Perspectives
Studies in Translatology
ISSN: 0907-676X (Print) 1747-6623 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20
A survey of the ‘new’ discipline of adaptation
studies: between translation and interculturalism
Leo Chan
To cite this article: Leo Chan (2012) A survey of the ‘new’ discipline of adaptation
studies: between translation and interculturalism, Perspectives, 20:4, 411-418, DOI:
10.1080/0907676X.2012.726232
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.726232
Published online: 14 Sep 2012.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2027
View related articles
Citing articles: 4 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmps20
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
Vol. 20, No. 4, December 2012, 411418
A survey of the ‘new’ discipline of adaptation studies: between translation
and interculturalism
Leo Chan*
Department of Translation, Lingnan University, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
(Received 7 June 2012; final version received 1 August 2012)
Literary scholars and historians have long noted a strong tendency in all human
societies to rewrite original texts, ending in the production of adaptations that are
only loosely connected to their sources. In our age, however, attention has also
been drawn to the way these adaptations serve as carriers of cultural subjects and
formations that are transmitted through various media, verbal (literary) as well as
visual (filmic). Reviewing the research of the past several decades, one might say
the study of adaptation as a means whereby cultures cross national and linguistic
boundaries has flourished through the work done by scholars of film adaptations,
intercultural theatre and children’s literature. However, for some time translation
theorists have actually been exploring the theoretical underpinnings of adaptations while providing the methodological tools for close textual investigation. On
the other hand, adaptations are also a key area of inquiry for researchers in
intercultural studies, which focuses on the interactive relationship between
elements belonging to two cultures. Adaptation is, in effect, a translational as
well as intercultural mode.
Keywords: adaptation; interculturalism; assimiliation; intersemiotic; intermedial
In their succinct definition of the scope and meaning of ‘interculturality’ in the
introductory essay to a recent issue of Journal of Intercultural Studies, Suzi Adams
and Michael Janover note two contrasting approaches to the study of the
contemporary ‘clash of civilizations’: either ‘the cultural ‘‘other’’ is reduced to the
identity of the ‘‘self’’ or ‘‘the same’’’, or ‘‘‘cultural otherness’’ is envisaged as alterity,
as unbridgeable and ultimately untranslatable’ (Adams & Janover, 2009, p. 227). The
dichotomy can be expressed in a number of paired terms, each of which encapsulates
one aspect of the dialectical relationship between two possible avenues to studying
intercultural processes: sameness versus difference, acculturation versus alienation,
domestication versus foreignization, translatability versus untranslatability, oneness
versus diversity, and so on. Adams and Janover sum it up as a distinction between a
focus on ‘between worlds’ and one on ‘multiple worlds’ (2009, p. 228), and refrain
from commenting on which approach is superior or more influential. One may argue,
however, that if the suffix ‘inter-’ in intercultural studies suggests ‘between-ness’,1
then there should not be a place for the multiple-worlds approach, where cultures are
viewed as separate and unbridgeable. The bridging of worlds in contact with each
other has been a key concern in our time, seen in fields like globalization studies,
*Email: chanleo@ln.edu.hk
ISSN 0907-676X print/ISSN 1747-6623 online
# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2012.726232
http://www.tandfonline.com
412
L. Chan
multicultural studies, and translation studies. A disciplinary newcomer, adaptation
studies also concerns itself with the many manifestations of the ‘trans-cultural’
elements that cross cultural boundaries, become ‘translated’, and absorb into the new
cultural settings.
Perspectives on adaptation studies
For a long time, literary scholars and historians have noted a tendency in all human
societies to rewrite original texts, ending in the production of adaptations that are
closely or loosely connected to their sources. Adaptations, as works derived sometimes even bent and twisted from a stated source, have been with us since
ancient times. A diversity of examples is shown in Boldt, Federici, and Virgulti’s
anthology (2010), which includes articles dealing with pre-modern adaptations,
including Samuel Johnson’s ‘The Vanity of Human Wishes’, an eighteenth-century
adaptation of a Latin poem, Shakespeare’s ‘adaptation’ of King Leir as King Lear,
Jonathan D. Syss’s use of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe (1719) as a model for
The Swiss Family Robinson (1812), Charlotte Bronte’s reworking of Pamela (1740)
into Jane Eyre (1847) and, even earlier, Titian’s painting ‘Diana and Actaeon’ (1559),
an early example of a transformed version of Ovid’s myth as collected in
Metamorphosis. The history of derivative literature in China has been an equally
long one (c.f. Kao, 1985); many methods of adapting literary precedents deployed by
Chinese poets, dramatists, and storytellers were witnessed over the centuries. It is
only in our age that attention has been strongly focused on the way adaptations serve
as carriers of cultural subjects and formations that are transmitted through various
media, verbal (literary) as well as visual (filmic), especially the latter.
In the research of the past several decades, the study of adaptation as a mode
whereby cultures cross national and linguistic boundaries has flourished on the basis
of distinctive work carried out by several groups of scholars. First, an explosion of
theoretical works has dealt with adaptations into the new media of film and
television. Often simply designated as ‘adaptation studies’ (though ‘film adaptation
studies’ would be more appropriate), this sub-discipline began with the analysis of
films based on novels, as pioneered by a spate of publications dating from the 1990s
by scholars like James Naremore (2000) and Robert Stam (2005), as well as booklength studies of screen adaptations of, most notably, works by Jane Austen and
Henry James. While instances of literature-into-film are innumerable and inexhaustible, such a focus is nevertheless restrictive. The cases of two recently-launched
journals are indicative. Adaptation: The Journal of Literature on Screen Studies,
launched as recently as 2008, devotes primary attention to filmic adaptations of
novels,2 as does The Journal of Adaptation in Film and Performance, its first issue
appearing in 2007. Both still fall short of disciplinary openness, since they only draw
on the expertise of subject specialists in literature and film departments (cf. Raw,
2009, pp. 7274). A vocal critic of this brand of adaptation studies is Costas
Constandinides (2010), who points out the limitations of Stam, who fails, among
other things, to consider cases of adaptation into new digital media like video games.
Although one can easily point to film adaptation scholars’ neglect of adaptations
based on sources other than the novel, like comic books, graphic novels, play
scripts, and reportage literature, there is also no doubt that they have shown a desire
to move beyond the old mould. On the one hand, they encourage rethinking about
‘intermediality’, shifting research interest away from textual transformations within
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
413
one medium to the interlocking relationship between the printed and the visual.
While film-to-film remakes (like the new versions of The Postman Always Rings
Twice, King Kong, Alfie, and Psycho) are still discussed as topics of interest, they are
balanced against a growing interest in text-to-image transformations, and even in
text-to-multimodal (text plus image) presentations. On the other hand, a parallel
shift can be observed in the movement from a focus on ‘between media’ to one on
‘between cultures’. This shift to an intercultural emphasis is crucial, seen most
conspicuously in the analysis of cross-cultural film-to-film remakes. What this
signifies is a redirection of research emphasis from West-West to East-West. Where,
previously, examples involving the adaptation of films within one country have
occupied a central position, those involving two are now taking up center stage.
What is more, trans-Atlantic adaptations have been eclipsed by trans-Pacific ones in
the adaptive mode. The most prominent examples are Hollywood adaptations of
movies from Japan, Korea, and Hong Kong (like The Ring and The Departed).3
Adaptation thus figures as a quintessentially intercultural project.
Scholars of contemporary postmodernist drama have paid attention to ‘adapted’
plays that successfully enter and become integrated into target cultural
environments. Their interest begins with the verbal play texts, but they also highlight
innovative features added to a dramatic text when it is presented in places/cultures
other than those of the original. The ‘Little Theatre’ Movement in Taiwan is one
indicative instance. Building on the work of Patrice Pavis (1996) on intercultural
theatre, Iris H. Tuan (2007) analyzes adapted and performed drama in the past two
decades, such as Wu Xin-chu’s Slut Antigone, Richard Schechner’s Oresteia, and Wu
Xin-kuo’s The Kingdom of Desire (Macbeth), to show the artistic strategies whereby
Greek and Shakespearean plays are rendered in Chinese: Beijing opera styles, the
local Fukienese dialect, Hakka costumes, etc., are substituted for those of the
original. In Tuan’s view, adaptation is a measure of how, with the advent of
globalization, the Other can be (inter)corporated into the Self, the West into the
East, and vice versa. Tuan looks into the future and projects that, ‘on the basis of
equal cultural interaction, more plays can be adapted in an appropriate way’ (Yuan,
2007, p. 153).
Another critic with an interest in dramatic performance, Catherine T.C. Diamond
(1993), proceeds by first classifying four types of adaptations in her Ph.D. thesis: the
generic (e.g. fiction into film), the diachronic (e.g. the contemporary Puerto Rican
context for West Side Story), the ideological (e.g. Brecht rewriting an old Chinese
play as The Chalk Circle), and the cross-cultural. In the last category she places the
‘Little Theatre’ Movement. With this as the locus of her discussion, Diamond gives a
detailed examination of the mediating role that adapted dramas can play between
cultures. While applauding the potentialities opened up for cross-cultural interaction
by drama adaptations since they can cross borders and become the familiar she is
nevertheless sceptical about two practices conventionally considered to be at the
borders of adaptation: imitation and translation. To her, imitation is close to
plagiarism and can only occur within the same art system (Diamond, 1993, p. 158),
while translation constitutes only the initial stage of adaptation (‘only part of the
adaption process’), its stigma being ‘an attempt at faithfulness toward the original
text’ (Diamond, 1993, p. 131). Such a pejorative view of translation is at variance
with present-day translation theory, which accepts difference and hybridization as a
sine qua non of translated texts.
414
L. Chan
The cross-cultural adaptation of children’s literature has recently been explored
with renewed rigor by critics working on the ways in which literary works for
children are culturally altered to suit different readerships in different countries.
Adjusting not just the content but also the form to suit the tastes of readerships in
target cultures is standard fare for adaptors from time immemorial. A broad survey
of the field has been given by Reinhert Tabbert (2002), though this branch of
adaptation research can also be exemplified by the work of Cay Dollerup and Ritta
Oittinen. The former charts the routes of transmission of Brothers Grimm’s
fairytales across Europe, with a plethora of adaptations in a host of languages
(Dollerup, 1999). The latter examines adaptation as a form of translation, using a
corpus of West European translations of classical fairytales (Oittinen, 2000). She
moves beyond written versions, however, and draws attention to modern movie
adaptations, showing the full ramifications of rewriting across space, time, and
media. In her view, adaptation, as a strategy that permits great liberty, gives new life
to canonical works.
Reception by the reader is a crucial factor that determines the form taken by
adaptations in a great deal of children’s literature. A range of cultures have been
covered in a spate of recent studies. Lan Dong discusses how one Chinese fairytale
can travel to other cultures and induce a full range of adaptations, including a Disney
version (Dong, 2001). Olga Papusha analyzes the two adaptations of A.A. Milne’s
fairytale cycle of the Winnie the Pooh stories by a Russian (Boris Zakhoder) and a
Ukrainian (Leonid Solon’ko). She concludes that both works must be understood in
terms of the ‘tendency toward expansion [. . .] of a new generation of readers’
(Papusha, n.d., para. 14) who belong to a new post-Soviet, post-totalitarian space.
With regard to three Portuguese versions of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland,
Lauro Maia Amorim highlights the fact that the Brazilian adaptation by Nicholau
Sevcenko is clearly targeted at eleven- and twelve-year-olds (Amorim, 2009, sec. 3),
as seen in the adaptor’s choice of vocabulary and use of colloquialisms, among other
things. To be precise, these readers of adaptations can be viewed as ‘addressees’ of
adaptations, and they determine indirectly how the adaptors play fast and loose with
the original text. Often, radical moves are undertaken in response to the anticipated
readership, resulting in ‘adaptive readings’ of the original. Amorim cites examples
where the adaptor intervenes into the story by assuming the presence of a storyteller
(see Amorim, 2009).
The translation studies approach to adaptation
While scholars of children’s literature cannot ignore the link between adaptations
and translations, it is translation theorists who have engaged intensively with the
interface between these two forms, especially their interconnectedness. In the
translation studies field, theorists have debated for a long time the arbitrary
boundaries drawn between the two fields. As early as 1959, Roman Jakobson
asserted the connection when he distinguished between three categories of
intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic translation (Jakobson, 1959/2000). As
the last of these denotes the substitution of semiotic signs of one system by those of
another, it effectively subsumes all those intermedial adaptations studied by the film
adaptation theorists mentioned above.4 In Jakobson’s taxonomy, adaptations are a
type of translation, not the other way around, as Diamond would have maintained.
Given that there was an urge to establish a prominent, distinct disciplinary identity
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
415
for ‘Translation Studies’ in the past few decades, the effort made to include
adaptations as a viable object of study for translation scholars becomes easily
understandable.
Significantly, two recent monographs devoted specifically to adaptation by
literary comparatists Julie Sanders (2006) and Linda Hutcheon (2006) barely touch
on the relevance of translation to adaptation studies. Translation scholars have
sought to highlight such relevance, however. John Milton notes the need to
investigate how translation studies can play a central role in the development of
adaptation studies (Milton, 2009, p. 56). In several articles and conference
presentations, he cites instances of adaptive techniques used in translations, in
genres like advertisements, theatre texts, and classic fiction. The applicability of
theoretical concepts of translation (like abridgement, rewriting, remediation, etc.) to
adaptation is seen in Lawrence Venuti (2007), who explores how the critical
methodologies of translation can be fruitfully transferred. Venuti’s case-study is
the Italian film director Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 adaptation of Shakespeare’s Romeo
and Juliet. Not a text that would interest conventional translation scholars,
Zeffirelli’s version displays, for Venuti, not just ingredients of popular appeal but
also an elitist homoerotic subtext, which reveals Zeffirelli’s effort at actualizing the
deeper meanings inherent in the original text. In his analysis, Venuti capitalizes on
the full force of a range of translational concepts like ‘abusive fidelity’, ‘intertextuality’, ‘recontextualization’, ‘norms’, and ‘isomorphism’ when applied to film
adaptation. For him,
[T]ranslation theory can advance thinking about film adaptations by contributing to the
formulation of a more rigorous methodology for studying them. If we abandon the
communicative model of translation and instead consider its relation to a source text as
hermeneutic, the interpretant can assume crucial importance in analyzing both
translations and adaptations [. . .] The hermeneutic relation can be seen [. . .] as
interrogative, exposing the cultural and social conditions of those materials and of
the translation or adaptation that has processed them. (Venuti, 2007, p. 41)
More boldly than his predecessors, Venuti erases the hair-splitting distinctions
between adaptation and translation altogether. Venuti gives one of the sections in his
article the sub-heading ‘adaptation as translation’; this neatly reverses the title used
by Olga Papusha for her article discussed above, ‘translation as adaptation’. This
epitomizes the move away from the exclusionary view of adaptations still held by
some translation theorists, who stigmatize adaptations because they are unfaithful to
their sources, to a more inclusionary position.
Over a decade earlier, Venuti had touched obliquely on the close link between
translations and adaptations in The Translator’s Invisibility (1995). Looking at the
state of English-language translation in Anglo-American, Venuti notes the strong
preference, among translators, for ethnocentric domestication, whereby the strange is
made familiar, and the Other is turned into the Self. This mode of translation stands
in contrast to ‘foreignization’, which allows differences to be inscribed, and which
Venuti strongly promotes as the preferred alternative (see also Venuti, 1992). Yet
ironically it is the ethnocentric approach that lays the groundwork for his discussion
of adaptations. After all, adaptations are like domesticated translations, where target
values, conventions, and norms are superimposed on the source text, cultural
differences are erased, and the foreign becomes palatable for the local audience.
Recognition of the applicability of translation theory especially its power to unravel
416
L. Chan
what happens to texts undergoing linguistic reconfigurations for adaptation studies
may have come late, but the facility with which translation scholars tackle textual
issues gives this approach special strength when applied. Indeed, Laurence Raw has
expressed his dissatisfaction with many recent studies of adaptation, along with his
wish to ‘learn about the process of textual evolution rather than reading endless
commentaries on completed texts’ (Raw, 2009, p. 73).5
Adaptation and interculturalism
The diverse approaches to adaptation as outlined above are somehow unified by
certain core concepts, most notably by that of transference across cultures, with texts
undergoing reincarnations in new cultural contexts. That being the case, how can
adaptation, understood in translational terms, be related to intercultural studies as
encapsulated in Adam and Janover’s definition? Intercultural studies has emerged as
a discipline because differences between cultures are a crucial cause of conflict and
misunderstanding, arising from different people’s perceptions and thought patterns.
The contribution of adaptation is that it can be a strategy for the assimilation of
differences (i.e. acculturation), with one possible goal being the absorption and/or
acceptance of elements from another culture. The need for adapting material across
cultures is particularly strong in our time because of the increased globalization
processes and intensified cultural exchange. While other methods for facilitating the
intercultural flow are available, adaptation meets easily the two crucial criteria for
successful reception: effectiveness and comfort (Barnett & Kincaid, 1983, p. 172).
Both are generated by the adjustments made in ‘translating’ elements from one
culture to another; in other words, transformations and manipulations enhance the
reception of what is foreign.
Of course, certain negative evaluations of adaptations persist. Doubts have been
raised about the worth of adaptations. There are arguments that they hinder, rather
than promote, genuine exchange. Non-Western scholars, in particular, have expressed
scepticism about the hidden agendas of adaptors in an age that witnesses Western
hegemony (Lim, 1999). Some wonder if comfort is a desirable goal, believing that
fissures and disjunctions can jolt receptors’ awareness to the fact that ‘cultural
purity’ is no more than a figment of the imagination. For a few, hybrid forms are
superior to well-assimilated ones (Tuan, 2007, p. 130). Attacks have also zeroed in on
adaptations as appropriation: adaptations are said to have ‘borrowed’ or ‘stolen’
from their precursors, at times without an understanding what they have done (see
Diamond, 1993, p. 161). In the translation studies field, too, despite a surging interest
in adaptation as noted above, the centuries-old belief that faithfulness to the original
is a supreme virtue dies hard (e.g. Venuti, 1995/2008).
Be that as it may, one should also note that the varieties of adaptation studies all
put a premium on the virtues of adapted works that come under their scrutiny.
Among translation studies scholars, many strive to give value to adaptations, since
efforts to incorporate the foreign, on the one hand, and to reveal the foreign work as
it is, on the other, are judged to be equally viable. The theatre adaptation school,
which conceives of adapted performances as exemplifying a postmodern theatre,
views them as achieving deep significance ‘through releasing the intercultural signs
and the multiple meanings in performances’ (Tuan, 2007, p. 153). And although
some pioneers of the film adaptation school (like Stam) see an adaptation as paling
beside the original, others have advocated dual-perspectival ‘readings’, leading to
Perspectives: Studies in Translatology
417
re-assessments of the superiority of adaptations vis-à-vis their originals. In the case
of children’s literature, since it is a genre that requires constant adaptation across
national and linguistic borders, scholars have not lost sight of how adaptations give
stories, fairytales, and myths their ‘afterlives’ as they travel around the world.
Where does adaptation studies stand in relation to translation and intercultural
studies?6 Most studies of adaptation (like much translation research) are textually
oriented, but intercultural studies often focuses on a wide spectrum of sociological
phenomena (like migration), as shown in the four-volume compilation by Deborah
Cai (2010), in which textual studies are minimal. Of the many realms of
interculturality, adaptation studies can therefore contribute by showing the diversity
of means whereby textual materials from one culture can cross over into another,
much as translation studies does in its own way. This ‘new discipline’ contributes in
its own way to the spread of interculturalism, providing an intellectual basis (rather
than an empirical basis like that deployed by social scientists interested in
intercultural phenomena) for understanding what happens when translational
processes of assimilation, domestication, acculturation, naturalization, and homogenization take place, through an examination of a wide range of printed, visual,
performing, and multimodal artefacts.
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
As opposed to transcultural studies, where the suffix ‘trans’ implies the discovery, in one
culture, of elements that originated from another.
The editorial statement, however, states that the journal publishes articles on other media,
like theatre, television, and animation as well.
The phenomenon has been scrutinized by Bliss Cua Lim (1999), who explicates the ways
in which Asian films became ‘Hollywoodized’.
Of special interest is Henrik Gottlieb’s attempt at formulating an all-inclusive taxonomy of
translation and adaptation types in a conference article (see Gottlieb, 2005).
‘Imitation’ has often been seen as connected even as synonymous to adaptation. The
territory of imitation has not been clearly defined, however. Judging from recurrent
scholarly discourse, ‘imitation’ has primarily been deployed in two senses: as a looser, freer
method of translation, in opposition to verbatim, literal translation, and as the creative
emulation of previous models. The former roughly equates it with adaptation. But the
latter takes imitation to be a kind of rewriting, comparable to what was carried out in
Europe during Renaissance times by the author who learned the styles of eminent (esp.
Greek) predecessors.
One must add that the relevance of translation to intercultural studies is underlined by the
title of one of the largest organizations of translation scholars, International Association
for Translation and Intercultural Studies (IATIS), founded in 2004. According to its
official website description, it is a ‘world-wide forum designed to enable scholars from
different regional and disciplinary backgrounds to debate issues relating to translation
and other forms of intercultural communication’.
Note on contributor
Leo Tak-hung Chan is Professor of Translation and Head of the Department of Translation,
Lingnan University, Hong Kong. His articles have appeared in Harvard Journal of
Asiatic Studies, TTR, Babel, Across Languages and Cultures, The Translator, Comparative
Literature Studies, META, Journal of Oriental Studies, and Asian Folklore Studies. His
recent scholarly books include Readers, Reading and Reception of Translated Fiction in
Chinese: Novel Encounters (St. Jerome Publishing, 2010), Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory: Modes, Issues and Debates (John Benjamins Publishing Co., 2004), and One into
418
L. Chan
Many: Translation and the Dissemination of Classical Chinese Literature (edited; Editions
Rodopi, 2003).
References
Adams, S., & Janover, M. (2009). Introduction: Theorizing the intercultural. Journal of
Intercultural Studies, 30(3), 227231.
Amorim, L.M. (2009). Translation and adaptation: Differences, intercrossings and conflicts in
Ana Maria Machado’s Translation of Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll. Retrieved
from http://www.periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/traducao/article/download/6182/5737 (accessed 2 November 2010).
Barnett, G.A., & Kincaid, D.L. (1983). Cultural convergence: A mathematical theory. In
D.A. Cai (Ed.), Intercultural communication (Vol. 4, pp. 122). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Boldt, L., Federici, C., & Virgulti, E. (Eds.). (2010). Rewriting texts, remaking images:
Interdisciplinary perspectives. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Cai, D.A. (Ed.). (2010). Intercultural communication. Los Angeles, LA: Sage.
Constandinides, C. (2010). From film to post-celluloid adaptation: Rethinking the transition of
popular narratives and characters across old and new media. New York, NY: Continuum.
Diamond, C.T.C. (1993). The Role of cross-cultural adaptation in the ‘Little Theatre’ movement
in Taiwan (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Dollerup, C. (1999). Tales and translation: The Grimm tales from pan-Germanic narratives to
shared international fairytales. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Dong, L. (2011). Mulan’s legend and legacy in China and the United States. Philadelphia, PA:
Temple University Press.
Gottlieb, H. (2005). Multidimensional translation: Semantics turned semiotics. MuTra 2005:
Challenges of multidimensional translation: Conference proceedings, 129.
Hutcheon, L. (2006). A theory of adaptation. London: Routledge.
Jakobson, R. (2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation
studies reader (pp.113118). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1959)
Kao, K.S.Y. (1985). Aspects of derivation in Chinese narrative. Chinese Literature: Essays,
Articles, Reviews, 7(12), 136.
Lim, B.C. (1999). Translating time: Cinema, the fantastic, and temporal critique. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Milton, J. (2009). Translation studies and adaptation studies. In A. Pym & A. Perekrestenko
(Eds.), Translation research projects 2 (pp. 5158). Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group.
Naremore, J. (2000). Film adaptation. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Oittinen, R. (2000). Translating for children. New York, NY: Garland.
Papusha, O. (n.d.). Translation as adaptation: The Winnie-the-Pooh stories as children’s and
adult reading. Retrieved from http://liternet.bg/publish15/o_papusha/translation.htm
(accessed 17 December 2010).
Pavis, P. (1996). Introduction: Towards a theory of interculturalism in the theatre? In P. Pavis
(Ed.), The Intercultural Performance Reader (pp. 126). London: Routledge.
Raw, L. (2009). Two new adaptation studies journals. Literature/Film Quarterly, 37(1), 7274.
Sanders, J. (2006). Adaptation and appropriation. London: Routledge.
Stam, R. (Ed.) (2005). Literature through film: Realism, magic, and the art of adaptation.
Oxford: Blackwell.
Tabbert, R. (2002). Approaches to the translation of children’s literature: A review of critical
studies since 1960. Target, 14(2), 303351.
Tuan, I.H. (2007). Alternative theatre in Taiwan: Feminist and intercultural approaches.
Youngstown, OH: Cambria Press.
Venuti, L. (Ed.). (1992). Rethinking translation: Discourse, subjectivity, ideology. London:
Routledge.
Venuti, L. (2007). Adaptation, translation, critique. Journal of Visual Culture, 6(1), 2543.
Venuti, L. (2008). The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London: Routledge.
(Original work published 1995)