Cfp: Translation and the “Third Reich” II

Historiographic Challenges and Approaches

The ‘story’ of how to write history on translation and interpreting phenomena has mostly been approached (and written) from the angle of other fields and disciplines. This fact is clearly visible in classical and contemporary translation and interpreting historiography both in make-up and outlook. At the same time, these still dominant contributions also illustrate a lack of perspectives and understanding from within our own discipline. However, creating a historiography of translatorial and interpreting action requires addressing the specific issues we face. This is what our conference call aims at, with the „Third Reich“ serving as our common frame of reference.

We would like to raise the following five issues for further reflection:

Taking a transcultural angle: Most of current historiography on translation and interpreting still follows in the footsteps of its theological, literary and linguistic forerunners, and has thus most often a dichotomic structure (taking a bicultural or even binational angle). Even though translational phenomena usually also carry traces of national attributions, opening up to a genuinely transcultural view seems to be a pressing prerequisite for transcending limits and gaining new insights.

Finding proper sources: The performance of translation and interpreting historiography depends on sound information sources and their critical assessment (quality, relevance, reliability, trustworthyness, etc.). What sources do we have? What’s their actual potential (evaluation)? What limits do we face? Some sources can, for example, only be accessed through taking a detour: Just think of searching bibliographical data bases for translations. Others often remain inaccessible at all: A translator’s Nachlass can, from our point of view, be considered quite valuable, but it is usually all too rarely preserved in public or private archives.

Choosing relevant ‚objects‘: agents (translators, interpreters, clients, publishers, etc.), media, texts and paratexts (translations, correspondence, work contracts, registration files, memoirs, news items, etc.), capital (remunerations), work place (equipment), networks, actions, events, processes … What is missing in contemporary historiography on translation and interpreting phenomena? What aspects have been disregarded so far and should be brought to light? Moreover: What will still remain in the dark?

Matching established methods: In most academic disciplines, historiographic methodology has developed in stages, and slowly over time – resources, opportunities, trends, restrictions, setbacks, shifts … Is it an advantage if you can start completely from scratch and develop your own methodology? Or can translation and interpreting historiography just skip the other disciplines’ developmental processes and serve itself from their banquets (state-of-the-art insights and approaches). What do we actually need for a history of translation and interpreting? Prosopographical data? Sociological assessment? Statistical evaluation? What types of storying or which forms of analysis seem to be most promising for new insights (comparison?, connection?, entanglement?, transfer?, etc.)? Which other disciplines offer valuable approaches (litterature and cultural studies?, history?, philosophy?, sociology?, etc.)? Histoire croisée, actor-network-theory, field-theory conceptualizations, reception-focused research, etc.?

Putting it all together: We already have a plethora of anecdotal bits and pieces (individual stories) – but how do we synthesize them (with their depicted actions, events and processes) into a larger context (useful categorizations?, periodizations?, typologies?), into a common picture (connectedness, coherency, cohesion), into a history of translation and interpreting phenomena?

This year‘s conference is a sequel and follow-up to Translation and the “Third Reich” I (Berlin, 2014). During the Berlin event one thought remained obvious throughout: Doing historiography of Translation and Interpreting phenomena in the reference frame of such a violent, existential and highly asymmetric context calls for constant sensitivity and critical reflection (sources?, methods?), with implicit flaws coming quickly to the fore. We concluded, then, that there are so many more stories yet to be told about how to write a history of translation and interpreting in the face of Nazi power. Moreover, we thought that because of the required academic rigor, awareness and clarity, the chosen approaches (and experience of met challenges) could also be applied to other translation and interpreting studies contexts when taking a historical angle. Thus, Translation and the “Third Reich” II.

Registration fee: EUR 60,00.

Please, send your half-page abstract with a three-line bio sketch in German, English or French to translation-thirdreich-2016@univie.ac.at by June 30th, 2016.

Your abstract will be posted at our website and distributed to all participants in our conference kit. We will publish a conference volume with Frank & Timme in their „Transkulturalität – Translation – Transfer“ series. For this, you will be provided with detailed information right after the event.

Organization committee

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Larisa Schippel
Stefanie Kremmel
Sabine Lefèvre
Julia Richter
Karlheinz Spitzl
Cornelia Zwischenberger