Naima El Maghnougi – The Turns of Translation Studies: Different Histories, Shifting Discourses
The Turns of Translation Studies: Different Histories, Shifting
Naima EL MAGHNOUGI*
This paper scrutinizes the main developments translation theories have seen in the last fifty years with a particular emphasis on the shift marked by the descriptive turn from the 1970s onwards and the emergence of translation studies as a new discipline. My historical sketching highlights the divergent scholarly approaches to translation and shows how different schools of translation have applied different frameworks and perspectives depending on their special and temporal settings. Therefore, what might seem as a history of translation studies turns to be different histories but they coalesce in their relation to the present state of this field of research and their ability to interpret its connection or disconnection with its past. This is in fact what Lieven D’hulst points out as he argues that history “is virtually the only means by which the discipline of translation studies can achieve coherence by showing how divergent traditions of thought and activity are in fact similar or interconnected, by linking the past to the present.”
Keywords: Translation History, The descriptive turn, The cultural turn, Postcolonial translation studies.
The diachronic approach I am applying in this paper deviates considerably from the synchronic treatments translation scholars have usually emphasized in their study of translation; it seeks to link the past to the present in an attempt to understand the shifting and divergent discourses that have characterized translations theories so far. In other words, my historical survey does not emphasize the continuity or progress in translation theories; it rather highlights their “discontinuity and present insufficiencies.” Discontinuity is explained through the different perspectives and theoretical frameworks contemporary translation theories have applied, while insufficiency is reflected in the limitation of the linguistics-oriented approaches in explaining the complex cultural, social, and political environment within which translation is practiced. My use of translation history concurs to Tisajwini Niranjana’s critical historiography:
To articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it ‘the way it really was’. It means to seize hold of a memory as it flashes up a moment of danger»…Remembrance is therefore intimately connected with the critique of historicism. Rather than being concerned merely with what once happened and is now past, the historical materialist focuses on what has happened in « a universe which is still here, now ». In grasping the constellation of the past and the present, the deconstructive historian relies on the notion between historiography and politics that is identical to the theological interrelation between remembrance and redemption.
Niranjana’s critique of historicism draws on Derrida’s concept of critical historiography and Benjamin’s concept of remembrance. Benjamin links remembrance, “Eingedenken” to experience, “Erlebnis”; both of which constitute what he calls a common memory “Gedachtnis” and collective experience “Erfahrung”. However, Benjamin believes that, “to articulate the past historically does not mean to recognize it “the way it really was”. Itrather means,“to seize hold of a memory as it flashes in a moment of danger”. Remembrance in this sense is a means of criticizing and assessing the past and the present. Moreover, Niranjana opposes what Derrida calls “the metaphysical concept of history” which conceives of history as “a linear scheme of the unfolding of presence, where the line relates the final presence to the originary presence according to the straight line or the circle”. Following Derrida, sheadopts a notion of history that reveals its discontinuous and heterogeneous nature. As acritical historian, Niranjana recalls the past not as an “abstract area of identity and similarity” but rather by stressing the “continua of transformation” through which it passes.. In sum, critical historiography, as seen by Niranjana and her predecessors Benjamin and Derrida, is underpinned by the ability of the historiographer to “Brush history against the grain” and “recover the sparks of hope in the oppressed past”. This deconstructive and poststructuralist reading of history is, in fact, “not epistemological but political, it is deliberately interventionist and strategic.”
Furthermore, the theory of translation is inseparable from its history. As with any field of research, the accumulation of concrete data and experiences, despite their spatial and temporal differences, constitute the basis for theoretical formulation and model construction in translation studies. In turn, these theoretical formulations and research models have been used to interpret and clarify the linguistic, cultural, as well as the sociological constants behind the practice of translation worldwide. Interestingly, Laurence Venuti emphasizes the importance of translation theory and highlights the far-reaching consequences resulting from the ignorance of its history. According to him, translation studies is “suffering from a self-inflicted marginality”, and it is only by acknowledging its different theoretical orientations that we can assess their impact on “the methodological fragmentation that characterizes translation research and keeps translation on the margins of cultural discourse, both in and out of the academy.”
Most important, history appears as an important component in many of contemporary translation studies: James Holmes early descriptive studies rely on the description of translations and how they have been undertaken in different historical times, while the intertwining of literary translation and literary history is crucial to the polysystem paradigm led by Itamar-Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury. Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere relate literary translation to the history of culture, for them the writing of a history of cross-cultural encounters is dependent of a history of translation. As to the postcolonial and poststructuralist paradigms, their critique of literary and cultural translation is combined with a critique of the history of empire and colonialism. According to these latter paradigms, all types of intercultural exchanges, including translation, are enmeshed in asymmetries of power relations between the empire and its colonies.
Departing from these premises, the different turns of translation studies I am exploring in this paper will demonstrate that since the 1970s contemporary translation theories have increasingly adopted frames of reference from other areas of research and other academic disciplines. Although the first innovations in the field were introduced in the 1960s by using frames from modern linguistics, their limited research perspectives proved insufficient to account for the more complex cultural, social, and political contexts within which translations are shaped. The descriptive paradigm in translation studies would mark an important turn in the 1970s and would develop new theoretical frameworks, which apply functionalist and sociological analysis of translation as in the Polysystem theory. Other specific frames of reference for research on translation came from cultural studies, particularly from postcolonial and gender studies.
Functional and Descriptive Translation Studies
Edwin Gentzler asserts that the emergence of the functionalist trend in translation constitutes an important moment in the evolution of translation studies particularly that it marked a rupture with theories revolving around the faithful vs. free axis. In fact, the formation of translation studies as a new field has started with the descriptive paradigm lunched in James Holme’s essay “The Name and the Nature of Translation Studies” (1972), yet some earlier theories have constituted the seeds for the functional orientation that would widely shape the new descriptive theories of translation later on. In what follows, I will first draw on the contribution of Eugene Nida whose “functional equivalence” vs “formal equivalence” was a pioneering attempt to highlight the importance of the cultural component and its function in communicating meaning in translation. Then I will move to James Holmes’ “manifesto” of translation studies which founded for the shift from source text oriented studies to target text oriented studies by assigning important cultural and social function to translation in the target culture. Similar orientations were being taken by the Czech school represented by the polysystem theory of Etamar-Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury. Significantly, the impact of cultural and sociological perspectives is evident in all of these schools of translation.
In the 1960s, Eugene Nida emerged as the most influential functionalist in translation theory. Nida’s significant statements about translation are posited in his book, Towards a Science of Translating (1964) and they deviate considerably from the traditional prescriptive theories of translation. Nida emphasizes that there is no one single way of translating, not even in translating the sacred text, and argues that the method of translation must relate to the purpose of the translation, the goals of the translator, the nature and to the needs of the target audience. Nida distinguishes between “dynamic” and “formal” varieties of “correspondence”, between what he calls “functional” and “formal” equivalence. The translated text, according to Nida, should produce a response on the target culture’s reader that is “essentially like” the response on the “original” receptor in the source culture; if it does not, he suggests making changes in the text in order to solicit that “initial response”. According to Gentzler, Nida attempts to redefine equivalence: translation is not only the simple textual transfer of the message which he calls “formal equivalence”; translation should rather focus on “dynamic equivalence” by producing the same equivalent effect of the original message upon the receiver in the source culture. To put it in Nida’s words, translation “is not so concerned with matching the receptors-language message with the source language message, but with the dynamic relationship, that the relationship between the receptor and the message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message.”Nida, therefore, does not mind any changes in the form or the structure of the original message as far as the functional equivalence between the original message and the translated one is achieved because, as Gentzler explains, “Verbal symbols are only labels of human origin, and the “message” is from a higher source.
Clearly, Nida’s theory of translation rests on his protestant missionary motivations and his interest in disseminating the Christian faith; its limitation is undeniably due to his religious belief that, “God acts as the ultimate guarantor of the fidelity in meaning in translations undertaken in the service of faith.”Nida still relies on the traditional assumption that meaning and response can be predicted or identified by the translator and are transcendentally transferred regardless of the language in use: “Theyare then pulled out of history, translated into a new context, and made to work in the same manner. The surface manifestation does not really matter to Nida; changes in the text, the words, and the metaphors are allowed as long as the target language text functions in the same manner as the source text.”Thus, Nida’s functional equivalence stems from his conviction that the meaning and the intention of “higher originary message” in the sacred text is fixed, eternal and precedes language itself, a reality that Gentzler confirms while he undermines the scientific grounding in Nida’s theory:
While Nida’sTowards a Science of Translating appears to be grounded in Modern linguistics, the non-dit always present is a protestant subtext. Nida believes, as he argued in Message and Mission, that words are essentially labels (Nida 1960); if they need to be changed or replaced in order to effect communication, then they should be adjusted accordingly. Verbal symbols are only labels of human origin, and the “message” is from a higher source. Texts are equally pliable, adaptingthemselves to multiple forms without altering the original intention. Missionary work depend upon establishing a point of contact, any point of contact, and building from there.
In fact, Nida opened the door to considering the cultural and pragmatic effects of translations upon the target receptor. His interest, however, remained focused on the source text and failed to account for the complex cultural and social negotiations that shape translations in the target culture. It is true that modern linguistics was primarily interested in drawing textual and structural parallelism between source and target texts, yet it had a considerable impact on developing translation theories especially with the emergence of pragmatics and sociolinguistics. In this regard, Hans Vermeer argues that the broadening of the scope of modern linguistics has led to the emergence of social and communicative aspects in translation and has opened the door for an increasingly multidisciplinary approach to translation by incorporating new frameworks from other fields such as sociology and literary studies.Then it is not surprising at all that the most revolutionary studies about translation emerged among literary figures such as James Holmes and his Jewish colleagues Itamar- Even- Zohar and Gideon Toury.
James Holmes’ important contribution consists of establishing an independent academic status for translation studies. His strong will in establishing a science of translation did not stem from a desire to develop a set of rules for translation; but it was rather fuelled by his ambition to create a common ground for discussing translation issues among translation scholars and practitioners. His ultimate aspiration was to found a general and inclusive theory of translation that would “serve to explain and predict all phenomena falling within the terrain of translating and translation.” Holmes’ seminal paper given in the translation section of the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics, held in Copenhagen in August 1972, was entitled “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. This paper, as he explains, is designed as the « map » of an “empirical” “disciplinary utopia”. In Holmes’ own words, it is “a new sense of a shared interest in a common set of problems, approaches, and objectives on the part of a new grouping of researchers.According to Mary Snell Hornby, Holmes formulated the “raw program” and presented “the manifesto” to today’s discipline…but from today’s viewpoint, the paper raises a visionary blue print of the future discipline.
James Holmes’ essay is in fact the founding statement for a new structure and scope of contemporary translation studies. He conceives of his new approach as an empirical practice, which looks at actual translated texts as they appear in a given culture. He breaks translation studies down into three areas of focus: 1The descriptive branch: to describe phenomena of translations as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience; 2 the theory branch: to establish principles by which these phenomena can be explained and predicted; 3 the applied branch: to use information gained from 1 and 2 in the practice of translation and training of translators. While Holmes presents the three distinct branches of the discipline, descriptive, theoretical and applied, he insists on their relationship as complementary and dialectical:
The relation is a dialectical one, with each of the three branches supplying materials for the other two, and making use of the findings which they in turn provide. Translation theory, for instance, cannot do without the solid, specific data yielded by research in descriptive and applied translation studies, while on the other hand one cannot even begin to work in one of the other two fields without having at least an intuitive theoretical hypothesis as one’s starting point.
According to Gentzler, Holmes’ will was to bring together the efforts of both linguists, who operated only at the level of language structure and dismissed literary analysis, and literary translators who dismissed the “scientific” claim in linguistic analysis. The new name he coined for the field quite reflects this new orientation since it establishes “a non-allied and new approach” of translation. Building on this, Holmes distinguishes between several levels within each branch: The descriptive branch, for instance, is divided to include product-oriented, function-oriented, and process-oriented studies. The product-oriented branch calls for a “text-focused” empirical description of translations, and then larger corpuses of translations in a specific period, language, or discourse type. The process-oriented approach looks at the problem of the “black box”, or what is going on in the translator’s mind. The function-oriented branch introduces a cultural component effecting the translated text’s reception.This latter category describes the function of translations in the recipient socio-cultural situation by raising important questions about “which texts were (and, often as important, were not) translated in a certain time or in a certain place, and what influences were exerted in consequence”. According to Holmes, this kind of studies need more emphasis as it can lead to the development of a field of translation sociology, or what he names as “socio- translation studies”. Holmes mapping of the discipline culminates in the application of the findings of both the descriptive and theoretical data in 1-Translators’ training, 2-developing translation lexicographical and terminological aids, 3- the field of translation policy, 4-and in translation criticism.
Actually, Holmes’ attempts to redefine translation theory are deeply affected by his literary experience as a poet translator. Edwin Gentzler argues that Holmes’ intention was to give translations, usually conceived as marginal, a primary position within the American literary canon. As a verse translator, Holmes believed that the reference in translated poetry is not the same as it is in the original text. Holmes was particularly inspired by Roland Barthes concept of “metaliterature”, which according to this latter, “deals with the linguistic formulations made by others; it is a comment on comment.” By metaliterature Barthes meant the body of critical reading of literature be it poetry, fiction or drama. Holmes, however, extended Barthes use of metaliterature and considered the translated poetry as a one of many other metaliterary forms. According to him, translated poetry does not only interpret the original poetry, but also, and most importantly, represents both a particular realm in critical writing and a “primary literature” which in turn produces critical interpretation. About this dual role played by translation as both “referring and producing simultaneously”, Holmes writes:
All translation is an act of critical interpretation, but there are some translations of poetry which differ from other interpretive forms in that they also have the aim of being acts of poetry… it might be helpful if for this specific literary form, with its double purpose as metaliterature and as a primary literature, we introduced the designation “metapoem”.
Building on this quotation, James Holmes did not believe in pre-existent literary or linguistic theories that are applicable to translation; he rather suggested that the field should first look at what is specific about translation and then apply that knowledge to literary and linguistic theory. It is in fact the most important shift in research on translation; Holmes’ approach does not highlight a set of predetermined processes of translation applicable transcendentally, he acknowledges the translations themselves as “the object of study, which are by definition mediations subject to theoretical manipulation and prevailing artistic norms at the same time.” Holmes was more interested in revealing the relationship of the translation to other signifying systems within the target culture. According to him, this is only achievable by describing various translation methodologies and processes and their assessment in different historical times.
In the literary trend established by Holmes, translation studies became less concerned with identity and the old problem of reference, and more concerned with analysing (a) the relationship of the translated text (as a secondary text) to the source text within a framework of the signifying practices inherent in that particular literary tradition, and (b) the relationship of the translated text (as a primary text) to the signifying practices within the framework of the tradition of the target culture.
It is clear that translation studies, as conceived by Holmes’ “manifesto”, has displaced the epistemological problem in research on translation by viewing the translated text as “both produced and producing. Its mediatory role is more than a synchronic transfer of meaning across cultures; it mediates diachronically as well, in multiple historical traditions.” Indeed, it is significant that most of the scholars who developed descriptive translation studies had primarily literary interests, as it is the case with Holmes’ approach. In addition to the complex theoretical model, which he uses to interrogate the work of linguistic approaches to translation, Holmes aims at questioning the dominating discourses in literary studies as well. In this regard, Mary Snell Hornbyargues thatJames Holmes’ descriptive approach to translation, by claiming the importance of the translated text and its function in the target cultural and social systems, aims at “changing the face of literary history, with the role of translating and translations within that history for the first time really coming into its own.”His ultimate objective, Mary adds, is to unsettle the polemic orientation and the underlying discourse in most literary criticism during his time. Most of these approaches shared the common consideration of particular canonized texts as the only subject of linguistic and literary analysis, and this was done at the expense of “marginal texts” such as translations. James Holmes was not the only one to launch the descriptive trend in translation studies by assigning sociocultural functions to translation. Other literary scholars emerged in Tel Aviv, namely Itamar Even-Zohar and his colleague Gideon Toury who developed the polysystem theory and had considerable impact on the conceptual framework adopted by Holmes himself. The latter’s paper, “The state of two Arts: Literary Translation and Translation Studies in the West Today”, presented in Vienna in August 1984 makes it clear that Holmes was approving the new orientation in the polysystemic approach:
Itamar-Even-Zohar and scholars grouped around him at Tel Aviv have in recent years provided us with a conceptual framework in their ongoing definition of the fortunes of literary texts as a “polysystem”. This polysystemic approach, which has been heralded with a great deal less fanfare than has deconstructionism, is today, gaining more and more adherence in the West as a framework for explaining what takes place in the literary culture.
Indeed, the polysystem theory represents a stage of maturity in the descriptive trend in translation studies. Both Itamar-Even-Zohar (1978-1990) and Gideon Toury (1980-1995) argued that translations in general and literary translations in particular, commonly put on the margin of literary productions, constitute an independent system within the many systems or “polysystem” of the target culture.“Polysystem” refers to the entire network of correlated systems- literary and extra-literary- within a given culture.As the leading scholars of this theory,Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury reject the synchronic and ahistorical basis in studying translations and argue in favour of a diachronic analysis by directing attention to their social and cultural mediating powers. Most importantly, they agree with Holmes’ point of view in considering translations as primary facts of the target system, which reflect textual and cultural practices that are inherent to that system. Viewed as such, translations in the polysystem theory are given central positions in literary systems; they are considered as an independent “literary repertoire” which may perform different literary and cultural functions in the target system. For instance, Itamar-Even-Zohar starts his paper “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem” (1978) by drawing attention to the set of interrelations that govern translations in a particular literary polysystem:
translated works do correlate in at least two ways: (a) in the way their source texts are selected by the target literature, the principle of selection never being uncorrelatable with the home co-system of the target literature; and (b) in the way they adopt specific norms, behaviors, and policies –in short, in their use of the literary repertoire- which results from their relations with the other home co-systems. These are not confined to the linguistic level only, but are manifest on any selection level as well.
Most important, Even- Zohar conceives of translated literature as the active system within any literary polysystem. Translations, according to him, constitute an “integral part of innovatory forces” since they may be responsible of reshuffling the target literature by introducing “a new (poetic) language, or compositional patterns and techniques”. Then the selection of the works to be translated is governed by the situation of literature in the home polysystem: “the texts are chosen according to their compatibility with the new approaches and the supposedly innovatory role they may assume within the target literature.” Moreover, Evan-Zohar conceives of this innovatory role of translation as a general law that manifests in three major cases: (a) when a literature is “young”, in the process of being established; (b) when a literature is either “peripheral” or “weak”, or both; and (c) when there are turning points, crises or literary vacuum in a literature.Therefore, the functions of translation are shaped by the age, the strength and stability of the literary polysystem. Gentzler argues that Even-Zohar’s thinking about translation was primarily “initiated in view of the situation of Hebrew literature as a young system depending on translated Russian and Yiddish literature to consolidate and innovate its literary system.” However, translations have been a source of substantial innovations not only in the cases specified here, but also in stronger and more ancient literary systems. Suffice it to recall the Nahda movement in Egypt at the beginning of the twentieth century and the American literary movements in the sixties. Both of these literatures turned to other foreign literatures for new ideas and forms.
On the other hand, Gideon Toury’s essay “The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation” (1978), emphasizes the cultural significance in translation activities. Translation or what Tourynames as “translatorship” is conceived through the social role it can play and the function it fulfils in agreement with the “norms” and the “terms of reference” of the target culture. Toury’s target oriented research model aims at studying the socio-cultural dimension of “transnational norms” as they manifest in the target text and its reception in the target culture. In addition to constraints related to the systemic differences between languages, Gideon argues that translation is equally influenced by the discursive strategies translators adopt in particular socio-cultural environment: “At any rate, translators performing under different conditions (e.g., translating texts of different kinds, and/or for different audiences) often adopt different strategies, and ultimately come up with markedly different products.” Therefore, Toury conceives of translation as a norm governed activity, and these norms result from a certain “regularity of behaviour” and are identified in term of the target culture within which the translation act happens. This kind of analysis of translation rests on a sociologist perception of translations as it is clear in Toury’s assertion,
sociologist and psychologists have long regarded norms as the translation of general values or ideas shared by a community – as to what is right and wrong, adequate and inadequate- into performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations, specifying what is prescribed and forbidden as well as what is tolerated and permitted in a certain behavioural dimension.
Undeniably, the Polysystem theory proves to be a decisive shift in translation research by advancing the socio-cultural implications and functions of translation activities. The target orientation through which they direct their diachronic description of translations have reconsidered the marginality of these literary products and promoted their importance in shaping literary traditions and intercultural exchanges. Nevertheless, the diachronic approach developed by the Jewish scholars differs considerably from the one suggested by Holmes and early functionalists. While the latters believed in “the one-to-one relationship between translations and the subjective ability of the translator to derive an equivalent text that in turn influenced the literary and cultural conventions in a particular society”, the Polysystemist believed in the opposite: it is the social norms and conventions in the receiving culture which influence the translator and his translation decisions. Yet, this difference did not affect their collaboration which resulted in the historic 1976 translation studies colloquium in Leuven and the 1978 colloquium held in Tel Aviv. Edwin Gentzler explains that these conferences illustrate the merging of the works of the Polysystemist and other translation theorists in Netherland and Belgium, and reflect similar interests in translation among which he states the following:
The Hebrew lacked a canon of literary works and was totally dependent upon foreign language text to provide both diversity and depth. More importantly, however, was the dependence of the culture as whole upon translation for commercial and political purposes. In the case of the Dutch/Flemish situation, economic, intellectual, and social opportunities were certainly enhanced by multilingual interaction; in the case of Israel, the survival of the nation became dependent on translation. If the Dutch and Belgian scholars found themselves at an intellectual crossroads of Europe, the Israeli scholars found themselves at a crossroads not only between the Soviet Union and the West, but between Western and “Third World” cultures.
Although the domestic socio-cultural conditions of the Jewish and the state of their literary system were behind the development of the Polysystem theory, the works of Even-Zohar and Gideon made significant contribution, not only to the field of literary theory , but to the translation theory as well. Basically, they demonstrate the importance of translation within the larger context of literary and cultural history, a role that was traditionally ignored by literary and cultural theorists. Nonetheless, by organizing literary systems in unified homogeneous categories and by specifying general laws and norms governing all translation phenomena, these Jewish scholars partly inscribe their approach in the old universalist claims. According to Gentzler, for both of them “translated texts are viewed as empirical facts, cultural norms are defined as static, non-contradictory rules influencing the generation of actual texts, and multiple tendencies within historical epochs are reduced to unified behavioural rules.”
The Cultural turn of translation studies
Mary Snell-Hornby asserts that, it was “the cultural turn of the 1980s that established the basic profile for translation studies.” In fact, this statement confirms Bassnett and Lefevere’s declaration in their co-authored volume Translation, History and Culture (1992) that “the growth of translation studies as a separate discipline is a success story of the 1980s.” (1992: xi)According to Mary Snell-Hornby, Bassnett and Lefevere use the notion of the “cultural turn” with explicit reference to her paper which was presented at Warwick conference in 1988 “linguistic Transcoding or cultural transfer? A Critique of Translation Theory in Germany”. Her paper describes the developments of translation theory in Germany during the 1980s and shows how translation was no longer studied as text but rather as culture and politics. This shift of interest in translation studies is what Mary Snell Hornby terms as “the cultural turn”; and it is taken by Bassnett and Lefevere as a metaphor for the cultural move in research on translation. Although the majority of translation scholars relate the “official” cultural turn in translation studies to Susan Bassnett and Lefevre’s book, Hornby suggests that it was “unofficially” taken in Germany during the 1980s.
The cultural turn, that both Susan Bassnett and AndréLefevere announced with the publication of their volume enhances the interdisciplinary aspects of contemporary translation studies and develops radical attitudes to literary translation. The turn shows important connections of translation with cultural studies, especially with postcolonial and gender studies. Bassnett even called for a “translation turn” in cultural studies, and emphasizes that translation has increased in importance and should be taken into consideration in any study about literary history and “intercultural transfer”. Bassnett adds that translation studies “has cumulated a critical mass of scholarship that any cultural studies scholars investigating intercultural movement should consult”.Viewed as such, translation deserves a much more central position in cultural history than the one to which it is usually relegated. Moreover, Bassnett insists that,“the moment has come for the two disciplines to jump off their parallel track and join forces.” 
Interestingly, in Translation, History and Culture (1992), Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere emphasize that their study of literary translations goes beyond language and focuses more on the interaction between translation and culture, and on “the larger issues of context, history and convention.”  The introductory essay of this volume traces the shift of emphasis in translation studies and argues that,
the study of the practice of translation had moved from the formalist phase and was beginning to consider broader issues of context, history and convention. We called this shift of emphasis “the cultural turn” in translation studies, and suggested that a study of the process of translation combined with the praxis of translating could offer a way of understanding how complex manipulative textual processes take place: How a text is selected for translation, for example, what role the translator plays in the selection, what role an editor, publisher, or patron plays, what criteria determine the strategies that will be employed by the translator, how a text might be received in the target system. For a translation always takes place in a continuum, never in a void, and there are all kinds of textual and extra-textual constraints upon the translator. These constraints or manipulatory processes involved in the transfer of texts have become the focus of Translation Studies.
The “cultural turn” is a key concept in Bassnett and Lefevere’s argument. It is described as the abandoning of the “scientific’ linguistic approach based on the concept of “equivalence”, and moving from “text” to “culture.” Bassnett and Lefevere explain this shift not only in terms of poetic or aesthetic devices governing translation practices in a particular culture, but in terms of the ideological forces that shape them as well. They argue that translation scholars should “go into the vagaries and vicissitudes of the exercise of power in a society, and what the exercise of power means in terms of the production of culture, of which the production of translations is part.” Culture, as Bassnett and Lefevere explain, takes on a broader and more concrete sense than with the Polysystem theorists, especially that it includes extra-textual constraints for translation such as social and economic conditions, as well as all kinds of manipulating processes and discourses of institutions of power. These factors intervene at the level of text selection and its function in a literary system because “a translation always takes place in a continuum, never in a void.”Subsequently, they ask questions such as why certain texts are translated and others are not? What is the agenda behind translation? How are translators used by those in control of such agendas? Indeed, with the publication of Bassnett and Lefevere’s anthology, the cultural turn has had important repercussions on every branch of translation studies.
Actually, André Lefevere started his research career as one of the leading figures in the manipulation school. He was influenced by the polysystemists’ approach and shared their claim for the importance of translation in the evolution of literature and literary theory, yet his approach, especially after he moved to the United States in the early eighties, started moving away from the Polysystem model, which he found restrictive. Adopting more of a cultural studies model, he focused both on institutions of prestige and power within any given culture and patterns in literary translations.Lefevere’s considerable attempt to shift beyond the polysystem theory is illustrated in his article“ Translated Literature: Towardsan Integrated Theory”(1981) where he expressed his interest in developing an alternative theory of translation that could involve the spectrum of social, economic and political factors within which translations are produced.Lefevere’s article introduced his concept of “refracted texts” to describe all literary texts including translations, which according to him, are processed to serve certain poetics or a certain ideology and literary discourse in the target culture. Similar argument is developed in his book Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (1992) which shows clearly how his research model incorporates literary translation into literary theory and criticism. His approach focuses more on the “concrete factors” that govern the reception, acceptance or rejection of literary texts in any culture, including translation. According to him, issues such as power and ideology do not only shape literary writing but they also intervene in translation as a rewriting. Lefevere uses “refraction” or “rewriting” alternatively to indicate literary translation, because, as he explains, these refractions are inherent in the literary system or the spectrum that refracts them:
Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and in its positive aspect can help in the evolution of literature and society. Rewritings can introduce new concepts, new genres, new devices and the history of translation is the history also of literary innovation, of the shaping power of one culture upon another.
André Lefevere believes that the people in positions of power are the ones who undertake the “rewriting” of a source text and govern its consumption by the public in the target culture. Moreover, all rewritings may interact positively or negatively with the literary poetics or ideology of the receiving system. In other words, any rewriting is necessarily motivated by a desire to conform to or to rebel against the ideological or poetological environment in which it takes place. According to Lefevere, there are three main factors, which control the target literary system: first, the role of professionals such as critics, reviewers, University teachers, members of academies and translators. Second, the dominant poetics or literary discourse, which Lefevere describes in relation to the target social and cultural systems because these powerful structures mayindeed play a decisive role in its maintenance. Lefevere names such powerful structures as “patronage”, and it is the third factor which intervenes outside the literary system.
The concept of Patronage, as definedby André Lefevere, refers to “any kind of force that can be influential in encouraging and propagating, but also in discouraging, censoring and destroying works of literature” Patrons can be either an influential or a powerful individual in a given historical era, groups, such as a religious body or a political party, or institutions such as publishing companies and sponsors. Patrons can also include institutions, which control the production and the distribution of literature such as national academies, academic journals and the educational establishments.In reality, the concept of “patronage” is the most remarkable innovation Lefevere introduced in translation studies; it opened the door for investigating the ideological forces and powers that shape translation. Lefevere, however, does not conceive of power as a repressive force that openly or directly affects translation; he rather understands “power” in its Foucauldian sense:
What makes power hold good, what makes it accepted, is simply the fact that it doesn’t only weight on us as a force that says no, but it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse. 
Thus, the power or the hegemony of patrons resides in the maintenance of certain ideologies and discourses, usually in an indirect way by “delegating authority” to the professionals of the literary system. Viewed as such, Lefevere contends that ideology is irrevocably the most important component in any patronage system. He defines this concept as “a set of discourses which wrestle over interests which are in some way relevant to the maintenance or interrogation of power structures central to a whole form of social and historical life.In this sense, whether it is the translator’s ideology or the ideology imposed upon the translator by patronage, Lefevere associates ideology with a covered manipulation which enables the socially powerful groups or class tomaintain their ideas and beliefs asa means of legitimating their interests.Nonetheless, ideology cannot be defined solely by underlining its negative connotation or by linking it to the dominance and the hegemony of a particular group. Ideology may well be viewed, as Verschueren interprets it, “as any constellation of beliefs or ideas, bearing on an aspect of social reality, which are experienced as fundamental or commonsensical which can be observed to play a normative role.”
From the point of view of ideology and power hierarchies, the cultural turn of the 1990s has drawn crucial attention to translation poetics and its discursive strategies within a given literary system; they are indeed reflective of the translators’ social positions and the cultural forces that guide them. This entails that translation, as a creative project, is also involved in how certain cultural and social identities react to and negotiate such forces and hierarchies by conforming to or by opposing them. In this regard, Sherry Simon’s book Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission (1996) gives an insightful analysis of how identity issues, gender in particular, have shaped translation and the understanding of culture. Simon explains how the Anglo-American feminist ideology of the 1970s has developed into a gendered discourse on translation and argues that, “The entry of gender into translation theory has a lot to do with the renewed prestige of translation as a “re-writing” and…it shows the importance for all the social and human sciences of a critical reframing of gender, identity and subject positions within language.”Simon explains that the implication of gender in translation started with women’s reaction to men’s writings; they were increasingly aware of the fact that the texts they were translating were alien to them especially that they stemmed from the pervasive patriarchal social order.
Simon’s seminal book considers the contribution of women translators throughout history; she tries to answer questions like how and why women were attracted to translations. As it was difficult for women to integrate the literary scene at a time social patriarchy was the norm, translation provided them with a good opportunity to be active in this field by importing other literary experiences beyond their national boundaries. Simon, for instance, explains the eminent role of the English translator Constance Garnett (1862-1946) in making the great classics of Russian literature available in English; she translated the entire works of Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoevesky, Chekov and Gogoland made their modern writings popular among the English speaking audiences. However, Simon’s ultimate objective is not only to valorise women’s literary contributions by means of translation, but also and more importantly to explain how gendered positions have been taken in the use of language in translation. She starts by emphasizing the significant parallelism between women and translators’ positions in the social and literary hierarchies, both have taken the inferior positions “Translators and women have been historically the weaker figures in their respective hierarchies: translators are handmaidens to authors, women inferior to men.”Moreover, Simon explains how this marginal position has been enhanced by the set of concepts and the sexist language which have historically compared translations to women: they are usually described as “reputed females”, unfaithful and subject to suspicion. She gives examples of the seventeenth century French description of translations as “les bellesinfidèles”; they were artistically beautiful but unfaithful to their sources.
Whether affirmed or denounced, the femininity of translation is a persistent historical trope. “Woman” and “translator” have been relegated to the same position of discursive inferiority. The hierarchical authority of the original over the reproduction is linked with imagery of masculine and feminine; the original is considered the strong generative male, the translation the weaker and derivative female. We are not surprised to learn that the language used to describe translating dips liberally into the vocabulary of sexism, drawing on images of dominance and inferiority, fidelity and libertinage. The most persistent of these expressions, “les belles infidèles,” has for centuries encouraged an attitude of suspicion toward the seemly but wayward translation. 
Therefore, the feminist translational project emerges as an attempt to unsettle the literary and social structures that supports this kind of feminizing discourse about translation; and it stems from the desire of these female translators to mark this field of research by their gendered identity and cultural stances. Actually, Women translators have become conscious of the power that resides in the use of language in a critical reconsideration of identity and subject positions in re-writings and original writings as well. The distinguished wave of Canadian feminist translation theories, which constitute Simon’s object of study, developed with the experience of some feminist figures who were simultaneously critics and translators of the Quebec avant-garde feminist writing in French. Simon cites the names of Susanne Lotbinière-Harwood, Kathy Mezie and Barbara Godard and presents them as the most famous cultural mediators between Quebec and English Canada during the late 1970s and the 1980s.According to her, these feminist translators share the common interest in developing new translation strategies and new poetic and politics of cultural transmission. Barbara Godard speaks of a poetic of “transformance” as anew feminist discourse about translation. This discourse discards the dominance of the old issue of equivalence and transparency in translation and emphasizes transformation by means of a creative use of language. To put it in Susan Bassnett’s words, feminist translators looked for an “orgasmic” theory that conceives of translation as “the result of elements [that] are fused in a new whole in an encounter that is mutual, pleasurable and respectful.” No less important, Simon highlights the political and social dimensions in the Feminist and the interventionist translation strategy of Susanne Lotbinière-Harwood. Clearly, what attracts Simon to this Canadian feminist translator is her “woman handling” of the English language and her appeal to grammatical infractions to make her feminine language visible to her readers. Simon relates Harwood’s feminizing strategy to her experience in translating the French lesbian writer Michèle Causse and the Quebec feminist Nicole Brossard who use feminized French in their writings. Harwood’s feminized English is also rendered through modification in spelling: “My translation spells “author”: “auther,” as a way of rendering the feminized auteure pioneered and widely used by Québec feminists; and renders the beautiful amante, lesbian lover, by “shelove”.”
Undeniably, this gendered practice of translation illustrates how translation provided a good opportunity for the feminist translators to enact their literary and cultural agency by using the power of language. However, this agency, according to Simon goes beyond literary poetical difference or technical innovations and looks for a serious political and social participation of translation. Viewed as such, translation has become a political instrument for women and as Harwood herself describes it, “a political activity aimed at making language speak for women. So my signature on a translation means: this translation has used every translation strategy to make the feminine visible in language.”
The French Feminist experience has then taught the Canadian Feminists that the interventionist power of translators involves them in serious cultural movements and cultural debates. However, the influence of French feminists grew substantially as the poststructuralist philosophy started to spread among Anglo-American feminists. Interestingly, Simon traces how the influence of the poststructualist thought reached America from the 1970s onwards. She explains how this was possible after the French feminist Hélène Cixous, Luce Irigary and Julia Kristiva moved to live in America, a fact that triggered important responses on the part of Anglo-American feminists. According to Simon, contacts with French thinkers like Barthes, Lacan, Foucault and Derrida created a great fascination with French thought and philosophy and provided “the theoretical and analytical nourishment” which Anglo-American Feminism was lacking. “Through the French feminists, English-language readers came into contact with continental philosophy and critical thought, modes of thinking which allowed a challenge to the very representation of knowledge, and to the discursive construction of sexual identity.”Simon focuses on the significant influence of Derrida’s philosophy of language and his deconstructionist techniques since they constitute the conceptual framework of the Canadian feminist critique of language: “It is through Derrida that feminist translation finds its new definitions of textual authority and develops its politics of transmission.”Moreover, Derrida’s deconstruction developed different perspectives for both French and Canadian feminists who used language tounsettle the very concepts and masculine discourses that structure social patriarchy. Through Derrida, they have come to understand that language was not to be considered as a set of names and labels, and have become conscious of its subjective power in constructing meanings and cultural values.
On another level, in the concluding chapter of her book, “Revising the Boundaries of Culture and Translation” Simon explains how cultural studies “discovered” translation. Simon argues that cultural studies has increasingly drawn attention to the role translation has played in any intercultural exchange, and she calls for its reconsideration in the light of the new global order and the complex cultural realities it has engendered:
It (cultural studies) allows us to situate linguistic transfer within the multiple ‘post’ realities of today: Poststructuralism, Postcolonialism, and postmodernism…All three“post” terms have shifted and refocused the boundaries of difference in language they emphasize the multiplicity of languages circulating in the world today, the competition between local and global forms of expression, the reactualization of cultural forms. Most crucially, they have irrevocably put to rest the myth of pure difference, showing that thepassage from one location to another always involves displacement and changes in the relationship.
By establishing the connection of Poststructuralism and postcolonialism with translation, Simon tries to explain the multifaceted cultural, social and political realities this practice involves. On the one hand, poststructuralism has demystified the concept of language and revealed its power in constructing meanings and shaping truths, rather than simply communicating them; postcolonialism, on the other hand, has demonstrated how asymmetry and hierarchy in power relations and subject positions affect language use in cross-cultural exchanges. Hence, the influence of cultural studies on translation research has resulted in the use of poststructuralist and postcolonial frameworks to study translation from political and social perspectives. Moreover, the connection which Simon makes between Postructuralism and postocolonialism seems quite justified since both of them adopt radical attitudes in their discussion of culture and subject positions in terms of gender, ethnicity, social class and nation. Most of the critical stances of these cultural paradigms emerged during the breakdown of imperialism, and they are generally associated with the rejection of colonialism and the interrogations of the dominant assumptions that nourish it. Their attempt to decentre and destabilize the hegemony of imperialism and the dominant powers goes in parallel with the doubt they cast on cultural boundaries and cultural essentialism. Poststructuralist and postcolonial understanding of intercultural contact is based on the inherent difference and diversity of cultural values of all people; and it emphasizes the hybridization of culture and cultural identities. Most important, these paradigms have highlighted the power of history and discourses in shaping knowledge and intercultural exchanges as well as the active role language have played in enhancing this power.
Derrida’s deconstruction, which is an underpinning philosophy for both the poststructuralist and postcolonial scholars, interrogates the concept of translation as representation. Derrida’s critique of representation rests on a critique of what this concept underlines, that translation is adequacy or identity, it reveals what Derrida calls “the reappropriation of presence”, which usually results in the suppression or oppression of the difference characterizing the origin.Viewed as such, one can easily understand why deconstruction had an important impact upon postcolonial translators; its double writing strategy has enabled them to read critically Western writing about the colonized cultures, while at the same time it has opened the door for revealing the difference of past cultures and alternative images and identities which Western history has suppressed. In addition to its critique of the traditional notion of translation based on Western philosophy and concepts, Postcolonial translation studies has increasingly recognised the power of translation in constructing particular images of the colonized cultures. Moreover, translation has become the means by which unequal relations between different cultures and languages are sustained, particularly in the colonial context. In this respect, Gentzler argues that theories which emphasize translation as a transparent and faithful medium of transmitting “something static and unchanging”, just reinforce hegemonic versions of the colonized and efface their history, and they have “enabled colonial politicians and administrators to construct the “exotic” Other as eternal and unchanging.
The Postcolonial approach suggests that intercultural translations are largely constrained by power relations between the dominated and the dominating cultures. It conceives of literary translation as an important discursive strategy for maintaining and disseminating the hegemony of imperial powers. Within the postcolonial paradigm, translation yields enormous power in constructing representations of foreign cultures: the cultural contact, taking place via translations, particularly between the West and its colonies, is perceived as the prime domain whereby the tensions of differing groups are manifested through the different modes of representation and different discourses. The postcolonial scholars and translators emphasize how hegemonic discourses become, especially in their discursive forms, violent means of demarcating the Self from the Other. Translations in this case do not necessarily abide by any origin in the ensuing culture; they are rather hegemonic colonial constructed representations of native cultures. Said Faiq explains how translation can be both an instrument of domination and a means of resisting it:
Post-colonial contexts offer good examples of the interdependence of cultural manifestations in which dominant and dominated co-exist. In this cultural traffic, foreign works are culturally assumed and consumed more, and differences demarcated. Thus, intercultural translation has helped in breaking hierarchies between cultures and peoples, but at the same time, it has given rise and form to discourses of both domination and resistance, becoming therefore the interplay of cross-cultural pride and prejudice.
Undeniably, this conflicting energy of translation in shaping cross-cultural contact is what has triggered postcolonial scholars’ interest in it. Postcolonial translators have used translation both as a rewriting of the history of colonialism and as subversive resistant strategy that disturbs and displaces the construction of images of non-Western cultures. In postcolonial translation studies, translation is conceived as discourse that takes shape within the powers of social and cultural institutions, and can generate significant cultural and political effects. Moreover, the new approach in studying translation from a postcolonial perspective has urged the need to cover other fields such as history, sociology, politics as well as ethnography; a whole range of disciplines have been explored to describe the multi-dynamics operating in this cross-cultural exchange. Indeed, the multidisciplinary orientation in postcolonial translation studies is an inherent characteristic in contemporary translation theories, and as I mentioned before, this is what gave birth to translation studies and announced important deviations from the linguistically oriented theories towards new and radical theories of translation. It follows that this multidisciplinary feature has revealed a field of research that is neither unified nor homogeneous; it is rather characterized by dissimilar approaches, with each one having its set of own ideas and beliefs about translating. It is true that descriptive, functionalist, polysystemic, feminist or postcolonial approaches, or any other cultural or linguistic approach that we did not tackle in this paper, may well agree on certain basic assumptions or conventions, but the goals and the ideological stances that direct them differ considerably depending on the historical and cultural moments in which they appeared.
The overall idea this paper has been emphasizing is how the new approaches to translation, especially those applying cultural and historical research models, have marked a turning point in this field of research. They have indeed moved translation from the traditional debate about textual equivalence and transparency to discussing other complex and important issues, which derive from the complexity and the importance of the cultural and historical settings in which translation has been practiced so far. Most important, almost all the new trends in translation studies share the belief that translations are primarily facts of the target culture, which are necessarily affected by its poetics and politics. This reality has revealed the increasing power of translators in shaping any intercultural exchange, their interventionist strategies have become substantial within a global network of economic and cultural exchanges. This brings to the forth another important idea that the cultural policy and the economy of globalization, have boosted the marginal position of translation and translators. Therefore, any attempt to undermine this practice or deny the agency of translators will necessarily undermine our ability in understanding the dynamics of cultural movements and cultural history.
* Naima EL MAGHNOUGI is a Moroccan PhD student in the research unit “Space and Culture” at the Faculty of Humanities Mohamed 1st in Oujda, Morocco. Currently, she is an active member of the “Cultural and Art Studies” at CERHSO, the Centre of Human and Social Researches in Oujda. Naima got a Master degree in cultural studies “Colonial Postcolonial Discourse” in 2010; she is now conducting a research on discourse in intercultural translation. Her multidisciplinary approach to American translations of Moroccan culture combines frameworks from cultural studies, mainly postcolonial studies, and from contemporary translation studies so as to reveal the poetics and politics of American translations of Moroccan culture between1950s and 1970s. Since 2011, Naima’s research career has resulted in many publications about the postcolonial discourse, postcolonial Moroccan literature, postcolonial translation studies and the discourse in Media translation.
Bassnett Susan & Lefevere André. Eds. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. UK: Multilingual Matters, 1998.
Delisle Jean & Woods worth Judith. Eds. Translators Through History. Amsterdam & Philadelphia Benjamin, 1995.
Gentezler Edwin. Contemporary translation Theories. London & New York: Multilingual Matters, 2001.
Holzer Jenny. Ed. Apropos of Ideology. Translation Studies on Ideology-Ideologies in Translation Studies. UK: St Jerome Publishing, 2003.
Faiq Said. Ed. Cultural Encounters in Translation from Arabic. Clevedon & Buffalo: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 2004.
Lefevere André. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London & New York: Routledge, 1992.
………………… Ed. Translation, History and Culture. London & New York, Routledge, 1992.
Mundey Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London & New York: Routledge, 2001.
Niranjana Tisajwini. Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context. California: University of California Press, 1992.
Simon Sherry. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. Routledge, 1996.
Snell-Hornby Mary. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2006.
Tymoczko Maria. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. UK: St Jerome Publishing, 2007.
Venuti Laurence. Ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London & New York: Routledge, 2000.
…………………The Scandals of Translation: Towardsan Ethics of Difference and Resistance London & New York: Routledge, 1998.
– LievenD’hulst (1994: 13). Qtd in. Translators Through History. Jean Delisle& Judith Woods worth. Eds. Amsterdam& Philadelphia:Benjamin, 1995, P xv.
– Laurence Venuti. Ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London & New York: Routledge, 2000, P 7.
-Tisajwini Niranjana. Sitting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context. California: University of California Press, 1992, P 158.
-TisajwiniNiranjana. Siting Translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial Context. California: University of California Press, 1992, P 159.
– Ibid., 161
– Ibid., 156
 -Laurence Venuti. The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference and resistance. London & New York: Routledge, 1998, P 9.
-Eugene Nida. ( 1961). Quoted in. Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. Revised edition. UK : Multilingual Matters, 2001, P 54.
-Maria Tymoczko. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. UK: St Jerome Publishing, 2007, P 34.
-Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. Revised edition. UK : Multilingual Matters, 2001, P 54.
– Ibid., 58-59.
-Mary Snell-Hornby. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam& Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2006, P 37.
–James Holmes. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. The Translation Studies Reader. Laurence, Venuti. Ed. London& New York: Routledge, 2000, P178.
-Mary, Snell-Hornby. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam& Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2006, P40-41.
–James Holmes. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. The Translation Studies Reader. Laurence, Venuti. Ed. London& New York: Routledge, 2000, P182-183.
-Edwin Gentzler.. Contemporary Translation Theories. Revised edition. UK : Multilingual Matters, 2001, P, 77.
–Laurence, Venuti. Ed.The Translation Studies Reader.London& New York: Routledge, 2000, P176- 177.
-RonaldBarthes. (1964: 126) Quoted in. Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. Revised edition. UK : Multilingual Matters, 2001, P92.
-Ibid., Quoted in James Homes (1970: 93), 92.
. Ibid., 79-80.
-James Holmes. (1988: 22 ) Quoted in. Mary, Snell-Hornby. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam& Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2006, P 46.
-Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. Revised edition. UK : Multilingual Matters, 2001,P 114.
-Itamar-Even-Zohar. “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”. The Translation Studies Reader. Laurence Venuti. Ed. London& New York: Routledge, 2000, P 176.
-Laurence Venuti. Ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London& New York: Routledge, 2000,P 193.
-Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. Revised edition. UK : Multilingual Matters, 2001,P 117.
-Laurence, Venuti. Ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London& New York: Routledge, 2000, P 199.
-Edwin Gentzler; Contemporary Translation Theories. Revised edition. UK : Multilingual Matters, 2001,P 117.
– Ibid., 130
-Mary Snell-Hornby. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2006, P 47.
– André Lefevere. Ed. Translation, History and Culture. London&New York, Routledge, 1992, P xi.
-Mary Snell-Hornby. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam& Philadelphia: Benjamin, 2006, P 56.
-Susan Bassnett& André Lefevere. Eds. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. UK: Multilingual Matters, 1998, P 123.
-André Lefevere. Ed. Translation, History and Culture. London& New York, Routledge, 1992, P 11.
-Susan Bassnett& André Lefevere. Eds. Constructing Cultures: Essays on Literary Translation. UK: Multilingual Matters, 1998, P 123.
-André Lefevere. Edt. Translation, History and Culture. London &New York, Routledge, 1992, P 3-4.
Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2001, P 136.
-André Lefevere. “Mother Courage’s Cucumbers: Text, System and Refraction in a Theory of Literature”. Laurence Venuti. Ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London& New York: Routledge, 2000, P 234.
-André Lefevere. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame .London & New York : Routledge, 1992, P vii.
-Jeremy Mundey. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London& New York: Routledge, 2001, P 128.
-AndréLefevere (1984: 92). Quoted in. Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2001, P 137.
-Michel Foucault. (1980: 119). Quoted in. André Lefevere. Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London& New York: Routledge, 1992, P 15.
-André Lefevere(1988-9: 59). Quoted in.Edwin Gentzler. Contemporary Translation Theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 2001, P 136.
-Terry Eagleton (1991: 30). Quoted in. Jenny Holzer. Ed. Apropos of Ideology. Translation Studies on Ideology-Ideologies in Translation Studies. UK: St Jerome Publishing, 2003, P 4.
-Sherry Simon. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London& New York: Routledge, 1996, P viii.
– Ibid., 68-71
-Susan Bassnett. ( 1992 : 72) Quoted in. Sherry Simon. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London & New York: Routledge, 1996, P 13.
-Lotbinière Harwood (1995: 162). Quoted in. Sherry Simon. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. London & New York: Routledge, 1996, P,21
199-Lotbinière Harwood Quoted in Gauvin (1989: 9). Cited in Sherry Simon. Gender in Translation: Cultural Identity and the politics of Transmission. London & New York: Routledge, 1996 , P 15.
– Ibid., 41
– Edwin Gentezler. Contemporary translation Theories. London & New York: Multilingual Matters, 2001, P 177.