The correlation of space with other spaces is because the spatial and temporal dynamics are marked by topography. For many years translation was viewed as a geography whose aim was to imitate a resemblance to the original, and because of this it was not considered a zone of major importance. The peculiar movements which absurdly result in the personification of resemblance and the disturbance of its coincidence can be interpreted in relation to the Japanese to English Translation actions which are conceptualized in terms of time and space. Movement is interpreted as oxymoronic and this interpretation in its own terms claims to oppose the rate of this movement which is faithfully and intrinsically in opposition to a sense of transition and passage – both spatial and temporal. This has kept translators and theorists from focusing on what has happened in-between the translation and the original for so many years. Reconceptualizing the notion of movement that becomes necessary when the interstitial zone shapes up can be made possible only by the movement that erases itself in its aiming towards authenticity, which respectively separates the tension towards something other than itself. The existence of the interstitial zone of translation, as well as the process of uniting two cultures and languages is predicated upon a movement within the dynamic borders of the interstices. In Bartleby’s words, translation does not aim at being the original, rather it simply would prefer not to.
Whether humankind is capable of repossessing the uncalendarical, unlinear and unchronological time or not is the biggest unanswered question. More particularly – Can Arabic translation companies deliver the pure pleasure of being in-between, where possibility and reality, potentiality and actuality, authenticity and inauthenticity, become impossible to differentiate? “The Neuter,” as Thomas Carl Wall puts it, ” is a space of literature which is perpetually obsolete, ceaseless and incessant. This is the space of a large number of twentieth-century authors like Blanchot and Pound. Among them it is also worth noting the name of the Italian Translation theoretician Giorgio Caprioni. The interstitial time in which the concept of what one is expecting suddenly becomes unrelated and insignificant is called the interim, which is inhabited by the above mentioned artists. The interstitial space is where contemporary literature enters into in order to bring to the surface what may be either a presence or an absence, or what may be called the unstoppable recomposition in the territory of medianity and possibility of the inferno of the self. This is where the paradox and irony of art lies – the body and flesh of art is the coexistence of opposing principles, which is its incorrigible sin, but also its fasciantion.
Translation should be considered in regard to its preserving the truth and plausibility of the original, which can be used to regain the creative meaning of art by stressing on, rearranging and clarifying its epiphanic errancy. This means that art should be restored to its status quo of multiculturalism and plurilingualism. Significantly, as it turns out, the Russian Translation Services theory provides the necessary equilibrium for the functioning of the hermeneutic of language and culture. Those who for many years have shared the idea of thinking and living their interstitiality as a loss, of home, the self, and their traditions have also now found their existential and ideological environment. The locus of criticism and the geography where one can find oneself only by losing oneself show us the time has come to view potentiality as being erroneous.