Literary translation, practices
wholeheartedly with the latter, attacking the
Downloaded by [American University of Beirut] at 23:21 09 November 2014
1 27
as a starting point for a description of literary
French neoclassicists for assimilating the for­
eign authors they translated to French tastes and
fashions and praising German translators like
Johann Heinrich Voss ( 1 75 1 - 1 826) for their
willingness to retain the strangeness or foreign­
ness, or what would come by the 1980s to be
called the alterity, of the SL text.
In the twentieth century, this Romantic
foreignizing conception of translation has been
picked up and passed on by a succession of
brilliant theorists, from Walter Benjamin
( 1 892- 1 940, 'The Task of the Translator' ,
1923) through Martin Heidegger ( 1 889- 1 976,
The Principle of Ground, 1957), to George
Steiner (After Babel, 1975), Antoine Berman
(The Experience of the Foreign, 1 984/ 1 992),
Lawrence Venuti (The Translator's Invisibility,
1995), and others. Like most of their Romantic
precursors, these later theorists typically dualize
translation and assign overtly moral charges to
the two choices: either you domesticate the SL
text, cravenly assimilate it to the flat denatured
ordinary language of TL culture, or you for­
eignize it, retain some of its alterity through
literalism, and so heroically resist the flattening
pressures of commodity capitalism. There are
no other alternatives , no middles excluded by
the dualism; and the moral imperatives behind
the choice, if not always practical in the real
world (a translator might be forced to domesti­
cate in some circumstances, to make a living),
are nevertheless irrevocable.
See also:
FREE TRANSLATION; UNIT OF TRANSLATION.
Fu rther reading
Berman 1 984, 1992; Brock 1 979; Catford
1 965; Schwartz 1 944; George Steiner 1 975;
Venuti 1 986, 1 995.
DOUGLAS ROB I N SON
Literary translation
practices
Literary translation is the work of literary
translators. That is a truism which has to serve
translation, an original subjective activity at
the centre of a complex network of social and
cultural practices. The imaginative, intellectual
and intuitive writing of the translator must not
be lost to the disembodied abstraction which is
often described as ' translation' .
Literary translators have to connive or
contend with the well-established hierarchies
in the definitions of what constitutes literature:
poetry, drama and prose - usually in that
order, of ' high' culture as opposed to 'lower'
categories such as science fiction, children's
fiction and ' pulp ' fiction. These hierarchies
are reflected in general assumptions about
both the relative worth and difficulty of trans­
lating the constituent sections of literary
production. Such categorizations have been
attacked by cultural theorists , post-modernists
and some translation scholars who have
pointed out how the construction of canons has
been informed historically by value-judge­
ments refracted through prejudices of class,
gender, nation and race. These attacks have
also undermined confidence in the author's
interpretation of what s /he has written in
favour of the multiplicity of readings by
readers: the kingly or queenly author has been
dethroned and replaced by a fragmented realm
of individual readers (Venuti 1992). The work
of literary translators implicitly and sometimes
explicitly challenges the authority of the
canon , the nationalism of culture and the
'death ' of the author.
A literary translator is bilingual and
bicultural and thus inhabits a landscape which
is not mapped by conventional geographies;
s /he is at home in the flux that is the reality
of contemporary culture , where migration is
constant across artificial political boundaries.
In self-styled monolingual dominant cultures,
as in the Anglo-Saxon varieties , that flux is
often portrayed as a threatening , if not a
pathological state of being. Literary translators
are involved at a keen point of cultural conver­
gence because they translate those works
which, for whatever reason, are selected for
translation and which now exist where other­
wise there would be silence. They often play a
key role by suggesting works for translation or
regularly writing readers' reports for pub­
lishers on books sent by foreign authors or
 1 28
their agents. The eventual selection implies the
work is representative - even if it is anti­
canonical - of a particular quintessential use
of language and feeling in the source culture. It
also implies that the publishers believe there is
a market for that literary translation. By defini­
tion, nevertheless, any literary translation
breaks the nationalist canon because, however
Downloaded by [American University of Beirut] at 23:21 09 November 2014
assimilated by the translation and publishing
process, it introduces into the reading space of
non-readers of the source language a work that
would otherwise remain an array of meaning­
less letters or symbols. As the creator of the
new work in the target culture , the literary
translator operates at the frontiers of language
and culture , where identity is flux, irreducible
to everyday nationalist tags of 'Arab ' ,
' English' or ' French ' , or to foreign talk seen as
irritating jabber.
Literary translators also belong to a cash
nexus of relationships and a tradition of social
practices within the publishing industry. A
contract has to be signed, payment agreed, and
decisions about copyright and deadlines for
delivery of the manuscript have to be reached ,
usually in the course of the translator's lone
negotiations with a publisher. Payment may be
in the form of an advance on royalties.
Usually, the originating author accepts
royalty of 8 per cent that in principle leaves
per cent for the translator. For a publisher who
sees the translator as an added expense, a
small payment may be made as an advance on
royalties or a flat fee worked out on the basis
of a rate per thousand words. Many literary
translators argue for an advance based on the
actual amount of time they estimate the trans­
lation may take rather than such piece-work
rates. Grants from sponsoring Ministries of
Culture or bodies such as the Arts Council in
Britain or the National Endowment for the
Humanities in the United States are sometimes
awarded to publishers to defray the cost of
translation (see PUBLISHING STRATEGIES).
Contracts usually include some line about
'providing a language that is faithful to the
original ' and commit the translator to the
correction of proofs.
These arrangements may differ
country to country. In countries with a buoyant
demand for translations, a publisher may have
an in-house team of translators. Actes-Sud,
Literary translation, practices
example, in France , have a company where
readers ' reports , the commissioning of transla­
tions and translators , and the whole chain of
production is run by literary translators who
are part of the professional administrative
framework of the publishers (Mattern 1 994).
In Britain and the United States, it is more
likely that publishers will work with freelance
translators they know or will contract them on
the basis of word-of-mouth recommendation
(the ' friend of a friend' ) , proof of previous
work or by reference to directories of literary
translators.
Literary translators often do not have an
agent, because agents are not interested in the
slender earnings to be gleaned from represent­
ing literary translators. There are translators '
associations which will advise on contracts and
legal help in disputes, but characteristically
they do not become involved in the actual
negotiations over individual contracts. Literary
translators , like all writers , are a hetero­
geneous social grouping. Some can live on
their inheritances or the windfall of a royalty
from a best-seller, some may combine literary
translation with full- or part-time academic
posts or other work, but freelance literary
translators throughout the world depend on the
a amounts they receive for their translations to
2 pay for the electricity that powers the word­
processor.
What then of literary translation and the
' rebirth' of the author? The process of transla­
tion differs slightly from translator to
translator and is influenced by the particular
work translated. However, whether there is to
be collaboration with a living author, or study
of previous translations in the case of a
' classic ' work, there are common stages and
problems in the work of literary translators. It
used to be the case that translators did not
write about these issues (George Steiner
1 975), but there are now a number of case­
studies written by translators about their mode
of operation (for example Felstiner 1 980;
Levine 1 99 1 ).
First, the literary translator confronts words
set on the page - in a certain context and with
from particular resonances - by an author who may
be dead physically or metaphorically and now
lives in the variegated readings by a host of
for readers of the source language. There is at
 Literary translation, practices
least a minimum commonality to those read­
ings created by the original. The literary
translator creates a new pattern in a different
language, based on personal readings , research
and creativity. This new creation in tum
becomes the basis for multiple readings and
interpretations which will go beyond any
intentions of either original author or transla­
Downloaded by [American University of Beirut] at 23:21 09 November 2014
tor. Nevertheless, it is the fruit of thousands of
decisions , large and small, and of creative
activity on the part of the translator.
An essential preparation for the translation
will be careful reading and re-reading and
accompanying research of source text and other
work by the author. This can include travel to
the writer's country and historical and literary
research. It often helps to read works that play a
similar though different role in the target cul­
ture. For Felstiner ( 1980), this meant reading
poetry by High Church T. S. Eliot in order to
gauge the right voice for Pablo Neruda, the
Chilean Communist. In the case of a living
author, a range of collaborative possibilities
offer themselves. Some authors enjoy participa­
tion in the translation to the extent that the final
fruit of the collaboration is a new work in
which they extend and add new sections
(Levine 1 99 1 ). Others may add marginal com­
ments to a draft. Sometimes, a translator may
decide on very limited collaboration with an
author in order to further a strategy of transla­
tion that is not tied too closely to equivalence,
and this can give more scope for intervention
on the part of the translator (Venuti 1 995).
There are translators who opt not to research
the scholarly background of the work they are
translating, presumably in pursuit of a more
'writerly' , intu1t1ve mode (Peters 1 995).
Whatever the strategy adopted by the translator,
any translation is ultimately the product of
multiple readings and drafts which precede and
determine the shape of the final draft delivered
to the publishers. Context is crucial. The pro­
cess may be truncated or altered by external
forces: the publication of a book may have to
coincide with the release of a film, a dramatic
script may have to be handed to production so
staging can be started and the translation be
changed in that process, or in a tradition upheld
by London theatre companies a 'literal ' transla­
tion may be given to a well-known writer who
then produces a literary version.
1 29
Different strategies may be necessary to
approach a short lyric poem or a long work of
prose fiction. A translator of fiction has to
engage with the different rhythms, the images
and symbols an author will use in the course of
hundreds of pages (Levine 1 99 1 ). Repeated
reading and research enable the translator to
identify such patterns , though some will be
translated subconsciously as part of the process
of imaginative rewriting. In dense texts reso­
nant with ambiguities and alternative meanings
by a James Joyce, a translator works at dis­
rupting the target culture in the way the
original work disrupted the standard language
and received notions of the source culture
(Conde-Parilla 1 994). Literary translation is
then a very social, culturally-bound process
where the translator plays a key role in a com­
plex series of interactions.
When a manuscript is submitted to a
publishing house, the editing process involves
the application of a new set of criteria to the
translation. There may be a house-style that an
editor uses across the board, and this may be
applied , appropriately or otherwise, to a liter­
ary text in translation. In the English, Spanish
and Portuguese-speaking worlds, for example,
there will be issues of different dialects and
editors who will only accept their variety of
standard. This often leads to partial and usually
inconsistent adaptations of translations into,
say, American English or British English.
Some leading translators have argued against
this practice, explaining that 'editors can play
havoc as they try to anglicize the text'
(Pontiero 1 992: 303), and some have called
for the retention of the language of the transla­
tor (Wright 1 993). The editor's reading,
however, need not simply be a threatening and
standardizing project. A fresh reading brings
new insights and can eliminate mistakes that
would otherwise mar the final version.
Conscious decisions which involve chang­
ing the translation are made at every stage, by
editors and translators, in order to cater for the
perceived needs of the receiving, dominant
culture; Kuhiwczak (1990) , for example,
discusses the case of cuts made to Milan
Kundera's novel The Joke. It is also worth
pointing out that many publishing houses do
not employ editors with a knowledge of the
source language and there is no tradition of
 1 30
sub-contracting freelance editors with such
knowledge.
A published translation is the fruit of a
substantial creative effort by the translator,
who is the key agent in the subjective activity
and social practice of translation. Whatever the
restraints of the network of social and cultural
factors, it is ultimately the literary translator
Downloaded by [American University of Beirut] at 23:21 09 November 2014
who makes the thousands of decisions that
give a literary work its 'afterlife ' : an existence
in other languages (Benjamin 1923).
See also:
DRAMA TRANSLATION; LITERARY TRANSLATION,
RESEARCH ISSUES; POETICS OF TRANSLATION;
POETRY TRANSLATION; PUBUSHING STRATEGIES;
SHAKESPEARE TRANSLATION; STRATEGIES OF
TRANSLATION.
F u rther reading
Felstiner 1 980; Levine 1 99 1 ; Pontiero 1 992.
PET E R BUSH
Literary translation
research issues
Many of the books written on translation
through the ages deal largely with literary
translation, and in particular with the difficulty
of 'translating well' and of being ' faithful' .
Such discussions are based on an assumption
of universality and on ahistorical claims; they
rarely offer any scholarly insight into the way
actual translations have been produced and
used through the ages. Scholarly work does
exist, but it is rather heterogeneous, making it
difficult to provide a reliable overview of
either the history or current thinking about
literary translation.
Literary translation: a problem of
definition
The very use and combination of literary and
translation is symptomatic of the casual way
in which the concepts of literature and of
translation have so far been taken for granted.
Neither concept is simple or well defined in
Literary translation, research issues
most cultures. A historical exploration of the
way in which the object of study has been
conceptualized, with the aid of such things as
dictionaries, encyclopedias and other key
instruments of cultural knowledge, is therefore
very much needed. The same applies of course
to translation practices and their exact relation­
ships with the more or less explicit theories
elaborated at different points in history.
The use of the term literature and its equiv­
alents in various languages to refer to specific
patterns of creativity in style, genre, and so on
seems to be a rather modem development,
dating back only to the eighteenth century
(Escarpit 1 962; Culler 1 989). Scholarship has
not established clearly the extent to which
literature and a literature are necessarily
linked to one particular language and, even
less, the extent to which particular literary
traditions may be linked to a given territory,
nation or state. It is generally assumed that
such links exist a priori , but this assumption is
untenable for a variety of reasons. A tenuous
relationship between literature and other enti­
ties such as language, territory and nation
would suggest that translated literature will not
necessarily manifest signs of interaction
between different literary traditions (Lambert
1 984). The concept of translation itself is
similarly far from being universal, and where
it does exist, the borderlines between it and
related concepts such as ADAPTATION and
rewriting are not necessarily clear or uniformly
drawn, whether historically or at a given
moment in time, not even within the same
linguistic tradition (van Gorp 1978).
The ubiquity of the type of event that is
casually referred to in translation studies as
literary translation makes it incumbent on
scholars to define the conditions under which
this type of event takes places, as well as to
investigate the conditions under which it does
not occur. This is no easy task, given the
ambiguous status of translated literature,
particularly in view of the problem of
visibility /invisibility of the act of translation.
A translation may be presented explicitly as a
translation, in which case it is visible, or it
may be disguised as an original , which
explains why the majority of readers remain
unaware of the foreign origins of some literary
texts. The latter is particularly true of fairy
 Literary translation, research issues
tales and children's literature. What compli­
cates the issue even further is that original
texts are also sometimes presented as transla­
tions (see PSEUDOTRANSLATION). But it is far
more common for a translation to be disguised
as an original than it is for an original text to
be presented as a translation, particularly in the
world of mass literature and in the business
Downloaded by [American University of Beirut] at 23:21 09 November 2014
world (Lambert 1 989). Both pseudotransla­
tions and invisible translations provide
interesting indicators of the value position of
imported literature in a given culture and
therefore deserve to be studied systematically
as central issues in the development of
literatures.
Another reason why translation is often
invisible and ambiguous is that not only entire
texts but also text fragments and discursive
patterns may be imported into the target litera­
ture. In this sense , the difficulty of drawing a
clear line between what is original and what is
translated in a given literary tradition reflects
the wider difficulty of identifying what is
indigenous and what is foreign in any langu­
age: all languages contain many elements and
patterns which are ultimately foreign in origin.
To the extent that literatures (as literary
traditions or systems) are tied to particular
languages, they have all developed, at least in
part, with the aid of literary exchange via
translations (Even-Zohar 1 978a; Lambert
1 99 1 ; Bassnett 1 993 ). It is not at all clear,
however, where and how this exchange takes
place nor what the exact impact of translation
on a given literary tradition may be. Notwith­
standing the long history of scholarship which
asserts the innovative nature of the interaction
between literature and translation, we can no
longer justifiably assume that such exchanges
are necessarily innovative (Even-Zohar
1 978a). It is fair to say , however, that there
are many instances where a literary tradition
has been greatly influenced by imported and
translated models on the level of stylistic
devices, metaphors , narrative structures or
entire genres (such as the modern novel) and
entire genre systems (for example the
Aristotelian genre tradition in the West). What
seems to play a decisive role in determining
the extent of such influence, as well as the
very definition of translation within a given
literary tradition , is the position of literary
1 31
translation as such and the extent to which it
has become canonized (Even-Zohar 1978a;
Poltermann 1 994; see POLYSYSTEM THEORY ).
Indeed, in most western societies literary
translation seems to have become so
prestigious that the very concept of translation
tends to be reduced to literary translation, as
can be seen in the definitions offered by most
dictionaries and encyclopedias. Most cultures
will cite instances of literary translation, in the
narrow sense, as examples of good or well­
known translations , rather than say BffiLE
translations, even though the latter have been
imported more systematically and with far­
reaching consequences into most cultures. The
canonization of literary translation is a con­
sequence of the prevalence of a NORMATIVE
concept of translation and is restricted to
literary translation vis-a-vis other types of
translation and other texts in the target culture.
It is rarely the case that a literary translator and
his /her own text have acquired more prestige
than the canonized source text and source
author: translations of Virgil and
SHAKESPEARE belong to the core of canonized
literary writing and their translators have
benefited from this situation, but they hardly
vie with the original authors in terms of
prestige. Exceptions do occur as , arguably, in
the case of Baudelaire as translator of Edgar
Allan Poe, but only very rarely.
Literary translation: research models
Given that translation is a culture-bound
phenomenon, it is essential that we study the
way in which it varies through time and
across cultures, as well as the reasons for this
variation. Clearly, there is a need here for
theoretical and methodological models which
can provide a research-oriented set of
hypotheses for studies of this type. One such
model has been proposed by Toury ( 1 980,
1 995) for both literary translation and for
translation in general , based on the concept of
NORMS which is borrowed from sociolinguis­
tics and the social sciences. This model is an
extension of POLYSYSTEM THEORY, as elabor­
ated by Even-Zohar ( 1 978a). Polysystem
theory , and by extension Toury's model,
assumes that translations never function as
totally independent texts and that translators
 1 32
always belong in one way or another to a
literary and/or cultural environment, even if
this environment is geographically remote
from their place of residence. The relationship
between translations and their environment
may vary, and may at times be negative, but it
is always there, shaping translation behaviour
and influencing the position of translated
Downloaded by [American University of Beirut] at 23:21 09 November 2014
literature. Identifying and describing the pos­
ition of translators and translations vis-a-vis a
given readership is no easy matter. Clear
parameters need to be elaborated for locating
translators and translations first and foremost
with respect to the target literature , but some­
times also with respect to the source literature ,
and even with respect to an intermediary
tradition on which a translation may be based
(Toury 1 980: 5 3 , 56; Stackelberg 1 984); the
latter, i.e. intermediate/indirect translation, is
particularly common in a (post- )colonial
context (Lambert 1 995). By and large, transla­
tors and translations function as translators/
translations rather than as writers/literature, as
in the case of contemporary translations of the
Greek classics, and this may be due either to
their own strategies or to their position from
the point of view of the dominant literary
groups (Toury 1 993).
Translation is a type of communication
which points , often explicitly, to a previous
communication in another language, or to
parts of it. This relationship with a previous
communication assumes some form of
equivalence (Toury 1 980: 54) which is never­
theless thought to be unattainable in practice.
The concretization of the elusive notion of
EQVIVALENCE is essential for a description of
the position of translated literature because it
can explain how and even why value and
power relationships between the traditions
involved determine the very concept of transla­
tion. Numerous types of equivalence may be
postulated in a given culture, and even within
the same text, but the NORMS of equivalence
are to a certain extent predictable: for example,
proper names in novels are often adapted to fit
into the target tradition in France but hardly
ever in the Netherlands. The norms, models
and strategies employed in a given translation
cannot be understood in isolation from the
dominant and/or peripheral literary and
cultural environment in which the translation
Literary translation, research issues
has to function. This environment is complex
and is generally defined in terms of the target
culture rather than the source culture. And yet,
contemporary mass culture has gradually
redefined, even partly erased, the borderlines
between source and target worlds while plac­
ing (literary) translation within a multilateral
rather than a bilateral frame of reference
(Lambert 1 989). Nevertheless, given that
literary translation and literary imports in
general are goal-oriented activities designed to
fulfil a need in the target literary tradition, an
analysis of these needs and the strategies
employed to address them may help us explain
the dynamics of literary relationships and
traditions , and hence of literary translation.
Within this functional research paradigm,
then, it is assumed that all translation activity
(whether it involves producing, using or com­
menting on translations) is guided and shaped
by such things as the norms, value scales and
models which are prevalent in a given society
at a given moment in time. The study of liter­
ary translation therefore consists of the study
of translation norms, models and traditions.
Any translation activity , and any utterance
about translation, is part of the data that can be
used to elaborate a profile of a given transla­
tion environment and to establish the position
that literary translation occupies on the cultural
maps of the world (Lambert 1 993), and indeed
whether it plays a significant role in shaping
the dynamics of such maps. In this respect,
statements by translators and their critics or
readers are interesting not so much in them­
selves but as objects of research. Most cultures
have only a limited tradition of translation
criticism and theory, but there is generally an
obvious systematicity in their implicit dis­
course on translation. The entire network of
relationships between translated texts, transla­
tors, their critics and readers becomes more
intelligible when considered as a complex
tradition or system.
Descriptive studies of literary translation
According to Even-Zohar, it is possible to
predict the conditions under which translations
might occupy a central or peripheral position
and might be innovative or conservative in the
strategies they employ. Descriptive studies are
 Literary translation, research issues
required to test the validity of this hypothesis
and to provide a basis for elaborating general
principles that can help us predict such con­
ditions, if they are indeed possible to predict.
Some descriptive studies have been undertaken
in recent years, and the tradition of translation
has been studied more or less systematically in
certain cultures, in particular the European
Downloaded by [American University of Beirut] at 23:21 09 November 2014
ones. The European Renaissance period and its
contribution to the birth of the very concept of
literary translation (Hermans 1986), French
classicism with its strong and enduring tradition
of/es belles infideles (Zuber 1 968; Stackelberg
1984; D ' hulst 1987) , and the remarkably rich
German translation culture (Frank et al.
1987- ) have been covered by such studies.
Some research has also be done on the recep­
tion (rather than the translation ) of Greek and
Roman classics (Delcourt 1 925; Mund-Dopchie
1 984) and of SHAKESPEARE in Europe (Dela­
bastita and D'hulst 1 993), where indirect
translation has played a significant role.
There is still a need to investigate the
beginnings of various European literary tradi­
tions, focusing on literary translation as one
type of literary and cultural import (Lambert
1986). Most national literatures seem to have
based their canons on the Greek and Latin
models, often with the mediation of the French
canon, and to have kept these canons alive with
the help of translation as the supreme rhetorical
exercise (Rener 1989). The differentiation of
literary traditions during the Romantic Age
illustrates a double movement in the position of
translated literature: on the one hand, the
Shakespearean and other new models helped
the various national traditions to establish their
new rhetorics and genre systems, gradually
substituting theatre and the epic with prose
works; on the other hand, the classical tradition
has been pushed further and further into the
periphery of literary life and now survives
mainly in didactic traditions rather than in
literature, though it is fair to say that attempts
have occasionally been made to reintroduce the
classics into modem literature. In terms
of theoretical models of translation, the Ger­
man tradition has been by far the most
influential. Lessing, Voss, Herder, Goethe,
SCHLEIERMACHER (see GERMAN TRADmON )
and the German Romanticists, among others ,
have all used translation explicitly as a key
1 33
instrument in developing German culture on the
basis of a systematic interaction between the
(more or less French ) classical tradition and the
new world (see especially Frank et al. 1987- ).
Extending the range of descriptive research
beyond this essentially restricted European
frame of reference will most likely prompt us to
revise our understanding of literary translation
considerably , especially if we include oral
literature and the history of colonization within
our purview (Bassnett 1 993; Lambert 1995).
The literatures of North America and Latin
America seem to have developed almost en­
tirely on the basis of translation, in much the
same way as the Roman tradition was based on
the Greek one. We may well discover that all
colonial culture, writing systems and literacy
have developed on the basis of translated liter­
ature. In Africa, and also in Korea (Hyun,
forthcoming ) , this process occurred with the aid
of the Bible and John Bunyan. In Japan and in
South East Asia, the novel use of colloquial
language in translations has shaped contem­
porary written usage (Hyun and Lambert 1 995 ;
Murakami 1995). DUBBING and SUBTITLING,
two new genres used in the audiovisual repre­
sentation of fiction and hence arguably
belonging to the category of literary translation ,
have played and continue to play a similar role
(Delabastita and Lambert, 1 996). Given that
translated literature has been so influential in
shaping the dynamics of discourse , communi­
cation and culture, its traditional treatment as an
art that is best described by reference to individ­
ual, anecdotal experience no longer seems
justifiable, and the need for serious, descriptive
research in this area cannot be overestimated.
See also:
ANTHOLOGIES OF TRANSLATION; DRAMA
TRANSLATION; LITERARY TRANSLATION, PRAC­
TICES; POETICS OF TRANSLATION; POETRY
TRANSLATION; SHAKESPEARE TRANSLATION.
Further reading
Bassnett 1993; Even-Zohar 1 978a; Hermans
1986; Holmes 1 988; Holmes et al. 1978; Lam­
bert 1984, 1 986, 1 99 1 , 1 995 ; Lambert and
Lefevere 1993; Lefevere 198 1 , 1 99 1 ; Toury
1993.
JOSE LAM BERT