Translation is Dialogue: Language in Transit

  • Arlene Tucker


Tucker has created a programme for people of all ages to understand intersemiotically what happens in the communication and creative process. Translation is Dialogue: Language in Transit uses the framework of the ongoing art installation, Translation is Dialogue (TID). TID introduces various theories of translation and points of entry on how to translate through an array of activities. It is argued that approaching an artwork through the lens of Roman Jakobson’s, Juri Lotman’s, and Peeter Torop’s perspectives on intersemiotic translation, semiosphere, and translational semiotics can help translators, artists and members of the general public to build a practice-led platform for problem solving and understanding creative issues.


  1. Clüver, Claus, and Burton Watson. 1989. “On Intersemiotic Transposition.” Poetics Today 10 (1): 55–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2010. “Think-aloud Protocol.” In Handbook of Translation Studies: Volume 1, edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 371–73. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  3. Jakobson, Roman. [1959] 1966. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, edited by Reuben A. Brower. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Jakobson, Roman. 1981. “Linguistics and Poetics.” In Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, Selected Writings, Vol. III, edited by Roman Jakobson and Stephen Rudy, 18–51. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jakobson, Roman. 1985. “Sign and System of Language: A Reassessment of Saussure’s Doctrine.” In Roman Jakobson Verbal Art, Verbal Sign, Verbal Time, edited by Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy, 28–33. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jakobson, Roman. 1987. “The Dominant.” In Language in Literature, edited by Krystyna Pomorska and Stephen Rudy, 41–46. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Lotman, Juri. 1977. The Structure of The Artistic Text. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  8. Lotman, Juri. [1984] 2005. “On the Semiosphere.” Sign Systems Studies 33 (1): 205–29.Google Scholar
  9. Munday, Jeremy. 2012. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Reiss, Katharina, [1977] 1989. “Text types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment.” In Readings in Translation Theory, edited by Andrew Chesterman, translated by Andrew Chesterman, 105–15. Finland: Oy Finn Lectura Ab.Google Scholar
  11. Sütiste, Elin, and Peeter Torop. 2007. “Processual Boundaries of Translation: Semiotics and Translation Studies.” Semiotica 163 (1/4): 187–207.Google Scholar
  12. Torop, Peeter. 2000a. “Intersemiosis and Intersemiotic.” European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12 (1): 71–100.Google Scholar
  13. Torop, Peeter. 2000b. “Towards the Semiotics of Translation.” Semiotica 128 (3): 597–609.Google Scholar
  14. Torop, Peeter. 2001. “Coexistence of Semiotics and Translation Studies.” In Mission, Vision, Strategies, and Values, edited by Pirjo Kukkonen and Ritva Hartama Heinonen, 211–20. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Vinay, J., and J. Darbelnet. 1995. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  16. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. [1958/1995] 2000. “A Methodology for Translation.” In The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, translated by Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel, 84–93. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arlene Tucker
    • 1
  1. 1.HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations