Multiple Choice

---

Further Reading

---

Among the many studies in this area, the following are particularly noteworthy.

For cultural studies and comparative literature

Apter, E. (2005) The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Casanova, P. (2004) The World Republic of Letters, translated by M. DeBevoise, Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press.

For gender studies

Larkosh, C. (ed.) (2011) Re-engendering Translation: Transcultural Practice, Gender/Sexuality and the Politics of Alterity, Manchester: St Jerome.

Von Flotow, L. (2010) ‘Gender in translation’, in Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (eds) Handbook of Translation Studies, vol.1, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Von Flotow, L. (ed.) (2011) Translating Women, Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

For postcolonial studies

Appiah, K. (1993/2004) ‘Thick translation’, in L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 389–401.

Bandia, P. (2008) Translation as Reparation: Writing and Translation in Postcolonial Africa, Manchester: St Jerome.

Bandia, P. (2010) ‘Post-colonial literatures and translation’, in Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer (eds) Handbook of Translation Studies, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Batchelor, K. (2009) Decolonizing Translation: Francophone African Novels in English Translation, Manchester: St Jerome.

Cronin, M. (2006) Translation and Identity, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

Simon, S. (2011) Cities in Translation: Intersections of Language and Memory, Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

For translation and conflict

Baker, M. (2006) Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account, London and New York: Routledge.

Inghilleri, M. and S.-A. Harding (eds) Translation and Violent Conflict, Special issue of The Translator 16.2.

Salama-Carr, M. (ed.) (2007) Translating and Interpreting Conflict, Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Research projects

---

1. Lefevere (1992: 9, see chapter) considers translation to be ‘potentially the most influential’ form of rewriting. How far do you agree with him? Compare this with examples taken from other forms of rewriting (film adaptations, anthologization, historiography, etc.).
2. Look for examples from translations in various times and locations that reveal a gender bias. How is that bias revealed? Is there a pattern to these examples? How might the translator have acted differently?
3. How far do you agree with Niranjana that translation studies has been overly dominated by Western theories? If this is true, how can or should the situation be changed?
4. ‘Co-existence implies translating the culture and (political, religious, emotional) language of the other into a language and culture that is strengthened by the presence of the other. The alternative to translation is the muteness of fear’ (Cronin 1996: 200, see chapter). How far does this statement hold for the linguistic policies of your own country?
5. In what ways might the researcher’s own ideology condition the choice of analytical tools and the relation to cultural theory?
6. Ideology has often been understood in the sense of manipulation in translation studies. Look at the recent work in this area. What definitions are given for ‘ideology’? What assumptions do researchers have about how ideology is manifested in translation? Is there a pattern to the findings of the different studies?

Exploration

---

8.2 Aksoy, N. (2010) ‘The Relation Between Translation and Ideology as an Instrument for the Establishment of a National Literature’. Meta 55: 438–55.

8.3 Wallmach, K. (2006) ‘Feminist translation strategies: Different or derived?’ Journal of Literary Studies 22.1–2: 1–26.

8.4 Batchelor, K. (2008) ‘Third Spaces, mimicry and attention to ambivalence: Applying Bhabhian discourse to translation theory’, The Translator 14.1: 51–70.

8.5 Postcolonial translation in the Irish context.

See also the Free Reading Materials tab.