Page173
whichtravellershavetoeitherrelyonlanguagemediatorsortakeupthatrole
forthemselves.Specialistsofsubjectsrangingfromethnographytopostcolonial
theoryhaveapproachedtheseconceptsandwidenedtheirscopeinorderto
underlinetheincreasinglypervasiveroleplayedbyvariousformsoftravel,
includingthemovementacrosslanguagesandcultures,withincontemporary
societies.Thelinksdrawnbetweenspatialandlinguisticmobilityarebothofa
theoreticalnature–drawingmetaphoricalconnectionsbetweentwosetsof
concepts–andanappliedone–relatingtothehistoricallydeterminedrealities
oftwosetsofpracticesandtothewayinwhichtheyhavebeenconnectedover
thecenturies(Bassnett1993;Bauman1987;Forsdick2005:158;Hulmeand
Youngs2002:9).
Asubstantialimpulsetotheadoptionoftranslationasawiderangingtheoretical
modelandtoitsfrequentconjunctionwithnotionsofmobilityhascome,in
particular,fromtheshifttowardsacultural,ratherthanstrictlylinguistic,
understandingoftranslationprocesses,whichinturnproducedwhatBassnett
calledthe‘translationturn’inculturalstudies(Bassnett1998b).Treating
translationasabroadlyinterculturalphenomenoninvitedthereadingof
interculturalcommunicationasatranslationprocess.Thistrendhasmade
‘translation’anincreasinglypopularterminanumberoftheoreticalfields.
Duringthesameperiod,notionsofplaceandmobilitywerealsobecomingmore
popularwithinliterarytheoryandhistoricalcriticism,thelatterbeingincreasingly
sensitivetothequestionofnarrativity.MicheldeCerteau’softenquoted
statementthat‘everystoryisatravelstory,aspatialpractice’(1984:115)is
indicativeofthistendency,invitingattentiontothetextualdimensionofmobility
aswellastothespatialqualitiesoftext.
Atthesametime,theconnectionbetweengeographicandculturalmovement
wasalsobeingbroughttotheforebyanumberofhistoricalphenomenawhich
havecometobeseenascharacteristicofthelatetwentiethcentury.These
includepostcolonialityandattendantformsofneocolonialism;
GLOBALIZATION,accompaniedbyrenewedlocalism;andtheimpulsegiven
bythesetrendstobothphysicalmobilityandthecreationofwiderandfaster
communicationnetworks.Suchphenomenahaveinstigatedaradicalrethinking
ofnotionsofidentityandbelonging,stressingtheroleplayedbyasymmetrical
relationshipsofpowerwithrespecttoindividualchoicesaswellasgroup
affiliations(Papastergiadis2000).Increasingattentionhasbeendevotedtoa
varietyofformsofmobility,inflectingthenotionof‘travel’toincludegendered
andclassrelatedperspectivesaswellasnotionsofeconomicmigration,exile,
diasporaormasstourism(seeGENDERANDSEXUALITY;ASYLUM),
andtakingintoaccounttransnationalformsofidentificationsuchasnomadism
andcosmopolitanism.Manyoftheseperspectives,inturn,areconnectedto
questionsoflanguage,translationandTRANSLATABILITY.
Textualandhistoricalstudies
Agrowingnumberofstudieslinkingtravelandtranslationareconcernedwith
thewayinwhichbothpracticeshavebeenusedinordertoconstructimagesof
theforeign,especially,thoughnotexclusively,withinWesterncultures.Here,the
twoterms,‘translation’and‘travel’,areusuallyunderstoodinarestrictive
ratherthanopenendedsense,andtheyaretakenasindicativeofwell
establishedpracticescharacterizedbyfixedpointsofdepartureandclearly
defineddestinations,byspecificsourceandtargettextsaswellascultures,and
byneatly(ifattimeshastily)definedboundariesbetweentheseandother,
relatedpolarities.Withintheserathernarrowlydefinedconfines,travellersand
translatorshave,foralongtime,playedtheroleofintermediariesbetween
cultures.Theyhavealsosharedanambiguousstatusas,atoneandthesame
time,privilegedwitnessesofdiversityandpotentialliars,orevendoubleagents
intentoninfiltratingthehomecommunity.Asaresult,questionsoffaithfulness
andobjectivity,transparencyandvisibilityhavebeencommontothedebates
whichhavecharacterizedthefieldsoftranslationandtravelwritingforcenturies
(Bassnett1993,2002b;Fabbri2000).
Theacknowledgementofthesehistoricalsimilaritieshasopeneduparichfield
ofresearchconcernedwithestablishingtherelativeprestige,superimpositionor
contrapositionoftranslationsandtravelaccountsasparallelyetnotfully
interchangeablegenresrelatingtotheferryingandelaborationofcultural
difference(StAndré