Advertisement

Conclusion

  • Angela Kershaw
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Languages at War book series (PASLW)

Abstract

Translating War has shown that reading narratives of the Second World War translationally reveals aspects of the cultural history of war that national approaches conceal. The translational contact that is part of that history is a space where national representations engage critically with each other. As a complex, dynamic form of cultural negotiation, translation does not simply domesticate or exoticise the foreign and is not guaranteed to provide a harmonious, shared space. The meanings of translation depend on the interests and priorities of the agents involved, and the relationships translation creates range from hostility to hospitality. By reading translationally, avoiding either demonising or idealising translation, we can throw new light on the conflicted history of the representation of France and the Second World War.

References

  1. Apter, Emily. 2006. The Translation Zone. A New Comparative Literature. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brodzki, Bella. 2007. Can These Bones Live? Translation, Survival and Cultural Memory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brownlie, Siobhan. 2016. Mapping Memory in Translation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chesterman, Andrew. 2009. The Name and Nature of Translator Studies. Hermes – Journal of Language and Communication Studies 42: 13–22.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, Margaret, and Carolyn Denver. 2002. Introduction. In The Literary Channel: The Inter-National Invention of the Novel, ed. Margaret Cohen and Carolyn Denver, 1–34. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Connolly, Cyril. 1945. French-English Cultural Relations. In The Condemned Playground, 76–89. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Derrida, Jacques, and Anne Dufourmantelle. 2000. Of Hospitality. Trans. Rachel Bowlby. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Glowacka, Dorota. 2012. Disappearing Traces. Holocaust Testimonials, Ethics, and Aesthetics. Seattle/London: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hermans, Theo. 2007. The Conference of the Tongues. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
  10. Kearney, Richard. 2006. Introduction: Ricoeur’s Philosophy of Translation. In On Translation, ed. Paul Ricoeur, vii–vxx. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Landsberg, Alison. 2004. Prosthetic Memory: The Transformation of American Remembrance in the Age of Mass Culture. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Meylaerts, Reine. 2013. The Multiple Lives of Translators. TTR: Traduction, terminologie, rédaction 26 (2): 103–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ricoeur, Paul. 2006. On Translation. Trans. Eileen Brennan and with an Introduction by Richard Kearney. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Robinson, Douglas. 2001. Who Translates? Translator Subjectivities Beyond Reason. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  15. Rothberg, Michael. 2000. Traumatic Realism: The Demands of Holocaust Realism. Minneapolis/London: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  16. Simon, Sherry. 2012. Cities in Translation: Intersections of Language and Memory. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Wolf, Michaela. 2017. Response to: Sue Vice, Witnessing Complicity in English and French: Tatiana de Rosnay’s Sarah’s Key and Elle s’appelait Sarah. In Translating Holocaust Lives, ed. Jean Boase-Beier, Peter Davies, Andrea Hammel, and Marion Winters, 69–71. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  18. Yildiz, Yasemin. 2012. Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Kershaw
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Modern LanguagesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations