultures. Translation and Cross-Cultural Texts, Pittsburgh and
London: University of Pittsburgh Press, 3–15.
Duerr, Hans Peter (1985) Traumzeit. Über die Grenze zwischen Wildnis und Zivilisation, Frankfurt/M.:
Suhrkamp.
Foucault, Michel (1975) Surveiller et punir. La naissance de la prison, Paris: Gallimard.
Geertz, Clifford (1997) ‘Aus der Perspektive des Eingeborenen’. Zum Problem des ethnologischen
Verstehens’, in Geertz, Clifford : Dichte Beschreibung. Beiträge zum Verstehen kultureller Systeme,
übersetzt von Brigitte Luchesi und Rolf Bindemann, Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 289–309.
Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems. Descriptive and Systemic Approaches Explained,
Manchester: St. Jerome.
Kristeva, Julia (1988) Etrangers à nous-mêmes, Paris: Fayard. Strangers to Ourselves, translated by
Leon Roudiez , New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (1979) Argonauten des westlichen Pazifik. Ein Bericht über Unternehmungen und
Abenteuer der Eingeborenen in den Inselwelten von Melanesisch-Neuguinea, hg. von Fritz Kramer ,
Schriften, Bd.l, Frankfurt/M.: Syndikat.
Mead, Margaret (1974) Male and Female. A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World, Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books. [first publ. 1950].
Montrose, Louis (1986) ‘Renaissance literary studies and the subject of history’, English Literary
Renaissance 11(1): 5–12.
Nida, Eugene (1945) ‘Linguistics and ethnology in translation problems’, Word 1:194–208.
Niranjana, Tejaswini (1992) Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context,
Berkeley etc.: University of California Press.
Robyns, Clem (1992) ‘Towards a Sociosemiotics of Translation’, Romanistische Zeitschrift für
Literaturgeschichte. Cahiers d’Histoire des Littératures Romanes 16: 211–226.
Said, Edward W. (1989) ‘Representing the Colonized: Anthropologys Interlocutors’, Critical Inquiry 15:
205–225.
Simon, Sherry (1996) Gender in Translation. Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission, London &
New York: Routledge.
Sturge, Kate (1997) ‘Translation Strategies in Ethnography’, The Translator 3(1): 21–38.
Toury, Gideon (1995) Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Toury, Gideon (1998) ‘A Handful of Paragraphs on ‘Translation’ and ‘Norms’’, in C. Schäffner (ed)
Translation and Norms, Clevedon etc.: Multilingual Matters, 9–31.
Tyler, Stephen (1986) ‘Post-Modern Ethnography: From Document of the Occult to Occult Document’, in
Clifford and Marcus (eds), 122–140.
Tyler, Stephen (1993) ‘Zum, “Be-/Abschreiben” als “Sprechen für”. Ein Kommentar’, übersetzt von Ulrike
Bischoff, in Berg and Fuchs (eds), 288–296.
Valero-Garcés, Carmen (1995) ‘Modes of Translating Culture: Ethnography and Translation’, Meta XL:
556–563.
Werner, Michael (1997) ‘Dissymmetrien und symmetrische Modellbildungen in der Forschung zum
Kulturtransfer’, in H.-J. Lüsebrink and R. Reichardt (eds) Kulturtransfer im Epochenumbruch. Frankreich-
Deutschland 1770–1815, Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 87–101.
White, Hayden (1978) Tropics of Discourse, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wolf, Michaela (1997a) ‘Translation as a Process of Power: Aspects of Cultural Anthropology in
Translation’, in M. Snell-Hornby , Z. Jettmarová and K. Kaindl (eds) Translation as intercultural
communication: selected papers from the EST Congress, Prague 1995, Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
Benjamins, 123–133.
Wolf, Michaela (ed) (1997b) Übersetzungswissenschaft in Brasilien. Beiträge zum Status von, Original’
und, Übersetzung’, Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Wolf, Michaela (2000) ‘The Third Space in Postcolonial Representation’, in S. Simon and P. St-Pierre
(eds) Changing the Terms: Translating in the Postcolonial Era, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press,
127–145.
Ziegler, Heide (1999) ‘Introduction. The Translatability of Cultures’, in Stuttgart Seminar in Cultural
Studies: The Translatability of Cultures. Proceedings of the Fifth Stuttgart Seminar in Cultural Studies
03.08.-14.08.1998, Stuttgart & Weimar: Metzler, 7–19.

A ‘Multilingual' and ‘International' Translation Studies?

Ahmad, Aijaz (1992) In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, Bombay: Oxford University Press.
Arrojo, Rosemary (1999) ‘Interpretation as Possessive Love: Helene Cixous, Clarice Lispector and the
Ambivalence of Fidelity’, in Bassnett and Trivedi (eds), 141–161.
Asad, Talal (1986) ‘The Concept of Cultural Translation in British Social Anthropology’, in James Clifford
and George E. Marcus (eds) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, Berkeley/London:
University of California Press, 141–164.
Bassnett, Susan (1993) Comparative Literature: A Critical Introduction, Oxford & Cambridge Mass.:
Blackwell.
Asad, Talal and Harish Trivedi (eds) (1999) Post-Colonial Translation: Theory and Practice. London &
New York. Routledge.
Bishop, Alan J. (1990) ‘Western Mathematics: The Secret Weapon of Cultural Imperialism’, Race and
Class 32:2.; reprinted in Bill Ashcroft , Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin (eds.) (1997) The Post-Colonial
Studies Reader, London & New York: Routledge, 71–76.
Chesterman, Andrew (2000) ‘Empirical Research Methods in Translation Studies’, Erikoiskielet ja
käännösteoria (VAKKI-symposiumi XX) 27, 9–22.
Christian, Barbara (1987) ‘The Race for Theory’, Cultural Critique 6; reprinted in Padmini Mongia (ed)
(1996) Contemporary Postcolonial Theory. A Reader, London & New York: Arnold, 148–157.
Cronin, Michael (1995) ‘Altered States: Translation and Minority Languages’, TTR 8(1): 85–103.
Cronin, Michael (1998) ‘The Cracked Looking Glass of Servants: Translation and Minority Languages in a
Global Age’, The Translator 4(2): 145–162.
Devy, Ganesh (1999) ‘Translation and Literary History – an Indian View’, in Bassnett and Trivedi (eds),
182–188.
Dharwadker, Vinay (1999) ‘A.K. Ramanujans Theory and Practice of Translation’, in Bassnett and Trivedi
(eds), 114–140.
Gillham, Bill (2000) Case Study Research Methods, London & New York: Continuum.
Holmes, James S. (1988) Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies,
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Jänis, Marja (2000) Review of Vilén N. Komissarov’ Теоретические основы мето ики обучения (1997)’,
Across Languages and Cultures 1(1): 133–136.
Lefevere, Andre (1998) ‘Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation’, in Susan Bassnett and Andre
Lefevere (eds) Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
12–24.
Liu, Lydia H. (1995) Translingual Practice. Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity – China
1900–1937, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Miller, Hillis J. (1996) ‘Border Crossings, Translating Theory: Ruth’, in Sanford Budick and Wolfgang Iser
(eds) The Translatability of Cultures: Figurations of the Space Between. Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 207–223.
Mongia, Padmini . (1996) ‘Introduction’, in Padmini Mongia (ed) Contemporary Postcolonial Theory. A
Reader, London & New York: Arnold, 1–18.
Paloposki, Outi and Riitta Oittinen (2000) ‘The Domesticated Foreign’, in Andrew Chesterman , Natividad
Gallardo San Salvador and Yves Gambier (eds) Translation in Context: Selected Papers from the EST
Congress, Granada 1998, Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 373–390.
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 5(1) (1997) Russian Translation Studies special issue.
Phillips, Estelle M. and D. S. Pugh (1995) How to Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and Their
Supervisors, Buckingham & Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Phillipson, Robert (1993) Linguistic Imperialism, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Said, Edward (1983) ‘Travelling Theory’, in The World, the Text and the Critic, Cambridge (Mass.):
Harvard University Press, 226–247.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1999) A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing
Present, Cambridge (Mass.) & London: Harvard University Press.
Tymoczko, Maria (1999a) ‘Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation’, in Bassnett and Trivedi (eds),
19–40.
Tymoczko, Maria (1999b) Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English
Translation, Manchester: St. Jerome.
Tymoczko, Maria (2000) ‘Translation and Political Engagement. Activism, Social Change and the Role of
Translation in Geopolitical Shifts’, The Translator 6(1): 23–47.
Viswanatha, Vanamala and Sherry Simon (1999) ‘Shifting Grounds of Exchange: B.M. Srikantaiah and
Kannada Translation’, in Bassnett and Trivedi (eds), 162–181.
Zlateva, Palma (2000) ‘A Wheel We Have Been Reinventing’ [review of Anton Popovič’s Проблемы ху
ожественного перево о], The Translator 6(1): 109–115.