Professor Jolanta W. Wawrzycka
This essay appeared in the Occasional Issue of Joyce Studies in Italy, Vol. 10, titled Joyce and/in Translation, edited by Rosa Maria
Bollettieri Bosinelli
and Ira Rorresi. Rome: Bulzoni Editore,
2007. (pages 39-52).
“Tell Us in Plain Words”: Textual
Implications of Re-Languaging Joyce
Copyright © 2008 Jolanta W. Wawrzycka
“Pen is Champ”
“Who’s
he when he’s at home?” (U 4.340). That
depends on what you eat it with. (Trans)literally. For,
indeed, the Russian translators render Molly’s
question as “С чем это
вooбще едят?” [What do they eat
it with?] (UR 52), and so does
Valverde in Spanish: “¿Con qué se come eso?” (US1 132). In Subriat’s Spanish Ulysses,
Molly’s question is translated as “¿De
dónde salió eso?” (US2 96) and it resembles
the French “D’où sort-il celui-là?” by Morel (UF 63). In Italian, the question is rendered by de
Angelis as “Come lo chiamano in famiglia?” [What do they call
[it] in family?] (UI 61) and it
has the semantic range of both the Polish and the Czech translations: in Polish,
“Co to za facet? Jak go nazywają ci, co go znają?” [Who’s that guy?
What do they call him those who know him?] (UPol
50), and in Vymětal and Fastrová’s Czech, “Jak se ten ĉlovêk jmenuje po nâsem?”
[What is this man called among us?] (UC1
I 94). The Czech translation by Skoumal offers a more literal solution: “Co to
mezi námi dêvaty znamená?” [What, between us, does it stand for?] (UC2 55). In the Portuguese
translation, the staccato “Que é que é que é isto?” (UPor 52) falsifies Molly’s
register of eloquence, and it explodes/ obliterates it in the Spanish version by Tortosa: “No lo conocen ni en su casa a la hora de
comer” (US3 72).
Molly’s
question is in itself already an interlingual translation
and it is worth remembering that Bloom’s communication pattern in general, and
in “Calypso” in particular, navigates through translations, mistranslations,
decoding and mis-decoding of meaning(s), a pattern very well mastered by Molly
as well. We see fluent, straightforward and unencumbered “translations,” but we
also see moments when the spouses ponder, probe, or skirt around meaning, not
unlike translators who labor to capture signification behind performative
decoys of lexical/semantic veils. Molly’s
“Mn” is expertly deciphered by her spouse to mean “No. She didn’t want
anything” (U 4.57-58), but, of
course, we have only Bloom to translate it for us. That heart-slowing “Mrs Marion
Bloom” (U 4.244) on the morning post envelope is equally expertly
translated by Bloom though, a great tactician, he tests bed-wed Molly about the sender of the letter, not unlike
Odysseus testing Penelope on their bed secret. But Bloom misses the meaning of Molly’s pointing finger until she explicitly names
her target: that book (U 4.324). He
stalls when Molly points a word she
wants explained; she has to ask him again by translating her original question:
“Who’s he when he’s at home?” (U
4.340). Bloom’s translation is all Greek to Molly
and she famously demands plain words, mocking later his “from the Greek” (U 18.241). We remember her dissatisfaction
with Bloom’s jawbreaker of an explanation for “that word met something with
hoses in it” which she recalls as “incarnation” (U 18.565-566). That Bloom’s own words “can be improved on by a good
translation” has already been noted by Fritz Senn
in context of his discussion of the working of Bloom’s mind. Senn continues:
“So Joyce comes to his aid and (…)
runs the show on his behalf, with transformations, transmutations,
transubstantiations, and metamorphoses, with different contexts and styles and
paratactic systems of correspondences” (Senn 1984: 158). Bloom’s mind is always
multitasking: as he is leafing through the Ruby
book and chatting with Molly, the spokes
of his mind mill through the concept of metempsychosis. That is, we see a
translator at work, one who is mindful of his audience and thoughtfully
supplements his translation of metempsychosis into reincarnation with examples
of animals and nymphs, all accompanied by the smell of kidneys aptly
“carnating” on the fire, smoke and all. Thus Bloom’s very process of defining
metempsychosis is a metempsychotic translation, whereby Bloom attempts to
define the abstract “soul” of the concept by separating it from the “body” of
the word that Molly cannot pronounce and transferring it onto “another body”,
or “What they called nymphs, for example” (U
4.376-377).
“Unusual polysyllables of foreign origin…”
In
“Penelope”, Molly’s “that word met something with hoses in it” and
“incarnation” (U 18.565-566) pose
obstacles to translators though, as we will see below, most manage to preserve
at least some of the phonetic echoes of “metempsychosis”. Of Molly’s truncated “met” and “hoses”, only derivations
of “met” manage to travel well into all languages, with the Spanish, Italian,
and French providing fortuitous echoes of “hoses” in “cosa(s)” and “choses”.
Thus, recalling Bloom’s “encarnación”, the Spanish Molly thinks about “esa
palabra mete noséqué con cosas” (US2 759); for the Italian Molly, “reincarnazione” is “quella parola
metti con mi recordo cosa dentro…” (UI 713). In French, Molly remembers
“l’incarnation” as “ce mot mes quoi tempes si choses dedans” (UF 836). In all three languages, Bloom’s word
“reincarnation” appears also in “Calypso” and translators had only to repeat it
(preferably in Molly-fashion rather than the “correct” one). But when the
Polish Molly recalls “mnie tam psy
coś tam” (UPol 534) [me the dogs something], the
effect is deflated a few words later by “wcielenie”, a synonym for the Latinate
“reinkarnacja” favored in “Calypso”. It is highly
speculative whether Polish readers will make
the connection between original “metempsychoza/ reinkarnacja” in “Calypso” and
its truncated version in “Penelope”. Using either of
the terms consistently in both episodes, as is done in Russian, would increase
the chance of readerly recognition. The Russian Molly recalls “то
слово метим
чего-там” (UR 526) [this word metim
something] and
“воплащения” [plural
for “incarnation”] echoing Bloom’s
“перевоплащение”
(UR 52) [reincarnation] from “Calypso”.
“…But to the Point”
“Translation”
is a testy term when applied to Joyce’s
writing and my task here to propose an alternative
way of talking about the process. For somebody not immersed in translation
studies, it may be useful to review the “various different varieties” of
referring to translation in other languages. For instance, the Russian
перевод, German Übersetzen and Polish przekład
share the semantic range of physical
passing or jumping over, transferring and adapting; Polish has also another
term, tłumaczenie, or
explanation.
The Greek compound μεταφράζω
(“paraphrase”, “translate” and “consider after”) defines physical and mental processes carried by its richly
polysemous element, the verb φράζω: “point out”, “show
the way”, “make known the word to all”, “declare”, “explain”, “cultivate style
or phrasing”, “give counsel”, “advise”, “suggest”, “think”, “consider”,
“ponder”, as well as “plan”, “contrive”, “believe”, and “imagine”. Another
verb, μεταφέρω (“carry across”,
“transfer”, but also “divert”, “shift”, “change”) shares rhetorical range with
the familiar noun μεταφoρά in denoting
“transference of a word to a new sense”. We also recall that transfere (or vertere) is Latin for “translate” (transfere also means “transplant”) and that Latin translatio refers to transference, especially
of property. It’s old news, really, but a meditation (trans) on all these meanings
brings to focus the complexity of trans-re-lations between the original and the translated
text (as translator “trans-re-lates” to both in all of the processes of φράζω).
Of course, the process of lexical translocation bears on semantic trans-re-location of meaning as translators enter a
transaction (Latin negotium) of
sorts, negotiating the pitfalls of linguistic/textual transposition (Latin trajectio). Because the “trajectory” of
any transposition can be precarious, translation partakes of “transgression”, (violatio, or delictum; Latin for “transgressor” is maleficus), an apt denomination for some of the effects of the
translation process. To transgress (Latin violare,
delinquere) while translating is as
inevitable as it is easy. It is, of course, equally easy to point out other
translators’ delinquencies – a “gleeful” pursuit, “deeply gratifying to our
malevolence” (Senn 1984: 5).
Given the context, I want to propose that such terms as
“trans-semantification” or “re-languaging” (rather than Jakobson’s “rewording”) reflect
more closely the complexities of processes connoted by μεταφράζω,
transfere, Übersetzen,
переводить,
tłumaczyć, traduit, et cetera. At the
“Bloomsday 100”
translation sessions in Dublin my generous co-panelists commented on the
term “trans-semantification” and pointed out that much more happens when a
work of literature is being transferred from one language/culture to another
than just transposing its semantic layer; no one would argue with that. To
clarify my terms, I start with the premise that the term “translation” has outlived
its utility; it has come to denote largely an interlingual transference of a
work either via simple lexical substitution, as in literal, word-for-word
transfer, or a more complex sense-for-sense transfer (often both, depending on
textual demands imposed by the original). Note that in my description of the
Blooms’ interaction in “Calypso” I deliberately use the term “translation”
rather loosely, in all three senses of Jakobson’s definition, to denote a
variety of processes covered by this umbrella word. Many critics and
philosophers have offered theories and definitions and many more have devised a
variety of metaphors for translation – Benjamin, Derrida
– but the term remains elusive and very broad. I’d like to suggest that Roman Ingarden’s distinction between translating scholarly/ philosophical
works and translating works of literature offers a venue for re-tooling traditional
terminology.
By proposing the term
“trans-semantification” to name the process of transferring a literary work of art into another
language, I wish to denote the complexity of literary re-languaging that, in spite of replacing lexical surface
of a literary work, manages to attend to sound, rhythm and semantic coloration
of words, phrases, and syntactical units of the original, as well as to take
cognizance of cultural references embedded in lexical structures (e.g. names,
rhetorical formations, stylistic repetition colloquialisms or invectives) by
scrupulously re-fostering them in
target language even – or particularly – at the risk of busting the normative
boundaries of that language. Trans-semantification means that the very literariness of a literary work is
“carried across” and re-created in
another language, while largely accounting for the aspects of all aesthetically
significant strata and for the “polyphonic harmony” in which these strata
co-exist in the original.[9] Other
critics have also proposed to revise or expand terminology for describing and
defining the process I call trans-semantification – for
instance, we have “translation equivalences” defined by Anton Popovič, “tropological
translations” described by Douglas Robinson, Pound’s “interpretive translation”, or translational
“presuppositions” proposed by Michel
Riffaterre,
to name just a few. Upon closer scrutiny, however, conceptual framework of
those terms seems to parallel Roman
Ingarden’s polyphonic strata that
constitute the unique identity of a literary works of art. Trans-semantification
understood in all these terms implies that translatorial inattention to these strata, that is, to a work’s linguistic,
aesthetic, or sociopolitical dimensions, compromises the preservation (in the
target language) of its core, its impact, its relevance, and its deeper modes
of signification.
“Orthographical”
Joyce’s own process of
re-languaging of English bears significantly on any discussion pertinent to
translation and trans-semantification.
From “Aeolus” to “Cyclops” to “Ithaca”, the
examples are famously numerous though they are equally prolific in Dubliners and Portrait. Joyce’s earlier stylistic experiments include working
with repetition, malapropisms, “scrupulous meanness”, and my discussion of
these salient textual features in Dubliners
had lead me to conclude that re-languaging Joyce requires a “scholarly,
philological attention to Joyce’s lexical layer whose structures
(repetitions, alliterations, rhythm) inform semantic layer, which in turn
informs the all the remaining dimensions of the text: aesthetic, symbolic, historical,
political, and so on”.
Clearly, to mistreat Joyce’s work on
the lexical stratum (to continue with my Ingardenian terminology) is to fail
famously on all the remaining strata. Like other Joyce-translation scholars,
notably Fritz Senn
and Rosa Maria
Bosinelli, or, from further a-field, classicists
such as Reuben
Brower, I
believe that critical comparisons of multilingual versions of the same work
help to expand our reading and re-reading of the original. Fritz Senn’s
book, Inductive Scrutinies, makes it
clear in chapter after chapter that, “[t]ranslations are excellent testing
grounds: departures from the original arrangement can pinpoint some of its
oddity” (Senn 1995: 99) on the one hand, and, on the other, that erroneous or
plain wrong translations “are the most Proteanly revelatory ones” (ibid.: 144).
Take,
for instance, Eveline’s tortured “Still they seem to have been rather
happy then” (D 36). Nothing
remarkable about this sentence until one tries to render in another language
while trying to preserve (as aesthetically/textually relevant) all layers of
deferral buried in this lexical/semantic construct. But the sentence, as I
found out from the correction of my own rendition into Polish, is reducible to
“they were rather happy”.
Since my trans-semantification met with censorious editorial intervention, I
learned to leave the (fantastically malleable) rules of the Polish grammatical,
syntactic and conditional modes alone, never mind Eveline’s grief and Joyce’s
languaging processes to imply it. To be sure, it is not easy to “translate”
this sentence as Joyce
wrote it: one has to re-language it to convey, ultimately, the depth of
Eveline’s denial buried in the syntax or to settle for a simpler rendition. Mere
“translation” is rather happy with the reduced sentence; trans-semantification,
though, would accommodate the process of re-languaging (even of the target language where necessary) and
preserve deeper modes and aspects of Eveline’s thinking. Trans-semantification
opens up and expands the range of the term “translation” by indicating that
“translated” text can accommodate and re-create salient features of the source
language rather than sand them down into oblivion. The Italian Eveline
“pareva che … fossero stati abbastanza felici” (DI 68) and the French one thinks that “il semblait bien qu’ils
avaient été assez heureux” (DF 83);
both renditions are particularly successful in capturing the modality of
Eveline’s thinking. But, like the Polish
Eveline, the Spanish one recalls
that they “parecían felices” (DS
34) [appeared/seemed happy] and the Russian one thinks simply: “жилось
хорошо” (DR 32) [life was good]. Traditore.
Or
take Gabriel’s revealing syntactic
lapsus designed to
offer a glimpse of the working of Gabriel-the-writer’s mind: “He asked himself
what is a woman standing on the stairs in the shadow, listening to distant
music, a symbol of” (D 210). In other
languages, Joyce’s “a symbol of” is
frequently rendered as a verb “symbolize” and, invariably, the syntax conforms
to the standards of a given target language. One notable exception is the 2005
Polish version which omits this sentence entirely. It could be just a printer’s
error but, admittedly, Joyce’s syntax
– i.e., the point of this sentence – is difficult to replicate in Polish. The
1958 Polish edition opts for a perfect literary language: “Zastananawiał
się, co może w tej chwili symbolizować kobieta…” (DP1 189) that, in back-translation,
reads as “He pondered what could a woman
symbolize at this moment …”. The Russian version also opts for a standard
language, though it preserves the noun and introduces a syntactical revision
that can also be reproduced in Polish: “Oн
спросил себя,
символом
чего была
эта женщина,
стояащая в
мроке…” (DR
190) [He asked himself a symbol of what was the woman standings in the
shadow…]. In Italian, the syntax seems to replicate Gabriel’s
“almost” correct English: “Si chiedeva cosa
potesse mai simboleggiare una donna in piedi sulle scale nell’ombra...” (DI 247) [He asked himself what(ever)
could symbolize a woman standing
on staircase in the shadow…]. The Spanish version preserves
“symbol” as a noun: “Se preguntó de qué podía ser símbolo una mujer…” (DS 200) [He asked himself symbol
of what could be a woman…]. The
French version is successful in preserving Gabriel’s word order but it can only
render his thought, again, as standard language, courtesy of the final verb:
“Il se demanda ce qu’une femme,
debout dans l’escalier, écoutant une lointaine musique, symbolise” (DF 331) [He
asked himself what a woman …. symbolized].
Joyce’s superbly
structured last sentence of “The Dead” with its haunting chiasmus “falling
faintly … and faintly falling” (D
224) suffers greatly in most “translations”, though the Spanish version is
superior in reproducing Joyce’s chiasmus: “la nieve leve… y … leve la nieve” (DS 213). The Italian (DI 261), the French (DF 350), the Russian (DR
202) and the two Polish versions (DP1 201; DP2 197) inexplicably forgo any attempt of
preserving the chiasmus for the sake of a much more straightforward, if
vaguely poetic, language.
All these renditions are somewhat flat; they do little to transfer and recreate
all aspects of Joyce’s syntactical and
rhetorical layers that enhance the aesthetics of the story’s coda. Save for the
Spanish version, trans-semantification process seems incomplete in other
languages, as if translators settled for “just translating” the sense – which
they did – but gave up on rendering the complex figurative and rhetorical
layers with sensitivity to their integrity.
Preservation
of the dynamics of interlingual transfer is equally important in the case of
colloquial language in general and in the special case of colloquialisms
represented by invectives. For instance, in “An Encounter”, the attack “Swaddlers!
Swaddlers!” (D 22) is largely
untranslatable, as illustrated by the Italian version which retains the
original “Swaddlers!” and footnotes the meaning (DI 54). For the most part, though, trans-semantification allows
translators to reach solutions that can successfully replicate the idiolect of
the original in their respective languages. One Polish version renders the two
words as “Heretyki! Kacerze!” (DP1
17) [Heretics! Heretics!]
and another one as “Kocia wiara! Kocia wiara!” (DP2 17) [Cats’ faith! Cats’ faith! – an inexplicable choice that
carries no sense that the boys are being insulted]. The Spanish version goes
for Quakers in “Cuá, cuá, cuáqueros (DS
20), whereas the French reproduces the insult by repeating “Parpaillots!” (DF 62) and so does the Russian by
repeating “Нехристи!” (DR 19) [literally, nonchristians;
figuratively, shameless perpetrators].
And then there is
Miss Ivors, with her biting nationalism and an agenda to get Gabriel for his
lack of political spine summed up in her “I didn’t think you were a West
Briton” (D 188), repeated
again: “West Briton!” (D 190). Insults
often rely on repetition though repetition doesn’t always survive a transfer to
a target language since not all languages accommodate repetition equally well.
In the 1958 Polish Dubliners, “West Briton”
becomes “anglophile” in the first instance and “disgusting Englishman” in the
second. The
2005 Polish version features Miss
Ivors’ descriptive “English(men)-sympathizer”
repeated as “Disgusting Brit”.
In Spanish we see “pro-inglés”
twice; the French
text repeats “Angliche!” and both the
Italian and the Russian texts use, like the 1958 Polish version, the word “anglophile” to convey the insult. Thus,
by re-languaging “West Briton,” the translators have reproduced the insult to
resonate in their particular socio-linguistic environments marked by different
nationalistic dynamics. The Spanish solution is interesting, considering that
“pro-” is highly charged and prone to follow the vagaries of
political/historical winds (of any culture, really). Interestingly, the word
“Anglophile”, evidently negatively charged in some European languages, does not
even exist in the OED (though “Anglomaniac” does, and so does “Anglophobe”).
Clearly much more
than “translation” went into producing the foreign idiomatic invectives; via
the process of trans-semantification, the translators were able to reflect more
adequately the complex cultural references to be “carried over” from one
lexical/ semantic system into another. The trite dictum that idioms do not
travel well in translation can be re-contextualized: it might be more accurate
to say that say that idioms and invectives are never really “translated” but
rather, though the process of trans-semantification, they are re-languaged for
their situational field of meaning in target languages.
“She had interrogated constantly…”
And
we can see this also in the examples of Molly’s
multilingual “Who
is he when he’s at home?” For, indeed, no translator has actually “translated” Molly’s question. To do so, they would have to
re-state it in target languages and allow their target readers to ponder the
identity of a home-dweller that Molly
is asking about. Absurd? Not really. The English language readers recognize
Molly’s “question” as an idiolectic re-statement of her previous request for
explanation (“What does that mean?”) colored by the hilarious “him” that she
hears in Bloom’s vocalization (or is it his imitation of her initial
rendition?) of “metempsychosis”. So Molly’s
question isn’t really translated; instead, a more scrupulous process of trans-semantification
has allowed the translators to re-language it whereby, by foregoing the
physical/lexical layer of Molly’s
question, they have preserved its spirit. “True translation is metempsychosis.”
Radford University, Virginia (USA)
Works Cited
Bassnett, Susan
([1980] 1991). Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Benjamin, Walter ([1923] 1992). “The Task of the Translator”. In Rainer Schulte and John Biguenet
eds. (1992). 71-82.
Bollettieri Bosinelli,
Rosa Maria (1990). “Beyond Translation: Italian
Re-writings of Finnegans Wake”. Joyce
Studies Annual, 1: 142-161.
Bollettieri Bosinelli,
Rosa Maria (1998). “‘Who is she when she is not
at home?’ Molly’s Journey through the
Italian Language and Culture”. In Ruth
Frehner and Ursula Zeller
eds. (1998).
444-460.
Bollettieri Bosinelli,
Rosa Maria (2001). “Joyce
Slipping Across the Borders of English: The Stranger in Language”. JJQ 38 (3/4): 395- 409.
Brower, Reuben
A. ed. (1959). On Translation. Cambridge: Harvard UP.
Brower, Reuben A.
(1959). “Seven Agamemnons”. In Reuben
A. Brower
ed. (1959). 173-195.
Deane, Vincent. “Looking after Sense;
Taking Stock of Joyce’s English”. In Ruth Frehner
and Ursula Zeller eds. (1998). 375-397.
Derrida, Jacques
(1988). The
Ear of the Other. Otobiography, Transference, Translation. Lincoln:
U of Nebraska P.
Frehner, Ruth and Ursula Zeller
eds. (1998). A Collideorscape of Joyce. Festschrift for Fritz Senn.
Dublin: Lilliput.
Gordon, John (2004). Joyce and Reality. The Empire Strikes Back.
Syracuse: Syracuse UP.
Hollander, John (1959). “Versions,
Interpretations, Performances”. In Reuben A.
Brower ed. (1959). 203-231.
Ingarden, Roman (1991). “On Translations”. Trans. Jolanta
W. Wawrzycka. Analecta Husserliana, 33: 131-192.
Jakobson, Roman (1992). “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”.
In Schulte and
Biguenet. 144-151.
Joyce, James ([1929] 1948). Ulysse. Trans. Auguste Morel, rev. Valery
Larbaud, Stuart
Gilbert and
James Joyce. Paris:
Gallimard. (UF)
Joyce, James (1930). Odysseus. Trans. Ladislav
Vymětal (vol. 1 and 3) and Jarmila Fastrová (vol. 2). Prague: Václav Petr. (UC1)
Joyce, James (1945). Ulises. Trans. José Salas Subirat.
Buenos Aires: Santiago Rueda Editor. (US2)
Joyce, James ([1958] 1991). Dublińczycy. Trans. Kalina Wojciechowska. Warsaw: Oskar. (DP1)
Joyce, James (1966). Ulisses. Trans. Antônio Houaiss. Silviera: Civilização Brasileira. (UPor)
Joyce, James (1969). Dubliners: Text, Criticism and Notes. Eds.
Robert Scholes and A. Walton
Litz. New York: Viking Press. (D)
Joyce, James (1974). Dublinois.
Trans. Jacques Aubert. Paris: Gallimard. (DF)
Joyce, James (1974). Dublineses. Trans. Guillermo Cabrera-Infante. Madrid:
Alianza. (DS)
Joyce, James (1976). Odysseus. Trans. Aloys Skoumal. Prague:
Odeon. (UC2)
Joyce, James (1976). Ulises. Trans. José María
Valverde.
Barcelona: Lumen. (US1)
Joyce, James (1978). Gente di Dublino. Trans.
Franca Cancogni. Milan: Mondadori. (DI)
Joyce, James (1986). Ulysses: The
Corrected Text. Ed. Hans Walter
Gabler with Wolfhard Steppe and Claus Melchior.
London: The Bodley
Head. (U)
Joyce, James (1988). Ulisse. Trans. Giulio de Angelis. Milano: Mondadori. (UI)
Joyce, James (1992). Ulisses. Trans. Maciej
Słomczyński. Revised and corrected by the
Translator. Bygdoszcz: Pomorze.
(UPol)
Joyce, James (1993). Uliss. Trans. Viktor Hinkis
and Sergej Horužij. With a commentary by Sergej Horužij.
Moscow: Respublika. (UR)
Joyce, James (1993). Dublincy. Trans.
Igor’ K Romanovič et al. Moscow: Znak. (DR)
Joyce, James (1999). Ulises. Trans. Francisco García Tortosa
and María Luisa Venegas. Madrid: Cátedra.
(US3)
Joyce, James (2005). Dublińczycy. Trans. Zbigniew Batko.
Kraków: Znak. (DP2)
Lobner, Corrina del Greco (1989). James Joyce’s Italian Connection. Iowa
City: U of Iowa Press.
Marengo Vaglio, Carla (1994).
“Trieste as a Linguistic Melting Pot”. In Claude Jacquet and Jean Michel Rabaté
(eds), James Joyce 3: Joyce e l’Italie.
55-74.
McCourt, John (1999). James
Joyce: A Passionate Exile. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Melchiori, Giorgio (1984). Joyce in Rome. Rome: Bulzoni.
Melchiori, Giorgio (1995). Joyce’s Feast of Languages: Seven Essays and
Ten Notes. Ed. By Franca Ruggieri, Joyce
Studies in Italy 4.
Popovič, Anton
(1976). A Dictionary for the Analysis of
Literary Translation. Edmonton,
Alberta: Department of Comparative Literature, U of Alberta (referenced in
Bassnett).
Riffaterre, Michael
(1992). “Transposing
Presuppositions on the Semiotics of Literary Translation”. In Schulte and
Biguenet. 204-217.
Robinson, Douglas
(1991). The Translator’s Turn. Baltimore:
John Hopkins UP.
Robinson, Douglas
(1996). Translation and Taboo. DeKalb: Northern
Illinois UP.
Schulte, Rainer and John Biguenet eds. (1992). Theories of Translation: An
Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida. Chicago: U of Chicago P.
Senn, Fritz
(1966/67). “Seven Against Ulysses”.
JJQ, 4 (3): 170-193.
Senn, Fritz
(1984). Joyce’s
Dislocutions: Essays on Reading as Translation. Ed. by John Paul
Riquelme. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP.
Senn, Fritz
(1989). “Anagnostic Probes”. European
Joyce Studies, 1: 37-61.
Senn, Fritz (1995). Inductive Scrutinies: Focus on Joyce. Ed. by Christine
O’Neill. Dublin: Lilliput.
Willamowitz-Moellendorff, Urlich von,
“Was ist Übersetzen?” (1925). In André
Lefevere ed. and trans. (1992). Translation/ History/ Culture. London
and New York: Routledge. 33-34.
Wawrzycka, Jolanta W. (1998). “Text At the
Crossroads: Multilingual Transformations of James Joyce’s Dubliners”. In Rosa Maria Bollettieri Bosinelli
and Harold F. Mosher, Jr. (eds.), ReJoycing: New Readings
of Dubliners.
Lexington: The UP of Kentucky. 68-84.
Wawrzycka, Jolanta W. (2004). “Joyce en slave/Joyce Enclave: The Joyce of
Maciej Słomczyński – A Tribute”. In Ellen Carol
Jones and Morris Beja
(eds.), Twenty-First Joyce.
Gainesville: UP of Florida. 137-156.
Yao, Stephen (2002). Translation and the Languages of Modernism. Palagrave.
Zanotti, Serenella (1999). “Per un
ritratto dell’artista Italianato: Note sull’Italiano di James Joyce”. In Studi
Linguistici Italiani, 25. Roma: Salerno
Editore. 16-64.
Zanotti, Serenella (2001). “An
Italianate Irishman: Joyce and the Languages of Trieste”. JJQ 38 (3/4): 411-430.