1.1 Methodology

Recent publications (Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023; Miletich Reference Miletich2024b; Spitzer and Oliveira Reference Spitzer and Oliveira2023) show that, in contrast to what Ben-Ari (Reference Ben-Ari, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 122) concluded, the fictional turn has not ‘exhausted itself’. However, this turn has developed in close dependence on relatively isolated cases. This tendency has arguably kept fictional enquiry in translation from having a considerable impact on Translation Studies as a whole in terms of how research is carried out, as opposed to the materials researchers can act on. In 2014, when the term ‘transfiction’ appeared, Ben-Ari asked rhetorically ‘[h]ow many more novels about frustrated translators/interpreters? Past parody, what remains is tedious repetition’ (ibid.). More than ten years later, the same repetition is still apparent, but in the form that most transfiction research has taken, rather than in creative work featuring translators. In her review of Cleary’s The Translator’s Visibility (Reference Cleary, Baer and Woods2021), Strümper-Krobb (Reference Strümper-Krobb2022, 345) notes how ‘Cleary’s observations about the way in which the theme of translation is mobilized’ in Latin American literature ‘echo what has been argued by scholars like Klaus Kaindl, Dirk Delabastita and Rosemary Arrojo with regard to texts from a wide range of literatures’. Strümper-Krobb’s comments on Cleary’s monograph are far from diminishing its contribution to knowledge and, in fact, point to the transferability of existing findings. At the same time, however, these comments may be taken as indicative of a certain repetition in how transfiction research has been designed (see also Bergantino Reference Bergantino2024, 237). One way of advancing research in this field in a more systematic and productive way, therefore, is to map how knowledge has been produced in transfiction studies, as opposed to focusing on specific instances of the phenomenon. Meta-research would provide a comprehensive picture of transfiction studies that concentrated engagement with individual texts could not.

While meta-research – or research on research – has gained traction across a variety of scientific domains (Hoon Reference Hoon2013, 526; Ioannidis Reference Ioannidis2024, 2; Timulak and Creaner Reference Timulak, Creaner and Flick2022, 555), Translation Studies does not appear to follow suit.Footnote ³ As observed by Du and Salaets (Reference Du and Salaets2025, 2), in their meta-study of collaborative learning in translation and interpreting, in Translation and Interpreting Studies, ‘there has been a lack of efforts to synthesise existing literature, including methodological approaches, empirical findings, and limitations, and to explore their implications for future research’. This state of affairs also applies to transfiction research, which has relied heavily, if not exclusively, on case studies and qualitative methods, without necessarily bringing existing studies into conversation. Therefore, to reach the aims outlined earlier, Charting Transfiction adopts a meta-analytical research style. In other words, it does not provide another in-depth analysis of one or multiple primary sources that happen to have a transfictional component. Instead, it collates existing studies to capture the state of the art of transfiction research as a whole. To reach this aim, it catalogues the practices of this area of enquiry, namely ‘the research methods and procedures used to conduct the research activities’ (Causadias et al. Reference Causadias, Korous, Cahill and Rea-Sandin2023, 88), as well as the materials underpinning these activities and the related dissemination strategies. This way, gaps in existing research are found, and new research avenues are identified that could be experimented with in future transfiction studies to bridge these gaps.

Case studies are a common research design in Translation Studies in general (Borg Reference Borg, Blakesley and Large2023, 35; Hadley Reference Hadley2023, 12; Susam-Sarajeva Reference Susam-Sarajeva2009, 37). Yet literature focusing on their use in translation research specifically is not particularly rich. Case studies have been shown to be an applicable approach to ‘illustrat[e] and problematis[e] findings’ (Hadley Reference Hadley2023, 10), as well as generating hypotheses (Saldanha and O’Brien Reference Saldanha and O’Brien2013, 209). However, as noted in other Translation Studies subfields like indirect translation, this research style ‘may not be the likely means by which the topic comes to be fully integrated within Translation Studies to the extent that its methods and findings inspire research in other topics’ (Hadley Reference Hadley2023, 10). Further complications are given by the different understandings of what counts as a case, and whether cases are to be taken as a specific method, a general methodology, or a flexible research style, as well as what each of these alternatives is supposed to look like. In addition, the extent to which the context-bound findings of individual case studies can be generalised is controversial (Flyvbjerg Reference Flyvbjerg2006, 226–228; Saldanha and O’Brien Reference Saldanha and O’Brien2013, 209; Susam-Sarajeva Reference Susam-Sarajeva2009, 44).

In this context, case studies are understood as ‘a particular design of research, where the focus is on an in-depth study of one or a limited number of cases’ in the context of which ‘particular methods may then be adopted’ (Tight Reference Tight2017, 6, 21). Saldanha and O’Brien (Reference Saldanha and O’Brien2013, 207) explain that in Translation Studies ‘a case can be anything from an individual person (translator, interpreter, author) or text …, to a whole organization, such as a training institution or a translation agency, and even a literary system’. In transfiction research, these options have been restricted to texts that contain a transfictional element.

1.2 The Fictional Turn: An Overview

While analyses of individual literary texts in transfiction research abound, the number of comprehensive overviews of this subfield is quite modest. Publications providing a reference point in the field might be expected to be found in encyclopaedias and handbooks, along with introduction chapters. The corpus of this study includes only two encyclopaedia entries, two handbook chapters, and seven publications with the function of introducing edited collections and special issues. Collectively, these are 11 publications out of 113, constituting 12.4% of the corpus. This section synthesises this subgroup of publications, together with other landmark publications, to provide an overview of the recurrent themes, functions, and types of narratives that fictional translators have been found to appear with, contextualising them within the fictional turn in Translation Studies.

The fictional turn has relied on two overarching principles, one of a theoretical nature and the other of a methodological one. The first principle is condensed by Pagano (Reference Pagano, Tymoczko and Gentzler2002, 80–81) in the argument that ‘fictional works contain a theoretical component’ and, hence, fiction can be incorporated in Translation Studies ‘as a medium of theoretical speculation’ and ‘translation theorization’. This idea of fiction being complementary to traditional academic research has been reiterated by several transfiction scholars, becoming a recurrent justification for research engaging with fictional representations despite conspicuous terminological diversity (e.g., Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Kaindl and Spitzl2014; Gentzler Reference Gentzler2008; Lavieri Reference Lavieri2007/2016; Spitzer Reference Spitzer, Spitzer and Oliveira2023; Spitzl Reference Spitzl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014). The fictional turn does not operate under the illusion of using fiction as a source of evidence or crystallised factual information on translation theory and practice. Giraldo and Piracón (Reference Giraldo, Piracón, Spitzer and Oliveira2023, 112) remain cognisant of this logical complication when they explain that

Fiction does not necessarily overlap or aim to reproduce reality (John Reference John and Hagberg2016, 36; Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Spitzer and Oliveira2023, 25; Reference Kaindl and Woodsworth2018b, 164). Thus, rather than proposing ‘a complete postmodern fictionalization of the world’, transfiction is used as a basis to reflect on ‘points of intersection’ between fiction and reality, ‘points that can contribute to a fruitful exchange and the discovery of new ideas’ (Kaindl Reference Kaindl and Woodsworth2018b, 159). The fictional turn harnesses the potential of fictional representations to offer ‘a comment on the socio-cultural values and the state of the world we live in’ (Delabastita and Grutman Reference Delabastita and Grutman2005, 24), a point raised about fictional characters more generally (Carroll Reference Carroll and Hagberg2016, 84; John Reference John and Hagberg2016, 46; Schoeneborn and Cornelissen Reference Schoeneborn, Cornelissen, Neesham, Reihlen and Schoeneborn2022, 140, 152). Fictional representations of translators, in particular, are argued to provide a ‘mimetic treatment’ of ‘those ‘black-box’ aspects of the translational process that translations as finished products obscure’ (Beebee Reference Beebee2012, 3), such as affective elements (Anderson Reference Anderson2005, 181). Moreover, they have been used to deconstruct clichés traditionally associated with translation and translators, including the nebulous notions of ‘original’, ‘equivalence’, ‘fidelity’, ‘authorship’, along with their related dichotomies (Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Cronin and Inghilleri2018, 18; Kaindl Reference Kaindl and Woodsworth2018b, 161; Lavieri Reference Lavieri2007/2016, 63–82).

While theorisation based on fictional representations has been widely justified, the ways in which this can happen in practice have not been outlined in great detail. Hagedorn (Reference Hagedorn2006, 11) was probably one of the first scholars to provide a broad description of how research on the theme of translation can be done. Hagedorn identified an underlying methodological principle in the ‘inversión de la perspectiva traductológica’ [inversion of the translational perspective]. Accordingly, this kind of research is not concerned with finding out what happens when a text is translated into another language and the related strategies adopted by the translator, but with how writers represent translators and translation in their narratives, and what characteristics and implications these representations may have (see also Wilson Reference Wilson2007, 382).

Scholarly engagement with ‘the triad fiction-theory-translation’, as Pagano (Reference Pagano, Tymoczko and Gentzler2002, 81) puts it, has resulted in the identification of thematic constellations, recurrent functions of translations as a narrative element, and points at which fiction and academic enquiry can meet. Delabastita and Grutman list possible themes accompanying the fictional representations of multilingualism and translators, namely trust, loyalty versus betrayal, invisibility and authorial ambition, untranslatability, trauma, and identity (Reference Delabastita and Grutman2005, 23; emphasis in the original). Because it is often used metaphorically, as opposed to an act of linguistic transfer, translation can also be used because of its ‘expressive, symbolic, and representative potential … to address themes of movement, such as migration, flight, displacement, wandering, restlessness, or uprooting’ – in sum, ‘a whole plethora of transfer processes’ (Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 2, 4; emphasis added). Many of these topics, by now, have become recurrent talking points both in transfictional texts and academic literature more broadly. Delabastita (Reference Delabastita, Baker and Saldanha2020, Reference Delabastita, Baker and Saldanha2009) goes on to describe some of the contexts in which fictional language mediators are likely to be encountered. These range from the transmission of divine messages in sacred texts to science fiction, from narratives of conflict, broadly conceived, to those of colonisation and espionage. Ben-Ari (Reference Ben-Ari, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 114–116), instead, proposes a tentative typology of novels with translator-protagonists, identifying four categories: postcolonial novels, post-structural novels, best-sellers that capitalise on translation as a fashionable theme, and novels that parody the same theme and/or genre.

Moving on from the themes to the roles performed by translation as a narrative element, Kaindl (Reference Kaindl, Gambier and van Doorslaer2012, 146–147) identifies five main functions:

1. 1. The figure-characterizing function assigns certain characteristics to fictional language mediators, which often take the form of translatorial clichés, such as betrayers, uprooted subjects, and facilitators. Associated with this function is the hypothesis that transfiction may be taken as indicative of how specific cultures think of translators and interpreters, a hypothesis which builds on ‘Lévi-Strauss’ (1985, 9) thesis that societies frequently ascribe certain traits to certain professions’ (Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 17).

2. 2. When the topic of translation works as an allusion to wider philosophical matters and societal and historical concerns it performs a symbolic function.

3. 3. Similarly, the metaphorical function shifts translation from a text-based act to a metaphor, such as cultural translation.

4. 4. The meta-narrative function occurs when the entire narrative hinges on the theme of language mediation itself. Kaindl (Reference Kaindl, Gambier and van Doorslaer2012, 147) notes elsewhere that this function is privileged by authors who are also translators and use fiction as a site to reflect on their profession.

5. 5. The meta-fictional function occurs when translation is used as a narrative device conducive to the unfolding of the plot, typically in the form of mysterious manuscripts and their (pseudo)translation. This function overlaps with those described by Hagedorn (Reference Hagedorn2006) in his anatomy of fictitious translations, as well as those traditionally ascribed to pseudotranslation, such as the introduction of stylistic novelties, mechanisms to deflect authorship, as well as the responsibility it comes with, and parody (Bergantino Reference Bergantino2023; Kupsch-Losereit Reference Kupsch-Losereit, Kaindl and Spitzl2014; Maher Reference Maher, Washbourne and Van Wyke2019; Rath Reference Rath, Bandia, Hadley and McElduff2024; Strümper-Krobb Reference Strümper-Krobb and Woodsworth2018).

While the identification of these themes and functions offers reference points for transfiction research, it does not deal with the complications arising from the fact that the ways in which fiction and academic literature describe the world are, by definition, distinct. In the context of the fictional turn, this discrepancy is perceived as an advantage for research. Pagano (Reference Pagano, Tymoczko and Gentzler2002, 97), for instance, explains that ‘fiction represents a genre that informs translation thinking from a comprehensive perspective, sensitive to relationships and movements difficult to capture through more orthodox analyses that do not consider fictional texts’. What these relationships and movements might look like and what implications they may have for translation theory-building and hypotheses, however, is often left to interpretation and philosophical observations. An attempt at pinpointing these relationships between (trans)fiction and academic enquiry is presented in a chapter of A History of Modern Translation Knowledge, where Kaindl (Reference Kaindl, D’hulst and Gambier2018a, 53–54) lists four points of intersections:

1. 1. The first point is theory. Fictional representations are seen as a potential starting point to develop theoretical understandings of translation, thematising concerns that are resonant with academic issues, such as the relationship between translations and their sources, authorship and translatorship, in a way that is often reminiscent of translation theories originating in deconstructive and postmodern approaches.

2. 2. Identity follows, being thematised in transfiction in a variety of ways, ranging from the individual to the national level, while also considering migration and translingual and transcultural identities.

3. 3. Poetics is the third intersection. Reference is made here to Lavieri’s Translatio in Fabula (Reference Lavieri2007/2016), where it is argued that ‘[l]a valorizzazione del traduttore e del suo lavoro diventano possibili soltanto attraverso il riconoscimento di una poetica che gli sia propria’ [the valorisation of translators and their work becomes possible only through the acknowledgement of their own poetics] (Lavieri Reference Lavieri2007/2016, 51).

4. 4. Pedagogy refers to ‘the potential of fictional texts for translator and interpreter training’ (Kaindl Reference Kaindl, D’hulst and Gambier2018a, 54). Cronin (Reference Cronin2009, xi) had already encouraged the pedagogical use of transfictional materials, pointing to films featuring language mediation as valid teaching and learning resources. Recent pedagogical applications of transfiction are found in Cleary (Reference Cleary, Baer and Woods2021) and Kripper (Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023).

In ‘The Remaking of the Translator’s Reality. The Role of Fiction in Translation Studies’, Kaindl (Reference Kaindl and Woodsworth2018b, 162–168) extends this list of intersections, adding historiography and anthropology to theory, identity, poetics, and pedagogy. These intersections are presented here in light of ‘the epistemological knowledge that can be gained from fictional representations of translators and interpreters’ (ibid., 158).

1. 5. Historiography, like fiction, is seen as far from providing bare facts because ‘the depiction of historical events inevitably involves narrative emplotments’ (Kaindl Reference Kaindl, D’hulst and Gambier2018a, 163). This connection between fiction and historiography is also teased out by Spitzer (Reference Spitzer2017, 15), who explains that when ‘narrating events from a distant past, … a fictionality resounds from the very possibility of writing such a narrative with direct speech and an interiority assigned to characters’. A famous example is the story of Doña Marina, also known as la Malinche, the interpreter of Hernán Cortés who is often invoked in transfiction research (e.g., Cleary Reference Cleary, Baer and Woods2021; Gentzler Reference Gentzler2008; Valdeón Reference Valdeón2011).

2. 6. Finally, Kaindl (Reference Kaindl and Woodsworth2018b, 164–168) argues that fictional representations intersect with anthropology because authors of transfiction draw from a society’s imagery of translation as a context-bound phenomenon. Fictional representations, therefore, are ‘rooted in a collective translatorial memory of a society’ (ibid., 165; emphasis in the original). Accordingly, analysing transfiction would imply dealing with the conceptualisations of translation proper to specific cultures and traditions in space and time.

The findings of existing transfiction research presented in this section, in terms of themes transfiction has been found to appear with, the types of novels featuring translator-characters, the functions of translation within fiction, and the intersections of (trans)fiction and other fields of academic enquiry are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1Themes, functions, intersections, and types of novels

Table 1Long description

The table consists of 4 columns: Themes, Functions, Intersections, and Types of novels. It is arranged in rows, and the items in each column stand alone without any intended associations to items in other columns. Themes: loyalty versus betrayal; (in)visibility; authorial ambition; untranslatability; trauma; identity; colonisation; diplomacy and espionage; movement and transfer. Functions: figure-characterising; symbolic; metaphorical; meta-narrative; meta-fictional. Intersections: theory; identity; poetics; pedagogy; historiography; anthropology. Types of novels: postcolonial; post-structural; best-sellers; parodies.

Identifying these themes, functions, and intersections in conjunction with transfiction as a phenomenon and a research area is conducive to a better mapping of transfiction and transfiction research, which have both been largely unsystematised. Existing literature does not suggest that these functions and intersections are in a relation of mutual exclusion. The difference between symbolic function and metaphorical function, for instance, is very nuanced. Likewise, historical narratives about translator figures in a specific context may feed not only into historiography, but also anthropology and pedagogy. Kripper (Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023, 43) exemplifies this possibility, anchoring her area-specific analysis of Latin American transfiction to a culture of ‘mistranslation and other digressive approaches [that] disrupt official historical discourses in contrapuntal narratives that reread and rewrite history’. In addition, Kripper (Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023) uses her case studies of transfiction for pedagogical purposes, proposing questions for class discussion at the end of each chapter of her monograph. Therefore, while this categorisation represents a valid reference point when navigating transfiction and its publishing landscape, it may well be the case that the fabric of functions, intersections, and themes of transfiction is much more fine-spun than it appears here.

2.1 Themes in Transfiction and Transfiction Research

When it comes to themes, in particular, the identification of clear-cut thematic areas can be far from straightforward within and outside transfiction research, for several reasons. First, subjective interpretations of a narrative can easily result in somewhat arbitrary thematic categories. Second, themes themselves are often hard to tell apart, so matters of identity could be closely bound up with the phenomenon of self-translation, and the act of writing could be perceived as encapsulating that of translating, as opposed to the two being completely different processes. Similarly, the idea of transfer can play out on a linguistic level, as well as on an existential or physical one. Third, methodological complications can influence this identification. Hadley (Reference Hadley2023, 13) notes that ‘[p]articularly for topics that could be seen as contentious, it may be especially problematic to rely on forms of analysis that do not have any obvious means of accounting and control for confirmation bias, such as close reading’. Even when conducting a meta-analytical study, nevertheless, it is complicated to tell apart the themes found in each publication from the themes of their respective primary sources, especially because this research design zooms out to a wide, comprehensive view of existing research, as opposed to offering a detailed review of each item in the dataset.

To provide a thematic overview trying to curb subjective interpretivism, while also accounting for more than a hundred publications, key words were extracted from each publication whenever available, being taken as indicative of the main themes with which the publications engage. When no key word was indicated explicitly, words appearing in section titles were used. These were filtered further to identify those key words and the related themes that appear with the highest frequency in the dataset. Further filtering was applied to those concepts that tend to appear in pairs, typically with one concept being the counterpart of or closely related to the other, such as ‘invisibility’ and ‘visibility’ or ‘infidelity’ and ‘fidelity’, as well as ‘colonialism’ and ‘postcolonialism’. The results of these procedures are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Top key words

‘Identity’ was found to be the most represented topic in the corpus (14.8%), followed by ‘(in)visibility’ (13%), research dealing explicitly with ‘interpreters’ (9.3%), rather than translators in general, ‘(in)fidelity’ (7.4%), and ‘(post)colonialism’ (6.5%) at the same place as ‘author/translator relations’ (also 6.5%). ‘Gender’, ‘self-translation’, and ‘translingualism’ follow, sharing the same frequency (4.6%). ‘Autobiography’ is represented in 3.7% of the corpus. Other topics ranging from ‘postmodernism’ to ‘ideology’ appear less frequently, with each accounting for 2.8% of the corpus.

Figure 1 confirms identity as one of the underlying topics in transfiction research. Identity stands out as a multifaceted and complex concept, as it can refer to single individuals or groups, as well as nations and even larger geographical areas and cultural traditions (Cronin Reference Cronin2000; Gentzler Reference Gentzler2008; Godbout Reference Godbout, Kaindl and Spitzl2014), spanning postcolonial and migratory configurations (Polezzi Reference Polezzi2012, 354) and globalisation (Cronin Reference Cronin2003, 73; Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Gambier and van Doorslaer2012, 145). The increase in the number of narratives featuring fictional translators, in fact, has often been traced back to globalisation and the challenges it has posed for individuals, translation, and society in general (Delabastita Reference Delabastita, Baker and Saldanha2009; Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Angelelli and Baer2016; Kaindl and Kurz Reference Kaindl, Kurz, Kaindl and Kurz2010a; Strümper-Krobb Reference Strümper-Krobb2003).

Other high-frequency themes shown in Figure 1 have been the subject of ongoing debate not only in transfiction research, but in Translation Studies more broadly. Invisibility epitomises this pattern, being ‘one of the most ubiquitous concepts in contemporary translation studies’ (Freeth Reference Freeth, Freeth and Treviño2024, 7). Much research in transfiction has engaged with this topic to argue that fictional representations may contribute to elevating translators from their notorious state of invisibility. This pattern in transfiction research, which has been labelled as ‘compensation theory’ (Bergantino Reference Bergantino2024, 118-119), emerges from studies on both transfiction in general and individual cases (Beebee Reference Beebee2012, 217; Cronin Reference Cronin2009, x–xi; Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 4; Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023, 111; Strümper-Krobb Reference Strümper-Krobb2009, 14–21; Wilhelm Reference Wilhelm2010, 88–93; Wilson Reference Wilson2007, 381–382). To date, there has been little challenge to this theory of augmented translator visibility through fictional representation (Ben-Ari Reference Ben-Ari, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021, 159; Reference Ben-Ari, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 122; Reference Ben-Ari2010, 235–236).

Likewise, the notion of (in)fidelity is by now a cliché in translation theory, in close connection to the idea of equivalence. The myth of translation as a sameness-driven practice has been dispelled as one of ‘the innumerable fictions’ in Translation Studies (Kaindl Reference Kaindl and Woodsworth2018b, 161), an ‘untruth’ (Cronin Reference Cronin2000, 109). Lavieri (Reference Lavieri2007/2016, 67–69) counts equivalence, faithfulness, and literality among common misconceptions of translating, and Venuti (Reference Venuti, Abel and Végső2019, ix) explicitly traces the qualifier ‘faithful’ back to ‘the simplistic, clichéd thinking that has limited our understanding of it [translation] for millennia’. The fact that much effort has been put into demonstrating the fallacies on which the narrative of translation as simplistic replication is based is significant. It indirectly shows that the assumption under which translators operate is often that of translation conceived not as a transformative endeavour, but as an unvaried replication of its sources. The ‘equivalence supermeme’, in Chesterman’s words, ‘has continued to flourish’ (Reference Villeneuve2016, 14; emphasis in the original). This might indicate that the nebulous notion of ‘equivalence’ – and the expectations it comes with – is still a deeply rooted idea in the lay imagery of translation, which may subsequently percolate through fiction.

A common thread between these three topics is that, while attracting notable scholarly attention, they are not particularly well-defined and/or accompanied by detailed, interoperable descriptions. Consequently, they might appeal to both transfiction researchers and researchers in other areas of specialisation within Translation Studies precisely because they are flexible concepts, lending themselves to a variety of understandings. (In)fidelity, for example, has been used in connection to gendered roles in writing and translating (Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Cronin and Inghilleri2018, 133; Wilson Reference Wilson2009, 189), as well as being taken as a purposefully deviating strategy of mistranslation (Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023, 6–7).

2.2 Transfiction Research in Time

The distribution of English-language publications in transfiction research in the time frame 1995–2025 is shown in Figure 2. The figure illustrates the development of this research line, which moved from scattered publications between 1995 and 2004 to a notable peak in 2005, followed by the highest concentration of publications in 2014. This number then drops considerably, to rise again more recently, between 2023 and 2024. The evolution of transfiction research in time captured in the figure is far from being gradual. The number of publications does not increase steadily. Instead, three main upward trends can be noticed, accompanied by periods of relatively little growth.

Figure 2 Distribution of transfiction publications in time

These trends are found in connection with 2005 (fourteen publications, equal to 12.4% of the corpus), 2014 (twenty-four publications, equal to 21.2% of the corpus), and 2023–2024 (thirteen publications each, and each equal to 11.5% of the corpus). Another increase can be seen in 2018 (eight publications, equal to 7.1% of the corpus). These peaks correspond to the years in which landmark studies in transfiction research were published.

The first attempt at systematically exploring what would later be called ‘transfiction’ was the fourth volume of Linguistica Antverpiensia edited by Delabastita and Grutman (Reference Delabastita and Grutman2005) under the title ‘Fictionalising Translation and Multilingualism’. This volume focused on ‘the two possible outcomes of language contact’, namely multilingualism and translation (Delabastita and Grutman Reference Delabastita and Grutman2005, 12), as opposed to considering the representations of translator-characters as a distinct phenomenon. At this stage, therefore, transfiction was conflated with the ‘fictional representations’ of both topics (ibid., 14). This special issue, which challenged strict disciplinary boundaries to embrace linguistics, history, and sociology, arguably resulted in enhanced visibility of fictional translators as a phenomenon worth exploring, as well as in enhanced systematisation. The general and descriptive terminology used by Delabastita and Grutman was then also used in other book chapters and articles (e.g., Kaindl Reference Kaindl, D’hulst and Gambier2018a, Reference Kaindl, Angelelli and Baer2016; Wakabayashi Reference Wakabayashi2011). It is significant that the first time the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies included an entry dedicated to fictional representations was in 2009, four years after the 2005 thematic issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia, reiterated in its latest edition (Delabastita Reference Delabastita, Baker and Saldanha2009, Reference Delabastita, Baker and Saldanha2020).

Acknowledging the work of Delabastita and Grutman, Cronin drew attention ‘to translators not so much as agents of representation but as objects of representation’ in films (Cronin Reference Cronin2009, x). Beebee’s notion of ‘transmesis’ followed (Reference Beebee2012), and it arguably contributed to consolidating this subfield, straddling Translation Studies and Literary Studies. ‘Transmesis’, nevertheless, does not refer precisely or solely to the representation of translators in fiction. Instead, it denotes ‘the mimesis of the interrelated phenomena of translation, multilingualism, and code-switching’ (Beebee Reference Beebee2012, 6). The collection Transfiction: Research into the Realities of Translation Fiction, edited by Kaindl and Spitzl (Reference Spitzl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014), was published two years later. In its introduction chapter, Kaindl (Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 4) contextualises the phenomenon of transfiction, as well as providing its definition along with a description of the collection’s scope:

Since then, the term transfiction has been used regularly to denote the phenomenon under discussion, becoming entrenched in academic usage via international conferences and the publications originating from them (Ben-Ari and Levin Reference Ben-Ari and Levin2016, 339; Kolb, Pöllabauer, and Kadrić Reference Kolb, Pöllabauer, Kadrić, Kadric, Kolb and Pöllabauer2024, 12; Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023, 5; Miletich Reference Miletich and Miletich2024a, xvii; Woodsworth Reference Woodsworth, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021, 293; Woodsworth and Lane-Mercier Reference Woodsworth, Lane-Mercier and Woodsworth2018, 3). In the same foundational volume, Spitzl (Reference Spitzl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 364–365) summarises Kaindl’s definition of transfiction as ‘an aestheticized imagination of translatorial action’, placing an emphasis on the embodied experience of translation, as opposed to the ‘dehumanization of theories and concepts’. It was not until 2014, therefore, that fictional representations of translators and language mediation were taken as research topics not necessarily dependent on or interwoven with forms of multilingualism (cf. Sternberg Reference Sternberg1981), and in purely abstract terms.

To date, the highest number of publications in transfiction research occurred in 2014, which is reflective of the edited collection, Transfiction (Kaindl and Spitzl Reference Kaindl, Spitzl and Gambier2014) being a designated space for the establishment and dissemination of transfiction research, gathering a total of twenty-four contributions. Other book-length publications followed, with some of them intentionally trying to go beyond transfiction. These publications included contributions on translation phenomena that problematise traditional dichotomies between ‘original’ and translation, author and translator, and other ‘fictions of translation’ as opposed to transfiction (Woodsworth and Lane-Mercier Reference Woodsworth, Lane-Mercier and Woodsworth2018, 4). This research trend can be summarised in the following question, asked by Rosenwald (Reference Rosenwald2016, 358): ‘What model of the relation between author and translator would we create if we acknowledged from the start that there was no way to distinguish in essence between the two persons, roles, activities, speech acts?’

In 2023 and 2024, where the latest upward trends in the number of publications can be observed, three other book-length publications appeared, a monograph (Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023) and two edited collections (Miletich Reference Miletich2024b; Spitzer and Oliveira Reference Spitzer and Oliveira2023). Rather than continuing to push the boundaries of the definition of transfiction, these publications went back to the idea of fictional representations of translators and translation, while also conceptualising transfiction as an ‘approach to theorizing translation’ that ‘foregrounds aspects of literary texts that might otherwise pass unnoticed or without sufficient interpretive scrutiny’ (Spitzer Reference Spitzer, Spitzer and Oliveira2023, 3; emphasis in the original).

As shown in Figure 2, the number of publications drops suddenly in 2025. This sharp drop is likely due to this research being conducted in the same year and the time constraints this implies. It is possible that more transfiction research will be published in 2025, but these publications are not captured here because the data collection phase of this meta-analysis was completed prior to their release. Figure 2 shows a trend line signifying an average calculated based on the count of publications per year, as well as a data point in relation to 2025. This point represents a forecasted value taking into account the trend over the last thirty years and projecting this trend into the future. This projection estimates that the number of transfiction publications in 2025 will be approximately eight, subject to the continuation of current trajectories. Irrespective of exact numbers, the number of publications is expected to drop again, which reinforces the fluctuating pattern observed over the last thirty years.

Collectively, the publications which appeared in conjunction with the peaks illustrated in Figure 2 can be taken as research-defining because they marked a shift in the study of transfiction from a vastly unsystematic, anecdotal, and incidental approach to establishing a subfield with its own specificity. However, it would be simplistic to assume that a higher number of publications is directly connected to the impact or significance of the same publications. Fewer publications may have been published in periods which do not constitute an upward trend in the number of published research outputs, while still being significant for the development of the field. Further hypotheses on this situation can be made based not only on the number of publications, but also on the forms they have taken.

2.3 Types of Publication

Book chapters represent the most frequent type of publication in transfiction research over the last thirty years, as is apparent in Figure 3. The bibliographic search identified fifty-six book chapters, constituting almost half (49.6%) of the publishing landscape in transfiction research. The second most frequent publication type is journal articles: forty-four articles were identified, accounting for 38.9% of the corpus. Four monographs, that is, book-length publications authored by a single researcher, instead, make up 4.4% of the corpus. References like encyclopaedia entries and handbook chapters constitute 3.6% of the corpus, with the same percentage being represented by student work, including master’s dissertations and PhD theses. The underrepresentation of student work might depend on its lesser visibility on research engines like Google Scholar than those of research articles, as it is typically stored in institutional repositories. Another reason might be the notably peripheral position of fictional representations in Translation Studies syllabi, which results in students not being exposed to this topic as much as they are to core translation theories. It is indicative, for example, that fictional representations are not dealt with in classic reference points of the Translation Studies class, such as the various editions of Introducing Translation Studies (Munday, Pinto, and Blakesley Reference Munday, Pinto and Blakesley2022) and The Translation Studies Reader (Venuti Reference Venuti2012).

Figure 3 Publication types

It is noteworthy that Figures 2 and 3 would both look quite different, were German-language publications added to the corpus. These include collections edited by Kaindl and Kurz (Kaindl and Kurz Reference Kaindl and Kurz2010b, Reference Kaindl and Kurz2008, Reference Kaindl and Kurz2005), each gathering between twenty-two and twenty-five chapters authored by different contributors. Adding these publications to the English-language dataset would have a significant impact on the quantification process and the related results, leading to a more homogenous distribution of publications in the five-year period 2005–2010. This addition would also confirm that book chapters are by far the prevailing form of publication in transfiction research. Counting handbook chapters together with the more general category of ‘book chapters’ would also lead to similar consequences. Including non-English-language work by Hagedorn (Reference Hagedorn2006), Lavieri (Reference Lavieri2007/2016), Strümper-Krobb (Reference Strümper-Krobb2009), Wilhelm (Reference Wilhelm2010), and Babel (Reference Babel2015), instead, would lead to a higher number of monographs, while confirming the dominance of books over articles.

The fact that book chapters, along with articles, constitute the majority of publications in transfiction research reflects trends in the Translation Studies publishing ecosystem. A discipline-specific analysis conducted on BITRA (the Bibliography of Interpreting and Translation) reveals that ‘journal articles are … the most numerous research output in TS … However, books and book chapters together account for 53.6% of the outputs from 1951 up to the present [2019], whereas journal articles account for 46.3% in the same period’ (Rovira-Esteva, Aixelá, and Olalla-Soler Reference Rovira-Esteva, Aixelá and Olalla-Soler2019, 163). In addition, while journal articles are the most frequent type of publication in Translation Studies, ‘books and book chapters together are the document types cited the most’ (ibid., 168).

The distribution of publication types over the last thirty years is illustrated by Figure 4.

Figure 4 Publication types 1995–2025

Correlating the year of publication with the type of publication, Figure 4 shows that 2005 and 2014 saw the highest number of articles and book chapters published, respectively. As discussed earlier, a dedicated volume of Linguistica Antverpiensia (Delabastita and Grutman Reference Delabastita and Grutman2005) and the edited collection Transfiction (Kaindl and Spitzl Reference Kaindl, Spitzl and Gambier2014) appeared in these years. The same pattern can be observed in 2023 and 2024, with two other edited collections being released (Miletich Reference Miletich2024b; Spitzer and Oliveira Reference Spitzer and Oliveira2023).

Another observable pattern is that most articles and book chapters tend to appear in clusters. This tendency raises questions about the dissemination dynamics of transfiction research, not only in terms of publication venues, but also on the nature of this research per se. These grouped patterns, whereby the highest concentration of articles and book chapters appear in the same year, might be indicative of some sort of dependence of transfiction research on special occasions, rather than pointing to transfiction being an object of widespread scholarly engagement. The peaks shown in Figure 2 and the distribution of publication types over the last thirty years shown in Figure 4 might suggest that transfiction research depends on variables, such as a journal’s special issues, conferences, and calls for chapters. In turn, this supposed dependence might imply that research in the field has been driven by a relatively small group of researchers, as opposed to transfiction being of general interest in the Translation Studies community at large.

There have been at least five conferences either entirely dedicated to transfiction or showcasing transfiction research to a lesser extent, and as many research outputs (edited collections and special issues), which are more or less explicitly related to them (Ben-Ari and Levin Reference Ben-Ari and Levin2016, 339; Kolb, Pöllabauer, and Kadrić Reference Kolb, Pöllabauer, Kadrić, Kadric, Kolb and Pöllabauer2024, 12; Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023, 5; Miletich Reference Miletich and Miletich2024a, xvii; Woodsworth Reference Woodsworth, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021, 293; Woodsworth and Lane-Mercier Reference Woodsworth, Lane-Mercier and Woodsworth2018, 3). These are shown in chronological order in Table 2.

While publications resulting from these events do not focus exclusively on transfiction, the concentration of most journal articles and book chapters in this subfield within the three-year period following each of them supports the hypothesis that transfiction research has tended to rely on specific initiatives, rather than being a mainstream area of study. Further evidence for this hypothesis can be drawn from a large-scale thematic analysis of topics recurring with high frequency in Translation Studies in the period 1972–2021, where there is no room for transfiction and/or other terms referring to the same phenomenon (Olalla-Soler, Aixelá, and Rovira-Esteva Reference Olalla-Soler, Aixelá, Rovira-Esteva, Aixelá and Olalla-Soler2022, 24). Another bibliometric analysis of Translation Studies from 2014 to 2018 reinforces this hypothesis, as transfiction as a phenomenon is not listed among the most frequently explored research topics (Huang and Liu Reference Huang and Liu2019, 41–43).

2.4 Research Designs and Methodologies

Figure 5 leaves little room for interpretation as to what the most frequent research design is in transfiction research, with case studies constituting almost 80% of the corpus. While the ‘introduction’ (seven publications) and ‘conclusion’ (one publication) designs are self-explanatory, this may not be the case for the other categories of research designs. So, before discussing the overwhelming majority of case studies, the other three research designs included in the figure are described.

• ‘Case studies’ (90 publications) of transfiction are understood here as in-depth analyses of one or a small group of literary texts featuring language mediators, in the context of which qualitative methods and philosophical argumentation are typically adopted to substantiate the analysis. Their titles tend to follow formulaic patterns, which can be summarised as ‘phenomenon being considered’ + ‘in’ + ‘name of author(s)’ + ‘titles of primary sources’ or ‘qualifier + fiction’.

• Much like ‘introductions’, the category ‘overviews’ (seven publications) refers mostly to reference publications, such as handbook chapters and encyclopaedia entries, which offer a digest and background information in terms of chronological developments and main topics within the subfield, with the function of contextualising transfiction as a phenomenon and object of enquiry. Unlike ‘introductions’, they do not introduce edited collections or a journal’s special issue.

• ‘Thematic overviews’ (eight publications) differ from general ‘overviews’ in that they do not aim to outline the different connotations of transfiction as a general phenomenon or the history of its development. Instead, they outline and discuss a number of topics emerging from their primary sources, without producing a concentrated analysis of any of them, specifically. This concentrated analysis, instead, is what characterises case studies.

Another design emerging from the corpus is represented by a subgroup of twenty-one ‘area-specific studies’, in the context of which a case can be represented both by literary texts and/or the areas being explored. These studies embed their primary sources into a wider geographical region, contextualising these texts in the culture and literary tradition of this area, instead of selecting sources across diverse contexts based on their thematic analogies. A breakdown of these studies is provided by Figure 6, where the percentages refer to this subgroup of twenty-one publications, as opposed to the entire corpus. Publications were assigned to this subgroup not solely based on the country or language of origin of the author of the primary sources being examined, or on the setting of these sources. This choice would have led to all publications being somehow specific to a certain area. Instead, area-specific studies were grouped together based on the researcher’s explicit aim to investigate transfiction originating in specific contexts and contextualising their analysis in the histories and cultures of those contexts. It is not surprising to see Latin American transfiction being the most frequently investigated case in this subgroup (36.4% of area-specific studies). The paramount importance of translation in Latin American cultures has been addressed by several scholars (Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Kaindl and Spitzl2014; Cleary Reference Cleary, Baer and Woods2021; Gentzler Reference Gentzler2008; Giraldo and Piracón Reference Giraldo, Piracón, Spitzer and Oliveira2023; Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023; Pagano Reference Pagano, Tymoczko and Gentzler2002; Strümper-Krobb Reference Strümper-Krobb2022; Valdeón Reference Valdeón2011), with translation being held to be ‘not a trope but a permanent condition in the Americas’ (Gentzler Reference Gentzler2008, 5). ‘[I]t was in Brazil’, as Woodsworth and Lane-Mercier (Reference Woodsworth, Lane-Mercier and Woodsworth2018, 1) point out, ‘that attention was first drawn to a new ‘turn’ in translation studies’, which was then labelled ‘fictional turn’.

Figure 5 Research designs

Figure 6 Area-specific studies

2.5 Methodologies

In the final chapter of the area-defining volume Transfiction, Spitzl (Reference Spitzl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 366) justifies a flexible methodological approach in researching transfiction, ‘an undisciplined encounter of approaches and methods, of bricolage (cf. Levi-Strauss Reference Levi-Strauss1966: 19), and multimodal eclecticism’. The same flexibility was echoed more recently by Delabastita (Reference Delabastita, Baker and Saldanha2020, 194), who recommends researchers resist ‘any undue striving for mono-disciplinary isolation’, because ‘[n]either the recourse to fictional texts nor the acute awareness of multilingualism and interculturality is an exclusive property of translation studies. Hence the need for a permanent dialogue with neighbouring fields such as literary studies, film studies, contact linguistics and multilingualism studies’.

Although this methodological eclecticism has been theoretically justified, during the categorisation process of this research the fact emerged that methodological approaches and specific methods are hardly ever spelled out. So, readers are not given a reason as to what the affordances of this eclecticism may be and, consequently, how or in what other cases it may prove useful. This issue has been observed in other Translation Studies meta-research, too. In their meta-analysis of collaborative learning in translation and interpreting, Du and Salaets (Reference Du and Salaets2025, 7) note that ‘about half of the studies did not specify which specific analysis method was followed’. This percentage is dramatically higher in the corpus of transfiction research analysed here, where 97 research outputs (84.3%) do not specify what their methodological approaches and/or procedures are. These are labelled ‘N/A’, as illustrated in Figure 7, because no straightforward methodology or set of methods were identifiable either in the abstract or in the introduction section of the respective publication.

Figure 7 Methodologies

Before finding possible explanations for the distinct lack of clearly defined methodologies, the other categories represented in Figure 7 are introduced:

• ‘Corpus-based analyses’ (3.5%) are labelled this way because their respective authors explicitly mention the term ‘corpus’, as they all draw on a body of literature appearing to count at least thirty transfictional sources. Whether computational methods were used in analysing these sources, as the use of the term ‘corpus’ may suggest, is left to interpretation, as the authors do not disclose or reflect on the specific methods they employed. Likewise, they do not systematically provide forms of quantification. So, ‘corpus-based’ is likely to refer to a relatively large number of primary sources, as opposed to methods derived from corpus linguistics.

• While comparison in general can be taken as an inherent component of multiple case studies, ‘comparative analysis (fiction VS non-fiction)’ (3.5%) refers to publications that compare the fictional treatment of translation and translators with their non-fictional representations.

• ‘Thematic overviews’ (3.5%) as a methodological approach differ from the ‘thematic overview’ as a research design. As a design, thematic overviews discuss a series of themes found in conjunction with transfiction without engaging closely with individual primary sources. As a methodology, ‘thematic overviews’ are provided in the context of case studies, which are typically multiple case studies where each source is examined in detail. Therefore, these publications present the researchers’ argumentation propped up by examples. This approach is flagged as problematic by Susam-Sarajeva (Reference Susam-Sarajeva2009, 41), who explains that ‘when a unit of analysis is treated as an example, it serves the general claims of the scholarly publication, as the author ‘filters out’ those examples which best support his/her main arguments’.

• ‘Contrastive ST-TT analyses’ (2.6%) include research comparing transfiction sources and their translations.

• ‘Discourse analysis’, ‘film analysis’, and ‘interview’ each represent 0.9% of the corpus, with each approach being found in 1 publication. In particular, ‘film analysis’ does not refer only to films being primary sources, but to the use of methods derived from Film Studies.

2.5.1 Wading the N/A

The fact that the vast majority of publications in the corpus do not directly describe any specific methodological procedures raises a series of questions. Is a missing methodology indicative of researchers not considering it as an essential part of an abstract and/or an introduction section? Or does transfiction research follow a certain methodology that has become so entrenched over time that it does not need an explicit description? Are primary sources taken as more relevant than the methods used to examine them? What could N/A look like, in practice?

A methodological approach that is not captured explicitly, but can be inferred from the overview of research designs is ‘comparison’. 48.7% of the corpus is made up of multiple case studies that engage with two or more primary sources. In bringing multiple sources together, a phenomenon is observed from the different perspectives offered by each source, so that a comparison of some kind between these materials is unavoidable, whether this is directly addressed or not.

Kaindl (Reference Kaindl, D’hulst and Gambier2018a, 52) observes that ‘[m]uch like translation is seen as a multi-disciplinary concept …, the question of its fictional representation is also the subject of various disciplinary approaches – each with their own research questions and methodologies’. Considering the influence of Literary Studies on transfiction research, it might follow that close reading has also had a strong impact on the way transfiction has been examined. If close reading has been ‘virtually definitive of the field’ (Herrnstein Smith Reference Herrnstein Smith2016, 58), then researchers straddling Comparative Literature and Translation Studies might have resorted to close reading techniques by default when analysing translator stories. Cronin (Reference Cronin2009, 94) reports that ‘[i]t is generally accepted in translation pedagogy that all good translation involves close reading’. In this scenario, close reading appears to be a tacit methodological agreement in transfiction research. This seems to be the case even when transfiction research operates on a relatively large body of materials, rather than employing distant reading or other methods, as hypothesised for the ‘corpus-based analysis’ category. This seemingly automatic approach is not exclusive to the research areas considered here. ‘[H]owever, this particular methodology is often exempt from discussion when we reflect upon our methods’, even though it is ‘closely connected to the development of hermeneutics’ and how we glean meaning out of texts (Ohrvik Reference Ohrvik2024, 240, 242). Existing definitions of close reading revolve around ‘the practice of … examining closely the language of a literary work or a section of it’ (Culler Reference Culler2010, 20), with a focus on paratexts, stylistic idiosyncrasies, intertextuality, multiple meanings, and other rhetorical devices (Culler Reference Culler2010, 22; Klarer Reference Klarer2004, 86; Ohrvik Reference Ohrvik2024, 250; Rigney Reference Rigney, Wurth and Rigney2019, 109). This diverse set of indications suggests that the umbrella term ‘close reading’ conflates a series of understandings and procedures hinging on the scrutiny of text. Some of these procedures are laid out by Kaindl (Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 15–16), who pins down one aspect around which the organisation and analysis of materials can then revolve. These pivotal aspects include genre, historical and cultural contexts, single authors or groups of writers, and topics and functions associated with translation as a theme.

If close reading is taken as an umbrella term, then it could be hypothesised that related practices are referred to using a variety of hyponyms or synonyms. Likewise, it may be the case that other methodological approaches, such as ‘comparison’, are facilitated by close reading practices. The correlation of the verbs expressing the statement of purpose in each publication with the methodologies discussed earlier offers further room for interpretation. The fifteen verbs that recur more frequently in connection with the aim of each publication in the corpus are shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 Statements of purpose

These verbs can be classified into three subgroups, based on how clearly they reflect the research methodology of their publication:

1. 1) Most publications tend to express vague statements of purpose, seeking to ‘examine’ (21.8%), ‘explore’ (14.5%), ‘investigate’ (9.1%), ‘analyse’ (8.2%), ‘discuss’ (7.3%), ‘reflect on’ (1.8%), or ‘look at’ (0.9%) a phenomenon related to transfiction, as opposed to providing the reader with a clear sense of direction. This subgroup of publications arguably aims to tease out and interpret textual idiosyncrasies, as opposed to adopting one or a series of clear-cut methods.

2. 2) A much smaller subgroup gathers verbs that convey a more concrete methodological orientation, such as ‘compare’ (2.7%), ‘challenge’ (1.8%) and ‘question’ (1.8%), ‘test’ (0.9%) and ‘contrast’ (0.9%). This second subgroup appears to reflect best practices in the adoption of case studies, namely their implementation for the purpose of challenging existing theories and findings (Hadley Reference Hadley2023, 10; Saldanha and O’Brien Reference Saldanha and O’Brien2013, 209; Susam-Sarajeva Reference Susam-Sarajeva2009, 41, 44) based on characteristics that disprove these theories.

3. 3) Another subgroup is made up of verbs that may be taken as indicative of the researcher seeking to convince their readers, rather than involving them in a process of gradual discovery. These include the verbs ‘argue’ (8.2%), ‘show’ (5.5%), ‘present’ (3.6%), ‘outline’ (2.7%), and ‘suggest’ (0.9%). In this respect, it is also noteworthy that only 10 publications ask an explicitly formulated research question, which is traditionally conceived as ‘central in all research’ (Meister Reference Meister2018, 69), as well as a rhetorical means of involving the reader (Dontcheva-Navratilova Reference Dontcheva-Navratilova2021, 22; Hyland Reference Hyland2001, 569). These findings may suggest that this cross section of transfiction research has tended to rely on argumentation as an overarching methodology and has aimed to be persuasive, rather than being presented in an exploratory or heuristic style.

The identification of methods and methodologies raises questions about the materials that transfiction researchers have acted on. What have these methods been applied to? And what are the sources and the authors that transfiction research has engaged with over the last thirty years?

2.6 Primary Sources and Their Authors

As discussed earlier, the scope of what constitutes fiction in this research area is broad, ranging from written narratives to audiovisual materials, and spanning a variety of genres, from detective stories to science fiction. Whereas rigid distinctions between genres are problematised by several factors, such as genre-bending works, translingualism, and the nuances that characterise forms of life writing, more definite distinctions can be made based on the medium through which literature comes to fruition and is presented to readers. The English-language materials captured by this meta-analysis, hence, were categorised as follows: ‘novels’ (55.9%), ‘short stories’ (22%), ‘films’ (7.9%), ‘poetry’ (3.1%), ‘TV series’ and ‘historical accounts’ (2.4% each), and ‘non-fiction’, ‘autobiographical texts’, and ‘novels + adaptations’ (1.6% each). Less represented categories include ‘musicals’ and ‘religious texts’ (0.8% each), as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Primary sources

The fact that novels are the most frequently used type of primary source in transfiction research mirrors a trend in world literature research, which has privileged the novel and other ‘fictional genres’, including short stories, at the expenses of other genres, such as autobiographical texts and other subgenres of non-fiction (Lenart-Cheng and Luca Reference Lenart-Cheng, Luca, Lenart-Cheng and Luca2025, 5).

Directly related to the categorisation of the materials used in transfiction research is the identification of the authors whose work has been the object of analysis in this field of enquiry. The fifteen authors whose work transfiction researchers have chosen to analyse most frequently are ranked in Figure 10.

Figure 10 Authors of most frequent primary sources

There is little wonder why Borges is the most represented author in the corpus, given that his work ‘is everywhere concerned with the theme of translation’ (Gentzler Reference Gentzler2008, 110) and, therefore, taken as quintessential for ‘the reading of fiction as a space of theorization’, especially in light of poststructuralist translation theories (Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Cronin and Inghilleri2018, 4–6). Borges, however, belongs to a subgroup of three other Argentinian writers whose work happens to be a recurrent source in transfiction research, namely Rodolfo Walsh, Julio Cortázar, and Salvador Benesdra. It is significant that this quartet feeds into a whole cohort of writers from Latin America, whose histories, stories, culture, and scholars have deeply influenced transfiction and its academic scrutiny.

Other patterns among these fifteen authors are their thematisation of postmodern concerns, exemplified among others by Italo Calvino, and literary translingualism (or exophony), a practice shared by Yoko Tawada and Jhumpa Lahiri. In addition, many of them are both writers and translators, such as Haruki Murakami, Yoko Tawada, Javier Marías, Italo Calvino, and Jhumpa Lahiri. This finding aligns with a pattern already observed in transfiction studies of authors of transfiction often having lived experience as (literary) translators (Ben-Ari Reference Ben-Ari2010, 235; Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 8; Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023, 111; Strümper-Krobb Reference Strümper-Krobb2009, 7, 177).

What stands out the most, however, is that almost all these authors are known for writing short stories and novels belonging to a variety of subgenres, ranging from autobiographical texts to experimental prose. This is indicative of the almost complete reliance of transfiction researchers on prose and written accounts, with the exception of Sofia Coppola’s film Lost in Translation (Reference Coppola2003).

2.7 Discussion

The first question guiding the research presented in this Element is about existing patterns in transfiction research. To answer this question, the Element has gone beyond the case study design, which has characterised the field to date, to present a meta-analysis of this research area, with a view to mapping its development from 1995 to 2025 in terms of how it has evolved, the themes it has addressed, and the research designs, methods, and materials of which it has made use.

Transfiction research appears to have developed discontinuously, mostly in combination with special issues and edited collections originating from academic conferences. Peaks in number of publications, rather than steady growth or extended plateaux, suggest that research in the field is spurred by the concerted effort of a relatively small group of researchers, as opposed to transfiction being a homogeneously and/or widely researched topic in Translation Studies.

In time, this research area has addressed a variety of topics, which range from translator invisibility and agency to localisation and language mediation in the Potterverse. Topics with greater frequency, however, tend to be of a theoretical or philosophical nature, like ‘identity’, ‘fidelity’ and ‘infidelity’, ‘visibility’ and ‘invisibility’, ‘authorship’, and ‘ideology’, which reflect thematic constellations and debates that are by now well-known in Translation Studies. Therefore, while transfiction does not appear to occupy a central position in the Translation Studies publishing landscape, the themes transfiction research has grappled with echo those themes that have historically informed a philosophically inclined cross section of Translation Studies. This is especially the case in the wake of poststructuralism and other phenomena of a transnational scope, such as migration and globalisation, as well as questions of belonging and metaphorical or practical self-translation.

This propensity for theoretical subjects that resist quantification may be argued to have influenced the methodological approaches adopted in transfiction research, which to date has depended on qualitative methods that are hardly ever described within a cohesive and clearly outlined methodology. These observations on the methodological aspects of transfiction research may point to a research process that does not take its cue from a research question, aiming to identify the best methodological workflow and materials to answer it (cf. Borg Reference Borg, Blakesley and Large2023, 47, 67; Meister Reference Meister2018, 69), but hinges on the texts being analysed. So, instead of pinning down a research question based on which methods and materials of analysis are then selected, transfiction research appears to have focused thoroughly on translator stories per se, rather than using these stories to fill preidentified gaps in knowledge. This preference is reflected in the space dedicated to describing primary sources in existing publications, which tends to be larger than that dedicated to methodological aspects. This tendency is arguably reflected in Spitzer’s conceptualisation of transfiction as a ‘bordering approach to theorizing translation, inextricably in relation with diverse areas and approaches’ (Reference Spitzer, Spitzer and Oliveira2023, 3; emphasis in the original). There are advantages and disadvantages associated with this approach. The resulting conflation of methods and primary sources facilitated by close reading practices has been a powerful means of engaging thoroughly with individual narratives and the diverse topics and perspectives these narratives thematise. Addressing the peculiarities of each text, this approach has led to challenging translation clichés, tropes, and fallacious concepts, such as the notions of ‘original’ (e.g., Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Cronin and Inghilleri2018), ‘L1’ (e.g., Sepp Reference Sepp and Woodsworth2018), and ‘mistranslation’ (Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023), problematising simplistic and/or prescriptive assumptions on translation.

However, this research style based on regular engagement with individual texts has precluded systematic observations of how transfiction materials are analysed and what can be done differently with them within and outside transfiction research. The same tendency has resulted in 79.7% of transfiction research taking the form of case studies. This situation is likely to be observed also in other areas of Translation Studies, where manifestations of a certain phenomenon have led to the formulation of hypotheses, rather than more robust theories based on the findings of each case. Retranslation arguably exemplifies this tendency. In the case of transfiction, cumulative findings of case studies have been harnessed to connect the fictional representation of translators to other knowledge domains, including historiography, anthropology, and pedagogy, corroborating the idea that fiction can be used as a complementary source and/or a starting point for generating new theories and recontextualising existing ones. While case studies offer the possibility of exploring select primary sources in detail and identifying the features associated with fictional translators, if employed by default, they may prevent yielding impactful findings, and/or novelty in the field more generally.

After thirty years of transfiction research in which case studies have held sway, novelty, rather than repetition, is needed to revitalise this area of enquiry, as well as making transfiction useful for other areas of Translation Studies. Having identified these patterns in the ways knowledge is produced in transfiction research, the Element moves on to answer its next research questions: How can transfiction research diversify the design and methodologies that have traditionally informed this area of enquiry? And what benefits could this diversification bring?

3.1 Participant-based Methods

Transfiction research has tended to connect translator narratives with wider philosophical concerns. Accordingly, translation has been interpreted as ‘a master metaphor … evoking the human search for a sense of self’ (Delabastita and Grutman Reference Delabastita and Grutman2005, 23), and fiction’s potential to give visibility to ‘the personal, emotional investments’ connected to translating has been emphasised (Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Cronin and Inghilleri2018, 133). Recurrent themes in transfiction revolve around human translators, rather than translation as an abstraction or the technicalities of interlinguistic transfer. This human-centred perspective on transfiction has been argued to counterbalance the ‘dehumanization of theories and concepts’ in Translation Studies (Spitzl Reference Spitzl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 365), fitting into a humanising trend in translation research that brings the translator as a person centre stage (Chesterman Reference Chesterman, Gambier and van Doorslaer2021, Reference Chesterman2009; Ivancic Reference Ivancic, Alberti and Bąkowska2022; Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021, Reference Kaindl2025). However, these observations in transfiction research rely on fictional translators, as opposed to real-world translators, which problematises this argument. Like translation, transfiction does not happen in a vacuum: it is the product of creative writers who in many cases have first-hand translation experience. Involving these writers through participant-based methods would enormously benefit research in the field, offering insights into how transfiction is generated, what its authors’ motivations are for thematising translation and portraying translator-characters, and what their perceptions and understandings of translation are. Involving authors who portray fictional translators in multiple narratives may lead to identifying analogies in their own background, as well as the similarities their stories share. Interviews with authors of transfiction, therefore, would lead to humanising a research field that has brought human translators as characters centre stage, but has had little to no direct engagement with those writers who create transfiction in the first place. As shown in Figure 7, interviews account only for 0.9% of the methodologies found in the corpus, as a complementary method in one publication out of 113. Questions may include: What inspires you to write fiction about translators? Have you ever worked as a translator? Would you describe your work as autobiographical? Ultimately, participatory research in transfiction studies may also contribute to bridging the notorious gap between translation practice and translation theory (see Grass Reference Grass2023, 9, 19, 67).

Similarly, transfiction research has not engaged with readers of transfiction, who could be asked about their motivations for reading translator stories, and whether these stories have in any way influenced their understanding of what translators do. Thus, interviewing and/or circulating questionnaires among these readers could provide a basis to tackle matters related to the phenomenon’s impact on readers’ lay or informed perception of translators and their work, which would consequently introduce quantitative methods into transfiction research.

Another pattern emerging from this meta-analysis is that transfiction research has appeared with high frequency after dedicated conferences, suggesting that some form of academic collaboration is what stimulates research in this area and propels its dissemination. However, this does not necessarily imply a synchronised research vision within the scholarly community of transfiction researchers. In addition, conferences are not the only collaborative context from which new knowledge can derive. Focus groups and roundtable discussions with transfiction researchers could become a fruitful occasion for concentrated participatory research, broadening knowledge in and of the field, as opposed to individual researchers continuing to dedicate their time to texts perceived as ‘revelatory’ or ‘extreme’ (Susam-Sarajeva Reference Susam-Sarajeva2009, 44). Interviews with transfiction researchers may also complement this and future meta-analyses. Interviews would contribute to humanising the field and contextualising findings, as well as completing the bigger picture of transfiction research with researchers’ personal motivations and what they perceive as undiscovered areas of transfiction which they would suggest future research explore (see Güércio Reference Güércio2025, 28). Gathering information from readers, authors, and researchers of transfiction would ultimately offer a solid basis to go beyond a comparison of two authors and texts and, instead, substantiate a triangulation of viewpoints.

3.2 Novels Are Not the Only Sources

Another way of fostering a humanised approach to transfiction research without necessarily involving participants directly is by collating and analysing readers’ reviews of transfiction sources, especially on websites and blogs dedicated to literature. This approach can be implemented by using methods derived from the Digital Humanities, such as web scraping (McDonough Dolmaya Reference Dolmaya, Julie, Walker and Federici2024, 66–73). These methods would facilitate forms of quantification as a complementary practice to the interpretivist approach that has traditionally informed studies in transfiction, leading to more solid results. In addition, the introduction of quantitative methods could open a conversation between transfiction and reception studies, making a pathway to factor in matters of impact in this research area.

Readers’ reviews are not the only materials left out of transfiction research, which has been unduly restricted to prose, notably novels, while leaving other genres widely under-explored. Poetry, theatre pieces, and audiovisuals in general have received less attention, as shown in Figure 9, as did newer forms of literary expressions that may include translation as a theme, such as blogs, electronic literature, and other digital spaces. One of the questions that remain unanswered to date is whether specific genres affect the characterisation of translator characters. Exploring different primary sources may lead to correlating the features of these characters with the genres in which they are found. More specifically, future research could organise and explore transfiction materials adopting a genre-specific approach, and focusing on specific subgenres (Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 15). For example, while thematic overviews of transfiction have been provided in conjunction with detective stories and science fiction (Mossop Reference Mossop1996, Reference Mossop2023; Strümper-Krobb Reference Strümper-Krobb, Belenguer, Chuilleanáin and Cuilleanáin2013; Wozniak Reference Wozniak, Kaindl and Spitzl2014), very little has been said about transfiction in other genres, such as children’s literature or climate fiction.

Other underrepresented sources are constituted by translations of transfiction, with forms of contrastive analysis accounting for 2.6% of the methodologies found in the corpus. Keeping in mind that translation is highly context-bound (Hermans Reference Hermans2022, vii–viii) and that literary criticism is prone to equating translations to their sources (Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Maier and Massardier-Kenney2010, 53; Hadley and Akashi Reference Hadley and Akashi2015, 471), looking at translated transfiction would open a window into the ways translatorial practices are represented and adapted from one literary tradition to the other. This research direction can be broken down into several sub-units, taking into account not only direct translations, but also other paths, such as retranslations, indirect translations, and pseudotranslations, as well as adaptations.

3.3 From Individual Texts to Corpora and Lists

While offering the opportunity to analyse individual literary texts in depth, close reading may not allow researchers to grasp patterns across larger groups of primary sources that go beyond the usual scope of multiple case studies. So, how can evidence-based conclusions on transfiction as a phenomenon be drawn beyond specific texts, genres, and contexts? Instead of dividing materials into small groups to be analysed by means of close reading, primary sources in transfiction research may be analysed collectively through distant reading, making sure to observe all copyright constraints placed on the use of these materials. Techniques and methods based on distant reading would make it possible to investigate a high number of transfiction sources, transcending and/or combining designs with a traditionally restricted scope (cf. Holmes Reference Holmes and Venuti1972/2000, 178–181). The use of computational methods would allow us to identify patterns both through a synchronic and a diachronic approach, including language distribution, genres, publication years, trends in titling, and possible relations between book covers, titles, and the stories they introduce. For instance, computational methods might facilitate sentiment analysis, extracting the emotional connotations conveyed by text automatically, instead of manually (Rebora Reference Rebora2023). Sentiment analysis across a large corpus of transfictional texts could support or challenge the negativity that typically accompanies fictional translators elicited by existing research (e.g., Ben-Ari Reference Ben-Ari2010, 221; Ben-Ari Reference Ben-Ari, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 122; Delabastita and Grutman Reference Delabastita and Grutman2005, 23; Godbout Reference Godbout, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 186). A combination of close reading and distant reading could possibly strike a balance between specificity and little generalisability on the one hand, and the detection of overarching and/or otherwise hardly perceptible patterns at the expense of context on the other (see Youdale Reference Youdale2020, 6–7).

Working with corpora of transfiction, as well as lists of transfictional works, instead of a relatively small selection of texts, can reveal patterns across instances of transfiction that are not identifiable through close engagement with one or a modest number of narratives. Software generating frequency lists and concordances can also help researchers visualise these findings (McDonough Dolmaya Reference Dolmaya, Julie, Walker and Federici2024, 109). In addition, working with lists may curb the risk of confirmation bias, which might influence the choice of primary sources chosen to develop case studies. Working with lists may also lead to generating hypotheses that can then be tested through closer engagement with a group of representative cases, but may not be formulated based on single case studies.

3.4 Pedagogical Scenarios and Collaborative Practices

Lists of transfiction works can be found in the ‘references’ section and appendixes of existing publications (e.g., Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 20–21; Querido Reference Querido2011, 207–209), as well as online. The most complete and up-to-date list of works of transfiction is arguably ‘Traductores en la literatura: lista de obras’ [Translators in literature: a list of works], published in Vasos comunicantes, an online journal curated by ACE Traductores.Footnote ⁵ These lists can be used as pedagogical resources, not only from a theoretical perspective, but also to stimulate students to actively and practically engage with materials of different kinds and formats beyond typical written narratives. Lists lend themselves to be used in the context of workshops, hackathons, and other project-based classes with undergraduate and postgraduate students who are not necessarily familiar with transfiction, but have an interest in literature and translation. This practical, collaborative scenario would complement other text-based pedagogical uses of transfiction, whereby translator stories are taken as a spurring point to discuss translation-related phenomena (Arrojo Reference Arrojo, Maier and Massardier-Kenney2010; Cleary Reference Cleary, Baer and Woods2021; Kripper Reference Kripper, Blakesley and Large2023). At the same time, working with these resources, as opposed to individual texts, would lead students to develop transferable skills, sharpening their teamwork, research, and pattern recognition competencies.

Exploring these lists and cataloguing their patterns may also generate new hypotheses. For instance, it may reveal that the authors whose works are the most frequently analysed in transfiction research may not be the same authors whose names recur more frequently in these lists. If this is the case, new research avenues can be opened by taking into account the works found in these lists, as opposed to reusing well-known sources. More importantly, involving students in these collaborative activities could work as a way of incorporating transfiction into the Translation Studies curriculum, contributing to a higher visibility of transfiction among students and early-career researchers, who may then advance knowledge of the phenomenon in their future research. A work-in-progress repository of online lists of transfiction sources is presented in Table 3.

Table 3Online lists of transfiction works

Table 3Long description

The table is titled Online lists of transfiction works. It is a multi-row table with four columns. The columns are: title, curated by/published in, U R L, and notes. The table provides curated lists from blogs, Goodreads, Wikipedia, Pro Z dot com, and other sites, each with corresponding U R Ls and notes about authors and contents.

3.5 Transfiction between Literary Translator Studies and Genetic Translation Studies

While it is known that transfiction authors are very often translators, the systematic identification of differences between autobiographical transfiction and non-autobiographical transfiction – as well as of the criteria and parameters beyond explicit statements to ascertain whether and when transfiction can be described as autobiographical – are still open to interpretation. Related questions are whether there are factors beyond an author/translator’s life path that may lead to the writing of transfiction, when transfiction happens in a writer’s career, and what patterns can be drawn in this respect from existing cases. Research aiming to answer these questions could make use of and adapt methods and paradigms at the intersection of Literary Translator Studies and Genetic Translation Studies, with the former focusing on literary translators as individuals (Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021), and the latter on ‘the evolving phases of the writing process, of which the published text may be considered just a phase’ (Nunes, Moura, and Pinto Reference Nunes, Moura, Pinto, Nunes, Moura and Pinto2021, 2). Accordingly, transfiction authored by translators may be correlated with these writers’ endogenetic and exogenetic materials, spanning personal notes and interviews. Taking into account potential correlations between writers’ lives and careers and the creation of transfiction, this approach may also mitigate the risk of taking transfiction as a by-product or a reflection of a translator’s own career (Strümper-Krobb Reference Strümper-Krobb, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021, 67–68; Reference Strümper-Krobb2009, 177). The study of translators’ endogenetic and exogenetic materials may benefit from the methodological steps outlined by Kaindl (Reference Kaindl2025, 335–336) in relation to auto/biographical, translator-centred research, ranging from the contextualisation of auto/biographical documents to their classification.

The methodological directions outlined in this section are not conceived as mutually exclusive. These approaches can be used together as part of a mixed methodological framework. For instance, participatory research can be complemented by forms of textual analysis, and corpora of transfiction can lay the basis for subsequent large-scale comparative studies. Similarly, the results of collaborative workshops and hackathons may become a springboard for establishing a network of transfiction researchers and achieving research objectives through teamwork.

4.1 Old Questions and New Possibilities

In the fourth volume of Linguistica Antverpiensia dedicated to fictional representations of translators and multilingualism, Jean Anderson investigated the affective dimension to translation thematised in English- and French-language narratives. Anderson (Reference Anderson2005, 181) came to the conclusion that

Unpacking this conclusion, other observations can be made on how Anderson envisioned future research on translators’ subjectivity: (1) Transfiction can be used for want of a better option in terms of amenable sources, instead of taking it as a source worth investigating for its own specificity. (2) (Auto)biographical accounts would make for more suitable materials to explore translators’ subjectivity. (3) Based on recurrent patterns in transfiction, hypotheses can be put forward, but these need to be supported by more qualitative research. Twenty years have passed since these limitations were outlined. What can be done now in transfiction research to explore what translators have to say about their lives and the behind-the-scenes literary translation work, as well as education and training, feelings, motivations and professional satisfaction that could not be done in 2005?

Instead of dismissing (trans)fiction as a lesser option and opting for an ‘either/or’ approach to the selection of primary sources and types of research, this last section outlines and tests a mixed methodological approach, collocating transfiction at the intersection of process-oriented and participatory translation research. The working hypothesis is that transfiction can be used to complement other sources in the study of literary translation as a profession and a process. Combining transfiction, translators’ non-fiction, and the results of participant-based studies, this thought experiment ultimately seeks to identify innovative ways of substantiating triangulation, making transfiction useful for neighbouring research areas, such as Translator Studies.

4.2 Fiction, Non-fiction, and Literary Translation Processes

Information on translators’ lives and work, ranging from their self-perceptions to the texts they translate and what happens in the process of translating them, has traditionally been garnered from participant-based methods, such as interviews, questionnaires, protocols, and ethnographic methods (see, e.g., Borg Reference Borg, Blakesley and Large2023, 5–9; Marin-Lacarta and Yu Reference Marin-Lacarta and Chuan2023, 151; Munday, Pinto, and Blakesley Reference Munday, Pinto and Blakesley2022, 90–91; Saldanha and O’Brien Reference Saldanha and O’Brien2013, chapters 4 and 5). The reliance on human participants that characterises these studies can be at the same time a strength and a limitation. On the one hand, research hinging on human participation can counterbalance the historical tendency in translation research to focus on texts and linguistic abstractions by promoting a humanising approach (Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021; Pym Reference Pym2009). On the other hand, involving human translators, like any other form of human participation in research, comes with a series of challenges, ranging from ethical concerns to the difficulty of finding participants and the risk of low response rate (Saldanha and O’Brien Reference Saldanha and O’Brien2013, 115, 153, 179). What could the role of translator stories be in this scenario?

The idea behind this experiment is that, as an example of written narratives revolving around translator-characters, transfiction can be considered as a valid source to complement research on translators’ lives and aspects of their work, which substantiates the subfield of Translator Studies. Chesterman (Reference Chesterman2009, 16–17) sees in literary texts depicting translators a possible resource to explore sociological aspects, such as ‘the public image of the translator’s profession’. Transfiction is also connected to the cultural branch of Translator Studies, where it can work as a medium to analyse how translators are perceived in different cultures, including the stereotypes and attitudes associated with them (Chesterman Reference Chesterman, Gambier and van Doorslaer2021, 242). Especially when evidence is available for the autobiographical nature of transfiction, these stories may be taken as an indirect source of information on translators and their work. In other words, transfiction may be counted among those extra-textual materials that offer ‘[c]rucial testimony about both the process of translation and the conditions under which it takes place’, similar to ‘post-hoc accounts by the individuals concerned, in the form of memoirs or autobiographies or interviews in which they consciously reflect on the event’ (Munday Reference Munday2014, 68).

The use of translators’ ‘personal accounts’ for Translator Studies is also endorsed by Kaindl (Reference Kaindl, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021, 10), who in Transfiction had already contemplated that ‘[g]oing beyond the fictional, we might also include (auto)biographies and memoirs of translators and interpreters or documentaries about translation and interpreting’ (Reference Kaindl, Kaindl and Spitzl2014, 4). Other researchers have aligned themselves with this research direction, including Todorova (Reference Todorova, Kaindl and Spitzl2014), Maier (Reference Maier and Hermans2014), Ivančić and Zepter (Reference Ivančić, Zepter, Nunes, Moura and Pinto2021), Eberharter (Reference Eberharter, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021), and Borg (Reference Borg, Blakesley and Large2023). In particular, Eberharter (Reference Eberharter, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021, 74) highlights ‘the fundamental ambiguity of biography as a genre and key issues related to biographical writing, such as the immanent fictionality of biography and the representation of facts in the biographical narrative’. Along similar lines, Eakin (Reference Eakin and Chansky2020, 7) argues that ‘the allegiance to truth that is the central, defining characteristic of memoir’ is to be understood as ‘an allegiance to remembered consciousness and its unending succession of identity states, an allegiance to the history of one’s self’, rather than ‘an allegiance to a factual record that biographers and historians could check’.

The absence of reliable means to ascertain or measure (non-)fictionality would automatically exclude transfiction from any applications beyond transfiction studies, if transfiction had to be taken as a source of distilled factual information (cf. Giraldo and Piracón Reference Giraldo, Piracón, Spitzer and Oliveira2023, 112, 123). Because ‘it is a mistake to saddle literary texts with world-tracking representational function’ (John Reference John and Hagberg2016, 36), transfiction may be used in line with the ‘epistemology of fiction’ elaborated by Schoeneborn and Cornelissen, who describe ‘fictional realities (e.g., fictionalized art or narrative fantasies) as objects of inquiry in their own right’ (Reference Schoeneborn, Cornelissen, Neesham, Reihlen and Schoeneborn2022, 140; emphasis in the original), as opposed to a ‘plan B’ option (cf. Anderson Reference Anderson2005, 181). This means, for instance, that transfiction may provide insights into the perceptions and self-perceptions of translators and their work, without the claim of scientific rigour. It may consequently complement more traditional materials and methods of enquiry in Translator Studies, (literary) translation processes, as well as having potential applicability beyond these contexts.

4.3 Mixing Materials and Methods: Transfiction for Triangulation

Schoeneborn and Cornelissen (Reference Schoeneborn, Cornelissen, Neesham, Reihlen and Schoeneborn2022, 140–141) outline three methodological approaches underpinning ‘an epistemology of fiction’:

1. 1) Contrasting empirical studies with fictional and/or counterfactual statements to better understand reality;

2. 2) Juxtaposing fictional and/or counterfactual statements with other interpretative scientific findings to test these statements;

3. 3) Treating fictional and fictionalised narratives as empirical data, that is, as an object of enquiry per se.

In the context of this experiment, these approaches are not taken as mutually exclusive: all three could be employed concurrently, so that transfiction is not only taken as an object of analysis in itself, but can move outwards of transfiction studies to inform Translator Studies by triangulating information of a different nature.

Tackling methodological aspects of process-oriented translation research, Saldanha and O’Brien (Reference Saldanha and O’Brien2013, 109) highlight a ‘consensus on the necessity of triangulation, the comparison of results from various methods, and a focus on process complemented by product analysis or vice versa’. Mellinger and Hanson (Reference Mellinger and Hanson2021, 173) have reiterated this necessity, pointing out that qualitative approaches ‘and triangulation that combines various forms of evidence’ have complemented quantitative methods in the study of translation processes. The analysis of transfiction authored by translators may be taken as one source to substantiate triangulation in process-oriented literary translation research, intersecting with the results of participant-based studies and translators’ life writing, as illustrated by Figure 11. This combination of methods and materials could lead not only to corroborating ‘what was already found with one approach’, but also to generating what Flick (Reference Flick and Flick2022, 663) calls ‘extensions of knowledge’, incorporating and dealing with possible divergences across the materials used.

Figure 11 Triangulation of materials

Taking as an example a research scenario where two data sets are considered, Flick (ibid., 659) indicates as good practice ‘to identify topics in both data sets, in which … differences become manifest and to compare both views by juxtaposing statements of both groups’. Little explanation is given in terms of how exactly these views are to be compared, but existing studies offer a reference point. Using translation diaries by Gregory Rabassa and Daniel Hahn as a source of external evidence, Borg (Reference Borg, Blakesley and Large2023, 141–142, 149, 152) identifies topics and behaviours described in these diaries, counts the drafting phases mentioned by their authors, and compares literary translation processes identified in her ethnographic study with how processes of the same nature are thematised in the diaries. The same approach may be extended to studies that adopt transfiction as a further primary source, along with translators’ life writing and findings emerging from participatory research. To mirror this triangulation of materials, a triangulation of methods can be achieved by mixing the approaches outlined by Schoeneborn and Cornelissen (Reference Schoeneborn, Cornelissen, Neesham, Reihlen and Schoeneborn2022, 140–141), manual analysis and software-based analysis, as well as qualitative and quantitative methods.

4.4 Examples

The following two examples proceed by juxtaposing excerpts from autobiographical transfiction – with the author’s practical or metaphorical experience of translation percolating through their fiction – alongside excerpts from translation memoirs and findings of participant-based research. Tables 4 and 5, therefore, present a somewhat gradual shift from fiction towards academic writing. Beyond predictable stylistic differences between creative and academic writing practices, each example aims to pinpoint one aspect of ‘translatorial action’ (Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Kaindl, Kolb and Schlager2021, 6, 15) and its connotations across the three types of sources being considered. Precisely because these are examples, they should not be taken as a rigid methodological set-up for future research, but as a possible starting point to think about what this kind of triangulation might look like, in practice. The scale of these examples is limited to a maximum of three excerpts per type of source. Small-scale examples inevitably involve some cherry-picking, a risk which could be curbed by means of large-scale comparative analyses making use of the same three types of materials.

Table 4Literary translation processes

Table 4Long description

The table is titled Literary translation processes. It has 3 columns: transfiction, memoirs, and participatory research. The transfiction column includes extracts from the work of Jhumpa Lahiri and Stiliana Milkova. The memoirs column includes excerpts from the work of Kate Briggs, Daniel Hahn, and Massimo Bocchiola. The participatory research column shows the findings of Claudine Borg’s 2023 research.

Table 5Motivations and job satisfaction

Table 5Long description

The transfiction column includes passages from the work of Luciano Bianciardi and Amara Lakhous. The memoirs column includes passages from the work of Daniel Hahn and Kate Briggs. The participatory research column shows the findings of the research conducted by Ruokonen, Svahn, and Heino (2024) and Dam and Ruokonen (2024).

4.5 Strengths and Limitations

The tripartite approach described earlier presents strengths and limitations. On the one hand, triangulation based on (autobiographical) transfiction, translation memoirs, and findings of participatory research does not dismiss fiction as a lesser source. Instead, it harnesses its potential to provide social information (Carroll Reference Carroll and Hagberg2016, 84; Kaindl Reference Kaindl, Gambier and van Doorslaer2012, 146) and describe ‘how people and their lives are found to be’ (John Reference John and Hagberg2016, 46). The combined analysis of autobiographical transfiction and translation memoirs can complement participant-based methods, notably questionnaires and surveys, which can remain depersonalised and/or anecdotal (cf. Dam and Zethsen Reference Dam and Zethsen2016, 183; Maier Reference Maier and Hermans2014, 166; Sela-Sheffy Reference Sela-Sheffy2005, 17). In addition, questionnaires can generate exploratory data, but may fail to provide explanatory information, unless complemented by other methods, such as interviews (Saldanha and O’Brien Reference Saldanha and O’Brien2013, 152). In small-scale studies adopting this triangulation model, the results of participatory research can be enriched by insights into translators’ emotional, cognitive, and professional dimension, as well as the processes through which translated literature comes to fruition. Large-scale studies of this kind, instead, can dilute anecdotal information within a corpus of textual materials which could result in conclusions not on specific authors/translators or texts, but on certain aspects of their profession.

At this initial stage, the most apparent limitation is the availability of materials describing the specific aspects of the translator profession or the translation process that researchers may want to investigate. While translation memoirs seem to be an increasingly popular genre, not every literary translator decides to write one, whether in the traditional form of a book-length publication or online. Transfictional works, instead, abound. But this does not necessarily imply that the aspect or topic that researchers aim to explore can be found in every text that qualifies as transfiction. In these cases, triangulation of materials is needed to gather enough material for analysis, as well as being a means of furthering rigour, especially in small-scale studies. Exploratory large-scale studies adopting this approach, instead, may make use of specific software to identify recurrent topics and subsequently proceed to analyse them. At the same time, online text analysis platforms may not recognise the topic selected for analysis because this may not occur with a high frequency in the corpus being explored. In this respect, Wakabayashi specified that relevant passages in her sources were ‘fairly isolated references’ in comparison with the initial corpus of texts she had compiled (Reference Wakabayashi2011, 88). Similarly, Ben-Ari (Reference Ben-Ari2010, 225) noted how passages dedicated to translation in her corpus of transfictional sources were often restricted to ‘a few passing remarks’. This situation may be common to other texts that can be categorised as transfiction.