Translating and Re-narrating Multilingual Texts: the

Extreme Case of Finnegans Wake

Simona Anselmi and Margherita Ulrych*

Introduction
Translators operate in complex socio-cultural scenarios
and through their active intervention (see Munday) events are
rewritten and renarrated. This is true today, as it has been
throughout history. It is only comparatively recently, however,
that scholarly attention has focussed on translators themselves.
In his article aptly called “The Name and Nature of Translator
Studies”, Chesterman argues that the term ‘telos’ may provide a
useful companion framework to the more familiar term
“skopos” to investigate the “personal motivation of translators”
(17) in selecting a specific translation strategy. Research into
translators’ teloi may well shed new light on why and how they
translate and may usefully complement current studies on
translation behaviour as it emerges from translated texts. In
*
Although the paper reflects the collaborative work of both authors, the
Introduction and Conclusion sections were written by Margherita Ulrych and
the remaining sections by Simona Anselmi.
particular, as we shall see below, research along these lines may
contribute to broadening the confines of what constitutes
translation and lead to a more tolerant attitude to forms of
renarration that seem to lie on the fringe of translation studies.
The present paper explores the notion of translation as
renarration with regard to the intricate but highly thought-
provoking area of translating multilingual texts and the even
more fascinating case of Finnegans Wake, the quintessence of a
multilingual text, translated by no ordinary a translator with an
undeniably original ‘telos’.

Translating multilingual texts

Multilingual texts are not new phenomena as is borne
out by the wealth of multilingual text production in medieval
western Europe (Bushy, and Kleinhenz). But there is nowadays
a new and growing awareness of multilingual texts on the part
of a number of scholars from various academic disciplines,
namely Literary, Cultural and Translation Studies, who are
increasingly inclined to recognise the possibility for two or
more languages to coexist even in apparently monolingual texts.
In this sense, discussions on multilingualism can be seen, in
today’s world, as Delabastita and Grutman suggest, as a sign of
the times with “more and more Western academics . . . noticing
the real multilingualism lying beneath the surface of official,
often State-induced, monolingualism” (14).
The existence and the growing recognition of
multilingual source texts demand a redefinition of the
translating process, which has traditionally been seen, at least
since the Renaissance, and is still widely seen, as the
transposition of one monolingual source text into another
monolingual target text. As Derrida has noted, texts written in
more than two languages reveal one of the limits of translation
theories, which all too often “treat the passing from one
language to another and do not sufficiently consider the
possibility for languages to be implicated more than two in a
text” (171), and call for an answer to the questions “How is a
text written in several languages at a time to be translated? How
is the effect of plurality to be ‘rendered’”? (171).
The premise underlying any answer to these questions is
that translation, like the production of texts in situations of
intercultural and interlingual contact, can be a source of
hybridization. In fact Schäffner and Adab conclude the special
issue of Across Languages and Cultures on hybridity by stating
that “hybrid texts, in addition to being products of text
production in a specific cultural space, which is often in itself
an intersection of different cultures, can also result from a
translation process” (279). According to them translation acts as
a hybridizing force to the extent that it imports into the target
text “features that somehow seem ‘out of place’ / ‘strange’ /
‘unusual’ for the receiving culture” (169), not as a result of lack
of translational competence, but as evidence of conscious and
deliberate decisions by the translator.
This view of the translation process is in line with the
descriptive tradition of translation studies which sees
hybridization as an intrinsic quality of translation. For Toury,
for example, the transfer of “phenomena pertaining to the
make-up of the source text” (275), which inevitably make the
target text hybrid, is inherent in the mental processes involved
in translation. Surprisingly, however, or maybe not, this
hybridizing force does not seem to be at work when hybrid texts
are translated into another language or other languages. The
studies that have investigated the translation of multilingual
texts, literary and non-literary alike, have rather revealed a
tendency on the part of translators to act as dehybridizing
agents.1
In the field of literary translations, for example, Snell-
Hornby, discussing the German version of Rushdie’s
Midnight’s Children, observes that the multi-layered nature of
the Indian text, written in a hybrid English, is “neutralized into
1
For the dehybridizing role of translation in the non-literary field, see, for
example, Pym par. 39; Gagnon 76.
a linguistically correct and stylistically unified formal German
statement” (98). In the translation none of the devices that
characterize Rushdie’s hybrid language—i.e., structures
transcoded from Urdu, new coinages, Indian forms of address—
is recognizable.

The multilingual case of Finnegans Wake

Further insights into the practice of translating multilingual
texts can be gained by focusing on one of the most multilingual
texts ever written, James Joyce’s Finnegans Wake (1939),
whose extreme case, as Butor has observed, discussing the
possibility of translating it into other languages, “nous montre
clairement quelque chose qui est vrai pour toutes les autres
traductions” (216). Particularly relevant for the purpose of the
present study are the ways in which the multilingual nature of
two fragments from Finnegans Wake’s chapter 8 (Anna Livia
Plurabelle) are rendered in Italian through Joyce’s own
translation done in 1938 with the assistance of Nino Frank.2

A multilingual “translation in progress”

Finnegans Wake is a multilingual text because it is not
written in English, but in “Finneganian,” that is, an invented
language resulting from the synthesis, or rather, the chaotic
mixture of all or nearly all existing languages (Melchiori
172). But, as Eco puts it, it is a multilingual, or plurilingual,
text “from the standpoint of the English language. It is a
plurilingual text written as an English-speaker conceived of
one” (108). Suffice it to look at the various avant-texts, or
pre-texts, making up the Work in Progress to realize how the
text’s composition coincided with the incorporation of a
growing number of foreign languages into English.
According to genetic criticism, the number of languages

2
For a detailed reconstruction of the genesis of this translation, see Bollettieri
Bosinelli’s essay, “A proposito di Anna Livia Plurabelle,” which comments on
the trilingual (English, French, Italian) edition of James Joyce’s Anna Livia
Plurabelle, and to which all further Italian citations in this paper refer.
present in Finnegans Wake oscillates from seventy to eighty
and includes such diverse languages as Norwegian and
Swahili.3 Significantly the foreignization or babelization of
the initially relatively standard English of the earlier
versions of the text is achieved through a variety of
translation processes, which, according to Aubert is one of
the reasons why Finnegans Wake is to be viewed not as “une
simple mosaïque de langues, mais pour une large part déjà,
dans son mélange intime de texte et de ‘métatexte’, dans sa
texture de traduction saisie au vol, une ‘translation in
progress’” (219). As Bollettieri Bosinelli points out,
retrieving one of the numerous metatextual commentaries on
itself that Finnegans Wake provides, the text’s composition
process is an act of “writing as translation” in which the
plain English language of the earlier drafts is translated into
a language which is progressively distorted, altered,
“traduced into jinglish janglage” (“Beyond Translation”
144).
Among the most recurring forms of translation through
which foreign languages are injected in the Wakean idiom is
intralinear translation, that is the juxtaposition of a word, a
phrase or a sentence and its translation into one or more
language(s) in the same line or adjacent lines, as in “Ask
Lictor Hackett or Lector Reade of Garda Growley or the Boy

3
For an exhaustive list of the languages incorporated into the text, see Milesi’s
“L’idiome babélien de Finnegans Wake,” which divides the Wakean languages
into three categories: the languages of which Joyce had a good command, both
written and spoken, (of course, English, but also Italian, French, Latin, German,
Danish-Norwegian, modern Greek); the languages that Joyce learnt during the
composition of the novel (Spanish, Dutch, Russian); and, finally, the so-called
“research languages,” that is over sixty languages that Joyce noted down in his
notebooks and then disseminated in his work. Within this linguistic
constellation, the languages of Ireland, Irish and the Anglo-Irish dialect of
English, are situated in-between the first two categories. But while Irish is one of
the several foreign languages that blend and blur into one another, the Anglo-
Irish dialect has a dominant position, especially at the level of pronunciation
(Milesi 163, Wall 17).
with the Billyclub” (FW 197.6-7),4 where the word “reader,”
clearly evoked by the name “Reade,” is preceded by its Latin
equivalent, lector, or in “for to ishim bonzour to her dear
dubber Dan” (FW 199.13−14), where “dubber Dan,” which
recalls the Serbocroatian dobar dan, “good morning,” is
juxtaposed to its French Finneganian equivalent, “bonzour.”
Another pervasive translation process, which can be
called “bilingual” or “multilingual reinforcement,” and
which underlies the formation of a number of portmanteau
words or puns, one of the novel’s principal tools of
signification, consists in the blending of a word or phrase
and its translation in one or more language(s). An example
of bilingual reinforcement is “bogans” (in “pretending to
ribble a reddy derg on a fiddle she bogans without a band
on?” FW 198.25−26), which combines the verb “bows” with
the German translation of the noun “bow,” Bogen. An
instance of multilingual reinforcement is “par examplum . . .
cause” (in “par examplum now in conservancy’s cause” FW
198.21), which is a blend of the English for example, the
French par exemple and the Latin exemplum and exempli
causa.
Another common translation procedure, which could be
termed “genetic,” as it emerges from a comparison of the
final text with its earlier drafts, is the substitution of an
English word or phrase used in the earlier versions 5 with its
translation in one of the Wakean languages. Examples of
genetic translations are: the Danish lille, in “He erned his
lille Bunbath hard” (FW 198.5), which replaces the “little”
used in the earlier drafts; the Italian rima, in “And what was
the wyerye rima she made!” (FW 200.33), which substitutes
the “rhyme” used in Text A; and the French plage, in “I’d lep

4
Page and line numbers refer to James Joyce, Finnegans Wake, [1939] 1992.
5
The text used for the comparison between the final version of the Anna Livia
Plurabelle chapter and its earlier extant versions is Higginson’s edition, which
condenses the extensive genetic material of the chapter into six texts (A-F) and a
textual appendix.
and off with me to the slobs della Tolka or the plage au
Clontarf” (FW 201.18−19), and lune, in “Wait till the
honeying of the lune, love!” (FW 215.3-4), which substitutes
“shores” and “moon” respectively.
A further translation process, which can be termed
“phonic translation,” consists in the approximate
transcription of one or more words or sentences in a given
language through homophones or near-homophones
belonging to other languages. “Wee” in “Don Dom
Dombdomb and his wee follyo!” (FW 197.17−18), is the
result of such a process in that it evokes the French
exclamation oui through the English adjective “wee.” Thus
“his wee follyo” refers at the same time to the little mad wife
of Don Dom Dombdomb, one of the several names of the
novel’s male protagonist, Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker,
H.C.E. (and note that the word “wife” is suggested by the
juxtaposition of “wee” and “follyo”), and to the last page of
Ulysses, that of Molly’s monologue, which ends with “yes.”
Another phonic translation is “High hellskirt saw ladies
hensmoker lilyhung pigger” (FW 200.12−13), an echo of the
Danish “Jeg elsker saaledes hine smukke lille unge piger,”
which means “I so love those beautiful little young girls.” It
is evident that the translation through English Finneganian
homophones aims to reproduce the sound of the Danish
source text, not its meaning.
The translational movements that occur between the two
languages of Ireland—the Anglo-Irish dialect, which includes
all the varieties of English spoken in Ireland, and Irish—merit
special mention because of their ideological implications (Wall
9). The infusion of these languages, especially of the Anglo-
Irish dialect, into the Wakean idiom may in fact be seen as an
act of indigenization of the English language, whereby the
language of the former British colonizer is contaminated with
the language of the colonized culture.6 It is no accident that
6
For the post-colonial dimension of Joyce’s last work, see, for example,
MacCabe, who states that “Finnegans Wake, with its sustained dismemberment
Milesi, who divides the Wakean languages into families of two
or three members according to the topic to which they are
associated, groups English, Anglo-Irish and Irish around the
motif of the “guerre pour la suprématie linguistique avec des
implications politiques” (212). The languages of Ireland are
injected into the text through processes of translation analogous
to those illustrated above: there are, for instance, numerous
cases of intralinear Irish/Anglo-Irish/English translations as in
“in a tone sonora and Oom Bothar below like Bheri-Bheri in his
sandy cloak, so umvolosy, as deaf as a yawn” (FW 200.13−15),
where the Irish bodhar, “deaf,” deformed by its Anglo-Irish
equivalent, bothered, is followed by its English translation,
“deaf.” Particularly frequent are also the cases of genetic
translation, as in “she was calling bakvandets sals from all
around, nyumba noo, chamba choo, to go in till him” (FW
198.10−12), where the Ulster dialect preposition in till
substitutes its English equivalent “into,” used in “she was
calling girls into him” (Text A). However, the form of genetic
translation through which English is most extensively
contaminated with Irish is the substitution of English words,
used in the earlier drafts, with the transcription of their Anglo-
Irish pronunciation in the final version, as shown below

- tried (Text A) - thried ( FW 196.10)

- idiot (Text D) - ijypt (FW 198.1)
- tea (Text A) - tay (FW 199.18)
- door (Text A) - douro (FW 200.18)
- servant (Text A) - shirvant (FW 200.18)
- queer (Text B) - quare (FW 215.13)

of the English linguistic and literary heritage, is perhaps best understood in

relation to the struggle against imperialism” (4); and Anselmi (128), who
suggests viewing Joyce’s contamination of the English language with a
multitude of other languages, especially the languages of Ireland, as a gesture
against the imperialistic dogma of monolingualism. In this sense, Joyce’s work
prefigures the impossibility for postcolonial writers to write monolingually and
their need, instead, to write “en présence de toutes les langues du monde”
(Glissant 40).
Besides, these Anglo-Irish sounds generate a series of
phonic translations, in that Anglo-Irish distinctive
pronunciations often coincide with English words having
different meanings, as in “the race of the saywint up me
ambushure” (FW 201.19−20), where the English verb “say”
coincides with the representation of the Anglo-Irish
pronunciation of “sea.” Another ingenious instance of
phonic translation is “grease,” as in “Lord help you, Maria
full of grease, the load is with me!” (FW 214.18−19), whose
Anglo-Irish pronunciation “grace,” albeit not explicitly
transcribed, is evoked by the co-text. Needless to say that
these translation processes which generate the multilingual
Wakean amalgam and which give it “a strong Dublin accent”
pose tremendous problems to translators.

Joyce’s Italian translation

What happens to the processes of translation between the
Waken languages, when the text, originally intended for an
ideal multilingual and multicultural “reader suffering from an
ideal insomnia” (FW 120.13−14), is rewritten for a reader who
presumably does not know English nor the multitude of
languages infused in the text? In order to answer this question
let us examine how the interlingual movements described above
are rendered in Joyce’s Italian re-narration of the Anna Livia
Plurabelle (ALP) episode.
A comparison of the instances of interlingual, intralinear
translations discussed above and their Italian rendition provides
some interesting insights, for example:

Ask Lictor Hackett or Lector Chiedi a Manganelli, o al

Reade of Garda Growley or the Randelloni, o al Mazzaferrata,
Boy with the Billyclub (FW o al Fracco la Frombola (ll.
197.6−7) 28−29)
for to ishim bonzour to her dear per augellargli bondì, a quel
dubber Dan (FW 199.13−14) su’ Rumoloremus (l. 99)

in a tone sonora and Oom Bothar con toce sonora, e zio Zibeppe
below like Bheri-Bheri in his in cappa di sabbia, sì
sandy cloak, so umvolosy, as umvoloso e sodomurto (ll.
deaf as a yawn (FW 200.13−15) 132−33)

In the Italian text each bilingual pair (“Lector Reade,” “bonzour

. . . dubber Dan,” “Bothar . . . deaf”) is rendered with Italian
names, probably familiar to the Italian reader, which are in turn
included in other translational chains within the Italian
language. Thus, “Lector Reade” is translated with Randelloni, a
conflation of Randellone, the nickname of a famous Italian
jockey, and randelli, the Italian word for “clubs or bludgeons,”
which reformulates intralinguistically the preceding
Manganelli, “billy clubs.” The foreign “dubber Dan” is
domesticated into Rumoloremus, which despite the Latin ending
sounds familiar to Italian readers. The interlingual Irish/Anglo-
Irish/English movement “Bothar . . . deaf” is totally Italianized
through Zibeppe, the surname of an Italian bandit of the
Lucania area, and sodomurto, transposition of sordomuto, “deaf
and dumb,” which re-interprets by antonymy the word sonora
which precedes it.
A similar process of deforeignization emerges in the
Italian rendition of the instances of genetic translation discussed
above:

He erned his lille Bunbath (FW S’è ben guadagnata la

198.5) maritazzuccia (l. 58)

And what was the wyerye rima Ma come suona la torza rima?
she made! (FW 200.33) (l. 152)

and off with me to the slobs e chi s’è visto s’è visto alle
della Tolka or the plage au maremme Tolkane e à la
Clontarf (FW 201.18−19) splage de Clontarf (ll. 176−77)

Wait till the honeying of the Aspetta che la luna appaia

lune, love! (FW 215.3−4) mielio, cara. (l. 183-4)

Apart from “plage,” which is not translated into Italian, even

though it is Italianized through an Italian/French bilingual
reinforcement (spiaggia + plage), all the other foreign words,
which, as shown above, are the result of processes of translation
from English into other languages, are rendered in Italian or,
rather, “Finnitalian,” as Bollettieri Bosinelli calls the Italian
completely deformed and reinvented by Joyce’s creativity
(“Beyond Translation” 161). In Finnitalian, multilingual puns,
generated by genetic translations, tend to be replaced by puns
which exploit resources within the Italian language, as
illustrated by “Aspetta che la luna appaia mielio, cara,” where
the original English/French pun “honeying . . . lune” is replaced
by two monolingual puns, one between miele, the Italian for
“honey,” and meglio, “better,” and the other between chiara,
“clear,” and cara, “dear.”
Phonic translations, which activate more than one
language simultaneously, are also suppressed or reduced in the
Italian version. There is, for instance, no trace of the French oui,
nor of other foreign sounds, in “Don Dom Dolomuto e la piccia
pazzetta!” (l. 37), where the “wee follyo” (FW 197.18), a
multilingual echo of H.C.E.’s wife, Ulysses and Molly at one
and the same time, is Italianized as “piccia pazzetta,” which
mingle together ancient Italian, dialect and familiar register and
create an alliterative pattern with the phrase “polizza Parcoletti”
in the next line. In the case of “Io l’Oscar solletico, smoccogli lì
un picchetto” (l. 131), despite the reproduction of the original
Danish phonic sequence (“High hellskirt saw ladies hensmoker
lilyhung pigger” (FW 200.12−13), the transcription is carried
out through totally Italianized homophones, which are unlikely
to produce on the target reader the same foreignizing effect
produced by the original text.
 Besides, and less surprisingly, the Italian of the
translation, towards which Joyce does not have the same
ambivalent feelings he has towards English, the language of
Ireland’s former colonizer, is not contaminated with the Anglo-
Irish dialect as is the English. As the examples below show, for
instance, in the Italian translation Anglo-Irish pronunciations
are rendered with totally Italian sounds:

Or whatever it was they threed O cosa mai fece bifronte o

to make out he thried to two in triforo in quell’infenice di
the Fiendish park ( FW 196.10) porco nastro? (ll. 7−8)

you born ijypt (FW 198. 1) cretina d’Egitto (l. 54)

Greenland’s tay (FW 199.18) tè irslandese (l. 103)

and stand in her douro, puffing alla porta piantona, sbuffando

her old dudheen, and every di pipastrello, e ad ogni
shirvant (FW 200.18) sciocca d’inserverniente (l.
135-36)
And sure he was the quare old E lui po’, che norcinume (l.
buntz too (FW 215.213) 192)

and the race of the saywint up e la corsa del grecale su per

me ambushure (FW 201.20) l’imbeccatura mia (l. 178−79)

What emerges from this analysis of Joyce’s Italian rewriting of

ALP is, therefore, a systemic elimination of the words, sounds
and references to other languages that characterized the
composition process of the Work in Progress, and which are
instead substituted by intralingual translation processes
generated from within the Italian language itself. On the one
hand, this translation approach reinforces the view that Joyce’s
babelization and hybridization of the English language is
closely related to his desire to “wipe alley English spooker, or
multiphoniakically spuking, off the face of the erse” (FW
178.6−7), as part of his linguistic struggle against British
imperialism, a struggle he does not need to fight against Italian.
On the other hand, it can be seen as one possible answer to
Derrida’s questions quoted above on how the plurality of a text
written in several languages can be rendered in translation:
namely, by activating the plural dimension intrinsic in each
language and by selecting translation options from within the
various layers and levels of the target language. In Risset’s
words, “le polyglottisme peut se transformer en ‘pluri-
linguisme’” (50).

Conclusion

The increasing production of multilingual texts as well as the

growing awareness of the multilingual nature or origin of
apparently monolingual texts that characterize our globalised
and postcolonial era make it ever more urgent for Translation
Studies to consider the various facets involved in the renarration
of texts written in more than one language. From a prospective
angle, guidelines are needed for professional translators who, as
Pym (par. 1) testifies, are increasingly called upon to translate
mixed-language texts; from a retrospective viewpoint, the study
of how texts written in several languages are translated may
lead to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of translation
per se. The cases discussed above have shown that when
applied to multilingual source texts, translation ceases to be a
hybridizing force whereby “out of place,” “strange” and
“unusual” features are imported into the target text and
becomes, rather, a dehybridizing agent. Although “phenomena
pertaining to the make-up of the source text” are still transferred
into the target text, since, as Toury (275) postulates in his law
of interference, this procedure is inherent in the cognitive
processes involved in translation; it is the nature of the transfer
that changes. The multilingual and multilayered dimension of
the hybrid source text often calls for radical and creative
intervention on the part of the translator to rethink it in terms of
the new target audience. The case of Joyce’s Italian self-
translation of ALP demonstrates that this rethinking can result
in a completely deforeignized re-narration, which, however,
succeeds in blending accessibility with innovative translation
renderings. In this particular renarration, the effect of plurality
created by the multilingualism of the source text is recreated by
the simultaneous activation of various levels and resources
within the target language. As Eco cautions, commenting on the
French and Italian translations of the episode, “guai a prendere
FrJoyce e ItJoyce come manuali o modelli per una teoria della
traduzione. Ma guai a far finta che quei modelli non esistano”
(“Ostrigotta” XXIX).
These words of caution may be extended to encompass
other forms of re-narration that may seem to lie beyond the
sphere of Translation Studies but which actually open up new
horizons in this rapidly developing discipline. Among the
authors included in Oltre l’Occidente. Traduzione e alterità
culturale, edited by Bollettieri Bosinelli and Di Giovanni, is
Jhumpa Lahiri, the first Indian-born writer to win the Pulitzer
prize for fiction, but not a translator in the traditional sense of
the word, as she herself states. Nonetheless, she sees herself as
a translator in her novels to the extent that she declares:

And whether I write as an American or an Indian, about

things American or Indian or otherwise, one thing remains
constant: I translate, therefore I am. (120)

It would indeed be a fascinating contribution to ongoing

studies on translation to delve further into the telos that
motivates Lahiri to express the hybrid nature of her
renarrations in such terms.
Works Cited

Anselmi, Simona. La traduzione postcoloniale in Irlanda:
Finnegans Wake, una traduzione in corso. Milano: ISU,
2005.

Aubert, Jacques. “Finnegans Wake: Pour en finir avec les

traductions?” James Joyce Quarterly 4.3 (1967):
217−22.

Bollettieri Bosinelli, Rosa Maria. “A proposito di Anna Livia

Plurabelle.” Anna Livia Plurabelle. Ed. Rosa Maria
Bollettieri Bosinelli, Torino: Einaudi, 1996. 33−86.

---. “Beyond Translation: Italian Re-writings of Finnegans

Wake.” Joyce Studies Annual 1 (1990): 142−61.

---, Elena Di Giovanni, eds. Oltre L’Occidente. Traduzione e

alterità culturale. Milano: Bompiani, 2009.

Busby, Keith, and Christopher Kleinhenz, eds. Medieval

Multilingualism: The Francophone World and Its
Neighbours. Turnhout: Brepols, 2010.

Butor, Michel. “La traduction, dimension fondamentale de

notre temps.” James Joyce Quarterly 4.3 (1967):
215−16.

Chesterman, Andrew. “The Name and Nature of Translator

Studies.” Hermes – Journal of Language and
Communication Studies 42 (2009): 13−22.

Delabastita, Dirk, and Rainier Grutman. “Fictional

representations of multilingualism and translation.”
Introduction. Fictionalising Translation and
 Multilingualism. Ed. Dirk Delabastita and Rainier
Grutman. Spec. issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia NS4
(2005): 11−34.

Derrida, Jacques. “Des Tours de Babel.” Difference in

Translation. Ed. Joseph F. Graham. Ithaca and
London: Cornell UP, 1985. 165−207.

Eco, Umberto. Experiences in Translation. Trans. Alastair

McEwen. Toronto, Buffalo and London: U of Toronto
P, 2001.

---. “Ostrigotta, ora capesco.” Anna Livia Plurabelle. Ed. Rosa

Maria Bollettieri Bosinelli. Torino: Einaudi, 1996. V-
XXIX.

Gagnon, Chantal. “Language plurality as power struggle, or:

Translating politics in Canada.” Heterolingualism
in/and translation. Ed. Reine Meylaerts. Spec. issue
of Target 18.1 (2006). 69−90.

Glissant, Edouard. Introduction à une poétique du divers. Paris:

Gallimard, 1996.

Higginson, Fred. Anna Livia Plurabelle. The Making of a

Chapter. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1960.

Joyce, James, Anna Livia Plurabelle. Ed. Rosa Maria

Bollettieri Bosinelli. Trans. into Fr. S. Becktt, et al.
Trans. into It. J. Joyce, and N. Frank. Torino:
Einaudi, 1996.

---. Finnegans Wake. 1939. London: Penguin Books, 1992.

Lahiri, Jhumpa. “Intimate alienation: Immigrant fiction and
translation.” Translation, Text and Theory. The
Paradigm of India. Ed. Rukmini Bhaya Nair. New
Delhi and London: Sage, 2002. 113−20.

MacCabe, Colin. “Finnegans Wake at Fifty.” Critical Quarterly

31.4 (1989): 3−5.

Melchiori, Giorgio. Joyce: il mestiere dello scrittore. Torino:

Einaudi, 1994.

Milesi, Laurent. “L’idiome babélien de Finnegans Wake :

recherches thématiques dans une perspective génétique.”
Genèse de Babel. Joyce et la création. Ed. Daniel Ferrer
et al. Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, 1985. 155−215.

Munday, Jeremy. Translation as Intervention. London:

Continuum, 2007.

Pym, Anthony. “On the Pragmatics of Translating Multilingual

Texts.” 40 pars. 5 January 2011
http://www.jostrans.org/issue01/art_pym.php.

Risset, Jacqueline. “Joyce traduit par Joyce.” Tel Quel 55

(1973): 47−62.

Schäffner, Christina, and Beverly Adab, eds. Hybrid texts

and translation. Spec. issue of Across Languages and
Cultures 2.2 (2001): 167-302.

Snell-Hornby, Mary. The Turns of Translation Studies.

Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 2006.
Toury, Gideon. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond.
Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1995.

Wall, Richard. An Anglo-Irish Dialect Glossary for Joyce’s

Works. Gerrards Cross: Colin Smythe, 1986.