Katan David (2003).

Following the Translators Rite of Passage from Local Reaction to Global

Perception Rites of Passage: Rational/Irrational, Natural/Supernatural, Local/Global. 4/6 ottobre
2001, Atti del XX Convegno Nazionale dell'Associazione Italiana di Anglistica Catania-Ragusa;
Carmela Nocera, Gemma Persico, Rosario Portale (eds), Rubbettino: Catanzaro, pp.
Following the Translators Rite of Passage from Local Reaction to Global
Perception
Introduction
This paper discusses a translators intercultural competence in terms of a developmental
model of intercultural sensitivity, and purports that the rite itself entails a significant and
challenging change in belief and status. During the passage, in fact, translators change
response to other cultures from an ethnocentric local reaction to a more global
perception of difference, on the way to becoming cultural mediators (Bochner 1!1"
#atan 1$, 1a, 1b%. &hat this means is that a translator will have developed 'an
intercultural mind ( a mindset capable of understanding from within and without both
ones own culture and other cultures) (Bennett et al, 1* +!%.
,pproaches to translation can also be seen in terms of local reaction (te-t oriented% or
global perception (conte-t oriented%. The approach will tend to depend on whether one
believes language to be 'a system to transfer thoughts or the meaning from one mind to
another) or 'a system for organi.ing thoughts to trigger responses in others) (/all 10$*
1$, Boylan +222*12$%.
3odelling the translator
3odelling now forms the basis of many cognitive disciplines (#atan 1a* +(4%. The
model of cognition, or belief change, as proposed here is, at best, a simplified and
generalised representation of what happens in reality" and is based on the presupposition
that a persons cognitive environment (map or model of the world% is constructed
through e-perience of the other. 5obinson (10* +41% has suggested that 3ilton
Bennetts (14% Developmental 3odel of Intercultural 6ensitivity (D3I6%, which
traces an individuals e-perience of another culture, 'might usefully be e-panded to
include translation and interpretation).
In fact, I will use it to benchmar7 statements made by translator and interpreter scholars
to e-emplify the type of beliefs that lie behind the two basic approaches to translation.
8learly, the individual statements cited below (ta7en also out of conte-t% should in no
way be thought of as classifying the translators themselves. The comments should,
rather, be ta7en as e-amples of how ones view of the world clearly affects deeply felt
beliefs about the 9right or 9correct way to translate. 3ore importantly, the model
highlights the rite of passage as a waystage to multiculturality and towards a cultural
mediators global vision.
The D3I6, itself, is :ust one of a number of cross(cultural contact and conse;uence
models (Bennett 1!* +1(+$%. ,s <antini (+222* 4=% points out 'each model usually
reflects a particular orientation, e.g., chronological progression, developmental
1
se;uences, psychological ad:ustments, or the stages and phases commonly e-perienced
by intercultural so:ourners). These ad:ustments, it is suggested, can only ta7e place as
beliefs change through e-perience, learning and the ac;uisition of new s7ills and
resources (not discussed here%. I will assume, for sa7e of argument, that translators in
some way will be 9intercultural so:ourners.
Bennett hypothesised si- discernable worldview states as a result of statements about
cultural difference made by various groups of people such as e-change students,
businesspersons and others. >8onnor (+222* 1+!% notes 'a model is not true. , model
can only wor7 ? or not). These si- states, do indeed appear to wor7 not only at an
intuitive level, but also statistically* 'these states have since been successfully replicated
@AB with e-tremely high interrater reliability @andB a factor analysis showed that the
statements about cultural difference 9loaded into categories according to D3I6
theoretical prediction) (Bennett et al 1* ++" see also /ammer 1%.
The stages (each with + or three levels% are as follows*
CT/D>8CDT5I8 6T,EC6* 1. denial, +. defence, 4. minimisation
CT/D>5CF,TIGC 6T,EC6* =.acceptance, 1. adaptation, $. integration
I have actually combined two models here to allow for an important reversal in the cline,
which does not, though, affect the stages. The 9& graph below is ta7en from Fevine and
,delman (14* =1%, while the added numbers refer bac7 to the Bennett model*

Positive
Feelings
Negative
Time
From CULTURE SHOCK to ACCULTURATION
(1)
Honeymoon
period
(2 & 3)
Culture Shock
(4) Initial
adjustment
(-) Depression
(5 & 6)
Acceptance
&
Integration
Ethnorelative
Ethnocentric
6tage 1 /oneymoonHDenial
Initial reaction to Ithe otherI begins as if the 9other did not e-ist as a separate world,
though Bennett (1!* 4=%. is also careful to note that 'oppressed people may navigate
the development of intercultural sensitivity differently from those in the dominant
group). 8ues ta7en from reality are interpreted according to an individual or locally
shared model of the world which is, at this stage, believed to be 'central to all reality)
(Bennett 14* 42%. Fevine and ,delmans 9honeymoon refers to what it is that attracts
in a second language or culture. Bennetts model, on the other hand, begins simply with
+
cognitive naivety. In his model, at this stage, there is simply no response to the other, as
the differences are simply not, to use 6perber and &ilsons (1!$* =+% term, 9manifest.
Translators, at this level are either students or the unwitting providers of comic relief for
tourists in hotels and restaurants (for e-amples, Bryson 12* 1, 10=" Dodds 11"
#atan 1a* !+, !=" 6tewart +222* 0!(0%.
6tage +* Defence
What is Different is Dangerous
This is the title of /ofstedes (11* 12% chapter on orientation to perceived difference,
and is the first response to '8ulture shoc7)* 'the emotional reactions to the
disorientation that occur when one is immersed in an unfamiliar culture and is deprived
of familiar cues' (Jaige, 14* +%. It is at this stage we realise that there is a difference"
and hence that there is a real gap between our e-pected world and the world we are
dealing with ( and we can no longer deny the fact. The most natural reaction to
difference in others behaviour, discourse patterns and value systems is to defend our
own, particularly because the threat is felt at the level of core beliefs regarding what is
9right, 9normal and 9correct. This response is logically ethnocentric, the feeling being
that my model of the world is the model of the world, and hence, any other model is not
only wrong but is also a destabilising threat. Fogically, then, the first defensive reaction
tens to be one of Denigration ? a level that coheres with the events of 6eptember 11
th
more than with translation.
Superiority
This second level in intercultural development 'emphasi.es the positive evaluation of
ones own cultural status) (Bennett 14* 40%, and is the form of ethnocentric defence
that many translator scholars and practitioners wor7 from. Gery often, the feeling of
superiority is benign towards other cultures, and is bac7ed by logical arguments of
9progress, 9development, with the implicit assumption that evolution following oneIs
own culture path is the best path for all cultures.
,n e-ample of this comes from Dewmar7s (14* $% comments regarding a translation
of a tourist brochure. /e entitles his comment 9Kollity in Kesolo, and begins with a ;uote
from the brochure*
'&e as7ed* &hy Kesolo for your holidaysL @...B 9Because, the well(rounded
beauty in the illustration replies, 9Kesolo can be reached so easily that my
husband is able to come and see me every wee7(end, and each time he finds
me more and more sun(tanned. I assume this is a close translation of the
Italian original, and, as it is se-ist, the translator should have left out the
reference to the husband and confined himHherself to Kesolos accessibility and
its warm weather.)
/ere, Dewmar7 is suggesting that a translator should manipulate the te-t to fit his local
(and superior% culture. /e presumes that his local interpretation of the visual and verbal
4
sign is universally demeaning to women" and also that these signs should be replaced
with a superior guiding belief (i.e. non(se-ist%. 5egarding his first point, translators need
'profound cultural 7nowledge) (&olf 10* 1+0% before they can begin to evaluate
another cultures ways. This 7nowledge would have revealed the fact that it is an Italian
family tradition for those who can (home(employed wives and children% to escape from
the summer heat and the humidity of the urban areas to the beach, and for the husbands
to :oin them when they can ? at the wee7end. 3any people of both se-es, it transpires
from the translation, en:oy the effects of the suns rays. >b:ectively, this may well be
dangerous for the s7in but is not necessarily 'wounding or demeaning to those whose
se-, @AB leaves them vulnerable to the raw power of words) (Bryson, 1=* =+1%.
Reversal
,n interesting 9option in the intercultural sensitivity model is the phenomenon of
9reversal. This still revolves around superiority, but in reverse. It is the 'denigration of
ones own culture and an attendant assumption of the superiority of a different cultureM
(Bennett 14* 4%. Jeople in this position feel themselves to be, as e-emplified by
Genuti (11* +1% 'a nomad in my own country, a runaway from the mother(tongue).
The reasons may be manifold, but generally involve 'a disavowal of all @81B values and
an embracing of unchanging @8+B values) (3ilton 14* =2%. Genuti (1!* 12%
e-plains* 'it is this evocation of the foreign that attracts me @AB. This preference stems
partly from a political agenda that is broadly democratic* an opposition to the global
hegemony of Cnglish).
Both Genuti and Dewmar7 wish to redress ine;uality and to intervene to help the more
vulnerable through translation" they also both view 9the other from a Defensive
position.
6tage 4* 3inimi.ation
Danila 6eles7ovich, 'a brilliant interpreter), stated that 'Cverything said in one language
can be e-pressed in another ? on condition that the two languages belong to cultures that
have reached a comparable degree of development) (in Dewmar7 1!!* $%. This type of
comment represents the final ethnocentric stage in Bennetts model, and is the last to
preserve the centrality of ones own worldview. It overtly ac7nowledges cultural
differences, but suggests that these are (superficial% details not to be confused with
general universal similarities to which all people (and their te-ts% adhere to (cf. #atan
1a* 10" #atan 6traniero(6ergio +221* ++=(1" Jym +222* 1!$%. 8hesterman (10a*
1!%, for e-ample, states that Erices 3a-ims 'must evidently be interpreted with respect
to particular cultures), but then goes onto say* 'but I do not thin7 that this detracts from
their universal applicability). /e (10b* 112% is even clearer on the 3inimalists
'Eolden 5ule) (Bennett 14* =1%* 'I will stic7 my nec7 out and claim that clarity will
survive as an ethical linguistic value long after the postmodernist te-tual anarchists are
dead and buried). Dewmar7 says much the same in 6chNffner and #elly(/olmes (11*
!2%.
=
Beliefs li7e these propagate and become self(fulfilling norms, which, as 8hesterman
himself reali.es (10a* $%, become more real than reality itself" and indeed, it is not
easy to consider a rite of passage when no such passage is envisaged.
6tage =* ,cceptance
Respect for behaviour difference
,ccording to the D3I6, this ne-t stage 'represents a ma:or conceptual shift from
reliance on absolute, dualistic principles of some sort to an ac7nowledgement of non(
absolute relativity) (Bennett 14* =1%. This is the rite of passage, where the translator
begins to perceive that hisHher ethnocentric model of the world is not the only one, and
that te-t(based copying, though possible, will not communicate the same message across
cultures. The translators model of the world is now framed to include local conte-ts of
situation and culture (see #atan in print%.
,t this first ethnorelative stage, people 'begin to recogni.e differences in
communication style) (ibid 14* =1%. ,s Dida (10* 40% puts it* M3any translators
believe that if they ta7e care of the words and grammar, the discourse will ta7e care of
itself, but this concept results from an insufficient understanding of the role of discourse
structures in interlingual communicationM.
This is clearly then the first stage at which translators accept the importance of conte-t
and mar7s the beginnings of the 9cultural turn ( Bassnett O Fefevre 12* 11%. #ondo, a
Kapanese(Cnglish interpreter is e-tremely aware of the conte-t of culture and frames of
interpretation yet is aware of the constraints engendered by the established norms of
interpreting. In the end, though, he yields to the te-t(oriented norm* 'interpreters can
wor7 essentially only with what has been e-pressed) (12* $4%. Dida, on the other
hand, suggests manipulating the te-t, not in favour of a universal or superior rule, but
simply in respect of the different ways in which language triggers responses in others.
/e continues*
Intelligent secretaries in Dorth ,merica 7now how to delete overtly
complimentary statements from Fatins, and to add appropriate e-pressions of
greeting and friendship from their Dorth ,merican bosses. >therwise Fatinos
will thin7 that ,merican businessmen will be reluctant to do business with
Fatinos who appear to be too flattering and insincere.
Pet, according to Bennett, this level of ,cceptance is also one of indirection and
e-perimentation ( leading to translating indecisions. Translators (rather than Didas
bicultural secretaries% will not yet have 'developed ethnorelative principles for ta7ing
action) (Bennett, 1!* +!%. Interestingly, the s7opos theory, seems to fit very well into
this stage* 'The @s7oposB theory does not state what the principle is...The s7opos theory
merely states that the translator should be aware that some goal e-ists ... The important
point is that a given source te-t does not have one correct or best translation only)
(Germeer +222* ++!%. ,s Bennett (14* 1=% puts it M:udgement is paralysed by a
plethora of e;ually valuable alternatives).
1
Respect for Value difference (or Depression)
During the ethnocentric stages, translators on the developmental path to intercultural
sensitivity still believe that their own personal or locally shared hierarchy of values is
the only valid system across all cultures. Pet, as Bennett (ibid* =% points out, 'relativity
of cultural values is central to intercultural difference. ,t this stage of development,
there is the acceptance of the different worldview assumptions that underlie cultural
variation in behaviour). It should also be remembered that this understanding of the
logical relationship between other(behaviour and other(value system is essential if a
translator wishes to consider reader upta7e (#atan 1a* 111(0%.
Do less importantly, as Fevine and ,delman (1!4% point out, understanding the
behavioural differences, such as those outlined by Dida, without an understanding of the
different belief and value systems will, in the end, result in stress and also depression for
the so:ourner. This will be caused by the internal conflict in the evaluation of 8ulture +
behaviour using 8ulture 1 values.
In fact, there are many writers who, while professing their passion for a particular
cultures different way of doing things, cannot perceive, let alone respect, the different
logical values supporting the different behaviour. &hat they respond to, instead, is a
conflict with their own value system" for e-ample, criticism of the obscurity of the
Italian (see #atan 1* 10% or the hypocrisy of politeness in Cnglish as noted by
6evergnini (in ibid* +4=%. Though he is a declared ,nglophile and wor7s for the
Economist, we can clearly see how his ironic comments belie a conflict with his 81
value system* 'the Cnglish language is deliciously hypocritical. It doesnt force those
who spea7 it to any of the embarrassing Italian fran7ness). This comment, by the way,
further conte-tualises the universe of 9clarity.
,t the ,cceptance stage, the translator is attempting to enlarge his or her own culture(
bound map of the world, rather than construct a separate map to model the 9other
system. &ith a separate model to wor7 with, translators will be in the position to ma7e
their own moral, professional, ethical and translation decisions" which means that they
need to be capable of ta7ing multiple positions.
6tage 1* ,daptation
,t this stage 'new s7ills appropriate to different world views are ac;uired as an additive
process) (Bennett 14* 1+%. &hat Bennett (1!* +!% points out at this stage is that
people can 'use 7nowledge to intentionally shift into a different frame of reference).
The 9cultural turn mar7ed a series of reference shifts. <ocus shifted from formal fidelity
to the original te-t, to 'The 9Death of the ,uthor) (,rro:o 10% and interest in reader
response. It mar7ed the beginning of a discussion on the translators status, and in
particular, the translators (in%visibility (ibid, Genuti 11, 1!%. This entailed a new
belief regarding the translators tas7, as 6nell(/ornby (1!!* +4% points out* 'the starting
point is the e-act opposite of that represented by the linguistically orientated school @...B*
not intended e;uivalence but admitted manipulation).
$
luralism
,t this second level of ,daptation the translator satisfies 'the re;uirement that
understanding of difference must derive from actual e-perience !ithin that cultural
frame) (Bennett 14* 11%. ,nd it is at this stage that a translator can be said to be
bicultural, with a minimum of two maps in one mind. /ermans discussion of
polysystem theory shows how translators are now much more prepared to loo7 beyond
the te-t to the system or system of systems it is part of. ,s he says (1* 112%, 'it has
benefited translation research by placing translation s;uarely in a larger field of cultural
activity). But, as he rightly points out, this field is still vague and abstract. ,lso, as
Bochner points out (1!1* 1+%, 7nowing more than one culture is a necessary, but not a
sufficient condition for cultural mediation, which is the ne-t stage. &hat the translator
still needs is a belief system which is ready to e-ploit specific translation competency
s7ills (see Jym forthcoming% at the level of global perception rather than local reaction ?
which is the ne-t level.
6tage $* Integration
,t this stage, '>ne does not have culture" one engages in it) (Bennett 14* 1+%.
Translators, as mediators, 'see their identities as including many cultural options, any of
which can be e-ercised in any conte-t, by choice at a certain stage) (ibid* $2%.
"onte#tual Evaluation
The first level of integration is where 'one attains the ability to analy.e and evaluate
situations from one or more cultural perspectives @AB the outcome of this action is a
:udgement of relative goodness that is specific to some identified conte-t (ibid* $1%. ,
translator is not only able to mindshift and associate with both the source te-t and the
virtual target te-t (see #atan 1a* 1+=(1+1%, but is also able to ta7e a third perceptual
position (#atan O 6traniero(6ergio +221* ++2(++1" #atan forthcoming%, which is
disassociated from both cultures. In this meta(position$ translators are 'conscious of
themselves as choosers of alternatives) (Bennett ibid* $+%, which fits with Jyms
(forthcoming% discussion of competence* 'the translation competence that interests us is
thus a process of choosing between viable alternatives).
In Bennetts model, there is a definite identity change here. The translator is now a
cultural mediator and has a supra(cultural mission* to improve crosscultural cooperation,
and build trust and understanding between communities. Translators are no longer
paralysed by cultural relativity but can ma7e decisions regarding any te-t according to
what Jym (+222* 12% calls 'an ethics of conte-tuali.ed human relations rather than a
barrage of abstract universal rules). This, possibly surprisingly, is also the essence of
four out five of Dewmar7s <ive Jurposes of translation (14* 10(!%. The fifth, by the
way, regards language teaching.
"onstructive %arginality
Bennett, himself, places the cultural mediator at this level. The person, here, has a meta(
map of the world, over and above any culture(bound maps. , person at this level has no
0
specific cultural identity, and there are no un;uestioned assumptions. ,s the title
implies, marginality brings with it isolation. , mediator, at this level, may help negotiate
others cultural differences, but will have few of his or her own to share.
I believe, however, that once a translator has reached the conte-tual evaluation stage, a
translator has already fully changed status and is already fully able to satisfy Tafts
(1!1* 14% re;uirement that mediators are capable of 'interpreting the e-pressions,
intentions, perceptions, and e-pectations of each cultural group to the other' ( rather
than locally reacting to te-ts.
!
BIBFI>E5,J/P
,rro:o 5., 10, 'The 9Death of the ,uthor and the Fimits of the Translators
Gisibility, in 6nell(/ornby 3., KettmarovQ R O #aindl, #. (eds.%, &ranslation as
'ntercultural "ommunication, ,msterdam O Jhiladelphia, Ben:amins, pp. +1(4+.
Bennett 3. K., 14, 'Towards Cthnorelativism* , Developmental 3odel of Intercultural
6ensitivity), in 3. 5. Jaige (ed.%, Education for the 'ntercultural E#perience,
Intercultural Jress, Parmouth, 3aine, pp. ++(04.
Bennett 3. K., 1!, 'Intercultural 8ommunication* , 8urrent Jerspective), in 3. K.
Bennett (ed.%, (asic "oncepts of 'ntercultural "ommunication) Selected Readings,
Intercultural Jress Inc., Parmouth, 3,, pp. 1(4=.
Bennett K., Bennett 3. O &. ,llen, 1, 'Developing 8ulture in the Fanguage
8lassroom), in 5. 3. Jaige, D. Fange O P. ,. Pershova (eds%, "ulture as the "ore)
'ntegrating "ulture into the *anguage "urriculum, 8enter for ,dvanced 5esearch in
Fanguage ,c;uisition, &or7ing Japer 11, Sniversity of 3innesota, 3I, pp. 14(=$.
Bochner 6. (ed.%, 1!1, &he %ediating erson) (ridges bet!een "ultures, 6chen7man,
8ambridge.
Boylan, J., +222, MTo Be or not to Be* 6uccess or <ailure in Intercultural
8ommunicationM, in D. Fynch O ,. Jilbeam (eds.%, +eritage and rogress, -rom the
ast to the -uture in 'ntercultural .nderstanding, FT6H6ICT,5, Bath, pp.12$(11$.
Bryson, B., 11, %other &ongue) &he English *anguage, Jenguin Boo7s, Fondon.
Bryson, B., 1=, %ade in /merica, 3artin 6ec7er O &arburg, Fondon.
8hesterman, ,., 10a, %emes of &ranslation0 the Spread of 'deas in &ranslation
&heory, Kohn Ben:amins, ,msterdam O Jhiladelphia.
8hesterman, ,., 10b, 'Cthics of Translation), in 3. 6nell(/ornby, R. KettmarovQ O #.
#aindl (eds%, &ranslation as 'ntercultural "ommunication, Ben:amins, ,msterdam O
Jhiladelphia, pp. 1=0(1$2.
Dodds K., 11, ',llantica commedia degli errori* >r 8rappy Cnglish in Italian
5estaurants), R'&&, 1, pp. 1=4(1=0.
<antini, ,. C., +222, ', 8entral 8oncern* Developing Intercultural 8ompetence, S'&
1ccasional apers, 1, pp. +1(=+.
/all C. T., 10$, (eyond "ulture, ,nchor JressHDoubleday, Dew Por7.
/ammer, 3. 5., 1, 'The Intercultural Development Inventory* a 3easure of
Intercultural 6ensitivity), in 6. 3. <owler O 3. E. 3umford (eds.%, 'ntercultural
Sourceboo2) "rosscultural &raining %ethods, Gol. +, Intercultural Jress, Parmouth, 3C,
pp.$1(0.
#atan D., forthcoming, '&hen Difference is not Dangerous* 3odelling Intercultural
8ompetence for Business, in J. 8ortese O D. /ymes (eds.%, &e#tus$ TTT, +, *anguage
in and /cross +uman 3roups.
#atan D. O 6traniero(6ergio, <., +221, 'Foo7 &hos Tal7ing* the Cthics of
Cntertainment and Tal7 6how Interpreting), &he &ranslator, Gol. 0* +, pp.
1
+14(+4!.
1

#atan, D., 1b, '&hat is it Thats Eoing on /ereL* 3ediating 8ultural <rames in
Translation), &e#tus II, pp. =2(=+$.
#atan D., 1a, &ranslating "ultures$ an 'ntroduction for &ranslators$ 'nterpreters and
%ediators, 6t. Kerome Jublishing, 3anchester.
#atan D., 1$, 'The Translator as 8ultural 3ediator), 4uaderno (rogramma
Sociologia 'nterna5ionale$ Se5ione Rela5ione 'nterna5ionali%, , n. $ ? +, pp. 1(11.
#ondo, 3., 12, I&hat 8onference Interpreters 6hould Dot Be C-pected to DoI, &he
'nterpreters6 7e!sletter, 4, pp. 1($1.
Fefevre, ,., O 6. Bassnett, 12, 'Jrousts Erandmother and the Thousand and >ne
Dights* The 98ultural Turn in Translation 6tudies), in 6. Bassnett and ,. Fefevre (eds.%,
&ranslation$ +istory and "ulture, 5outledge, Fondon., pp. 1(14.
Fevine, D. 5. O ,delman, 3. B., 14, (eyond *anguage) "ross8"ultural
"ommunication, Jrentice(/all, Cnglewood 8liffs, DK.
3alinows7i, B., @1+4B 1= 'The Jroblem of 3eaning in Jrimitive Fanguages), in 3.
Kanet (ed.%, *anguage and *iteracy in Social ractice) / Reader, 3ultilingual 3atters,
Fondon, pp. 1(12.
Dewmar7, J., 14, aragraphs on &ranslation, 3ultilingual 3atters, Bristol,
Dewmar7, J., 1!!, / &e#tboo2 of &ranslation, Jrentice /all, /emel /empstead.
Dida C. ,., 10, 'The Jrinciples of Discourse 6tructure and 8ontent in 5elation to
Translating), in #. #laudy O K. #ohn (eds.%, &ransferre 7ecesse Est) roceedings of the
9
nd
'nternational "onference on "urrent &rends in Studies of &ranslation and
'nterpreting :8; September$ <==>$ (udapest$ +ungary$ 6cholastica, Budapest, pp. 40(=+.
Jaige 3, 5., 14, '>n the Dature of Intercultural C-periences and Intercultural
Cducation), in 3. 5 Jaige (ed.%, Education for the 'ntercultural E#perience,
Intercultural Jress, Parmouth, 3aine, pp.1(+1.
Jym ,., +222, '>n 8ooperation), in 3. >lohan (ed.%, 'ntercultural -aultlines) Research
%odels in &ranslation Studies ', &e#tual and "ognitive /spects, 6t. Kerome, 3anchester,
p. 1!1(1+.
5obinson D., 10, (ecoming a &ranslator) /n /ccelerated "ourse, 5outledge, Fondon.
6chNffner 8. O /. #elly(/olmes (eds.%, 11, "ultural -unctions of &ranslation,
3ultilingual 3atters, 8levedon.
6nell(/ornby, 3., 1!!, &ranslation Studies) an 'ntegrated /pproach, Kohn Ben:amins,
,msterdam O Jhiladelphia.
6perber D. O &ilson, D., 1!$, Relevance, Blac7well, >-ford.
Taft, 5., 1!1 'The 5ole and Jersonality of the mediatorM, in 6. Bochner (ed.%, &he
%ediating erson) (ridges bet!een "ultures, 6chen7man, 8ambridge, pp. 14(!!
Genuti, F., 11, &he &ranslator?s 'nvisibility @ / +istory of &ranslation, 5outledge,
Fondon O Dew Por7.
Genuti, F., 1!, &he Scandals of &ranslation, 5outledge, Fondon O Dew Por7.
&olf, 3., 10, 'Translation as a Jrocess of Jower* ,spects of 8ultural ,nthropology
in Translation)$ in 3. 6nell(/ornby, R. KettmarovU O #. #aindl (eds.%, &ranslation as
'ntercultural "ommunication, Kohn Ben:amins, ,msterdam O Jhiladelphia, pp. 1+4(14=.
12
Germeer, /. K., +222, 67opos and 8ommission in Translational ,ction), in F. Genuti
(ed.%, &he &ranslation Studies Reader, 5outledge, Fondon.
11