Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 8:2 (1996) ► pp.341–364

What Translators of Plays Think About Their Work

 | Savonlinna School of Translation Studies
This study used loosely conducted interviews to determine how translators of plays see their work, including their position towards the theatre. Different ways of performing the act were reported, along with different attitudes towards the use of background materials. Significant differences were found in what was considered most essential in translating a play: some stressed the need to visualize events during translation while others emphasized the audible aspects of the dialogue. Some translators portrayed themselves as 'invisible mediators', unconcerned with any future performance, whereas others claimed to be working consciously towards one. A third group described their work as 'art' and stressed the need to liberate themselves from the slavery of the source text and find a language of their own.
Article outline
  • 1.Interviews as a Research Tool
  • 2.Description of the Questionnaire
  • 3.Who Are the Translators of Plays?
  • 4.The Process of Translating
  • 5.Seeing, Hearing and Reading the Play
  • 6.The Translator—a Servant of Two Masters?
  • 7.Different Attitudes Towards Translating for Theatre
  • 8.The Play as a Script and as a Piece of Literature
  • 10.The Translator and the Theatre
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 January 1996
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.8.2.08jan
References (30)
References
Bassnett-McGuire, Susan. 1981. “The Translator in the Theatre”. Theatre Quarterly X:40. 37–48.Google Scholar
. 1985. “Ways Through the Labyrinth: Strategies and Methods for Translating Theatre Texts”. Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm, 1985. 87–102.Google Scholar
Brisset, Annie. 1989. “In Search of a Target Language: The Politics of Theatre Translation in Quebec”. Target 1:1. 9–27.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Marvin. 1989. “Local Semiosis and Theatrical Interpretation”. Semiotica 73:3–4. 249–261.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990 (11978). “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”. Polysystem Studies [= Poetics Today 11:1], 1990. 45–51.Google Scholar
Fischer-Lichte, Erika. 1988. “Die Übersetzung als kulturelle Transformation”. Erika Fischer-Lichte, Fritz Paul, Brigitte Schultze and Horst Turk, eds. Soziale und theatralische Konventionen als Problem der Dramenübersetzung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1988. 129–144. [Forum modernes Theater. Schriftenreihe, 1.]Google Scholar
Haavikko, Ritva and Kaarina Sala, eds. 1987. Kirjailijahaastattelut. Helsinki: SKS.Google Scholar
Häyrynen, Yrjö-Paavo. 1994. Luovuus yhteisössä ja arjessa: Johdatus jälkiteollisen yhteiskunnan luovuuskehittelyyn. Helsinki: Painatuskeskus.Google Scholar
Jänis, Marja. 1991. Kirjallisuutta ja teatteriteksti: Tutkimus näytelmien kääntämisestä esimerkkiaineistona Anton Tšehovin Kolmen sisaren suomennokset. University of Joensuu. [Publications in the Humanities, 12.]Google Scholar
. 1993. “Why Are Drama Translations Fated to be Shortlived?” Yves Gambier and Jorma Tommola, eds. Translation and Knowledge. SSOTT IV. Scandinavian Symposium on Translation Theory, Turku, 4.-6.6.1992. Turku: University of Turku—Center for Translation and Interpreting, 1993. 263–272.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 1993. “Investigating Translation Strategies”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and John Laffling, eds. Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research. University of Joensuu, Faculty of Arts, 1993. 99–120. [Studies in Languages, 28.]Google Scholar
Korpimies, Liisa. 1983. A Linguistic Approach to the Analysis of a Dramatic Text: A Study in Discourse and Cohesion with Special Reference to The Birthday Party by Harold Pinter. Jyväskylà: University of Jyväskylä. [Studia Philologica Jyväskyläensis, 7.]Google Scholar
Levyj, Irzhi (Levý, Jiří). 1974. Iskusstvo perevoda, perevod s ĉeskogo i predislovie VL. Rossels. Moskva: Progress.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Pavis, Patrice. 1989. “Problems of Translation for the Stage: Interculturalism and Post-Modern Theatre”, tr. Loren Kruger. Scolnicov and Holland 1989 : 25–44.Google Scholar
. 1992. Theatre at the Crossroads of Cultures. London and New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pfister, Manfred. 1988. The Theory and Analysis of Drama, tr. John Halliday. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schultze, Brigitte. 1987. “Théorie der Dramenübersetzung—1960 bis heute: Eine Bericht zur Forschung”. Forum modernes Theater 2:1. 5–17.Google Scholar
Schultze, Brigitte, Erika Fischer-Lichte, Fritz Paul and Horst Turk, eds. 1990. Literatur und Theater: Traditionen und Konventionen als Problem der Dramenubersetzung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. [Forum modernes Theater, Schriftenreihe, 4.]Google Scholar
Scolnicov, Hanna and Peter Holland, eds. 1989. The Play Out of Context: Transferring Plays from Culture to Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1984. “Sprechbare Sprache—spielbarer Text: Zur Problematik der Bühnenübersetzung”. Richard J. Watts and Urs Weidmann, eds. Modes of Interpretation: Essays Presented to Ernst Leisi. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1984. 101–116.Google Scholar
Sorvali, Irma. 1992. Översättare och översättningsprocess. Uleåborg: Institutionen for nordiska språk vid Uleåborgs universitet.Google Scholar
Théâtre. Public Mars-Avril 1982.Google Scholar
Teatteri 1989: 51.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Benjamins Translation Library, 4.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tuisku, Elina. 1989. “Draaman kääntämisen teoriaa ja käytäntöä. Vastaavuuden ihanteesta tarkoituksenmukaiseen kääntämisen”. Tampereen yliopisto, kääntäjänkoulutuslaitos. [Unpublished.]Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1992. “Introduction”. Lawrence Venuti, ed. Rethinking Translation. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. 1–17.Google Scholar
Weaver, William. 1989. “The Process of Translation”. John Biguenet and Rainer Schulte, eds. The Craft of Translation. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Woodsworth, Judith. 1992. “The Theorization of Literary Translation: Shifting Modes of Perceiving the Translation Process”. Literatura i perevod: Problemy teorii. MeŽdunarodnaya vstrecha učenykh i pisatelej. Moskva 27 fevralja-1 marta 1991 g. Moskva: Progress, Litera, 1992. 195–205.Google Scholar
Zuber-Skerritt, Ortrun. 1988. “Towards a Typology of Literary Translation: Drama Translation Science”. Meta 33:4. 485–490.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Ruffo, Paola
2024. Literary translators in-between. Translation in Society 3:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Duraner, Jasmin Esin
2021. Translate to resist. Translation and Interpreting Studies 16:2 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
SEÇKİN, Sevcan
2021. Serbest çevirmenlerin Türkiye çeviri sektöründe yaşadığı zorluklar. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi :23 ► pp. 1128 ff. DOI logo
Parkins-Ferrón, Courtney G.
2020. Are Translators Really Subservient? Empirical Evidence from Lexical Transfer and Language Prestige in Curaçao. Research in Language 18:3 ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Jansen, Hanne
2019. I’m a translator and I’m proud: how literary translators view authors and authorship. Perspectives 27:5 ► pp. 675 ff. DOI logo
Shlesinger†, Miriam, Tanya Voinova & Michal Schuster
2019. A Feminine Occupation? The Conflicts Inherent to Community Interpreting as Expressed by Female Student Interpreters. In Understanding Campus-Community Partnerships in Conflict Zones, ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet
2000. The Suspended Potential of Culture Research in TS. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 12:2 ► pp. 345 ff. DOI logo
Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet
2005. How to be a (recognized) translator. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 17:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sela-Sheffy, Rakefet
2008. The Translators’ Personae: Marketing Translatorial Images as Pursuit of Capital1. Meta 53:3 ► pp. 609 ff. DOI logo
Sidiropoulou, Maria
1998. Offensive language in English‐Greek translation. Perspectives 6:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Simeoni, Daniel
1998. The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 10:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.