What Translators of Plays Think About Their Work

Marja Jänis
Savonlinna School of Translation Studies
Abstract

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.

Table of contents

Translations of plays have recently been of interest from various points of view. Scholars have sought to design a model for drama translation (Fischer- Lichte 1988; Zuber-Skerritt 1988; Pavis 1989), or look at translating plays as [ p. 342 ]historically and culturally determined behaviour (Schultze 1987; Brisset 1989; articles in Schultze et al. 1990), or transfer plays from page to stage or from one culture to another (Carlson 1989; articles in Scolnicov and Holland 1989; Pavis 1992). My own study of three Finnish translations of Chekhov's Tri sestry [Three Sisters] (Jänis 1991) was also mainly concerned with such issues. In the meantime, however, I have come to believe that interviews with translators, dramaturges, and other persons concerned with translations for the theatre, could yield new insights into the question of why plays are translated as they are at a certain time in a certain cultural environment. The information thus elicited could then be used in further, and more systematic studies on various other aspects of play translation.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

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
[ p. 361 ]
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: 5.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 [ p. 362 ]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