La Toma de Decisiones Organizacionales

To determine how translation practice in the German-speaking countries has influenced dialect translation strategies scholarly works published between 1980 and

88 2009 have been studied.52 I include the responses of translators Frank Heibert and Frank-Thomas Mende to questionnaires, these together with the papers of translator Raab (2005, 2010) provide insights into drama translation from the practitioner’s view point.

Most of the works surveyed take the form of case studies of particular authors/plays in German translation, and/or discuss specific translation problems. The former include papers on the translation into German of Sean O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock by Venneberg (1980), of Edward Bond’s Saved by Ledebur (1989), and of Maxim Gorki’s Summerfolk by B. Haas (1982). Examples of the latter are the translation into German of non-literary allusions in Eugene O’Neill’s early sea plays by Fink (1980), of what Totzeva (1995) terms the theatrical potential, and of the social convention of the meal in Polish plays by Gühlke and Mosler (1990). Some of the articles mention the translator or a particular production, but do not discuss in detail the effects on the translation approach of the conditions under which the translation was carried out.

Others do discuss the impact of the translation process on the TT and/or production in further detail and are therefore more interesting for this particular research topic. Zuber (1980), for example, discusses the circumstances under which the 1949 translation by Berthold Viertel of Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire came to be the authorised version by the drama publisher Fischer Verlag. All subsequent productions were based on this instead of a much improved production version of 1950 by the same translator until, in 1998, a new translation by Bernd Schmidt became available (Raab 2005: 10). Venneberg points out that in German-speaking countries drama publishers hold the rights for translation, publication and production of foreign plays, referring to Sean O’Casey’s Juno and the Paycock for which the 1973 translation by Maik Hamburger and Adolf Dresen for the publisher Henschel Verlag became the only authorised version (1980: 122). She emphasises that “non- verbal aspects, such as the question of performing rights and publishing rights, have to be considered when dealing with translation problems and comparing different versions” (122). Zuber and Venneberg suggest that play translations are produced for drama publishing houses which hold all the rights to their publication and production and, ultimately, act as the German agents of the foreign playwrights. Ledebur calls

52 _{The works included in the survey can be found in the Bibliography marked with an asterisk at the}

89 Klaus Reichert’s translation of Edward Bond’s Saved a “model translation” “which could be used all over Germany” and “was very accurate” (1989: 205). This means that translations are ST-orientated, and “model translations” are produced for theatres throughout Germany (and, I would add, for all German-speaking countries and regions). These practices reveal the first condition of the translation process that might hinder, if not totally prevent, the use of dialect in translated plays. Since translations are made to be used throughout German-speaking Europe, the choice of one particular dialect may be detrimental to the distribution and success of a play.

Schultze differentiates between “Ein-Weg-Übersetzung”,53

i.e. “one-way translation”, and “potentielle Übersetzung”, i.e. “potential translation” (1987: 10). Whereas the former is a translation for a particular production and takes into account theatre building, stage, actors, director, and audience, the latter is a script for many different productions at different theatres. The concept of “one-way translation” is synonymous with what Greiner and Jenkins (2004b) call “Inszenierungs- Übersetzung”, i.e. “production translation”; and “potential translation” is synonymous with Ledebur’s “model translation”. To a certain extent this differentiation coincides with one made by Pavis (1992) when discussing the relationship between translation and mise en scène: in one case, the translation does not determine the staging, i.e. does not impose the translator’s interpretations54

of the ST onto the TT in order to leave space for the director’s creative vision (1992: 146-7). This is similar to the concept of “model translation.” In the other case, the translation may through interpretations by the translator “predetermine the mise en scène” (147) which is the

case in a “production translation.”

German scholars and translators agree that a translation for a particular production has definite advantages but also disadvantages. A “production translation” is more likely to use dialect as the audience’s attitudes towards dialect are known, and the appropriate local or regional dialect may be selected. Raab, who translated Mark O’Rowe’s Howie the Rookie as a potential translation, chose colloquial language and trusted that the director would decide on whether or not to use local dialect; some of the productions were indeed in dialect, others remained in standard (2005: 149). He is aware of the problems posed by using dialect in a translation: even though Martin

53 _{The term one-way translation is ambiguous as it suggests many meanings other than the intended}

meaning of ‘translation for a particular production.’ Therefore, I have adopted Greiner and Jenkins’ (2004b) term production translation which describes the same concept.

90 Sperr’s Bavarian translation of Edward Bond’s Saved is vastly superior to the standard German translation by Klaus Reichert, he concedes that it cannot be used outside the Bavarian-Austrian dialect region (149). In Heibert’s experience there are no guidelines as to how to translate ST dialects (email of 19 October 2008). He maintains, however, that

[w]as Dialekte betrifft, ist meines Wissens aber breiter Konsens, dass deutsche Dialekte in Übersetzungen (also in Stücken, die allermeistens in anderen Ländern spielen) nichts zu suchen haben, weil sie vom Zuschauer als Widerspruch empfunden werden (“Warum berlinert dieser Londoner?”).55

(email of 19 October 2008)

The incomprehensibility of a dialect outside its region, and the oddity of the use of target culture dialects by characters from the source culture are certainly factors that mitigate against the use of dialects in translated plays. These arguments, which are not immediately related to the translation process as such, are often brought up in the discussion of dialect translation (see Chapter 1.2.). In the German context they compound other factors already discussed such as the tradition of dialect use in theatre and, indeed, the widespread inability of actors to speak in the chosen dialect. Accordingly, the chances of dialect use in a translated play are rather limited with the possible exception of STs written in a style similar to the German folk theatre tradition, or written and/or translated for dialect theatres or amateur theatres. In addition, it may be only at the last stage of the translation process, i.e. at the German- language theatres, that dialect enters the play text.

Scholars and practitioners emphasise that both production translation and potential translation are for the stage and that, in general, translators recognise the special nature of a play script as a blueprint for production (Schultze 1993: 530; Greiner/Jenkins 2004: 1010-2). Raab (2005) and Fischer-Lichte (1988) in particular point to the role of contemporary theatre conventions in the choice of potential over production translation. German theatre is often characterised as Regie-Theater, i.e. directors’ theatre: it is the director who makes decisions about cuts and radical adaptations (Fischer-Lichte 1988: 133). Raab (2005: 4), Heibert (email of 19 October

55 _{Translation: “As far as I know, when it comes to dialects there is a broad consensus that there is no}

place for German dialects in translations (i.e. plays that in most cases are located in the foreign country) because they are seen by the audience as a contradiction (“Why does this Londoner speak in Berlin dialect?”).

91 2008) and Mende (email of 13 November 2012) emphasise that the translator is unlikely to have any influence on a production as usually not even the playwright is allowed to be part of the process. Fischer-Lichte concludes:

[...] je weniger die Übersetzung im Hinblick auf den theatralischen Idiolekt einzelner Regisseure und Schauspieler angefertigt wird, desto mehr Möglichkeiten [hält die Übersetzung] für einen kreativen Umgang des Regisseurs und der Schauspieler mit dem Text bereit [...].56 (1988: 133)

Hence, the drama translation approach is determined not only by advantages and disadvantages but also by German theatre traditions (Schultze 1987: 10). Whereas in the German context potential translations are in the majority, the Dutch, French and British prefer production translations (10-1; see also Raab 2005: 147). This tendency may be linked to a traditional preference for either adaptation or translation. Schultze points out:

[I]m gesamten deutschsprachigen Raum wurden und werden […] bevorzugt Übersetzungen geschaffen, die sich so eng wie möglich am Ausgangstext orientieren. Kulturell Fremdes soll erkennbar sein; eine Grundorientierung, zu der sich auch polnische und russische Dramenübersetzer bekennen.57 (1987: 10-1)

She asserts that, in comparison, the French used to prefer adaptations58 for specific productions on the basis of a “Rohübersetzung”, or “rough translation”; although more recently attempts are being made to both convey the original meaning and address the requirements and conditions of the target culture (11). Like most of the scholars consulted, Schultze recognises that a differentiation between adaptation and translation is not very fruitful as any translation of drama texts will to a certain extent

56

Translation: “the less a translation is prepared with the theatrical idiolect of particular directors and actors in mind, the more possibilities [it provides] for a creative handling of the text by directors and actors.”

57 _{Translation: “In the whole of the German-speaking area translations have been produced which are,}

preferably, as close as possible to the source text. Anything foreign to the target culture is to be recognisable as such; a basic orientation which Polish and Russian drama translators adhere to as well.”

58 _{The term ‘adaptation’ in the British context is discussed in Chapter 3.3. In her discussions, Schultze}

uses the term to mean a translation that is relatively free and involves changes in style and content to accommodate the background of the TT audience but does not always includes cultural relocation. I use the term in this thesis to refer to a translation of a play that involves the relocation of the setting and cultural context from the source culture to the target culture.

92 involve adaptations and changes (11). In general, German, Polish and Russian translations remain close to the ST and aim at portraying the foreign culture, whereas French translations may stray from the original and relocate the play to the target culture. The fact that German translations do retain the foreign culture is an argument against the translation into dialect. The use of target culture dialect would most likely introduce different associations and lead to misunderstandings which can be avoided by using standard or colloquial speech.

Recognising the influence of the target culture, in particular the target theatre tradition, on drama translation approaches and strategies, German scholars have in recent years coined the phrase “dramatische Konventionen und Traditionen”, i.e. “drama conventions and traditions” (title and discussion in Ranke 2004). As early as 1980, Venneberg suggests that, in the German context, the study of TTs requires knowledge of the publishing and production rights (122). Fischer-Lichte and Schultze dedicate a collection of papers to the “Traditionen und Konventionen als Problem der Dramenübersetzung” (1990, sub-title of collection). However, it is Ranke who discusses most comprehensively drama conditions and traditions in the European context within which the translator works: types of drama translations, reasons for translation, and general traditions of translation approaches (2004: 1019). In the first group, he differentiates between translation for a particular production, translation for a drama publisher, and for independent projects, but does not discuss in detail the implications of these approaches for the TT. In fact, only two articles of the corpus reviewed (Raab 2005 and 2010) discuss in detail the circumstances of drama translation in German-speaking Europe. German scholars may assume that these facts are common knowledge, or have yet to turn their attention to this research. However, this knowledge is vital for a better understanding of the tradition of dialect translation on German stages.

Translation is usually initiated by a publishing house that acquires the rights for the translation, publication and production of a particular ST from the author’s agent, and commissions a translation which is then offered to theatres in the German- speaking countries for the premiere. The translator is usually selected by the publisher; but there may be cases when a translator suggests a play to the publisher and produces the translation (Heibert, email of 19 October 2008). As a rule, the first translator of a particular author is likely to be offered subsequent translations of that author (Raab 2010: 10). The TT is not sold in book shops but the publisher sells

93 copies to theatres. The only exception is the monthly publication of a play script (contemporary German or foreign in translation) through the theatre journal Theater heute.

The publisher may decide not to take on a later play by a playwright because it would have “no chance” in Germany (10). For example, Raab translated Gregory Burke’s Gagarin Way but not Black Watch, even though he judges it to be better than some of Burke’s other plays, because it is “so specifically Scottish that a German production still would be extremely unlikely” (11). This suggests that publishing houses have certain criteria by which they select plays, in this case the level of cultural specificity. Hammerschmidt and Schultze (1994: 428-9) list five factors for acceptance into the target theatre repertoire: first, the universality of the problem or question addressed in the play; second, the relevance of the topic for the target culture; third, the degree and nature of foreignness; fourth, if it offers an addition to the target literary/drama system; and fifth, if it presents opportunities for innovation in theatre practice in the target culture. Clearly, apart from the first, all factors are related to the target culture confirming the validity of my approach to this research project on the basis of Descriptive Translation Studies and polysystem theory – as Even-Zohar emphasises,

[…] the very principles of selecting the works to be translated are determined by the situation governing the (home) polysystem […]. (2004: 200)

In the German case, translated plays may be accepted by the target theatre system if they fit into it, and/or fill gaps in the system, or offer innovative theatre practice.

Only very few studies discuss the journey of the ST to the TT stage. However, my survey discovered a tradition of potential drama translation and, that, in the majority of cases, TTs remain close to the ST. The former is, at least partly due to the German tradition of directors’ theatre mentioned earlier. In addition, since translation publishing and production rights for the whole of German-speaking Europe lie with drama publishers, translations have to be sufficiently non-specific so as to be usable throughout. Staying close to the ST is part of a tradition of presenting the translated play as a foreign work and introducing the audience to a different culture. Mende refers to the “droit moral,” the right to the protection of the artistic integrity of literary works:

94

Da gibt es klare Vorgaben im Übersetzungsvertrag, der sie verpflichtet, nach bestem Wissen und Gewissen, ein Stück ohne Weglassen irgendwelcher Satzteile […] ins Deutsche zu übertragen.59 (email of 13 November 2012)

These findings give a first indication of whether translation into dialect is more or less likely in the German context. If a TT is not produced for a particular production at a specific theatre standard is more likely to be selected because a dialect that is extremely different from the audience’s will not be understood. Attitudes towards and associations with a chosen dialect, even if understood, may be detrimental. In addition, publishers, who do not give explicit guidelines for language use in the TT, seem to reject dialect translation because of the incongruity between ST-cultural background of the speakers and their use of TL dialects. However, even though the TT may be written in standard or colloquial language, the director may still decide to produce a dialect version.

3.3. The Journey from Source Text to Target Text Distribution: The Role of