ACCULTURATION / Acculturation
Tanya MacNeil
Article en cours. Diffusé pour avis, corrections, compléments.
Article in progress. Posted for review, corrections, compléments.
Contact: grassin@unilim.fr
ÉTYMOLOGIE / Philology
The substantif acculturation was formed by the addition of the prefix ac- and the suffix-tion to the root culture (see article CULTURE).
It has since given way to two adjectival derivatives : acculturational and acculturative.
Although the notion of acculturation had seemingly been introduced by the Polish anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942), the term acculturation first appeared in the writings of the American anthropologist J. W. Powell (1834-1902).
Acculturation became a French word in 1911. One who may well be credited for transferring the term from anthropology to comparative literature is the French anthropologist Roger Bastide (1989-1974), the author of an article entitled «L’Acculturation littéraire» (1955).
ÉTUDE SÉMANTIQUE / Definitions
1. The acquisition of characteristics of the cultural group to which the subject belongs. This definition of acculturation is somewhat similar to that of enculturation (a rarity in French terminology).
2. The processes of appropriation of cultural features that are seen as characteristic of a dominant cultural group. As well, the societal acceptance of individuals is based on their adoption of the cultural features of the society into which they are assimilating.
3. The relinquishment of a culture in favour of another.
4. The progressive absorption of an ethnic, a regional or, even, a popular culture by a major, a national or a global culture. For the reason that the latter is understood to be more modern and, as such, a sign of the times being better adapted to present day life, the assimilation of the former can threaten the very autonomy of its original culture (see the articles ÉTHNICITÉ, DOMINANT, GLOBALISATION, MODERNITÉ, MONDIALISATION, NATIONAL, RÉGIONAL, ZEITGEIST).
5. The loss or degradation of cultural features which are characteristic of the first culture of the subject.
This notion of acculturation can be related to a number of neighbouring terms or, inversely, opposed to them. The notion of deculturation, «the loss of cultural identity», is consequently linked to acculturation. On the other hand, ethnicity can be resistance to this kind of cultural erasure. As for transculturation, a complex process of adjustment and recreation that arises out of the clash of at least two cultures, it allows the threatened culture to continue to evolve and, therefore, survive in a new environment. Hence, transculturation can be qualified as reverse acculturation/aacculturation à rebours.
6. A dynamic process in cultural dialogue / dialogue des cultures.
As no culture can exist without being influenced by the other cultures with which it comes into contact, cultural interaction means cultural hybridization/hybridation des cultures and from this not only new literatures, but also new forms of art, expression and communication emerge (see articles ADAPTATION (culturelle), DIALOGUE DES CULTURES, DOMINANT, ÉMERGENCE, ÉMERGENT, ÉTHNICITÉ, HYBRIDATION, RÉSIDUEL, TRANSCULTURATION). A space of cultural mediation then becomes apparent. This domain fonctions as a polysystem, a system of interacting cultures in which some cultures tend to dominate while others tend to be dominated. The associated acculturative systems find themselves modified by institutional factors (educational programmes of the State, the professional world) and literary factors (literature written in foreign languages), by political questions (colonial literature) and, even, by comparative literature issues. When studying hybrid literary texts, many questions do indeed come to mind : How should one distinguish dominant, acquired or transformed cultural traits? How should one perceive implicit and explicit networks of cultural interference? How should one extirpate acculturative intertextuality ? JMG translated by TM
CORRÉLATS / Collocations
ÉMIGRATION*/Emigration literature, ENTRE-DEUX/In-between, EXIL/Exile literature of, EXPATRIÉS/Expatriates,
IMMIGRATION* , INTRACULTUREL; INTRACULTURALITÉ/Intracultural; Intraculturality,
MINORITÉ ,
ADAPTATION/Adaptation, ADSTRAT/Adstratum, ALIÉNATION/Alienation, ALLOGÈNE, ANOMIE/Anomie, ANTROPOLOGIE/Antropology, ANTROPOLOGIE LITTÉRAIRE, APPROPRIATION/Appropriation, ASSIMILATION/Assimilation, ANTROPOFAGIA, AUTONOMIE/Autonomy,
BILINGUISME/Bilingualism, BILINGUISME-DIGLOSSIE, BINAIRE/Binary; Binarism,
Code switching, COLONIAL/Colonial literature, CONTACT/Contact, CRÉOLITÉ/creolness, Cross-dressing, CULTURE/Culture,.
DÉCULTURATION/Deculturation, DEUIL/Mourning, DIALOGUE DES CULTURES/Dialogue of cultures, DIGLOSSIE/Diglossia, DISPARITION, DOMINANT/Dominant,
ÉMERGENCE/Emergence, ÉMERGENT/Emergent/Emerging, ÉMIGRATION/Emigration literature, EMPRUNT/Borrowing, ENTRE-DEUX/In-between, ETHNICITÉ/Ethnicity, EUROCENTRISME/Eurocentrism, ÉVOLUTION/Evolution, EXIL/Exile literature of, EXOPHONE/Literature in foreign langages, EXPATRIÉS/Expatriates,
FRONTIÈRE/Frontier ; Boundary ; Border ; Limit,
GLOBALISATION/Globalization,
HÉTÉROGÈNE/Heterogeneous, HYBRIDE ; HYBRIDITÉ ; HYBRIDATION/Hybrid ; Hybridity ; Hybridization,
IDENTITÉ/Identity, INFLUENCE/Influence, IMMIGRATION/Immigration, IMMIGRÉES, INACHEVÉ/Unfinished, INSTITUTION/Establishment, INTERACTION/Interaction, INTERCULTURALITÉ/Interculturality, INTERTEXTUALITÉ/Intertextuality, INTRACULTUREL; INTRACULTURALITÉ/Intracultural; Intraculturality, INTRACULTURATION/Intraculturation,
MÉTISSAGE/MESTIZAJE/Interbreeding, MINORITÉS/Literature of Minorities, MODERNITÉ/Modernity, Moderness, MONDIALISATION/Globalization ; Global Culture,
NATIONAL(E)/National literature, NÉGRITUDE/Negritude,
PLURALISME/Pluralism, POLYSYSTÈME/Polysystem, POSTCOLONIAL/Postcolonial, POSTMODERNE/Postmoderne, PRIMITIVISME/Primitivism,
RÉGIONAL/Regional, RÉSIDUEL/Residual,
SCHIZOPHRÉNIE/Schizophrenia, SUPERSTRAT/Superstratum.
TRACE/Trace, TRANSCULTURATION/Transculturation, TRANSFERT/Transfer.
ZEITGEIST.
NOMENCLATURES / Families of terms
ANTHROPOLOGIE/Ethnography,
CATÉGORIES GÉNÉRIQUES/Literary kinds, COMPARATISME/Comparative literature, CULTURE/Cultural studies,
DIDACTIQUE/Teaching,
ÉMERGENCE/Emerging process,
HISTOIRE/Historical criticism and New Historicism, HYBRIDE/Mixed forms,
IDENTITÉ/Selfness, INSTITUTION/Establishment, INTERACTIF/Interactive modes, INTERCULTURALITÉ/Intercultural relations, INTERTEXTUALITÉ/Intertext,
LINGUISTIQUE/Language,
MÉDIA/Media studies, MODERNITÉ/Modernity,
POSTMODERNISME/Postmodern, PROCESSUS/Processes, PSYCHOLOGIE/Psychology,
SOCIÉTÉ/Social studies.
MOTS-CLÉS
Adaptation, Aliénation, Anthropologie, Anthropologie littéraire, Assimilation, Autonomie,
Bilinguisme, Binaire,
Catégories génériques, Colonial, Comparatisme, Contact, Culture,
Déculturation, Dialogue des cultures, Didactique, Diglossie, Dominant,
Émergence, Émergent, Émigration, Emprunt, Entre-deux, Ethnicité, Eurocentrisme, Exil, Exophone, Expatriés,
Frontière,
Globalisation,
Hétérogène,
Histoire, Hybridisation,
Identité, Immigration, Immigrés, Inachevé, Institution, Interactif, Interaction, Interculturalité, Intertextualité, Intraculture, Intraculturel, Intraculturalité,
Linguistique,
Média, Métissage, Mestizaje, Minorités, Modernité, Mondialisation,
Nationale, Négride,
Polysystème, Postcolonial(e), Postmoderne, Primitivisme, Psychologie,
Régional, Résiduel,
Schizophrénie, Société,
Transculturation,
Zeitgeist.
Keywords
Adaptation, Aliénation, Assimilation,
Bilingualism,
Colonial literature, Comparative literature, Contact, Cultural studies, Culture,
Deculturation, Dialogue of cultures, Dominant,
Emergence, Emergent, Emerging process, Emigration, Emigration literature, Establishment, Ethnicity, Ethnography, Exile literature of, Expatriates,
Globalization, Global Culture,
Identity, Immigration, Immigrees, In-between, Interactive modes, Interbreeding, Interaction, Interculturality, International relations, Intertext, Intracultural, Intraculturality,
Historical criticism and New Historicism, Hybrid ; Hybridity ; Hybridization,
Language, Literary kinds, Literature in foreign languages, Literature of Minorities,
Media studios, Mestizaje, Minorité, Mixed forms, Modernity, Moderness,
National literature,
Polysystem, Postcolonial, Primitivism, Psychology,
Regional literature, Residual,
Selfness, Schizophrenia, Social studies,
Transculturation.
ÉQUIVALENTS / Correspondences
Allemand : Akkulturation.
Anglais : acculturation, aussi: acculturalization, acculturization (rares); to acculturate, to acculturize (rare).
*acculturer ; adj. acculturational, acculturative, *relatif à l=acculturation, qui provoque une acculturation+.
Arabe :
Chinois :
Espagnol : aculturación.
Français : acculturation, enculturation (plus rare).
Grec :
Italien : acculturazione.
Hébreu :
Hongrois : akkulturáció.
Italien : acculturazione.
Japonais:2L^]6I<^V3$2L^]6MID^36$[2L^]6DI>/<.8FVY]L^]6M]V3; ibunkano juyou, ibunkaheno dôka, [ibunkatono sesshokuniyoru]bunkahen=you.
Latin :
Portugais : aculturação ; enculturação (plus rare).
Russe :"88J:\HJD"P4b akkulturacija, &@BD4bH4, 8J:\HJDZ *DJ(@(@ >"D@*" vosprijatie kultury drugogo naroda .
Viêtnamien / Vietnamese :
COMMENTAIRE / Analysis
The designation acculturation has been used to describe two basic situations. First, the processes of change that result from the contact of two cultures and, second, the result of such changes. Despite this relatively straightforward definition, acculturation, as a concept, remains rather ambiguous. It can, for instance, be ascribed to various types of cultural contacts or to the results of these so-called contacts on the two interacting cultures.
With concerns to acculturation as cultural contact, two major types of interaction based on two types of conditions under which change takes place have been established. On the one hand, free borrowing, or incorporated interchange, occurs when the cultural influence does not lead to the domination of one group and the subsequent subordination of the other. In this case, acculturation can be seen as a sort of dialogue between cultures that both disrupts and dismantles the institutionalised boundaries of language, class, gender and ethnicity. In so doing it engenders the creation of new forms of cultural negotiation which themselves materialize such phenomena as hybridity, creoleness and inbetweeness. (See the articles on ADAPTATION, DOMINANT, ETHNICITÉ, HYBRIDITÉ, MÉTISSAGE, RÉSIDUEL, INTERCULTURE AND TRANSCULTURE.) This is what Nathan Wachtel calls spontaneous acculturation (1974, p.128-129). On the other hand, direct change, otherwise known as incorporation, assimilation or fusion, results when one culture forces the other to absorb its values. An example of this form of acculturation might be the appropriation of national and/or official values of a dominant culture by either an ethnical or a regional culture whereby the survival of the latter will be endangered just as the hegemonic values of the former will be preserved. This situation may be motivated by such factors as emigration, globalisation or even modernisation. That is to say that change is perceived as more acceptable through patterns of the target culture than through those of the source culture. (See articles ALIÉNATION, GLOBALISATION, IMMIGRATION, MODERNITÉ, NATIONAL, RÉGIONAL, ZEITGEIST.) According to Wachtel’s terminology, this corresponds to imposed acculturation(1974, p.128-129). Thus, acculturation can be seen either as positive, as in the first case, or negative, as in the second.
As for acculturation posited as the result of cultural adaptation from one culture to another, several theoretical formulations have been advanced. Among these, Fernando Ortiz (1940) observed that when cultures clash there is not only a one-way transfer of cultural traits from the dominant culture to the subordinate culture (acculturation or enculturation) and a subsequent loss of original traits from the latter in favour of the former (deculturation or exculturation) but, also, transculturation, the two-way exchange of cultural characteristics that allows for new configurations to arise in both cultures. Jean Poirier (1972) insisted upon a larger paradigm comprised of the following : acculturation, déculturation, transculturation, enculturation (the process through which individuals learn the patterns of their first culture), contre-acculturation (protectionist attitudes to prevent acculturation) and reculturation (attempts to retrieve traits of a first culture following acculturation).
These terms gain to be placed in the larger framework of culture that the polysystem theory offers. Initially developed by Itamar Even-Zohar in the late 60’s and later expanded by his colleagues of the Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics at the University of Tel-Aviv in Jerusalem, the polysystem theory explores cultural dynamics. Although it has most often been applied to literary manifestations, this theory attempts to account for underlying cultural patterns and to establish laws of cultural behaviour and communication. Even-Zohar sees culture as «a semiotic system’ and «necessarily a polysystem, a multiple system, a system of various systems which intersect with each other and partly overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning as one structured whole, whose members are interdependant.’ (1979, p. 200) If the researcher observing cultural phenomena is able to go beyond «central» and «peripheral», «primary» and «secondary» forces and account for «interference» between strata, he, or she, can come to encompass all the cultural constructs previously enumerated by Ortiz and Poirier.
While it is true that acculturation was coined in anthropology, it has come to have meaning in a host of different fields such as ethnology, sociology, psychology and comparative literature. The difference in meaning from one discipline to another is, in fact, a difference in focus. Whereas anthropologists insist upon cultural adaptation between two civilisations, ethnologists prefer to speak of cultural change in people. In the same way, sociologists are concerned with cultural appropriations in societies while psychologists are interested in that of the human being. As for literary critics, they study the appropriation of elements from one literary tradition to another. Acculturation can be analysed, for example, through themes, characterization, conceptualization of time and place, use of language and metalanguage.
TM
The subject of acculturation lies at the heart of comparative literature in its relationship to cultural studies. It attempts to capture and to articulate the nature of the interaction of cultures through literary texts. In the past, acculturation has often manifested itself through the dominance of an invading or invasive culture over another; in fact, it has not infrequently been synonymous with the subjection of non-European cultures to Western civilisation. Yet, it can be shown that the receptor culture, far from being passive, has the ability to appropriate and transform the invader culture which in turn undergoes acculturation, a dynamic of great complexity, never at a standstill. JMG
Acculturation is the preferred terrain of researchers in comparative literature who have ties with cultural and cross-cultural studies. Literature written in assumed languages is often compared to national literature (see Mergenthal 1990, Mingshui 1992), as is minority writing to that of the majority ( see Ostendorf 1985, Padolsky 1989). Moreover, colonial literature is viewed from a postcolonial standpoint. Indeed, in recent years much progress has been made in translation and gender studies towards mapping difference and, for some, acculturation seems to be at the heart of the debate (see Simon 1996, von Flotow 1997).
Although acculturation is consistently espoused by critics exploring cultural and cross-cultural identity in literature, it is often missing from dictionaries of literary terms. This absence is itself meaningful. Hence what needs to be explained are the main reasons determining this curious situation and the consequences they have had. Acculturation remains, for the moment, insufficiently defined ; no typology for acculturation has attained literary authority. Three main positions can in effect be defined.
First and foremost, acculturation suffers from a certain lack of precision. While it is true that in his study of Brazilian literature, Roger Bastide investigated acculturation as the sum of Portuguese ‘influences’ and French ‘interpenetrations’, mentioning neither the Theory of Anthropophagy (1928) of Oswald de Andrade (see article ANTROPOFAGIA) nor the concept of transculturation (1950) of Haroldo de Campos, his analysis fell short of its expectations : cultural anthropology did not open up to new ways of literary thinking as the author so hoped it would and acculturation was more or less tantamount to «interference».
The second argument against acculturation is that the term is handicapped by manichaean schemata. In his thesis devoted to the novel of the Reunion Island, Jean-Claude Carpanin-Marimoutou revealed the dualistic nature of ‘acculturation’. The literary subject caught in between two cultures has two choices, as Carpanin-Marimoutou puts it, «soit l’acculturation, par l’acceptation totale et sans restes du [...]dominant, dont le résultat est un purisme de renforcement, une mise en emphase de l’identité acquise ; soit l’exhibition de la différence[...]’ (1990).
Contrary to the preceding information, acculturation is often construed as a too all-embracing term. This is what Guy Dugas (1992) brought to the foreground in a recent article on literature written in the French language from authors who are not French. Taking into account demographics, the prestige of the languages in contact and the state of mind of the users of these languages, he developed three main ideas. Firstly, the greater the demographic difference concerning the cultures in contact, the more radical, or classical, the forms of literary acculturation. Secondly, the greater the prestige associated with the languages in contact, the more controversial, or traditional, the forms of literary subversion. Lastly, depending on whether an author sees the foreign culture as threatening or motivating, he, or she, can be susceptible to literary acculturation. Once again, a more rigorous typology complete with concrete examples needs to be articulated.
The relative absence of acculturation in dictionaries of literary terms can be ascribed to yet another important factor. Acculturation has, in fact, been replaced by a score of other terms over the past thirty some years. This can be understood as proof of change in the view of national and cultural belonging in literature brought on by the advent of postcolonial thought.
It is commonly acknowledged that acculturation harbours an imperialist point of view. More often than not, when a critic examines acculturation in literature, it is a description of the ‘influence’ of the coloniser’s literature on the colonised, or formerly colonised, literature that is given. National literary identity is thus reduced to the susceptibility to mimetism and the ability to copy. Seen in this way, literatures of former colonies are portrayed as indebted, and limited, to Eurocentric values, canons, culture and languages. This evidently forces the perpetuation of oversimplified binary oppositions such as conqueror-conquered, major-minor, centre-periphery, third world-first world, and so on.
With the onset of Postcolonial thought, which Bill Ashcroft, Gareth Griffiths and Helen Tiffin broadly defined as a criticism of «all culture affected by the imperial process from the moment of colonization to present day» (1989, p. 2), what can be qualified as «monolithic European forms, ontology and epistemology» (1989, p.153) has been reviewed. But more importantly, the writing is no longer viewed as copying, it is accepted as «writing back». As Postcolonial literature is constituted in counter discourse practices informed by the transgression and the subversion of colonial models, it seems only natural that the term acculturation, tainted by imperialist innuendos, comes to be affected.
Clearly, for many Postcolonialists, ‘acculturation’ is a thing of the past. It therefore follows that it has been replaced by a change in terminology. This goes to show that not only literary practices but also critical discourse are placed in a process of dialogue and correction by Postcolonialism.
The Latin American theorists use the term transculturation (transculturatión). In the 1970’s, the Uruguayan essay writer Angél Rama borrowed this notion originally devised by the Cuban anthropologist Fernando Ortiz. In a study of the writing of José-Maria Arguedas, Juan Rulfo, Garcia Marquez and Guimarães Rosa, Rama concluded that Latin American literary culture is neither an example of the conqueror’s culture nor an example of the conquered culture but, rather, something entirely new arising from the mixture of the two cultures. At the borders of literatures, where strategies of cultural destruction, absorption and reaffirmation abound, heterogeneous new literary products are created. Since the inauguration of the term by the South Americans it has been transferred to North America. Pratt (1992), Spitta (1995) and Mignolo (2000) have circulated the word in the United States, while Lamore (1989), Tassinari (1993) have done likewise in Québec and Canada.
At the end of the 1980’s, Jean Bernabé, Patrick Chamoiseau and Raphaël Confiant going against the idea of « négritude» dear to Aimé Césaire and extending the notion of caribbeanness advanced by Édouard Glissant, developed the concept of creoleness (créolité) in their manifesto, Éloge de la créolité (1989). The neologism creoleness attempts to describe the uniqueness of literature from the French Caribbean. It is said to be an aggregate of interactional, transactional and historical cultural elements that can be not only traced back to the Caribbean but also to Europe, Asia and Africa. For Jean Bernabé, who sees ‘creoleness’ as an annihilation of monolingualism and purity, the importance of cultural opacity and diversity in Caribbean writing needs to be stressed: « La créolité entend s’inscrire dans le Divers en dehors de toute confrontation binaire. A la quête nostalgique de la pureté africaine, elle préfère la réalité triviale du mélange, du métissage.» (1998, p. 64).
The English speaking postcolonial critics have chosen their own terms for acculturation. Homi Bhabha invented, for instance, hybridity, for cultural admixture. According to Bhabha, « The representation of difference must not be hastily read as the reflexion of pre-given ethnic or cultural traits set in the fixed tablet of tradition. The social articulation of difference, from the minority perspective, is a complex on-going negotiation that seeks to authorize cultural hybridities.» (1990, p. 2) In the « liminal» or « interstitial» space between national constituencies, cultures overlap, «hybridity» is produced. Bhabha further posits this space as inbetweeness or, even, « a third spac». « The pact of interpretation», Bhabha writes, « is never simply an act of communication between the I and the You designated in the statement. The production of meaning requires that these two places be mobilized in the passage through a Third Space, which represents both the general conditions of language and the specific implication of the utterance in a performative and institutional strategy of which it cannot ‘in itself’ be conscious.» (1990, p. 36)
Of course, the terms that have come to replace acculturation differ from one literary tradition to another but what they all have in common is the refusal of colonialist dichotomies opposing ‘us’ and ‘them’, ‘self’ and ‘other’, ‘dominant’ and ‘dominated’. Cultural self-determination in postcolonial literature is then based on the intermingling of traditions leading to the creation of multifaceted realities appearing unexpectedly open-ended.
In summary, unlike the majority of literary terms, acculturation may not be remembered for what it has represented but, perhaps, for the extensive theoretical ‘writing back’ it has generated.
Tanya MacNeil
Bibliographie / References
Ashcroft, Bill ; Griffiths, Gareth ; Tiffin,Helen.– The Empire Writes Back : Theory and Practice in Postcolonial Literatures.– London : Routledge, 1989.
Bastide, Jean.– «Acculturation littéraire» (1955), in Le Proche et le lointain.– Paris : L'Harmattan, 2000, p. 201-209.
Bernabé, Jean ; et al.– Éloge de la créolité.– Paris : Gallimard, 1989.
Bernabé, Jean.– «Négritude césairienne et créolité», in Europe, n° 832-833, août-sept 1998, p. 57-78.
Bhabha, Homi.– The Location of Culture.– London : Routledge, 1994.
Carpanin-Marimoutou, Jean-Claude.– Le roman réunionnais. Une problématique du Même et de l'Autre. Essai sur la poétique du texte romanesque en situation de diglossie. Thèse d’Etat.– Montpellier, Université Paul Valéry, 1990. To view this thesis on line, go to :
[http://www.littérature-réunionnaise.org/marimoutou/sommaire.htm]
Dugas, Guy.– «Francophonie, acculturation, littératures nationales et dominées... Retour sur quelques concepts mal définis», in Convergences et divergences dans les littératures francophones.– Paris : L'Harmattan, 1992, p.15-21.
Even-Zohar, Itamar.- «Polysystem Theory», in Poetics Today, 1, 1-2, 1979.
Kushner, Eva ; Dimić, Milan V., (eds.).– Acculturation. Actes du XI e congrès de l’Association Internationale de Littérature Comparée (Paris, 1985).– Bern : Peter Lang, 1994, 284p.
Lambert, José.- «Polysystem Theory : An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Cultural Research», in CRCL/RCLC, vol. XXIV, n°1, march 1997, p. 8-14.
Lamore, Jean.- «Transculturation : naissance d'un mot», in Vice Versa, n°21, 1989.
Mergenthal, Silvia.– «Acculturation Processes and Family Structures. Mo's Sour Sweet, Kureishi's The Buddha of Surburbia, Ishiguro's A Pale View of Hills», in Breitiniger, E. (ed.), Defining New Idioms and Alternative Forms of Expression.– Atlanta : Eckhard, 1990.
Mignolo, Walter.– Transculturation : thinking about the borders and creolization, in Local histories/global designs : coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking.– Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 164-171.
Mingshui, Cai, «A Balanced View of Acculturation : Comments on Lawrence Yep's Three Novels», in Children's Literature in Education, 23, 2 June 1992, p. 107-118.
Ostendorf, Berndt.– «Literary Acculturation : What Makes Ethnic Literature Ethnic», in Calaloo : A Black South Journal of Arts and Letters, 8, 3, 1985, p. 577-86.
Ortiz, Fernando.– El Contrapunteo cubano del azucar y del tabaco.– La Habana : Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, 1983 [1940].
Padolsky, Enoch.– «Canadian Minority Writing and Acculturation Options», in Pivato, Joseph, Tötösy de Zepetner, Steven and Milan V. Dimic (eds.).– Literature of Lesser Diffusion/ Les littératures de moindre diffusion, special issue of CRCL/ RCLC, 16, 3-4, 1989, p. 600-618.
Poirier, Jean.– «Ethnies et cultures», in Ethnologie régionale.– Paris : Gallimard, 1972, p. 24-25.
Pratt, Mary Louise.– Imperial Eyes : Travel Writing and Transculturation.– New York and London : Routledge, 1992
Rama, Angel.– Transculturación narrativa en América Latina.– Mexico : Siglo, XXI, 1981.
Riecz, Joachim.– «L'Acculturation à rebours : un thème littéraire», in Diogène, n° 135, 1986, p. 50-65.
Riesz, János .– «L’Acculturation à rebours : un thème littéraire», in Diogène, n° 135.- Juillet-septembre 1986, 1, rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15.
Simon, Sherry.– Gender in Translation. Culture and Identity and the Politics of Tranmission.- London : Routledge 1996
Spitta, Silvia.– Between Two Waters. Narratives of Transculturation in Latin America.– Houston : Rice University Press, 1995.
Tassinari, Lorenzo.– «Ethnicité, inaccomplissement et transculture», in Vice Versa, n° 40, février-mars 1993, p. 10-11.
Von Flotow, Luise.– Translation in the «Era of Feminism».– Ottawa : University of Ottawa Press, 1997.
Wachtel, Nathan.– «L'acculturation», in LeGoff, Jacques et Pierre Nora.– Faire de l'histoire.– Paris : Gallimard, tome I, 1974, p.124-146.