CHAPTER 28 ALIGNING ADAPTATION STUDIES WITH TRANSLATION STUDIES LAURENCE RAW Carricat debate over the relationship between translation and adaptation—in dis ciplnary as well as practical terms—has become livelier in recent years. Lawrence Venutis 2067 article “Adaptation, ‘Translation, Critique” cricized Robert Stam’ work on the grounds that he invoked “a dominant critical orthodoxy based on a political Postion... that the [adaptation] critic apples as a standard on the assumption that the film should inscribe that and only that ideology” (28). Patrick Catrysehas recently reworked Venuis points in accusing theoritlike Karnilla Eliott and Thomas Leitch of| making “Hasty Generalizations about What élaptation I by means ofatch-all defini- tionsthat “embrace all past, present and future adaptations (133) For Cattrysse,“s}uch generalizations tun out o be false and debaable in most cases (136). The maorty of adaptation theorists assume, quite erroneous that "there exists a homogenous st of theoretical thoughts about adaptation know to and agreed upon by evryone—read- rs and learners who ultimately hold the same personal values the theorist (136). In the introduction toa recent anthology, addressed these criticisms by suggesting that Ipecause the relationship between translation and adaptation might be interpreted di ferently across the globe, we should beware of imposing absolute definitions on spe- cific bodies of work. What might be considered a “translation” in one context might be described as an “adaptation” in another. Drawing onthe work of translation sti scholar Dirk Delabatista, I suggested that ary text includes thee levels of “reality its status (what itis believed to be ina gives comunity); its origin (whee comes from); and its features (as revealed through synchronic analysis). This framework can help us understand how and why translations have been distinguished fom adapta tionsin space and time. also proposed that translation and adaptation specialists come together and share their insights (Rav, “Trandation” 3-14) Katja Krebs recentanthol ‘gy Translation and Adaptation in Theatre and Fil (2014) was conceived witha silatpurpose in mind: to establish a series of “mesting points” or “converging agendas” that right be “disruptive, selfish and perverse yet... [remain] central to the (rewriting, (re)consteuction and reception of cultural positions and ideologies” as wel as prompt ing reconsideration of “some ofthe entrenched positions” that inhibit further research (Krebs 9) Yet Cattrysse still seems dissatisfied with these attempts to negotiate between the ‘translational nd adaptive positions. In a review of my anthology, he insists there should bbe a common working definition” of translation and adaptation, one that he believes canbe provided through descriptive adaptation studies (DAS) based on the polysystem theory of translation studies, which he first dscussed over two decades ago. He claim: that “this approach was far ahead of its time, nd it deserves beter than to be ignored! (124). Caltrysse proposal isnot without its merits: DAS can broaden our understand Ing of how and why texts are transformed at diffrent points in time. On the other hand, adaptation studies should not be treated asa subaltern discipline operating in transla tion studies shadow. We should broaden our focus of interest to accommodate the work of other theorists soas to rethink the way we understand both adaptation and transla tion. It was this spirit of collaborative endeavor that underpinned my introduction, as ells Krebs’ call for a redefinition of hitherto entrenched theoretical postions “This essay bullds on my introduction by offering further suggestions as to how such collaborations might be forged. It begins by discussing one aspect of translation and adaptation about which theresa fair degree of consensus: there exist certain texts (Hi ary cinematic, or otherwise) that might be deemed “untranslaable” or “unadaptable ‘Understanding the implications of such terms might be illuminated through DAS, but also by investigating cognitive processes, How do members of different socioeconomic ‘communities cope with (or even adapt to) an untranslatable or unadaptable text? This form of analysis is normally conducted in monolingual or monocultural contexts. _Drawingon the work of psychologists Jean Piaget, D. W. Winnicott, and Jerome Bruner, swell as more recent research into translation and cognition, I examine the ways in ‘hich linguistic, psychological, and cultural issues are intertwined in cognitive process- ing, and thereby address issues of ontology (the relationships between human mincls and the words they inhabit) and epistemology (the workings of individual minds in their search for knowledge), This framework acknowledges the presence of variables (dlferent people have different interpretations of the untranslatable or unadaptable) and therefore exemplifies what Liliana Coposecu defines as “discursive hybridity’ — shifting modalities at the levels of “identity, modes of alk [and] socialization into com _munities of practice” (83). A willingness to embrace such modalities should forgea spirit ‘of cooperation—not just involving adaptation and translation specialists, but informed more generally by a spirit of eross-dsciplinary negotiation, the desire to create some- thing new. This form of academic endeavor (seknowledging irrational or plural subjec tivities) serves a noble ethical purpose by envisioning a future beter than the present, ‘based on the incorporation of multiple ideas that might identify the value ofa “success. {fal translation or adaptation (Pym 138-39). Put more straightforwardly, cooperation can help to dispel the notion that texts are untranslatable or unadaptable and therebyhelp us understand how different people behave in diferent situations. Such knowl «ge can not only help us rethink the relationship between adaptation and translation, but can create what Samuel Taylor Coleridgedescrbed long ago as. “clersy"—a group ‘committe to "the advancement of knowledge, and the civilization ofthe community” aswell as "cultivating and enlarging the knowledge already possessed” (34) Inher cent work pains! World Literature: (aoxs) Emily Apter defines the untranslat ables “something on te order of'an Incredible’ an ‘Incontournable an ‘Untouchable? “There isa quality of militant semiotic intransigence attached tothe Untransatable ‘Thiseffectofthenon-carry-over (of meaning that aries oer nevertheless on the back ofgrammar),orthat transmits ata half-cockedsemioticangle,endowsthe Untranslatable With a distint symptomatology” (34-35). Untransatable texts are frequently the most Popul subject for translation as individuas engage with ‘the many cognitive misits and value clashes” Thisis postive sign: the constant updating and revision of such texts allo “literary comparatism tobe more respensve to the geopolitics of iterary [as well as other] worlds (9). Aper offers several examples of untranalatable terms, including “yclopedia “peace? sex? "gender? and“moxde™ “The obstacles preventing meaning fom being cared over from one text to another are also outlined by Adam Mars-ones in a 3iece on allegedly unadaptable books and their lm versions: They include Uses A a recherche du temps perdu, Naked Lach, and Boris Vian’ Lécume des jours (1947), adapted in 013 by Michel Gondry an retitled ‘Mood Indigin English. Mars-Jonesarpuest¥a the worlds created by these literary texts resist visual paraphrase; despite Gondry’ inteligent use of ‘piilation’—the technique of stop-motion animation applied to lve accors—Mood Indigo still seems lke a series of riffs on existing material, bearing only a tangential relationship tothe source text. ‘Mars-Jones describes one newly created Sequence—set ina lecture theater with type- \ritersinstalled along the desktops ss “milly insulting othe consistency and control of Vans writing process” even though the wlaptaton asa whole offers a convincing account of fantasy, “whose nature it isto bursteven when not actively popped, with hua- sera sickness always showing” (17-1) ‘Todescribea text ora phraseasuntranslatble or unadaptableinvelves certain unspo- ‘ken assumptions. They might be nationalistic or orientalis (an untransatale Arabic textcannot be rendered palatable to Western eaders),or even aesthetic: Maureen Freely offers a vivid recollection ofher decision to retain untransltable words (rek, meyhane, ‘yal in ‘Tarksh in her English version of Orhan Pamuk’ Kar (Snow), on the assump: tion that most English speakers in Turkey would be well acquainted with them anyway. ‘Once the completed text reached the publishers, the copyeditor introduced several far- ther alterations ineluding simplified versions ofthe Turkish words (cheese pastry, bas, beachside house) without either Frely'sor Pamuk’ permission, onthe ground ofcom- prehensibility for "the readee"~meaning, ofouse, “the western eadee” (Feely 22) ‘The elif tha iterary texts are untransaable can also be atrbatedt iterarypreju- lice novels like Vials Hcume des joursare wique referential phenomena whose textual specifies portray a transcending generality, inviting readers to occupy the place of those lined in the text, to partake ofthe authors experiences and empathize with them andALIGNING ADAPTATION STUDIES WITH TRANSLATION STUDIES 497 appreciate his or her unique style (Mars-Jones 18). A cinematic version might commu: nicate the source texts themes, but no suck version could find visual equivalents for Vian’s unique writing style. Like the Turkish words retained in Freely’ traslation of Kar, there are aspects of Licume des ours tha resist any transformative attempts. Deconstructing untranslatability or unadaptability lends itself to DAS as defined by Cattrysse. Looking at Prely’s translation in i historical context of production involves us in issues of politics, orientalis, and shifting sociocultural relations between East and West, as more and more Turkish texts hare been rendered into English since Pamuk won the Nobel Prize in 2006, Freely’s observations about English speakers in Turkey knowing words such as brek (cheese pastry} tells usa great deal about shifting patterns ‘of migration over the last three decades, as Turkey has opened its borders to increasing ‘numbers of foreigners from the West and ekewhere. On the other hand, Freely’: dete ‘mination to retain Turkish words ina transated text suggests a concern that Pamnuk’s source text might e “lost” when rendered inanother language. Thisanalysisshows how “the role of individual actions and an individual's explanatory discourse [asset forth in Freely’ piece. [is] neither ignored nor favored next to other sources of information” (Catrysse 243) 'ADAS-based analysis af Lécume des jours raises further interesting questions about the role ofthe screenwriter/director in the process of transforming Vianis source text and the extent to which the films construction was shaped by other concerns—for ‘example, the presence of Audrey Tautou ir the cast, which, as Mars-Jones suggest, prompts viewers to watch the film in the hope that it recaptures the joyous spirit of Amélie (2001), the actress breakthrough film. Other viewers might speculate on whether the Vian adaptation might have teen better made by someone more wil ing to engage with the source text (Mare-Jones 18). Such investigative processes, CCattrysse contends, render the question of untranslatability and unadaptabilty a non- issue: "Since translations and adaptations exst, it must be that whatever they translated for adapted was translatable and adaptable” (264). 1 would disagree on one important count: part ofthe DAS process lies in deconstructing why the term “untranslatable” or “unadaptable” was invoked in the fist place.In the case of Kar/Snow, Freely uses it asa ‘means of resisting the simplifying (or westernizing) process of retranslation imposed ‘on herby the copyeditor. As someone conversant in both languages, she positions her- selfasa cross-cultural speaker attempting to render Pamuk’ idiosyncratic syntax into effective English, MarsJoness reference te “unadaplable” texts is equally ideologi- cally positioned because it implies the existence of canon of modernist literature that resists cinematic transformation. This construction places the West at the center ofthe cctural universe—especially those representatives (modernist authors) with the talent to writeina consciously unadaptable tye. Ideology likewise determines the ways in which texts are deemed "untranslatable” and “unacceptable” in contemporary Turkey. Alper Kumeu notes that state authorities ‘have not always been willing to embrace the nation of multilingualism; hence texts pub- lished in other languages spoken in the country—Kureish and Armenian—often receive limited distribution and remain untranslated, so that they languish in comparative498_ ADAPTATION AND INTERTEXTUALITY obscurity. Although the states promotion of Trish asthe only legitimate language of U guidelines it nonetheless fll as an efetive pur pose of sustaining national unity (83-84). DAS looks at explanations beyond the levelof individual agency while eschewing the kind of valu judgments that deem one text be superior to another, This method of analysiscan help us understand how the outwardly negative terms “untranslatable” and “unadaptable are periodically invoked by writers seeking to validate their particular ideological postions. DAS also has the vietue of looking at texts from an intertextual perspective, replacing the sngle source with amultipl source model “There are other ways in which we can interpret the relationship between translation and adaptation that extend fa beyond the DAS framework. Suzanne Gopferich and her collaborators recently conducted a series of ‘exploratory analyses" of how individuals view the act of translation, using five tyro students in translation studies and five peofes- sionals s focus groups The results proved thatthe better translators were onthe whole ‘more imaginatively creative, although the professionals tended to "make fewer erors have fewer problems ... fand] proceed ina strategie manner” (76-77). Nonetheles, ‘learners were given sfcient support by their teachers to facilitate their tasks, they could not only"make more reflective decision” butestablish “alternative paths of thiak- {ng that improve tei associative competence’ (idpfrich et.al. 76-78). “These observations provide a fascinating elaboration of Katja Krebs suggestion that new ways of approaching translation and adaptation might distrb “some ofthe entrenched positions" currently inhibiting farther research. Learners have to adapt to the prevailing conventions in order to accomplish succesful translations, but they posses the potential to reshape such conventions by means of a cognitive leap into the intellectual unknown. By doing so, they show how conventions—linguistc, socio- logical, or poltcal—have to respond to shifts in thought and feling, While such pos- sibilities very much depend on the type of translation task involved, and the contest in which the act of translation or adaptation takes place, Sharon OBrlen nonetheless ‘reminds us that once the “processing at the conscious level” has been completed, the ‘human mind can extend int hitherto undiscovered creative territory (2). This obser- ‘ation suggests that individual agency assumes more significance than Cateye would have us believe. Investigating more clsely the ontology of translation and adaptation an make this point clearer, ean Paget 1947 Psychology of Inteligence defines intel gence as “the most highly developed form of mental adaptation... the indispensable Instrument fo interaction between the subject and the universe when the scope ofthis interaction goes beyond immediate and necesary contacts o achieve far-reaching rel tions (7). Children become aware ofthe word atound them through a transformative process fom the sensorimotor (or instinctive tothe reflective (imaglaative) level. This 1s accomplished in three stages. The information is frst molded into one simultane ous whole. Then children search witin themselves for an understanding ofits nature Finally they make sense ofthat information, “enabling ral actions afectng real en ties to be extended by symbolic actions affeting symbolic representations and this going beyond the limits of near space and tm” (11) This tripartite process Paget cll communication contravenesWITH TRANSLATION STUDIES 499 ‘adaptation, which can “neither bea translator oreven a simple continuation of sensor motor processes in a symbolic form” (121-22). Children learn to establish a system o relationships between themselves and the works they inhabit; such relationships change as they grow older. From about four to seven years ol, they are preoccupied with cult vating“an intuitive thought; from seven through eleven, thisis transformed into “con ‘rete operations,” operational groups of thought concerning objects; and from eleven to twelve years and beyond, "formal thought ks perfected and its groupings characterize the completion of reflective intelligence” (123), The adolescent never loses the power of Intuitive thought, which for Piaget is “the macimum degree of adaptation” insofar as it can encourage athersto make ‘perceptual adjustments” in their ways of thinking (129) Fr Piaget, adaptation and translation comprise two strategies in children’s pro: cesses of development: they translate their impressions ofthe world around them into familar terms and subsequently adapt the familiar into something new-—for example concrete operations or new thought-patterns. Yet ths distinction is not particularly sig nificant: what matters more is that Piaget offers a credible model for understanding how individuals make sense ofthe world, and how adaptation and translation are intrinsic to that process. Through Piaget we can better comprehend how learners passess the capac ity to transform the criteria that determine how they should produce their work, despite ‘their palpable lack of experience. "The British psychoanalyst D. W. Winnicotis Playing and Reality, published twenty: four years after The Psychology of Intelligence, suggests that “experience” is a complex term—although children might he limited te an inexperienced worldview, they grasp very early om that "the third part of the life” of every human being, “apart that we can- not ignore, is an intermediate area of experiencing” (47). Experience connects the Imagination to the outside world; it is the catalyst for everyone as they learn hovr to adapt to shifting circumstances. Winnicott believes that experiences change as children adapt. Individual experiences begin as formless, but through the creative power ofthe imagination they are transformed into building-blocks that represent the foundation ‘of human experience (87). Winnicott stresses the importance of play in childhood ancl adolescence; it facilitates growth, forges grup relationships, encourages communi cation, and provides a means to link individuals to their communities (58). Playing is not just lelsure-time activity, an alternative to the real business of work or schoo; it {is “always a creative experience, and itis an experience in the space-time continuum, 1 basic form of living” (64). Through play, children not only refine experiences, but acquirea more sophisticated capacity to manipulate “external phenomena inthe service ‘ofthe dream and invest... chosen external phenomena with dream meaning and fee! ing” (70). They subsequently adapt this dream through the act of shared playing, thereby ‘ansforming the cultural experiences of themselves as wells thei fellow group mem bers. If we extend Winnicotts suggestions stl further, it is perfectly feasible to argue that Gopferich et al’s translation studies leamers are “playing” as they draw on their experiences ofthe source texts to establish alternative ways of thinking. “The ontology of adaptation and translation based on this model posts a direct link between language, communication, and psychology: individuals cannot transformanythinguntl hey have mentally adjusted to new experiences. Rather than establishing a common definition of adaptation or transition, Winnicot ideas sugges that asthe ‘word “ereatvity” implies, people adjust to theirenvironmentin diffrent ways. This con struction situates individual perception asthe major subject for analysisbecause itis the Principal process by which we make sense ofobjects“by direct and immediate contact” and thereby acquire “the final equilibrium reached inthe development of intelligence’ (Piaget 53). ‘To construct an epistemology of adaptation and translation based on this framework, 1 draw on the work of Jerome Bruner, whose Making Stores (2002) is founded onthe belief that play encourages children to “eater the world of narative [and storytelling] carly. They develop expectations about how the word shouldbe lanl experience] things that... surprise” (31-32). The process of acclimatization to such experiences can be termed adaptation” As we grow older, webezome aware of"unspoken, implicit cultural, ‘models of what selfhood might be"—model: that have been established and refined by the cultures we inhabit (65). While such models are not set in stone—we alll have the capacity to change them—they shape the narratives we construct about ourselves to such an extent that we often express ourselves in terms of what we think others expect usto be ike: "In this process, selfhood becomes res publica even when talking to ur selves” (66). We have a responsibility to relete to a world of others—friends and fam- iIjsinstitutions the past reference-groups (78) Phas paradoxically, Bruner proposes that while our lived cultures guide us towaed the familiar and the posible” we contin ally insist on constructing self narratives to define ourselves, to represent “those devi tions fom the expected stat of things that characterize ving ina human culture. [his process] is iresistible as a way of making sense of human interaction” (83), Our ‘entire life is marked bya series of struggles between the desire to define ourselves and the desire to respect the definitions of thers: he vitality of cultures lies in this dialectic, the need for individuals and the societies they inbabit to come to terms with contending viewsand clashing narratives. Bothindividucls and thelr soceties must acquire the abil ity to adaptor tansate (the processes are regarded as interchangeable in this mode) Sometimes individuals alter their behavior; on other occasions ther cultures mofy theirideologies“facultureisto survive, tneeds means for dealing with the conflicts of interest inherent in communal living’ (e2). Bruner’ idea substantiate the notion that anyone can contsibute tothe process of rethinking currently prevailing ideas of trenslation, adaptation, or any other trans- formative act. Nothing can be deemed untanslatable or unadaptable unless specific institutions choose to impose such notions fa ideological purposes. Bruner also dem- ‘onstrates how any at of cognitive processing invalves cultural as wells linguistic and communicative issues, a dimension as important in monolingual or monocultaral as in eross-cultural settings. Bruner’s model, placing the individual at the center, nevi tably favors plurality over consensus. Edda Weigand suggests that differentiation and hybridity influence every human at, even arnong individual inhabiting the sae local cultures: “Living with uncertainty ...requees us to orient ourselves according to p ciples of probability. Even ifthere are rules, inthe end they can be broken or changed!1 particular i appear that the preceding discussion, drawn largely from the work of psy choanalysts and psychologis sing interest in the humanities (although Bruner does relate nara to the act of wrt fiction), has lite appli cation to the process of adapting texts to filn. I would beg to differ. Ina recent essay fon Anthony Drazané film version of David Rabe’ Broadway bit Hurlyburly (1998 (Figures 28.1 and 28.2), [argued that our understanding ofthe two central character, played by Kevin Spacey and Sean Penn, depends on the actors’ ability to create acascade of images, both mental and visual, that “draw on sensory, aflective and explicit men ory, and to connect this [knowledge] with e detailed kinaesthetic score that supports the body-mapping ofthese images" the screenplay but to one another; they eng ctor” 224). "The actors respond not only to in continual processes of adaptation and translation asthey accommodate themselvesto new sucroundings and new experiences, [Every gesture and vocal inflection has been “conceived as responses to the action of ‘the moment, rather than any predetermined view ofthe roles they play” (234). Watching them onscreen i like witnessing young chiliren making sense of new phenomena by drawing on ther creative faculties. ‘Screenveiters have to remain adaptable, nt only in their approaches to textual rans- formation, but in their professional lives as well. Carol Wolper recommends that any aspiring scribe “learn how to adapt and follow through,” seek out new opportunities, tuy new methods, and take note of peer advice: “You don't have to agree with everything they say... butif they fel they are talking in vain, they'll move on” (,14)-Such sugges: tions evoke Bruner’ observations about the importance of revising self-narratives in line with prevailing conventions, Wolper emphasizes the importance of cultivating new PLGURE 28.1. Kevin Spacey, Anna Paquin, and Sean Penn in Furybury (1998)‘iauns 28.2 Kevin Spacey in Hurlybury (1098. ‘ideas through adaptation: “The brain ean bere-tooled. Old habits dont have to die pain- {ally Ifsamazing how an addiction to freedom and working for yourself ean cure you of attachment” (2)-To acquire the ability to adapt and possibly change the way the act of screenwriting is viewed isa tantalizing prospect that can help individual “Take stock of allthe things. [they] have goingasa way af reconnectingto the foundation of... self: esteem (42) For Wolper the adaptive act conceived in terms similar to those proposed by Piaget and Winnicott, represents "FREEDOM and inspiration” (60). ‘This cognitive approach to adaptation and translation might seem unsatistactorily imprecise because it makes no attempt to diferentiate the two processes. If we view adaptation and translation as transformative acts involving individuals as well a the ‘communities they inhabit, however, then it fllows that any definition of either term would be perpetually subject to renegotiation. They are not untranslatable or unadapt- able, as Emily Apter would have us belie, but their meanings are fluid, subject to change in cross-cultural as well as monoingual contexts. They also promote what ‘Thomas Leitch has described as an “active literacy” that focuses on questions like “What should reading [or translatingor adapting] be for?" and encourages individuals to begin act of rewriting that can “inspire storytellers and analyst alike to their own productive and inevitable ewrting” (20-21). How can the cognitive approach reshzpe the way we undertake adaptation ot translation studies? To answer this question, I turn to Adaptivity as a Transformative Disposition for Learning in the aist Century (2ox4), a collection of position papers concentrating largely on education in Singapore and the surrounding territories that attempts to redefine educational practices athe secondary and tertiary levels, The ed- tors take up and extend Leitch concept of ative literacy into a blueprint fr reform, encompassing adaptivity as a process epistemology involving individuals and com: ‘munities and adaptivity and learning as transformative dispositions. Such notions areespecialy significant in Singapore, a small ration-state aspiring to global orientation ‘The Ministry of Education has sponsored several initiatives designed to encourage educators to experiment with alternative pecagogies and ofe ng diferent pathways 0 learners with diverse abilities (Hung, Lim, and Lee vi).1n “An Ecological Perpectiveon Scaling: Balancing Structural and Individual Adaptivities, Shu-Shing Lee anda group of collaborators construct an ecological model of learning that permits innovation to spread, grow, and sustain itself overtime and space. ts foundation involve sowing the seeds of intellectual and personal growth through the provision of communica tion resources while promoting “people capacity development” (292), more preciscl define as enabling learners to contemplate the possiblities of innovation and adapting ‘or translating them to variety of contests. While individual opinions are valued, such seeds will “spread” (296) and “grow” (297) only through group interaction: learner and educator ake have to cultivate their abies of negoUation and decision-making “he educator’ tak als involves the “grafting” (299) of new material ino the learning context and subsequent disseminating it across classrooms, school, and system-wide settings. ‘Once these adaptive seeds have been sor, they need to be harvested and refined across wide catchment area This canbe accomplished onl through sharing, whether online or through publications, workshops, and symposiums. The sharing process should be dalogieal in order to promote further experimentation and a refining of existing initiatives, Harvesting and distribution lead othe creation of new communities of practice dedicated to innovation, respecting individuals yet recognaing the power of group intervention (Lee etal. 278-317) Intheie conclusion, the elitors suggest thatthe ecological model leads to the creation cof “adaptive experts” who “rise above ther routine expertise to demonstrate flexible and adaptive performances in diferent and unique situations (318). They constantly search for “out-of the-box” solution o problems both practical and intellectual, while courageously venturing into unknown thecretial territory without feling unduly at risk: "They try to make thei act assumptions explicit and experiment with new pos- sible" (21). Following Bruner, the editers do not separate individual from th communities: adaptation and translation evolve from the dialectics between the two. ‘Communities dedicated to transformation ae termed “micro-cultures such cultures ‘can be established in schools, in regions, and ultimately countrywide, then educators and learners can discover tangible ways in which earning wil improve without radi- cally redefining their cursicula (37) Mierouturescreate“tipping-points the stimull that produce "co-cultural change” (342) and that engender a new understanding of| what education involves (Hiung etal, "Conclsion” 347). ‘Thisecological model flearning could promotesimilarinnovationin adaptation and translation studies, Pat ofthe groundwork for this innovation isthe acknowledge that teaching and research are not separate activities, but that both ae essential aspects ofacademic practice, Tony Gurrand suggested recently thatin some context there has been a "divorce of pedagogy from subject-natter specialties: educators spend most of their time engaged on individual research projects and use the lecture [or seminar] as504 _ ADAPTATION AND INTERTEXTUALITY the quickest and most convenient mode o dealing with content delivery duties (Raw and Gurr 60). The polemicist Larry Cuban believes thatthisis the inevitable outcome of the deeply revered university norm of fcty autonomy” in which individual depart ments have forall intents and purposes been left to thelr own devices (5). While this _might be too much of a sweeping generalization (some institutions have adopted flex ible and innovative teaching methods), more work needs to be done in the areas of discussion-based teaching, problem-sovieg, and metacognition—developing lanes? abilities to reflect on how they are adapting to new material and how other strategies ‘might suit them better (Bok 189-90). Forming research communities in which educs- tors and learners collaborate in developing new ideas might be one way to address this issue, Learners canbe given a series of questions to answer in groups, while the educator listens to dscusions and engages wit the groups as needed. The focus shouldbe on developing twenty-irst-century learning lites like resilience and openness through discussion by making al participants moreaware of thelr existing capabilites and more resourcefilin developing these capabilities further. They should leara to relleton what they value, what they know, what they do with what they know, and how they might Jimprove themselves (Raw and Gurr 6. This form of learning encourages educaors and learners to reflect on what received notion of translation and adaptation involve to develop new approaches that shit away from current paradigmstike those shaped by iterary or media studies, and to maveinto hitherto undiscovered area ike those set forth by Piaget and Winnicott. Such iia tives can help to sow the seeds of future esearch concerning their introduction ino different academic and educational cultures and the cultivation ofthe kinds of abi ties associated with twenty-irst-century learning atthe heat of similar intatives in Singapore. Byencouraging individual schoars, educators, and learners to cultivate what Piaget would cll their own adaptive or translational strategies, we can establish new ‘theoretical possbilities—outside-the-box solutions to such issues asthe role of transl tion theory in adaptation studies and the re of adaptation theory in translation stu ies. Through group interaction, we ean negotiate and refine our ideas by setting aside the confrontational model of academic practice that underpins Cattryses Descriptive Adaptation Studies, which dismisses certain theorists work as “hasty and construct in its place a collaborative environment dedicated o experiment and innovation This might seem idealistic, but the sucess of the recent initiatives in Singapore set forth in ‘Adaptvityas «Transformative Dipaston emphasizes the potential of communities 9 redefine the educational and theoretical agenda in diferent subject areas? “These communities do not reject existing bodies of knowledge-—there i stil «place for CattrysseS DAS approach—but subject them to extensive scrutiny a8 a basis for cstablising new areas of research In the elds of adaptation and translation studies, several questions along these lines invite «closer look. How does the significance of individaal transformations ate the way in which DAS views the dialectic between the individual and society? Do we need to forge new micro-cultures based on the psycho- logical models put forth by Bruner, in whic individuals and societies perpetually adapt their beliefs? What is the role of experience in reshaping our theoretical knowledge oftranslation and adaptation? And, following Winnicott, what jastification might there be Indescribing the adaptive work we accomplish in higher education as "playful? ‘These micro-cultures need not be confined to translation or adaptation studies spe. cialists. The ecological model of educational practice has for some time formed the basis of ecocrticism, which i principally concerned with the relationship between texts and the natural or physical environment. Do men write differently about nature than women? In what ways has literacy affeced humankind’s relationship to the natural? Questions lke these form a cornerstone ofthe ecocrtic’s work. Adaptation and transl tion specialists could draw on these insights to form new constructions of Leitchs theory ‘of active literacy” by reflecting on whether isan intellectual concept that demands a rethinking of individuals’ relationship to their environment, Should we adapt or trans late the ways we think about nature? And shoulda preoccupation with the natural world and our place within it reshape the way we think about adapted or translated texts? Such questions might seem far-fetched, even irrelevant to the kind of textual analysis ‘that currently forms the cornerstone of mosttheoretical approaches, But fwe reflect on adaptation and translation in the Piagetian sense as a process of adjusting to our envi ronment, then ecocrticism should become an essential component of our theoretical agenda. Following the suggestions proposed by tke Singapore educationalists, such collabo: rations might begin by sowing the seeds of new intellectual ventures, looking for rad- ical solutions to familiar fsanes. Rarer in this escay T looked at Apter's notian of the untranslatable. One ofthe examples she discusses at length isthe word monde (175-90). Perhaps we could reconstruct the term from an ecological rather than a linguistic per- spective. This would not entail an analysis of biblical and Enlightenment notions, but would encompass humankinel’s relationship to the natural world, We might reflect on whether the word has been constructed as ameans to render the inexpressible express- ible. fthisis the ase, what do such strategles tell us about our concept of literacy based ‘on our relationship to the environment, and how this concept might have changed (or not changed) overtime? Whatever conclusions might be eached, itis clear that monde hasbeen translated in numerous idiosyncratic ways. “The sigolficance of such collaborations extends far beyond the disciplinary spheres of literature film, adaptation, and translation, Jonathan Bate suggests that Coleridgean clerisies dedicated to the advancement of the humanities are intrinsic to the contem- porary knowledge economy in bringing together “past, present and future, in yoking, Inheritance to aspiration and tradition to innovation, and in maintaining the unde standing of ‘those rights and ‘correspondent duties’ that... can play a major role in ‘securing’... that character of general clvilzation (12). More recently, red Inglis has argued that the only means by which academics can “speak the truth about the future of their respective disciplines, as wel as broadening the areas of research; isto form col- laborations that “reshape our commonality... andejectthe fatuous insistence that u versties should compete in all their busines, as though our common pursuit of those ‘much diminished treasures—truth, goodness, bauty—were not the noblest vocation a ‘man or woman could follow” Group solidarity not only provides a stable environment506 ADAPTATION AND ENTERTEXTUALITY in which individuals can flourish, but offers means by which academics can resist the ‘commercalization oftheir insitations and point them instead toward the kind of inno Singapore In some contexts, the movement toward collaboration is already in full swing. Susan Bassnett suggests that the transdisciplinary initiatives commonplace in the sciences could soon become more widespread in translation studies. Already “theres some very ‘exciting thinking... coming from people who might not necessarily define themselves a5 Translation Studies scholars, from clasicss, comparative literature, world literature, ‘or globalization studies” (1) She believes that collaborations should neither be mono- lingual nor focused on one specifi subject are, Translation studies has spit into several areas: linguistic, technological sociological, philosophical. Ifadaptation studies can do the same by accommodating the insights of Piaget, Winnicott, and Bruner, then it can trace similar path, Future collaboration between the two disciplines should be fruitful s0 long a academics, educators, and learners are prepared to take risks, even in today’s business-obsessed educational environment(13). Collaborative micro-cultures not only broaden our academic, cultural, and peda ‘gogical understanding, but also give us the opportunity to follow the kind of intlle: tual journey traced by Maureen Freely asa wrter/transator: “Tt has glven me a chance to stand outside my own world, to be on the receiving end as the ivory towers decide who ... should be read, and how. If have the confidence to assert that translators [or adapters| are best placed to make these practices visible, itis because Thave changed my ‘understanding of what it means tobe translator. Our work may begin on the page, but itrarely ets us stay there. It sends us out inte the world. ... We are witnesses, with tales to tell (125-26). Ifadaptation and translatioa studies specialists can collaborate to pro «duce more witnesses, then the future ofboth disciplines as cornerstones ofthe hummani- ‘agenda seems assured, The next few years should prove fascinating for everyone involved, ‘ative research pioneered by their colleagues Nores 2, Deere Bok cites one initiative in the United States in which professors have been encour- aged to teach courses by diminishing the number oflectures while employing technology to allow more problem-solving through the useof collaborating groups, with graduate student tutors helping when students get stuck (19s)-The two volumes of essays edited by Cutchins, Raw; and Welsh offer a series of casestudies hom colleagues worldwide recounting the ways they adopted innovative method to teaching adaptation, with specific reference to film and heater studies, 2. The significance of such approaches fr the Future of higher education globally cannot be ‘overestimated. Bok emphasizes how "more sctive and calaborative methods af teaching that mesh with educators’ own research agendas not only motivate lenners but help to reduce dropout rites, and argues that other territories need to keep up with recent initia- tives in Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore in order to maintain high standards of ed cation and publication (223-24)3: Such questions have already been addresced by certain ecocritics, In “Loving Ourselve Best of All: Ecocrticism and the Adapted Mind” Nancy Easterlin suggests that ecocit ism requiresa theoretical foundation groundedin a knowledge ofevolutionacy and related areas of psychology, specially Darwinian theeres of adaptation, Wonks Crrep ‘Amélie. Di. Jean-Piere Jeune Perf Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassowitz, Union Générale Cinématographique, 2001, Film. Apter, Emily. Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatabliy. London: Verso, os, Print Bassnett, Susan, “Translation and Interdisciplinarty: An Interview with Laurence Raw” Juana of American Stuies of Turkey 9 (Spring 301): 5-15 Print. Bate Jonathan, “Introduction.” Te Public Value ¢fthe Humanities, Ed, Jonathan Bae, London: ‘Bloomsbury Academic, 200. 1-17. Pint. Bok, Derek. Higher Education in America Princeton: Princeton UP, 2013. rit, ‘Bruner, Jerome Making Stories: Law, Literature, ie. Cambridge: Harvard UB 2002, Print. Cattryse, Patrick. Descriptive Adaptation Studi: Epistemologcal and Methodological Issues. Antwerp: Garant, 20.4. Print “Review: Translation, Adaptation and Tiansformation” Journal of Adaptation in Flay and Performance (2004): 123-24, Print Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. On the Constitution of Church and Stale, 189, Ed, John. Bartel. ‘London: Dent 1972 Print. Coposecu, Liana. "Discursive Hybridity at Work” Prafssonal Communication cross ‘Language and Cudtures a, Stanca Mada and Klavan Sfoi, Amsterdam: Benjamins, 202, 83-102. Print, Cuban, Larry. How Scholars Trumped ‘Teachers: Change without Reform in University Gurriculum, Teaching and Research, Stanford: Stanford UR, 1999, Print. CCutchins, Dennis, Laurence Raw, and James M. Welsh, eds. The Pedagogy of Adaptation ‘Lanham: Scarecrow, 2010, Print eds. Redefining Adapation Stes. Lanham: Scarecrow, 2010. Print, ‘asterlin, Nancy. "Loving Ourselves Best of Al: Zcocitcism and the Adapted Mind” Mosoic 373 2004)"1-8. Pri Freely, Maureen. “Misreading Orhan Pamuk” Tienslaton: Translators on thelr Workand What 4 Means, Bd. Esther Allen and Susan Bernosky. New York: Columbia UP, 2013. 137-27. Print. Gopferich, Suzanne, Gerrit Bayer-Hobenwartey, Frederike Prassl, and Johanna Stadober. “Exploring Translation Competence Acquision: Criteria of Analysis Put to the Test” Cognitive Explorations of Translation. Bd. Sharon O'Brien. London: Continuum, 201. 57-86. Print, Hung, David, Kenneth ¥, T. Lim, and Shu-Shing Lee, eds. Adaptvity as « Transformative Disposition for Learning in the ast Century. Singapore: Springer Seience and Business ‘Media, 2014. E-book. Hung, David, Kenneth ¥. 7 Lim, and Shu-Shing Lee. "Conclusion" Hung, Lim, and Lee 523-47 E-book, Series Bltoré Foreword” Hung, Lim, and Lee ii. E-book,508 ADAPTATION AND INTERTEXTUALIFY Inglis Pe. “oda'sInellectul Too Obedien™ Times Higher Edscaton Supplement 8 Av ota Wea Sept 204 Keb Kaj. “Tnrodution: Callsions, Diveaions and Meting Poni” Transfation and Adaptation in Tent and Fl Kaj Krebs New Yorke Rutledgs, 2014 1-3 Pri Kemet, Alper “Tandon and Transnational (HStry: [he] Role of Translation and Interpreting in the Coats of Turkish Reps Accson t [the] Edropean Union” Role of “andatonn Nation Bing. a, Ravi Karat New Delhi: Mong, o.75-6 Pit Lee, Shu Shing, Dav ang, Lik Woon Te, Yew Meng Kora, Sth Vishnurnaant, Ambar Widiast, “An Ecclogial Perspective on Scaling Balancing Stractral and Invi Adaptive Hung Lam, and Lee 78-37 B-bok. Lec, Thomas. Adaptation ants Dicontns: From Gone wt the Wind fo The Passion ofthe Christ Balimor Jon Hopkins UE, ase Pan. Mar Jones, Ada, "Bubble Burst Times terry Supplement sh (8 A, 2014:17-18 Print Mood Indigo Lume des jours. Dit Michel Gondry Pe. Romain Dai, Arey Tautou Studio Canal 01. Fl. Nake Lunch Dit Dad Cronenberg, Pt. ete Wel, Judy Davis. Twentieth Century Fx *991 Film (Prien, Sharon, “Tatrodsction” Cognitive Bpaatons of Trenton. Bd. Sharon Orin end: Catnu, 20m Prin Pamuk, Oran, Kr. esi apne. 2oe, it. Sow Tea Maureen Fredy. New York: Kop, 004 Prt Piaget Jean, The Pycologyflntlgece, Teas Maoh ity and. Bele. 1947 Rpt “Toto Litlefid Adams 176 Prt ym, Anthony. On Trlr Ec Tran Hee Walks Amsterdam: ening, 208. Prine Raw Laurence Actor, mage, Action: Antony raza larry 998)" Modern American ran on Screen, Ed Wiliam Robert Bayan R Barton Palmer. Cambridge Cambri Um aos 290-38 Prin “introduction, Ientiying Commox Ground” Trasatin, Adaptation and “Tragjormaton.E. Laurence Rv. Landon: Contin, 2%. Print Ray, Laurence and Tony Gurr Adaptation Studies and Leaving: New Fontes Lanhany Scarecrow. 20 Pit Utes Dit Joseph tc, Pert Haba Jford Milo O Shes Bes Lion 967. Fm. Venu, Lavence. “Adaptation, Translation, Cetigue® Jounal of Visual Cutie 6 (2007) 25-44 Pri Weigand, Eda, “Profesional Acton Games: Theory and Practice” Profesional Comme ition aces Langues and Cites Bal Sanca Mid and Razvan Sis. Amsterdam Benji 20%. Print \Winnicot, DW Paying and Realy. 173. Abingdon:Rowtledge Class 205.F- Book. lpr Carol. Adaptor Wait Tables A Pela Guide Los Angeles: Rare id 20 Fook.