! "#$%&'$()*%! +(,-$%*!.#/0)%)!!

In the last few decades, translation has become a key research area in communication studies. There are many reasons for this and it is not easy to identify a hierarchy. I think that one of the reasons is that translation reminds us of the fragility of the instruments we use to build our individual and collective identity. We feel Italian or German or French because we share inside our group some cultural conventions among which stand out language or languages we learned when we were children. Language constitutes, and at the same time represents, the framework of values which we feel as our home. Language therefore is probably the most powerful identity-forming instrument. It permits us to know who we are marking out a boundary between us and the others who speak, have a behavior and think differently from us. It is also likely that the common denominator is that intercultural relationships have become one of the most urgent problems of our time. As a matter of fact, translating involves all of the main elements through which a culture sees and represents itself, as well as the way it represents and communicates with other cultures. In essence, translation concerns our relationship with others and the way in which a culture creates its own identity (see Gambier, 1994), in a process that involves diversity, similarity and the attempt to create a connection between our culture and those of others. Not only has translation garnered interest from a cultural and communicative perspective, but recently there has also been a lot of attention in the fields of linguistics, semiotics and argumentation. This is because the questions we ask about translation are the same we ask ourselves about the production and interpretation of texts. However, translation is an activity which is carried out under special conditions and better exposes what normally happens in non-translated communication. For this reason, if on the one hand translation forces us to bring into question many of the categories that have been established by modern linguistics and semiotics, on the other it allows us to verify how different linguistic levels interact with and influence each other in practice. Therefore, translation presupposes an integrated model in which no semiotic-textual aspect is excluded. The main aspects our research has focused on revolve around these premises and have helped to define some key points. First of all, translation is about texts, and therefore these are complex cultural products. Secondly, translation is a form of rewriting which involves textual production
Stefano Arduini


acknowledging the importance of the role of the TA in the translation process. on the other. on the one hand. What is characteristic of this position is that the concept of equivalence concerns texts and is intended as a concept that has different levels. translation requires not only functionality of the target text but also Stefano Arduini 2 . more in general. she enriches the Skopostheorie with the principle of "loyalty" to the TP. These ideas have been stressed in a later work written in collaboration with Hans J. which comes from an attempt to bring together two positions which were contemplated in those years. to use a term introduced in this field by André Lefevere. can be modified. are the basis of Nord's functionalism theory. which in certain cases. Funktionsgerechtigkeit + Loyalität (function + loyalty).starting from another text. in which the two authors assert that between source text and target text it is necessary to find a sort of inter-textual coherence which is the real translation fidelity. translation changes the original text. The contributions of German academics Reiß and Vermeer and. From this perspective we can consider the work of Katharina Reiss (1976). more than to try to find an equivalence that is difficult to define. applying a sort of "manipulation". Translating texts The beginning of the Seventies in Linguistics meant the passage from sentence to text analysis and this had consequences also in translation. “[…] in our culture. a principle which highlights the dual responsibility of the translator towards the producer of the TP and the receiver of the TA. parody or summary. highlighting importance to the original text and the functions performed by it. so to say: if. Because translation is rewriting. the supporters of the Skopostheorie places the skopos of translation at the forefront (the function of the TA in its social and cultural context). Nord's functionalist theory was born in a "crossfire". It is also a manipulation in the sense that we translate texts departing from certain premises for certain purposes. Premises and purposes build translators' attitude. It is a manipulation which is linked to the expectations and requests of the target culture. who tried with the Skopostheorie to build a typological framework used to evaluate translation. So. All of this tells us that translation is not just the transfer of meaning from one language to another which remains unchanged. on the other. in a way similar to paraphrase. those who opposed this theory continued to stress the importance of faithfulness of the source (Cinato Kather. it is important to conceive translation as an attempt to put into dialogue two texts by identifying functions and text types. of the German functionalist school of thought. Lucia [2011:19]). Nord on the one hand welcomes Reiss and Vermeer's Skopostheorie. influence their translation style and are influenced by dominant ideologies. Vermeer (Reiss–Vermeer 1984). During the transfer. The combination of these two elements leads to the two pivotal points of her theory. meaning is subjected to some kind of cognitive transformations.

[…] only by analysing the ST function […]the translator can decide which TT function(s) will be compatible with the given ST” (Nord [1991:72]) Rewriting and Manipulation To translate is a matter of texts. In stark contrast to Persian Stefano Arduini 3 . To translate is to manipulate and rewrite because translation has a lot of things in common with other kinds of interpretation and textual production. but what happens when we translate texts? As Skopostheorie has shown. Aspects such as these are very important because they enable us to understand that translation is never an innocent activity and that it depends strongly on the social and political context in which it takes place. !"#$%&#'()$*#$+*. and editing. it is necessary to consider that cultures are extremely unstable. Cultures (Bhabha 1994) are the result of exchanges. is precisely the history of a community in relation to others. translating means to adopt strategies that are from time to time different in relation to the readers and the context of reception. reevaluations. In fact. Eschilus illustrates the concept of multiplicity as a feature of Persian identity. In this sense. and for example the history of Bible translation.diversity is its trademark.-&'-". It has been observed that this notion has changed significantly throughout the course of history. groups and institutions which influence. have the goal of building an image of a text. This induced André Lefevere (1981) to speak explicitly of translation as manipulation and rewriting. Another concept of great interest connected with this framework is the concept of patronage (Lefevere 1985) that is to say that the individuals. consequently. races.* Translation changes cultures: what does this mean? And what culture are? Here In order to give an answer to this question. in fact. The history of translation. the Chorus lists the commanders who had followed King Xerxes and the towns which make up the empire: “all the power has left Asia with him”. At the beginning of The Persians. the continuous transfer of meaning and. it is important to see how the perception of literary property or even the very notion of faithfulness in translation have developed in time. culture is the consequence of these continuous translations. of translations. of an author or of an entire literary culture and to project them in a different reception environment. as historiography. literary criticism. languages. overlapping. religions . All these activities. In regard to this. in that a translation deemed faithful in a certain period is considered to be unfaithful in another.loyalty towards the ST sender and his intention (which is a costitutive factor of ST function). The Persian Empire is made up of different folks. to rewrite is to rethink a text in relation to its own cultural coordinates. encourage but also censor rewriting in the literary sphere.

identity is Greek identity: the Persians are a assorted group. The Greeks find themselves and identify themselves in the narration of the combat against the only universal empire of that era. faithfulness to the meaning cannot be faithfulness to the words (which aren’t ORIGINAL) in the same way faithfulness to the spirit cannot be faithfulness to the body. Ethnocentrism in translation first appeared in the Latin works of Cicero. It is a form of self-representation which questions a narration. This Platonic inheritance will be passed on to the Western world and will become canonical in translation. we must necessarily detach ourselves from the body of the text. the product has to give the impression that it is what the writer would have written had he/she been Stefano Arduini 4 . the receiver of the translation. while the Greeks are a unit. To understand the role of translation in this context and how it changes cultures. translation is suspicious of words and favors the Platonic caesura between spirit and body. According to Berman. The ORIGINAL meaning is grasped in one language and this is the receiving language and therefore it is deprived of everything that cannot be transferred into it. they are a discreet entity which exalts certain cultural traits and excludes others. cultures are the result of many discourses and diverse and opposing social practices. foreign works should be translated in a way in which translation is not “perceived”. “Ethnocentric” is the approach according to which a culture tends to interpret a connection with other cultures by placing its own at the center and seeing the foreign culture as being something to refuse or to adapt and camouflage within the target culture. we must remember what Antoine Berman (1984. Meaning cannot be released into a pure language and therefore the ideology of the pre-eminence of the ORIGINAL text becomes the ideology of the language into which the text has been translated. An ethnocentric approach inevitably leads to a position in translation which is “Hypertextual”. Many Greeks identify themselves as belonging to one side and to one identity creating a cultural diasystem. According to this stance. But Berman realized that faithfulness to the original and unfaithfulness to the foreign language is. an ensemble of languages. faithfulness to one’s own language. This example is useful to understand that. the pre-eminence of meaning is inevitably expansionist. as written by Stuart Hall (2002). Meaning should enter the language without doing any damage. If the objective of translating is to grasp the ORIGINAL meaning. they consider themselves to be outside the Asian continuum. Berman stresses that for Cicero translation is essentially grasping an ORIGINAL meaning which goes beyond the form. Such an ideology gives language the status of a semiotic means which is privileged and untouchable. nevertheless. traditions and cultures. 1999) said when talking about ethnocentrism in translation. As it is meant to grasp the ORIGINAL meaning.

this is where metaphors tend to be substituted by similes. Berman stressed how this desire leads to certain “deforming tendencies” underlying translation ideology in the Western world. Expansion is also linked to clarification and rationalization. Qualitative and quantitative impoverishment means that. explaining or untangling a text means that the source is considered to be tangled up and therefore not clearly readable. qualitative impoverishment. in relation to the role that translation play in cultures. also the opposite can occur by using a pseudo-jargon which hides the text. and in the second case. in that it explains the text. highlighted the heterogeneous cultural conditions in which a translation is carried out. the destruction of locutions and the elimination of the superposition of languages conceals and standardizes the translated text making it a usable product for the reader of the language into which the text is being translated. What do all these have in common? Rationalization reorganizes sentences according to a certain idea of what is considered to be the correct order of the passage. of locutions and idiomatic expressions. With homogenization. the destruction of the vernacular networks. the destruction of textual systematisms. ennoblement vulgarization. again. lexical dispersion occurs. Such deforming tendencies are: rationalization. Berman considers ennoblement to be the final point of Platonic translation. in the first case. we need to remember the contribution of the school of Tel Aviv. So by destroying systematisms you add or eliminate elements and the text becomes domesticated and is made readable. Finally. of vernacular linguistic networks. The translated text is better than the source. Of course.writing directly in the translated language. The concept of polysystem is Stefano Arduini 5 . making clear what does not appear to be in the text or specifying what is not specified in the text. expansion. The destruction of rhythm for example impacts on punctuation and in some way rhythm. A typical example of this is the transformation of metaphors into similes. It is done rather to show that these are common in any Western translation and correspond to a precise cultural choice. the destruction of rhythms. whose main representatives are Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury and who. The identification of these deforming tendencies is not done to suggest an alternative methodology. homogenization. within the framework of the Polysystem Theory. With Berman. of underlying meaning. The destruction of the significant networks eliminates the underlying connections between key signifiers which do not appear on the surface. it is more elegant o “poetical” in places where the source was less refined. expressions of the original are substituted with words of lower iconic value. all the levels of the original are unified to some extent. Naturally. of superposition of languages. quantitative impoverishment. clarification. Clarification is a consequence of this. but which are fundamental in the economy of the text.

In relation to the concept of canonization. From this point of view. the polysystem is a system of heterogeneous systems which make up literature. The tradition that is to say the fixed repertoire which makes it up. there is the distinction between center and periphery. when a literature is peripheral or weak. because it always comes into contact with other literatures creating continuous interferences. Specifically. it performs this role thanks to its prestige and the fact that the importing system needs to find models which it does not find in itself. In this sense. literature being conceived as a system in movement with transformations and continuities. the pertinence to the canon depends on the legitimacy of the dominating cultural groups. a weak polysystem will be subject to the influence of the models it imports. literature is not only considered in an abstract way but is also connected to the judgments of value which belong to a specific historical period. between the center and periphery of the system. in other words. those which have been introduced by the official culture and which have achieved legitimacy of the institution. A system can be stable or unstable. if we consider that it is first and foremost a cultural exchange. In the first two cases. when a culture is undergoing a crisis.an attempt to define all the activities which are considered to be literary within a culture. between innovation and tradition. On the contrary the innovator is a primary system in which new elements intervene and where a repertoire becomes defined. is a secondary system. The receiving system selects the foreign literature accepting the literary conventions of the same polysystem. on the contrary. The center of the literary system is inevitably occupied by canonical texts. In this sense. The concept of a canonical text is fundamental to understand how certain cultural categories are passed down in a given society. depending on its ability to handle changes and assimilate them. Translated literature follows the same reasoning and can become primary or secondary depending on the specific conditions operating in the polysystem. Furthermore. has a central role in a language in three social situations: when a literature is young or is in the process of being established. Also the opposition between tradition and innovation is in relation to the problem of accepting a given work at a precise time. its texts will be in some way predictable and any attempt to compromise this instability will be perceived as an aggression. the translated literature is needed to fill in the gaps of the polysystem and it also creates a dependence of the weak or peripheral literatures compared to the central ones. This filter will be applied in relation to the conditions of the receiving polysystem: a fixed polysystem will try to impose its models on translations. a series of oppositions have an important role: the existence of canonical texts and non-canonical texts. In this sense. In the case of texts. translated literature is a system within the literary polysystem. translation. In the Stefano Arduini 6 . literature is never isolated and is never pure. These interferences cannot be eliminated in the contacts between cultures and are usually unilateral because literature is a source.

” and “fidelity” with an expressed interest in the historical. scopes. Ideology is present in every intellectual work. In the same direction. History. Christina Schäffner in 2003 reminded us that translations are inevitably ideological because ideology always lies behind the selection of a source text and the use to which a target text is put. translated literature can have a primary function also in central literatures. if we think that translating means to reproduce the original message in all its functions. These values are present in the process of Stefano Arduini 7 . pointed out that institutions and individuals use their beliefs to motivate and affect translation. cultural and ideological conditions which determine the translator activity. This means that ideology is determinant in the definition of goals but also in establishing translating strategies and norms. identity and culture as a center of interest for translation in 1991. consequently also in translation. The presentation and article were pioneering and showed the changing climate within studies in translation during the Eighties. The topic of ideology has an important role to play in post-translation studies. Yes. In point of fact. in the article on “Translation and Ideology” published by Routledge Encyclopedia of TS. Ideology Is there a relation between translation and ideology? No. Every culture is the bearer of a whole inventory of implicit values that constitute its ideology. The author stressed that it is possible to find an ideological approach to translation in many ancient testimonies. on the basis of ideological motivations. For Niranjana translation is one the most important fields of study for scholars who want to understand how relationships between cultures are established on the basis of a series of asymmetries. The new direction replaced traditional categories such as “source text. however.” “target text. and goals of individuals and institutions shape the work and product of translation. Susan Bassnett already proposed the theme of ideology. consciously or unconsciously. At the beginning of the nineties an important book by Tejaswini Niranjana (Siting Translation. Some years later Peter Fawcett. The interests. Similarly and already in the Eighties. Also Christiane Nord in Translation as A Purposeful Activity (1997) noted the same thing: decisions about the process of translation are taken. The perspective of Lefevere resembled that of Michel Foucault for whom discourses constitute a complex and unstable system in which they can be an instrument and an effect of power. Post-structuralism and the Colonial Context [1992]) addressed the relationship between translation ideology and identity. experience and cleverness. if we consider that in many translation projects it is necessary to take decisions and solve complex problems with imagination.third case. just at the beginning of the second decade of Translation Studies. André Lefevere proposed the topic of ideology as a center of interest for Translation Studies.

While formal equivalence pays attention to the correspondences between form and content. but his perspective reveals what we have called with Berman the ideology of translation in the Western framework. Nida was a genius. He is particularly important because in his model he has recognized the non-linguistic specificity of the issue. It is present here the idea that the meaning can be saved in the original sense after it has been deprived of its “body”. the concept of ‘equivalence’ of meaning is mentioned. the dynamic one is achieved when in the target language are created the same communicative relations existing between message and receiver in the source language. In the topic of equivalence a special role has been played by Eugene Nida. Translation for Tymoczko places itself in a special space that is the space where existence is defined as “existence in between” two cultures. and so forth. By my perspective I have insisted that translating means much more of this and we have to assume as a matter of fact that if similarity is one of the basis of any translation. Meaning Often.translation. heterogeneous and polymorphic. In 2003. In this sense. translation brings into play the relation between language and ideology. and it is maybe the most discussed issue concerning translation. In this way Nida redefined the concept of fidelity rediscussing the terms of the problem. at the same time we cannot forget the difference that inevitably exists between the two texts and the work of mediation of the translator . in Translation Studies. In this “in between” space we find a blend of linguistic acts of the source text with the linguistic acts of the target context. Translation obliges us to reconsider the role of ideology in the building of identities and cultures. two languages. two worldviews. syntactic and semantic. The development of cognitive studies on meaning also proved that meaning cannot remain Stefano Arduini 8 . Ideology shows itself precisely in the space between these two moments. What is interesting in Nida is that the concept of equivalence has many levels and particularly the 3 levels that Charles Morris developed in his theory of signs: pragmatic. For example translation has developed a decisive role in building a fixed image of Asian. We find here a form of dissimulation: concepts like fidelity claim to transform a particular perspective into something considered objective. Derrida would speak in this case of a lie. Of special relevance is his distinction between a formal and dynamic equivalence. an image that is foundational to the relationship that the Western world has established with Asia. It also brings into play as a consequence the idea of language as a constant movement. Maria Tymoczko researched the position of the translator. two ideologies.

or he leaves the reader well alone and moves the author towards the reader. In this sense. From the point of view of Cognitive Linguistics. In this case it is useful to cast light upon difficulties of translation that depend on the differences of profiling certain concepts. Just like different metaphors imply different conceptualizations. but they come from the interactions and contexts in which they are acquired and developed. above all in the direction to go beyond some of the limits of the discipline. Stefano Arduini 9 . and similarity can be very productive in this area. New research which has developed in the field of Cognitive Linguistics have put meaning at the centre of the attention of linguists. and therefore prefers to look for as many devices as possible to obtain a natural sounding effect in the target language. as many scholars have done. Language skills cannot be isolated from the other cognitive skills: behind language. The new cognitivist approaches can offer new possibilities to the broad area of studies on translation. linguistic skills are not entirely attributable to an innate potential. What implications does this idea have on translation? Are different conceptualizations compatible or incommensurable? How do we deal with them? Should we force the differences or highlight them? A response to this series of questions is. The distinction between profile-frame and dominion is particularly useful in order to understand the nature of phenomenon such as the semantic differences between words and their apparent equivalent in other languages. he much rather prefers the second option. there is a wide range of cognitive resources which put infinite connections into play and coordinate a vast amount of information. different cultures structure their cognitive universes in different ways.unchanged when going from a language to another. to go back to Schleiermacher who wrote there are only two possible options in translation: the translator either leaves the writer well alone and moves the reader towards him. and which therefore moves towards the foreign text. re-establishing a tradition which has always considered language in function of meaning and which does not separate that from other aspects of cognition. frame. This refusal of the “annexation” approach can be found also in Henri Meschonic who stresses that usually. Fo example Berman is in favor of an approach which highlights the difference. For example concepts like domain. So the explosion of semantics in the cognitive studies and the idea that metaphors structure our world perception can permit us to go beyond these limits and encourage a possible rethinking of translation studies founded on a wider consideration of the kind of facts which are connected with translation. faced with the choice of showing the translation for what it is or hiding it. Or to understand in which sense synonyms are different. mental spaces. profile. A further contribution of cognitive studies is that they revisited the old theory of linguistic relativism in the light of new cognitive research. many of the differences between languages come from a different way to conceptualize reality.

and the encapsulation of the source text in the receiving culture which annuls differences pertaining to culture. Domesticating means creating a translation which tries to avoid giving readers the impression they are reading a foreign text. Translation implies the incessant movement of texts. In line with Schleiermacher is Lawrence Venuti who distinguishes between domestication and foreignization. Thus. A lot of thoughts on translation concentrate on entities such as a single concept or words. etc. etc. in order to maintain some of this diversity. with other environments of destinations. it is rather a relationship of mutual debt and for this reason. The act of translating creates a new text. Using the word experience means that translation does not concern an object or a relation among objects. but it some way it modifies the source text as well. translation is also characterised by two other pivotal aspects: Similarities and Differences. which is to view translation not as the carrier of the source text into the target language but as the fusion of two poetics. faithfulness. traditional categories through which we have tried to describe translation. Meschonic pits decentralization against annexation. a text is already an example of plurality. Meschonnic calls this effect annexation. on their equivalent in different languages. if we think of translation as an experience. Finally. it's the product of other texts. This is a crucial point because it has consequences for the theory and practice of translation. After all. such as equivalence. time. Foreignizing means deliberately violating the rules of the target language. So. with receptors. or on the relations of the translated text. referring to products are not enough to appreciate the movement of meaning generated through the act of translation. of other "originals". it is about a process and not a series of objects. therefore a fluid and transparent style is adopted. in other words the annulment of the textual relationship between the two texts involved. Conclusion Translation is a special experience. On the contrary. comparison.This is particularly evident when the metaphorical network is broken down. and therefore the translator highlights the source of the text clearly identifying the source language and culture. talking about equivalence is nonsense. Totally different is the perspective if we consider translation as experience. for example with the original. These entities are like objects that are studied “per se” or in relation to other objects. it is not about static relationships but dynamic ones. the most important connection between an original text and its translation is not a chronological one. and linguistic structure. It is about something that happens during this process which changes the surrounding environment. Stefano Arduini 10 . This process entails the suppression of differences between languages. emphasizing particular aspects and certain values.

These two different types of similarity are also the ways in which the translators and readers view translation. because of all those processes we call paraphrase. similarity is the Dasein of language. In the field of Translation Studies. Finally. This is of an extraordinary relevance for translation. somewhat comforting. Wilhelm von Humboldt may have been the first scholar to suggest that we should take the idea of similarity as central for research into languages and cultures. translation means to say almost the same thing: What does "to translate" mean? The first. definition. reformulation. not to mention replacements with synonyms. Humboldt utilizes a metaphor to explain this concept. providing the way by which language organizes itself as an organic totality. It is essential to understand. the problem is that when having to translate a text. At the most. but it would be strange to say that a daughter looks like her mother because in a chronological sense this would be false (therefore A is similar to B but B is not similar to A). For Humboldt die Form der Sprache represents the principle that constitutes the individuality and the diversity of a language.Similarity Umberto Eco (2003a) has written that he would like to define translation as: to say the same thing but he concludes correctly that this is impossible. two sisters look alike (A is similar to B and B is similar to A). we don't know what the thing is. he adds. in some cases. I believe that Eco's definition should be integrated with the concept of similarity. Without similarity language itself does not exist. without those relations language would be a simple aggregation. explanation. In short. the second is the one for which a thing is similar to another: we can say that a daughter looks like her mother. the second sees it as a converging similarity. it is possible to say almost the same thing" (Eco 2003: 9-10). We can say that what makes language an organic totality are the similarity relations in its structure. The first is when similarity is reciprocate: e. it is even uncertain what "to say" means.g. This means that similarity represents the knot that forms the weft. Stefano Arduini 11 . But also this softened definition doesn't find the agreement of all. it was Andrew Chesterman (1996.. that "even knowing that we never say the same thing. answer would be: translating is saying the same thing in another language. the metaphor of weaving: language is like a weaving where every thread is connected with another and all with the whole.. as Eco says. But if language is like a weaving what is the weft or filling and how is it constructed? On this subject Humboldt writes that language forms a weaving of similarities. observing that there are at least two kinds of similarities: a diverging and converging one. The problem is that we cannot establish with great precision what "saying the same thing" means. While a translator sees it as a kind of diverging similarity. 2005) who suggested replacing the concept of equivalence with that of similarity. Secondly.

But what is the matter that has to be negotiated? The translator besides negotiate the texts has Stefano Arduini 12 . Peirce writes that an interpreter. How do we "almost say the same thing"? Who decides that "almost" is enough to consider a text a translation and not a completely different text? Of course. Eco's perspective has two speech acts and their similarity. values and ideologies that circulate during a certain era and somehow modify the kind of guarantor who assesses the concept of similarity.we said that throughout history. Or think of Eliot's quartet which translates entire texts by Juan de la Cruz: is this to be considered a translation or an independent text? Eco also asks: How flexible should that "almost" be?. so to speak a matter of fact. But what is the specific feature of the difference which appears in translation? This is less trivial than it seems. After stating that translating could mean "to say almost the same thing". Establishing flexibility. 1867). it is useful to quote Eco. (who translates orally) is : “Who says that a foreigner says the same thing which he himself says” (CP 1. depends on certain criteria which are to be negotiated in advance. Moreover. differences do not only concern relationships between texts. The most obvious example is that the first text is in one language and the second in another. There are many other texts that have many kinds of similarities. In Perice's version. the extent of the "almody". he knows only that the translator claims to says to say the same thing and we have to trust that it is true. but also relationships between cultures in which texts circulate. he adds that.553.. In fact we cannot speak of translation between two texts if there is not also a specific kind of difference. as they depend on cultural context. Saying "almost" the same thing is a procedure which is at the basis of negotiation (Eco 2003 10). This second perspective connects a quality (similarity) with two two speech acts thanks to a norm. The similarity in this case is the presupposition of a relation. it is necessary to find out what that "almost" means. If similarity can only be established through an external indicator.To define similarity in a way that can be helpful for translation we can adopt a semiotic perspective. not the relation. texts that we would now consider to be translations were considered independent texts and vice versa. in this case we understand how similarity standards can change. given this definition.. finding an objective criterion seems impossible . Again. Difference Similarity is not sufficient. The difference is clear: Peirce doesn't know if the the interpreter or the translator says the same thing of the foreigner. on the contrary it is possible the similarity between two speech acts if there is someone that guarantees it. It is possible to say that there is similarity between two expressions if there is someone who guarantees and stipulates it. which is.

2006. and these are not linguistics issues but more generally cultural issues. Translation. Berman. Bhabha. A New Comparative Literature.). 1991a. the cultural difference shows itself as a barrier of acceptability and confidence. Translation Studies. Susan e Harish Trivedi. 1997. 1999. Susan. It is a process in which there is a change in the behaviour of the parties involved which can be explained only with the intervention of a mediator (Greco 2011). Rigotti-Greco 2005). Andrew. Bhabha. In this sense. and cultures do not clash but attempt to find a common ground (cf. it implies differences and provides solutions of the differences through a negotiation carried out on behalf of a mediator. London: Pinter. If the linguistic code difference shows itself as a barrier of intelligibility. 1999. The Translation Zone. 1996. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. s. Bassnett. Petrilli 1999/2000a: 12.p. 1994. L’épreuve de l’étranger. 1984. 1994. The concept of mediation introduces an important aspect which I would like to conclude with. Antoine.also to think about the possible mutual prejudices. London and New York: Routledge. The Location of Culture. Translation and Conflict. La traduction et la lettre ou l’Alberge du lointain. If we think of translation as mediation and of translators as mediators. Chesterman. in which the two debaters are not individuals but two cultures facing off against each other (cf. Bassnett. London and New York: Routledge. and in which the two parties have a relationship that can also be of a conflicting nature (Baker 2006). In other words the difference in translation has many semiotics levels which implies an incessant work of mediation (cfr. Berman. also Pym 2012 143 ff). Mona. Bibliography Apter. Chesterman. 1990. Theory and Practice. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. 2006. Bassnett. London–New York: Routdledge. Kommissarov 1996: 370. Emily. Mossop 1983: 246. we can interpret the translation process as an out-and-out process of reasoning. The Location of Culture. Andrew. Stefano Arduini 13 . Paris: Gallimard. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Chesterman 2003. Antoine. 2007. History and Culture. London-New York: Routledge. Andrew. Chesterman 2003 Chesterman. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura: 63-75. Homi K. Susan and André Lefevere (eds.). “On Similarity” Target 8(1): 159-163. London and New York: Routledge. “Where is similarity?” in Stefano Arduini and Robert Hodgson (eds) Similarity and Difference in Translation. translation plays a heroic task. Homi K. revised edition. Baker. Mediation is a form of communication which is necessary to manage conflict. Paris: Seuils. Postcolonial Translation. it becomes the place where conflicts seek a solution.

A Sourcebook. Paris: Bayard. in Hermans 1985: 215–243. Jeremy. André. Volgarizzare e tradurre. Descriptive and System–oriented Approaches Explained. 2011 Hermans. 2011.Eco. Handbook of Tranlation Studies. Verdier. a cura di Mona Baker. 2004. Milano. The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. Lefevere. “Beyond the Process: Literary Translation in Literature and Literary Theory”. André. Meschonnic. 1972. Un coup de Boble dans la philosophie. Esperienze di traduzione. André. Dire quasi la stessa cosa. Lev!. Translation. Torino: Einaudi. Eco. 2011. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and applications. Gallimard. Munday. James S. André. 2008. 1999. Albany: State University of New York Press. Umberto 2003. “Ideology and Translation”. Folena. London and New York: Routledge. History and Culture. Gentzler. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. in Translation Spectrum: Essays in Theory and Practice. Mossop Stefano Arduini 14 . Henri. Manchester: St. Poétique de la traduction. Department of General Literary Studies. 1998. 1992a. Lefevere. Edwin. London: University of Toronto Press. Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blueprint. Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Frame. Itamar. 2001. Theo. André. numero monografico di Poetics Today 11 (1). London and New York: Routledge. The Art of Translation. Umberto. Gambier. Translation and Identity in the Amerixas. 1988. Meschonnic. Experiences in Translaton. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Hermans. Greco. Lefevere. 1975. Contemporary Translation Theories. Poétique du traduire. 1999. London and New York: Routled Gentzler. 1991. Épistémologie de l’écriture. Translation in Systems. 1994. London and Sidney: Croom Helm. Assen–Amsterdam: Van Gorcum. Henri. Ji"í. Even–Zohar. 1985. Holmes. Paris. Amsterdam: Translation Studies Section. The Manipulation of Literature. 1985. Paris. I and II. London and New York: Routledge: 106-111. in Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Bompiani. Edwin. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Meschonnic. Kommissarov Lefevere. Pour la poétique II. a cura di Marilyn Gaddis Rose. London and New York: Routledge. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 1981. Yves and Luc Van Doorslaer. Henri. 2001. Gianfranco. New Directions in Translation Theory. Translation. Jerome. “Why Waste Our Time on Rewrites? The Trouble with interpretation and the Role of Rewriting in an Alternative Paradigm”. James S. 1992b. Toronto. Buffalo. Lefevere. Polysystem Studies. 1973. London and New York: Routledge. Peter. Fawcett. 1990. Theo. Holmes.

Leiden: Brill. History. Eugene A. 2012. E. Anthony. Gideon. Milano: Sansoni. Toward a Science of Translating. Nida. Nida. Stefano Arduini 15 . After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. 2004. 2000. Sherry. Christiane. Toury. 1975. Peeter. Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission. Tel Aviv University. In Search of a Theory of Translation.The Theory and Practice of Translation. California: English Language Institute. Gender in Translation. Manchester: St. On Translator Ethics. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Tr. Nord. From One Language to Another. 1969. Die Übersetzung literarischer und religiöser Texte aus funktionaler Sicht. 1997. Reiss. Theorie. Rigotti. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2010. 1971). 1971/2000. Franz Pöchhacker. Niranjana. I. George. Functional Equivalence in Bible Translating. 1996. Amsterdam– Philadelphia: Benjamins. Eugene A. Manchester e New York: St. Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic History. Aspetti del linguaggio e della traduzione. e Charles R. Eugene A.ch (Disponibile online in italiano. Christiane. Principles for Cross-cultural Communication. Eugene A. Methode und Didaktik des funktionalen Übersetzens. Text Analysis in Translation: Theory. 2010. Eddo e Sara Cigada. Torop. Snell–Hornby. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Dopo Babele. Anthony. 2005. Argumentum eLearning Module. Nida. Tejaswini. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Nord. Taber. Jerome. Anthony. Leiden: Brill. Simon. Post-structuralism and the Colonial Context. Greco. 1992. Milano Apogeo. Snell–Hornby. Berkeley: University of California Press. Manchester: St.argumentum. Steiner. Nord. London and New York: Routledge. Berlin: Frank & Timme. 1988. Jerome e American Bible Society. Jerome. Nida. San Dimas.Nida. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Mary. 2000c. Amsterdam-New York: Rodopi. 1994. Introducing argumentation (Introduzione all’argomentazione). Mary. inglese e francese). Katarina. Translating Meaning. 1984. e S. Eugene A. Semiotica. Funktionsgerechtigkeit und Loyalität. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Translation as a Purposeful Activity. 2002. Petrilli Pym. Nida. 1964. it. “Towards the Semiotics of Translation”. Siting Translation. 2000 (ed. Contexts in Translating. and Jan de Waard. Rigotti. II. 1980. 2010. Pym. An Integrated Approach. 2nd. and Klaus Kaindl. Translation Studies. Exploring Translation Theories. Fascinated by Languages. revised edition. 1982. Translation criticism. Negotiating the Frontier. Pym. Eugene A. www. La comunicazione verbale. Methodology and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Journal of the international association for semiotic studies 128 (3/4): 399–411. or. the potentials and limitations: categories and criteria for translation quality assessment. 1986. London and New York: Routledge. 2003. Christiane. 2005..

Lawrence. Lawrence. 1999. Maria. Wilss.) 2002. London and New York: Routledge. Wolfram. 1977. Jerome. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Maria e Edwin Gentzler (eds. Übersetzungwissenschaft. Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press. 1995. Manchester: St. Tymoczko. 2000. Venuti. The Scandals of Translation. A History of Translation. The Translation Studies Reader. Gideon. Lawrence (de. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Jerome Publishing. Early Irish Literature in English Translation. London and New York: Routledge. Translation and Power. 1998. Tymockzo. The Translator’s Invisibility. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Towards an Ethics of Difference. Stuttgart: Klett. 2007. Stefano Arduini 16 . Venuti.). 1995. Venuti. Manchester: St. Enlarging Translation. Empowering Translators. London and New York: Routledge.Toury. Maria. Tymoczko. Probleme und Methoden.