Volume 12, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1932-2798
  • E-ISSN: 1876-2700
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


The strict boundaries between disciplines have been seriously challenged by various links established between them through cross-fertilization. Links between literary and translation studies are not new. However, in the (post)-modern world, when interdisciplinarity is starting to give way to transdisciplinarity, a new meeting point has been found in transfiction, enabling translation to become an interpretative paradigm for literature. Attempting to support this rather neglected approach, this paper analyzes Julian Barnes’s in the light of the relationship between source and target texts and the concept of the invariant as a reflection of the postmodern quest for truth, claiming that the novel makes a fictional dethronement of the source text and calls for a shift from instrumentalism to the hermeneutic approach in translation.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Anderson, Jean
    2005 “The double agent: aspects of literary translator affect as revealed in fictional work by translators.” Linguistica Antverpiensia4: 171–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Arrojo, Rosemary
    2002 “Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolányi .” InTranslation and Power, ed. by Maria Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler , 63–79. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2004 “Translation, Transference, and the Attraction to Otherness – Borges, Menard, Whitman.” Diacritics – A Review of Contemporary Criticism34(3–4): 31–53. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 2014 “The power of fiction as theory: Some exemplary lessons on translation from Borges’s stories.” InTransfiction: Research into the realities of translation fiction, ed. by Klaus Kaindl and Karlheinz Spitzl , 37–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.110.03arr
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.110.03arr [Google Scholar]
  5. Bachmann-Medick, Doris
    2009 “Introduction: Translational Turn.” Translation Studies2(1): 2–16. doi: 10.1080/14781700802496118
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700802496118 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barnes, Julian
    1995Flaubert’s Parrot. London: Picador.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 2012 “Translating Madame Bovary.” InThrough the Window: Seventeen Essays and a Short Story, ed. by Julian Barnes , 146–163. London: Vintage.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bassnett, Susan
    2014Translation Studies. 4th ed.New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Beebee, Thomas
    2012Transmesis: Inside Translation’s Black Box. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137001016
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137001016 [Google Scholar]
  10. Borges, Jorge Luis
    1998 “Funes, His Memory.” Trans. by Andrew Hurley . InCollected Fictions, 131–137. New York: Penguin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Che Suh, Joseph
    2002 “Compounding Issues on the Translation of Drama / Theatre Texts.” Meta47(1): 51–57. doi: 10.7202/007991ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/007991ar [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis, Lydia
    2016 “Eleven Pleasures of Translation.” The New York Review of Books63(19), 8December 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Delabastita, Dirk
    2009 “Fictional representations.” InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha , 109–112. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Derrida, Jacques
    2001 “What Is a ‘Relevant’ Translation?” Trans. Lawrence Venuti . Critical Inquiry27(2): 174–200. doi: 10.1086/449005
    https://doi.org/10.1086/449005 [Google Scholar]
  15. Eisenstadt, Oona
    2007 “Heart’s Blood: Derrida and Portia on Translation.” Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory8(3): 83–96.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Feltrin-Morris, Marella , Deborah Folaron , and María Constanza Guzmán
    2012Translation and Literary Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Fenton, James
    . “A Novelist with an Experiment: Discuss.” The Times61953, 4October 1984.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Freiburg, Rudolph and Jan Schnitker
    eds. 1999Do you consider yourself a postmodern author?: Interviews with Contemporary English Writers. Münster: Lit.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gaddis Rose, Marilyn
    1997Translation and Literary Criticism. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Gentzler, Edwin
    2008Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 2014 “Translation Studies: Pre-Discipline, Discipline, Interdiscipline, and Post-Discipline.” International Journal of Society, Culture and Language2: 13–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Guignery, Vanessa and Ryan Roberts
    eds. 2009Conversations with Julian Barnes. Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Guignery, Vanessa
    2006The Fiction of Julian Barnes. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978‑0‑230‑80221‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80221-6 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hatim, Basil
    2001Teaching and Researching Translation. Harlow: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hermans, Theo
    1985The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. Beckenham: Croom Helm.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Holmes, Frederick M.
    2009Julian Barnes. London: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978‑1‑137‑11105‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-11105-0 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jakobson, Roman
    2000 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” InTranslation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti , 113–118. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kaindl, Klaus
    2014 “Going fictional! Translators and interpreters in literature and film: An introduction.” InTransfiction: Research into the realities of translation fiction, ed. by Klaus Kaindl and Karlheinz Spitzl , 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.110.01kai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.110.01kai [Google Scholar]
  29. Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van
    1990 “Shifts of Meaning in Translation: Do’s or Don’t’s?” InTranslation and Meaning 1, ed. by Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk , 226–233. Maastricht: Euroterm Maastricht.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Moseley, Merritt
    1997Understanding Julian Barnes. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Munday, Jeremy
    2001Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Nergaard, Siri and Stefano Arduini
    2011 “Translation: A new paradigm.” Translation: An Interdisciplinary Journal0:8–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Newmark, Peter
    1991About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Nietzsche, Friedrich
    2006 “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873).” Trans. Daniel Breazeale . InThe Nietzsche Reader, ed. by Keith Ansell Pearson and Dunkan Large , 114–123. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Pagano, Andriana S.
    2002 “Translation as Testimony: On Official Histories and Subversive Pedagogies in Cortazar.” InTranslation and Power, ed. by Maria Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler , 80–98. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pateman, Matthew
    2002Julian Barnes. Tavistock, Devon: Northcote.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Roberts, Ryan
    2011 “Inventing a Way to the Truth: Life and Fiction in Julian Barnes’s Flaubert’s Parrot .” InJulian Barnes, ed. by Sebastian Groes and Peter Childs , 24–36. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Scott, James B.
    1990 “Parrot as Paradigms: Infinite Deferral of Meaning in ‘Flaubert’s Parrot.’” ARIEL: A Review of International English Literature21(3): 57–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Snell-Hornby, Mary
    2006The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.66
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.66 [Google Scholar]
  40. Spitzl, Karlheinz
    2014 “Fiction as a catalyst: Some afterthoughts.” InTransfiction: Research into the realities of translation fiction, ed. by Klaus Kaindl and Karlheinz Spitzl , 363–368. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/btl.110.25spi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.110.25spi [Google Scholar]
  41. Stout, Mira
    . “Chameleon Novelist.” New York Times Magazine, 22November 1992https://www.nytimes.com/books/01/02/25/specials/barnes-chameleon.html, Accessed6 January 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Venuti, Lawrence
    2000 “Translation, Community, Utopia.” InTranslation Studies Reader, ed. by Lawrence Venuti , 468–488. New York: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203446621
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203446621 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2010 “Genealogies of Translation Theory: Jerome.” Boundary 237(3):5–28. doi: 10.1215/01903659‑2010‑014
    https://doi.org/10.1215/01903659-2010-014 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Barnes; interdisciplinarity; invariant; transdisciplinarity; transfiction
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error