This article was downloaded by: [University of Nevada - Reno]

On: 02 December 2013, At: 16:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20
TRANSLATION, GENDER AND OTHERNESS
Susan Bassnett
a
a
University of Warwick , United Kingdom
Published online: 05 Jan 2009.
To cite this article: Susan Bassnett (2005) TRANSLATION, GENDER AND OTHERNESS, Perspectives: Studies in
Translatology, 13:2, 83-90, DOI: 10.1080/09076760508668976
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668976
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose
of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the
authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not
be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis
shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and
other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation
to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
0907-676X/05/02/083-8 $20.00
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
2005 S. Bassne
Vol. 13, No. 2, 2005
TRANSLATION, GENDER AND OTHERNESS
Susan Bassne, University of Warwick, United Kingdom
j.bailey@warwick.ac.uk
Abstract
This article discusses the notion of Otherness in contemporary Translation Studies. Here
the term refers to a translators confrontation with unfamiliar concepts, forms, and language as
well as to the dilemma of rendering them in a diferent cultural context. Based on brief historical
summaries of early, signifcant debates, such as the 19th century British debate on translating
Homer, contemporary theories raising questions about ethics, gender, nation, and identity are
explored. The article concludes that such theories try to do away with traditional binary and hier-
archical thinking by establishing translation as a new, radical space of intercultural negotiation,
ultimately forming a metaphor for contemporary world transactions.
Keywords: Otherness; translation theory; ethics; gender; nation; identity.
The task of the translator is to take a text wrien in one language, at one
moment in time, for a particular readership and to render that same work into
a diferent language, at another point in time and for a completely diferent
readership. It is a difcult task, fraught with pitfalls. The translator has to
steer between extremes, between staying so close to the source that the new
readership is alienated by unfamiliar concepts, forms or language, in short by
that which is perceived to be Other and, at the opposite extreme, leaving the
source so far behind in an aempt to satisfy the needs of that new readership
that he or she may be accused of betrayal. Negotiating the Other, the translator
has to take into account not only the foreigness of the culture in which the source
text is embedded, but other issues, more properly described as ideological. In
recent times, questions concerning gender, nation and identity have been
foregrounded in discussions concerning translation. Those same issues have
been debated in parallel by post-colonial scholars, and the long-standing
problem facing translators of how to deal with a text that refects another mode
of thinking now fnds resonance in discussions about identity and otherness in
post-colonial contexts.
At diferent historical moments, important debates have taken place about
how best to translate otherness. One of the most famous debates in the English
tradition occurred in the mid-nineteenth century. In 1856, Francis Newman, a
well-respected English academic, published a version of The Iliad. Newman used
archaic English and, more controversially, employed a ballad metre, arguing
that by Englishing Homer in this way he was being faithful to the historical
nature of the text and was reminding readers of the great gap between their
own time and Homers. Newmans views on translation so ofended the great
poet and critic, Mahew Arnold, that in 1861 he published his three lectures,
entitled On Translating Homer, which combined a savage aack on Newmans
translation practice with a clear statement of his own theory of translation.
Newman responded with a reply to Mahew Arnold, Homeric Translation in
Theory and Practice, but such was Arnolds dislike of Newmans views that he
returned to the fray, publishing his Last Words on Translating Homer in 1862.
History suggests that Arnold came out of the debate rather more triumphantly
83
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
v
a
d
a

-

R
e
n
o
]

a
t

1
6
:
2
2

0
2

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 2
than poor, well-intentioned Newman, who is all but forgoen today.
The Arnold-Newman debate reveals a great deal, not only about translation,
but about the politics of language. Both men started from a common position:
the desirability of translating Homer, the greatness of Homers poem and the
need to convey a sense of the distance between Homers time and their own.
Neither sought to present Homer as a contemporary, but rather strove to
emphasize the signifcance of a translation that conveyed a sense of otherness.
Where they disagreed was over what kind of language should be employed
by a translator, and what the ultimate aim of a translation should be. Newman
claimed that his intention was to retain something of the distinctiveness of the
original, what he termed the peculiarity, and he endeavoured to reinvent for
himself and his readers a sense of what the epic might have meant for its original
listeners. Arnold ridiculed this approach. How can any translator know what
a work meant to his original audience and how it might have afected them, he
asks, and how can any translator establish foolproof criteria through which to
measure the success or otherwise of a translation based on a theory of equivalent
efect? For Arnold, only scholars of Ancient Greek stood any chance of being
able to answer such questions. The translator should not trust to his own
notions of what the ancient Greeks would have thought of him, nor should he
trust the ordinary English reader who does not have adequate knowledge of
Homer and Homers world. Above all he should not trust his own idiosyncratic
judgment. (Arnold 1911: 212) Instead of fantasizing about an imaginary Greek
universe, the translator should focus on what Arnold terms the plainness and
directness of Homers style and the simplicity with which Homers thought
is evolved and expressed. (Arnold 1911: 223) Arnold castigated Newman for
missing that purity and clarity, and for creating an English version of Homer
that not only did not reproduce the qualities of the original, but detracted
from it instead. Newman responded by challenging Arnolds ideas about plain
and simple diction. Both writers nevertheless acknowledged that a defnitive
translation of Homer could not exist and that any translation would be merely
one more in a long continuum of other translations, each refecting the tastes of
their age.
The Arnold-Newman debate is important for a number of reasons. It sheds
light on the conficting nature of diferent textual practices, and is in many
respects a debate not so much about translation as about reading. It is also,
primarily, a debate about how best to render a work from a fundamentally
diferent culture, in short it is a debate about the problem of translating some-
thing that is fundamentally Other. Arnolds is manifestly an elitist view, which
privileges the scholarly and insists on the desirability of knowledge of Ancient
Greek, but at the same time he advocates the use of standard English, rather
than the faux-archaic English preferred by Newman. In this respect, Arnold is
the more innovative of the two, for he argues that contemporary English could
be a fing vehicle even for Homer.
The two positions in the Newman-Arnold debate echo debates of previous
generations, oen argued in broader, nationalistic terms. In the Age of
Enlightenment, the prevailing French position was to adapt the source text to
the expectations and tastes of the target readership. The needs of that readership
took precedence over other considerations, and French translators explicitly
84
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
v
a
d
a

-

R
e
n
o
]

a
t

1
6
:
2
2

0
2

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

adapted, cut and reshaped ancient and modern works to suit contemporary
taste. Translators defended their strategy with vehemence. Writing in 1769,
Jacques Delille pointed out that translation can be a means of enriching a
language, but warned that what he called extreme faithfulness can also lead
to extreme unfaithfulness, since an image that may have been original in one
context might appear cliched or obscure to another unless adjustments are
made. The task of the translator as he defned it in the preface to his translation
of Virgils Georgics is to try to reproduce the efect the author produced.
(Delille as quoted by Lefevere 1992: 37). In the pursuit of that equivalent efect,
the translator is licenced to do whatever is necessary to rewrite the original.
In contrast, Johann Gofried Herder typifes the prevailing German trend of
seeking to represent a writer from earlier times in such a way that contemporary
readers are made aware of diference, rather than receiving a text that appears
to have been wrien by a contemporary. The French, Herder complained, try
always to adapt everything to their own taste rather than try to adapt themselves
to a diferent taste. Homer, he declared, must enter France a captive and dress
according to their fashion, so as not to ofend their eyes. (Herder in Lefevere
1992: 74) He portrays the French translators as enslaving Homer, dressing him
in borrowed clothes and depriving him of his natural dignity. The German
translation tradition in contrast shows a true sense of liberty and a desire for
truth. We poor Germans, declared Herder, want to see Homer as he really was.
In the 1990s, the debate was reopened by translation studies scholars, most
notably by Lawrence Venuti. Considering the textual power relations operating
in the act of translation, Venuti suggested that the practice of domesticating
or acculturating texts in translation might be ethically less desirable than a
translation practice that preserved a sense of the foreign. For when a text is
acculturated successfully, the translator efectively becomes invisible, acting
simply as a flter through which a work passes on its journey from one language
into another. In addition, if that text is translated from a literary system of
inferior status and power to the one into which it is being translated, there may
also be other implications. Translation according to Venuti can never simply
be communication between equals because it is fundamentally ethnocentric.
(Venuti 1998: 11)
Venutis notion of an ethical translation practice is one that signals the foreign-
ness of the text. A genuinely ethical translation practice, he maintains, will not
only demonstrate proper respect for otherness, but can also have an innovative
impact on a literary system. Venuti calls for greater recognition of the ethical
implications of translation, and one suspects that Mahew Arnold would have
been right behind him, albeit arguing slightly diferently.
Suzanne Jill Levine, in a clever book that explores her own translation practice
of Latin American writing develops the discussion to include issues of gender in
translation. Levine argues the case strongly for translation as creativity, and sees
the role of the translator being both to serve the original and yet somehow to
subvert it. Her book is entitled The Subversive Scribe, and in her epilogue (wiily
entitled traduora, traditora), she argues for a translation practice and theory that
does not posit two distinct poles, one source and one target. Translation, she
maintains, ofers the possibility of a new, radical space, a state of borderlessness,
that is not so much a no-mans-land but rather a space where there can be
Bassne. Translation, Gender and Otherness. 85
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
v
a
d
a

-

R
e
n
o
]

a
t

1
6
:
2
2

0
2

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 2
continuity between source and target. If this borderlessness is recognised, then
translation need not be seen as a form of violence visited upon the original, but
can instead be seen as a reconciliation process, a reconciliation of fragments of
texts, of languages, of oneself. (Levine 1991: 184)
Levine sees the task of the translator as one of mediation between cultures,
negotiating the state of in-betweenness, and bringing to the notice of one set
of readers texts that they would otherwise not be able to access. What Levine
maintains is that there is both a scholarly dimension to translation (for without
adequate linguistic and cultural knowledge on the part of the translator, the
whole endeavour will collapse) and there is a what we might call a moral or
ethical or evangelising or even nurturing element, as the translator seeks to
transpose something belonging to one culture and one time into a product that
appeals to another quite diferent time and place.
Levines stance challenges the view of translation as a secondary, derivative
literary activity, of lesser status than so-called original writing. Fundamental
to this misrepresentation of translation (for the perception of translation as a
second class textual activity is profoundly misplaced, given the high level of
skills required for efective translation to happen and the great responsibility
that is placed on the translator to render adequately and efectively that which
the target readers cannot understand) is according higher status to the original
and conceiving of the translator as some kind of servant of that original.
Signifcantly, in establishing such an hierarchical relationship between original
and translation, many theorists have consciously or unconsciously conceived of
the relationship between the two in gendered terms.
Albert Bensoussan, in an essay entitled Traduire, dit-elle (1982) provides a
vivid set of images of the subservient, subjugated translator, the fgure whose
role is vital yet whose identity is obliterated by the preeminence of the original
authors name:
Le traducteur submit, soumis, subjugu. Femelle, meme sil est parfois amazone. Pris,
prisonnier, enferr, enserr. Ne sappartient plus. Alien, absorb, raviet depossd
de sa parole propre. Parole de lautre, lauteur, la hauteur. Le traducteur est infrieur,
posterieur, postsynchronis. Le traducteur rend en son langage lauteur publiable,
mais il est oubliable. Lauteur souvre, le traducteur se ferme, le premier sclot, le
second se clot. Lauteur se cre, le traducteur secret.
Le traducteur nest que voix de passage. (quoted by Levine 1991: 183)
Here Bensoussan catalogues, wiily and with typically untranslatable French
puns, a series of familiar images of translators as inferior beings, prisoners of the
text, alienated from their own language, entirely forgeable. And, as he states
right at the start, female: femelle, mme sil est parfois amazone. Translation
is thus feminized, the secondary, second-class status of the textual practice of
translation is represented in gender terms.
Reclaiming the status of translation as a primary literary activity is part of
the overall agenda of contemporary translation theory. Early thinking about
translation was dominated by notions of equivalence, premised on binary
oppositions between source and target, and by an emphasis on translation
as a linguistic activity, properly so since translation involves the transfer
of texts interlingually. But from the late 1980s onwards, since translation
studies underwent its cultural turn, along with so many disciplines in the
86
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
v
a
d
a

-

R
e
n
o
]

a
t

1
6
:
2
2

0
2

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

Humanities (including anthropology, history, even linguistics itself) the idea
of translation as a plurivocal site, a place where several voices can be heard
simultaneously has become more apparent. Otherness is not so much posited
in binary opposition to self, but is rather seen as a component element in the
feld of negotiation, the contact zone where translation happens. Moreoever,
literary theorists, particularly in the feld of post-colonialism, increasingly use
translation with its associations of boundarylessness, of movement in-between
and across as a metaphor for contemporary world transactions. In this respect,
the process of reclaiming the past for women, of rewriting the history of slavery
and colonialism and of reassessing what was, even when I was a student, an
uncontested vision of the world, past and present, as dominated by great
men, is mirrored in the revisions to the history of translation practice and in
a reevaluation of what translation means. Signifcantly, much recent thinking
about translation focusses on ideas of otherness. The Argentinian poet, Diana
Bellessi refects on how translation can bring about greater awareness of ones
own position in the world:
Translation always provokes a meditation on ones own language- on its powers and
limits- and on language itself. Since translation is the disarticulation of the original,
it casts in doubt the certainty of the signifers that surround us and afects how we
relate to our original language, as Walter Benjamin and Paul de Man have shown.
(Balderston and Schwartz 2002: 26)
Bellessi sees translation as a process of self-discovery. She uses the myth of
Echo and Narcissus to sum up this new perspective on translating, where Echo
is sustained by the possibilities and mysteries in the native language in which
the translator rewrites (2002:26). Translation thus becomes an act of both self-
awareness and nourishment.

In a conversation about translation, the Latin American translator, Margaret
Sayers Peden ofers a playful vision of the translator as creative writer, scholar,
archivist, innovator and oen a large portion of masochist. (Balderston
and Schwartz 2002: 72) Translation, she suggests, is about problem-solving,
and rather than conceiving of a dualistic notion of source and target, she
proposes a triadic model, which, like Levine, highlights in-betweenness and
the space in which the translator negotiates the textual passage. Otherness is
reconceptualised as something that can be negotiated in a contact zone, an in-
between space.
The translator today is increasingly represented as negotiator, as inter-cultural
mediator, as interpreter. The role of the translator is so much more than the word
translator used to imply, with its traditional associations of linguistic fdelity
and fealty to the powerful original. Translation involves taking responsibility,
for the translator is the person through whom a text passes on its journey from
one context to another. Levine, Bellessi, and Seyers Peden look at translation
from a diferent perspective, and argue that the process is as important as the
product That process will always involve negotiation, rewriting and personal
self-exploration. The fact that the end product might conform to readerly
norms and a foreign text be consequently incorporated within a given horizon
of expectations, i.e. be acculturated, deserves less aention than the process that
Bassne. Translation, Gender and Otherness. 87
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
v
a
d
a

-

R
e
n
o
]

a
t

1
6
:
2
2

0
2

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 2
has taken place.
What I fnd interesting about this kind of thinking around translation is that
it is focussed on processes of translating, just as much as on the translation
product. The argument that a domesticating translation strategy is somehow
unethical, because it elides signs of foreignness in the text becomes untenable
once we start to look at translation as process. Interestingly, Umberto Eco, in his
book Dire quasi la stessa cosa (2003) subtitled tellingly esperienze di traduzione
[experiences of translation] also insists on the importance of the process, which
he views as the experiential dimension:
Mi chiedo se, per elaborare una teoria della traduzione, non sia parimenti necessario
non solo esaminare molti esempi di traduzione, ma avere fao almeno una di queste
tre esperienze: avere controllato traduzioni altrui, avere tradoo ed essere stato
tradoo - o, meglio ancora, essere stato tradoo collaborando col proprio traduore.
(Eco 2003:13)

I ask myself whether, in order to elaborate a theory of translation, it is not equally
necessary to examine not only many examples of translation, but to have undergone
at least one of these three experiences: to have checked over someone elses
translations, to have translated or to have been translated in collaboration with ones
own translator. (My translation)
Experiencing translation, either through translating, studying translations or,
in Ecos view, being onself translated, deepens the understanding of translation
as a process, and makes generalisation, particularly on ideological grounds,
untenable. What Eco emphasizes is the importance of understanding through
experience the ways in which translation engages with the other.
When Harish Trivedi and I were editing our book, Postcolonial Translation,
theory and practice (1999) some of the contributors ofered radically alternative
views on the relationship between the original and the translation. Translation,
as a derivative art form, has oen been compared to the colony, the derivative
of the parent state. In the last two decades or so, as post-colonial literary
practice has developed, so also has thinking about translation, and in particular
the right of the translator to put the needs of the readers before those of the
writer. For a translator who reveres the source so much that the needs of
readers are secondary, is unlikely to fnd a responsive audience. Hence we fnd
translators such as the Brazilian de Campos brothers formulating their theories
of translation as cannibalisation, as vampirism, as blood transfusion. Haroldo
de Campos famously referred to his translation of Dante as transparadiso.
Underpinning their concept of translation, of course, is the presumption that the
translator has the right to reject old hierarchical models, whether canonical or
colonial and rewrite and reappropriate the text for a new generation of readers
through the translation process.
In the introduction to her collection of translations from ancient Greek,
Classical Women Poets,(1996) Josephine Balmer defends both her decision to
categorise the extant fragments of ancient Greek women poets as a single entity,
and her translation strategy. Balmer draws upon notions of criture feminine to
explore the textuality of the poets she translates, noting that they exhibited a
fondness - an agility- for wordplay, punning and neologism. (Balmer 1996: 16).
The task facing her was enormous:
88
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
v
a
d
a

-

R
e
n
o
]

a
t

1
6
:
2
2

0
2

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

With classical works, not only have the textual intentions of their original authors
been lost, but also most of the texts themselves. Far from uncovering the world-
view of many of the poets translated here, debate centres on where or when in the
world, even if, they might have lived- with estimates sometimes varying by centuries.
(Balmer 1996: 18)
Balmers argument is that the texts she was translating cannot even be clearly
defned as originals, given the level of uncertainty about their authorship and
even authenticity. They are, in this respect, totally other, belonging to another
world that we can only grasp tentatively since our knowledge is incomplete.
She goes on to ask where, in the absence of any collaborative author, can a
translator of such texts look for guidance, and answers her question in two
ways: by resorting to contemporary women poets writing in English, in other
words by seeing womens poetry as existing in some kind of continuum that
transcends diferences of time, language and culture, and also by looking to
statements by translators. She refers to Suzanne Jill Levine, to Myriam Diaz-
Diocaretz who translated Adrienne Rich into Spanish and who has wrien so
intelligently about the problems, both linguistic and cultural, of that task, to
Carol Maier and to Barbara Godards exhortation to female translators to faunt
their presence in the text by deliberately foregrounding the presence of the
translator in the form of footnotes and other extratextual signs. Balmer uses a
number of such signs, including brackets, asterisks and dots. Asterisks denote
the end of a fragment, dots denote where there was a break in the papyrus,
square brackets denote conjectural meaning, that is points where the translator
is clearly showing the process that she has undergone in her reading of the
source. She also uses footnotes unashamedly, provides a glossary of names and
an appendix of ancient writers mentioned in the text, all this not in a scholarly
edition but in an edition produced by Bloodaxe, the Newcastle-based poetry
publisher.
Balmers translation practice is long way away from Bensoussans image of the
translation as subjugated and submissive. It also consciously and deliberately
turns to models of contemporary English writing, hence there is an underlying
strategy of acculturation. Nevertheless, Balmers use of extratextual material
highlights the translation process itself, making it clear that what readers are
reading is, and cannot be anything other than, a translation. In this, she comes
closer to Arnolds notion of good translation than to Newmans. Her translation
strategy is designed to highlight the act of translation, to enable the reader to
share in the processes whereby she has negotiated another world. In such a
translation we can see tangible evidence of engagement with otherness.
It would, of course, be absurd to suggest that women have a monopoly on
creative translation practice; there are many fne translators who transcend
gender. But at the heart of how we, in the West, see translation is an assumption
of the inferiority of translation which is both explicitly gendered, in terms
of the fgurative language we use to describe translation and also in the low
status (and low payments) accorded to this highly complex literary activity. It
is therefore signifcant that so many women translators are choosing to write
about their own practice in ways that emphasize the process of interlingual
transfer, the stages they go through in rendering a text into another context,
rather than focussing on the fnal product. This must surely be linked to the
Bassne. Translation, Gender and Otherness. 89
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
v
a
d
a

-

R
e
n
o
]

a
t

1
6
:
2
2

0
2

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3

2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 2
way in which ideas of otherness have started to be articulated over the last three
decades, a period that has seen the development not only of translation studies,
but also of gender and postcolonial studies. Through the work of translators
and translation scholars who have elected to foreground gendered strategies,
we can see more clearly ways in which translators negotiate the relationship
between the known and the alien, the self and the other.
Works cited
Arnold, Mahew.1911. On Translating Homer In: Critical Essays of Mahew Arnold.
London: Dent. 211-275.
Arnold, Mahew. 1911. Last Words on Translating Homer. A Reply to Francis W.
Newman. In: Critical Essays of Mahew Arnold. London: Dent. 337-380.
Balderston, Daniel & Marcy E. Schwartz (eds.). 2002. Voice-Overs. Translation and Latin
American Literature. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Balmer, Josephine. 1996. Classical Women Poets. Newcastle: Bloodaxe.
Bassne, Susan & Harish Trivedi (eds.). 1999. Postcolonial Translation. Theory and Practice.
London & New York: Routledge.
Diana Bellessi. 2002. Gender and Translation. In: Balderston, Daniel & Marcy E. Schwartz
(eds.). 26-29.
Eco, Umberto. 2003. Dire quasi la stessa cosa. Milan: Bompiani
Lefevere, Andr. 1992. Translation, History and Culture. A Sourcebook. New York &
London: Routledge.
Levine, Suzanne Jill. 1992. The Subversive Scribe. Translating Latin American Fiction. Saint
Paul: Graywolf Press.
Newman, Francis W. 1911. Homeric Translation in Theory and Practice. A Reply to
Mahew Arnold. In: Critical Essays of Mahew Arnold. London: Dent. 277-336.
Sayers Peden, Margaret. 2002. A Conversation on Translation. In: Balderston, Daniel &
Marcy E. Schwartz (eds.). 71-83.
Simon, Sherry. 1996. Gender in Translation. Cultural identity and the Politics of Transmission.
London & New York: Routledge.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1998. The Scandals of Translation. Towards an Ethics of Diference. London
and New York: Routledge.
90
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

[
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

o
f

N
e
v
a
d
a

-

R
e
n
o
]

a
t

1
6
:
2
2

0
2

D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r

2
0
1
3