Arab World English Journal www.awej.org [601149]

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 200

AWEJ Arab World English Journal
INTERNATIONAL PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL ISSN: 2229 -9327
جمةل اللغة الانلكزيية يف العامل العريب

AWEJ Special Issue on Translation No. (2) 2013
pp. 200-211

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience: The Modernists’ Reckoning with Polyphony
as an Aesthetic Device

Fatiha K aïd Berrahal
Department of English Studies
Faculty of Letters and Languages
Amar Telidji University
Laghouat , Algeria

Abstract:
The present paper discusses the modernist authors’ process in blurring the lines between
literatur e and translation as part of their various aesthetic experiments. In contention with their
contemporary English linguistic and cultural agendas, the modernist writers have internalized
translational strategies to challenge the national identity and culture . Since many of them
straddled two cultures, the resort to translation was inevitable introducing not only literature to
the intercultural communication but translation as well to working mechanisms of culture.
Taking as a point of departure the nature and function of translation as a paradigm for modernist
thought, I tend to survey Jacob Korg’s idea of ‘the verbal revolution’, Venuti’s views and the
emergence of various translation types among which is the intertextual translation or transmitting
and intro ducing a foreign word into a text. Such a meeting of two different languages in
literature has indeed been the focus of many scholars in translation studies echoing Bakhtin’s
‘polyphony’. Second, considered as a key to cross -cultural communication, the pa per offers
insights about translation as an aesthetic experiment of the modernists in their attempts to forge
the discourse of modern experience based on the interaction of many languages.
Keywords: translation, modernism, culture, extraterritoriality, int ertextual translation, polyphony.

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 201

1. Introduction
It is widely agreed that both literature and translation are influenced by culture in a
number of ways. The common variable that has consolidated such a striking relationship is
language being the primary tool in human communication. Using words is, indeed, the constant
worry of writers to best express themselves, and, through their craft they do not only reveal their
feelings and experiences, but also record the specificities of knowledge and culture preva iling in
their epoch. The problem, however, is that when modernism emerged as a rebellious thought
against tradition, the modernist writers felt deeply unsatisfied with the offerings of their
immediate environment. Modern life, however, facilitated too muc h the individual’s mobility so
that translation and translators have imperatively intervened to ease understanding and
conversion as well. It is henceforth undeniable that the practice of translation has always existed
along with that of literature, yet th e boom occurred when the literary translation has become the
focus of Translation Studies when the exposure of the indigenous to the foreign has been
overwhelming.
The complexity of the cultural activity in the modernist literature is clearly revealed in the
field of translation. Indeed, the contact between two languages, or the mechanical sounding act
of linguistic ‘substitution’ as Catford (1965) put it, has no more become the translator’s priority.
What is at stake is rather a knotty negotiation between two cultures thereby emphasizing the
polemical issue of cultural identity. At this level of study, and with the fact that many modernists
like E. Pound, G. Stein, T.S. Eliot, J. Joyce, V. Woolf, J. Conrad, and many others, went through
the experience of e xile and foreignness, one would contest the idea that the claim for cultural
diversity and interculturality are particularly postmodern phenomena . Drawing from the
conviction that the modernists’ discontent with their native linguistic and cultural agendas must
be seen as an essential condition to their resort to foreignizing poetics, it would be valid that
translation is one of the paradigmatic features of modernist thought, or rather as an aesthetic
device undertaken by those authors and poets who have be en straddling two cultures.
2. Translation and modernism
The growth of linguistic experiments has been one of the major issues that acknowledged
the very spirit of modernism. And as the relation of language to logic and reality has become a
premise, some mode rnist writers engaged with translation as a mode of literary composition
opening, therefore, a site for overlapping cultural parameters and exilic experiences. When these
new developments took place, it began to be noticed that the experience of extraterri toriality has
implied a new outlook for translation along with the rise of the notion that language is culturally
embedded.
The correlation between language and culture has pervaded an extensive body of
literature in the field of humanities and language st udy demonstrating that language could only
be interpreted within a culture (Sapir, 1929). The most vigorous claim was Sapir’s suggestion
that “no two languages are ever sufficiently similar to be considered as representing the same

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 202

reality” (p. 214). The e choes of this idea have found a fertile ground in Kramsch’s Language and
Culture (1998) who believes that:
Language is a system of signs that is seen as having itself a
cultural value. Speakers identify themselves and others
through their use of language: they view their language as a
symbol of their social identity. …. Thus we can say that
language symbolizes cultural reality. (p. 3)
Meanwhile, the Translation Studies have reached their strong version with the rise of
‘Cultural Translation’ when scholars like Venuti, Toury, and Munday have put forward the idea
of translation as culturally embedded too. In this context they demonstrated that knowing and
mastering the language alone does not guarantee a successful process of translation, they deal
with the c ruxes of culture, i.e. the resisting of particular items in the source language which draw
particularly from each culture’s specificity. Such a translational capacity of culture has, indeed,
been central to the modernists’ engagement with migration, exile, and displacement.
The relationship between modernism and translation tends to provoke one of the most
sounding questioning that pertains to the nature and function of translation in the modernist
thought. Though I shall not dwell here on a discussion of modernism as a concept per se, I wish
just to stress that, be it viewed from whatever angle, it refers to the institutionalization of doubt
over all earlier presumptions so that, in the present case at least, translation has turned to be a
device for an ex haustive exploration of the renewing of literary language.
The most common difficulty for writers and poets at the dawn of the 20th century was the
incapacity of language to translate the complexity of the modern world where a multitude of
cultural experi ences came into practice seeking therefore new modes of mediation. Based on the
view of ‘revolution’, Jacob Korg (1979 ), in his book Language in Modern Literature , states
“there is no doubt that a revolution occurred, and that it was primarily a verbal rev olution,
manifesting itself in new uses of language” (p. 1). In this context, the reality referred to is no
more simple and definite but complex and multiple. Duality or even the multiplicity of the
writers’ and poets’ lives, through their social and indi vidual identities, urged them to probe new
linguistic territories, yet foreign for them, obviously informing about the limitations existing in
their native agendas –both linguistic and cultural.
One of the most earlier and influential formulation of this idea had been stated by T.S.
Eliot (1957) as a contest to the reviewers who did not grasp his intention, “there is always the
communication of some new experiences, or some fresh understanding of the familiar, or the
expression of something we have experie nced but have no words for, which enlarges or refines
our sensibility” (p. 7). Modern experience had been shockingly new that the language of tradition
could not hold it. Within such a growing tendency to rethink the role of conventional English and

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 203

its fu ll capacity in the visibility of the modern experience, the appeal for a ‘foreignizing’ poetics
had become imperatively urgent.
Much attraction to translation, both as a source of inspiration and as a means by which
the western culture was altering, widen ed the range of modernist thought supplying the discipline
of literature with new avenues. Venuti’s (1995) idea about the role of translation in this part
should well be considered. He views translation as “an appropriation of foreign culture for
domestic agendas, cultural, economic and political” (p.18). Besides that translation is also
defined as a “cultural act, an act of communication across cultures” (House, 2009, p.11)
contributed strikingly into the development of modernism. In his work Translation a nd the
Language of Modernism , Yao (2002) explains that modernist translation, much as a process of
transmission, has proved a full capacity to enrich the national literature by generating new
meanings as it embraced foreign linguistic and cultural contexts :
It embodied a comprehensive textual strategy for negotiating
between the demands of transmission and transformation,
between the authority of tradition and the demands of
innovation, between the endowments of the past and the
imperatives of the present. In their drive to develop and
renew different formal and social possibilities, the
Modernists writing in (and into) English turned to translation
and, in turn, reinvented it as a uniquely important mode of
literary composition. (p.22)
A number of modernis t writers and poets have internalized the entire process of
translation without being concerned with transfer from one language to another but have adopted
the language of translation as their own. Undoubtedly, translation has emerged heroically as a
literary practice crucial to the very development of Anglo -American modernism. Authors such as
J. Joyce, W.B. Yeats, Hilda Doolittle (known by her initials H.D.), M. Moore, T.S. Eliot, V.
Woolf and D.H. Lawrence, and probably many others, have borrowed so much from the other
cultures and have been influenced by writers in other languages. Yet, the most impressive of all
and who recommended translation into the literary practice, was E. Pound who celebrated, at his
utmost, the way foreign literary traditions trav erse national and cultural borders. By a grafting of
the foreign onto the domestic, Pound stands as a pre -eminent example of the translation -based
literary experimentation. For him, modernist poetry would only be conceivable with translation.
His approach , regarded as most scandalous within the realm of the national literature, sums up
his audacities as a translator extending therefore the bounds of the English verse by establishing
a new form very akin to that of the original. In this respect, a glance at some theoretical views
like the poststructuralist and the semiotic is worth studying for a better understanding of the
translation warranty within the modernist literature.

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 204

3. Translation Strategies in the Light of Poststructuralism and Semiotics
The posts tructuralist definition of translation as “an action in which the movement along the
surface of language is made visible” (Gentzler, 1993: 162) reflects very well Pound’s approach.
For the sake of supporting this view one will just examine Venuti’s (1995) idea about translation
as: “A process by which the chain of signifiers in the target language text that constitutes the
source language is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language text which the
translator provides on the strength of an int erpretation” (p.17). The present definition includes a
two folded perspective; the poststructuralist’s perspective one “which entertains the belief in
which culture plays a significant role in the translation of a particular text and it has much more
precedence over the linguistic element due to its great influence on the translation process”
(Nazzal, 2012, p.84). The semiotic point of view draws from the works of R. Jakobson and U.
Eco who have introduced inter -linguistic, intra -linguistic and inter -semio tic translations as
crucially revealing perspectives of the mechanisms of culture.
Several poststructuralist scholarly works have sustained the legitimacy of translation as a
paradigm of thought for the modernists. Departing from the work of W. Benjamin, both J.
Derrida and P.de Mann have developed their views about translation diametrically with the
traditional notions. Indeed, the notion of “the stability of the original” lost its hold as P. de Man
(1986, p.82) stated that translatio n “shows in the origi nal a mobility, an instability, which at first
one did not notice.” Derrida, likewise, rejected the traditional function of translation pertaining to
reproducing; he rather emphasized the capacity of the language of translation in modifying the
source text .
So, the hitherto latest contribution to the ideas above, and the one that sums up both, is Venuti’s
“refraction” rather than a mirror of the original text. Liberating translation from its long abiding
fidelity to the original text to proceeding with est rangement and disruption, has given much
impetus to the rise of Translation Studies as an interdisciplinary field.
This feature about the turning function of translation is also echoed by W. Benjamin
(1992) who argued “the task of the translator is to rel ease in his own language that pure language
which is under the spell of another, to liberate the language imprisoned in a work in his re –
creation of that work” (pp. 80 -81). He discusses the mobility of the original which implies a
mode of displacement whic h, in its turn, informs a lot about the relationship between translation
and modernism. Therein lies the attractiveness of Pound’s dubbing of the “labour of translation”
in his essay devoted to Henry James as a displaced cosmopolitan who informed about cul tures
using translation. What must be noted at this level is that the aspects of mobility and
displacement characterizing the modernist view of translation lead to the recreation of an original
meaning within a completely foreign context. This is precisely what Schaeffner and Adab claim
through the view of the ‘hybrid text’:

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 205

A hybrid text is a text that results from a translation process.
It shows features that somehow seem ‘out of place’/
‘strange’/ ‘unusual’ for the receiving culture, i.e. the target
culture. These features, however, are not the result of a lack
of translational competence or examples of ‘translationese’,
but they are evidence of conscious and deliberate decisions
by the translator. Although the text is not yet fully established
in the ta rget culture (because it does not conform to
established norms and conventions), a hybrid text is accepted
in its target culture because it fulfills its intended purpose in
the communicative situation (at least for a certain time).”
(quoted in Stockinger, 2003, p. 17)
The viability of a translation, therefore, is established by its self -reflexive characteristic of
unfidelity to the previous text, leaving corridors open for dialogue and recreation. Through such
an epistemological tendency, which sets transla tion as a trans -disciplinary paradigm, the
modernist writers and poets hankered for it and practiced it as one of their miscellaneous
aesthetic experiments through which they challenged established concepts of the self and the
other on the one hand, and ge nerating new agendas for their native language and culture on the
other.
In their quest for the exotic and the unfamiliar, seen as a source of inspiration to fill in the
discrepancies of the original, many modernist resorted to what has been considered
“foreignizing” poetics in reference to their extraterritorial experiences being a main condition of
the modern self in the modern world. By the turn of the twentieth century, the understanding of
the cultural value of a to -be- translated text has been at sta ke so that the importance of translation
for the identity of the receiving culture has become a condition. Much concern about it has
grown deeper in what Venuti (1998) has called the identity forming power of translations
enabling a culture to identify its elf both via coherence and homogeneity as well as resistance or
innovation.
Few years earlier than Venuti, Homi K. Bhabha (1994), the culture studies critic, had previously
made an apt comment on this when he argued that “cultural translation is not simpl y an
appropriation or adaptation; it is a process through which cultures are required to revise their
own systems and values, by departing from their habitual or ‘inbred’ roles of transformation” (p.
27). What was seen as outrageous, when the avant -garde modernists turned to foreign languages
and cultures to find more telling words to their experiences, is by the time being fully
institutionalized.
Moving beyond the legitimate condition of translation in the modernist literature, one
would ask a further qu estion which way we shall go to understand its connectedness to the
working mechanisms of culture. The answer was provided by R. Jakobson when he

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 206

demonstrated that the borderline between translation studies and cultural semiotics has become
fuzzy. Dealing with translation in the light of semiotics will not provoke much thought about its
influence on translation theory, but I will nevertheless argue, through T. S. Eliot’s use of foreign
words into his texts, the semiotic aspect of intertextual translation di splayed through dialogism.
Among the striking strategies that characterize the modernists’ works is their inclusion of
different fragments appropriated from texts in foreign languages attributing therefore to
modernism a multilingual dimension. Languages other than English were the inspiration sources
to defamiliarize their native language so that Pound’s translations of Chinese poetry were the
basic catalyst for the making aspects of the Anglo -American imagism. Besides that, T.S. Eliot’s
work written in F rench, ‘Mélange adultère de tout’ (1916), provides a sense of dialogic thought
for the wanderer from one space to another supporting therefore Pound’s central thesis of the
juxtaposition of two or even three distinct parts. Semiotically speaking, such a f reedom of
interaction between languages could be read in terms of Leon Robel’s (1995) “emphasis that
Bakhtin attributes to the language of literature (and, at the same time, also the text) the capacity
to operate as a metalanguage in translating from one s ign system into another” (as quoted in
Torop, 2002: 598).
Yet, what seems pertinent to Bakhtin’s view is that the modernists’ texts, through such a
new medium of expression, operate as “a dia -logic place, for at least two different logics meet in
it: thos e of two different languages” (De Michiel 1999: 695). Indeed, the meeting of two
languages within a single space is not only a mere adjacency of two different cultures but a way
to exercise freedom beyond the monolingual constraints. The works of Bakhtin a re considered
the most noticeable in acknowledging freedom as an important dimension in the literary works
where different centres of consciousness are displayed. It is referred to as polyphony which
literally means “multi -voicedness”. In Eliot’s poetic co mposition “En Amérique, professeur;/En
Angleterre, journaliste; /A Londres un peu banquier; /En Allemagne, philosophe” (Eliot 1963:
39), the free wandering of the speaker provokes a set of play between different ideological
positions determined by the spec ificities of the place obviously affecting identity in the process
of translation and/or alteration. Meaning, according to Bakhtin is wholly derived from the
interplay of several consiousnesses, which is recently defined in the studies of identity through
the idea of location and cartography.
Another exemplary exponent of polyphony in the English literature is J. Joyce whose
position, according to Sheldon Brivic, is very unique and that no one “before Joyce had
expressed such a plural consciousness or tak en such a multiphonic point of view.” (p.58 quoted
in Bakhtin 1984). His experience with linguistic alienation is first described in the
autobiographical work The Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man as a witness to his foreignness
most of his life being constantly obliged to translate himself and speaking the other’s language.
Once he stated “I’d like a language which is above all languages” (Ellmann 1959: 410) mocking

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 207

the limits of a single language. Stephen Dedalus in The Portrait (1968) talks about the linguistic
problem as follows:
The language in which we are speaking now is his before it is
mine…His language, so familiar and so foreign, will always
be for me an acquired speech. I have not made or accepted its
words. My voice holds them at bay. My sou ls frets in the
shadow of his language. (p. 189)
The maturation of his linguistic quest did not reach a wanted fulfillment since his life -long
experience of self -exile led him to the fabric of English out of interwoven aspects from sixty
different languag es.
As discussed earlier , the interconnectedness between translation and modernism has, indeed,
paved the way to many fields of research to widen their scopes such as the linguistic, the
sociological, and the anthropological also. As far as identity is co ncerned, the cultural turn in
translation has really expanded massively along with the rise of diasporic literatures. Last but not
least, the following part will be a concise study about some modernists’ voyage between worlds
and languages undermining the traditions and the national stream of literature.
4. Translating the hybrid self.
Michael North (1994), in his work The Dialect of Modernism, describes the influence of the
variations in language on the identity formation dealing with the idea of ‘betweenes s’ in the
modernists’ works. He cites T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land as a site for various cross -cultural
artefacts to occur involving examples of otherness urging, then implicitly, the West to turn to
other regions of the world to ensure its progress. This a spect of the translated self, put forward by
the inclusion of lines in various languages, accounts for the study of the work as a diasporic one
since it does not apply to the norms of the national literature. Recalling S. Rushdi’s idea(1991)
“we are transl ated men” (p. 16), Eliot had fundamentally rejected the original and replaced it
by“the creative borrowing of another style and syntax which releases a plethora of
‘voices’”(Ackroyd Peter ,1984, p. 117). Coming to maturity, Eliot’s idea that his voice might be
sound only by reproducing the others’ voices, demonstrates his sense of living on the borderlines
to be in continuous contact with languages and cultures.
Quando fiam uti chelidon –O swallow swallow
Le Prince d’Aquitanie à la tour abolie
These fragmen ts I have shored against my ruins
Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo’s mad againe.
Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata .
Shantih shantih shantih

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 208

(Eliot, 1963: 69)
In this example contesting cultural and socia l homogeneity tends to provide a completely
new language that exemplifies the cross -cultural encounters. The eagerness of exploring and
exploiting foreign alternatives started with the process of translation since many writers were
themselves translators. The geographical and cultural space is therefore another important
parameter that accounts for translation as a discourse of the modern experience. The literary
expatriate writers and poets were indeed the forerunners of break, whose joint conviction that
only the foreign is a means to stretch their native language and culture, emphasized the force and
significance of another language though incongruous with the original.
The new concern of writers in the modernist world conditions has become whether the
words are capable enough to carry and transmit the reality about the complexity and strangeness
of such a new experience. In a similar vein, Eugene O’Neill’s contributions to both American
and world theatre are acknowledged through his deep worries about how best a language would
describe and create the intricate psychologies that define his troubled characters. Indeed, it is the
language of the characters and of O’Neill himself that may indicate how successful the
playwright was at creating a consistent univ erse in which all characters exist as cogs in the
uncaring, mechanical vastness in which they all must eventually perish. In their efforts to
somehow overcome the restrictive power to their lives, the characters rely heavily on a rhetoric
that defines them as much as it conveys plot information to the audience. “How we poor
monkeys hide from ourselves behind the sounds called words,” declares Nina Leeds in Strange
Interlude , aware of her own downfall developing behind those very sounds.
O’Neill never showe d any complacency with already established theories, and his
reluctance had even extended to trust words to convey his ideas. During his experimental period,
his difficulty with language had often been expressed as an act of exile and alienation. In fact,
that act of exile was at once an act of criticism and that of quest also. In the pursuit of whether
the most sordid, and to a certain extent, blind alleys of life could be illuminated, a concern with
language, semantics and articulation found a fertile gro und in O’Neill’s drama. However, the
unceasing experiments with the word, that he often found too protean to present completely his
meaning, transcended the limits of the text seeking the actual process of presentation through the
physical theatre. Through out his canon, O’Neill critiques language itself, even as he relies on it
to develop a sense of the difference between the intrinsic self and its expression (Bigsby, 1992).
He indicates his own awareness of the ultimate inadequacy of language and its subse quent
subversion of an objective truth.
Such a distrust of language can be seen throughout his body of work, populated as it is by
preponderance of schemers, liars, dreamers, hucksters and actors, men and women who use
language not to define reality but in an attempt to simultaneously conceal and transcend it. They
are indeed a theatrical lot. However, as his body of work indicates, O’Neill feels a sense of
camaraderie with people in all walks and stations of life, for if there is a certainty unmasked

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 209

behin d the facade of language in O’Neill’s work, it is to demonstrate that we are all doomed.
Yet, O’Neill’s drama is tragically circumscribed so that no language; the original or the
fabricated; was possible to assuage the characters’ grievous situations. W e can relate his search
for language to his creation of the tragic character whose retreat from articulateness to silence is
generally evident in the character’s escapes from reality, whether through insanity or drink or
drugs being simply the overt symptoms of what the dramatist called the “Sickness of today”.
The capacity of language for meaning and communicating was also the problem that
Virginia Woolf encountered in many of her works. Her various strategies in writing like the use
of disjointed and subver sive sentences, fragmented thoughts and images, reflect an assignment
for the modernist writers to forge a language proper to the experience of modernity. However,
hers is a double exercise viewed from the literary and the social constraints being in strug gle
with the male dominant culture. This idea is best exemplified in her work ‘A Room of One’s
Own’ where she discusses the role of the woman novelist in making a language for her status.
The very development of the language of translation occurred with the coming into
existence of Joseph Conrad’s novel, Heart of Darkness (1902), regarded as one of the prominent
exercise of a translated self in the history of British literature. As a Polish émigré, J. Conrad’s
successful engagement with translation practi ces has been most crowning for the notion of
modernist identity. His process differs from Eliot’s, or Pound’s, or Joyce’s, since his is one -way
from the outside to the inside whereas theirs are multiple dwellings between native and foreign.
His novel provi ded a fertile ground for discussing the relationship between modernism and
translation which became most complex through the multi -voiced characterization. The
characters’ interactions are represented linguistically by their different spoken languages all
raising the issue of the role of space and place in forging a language. The writer’s consciousness
here plays a vital role while recording a variety of languages in the English language; French,
German and Russian including also some native African tongues . Vainly, the experience of
foreignness was so harsh and ‘dark’ that Marlow was unable to find a language by which he
could tell his experience. The cacophony of voices in Heart of Darkness can also be inscribed
into Bakhtin’s notion of ‘heteroglossia’ but much extended by the inclusion of international
voices rather than the diversity of local social speech types. The profile of Marlow resembles in
many ways that of a translator whose inabilities at communicating the message of the original
experience are forcefully accompanied with an anxiety. A successful engagement with the
‘foreignness’ necessitates a new matrix framed out of a deep knowledge of individuals,
languages and cultures.
5. Conclusion
Translation has emerged as a literary practice crucial to th e very development of Anglo –
American modernism. History has proved that the existence of literature has always been
accompanied by that of translation. Goethe believed that national literature rapidly stagnate when
the outside influences are absent. In the same vein, E. Pound turned to the Chinese poetry to

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 210

write his body of fourteen poems entitled Cathay (1915), such a contact enabled him to write The
Chinese Written Character as a Medium for Poetry (1919) where he included his famous
argument the West mus t turn, finally, to the East or else continue its decline into artistic oblivion.
The celebration of translation as a paradigm of the modernist thought is done on the ground that
migration, exile, dislocation and cross -cultural communication are the most i nforming facts of
modernity. Across the twentieth century, when globalization further sustains a grip to
individuality, the translator’s role has become so important to serve effectively into the process
of intercultural communication. Still, the way for c ultural translation is not fully paved yet since
the culturally continuous process of rising diasporas and the need to pull down the barriers
dividing human beings on the globe seem much more accentuated than ever.

Abou t the Author :
Dr. Fatiha Kaïd Ber rahal is a senior lecturer of American and British literatures in the
department of English Studies at the University of Laghouat. Currently the head of a national
research project CNEPRU on the issue of Feminist literature in the Arab -British and Arab –
Ame rican diasporas besides various researches in the field of Cultural Studies.

References
Ackroyd, P. (1984). T.S. Eliot. London: Abacus.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics . Edited and translated by Caryl
Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. London. Routledge.
Bigsby, C.W.E. (1982) A Critical Introduction to Twentieth -Century American Drama. 1, 1900 –
1940. Cambridge: Cambridge UP,.
Catfor d, J. C. (1965). A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics.
London: Oxford University Press.
De Michiel, M. (1999). Mikhail M. Bakhtin: prolegomena to a theory of translation, European
Journal of Semiotic Studies , 11 (4), 687 -698.
Eliot, T.S. (1957). On Poetry and Poets. Faber.
Eliot, T.S..(1963). Collected Poems 1909 -1962. New York and London: Harcourt Brace.

AWEJ Especial issue on Translation No. (2) 2013

Translation in the Discourse of Modern Experience Berrahal
Pramoolsook & Qian

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org
ISSN: 2229 -9327 211

Ellman, R. (1959). James Joyce. New York. Oxford University Press.
Gentzler, E. (1993) 2001. Contemporary Translation Th eories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
House, J. (2009). Translation. Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.
Korg, J. (1979). Language in Modern Literature: Innovation and Experiment. Sussex: The
Harvester.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nazzal, A. (2012). Translation as an intercultural communication encounter: A deconstructive
Approach, AWEJ, 3 , 1, 77 -102.
North, M. (1994). The Dialect of Modernism: Race, Language and Twentieth -Century
Literature. Oxford : Oxford UP.
Pound, E. (1963). Translations. Ed. Hugh Kenner. New York: New Directions.
Rushdi, S. (1991). Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981 -91. London. Granta
Books.
Sapir, E. (1929). The status of linguistics as a science, Language , 5, 207 -214.
Sapir, E. (1949). Culture, Language and Personality. Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Stockinger, P. (2003). Semiotics of cultures III: Translation and intercultural communication,
European Masters in interCultural Communication, Universit y Bayreuth.
Torop, P. (2002). Translation as translating as culture, Sign Systems Studies . 30.2, 593 -605.
Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation. London and New
York: Routledge.
Venuti, L. (1995). (1998). The Scandals of Translation. Towards an Ethics of Difference .
London and New York: Routledge.
Venuti, L..(2004) (Ed). The translation studies reader. London and New York: Routledge.
Williams, R. J. (2009). Modernist scandals: Ezra Pound’s translations of the Chinese Poem ,
Transcription. Peter Lang, 1, 145 -165.