ABSTRACT
With the shift of critical attention from decontextualized texts to the whole context of interaction in translation studies over the past couple of decades, a number of case studies have been conducted that problematized the notion of translation as an innocent, bridge-building activity devoted to narrowing the linguistic and/or cultural gaps between peoples, to promoting communication and to transferring information with minimal distortion (Alvarez and Vidal 1996, Bassnett and Trivedi 1999, Mason 1994/2009, Venuti 1995, 1998a). Research has repeatedly shown that translation is a means of effecting social change and/or bringing about cultural transformation. It can undermine, contest and subvert structures of power in society. It can play a crucial role in situations of conflict – through manipulation, fabrication and even falsification, as attested in a number of essays in Salama-Carr (2007); Baker (2006a) also contains a wealth of material on the topic. Translation can further function as a tool of resistance – against
the policies of repressive regimes, or the encroachment of ideologies deemed unacceptable or threatening (see the essays in Tymoczko 2006). But it can also be an act of complicity – serving to assert military and/or political power, for example – and deceit. Where colonization is concerned, translation can be used in the service of dispossessing the indigenous population (Cheyfitz 1991, Venuti 1998b, Tymoczko and Gentzler 2002, Mutu 2003, Fenton and Moon 2003).
