Wessen Übersetzung? Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Begriffs „übersetzerisches Œuvre“ am Beispiel der Klagenfurter Übersetzerin Hertha Lorenz (1916-1989)

Hertha Lorenz (1916–1989) war eine österreichische Lektorin, Übersetzerin und Schriftstellerin. Ihre Arbeit blieb über Jahrzehnte mit dem Klagenfurter Eduard-Kaiser-Verlag verbunden. Über diesen Verlag wurden Bücher vertrieben, in deren verlegerischem Peritext Lorenz als Übersetzerin oder Bearbeiterin markiert war. Dabei handelte es sich überwiegend um europäische Klassiker der Weltliteratur (Boccaccio, Charlotte Brontë, Dickens, Dostoevskij, Dumas, Hugo, Maupassant, Ovid, Poe, Sienkiewicz, Stendhal, Tolstoj, Twain u. a.). Der translationshistoriographische Versuch, Lorenz‘ übersetzerisches Œuvre zu rekonstruieren, stößt auf Schwierigkeiten in Bezug auf die eindeutige Zurechnung von Translaten zu ihrer Person, Schwierigkeiten, die mit dem kollaborativ-transformativen Charakter translatorischer Prozesse und mit der Situiertheit translatorischer Arbeit in einem historisch konkreten „literaturbetrieblichen“ Setting zusammenhängen. An ausgewählten Beispielen aus ihrem Werk sollen diese Schwierigkeiten erörtert werden.Hertha Lorenz (1916–1989) was a literary editor, translator and writer from Austria. Over decades, she was closely affiliated with the Klagenfurt-based Eduard Kaiser publishing house.  In the publisher’s peritexts, Lorenz is given as either the translator or the editor (“revised by”) of various publications, predominantly European classics of world literature, such as Boccaccio, Charlotte Brontë, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Dumas, Hugo, Maupassant, Ovid, Poe, Sienkiewicz, Stendhal, Tolstoy or Twain. A historical reconstruction of Lorenz\u27s translatorial oeuvre requires the ability to accurately attribute work to her as an individual and thus needs to disambiguate the translatorship of publications. Here, we have to consider (a) the collaborative-transformative character of translatorial processes on the one hand, and (b) the situatedness of translatorial work within a particular literary and publishing scene on the other. These issues will be addressed on the basis of selected extracts from Lorenz’s work.Hertha Lorenz (1916–1989) was a literary editor, translator and writer from Austria. Over decades, she was closely affiliated with the Klagenfurt-based Eduard Kaiser publishing house.  In the publisher’s peritexts, Lorenz is given as either the translator or the editor (“revised by”) of various publications, predominantly European classics of world literature, such as Boccaccio, Charlotte Brontë, Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Dumas, Hugo, Maupassant, Ovid, Poe, Sienkiewicz, Stendhal, Tolstoy or Twain. A historical reconstruction of Lorenz\u27s translatorial oeuvre requires the ability to accurately attribute work to her as an individual and thus needs to disambiguate the translatorship of publications. Here, we have to consider (a) the collaborative-transformative character of translatorial processes on the one hand, and (b) the situatedness of translatorial work within a particular literary and publishing scene on the other. These issues will be addressed on the basis of selected extracts from Lorenz’s work

Georg Venzkys geschickter Übersetzer. Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie für die Translationswissenschaft

1734 erscheint in Gottscheds „Beyträge zur critischen Historie der deutschen Sprache, Poesie und Beredsamkeit“ die erste gesonderte deutschsprachige übersetzungstheoretische Abhandlung – Georg Venzkys „Das Bild eines geschickten Übersetzers“. Diese Schrift wird in ihren Grundzügen vorgestellt. Der Fokus wird dabei auf die Verortung dieser Abhandlung in übersetzungshistorischen (in der Regel literaturhistorischen) Darstellungen gelegt. Vorrangig werden dabei am Beispiel Venzkys und seines „Bildes“ translationshistoriographische Überlegungen angestellt und der Nutzen einer metahistoriographischen Perspektive für die Translationswissenschaft und (in geringerem Maße) für die Translationsdidaktik im Kontext der Forderung nach „Humanisierung“ der Übersetzungsgeschichte (Pym) und der Umsetzung dieser Forderung in der sich zur Zeit etablierenden übersetzerhistorischen Forschung – auch am Beispiel des Germersheimer Übersetzerlexikons – diskutiert.In 1734, the first seperate treatise on translation theory written in German was published in Gottscheds „Beyträge zur critischen Historie der deutschen Sprache, Poesie und Beredsamkeit“ – Georg Venzky’s „Das Bild eines geschickten Übersetzers“. This paper presents the main features of this treatise. It focuses on the location of this treatise in historical representations of translation (usually literary history). The main emphasis will be on translation-historiographical considerations using the example of Venzky and his “image”, and the usefulness of a meta-historiographical perspective for translation studies. Furthermore, but to a lesser extent, the benefit of a metahistoriographical perspective for translation didactics will be discussed. This will be done in the context of the demand for the “humanization” of the history of translation (Pym) and the implementation of this demand in the translation-historical research currently establishing itself – also by using the example of the Germersheim Translator\u27s Dictionary.In 1734, the first seperate treatise on translation theory written in German was published in Gottscheds „Beyträge zur critischen Historie der deutschen Sprache, Poesie und Beredsamkeit“ – Georg Venzky’s „Das Bild eines geschickten Übersetzers“. This paper presents the main features of this treatise. It focuses on the location of this treatise in historical representations of translation (usually literary history). The main emphasis will be on translation-historiographical considerations using the example of Venzky and his “image”, and the usefulness of a meta-historiographical perspective for translation studies. Furthermore, but to a lesser extent, the benefit of a metahistoriographical perspective for translation didactics will be discussed. This will be done in the context of the demand for the “humanization” of the history of translation (Pym) and the implementation of this demand in the translation-historical research currently establishing itself – also by using the example of the Germersheim Translator\u27s Dictionary

Le dilemme de Buridan : Une histoire de la traduction belge est-elle possible ?

Whenever they attempt to cover longer periods, translation histories, like national and comparative literary histories, face the paradox of Buridan’s ass: should they limit the scope to intranslations in the national language only or should they open up to extranslations of national works in other languages? The first option being commonly taken, translation histories tend to follow the restrictive path of national literary histories. However, when dealing with multilingual literatures, like Belgian literature, such a dependence yields more problematic effects: since histories focus on one language only, translation histories simply ignore the intensive translation exchanges between the two major national languages, as well as the role played by Belgian translations in the international circulation of literature. This contribution aims at disentangling the various issues associated with translation in Belgium and proposes some solutions for its analysis, including an integrated view of qualitative and quantitative approaches.Whenever they attempt to cover longer periods, translation histories, like national and comparative literary histories, face the paradox of Buridan’s ass: should they limit the scope to intranslations in the national language only or should they open up to extranslations of national works in other languages? The first option being commonly taken, translation histories tend to follow the restrictive path of national literary histories. However, when dealing with multilingual literatures, like Belgian literature, such a dependence yields more problematic effects: since histories focus on one language only, translation histories simply ignore the intensive translation exchanges between the two major national languages, as well as the role played by Belgian translations in the international circulation of literature. This contribution aims at disentangling the various issues associated with translation in Belgium and proposes some solutions for its analysis, including an integrated view of qualitative and quantitative approaches.L’histoire de la traduction, dès qu’elle projette des synthèses de quelque envergure, à l’instar des histoires littéraires nationales et des histoires comparées et transnationales, se trouve confrontée à un dilemme de Buridan : doit-elle se confiner aux intraductions en la langue nationale, ou doit-elle au contraire s’évertuer à agencer ces dernières avec les extraductions d’œuvres nationales vers d’autres langues ? Force est de constater que la première option l’emporte généralement et qu’ainsi l’histoire de la traduction se place dans le sillage des histoires littéraires nationales. Lorsqu’il s’agit de littératures plurilingues, comme la littérature belge, cette dépendance produit le même effet : les histoires littéraires focalisent une des langues nationales. Mais elle embarrasse les historiens de la traduction, qui ne peuvent ignorer l’intensité des échanges traductifs entre les deux grandes langues nationales, ni la part prise par les traductions belges à la circulation internationale des lettres. Cette contribution cherche à démêler l’écheveau des traductions en Belgique, propose quelques pistes en vue de leur analyse et commente les principaux défis méthodologiques posés par une visée qui intègre des démarches qualitatives et quantitatives

Akteure des Wandels: Ein Rollenmodell des Übersetzungsprozesses anhand einer Untersuchung englisch-deutscher Literaturübersetzungen aus der Zwischenkriegszeit

Der beginnende Kulturimport modernistischer englischsprachiger Literatur in den deutschen Sprachraum zu Anfang des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts stellte nicht nur für die Produzenten der Übersetzungen eine reizvolle und fordernde Aufgabe dar. Auch für die Übersetzungswissenschaft bedeutet dies neue Anreize und erfordert maßgeschneiderte Ansätze zur Vermessung des Übersetzungsprozesses, um die Bedingungsfaktoren und Einflussnahmen von Einzelpersonen in den Mittelpunkt der text- und akteursbezogenen Untersuchung zu rücken. Den damit verbundenen Entscheidungen versucht die vorliegende Studie mithilfe eines Rollenmodells des Übersetzungsprozesses Rechnung zu tragen, indem anhand der Korrespondenzunterlagen der Akteure für die Beziehung zwischen dem Insel Verlag und dessen Übersetzer, vor allem Herberth E. Herlitschka, versucht werden soll, die Entscheidernetzwerke, Kräfteverhältnisse, Aufgabengebiete, Diskurslinien und Auswirkungen zu umreißen. Die Ergebnisse der Auswertung dieser teils freundschaftlich, teils vehement geführten Dialoge lassen weitreichende Erkenntnisse zum diversen Aufgabengebiet der Übersetzer, den Entscheidungsgrundlagen der Akteure und der Dominanz von Übersetzungsnormen zu und ermöglichen zudem einen Einblick in das Selbstverständnis der Verhandlungspartner in einer internationaler werdenden Publikationswelt.The intricacies of the cultural import of modernist English literature into German-speaking countries in the Twenties and Thirties set difficult and intriguing tasks not only for translators. Translation studies scholars alike are faced with demands for tailor-made approaches to measure the translation process and accentuate its conditions and the influence of individuals within the enquiry of texts and actors. With the help of a task model of the translation process this article aims to account for the decisions that organise this process. Drawing on the correspondence between the German publisher Insel and its translators – notably Herberth E. Herlitschka – I will try to sketch the network of decisions makers, its power relations, the range of tasks, the matters of discourse and the consequences of the respective decisions. These sometimes friendly, sometimes heated dialogues greatly enhance our understanding of the multifaceted range of translators’ tasks, the actors’ basis for decision-making, and the dominance of translational norms and allow insight into the partners’ self-conception in an increasingly international publishing industry.The intricacies of the cultural import of modernist English literature into German-speaking countries in the Twenties and Thirties set difficult and intriguing tasks not only for translators. Translation studies scholars alike are faced with demands for tailor-made approaches to measure the translation process and accentuate its conditions and the influence of individuals within the enquiry of texts and actors. With the help of a task model of the translation process this article aims to account for the decisions that organise this process. Drawing on the correspondence between the German publisher Insel and its translators – notably Herberth E. Herlitschka – I will try to sketch the network of decisions makers, its power relations, the range of tasks, the matters of discourse and the consequences of the respective decisions. These sometimes friendly, sometimes heated dialogues greatly enhance our understanding of the multifaceted range of translators’ tasks, the actors’ basis for decision-making, and the dominance of translational norms and allow insight into the partners’ self-conception in an increasingly international publishing industry

Übersetzen als „parteiisch sondierendes Recycling“. Peter Rühmkorfs Umgang mit Leben und Werk des Walther von der Vogelweide

1975 veröffentlichte Peter Rühmkorf (1929–2008) seinen 70 Druckseiten umfassenden Essay „Walther von der Vogelweide – Reichssänger und Hausierer“. Integriert in den Text waren 34 Übersetzungen von Gedichten Walthers, deren mittelhochdeutsche Fassungen im Anhang ebenfalls abgedruckt wurden. Wie es zu diesen Übersetzungen kam, wie Rühmkorf die Gedichte auswählte und präsentierte, welche übersetzerischen Verfahren er einsetzte und wie er sein Vorgehen – auch in Abgrenzung von bereits vorliegenden Übersetzungen – begründete, was das Übersetzen für sein eigenes Schreiben bedeutete, wie er dieses eigene Schreiben und die Walther-Übersetzungen im politischen Kontext der Nach-68er-Ära verortete, wie er die Walther-Publikation nutzte, um seine Position im konkurrenzgetriebenen Literaturbetrieb Westdeutschlands neu zu festigen, welche Rolle andere Akteure dieses Betriebs (Kritiker, Verlagsleute, Publizisten, Germanisten) dabei spielten – um diese Fragen geht es im Beitrag.In 1975 Peter Rühmkorf (1929–2008) published his 70 page essay "Walther von der Vogelweide - Reichssänger und Hausierer". The text contained 34 translations of Walther\u27s poems, whose Middle High German versions were also printed in the appendix. How these translations came about, how Rühmkorf selected and presented the poems, which translation methods he used and how he justified his approach – particularly in distinction to already existing translations – what translating meant for his own writing, how he located his own writing and the Walther translations in the political context of the post-68 era, how he used the Walther publication to re-strengthen his position in the competitive West German literary field, what role other actors of this field (critics, publishers, authors and commentators, Germanists) played in it – these are the questions dealt with in the article.In 1975 Peter Rühmkorf (1929–2008) published his 70 page essay "Walther von der Vogelweide - Reichssänger und Hausierer". The text contained 34 translations of Walther\u27s poems, whose Middle High German versions were also printed in the appendix. How these translations came about, how Rühmkorf selected and presented the poems, which translation methods he used and how he justified his approach – particularly in distinction to already existing translations – what translating meant for his own writing, how he located his own writing and the Walther translations in the political context of the post-68 era, how he used the Walther publication to re-strengthen his position in the competitive West German literary field, what role other actors of this field (critics, publishers, authors and commentators, Germanists) played in it – these are the questions dealt with in the article

Interpreting prisoners-of-war. Sketches of a military translation culture in Finnish POW camps during World War II (1941-1944)

In the four years of Finland’s Continuation War against the USSR, Finnish troops captured 67,000 Soviet prisoners-of-war who were handled behind lines in an extended network of POW formations. Drawing from archived correspondence between the responsible military administration and the POW camp commanders, the article analyses the resources allocated for the management of communication issues as wells as the discourses concerning the interpreter’s tasks, role, trustworthiness, and positioning in the strenuous and violent conditions of POW camps.In the four years of Finland’s Continuation War against the USSR, Finnish troops captured 67,000 Soviet prisoners-of-war who were handled behind lines in an extended network of POW formations. Drawing from archived correspondence between the responsible military administration and the POW camp commanders, the article analyses the resources allocated for the management of communication issues as wells as the discourses concerning the interpreter’s tasks, role, trustworthiness, and positioning in the strenuous and violent conditions of POW camps.In the four years of Finland’s Continuation War against the USSR, Finnish troops captured 67,000 Soviet prisoners-of-war who were handled behind lines in an extended network of POW formations. Drawing from archived correspondence between the responsible military administration and the POW camp commanders, the article analyses the resources allocated for the management of communication issues as wells as the discourses concerning the interpreter’s tasks, role, trustworthiness, and positioning in the strenuous and violent conditions of POW camps

Sechstes Germersheimer Symposium Übersetzen und Literatur (UeLit VI), 15.-17. Juni 2018. Konferenzbericht.

kein Abstract verfügbarkein Abstract verfügbarkein Abstract verfügba

The Self-Discovery of Translation Studies. D’hulst, Lieven & Gambier, Yves (eds.) (2018): A History of Modern Translation Knowledge. Sources, concepts, effects. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: Benjamins.

no abstract availableno abstract availableno abstract availabl