Translation as cultural ‘(de)colonisation’

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 283-291

  Ning, Wang ^a  

^a TSINGHUA UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85008841972     PISSN: 0907676X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2002.9961452     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Bassnett, Susan & Andre Lefevere. 2001. Constructing Cultures: Articles on Literary Translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
2. Bhabha, Homi K. (ed.). 1990. Nation and Narration. London: Routledge.
3. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. New York: Routledge.
4. Derrida, Jacques. 2001. What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation? Critical Inquiry. 27.174-200.
5. Dollerup, Cay. 1997. Translation as loan vs. translation as imposition. 1997. In: Snell-Homby, Mary & Zuzana Jettmarova & Klaus Kaindl (eds). Translation as Intercultural Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 45-56.
6. Heilbron, Johan. 2000. Translation as a cultural world system. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 8.9-26.
7. Luo, Xuanmin. 2002. ‘Elegance’ in translation: a post-colonial mark. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 10.207-214.
8. Nida, Eugene. 1964. Towards a Science of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: Brill.
9. Pollard, David. 1998. Translation and Creation: readings of Western literature in early modem China. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
10. Said, Edward. 2001. Globalizing Literary Study. PMLA 116.64-8.
11. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 1999. A Critique of Postcolonial Reason: Toward a History of the Vanishing Present. Cambridge (Massachusetts) & London: Harvard University Press.
12. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 2001. Moving Devi. Cultural Critique 47.120-163.
13. Wang, Ning, 2000. Globalization, Cultural Studies and Translation Studies. Translation Quarterly #15.37-50.
14. Wang, Ning. 2001. Confronting Globalization: Cultural Studies versus Comparative Literature Studies? Neohelicon XXXVIII. 55-66.