Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 5:1 (1993) ► pp.55–69

Rhetoric and Dutch Translation Theory (1750-1820)

Due to the influence of rhetoric, Dutch translation theory between 1750 and 1820, like translation theory in other Western European countries in those days, was primarily concerned with the effect of a translation on the Dutch public and the verbal appearance of the Dutch version. This functional approach was reinforced by the definition of translation as interpretatio, imitatio or exercitatio. The translational technique which follows from this prospective orientation is one of adaptation, correction and improvement. By the end of the period, Dutch translation theory seemed to be moving away slowly from the rhetorical tradition, as a result of two major changes: (1) a growing concern as of ± 1780 for fidelity to the verbal aspects of the original within the interpretatio-approach, and (2) a decrease in the popularity of imitatio as a creative technique after 1800. Unlike Germany, translation theory in The Netherlands had not made the crucial step towards a new theory of language before 1820.
Article outline
  • Introduction: The Prospective Orientation of Dutch Translation Theory
  • 1.Rhetorical Approach to Translation
    • 1.1. Definitions of Translation: interpretatio, exercitatio, imitatio
    • 1.2.Translational Technique
  • 2.Transition: From a Rhetorical to a More Retrospective Approach to Translation
    • 2.1.Changing Ideas about Language, Literature and Translation
    • 2.2.Shifts in Dutch Translation Theory
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 January 1993
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.5.1.05kor
References (23)
References
Apel, Friedmar. 1982. Sprachbewegung: Eine historisch-poetologische Untersuchung zum Problem des Übersetzens. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
D’hulst, Lieven. 1989. “Le discours sur la traduction en France (1800-1850)”. Revue de littérature comparée 63:2. 179–187.Google Scholar
. 1990. Cent ans de théorie française de la traduction: De Batteux à Littré (1748-1847). Lille: Presses universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar
Dockhorn, Klaus. 1968. Macht und Wirkung der Rhetorik: Vier Aufsätze zur Ideenge-schichte der Vormoderne. Bad Homburg: Verlag Gehlen.Google Scholar
France, Peter. 1972. Rhetoric and Truth in France: Descartes to Diderot. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1988. “Van ’Hebban olla vogala’ tot Ernst van Altena: Literaire verta-ling en Nederlandse literatuurgeschiedenis”. Raymond van den Broeck, ed. Literatuur van elders. Leuven: Acco, 1988. 11–25.Google Scholar
Howell, Wilbur S. 1971. Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, Thomas. 1968. Studien zur Theorie des Übersetzens im Zeitalter der Deutsche Aufklarung 1730-1770. Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain.Google Scholar
Kelly, Louis G. 1979. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation. Theory and Practice in the West. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Knufmann, Helmut. 1967. “Übersetzungswesen des 18. Jahrhunderts im Spiegel von Übersetzer- und Herausgebervorréden”. Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel 231. 2676–2716.Google Scholar
Korpel, L.G. 1992. Over het nut en de wijze der vertalingen: Nederlandse vertaalreflectie (1750-1820) in een Westeuropees kade. Amsterdam/Atlant: Rodop.Google Scholar
Lambert, José. 1988. “Twenty Years of Research on Literary Translation at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven”. Harald Kittel, ed. Die literarische Übersetzung: Stand und Perspektiven ihrer Erforschung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1988. 122–138.Google Scholar
. 1989. “L’époque romantique en France: les genres, la traduction et l’évolution littéraire”. Revue de littérature comparée 63:2. 165–170.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang G. 1981. Topik des Stillbegriffs: Zur Geschichte des Stilverständnisses von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Munteano, Basil. 1957. “Des ’constantes’ en littérature: principe et structures rhétoriques”. Revue de littérature comparée 311. 388–420.Google Scholar
Poltermann, Andreas. 1988. “Die ’Sprache der Übersetzung’: Historische Beobachtungen zueiner Poetik der literarischen Übersetzung mit Rücksicht auf den modernen Roman Musils”. Annette Daigger et al., eds. Die Übersetzung literarischer Texte am Beispiel Robert Musil. Stuttgart: Akademischer Verlag Heinz, 1988. 35–56.Google Scholar
Rener, Frederick M. 1989. Interpretatio: Language and Translation from Cicero to Tytler. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Roche, Geneviève. 1990. Les traductions-relais en Allemagne au XVIIIe siècle: Des Lettres aux Sciences. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. [Unpublished Thesis]Google Scholar
Schanze, Helmut. 1974. “Romantik und Rhetorik: Rhetorische Komponenten der Literaturprogrammatik um 1800”. Helmut Schanze, ed. Rhetorik: Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichte in Deutschland von 16.-20. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt: Athenaeum Fischer Taschenbuchverlag, 1974. 126–144.Google Scholar
Sdun, Winfried. 1967. Probleme und Theorien des Übersetzens in Deutschland vom 18. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert. München: Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Senger, Anneliese. 1971. Deutsche Übersetzungstheorie im 18. Jahrhundert (1734-46). Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann.Google Scholar
Stone, P.W.K. 1967. The Art of Poetry 1750-1820: Theories of Poetic Composition and Style in the Late Neo-Classic and Early Romantic Periods. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Ueding, Gert and Bernd Steinbrink. 1986. Grundriß der Rhetorik: Geschichte. Technik. Methode. Stuttgart: Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Paloposki, Outi
2001. Enriching translations, simplified language?. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 13:2 ► pp. 265 ff. DOI logo
Paloposki, Outi
2001. Originality and the Defence of Translation. The Translator 7:1 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2016. Memes of Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 123], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.