deadline for submissions: 
February 28, 2022
full name / name of organization: 
Guillermo Sanz Gallego / Vrije Universiteit Brussel, VUB

12–18 June 2022
Trinity College Dublin
University College Dublin

Dialogism in translation has attracted the attention of scholars in the past few years either in the form of articles (Peeters 2016; Peeters and Sanz Gallego 2020), or panels in international conferences, such as ‘Translating the Uncle Charles Principle’ in last year’s edition of the International James Joyce Conference in Trieste. Yet, far less attention has been devoted to Joycean intertextuality in translation, and therefore the present panel aims at exploring the translation of this less researched facet of dialogism in translation – but no less interesting from the perspectives of both Joyce Studies and Translation Studies.

Intertextuality was initially defined by Kristeva after her reading of Bakhtin’s dialogic paradigm, as “a mosaic of quotations, an absorption and transformation of another text” (Kristeva 1969, 85). The evolution of the concept has paved the path to today’s understanding of intertextuality in a broader sense, not only restricted to references from or to other texts in a specific work, but also as any type of manifestation, imitation, derivation, parody, or any influence in general of other authors within the new text, such as in Genette’s concepts of palimpsest or hypertext (Genette 1982), or in O’Neill’s “metatextuality”, i.e. “the entire corpus of Joyce translations […] as a single and coherent object of study” (2005, 3) in which the original functions as a “prototext” (2005, 7) for all the translations that constitute a “macrotext” (2005, 9).

As a result, innovative research methodologies have been incorporated to the study of intertextuality, such as those in Scarlett Baron’s work on Joyce, Flaubert, and intertextuality (Baron 2012). Although intertextuality constitutes a major challenge for translators, the abovementioned methodologies have broadly been applied within the discipline of Literary Studies, but remain underexplored in Translation Studies. We refer in particular to what Baron classifies as structural and technical parallels (such as cinematographic writing or epiphanic endings in Joyce and Flaubert), echoes in characterization, plot, and theme, or even coinciding views of different authors regarding specific concepts (Baron 2012).

In this panel we intend to develop a framework to reflect on how intertextuality in this broad sense is rendered in translations. Therefore we would like to invite scholars from both Translation Studies and Joyce Studies, as well as translators to present cases on the translation of intertextuality. We would like to focus both on cases that consider specific translations of intertextual references present in Joyce’s work, and in Ulysses in particular, but also on the presence of Joyce’s work as an intertext in work by contemporary authors influenced by Joyce. Possible research topics may revolve around, but should by no means limited to:

- The translation of intertextual references in Joyce’s Ulysses
- The translation of intertextual references to Joyce’s work in contemporary literature of any language other than English
- Intertextuality in retranslations of Ulysses, as opposed to first or early translations
- Translation strategies and procedures used to render Ulysses’ intertextuality in all its forms
- Possible methodologies to identify intertextual references and allusions, and to assess the way in which they were translated
- The conceptualization of intertextuality in relationship to translation, or of translation in relationship to intertextuality
- Multilingual intertextuality in translation

Please send abstracts of no more than 300 words together with a short bio note of 100 words to Guillermo.Sanz.Gallego@vub.be and Kris.Peeters@uantwerpen.be by 28 February 2022.
Notification of acceptance: 28 March 2022.


Baron, S. (2011). "Will you be as gods?" (U 3.38): Joyce Translating Flaubert. James Joyce Quarterly, 47(4), 521-535.
Baron, S. (2012). Strandentwining Cable: Joyce, Flaubert, and Intertextuality. New York. Oxford University Press.
Genette, G. (1982). Palimpsestes: La Littérature au second degré. Paris. Éditions du Seuil.
Kristeva, J. (1969). Le Mot, le dialogue, et le roman. Sémiótiké : Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris. Éditions du Seuil, 82-112.
Lázaro, L.A. (1996). James Joyce and Juan Goytisolo: Echoes from Ulysses in Reivindicación del conde don Julián. Papers on Joyce, 2, 25-33.
O’Neill, P. (2005). Polyglot Joyce: Fictions of Translation. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press.
Peeters, K. (2016). Traduction, retraduction et dialogisme. Meta, 61(3), 629-649.
Peeters, K. & Sanz Gallego, G. (2020). Translators’ creativity in the Dutch and Spanish (re)translations of Oxen of the Sun: (re)translation the Bakhtinian way. European Joyce Studies, 30, 221-241.
Van Hulle, D. (2008). Manuscript genetics. Joyce’s know-how, Beckett’s nohow. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Van Hulle, D. (2015). Translation and genetic criticism: Genetic and editorial approaches to the ‘untranslatable’ in Joyce and Beckett. Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series: Themes in Translation Studies, 14, 40–53.
Van Hulle, D. (2016). The Virtual Bookcases of James Joyce and Samuel Beckett. Quaerendo, 46(2-3), 192-204.
Venegas Lagüéns, M.L. (1995). Dickens in Ulysses. Papers on Joyce, 1, 91-99.
Venuti, L. (2009). Translation, Intertextuality, Interpretation. Romance Studies, 27(3), 157-173.
Wawrzycka, J. (2010). Introduction: Translatorial Joyce. James Joyce Quarterly, 47(4), 515-520.
Zhao, H. (2017). An Intertextual Approach to Translation at the Micro-Level. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 119-127.