The Cultural Turn of the 1980s - Essay Example

TRANSLATION STUDIES ‘The Cultural Turn It’s Origin, Reasons for Emergence, Central Concepts and its Impact on the Discipline of Translation StudiesINTRODUCTION Translation Studies emerged as an independent discipline with the turn to realism in the 1970s. A three-fold definition of the domain of translation includes first the process of transferring a written text from the source language (SL) to the target language (TL) by a translator in a particular socio-economic context. Second, the written product, or target text (TT) which results from that process, and which functions in the socio-cultural context of the target language. The third component of the definition takes into consideration the cognitive, linguistic, visual, cultural and ideological phenomena which form an integral part of both the first component relating to the transferring of written text, and the second aspect relating to the target text (Hatim & Munday 2004). The phenomenon which came to be known as “the cultural turn” of the 1980s established the basic profile of Translation Studies, to a great extent. The Cultural Turn is the term given to a development resulting from various camps of translation scholars. As exciting developments in the discipline, four different streams underscored the course of the Cultural Turn during the 1980s, “in the Low Countries, Israel and England, also in Germany, Finland, and Brazil” states Snell-Hornby (2006: 47). These related to translation as rewriting and manipulation, translation and ideology, gendered and feminist translation, and post-colonial translation. With the introduction of the Cultural Turn, translation studies crossed the threshold from its pioneering territory, entering the domain of the masters and setting standards and bench marks in the domain. The turn to culture adds an important dimension to translation studies. Instead of raising questions on the methods of translating or on the methods of identifying correct translation, the focus is on a descriptive approach based on the purpose of translation, and the methods by which they circulate in the world, and draw response. This change in perspective underscores the truth of translations as documents which dynamically exist, move about, contribute information, and enhance continued changes in aesthetics. More significantly, the Cultural Turn explains translations as being related in organic ways to other modes of communication; besides identifying translations “as writing practices fully informed by the tensions that traverse all cultural representation” (Simon 1996: 8). Thus, translation is a process of mediation which works through ideology, and does not stand above those principles or philosophies. Thesis Statement: The purpose of this paper is to investigate The Cultural Turn in translation studies, and examine related concepts such as the polysystem and norm theories, translation as rewriting and manipulation, translation and ideology, gendered and feminist translation, post-colonial translation, and the invisibility of translators. THE CULTURAL TURN IN TRANSLATION STUDIES Translations and the tensions in translation have always been a part of anthropology, either in its scientific version or humanistic side, underscored by the consistent question of how cultural translations can be done without destroying the very subjects that are to be conveyed (Yengoyan 2003). Translation is closely associated with authority, legitimacy and ultimately with power. Victor Hugo, French dramatist states that when translation is offered to a nation, it will consider the translation as an act of violence against the nation itself (Hugo 1885). In After Babel, one of Steiner’s (1998) major works of modern translation theory, the following metaphors describe the four-part interpretative process of translation. These include the initial trust by which the translator approaches the source text (ST) with trust that there is meaning there; the aggression involved in the translator’s taking over or capturing the foreign text; incorporation or embodiment of the text becoming a part of the translator’s language; and compensation or restitution which refers to the translator restoring something to the target text (TT) to compensate for what was taken away. “Cultural translation into a western language should be attempted since cross-cultural understanding is an important goal” (Rubel & Rosman 2003: 7). The ‘cultural turn’ was a shift in the 1980s from linguistic translation to that which included the cultural aspect of the source text and the cultural background of the author’s work. Besides some similarities, cultural and linguistic translations differ in a number of ways. “Usually cultural translations have been done through a frame which either stresses differences or serves as a means in which the “other” is portrayed in categories which are understandable to a western audience” (Yengoyan 2003: 25). The Polysystem and Norm Theories of Translation Translation is norm-governed, and central to the literary polysystem. The polysystem theory is defined as that which explains the behaviour and evolution of the literary system. The term polysystem “denotes a stratified conglomerate of interconnected elements, which changes and mutates as these elements interact with each other” (Shuttleworth & Cowie 1997: 127). Translated literature participates actively in shaping the centre of the polysystem. In such as situation it forms an integral part of innovative forces and is possibly identified with major events in literary history while these are occurring. The implication is that in this situation there is no well-defined differentiation between original and translated writings. Often it is the leading writers who produce the most conspicuous or appreciated translations. Moreover, in such a situation of new literary models emerging, translation may become one of the means of expanding the new repertoire (Even-Zohar 2004: 193). Through the foreign works, features such as principles and elements are introduced into the home literature which did not exist earlier. These include new models of reality to replace the old and established ones which are no longer effective, and an entire range of other features as well such as a new poetic language of compositional patterns and techniques. The very principles of selecting the works to be translated are determined by the situation governing the home polysystem. Thus, “the texts are chosen according to their compatibility with the new approaches, and the supposedly innovatory role they may assume within the target literature” (Even-Zohar 2004: 193). The norm theory is that translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves two languages and two cultural traditions, which includes at least two sets of norm-systems on each level. Thus, the value behind it may be stated to consist of two major elements: one being in a text in a certain language, therefore occupying a position, or “filling in a slot, in the appropriate culture, or in a certain section thereof. The next element constitutes a representation in that language/ culture of another, pre-existing text in some other language, belonging to some other culture, and occupying a definite position within it. These two types of requirements are derived from two sources, which even though the distance between them may vary greatly, are always different and consequently often incompatible. Norms have a regulative capacity, provide a yardstick, and help to resolve the tensions between the two sources of constraints (Toury 2004). Translation as Rewriting and Manipulation Translation is the rewriting of an original text. Whatever the purpose, all rewriting “reflect a certain ideology and a poetics, and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way” (Lefevere 1992: vii). Rewriting has the power to promote the evolution of a literature and a society, because of its manipulative abilities. Rewritings introduce new concepts, new genres, and new devices; the history of translation is the history also of literary innovation, and of the influence of one culture over another. However, rewriting can also repress, distort and limit innovation. Moreover, the study of the manipulation processes of literature as carried out through translation, facilitates a greater awareness of the world around. Rewriters adapt and manipulate the original texts in translating, in producing literary histories or other types of literary works. The manipulation during rewriting is usually to “make them fit in with the dominant, or one of the dominant ideological and poetological currents of their time” (Lefevere 1992: 8). Although this may be the rule in totalitarian societies, different “interpretive communities” existing in more open societies will influence the creation of rewritings in similar ways. Rewriting is able to manipulate effectively. The study of rewriting may even be useful in the context of introducing social relevance that the study of literature as a whole has lost. The basic process of rewriting underscores “translation, historiography, anthologisation, criticism, and editing” (Lefevere 1992: 9). It is also at work in other forms of rewriting such as adaptations for film and television. However, translation is the most obvious form of rewriting. It has the greatest impact, being able to project the image of an author or a series of works in a different culture, “lifting that author and/ or those works beyond the boundaries of their culture of origin” (Lefevere 1992: 9). Translation seen as a form of rewriting explains its constant struggle for status. This approach is supported by scholars such as Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere, and underscores a range of processes translations must undergo while interpreting an original text. The range of socio-literary constraints both ideologic and poetic, within which translation and all forms of writing operate are highlighted by what amounts to an act of manipulation deliberately designed to exclude certain readers, authors and ultimately translators. Power structures such as ideology and poetics are constantly referred to, in order to “account for this phenomenon which, although condoned and even encouraged in certain sectors of Translation Studies, are nonetheless rarely if ever innocent” (Hatim & Munday 2004: 309). All rewritings, irrespective of their purpose reflect a particular ideology and a poetics, and manipulate literature to function in a society in a given way (Rubel & Rosman 2003). Ideology and Translation A good translation is like “all rhetoric, aiming to reproduce an effect, to persuade a reader” (Levine 1991: 3) and is in the broadest terms a political act. Further, translation should be a critical process, creating doubt in the reader, posing questions for contemplation, and recontextualising the ideology of the original text. Thus, translation can be perceived as an ideological weapon. However, whether translation enjoys a high status in the literary world is determined by specific languages and cultures. “The translator who takes a text and transposes it into another culture needs to consider carefully the ideological implications of that transposition” (Bassnett 1994: xv). Although the cultural turn has been a part of Translation Studies for many years, there is an inevitable disagreement regarding the actual meaning of ‘cultural’ and ‘ideological’, states Fawcett (1998). Cultural Turn is used as an expression for non-linguistic study of translation. To understand how culture and language interact at the point of translation, translators must continuously make decisions about the cultural meanings which language carries, and assess the extent to which the two different concepts are similar. Significantly, the process of meaning transfer is not so much about finding the cultural inscription of the term as about reconstructing its value (Simon 1996). The cultural turn in translation studies has studied a range of approaches that have focused on power relations as the central theme between languages and cultures in relation to translation. Consequently, the debate on the context of translation has extended beyond the immediate linguistic or textual context, and cultivated productive interdisciplinary links within Cultural Studies, along with consideration of these issues in association with new technologies (Hatim & Munday 2004). “Ideology is often enforced by the patrons, the people or institutions who commission or publish translations” (Bassnett & Lefevere 1992: 14). Ideology includes the implicit assumptions, beliefs and value systems which are shared among social groups (Hatim & Mason 1997). They make a distinction between the ideology of translating and the translation of ideology. The former pertains to the fundamental orientation selected by the translator operating within a social and cultural context. An example is the choice between Venuti’s domesticating and foreignizing translation. The latter concept of translation of ideology examines the extent of mediation supplied by a translator of sensitive texts. Mediation is the degree of translator’s intervention in the transfer process, and in processing the text. “In many ways this is a parallel to the translator’s discursive presence in literary texts” (Hatim & Mason 1997: 147). Translation theory is based on two different assumptions on language use. The instrumental concept of language perceives it as a means of communication of objective information, expressing thought and meanings which refer to an empirical reality or encompass a pragmatic situation. The hermeneutic concept of language emphasises interpretation; it consists of thought and meanings which form reality and the interpretation of creative values. Opposing theories of translation have also developed. These see translation as a natural act and forming the basis for the intercultural communication which has always characterised human existence. This perspective focuses on the commonality and universality of human experience, and the similarities in what first appear to be different languages and cultures (Rubel & Rosman 2003). Contrastingly, the approach that translation is the uprooting and transplanting of the fragile meanings of the source language, is unnatural. Translating is seen as a “traitorous act”. Emphasis on cultural differences sees translation as coming to terms with “Otherness” by resistive or foreignising translations which emphasize the difference and the foreignness of the text. “These models clearly reveal the ideological implications of translation, one of the features which translation-studies specialists have strongly emphasized” (Rubel & Rosman 2003: 6). Gendered and Feminist Translation Beginning in the European Middle Ages, women used translation as a means to gain access to the literary world. “Long excluded from the privileges of authorship, women turned to translation as a permissible form of public expression” (Simon 1992: 2). Into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries translation consistently served as a writer’s apprenticeship for women. For example, George Eliot was first known as the “translatress of Strauss” before becoming well known as a novelist. Additionally, translation formed an important part of the social movements in which women participated such as the fight against slavery. Similarly, first-wave feminism, progressive political agendas, the creative renewal of literary traditions, the great works of 19th and 20th century French, Russian and German modernism were closely associated with women expressing their political convictions through translation. French feminist theory was tamed in the Anglo-American context through the gradual interpretation of philosophical systems including the speculative Continental tradition and the more experimental Anglo-American tradition. This process of accommodation was facilitated by various levels and procedures of mediation such as commentary, interpretation and translation. The transatlantic passage of French feminist thought brought about misrepresentation and misuse, which are effects that result from the diversity of interests and desires in the exchange, and from the reframing and renewals required by the target language (Simon 1992). Similar to Venuti’s (1992) emphasis on the invisibility of translators in general, with their names often omitted from the title pages of their translations and with their work scarcely commented upon in reviews, feminists theorists and translators pursued their goal of making “the female visible by examining the relationship between gender and translation” (Hatim & Munday 2004: 103). Chamberlain (1992) applies feminist theories to traditional metaphors of translation. He examines the methods by which authorship and originality are expressed in terms of the masculine and paternity. On the other hand, translation along with other artistic forms of expression such as the performing arts, is considered feminine and derivative. The metaphor of ‘les belles infideles’ that was first coined in the seventeenth century is an example (Hatim & Munday 2004). Whether affirmed or denounced, the femininity of translation is a persistent historical rhetoric. "Woman" and "translator" have been relegated to the same position of discursive inferiority. A gendered perspective of translation theory sees all translations as female and subordinate. Whether this view is emphasized or condemned, the femininity of translation is a continued historical rhetoric. Simon (1996: 1) asserts that “translators and women have historically been the weaker figures in their respective hierarchies: translators are handmaidens to authors, women inferior to men”. This is supported by John Florio’s (1603) work on women’s past heritage of double inferiority. Susanne de Lotbiniere-Harwood states that being a woman she defines herself as a translation (de Lotbiniere-Harwood 1991). Nicole Ward Jouve reiterates that in a cultural context “the translator occupies a female position” (Jouve 1991: 47). The hierarchical authority of the original over the reproduction is associated with the concepts of masculine and feminine, with the original work considered to be the strong productive male, while the translation is identified as the weaker copy or adaptation of the former. The language used to describe translation utilizes the vocabulary of sexism, “drawing on images of dominance and inferiority, fidelity and libertinage” (Simon 1996: 1). Feminist translation restructures the concept of “fidelity” which has served as a deadening notion through the history of translation. For feminist translation, fidelity is towards neither the author nor the reader, but towards the writing project in which both the writer and translator are participants. The term for translation as “les belles infideles” has since several centuries promoted an attitude of suspicion toward translation. Feminist translation theory aims to identify and critique the disorder of concepts which relegates both women and translation to the bottom of the social and literary ladder. For this purpose, it must investigate the processes through which translation has become “feminized”, and seek to challenge the structures of authority which have sustained this connectionj (Simon 1996). Post-Colonial Translation “One of the most thriving points of contact between Cultural Studies and Translation Studies has been in the area of postcolonialism” (Hatim & Munday 2004: 106). Postcolonial translation involves language, literature and translation using a broad cultural approach to the study of power relations between different groups, cultures or peoples. The precise parameters of the term postcolonialism or subaltern studies are difficult to delineate. The term originates from what are conventionally known as the former colonies of the European powers after independence. However, postcolonialism does not always involve these former colonies. The previous section examined the affirmation or erasure of gender identity; however with postcolonialism it is national or ethnic identity which is at stake. At the same time, gender and postcolonial identity are not necessarity mutually exclusive, as seen in Gayatri Spivak’s work The Politics of Translation (Spivak 1993). The author criticises the lifeless translation that is produced by a translator of third-world feminist texts, who cannot understand completely the rhetoricity of the languages they translate. An alternative term for the restricted or standardising translationese is viewed by Spivak (1993: 181) as “a species of neo-colonist construction of the non-western scene”, because the dominant but characterless English that results from English being the target language (TL), removes the speech patterns and differences of the huge range of “third-world” feminist voices. According to Hatim and Munday (2004), this is because in the act of wholesale translation into English, the democratic ideal may be betrayed and changed into the law of the strongest. Venuti’s (1995) criticism of Anglo-American publishing practices that favour domesticating translation, supports this view. Literary texts produced by peoples who have been colonised or oppressed have to be analysed and elaborated on. The criticism of such texts speaks of voices silenced, marginalised or suffering people, and exchange of letters as a mode of communication between people. “In speaking of unfamiliar or new phenomena, humans often adapt the language of similar though disparate objects and action” (Tymoczo 1999: 19). Figurative speech is used in English, for example the newly invented vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine was sometimes called as the horseless carriage. The penchant for metaphorical speech about postcolonial literature indicates that it is a type of writing for which adequate vocabulary has not yet been developed. There are significant differences between literary translation and post-colonial literature. The main difference is that post-colonial translators transpose a text, unlike post-colonial writers. The writer transposes a culture to form the background for the literary work, to be understood as a “language, a cognitive system, a literature composed of a system of texts, genres, tale types, a material culture, a social system a legal framework, a history, and so forth” (Tymoczo 1999: 20). In the case of many former colonies there may be even more than one culture or one language behind a writer’s work. Contrastingly, a translator has a seemingly more limited domain, only a single text to transpose. However, perspectives from general systems theory and semiotics suggest that this difference may not be real. This is because of the presence of the same cultural complexity facing a post-colonial or minority culture. According to Ivir (1987), translation means the translating of cultures not languages. Hence, a literary translator is concerned with differences of language as well as the same range of cultural factors that a writer must address when writing to a readership composed to a certain extent of people from a different culture. The culture or tradition of a post-colonial of a post-colonial writer functions as a metatext for the literary work, and is rewritten explicitly as well as implicitly as both background and foreground, in the process of literary creation. The task of the post-colonial interlingual translator is similar to that of the post-colonial writer; where the former works on a text, while the latter works on the metatext of culture itself. Further, the use of rare or untranslated words in translations and the inclusion of unfamiliar cultural material are not necessarily shortcomings of translated texts. This is because, translation causes cultural expansion, and increase in the linguistic options in the language of the receiving culture. The outcome is that “translations frequently have a different lexical texture from unmarked prose in the receptor culture” (Tymoczo 1999: 25). Translator’s Visibility and Invisibility Venuti (1995) uses the term “invisibility” to describe the translator’s situation and activity in contemporary Anglo-American culture. The translator’s invisibility is related to two mutually related phenomena: “one is an illusionistic effect of discourse, of the translator’s own manipulation of English” (Venuti 1995: 1), while the other is the practice of reading and evaluating translations long prevalent in the United Kingdom and the United States, among other cultures pertaining to both English and foreign language. A translated text, whether prose or poetry, fiction or nonfiction, is judged acceptable by most publishers, reviewers, and readers when it reads fluently, with a transparency provided by an absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities. This makes the text appear like it is reflecting the foreign writer’s personality, intention, or the essential meaning of the foreign text. In other words, this gives the impression of the translation being the actual original text from where it was translated. Fluency gives the illusion of transparency, and is the result of “the translator’s effort to insure easy readability by adhering to current usage, maintaining continuous syntax, fixing a precise meaning” (Venuti 1995: 1). Significantly, this illusory effect conceals the numerous conditions under which the translation is made, beginning with the translator’s vital intervention in the foreign text. Further, the more fluent the translation, the more invisible the translator; and the more visible the original writer of the foreign text, and its meaning. As a norm, book reviewers rarely address the aspect of a book’s translation. When this feature is addressed in taking into consideration translations of foreign texts, the value of fluency dominates over other concerns such as accuracy, intended audience, economic value in the current book market, its relation to literary trends in English, or its place in the translator’s career. Fluent discourse is consistently praised while deviations from it are condemned, even when translations of the most diverse range of foreign texts are considered (Venuti 1995). Willard Trask, 1900-1980, a major twentieth-century American translator whose high output of work had great cultural importance, distinguished clearly between authoring and translating. He stated that translators playacted as authors, and translations passed for original texts. However, translators are aware that a sense of their authorial presence is an illusion, but they repress their own personality to have a psychological association with the author. The American translator Norman Shapiro believed he had a kind of collaboration with the original author, and that though his ego and personality were involved in translating, yet he had to remain faithful to the basic text in a manner that his own personality did not show (Kratz 1986: 27). Thus, “the translator’s invisibility is a weird self-annihilation” (Venuti 1995: 8), a way of conceiving and practicing translation that reinforces its marginal status in Anglo-American culture. In recent decades there has been a rise in the institution of translation centres and programmes at British and American universities, and in translation committees, associations and awards in literary organisations such as the Society of Authors in London and the PEN American Centre in New York. However, translators are minimally recognised for their work, even that which generates publicity on the basis of being prizewinning, controversial or censored. The translator’s existence in the shadows of Anglo-American culture is further reinforced by the uncertain and unfavourable legal status of translation, both in copyright law and in actual contractual arrangements. Significantly, British and American law defines translation as an “adaptation or derivative work based on an original work of authorship, whose copyright, including the exclusive right to prepare derivative works or adaptations, is vested in the author” (Venuti 1995: 3). In copyright law, the translator is an author, and is also not author. The translator’s authorship is not given full legal recognition because the foreign writer is given the priority for controlling the translation. In compliance with international copyright treaties like the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, “the United Kingdom and the United States agree to treat nationals of other member countries like their own nationals for purposes of copyright” (Scarles 1980: 8-11). Hence, according to British and American law an English-language translation of a foreign text can be published only by arrangement with the author who owns the copyright for that text, that is the foreign writer, a foreign agent or publisher. The translator may be allowed the authorial privilege to copyright the translation. Copyright law does not define a space for the translator’s authorship that equals or restricts the foreign author’s rights. However, it “acknowledges that there is a material basis to warrant some such restriction” (Venuti 1995: 9). Moreover, the process of meaning transfer often has more to do with reconstructing its value, than with finding the cultural inscription of a term (Simon 1992). CONCLUSION This paper has highlighted the Cultural Turn in translation studies, investigated its polysystem and norm theories, identified four different aspects of the cultural turn and examined them. They include translation as rewriting and manipulation, translation and ideology, gendered and feminist translation, and post-colonial translation. Moreover, the translator’s visibility or invisibility is also taken into consideration. The evidence indicates that translation is based on rewriting involving manipulation of the original text, while introducting new concepts, new genres and new devices, to suit the readership of the target culture. Similarly translation takes into account the ideologies of different cultures which emerge from their distinctive history, society, culture, political background and several other components. Here, an in-depth analysis of the source text is found to be necessary, to transfer the ideological background as authentically as possible. Gendered and feminist translation arises from the fact that translated texts are considered as subordinate to the original works, and this is equated with a woman’s lower position as compared to a man. The purpose of feminist translation is to identify and critique the feminisation of translation, and the relegation of women and translation to the lowest rung of the social and literary ladder. Postcolonial translation uses language, literature and a broad cultural perspective for examining different groups, cultures or peoples. The translator’s invisibility and lack of recognition in translated works that emphasize only the name of the original author, is discussed. The cultural turn in translation studies has initiated the process of studying the ways in which translation is nourished by, and contributes to the dynamics of cultural representation. The descriptive methods supported by the polysystem theory have encouraged the study of specific translation genres such as theatre, science fiction, or novels. Translation trends prevailing during specific periods reflect the larger cultural forces at work in translation. The translator is seen as fully engaged in the literary, social and ideological realities of his or her time. This is supported by Lefevere (1992) who adds that there is a focus on the material content of translated texts as distinguished from the original works. It is evident that translators actualize prevailing attitudes toward Otherness, transferring them to the translated works. It is concluded that the various components of the cultural turn have brought about significant transformations in the domain of translation. The ‘cultural turn’ in translation studies of the 1980s and 1990s has been followed by the ‘sociological turn’ in recent decades. The focus of this new discipline is on the translator as a member of a sociocultural community, interacting with and within the community. This widens the scope of the domain by including the translator’s perspectives (Merkle 2008). BIBLIOGRAPHY Bassnett, S. (1994). Translation studies. London: Routledge. Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation history, culture: A sourcebook. London: Routledge. Chamberlain, L. (1992). Gender and the metaphorics of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed). Rethinking translation: Discourse, subjectivity, ideology. London: Routledge. De Lotbiniere-Harwood, S. (1991). The body bilingual: Translation as a rewriting in the feminine. Quebec: The Women’s Press. Even-Zohar, I. (2004). The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem. In L. Venuti (Ed). The translation studies reader. London: Routledge, Chapter 15: pp. 192-196. Fawcett, P. (1998). Ideology and translation. In M. Baker (Ed). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London: Routledge. Florio, J. (1603). Translator’s preface, Montaigne essayes. London: Gibbings & Co. Hatim, B. & Munday, J. (2004). Translation: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge. Hugo, V. (1885). Euvres completes: Critique. Volume II. Paris: Laffont. Ivir, V. (1987). Procedures and strategies for the translation of culture. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13 (2): pp.35-46. Jouve, N.W. (1991). White woman speaks with forked tongue: Criticism as Autobiography. London: Routledge. Kratz, D. (1986). An interview with Norman Shapiro. Translation Review, 19: pp.27-28. Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. London: Routledge. Merkle, D. (2008). Translation constraints and the “sociological turn” in literary Translation Studies. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger & D. Simeoni (Eds). Beyond Descriptive translation studies: Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury. The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co, Chapter 13: pp.175-186. Rubel, P.G. & Rosman, A. (2003). Translating cultures: Perspectives on translation and Anthropology. United Kingdom: Berg. Scarles, C. (1980). Copyright. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shuttleworth, M. & Cowie, M. (1997). Dictionary of translation studies. The United Kingdom: St. Jerome Publications. Simon, S. (1996). Gender in translation: Cultural identity and the politics of transmission. London: Routledge. Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Spivak, G. (1993). The politics of translation. In Outside in the teaching machine. London: Routledge. Steiner, G. (1998). After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Edition 3. London: Oxford University Press. Toury, G. (2004). The nature and role of norms in translation. In L. Venuti (Ed). The translation studies reader. London: Routledge, Chapter 16: pp.198-212. Tymoczko, M. (1999). Post-colonial writing and literary translation. In S. Bassnett & H. Trivedi (Eds). Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice. London: Routledge, Chapter 1: pp.19-40. Venuti, L. (1995). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge. Venuti, L. (1992). Rethinking translation: Discourse, subjectivity, ideology. London: Routledge. Yengoyan, A.A. (2003). Lyotard and Wittgenstein and the question of translation. In P.G. Rubel & A. Rosman (Eds). Translating cultures: Perspectives on translation and anthropology. The United Kingdom: Berg, Chapter 1: pp.25-44. Read More