Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century: Focus on German [Hardcover ed.] 9027216320, 9789027216328

Citation preview

TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETING IN THE 20TH CENTURY FOCUS ON GERMAN

BENJAMINS TRANSLATION LIBRARY The Benjamins Translation Library aims to stimulate academic research and training in translation studies, lexicography and terminology. The Library provides a forum for a variety of approaches (which may sometimes be conflicting) in a historical, theoretical, applied and pedagogical context. The Library includes scholarly works, reference books, post-graduate text books and readers in the English language. ADVISORY BOARD Jens Allwood (Linguistics, University of Gothenburg) Morton Benson (Department of Slavic, University of Pennsylvania) Marilyn Gaddis Rose (CRIT, Binghamton University) Yves Gambier (Centre for Translation and Interpreting, Turku University) Daniel Gile (Université Lumière Lyon 2 and ISIT, Paris) Ulrich Heid (Computational Linguistics, University of Stuttgart) Eva Hung (Chinese University of Hong Kong) W. John Hutchins (Library, University of East Anglia) Werner Koller (Department of Germanic, Bergen University) José Lambert (Catholic University of Louvain) Willy Martin (Lexicography, Free University of Amsterdam) Alan Melby (Linguistics, Brigham Young University) Makoto Nagao (Electrical Engineering, Kyoto University) Roda Roberts (School of Translation and Interpreting, University of Ottawa) Juan C. Sager (Linguistics, Terminology, UMIST, Manchester) María Julia Sainz (Law School, Universidad de la República, Montevideo) Klaus Schubert (Technical Translation, Fachhochschule Flensburg) Mary Snell-Hornby (School of Translation & Interpreting, University of Vienna) Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit (Savonlinna School of Translation Studies, Univ. of Joensuu) Gideon Toury (M. Bernstein Chair of Translation Theory, Tel Aviv University) Wolfram Wilss (University of Saarbrücken) Judith Woodsworth (Mt. Saint Vincent University, Halifax) Sue Ellen Wright (Applied Linguistics, Kent State University)

Volume 29 Wolfram Wilss Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century Focus on German

TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETING IN THE 20TH CENTURY FOCUS ON GERMAN

WOLFRAM WILSS Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken

JOHN BENJAMINS PUBLISHING COMPANY AMSTERDAM/PHILADELPHIA

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Wilss, Wolfram. Translation and interpreting in the 20th century : focus on German / Wolfram Wilss. p. cm. -- (Benjamins translation library, ISSN 0929-7316 ; v. 29) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Translating and interpreting--Europe, German-speaking--History--20th century. 2. German language--Translating. I. Title. II. Series. P306.8.E85W55 1999 418’.02’0943--DC21 98-48760 ISBN 90 272 1632 0 (Eur.) / 1 55619 713 6 (US) (alk. paper) CIP © 1999 - John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. • P.O.Box 75577 • 1070 AN Amsterdam • The Netherlands John Benjamins North America • P.O.Box 27519 • Philadelphia PA 19118-0519 • USA

Contents

Preface and Acknowledgements

viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Retrospective 1.2 Basic terms in language mediation 1.2.1 Translation 1.2.2 Interpreting

1 6 6 11

CHAPTER 2. THE PERIOD 1900-1919 2.1 The Auswärtige Amt in Bonn 2.2 Austria-Hungary

17 23

CHAPTER 3. THE PERIOD 1919-1945 3.1 Bilingualism replaces monolingualism 3.2 The league of nations 3.2.1 Translation 3.2.2 Interpreting 3.2.3 Liaison interpreting: The “diplomat-interpreters” 3.2.4 Consecutive interpreting 3.2.5 Simultaneous interpreting 3.3 The situation in Germany post-1919 3.4 The institutionalization of the training of language mediators: the beginnings 3.5 Language mediation in the Third Reich

48

CHAPTER 4. THE PERIOD 1945-1990 4.1 Multilingualism replaces bilingualism 4.2 The European Union (EU)

51 52

29 30 30 32 33 36 40 42 45

vi 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN Esperanto English as the new language of international communication German versus English French versus English Intranational multilingualism: Switzerland

CHAPTER 5. PROFESSIONAL 5.1 Professionalization 5.2 Interpreting 5.3 Literary translation 5.4 Specialist translation 5.5 Terminology

57 59 62 65 67

FIELDS

CHAPTER 6. THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 6.1 The German civil service 6.2 The Bundessprachenamt 6.3 The EU language services 6.4 Industrial language services 6.4.1 Bayer/Leverkusen 6.4.2 Mannesmann 6.4.3 Siemens 6.5 The foundation of new training centres since 1945 6.6 Training concepts 6.7 Relations between the institutes and the universities 6.8 The academicization of training 6.9 The theory versus practice debate 6.10 The foundation of the German Fachhochschulen 6. 11 Language mediation and the specialist public 6.11.1 The relationship between the training institutes and the employers of their graduates 6.11.2 Professional associations and specialist journals 6.11.3 The German “Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer” (BDÜ) 6.11.4 The relationship between supply and demand 6.12 The public image of the profession 6.13 The self-concept of the language mediator

71 74 77 81 86

99 103 105 114 114 121 123 131 137 139 141 144 149 151 151 154 158 162 169 172

CONTENTS

vii

CHAPTER 7. THE PRESENT DAY 7.1 Preliminary remark 7.2 Globalization 7.3 Virtualization/outsourcing 7.4 Specialization 7.5 Fragmentation 7.6 Technologization/automatization 7.7 Machine translation 7.8 Machine-aided translation 7.9 Translation memories 7.10 Computerized terminology work

179 181 188 194 199 201 203 209 211 214

CHAPTER 8. BEYOND 2000 8.1 Knowledge-based translation beyond 2000 8.2 Knowledge acquisition in translation teaching beyond 2000

219 223

Bibliography Author index Subject index

237 249 253

viii

PREFACE

AND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Preface and Acknowledgements

I have intended for some time to write a short survey of the development of language mediation (translation and interpreting) in the twentieth century. I first wrote on this subject in 1974, covering only the post-1945 period (Wilss 1974). My other contributions from the 1970s and 80s are listed in Arntz/ Thome (1990), while the titles of those published in the 1990s are available in the “Jahresbibliographien der Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken” (Annual Bibliographies of the University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken). It was the editors of the handbook “Translation” (Snell-Hornby et al., 1998) who indirectly provided the impetus behind the present study. My colleague Peter A. Schmitt (Leipzig) was especially instrumental. I had originally intended to produce only a short article on the history of language mediation in the twentieth century for the handbook, but my research uncovered enough material to merit a separate book. Language mediation transcends the boundaries of languages and disciplines. It is an activity which is so widespread today because information from abroad is just as important in man’s understanding of the world around him as that produced at home. Language mediators owe their existence to the simple fact that mankind is multilingual — and, according to legend, has been so since the Tower of Babel. This means that the world consists of different linguistic and cultural communities which cannot communicate with each other without the assistance of translators and interpreters, and which think and act in ways which are unfamiliar to members of other communities. In ancient Greece the discovery of other languages led to the arrogant distinction between Greeks and barbarians (e.g. in the Iliad, where Homer described the “Karer” from Asia Minor as a “people of barbarian tongue”, at least in the German translation by Heinrich Voß). In later Greek philosophy, which was always especially interested in language philosophy, the dogma of the fundamental difference and unchangeability of languages was unshakeable, even after

PREFACE

AND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ix

sophistic thinking replaced the dogma of difference with that of the original identity of all languages. But this dogma, too, was short-lived, as becomes clear when one considers the religious, political, economic, administrative and cultural conditions which have dominated international communication since antiquity. In the ancient and medieval worlds, Latin was the “lingua franca”, at least in Europe. It served as a corrective to the persistent multilingualism of Europe, which, as the linguistic situation in the EU shows, significantly impedes the political integration of the European countries as one large federation of states united by a common language. In the 18th and 19th centuries French became the “lingua franca”. There were political, sociocultural, literary-aesthetic, philosophical and (social)scientific reasons for this development. They can be traced back to the French Revolution, which promoted a political structure that provided a clear direction for democratic behaviour, literary education, philosophical thought and scientific knowledge. The domination of French as a “lingua franca”, at least in international diplomacy, ended with the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, when English was established as a second conference language enjoying equal status. This diplomatic bilingualism was at that time politically necessary, but it was not to last long. Since the San Francisco Conference of 1945, where the UN charter was adopted, the principle of multilingualism has been operative, recognizing six official languages: Arabian, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, in alphabetical order. What at that time was a diplomatic novelty is now a thing of the past, at least when seen in a European context. The EU now has eleven official languages, and how the situation will develop in future is not yet clear. The present study is based on interviews with people involved in language mediation in Germany, Austria and Hong Kong; on discussions with experts in Belgium (Brussels), Germany, Luxembourg, Austria and Switzerland; on my own experiences and observations gained during forty years of practice, research and teaching in translation; and finally on extensive archival research. The following kindly made themselves available for interview: Franz A. Becker (ZF Friedrichshafen), Dr Ilka von Braun (Bayer/Leverkusen), Professor Hildegund Bühler (University of Vienna), Dr Hans Bühler (conference interpreter and University of Vienna), Wilhelm Gattinger (Siemens Hong

x

PREFACE

AND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Kong), Dr Wolf-Dieter Haehl (former director of a large translation agency in Stuttgart), Volrath Hoene (Bayer Hong Kong), Friedrich Krollmann (former chief interpreter at the Verteidigungsministerium in Bonn and director of the translation department at the Bundessprachenamt in Hürth), Hermann Klusterer (former chief interpreter at the Auswärtige Amt), Professor Ingrid Kurz (conference interpreter and University of Vienna), Hofrat Professor Viktor Petioky (former conference interpreter and University of Vienna), Brian Robinson (VW Hong Kong), Hinrich Sasse (former head of the language service at the Wirtschaftsministerium in Bonn) and Eberhard Tanke (former director of the language services of Siemens/Munich). I was given access to the archives at the Auswärtige Amt, Bayer/Leverkusen, the Fachhochschule des Bundes für Öffentliche Verwaltung, Abteilung Berufsgeschichte, Mannheim, Mannesmann/Düsseldorf, the Österreichische Staatsarchiv Vienna, Siemens/Munich, the League of Nations Archive in the UN Library in Geneva, and at the university interpreters’ institutes in Heidelberg and Saarbrücken. I was able to hold discussions with representatives of the German sections of the language services of the European Commission (Reinhard Hoheisel) and the European Council (Barbara Stork and Ingrid Stürz-Faupel) in Brussels, at SYSTRAN and the European Parliament in Luxembourg (Dr Achim Blatt), the language service of the Bundeskanzlei in Bern (Dr Werner Hauck), Bayer/ Leverkusen (Renate Gudehus), IBM/Böblingen (Johanna Possemis), SAP/ Walldorf (Dr Georg Hage-Huelsmann), INFOTERM in Vienna (Christian Galinski), the Bundestag in Bonn (Sylvia Hofheinz), the Bundessprachenamt in Hürth, the Geheime Staatsarchiv, Preussischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin (Dr Iselin Gundermann), the Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen at the University of Bonn, the Institut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen at the University of Heidelberg and the Fachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen at the Universität of the Saarland, Saarbrücken. The archive of the University of Leipzig, the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in Nüremberg and the UN language service in Vienna (Dr Sergio Viaggio) also provided me with information. I am indebted to the Verteidigungsministerium in Bonn for information on the four command languages of the EUROCORPS and to the Bertelsmann Foundation in Gütersloh for details of their author and translator scheme. Thomas Vogelsang (Rank Xerox Cologne) drew my attention to the frequently cited “Ovum Report”. Professor Zuzana Jettmarová (Prague) kindly sent me the final report on “remote translation” (UN Crime

PREFACE

AND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

xi

Congress, Cairo 1995). I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who contributed directly or indirectly to the production of this book. I received an unexpected amount of help wherever I turned during my enquiries. Equally unexpected was the appearance, at the last minute, of a sponsor for the project, the ASKO EUROPA-STIFTUNG, just when I was about to give up the project after having borne all initial costs myself. I am grateful to Peter Strittmatter (educational studies, University of Saarbrücken) for putting me in touch with the sponsor. The ASKO EUROPA-STIFTUNG made a generous contribution to my travel costs. The Fachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen at the University of the Saarland, where I have been Professor Emeritus since 1990, helped me to the best of its financial ability. I am extremely grateful to both sponsors for their generous assistance, without which the project would not have been possible. It would have been most unfortunate if I had been forced to abandon the work: in the course of my investigations I uncovered information which is not merely of interest to specialists, but also sheds light on problems and trends in international communication for an interested general readership. This book appears in an “official” English and an “unofficial” German version. I am grateful to the ASKO EUROPA-STIFTUNG and the University of the Saarland for support in the preparation of the German version. The ASKO EUROPA-STIFTUNG kindly bore the translation costs, and the John Benjamins Publishing Company (Amsterdam) provided financial support for the production of the English version. I am grateful to my former colleague, the award-winning translator Dr David Horton (University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken), for his competent translation of my original manuscript into English. My wife Ingrid gave me her unfailing support by undertaking enormous amounts of correction work. I am also very grateful to Mrs. Bertie Kaal who suggested that I should write this book for John Benjamins, which I was delighted to do. I am fully aware (and hope that the interested reader will agree) that a one-man project on such a complex, diffuse and multi-faceted topic such as that dealt with here must inevitably focus on some aspects while neglecting others. I have attempted to the best of my ability to outline both the global and specific sociocultural, economic and technical factors which have decisively influenced the activity of language mediation (especially translation) as it has moved towards the status of an acknowledged profession. The process of

xii

PREFACE

AND

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

language mediation is flourishing not just in Germany or in Europe, but throughout the world. To trace this development into the next millennium would be a project best undertaken by UNESCO. Whether such a project can ever be realized is a different question. For the moment I take the view: “A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush”. Saarbrücken, July 1998

Wolfram Wilss

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

1.1 Retrospective Even in specialist circles, little is known about the history of the “language mediation” (Sprachmittlung) professions of translating/interpreting and bilingual/multilingual terminology work. Outside such circles, of course, even less is known. Virtually all Germans are aware that Luther translated the Bible into German (from Latin). Everyone nowadays notices (more or less consciously) that in television news bulletins and interviews the (male or female) voice of an invisible speaker can be heard “off”, providing a German version more or less simultaneously with the speaker of the original text. We are used, too, to watching dubbed films, and sometimes (though less often than in other European countries) German television shows foreign films with German subtitles, which can be annoying for viewers but at least offer a modicum of linguistic comprehensibility. But most people are completely unaware even of the important distinction between translation on the one hand and interpreting on the other, as is shown by the fact that the media often speak of “simultaneous translation” when they actually mean “simultaneous interpreting” (Chapter 12). In as far as we ever do come across information about translating and interpreting in the (print)media, we do so, for example, when the “United Bible Societies” in New York announce how many languages the Bible, or parts of it, has now been translated into (although we are not usually told whether it has been translated form Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English, or another language). Or when the (poor) quality of a literary translation is debated in what virtually becomes a translation war, as was the case with Hans-Wilhelm Haefs’ German translation of Lawrence Norfolk’s novel “Lemprière’s Dictionary” (Wilss 1996a). Or when the VDÜ (“Verband deutschsprachiger Übersetzer literarischer und wissenschaftlicher Werke”, the Association of

2

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

German-speaking Translators of Literary and Scientific Works) holds its annual meetings (the so-called “Esslinger Gespräche”, Esslingen Conferences). There is an obvious reason for the lack of interest in such matters among the general public. The work of the translator — like that of the simultaneous interpreter — is normally a rather unspectacular affair which takes place out of the public eye. Valery Larbaud’s often cited statement does nothing to alter this fact: “Le plus mieux métier du monde n’est pas celui qu’on pense, c’est celui de traducteur”. A translation is always a reaction to an existing text (the source text), which forms the basis on which the translator operates. Where there is no source text, there can be no translation (target text). The translator cannot act autonomously. That is why the much-discussed notion of “creativity” in the translation process is ambivalent if not problematical, and the elevation of the (literary) translator to the level of a “co-author” seems justifiable only in exceptional cases. The specific function of the translator is to mediate between two different linguistic and cultural communities. Karin Graf, a well-known literary translator, is therefore right to speak of “the awkward dual existence of the translator” (1993). Translators have to accept the situation in which they work, even if they frequently work under quite unacceptable conditions: it is almost impossible for translators, especially those who are not self-employed, to turn down a commission, whatever ethical reservations they may have. After all, all a translator has to do (at least in the eyes of most people even today) is to translate “what the text says”. Formal (stylistic) and/or factual amendments to the original text are only permitted if these are absolutely necessary to ensure a factually and/or stylistically acceptable translation. And even then, translators often have to struggle (sometimes in vain) to convince the original author (if known) or the publisher that such changes are really necessary. How speakers of different languages communicated orally with each other in the past is still largely shrouded in darkness. We do know, however, that Caesar addressed Cleopatra, the multilingual Egyptian queen, in Latin, and that Alexander the Great used interpreters on horseback during his campaigns in Asia Minor to convey his orders to those of his troops who spoke no Greek. And we read in “De Bello Gallico” that Caesar used interpreters in Gaul, operating a kind of two-class system. On the one hand there was the interpreter-in-chief, who enjoyed Caesar’s absolute confidence and was by far the most influential man among his entourage. On the other there was a

INTRODUCTION

3

phalanx of subordinate interpreters who dealt with the routine work and who were sent out of the room every time Caesar wished to discuss confidential business with his interpreter-in-chief (oral communication from Viktor Petioky). It is also known that Columbus sent young Indians to Spain to be trained as (liaison) interpreters (Herbert 1978: 5). The French seafarer Jacques Cartier, who twice sailed up the St. Lawrence River as far as Montréal between 1534 and 1536 and became the first European to discover the Great Lakes, did the same (Bowen et al. 1995). On his first voyage he snatched two sons of an Iroquoian chief, dispatched them to France, where they were forced to learn French, and used them on his second voyage as interpreters. Pizzaro used an interpreter named Pedro Sancho for the mock trial of the last Inca ruler Atahualpa. Sancho, who had presumably been bribed, constantly twisted Atahualpa’s words, enabling Pizzaro to condemn the accused to death and have him executed by garrotting (Bowen et al. 1995). Sancho’s own punishment was not, however, long in coming. People like betrayal itself more than the betrayer: perhaps fearing the betrayer, Pizzaro soon had Sancho hanged. Alongside Cartier’s attempts to create the basis of a team of interpreters to serve his own ends by forcibly removing them from their homes and taking them to France, colonizing powers also adopted other, more efficient instruments of language policy. Motivated by both strategic and commercial considerations Samuel de Champlain, the founder of Québec (1608), created an institution for the training of “interprètes-résidents”. In accordance with the principle of “total immersion”, which is still valid today, adventurous young Frenchmen were placed with Indian tribes with whom the French had trading relations. They lived with the natives, dressed like them, went hunting and fishing with them, and took part in cultural festivities. They thus learned not only the language(s) of these people, but also their way of thinking — a fact, incidentally, which proves the untenability of the so-called “postulate of untranslatability”. As Delisle reports (1977), these interpreters operated very successfully. For many of them their services paid off, and they rose to join the class of explorers, merchants, and diplomats. New developments in translating and interpreting in Canada only really got under way when the English fought the French there, resulting in the capitulation of Québec (1759) and Montréal (1760). Surprisingly, French retained its status as the lingua franca in Canada despite the French defeat in Eastern Canada, which had hitherto been occupied by the French. There was a

4

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

shift in focus in language mediation in as far as it was no longer the contact between the French and the indigenous population that was important, but transactions between the English and French, and vice versa. For this purpose a translation office was set up in 1759 (Horguelin 1977). It is something of a mystery how the French managed to maintain the dominance of their language in the face of pressure from a militarily superior enemy. However, the same situation arose some 100 years later at the Congress of Berlin (1878), where Bismarck acted as “honest broker”. Although Prussia had been victorious in the Franco-Prussian War (1870/71), the negotiations were conducted in French, with just one exception mentioned by Novotny: It should not go unmentioned that French, as the negotiating language which all (participants in the Congress; W.W.) spoke excellently, made a certain familiarity possible, and was highly beneficial to the course of the discussions. No interpreters were needed. It was typical that only Beaconsfield (the head of the English negotiating team; W. W.) violated this principle at the very first session when he delivered his indictment of Russia in English (!) parliamentary rhetoric. There was no response, either in Russian or any other language. (1957: 54)

The minutes of the Congress were also written in French (with a few additions in German). The use of French as the language of international conferences was so firmly established that the Russian delegation even communicated with its own government in French. Joseph Maria von Radewitz provides more details (see Holborn): Even before the delegates had entered the room, Lord Beaconsfield’s private secretary, Corry, took me aside and asked me on behalf of his superior to tell Fürst Bismarck that the English prime minister had decided to speak English during the negotiations. It was, however, unlikely that he would just sit and listen, or have his speeches translated by Salisbury or Odo Russel. On the other hand, a single language (French) had to be accepted as the means of communication for the debates and resolutions of the Congress, and if this was to be changed, it would have to be done by a vote of the entire Congress, not at the whim of an individual member. Beaconsfield should have made a submission to this effect, and not simply reported his “decision”. I told Corry this, but he insisted that Fürst Bismarck should simply be told about the matter. I did so just as Bismarck was in the process of accompanying the procession into the room. He listened calmly and answered: “Really? Well, if Gortschakov (the head of the Russian delegation, whom Beaconsfield intended to accuse) has enough presence of mind, he will answer in Russian, and that will cause some fun! ...Since, however, nothing more was said about the matter of speaking English by any of the participants, Lord Beaconsfield

INTRODUCTION

5

(who could not speak French; W. W.) was tacitly given permission, and he made full use of this during the discussions”. (1925: 37; I am grateful to my colleague Hildegard Spraul for the reference to von Radewitz)

The dominant role of French at that time as the lingua franca of international politics can also be seen in the fact that the World Postal Association, which was founded in 1875, chose French as the common means of communication for national postal administrations in their relations with each other. This is still true today, with certain exceptions. Thus, transactions with some parts of the British Empire, e.g. Kenya, are conducted exclusively in English, while the German Post Office communicates with the Scandinavian countries in German on the basis of a joint agreement. (Schmidt 1954: 85f.)

In fact, the status of French as the principal language of diplomacy was never as undisputed as one might think. First, not all bilingual conferences, and certainly not all multilingual conferences, used French as a universal medium of communication (Bowen 1994a). Second, there is some evidence that there were tensions even in the early days of international diplomacy. The Anglo-French economic negotiations of 1753 are a good example. The French delegates were only prepared to accept texts in French, although these were full of errors. As a result, the English government gave its negotiators the following instruction: If the court at Versailles deems it appropriate to hold discussions with His Majesty in Latin (the language of diplomacy before the rise of French; W. W.), the King will gladly agree ... The King gives the express instruction that in future no documents are to be accepted from the French delegation in French, unless the latter agree to accept the reply in English.

In the final accord of the Vienna Congress of 1815 it is expressly stated that the use of French at this Congress was not to be seen as a precedent, and that all the powers represented reserved the right to use the language previously customary in diplomatic negotiations, i.e. Latin. As far as I am aware, Latin did not stage a diplomatic comeback after 1815, but in 1919 the supremacy of French in diplomatic circles came to an abrupt end when Wilson established English as the second (and equal) negotiating language at Versailles (Chapter 3. 1).

6

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

1.2 Basic terms in language mediation 1.2.1 Translation The history of specialist terms in language mediation is just as turbulent as the history of translation and interpreting itself. This is especially true of translation, and has to do with the fact that most writers on the subject since antiquity have themselves been translators. Such commentators have engaged in the debate on the principles and postulates of translation mainly from the point of view of clarifying and justifying their own methods, and less for the purpose of contributing to a debate on the theory of translation. The “theory of translation”, which is commonly confused with “translation studies”, has only really been in existence since the mid-twentieth century. There are a number of explanations for the predominance of debate on the methods and practice of translation in Roman antiquity, in the Middle Ages and in the Modern Age. In ancient Rome, the discussion surrounding methods of translation had its roots in questions of cultural and political supremacy, which were dictated by relations between Rome and Greece. The first translations of Greek literature into Latin were “experiments in subjugation” to the Greek original (Friedrich 1965: 7). But following Rome’s military victory over Greece, such principles soon began to change. Slavish dependence on the Greek original, designed to provide a pure reproduction of content, was now replaced by free translation which — jure victoris — drew on a profound sense of superiority to treat the foreign original as a kind of “literary quarry” (Thierfelder 1955: 2) and took the liberty to change content and/or style virtually at will. The primary aim of translation was not “interpretatio”, a source/language- oriented transfer which keeps close to the original in terms of form, nor “imitatio”, i. e. the retention of the form and content of the original, for example in the sense of Wolfgang Schadewaldt’s postulate of “dokumentatorische Übersetzung” (documentory translation, Kloepfer 1967: 73). The aim was “aemulatio”. In Rome this was taken to mean a form of translation which could stand alongside the “exemplum graecum” as a creative achievement of equal status, indeed, which might even surpass the original in artistic value and aesthetic expression. Such a translation would place the translator not alongside, but actually above, the original author. One of the main exponents of this notion of translation as a form of rhetorical self-presentation was Cicero. Presumably it was he who — caught

INTRODUCTION

7

up in his ambitious and aggressive conception of the rhetorical and stylistic function of translation — formulated the methodological polarisation of translation as “ut interpres/ut orator” as a programmatic dictum. In so doing he identified two fundamental positions in translation method which have been highly influential in the discussion of translation from Horace through Quintilian, St. Jerome, Luther, Schleiermacher and Benjamin and into the twentieth century. The discussion on normative points of reference in translation runs through the history of translation like a thread. In the Germanspeaking world this discussion finds its concrete expression in the diametrically opposed principles of “wörtliche, verdeutschende Übersetzung” (literal, unGermanizing translation) on the one hand (ut interpres) and “freie, eindeutschende Übersetzung” (free, Germanizing translation) on the other (ut orator). The debate has therefore always boiled down essentially to the question of the right perspective in translation, captured in Postgate’s dichotomy of “retrospective/prospective translation” (1922). In contrast to Cicero, who subscribed absolutely to the principle of “ut orator” in translation, St. Jerome argues for a more sophisticated concept of the activity. His ideas are most clearly set out in his letter to Pammachius, “De optimo genere interpretandi”, a formulation which is presumably itself based on Cicero. Like Cicero, St. Jerome distinguishes between two fundamental principles in translation method, “verbum e verbo (exprimere)” and “sensum exprimere de sensu”, i.e. literal and sense-based translation. Unlike Cicero, however, he practised both principles, since he assumed that translation is influenced by textual and text-type specific factors which prescribe certain standards of equivalence for the text at hand. For St. Jerome, as Kloepfer has shown (1967: 28), the principle of sense-based translation is relevant for secular texts. For biblical texts, on the other hand, the principle of literal (word-for-word) translation applies, since the word of God is inviolable: “absque Scripturis sanctis, ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est”, as it says in a passage of the above-mentioned letter to Pammachius which is essential for an understanding of St. Jerome’s position (Störig 1963: 1ff.). With his adherence to the principle of literalism in Bible translation, St. Jerome stands in stark contrast to Luther, who developed a target-oriented conception of Bible translation. Luther’s target audience is not the clergy, but the average person, as is outlined in his “Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen” (Letter on interpreting: not “Sendbrief vom Übersetzen” (Letter on translation), as we would expect today). This explains his demand that the translator should

8

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

“watch the mouths of the common people” (“dem Volk aufs Maul schauen”). One could actually claim, cum grano salis, that Luther was already practising what in modern (empirical) translation studies goes under the name of “functional” (communicative, pragmatic) translation. Luther illustrates his notion of translation most effectively with the aid of various alternative translations of the Latin sentence: “Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur” (Matthew 12: 34) “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (literal translation) “For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of “ (functional translation) The question of the aims a translator adopts when approaching a text is also the subject of the treatise “Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersezens” (On the various methods of translation), which Schleiermacher presented to the “Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften” (Royal Academy of Science) in Berlin on 24 June 1813. This treatise is of great significance for the practice of translation, for the following reasons: 1. Schleiermacher draws a clear distinction between “das eigentliche Übersezen” (real translation), i. e. the reproduction of artistic and scientific texts, on the one hand, and “das mechanische Übersezen” (mechanical translation), i .e the reproduction of pragmatic texts in daily life, on the other. The latter, with regard to translation, means a “mechanical transaction which anyone with a moderate knowledge of both languages can carry out and where, as long as obvious mistakes are avoided, there is little difference between good and bad”; 2. Relativizing Humboldt’s thesis that thought is dependent on language, he sees man in a dialectical relationship between linguistic freedom and linguistic necessity: “Every individual is, on the one hand, subject to the power of the language he speaks; he and his entire mind is a product of this language ... On the other hand, however, every free-thinking, intellectually independent individual also shapes the language”; 3. He takes up the ancient controversy over the “correct” method of translation and formulates two extreme positions for the translation of literary and philosophical texts which allow no compromise: “Either the translator leaves the author, as far as possible, in peace, and moves the reader towards him ... or he leaves the reader in peace and moves the author towards him ... any combination of the two will produce a highly unsatisfactory result ...”;

INTRODUCTION

9

4. He uses the term “mere interpreting” as a complement to his notion of “mechanical translation”, by which he means an area of activity which is today known as “liaison interpreting”: In business life one usually has to deal with objects which are before one’s eyes, or are at least quite precisely defined; all negotiations have a certain kind of arithmetical or geometric character, where numbers and measures are of assistance; and even for those concepts which, as the ancients said, absorb the more or the less and are characterized by gradations in words, which in common life move up and down with uncertain meaning, there soon arises a firm usage of the individual words by law and habit. (All quotations from Störig 1963: 42ff.)

In today’s usage — at least in specialist circles — “translation” denotes the written reproduction of an original text in another language (a foreign language or the mother tongue), while “interpreting” is used for the oral reproduction of a spoken text in another language (a foreign language or the mother tongue). The two forms of reproduction require different abilities and skills (but not a different degree of intelligence): whereas the interpreter is faced with a unique, orally delivered text, the translator has the possibility of “flicking back” through the permanently available written text. This means that the translator has, despite the pressure of deadlines, more time than the interpreter (especially the simultaneous interpreter, see below) to process the source text analytically and hermeneutically. What the interpreter is unable to grasp in his first and only confrontation with the text is lost forever. A postediting of the original or a repetition of the interpreting event is impossible (except, perhaps, in cases of so-called “liaison interpreting”). The term “translation” is the common point of reference, the lowest common denominator, of a number of translational activities which can be roughly divided into three main categories: Bible translation, literary translation (the two traditional fields of translation), and specialist translation, which is today by far the most frequently practised form of translation, accounting for some 80% of the total volume, far ahead of Bible and literary translation. Literary translation can in turn be divided into the translation of drama, poetry (often also called “rendering”) and prose (novels, short stories, children’s books, etc.). A further distinction is necessary between the two directions of translation, that from the foreign language into the native language, and that from the native language into a foreign language (translation from one foreign language into another is hardly relevant in actual translation practice). Literary transla-

10

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

tion always takes place, with a few exceptions, from the foreign into the native language. Specialist translation is undertaken in both directions, although translation into the native language is (still) dominant. In the language services of the EU (Luxembourg, Strasbourg, Brussels) translation is only undertaken into the native language (“native language principle”) for reasons of efficiency. The explanation for the greater efficiency of translating from a foreign language into one’s own language is simple: most translators are “compound bilinguals” who have learned their mother tongue first and subsequently acquired one or more foreign languages. As a rule they feel more at home in their native language than they do in their foreign language(s). This means that they have greater active competence in their native language than in their acquired language(s), and are therefore better able to translate into their native language than the other way round. In contrast to such “compound bilinguals”, so-called “coordinate bilinguals” have lived in a bilingual environment since birth (or at least since their early childhood) and are therefore naturally bilingual, having comparable active competence in two languages. The question of whether compound bilinguals or coordinate bilinguals are better equipped for translation is a matter of some controversy. Observations in Saarbrücken have shown that students from Luxembourg regard themselves as equally competent in two languages (German and French) but that they have serious difficulties when translating from French into German and vice versa. Film dubbing and subtitling (for the cinema or for television) are relatively new forms of translation. According to a report in the German “Stern Magazin”, some 450 foreign (mainly English) films per year were dubbed at the beginning of the 1970s. By 1984 the number had risen to around 500, and is now far higher. According to the programme procurement and synchronization department of the “Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen” (“ZDF”, the second German TV channel) some 54 companies currently undertake such work, twelve of which are used by ZDF. The translator’s role in the process of film dubbing is restricted to the preparation of a routine translation (extreme time pressure would, in any case, make anything else virtually impossible). The most important person is the synchronization director, who produces the German screenplay using the individual takes and the rough translation, sometimes alongside the original text. The way such versions of a film are produced shows why film credits never speak of “translation”, but of a “German adaptation”, with or without the name of the synchronization director (Rieger 1984).

INTRODUCTION

11

In comparison with dubbing, subtitling plays a negligible role in Germany. The situation is different in smaller countries, such as Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Hungary, where subtitling is more widespread for reasons of cost. In those countries there is also a greater willingness to learn foreign languages. This readiness does not, of course, usually result in a “near-native foreign-language competence”, which is why subtitles are necessary. On the other hand, though, undubbed films can make a significant contribution to the maintenance and improvement of existing foreign language competence. Whether multilingual satellite television will opt for dubbing or subtitling cannot yet be stated with any certainty. 1.2.2 Interpreting Just as the broad spectrum of translation activities has given rise to a large number of terminological distinctions, so, too, has interpreting produced an increasingly differentiated specialist vocabulary in the twentieth century (Bowen 1994b; 1995). The German term “Dolmetscher” (interpreter) is derived from the word “talami”, which is first attested in the Mitanni language of Asia Minor in the fifteenth century B. C. From this word the Northern Turkish form “tilmac” is derived, which entered Middle High German through Magyar “tolmács”. The word first appears in German in the Manessa Manuscript (of the Great Heidelberg Lyric manuscript), which was produced in Zurich between 1300 and 1340. It is interesting to note that in the Ottoman Empire, as in Caesar’s Rome, there was a two-class system of interpreters, comprising the “principal interpreter”, who was one of the most influential people of his age, and the “language boys” (Sprachknabe, sometimes Sprechknabe), who were used for routine interpreting tasks. Alongside the most frequently used term “Dolmetscher”, a number of other words are used as (partial) synonyms in modern German to denote the oral transmission of oral texts: “Translator”, “Sprachmittler” (language mediator) and “Sprachsachverständiger” (language expert), the latter of whom is important in the work of the law courts. The terms “Sprachmittlung” and “Sprachmittler” have undergone mixed fortunes in the practice of translation and interpreting in the twentieth century. They were probably first used around 1940 (Monien 1940; quoted from Salevsky 1998). The Wahrig Deutsches Wörterbuch (1968/71) does not include the term, although it is listed in the 1989 Duden-Wörterbuch, where

12

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

“Sprachmittlung”, and by analogy “Sprachmittler”, are defined as “the transfer from one language into another (interpreting or translation)” (1989: 1440). After the Second World War the word “Sprachmittler” was an established term in East Germany, alongside “Übersetzer” and “Dolmetscher”. It has recently gained ground in the former West Germany. The term is somewhat controversial in Austria (Bernardini 1996: 19). It is somewhat unlikely that the word “Sprachmittler” will ever replace the two terms “Übersetzer” and “Dolmetscher” in German. The translation and interpreting profession has mixed feelings about the term, since it suggests an (undesirable) association between “translation” and “interpreting” on the one hand, and the “mediation of speech via telecommunication” on the other. Neither of these associations is particularly helpful to the reputation of the profession, which is not particularly good anyway (Chapter 6. 1. 2). The term “Translator” (along with “Translationswissenschaft”, the science of translation; “Translat”, translated text; “translatorische Kompetenz”, translational competence) is a buzz-word in present-day German, at least among specialists, for whom it has caused (and continues to cause) rather unproductive trench warfare. The translation profession, and employers, have hardly taken any notice of the word. At least I am not personally aware of any employer who has ever advertised for a “Translator”, nor that any applicant has ever offered his/her services as a “Translator”. The term is, I am sure, best avoided. As mentioned above, there is a broad consensus that the term “Translator” was first coined in the former German Democratic Republic (under Russian influence), from where it found its way into the former Federal Republic. This is, however, questionable. My research at the German “Auswärtige Amt” (Federal Foreign Office) has revealed that the term figured in the official terminology used there from the end of the nineteenth century until 1918, as a synonym for “Übersetzer” (but not as a synonym for both “Übersetzer” and “Dolmetscher”). Exactly when the Auswärtiges Amt first started using the term can no longer be traced in the files, possibly because many of them were lost during the War. The word “Translator”, like “Sprachmittler”, is today used to mean both “Übersetzer” and “Dolmetscher”. It is questionable whether the specialists were well-advised to introduce this term. Non-specialists, at least, will find “Sprachmittler” easier to understand than “Translator”. The former word is semantically transparent, while the latter is an artificial term which is perhaps

INTRODUCTION

13

problematical, since terminology always proves an obstacle to the understanding of specialist (epistemic) information. Where a discipline replaces established words like “Übersetzer”, “Dolmetscher” or “Sprachmittler” with a term such as “Translator”, it is in danger of shutting itself off, which is hardly helpful in terms of its relations with the general public. In this way, science easily acquires an aura of elitism, which attaches little importance to its practical relevance and therefore to its public perception, and ends up talking only to itself. This may well be the reason — or one of the reasons — why the debate on theory and practice in the field of language mediation has always been especially bitter and unproductive (Chapter 6.9). Today, roughly speaking, three forms of interpreting are practised: liaison, consecutive and simultaneous interpreting, in German “Verhandlungsdolmetschen”, “Konferenzdolmetschen” and “Simultandolmetschen” respectively. A consecutive interpreter changes what has been said in one language into another language, while a simultaneous translator changes what is being said in one language into another language as someone is speaking. (SATI Bulletin 5/1994: 3; SATI = South African Translators’Institute)

The umbrella term for consecutive and simultaneous interpreting is “Konferenzdolmetschen” (conference interpreting). Liaison interpreting is by far the oldest form of interpreting, and was practised as far back as ancient times (and even in pre-antiquity). Today it is the most common form of interpreting. This is due to the fact that it includes both diplomatic “Gesprächsdolmetschen” (or “Flüsterdolmetschen” for negotiations involving only a small group of people, where the interpreter sits next to or behind his “client”) and the large field of “community interpreting” (Carr et al. 1996; Bowen 1998). It is also known as “public service interpreting”, and is practised above all in the USA (the classic immigrant country) and more recently also in Germany. Since the term is somewhat imprecise, efforts are underway to replace it with different, more specific terms such as “hospital interpreting”, “mental health interpreting” and “social service interpreting”. For the FIT (Féderation Internationale de Traducteurs, see Chapter 6.1.2) conference in Brighton in 1993, Adolfo Gentile (Deakin University, Australia) and Monika Gehrke (Georgetown University, Washington DC) compiled a list of activities, which all come under “community interpreting”. As far as I am aware, a corresponding terminology does not yet exist in German. This may be because “community interpreting” is still relatively new in Germany,

14

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

and also because it is usual practice nowadays to take over the terminology of a given field at the same time as the field itself is imported, usually from America. The example of computer linguistics shows this particularly clearly. The person who (first) names something gains control of it. One form of “community interpreting” not mentioned by Gentile/Gehrke is court interpreting (Edwards 1995). This has been in existence for a long time and has been practised so often in Austria, for example, that the Lower Austrian court interpreters founded an association of their own as long ago as 1920 with the permission of the regional government (Bernardini 1996). The most thorough treatment of court interpreting in German is Jessnitzer (1982). He discovered that in German courts “the distinction between the terms expert on the one hand and translator/interpreter on the other ... for a long time caused difficulties and ... even today (is) by no means generally understood” (1982: 2f.). Nor has the confusion of these terms been removed by the introduction of a distinction between “Sachverständiger” (expert) and “Sprachsachverständiger” (language expert) . Jessnitzer writes on one occasion: The distinction between interpreters and translators on the one hand and language experts on the other does not, of course, mean that professional interpreters or translators cannot act as experts, even as court experts, on certain questions in the field of interpreting and translating. (1982: 4)

It is quite obvious that court interpreters require expert knowledge, but this does not necessarily qualify them as experts. Indeed, elsewhere Jessnitzer draws a fundamental distinction between interpreters and experts: Interpreters and experts have one thing in common: they assist the judge. But the expert also constitutes evidence. On the basis of his specialist knowledge he provides his own expertise by means of a statement in the form of an expert report, in order to allow the court to determine matters essential for the judgment. The interpreter, however, is not evidence: he does not provide material for the court on the basis of his own knowledge, he merely uses his specialist knowledge (knowledge of the foreign language, culture and mentality) to facilitate communication between people who speak different languages. (1982: 4)

As is clear, specialist legal knowledge is a privilege of the lawyer, while the interpreter is granted only — much less respected — linguistic and cultural knowledge. Strictly speaking, the court interpreter is not regarded as a specialist (nor, incidentally, is the specialist translator), although legal knowledge

INTRODUCTION

15

forms part of the training of interpreters. Instead he is seen as a kind of factotum who is given (sometimes reluctantly) jobs which require a high degree of expert competence. Simultaneous interpreting is the most modern form of interpreting and has been practised, after relatively modest beginnings at the League of Nations (Chapter 3. 2), on a major scale since 1945. It requires a simultaneous interpreting system with soundproof booths in which interpreters sit and communicate through headphones and microphones with the participants in the conference. The latter also have headphones and microphones, but cannot themselves speak to the interpreters. In simultaneous interpreting, the original speech and its reproduction are approximately simultaneous, with only a brief delay between reception of the original (input) and production of the targetlanguage version (output). Simultaneous interpreting is important at multilingual conferences, since an original speech can be simultaneously reproduced in different languages, saving a great deal of time (Gran/Riccardi 1997).

CHAPTER 2

The period 1900-1919

2.1 The Auswärtige Amt in Berlin The development of translation and interpreting between 1900 and 1945 is illustrated here with the aid of selected examples, whereby my comments are based largely on research undertaken at the archive of the Auswärtige Amt in Bonn and “Das Österreichische Staatsarchiv/Kriegsarchiv” (the Austrian State Archive/War Archive) in Vienna (it was here, incidentally, that Stalin wrote “Marxism and the National Question” in 1913; written communication from Viktor Petioky). At that time, the Auswärtige Amt did not have a “Sprachendienst” (language service) in today’s sense, comprising translators, revisors, interpreters and terminologists. There was a so-called “Dragomanat” as a collective term for the so-called “Dragomane” (liaison interpreters), though only for exotic (mainly East Asian) languages, of which Chinese was the most important. There were no “Dragomane” for the European languages, especially English and French, since a good knowledge of English and French were requirements, alongside a university degree in law, for a career in the higher echelons of the Auswärtige Amt. For this reason, applications had to be submitted in German, English and French, and a language test was obligatory. Similar requirements (though without a degree in law) applied for positions in the middle ranks (Kanzleibeamte, especially in consular service). This neglect of European languages had, at least in one case, serious consequences. In October 1914 a high official of the colonial administration in German South-West Africa, Dr Schultze-Jena, travelled to Angola (then under Portuguese control) with an interpreter called Jensen, who claimed to speak Portuguese, and a unit of some 20 soldiers. The aim was to hold negotiations on the transport of foodstuffs to German South-West Africa.

18

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

According to the interpreter, the meeting with the Portuguese authorities was to take place at the Angolan fort of Naulilaa twelve kilometres the other side of the border. Actually, though, the head of the Portuguese negotiating team, Captain Varao, was waiting for the German delegation in Cuamato, some 50 kilometres from the border. The Germans were under the impression that they had fallen into a trap, and were about to turn around when a Portuguese officer and his men barred their way, trying to prevent them from leaving by force. The Germans drew their weapons, but the Portuguese were quicker, and their officer immediately gave the command to open fire. Schultze-Jena and one of his fellow officers were killed instantly, while a second German officer died later of his injuries. Jensen was only slightly injured, and remained in Portuguese captivity until the end of the First World War. In revenge, the Governor of German South-West Africa had six Portuguese forts along the border with German South-West Africa, including Naulilaa, razed. The arbitration tribunal at the Versailles Peace Negotiations decided that the Germans bore the full blame for this incident, since the interpreter of the German delegation had failed in his duty (Kurz/Kurz 1995). It is not certain how the term “Dragomane” found its way into the Auswärtige Amt, nor when it was first used there. The word is derived from Arabic (“tardschuman”) and was used from the end of the 19th century until 1918 as the official term for interpreters, because at that time interpreting was always taken to mean liaison interpreting. This is precisely what “tardschuman” meant. The training of “Dragomanen” was carried out at the “Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen” (Department of Oriental Languages) of the FriedrichWilhelms-University in Berlin, an institute founded in 1887 and modelled on the “Ecole nationale des langues orientales vivantes” in Paris and the Vienna “Orientalische Akademie” (K. u. K. Konsularakademie) (Oriental Academy; Forstreuter 1981).). This institute cooperated closely with the Auswärtige Amt, and its graduates were given preferential treatment in their search for employment. Contrary to claims which are sometimes made, it was not the then “Reichskanzler” Otto von Bismarck who founded the Seminar. He did, however, instigate it, because he needed interpreters for Chinese and Persian for the Auswärtige Amt (Kloosterhuis 1993: 296). He believed: that it is necessary, in the interest of the foreign service, to have more young German officials who can responsibly mediate in our communication with the great peoples of Asia. (Quoted from Kreiner 1989: 1)

THE

PERIOD

1900-1919

19

The foundation of the Seminar was based on a memorandum issued in 1886 by a commission which included representatives of the “Reichskanzleramt” (Imperial Chancellery), the “Unterrichts- und Finanzministerium” (Ministry of Education and Finance) and the “Reichsschatzamt” (Imperial Treasury). The memorandum points out: As a result of the continuing development of our relations with Asia and Africa, it has become increasingly necessary in Germany to improve our knowledge of oriental and East Asian languages, not just for the purposes of the interpreting service, but also for other professions. It is planned to meet this need by establishing in Germany an institution similar to the oriental language schools in Vienna and Paris ... ... the Seminar would have the task of providing theoretical lectures and practical training in the major living languages of the Orient and East Asia (Turkish, Arabic, Persian, Japanese, Chinese and Indian languages).

To teach each language, a German “familiar with the culture and language” of the respective country and a native of that country were to be appointed (quoted from Kreiner 1989: 2). It soon became necessary to include European languages in the programme (modern Greek and Russian in 1894, Spanish in 1897, Romanian in 1906, followed by more advanced courses in English and French from 1901). The range of languages offered by the Seminar reached its peak in 1914, when 22 languages were taught (Kreiner 1989: 4). Each semester the institute had to submit a full list of all academic staff (including their military ranks and decorations) and students (on average 100 in number). The institute did not, however, train translators/interpreters, but “Sprachkundige” (language specialists) for Asian and African languages. The number of so-called “realistic” courses, which would today be called “area studies” or “cultural studies”, was especially high. The social composition of the students was also interesting: of one hundred students, just one was female. The majority of the men were officers (as far up the ranks as lieutenant-colonel or frigate commander) and lawyers. Some of the latter had been ordered to take up their studies by the Auswärtige Amt, and received a socalled “remuneration”. After they had taken up employment, graduates of the institute were given the title “Dolmetschelève” or “Dolmetschaspirant” (but not “Dragomanelève”) and sent abroad for a five-year trial period. Many of them, however, retained this title throughout the duration of their employment at the Auswärtige Amt, and were considered “minores gentes”, i. e. second-class

20

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

officials. Such people, as one staff file comments, never managed to break free from “the eggshell of the Dolmetschelève”. One can hardly claim that this policy was a success. The interpreters — most of whom, it should be noted, were experienced lawyers who would presumably have enjoyed more successful careers in that capacity, and who found it difficult to change to a new activity — regarded their permanent classification as “Dolmetschelève” as a disparagement, and grew frustrated. However, the Auswärtige Amt initially ignored all complaints and only reacted in 1909, when it abolished the discriminatory title. Even in those days, then, the same lack of respect was granted to translators and interpreters as can occasionally be witnessed today (Chapter 6. 12). A good illustration of this is the fact that interpreters were only entitled to travel third class on the railways on official business. An incident related to me some years ago by Ferdi Schneider, the former chief interpreter at the “Verteidigungsministerium” (Defence Ministry) in Bonn, confirms this: he was excluded from an official dinner because he was considered a persona non grata. He thereupon resigned from his position as an interpreter and was transferred to the “Bundessprachenamt” (Federal Language Office) in Hürth (Chapter 6. 2). Only the few members of staff at the Auswärtige Amt who were more fortunate (or better connected) than the mass of the “Dolmetschelèves” gained promotion to the ranks of the uniformed “Reichsdolmetscher” (Imperial interpreter) or “Dolmetschoffizier” (Interpreter officer) with the status of a vice consul, a title, incidentally, also borne by “assistant clergymen” at that time. Nevertheless, it would not be true to say that the state did not take care of its “Dolmetschelèves”. They were provided with unfurnished accommodation in the city where they worked, e. g. in Peking, Shanghai, Bangkok. The “Dolmetschelèves” knew this at the time they were posted, but nevertheless they often did not take sufficient furniture, laundry etc. with them from home, assuming that such items would be available (perhaps cheaper) “on site”. This, though, was not always possible. As a result, their superiors felt it necessary to give interpreters posted to China some advice on this matter. The recommendations concerning beds are especially amusing. Interpreters are advised to take: a good, solid bed made of metal, fitted with a sprung steel mattress covered with a horsehair mattress; pillows, blanket (fine woollen blankets (2-3) or eiderdown) and plenty of bed linen, chosen more for its durability than for its appearance ... (10. 11. 1904)

THE

PERIOD

1900-1919

21

The fact that some interpreters provided excellent service is clear from the reports of the Imperial German Embassy in Peking to its Berlin headquarters. On one ooccasion the reports mention that the interpreters had succeeded in “getting on with” the Chinese, i.e. in establishing a dialogue which made cooperation possible. This kind of information shows that the now rather fashionable notion of “multi- or interculturality” actually has a very long tradition (Chapter 1. 1). The interpreters were, perhaps, especially aware of such matters because they had attended courses in Chinese history, literature, philosophy, geography, politics, social studies, art history, archaeology and, last but not least, Chinese logic during their training at the above-mentioned Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen. This presumably put them in a position to understand the Chinese mentality, to avoid thinking (and speaking) in a Eurocentric manner, and to integrate themselves into Chinese culture. On the whole, the professional status of “Dragomanen” was rather chaotic. While the other embassy officials had clearly delineated duties, the “Dragoman” was something of a jack of all trades who was also occasionally dragged into demarcation disputes between the embassy on the one hand and the military personnel working in the German consulates in China on the other. The latter were keen to prevent “the people in Peking getting too clever” and wanted to “keep a tight hold on the reins, as far as possible without interference” (report of the Peking Embassay, 11 July 1904). All this, of course, had a negative effect on the attractiveness of a career in interpreting (in as far as such a career existed at all): on one occasion the Auswärtige Amt even announced the breakdown of its interpreting services with regard to the “Dragomanat” on account of acute staff shortages. On the other hand, the files show that there were plenty of applicants for the job, whereby it is striking that even applicants from the lower classes had excellent language skills (including knowledge of the conventions then prevalent for job applications) and submitted their applications in perfect classical “Sütterlin” handwriting. One reason for the many applications might have been the fact that the press sometimes portrayed the prospects for “Dragomanen” in Asia in the most radiant colours. The well-known newspaper “Vossische Zeitung”, for example, wrote on 1 September 1905: Relations between Europe and Asia (shortly after the Boxer Rebellion; W. W.) are developing so rapidly that the demand for gifted, enlightened young men with a knowledge of foreign languages who have at the same time

22

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN qualified for a later appointment in the colonial service through their study of law will rise from year to year.

The following observation printed in the same newspaper on 2 June 1904 is interesting from a social point of view: “... the fact that people from the upper classes of society are embarking upon careers as interpreters will undoubtedly breathe life into the service”. In contrast to the “Dragomanen”, neither the Auswärtige Amt nor the embassies had permanent positions for translators (unlike the USA, where the State Department had a growing translation service from 1781 onwards; Obst 1990). This state of affairs seems to stand in contradiction to the fact that the Auswärtige Amt kept files for “Translatoren”, while the term “Translator” (alongside “Übersetzer”) was part of the official vocabulary of the Auswärtige Amt up until 1918 (Chapter 1. 2). Freelance (sworn) translators also often called themselves “Translatoren”. As with the term “Dragoman”, it is not clear who actually introduced the term “Translator” into the Auswärtige Amt, and under what circumstances. However, this is only an apparent contradiction. The Auswärtige Amt called on the assistance of the Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen (where alongside Chinese, such languages as Japanese, Korean, Turkish, Arabic and Swahili were taught) for translations. In addition, all Kanzleibeamte were required to undertake translations without extra pay. Especially urgent translations were prepared outside working hours for additional payment, on instruction from above. The Auswärtige Amt was exceptionally fastidious with regard to such translations. On one occasion they demanded repayment of part of the fee when it later emerged that the text in question contained information already available from other sources. In times of real need, the Auswärtige Amt in Berlin was able to fall back on the commercial “Übersetzersozietäten” (translation bureaus) which were being set up in Berlin and elsewhere. These agencies also offered their services to the Auswärtige Amt, and made the most extraordinary claims with regard to their abilities. One such agency, in a letter dated 18 May 1906, offered scientific, technical and literary translations in no fewer than 68 (!) languages, causing the official responsible at the Auswärtige Amt to make an ironic note in the file: “We shall hardly ever need to make use of Mr R`s services”. Another applicant pointed out that he was the only translator able to translate technical texts from eight languages “without any preparation whatsoever”. The ultimate offer came from the head of a “polyglott translation

THE

PERIOD

1900-1919

23

office”: “If you (the Auswärtige Amt; W. W.) should require an expert linguist, report to me (sic); card enclosed”. An application from a translator working for the Siemens company is also interesting. He had been working in China since about 1875, and offered his services as a kind of “engineer-translator”. His reason: he claimed to have “a great deal of spare time”. There is room here for one further anecdote. No lesser figure than the Imperial Chancellor von Bülow once awarded a persistent translator the honorary title “Translator at the Imperial Consulate in Sao Paolo” on the condition that such an award would not involve the German Reich in any expense. This unpaid honorary translator without specific duties is probably a unique phenomenon in the history of German translating and interpreting. Furthermore, as already indicated, extreme economic stringency prevailed in the commissioning of translations on a freelance basis. Thus staff were instructed to examine carefully the contents of any text to be translated before the commission could be approved. It is not clear from the files who was empowered to make such decisions, and how the procedure operated in individual cases. It can, however, be assumed that very rough judgements were made. Nor is any information available on the quality control of translations prior to the First World War. The files do not shed light on the activities of the “Dragomane” or “Translatoren” between 1914 and 1918. It may well be the case that they had little to do on account of the increasing political isolation of the German “Reich” during this period.

2.2 Austria-Hungary It is clear that translation and interpreting always played a special role in a multi-national state like Austria-Hungary (Goebl 1994). For example, in the Habsburg army, to which the following comments are restricted, no fewer than ten languages enjoyed official status: German, Hungarian, Czech, Slovakian, Polish, Ruthenian (Ukrainian), Serbo-Croat, Slovenian, Romanian and Italian. The use of these “national languages” was obligatory for officers and non-commissioned officers, “as long as they were spoken by at least twenty per cent of the men in a regiment”. Only some 80 basic commands such as “right wheel”, “left wheel”, “halt”, “at ease” and “fire” were given in German, while the others were given in the appropriate “Regimentssprachen”

24

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

(regimental languages). A considerable number of regiments had three, four or more Regimentssprachen. How this worked out in practice is one of the more humorous aspects of military life in Austria-Hungary: Imagine an officer or NCO who first roared his command in German and then repeated it in two, three or even four other languages, to make clear what he meant, or to instruct, address or curse his men ... More than 90 per cent of the officers had to use at least one language apart from German to make themselves understood. (Deák 1991: 122)

A tragedy which allegedly took place during the First World War shows just how important this principle could be: thousands of Flemish soldiers died because French was the official command language of the officers, although most of the labourer and peasant soldiers did not understand it (this, incidentally, is the reason for the calls for a free Flanders independent of Brussels). The Imperial and Royal army did not have its own translation and interpreting service (apart from the “Evidenzbüro”, the secret military intelligence service): see below, this chapter). This was simply not possible, since it would have led to a situation in which the army consisted mainly of translators and interpreters, which would have significantly reduced its military strike power and only allowed a kind of verbal warfare. A situation would have arisen similar to that in the EU today, where a large proportion of the staff are employed in the ever-growing language services. It is interesting to note in this connection that four command languages are stipulated in the EUROKORPS treaty: Dutch, French, German and Italian. Enquiries addressed to the “Verteidigungsministerium” (Federal Defence Ministry) in Bonn (who also kindly sent me a copy of the text of the treaty) revealed that there is a tacit agreement that none of these languages is actually used, for fear of causing resentment. Instead, communication takes place in a “fifth” language, English, although there is not a single British soldier in EUROKORPS (but only Dutch, French, German and Italian units). Despite the equality in principle of the ten “national languages” mentioned above (the command languages), German was dominant, according to information provided by the Österreichische Staasarchiv. This was especially true in the field of “Dienstsprache” (official language) , i. e. the language of written communication between the military authorities and the troop commanders. As early as 12 April 1766 we read in an order issued to Cavalry General Marquis Bornonville by the “Hofkriegsrat” (Court War Council):

THE

PERIOD

1900-1919

25

Thus has it pleased Her Majesty (Maria Theresia; W. W.), on account of the fact that all the offices of the Court, including the Hofkriegsrat, issue their instructions to their subordinates in no other language than German, to give the instruction that all enquiries, reports and other communications, as well as any other correspondence important for the activities of an office, shall be written in the German language: such an order to be observed also above all by the Walloon regiments in such a way as it is already observed by the two Italian national regiments ...

The Walloon and Italian regiments were, however, somewhat exceptional: for the Walloon regiments the rules of 1737 and 1749 were officially translated into French, and the rule of 1807 was translated into Italian for the Italian regiments. The service rules of the Imperial and Royal army, part 3 of 1876 (2nd edition, 1890), which remained in force until the end of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, stated: A knowledge of the German language, as the official language of the army, is necessary for the officer and the cadet, and important for all other ranks; the latter must attempt to acquire such a knowledge of the language as is required for military service.

Similar provisions applied for other troops, e. g. for the railway and telegraph regiment: It is absolutely imperative that NCOs and soldiers deployed with the executive railway operating service as station masters, traffic officials, telegraphists, train and locomotive drivers, and also the field telegraphists and field telegraph operators, are able to speak German.

Nevertheless, the position of German was not quite as unassailable as the preceding observations might suggest, since the basic right to protect and nurture nationality and language was enshrined in Article 19 of the state constitution of December 1867. This explains why Austria unlike France (has) never succeeded in establishing one single language as the language of the state ... Despite the increasing radicalization and ethnicization of nationality conflicts evident during the constitutional period, and despite the emergence of the new “Weltanschauungen” — nationalism, racism, antisemitism — the principle of equality on the intellectual level never seems to have been lost completely. It seems as if it was deeply rooted in the collective memory of the peoples of the monarchy. (Burger 1997: 40)

Linguistic rivalries between Austria and Hungary were quite common. A “Zirkularverordnung” (“circular directive”) issued by the Austro-Hungarian

26

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

war ministry on 13 January 1905 provides a good example of this: I hereby decree that in official correspondence, which has previously been written in German, the Hungarian language shall in future be used as a matter of principle ...However, in instructions where any delay (caused by the translation of German documents into Hungarian; W. W.) might prove dangerous, especially in the case of all matters relating to mobilization ... the German language may be used by way of an exception in correspondence; in those cases, on the other hand, where the matter in question is of such importance in the interest of the army that it should not be delayed by the preparation of a translation of official documents, or where the translation should accurately reflect the contents of the document, a partial or complete German translation should be appended to the official Hungarian document.

I have not been able to discover any details of the work of translators and interpreters at the Evidenzbüro of the Imperial and Royal general staff. However, a letter by Colonel Urbanski (who was presumably a military attaché in Berlin) dated 22 November 1912 on interpreting in the German army offers an interesting insight: The recent directive of the royal Prussian war ministry has introduced significant changes to interpreting in the German army. The attached supplement gives brief details of the current regulations concerning interpreting examinations.

I am also unaware whether the “Evidenzbüro” adopted these regulations, either in part or as a whole. Nevertheless, the passages dealing with examination procedures are worth quoting: The written examination shall be set by the “Kriegsakademie” (War Academy). It involves an essay on a prescribed topic, and also includes a translation into German. Where the subject of the essay presupposes purely military knowledge, a separate topic will be set for state officials, in accordance with their profession and education. The examinations shall be taken at the military base under supervision and within a prescribed time. The time allowed shall be 2 to 2 1/2 hours each for the essay and a lengthy, difficult translation. Only those applicants who pass the written examination shall be admitted to the oral examination, which usually takes place in July for officers who have not been detailed to the Kriegsakademie. With the exception of Berlin, the examinations shall take place wherever possible at the base, and for officers on leave at one of the nearest bases. As far as possible, the examinations should be conducted by officers, though only staff officers or captains. Where no such officers are available, language teachers should be used. In assessing performance, the three grades “especially suitable” (3), “suitable” (2) and “not suitable” (1) are to be used. Only those officers etc. are to be awarded the

THE

PERIOD

1900-1919

grade “especially suitable” who have a good written and oral command of the language in question, such that they are able to discuss the most diverse subjects — not only in the military field — with fluency and grammatical accuracy. The grade “suitable” is to be awarded to those candidates who can discuss the most diverse subjects without difficulty. In this case, more importance is attached to fluency than to complete grammatical accuracy. The result of the oral examination shall determine the final assessment.

27

CHAPTER 3

The period 1919 – 1945

3.1 Bilingualism replaces monolingualism The end of the First World War marked a break in the development of translation and interpreting. The supremacy of French as the lingua franca in diplomacy was over, replaced by the principle of English/French bilingualism in international political communication. This new situation had come about as an inevitable result of the involvement of the USA in the War. It was Wilson who categorically demanded — and forced through — the use of English as a second and equal language in negotiations, much to the anger of the French. The diplomatic bilingualism which now became established was an indication of the “western shift” in power relations from Europe to the USA. The shift in political power was followed by a comparable one in the field of economics and technology, since the decisive stimuli in trade and business, industry and technology, politics, armaments, travel, traffic, fashion, film and entertainment in the twentieth century have all emanated from the USA. This development can be traced, for example, in the importation of American words into other languages, especially German (Wilss 1958). French was also unable to escape this trend. Unlike the German language community, however, which has stood back and watched the Americanization of its language, and even promoted it — for example by the invention of quasi-English words (e.g. “dressman”) which do not exist in American English — the French have vehemently resisted this cultural invasion, even introducing legislation on language policy (as have the Franco-Canadians in Quebec against the AngloCanadians). Whether such efforts will prove successful in the long term is an open question. They do, however, show that the French have an entirely different, more self-confident attitude towards their own language than the Germans do, despite the fact that Germany also once showed imperialistic tendencies with regard to its language (Chapter 4.5; see also Skudlik 1988).

30

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

3.2 The League of Nations Until the end of the First World War, no real distinction was made in the field of language mediation between translation and interpreting. There was a (tacit) consensus at the time that anyone who could speak two or more languages could do both (or, at least, should be able to do so). Even today this somewhat simplistic assumption survives. The situation changed fundamentally when the League of Nations was founded, since professional practice now demanded higher standards than ever before: ... sixty or more years ago, even the most “difficult” subject matter had been relatively simple. As science and technology advanced, as business, politics and the professions became ever more complex, a strange phenomenon was increasingly noted. Skilled linguists who could translate written material with ease were found to suffer from mental or vocal blockade when called upon to function orally. According to Jean Herbert, one of the more accomplished interpreters of modern times, whose opinion on this matter is surely authoritative: “The work of the translator and that of the interpreter are mentally different and can hardly be combined. Rare indeed are people who can do both satisfactorily”. (Roland 1982: 5)

Whether Herbert is right is an open question. One thing is, however, certain: translation and interpreting (especially consecutive and simultaneous interpreting; Chapter 3. 2. 2) are two distinct forms of language processing. But it is equally true, as professional practice and the frequent award of dual qualifications in interpreting and translation confirm, that there are linguists who can do both equally well. It is interesting to note that this is particularly true of the combination interpreter/translator, and less so the other way round. 3.2.1 Translation The organization of the translation and interpreting services for the League of Nations was the responsibility of the “International Secretariat”, whose work has been described by Ranshofen-Wertheimer in a brilliant, at times almost exciting study (1945). It is not without reason that he calls the Secretariat in the subtitle of his book “A Great Experiment in International Administration”. Slocombe, on the other hand, hardly goes into language mediation at the League of Nations in his book “A Mirror to Geneva” (1937). One of his casual remarks on the subject is that the Hotel Victoria in Geneva, the “antechamber of the League of Nations”, was “a babel of strange sounds” (1937: 63).

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

31

The Secretariat was established at the same time as the League of Nations itself, on 29 April 1919. The League originally had its headquarters in London before moving to Geneva in 1920. As early as 4 April 1920 the director of the translation service reported to his superiors that he was now in a position to provide translations into the two official languages, English and French, from the following languages: Arabic, German, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbocroat, Spanish and Swedish. Other languages were added later, not least because the translation service was able to call on the assistance of other offices at any time. The Secretariat was thus able to claim that it could translate or summarize texts in all the world’s languages which had a significant number of speakers. The translation service was so important, and its work so diversified, because although English and French were the two official languages of the League of Nations, no-one could be forced to submit documents in these two languages. The League of Nations was not, after all, a “superstate”, and was therefore unable to issue instructions: or, to be more precise, it could only prescribe that all documents for negotiations and conferences at the League of Nations must be available in English and French. Most governments did actually submit their documents in English and French, though only to ensure that the matter which interested them found its way onto the agenda. It must be pointed out, however, that translations from the various languages were often undertaken by people who were not entirely qualified to translate from their native language into a foreign language. According to Ranshofen-Wertheimer, such people were at best able to deal with routine diplomatic communications, and were not up to the task of translating (specialist) texts, which required considerable linguistic and extra-linguistic knowledge. Consequently, their translations were useless, and sometimes even downright misleading. This was the cause of some embarrassment to the Secretariat, since such translations had the status of official documents, which meant that that they could not be altered even though they were of no use to the delegates in the submitted form. The Secretariat therefore — in contravention of all diplomatic conventions — had to correct the texts in their entirety. For this reason the Secretariat was actually pleased when documents, even those in lesser used languages such as Romanian, Serbian or Finnish, were submitted in their original language, so that the Secretariat could translate them completely. In the early years of the League of Nations, the texts submitted for

32

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

translation were mainly of a political or general nature, where factual accuracy and good style were important. Later, difficult specialist texts became more frequent, making specialization necessary. In such texts, specialist terminology played a central role. Ranshofen-Wertheimer does not provide any information about how the Secretariat gave its translators specialist training (nor does he comment on his own role there). But he is full of praise on the work of the translation service: The translation services attained a perfection probably not reached by any other service before and certainly never surpassed anywhere since. They developed a professional pride in coping with the most difficult texts imaginable. (1945: 139)

3.2.2 Interpreting Ranshofen-Wertheimer is equally positive on the subject of the interpreting service of the League of Nations. In his view, the League of Nations — a supranational institution which adopted the principle of bilingualism for all its conferences — moulded the image of the modern interpreter, and attained a high degree of perfection in the process. He distinguishes between the work of the translator and that of the interpreter in the following way: The modern interpreter is a phenomenon sui generis. His work cannot be compared with any other professional work, and it demands a combination of qualifications which by their very nature are rarely found in a single individual. Full command of both languages, that from which he interprets and that into which he interprets, is the basis of his work. This is true also of the professional translator. But the translator’s assignment is easier. He can regulate the tempo and rhythm of his work. In the stillness of his office he can consult dictionaries and revise his text. The interpreter has none of these advantages. On the spur of the moment he must orally convey not the gist but the full content of a speech. He must be an orator and perhaps even something of an actor. The whole effect of an important declaration may be lost if the mannerisms and intonation of an interpreter are uncongenial to the spirit of a debate. He must furthermore be familiar with the questions under debate, or at least he must have a sort of sixth sense enabling him to detect the essential in a conventional phrase, its political implications and importance. While he must, as a rule, not play down any statement, he must not overemphasize it in his rendering or bearing. (1945: 139f.)

Roland makes a similar comment:

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

33

Translation of written materials is a slower process than interpreting ... An oral linguist must do his work simultaneously and he must be right the first time, which involves picking exactly the right word or phrase, not one which “will do” (André Vishinsky, at the United Nations, used to speak at the rate of 300 words per minute) ... Clearly, then, an interpreter must be quick witted ... Since oral work is considered more demanding mentally and emotionally than written work, interpreters are the élite of the profession, usually earning appreciably more than translators. Yet, there is another side to the story. An interpreter has the advantage of being right on the spot ... Translation, on the other hand, is continually frustrating ... To add to the translator’s irritations, the work must often be done from documents sloppily or ambiguously written, or couched in highly technical jargon. (1982: 5f.)

According to Ranshofen-Wertheimer, working conditions for interpreters at the League of Nations were ideal. Beginners were first given small tasks, in which they could cause little or no damage, and were entrusted with more difficult jobs at a later stage. While at first a form of “in-service-training” was practised, from 1941 on the Secretariat was able to call on the services of the Interpreting Institute at the University of Geneva, where courses were geared to the needs of the Secretariat. Section C. 92 of the “Réglement de l’école d’interprètes” defined the function of the institute, which accounted for around one third of all students registered in Geneva, as follows: Elle (l’école, W. W.) est destinée aux personnes pour qui les connaissances linguistique sont indispensable dans l’exercise de leur profession (fonctionnaires diplomatiques ou consultaires, fonctionnaires d’organisation internationales, interprètes ou traducteurs de congrès, etc.).

The “Geneva Graduate School of International Studies”, founded by William Rappard and Paul Mantoux in Geneva in 1926 was, perhaps, even more important for the training and further training of interpreters. The name Mantoux (about whom more will be said later) is especially important here, since he was the star interpreter at the League of Nations and, as a member of the academic staff at the above-mentioned institute, was able to pass on his experiences as an interpreter to his students. 3.2.3 Liaison interpreting: the “diplomat-interpreters” One peculiarity of the interpreting service at the League of Nations was the group of so-called “diplomat-interpreters” (there were also “diplomat translators”, though they were fewer in number). These people were usually the

34

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

children of (widely travelled) diplomats and had often acquired polyglot language abilities from an early age. They had no training whatsoever for the onerous tasks with which they were entrusted, but they were able to create an unusually relaxed atmosphere in discussions between small groups of people, and enjoyed the absolute trust of the statesmen for whom they worked. Bowen et al. (1995) and Bowen (1996) have described the work of the diplomat-interpreters at the League of Nations quite fully, so that just a few notes will suffice here. My comments are limited to three people: Colonel Stephen Bonsal (Bonsal 1944), Charles E. Bohlen, later the US ambassador in Moscow (Bohlen 1973), and the former US ambassador in Bonn, Vernon A. Walters (Walters 1978). All three practised as liaison interpreters more by chance than by design. Bonsal was a member of staff at the American embassy in Berlin during the First World War, where he worked as an interpreter. After the USA entered the War he was given the status of a diplomat and was Wilson’s interpreter during secret negotiations to which professional interpreters were not admitted, and for which no official minutes were taken. He was welleducated, well-travelled and had close, even friendly relations with Clemenceau, Lloyd George, Lord Balfour, General Smuts and Masaryk. He was known as a “genius for self-effacement” and had a rare talent for combining efficiency with “low visibility” (Gibson’s introduction to Bonsal 1944: XI). Bohlen already had an excellent knowledge of French when he left school, and began to learn Russian in 1931 at the Paris “Ecole nationale des langues vivantes” (founded in 1880). He worked closely with Roosevelt and was (almost) always present at the negotiations between the US and Russia. It was he who was able to prove that Stalin’s chief interpreter, Berezhkov, had deliberately distorted facts, and he is the only diplomat-interpreter who mentions Churchill’s chief interpreter, Major Arthur H. Birse (see below, this chapter), who had a difficult task in view of Churchill’s considerable eloquence. Walters acquired a good command of French, Spanish, Italian and German at an early age. After many years as an officer and military attaché he rose to become deputy director of the CIA, finally, as mentioned above, becoming the American ambassador in Bonn. He was much respected by Eisenhower and Johnson on account of his linguistic competence and negotiating skill. In 1969, by which time he had acquired the rank of general, he travelled with

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

35

Nixon to Brussels, which shows that diplomat-interpreters were also active in the post-war period. Following one reception, King Baudouin praised him highly for his excellent work as a “Flüsterdolmetscher” (whispering interpreter). He then travelled to Bonn, where (as far as I am aware, alone) he interpreted a long speech by Adenauer (who, according to Walters, spoke quite good English) — into English for Nixon without preparation, brilliantly deputizing for the absent official interpreter. To my knowledge, Walters is the only diplomat-interpreter who had a real understanding of the problems of interpreting: There is nothing more painful than watching an interpreter try to handle something that he is not really qualified to do. I did not wish to find myself in that situation. (1978: 563)

Harold Nicholson (1919) became known not as a diplomat-interpreter, but as a diplomat-translator. His book contains a chapter on “Diplomatic Language”, where he discusses the conventions of diplomatic language, which are of interest both to the practice and teaching of translation/interpreting. It is worth quoting Nicholson at some length: “Diplomacy”, if I may repeat Sir Ernest Satow’s definition, “is the application of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations between the governments of independent states” ... Thus, if a statesman or a diplomatist informs another government that his own government “cannot remain indifferent to” some international controversy, he is clearly understood to imply that the controversy is one in which his government will certainly intervene. If in his communication or speech he uses some such phrase as “His Majesty’s Government view with concern” or “view with grave concern”, then it is evident to all that the matter is one in which the British government intend to adopt a strong line. By cautious gradations such as these a statesman is enabled, without using threatening language, to convey a serious warning to a foreign government ... If he says that “he must decline to responsible for the consquences”, it means that he is about to provoke an incident which will lead to war. And if he demands, even in terms of exquisite politeness, a reply before “six o’clock on the evening of the 25th”, then his communication is rightly regarded as an ultimatum. The advantage of this conventional form of communication is that it maintains an atmosphere of calm, while enabling statesmen to convey serious warnings to each other which will not be misunderstood. The disadvantage is that the public and sometimes even the statesmen themselves are not acquainted with the actual value, in diplomatic currency, of the expressions used. On the one hand an ignorant or incautious use of one of these phrases may give to a situation a gravity which it does not possess. On the other hand,

36

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN when a really serious crisis arises, the public is apt to assume from the mildness of the language used that the crisis cannot be as grave as “the alarmists” had given them to suppose .. in all important international controversies these paper-currency phrases are most carefully scrutinized before they are used. It may be said that the advantages of phrasing communications between governments, or important pronouncements on foreign affairs, in diplomatic language far outweigh any disadvantages which the system may possess. (1919: 227ff.)

Nicholson’s comments confirm that all linguistic communication, however hedged in qualifications it may be, ultimately aims at understanding (leaving aside jargon as a form of “private language”). It implies in speech and above all in writing a more or less subtle, knowledge-based interaction between a sender and a receiver, or more precisely, between a sender and a (configurated) text unit one the one hand and between a (configurated) text unit and a receiver on the other. In order to be able to talk meaningfully about the conventions of diplomatic texts, one needs beforehand to have agreed a means of communciation on the basis of shared situational knowledge and linguistic “Gestalt”-knowledge. This shared knowledge potential, which is indispensable for all the higher functions of human consciousness, allows the receiver to infer from the text the nature and processes of the sender’s consciousness, which are important for his own (re)actions. This gives prestructured political and socio-historical conditions of communication added weight: the successful production and reception of utterances ultimately depends on the fulfilment of such conditions. Both partners in the communication must display “ingroup” behaviour, such that nothing needs to be negotiated between the sender and receiver, for example in the sense that the sender of specialist texts progressively builds up the knowledge of the receiver in an expository manner, with the aid of definitions. 3.2.4 Consecutive interpreting The sessions of the League of Nations represent a milestone in as far as a new form of politics established itself alongside secret diplomacy. Although the latter still existed, there was now a mode of diplomacy which took place in the public eye. This development is particularly important for the history of translation and interpreting, because it was at the League of Nations that “conference interpreting”, as it is now known (in its two manifestations, “consecutive interpreting” and “simultaneous interpreting”), was first prac-

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

37

tised on a large scale. Bowen is right to call the era of the League of Nations “the Golden Age of consecutive interpreting” (1996: 1). One comment in the memoirs of Daniele Varè, who became well-known for his book “The Laughing Diplomat”, shows how important interpreters actually were for the smooth running of the League of Nations: Daniele Varè recounts in his memories that in the early days of the League, as a young diplomat, he and some friends invented a sovereign state by the name of Zembla and pretended to be “the leader of Zembla’s delegation, complete with silk hat, interpreters, advisers, international alliances ... “. Although it is difficult to point to a record and state “this is the first time”, Varè’s story certainly is indicative of the fact that in the League interpreters were taken for granted, they were part of the international scene.(Bowen 1996: 2)

One of the very first conference interpreters was Jean Herbert. Although he had no formal training, he first worked as an interpreter during negotiations held by the French finance minister, Thierry, in London in 1917. He is also well-known among conference interpreters for his handbook on note-taking techniques (1952), which is still used today. Since it was inconceivable at the time that an interpreter should be given a diplomatic pass, he travelled as Thierry’s private secretary. During the peace negotiations he worked in a twoman team alongside a colleague, he himself being responsible for interpreting from English into French, while his colleague worked in the opposite direction. He writes in his memoirs: We had to take down and translate verbatim speeches which occasionally lasted well over one hour. It may be said that that exacting exercise led us to develop for the first time in history a technique of consecutive interpretation, with taking of notes etc., as we know it ... We were then expected to turn up in morning-coats, striped trousers and butterfly collar, whatever the temperature might be. (1978: 6)

At one particularly difficult technical conference he worked alone all day from Monday to Saturday in German, English and French, which was so tiring that he actually fell asleep while interpreting, “but apparently I went on interpreting during my few moments of sleep and continued normally when I woke up. Nobody seemed to have noticed anything” (1978: 7). While the diplomat-interpreters mostly worked out of sight, the professional interpreters were exposed to the bright light of public scrutiny. The star among the Geneva conference interpreters was, as mentioned above, Paul Mantoux (Roland 1982). Born in Paris in 1877, he became professor of French

38

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

history at University College and the School of Economics and Political Science in London at an early age. In 1915 he entered service in Paris as an interpreter-officer. He was present at all the Anglo-French negotiations during 1917/18, although his career really only got off the ground following the end of the First World War at the negotiations between the The Great Four (England, France, Italy and the USA). Since these negotiations were secret, professional interpreters were not admitted. For this reason the French president himself tried his hand at interpreting, probably quite willingly. However, this did not work very well, as the American diplomat Robert Lansing reports in his memoirs: Signor Orlando did not understand English, and President Wilson and Mr Lloyd George had but an imperfect knowledge of French. M. Clemenceau was therefore the only one thoroughly familiar with both languages, and had to act as an interpreter. This was found to be unsatisfactory, so Professor Mantoux was admitted. (1921: 61)

Mantoux interpreted in both directions (as did all diplomat-interpreters) and displayed such a rhetorical gift at the public sessions of the League of Nations that the audience burst into spontaneous applause (Lansing 1921). According to Lansing, Mantoux spoke without the least hesitation and with a fluency and completeness which were almost uncanny. Even if the speaker had consumed ten, fifteen, or twenty minutes, the address was accurately repeated in the other language, while Professor Mantoux would employ inflection and emphasis with an oratorical skill that added greatly to the perfectness of the interpretation. No statement was too dry to make him inattentive or too technical for his vocabulary. Eloquence, careful reasoning, and unusual style in expression were apparently easily rendered into idiomatic English from the French, or vice versa. He seemed almost to take over the character of the individual whose words he translated, and to reproduce his emotions as well as his thoughts. His extraordinary attainments were recognized by every one who benefited by them, and his services commanded general admiration and praise. (1921: 106)

And Ranshofen-Wertheimer remembers: Sir John Simon (an English delegate; W. W.) once put the French interpreter deliberately to a dramatic test during the involved deliberations of the Disarmament Conference. He concluded a long and difficult speech with a quotation from Shelley, obviously to challenge the skill of the French interpreter, Monsieur M. The latter interpreted the speech as usual with hardly any recourse to notes, as was his habit, and, incidentally, the habit of nearly all top interpreters. To the amazement of the listeners he rendered the Shelley

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

39

quotation in French verse, thus reaching a peak which will never be surpassed in the history of his art. (1945: 140f.)

Like Mantoux, Churchill’s interpreter Birse (mentioned above) also recorded his experiences as an interpreter. While Mantoux produced a complete account of the consultations between The Great Four, the latter wrote his memoirs (1967). Also like Mantoux (and many other colleagues), Birse had become an interpreter by chance: “My introduction to high-level interpreting was unexpected and fortuitous” (1967: 106). Birse had grown up in Russia. His only advantage in life was the fact that he spoke Russian like a native, a competence he retained in full even after his move to England. His memoirs are not only a fund of vital information for historians, but also for the practice and teaching of interpreting. In the middle of his chronological report covering the years from the beginning of the twentieth century up to about 1950, the reader unexpectedly finds a chapter on “The Business of Interpretation” (1967: 106-118), from which the following two passages are taken: Experienced interpreters take all the demands made on them in their stride. Some of these, as I was to learn, are exacting. Hours of work are often long and tiring. There are difficulties of finding the appropriate equivalents in one language of what has been said in the other, and such equivalents have to be accurate and complete, and must convey the exact meaning of the spoken expression; and they must be found with the least possible delay, preferably in a split second. Then, the interpreter must be able to concentrate all his attention on the business in hand, and not allow outward circumstances to disturb him. He must have much self-assurance as regards his work, and no fear of his chief, whose mouthpiece he is. Should he be unlucky enough provoke a rebuke, for slowness or any other reason, he must ignore it. (1967: 106) Accuracy in translation (= interpretation; W. W.) was of vital importance. It was important at all stages: with statesmen and politicians, military leaders, industrialists, in the law courts and police courts. The great object was not to miss a point. It was not enough just to think of the word-equivalent which might have been found in any dictionary. Sometimes a totally different word or phrase served better as giving the precise meaning and intention of the speaker who was thinking aloud in his own language. I remember on one occasion a Russian, speaking of the Soviet Youth Organization, used the Russian word “pioneer”. To have translated it into English as “pioneer” would not have conveyed the true meaning of the term. I therefore translated it as “candidate in training for the Youth Organization”, which despite being a mouthful of seven words amply settled the problem. This had to be thought of in a flash, which could only be done if the mind was alert. In the course of time I discovered that my speech improved, and I could adjust it to that of the

40

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN speaker. At the less formal type of discussion I acquired the skill of interpreting “simultaneously” — a misnomer, for even in “simultaneous” translation one is at least half a sentence or so behind the speaker. (1967: 108)

I have quoted Birse at length for two reasons: 1. Interpreting is a skill which is tied up with activities of the consciousness: their main characteristics are alertness, adaptability and the recognition of regularities; 2. The distinction between liaison interpreting and simultaneous interpreting is an idealized one. Liaison interpreting also contains elements of simultaneous reception and production. More can only be said about this when we have a greater understanding of the complementary nature of analytical and holistic text-processing processes in interpreting. 3.2.5 Simultaneous interpreting It is not generally known that simultaneous interpreting was also practised alongside consecutive interpreting at the League of Nations, albeit only after 1927, and on a somewhat modest scale. We know this from the work of Herbert (1978), among others, who wrote a highly informative survey of the development of simultaneous interpreting under the title “How Conference Interpreting Grew”. Van Hoof also identifies the year 1927 as the beginning of the era of simultaneous interpreting at the League of Nations (1962). Bowen et al. (1995) have recently devoted more attention to this issue. The development was initiated by three Americans: Edward Filene, a businessman; Gordon Finlay, an electronic engineer; and Thomas Watson, then president of IBM. Their system, “The Filene-Finlay Speech Translator”, is described in an (undated) pamphlet as follows: The Filene-Finlay Speech Translator is a device designed to provide a definite solution of the Language Problem at International meetings (sic). Through its use the words of a speaker are continuously translated for the audience into as many languages as are required whilst the speech is actually in progress, each listener having an individual choice of language at his disposal. When a speech is made in English, for example, the Germans in the audience hear it in German, the French in French, the Swedes in Swedish, etc., simultaneously, and without intervals for interpretation.

Despite the obvious advantages of such a system, especially with regard to time-saving (the pamphlet puts the saving at at least 25% compared with consecutive interpreting), simultaneous interpreting was only used in Geneva

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

41

after some hesitation. The ILO (International Labour Office) was the most adventurous, while other offices at the League were far more cautious. The conference interpreters did not like the new procedure at first, since they no longer worked in public (as they did in their consecutive work), but found themselves locked up in an uncomfortable interpreting booth, initially installed in a cellar, where they had no contact with the conference delegates. Many delegates also viewed the new system with suspicion, because they suddenly saw themselves deprived of the welcome opportunity to prepare their next move in the debate during the pauses needed for consecutive interpreting. With the exception of the ILO, the mood in Geneva was sceptical. People simply could not imagine that it would be possible to hear one language and speak another at the same time, without descending into a meaningless babble which would destroy, rather than improve, the quality of the interpretation. Sooner or later, according to the voluminous file on simultaneous interpreting in the Geneva archive of the League, a simultaneous interpreter would be bound to lose his thread or become muddled up, and would not have the possibility of starting again. The following statement speaks for itself: On pourrait difficilement songer à interrompre M. Briand, par exemple, au milieu d’un discourse, pour lui demander de parler plus lentement à cause de l’interpretation telephonique.

The following statement takes the same line: ... parler en même temps que l’orateur — l’effect géneral est incohérent, et il est absolutement impossible de suivre une idée ou un developpement dans son entier.

Opinion thus swung between “une idée ingénieuse” on the one hand and “useless expense” on the other. It was also not clear where interpreters could be found for simultaneous interpreting. Those responsible at least had enough sense to realize that special training was required for simultaneous interpreting. The files do not reveal how this problem was solved. It did, however, cause some difficulty, as the following statement of the British prime minister Lloyd George (9 July 1930) shows: (... it would be) unfair to our interpreters to put them on this novel type of work without adequate experience (which ...) is not possible to acquire in the short time at our disposal.

One procedure which was used to keep up with the speaker was that of text summary:

42

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN ... the translator occupied much less time than the original speaker. That was partly owing to the fact that Thomas (the speaker; W. W.) is rather a verbose speaker and the translation was a considerable condensation of his speech. (Lord Cecil on 23 June 1930)

For most people today simultaneous interpreting remains something of a mystery — or, to be more precise, they do not take the time to consider what kind of text-processing activities it actually involves. Here are two examples: Once, during a medical conference (at the League of Nations; W. W.), a French doctor was evidently much intrigued by what we were doing, so he came and sat behind the booth where I was working with a colleague. At a moment when we were silent, he seized the opportunity and asked us: “Why are there two of you doing this work?” My colleague explained: “We must. One of us listens and the other speaks.” The doctor was deeply impressed and passed on this valuable information to other delegates! (Herbert 1978: 8) During a break in a conference in Tel Aviv (on 8 May 1985; W. W.), an interpreter boards a bus without removing her conference badge. A passenger, recognizing the badge, starts up a conversation and is astonished to learn that there are interpreters at the conference. “But why bother? We’ve all got headsets that do the interpreting!” (Baker 1995: 50: the comment is not so far from the truth if one considers the “Verbmobil” system. (Chapter 7. 7))

3.3 The situation in Germany post-1919 In terms of language mediation, a new situation arose for the German Reich at the end of the War, for two reasons: At the League of Nations (which Germany joined in 1926, after its first application had been rejected in 1919) the German delegation spoke German, as they had done at the ceasefire negotiations previously. For this, the Auswärtige Amt needed conference interpreters with German as their native language. The best-known of these was Paul Schmidt (“Hitler’s interpreter”, already mentioned above), who worked for the Auswärtige Amt from 1923 to 1945 and in 1949 published the much-quoted book “Statist auf diplomatischer Bühne” (An Extra on the Stage of Diplomacy), which by 1968 was in its eleventh edition. Unlike the so-called “diplomat-interpreters”, he did have some form of specialist training. He had studied modern languages in Berlin and was familiar with note-taking techniques before he became a conference interpreter. He writes:

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

43

At around this time, following the Genoa Conference of 1921, the Auswärtige Amt organized special courses to train conference interpreters. There had not been anything like this before, since most diplomatic communication up until that time had been conducted by professional diplomats. These diplomats could, of course, speak French, which had been regarded as the language of diplomacy prior to the First World War. But things changed significantly after 1918. “Secret diplomacy”, which was seen as the main cause of the war, was to end. Negotiations now took place less in diplomatic circles than at large international conferences. The individual states were no longer represented by ambassadors, but by statesmen, by the heads of government and foreign ministers themselves, because it was believed that direct personal contact would lead to results more quickly than the old methods. However, these new representatives of the nations did not speak foreign languages very well, and therefore a new profession came into existence ... (with) the translation of entire speeches or passages in one go. In this way, the interpreter remained virtually invisible ... Using this new method, the interpreter did, of course, have to make brief notes while listening to the speech he was to translate. These notes were often used to make a confidential record of the contents of such speeches. Even today these notes can be used to reconstruct the progress of negotiations quite precisely, and they provide valuable material for historians attempting to unravel the events and background of the confused years of the post-1918 period. (1949: 13)

Like all conference interpreters, Schmidt experienced some strange things. He reports, for example, about his work for the Belgian foreign minister Vandervelde: He often used to ask me to stand right beside his chair while I was interpreting, so that he could hear me more clearly. But that wasn’t always enough. To signal that I should speak more loudly he would hold his hand up to his ear and make me scream at him in a stentorian voice and shout the most delicate diplomatic formulations at the volume of a large loudspeaker into his earphone-equipped ear, often to the amusement of the other delegates. (1949: 85)

A second problem facing the German “Reich” after 1918 was to reestablish diplomatic relations, which had been lost almost entirely during the First World War. This necessitated the appointment of permanent staff, whereby a distinction was made between translation into and out of the native language. This meant that translators (in contrast to interpreters) only translated into their own language (“native language principle”), a procedure which is most consistently observed today by the language services of the EU (Chapter 4. 2). The decisive impetus for this was provided by a memorandum from the senior civil servant Gautier (christian name unknown) in 1921, according to

44

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

which the Auswärtige Amt was to have its own language department comprising a director, language experts, experts on politics, law, economics and technology, interpreters, translators, technical assistants and a messenger. The Auswärtige Amt adopted this proposal and set up a language service, with the status of an independent department, in 1921, under the direction of Gautier. The distinction between language experts and experts is still relevant today, and boils down to the ultimately unanswerable question of whether linguists with specialist knowledge or specialists with linguistic knowledge should be given preference (Chapter 6. 6). The working conditions for translators at the Auswärtige Amt were, however, far from satisfactory. There were a number of grounds for complaint. One problem was the fact that the texts for translation were only available in handwritten form and were often simply illegible (unlike the handwritten documents of the pre-war period, which were almost entirely written in the classical “Sütterlin” script). This meant that translators had to spend hours deciphering the texts. Furthermore, the texts submitted for translation were often only drafts, and had to be corrected by the translators. And finally, the texts were often submitted so late that the translators — the last link in a sometimes long chain of communication — were always under pressure, which clearly had a negative effect on the quality of their work. What was perhaps even more serious was the fact that a “Reichssparkommissar”, an official responsible for reducing costs, was appointed towards the end of the twenties on account of the difficult economic situation. He ordered a round of financial cuts for the language service (which was not exactly overmanned anyway) which did not stop at reductions in staffing. For example, the library of the language service was closed down and integrated into the central library of the Auswärtige Amt. Translators were required to reduce their “cartotheque work” (their card index filing systems) radically. And subscriptions were cancelled for important newspapers and magazines, which made it very difficult for the language service to undertake the kind of background research which is essential in any translation and interpreting work. Overtime was abolished, and any assistance on behalf of other government departments was forbidden. Annual reports were published containing information about the work carried out by the language service, although not all of these survived the damage which the War inflicted on the archives of the Auswärtige Amt. The 1928 report mentions that, since its inception, the language service had

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

45

translated 13,000 typed pages into 35 languages, while 25 interpreters had completed 6,413 assignments between 1925 and 1928. The report for 1929 deals with more fundamental issues. It opens with a rationale for the language service (probably in reaction to the appointment of the Reichssparkommissar mentioned above), outlines the duties of the service according to their scale, importance and difficulty, goes on to explain the working methods and resources, and finally points out the service’s successes. The general public obviously followed the work of the language service with some interest: the above-mentioned “Vossische Zeitung” of 17 February 1929 writes that the name of the interpreters deserved “to be recorded in golden letters in the book of international peace”.

3.4 The institutionalization of the training of language mediators: the beginnings At approximately the same time, the files of the Auswärtige Amt show that consideration was now being given to formal training for language mediators. From 1929 on there are records of correspondence between the Auswärtige Amt and Mannheim, where the professor of Romance languages, Dr Charles Glauser, had founded the “Institut zur sprach- und wirtschaftswissenschaftlichen Ausbildung von Dolmetschern” (Institute for the Training of Interpreters in Linguistic and Economic Studies) in 1930. This institute was an autonomous section of the modern languages department of the “Handelshochschule” (commercial college: see the periodical “Höhere Schule und Beruf”, 1932/2). Its foundation “fulfilled a need which was clearly perceived by the Auswärtige Amt and other imperial ministries involved in international committees. When Germany joined the League of Nations seven years after the end of the War, special efforts were needed to catch up with the other nations in terms of newly-developed conference technology and interpreting services. Although the German delegations always had some excellent interpreters, it was not clear for a long time how new staff were to be trained” (Berthold Beinert, Memo 1955: 198). The almost visionary aims of the institute show that the intention was not only to train interpreters in the narrower sense of the word, but also translators: 1. To train interpreters in accordance with academic principles and a systematic methodology (in English, French, Spanish and, later, Italian) for the needs of trade, industry, political service and the courts.

46

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

2. To train linguistically competent and expert staff, specially qualified through extensive study, for international translation duties and advertising work in trade and industry (“Höhere Schule und Beruf”, 1932/2: 18). The Auswärtige Amt turned down the college’s request for financial support, but in a letter dated 13 March 1929 the language service “warmly” welcomed the foundation of the institute and expressed its willingness to “use its own experience to assist the institute with information and advice with regard to this training” (“Höhere Schule und Beruf”, 1932/2: 20) and to refer applicants to the institute for specialist qualifications. Collaboration began between the Auswärtige Amt and the institute in the sense that the Auswärtige Amt, at the suggestion of the institute, sent an observer to the final examinations. This procedure later (after the Second World War) became established practice: gradually the language service directors of virtually all federal departments with international functions (e.g. defence, finance, economics, environment, postal affairs), the heads of the linguistic services of exporting/ importing industries (e. g. Siemens, Bayer, Lurgi) and, last but not least, the heads of the academic institutes for translation and interpreting and later those of the EU language services, regularly attended the final examinations in Heidelberg, and later in Mainz/Germersheim and Saarbrücken (Chapter 6. 10. 1). The Mannheim institute, which took students both with and without the “Abitur”, the advanced school-leaving examinations, was transferred to the University of Heidelberg in 1933 by order of the “Führer”, who argued that such an institute was a useful linguistic training ground at university level (personal communication from Professor Christian Schmitt). There it was initially part of the economics faculty before being integrated into the faculty of philosophy. Following the division of the faculty of philosophy in 1968 it became part of the faculty of new philologies. It is interesting to note, incidentally, that the “Staatliche Wirtschaftshochschule” (state college of economics) in Mann-heim, the successor institution to the “Handelshochschule”, tried to regain the Heidelberg institute in 1960, albeit in vain. Heidelberg was thus the first university department with specific courses for translators and interpreters, long before Geneva (1941) and Vienna (1943) and the many other institutes founded in Europe and abroad after the Second World War (Chapter 6. 5). (The Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen was never fully integrated into the University of Berlin; see Chapter 2. 1) The second institute to be established in Germany was the “DolmetscherInstitut (Institut für Wirtschaftssprachler und Wirtschaftsdolmetscher)” (Inter-

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

47

preters’ Institute (Institute for translators and interpreters for economics)) at the “Handelshochschule” (college of commerce) in Leipzig (the latter founded in 1898). Like the rest of the Handelshochschule, it was closed down in 1946, when part of the staff were taken over by the University of Leipzig. The aim of the institute was to train (at university level, i.e. through a combination of teaching and research) foreign correspondents, interpreters for economics, and specialists on foreign countries to work in exports. The focus of the course was “Nationenkunde”, studies of foreign nations (Snyckers 1938: 7). It was therefore obviously necessary for the individual language departments (Spanish, Italian, Russian, Romanian and Swedish) to have both German native speakers and “national lectors” (Snyckers 1938: 8). Research at the institute focused on sociological and general economic areas, and on terminology relating to the practice and theory of economics. For admission to the institute candidates were required to have passed either the advanced school-leaving examinations or a special examination at a German college of commerce. It is interesting to note that even at that time the interpreters’ institute offered courses in “German as a foreign language”, for which Snyckers gives the following reason: The work of the Interpreting Institute is intended from the very start to provide practical assistance to business. It is to support German exports. In the interest of this very practical orientation, the courses in German for foreigners represent an important part of its work. (1938: 8)

One major problem facing Heidelberg and Leipzig — and virtually all institutes founded subsequently — was finding competent staff. There was no institution specializing in the training of teachers for institutes of translation and interpreting, nor was there, at that time, any accepted methodology which could have been taught. The only body offering training for interpreters was the Auswärtiges Amt (Schmidt 1949). The academic director of the Mannheim institute was Dr Gutkind, who visited the German ministries in Berlin and the League of Nations in Geneva several times during 1929/30 in order to familiarize himself at first hand with the requirements of interpreting training and practice. The contacts he established with the above-mentioned director of the language service at the Auswärtige Amt, Gautier, and with Antoine Velleman, an interpreter at the League of Nations and later founder of the “Ecole d’interprètes” at the University of Geneva, were particularly important.

48

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Germany’s withdrawal from the League of Nations in 1933 and its selfimposed international isolation completely undermined any attempts to build up courses in interpreting, since conference interpreters were no longer needed. Heidelberg was therefore forced to limit itself to training military interpreters. As in the case of Leipzig, however, it has not been possible to establish precisely how this was done, since no graduates from that time have survived. The same is true for the training of translators. One can only assume that there was much improvisation — something which was true of many institutes in their early days, and which has meant that even today the academic status of such institutes and their courses is not undisputed (Chapter 6. 8). In this context, the Berlin Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen (Chapter 2.1) should also be mentioned. Founded in 1887, it continued its work during the Third Reich under the name “Deutsche Auslandshochschule” (German College of Foreign Studies). In the winter semester of 1936/37 it offered 45 languages (including 28 Asian and African languages), which were taught by 59 members of staff to 337 students (Salevsky 1996). The Seminar in Berlin was closed at the end of the Second World War, and its building, along with its library containing 25,000 valuable books, was destroyed in bombing raids. It was re-established in 1959 at the University of Bonn (Chapter 6.5).

3.5 Language mediation in the Third Reich There are only very few documents dealing with language mediation in the Third Reich. The director of the language service at the Auswärtige Amt, Gautier, wrote at that time in a report (which is still worth reading today) about the constant confusion of the two terms “interpreting” and “translation” (“Studium und Beruf”, December 1935: 166). Employment prospects at the beginning of the Nazi period were poor, since there were hardly any jobs. “The usual career for graduates of the interpreting institute (Heidelberg; W.W.) is as a foreign correspondent in industry” (“Studium und Beruf”, July 1934: 93). However, the situation changed significantly just a few years later. The “Reichsfachschaft für das Dolmetschwesen” (Reich Association for Interpreting) in Berlin published a pamphlet in 1937 which speaks of the fact that “the demand for trained, suitable interpreters (meaning both interpreters and trans-

THE

PERIOD

1919-1945

49

lators; W. W.) (is growing) year by year both with public authorities and at the various negotiations taking place in trade and commerce” (“Berufskundliche Mitteilungen” No. 9, 24 July 1937: 21). Particular importance was attached to specialist legal knowledge: “Since political institutions vary greatly from nation to nation, the study of the law of one’s own country and of the foreign country is most strongly recommended” (“Berufskundliche Mitteilungen” No. 9, 24 July 1937: 21). This comment echoes the practice at the Auswärtige Amt before the First World War, where a dual qualification in law and languages was always required of prospective “Dragomane”. Indeed, at that time the Auswärtige Amt flatly refused to accept interpreters from military service with excellent linguistic and cultural competence, even though they had often proved themselves in their work abroad.

CHAPTER 4

The period 1945-1990

4.1 Multilingualism replaces bilingualism The distinctive feature of language mediation since the Second World War has been the complexity of the systems, structures and mechanisms of international communication. This complexity is most visible in the fields of politics, business, industry, administration, in science and technology, military affairs and culture (e.g. through long-distance travel, show business, town twinning arrangements, international news agencies). As a result of such developments, society (which sees itself as a “global society”: Chapter 7. 2) is faced with the task of effectively co-ordinating its requirements and possibilities in the field of communication. As society has grown more flexible and mobile, information imported from abroad has become increasingly important in man’s relationship to the world around him. The deeper this new internationalism becomes, the more acutely the problems of international and intercultural communication are felt. This explains why translation and interpreting have, since the Second World War, developed into new forms of cultural exchange covering a wide range of subjects and situations. The dramatic surge in the development of language mediation is mainly due to the fact that specialist translation and the interpretation of specialist conferences have come to challenge the predominance of biblical and literary translation. They have become, within the space of a relatively short time, a means of international mass communication, and thus ensure that knowledge can be transferred and exchanged (more or less) smoothly on an international level. The extent of international translation work in the fields of literary and scientific book production is best documented in the “Index Translationum”. This is an annual international bibliography of translation which was launched in 1932, interrupted in 1940 by the War, and continued after the War with the support of UNESCO. It does not (nor could it) include the countless translations made for “in-house use”, i.e. for communication within and between businesses

52

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

above all in the export-import sector (e. g. Siemens, Bayer, IBM, SAP (Systems, Applications, Products in Data Processing, Walldorf), and also for ministries with international functions, such as the Auswärtige Amt. In the past, two unidirectional principles guided such activity: either a linguistic community wished to make itself understood to others in political, economic, military or sociocultural terms, or, conversely, it wished to benefit from the achievements of others, especially in the fields of science and technology. More recently, a bidirectional principle has been in operation, based on the need to cultivate international contacts and seek understanding with other peoples, as a result of a multitude of international connections and conflicts. This has set a process in motion which — in part bilateral (bilingual), in part multilateral (multilingual) — suggests that we find ourselves at the beginning of a cultural cosmopolitanism. This process seems poised, given the shrinking dimensions of time and space, to affect the whole of humanity and to change its structure (Chapter 7.1). The kind of consequences which can ensue when information from other countries is lost due to a lack of interlingual competence were illustrated by the “sputnik shock” of 1957, which is today virtually forgotten. Although all the specialist information on sputniks had been published in Russian journals, the Americans did not know that it even existed, since they did not know Russian. A rude awakening followed. The Americans were forced to accept — most reluctantly — that the Russians had beaten them to it in the sphere of manned space travel. This shock, incidentally, was one reason for their hectic activity in the area of machine translation (MT) at the end of the fifties and the beginning of the sixties (Chapter 7.7 f.).

4.2 The European Union (EU) The most impressive European example of international multilingualism (there is, incidentally, also such a thing as intranational multilingualism, as in the case of Switzerland; see Chapter 4. 7) is the EU, which was founded upon the initiative of the French foreign minister Robert Schuman in 1952 as the “European Coal and Steel Community”. The present EU, which has remained to this day an economically rather then politically driven association, is the result of efforts to end an era of national hostilities and fragmentation in Europe. These efforts actually date back to the period immediately following

THE

PERIOD

1945-1990

53

the First World War, but it was the Cold War that ensured that the dreams and plans became reality. The man who possessed the necessary political farsightedness and persistence was Jean Monnet, President of the European Coal and Steel Community from 1951 to 1955. He realized that the East-West conflict and the threat of continuing Franco-German hostility could not be met defensively, for example by reviving the Ruhr Statute or de-industrializing Germany, but had to be countered with offensive strategies. One possible way to achieve this was to create a supranational community into which the industrial and economic resources of the Federal Republic of Germany could be integrated, thus preventing Germany from “going its own way” again. Such a community would also ensure (relative) peace, based on four principles: -

an overarching European culture, a political democracy based on tolerance and the will to compromise, an economic association offering mutual advantages (“symmetrical interdependence”), solidarity among the member states.

The organization of the EU is supranational yet multilingual. “Supranational organization” means that the common market is not just multilateral in character, but is also based on a legal structure which takes precedence over individual national legal structures. The risk was thought worth taking that EU activities would be controlled by a supranational bureaucracy with executive powers, which demands “alignments” in every conceivable field, has little democratic involvement on the part of the citizens, and is beyond effective democratic control (e.g. by the European Parliament). “Multilingual organization” means that, in accordance with the EU language charter of 1958, the EU authorities are required to pursue an “egalitarian” and not “presidential” (preferential) language policy. All national languages within the community are official languages which enjoy equal rights.: ... the Official Journal of the Commission, all documents which emanate from the Council, the Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee, and the Regional Committee, are published in all the official languages. The sessions of these bodies are simultaneously interpreted into all the official languages. Every Union citizen has the right to approach the institutions of the Union in his/her own language, and to receive a reply in that language. (Pfeil 1996: 2)

The legal instruments published by the EU in the Official Journal (laws,

54

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

regulations, directives) are immediately effective in all the member states and do not require approval by national parliaments or governments. All texts must be available in all the official languages, and each version has the status of an original. This arrangement is, however, of dubious value above all in terms of jurisdiction, since a distinction must be made between legal validity and linguistic authenticity. Nevertheless, there is at present no alternative to the principle of multilingualism, at least according to Eduard Brackeniers, former director general of the Translation Service of the European Commission: There is no common language in Europe, and there is no “lingua franca”. Nor will there ever be a “lingua franca” in Europe. Any such language would destroy the European Community and the future European Union, since - it would be elitist, spoken only by a small “caste”; - it would mean the domination by one culture of all the other cultures; and, if it were an artificial language (e.g. Esperanto), it would have no soul or living culture. (1993: 17)

The EU has gone to great lengths to maintain the multilingualism of Europe. It has, for example, created a new Translation Centre in Luxembourg, which works on behalf of the following EU authorities: the European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (AESS) in Bilbao, the European Environment Agency (EEA) in Copenhagen, the European Training Foundation (FEF) in Turin, the European Police Office (Europol) in The Hague, the Community Plant Varieties Office (OCVV) in Brussels, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (OEDT) in Lisbon, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal products (EMEA) in London, and the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHMI) in Alicante. Furthermore, the Commission has set up, with the support of the European Parliament and the governments of the member states, a new programme under the title “Multilingual Information Society” (MIS). The programme is to run for three years with a budget of 15 million ECU, and aims, amongst other things, “to make available tools for multilingual information products via on-line networks” (“Mitteilungsblatt für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer” 2/1997: 27). Recently the EU has launched a “European Translation Platform”, in which CIUTI (the international organization of the university schools of translation and interpreting) is represented. The guiding principle underlying the EU’s initiative is that “the whole of Europe`s cultural future depends on establishing a dynamic, thrusting and structured translation industry” (“Language International” 7/3 (1995), 14).

THE

PERIOD

1945-1990

55

Originally the EU, then called the “European Economic Community” (EEC), consisted of six countries: Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Today there are fifteen members, the original six having been joined by Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It is only a matter of time before others (from South East and Eastern Europe) join. The enlargement of the EU has had far-reaching linguistic consequences. The number of languages, originally four (Dutch, French, German and Italian), which produced twelve language combinations, has now increased to eleven, not counting Irish and the numerous regional language variants such as Catalonian, Galician and Basque (of which there are around sixty; Born 1994; Arntz 1995; Hinderling/Eichinger 1996) with 110 possible combinations. No-one knows how many there will be in the future. If the EU authorities are to maintain their present ideology concerning official languages, they will be faced with growing organizational and financial problems, some of which actually began to emerge as long ago as the 1970s (see the “Economist” article “Gift of too many tongues” of 12 July 1978: 36f). In order to prevent a major collapse in communication, the EU has taken a series of steps: The principle of multilingualism is valid only in a limited sense in actual practice. Internally, the EU has agreed on two working languages, English and French (whereby English has been constantly gaining ground). All other languages, including German, are of minor significance within the EU. The domination of English and French is clearly shown by the fact that all selection procedures (job advertisements) stipulate one of these two languages. This selective practice, which amounts to a twoclass system, is an uncertain business. It can only function as long as the member states whose languages have been “demoted” are prepared to accept, however reluctantly, this slimline policy and do not allow rivalries to emerge. Especially in interpreting work, the EU is increasingly resorting to freelancers (Chapter 6. 3) who are called upon only when required, e.g. at times when large numbers of meetings are taking place or when unusual language combinations such as Finnish/Portuguese are required. However, freelancers can only be employed for a few days each month, since they are expensive to employ. Renée van Hoof, former director of the conference interpreting service (Chapter 6. 3), has suggested an asym-

56

-

-

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN metrical procedure which has been the subject of some heated debate, at least in the European Parliament (Patterson 1981). The procedure, known in the EU as “eleven in; two out”, aims to simplify the principle of multilingualism: each EU delegate may use his/her own language, but interpreting would be provided only in two languages (clearly English and French, although van Hoof does not say so explicitly). As far as I am aware, no decision has yet been taken on this matter, and would, anyway, not be possible without changes to the present rule of procedure. One way out of this dilemma would be “relay” interpreting, especially for the so-called “lesser used languages”. A text in language A (e.g. Finnish) is interpreted into language B (e.g. English or French) and from language B into language C (e.g. Portuguese). There are, however, risks in cognitive and sociocultural terms with such a procedure. It is worth mentioning the Swiss writer Urs Widmer in this context: he wrote a text based on the game “Chinese Whispers” for successive translation into several languages: from German - through Spanish - Chinese - English - Russian French - and back into German - whereby the most astonishing transformations took place (“Zeit Magazin”, 19 May 1995: 12-19). So that it can use its interpreters as flexibly as possible, the EU now requires its applicants to have a knowledge of at least four languages (their native language and three others). For example, a job description from the European Court of Justice, published in the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” (“FAZ”) on 26 October 1996, states under the section “Special requirements for the selection process”: Languages: a perfect knowledge of German, English or French and a thorough knowledge of at least three further official languages of the European Communities, including Finnish.

-

The same applies for translators: “It is expected of all permanent translator staff that they are eventually able to translate out of at least three languages (there is — virtually — no maximum number)” (Christa Schroer, European Parliament, Luxembourg. See Dollerup 1996: 303). There are, however, compensations: the EU offers further training “on the spot” in EU languages, which is complemented by stays abroad in the relevant countries. Not all texts are translated from all languages into all other languages. Nor are original texts written in all languages. This means — and this was already practised at the League of Nations (Chapter 3. 2) — that non-

THE

-

PERIOD

1945-1990

57

native speakers write texts in English or French, with all the implications this has for the quality of the often complex texts (and for the work of the translation services, which are constantly subject to time pressure). For all translators, so-called “integrated workstations” with appropriate high-tech equipment are to be created (“workbenches”; Chapter 7. 9). These are currently being tested. “Translation memories” (Chapter 7. 9) are being developed, which allow all documents with recurring text segments and all administrative documents to be standardized as far as possible in accordance with certain patterns (standard configurations), thus accelerating the handling of translation work. The amount of “telework” (Chapter 8. 2) is also to be increased, i.e. the use of freelance translators. There is no possibility for translators to influence or even comment on the form of the texts they work with, even though the original texts (which, as mentioned above, are frequently produced by non-native speakers) are often far from perfect. In a few especially notable cases translators have managed to refuse to translate unacceptable texts.

4.3 Esperanto In view of the difficulties outlined above, it is worth asking why the EU has never seriously considered (at least to my knowledge) introducing the use of an international auxiliary language to solve its problems in communication. This would lead to a situation of linguistic equality which would serve to neutralize the “home advantage” of English and French speakers (and bilinguals). There are, after all, a large number of such languages. The best-known is “Esperanto” (mentioned by Brackeniers; see above), which was called an “internacia lingvo” by its inventor, the Polish ophthalmologist Ludwig Zamenhof. This language has the considerable advantage of logical structure and simple, universally applicable rules; it is (allegedly) easy to learn and is free of any form of linguistic imperialism based on an existing natural language. That Esperanto has never been able to establish itself (Hitler and Stalin prohibited its use) is mainly due to the fact that native languages are regarded all over the world as the carrier and mediator of the “experiential world”. “Every language, including Yanomami, is the most important language of the world —

58

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

to its speakers” (Weber 1997: 12). For this reason, people see the use of an artificial auxiliary language as an attack on their mother tongue. Without wishing to descend into linguistic chauvinism, it is possible to claim that language users can only express themselves fully in their own language. For a nation to be forced to give up its native language is the worst thing that can possibly happen to it, since this also means losing its past and its future. Every single translation from a native language into a foreign language (with the exception of internationally established standard forms of communication) demonstrates what it means to have to use a foreign language. Man’s strong bond with his own language means that the individual linguistic/cultural communities — whether they are EU members or not — instinctively reject a means of communication that is a test-tube language, whose intellectual attraction (and aesthetic brittleness) lies in its lack of grammatical and lexical (morphological) complexity. A lack of complexity, however, is obviously no guarantee of international popularity. For all its theoretical attractions, Esperanto has the distinct disadvantage that it is has not grown naturally, but is an invented language similar to the artificial languages of mathematics, chemistry, physics and, most recently, computer science, all of which represent an extract from scientific reality but have nothing to do with the everyday universe of discourse. Even international linguistic legislation, something which is highly improbable, would not establish Esperanto as a “Eurolanguage”. Or, if it did, Esperanto would fragment, as English has done, into a variety of Esperanto dialects under the influence of the individual native languages. One is reminded here of the eighteenth-century German thinker Johann Georg Hamann, who wrote in typical style in his “Sokratische Denkwürdigkeiten” (Socratic memorabilia): Words (of a native language; W. W.) have their value, like numbers, by virtue of where they stand, and the concepts which attach to them are changeable in their definitions and relations, just as coins change in accordance with time and place ... Moreover, each sentence, even if it emanates from a single mouth and heart, suffers an infinite number of secondary meanings given to it by the individual receiving it, just as rays of light form one or another colour depending on the surface from which they are reflected into our eye. (1950: 71f.)

If one compares the linguistic situation of the EU with that of the founding fathers of the American constitution, it becomes clear just how much more complex its task is than that facing its American counterparts 200 years ago. At that time everyone was able to speak to everyone else because

THE

PERIOD

1945-1990

59

English, without any conscious political pressure, was the means of communication which all could understand and which all could speak, at least to some extent. This meant that there was no danger of a polyglot parliament in which the individual members displayed at least as many differences and conflicts of interest as they did common ground. Esperanto (whose development can be traced in the Esperanto Museum in Vienna) has no serious chance as a language of international communication for another reason, too: it is largely based on Latin, and the role of Latin as the language of the European churches, bureaucracies and universities has long been a thing of the past. Furthermore, Esperanto has to compete with English, which, as will be seen below, is well on the way to becoming the new language of international communication. For this reason, the motivation for people to learn English is significantly greater than that for learning Esperanto, despite the Esperantists’ constant references to Esperanto’s unique role as a “language of peace”. The “Follow me” radio programme remains the most successful series the BBC has ever produced. In China alone, 100 million people have learned English with its help. Within three months of its publication, millions of copies of the course book “Follow me” had been sold in Germany and Spain (“US News and World Report”, 18 February 1985: 52). As a scientist, businessman, or tourist one is lost today without English, and everyone is aware that English is completely dominant in international travel, in showbusiness, in the world of sport, in sea and air travel, and, last but not least, in the technologies of modern communication, e.g. satellite television and the Internet. There is also no significant Esperanto culture in the same way as there is an “American way of life”. Unless one is very much mistaken, Esperanto has no serious chance of becoming the world’s “first foreign language”.

4.4 English as the new language of international communication The reasons for the rise of English as the new language of international communication are explored by Crystal in his highly readable book “English as a Global Language” (1997) from three different points of view: “what makes a world language?”, “why is English the leading candidate?”, and “will it continue to hold its position?”. In the present context two aspects of the issue are especially important:

60 1.

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

From the mid-nineteenth century onwards England enjoyed an economic supremacy in Europe which lasted until the end of the Second World War and was due to its role as a globally represented colonial power. This position still has consequences today. For example, in Hong Kong there is an “Official Languages Agency” employing some 500 translators whose sole task is to translate from English into Chinese (Cantonese). This situation has not changed despite the handover of Hong Kong to China on 1 July 1997 (written communication from the director of the agency). 2. Perhaps even more important for the development of English as a global language was the so-called “transoceanic leap”. Until 1582, English was spoken only in England, but by 1607 it had already established itself as the most common means of communication in Virginia, and gradually spread to cover the entire continent of North America. In the twentieth century, the USA became the world’s leading political, military, economic and scientific-technological power and established the dollar as the major reserve currency. As early as 1898 Bismarck, shortly before his death, summed up the Anglo-American concentration of power. When asked by a journalist what he considered to be the most decisive factor in modern history, he replied prophetically: “The fact that the North Americans speak English”. Today, some 345 million people use English as their first language, while around 400 million people in 75 countries use it more or less consistently as a subsidiary language. The numbers given do, however, vary (see the fascinating report by Weber 1997). In addition to these countries, there are those on the continent of Europe “where learning English has become as much the proper prelude to a professional career as learning to play the piano was for a Jane Austen heroine” (“Economist”, 21 December 1996: 45; see also Ammon 1974). Nevertheless, only every second European student has a good command of English (Müßig-Trapp/Schnitzer 1997). In the global constellation of world languages (the subject of the 1991 World Language Conference in Amsterdam) English has the role of a “supercentral language” (“Language International” 3/6 (1991), 17). The Education Council in the Swiss canton of Zurich intends to make English a compulsory subject for pupils from the seventh school year on, starting in 1999, even though this may well serve to promote the advance of English in everyday life, in the media, and in the world of work (Marco Baschera in an article in the “Neue

THE

PERIOD

1945-1990

61

Zürcher Zeitung” (“NZZ”) of 11/12 October 1997, 37: “Wieviel Englisch erträgt die Schweiz?” (How much English can Switzerland take?); see also the “NZZ” of 14 May 1998: 51: “Das Sprachen-Laboratorium Schweiz” (Switzerland — a language laboratory); no author). In France, on the other hand, the ministry of education has allegedly given up its programme “Early English for All” (banalisation de l’anglais) (“FAZ”, 28 January 1998: 8). Of course, English speakers have every reason to be pleased that they hardly need to learn foreign languages, thanks to the role of English as a “megalanguage”. This gives native speakers of English a decisive advantage all over the world (just as the Americans, English and French enjoyed an advantage over other members at the League of Nations between 1919-1945, due to the bilingual situation there). But there is another side to this coin, as Carl Mills, professor of English at the University of Cincinatti, points out: It will be the first time in the history of the world that the language is not ours any more. If a language is no longer the property of the native speakers, it will change, and it’s not clear what the consequences will be. (Quoted from “Economist”, 21 December 1996: 46)

Gert Raeithel makes virtually the same point when he writes: There is not just one English language, but several. Apart from English English there are dozens of forms in Great Britain, in the former British colonies, in Asia, Africa, America and the Pacific, which have drifted apart from school English, and which have very little in common with it any more. In the Commonwealth countries some shopkeepers hang a sign in their window containing an astonishing message: “Most Englishes are understood”. (“Süddeutsche Zeitung” (“SZ”), 5/6 July 1997: III)

According to Crystal, nothing will be able to challenge the status of English as the global language in the (foreseeable) future: For the immediate future, it is difficult to foresee any developments which could seriously reduce the stature of English on the information superhighway. The biggest potential setback to English as a global language, it has been said with more than a little irony, would have taken place a generation ago — if Bill Gates had grown up speaking Chinese.(1997: 112)

Within the EU, the advance of English in the European Council, for example, is clear for all to see. English has recently overtaken French: 45% of all texts from the European Council are in English, 39% in French (and 1% in German!). This means that the English section of the language service has less to do than its French counterpart. The German section is the busiest by far, since

62

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

virtually all texts from the Council have to be translated from English or French into German.

4.5 German versus English In Germany today, English is fully established as the medium of communication in science, technology, the media, and advertising (“If you write in German, you get read in Germany, but nowhere else”). Just how far English is accepted as the language of science in Germany, and the kind of consequences this can have for German as an internationally recognized language of science, is shown by the fact that the “Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker” (German Society of Chemists) decided, in the summer of 1994, to admit only contributions in English to its two long-standing journals, “Liebigs Annalen” (Liebig’s Annals)and “Chemische Berichte” (Chemical Reports). A further illustration of this trend is provided by a reader’s letter from Peter Uetz, who works at the European Laboratory for Molecular Biology at the University of Heidelberg, bearing the ironic title “Doktor Deutsch” (Doctor German): As the only German in my research group, I applied to my university, the University of Heidelberg, for permission to write my doctorate in English. My application was refused. This means that very few people working in my field can actually read the results of my four-year research project. The German university authorities should not be surprised that foreign scholars do not wish to work at German institutes if communication between researchers from different countries is made so difficult here. The consistent use of English as the language of scientific research might not be attractive to some language patriots, but it is the very precondition for Germany’s status as a country in which academic interchange can take place. (“Die Zeit”, 11 April 1997: 62; see also the interview with Peter Uetz in the “SZ” of 17/19 May 1997 entitled “Warum darf man Doktorarbeiten nicht auf englisch schreiben, Herr Uetz?” (Why are we not allowed to write doctorates in English, Mr Uetz?). In Saarbrücken, incidentally, one may submit doctoral and postdoctoral theses in foreign languages, provided that examiners are available)

One may lament or criticize the increasing Anglicization of German scientific language, in the same way as the “Times” once smirked at the “linguistic submissiveness” of the Germans. The facts, however, cannot be altered, and are evident everywhere. Whereas German is gaining ground as a (regional) medium of communication in Eastern Europe, it is losing ground in Western Europe: “The Dutch just cannot imagine that there are foreign

THE

PERIOD

1945-1990

63

languages other than English” (Gerard Westhoff, president of the International German Teachers’ Association, speaking at the 1997 Amsterdam conference). Or take the report in the “SZ” of 26/27 April 1997: 29: 13 German institutions of higher education (four colleges and nine universities) are soon to launch bilingual study programmes in German/English in economic science, mathematics, physics, information technology, electrical engineering, engineering and agricultural science, and chemical engineering (see also “The Jerome Quarterly” 13/1 (1998)). Such an idea would be completely unthinkable at English universities. Anyone reading the German press is bombarded with countless Americanisms (Anglicisms are less common): this is not just a recent development, but has been observable since the end of the Second World War (Chapter 3. 1). The Americanization of contemporary German has now reached the point where English words are preferred even where perfectly appropriate German words are available (“Info Hotline” for “Kundentelefon”). “Any fool can learn Neudeutsch” (“Economist”: “Neudeutsch über alles”; 26 October 1996). A further recent example is the German verb “implementieren” (not included in the “Duden Universal-Wörterbuch A-Z” 21989), which has been imported from English. Within a short space of time the word has become very popular in academic German, and is now wellestablished in “Denglish” or “Germish”, as such linguistic contaminations are called. This trend, which has been called “language betrayal” (Kramer 1990: 16), has been much boosted by the fact that modern German culture is very US-oriented and shows marked conformist tendencies. It is supported by the fact that 90% of all foreign language teaching in Germany is devoted to English. The export sector has also grown to accept the principle of GermanEnglish bilingualism. At the Bayer chemical company in Leverkusen, English enjoys the status of a second “company language” on a par with German, and a similar trend towards a “dual language culture” (Lockwood et al. 1995: 23) is evident within other major German companies such as Hoechst, BASF, Siemens and VW. A knowledge of foreign languages (and cultures) is automatically expected of all staff sent to work abroad, since they must be able to negotiate in the relevant language. The teaching of linguistic negotiating skills, which require considerable competence in the foreign language/culture, is undertaken by internal company foreign language centres, which have become serious competition for the in-company language services. Anyone familiar with the procedures of international conferences will be

64

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

aware that English is by far the most frequently used conference language. To give just one example: the Bandung Conference of 1955, in which delegates from 29 African and Asian states took part, was conducted exclusively in English, not out of affection for the USA or Great Britain, but simply because English was the only language in which all the delegates could communicate. For German conference participants, the use of English is often a serious handicap. Although they are able to present their papers in acceptable English — especially when their texts have been rendered into English by qualified translators — they frequently encounter difficulties, and fail to do themselves justice, in the subsequent discussion if no interpreters are present. This is not due to an inadequate knowledge of specialist terminology, which (above all in computer science) is heavily interspersed with English terms, but above all to an insufficient command of specialist English idiomatic forms, especially those typical of conferences. To alleviate such problems the “Stifterverband für die deutsche Wirtschaft”, an association of business managers based in Bonn, has prepared a language course under the title “English for International Conferences” in conjunction with the Vieweg publishing company. The course was developed by the “Institut für Lernsysteme” (Institute for Learning Systems), Vieweg, Wiesbaden (Kreuser 1979). The course aims to give conference participants the knowledge they need to speak an English appropriate to the situation in question. Naturally, the emphasis is on the spoken language, and the course contains four units: “Travelling”, “Making Social Contacts”, “Conference A, Plenary Session”, and “Conference B, Working Groups”. This course was obviously launched at just the right time. According to Kreuser, the German “Bund-Länder-Kommission für Bildungsplanung und Forschungsförderung” (commission for educational planning and the promotion of research) opted for English as the conference language on the occasion of an Anglo-German specialist congress at the end of 1978. It did so purportedly to save the costs of employing interpreters, which was welcome from the point of view of the German taxpayer, though less so from that of the professional interpreter. Since that time, many conferences have been held in Germany with English as the first or only conference language. Whether the abandonment of German in favour of English is ultimately necessary or desirable is, of course, quite a different matter. Negative examples can also be cited: at the international “Coling (“Computational Linguistics”) Conference”

THE

PERIOD

1945-1990

65

held at the University of Bonn in 1986, the then Rector of the university felt no embarrassment in welcoming the delegates, more than half of whom were German, in English. And at the European Conference of University Rectors held in Dresden in 1997, academics from Eastern Europe and the Baltic states actually had to encourage the German participants to speak German. Such behaviour would be unthinkable in other countries, for example in France (see below, Chapter 4.6), and suggests that mother tongue consciousness in Germany is not highly developed. Even institutions charged with the promotion of the German language are not free of opportunistic thinking. How else could it be possible that I was asked by the Goethe Institut, a German cultural organization, to hold a lecture in the Near East in English, or that the “Deutsche Welle” international radio station broadcasts hours of information about Germany each day in English. It is, furthermore, hardly possible to assess at this stage what damage the unspeakable German spelling reform will have on the position of German in the EU, and above all in Brussels. The relative insignificance of German within the EU is largely due to the indifference of the German government. It contrasts starkly with the linguistic chauvinism of the French. The former EU President Jaques Delors, for example, allegedly refused to allow German EU officials to use German during negotiations with the Eastern European countries. Only French was admitted, and the Germans accepted this without question.

4.6 French versus English France is trying to erect a “continental blockade” against English, and thus strengthen the position of French as a world language, by introducing strict legislation on the use of language (the Toubon law). That English is the principal vehicle of international communication in the world today appears to be generally accepted by all — by all, that is, except le monde francophone. France is by no means ready to surrender what she considers to be the rightful and natural pre-eminence of the French language in the world, least of all in Europe. (Denison 1970: 1)

Under the Toubon law, the use of French is compulsory in spoken and printed advertising. The same applies to official communications and instructions for use. International conventions may only be held in France if the use of French in lectures and discussions is also permitted. All conference speeches held in

66

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

other languages must be accompanied by (at least) a summary in French. If these rules are not observed, fines of up to 50,000 francs may be imposed. Whether the Toubon law will actually have any effect is an open question in view of the “normative power of the actual situation”. Especially those French speakers who work professionally with language, e.g. journalists, advertising experts, writers, etc., are very sceptical, and regard the laws on the protection of French as something of a joke. After all, as early as 1975 a law to protect the French language against the infiltration of English was passed, with the aim of defending the “language of freedom” against the base “commercial English”, though with little success. The failure is partly due to the decline in the world’s French-speaking population, which is now estimated at around 150 million. The French are so worried about the international status of their language that, at the Francophone Summit in Hanoi in November 1997, President Chirac declared the promotion of French to be a very high priority. A number of facts confirm that French is in need of official support. Writing in the “FAZ” magazine section on 18 April 1997, Johannes Gross points out that the French bookshop on the Kurfürstendamm in Berlin has had to close down due to lack of interest; that the Algerians are in the process of abolishing French as a compulsory language; that the governing classes in Rwanda and Vietnam now speak better English than French. In Switzerland the question has recently been discussed — somewhat populistically — of whether English is becoming the major means of communication between the Swiss people. And the “SZ” of 7 July 1997: 2 reports in an article entitled “German-Franglais” that German and French military personnel are now using English to discuss their joint Tiger battle helicopter programme, since (translators and interpreters will not take kindly to this) this can save 10 million francs on translation costs. At the end of his book, Crystal comments somewhat ironically on this development: In 500 years’ time, will it be the case that everyone will automatically be introduced to English as soon as they are born (or, by then, very likely, as soon as they are conceived)? If this is part of a rich multilingual experience for our future newborns, this can only be a good thing. If it is by then the only language left to be learned, it will have been the greatest intellectual disaster that the planet has ever known. (1997: 139)

The enlargement of the EU towards the north also threatens to undermine the position of French. French is, of course, not under fire as the preferred

THE

PERIOD

1945-1990

67

language in the EU. However, the French have been somewhat unsettled by the fact that none other than their former secretary of state in the French ministry of education, Pelletier, proposed a regulation as long ago as 1979 which would have given English such priority at higher schools that the other major European languages would no longer have had any chance. As was to be expected, public reaction at the time, as can be seen from the pages of the influential newspaper “Le Monde”, was negative. However, the mere fact that such ideas were aired at all — arguing that it is better to learn one language properly than none at all — in a country which so vigorously defends its linguistic interests (e.g. in UNESCO) is symptomatic of the role of English as the new global language. Even if one is not prepared to go as far as the congress of the Franco-German Youth Organization did in Berlin in 1973 when it declared that English should no longer be regarded as a foreign language (“The monolinguals of today are the illiterates of tomorrow”, “SZ”, 25 March 1973: VIII), the world role of English does have significant consequences for the training of translators and interpreters. It no longer seems possible to advise students to take English as their first or second language: instead, they should choose a different combination of languages and study English as a third language on the basis of the knowledge they acquired at school. In general, students should be mindful of a dictum from Rousseau, which is not so well-known in England: “Il n’y a que des Européens”. Part of our self-perception as Europeans must be, beyond all efforts towards linguistic domination, “Europhonie” (Harald Weinrich), i.e. a language policy which is not based purely on the cost-effective formula “native language + English” or “native language + French”.

4.7 Intranational multilingualism: Switzerland The political and linguistic position of Switzerland is somewhat unique in Europe, and a strong egotism has always been characteristic of the Swiss mentality. According to Hauck, this special role, which is now actually beginning to weaken, has two causes: Switzerland is a nation based on free will. The cantons which make up the state joined the confederation over a number of centuries voluntarily and out of self-interest. Unlike other modern nations, Switzerland does not derive its political legitimacy from a common language, history, culture, or ethnic

68

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN origin. In Switzerland, four language communities, all belonging to different cultures, co-exist in peace. (1993: 147)

The four languages spoken in Switzerland are German, French, Italian and Rhaeto-Romanic (Rumantsch Grischun), which itself is fragmented into five dialects. The operation of a multilingual system in Switzerland is complex, above all in the field of the law, but the Swiss “Bundesrat” (Federal Council) is determined to retain it any cost, if only because Swiss “Europhonie” favours the long-standing assimilation of Swiss law to EU law, a process which in Switzerland goes under the apparently rather harmless title of “autonomer Nachvollzug” (“autonomous take-over”). Despite the principle of quadrilingualism in Switzerland, the individual languages do vary in terms of their significance. This is hardly surprising, since the speakers of Rhaeto-Romanic constitute less than 1% of the total population. On principle, the Swiss “Bundesverwaltung” (Federal Administration) only accepts draft laws (draft decrees) in German and French. It considers those in Italian and Rhaeto-Romanic only in exceptional cases, i.e. where the interests of the Italian- or Rhaeto-Romanic-speaking cantons are directly affected. This lack of consistency is the result of linguistic pragmatism. It is tolerable where there is a mutual trust that is nurtured by constant efforts towards improvement. If Switzerland can teach Europe something about languages, then it is perhaps this: one must always attend to the wishes and needs of linguistic minorities, and one must always have the courage to try new paths in the question of languages. Linguistic peace has not been bestowed upon us by fortunate circumstances, it is not a gift — we have to work for it all the time. (Hauck 1993: 162)

Pursuant to the directive on translating issued by the Bundesverwaltung on 19 July 1995, four instances are responsible for translations on behalf of the Bundesverwaltung in the language pairs German-French, German-Italian, French-German, and Italian-German: 1. The central language services of the “Bundeskanzlei” (Federal Chancellery); 2. The language services and translators’ groups in the departements; 3. Administrative officers of the public authorities; 4. External translators. The above-mentioned directive sets out the duties of translators in the Bundesverwaltung. It ensures

THE

PERIOD

1945-1990

69

that the population has access to all official publications and other important texts in the official languages; that the citizens of the country can communicate with federal authorities in the official language of their choice; that members of staff working for the Bundesverwaltung can do so in the official language of their choice.

It is regarded as especially important that the original texts (some 90% of which are in German) and the translations made of them are available simultaneously. This requires excellent coordination, since “Translation takes time”, as the official manual “Translation, Editing and Terminology” points out: there is no room for compromise. Texts which are to be dealt with by the Bundesrat (Federal Council) “must reach the Bundeskanzlei (i.e. the central language services; W. W.) three weeks before the relevant session of the Bundesrat, so that revisions can be made to the original and the translation”. The trademark of the language services of the Bundeskanzlei is the mutual confidence both sides have in each other. This is seen in the fact that the language services do not just carry out the translation, but also have a coeditorial influence on the legislation, which gives them a say in the final form of the draft laws. The manual comments: By editing one usually means the checking of an original text for linguistic accuracy. By co-editing one means the simultaneous checking by lawyers and linguists of texts prepared in different languages (in the practice of the federal administration in German and French) for their stylistic equivalence, with a special view to multilingualism. Co-editing presupposes the existence of texts in different languages. Revision, finally, is the stylistic checking of a translation against the original.

The highest priority for all laws passed by the Bundesrat is comprehensibility. In order to ensure this, an interdisciplinary and interdepartmental commission has been set up, composed of members of the chancellery’s language services and the “Bundesamt für Justiz” (Federal Office of Justice). The task of the commission is to ensure that decrees can be understood by the citizens: “It attends to a logical and comprehensible structure, simple and easy style, and linguistic accuracy.” In addition to this, according to the directive on translating in the general Bundesverwaltung, the commission has the following brief: It works out principles for the format of the manuals for translators and for others who are regularly entrusted with translation work. It applies for equipment needed by translators in their work. It seeks to guarantee acceptable working conditions for translators. It establishes the training needs of

70

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN translators and works out schemes for such training. It ensures an active exchange of experience and information between the translators.

One might expect that the conditions described above would inspire the translators in their work and that they would take advantage of the opportunities for self-development provided to them: they are, after all, hardly typical in other countries. However, this is not entirely the case. Even in Switzerland translation is widely seen as a necessary chore, something purely technical and quantitative, and many translators are consequently “dissatisfied with themselves and the world” (Hauck 1993: 157). Here we are faced with an intellectual problem about which more will be said below (Chapter 6. 12).

CHAPTER 5

Professional fields

5.1 Professionalization As mentioned above, the end of the Second World War brought with it a new multilingual age in language mediation. From modest and rather confused beginnings, a “big business” has now developed. Today this business employs thousands of translators, interpreters and terminologists. Störig writes: I wonder how many people in the world today are actually busy translating at any particular time? Literary translators, who struggle with original masterpieces in the tranquillity of their modest study, are certainly the exception. Translation work is carried out in the news industry, in international agencies, broadcasting stations; in consulates, embassies and government departments; in international organizations and at international conferences; in customs and immigration offices; in all companies involved in imports and exports; in countless military offices, be they those of the intelligence services or the international alliances; in film studios; in international transport. Everyone who sees a foreign title or tries to read a foreign newspaper or book is translating. So, too, are all those who listen to a foreign radio programme, or who travel abroad to go shopping, to study, to work or just for pleasure ... (1963: XII; all semi-colons in original; see also Richard Mönnig, “Wo wird was übersetzt?” (What is translated where?), “Die Zeit”, 1 October 1994: 22)

The face of interpreting has also changed since 1945: Learning languages has little effect on the demand for interpretation. Since the 1960s, despite the growth in language learning, the number of workdays for interpretation has grown exponentially (“Language International” 9/1 (1997), 43; see the study by Feldweg (1995) for a more detailed discussion of this subject).

Parallel to the development of an international information culture, there have been countless efforts to professionalize the status of translators and interpreters, i.e. to make translators and interpreters “professionals” who carry out their work with the necessary degree of expertise, self-confidence and

72

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

conviction. A decisive impulse for these efforts has been provided by the fact that we live today in the age of professionalization, on which Schelsky writes: By “professionalization” we mean that today all forms of achievement in society take place under the auspices of a “profession”, or that only the model of a “profession” can give sense to all the truly significant activities carried out in our society. (1972: 29)

In lexicographical terms, the notions of “professionalism” and “professionalization” can be traced as follows in German and English: The German dictionaries by Wehrle/Eggers (1961) and Paul (1967) contain no such entry. In Wahrig (1968/71) at least the German word “professionell” is recorded (from French “professionel”), as is the English loan word “Professional” for a professional sportsperson. Both terms are included in the 1989 Duden-Wörterbuch, accompanied by the rather unhelpful paraphrases “das Professionalisieren” and “das Professionellsein”. In representative English dictionaries (e.g. Funk & Wagnalls 1963 and Chambers 1977), we find “professionalism” = “The practice of some professions as a business” and “professionalise, -ize” = “to give a professional character to: to give over to professionals” and “professionalism” = “the competence, or the correct demeanour, of those who are highly trained and disciplined”. In the Langenscheidt English-German dictionary, volume N-Z (1963) we find “professionalism” = “Berufssportlertum, -spielertum. Professionalismus”. The Oxford/Duden dictionary (1990) gives, in its English-German section, (alongside “professional”) “professionalism” =”fachmännische Ausführung, fachliche Qualifikation, technisches Können, professionelle Einstellung etc.” In the German-English section, surprisingly, we read “Profession” with the note (“Austrian, otherwise archaic”) = “occupation” and “Professionalismus” = “professionalism”. Neubert/Gröger, in their “Großes Handwörterbuch Englisch-Deutsch” (1991) have entries for “profession”, “professional” and “professionalism”, the latter being given as “Fachkenntnisse, Routiniertheit (Sport), Berufsspielertum, Professionalismus (Sport) euphem Anwendung von Tricks, Mätzchen”. Other useful examples (in context) would no doubt be found in the specialist literature on the world of work. Attempts to give the activity of translating and interpreting a “professional image” have been only moderately successful. The problem of perception is as acute today as it has ever been, as is shown by such seminar titles as “The Professionalization of the Profession” (the subject of a SATI and FIT conference held in Pretoria in June 1997. SATI Bulletin 2/1997: 5). The main

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

73

reason is clear: the professionalization of the profession is hampered by widespread dilettantism. Among the general public the view is still widely held that translation can be done by anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of a foreign language and access to a decent bilingual (not monolingual!) dictionary. Another view is equally commonplace, namely that the ability to translate (but not to interpret) is a natural gift, rather like the gift for learning foreign languages, which is seen as part of the basic mental equipment of the individual. Such views are undoubtedly encouraged by the phenomenon of socalled “natural translation”, which can be observed in people who have grown up in a bilingual or multilingual environment and thus automatically learn from a very early age to express themselves in more than one language. The non-specialist public does not even notice (let alone consider) the way in which translators and interpreters behave in their work, how a text affects them and how they affect texts, nor what factors — linguistic, extralinguistic, situative and text-type specific — are decisive in the activity of translation (Chapter 6. 12). It is difficult to develop plausible criteria of professionalism for the notion of language mediation, an activity so firmly anchored in everyday life. We can really only say that it is an activity directed towards both a source text (the text-to-be-translated) and the receiver of the target text (the receiver of the translation), an activity which is determined by a function, is carried out in a conscious, planned and controlled manner, and aims to allow communication between members of different linguistic and cultural communities. The precondition for effective language mediation is a set of concepts and methods which constitute operative knowledge and give the translator/interpreter at least a basic sense of security. More will need to be said about this subject below. The following phenomena have been particularly significant in the world of language mediation since 1945: 1. The rapid spread of interpreting, especially in its simultaneous form (including “videoconferencing”) and as “community interpreting” (Chapter 1. 2. 2); 2. Literary translation; 3. The role of specialist translation; 4. The rise of terminology work.

74

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

The main features of each area are discussed below, since a clear understanding of the contents and methods of these fields is essential for anyone who claims to be “professional” in his/her work.

5.2 Interpreting Multilingual interpreting really got underway at the 1945 San Francisco World Conference, at which the UN charter was adopted. The principle of bilingualism (two official languages; Chapter 3.1) which had been operative on the political stage of the League of Nations could no longer be sustained, mainly due to the decisive role the Soviet Union had played in the War. The question of whether the Americans actually tried before the Conference to have English adopted as the only conference language could, if at all, only be clarified by looking at the UN archives in New York. However, this issue is ultimately not very important, since the French, in their concern to avoid a second linguistic Waterloo (after 1919) had brought their own interpreters with them by way of a precaution. Other countries, — the Arabian world, China, the Soviet Union, Spain and the Spanish-speaking nations of South America — followed suit. Thus the principle of using six languages at the UN was established, and it is still effective today (at San Francisco, in fact, only four were used, since the Arabian countries and China did not bring interpreters). At the San Francisco Conference, virtually all interpreting was of the consecutive variety. Simultaneous interpreting was rejected there — and, indeed, at later conferences up until around 1950 — for fear of difficulties in understanding and possible technical problems. It is not yet certain whether the UNO will continue to use six official languages. Today, alongside English, there is a fairly large number of other language blocks: Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, Lusitanian (Portuguese), Russian, French, Indonesian, Bengali and Hindi. It is to be expected that the countries of the Third World will seek linguistic recognition as their economic, political and cultural potential develops. It is, however, unlikely that German will belong to these emerging languages, since (as outlined above) German as the medium of German foreign, economic and cultural policy has no real influence in international terms. The international (lack of) status of German is most clearly demonstrated by the fact that German plays no part at all (at least in terms of interpreting) at major multilingual conferences, with

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

75

the exception of the EU. Colonel Léon Dostert, Eisenhower’s interpreter during the Second World War and the man who organized the interpreting at the Nuremberg War Trials, is widely regarded as the pioneer of simultaneous interpreting, though this is only partly true. As was mentioned in Chapter 3. 2. 4, simultaneous interpreting was practised as early as in 1927 at the League of Nations with the aid of an IBM interpreting system. Further milestones in the development of simultaneous interpreting were André Kaminker’s interpretation of Hitler’s speech at the Nazi party conference in 1934 for French radio and the 15th International Congress for Physiology held in Leningrad in 1935, which was the first scientific event at which simultaneous interpreting was provided (albeit on the basis of manuscripts which the interpreters were given in advance: verbal communication from Friedrich Krollmann). The opening speech by Professor Pavlov was interpreted from the original Russian into German, English and French. It is unclear where the specialist interpreters needed for such work came from. We do know, on the other hand, from an interview Ingrid Kurz held with Marie-France Skuncke (an interpreter at the Nuremberg War Trials) where Dostert’s interpreters came from, and what problems they initially encountered at Nuremberg (Kurz 1985). No qualified interpreters were available. Skuncke reports that she had never heard anything about simultaneous interpreting during her studies at the Interpreting Institute in Geneva (founded in 1941), although it was always the declared aim of the institute to train competent interpreters for international diplomatic activities. There was no other choice but to provide in-service training. Skuncke reports: Actually in January 1946, I was put on some translation work with instructions to come to the Court to practice simultaneous interpreting. ... I don’t remember for how long I did that translation work — perhaps for a month or so. It was very good practice. And at the same time we were being trained — not at all systematically, when I think of what we now expect of our students. It was rather haphazard ... There were three teams of 12. And in each team for every booth, say the French booth, there were three interpreters: English into French, Russian into French, German into French. There were four languages — four booths. So this means three times four — 12 for one team during one hearing, i.e. three hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon. When one team was working, another full team of 12 was sitting in a little room behind the Court — called room 606 ... And the interpreters who were sitting there would be taking on the job afterwards, after one and a half hours. Anyway, one team was working, the other one was listening in room 606. (Kurz 1985: 4)

76

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

A more developed form of simultaneous interpreting much discussed recently is so-called “videoconferencing”, on which Kohn et al. have done much work in connection with the “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (“DFG”, the German Research Council) project “Vikis”: Video conferences are a relatively new form of technically transmitted communication designed to cope in a specific way with the huge global increase in communication. The requirements of international companies especially can no longer be met by telephones or fax machines. Conferences at which major decisions are being taken, or negotiations are taking place, or in which more than two people are involved, make visual contact between the interlocutors absolutely essential. However, the traditional means of dealing with such matters, the business trip, has become unacceptable in many cases due to pressure of time and cost. The kind of direct personal contact formerly made on business trips has in recent years increasingly been replaced by technical contact through videoconferencing. (1997: 17)

Little information is available on practical experiences with “videoconferencing” (also known as “remote interpretation”). At the Peking Women’s Conference in September 1995, the UN interpreters remained in New York and communicated with Peking via modem. The result was unsatisfactory, and at least one person for each language should have been present at the conference venue (“The Jerome Quarterly” 11/3 (1996), 1). Singapore is trying out new methods with regard to court interpreting (“Language International” 7/3 (1995), 19). Viaggio has written an excellent article on television interpreting (1998). Alongside “remote interpretation”, “remote translation” has developed. This was first practised on a large scale at the UN Crime Congress held in Cairo from 29 April to 8 May 1995. In the final “Report on an Experiment in Remote Translation, Executive Summary”, Sergio Viaggio writes: Acting on instructions from the Secretary-General to reduce United Nations staff participating in the Ninth Crime Congress, UNOV (United Nations Office at Vienna; W. W.) decided that the most significant reductions could be made by providing all translation services from Vienna. Although remote translation had never before been attempted in the United Nations for a meeting of this size, UNOV felt confident that it had, or could have by the opening of the Congress, the communications and computer technology and the expertise to use it and that complete remote translation would allow UNOV to concentrate staff resources in one place and use them in the most efficient manner. In addition, considerable cost savings could be anticipated ... From a technical point of view, the Congress was considered a complete success: all documents were transmitted intact and on time. The excellent

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

77

communications and cooperation among all parties involved, and the commitment to make remote translation work, were keys to this success. From a financial point of view, savings are estimated at $222,800, of which $178,000 are estimated savings to the host country. (2 June 1995)

5.3 Literary translation In every situation in which translation takes place, the question arises of the relationship between the source text and the translator on the one hand, and between the translator and the target text reader on the other. The text-to-betranslated is the factor which determines the way in which the translator operates. The complexity and dynamism of the translational situation is not, of course, the same for all texts. Some texts, particularly in the sphere of literary translation, are relatively open, and thus open up a number of possibilities for the translator. Others are relatively standardized in terms of their syntax and lexis (for example specialist texts: Sager 1997). The openness of the literary text is not to be seen as a chaos of genius, but is the result of a strategy which creates a fusion between art and craft. Edgar Allan Poe provides an excellent discussion of this in his essay “The Philosophy of Composition” (1846), in which he dissects his own poem “The Raven” detail by detail in order to demonstrate that the rhetorical devices used are not the product of intuition, but are used systematically to achieve the greatest possible poetic effect. All literary translators should read this essay. Literary translation is an “adventure in difference” in as far as translators have to negotiate their source texts with a sure sense of style and yet at the same time without committing themselves to a definite principle which, once adopted, would give them absolute certainty in their decisions. Literary texts are, unlike most other texts, non-situative, without specific function, and thus not as easily paraphrasable as, for example, technical or legal texts. Their often highly developed “multifunctionality” resists the kind of simplistic allocation of functionality (and dependence on instructions) found in much recent literature on translation. (Bartenschlager 1995: 27)

Not all translators view their texts with the same notion of literariness, and the author-translator relationship in literary texts is not symmetrical. In such texts, details of composition do not explain themselves, but require the

78

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

translator to decipher them. Not all translators succeed in doing so to the same degree, since some readers are able to connect words and phrases better than others. Literary translations are always approximations of the original; according to Rilke they are: “Alchemy, the manufacture of gold from other elements”. The translator often moves on very uncertain ground, and is frequently confronted with obstacles which seem insurmountable. “The writer moves from life into language, while the translator moves from language into life” (Michaels 1996: 137). A literary text is not part of an “Erwartungshorizont” (horizon of expectations; Hans-Georg Gadamer) that is shared equally by the two partners in the communication, the source-text author and the translator. Agreement on a literary text, i.e. on the author’s intended meaning, can only be reached by means of subjective “irritation” via a process of hermeneutic understanding: “ ... literary translation is an adventure in diversification” (Frank 1986: 319). Literary texts are often extremely “ruthless” in the sense that they present themselves in ways that obstruct the reader’s easy access to their “message” through thematic and stylistic recalcitrance. They are unpredictable phenomena that can only rarely (except in the case of trivial literature) be reduced to a convenient assemblage of recognizable ideas. Unlike science, which is subject to established methodologies and proves its results with the aid of incontrovertible facts, literature does not proclaim any verifiable (and thus binding) truths. Literature contains its own sense within itself: it insists on its own “specialness” and keeps its distance from the mainstream of quotidian experience. Literary texts are written records of the attempts of their authors to create worlds of their own. They are frequently composed in such a way that translators run aground with their interpretation, are unable to penetrate the plethora of linguistic experiments in the original text, are forced to fill gaps, complete what has been left unsaid or is only hinted at, and even have to read a text “against the grain”. In such cases, translators practise highly subjective decision-making which can no longer be explained in terms of generally accepted logic. Translators of literary texts must always be prepared to suspend their everyday (habitual) understanding of texts and experience, and to think their way into the meanings intended by the original author. High-precision work — that’s what is expected of us. We are to be guided (and this seems quite obvious) by the text on which we are working. The text betrays its own origin: it is not the translation that does this. The text has its

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

79

own tone, and in the translation the same pathos, or elegance, or inconspicuousness, or vulgarity, should be evident. The text has its own syntax, and above all its own rhythm, for which we are to find equivalents in our language. The text deviates from the norms of the “standard language” — and the translation should do this, too. It is from such precautions that high-precision work is produced. (Hanno Helbling, “NZZ” 8/9 November 1997: 49)

Literary texts cannot be captured by the dichotomy of truth and falsehood: the perspective of the translator as interpreter of the text does not necessarily coincide with that of the original author. Goethe’s statement: “the poetic is just as valid as the real” identifies literary texts as complex linguistic events which require “experimental translator behaviour” (Friedmar Apel), since they cannot be approached with standard methods of translation: When a person hears a poem or reads a novel, much more goes on than a transfer of information or knowledge. A thorough analysis of the lexical, syntactic, and semantic structure may be of use to the scholar, but it does not begin to touch upon the issues that are of interest when we look at language as literature. In some cases the issues are ... social. Literature is what it is because it plays a part in an ongoing tradition of a culture. In other ways it is individual, affecting the emotions of the reader or hearer. But the cognitive approach has not had any significant insights to offer along the emotive dimension, and despite some feeble attempts at “computer poetry”, it seems ill suited to the task. (Winograd 1983: 29)

Literary translators are very different from specialist translators. Only rarely are translators active in both fields: the only German example I am aware of is Rudolf Soellner, who earned his keep as a translator for Siemens and his pin-money as a literary translator. The nineteenth-century German writer Heinrich von Kleist confirmed that this dual competence is the exception rather than the rule when he wrote in his fragments: One could divide people into two groups: those who understand metaphors and those who understand formulae. People who understand both are few and far between: they do not constitute a group. (1890: 555)

Literary translators tend to regard themselves as an elite (as do conference interpreters) and to dismiss specialist translators as a professional underclass. They feel supported by the fact that there are numerous prizes and grants for literary translation, but virtually none for specialist translation. However, not everything they translate is elitist: Over the past five or ten years, the work of literary translators has fallen more and more into two distinct categories: very mediocre, even lousy, international

80

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN best-sellers on the one hand, and interesting, but often very difficult literary texts on the other. (Klaus Wagenbach, “NZZ”, 22/23 March 1997: no page number)

They can also point to the fact that they have their own academies: the Germans in Straelen (founded 1978), the French in Arles, the British in Norwich, the Italians in Procida, the Swedes in Visby and the Spanish in Tarazona (“Language International” 1/6 (1995), 28). Recently, the first translation course for foreign translators of Hungarian literature was launched in Balatonfürst (“FAZ”, 17 January 1998: 29). Postgraduate courses in literary translation are offered in Germany at the universities of Düsseldorf (English and French) and Munich (English), but it has so far proved extremely difficult to develop a teaching methodology for literary translation (as it has for literary criticism). Despite the fact that prizes are available, the working conditions of literary translators are poor, not to say wretched, and are far worse than those of specialist translators (Samson-Himmelstjerna 1996). The “NZZ” recently published a detailed review of the financial situation of literary translators under the title: “Die Wasserträger des Weltgeists — Fragen zur Zukunft des literarischen Übersetzens” (Water bearers of the world spirit — questions on the future of literary translation, 22/23 March 1997). The article does not go into the (possibly quite promising) procedure of dual translation by a team, in the form of primary/secondary translation (Rübberdt 1998). Some hope, however, is offered by working sessions between authors and translators of the kind initiated by Günter Grass in collaboration with the German publisher Luchterhand: not least because “this contact, based on mutual trust, serves to boost the notoriously weak self-confidence of the translators” (“NZZ”, 22/23 March 1997; see Chapter 6. 13). The “Deutsche Bertelsmann Stiftung” (German Bertelsmann Foundation), a media group based in Gütersloh, has been running (and funding) a similar scheme since the beginning of the 80s. Based on American creative writing courses, the scheme provides generous support for authors and translators. The need for such a scheme arose because the work of publisher’s readers has become more and more like that of a product manager, leaving little time for contact with young authors and translators ... For some 15 years now, events (8 to 10 seminars a year) have been organized for authors and translators. They have been run by the Foundation in conjunction with authors, translators and representatives of associations. (information pamphlet of the department “Fortbildung im Medienbereich” (Further training in the media sector), Bertelsmann Stiftung, no year: 1f.)

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

81

Sometimes quite unbelievable things happen in the world of literary translation. Paul Ingendaay reports about the Argentinian writer and Nobel Prize winner Jorge Luis Borges: “If anyone asked me about the most important event in my life, I would say my father’s library”. In this library, all the books were in English. According to Ingendaay, Borges even read “Don Quijote” in English, and when he later read the original, he thought he was reading a poor translation” (“FAZ”, 29 November 1997, “Bilder und Zeiten”). Anyone who translates literary texts must proceed with due caution. The kind of arrogance displayed by Wolfgang Kubin, a German translator of Chinese literature, is utterly misplaced: I am not a linguistic tradesman, not an interpreter, nor a mediator: I am a creator. I bring Yang to life in Germany. Without me he would be dead here. (“Zeit Magazin”, 17 October 1997: 18)

Kubin forgot one essential point: without the work of the original author, he would have no outlet for his creative talent.

5.4 Specialist translation Just like literary language, so, too, special languages (or, more precisely, the individual domain-specific special languages) obey their own laws. The need to use conventionalized, more or less pre-structured lexical resources which denote distinct fields of reality minimizes the role of the sender and receiver as subjective agents in the production and reception of specialist texts. By virtue of its restricted mode of expression, which, in an ideal world, would assume the character of a completely formalized, universally intelligible code or artificial language, specialist communication in its various manifestations anticipates an idealized sender-receiver relationship in which the target audience is effectively a group of initiated specialists. Even today, when there is so much talk of “Fachsprachenforschung” (research on specialist texts), the fact remains that it is predominantly in the realm of lexis that the specialist features of such texts are located. (This does not mean, of course, that texts with a low frequency of specialist terms automatically display a lower degree of special language.) Special languages owe their distinctive lexical status to three main factors: Firstly, in the case of special terminology the semantic components of the

82

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

individual terms can be precisely defined and compared both intralingually and interlingually: The semantic comparison of terms belonging to different languages aimed at the eventual determination of equivalence is here called equivalence study. Translation, glossing, merging, analysis, and comparison of a large corpus of field utterances, completed by questioning of specialists, seem inevitably to arrive at results that are sufficiently precise. Two important properties of the term come into prominence in equivalence study. Firstly, being a lexical unit, a term may be constituted by a word or by a lexicalized word-group. That is why equivalence study does not compare individual corresponding words but complex lexical units as a whole ... Secondly, a term is a defined lexical unit, so that if the same form is used in other defined senses, it is considered as homonymous within terminology, and if it is used in undefined senses, it is considered as polysemic and outside terminology. (Kocourek 1972: 190)

Secondly, it is possible for all special languages to build up a bilingual or multilingual inventory of terms which are equivalent (in content and form). In view of its special status for senders and receivers, such an inventory ensures a relatively smooth, economical and interference-free process of specialist communication (e.g. communicable diseases = übertragbare Krankheiten), provided the parties involved in the communication have comparable linguistic and factual knowledge. However, the principle of semantic and formal correspondence is subject to serious restrictions: An important point for scientific translation is that, of all the components of language, technical terminology has the highest probability of one-to-one equivalence in translation. The correspondence is, it should be stressed, by no means complete; but once terminological equivalents are established, they cause relatively little trouble. It is not true, however, that the whole of the language of a scientific text, including its grammar and non-technical lexis, is similarly likely to yield one-to-one equivalents in translation. (Halliday et al. 1965: 129)

Thirdly, the internationalism of research inevitably leads to linguistic internationalisms (Braun et al. 1990; Greule 1994, or at least to an international standardization of terminology. This is reflected in the language-pair English/ German in lexical borrowing: Emprunt: Loan-word formation: Loan meaning: Loan translation:

pattern drill Computerlinguistik diskret (diskrete Merkmale) reinforcement exercises - Verstärkungsübungen

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

83

The lexical conventionalization of special languages is reinforced by means of standard textual strategies in the areas of phraseology and syntax. Thus, specialist texts assume, both intralingually and interlingually, a high degree of syntactic and syntagmatic stereotypicality (exploited by MT in its development of “translation memories”; Chapter 7. 9). The relative consistency and regularity of special-language repertoires means that it is possible to objectify and generalize translation procedures. Specialist translation has spread at breath-taking speed since the end of the Second World War. It is an important factor in specialist communication, which (as mentioned above) is now being investigated from a number of different vantage points: terminological precision, standardization, syntactic complexity, phraseological text-blocks, textual structure, comprehensibility, rhetorical strategies, etc. These phenomena are being looked at in terms of their monolingual, contrastive and translation-relevant interest. The German “Bibliographien fachsprachlicher Untersuchungen” (Bibliographies of studies in special languages), part of the journal “Fachsprache”, show just how extensive such research has become: the bibliographies now contain several thousand titles. The same is true of special language lexicography, which has to come to terms with a large number of increasingly sophisticated special languages in two ways. First, there is the description of objects and their properties; second, there is the description of processes and their characteristics (problems of application and implementation). Nowadays, large disciplines easily reach a million specialist terms (even several million), and even “smaller” areas manage tens of thousands. Specialist communication is proving to be a social problem of the first order, especially where attempts are made to present specialist subjects in an understandable form. Language users who are equipped with an average degree of knowledge are hardly able to fully grasp the causes of the hole in the ozone layer, and there are people who are even unable to understand their electricity bill. Alfred Fettweis, a former professor at the University of Bochum, once demonstrated very graphically how specialist language can achieve results where general language fails. When his university authorities turned down a request for a mirror for his office, he applied instead for a “reflector for electromagnetic waves in the field of visible light” — and was successful (“FAZ Magazin”, 28 February 1997: 6). This anecdote illustrates a phenomenon which is not unknown among specialist translators, the social function (the social implications) of specialist

84

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

communication. In other words, specialist communication always runs the risk of being misunderstood, or of not being understood at all. This may be because the translator or interpreter lacks the prerequisite special knowledge. But there is also, especially in the humanities and the social sciences, the possibility of the deliberate manipulation of texts to the disadvantage of the receiver. When one reads specialist texts, one often wonders whether the author has really done everything possible to ensure that the text is comprehensible, or whether perhaps the author, or a scientific caste (e.g. sociologists) was trying, for whatever reason, to cultivate a “private language”, often called a “jargon” (Wilss 1979), which can end up as a kind of “sociologist’s gobbledegook”. Every expert report confirms the superiority of the expert over the non-expert, and illustrates that the “domination-free, symmetrical discourse” demanded by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas is just an illusion. It is a commonplace today that scientific and technical processes, in the shape of a global “transfer of technology”, are reaching and changing the whole of humanity. The result of this will undoubtedly be that everywhere in the world everything will eventually look the same (despite culture-specific variations), since the needs and values of humanity are becoming more and more similar. The complex question of how technology transfer actually works, and the role technical translation plays in the process, would be worth a book in its own right. Consideration would need to be given to the kind of qualifications the specialist translator requires nowadays in order to survive in the world of high-tech industries, in consulting (between industry and higher education), and in joint ventures. It is clear that those responsible for the training of translators (and interpreters) have not yet fully grasped the implications of technology transfer for the future survival of language mediation as a profession. Technology transfer in Germany actually began in a way which only members of the older generation will remember. After the Second World War the Russians, British and Americans dismantled those German industrial plants which were still in working order. They proceeded in different ways. The Russians took the “hardware”, but could do little with it since, as soon became apparent, they did not have the necessary “software”. They let it fall into disrepair. The British were cleverer: they took both the hardware and the software, although this did not really help either. The Americans had the best strategy of all. They took the hardware, the software and the “manware”

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

85

(personified in the shape of the rocket-scientist Dr Wernher von Braun and his team, including translators) to the United States, and used this “manware” to develop their own rocket technology. One point which deserves mention in this context is the behaviour of American business towards Germany at the beginning of the 1960s. It was based on an early form of globalization (Chapter 7. 2), and operated with the magic word “marketing”, which was completely unknown in Germany at the time. Unlike the Europeans, the Americans recognized that Germany (which was becoming increasingly affluent) was their most important market. The “American way of life” also caught on more quickly in Germany than it did in England or France, as the Americanization (not Anglicization) of the German language shows. The result of this was that American companies set up large numbers of German subsidiaries which did not only aim to supply the American market, but also went in search of new market opportunities. For this they needed young German staff who could speak both German and English, and they consequently adopted a policy which is reminiscent of Cartier’s language strategy (Chapter 1. 1): they took on economics graduates and gave them (without any financial support from German or American government agencies) in-company training in English. These members of staff then helped their companies to analyse German consumer behaviour and adapt their products and services to German needs. Of course, like every other significant technology, rocket technology has developed its own terminology. All domain-specific special languages are group languages which serve to reinforce group identity and to exclude other groups and non-experts. All terminology is a terminology of experts, designed not to clarify the subject matter under discussion, but rather to demonstrate the superior knowledge of the expert in comparison to the non-expert. As is well known, it is not enough to have the necessary knowledge and skills in specialist fields. In order to be taken seriously, and to be acceptable to customers, one must also speak the right language. This explains the central role of terminology work in the training of translators and interpreters today. It is based on the insight that the meaning of a term is not encompassed by a preexisting definition, but arises from the domain-specific context, and that terminology is constantly adapting to meet the needs of a changing scientific and technological reality.

86

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

5.5 Terminology Terminology is a means of communication via specialist language. It implies on the one hand that the sender seeks to steer the expectations of the receiver in a specific way (sender intention), and on the other that the receiver expects the sender to observe certain communicative norms (receiver expectation). It is terminology rather than syntax that makes special language an “ortholanguage” and permits adequate description and explanation of scientific and technical phenomena. Specialist communication can, of course, only succeed if the sender and the receiver have not just a similar knowledge of the subject in question, but also a similar knowledge of the terminology involved. Alternatively, it can succeed if the sender, anticipating an imbalance of knowledge between himself and the receiver, provides the latter with so much help (e.g. in the form of definitions) that the former can grasp the full meaning of what the sender is saying (the “message”) and reconstruct precisely what is meant. As the specific “Koine” (idiom) of a given group, all specialist terminology is limited in terms of the number of people who have access to it. The domainspecific dynamics of specialist text production go hand in hand with a corresponding domain-specific dynamics of specialist text reception. This, in principle, excludes any form of “communicative difference”. At the same time, the intersubjective validity of terminology implies a “de-individualization” of specialist communication which finds its reflection in a convergence of the strategies pursued by the sender and the receiver in a given context and permits, even forces, the semantic and pragmatic dimensions of the text to become identical. So much has been written (a great deal of it more than once) about “terminology” and all its associated disciplinary and interdisciplinary manifestations — the theory of terminology, the teaching of terminology, terminology compilation, standardization of terminology, use of terminology, terminology databases, terminology training (i.e. the training of terminologists) — since the end of the Second World War that it is easy to lose one’s way. One cannot help wondering how experts managed to communicate with each other, intralingually and interlingually, in the days before the terminology wave took hold of humanity. First it should be pointed out that the very concept “terminology” is not as unambiguous as one might expect from a term which in itself implies the disambiguation of linguistic signs. “Terminology” is generally understood to

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

87

have three meanings: 1. Terminology is the term used to denote the vocabulary of a special language and of a specialist discipline (e.g. computer linguistics); 2. Terminology is the study of the concepts and terms used in specialist vocabularies (terminology studies); 3. Terminology is the designation for the methods used in terminology work (KÜWES Terminologie 1990) (KÜWES = “Konferenz der Übersetzungsdienste westeuropäischer Staaten”, Conference of the Language Services of Western European Languages). Terminology can be seen as the overarching term for all activities which have to do with the clarification of “specialist knowledge”. These include: – the working out of terminology (e.g. in research and development); – the establishment of terminology (e.g. in the specialist literature); – the compilation and processing of terminology (e.g. in databases); – the transmission of terminology (e.g. in training courses); – the application of terminology (e.g. in technology and knowledge transfer); – the translation and interpreting of terminology (Galinski/Schmitz 1995: 3f.). Just like specialist translation, terminology is a product of the post-war era. The two fields did not, however, emerge simultaneously. Bilingual and multilingual terminology work developed logically from specialist translation. Whereas the volume of specialist translation had reached significant proportions by 1950 (I am not aware of any written documentation on this matter), systematic, methodologically sophisticated terminology work only arrived later, as the development of terminology databases shows. It was, incidentally, not the universities, but the national and international language agencies that took the initiative here. One area of terminology studies which has a long tradition is terminology standardization, which has two main interests: 1. the standardization of individual subject terminologies, 2. the standardization of terminological principles and methods. The first of these dates back as far as 1906, while the second got underway in 1936, the year in which the “International Federation of National Standardizing Committees” (ISA) formed the working group ISA/TC 37 (TC = Technical Committee). The work of the ISA was, like the Index Translationum, interrupted by the Second World War. The successor to the ISA is the “International Organization for Standardization” (ISO), created in 1946, which

88

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

set up the working group ISO/TC 37 in 1952. This group was not just responsible for the development of specialist terminology, but also for fundamental work in the field (Felber 1979; Budin/Galinski 1993). In the history of terminology work, the year 1971 was something of a landmark. On the basis of an agreement between UNESCO and the “Österreichische Normungsinstitut” (“ON”, the Austrian Institute for Standardization) a clearing office was established under the name INFOTERM to deal with all questions relating to terminology. It was the brainchild of Eugen Wüster, who had published a basic text in the field as early as 1931 under the title “Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik, besonders in der Elektro-technik. Die nationale Sprachnormung und ihre Verallgemeinerung” (International linguistic standardization in technology, especially in electrical engineering. National linguistic standardization and its generalization). Since its foundation, INFOTERM has developed into an internationally recognized documentation centre for terminology work and knowledge engineering. It reports regularly on its activities in “TermNet News”, the “Journal for International Cooperation in Terminology”. INFOTERM’s responsibilities include: – documentation on activities and publications in the field of terminology, – the collection of information on institutions and organizations all over the world concerned with terminology, – advice on setting up and using terminology databases, compiling specialist dictionaries, setting up multilingual information systems, planning and implementing terminology projects, implementing strategies on terminology planning and terminology harmonization as well as on terminology training, – the promotion, organization and coordination of terminological activities and thesaurus projects, – the production of feasiblility and evaluation studies, – the publication of journals, monographs and documents. Efficient, reliable and fast specialist translation is not possible without extensive terminology work. But what should terminology work be concerned with in our “knowledge society”, in which labour is strictly divided? There is no such thing as an “average amount of terminological knowledge” relevant for the purposes of translation and interpreting: Although subjective funds of knowledge and social funds of knowledge are structurally different from one another, the social fund is reflected at least partly in all subjective funds in any society characterized by a simple distribu-

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

89

tion of knowledge. This is not, however, the case in societies characterized by a complex distribution of knowledge. (Luckmann 1981: 103)

The exponential increase in terminologies shows just how complex the distribution of knowledge is today. Every day, specialists all over the world are inventing hundreds of new specialist terms to designate new areas of knowledge. In terminology work for the purposes of translation and interpreting, bilingual or multilingual terminology work is more important than monolingual forms (Bühler 1997a). Members of the language mediation profession will have to recognize sooner rather than later that not less, but more is being translated, especially in the area of “software localization”, the adaptation of standard software for individual linguistic and cultural communities (Chapter 8. 2). It is true that English is the basic language in the computer world, but in an age of increasing competition a software producer who cannot communicate with his potential customers in their own language is at a distinct disadvantage. A new age of multilingualism is dawning, moulded by globalization, specialization and computerization (Chapter 7). Terminology work only became an independent part of university courses for translators and interpreters relatively recently, i.e. in the 1980s. People had begun to realize (mainly as a result of new terminology databases) that a specialist translation can only achieve the same degree of authenticity and factual accuracy as a source text if the translator has the necessary terminological knowledge. This means knowing, for example, such equivalents as “gefühlte Temperatur” (wind-chill), “Magermotor” (lean-burn engine), and “hochauflösendes Fernsehen” (High-Definition Television, HDTV), or at least knowing where such equivalents can be found: Translators are often forced to familiarize themselves with the terminology of the source text before they start to translate. They can only do this in a rational way if they have access to appropriate terminological aids, and know how to use them. Translators who have easy and rapid access to reliable terminology can increase their translation performance significantly. Studies have shown that a great deal of time in the act of translating is spent searching for terminology. (KÜWES Terminologie 1990, 3.1)

Terminology work for the purposes of language mediation involves above all the acquisition of knowledge of fundamental national and international terminological principles (DIN; ISO), terminology searching (e.g. by examining parallel texts), terminology management and terminology updat-

90

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

ing. Students need to learn how to use specialist dictionaries, glossaries and thesauri critically, and they must also know what is required if they are to live up to their role as “language experts”. There are many quite incredible examples of what can happen when a dilettante is let loose. The correct handling of terminology is especially important nowadays because translators can no longer rely (in this age of the exponential growth of specialist terms) on the fact that the terminology to which they have access is complete and free of synonyms. For this reason, compiling one’s own terminology base is part of every translator’s work. The best way to do this is undoubtedly to pass on the data one collects to a central terminology service and not, as used to be the case (and, sadly, still is) to lock it up in index systems in one’s desk and guard it like a gold-digger hoarding nuggets. German-speaking specialist translators, for example, can turn to the RaDT (“Rat für deutschsprachige Terminologie” — Council for German Language Terminology) (TermNet News 56/57, 1997: 21f.). As has already been mentioned, scientists, technologists, administration experts and lawyers are constantly creating new specialist terms. In the EU, the latter group is especially productive. A study published in 1995 shows that, apart from medicine, the number of entries for law in EURODICAUTOM is the highest in the central EU database (49, 924 entries). The number of nations and languages taking part in this development is growing. Whereas in the 1950s there were some 60-80 languages with their own special languages, there are now more than 200 ... This situation causes an increase in world knowledge and a corresponding rise in the number of documents (in conventional or electronic form). World knowledge is thought by some organizations and experts to double every ten or twenty years. The number of documents in which part of this knowledge plays a role is probably growing even faster. (Galinski 1987: 2)

It is obvious that the vast number of specialist terms in use today cannot be managed (collected, evaluated, formatted, updated) manually. For this reason, terminologists began to use electronic media as long ago as the 1960s. Pioneering work was done at that time by the Bundessprachenamt, Siemens and the EU with their “LEXIS”, “TEAM” and “EURODICAUTOM” databases. All three institutions discovered that terminology work, if it is to be systematic, flexible and user-friendly, requires staff, time and money (in other words, as someone at the Bundessprachenamt told me, no one can actually afford it). The gain in the efficiency and quality of specialist translation was, however, so significant that virtually all translator workstations (at least in the

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

91

larger language services and translation agencies) now have online-access to relevant specialist databases via PC. The essential thing in any terminological database is, of course, the quality of the individual entries (Mayer 1996). The recommendations of KÜWES, now called KÜDES (= “Konferenz der Übersetzungsdienste der Europäischen Staaten”, Conference of the Translation Services of the European States) are especially significant in this context: They seek to describe a supra-institutional method for the compilation and processing of terminological entries which ensures qualitative and formal comparability and means that data can be exchanged easily (KÜWES Terminologie 1990: 4). According to these recommendations, all entries must be multilingual and composed of obligatory, optional and management data. The obligatory terminological data are: Term, source, field, definition or explanation of term, synonyms, abbreviations and notes. It is important that circular definitions be avoided, i.e. not “textiles” = “products of the textiles industry”, but “textiles” = “goods manufactured from woven, spun or knitted fibres”. Optional terminological data can include: Context, phrases, keyword, illustrations, alternative spellings, transliteration, degree of equivalence, and degree of synonymy. By “context” KÜWES means the linguistic setting in which terms are used (KÜWES Terminologie 1990: 4). The “context”, also called “special language idiom”, must be taken from a specialist text and is today the central issue in terminology-based phraseology research, in which, if I am not mistaken, specialist translators will become increasingly involved in the future (see the diploma thesis of Evelyn Huber, Vienna: “Übersetzungsorientierte Phraseologieverwaltung mit Terminologieverwaltungssystemen” (Translation-oriented phraseology management using terminology management systems, 1993). Like KÜWES, Schmitz also stresses the significance of international cooperation in European terminology work: Terminology studies, terminology compilation and terminology use have always been the subject of close cooperation. Just as various academic approaches drawn from linguistics, information and documentation science, computer science and the factual sciences have shaped the direction of terminology studies, so, too, do terminologists, (specialist) translators, language planners, standardization experts, technical writers, documentalists and

92

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN information specialists collaborate in the compilation and use of terminologies. Multilingual terminology work above all is unthinkable without the cooperation of native speaker experts. Buzz-words like global village, collaborative work, and outsourcing suggest just how important (multilingual) specialist communication, and particularly cooperation in the area of terminology, is. (1996: 61)

A particularly delicate problem in multilingual terminology work is the monitoring of synonyms and homographs: When terminology is being compiled, processed and stored in several different places simultaneously, it is inevitable that several entries denoting the same concept will be stored. The same applies when several inventories of terminology are brought together, e.g. when an external inventory is imported. The terminology database which is no longer needed must be cleared so that the user again has fast and reliable access to the terminological data. (TMS [=”Terminology Management System”] April 1997: 1)

TMS 1997 has produced a description which was passed on to me by Mrs Sylvia Hofheinz, director of the language service of the German Bundestag. The following example has been taken from that description:

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

93

The next example (also provided by Mrs Hofheinz) comes from the terminology database of the Bundestag’s language service. It is given here in a somewhat simplified form. Politikverdrossenheit The revival of the right-wing populist Progress Party is seen by many observers as symptomatic of today’s Politikverdrossenheit. 2. The unashamedly populist New Democracy is openly exploiting the Politikverdrossenheit that has caught hold of many parts of the country. 3. He adds that the government is in danger of increasing the Politikverdrossenheit of the voters by the way it is behaving. 4. ...the latest rise in the number of voters who did not vote at recent elections is an alarming sign of the general Politikverdrossenheit. contemporary sourness sourness: contemporary 1. The revival of the right-wing Progress Party is seen by many as symptomatic of the contemporary sourness. mood of cynicism and discontent with conventional party politics 2. Unashamedly populist, New Democracy is exploiting with panache the current mood of cynicism and discontent with conventional party politics sweeping the country. general disillusionment with politics disillusionment with politics: general 3. He added that the Government’s behaviour risked increasing the electorate’s general disillusionment with politics. popular disenchantment disenchantment: popular 4. ... the steady increase in the abstention-rate in recent elections is a worrying indication of popular disenchantment. frustration and disappointment with regard to politics weariness with political parties Länder elections are not due in east Germany, where the extreme right is relatively poorly organised, until the second half of 1994, but evidence shows that weariness with political parties has set in among the young.

94

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

disenchantment with politics political apathy The political apathy and emotional uncertainty of young Americans are different elements of the same profound psychological crisis now being experienced by the post-baby-boom generation, or “baby-busters”. disenchantment with politicians France is undergoing a severe case of disenchantment with its politicians. political alienation The combined effects of political alienation, most noticeable in France, economic failure, most marked in Britain, and diplomatic and military disarray, exemplified by the Yugoslavian crisis, could quite easily tip us over the brink (of the abyss). disaffection with politics The country (Germany) suffers from a deep disaffection with politics. alienation from politics Compared with the moribund state of the Tory party, and of Labour even a couple of years ago, this may be some kind of answer to the alienation from politics that has permitted the steady degrading of public life in the 1990s. One fundamental difference between the two examples of terminology is that the TMS terminology is “more technical” than the Bundestag terminology. In one case we see precise one-to-one equivalents, in the other a variety of rather vague equivalents from political language, a fact which characterizes political texts as “sensitive” texts (Schäffner 1997; see also Hatim/Mason 1997, Chapter 7). These are the product of expansive paraphrasing procedures which are able to capture the original meaning only very approximately. Highly influential in the systematization of terminology work in Europe has been the “Sektion Terminologie” (Terminology Section) of the Swiss Bundeskanzlei in Bern, on whose documents the following observations are based. The “Sektion Terminologie” was set up by the Bundeskanzlei in 1981 as the “Arbeitsgruppe Terminologie” (Terminology Working Group). Its initial activities led to a somewhat depressing realization: the group established that there was terminology work going on in the Bundeskanzlei, but only on a completely uncoordinated level. In as far as translators were involved in terminology work at all, they worked on an individual basis and with a view to their own individual needs:

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

95

This lack of coordination has fatal consequences in a trilingual administration (German, French, Italian: Raeto-Romanic has only limited status as an official language due to the relatively small number of speakers; W. W.) whose approx. 170 full-time and 80 part-time translators are distributed among the general secretariats of the departements and over 70 federal agencies and their individual sections. The results can be terminological diffusion, unreliable translations, impaired legal security, wastage of time due to terminological searches being done twice or even more often ...

The Arbeitsgruppe therefore recommended (and this recommendation was accepted by the Bundeskanzlei) that a uniform format for terminology systems, and a central automated terminology database under the name TERMDAT, should be introduced immediately. To save time and money the group decided not to begin afresh, but to link into a large database which was already up and running. For several reasons, they chose EURODICAUTOM, the terminology database of the EU Commission in Luxembourg, which was set up in 1973 (Goffin 1994a): 1. The size of the database (approx. 770,000 entries); 2. The range of languages covered (8 EU languages and Latin, including the three official languages of Switzerland); 3. The user-friendliness of the system; 4. The fact that the EU Commission as a public administration was roughly comparable with the Swiss Bundesverwaltung; 5. The collaboration between the terminology office of the EU Commission and other major terminology databases. TERMDAT, which has been in operation since September 1988, is decentrally organized, like the Swiss translation services. This is because subject and terminological expertise is spread across a number of individual departements and agencies, which means that a decentralized terminology service is more efficient than any centralized system. This arrangement can only work, however, if all offices involved in the compilation and use of terminology adopt the same methods and meet the same quality standards. The coordination of this decentralized terminology work is the responsibility of the “Sektion Terminologie” at the Bundeskanzlei, which also oversees collaboration with the EU Commission. A major role in international cooperation on terminology is played by the “Réseau international de néologie et de terminologie” (RINT), which was set up at the “Francophone Summit” in 1986 in Paris. Today TERMDAT is one of the largest terminology databases in the world with some 840,000 entries covering economics, commerce,

96

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

finance, industry, energy, mining, technology, electronics, information technology, telecommunications, transport, agriculture and forestry, foodstuffs, medicine, the natural sciences, the environment, law, administration, politics and education (Europe and Switzerland). The individual database entries (“fiches”) contain the following information: AB (abréviation) abbreviation

AB denotes the field provided for the abbreviation.

AU (auteur) author

Alongside the indication of the source (BE), the author of the “fiche” (individual or institution) is occasionally given.

BE (bureau émetteur) entering department

The department or institution responsible for the entry is indicated by means of an abbreviation, e.g. BTL = terminology office of the EU Commission, Luxembourg BTB = terminology office of the EU Commission, Brussels ACH = Swiss Bundesverwaltung CHB = “Staatskanzlei” (State Chancellery) of the canton of Bern

CF (code de fiabilité) reliability code

Indicates reliability (on a scale 1-5) of the “fiche” as a whole. The assessment covers the level of processing, the degree of equivalence between the languages, etc. The score 5 is only given for terms which are defined in terminological standards (e.g. ISO, DIN) or decrees.

CM (code matière) subject code

Indicates the field to which the term belongs. The code is allocated in accordance with the LENOCH classification system, which subdivides the contents of databases by subject.

PROFESSIONAL

FIELDS

97

DATE date

The date of the entry in the database, or of the most recent alteration to the entry, is given using English conventions (year, month, day).

DF (définition) definition

The definition is given using linguistic means. On the basis of the definition, the degree of equivalence between the various languages can be indicated in the entry.

DOC (document) document

Means “answer”. The answers are numbered in sequence.

MC (mot clé) keyword

The keyword enables the user to find components of compound terms or the most important word in a given context (PH).

NI (numéro d‘identification) The identification number is used in terminolidentification number ogy management. NT (note) note

This field is reserved for notes on the usage or the source of the term, etc. EXP: explanation of content; GRM: explanation of grammar; REG: Note on source or regional/national use (e.g. REG: CH = Switzerland); USG: Note on usage (e.g. common, customary); STA: Note on status (e.g. archaic, official).

PAGE page

Depending on the amount of information (number of languages, number of fields), a document (= answer) can cover up to several pages (= screens). These are numbered consecutively.

PH (phrase) context

a) The context can replace the definition, serving as an explanation, or it shows the term in its typical linguistic context. b) The PH field can

98

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN contain standard formulations, e.g. from international agreements or titles of decrees.

PS (pays) country

Indicates the country or region in which the abbreviation is used.

RF (réferences) sources

Indicates the source of the terminological information.

SI (signification) full form

This field shows the full form of the abbreviation.

TY (type) theme code

This theme code indicates a partial inventory in the database and the year in which the compilation of this inventory was begun. Every entry in the database belongs to one of these inventories.

VE (vedette) term

The term is a specialist word. It can consist of one (specialist) word or of several words (specialist use).

TERMDAT can be accessed by all staff of the Swiss public institutions, including universities and research centres, and currently has some 800 users. Private individuals can also access the system through ECHO (European Commission Host Organisation). The “TERMDAT -Info” pamphlets which appear at regular intervals and (it is important to note) are written in comprehensible German (or French or Italian) contain details of how to use the system.

CHAPTER 6

The institutionalization of professional practice

6.1 The German civil service Institutionalization through the creation of language services (not “language mediation services”) is an important step in the professionalization of translation and interpreting. All the German federal ministries and all other government bodies with international functions (e.g. the “Bundespresse- und Informationsamt” (Federal Press and Information Agency), the “Bundeskriminalamt” (Federal Criminal Police Office)) today have both freelancers and permanent (in-house) staff involved in translation and interpreting activities. The latter are paid in accordance with the nationally agreed scales for employees in public service, their salary depending on the nature of the work they do (see “Blätter zur Berufskunde”, vols. 2 and 3, vocational information bulletins published by the “Bundesanstalt für Arbeit” (Federal Institute for Employment) in Nuremberg: Chapter 6. 1. 4). All the language services are concerned only with specialist language, which explains why today (virtually) all the permanent staff are engaged in terminology work in one form or another, with the focus depending on the department in question. The individual language services do not, with the exception of the Bundessprachenamt (Chapter 6. 2) and the Auswärtige Amt, have their own terminology offices. It is common for employees to switch from translation/interpreting to terminology work (e.g. in the Auswärtige Amt), and such moves are probably due to the fact that there is not, as far as I am aware, any formal training course for terminologists (in contrast to translators and interpreters: Chapter 6. 6). One specific feature of the civil service language services is the distinction between translators and revisors. The translations prepared by translators are checked for accuracy and style by experienced staff, who are better paid. I have been unable to ascertain who first introduced the distinction between

100

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

translators and revisors, but certainly it does not seem a particularly helpful one. It is not exactly a sign of professional excellence if the work of a graduate translator requires revision — quite apart from the time needed for such checking and any discussion between the translator and the revisor. It is understandable that there is constant tension between the two groups, leading to a lack of motivation. Translators who are aware that their work will be checked (however good or bad it may be), naturally tend to make less effort than others who are entirely responsible for their own translations. Recently the amount of revision has been reduced (again with the exception of the Bundessprachenamt: Chapter 6. 2), and is largely restricted to beginners and large samples taken from freelancers. The development of the language services of the federal departments and that of other agencies have, on the whole, run parallel. Before 1945, only the language service of the Auswärtige Amt was fully established (Chapter 2. 1). Apart from this, it is probably the language service of the “Wirtschaftsministerium” (Economics Ministry) and its various predecessors that has the longest post-war tradition, since it was in the area of economic policy that the victorious allies made their first concessions to the Federal Republic and the western sectors of West Berlin. (I have no information on the situation in the former German Democratic Republic.) In 1946, for example, the “Zentralamt für Wirtschaft” (Central Economic Office) was established in Minden, which was renamed “Verwaltung für Wirtschaft der Bi-Zone” (Economic Administration of the Bi-Zone), Minden, in the same year. A few translators were employed there from the very beginning, as the seedcorn of the later language service. The Official Journal of the Controlling Commission of January 1946 shows that German was not an official language at that time. The translators’ work was limited to translating the orders of the occupying powers (mainly in English) into German. In autumn 1949 the Wirtschaftsministerium was founded in Bonn, as was its language service, which served as a model for the development of language services in Bonn after 1945. It is worth outlining its activities here. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the function of the language service was mainly to translate foreign, primarily English and French, texts into German, so that the subject specialists and administrative officers (who generally spoke no foreign languages) could communicate with their colleagues from abroad. The same was true of the interpreting service, which had a large amount of work, in both directions (foreign language into native language, and vice

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

101

versa), since foreign colleagues did not bring their own interpreters with them. This was a way of reducing travel costs. Around 1965, changes in the structure of the language service began to be made. More and more foreign relations were being established. German economic policy gradually became an essential component of German politics in general, and its range of concerns grew correspondingly. This included textiles, trade with the East, coal, shipbuilding, oil, nuclear energy, currency, aviation, marine technology, the environment, steel, protectionism, etc. The increasing number of contacts with other countries — the USA, the United Kingdom, France, the East Bloc — resulted in extensive diplomatic travel at the highest level and necessitated the constant presence of conference interpreters. Contact between the various experts became more intensive and “more technical”. This development had consequences for the language services. A period of “professionalization” began, involving a gradual “specialization” in their work. All the same, the language service was still regarded as a kind of “technical service”, which was expected to perform at a high level of expertise but was not considered to have any particular specialist competence. This attitude, which placed a considerable strain on co-operation between the individual departments (i.e. those commissioning translation and interpreting work) and the language service, was particularly clearly manifested in the refusal at ministerial level to give the language service of the Wirtschaftsministerium the status of a separate department, unlike other federal authorities. The language service remained part of another department (called “Organization”), and its director never rose higher than the somewhat subordinate rank of “assistant consultant”. However, the head of department responsible had the foresight to allow the language service a considerable degree of freedom, which ensured a relatively high degree of operational independence. In 1970 Russian was added to the languages mentioned above. At the same time, the Wirtschaftsministerium began to give preference to job applicants with a good knowledge of foreign languages when appointing new staff (outside the language service). This meant that translation from English was completely eliminated, and that from French considerably reduced. The staff of the language service was consequently halved, from its original 23. Even in the 1970s, then, the kind of shrinkage in language services seen today (e.g. in industry) was evident. It was compensated for in two ways: on the one hand only highly qualified new staff (including native speakers of other languages)

102

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

were appointed to the language service, and on the other hand the workstations were equipped with computers with access to terminology databases and reference works stored on CD-ROM. Since 1980 the language service of the Wirtschaftsministerium has had its own (non-institutionalized) terminology documentation. At the same time, the number of freelancers at the language service has increased. In other words, as early as in the 1980s the Wirtschaftsministerium was practising a procedure which is now extremely common under the name “outsourcing” (Chapter 7. 3). Among the German federal and regional authorities, the language services have always played a somewhat peripheral role. Their work, especially that of the translators, has hardly been noticed. They have never been seen as entirely superfluous, but have commonly been regarded as a necessary evil which had to be tolerated in order to allow communication with foreign partners. Daily contact with the specialist departments was kept to a minimum, and the answering of queries was often seen almost as an imposition. The information value of many texts was only mediocre. Sometimes the impression arose that translation commissions were given out of personal vanity, and it frequently became clear that many ministerial officials held most peculiar views on the work of a language service. This is illustrated, for example, by the anecdote concerning a congress organizer who, completely out of breath, once asked a conference interpreter if he could speak Russian. When the interpreter said no, the organizer panted: “Never mind, it’s only for five minutes”. Another authenticated story concerns a self-important subject specialist who dropped a pile of papers on the desk of the director of the language service and barked: “Just get this typed up in French”. Another specialist had a lecture translated into English by a bilingual translator and apologized at the beginning of his delivery for his poor English. He had not, he pointed out, had time to translate the paper himself, but had passed it on to the language service. A further episode, which is probably unique in the history of language services, deserves mention. A consultant once phoned a language service and asked whether an English translated book was available. Enquiries about the title, author, publisher, year and place of publication, etc. received the impatient response that that kind of thing didn’t matter — the consultant just wanted to know whether an English translated book was available. After much discussion it emerged that the caller wanted to know whether the language service had a bilingual English-German dictionary! When reports about MT, which originated in the Anglo-American world,

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

103

reached the language services at the end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s, they were at first virtually ignored. The idea that man might be replaced by a machine (an idea which was much promoted at the time, even by people who should have known better) was regarded as utopian. This sceptical view was supported by the American “ALPAC” report (“ALPAC” = Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee), which came to the categorical conclusion that MT would only be suitable for experimental use in the foreseeable future, hardly justifying further financial support of MT projects. The “ALPAC” report also had, though, a positive effect. Declared dead in the USA at the end of the 1960s, MT research was forced to develop a new and more sophisticated awareness of the challenges facing it. Bar-Hillel, one of the pioneers of MT research, formulated this in the following way at an MT conference in Austin, Texas (a traditional stronghold of American MT research): It seems, then, that we have turned full circle in MT research and are now approximately back where we started some 19 years ago. MT will probably have to rely on language-dependent strategies rather than on some highly developed theory, but it is quite clear that the detour has enormously helped to clarify the issue, has dispelled any utopian hopes so that we are now in a much better position to attack this problem afresh. (1971: 75)

6. 2 The Bundessprachenamt The Bundessprachenamt, or “BSA”, founded in 1969 in Hürth near Cologne as an office of the “Bundesverteidigungsministerium” (the Federal Defence Ministry, which also has its own language service in Bonn), has a special status among the language services of the German civil service. It was created by the amalgamation of the former translation service of the German armed forces (Mannheim) and the armed forces language school (Euskirchen). The BSA, which should really be called the “Bundeswehrsprachenamt” (German Armed Forces Language Agency), employs some 200 linguists (translators, revisors, terminologists, foreign language assistants) at its headquarters and at other locations. This makes it the second largest language service in Europe after the EU agencies. Another institution which is comparable in size is the “Official Languages Agency” in Hong Kong, where more than 500 translators translate texts from English into Chinese for the bilingual administration, working to very stringent quality standards (Chapter 4. 4).

104

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

It is generally accepted that the BSA has, like all the other language services in Bonn, worked very efficiently in its three main areas: translation, terminology and language training, the latter for German and foreign staff, above all for military personnel from friendly countries. The agency has always been generously staffed, especially in the field of translation, because the Federal Republic had no arms industry after the War and was therefore forced to buy almost all its hardware (with accompanying documentation) abroad, mainly in the USA. The “Starfighter” aircraft is the best-known example of this. The fact that the agency translates a large number of “sensitive” texts (e.g. instructions for use and maintenance manuals) has meant that quality control is a particular concern. With a few exceptions, the agency has never been particularly satisfied with the graduates of the academic institutions: nor, incidentally, was its predecessor in Mannheim. The main reason for this is that the graduates have generally had insufficient specialist and terminological knowledge, which is hardly surprising in view of the meagre resources allocated to the training institutions. The BSA therefore set up a “Fachübersetzerausbildung” (“FÜSA”; an in-house specialist translator training programme) which was designed to give participants the knowledge necessary for specialist translation work in a six-month course. (In the meantime, the FÜSA programmes have been abolished for financial reasons.) Originally, there were also further training programmes “on site”, under which staff from the BSA were posted to military airbases or navy vessels in order to acquire specialist knowledge at first hand. These “hands-on” measures proved highly successful and helped to establish the good reputation of the BSA, especially in the USA. Another pioneering achievement of the BSA was the switch from manual terminology management, using card index systems, to a computerized system. The result of this was the “LEXIS” database mentioned above (Chapter 5. 5), which went into operation in 1965. LEXIS is one of the largest terminology databases in the world and consists of three different databases: 1. The lexical base with some 1.3 million entries in German and nine foreign languages (Czech, Dutch, English, French, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish) drawn from around 200 fields, primarily from military technology and the natural sciences. 2. The background base with some 30,000 monolingual entries (in German or English), providing definitions with contextual examples and bibliographical references.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

105

3. The index, a database facilitating the compilation of multi-column terminology lists as working glossaries or for publication. The data of the LEXIS system was initially stored on punched index cards, and has been available online via monitor terminals since 1975. The main sources of the terminology are the texts translated by the BSA and data supplied on an “exchange basis” by the language services of other authorities and organizations. LEXIS allows the rapid dissemination of new terminology and a level of quality control, data updating and monitoring which is essential in the case of military terminology. Full-time specialist terminologists are employed to undertake such work. The major users of the system are the translators and revisors of the BSA and other offices, which, thanks to LEXIS, do not have to rely on generally available dictionaries or reference works.

6.3 The EU language services Under the EU statute, the EU language services undertake translation and interpreting work in Brussels and Luxembourg for the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament, the European Council, the European Court of Justice, the European Investment Bank, the Regional Committee and the Economic and Social Committee. While the individual EU bodies each have their own translation service, the interpreters belong to the “SCIC” (=Service commun, interpretation — conférences). Lamberger-Felber writes on the development of the SCIC since the foundation of the EU: With 470 full-time interpreters and 1,789 freelancers for a total of 33 languages (including 22 non-EU languages; W. W.), the SCIC is the largest language service of its kind in the world today. What began in 1959 with four languages and 2,081 sessions has now developed into a gigantic enterprise with 11 official languages enjoying equal status, which in 1995 alone provided interpreters for 10,661 sessions of various EU bodies (including the Commission, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, the Regional Committee and the European Investment Bank; the European Parliament has its own interpreting corps of 256 interpreters). This corresponds to a total of 126,876 interpreter-days! Alongside this figure even the United Nations, the second largest employer of interpreters in the world, seems modest: in 1995, 205 interpreters were used in New York and Geneva for 3,270 sessions. (1997: 112)

106

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Within the EU, the Commission has the largest corps of interpreters. This is due to the fact that the EU is not a supranational organization in the usual sense of the word, as was the League of Nations, for example. Instead, the Commission is the organ responsible for EU legislation (Chapter 4. 2). All texts produced have to be translated into all the national languages, and each version enjoys the status of an original text. It is, perhaps, possible to imagine just how much preparatory work is necessary before an EU law is finally “ready” — and how much translation work is involved in the process of passing a law — if one bears in mind that draft laws are discussed at various levels within the Commission and constantly amended. Alongside its work on EU legislation, the translation service of the Commission has many other duties. These include the translation of speeches, speech notes, information brochures, press releases, political declarations, responses to written and verbal questions, research reports, minutes of meetings, internal administration, correspondence with ministries, companies, lobbies, financial affairs, public relations, film commentaries, promotional material, etc. The organizational chart below shows the complexity of the Commission’s language services. The following figures give an impression of the quantitative development of the Commission’s translation service. Between 1968 (when the language services responsible for Dutch, French, German, and Italian were amalgamated) and 1993 the number of tenured translators rose from some 250 to almost 1200, not counting Finnish and Swedish. Over the same period (and also excluding Finnish and Swedish) the number of pages translated per year rose from 200,000 to around 950,000. Further increases in the workload are to be expected, although uncertainties concerning the future (which countries will join the EU, and when?) make long-term planning virtually impossible. A very interesting feature of internal EU communication is the process of interlingual assimilation described as “Eurospeak”, “Euromorphology” (Schmitt 1996) or “Eurolect” (Goffin 1994b/1998), which is evident in “Eurotexts”. The latter are the subject of a large-scale “on-site” empirical study by Born/Schütte (1995). The authors are, of course, aware that the title “Eurotexts” is somewhat misleading and that “EU texts” would be more accurate (though less catchy). Indeed, the subtitle of their book, “Textarbeit in einer Institution der EG (Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuß)” (Work with texts in one EU institution (the Economic and Social Committee)), restricts its focus considerably, and the book deals with an organization which has thus far

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

107

108

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

restricted its activities to Western Europe and does not deal with the continent in its broader geographical sense, from the British Isles to the Ural mountains. The book thus confirms that Europe has generally looked west, not east. The political collapse of the former Soviet Union and the subsequent disintegration of the Panslavism that had previously held the peoples of Eastern Europe together also played a role in cementing more firmly than ever before the idea of an “Atlantic world civilization” in the political, economic and cultural thinking of Western Europeans . In their preface, the authors define what Eurotexts are, how they are produced, which bureaucratic processes influence them, and how language is exploited as an instrument of power: The project “The production of administrative texts: multilingualism in the EU Commission” (Eurotexts) was designed to analyze the special difficulties situative multilingualism causes in the production of administrative texts which have been produced by several authors with different native languages. The study stands at the intersection of traditional multilingualism research, text linguistics and linguistic communication studies. The organs of the European Communities are excellent examples of multilingual institutions whose main task is to produce texts of varying legal validity. (1995: 11)

The study was hampered rather than helped by the fact that the authors belong to the “Institut für deutsche Sprache” (Institute for the German Language) in Mannheim, since some EU officials clearly suspected that the project was commissioned in order to promote the interests of German, by arranging “annoying inspections by outside experts” (1995: 26). It is initially difficult to understand the reaction of members of the German section of the Commission language service, who described the arrival of the two authors as an “insult” (1995: 26), seeing the project as a form of clandestine quality control. If one reads on, such sensitivities appear in a somewhat different light. What the authors say about the status of translation and interpreting activities in the EU (especially in Chapter 2) is depressing. To give just one example: one leading EU functionary decided not to have press statements translated, arguing that “translators ... are used to translating literally ... [and] ... (do not take into account) the specific journalistic styles of other cultures” (1995: 102). As elsewhere, the relationship between subject specialists and linguists can hardly be described as straightforward. One particularly troublesome feature is the so-called “lance-corporal level” of administration (Reinhard Hoheisel, language co-ordinator for German at the Commission). This refers

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

109

to the fact that the secretaries of subject specialists frequently seek to block questions, although these are invariably necessary given the extremely poor quality of many of the original texts submitted for translation (written, in fact, by non-native speakers). When problems, misunderstandings or delays arise, the translators are given the blame: Since it would be damaging (personally and externally) for the officials to admit that they produce linguistically defective texts, they often blame the translators. (p. 45)

(One is reminded here of the incident in which the former German chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, publicly criticized his interpreters in order to cover up the failure of his own diplomatic endeavour.) It is indisputable that the demands made of language mediators have increased considerably over the years. This does not simply apply to the source and target language competence expected of every translator, nor to the high level of general knowledge required. Today, the activities of language mediators demand special subject knowledge, and a command of fundamental skills in terminology, documentation and information technology. It is no recommendation for the profession that applicants for EU positions frequently show an alarming ignorance of EU know-how in selection tests, and it is hardly surprising that the EU has now made the training of its linguists its own responsibility. This also has the advantage that the EU can deploy officials with relevant experience in special subject departments wherever it needs them. Such a procedure reinforces the trend away from traditionally trained translators and interpreters towards the use of subject specialists with a knowledge of foreign languages. The following classification of terminological entries in EURODICAUTOM according to subject area and language (from October 1995) indicates the breadth of the range of subjects covered by the EU authorities. EU translators (and interpreters) have three so-called “translation tools” at their disposal: 1. Terminology databases; 2. Specialist libraries, etc.; 3. SYSTRAN. The three most important databases are EURODICAUTOM (mainly used by the Commission), TIS (= Terminological Information System, used mainly by the Council) and CELEX (a legal documentation system containing the

TERMDAT/EURODICAUTOM Terminologische Einträge, geordnet nach Sachgebieten und Sprachen Ventilation des fiches terminologiques par domaines et par langues Schede terminologiche per domini e lingue

110 T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

111

112

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

entire body of Community law). All three databases are described in Stork (1996). In Brussels and Luxembourg specialist libraries and archives are available. These are staffed by terminologists and archivists who are responsible for internal and external database searches, for the terminological monitoring of journals, and for the supply of background information to translators. SYSTRAN is a machine translation system (or, more precisely, a system which supports translators in their work: see Chapter 7. 7 and 7. 8 on the distinction between MT and machine-aided translation (MAT)). The EU has been using SYSTRAN, which was originally developed in the USA for military purposes, since 1976 (Petrits 1997). After a somewhat uncertain start, the EU translated around 140,000 pages in 1994 and some 220, 000 in 1996, of which 80% were done in operating departments and 20% in the language services (Brace 1997). The system requires standardized terminology and simple syntax with a high frequency of pre-formulated text components. It is most suitable for the translation of internal working documents (raw translations), which above all strive for understandability rather than readability. All texts translated with the aid of SYSTRAN and intended for external use must be marked as such. This does not, however, always happen, which can have serious consequences for the assessment of the quality of work carried out by human translators. SYSTRAN, which has been developed further by the EU (Hutchins 1986: 229ff.), currently offers 16 language pairs, albeit not all with the same level of quality. The most reliable language pairs — and those which are used most — are French-English and vice versa. It is difficult to predict the future of SYSTRAN. One thing is certain: SYSTRAN will only achieve the goal of producing a “good enough translation” without post-editing and/or pre-editing when it is used for relatively simple texts. Nevertheless, SYSTRAN has today reached a point where, using a SYSTRAN translation without editing, a subject specialist can form an impression of the text in question and then decide whether he/she needs to call on the assistance of a human translator to produce a full or partial translation, or whether the information provided (quickly) by SYSTRAN is sufficient for his/her purposes. The “SZ” has looked into this question, and came up with the following texts using SYSTRAN in Luxembourg (5 November 1993). The texts were passed on to me by Barbara Stork, the head of the German section of the language service at the European Council:

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

113

Machine in distress A random look at Mrs d‘Ursel’s computer shows up the limitations of the system. We look for something translated from French into German and soon find a most strange text in which the word HaStellungsnahmeto appears. Our search turns up the following information: SYSTRAN comes across the word Haavisto in the original text, but does not know that this is the name of the Finnish foreign minister, Heikki Haavisto. In a state of panic, the machine extracts from the unidentified term the French word avis, translates it into German as Stellungnahme and attaches the untranslatable syllables Ha and to to the beginning and the end. This is all very amusing, but it can cause real problems. German-speaking readers might be able to imagine the situation if the Euro-MP Diemut Theato had actually received the letter in which she was addressed as “Frau der Parlamentarier” and which ended in complete chaos: Ich wäre Ihnen dankbar, Ihren Beitrag zum Seminar gewährleisten gut zu wollen, indem er, der Freitag Nachmittag 26. November behandelte das Thema: die Aktion des Parlaments im Kampf Anti-Betrug., indem er Ihnen sehr bitte ich dankt Sie,. Frau der Parlamentarier die Versicherung meiner hohen Erwägung zu genehmigen.

There is one consolation for the offended Germans here: their language has hitherto always vigorously resisted all attempts at machine translation. A further sample, for speakers of German and French: A text and its transformation: Original: Le répresentant de la Commission rappelle l’historique de ce dossier et fait état des developpements. Compte tenu des quantités énormes de conserves de thon importées [...] les services de la Commission avaient décidés d’organiser une mission sur place. La mission a démontré quel a quantité de thons originaires est largement suffisante pour appriovisionner les 2 conserveries les plus importantes, mais que puisque ces firmes ne maintiennent pas de stocks, elles importent du thon originaire soit de pays tiers, soit du Ghana, pays ACP, mais péché par des navires ne répondant pas aux conditions du Protocole 1 de la Convention de Lomé. Dans certains cas, la nationalité prétendue des navires était ghanéene ou espagnole, mais en réalité ces navires battaient pavillon panaméen ou maltais. EU translation service: Der Vertreter der Kommission faßt den Vorgang zusammen und berichtet über die jüngsten Entwicklungen. In Anbetracht des enormen Volumens der Thunfischkonservenimporte [...] hätten die Dienststellen der Kommission beschlossen, eine Untersuchungsmission an Ort und

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

114

Stelle durchzuführen. Durch diese Untersuchung sei der Nachweis erbracht worden, daß die verfügbare Menge Thunfisch mit Ursprungseigenschaft durchaus ausreiche, um den Bedarf der beiden größten Konservenfabriken zu decken; da diese Firmen jedoch keine Vorratshaltungen betreiben, werde Thunfisch eingeführt, der entweder aus Drittländern stamme oder aus dem AKP-Staat Ghana, aber von Fischereifahrzeugen gefangen werde, die nicht die Voraussetzungen des Protokolls Nr. 1 zum Abkommen von Lomé erfüllen. In einigen Fällen sei behauptet worden, daß die betreffenden Schiffe in Ghana oder Spanien beheimatet seien, während sie in Realität unter panamesischer oder maltesischer Flagge fahren. SYSTRAN translation: Der rapelle Kommissionsvertreter dokumentiert der geschichtliche Überblick dieser Akte und die Entwicklungen. In Anbetracht der gewaltigen Quantitäten importierte Thunfischkonserven [...] hatten die Dienstellen beschlossen, eine Aufgabe zu organisieren an Ort und Stelle. Die Aufgabe hat bewiesen, daß die Quantität stammende Thunfische reichlich ausreichend ist, um die 2 wichtigsten Konservenfabriken zu versorgen, aber, als, da diese Firmen Bestände aufrechterhalten, sie entweder aus Drittländern, oder aus Ghana, AKP- aber Schiffe gefischtem Land durch stammenden Thunfisch importieren, die nicht den Bedingungen von Protokoll 1 der Vereinbarung von Lomé entsprechen. In gewissen Fällen war die Nationalität mutmaßlich der Schiffe ghaneéne oder spanisch, aber in Wirklichkeit schlugen diese Schiffe maltesischen Pavillon panaméen oder.

The limitations of SYSTRAN are also clearly illustrated by an example taken from a translation from English into German, where a printing error turned the word “it” into “if”: If should be noted that further international negotiations are currently being held in the United States.

thus becomes: Wenn zur Kenntnis genommen werden sollte, daß weitere internationale Verhandlungen gegenwärtig in den Vereinigten Staaten gehalten werden.

6.4 Industrial language services 6.4.1 Bayer/Leverkusen The Bayer company was founded in 1863. The company now has 350 sites on all five continents, and, as of 31 December 1997, a workforce of 144,700 employees. Bayer has been represented in China since 1872, and official

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

115

foreign connections were established in 1885. Precisely how Bayer built up its network of agents in the Far East, and what linguistic problems it had to overcome in the process, can no longer be reconstructed in detail today, despite extensive archive searches in Leverkusen. There is a large number of sometimes quite extensive reports concerning business visits to the Far East by representatives of the company’s headquarters (customer advisors), but none of these reports contains even the briefest mention of any accompanying translators or interpreters. The advisers must either have spoken the languages of the countries they visited, which is improbable; or, anticipating later trends, they must have communicated with their contacts in English. It is, after all (to take China as an example), very unlikely that many people were available at that time who could speak both German and one of the Chinese dialects (missionaries may have been the exception). In any event, communication must have been successful, as a report from Gollwitzer illustrates: When in the 90s the Americans, British and Germans sent experts to East Asia to look at the production and trade situation there, the experts were also instructed to find out whether there was actually anything behind claims of an economic “yellow peril”. The German commission, which was sent to East Asia in 1897, consisted of experienced manufacturers and technicians. (1962: 29)

There is no mention whatsoever in the final report of 1898 of language problems. Archive documents show that the contacts between Bayer and their partners in Japan and China were set up and developed very rapidly. Japanese partners came to Elberfeld (the original location of Bayer) as early as 1897, where they were trained in Bayer methods. At the same time, training was offered to technicians in Japan. There must, then, have been some kind of language centre at Bayer as early as the end of the nineteenth century. This centre developed gradually, and over the last three decades it has offered foreign language training (including German as a foreign language) on a large scale, involving a range of subjects, staff and methods. Recently a comprehensive foreign language auditing system has been introduced to provide (part of) a basis for the assessment of future personnel requirements (“SZ”, 12 February 1997: 46). One particularly notable event in Bayer’s history was the visit to Elberfeld by a mission sent by the Empress of China in 1906 to find out about political and administrative institutions in Germany. The delegation was led

116

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

by a Chinese viceroy and a minister. Interesting in our context is the fact that an interpreter (“Dragoman”) accompanied the German hosts, and that this interpreter (contrary to customary practice) was not merely mentioned by name, but even invited to the official dinner (“dinner jacket and medals required”). There is little written evidence of the extent to which Bayer used language mediators in its transactions in China. I am aware of only one report prepared by a Chinese translator in 1944 on his 31 years of employment with the company. The report is enlightening in two respects. Firstly, its author tells us that he translated pharmaceutical brochures from German into Chinese with the help of a German Bayer employee before the First World War. This is an early indication of co-operation between people with different native languages and different subject specialisms (subject specialist with foreign language knowledge and linguist with special subject knowledge), something which was probably quite frequent at that time without anyone seeing the necessity to make a written record of the fact. Secondly, a form of “relay translation” was practised at the time: Chinese medical journals were translated by a Chinese translator into English and then by a German native speaker from English into German. This form of dual translation was phased out when sufficient staff who could speak English were available in Leverkusen. Following the Second World War, language mediation experienced the same kind of boom at Bayer as they did elsewhere. A translation centre was set up, although the company’s staff only gradually came to make use of it (perhaps deliberately), at least until they were encouraged to do so in management circulars. The translation centre published annual reports, of which only a few have been preserved in the company’s archives. The 1952 report is particularly interesting: The sales departments are endeavouring to have all their work, especially that relating to advertising material, done by the company’s translation centre, since problems have been experienced with material prepared abroad. It has become clear that only those staff here at the factory who specialize in the relevant areas and work only in two or three such areas are in a position to translate the extremely difficult technical and scientific texts. For this reason we were forced last year to expand our staff in several sectors by recruiting foreign employees, above all for Spanish: This was due to a significant increase in the workload, especially in view of the fact that the export sales department for paints wants all its Spanish, Italian and Portuguese work to be done here. Once these people have been trained over several months and

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

117

become familiar with these areas, the productivity of the translation centre will increase, and work will be processed more quickly. Apart from the sales departments, the plants have also sent an increasing number of difficult technical texts in for translation. Furthermore, translation work is being carried out on a regular basis for the sales department for chemical fibres in Düsseldorf, and for the publishers of the journal “Angewandte Chemie” (Applied Chemistry) and Chemie Ingenieur Technik (Chemistry Engineering Technology).

By the end of 1966, the staff had risen from a total of 32 to 52, with the English staff numbering slightly more than the French. The 1965/1966 annual report expressly points out that “our gentlemen (were) used above all to accompany visitors from abroad around the factory, and to act as interpreters on frequent occasions for the plants and sales departments”. The archive documents present a rather unclear picture of the assessment of the quality of the work carried out by the translation centre. On the one hand, the management department, which was responsible for the translation centre, often stressed in correspondence with applicants that Bayer employed only “the very best specialists”. On the other hand, large numbers of English translations of German texts were often sent to England for checking. This led to dissatisfaction at both ends: in England because the staff there did not want the extra work arising from such checking, and in Leverkusen because the translation centre there felt it was being undermined. A proposal from London that only pre-translations should be undertaken in Leverkusen, while the preparation of final versions should be done in England (by taking on additional staff), was evidently never followed up. Letters of application are a particularly interesting phenomenon in this context (see Chapter 2. 1, Auswärtiges Amt). One English translation agency offers translations “from and into any language”. An applicant claims to have wide-ranging knowledge “of all subjects”. A Spanish-American translation agency uses quite different arguments: It is an unfortunate fact that famous German companies, whose products enjoy an international reputation, frequently publish Spanish catalogues and advertising material containing language errors and incorrectly translated expressions, which creates a very bad impression in the eyes of foreign customers.

The company management in Leverkusen issued the following statement on the notorious controversy concerning literal versus free (idiomatically acceptable) translation, to which Bayer/London had drawn attention:

118

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN Another difficulty which must be overcome, ... is the way the literature (specialist texts are meant; W. W.) is worded in German. Despite the fact that any translation which tries to bring all the German into the English text necessarily sounds very clumsy, the departments (in Leverkusen; W. W.) responsible for the German texts do not favour alterations. Our translation department has no authority to re-write texts, even to a limited extent. Additions to, or omissions from, the texts would mean that they would not be acceptable to the departments concerned ... We did not state in our last letter — nor is it our opinion — that a literal translation is preferable to a text conveying the meaning. We merely wished to convey that a literal translation is preferred by us in cases where it faithfully renders the meaning intended by the author of the German text ...

Sexist factors also appear to have played a role on some occasions. As has been the case in other companies, too, a Bayer director once attempted to appoint a female as a technical translator in the translation centre. The response he received from the management department is amusing in view of today’s concern with political correctness: As you are aware, in our company really difficult technical texts are only translated by gentlemen with experience, who spent some or all of their studies in the relevant university departments. Furthermore, virtually all texts are translated by native speakers into their mother tongue, since this has proved most successful. However, also in view of the fact that it is more difficult to find secretaries than it is to find translators, we must take pains to avoid appointing ladies. This would cause resentment, since most of our ladies have a good knowledge of languages, and many of them even have a diploma in interpreting ...

Today the situation is quite different. For some years now the translation centre at Bayer, now called the “Zentrale Sprachendienst” (central language service), has been headed by a female (the first female to hold this position, as far as I am aware). In the 1950s, at least, Bayer seems to have had little interest in fostering contacts with the university training institutes. Thus, at the beginning of the fifties Professor Harri Maier, director of the Interpreters’ Institute at the University of Heidelberg, received the following reply to his invitation for a member of the company to attend the (oral) examinations for licensed translators/interpreters (Heidelberg had no degree-level courses at the time): Thank you very much for enclosing with your letter of 17 August the examination schedule for 15 — 20 October, and for your kind invitation for one of our gentlemen to attend these examinations as a guest. Unfortunately, it will not be possible for any of our gentlemen to accept your kind invitation,

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

119

due to business commitments abroad. We do, however, fully appreciate the value of your institute and follow your work in this area with great interest. Yours most sincerely, signed (handwritten signature).

Dr Berthold Beinert, the next director of the Heidelberg institute, received a similar rejection (due to “other commitments”) a year later. I do not know whether the institutes at Mainz/Germersheim or Saarbrücken sent out similar invitations at such an early stage. Certainly, it was common practice in the mid-1960s. I remember welcoming the head of the translation centre in Leverkusen to Saarbrücken soon after taking up my duties there in 1966. On the whole it is difficult to assess the current status of the central language service at Bayer. On the one hand it obviously produces excellent work and is therefore held in high regard by the company’s board. Renate Gudehus, the head of the service, says: “If we were not doing our job properly, we would not be here”. After all, such a language service is expensive, and “does not pay for itself”. There is a constant problem of “deficit”: in other words, the service costs more than it earns (the language service at Siemens suffers from the same problem: see below; Chapter 6. 4. 3). On the other hand, Mrs Gudehus is aware that the work of the service is not fully appreciated, as can be seen from the fact that the language service is a central service within the company’s service departments (environmental protection, etc.), which all operate under the company administration. Concerted PR activities are required to improve the image of the language service within the company. The following questionnaire, sent out by the service on 1 October 1991, is an important step in the right direction: Please complete: Name:........................................................................... Department:.................................................................. Please return by 21 October 1991 to WV-LE ZDW Central Language Service Building Q 18, Leverkusen 1. How often do you make use of the Central Language Service (ZS)? regularly occasionally rarely never (if “never”, please go to questions 7, 9 and 10)

120

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

2. Into which languages do you have texts translated by the ZS? English French Spanish Italian Portuguese Russian others, namely: 3. Out of which languages do you have texts translated by the ZS? English French Spanish Italian Portuguese Russian others, namely: 4. What kind of texts do you have translated by the ZS? Advertising texts and advertisements Technical brochures Manuals Memos Press releases or other PR texts Lectures/speeches Articles for trade journals Articles from trade journals Legal texts Business texts Correspondence (e.g. with customers and agencies abroad) Texts for in-company information (e.g. from a foreign language into German) Other texts, namely: 5. Translations must be accurate in terms of their content. How important is it to you that translations are also of a high linguistic/stylistic quality, so that they meet the high standards expected of advertising and PR texts, for example? Very important Important Not very important Completely unimportant 6. How important is it to you that in-company translators (native speakers) are available for your translations who are familiar with your subject-matter and with whom you can be in constant contact (e.g. with a view to making later changes to texts)? Very important

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

121

Important Not very important Completely unimportant 7. Would you pass more work on to the ZS if there were a lower price for rough translations of lower linguistic quality (e.g. for purposes of internal information)? Yes No If yes, to which kinds of texts would this apply? Manuals PR texts (e.g. agencies abroad) Press articles Legal texts Business texts General correspondence Other texts, namely: 8. Is the work you pass on to the ZS done within a reasonable time? Always Usually Rarely Never 9. If you have ever passed translation work on to other offices, was this? Because of the price Because of dissatisfaction with the quality of earlier translations Because you believe that the ZS takes too long to complete the work Because you have such texts translated within your own department For other reasons, namely: 10. Do you have any particular needs/wishes with regard to translation work?

6.4.2 Mannesmann Insufficient information forbids a representative survey of translation and interpreting at Mannesmann/DEMAG. The archive in Düsseldorf, one of the largest (if not the largest) in Germany, only provides a few details, presumably because it was not considered worthwhile to store information on language activities. The extensive report by Wessel, “Kontinuität im Wandel. 100 Jahre Mannesmann 1890-1990” (Continuity in Change. 100 years of Mannesmann, 1890-1990) (1990) does not contain a single reference to the methods or volume of translation and interpreting work, nor to the organization of the translation office, which (according to archive material) was founded in 1919

122

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

at the latest. The same is true of Nellißen’s Cologne thesis “Das MannesmannEngagement in Brasilien. Pfade internationaler Unternehmenstätigkeit aus wirtschaftshistorischer Sicht” (Mannesmann in Brazil. International company activities from the perspective of economic history) (1996). The fact that the first advertising material to appear in German, English, French and Spanish (though not in Portuguese, despite the company’s involvement in Brazil) came out as early as 1912 shows that international communication was important to Mannesmann at the beginning of the twentieth century. The archive material does not indicate, however, who was actually responsible for producing the foreign-language material. Presumably it was staff in the export department. Or it may have been Mannesmann personnel posted abroad, who had improved their knowledge of foreign languages during their stay in other countries to such an extent that they could undertake such work. Specialists with a sound knowledge of foreign languages always seem to have good prospects at Mannesmann when applying for certain positions. This is shown by a letter from one office to the personnel department: “Since the vacant positions require a good command of English and French, we do not believe that they can be filled by moving staff from other sections”. And Dietrich writes: Higher officials had sound general business knowledge and were often required to have additional abilities. The export department was always looking for people with a command of foreign languages. In keeping with the company’s worldwide activities, not just English, but also Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch were needed. It is noticeable that average salaries in 1914 ... were higher in the export department than in the domestic and socket pipe departments. This suggests that the department had a small number of exceptionally well-paid staff, presumably export specialists, or perhaps foreign staff who had returned home. The sales engineers in the three major departments also belonged to the more highly qualified staff. (1991: 149)

There is only one mention of the use of liaison interpreters: a report on a visit to Russia in 1931 points out that a number of interpreters accompanied the delegation. On the occasion of the Turkish President’s visit to Düsseldorf in 1954, however, no interpreters were present. Since no one knew which foreign languages the Turkish delegation could speak, the company management decided to welcome the party in French. Within the company, the translation office does not seem to have enjoyed a very high status. In an organizational plan from the year 1953 the translation office is placed on approximately the same level as the travel office, and later

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

123

its status seems to have deteriorated even further: the 1958 organizational plan shows that the translation office and the travel office had been amalgamated. Nowadays translation work is carried out by the respective foreign branches. The translation office in Düsseldorf has been cut back to a minimum of permanent staff. Most of the work is done by freelancers (including some who were previously full-time staff) who enjoy a high degree of independence. Nowhere does the archive material mention the words “quality control” or “quality assurance”, two terms which play a central role in export/import companies today (Chapter 8.2). It was not possible to establish whether Mannesmann has a terminological database in Düsseldorf to manage its company know-how. 6.4.3 Siemens The development of language mediation services at Siemens shows both similarities and differences when compared with Bayer. The main similarities stem from the fact that, like Bayer, Siemens built up its foreign links in the second half of the nineteenth century, with China as an important business partner. Werner Siemens, born as the fourth of fourteen children in Lenthe in 1816, began his business in a backyard workshop (a situation reminiscent of the origins of semiconductor producers in Californian garages). On 1 October 1847 in the rear building at 19 Schöneberger Strasse in Berlin, the initially very small “Telegraphen-Bau-Anstalt Siemens & Halske” (Siemens & Halske Telegraph Construction Company) was set up. Today it is a global enterprise with an annual turnover of almost 100 billion German marks. Siemens attached great importance to exports from the very outset: like Bayer and Mannesmann, the company was practising “globalization” long before the word became so popular (Chapter 7. 2). When Siemens himself retired in 1890, already ennobled by the Kaiser, some 2,000 of the company’s 4,500 personnel were employed abroad, mainly in England, Russia and China. The first tram manufactured by Siemens began operating in Berlin in 1881 (a prototype had been demonstrated at the Berlin Trade Fair in 1879), with Peking following in 1889. Around the turn of the century, an export department with two subdivisions was set up: the commercial office and the technical office. The commercial office had the following function:

124

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

1. To undertake general commercial correspondence; 2. To deal with foreign (commercial) correspondence in English, French and Spanish; 3. To deal with customs invoices; 4. The translation of tenders and estimates into foreign languages. The technical office had the following duties: 1. Technical correspondence; 2. Foreign (technical) correspondence. As is the case with Bayer, little (of any real substance) can be found out about the history of translation/interpreting at Siemens from the company archives. So-called “compradores” (generally Dutch, Spanish or Portuguese, but occasionally also Chinese) were responsible for maintaining contact between Siemens and the outside world (verbal communication from Wilhelm Gattinger, managing director of Siemens in Hong Kong). These people were important in all Siemens business. They were well aware of their high status, sported such names as “Bringfast”, “Golden Eagle”, “Right Venture”, etc., and wore uniform. The fascinating book “Old Hong Kong (1860-1900)” contains a photo, which cannot, unfortunately, be reproduced here, of a Japanese business delegation in Hong Kong, flanked by its Chinese advisors and interpreters (1995: 127). At that stage in the company’s development (prior to the First World War), Siemens, like Bayer, posted employees with company expertise and foreign language abilities abroad, where such personnel could establish a reputation for themselves. One instruction from the former export department stated explicitly: “A full command of the language of the host country (is) absolutely necessary.” Today, too, the acquisition of intercultural competence, and instruction in English and the language of the host country is a central part of the preparation of all staff who are to be posted abroad. As with Bayer, there was a language centre from a very early stage (part of the training centre), whose main task was to teach reading skills in the specialist areas relevant to Siemens’ work (O’Flanagan/W. P. Uhden 1994). Efforts were also made to send foreign engineers (above all those of German origin) to Berlin, to train them there in German in the skills necessary for their work, and then to send them back to their home countries. The existence of the language centre took a great deal of pressure off the Siemens language service, since it was able over the course of time to train specialists with a command of foreign languages, who only occasionally required assistance from the language centre.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

125

It cannot be stated with any certainty whether the requirement to acquire linguistic and cultural skills before working abroad also applied to China. In the Siemens company journal of October 1927 we read that in negotiations with the Chinese, various problems, especially of a cultural nature, might be encountered due to the “conservative character” of the Chinese: “ ... it is necessary to sensitize oneself to the different business and emotional life of Chinese customers and at the same time to ward off the stiff competition from other competent companies”. In China, where contacts with Germans were established as early as the 14th century, foreign language competence has a long tradition (which, to my knowledge, has never been fully researched). An (anonymous) report on a journey through China in 1957 states: Great care must be taken in all negotiations, since we were always most surprised to discover how many Chinese can speak western languages. In some cases it was possible just to use English, German or French during discussions, without the help of interpreters.

The report makes two things clear. Firstly, the Germans were afraid of being outwitted by those Chinese who could speak foreign languages. And secondly, they preferred to speak English, German and French in order to avoid any errors of translation. Here one sees the notorious lack of trust in the language mediation profession someone once put like this: “Translators can do everything, but none of them knows anything about anything”. Swales, a well-known English expert on special languages, has expressed this mistrust rather more explicitly: Many (researchers; W. W.) felt unequal to this task (of producing a summary of their own texts in a foreign language; W. W.) and resorted to translation services available in the city, while continuing to express anxiety about both the linguistic and substantive accuracy of these translations.(1990: 179; see Chapter 6. 12)

A comment on the translation of a legal text during a protracted court battle between Werner von Siemens and the Siemens Brothers in London shows that reservations concerning the quality of translations are frequently justified: “When using the translation, constant reference must be made to the original (in English; W. W.), since the translation is not absolutely accurate”. The following organizational plan from Siemens China Co. of 1 June 1937 shows how Siemens organized its business operations in China until shortly before the Second World War.

126

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

127

The chart shows two things. First, in 1937 there was a (small) translation office headed by C. H. Chan with two translators (presumably native speakers of Chinese for German-Chinese translations) and two secretaries. Second, native speakers of German and Chinese worked together in virtually all departments, which suggests that the members of staff in the various departments could solve their communication problems through constant contact with each other. This probably helped to speed up work considerably, since the need to involve translators can considerably slow down the process of communication within a company. Alongside China (and many other countries), Siemens was mainly involved in Russia, with which business relations had been in place since 1849. By the turn of the century, Siemens was firmly established in St. Petersburg. A “Statute of the Siemens & Halske Russian Electrical Engineering Works” of 19 May 1898 in German and Russian has survived. It is not known how the Germans and the Russians communicated with each other in the nineteenth century. However, we do know that, after the Second World War, the German delegates spoke English (much to the surprise of the Russians) and not German, as they had previously done during negotiations. The Siemens archives in Munich contain only one Russian-German translation (and no German-Russian examples). The text in question is a letter from the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union dated 14 July 1950. The German translation states at one point that “all the great workers (the directors) of this company (have) died”. It would be interesting to know whether a native speaker of German or of Russian prepared this translation. If it was a German, he seems to have translated on a one-to-one basis, against his better judgement. If it was a Russian, the expression “great workers” is in line with the ideology of the classless Marxist-Leninist society, for whom “directors” would have been an insult. No detailed information is available on the development of translation/ interpreting at the company’s head office (first in Berlin, later in Munich) for the period up until approximately 1950. A secret organizational plan prepared by Siemens & Halske AG (S & H AG) in June 1943 does not mention a (separate) “translation” section. In the plan of S & H/Kaufmännische Leitung (Commercial Management) (KL) of August 1943, however, a central translation office is mentioned under S & H KL/Office alongside a post department and an inventory office etc., though no further details are given. The organizational plan of WWZ (Werner-Werk Z) of December 1931 also points to the

128

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

existence of a translation office (without being more specific), and the S & H company telephone directory is more helpful. According to the directory, the translation office in 1939 comprised four sections: English, French, Italian and Spanish. At WWZ the translation office had the status of an administrative unit, rather like the “Department of Transport and Traffic” and the “Central Office for the Casinos of the Siemens Companies”, between which it was located in the S & H telephone directory. It is also instructive to note in this context that the Siemens-Schuckert factory in 1924 had a subdivision of the central administration called the “Literary Office”, with the following functions: – Office for advertising and advertisements; – Office for photography and copies; – Translation office; – Library. Such observations suggest that language mediation activities at Siemens (as at Bayer) did not enjoy a particularly good reputation. It is not difficult to see why a company like Siemens should hold such a view of its translators. In such companies, it is the engineers who really matter (and, when it comes to business, the sales specialists, or the sales engineers), and not the linguists. On one occasion, in his speech to express his thanks for the award of the “Bodensee-Literaturpreis” (Lake Constance Prize for Literature) on 23 June 1968, Georg Siemens commented on translation (source: Siemens Archive, Siemens Forum, Munich): Whenever one translates from one language, for example a foreign language, into another, perhaps one’s mother tongue, one is constantly crossing the frontier between two realms, and each time a toll has to be paid. A totally accurate translation is therefore impossible. On the other hand, this constant crossing of language boundaries is also very instructive, and whenever one returns home from a foreign country one really begins to see what could be done better at home. For this reason it has always been accepted that translation from a foreign language is of benefit to the translator’s mother tongue.

The institutionalization of translation activities at Siemens dates back to the 1920s, as I was informed by Eberhard Tanke in Munich. The “Übersetzungsbüro” (Translation Office) was renamed “Fremdsprachendienst” (Foreign Language Service) in the 1960s. In the 1970s it became the “Sprachendienst” (Language Service). This renaming was not an arbitrary matter, but was the

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

129

result of a shift and an expansion in the functions of the department. In the Übersetzungsbüro (at the Berlin head office, but not in the case of translators employed at sites abroad), work consisted mainly of the revision of texts pretranslated in the individual specialist departments. The Fremdsprachendienst (with some 300 staff), by contrast, had central service functions for the entire company, although this did not necessarily mean that translation work was not also carried out in the individual departments, for whatever reason. In the 1970s the responsibilities changed again. The renaming of the Fremdsprachendienst as the Sprachendienst was due to the fact that the department was no longer merely responsible for translations from (mainly) English. It was also given responsibilities with regard to the production of specialist German texts, an activity which brought it into contact with university departments of German (Hamburg) and the “tekom” (Society for Technical Documentation), and also involved cooperation with technical writers and translators/interpreters. Commercial considerations were always decisive in the work of the language service and its predecessors, and today the department remains part of the company’s commercial division. All attempts to become part of the technical division, and thus to escape from the control of the commercial section, have proved unsuccessful. This prevented the Sprachendienst from developing into an independent unit in terms of the overall company plan until well into the 1960s. At that point, the status of the Sprachendienst was enhanced, for three reasons: 1. Siemens’ foreign contacts developed into foreign subsidiaries, e.g. in England, France, the USA, Spain, the Soviet Union, with an accompanying increase in translation work, from the native language into the foreign language and vice versa; 2. An engineer (Eberhard Tanke) was appointed as the director of the central language service in Munich. Here was someone who understood the requirements of the individual departments and consistently promoted cooperation and further in-company training for language staff; 3. The work of the language service was given technical support, in two areas simultaneously: 1. The beginnings of the computerization of the language service, which date back to the early 1960s (Chapter 5. 5). That was when the service developed the TEAM (“Terminologie- Erfassungs-und-Auswertungs-Methode”; terminol-

130

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

ogy compilation and assessment method) program as an aid for internal company use. The core of the system was a flexible computerized dictionary used to store and assess specialist vocabularies in an unlimited number of languages. The individual entries contain not just the terms involved and their synonyms, but also additional grammatical and lexical data — definitions, sources and, last but not least, examples in context, which have become very important in recent terminology work, with its focus on phraseology. The lexicographical information of this project initially covered some 100,000 entries (with a projected upper limit of several million). It could be accessed by users either direct via monitor or indirect via hardcopy material (word lists, glossaries, dictionaries). The processes involved in the production of specialist dictionaries, i.e. the compilation, ordering, comparison and systematization of lexical terms, was done automatically, as was the selection, reordering, deletion of repetitions and all other functions required in dictionary work. TEAM consists of a series of program components which break down the entry, processing and accessing of the lexical material into individual, manageable and completely independent stages. The long-term goal of TEAM was: to make very large databases with various forms of information - specialist vocabulary and ... textual information and illustrations - available to large numbers of users. This would serve to increase the exchange of information between companies, associations and authorities and to provide a basis for the improvement of terminology and dictionary work. (Siemens data praxis, no year given)

Work on TEAM was stopped in 1994, when the decision was made to use and refine other available databases. In the 1970s, the department of translation and interpreting at the University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken derived considerable benefit from the TEAM system: Eberhard Tanke held a number of TEAM classes there, at a time when it was not easy for representatives of the “military industries” to turn up at universities and hold classes for students. 2. The METAL system (Mechanical Translation and Analysis of Languages) was introduced as a contribution to the field of machine or machineaided translation. It was developed from 1961 onwards by the “Linguistic Research Center” at the University of Texas in Austin, further developed under a co-operation agreement between Austin and Siemens, and finally bought by Siemens. METAL was overestimated from the very start, and was by no means the kind of “fully automatic high quality translation” (FAHQT) system Bar-Hillel had promoted at the beginning of the 1960s (Wilss 1988).

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

131

METAL (like other machine-aided translation systems) can produce, fully automatically, non-interactive rough translations which require pre- or postediting. Since the beginning of the 1990s, work on METAL at Siemens has been suspended, but it is being carried on elsewhere (by SAP).

6.5 The foundation of new training centres since 1945 One sure sign that a professional group is beginning to move towards greater formal professionalization is the establishment of training institutions. As language mediation began to expand after 1945, so were a number of training institutions founded (Forstner 1995). Graz and Innsbruck were the first (in 1946), followed by Mainz/Germersheim (1947), Saarbrücken (1948), Georgetown/Washington (1949), Trieste (1954), and Paris (ESIT and ISIT, both 1957). Others followed in the 1960s. According to Harris/Kingscott (1997) there are 243, mainly university, training institutions for translators/ interpreters in the world today. At the beginning of the 1960s, the university institutes then in existence joined to form the CIUTI association (Conférence Internationale permanente d’Instituts Universitaires de Traducteurs et Interprètes). By 1995 the number of members had reached 21. The main criterion for membership is that the centres involved train both translators and interpreters. The German college (non-university) institutes in Bremen, Cologne, Flensburg, Magdeburg and Köthen and the two Bavarian academies in Munich and Würzburg are not entitled to membership, although it is difficult to predict what the membership terms will be in future. The working languages of CIUTI are at present English, French and German. Study periods abroad are mutually recognized by the organization, and the ERASMUS programme funded by Brussels is especially important in this context. The reasons which dictated the choice of the locations of these training institutes are not entirely clear. Some idea can be gained from publications concerning the history of the institutes. One of these is the history of the Vienna institute, which was originally founded in 1943 but only took up its full range of activities after the War. It states: By decree of 4 January ... the faculty was asked to give its reaction to a draft on national examination regulations for university-trained translators and interpreters at diploma level. (...) The Reichsminister’s draft explicitly mentions that an interpreter’s institute must be in place, with its own director, to offer

132

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN such training. (Petioky 1983: 18f.). A commission chaired by Professor Marchet, then Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy, met on 27 May and passed the necessary resolution. The meeting decided that an institute for interpreter training should be established at the university to replace the hitherto provisional organization of interpreting courses. (Petioky 1983: 9)

The institute in Innsbruck was founded by unanimous decision of the members of the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Innsbruck. At their meeting of 21 November 1945 they approved the proposal to found an institute for interpreting. Professor Karl Brunner, Professor of English Philology, was unanimously elected as the chairman of the institute, while Professor Josef Brüchs, Professor of Romance Philology, was elected vice-chairman. (MS. Schmid 1997; no page reference)

No mention is made of who submitted the proposal, nor of its justification. An important consideration was clearly the fact that “the training of ‘especially gifted linguists’ as translators or interpreters should take place at a university” (MS. Schmid 1997; no page reference). This, however, is followed by a serious qualification, which might be seen as symptomatic of virtually all of the institutes established after the War: Unlike studies leading to teaching qualifications or doctorates, training courses for translators or interpreters do not represent a full course of study. They can be followed at the same time as other studies within the faculty, and in vocational practice, e.g. in the civil service, they are not classified in group “a” (full university study; W. W.). This training, or further training, function, which does not enjoy full academic recognition, is the reason for the relatively low status the newly created “Institut für Dolmetscherausbildung” (Institute for Interpreter Training) has within the alma mater, which for years has itself enjoyed an excellent reputation. Within the Faculty of Philosophy, the Institut für Dolmetscherausbildung was alternately part of the “Institut für englische Philologie” (Institute for English Philology), the “Institut für englische Sprache und Literatur” (Institute for English Language and Literature) or the “Institut für romanische Philologie” (Institute for Romance Philology), represented by the directors of these institutes in university committees, and even administered by them until 1959. It was not until the winter semester of 1959/60 that an expert was appointed to serve alongside the respective director. Neither this expert nor the institute as a whole had its own rooms. The shared location with the Institut für englische Sprache und Literatur was not ended until 1966. (MS. Schmid 1997: no page ref.)

The founding years of the institute in Graz were not significantly different. Leikauf reports:

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

133

There has been translator and interpreter training in Graz for fifty years. It cannot, however, be stated with any certainty when an independent institute for translators and interpreters was created. Like so many things in Austria, it probably came about by a process of gradual development.. The professorial committee of the Faculty of Philosophy decided on 5 July 1946 ... to introduce interpreting studies in Graz and to apply to the ministry of education to establish an institute for interpreter training under the name “Institut für Auslandskunde der Universität Graz” (Institute for Foreign Studies of the University of Graz). The aim of the institute was to be the training of “academically qualified specialists on foreign countries”, in particular of translators and interpreters, and also the “teaching of academically based knowledge of foreign cultures ... to broader groups of students ... The planned programme comprised 16 languages, including virtually all the Eastern European languages. The institute was to be headed by a chairman supported by an advisory committee. A draft statute and a provisional curriculum were submitted along with the proposal, and Dr Heinrich Felix Schmidt, professor of Slavonic Philology, was suggested as director. Almost one and a half years passed before the ministry made its decision on the university’s application. It was negative, rejecting the idea of an independent institute for foreign studies and suggesting instead the creation of an institute for the training of translators and interpreters ... As far as can be ascertained from the few surviving documents, the university then decided to re-organize the institute, which to all intents and purposes already existed. The institute was first listed in the university course handbook in the winter semester of 1948/49 as the “Institut für Dolmetscherausbildung” (Institute for Interpreter Training), from the winter semester of 1953/54 as the “Institut für Dolmetscher- und Übersetzerausbildung” (Institute for Interpreter and Translator Training), and from winter semester 1977/78 as the “Institut für Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung” (Institute for Translator and Interpreter Training”) ... From the very beginning, the primarily vocational orientation of the courses and the lack of a distinct academic profile (and therefore of a chair) meant that the institute was in a rather weak position within the university. As in Vienna and Innsbruck, the chairmanship of the institute was held by a professor from another department, usually from the phililogies, who represented it on university committees. Until 1971 the institute was, with brief interruptions, run under the patronage of the Graz department of Slavonic Studies. (1997: 8ff.)

The two German institutes founded after the end of the Second World War, in Germersheim and Saarbrücken, developed differently from those in Austria. In these cases, the initiative did not come from within the universities, but from the French occupying powers, who founded four universities (Mainz, Saarbrücken, Speyer and Germersheim) in their zone for reasons of cultural policy. Germersheim was originally established in 1947 as a state interpreting

134

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

college (initially without training in simultaneous interpreting; verbal communication from Hermann Kusterer), and was integrated into the University of Mainz as an independent “Auslands- und Dolmetscherinstitut” (“ADI”: Institute of Foreign Studies and Interpreting) in 1949 (Schunck 1997). In 1972 the ADI was renamed “Fachbereich Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft” (“FAS”: School of Applied Linguistics), and in 1992 was given the title “Fachbereich Angewandte Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft” (“FASK”: School of Applied Linguistics and Cultural Studies) (Stoll 1996: 11). A report by the college rector Schramm to a member of the French military government dated 11 March 1949 shows how apathetic the Rhineland-Palatinate state parliament was to the new college at that time: On Friday 4 March, just before dusk, the Interpreters‘ College was visited by the so-called “Grenzlandausschuß” (border region committee) of the Rhineland-Palatinate parliament, which had spent the day touring the villages in the Germersheim district which had been most extensively damaged during the War. The party consisted of some 15 politicians from various parties led by Dr Ashold, who is said to be a member of the SPD. Despite considerable difficulties, the visit had been organized by the district mayor, who was a keen supporter of the Interpreters’ College, and we had planned it in minute detail. Apart from myself, Professor Jeschke, the administrative director Prager and a group of students were present. It was most upsetting to discover how ill-informed and prejudiced the visitors were. I had to use all my persuasive skill to convince them that our college was trying to provide something valuable for young students, and that it was a German, free — and not an externally controlled — institution. In this connection I cannot help but point out that the government politicians in Rhinlenad-Palatinate responsible for the college have never done enough to inform their colleagues in the state parliament about the real work and value of the college. (Quoted from Schunck 1997: 140f.)

The major difference between the Austrian institutes and Saarbrücken on the one hand and Germersheim on the other is the fact that the latter had its own academic chairs from the very beginning of teaching there in 1947. Originally there were 4, now there are 16 chairs. In addition, there are almost 100 assistant lecturers and more than 50 part-time teaching staff. It is not surprising, then, that Germersheim has developed over the years into the “world’s largest training institute for translators and interpreters” (Stoll 1996; see also Schunck 1996). The Saarbrücken institute was founded on 1 February 1948 with 44 students and no staff of its own (Zerban 1963). Its status within the university

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

135

was, for many years, unclear. It was initially an “institute attached to the university”. It was not until 22 March 1961 that the senate adopted a statute making the institute a non-faculty institute, and its integration into the university was guaranteed by the appointment of a senate commission representing all (four) faculties. The foundation of the Saarbrücken institute was favoured by the special political and economic situation of the Saarland after the War, which was only resolved by a referendum in 1957, and by the original co-existence of German and French as the teaching languages at the university. Up until around 1955 the only languages offered at the institute were English and French, and other languages were gradually added to the curriculum. Even Arabic and Chinese were taught, albeit only as language courses. It was not until the mid-1950s that the institute obtained its own simultaneous interpreting equipment. Since translation students far outnumbered those taking courses in interpreting (for many years by about 9 to one), and since it was considered necessary (for optical reasons) to bring the name of the institute into line with the usual practice in the Faculty of Philosophy (where there is not an “Anglisteninstitut” (English Institute), for example, but an “Institut für Anglistik” (Institute for English Studies)), the interpreting institute was given, in 1967, the name “Institut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen”( “IÜD”: Institute for Translation and Interpreting) . This decision, which much surprised me personally (see below, in this chapter), was taken virtually without discussion. This was, incidentally, the name also used by the institute in Heidelberg, where it has, fortunately, been kept to this day. In 1974, the Saarbrücken IÜD had to find a new name, because the institute had been until that point (as mentioned above) a (non-faculty) institute attached to the university. The new university legislation did not allow such an arrangement, and the institute was given the new title of the “Fachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen” (Department of Applied Linguistics, Translation and Interpreting). This name was forced upon the institute by the “Fachbereich Neuere Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften” (School of Modern Languages and Literatures), into which the IÜD, despite resistance, was integrated. It cannot be claimed that this name has proved to be to the advantage of the Fachbereich, since it suggests that the new department (i.e. the old IÜD) has a monopoly on applied linguistics within the university. This was bound to cause problems, since it was clear that eventually other (language) departments would also begin to concern themselves with applied

136

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

aspects of their respective subjects. The latent tensions surfaced on one occasion when an ill-informed member of the “Fachbereichsrat” (the school’s representative council) accused the new department of wanting to establish an academic “monopoly position” — a charge which was absurd in view of the resources of the department (1 professor for 1000 students). Although it was not a post-war creation in the strict sense, the “Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen” (“SOS”: Institute for Oriental Languages) at the University of Bonn, which is unique in Germany, deserves mention in the present context. It is the successor to the Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen of the University of Berlin, which was founded in 1887 and closed in 1945 (Chapter 2. 1; 3. 5). The re-foundation took place in 1959, and Bonn, as the nation’s capital, was the obvious choice of location. Just as in the days of the empire, young diplomats are regularly sent there for three or nine-month intensive language courses, which explains why graduates of the institute can be found in virtually all German consulates and embassies throughout Asia. A new phase began in the life of the Bonn institute in 1983 with the introduction of a degree (diploma) course for translators (covering languages of the Near, Middle and Far East). This course has proved so successful that in the winter semester of 1987/88, 683 students were registered: 280 with Chinese as their first language, 199 with Japanese, 152 with Arabic and 52 with Turkish, many of whom come from abroad. The programme of study is based on the (traditional) courses for translators/interpreters offered at other universities, and involves a first language, a second language (Indonesian and Korean are only second languages), and a non-linguistic special subject. The above observations on the early days of the newly established institutes in Austria and Germany indicate that these institutes had, for many years, serious problems of identity and integration. One has the impression that these problems cannot always be solved, except, in some cases, “by force” (i.e. closure). There are three reasons for this: 1. The difficulty of developing a programme of study for the training of translators and interpreters which takes into account long-term, academic and vocational requirements above and beyond those commonly associated with everyday training; 2. The difficulty of creating an atmosphere of mutual trust between the universities and the institutes, and of convincing the schools, faculties and senates of the universities that language mediation does not just mean replacing a word in one language with a word in a different language (an idea which

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

137

has proved the downfall of many MT projects); 3. The difficulty of making the general public understand just how complex the interaction is between knowledge and language mediation processes, and that translations are the result of highly sophisticated cognitive and linguistic processes (Chapter 6. 12).

6.6 Training concepts Much has been written about the study of translation and interpreting over the past 25 years, especially since 1975, and the author of the present study has been much involved in this work. And yet no specialist, no professional association, no academic journal associated with the discipline could claim to have found the ultimate truth and developed a training concept which might serve as a common basis for all the institutes active in the field. The opposite is in fact the case. There is probably no other discipline in which conflicting ideas on the academic and vocational aspects of the subject have clashed as violently as they have in the discussion of language mediator training (especially with regard to translation). In an attempt to model the complex situation, Kalusche has identified five different types of training programme, all of which focus on the teaching of special languages (1979: 8): 1. A fundamentally academic programme of study with a focus on languages (University of Heidelberg); 2. A graduate course focusing on languages and involving a non-linguistic technical supplementary subject (Fachhochschule Köln; Cologne Polytechnical College); 3. An academic course based equally on languages and technology (University of Mulhouse/Alsace); 4. A graduate course for technology graduates focusing on languages (Polytechnic of Central London); 5. A graduate course for university graduates focusing on language and technology (University of Bath). This list is not complete. Germersheim would need to be added, with its cultural studies/literary orientation, as would Saarbrücken, with its long-standing courses in MT and MAT. The latter are due to the fortunate circumstance that the director of the Fachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen in Saarbrücken and the head of the DFG-funded

138

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

project for English-German machine translation (Sonderforschungsbereich (Special Research Area) 100, “Elektronische Sprachforschung” (Electronic Language Research) was one and the same person. There are various explanations for the general confusion concerning the aims of language mediator training and the kind of courses needed to achieve such aims: 1. The German and Austrian universities (non-university colleges can be left aside here, as they were a later development) were not properly prepared, either in terms of staff or resources, for the creation of such institutes. Most faculty members had no interest in the new institutes because they represented an incalculable financial burden for the universities in question. They also lacked academic respectability. Why should there suddenly be university departments which were not really university departments, since they had (with the exception of Germersheim) no academic chairs, and — in the eyes of the universities — were therefore unable to offer genuinely academic training? 2. Another decisive handicap was the fact that the institutes did not (exactly) know what professional activities they were preparing their students for. They presumably knew that there were three major groups of potential employers — the civil service, the export/import industry, and the European institutions — but this knowledge did not help them very much, since within each of these groups there were many different interests and demands. Every single language service and translation office had (and still has) a specific range of activities and a specific service function geared to the needs of its clients. It is clear that the individual employers of graduates had quite definite views on what linguistic, subject and terminological knowledge a language mediator should have (there was no talk of “computerization” at that stage) in order to be able to deal with tasks efficiently and at a pace dictated by the flow of communication within the company. The common ground between such employers was small indeed, and was essentially based on only three factors. Firstly, it was universally agreed that English and French should be given priority in training programmes. Secondly, it was necessary to provide different training for translators and interpreters. And thirdly, it was unanimously agreed that the institutes should train specialist, and not literary, translators. Apart from this, the training took many different forms, and a (superficial) survey conducted of CIUTI courses showed up significant divergences. There were (and still are) courses for “undergraduates” and “postgraduates”: some

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

139

courses were conceived successively (initial compulsory translator training for all students followed by optional interpreter training), some were conceived in accordance with the so-called “y-model” (joint foundation studies for translators and interpreters, followed, after an intermediate examination, by different studies depending on the students’ goals). Furthermore, the possible subject combinations, the contents of the individual subjects and the progression in courses show clear differences. The CIUTI institutes, then, have not thus far achieved the kind of standardization which would facilitate straightforward exchange relations between them. Nor has the aim of introducing an interinstitutional diploma (e.g. Saarbrücken — Paris — Edinburgh) been achieved, not to mention the often mooted idea of creating, in the long term, a “Eurodiploma”. The European ERASMUS student programme has, however, served to encourage extensive exchange links.

6.7 Relations between the institutes and the universities The relationship between the universities and their institutes for translation and interpreting has never been straightforward, at least in Germany. It has been dominated by traditional reservations on the use of academic knowledge for utilitarian purposes. Such prejudices date back to Archimedes, who, according to Plutarch, saw the invention of machines used for practical convenience as base and petty-minded. These reservations were not, perhaps, shared by all universities in equal measure, but on the whole the institutes remained “institutiones ingratae” only tolerated by their parent universities, who would have abolished them if they had been given the opportunity to do so. How else could it have come about that a Heidelberg professor in the 1980s described the university’s IÜD as the “abscess” of the university; that a Saarbrücken professor commented during budget discussions at the beginning of the 1980s: “We do not need a DI (Dolmetscherinstitut; W. W.)”; or that the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Mainz has always kept the Germersheim institute at such a geographical distance? The major problem facing the academic education of translators and interpreters was that the universities in question omitted to engage in serious planning. Instead, they improvised at every level, with the result that events took their own course for decades and forced the institutes into a marginal role from which (with the possible exception of Germersheim) they have been

140

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

unable to liberate themselves to this day. A few indications of this situation might be mentioned here: Unlike standard eight-semester university degree courses, the training of translators/interpreters was planned on the basis of six semesters (in Saarbrücken even four initially), which made the courses vulnerable to charges of academic “narrowness”. Employers reacted correspondingly, and subjected applicants from these institutes to entry examinations which were seen by graduates (rightly) as discriminatory (Chapter 6. 1). Despite the appointment of professors from the Faculties of Philosophy as directors, the institutes lacked academic leadership in the true sense of the word (again, with the exception of Germersheim). The directors themselves saw no way of changing this situation. The curricula of the institutes did not include academic courses (lectures, seminars), and one can only imagine what the diploma theses required by the examination regulations were like: no documentation on this matter exists, at least in Saarbrücken. Gradually, some members of the non-professorial staff were appointed to the position of academic director at the institutes. Little changed, however, since only professors holding the post-doctoral “habilitation” qualification are allowed to hold academic courses (lectures and advanced seminars) under German university regulations. As late as 1978 the president of the University of Saarbrücken seriously considered introducing a three-term system for the DI, since teaching there was, he believed, purely practical in nature and entirely lacking in academic substance. Similar views were expressed ten years later by a member of the planning committee of the Faculty of Philosophy, which was to deliberate on the future of the above-mentioned institute. During the discussion of the course contents of the institute, one member commented that the institute was only concerned with teaching “skills”. By this she meant the rote learning of grammar rules and vocabulary, implying that the institute was in effect simply a language school which had come into the possession of the university by mistake. The member in question, a sociologist, clearly was not aware that skills involve experiential knowledge and that the acquisition of skills, be they cognitive or manual, presupposes sophisticated and long-term learning processes. The same notion underlay a comment made to me by a colleague from Romance Philology in 1975, who pointed out that there was a “deep, insurmountable divide” between the Fachbereich Neuere Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaften on the one hand and the Fachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

141

Übersetzen und Dolmetschen on the other. The Saarbrücken institute was a non-faculty institution and thus not subject to faculty control in the way German, English or Romance studies were. Nevertheless, it required a controlling body, and was therefore placed under the auspices of a senate commission, as already mentioned, which had the task of advising the institute in its work and representing its interests on university committees. The senate commission met once per semester, and its work progressed smoothly, although it produced little in the way of actual results. The way the commission was seen, at least by one member in a conversation with me, was depressing: the person in question saw it as his task not to support the institute, but rather to ensure in the interest of his faculty that it did not receive “too large a slice of the university budget”. The institute was forced to operate under very difficult conditions. From 1948 to 1955 it had six rooms: one for the secretarial office and the examinations office, one for the director, one for the library, and three lecture rooms. The equipment budget was derisory, and the furnishings were fit only for the refuse tip. Worst of all, though, was the low staffing level, which persists to this day and means that the number of part-time staff has always been inordinately high. Even new university legislation, which requires that all compulsory courses be taught by qualified permanent staff, has done nothing to alter this fact.

6.8 The academicization of training Despite these (and many other) impediments, the institutes in Saarbrücken, Germersheim and Heidelberg especially have sought tirelessly to develop practice-oriented courses with strong academic foundations and thus to give the vocational qualifications required for language mediation a sound academic standing. The work of the so-called “Dreiländerkommission” (three state commission) which developed (relatively) standardized examination regulations for the subject in 1969/70 was most helpful in this process. But by far the most important event was the completely unexpected decision of the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of the Saarland to create a chair at the institute, to which I was appointed on 1 March 1968. The chair had the somewhat strange title “Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Theorie des Übersetzens” (Applied linguistics with

142

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

special reference to the theory of translation), and was the first of its kind not just in Germany, but also internationally. The decision would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of the then rector of the university, the philosopher Hermann Krings. With the support of the professor of English Thomas Finkenstaedt, who had acted as director of the institute for one year (1964-65) , he was able to assert himself despite the vehement resistance of almost half of the faculty’s members. The protest was understandable given thinking at the time: “applied” study was almost a dirty word in those days, at least in a faculty which was committed to a historical, philological and hermeneutic tradition and flatly refused to engage in debate on the relationship between basic and applied research. The creation of a chair at the interpreters’ institute was in keeping with the trend of that time, known in German as “Verwissenschaftlichung” (the academicization, or enhancement of the academic status of a discipline). This trend was based on the conviction that an academic engagement with the issues underlying a course of study provides the conceptual and methodological standards necessary in later vocational practice. Thanks to the scientific perception of the world, so the sociologist Hans Jonas tells us, we have more knowledge today than any other society has ever had before, and this knowledge allows us to see at least a short way into the future and to actively shape it. Guided by such notions, the IÜD introduced in 1968 lectures (for new students) which were designed to make students aware that translation and interpreting are activities which can be modelled rationally, processes of reception and reproduction which transform a source text into an (as far as possible) equivalent target text and presuppose a semantic, functional and pragmatic understanding of the original (for the terminology of translation studies see Shuttleworth/Cowie 1997). These lectures were to provide a basis for later seminars, introductory and advanced, in translation studies and contrastive linguistics. They were also intended to serve as a compulsory preliminary to the preparation of the diploma thesis, which, in turn, was to be a requirement for admission to the final diploma examinations. In the 1970s these considerations produced a curriculum design which was intended to provide a framework for all language sections at the IÜD. The framework was as follows:

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

143

Foundation studies (semester 1 - 4) – Language instruction in the mother tongue – Language instruction in two selected foreign languages (also English and French) – Translation studies (introductory lecture and introductory seminar) – Translation of general texts – Area/cultural studies – Non-linguistic supplementary subject (part I) – Intermediate examination Advanced studies for translators (semester 5 - 6) – Language instruction in the two selected foreign languages – Translation studies (advanced seminar) – Translation of general texts – Area/cultural studies – Non-linguistic supplementary subject (part II) – Specialist translation – Diploma thesis – Final examination Advanced studies for interpreters – Language instruction: elocution, standard text components – Consecutive interpreting (incl. note-taking techniques) – Simultaneous interpreting – Preparation for conference interpreting – Translation studies (advanced seminar) – Area/cultural studies – Diploma thesis – Final examination. The above model appeared to provide a framework which might be expected to serve for at least five to ten years. However, an event soon occurred which was to confirm all the prejudices held by other departments in the Fachbereich. The IÜD, and its successor, the Fachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen, itself unanimously opposed all efforts to place the discipline on a solid academic or theoretical footing. The staff involved clearly failed to understand that such opposition was bound to kill the goose with the golden eggs, especially since the ministries of culture

144

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

in the German states had, under pressure from the institute in Germersheim, just decided to turn the six-semester translation/interpreting degree courses into eight-semester courses, thus giving them full academic status. (A similar revolt occurred some twenty years later in Austria, where a chair in translation studies had been created during the 1980s at each of the universities of Graz, Innsbruck and Vienna.) One can only speculate on the reasons for such self-destructive behaviour. The students were possibly afraid that they would all have to become applied linguists, neglecting the primarily practical orientation of their training. The lecturers were perhaps envious, or were annoyed by the fact that the notorious two-class system at German universities (professorial versus nonprofessorial teaching staff) had, after all, become reality at their institute.

6.9 The theory versus practice debate In the early 1960s, to speak of “translation studies” or “translation science” as a new discipline was somewhat risky. Firstly, there was hardly anyone in Germany to represent this new discipline on an academic level. Secondly, the relationship between theory and practice in the emerging discipline was profoundly disturbed by a fruitless, misguided debate unleashed by those in professional practice and the university institutes themselves. This debate placed a strain on relations between the academic and practical sides of the subject which was to last for many years. The arguments put forward by Berglund in an article entitled “The search for social significance” (1991), in which he criticized translation studies as they were practised at the time, were symptomatic of the divide. Berglund expressed scepticism above all concerning the German view of the discipline, and especially concerning my own ideas: The question is as to what extent academic translation studies of the type pursued at West German universities are useful to the professional practice of technical translation — or, more pointedly, to what extent they have the “social relevance” claimed by Professor Wolfram Wilss. His claim struck a harsh note around the office where I spend my days, since we have long expected that they have little such relevance, and various academic publications that came to our attention had not done much to change our minds ... So the deduction is that whatever the theorist may claim, ... academic translation studies aimed at the needs of the community in general, and the interests of

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

145

industrial translators in particular, are hardly conducted in West Germany. (1991: 145)

Two charges were levelled at German translation studies in general and at me in particular: 1.. They (translation studies; W. W.) present a misleading view of the role and use of source texts, and the translator’s relationship to them. This leads to a suspicion that some theorists see translating work in a perspective quite different from the one that has gradually evolved in our office during about 20 years in the trade. 2. They reflect an inadequate and misguided view of the translator’s obligations and loyalties, and seem to ignore the practical requirements that arise from these obligations. (1991: 146)

These arguments are by no means new. As far as I understand it, they have dominated the debate on the relationship between translation theory and translation practice from the very beginning. They boil down to the idea that translation theorists sit in their ivory tower dreaming up theoretical and metatheoretical ideas which are of no consequence whatsoever for practitioners. In other words: translation studies, which are constantly (and wrongly) equated with translation theory (Chapter 1.2.1), work “prior to” translation practice, or “posterior” to it, but never “in synchronization”, i.e. in cooperation, with it. To such a polarization one can object that translation theory, like every scientific theory which does not exist for its own sake (i.e. to gain theoretical insights as part of basic research), must be a theory of practice, at the centre of which must stand consideration of translation practice (and not the unproductive, or even counterproductive modelling of the translation process). For this reason I always gave inductive (empirical) studies primacy over deductive (universalistic) studies during my years at the Saarbrücken institute: The inclusion of lectures on translation studies in the curriculum for translators and interpreters is only legitimate if translation studies are driven by a mode of enquiry that covers not just theoretical, but also descriptive and applied aspects of the discipline in teaching and research. Applied translation studies have a different purpose from pure translation theory, which does not need to give consideration to the didactic and methodological relevance of its arguments. (Wilss 1977: 4)

It is now accepted among specialists that a practice-oriented study of translation should have two main areas of interest. On the one hand translation studies enquires into the conditions, possibilities and limitations of translation

146

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

as a process of reproducing a source-language text in another language, the target language. On the other hand, it enquires into the criteria which are relevant in (as far as possible) objective translation evaluation. In both these areas of enquiry, the cultural environment of the text, its function, its addressees, as well as the character of the translator, his/her cultural environment and knowledge base (knowledge for whom, of what, and how; Wilss 1996b) and, finally, the function of the target text and its intended addressees play a central role. The extensive specialist literature which has appeared in recent years, and which now runs to thousands of titles, shows that translation studies have learned to free themselves from their theological and (language) philosophical origins and now explore the interaction of factors which are operative in the translation process. It cannot, of course, be denied that (as in modern linguistics generally) there is much empty talk and that a jargon has been cultivated which causes puzzlement inside and outside the discipline since its function is not always clear. There is an unmistakable tendency in some translation studies circles to behave exclusively, to move and exchange ideas in a closed group. It is difficult to establish whether such circles are making the best of a difficult situation, or whether their preference for impenetrable jargon is deliberate, and only to be explained by knowledge-sociological factors. It does not seem likely that the inaccessibility of translation studies is intentional, based on the notion that inaccessibility is itself a sign of scientific respectability. Instead it seems more probable that the lack of communication with the general public is the result of the persistent indifference of the nonspecialist public towards translation studies. The public at large has no interest in translation studies because nowadays only those disciplines which promote themselves as natural or social sciences in the widest sense, i.e. those which enjoy the “authority of the right consciousness”, find an audience. Certainly, translation studies have thus far not succeeded in demonstrating their relevance to the outside world in a way which would make the public aware of their existence as an independent discipline and give it an incentive to engage critically with the questions it explores (Chapter 6.12). Outsiders are simply not easily convinced that there is a need for translation studies, especially when the discipline is said not to yield any results of practical relevance. People are prepared to acknowledge the history of translation (which is really a history of translation method, and not of translation

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

147

theory) as an area of historical research, in the same way as the history of language or of literature. But at the same time they are suspicious that translation can be turned (by the reader of a translation or by a practising translator) into a field of scientific enquiry which is completely unnecessary, since it only engages in self-reflection. It is true that no one would dispute that it might be worthwhile to analyze and classify translation processes and their underlying transfer strategies and qualitative expectations, according to text types. But most laypeople assume that it is generally possible for anyone with a knowledge of two languages to translate (more or less effectively). The central insight in translation studies, namely that translation is a process which (put cautiously) must seek the functional convergence of source and target texts, is simply not relevant scientifically to the layman. Translation theory is seen as an esoteric, cumbersome discipline with little to offer for professional practice, even though translation has become so important as an instrument of interlingual communication since the end of the Second World War that our century has been called the “century of translation”. It is above all the professional translators who have been unimpressed by the insights of translation theory. They constantly harp back (explicitly or implicitly) to the “centipede argument”: the centipede is known to lose its automatic ability to move the moment it begins to think about the complex mechanisms of its motor system. That the “centipede argument” is nothing but a convenient excuse becomes clear when one realizes that language mediators do not reproduce individual words or sentences, but entire texts. Texts are conditioned by different situations of production, structures, functions, target audiences: some are monologic in character, others dialogic; some are written, some oral; they are produced for widely differing purposes (e.g. description, report/ narration, commentary/argument, advertising/persuasion). They are characterized not merely by a more or less complex thematic and functional structure, but also by a more or less complex interaction between text sender and text receiver. It is the task of textual studies to examine such structures. Textual, or discourse, studies, work on the assumption that texts do not simply appear from nowhere, but are situated within a functional context of social structures, social modes of behaviour, individual consciousness and experiential reality. Language mediators must be aware of these conditions if they want to avoid ineffective translation, because all translational activity is concerned with

148

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

text-centred, not sentence-centred contexts, as already mentioned. This fact has always meant that the practice and study of language mediation have constantly been confronted with problems which belong to the domains of behavioural, cultural and linguistic studies. These problems have on the one hand opened up new perspectives for translation teaching, but have also caused difficulties. They cannot be solved by abstract speculation which has little or nothing to do with the reality of texts. An empirically based discipline of translation studies, on the other hand, is in a position to identify similarities and differences between individual texts and the superordinate text-types to which they belong, without attempting to discover total similarity or difference. Such empirical studies move towards providing a practice-oriented answer to questions concerning the conditions, possibilities and limitations of language mediation. Anyone who uses language — and translation and interpreting are specific forms of language use — does so in order to communicate something. In the context of translation/interpreting, the communicative goal is to produce a pragmatic equilibrium between source and target texts. The language mediator is therefore initially faced with the task of identifying the framework for an appropriate translation by undertaking a functional analysis of the source text itself and using such an analysis to select and justify an appropriate strategy and method. The language mediator can only fully understand the complex interaction of source-text sender, himself/herself as translator, and target-text receiver if he/she has learned to recognize — and subsequently to effectively reproduce — the textual structures, conventions and functions which characterize the complex mechanisms of information processing. Such considerations constitute a planning process in which all the dimensions of the text — theme, function(s), sender-receiver relationship (text pragmatics) and presentation — are plotted in order to identify the most favourable route towards the realization of the translational goal. This requires rational enquiry. Its aim is to turn the much-discussed “black box” of the language mediator into a “white box”, and thus to reveal the intellectual conditions and processes involved in text transfer between languages. The significance of discourse studies for language mediation might be summarized as follows: 1. Every text is a historical phenomenon embedded in a given spatio-temporal context. Every text is conditioned by the specific conditions of its production

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

149

and reception: these must be explored by the translator/interpreter if he/she is to produce a translation which is satisfactory in thematic, functional, pragmatic and stylistic terms. 2. Individual manifestations of the various generalized text types show similarities, but they also show divergences (except, perhaps, in the case of highly standardized texts, e.g. in software translation). This means that texts cannot be pinned down purely in terms of the type to which they belong, but also have an “episodic” character. They cannot (fully) be grasped prototypically and then translated semi-automatically. 3. Language mediation is commonly defined as the reproduction of a sourcelanguage text in the medium of the target language and culture. All translators and interpreters know, however, that “reproduction” of a source text (in the sense of: “Translate what it says!”) is not sufficient. MT shows what can happen when mere “reproduction” takes place. In fact, “reproduction” is merely the final stage in a chain of intellectual operations covering the interaction of such processes as analysis, comparison, analogization, inferencing, evaluation, selection, combination, etc. 4. The relationship between source and target texts is, generally, characterized by consistency of function, even if the two texts involved do belong to different cultural communities. “Functional variance” is the exception, at least in the translation of specialist, advertising and narrative texts. The situation may be different in the case of Bible translation. 5. Translators/interpreters are bound by standards and norms which determine their behaviour. Max Weber has taught us that such “adaptation” is only possible where there are given norms. Language mediators are always faced with a dual reality constituted by their own “horizons”, experience and values on the one hand, and those of the foreign text on the other.

6.10 The foundation of the German Fachhochschulen An important stage in the development of the training of translators was the foundation of Fachhochsculen (polytechnical colleges) offering courses in specialist translation/specialist communication, which began around 1980 (Chapter 6. 5). At present there are five such colleges in Germany (there are none in Austria or Switzerland). They originally offered six-semester courses, but have now moved over to eight semesters, like the universities. It is clear

150

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

that the training programmes of the colleges and universities in Germany are becoming increasingly similar in character. It is no longer the case, for example, that the university courses are more academic, while the college courses are more practice-based, nor do college courses serve primarily as a qualification for university study. They have become a genuine alternative, and, although originally conceived as institutions below (and alongside) the universities, they have developed into serious competition. Both universities and colleges have their rightful place in the training of specialist translators. The fact that the EU language services, for example, do not accept applicants from colleges is due to legal reasons. These restrictions do not apply on the free job market, e.g. at SAP. At the University of the Saarland in Saarbrücken, the existence of a neighbouring Fachhochschule has encouraged speculation on whether the unpopular Fachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen might not be handed over to the college. Vehement opposition from the department itself and legal reasons (the possibility of a deluge of litigation) have (thus far) blocked any such move. Similar plans have been put forward in Heidelberg, where the IÜD was to be integrated into the teacher training college, though this, too, has not yet happened. Paradoxically, in Saarbrücken there has also been a parallel debate on ways of enhancing the academic substance of courses in the Fachrichtung, though it seems to have led nowhere. Quite the opposite. The recent “Empfehlungen der Sachverständigenkommission Hochschulentwicklung Saarland-Trier-Westpfalz” (Recommendations of the expert committee on the development of the universities in the Saarland, Trier and Western Palatinate) states unequivocally (and quite inaccurately): Despite the recognized course design for the training of translators and interpreters, this programme should not be developed further, particularly in view of the fact that employment prospects for pure language mediators are very poor, and the Universities of Heidelberg and Mainz (Germersheim) and the Fachhochschule in Cologne offer comparable courses. In the medium term the possibility of phasing out interpreter training should be examined. (March 1998: 121)

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

151

6.11 Language mediation and the specialist public Preliminary remark The relationship between language mediation and the non-specialist public is a difficult chapter in twentieth-century language mediation. In the following remarks, a number of aspects are meant by this relationship: 1. The relationship between the training institutes and the employers of their graduates; 2. Professional associations and specialist journals; 3. The German “Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer” (BDÜ); 4. The relationship between supply and demand. 6.11.1 The relationship between the training institutes and the employers of their graduates First contacts between the institutes and potential employers, as far as I am aware, were established at the beginning of the 1950s, when Heidelberg began to invite representatives of the higher federal authorities to its final oral examinations (Chapter 3. 4). The invitations served a dual purpose. First, the employers (i.e. the heads of language services) were to be given the opportunity to find out about the contents and quality of the Heidelberg programme and to enter into a “critical dialogue” with the teachers. Second, the graduates were to be given the chance to speak to the visitors and find out about employment opportunities and requirements. The invitations to the final examinations, which did not extend to the examiners’ meetings, referred mainly to interpreting exams (consecutive and simultaneous), although it was in principle also possible for the guests to take part in translation examinations. However, both examiners and candidates were not happy with this idea, with the result that invitations were subsequently only issued for the interpreting exams. Heidelberg’s idea soon caught on. Mainz/Germersheim began to issue similar invitations, as did Saarbrücken shortly afterwards. The invitations became a tradition, and were well-received by the visitors. The candidates benefited most from the arrangement, since they were able to establish direct contact with employers, making the search for jobs easier. But there was never any real “critical dialogue” between the guests and the teaching staff, and cooperation between the (then) three German institutes never got off the ground.

152

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Such co-operation only began when the ministers of culture from BadenWürttemberg (Heidelberg), Rhineland-Palatinate (Mainz/Germersheim) and the Saarland (Saarbrücken) created the Dreiländerkommission (mentioned in Chapter 6. 8) to develop a common framework for examination regulations, which was adopted in 1969. It gradually became clear, at least in Saarbrücken, that inviting guests to final examinations was not the best way to foster links with professional practitioners. For this reason Saarbrücken introduced an alternative, an annual “Open House”, to which practitioners and colleagues from other institutes were invited. Participation in examinations was replaced by participation in actual classes (at the discretion of the individual members of staff), even to the extent that guests held classes jointly with staff or on their own, offering classes based on texts from actual professional practice. This initiated a kind of “work in progress” programme which did much to improve relations between trainers and employers. Occasionally, as was to be expected, there were complaints from members of staff who objected to the presence of guests at their classes (for whatever reason) and saw the “Open House” as a form of self-advertisement on the part of the institute’s director (who himself was previously employed in the profession). Recently the students, through their representatives, have expressed interest in closer contacts with employers and have introduced their own “Open Day” to alternate with the official “Open House”. Federal authority employers were interested in close collaboration with the institutes. They pointed out faults and omissions in the training programmes and were determined to play their part in improving the quality of the diploma courses. A “memorandum” they published on 3 November 1965, in which they expressed detailed views on the entry qualifications, academic objectives and courses of the university institutes, was evidence of this. As far as the entry qualifications of students are concerned, the authorities (obviously as a result of their experiences with graduates from Heidelberg, Mainz/ Germersheim and Saarbrücken) pointed to a problem which has not been satisfactorily solved to this day (and may today be more acute than it has ever been). They expressed two demands for entry to university courses in translation/interpreting: A “mother-tongue” competence, i.e. “the ability to speak and write the mother tongue correctly and skilfully”, and A “foreign language” competence, i.e. “a sound knowledge of both foreign

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

153

languages selected for study, especially vocabulary and grammatical knowledge, which is sufficient to allow students from the very beginning of their studies to take part successfully in lectures and practice sessions. This requirement applies to both school languages and non-school languages” (the “school languages” are English and French; the “non-school languages” all others offered by the individual institutes; W. W.). This demand was based on the assumption that an academic institute is not a language school (see above, in this chapter). Applicants’ knowledge of foreign languages was to be tested in an aptitude test, which was already in place in Saarbrücken before the memorandum was passed. The academic objective of the diploma programme should, in the opinion of the directors of the language services, be based on the needs of the profession: The aim of the studies is to prepare students as fully as possible for their later work as qualified translators and interpreters. This means that students should learn, in the course of a programme of studies designed to achieve such a goal, to transfer complex utterances from one language to another in a manner which is thematically and formally appropriate. This presupposes an adequate understanding of the original text and a corresponding ability to reproduce it, which in turn presupposes confidence in both the source and target languages. Complex general texts should form the centre of the course. With regard to specialist language, a basic knowledge is sufficient as long as this serves as a model for the building up of terminological systems (law, economics, technology, administration, etc.) and thus helps to forge a link between training and professional practice.

The following comments were made on the course as a whole: Period of study: Experience shows that eight semesters, including a compulsory semester abroad, are required to achieve the objectives of the course. Curriculum: The curriculum should be conceived in such a way that the practical courses and linguistics lectures complement each other. In the nonlinguistic supplementary subject and the cultural studies lectures the use of language should be given priority. Examinations: Academically gifted students at the university interpreters’ institutes should be given the opportunity to study for a doctorate.

The memorandum was notable (given the year of its publication, 1965) for two reasons: 1. The proposed study programme was to be “generalistic” in nature, i.e. its function was to be to provide basic knowledge which could be developed into specialist knowledge (expert, or domain knowledge) at the workplace. Profes-

154

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

sional specialization was to be the task of individual employers, who were to provide (the memorandum implies) relevant in-service training. 2. The link between academic knowledge and professional relevance was seen as the basic requirement for all efficient, methodologically aware language mediation work which seeks to make the behaviour of the translator/ interpreter verifiable and thus more risk-free. In fact, such considerations, which were also voiced by Hermann Krings a few months later (Chapter 6.8) were somewhat ahead of their time. There is no indication that the memorandum was the subject of discussion anywhere, e.g. by university committees, by the ministries of education, or by the professional associations. This may be due to the fact that the memorandum was rather abstract, lacking in definite proposals, and that the relevant authorities could see no practicable way of giving courses in language mediation a stronger academic foundation (even if they had wanted to). The “Theoretische und Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft” (Theoretical and Applied Linguistics) department at the University of Leipzig, which also offered programmes in translation and interpreting, had been developing a concept of translation studies since the beginning of the 1960s (Kade 1963; Wilss 1977), but the high degree of abstraction evident in this concept did not commend it to other institutes. Apart from that, no real discussion was possible in Leipzig in the 1960s. And Nida’s book Toward a Science of Translating (1964), which was later to prove to be a pioneering study (and which I came across by chance in an old suitcase belonging to a colleague in Germersheim) was unknown in Germany at that time. 6.11.2 Professional associations and specialist journals The professionalization of translation and interpreting after 1945 is reflected in the founding of various national and international associations, in the launch of specialist journals, and in the publication of handbooks of translating/interpreting (Bower 1959; Fuller 1973; Congrat-Butler 1979; Delisle/Albert 1979; Jessnitzer 1982; Picken 1983). The first association in Germany was the “Deutscher Dolmetscherbund” (German Interpreters’ Association), which was set up at the beginning of the 1950s and held the “Erste Allgemeine Dolmetscher-Kongreß” (First General Interpreters’ Congress) in Bingen/Rhine on 19/20 September 1953. As far as I know, there is no printed record of this congress, although the “FAZ” evidently had a programme for it (9 September

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

155

1953). The conference dealt with such questions as: fundamental and current issues in interpreting, including training and examinations, public qualifications for conference interpreters and specialist translators, official appointment (of court interpreters?: W. W.) as well as fees and tax questions. All qualified interpreters may take part, regardless of whether they are members of the association or not.

Shortly afterwards, the “Deutsche Dolmetscherbund” became the “Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer” (BDÜ). There is also the VDÜ (Chapter 1.1), whose title is misleading. During my long membership of the VDÜ, not one single academic translation was ever discussed at the annual conference, the so-called “Esslingen Conferences”. Both associations have their own journals, the BDÜ the “Mitteilungsblatt für Übersetzer und Dolmetscher” (Newsletter for Translators and Interpreters) and “Lebende Sprachen” (Living Languages), the VDÜ “Der Übersetzer” (The Translator), which deals above all with questions of literary translation. Of the many foreign associations in existence today, three should be mentioned in particular: – The Austrian “Universitas” association (founded 1954), with its journal of the same name; – The British “Incorporated Linguist”, also with a publication of the same name; – The ATA (“American Translator’s Association”). For ten years now, the latter has been publishing a much respected series of studies, the “Scholarly Monograph series”, which deals with various academic and practical aspects of language mediation. The journal “Language International. The magazine for the language professions”, published by John Benjamins, which also provides comprehensive information for members of the profession, should also be mentioned. The individual national associations are members of the two large international umbrella associations, the “FIT” (Chapter 1.2.2) and the “AIIC” (=“Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence”). The FIT was founded in 1953 and today represents 76 translators’ associations as ordinary members and 24 affiliated members from 50 countries all over the world (Katschinka 1997: 190). It works in close collaboration with UNESCO in Paris (although the purpose of this collaboration is not clear to outsiders). Alongside its “Newsletter” the FIT also publishes the journal “Translatio”, which deals mainly with questions of literary translation.

156

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

The AIIC is an association of conference interpreters with members in 65 countries. It calls itself an “order” with a “list of orders” (Yearbook), in which all members of the order are listed, along with their qualifications. Membership is subject to very strict regulations. Applicants must be supported by three existing AIIC members, and must be able to prove that they have at least 200 hours experience as a conference interpreter. On average, conference interpreters work for 100-150 days per year, and are highly paid “daylabourers” earning (reportedly) between 1,000 and 2,000 German marks ($550-1100) a day, excluding expenses (“FAZ”, 30 November 1996: 51). The AIIC believes that interpreting is a gift, not a learnable profession. This, however, stands in contradiction to the fact that AIIC members take part in interpreter training and examinations at the Heidelberg institute (the only German institute recognized by the AIIC) and that the association issues practical advice to congress organizers, which includes the recommendation that important congress documents should be sent to participants in advance (Mackintosh 1995). The BDÜ, VDÜ, FIT and AIIC hold regular conferences at which questions relating to the profession, and particularly to its “professionalization”, “certification” (“L’INTERPRETE, Bulletin de l’Association d’interprètes et de traducteurs ... de l’Université de Genève 4, 1995: 5ff; see also Kruger 1998) and social acceptance, are discussed. An especially stubborn (and frustrating) issue is that of the legal protection of the professional titles “translator” and “interpreter”. At present anyone may, legally, call themselves “translator” or “interpreter”, and the quality of much work, which can only rarely be checked by the client, is correspondingly poor and damaging to the image of the profession. In Germany, only the titles “Diplomübersetzer” and “Diplomdolmetscher” (like, e.g. “Dipomingenieur”) enjoy legal protection. A decision of the “Kammergericht” (High Court) Berlin I (Ref. SS 33/63) stipulates that qualifications may only use the word “Diplom” if they are awarded by an institution recognized by the state. Diploma qualifications (in Germany) are awarded on the basis of university final examinations and by the Fachhochschulen. Recent “product liability” laws have served (to some extent) to deter dilettantes, and the AIIC is trying to have the title “conference interpreter” protected internationally (Language International 9/1 (1997), 33; see also Soukup-Unterweger 1997). It is, however, questionable whether this will have any real effect. It is often the case that the person who offers the lowest price gets the job, and the lowest price does not exactly guarantee good work.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

157

This can have serious consequences for companies, for example, who wish to advertise internationally. The following reader’s letter is a good example (SATI Bulletin 5/1997: 4): I would like to draw attention to problems I experienced with one of your members, in the hope that other members might take note and refrain from causing clients similar problems. I contracted this translator for a poster advertising a new pharmaceutical product our company was bringing onto the market. The letterhead of the translator concerned insinuated — although I must admit it did not state directly — that she was SATI-accredited, and it emerged later that she in fact is not. She translated our poster and we had it printed at a cost of R 72, 000, only to discover subsequently that the translation was exceedingly poor. While I am the first to admit that I should perhaps have investigated this translator’s credentials more throughly, I would like to make the following points: – When contracting services, a client has the right to believe the serviceprovider to be competent. – I believe that ALL SATI members, whether accredited or not, undertake upon joining to abide by the Institute’s Code of Ethics, which among its provisions requires its members to – endeavour constantly to achieve the highest possible quality in respect of accuracy of rendering, terminological correctness, language and style – accept full responsibility for their translations and to bring unresolved problems to the attention of their clients/employers – accept no work that is beyond them. I feel that the translator in question as broken all these provisions. – Producing work of such poor quality will very quickly result in a translator not receiving any work at all. – Work such as this reflects poorly not only on the translator him/herself, but on the profession as a whole. Referring once again to your Code of Ethics, your members undertake “always to uphold the highest ethical and moral standards in their dealings with their clients/employers and in the practice of their occupation as translator” and “always to conduct themselves in such a way that their conduct and the quality of their work will be to the credit of the Institute and translation as an occupation”. I trust that were I to use another SATI translator, I would not again be so sorely disappointed. Disappointed Translation Client.

A further function of the professional associations, closely related to the above-mentioned one, is to ensure that translators/interpreters are properly paid for their work. Today more than ever, probably due to the disproportion between supply and demand and the dramatic increase in freelance work

158

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

(Chapter 8. 2), the level of fees is very arbitrary, and not just in Germany. The uncertainty of those responsible for the administration of the Nuremberg War Trials was symptomatic of this: literally no one knew whether the conference interpreters were to be classed as members of the “lower”, “middle”, “higher” or “highest” ranks of the civil service (in German terminology). Those responsible only knew that conference interpreters could not be paid the same as office messengers or chauffeurs. The EU has adopted very clear arrangements on payment. All its translators/interpreters, provided they have passed the entry examinations and work as qualified translators, interpreters or terminologists, are ranked as members of the “higher” category — in various salary groups, with excellent prospects of promotion and (compared to Germany) huge salaries. It is hardly surprising, then, that jobs with the EU language services are much sought-after, and that the EU authorities are flooded with applications. More recently the EU employers (and some in the civil service and industry) have begun to demand additional qualifications, above all computing skills and experience in setting up integrated translator (and interpreter) workstations (workbenches and so-called “translation memories” (Chapter 7.9). 6.11.3 The German “Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer” (BDÜ) As already mentioned, the Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer is mainly responsible for the status of translators and interpreters in Germany (and thus also for professional advice). It now has a site on the Internet. The association represents the professional interests of all members of the profession who have, on the basis of their qualifications, become members of the BDÜ. The BDÜ is itself a member of the FIT, the international umbrella organization of the national translators’ associations. It is also a member of the “Bundesverband der freien Berufe” (“BFB”:Federal Association of Free Professions) and of the “Institut für Sachverständigenwesen” (“IfS”: Institute for Experts). The BDÜ has an influence on parliamentary legislation and is entered in the register of interest groups kept by the President of the German parliament.

The aims of the BDÜ are to: – achieve legal stipulations on entry to the profession – improve training and further training, e.g. by securing more practical relevance

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

159

– standardize examinations – secure uniform national arrangements for swearing in, authorization and public appointment – secure standardized national guidelines on document translation – improve the public image of the translating/ interpreting profession, and demonstrate the importance of the profession for the state and society. The BDÜ seeks – to ensure and improve the quality of its members’ work – to promote its members in their careers – to secure greater participation for professional practitioners in training – to inform the public about the work of translators and interpreters – to ensure appropriate pay and working conditions – to ensure that regulations on the employment and payment of sworn interpreters and sworn or authorized translators in courts and public authorities are observed – to improve existing federal legislation, e.g. the law on the payment of witnesses and experts (ZSEG), which regulates the fees paid to translators/ interpreters by public authorities (BDÜ Merkblatt, Information Bulletin 1995). This is undoubtedly a most comprehensive and ambitious, perhaps even overambitious, programme. One point, though,, is strangely absent. There is no mention of the fact, which has been well-known for some time now, that the activities of translators and interpreters, particularly of the former, have changed substantially in recent years (Chapter 7), and that the demand for technical translators expected for the 21st century will mean further changes (Lockwood et al. 1995). Despite this omission, the BDÜ has shown that it is profoundly committed to the training of translators/interpreters. In 1970, for example, it organized a symposium (hardly registered by non-specialists) under the title “Begegnung zwischen Praxis und Lehre — Ausbildung zum Übersetzer und Dolmetscher” (Practice meets Teaching — The Training of Translators and Interpreters) in Wiesbaden, which was attended by representatives of the federal authorities, language services, industry and the bestknown German training institutes. As far as I am aware, this was the first occasion on which fundamental questions relating to the future training of language mediators were discussed in detail. Should the existing system as practised in Heidelberg, Mainz/Germersheim and Saarbrücken, with two lan-

160

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

guages (first and second language) and a marginal supplementary subject (non-linguistic subject, e.g. technology, economics, law) be retained? Or should a significant shift take place towards a greater concentration on special subject knowledge and a decreased emphasis on language training, with the latter only being provided to allow the acquisition of specialist translation skills covering text-specific translation strategies, methods and techniques? This fundamental question was not resolved in Wiesbaden: nor was the matter of a possible dual qualification (with equal emphasis on linguistic and subject knowledge). It was, however, clear even at that time that the question would have to be answered, by both training institutes and professional practitioners. It was equally clear, to those who understood what was going on, that a vocation which had only just set out on the road towards becoming fully accepted as a profession could not survive by burying its head in the sand. In 1983 the BDÜ organized another conference, this time in Cologne. The outcome of this, too, was rather modest, although more was achieved than in 1970. The BDÜ unanimously adopted a resolution to set up a “Koordinierungsausschuß” (“KA”: co-ordination committee) on “Practice and Teaching” whose main task is to make possible a continuous, co-ordinated engagement with all questions and problems concerning the training and further training of language mediators and the needs of the profession. The members of the co-ordination committee shall include representatives of the profession from industry, the civil service and other interested sectors, as well as of the leading German training institutes. The members shall be appointed to the committee by the president of the BDÜ in person on the basis of their qualifications. (Foreword by the former BDÜ president Hans Thomas Schwarz to the “BDÜ Memorandum” passed by the KA in 1986)

The memorandum covers the following: 1. Aims and objectives 2. Requirements 3. Training 3.1 Aims 3.2 Training programme curriculum 3.2.1 Mother-tongue competence 3.2.2 Foreign-language competence 3.2.3 General cultural knowledge 3.2.4 Subject knowledge 3.2.5 Translation/interpreting studies and translation-relevant specialist

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 3.2.10 3.2.11 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

161

language analysis (analysis of specialist texts; W. W.) Terminology Translation classes Interpreting classes Aids Language data processing Interpreting for translators/Translation for interpreters Research Further training Recommendation on contributions from professional practice Possibilities for development Further procedure.

The memorandum closes with what amounts to a resolution: The co-ordination committee has sought to produce the present document on the basis of a consensus between the profession and the teaching institutes, and has drawn up a paper which is supported by both sides. The committee expects that those responsible will seek to implement the proposals as soon as possible in the interest of the profession and the public.

A number of points relating to the memorandum are interesting: – Unlike the memorandum prepared by the directors of the federal language services in 1965 (see Chapter 6.11.1), which was drawn up solely by representatives of the profession, the BDÜ memorandum is the product of a (hardwon) consensus between the profession and the training institutes. – The KA went into the controversy surrounding the question of whether linguists with specialist knowledge are preferable to specialists with linguistic knowledge and suggested two alternative training programmes. One would have two foreign languages and training in a special subject, geared to the needs of specialist translation; the other would have a special subject and a non-linguistic subject. The latter “will be studied as a supplementary subject and not necessarily linked to the specialist translation work”. – The memorandum does not go into the market demand for translators/ interpreters, although it was clear at the beginning of the 1980s that demand was shrinking, as figures published by the “Arbeitsämter” (employment offices) and the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in Nuremberg show. – In the Saarland, there was no response to the memorandum of 1986 from the various public bodies (ministry of education, university). At least, no official response was ever published. Even in the Fachrichtung Angewandte

162

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen there was no reaction (unlike in Germersheim; written communication from Peter A. Schmitt). 6.11.4 The relationship between supply and demand Analysis of the job market is a, if not the, major concern of careers advice services. Two groups have commented on the development of the job market in the area of language mediation: the training institutes and the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in Nuremberg. As far as I am aware, I myself produced the first contribution to the debate on the part of the institutes under the title “Betrachtungen zum Verhältnis von Angebot und Nachfrage bei DiplomÜbersetzern und Diplom-Dolmetschern” (Observations on the relationship between supply and demand with regard to graduate translators and interpreters) (Wilss 1970), which was based on an analysis of job advertisements (jobs offered and jobs sought) in the “FAZ” in 1968/69. Such an analysis was long overdue, since the (in Germany) original sixsemester degree courses, which were only extended to eight semesters in the mid-1970s, had obviously led many university applicants to believe that studying at a university institute for translating and interpreting was an easy option: it could be done, people seem to have believed, without too much effort, without any clear career goals, and offered the chance of eventually finding a job somewhere (if one really wanted one). In reality the situation was very different. Competition between graduates was probably almost as tough then as it is now, and prospects for language mediators were, at least on the surface, similar to those facing sociology and psychology graduates. In fact, while it was possible for sociologists and psychologists to overcome the job shortage by creating a market of their own and moving into other careers, the study of language mediation has always been highly specific. It leads logically to a single career goal, and does not offer graduates the chance to move easily into neighbouring areas (e.g. technical writing) without extensive further study. Another obstacle has always been the rapid growth of language skills (particularly reading knowledge) in many occupations. The savings which can achieved in terms of time, work and staff by appointing employees with a command of foreign languages was so significant even in the 1960s that more and more companies (and federal authorities) set up in-service language courses to provide job-specific language skills.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

163

In spite of all the methodological difficulties they throw up, analyses (and estimates) of demand are necessary, because they give at least some indication of how employers see prospects for language mediators, based on their experience of changes in professional practice. They also indicate possible consequences for the academic training institutes. This kind of survey does not produce absolutely reliable results, but can prevent a situation in which training completely loses touch with “the marketplace” and just ends up adding to the unemployment figures. Unlike doctors, teachers and engineers, where such factors as the birth-rate, the retirement age, the economic cycle remain relatively constant and thus predictable variables, the demand for translators and interpreters is subject to a number of imponderables. It depends on political, military, sociocultural and technological factors and developments, which cannot always be foreseen. There will always be a grey area in such calculations. It is not certain at the moment, for example, when the EU will implement the proposal put forward in “Agenda 2000” to open discussions on membership with Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia and Cyprus, and — at a later stage — with Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Latvia and Lithuania. Nor are the consequences of any such moves for language policy and language practice by any means clear. My research in 1970 showed: 1. That most jobs offered were in the scientific and technical fields. The prospects for translators were particularly good here. The figures for 1969 showed 61 positions vacant and only 12 advertisements from graduates seeking employment. There was virtually no demand for literary translators (nor for translators of non-fiction), which confirms that publishers hardly ever appoint translators to permanent jobs but prefer to use freelancers on a contract basis; 2. The initial prospects for graduate interpreters were considerably worse, since they had to face stiff competition on a relatively saturated market. For this reason, a large number of graduates chose to improve their chances of employment by undertaking supplementary studies for a diploma in translation; 3. English was competely dominant in both vacancies advertised and jobs sought. Russian was less sought after than Italian and Portuguese (a symptom of the world-political situation at the time). Dutch was hardly mentioned, although it was one of the four official languages of the EEC (= European

164

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Economic Community). (The lack of demand for Dutch later led to the closure of the Dutch section at the Saarbrücken institute, much to the annoyance of the Dutch embassy in Bonn); 4. For some employers, a university diploma in translation or interpreting was not a requirement for employment (which is still true of the EU even today). This suggests that subject knowledge was seen as more important than language competence and that vocational experience — of any kind, wherever and however it was gained — was regarded as more important than a diploma held by a new graduate; 5. Many advertisements did not give precise details of the kind of work involved. In some cases, there was no job description whatsoever, which suggests that employers gave preference to “all-round” translators rather than to specialist translators, perhaps because specialization was not wanted or was not possible for internal reasons. In other cases, the job description was so vague that applicants (especially beginners) could have no clear idea of what was expected of them (e.g. in terms of the difficulty of texts, direction of translation, on-the-spot training). A comparison of such advertisements with those placed for jobs in engineering (university or college-trained) shows just how imprecise they really were. For engineers, specific details were often provided. The “FAZ” of 7 February 1970, for example, contained advertisements for engineers in the following sectors: labour, construction, building machines, advice, calculations, chemistry, electronics, electrotechnology, development, precision mechanics, production, civil construction, customer service, assembly, mechanics, norms, physics, planning, projects, service, textiles, processes, sales, experiments, distribution, materials, economics, products, precision tools, production planning, glass manufacture, plant planning and construction, testing, plastics; 6. Indirectly, the study revealed that advertisements for jobs and for jobs sought were placed in a bewildering variety of sources, including trade journals, information bulletins and the “Zentralstelle für Arbeit” (Central Employment Office) in Frankfurt, and that many positions were filled via enquiries at the individual institutes, or through personal contacts. The study also confirmed, as mentioned above, that a large amount of language mediation work was farmed out to freelancers or to agencies. This trend has been even more noticeable in recent years (Chapter 7. 3); 7. One thing the study did not make clear was the underlying disrespect felt for translators and interpreters by society at large (“Translators are a dime a

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

165

dozen”; “Translators are thick on the ground” (Chapter 6. 12)). The reasons for this attitude, and its consequences for the profession, are by no means clear. Is the lack of respect the reason for poor professional motivation, or is it the other way round? Extensive empirical research would be needed to clarify this issue, and to establish the place of the translator/interpreter in modern working society. Such studies would have to take account of the fact that scepticism concerning the competence of translators and interpreters is not always entirely misplaced (Chapter 6.11.1), a fact which means that many employers prefer to provide in-service language training for existing (interested) staff rather than to appoint translators/interpreters. The range of competence among practitioners is so wide that it would be extremely difficult to prove the existence of an efficient, homogenous profession with standardized training programmes and a uniform job description. For this very reason, it is difficult to demand a clear definition of the responsibilities of members of the profession. An advertisement published by the “Bundesministerium für Finanzen” (Federal Ministry of Finance) indicates how many people feel they have the ability to work as translators, and how few of these people can actually meet the requirements of the job. In 1956 the ministry advertised for a foreignlanguage revisor and a translator in the “FAZ” and “Die Welt”, placing the advertisement once only in each newspaper. There were 218 applications. Four applicants were immediately eliminated because they wanted to work on a freelance basis. Of the remaining 214, 122 were excluded because of the poor quality of the (unsolicited) specimen translations they submitted. Because it was not possible to invite all the remaining 92 applicants to Bonn for interview, they were sent ministry texts for translation. They were required to give an assurance that they had prepared the translations without help from others, and to indicate which reference works they had used. They were also informed that shortlisted applicants would be invited to Bonn for further tests. Of the 92, only 39 replied. Of this number, 32 were excluded due to the unacceptable quality of the translations they sent in. This left 7 applicants (3% of the original number) who were given the opportunity to progress further with their applications. Virtually all the translations submitted showed that the applicants were completely lacking in methodological awareness. The main task of applied translation studies must therefore be (and this is not made clear enough in the 1986 BDÜ memorandum) to develop principles for the teaching of methodol-

166

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

ogy. Such teaching could provide translators and interpreters with a framework within which they can operate and upon which they can rely, at least in those areas of translation which can be placed on a methodical basis (above all, specialist translation). Its aim can and should be to explore translation as a norm-governed interaction between the translator and the three major points of reference (the source-text author, the text-to-be-translated, and the targettext reader) and thus to force students to examine critically what they are doing. Because translation methods allow us to think and formulate “constructivistically”, they allow us productive access to the textual world, an access based on the notion that translators are rational, aware and responsible subjects. In translation, as elsewhere in method-based activity, there is often no “most effective” way of doing things. But proceeding methodically does at least allow us to draw up a “chain of behaviour”, a cognitive “map” which can serve to confirm and expand our insights. Methods cannot completely eliminate risk, but they can reduce it and thus point the way towards regularities, which in turn serve to objectify and rationalize our ideas and formulations in translational activity. My 1970 analysis of supply and demand was followed up two years later by a further survey (Wilss 1972). This was not based on an assessment of job advertisements, but consisted of a questionnaire containing some 80 questions which was sent out to 985 companies in Germany. 295 responded. The questions focused on five main areas: – The qualifications of language mediators in permanent jobs – The tasks expected of permanent and freelance language mediators – Personnel structure in translation/interpreting services – Appointment and promotion procedures – Future demand for language mediators in relation to present numbers. Three findings were especially interesting: 1. The number of jobs in the profession has not kept pace with the number of students. The market has reached saturation point, with the result that graduates are taking up employment for which they are overqualified (e.g. as bilingual secretaries) or undertaking further study. This situation is made worse by the fact that potential employers are simply filling vacancies and not creating new jobs; 2. Many students at the three institutes in Germany (Heidelberg, Mainz/ Germersheim, Saarbrücken) had an aversion to working on scientific and

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

167

technical texts, with the paradoxical result that technical translators were in short supply while those in other fields (literature, broadcasting, publishing, social sciences, politics, etc.) could not find work; 3. A further factor was the rapid growth, in terms of both quantity and quality, in the language competence (especially reading knowledge) of employees in many other professions, as mentioned above. Almost surreptitiously, bilingualism and multilingualism had become a new form of cultural practice (as PCs did a few years later). Just how common it has become for firms to combine language-learning with their commercial and technical interests is shown by the courses offered in the language centres at Bayer/Leverkusen or Siemens/Munich, which have been attended by thousands of employees over the last twenty years (Chapters 6.4.1 and 6.4.3), or by the former military language school in Euskirchen (Chapter 6.2). Following the surveys of 1970 and 1972, a number of issues relating to supply and demand were picked up. Reaction came , however, not from the professional associations, but from the university institutes. Sager’s “Employment Prospects for Graduates of University Institutes for Translation and Interpreting” (1974) is worth quoting in this context: It is extremely difficult to give a clear picture of the career structure of graduates of the various university schools preparing translators and interpreters since no institution has kept a consistent and complete record of the employment of their graduates. Some former-student-associations try to collect information but the response to enquiries is mostly very modest and the results may be misleading. Nevertheless, since this is the only information available it must be analysed. (1974: 2)

The next two studies were also undertaken in Saarbrücken. The first was by Erdmann/Karg (1983) and produced the (at the time unexpected) positive finding that 83% of Saarbrücken graduates found suitable employment, although often after a considerable wait. The second was by Schmitz (1986) and included questions on computer literacy. The last study (to my knowledge) by Schmitt (Mainz/Germersheim) was very comprehensive, also concentrating on computer technology (1990). His conclusions concerning the practical relevance of university training are hard-hitting and uncomfortable for those responsible, and undoubtedly caused consternation in some places. It is interesting to note that the CIUTI memorandum of 1997 does not mention Schmitt’s survey. The “Blätter zur Berufskunde Dolmetscher und Übersetzer” (Information

168

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Bulletin for Translators and Interpreters) published by the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in Nuremberg are an important source of information for anyone who wants to trace the development of language mediation over the last few decades. The bulletins cover all the important information on responsibilities and job details, training and further training, the development and present situation of the profession, as well as career prospects, e.g. for freelancers: At the moment ... there is a clear movement towards staffing reductions in the language services. Businesses in particular tend to buy in translations rather than to appoint new staff to their language services. This serves to increase the demand for freelancers and for staff in translation agencies (freelance and permanent), but often does so at the expense of incomes. (1992: 55)

The reference here to the salaries of freelancers is very brief indeed. A new feature of the 1992 edition of the bulletin is its separate chapter on “Language and Computers”, subdivided into three sections: “Word processing” (PCs), “Linguistic databases” (electronic databases) and “Machine translation” (machine and machine-aided translation), which takes account of the continuing computerization of the profession (especially translation) (Chapter 7). Further, though unfortunately rather unsystematic, documentation on the profession is provided by the “Institut for Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung” (Institute for Employment and Vocational Research) of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in Nuremberg. Their bulletin of 2 January 1997: 23 contains the findings of an AIIC study based on interviews with 201 interpreters conducted in 1993/94. The survey shows that, now more than ever, the EU prefers to employ subject specialists with language competence. Frau Gisela Siebourg, director of the language service at the Auswärtige Amt, gives the following explanation for this: “Sessions involving interpreters (are becoming) more and more technical and more highly specialized”. In her view, the future for the academic training of translators and interpreters lies in a twoyear programme of postgraduate study following on from a degree course in economics, business studies, law, or a science subject. This, she believes, would be far more efficient than the present generalized form of training, which she sees as out of touch with the requirements of today’s professional practice.

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

169

6.12 The public image of the profession In terms of general public awareness, language mediation plays only a very minor role. Its contribution to the functioning of communication, as all my interviews confirmed (more or less directly), is either not registered at all, or is registered and then ignored (Cronin 1996). For this reason, reaction to the profession (especially to specialist translation), either positive or negative, is rare. Translators and interpreters are seen as a necessary evil: they only exist because the world is made up of different languages and cultures and because MT (not MAT) only produces rubbish (Kay 1997; Chapter 7). It is commonly thought that the ability to translate is based on some form of natural aptitude which is part of the intellectual equipment of the individual, rather like the ability to learn a foreign language. This kind of view is fostered by the phenomenon of so-called “natural translation”, where people who grow up in a bilingual or a multilingual linguistic/cultural environment learn (without formal teaching) to speak two languages without difficulty (Wilss 1992). Most people see no need to think about the specifics of translation or interpreting. They are familiar with the mechanics of language use from a very early age and tend to accept that linguistic communication — both intralingual and interlingual — is a self-evident phenomenon which functions virtually automatically. Scientists are expected to provide clear and rational argumentation; artists imagination and creativity; priests assistance and religious support — but no one really seems to know what to expect of language mediators: their field of activity is seen as rather boring and, with a few exceptions, not worthy of serious consideration. They exist on the periphery of vocational life. That is why they rarely, if ever, appear as an independent category in labour market surveys or in the vocational “league tables” which are so popular nowadays. Translation and interpreting are code-switching operations (transfer between languages) which can hardly be considered intellectually or emotionally glamorous and which Javier Marias, who presumably worked as a conference interpreter at some stage, maliciously caricatures in his novel A Heart so White: What with one thing or another, I often wonder with some alarm if anyone understands anything of what anyone says during those meetings, especially in the strictly rhetorical sessions. For, even if one accepts that the assembly members do understand each other’s primitive argot, there’s still nothing to stop the interpreters making any changes they like to the content of the speeches

170

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN and no possibility of any real control or available time for denials or amendments. The only way to control us completely would be to have a second translator there, equipped with headphones and a microphone, who would simultaneously translate us back into the original language, in order to check how effectively we were saying what was being said in the room at that moment. But, in that case, you’d need a third translator, similarly equipped, who would, in turn, check the second translator and retranslate their words and perhaps a fourth to watch over the third and thus, I’m afraid, ad infinitum, translators checking interpreters and interpreters checking translators, speakers checking congress members and typists checking orators, translators checking politicians and ushers checking interpreters. Everyone would watch everyone else and no one would listen to or transcribe anything, which, in the long run, would lead to the suspension of all sessions and congresses and assemblies and the permanent closure of all international organizations. (1995: 53 f.; translated by Margaret Jull Costa)

All translators and interpreters are constantly exposed to the “fiction of the real”, with all its deviations, accidents and danger of failure. Whether they like it or not, they are engaged in an “affirmative”, reproductive activity. They are always sitting “in the second row”. The clearest illustration of this status is the physical position of the conference interpreter, who literally sits behind the delegate for whom he/she is working (see the very graphic pictures in Kusterer 1995). An (authenticated) anecdote from one conference shows how some delegates see the work of their interpreters: an interpreter was once told by his delegate: “Shut up, I am tired” (Manfred Heine). It is not surprising, then, that many highly paid EU interpreters try to find their way into general service. Their anonymous work behind the glass screen gives them the feeling that they are merely a linguistic transmission system, and they know that if they are to have any chance of promotion they have to be in general service. Language mediators who want to survive and not fall victim to the frustrations of their daily routine need to be expert at sustaining their motivation, which means “drawing motivation from deep within themselves” (Hermann Kusterer). The job is not one that offers (with a few exceptions) much scope for self-development or self-presentation, nor for independent innovation. Anyone who is thinking of going into the language mediation profession must therefore be aware of what they are letting themselves in for. Despite all the efforts of the professional associations since the end of the Second World War, there has been no improvement in the social or specialist image of translation and interpreting. The BDÜ sees the main reason for his in the fact that the profession has consistently been denied protection for the

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

171

titles “translator” and “interpreter” (Chapter 6. 11. 2). The lack of such protection has been lamented in virtually all the association’s statements in recent years. The “FAZ”, for example, reported on 10 June 1985 (14): At its annual conference in Munich, the BDÜ called for a law covering selfemployed translators and interpreters (i.e. a law protecting the two professional titles “translator” and “interpreter”; W. W.). Only a course undertaken at a university, a state examination or a state-recognized final qualification should, in the view of the association, be accepted as a qualification for such a title. The association, which was founded 30 years ago, sees such legislation as an opportunity to prevent future translation errors which might have farreaching legal, economic or political consequences ... At present, the association pointed out, the employment prospects for interpreters are hampered by the number of unemployed teachers flooding the market ...

Today, some thirteen years later, the BDÜ has achieved almost nothing. It is marking time. It has been unable to assert itself in discussions (with courts, ministries of culture, chambers of industry and commerce). Most recently, the association has turned to the Federal President, Herr Herzog, for assistance. The BDÜ president exploited a visit of Herr Herzog to the “Europäisches Übersetzerkolleg” (a meeting place for literary translators) in Straelen to present a paper which may have aroused mixed feelings in the guest (if, indeed, he actually read it). A few passages from the paper might be quoted here, without comment: Admission to the profession of translator or interpreter is not controlled by law. The titles translator and interpreter are not protected. Just understanding or speaking a foreign language, at whatever level, is not the same as translating. Professional translators share their field with parttime, unqualified translators, and constantly have to show that they are not dilettantes. The training (of language mediators; W. W.) at universities and colleges is still largely carried out by philologists, who have little idea of how the profession actually works. Training courses are often over-academic. But criticisms voiced by professional practitioners are not well-received, and points which practitioners consider very important are frequently not registered at all. The market itself cannot produce training courses which meet the needs of the profession. The state has to do this. It would be most useful if a body such as the “Wissenschaftsrat” (Universities Advisory Council) could look into the need for reform. (It did so in 1993; W. W.) Very few universities have so far reacted to calls from the profession for training which combines the teaching of translation with that of specialist (non-linguistic) subjects. The way such non-linguistic subjects are taught at

172

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN present, as extensions of general knowledge, is not appropriate. What is really needed is genuine competence in a special field, and graduates who can provide that will have a good chance of finding employment. The EU in Brussels, for example, does not just employ qualified translators, but, increasingly, graduates in other subjects who also have translation skills, for specialist translations in their respective areas. The same is true of businesses.

It is not clear whether a paper like this can have any effect, nor whether the German President was the right person to present it to. Perhaps it would have been strategically more effective to have summarized important points on the profession for the President (and other readers of the paper) in an attempt to present an idea of what translators actually do.

6.13 The self-concept of the language mediator From the point of view of translators who translate professionally, all translations, whether they are of biblical, literary or specialist texts, have the same fundamental structure. Translation is a situatively embedded activity which attends to both the original text and the reader of the target text: it proceeds in a conscious, planned and controllable manner with the aim of facilitating communication between members of different linguistic, communicative and cultural communities. In this process, translators are constantly confronted with problems, since languages do not overlap (or only partially overlap) on a one-to-one level in terms of their lexis, morphology, phraseology, syntax (at sentence and text level) and pragmatic-sociocultural dimensions. Translators do not act on their own behalf, but as go-betweens between two languages and cultures. They reformulate an original text in another language, operating within a specific framework set out by the text and its receivers, and on the basis of the knowledge at their disposal. They represent, if they are lucky, the type of person Rudyard Kipling described as “first rate second rate man”. Translators have to accept the conditions under which they work, although they would sometimes like to do something about the wretched quality of many of the texts with which they are faced. However, they lack the “power” to do so (Hönig 1995). They have little or no authority, and are constantly faced with the problem of grasping and processing the ideas of others. Translators do not commit their own ideas to paper, but reformulate the ideas given to them by the author of the original text. They do not plan, organize or express an authentic message, but a “derived message”, in which three phases can be identified: the

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

173

preparation, formulation and evaluation of the translation. The decisive stage is that of formulation, the quality of which depends on the translator’s experience and knowledge, on his/her (re)creativity, problem-solving skills, routine and expressive abilities, perhaps even on his/her ethical approach. Translators operate in a grey zone between light and darkness which justifies the description of translation as an “exceptional form of language use” (Coffin 1982: 103). They move in a world governed by the difference between individual and collective forms of expression. Contrary to widespread opinion, the authority of translators is not such that they are able to amend significant features of texts. Only clients can do this, for example when a publishing company wants a specialist book (for an “insider readership”) translated as a work of general non-fiction (for an “outsider readership”), with all the terminological, syntactical and rhetorical changes this entails. Or when it proves expedient to replace, for example, the inaccessible title (which might therefore be difficult to translate) of a source text, perhaps a philosophical text, with a more manageable title (Guy Claxton, “Noises from the Darkroom — the Science and Mystery of the Mind” = Die Macht der Selbsttäuschung, “SZ”, 14/15 February 1998). Of course, translators should not simply deliver themselves up to a text and translate it blindly, without any notion of function, but the affinity (or, if the translation is unsuccessful, non-affinity) of a translation is determined by the communicative situation in which the translator operates, and not (except in rare cases) by the translator himself/herself. An argumentative, advertising, narrative, or specialist text remains just that in the target language, governed by the text norms and stylistic conventions which operate within the target culture. For that reason, the idea that translation is a decision-making process must be qualified (Wilss 1988), at least on the macrocontextual (global contextual) level. On the microlevel, however, i.e with regard to sentence perspective or idiomaticity, the translator often has the choice between several alternatives (and can, for example, choose nominal or verb constructions), as long as text-type conventions or standardized specialist terminologies do not rule out certain options. On the whole, translators practise a specific form of epistemic writing, with the distinctive feature that they communicate the knowledge of others through knowledge of their own. In the process, they work with pre-given linguistic data which they themselves have to reconstruct (more or less) systematically, they “respond to the questions and challenges of a text, which

174

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

in itself is a response to the questions and challenges of a situation” (Harald Weinrich; “FAZ”, 20 April 1968). Translations can only succeed to the extent to which the translator succeeds in constructing a precise idea of the translational situation by using his/her knowledge, and then applying this knowledge to identify himself/herself as a linguistic agent. Not only what translators know determines their work, but also what they do not know (but can find out). Since they cannot predict which knowledge will be required at which time, they need to accumulate large amounts of it, even at the risk of carrying around unneeded knowledge. Knowledge is based on the acquisition and processing of information. “All knowledge is information. But not all information is knowledge” (Deutsch 1990: 107). Knowledge is created by the selection and combination of information. In the practice of translation, this means that the translator must be very precisely aware of the three variables: sender, text and receiver. Only then can he/she act within the translational “triangle” (original text author — translator — target text reader) as a reliable communicator with a clearly formulated communicative goal and a clearly formulated view of the needs of the receiver. Every translation is, in a sense, a justification of the confidence tacitly placed in the translator. Nevertheless, it is difficult to pin down this trust, because the client’s confidence in the translator is (usually) confined to darkness, and the categories of trust generally, like the “psychology of trust” (Petermann 1996), are difficult to establish. “Trust” is a term used to denote forms of social interaction which only assume meaning when they are further defined in terms of “in whom” and “for what”. In other words: “Definitions of trust only become meaningful when they are projected against the background of specific objectives” (Petermann 1996: 16). An interview conducted by Lederer in Vietnam during the Vietnam War shows just how difficult (not to say impossible) it is to build up a relationship of trust between the client and the interpreter: QUESTION: What is the role of the Vietnamese interpreters for the Americans here? Are they doing their work well? ANSWER: My country has been under foreign slavery — French — for eighty years. Generations of Vietnamese have acquired a stilted, biased attitude toward foreigners — they are big and they are white and they have had power and dominance over us. Even today this persists. Therefore, when a Vietnamese is in the position of doing something for the American, a foreigner, something at which a Vietnamese is obviously superior and on which the American must depend, then in what

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

175

biased way will he do it? He will either do it with excessive, perhaps fearful respect - and in this instance he will tell the American what he believes the American wants to hear — or he will interpret with a cunning contempt, in which instance he will tell the American, with skillful subtleties, that which will confuse him or influence him to make a mistake. Also, remember, the Vietnamese is an Oriental. His total thinking pattern is different from that of the American. “Yes”, “No” and “Maybe” mean different things for us than they do for you. If I were an American I would trust only the interpreter which has been to school overseas for many years and has acquired the Western outlook and is treated as an equal; that is, one who is on the same pay level, gets the same courtesies, eats at the same table — in other words, an intimate friend. (1968: 23; see also Gambier et al. (1997), especially 161f.) (I am grateful to my former colleague Heiner Sussebach for the reference to Lederer.)

As far as I am aware, translation studies have not yet engaged in trust research, and probably will not do so in the future, either. It is, however, worth noting that a “Zentrum für Vertrauensforschung” (Centre for Trust Research) was set up at the Ruhr University in Bochum in 1996. Its work might well prove useful in attempts to enhance the social status of language mediators. The typical position of the translator is somewhere between norm and freedom. Two extreme positions can be defined. Firstly, the substitution of information in the context of universally valid worlds (e.g. nuclear physics). And secondly, the modification of worlds presented in a specific original language with a view to their being understood and accepted under the conditions prevalent in a target-language world. In between these two extremes, there is a large range of widely differing options which the translator must clarify as far as possible by means of a pre-translational analysis of the original text. The success of translators depends, then, primarily on the viability of their cognitive (intellectual) analysis and their strategic skill. Analysis and skill are manifested in the relationship between the original author and the translator on the one hand, and that between the translator and the target-text reader on the other. With the possible exception of biblical and literary texts, translators work with volatile objects which command their interest only until such time as the translation is finished. Since translators usually work under considerable time pressure, they do not normally have the opportunity to map out their text in detail. They are therefore always in the process of “catching up” with the textto-be-translated, and the outcome is always open, especially since translators find themselves faced with many different topics with quite different condi-

176

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

tions and realizations of success during the course of their careers. The probability of the success of a translation can vary immensely, because translators are often (though not always) faced with a bewildering variety of options. Translation is a combination of three factors: variation, selection and — especially in the case of specialist texts — syntactical, phraseological and lexical stability. In other words, translation is a combination of observation, operation and operational control. It is difficult to say just how far translation and interpreting might be able to attract public attention in the future. More is translated today than ever before, 1. because we increasingly experience our world vicariously, or, to use Arnold Gehlen’s expression, as “second-hand reality”; 2. and because translation makes it possible to expand human knowledge beyond language barriers and to make it internationally accessible, especially in the field of specialist texts, which represent technological reality as an important partial reality for mankind (Chapter 5. 4). Little of all this ever reaches the general public, not least because specialist translations are usually produced for internal use. Very few of them are ever published, and when this does happen, little notice is taken of them (specialist text criticism does not exist in the same way as the criticism of literary translations does). The main task of the translator is to overcome the “opposition” manifest in every text with the aid of situation-specific transfer strategies. Translators are always plagued with doubt, and often have a feeling of uncertainty when they have finished a translation, except in the case of texts which are thematically or linguistically highly standardized. They are never sure whether their translations are “legitimate”, whether they have fulfilled their communicative function in an objective manner, or whether they have allowed too many of their own ideas and values, their own social circumstances to infiltrate, thus unintentionally distorting the text in its functional adequacy. Translators know better than most people that self-confidence, accurate appraisal of oneself and one’s work, and of one’s weaknesses, cannot be bought. But it can be practised. Confidence and uncertainty stand in particularly close proximity to one another in the language mediation profession. This is largely due to the fact that translators work (generally) without any form of interaction. Since they have no social contact with the world around them, they lack “social competence”. Piontkowski defines “social interaction” as follows:

THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION

OF

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE

177

We have social interaction when two people in each other’s presence (my emphasis; W. W.) practise modes of behaviour on the basis of behavioural planning and if, in principle, there is a possibility that the actions of one person will influence those of the other, and vice versa. (1982: 10)

The feeling of uncertainty that most translators have is due to the fact that they work in isolation, carrying out a specific task entirely under their own steam. For this reason, the lone translator is somewhat out of place in modern technological society, where collective effort is deemed more important than individual enterprise. Team translation is still something of an exception today. (The most famous historical examples are the so-called “Septuagint”, the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek in the third century B. C. in Alexandria by 72 Greek scholars; and the School of Toledo, where entire libraries of Arabic works, including the works of Aricenna, were translated from Arabic into Castillian and from Castillian into the lingua franca of the day, Latin) However, the introduction of collaborative working practices supported by technological aids is only a question of time. They will inevitably establish themselves in the translation (and interpreting) profession in the wake of so-called “interactive translation systems”, in which man and machine “work together”. This will force through a process of rationalization which aims to provide customers with satisfactory results in the shortest possible time (“fast is smart” ) (Chapter 7.6ff.). The increasing rationality of translator behaviour implies specific norms for translator training and, come to that, for teacher training. Enquiries must be made into how translators see themselves, their talent, their acquisition of knowledge, their professional activity, and the expectations people have of them. Everyone tends to bring their own subjective impressions and experiences of a given text to that text, with the result that a single text can give rise to a number of different translations, all structured and perceived differently. But this is only one side of the coin. The other side is the translator’s awareness of his/her dual responsibility towards the author of the original text on the one hand and the reader of the target text on the other. This awareness increases the translator’s sense of security with regard to the text-to-betranslated. The translator becomes a professional, asserting himself in a world of increasing professionalism thanks to his readiness to negotiate, and perhaps even going some way towards ridding the public of the misconception that translation is just a process of word substitution in which original texts are recoded or transcoded unit by unit in another language. Such a change in

178

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

public perception would, of course, presuppose that people are ready to grant translators the status of professionals. And this, in turn, will only be achieved when the professional practitioners and the teachers work together (and not against each other) on a basis of functional objectivity, and when they share the goal of convincing the public of the complexity of the translator’s work.

CHAPTER 7

The present day

7.1 Preliminary remark It is quite obvious that language mediation — like many other professions — is undergoing major changes. Such changes are not happening overnight, nor occurring as abrupt shifts (as the move from bilingualism to multilingualism did in 1945; Chapter 4), but gradually. They appear almost incidentally and are not always clearly visible. But careful observers of the scene see them approaching, and suddenly they are there. Sometimes these changes are so significant that they usher in completely new ways of thinking, rooted in the kind of functionalist philosophy that became established in the late 1980s and early 90s. For some years now the language mediation profession has been faced with the question of how it should see itself if it is to avoid the risk of becoming anachronistic (and superfluous) as a result of its insistence on retaining its exclusively anthropological foundations. The function of philosophy, according to Hegel, is to understand its age intellectually. Applying this thought to the relationship between language and life, one might say that language is its age expressed linguistically. Language allows interaction between individuals and the world around them. Seen in this way, the function of language is not consigned to a sphere of theoretical reflection which has little to do with reality, but is about collectively stored experience which finds its expression in a multitude of new forms that have only just found their way into the contemporary language. Examples of such words are “internationalization”, “informatization”, “rationalization”, “globalization”, “regionalization”, “specialization”, “flexibilization”, “technologization”, “computerization”, “professionalization”, “virtualization”, “optimization”, “fragmentation” and many other words with “-ation” and “-ization” suffixes, whose meaning has not yet been sufficiently explored (in my view) in relation to present and future language mediation activities. The semantics of

180

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

all these words, which we now use so frequently, boil down to the notion that major changes are taking place. “Computerization”, for example, implies that the use of computers has placed manual and mental processes on a new, digital level which promises faster and better results than all previous systems (e.g. in library and documentation work: “FAZ”, 8 March 1995: 37). Neologisms like those cited above demonstrate that language (above all the lexicon, the large supermarket of any linguistic and cultural community) does not develop in a vacuum, but always stands in a precisely definable relationship to the world which produces it. The decisive influences in today’s world are the sciences, economics, administration, technology and industry. For this reason, the idea that our age is a post-industrial one is not correct: we do not (yet) live in a new era of humanity, but in an unsentimental age of transition which will decide what the next age will look like (if there is one). These observations show that it is not language that speaks (as Heidegger erroneously assumed). In communicative exchange there must be a speaker, a subject. Language itself is not a subject: “language knows nothing”. Language is, as Aristotle pointed out two thousand years ago, a medium used by a speaker. It is controlled by its subject matter and the people using it, but it cannot think for itself. It is subject to external control, subordinate to (and not superordinate to) its speakers. Language does not change itself, but is changed by its users in accordance with their conceptual and communicative needs. Steiner’s idea “that there shall come a day when ... words will rebel against man. They will shake off the servitude of meaning” (1975: 474) belongs to the realm of ideological language philosophy. If one looks at contemporary linguistic communication, especially as it has developed since the beginning of the nineties, from the point of view of language mediation, one sees three fundamental tendencies: “globalization” (“internationalization”), “specialization” (“fragmentation”), and “technologization” (“automatization”). Translators and interpreters should not just register such developments passively, but must engage with them actively if they are to have any influence on the future of their profession. These three tendencies, and their implications for the practice and teaching of language mediation, are therefore discussed below (see also Hammond 1996).

THE PRESENT DAY

181

7.2 Globalization Nowadays everyone is talking about “globalization”. Without extensive searches in dictionaries and the media, it is not possible to say when the term was introduced, but it probably originated in Britain, where intensive discussion of the “g-word” has been going on for more than ten years now (Beck 1997). It undoubtedly came about in the wake of neo-liberal capitalism, which has been pushing for a virtually unbridled internationalization of world markets. The abolition of trade barriers around the world, the supremacy of the free capital market, the merger of major companies (with a turnover of $1140 billion in 1996), the removal of border controls, the internationalization of sport (e.g. German professional football), etc.: these are all symptoms of a development which means that capital and technology, information and products, and — last but not least — human labour can all cross frontiers with an ease and speed never seen before. We are experiencing economic processes from a completely new perspective. Economic globalization is accompanied by linguistic globalization. This shows that language use, both intralingual and interlingual, is subject to a dual strategy which operates centripetally and centrifugally. Centripetal use is evident in the fact that communication is increasingly taking place in English, the global language. The centrifugal effect can be seen in the fact that individual language communities are basically not prepared, despite their new global economic orientation, to give up their individual sociocultural identity, and will presumably not be prepared to do so in future, either (Chapter 7. 5). Whether they will succeed is a different matter. We are constantly being told about the advantages of globalization (as we are about those of the euro), and the dangers are also frequently mentioned: “Globalization today appears like a phantom. Everyone senses its danger, but no one can quite put their finger on it” (Helmut Maier-Mannhart, “SZ”, 1/3 February 1997, “SZ am Wochenende” : I). With its unbridled liberalization of the markets, globalization is dangerous mainly because it leads to “jobless growth”, which is hardly a positive phenomenon in terms of international solidarity. Many people are afraid, as is shown by the notion of the “globalization trap” (Martin/Schumann 1998). Amongst others Beck (1997) has explored this issue, and he emphatically points out the errors which have been made. The spread of “global” thinking in recent years is documented particu-

182

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

larly clearly in the large number of collocations based on the word. e.g. “globalization strategy”, “globalization debate”, “global attitude”, “global structure”, “global economy”, “global message”, “global data networks”, “global partnership”, “global budget”, “global strategy”, “global total”, “global agreement”, “global solution”. As is so often the case with such words, the term is already suffering from overuse, and in many contexts the word “global” has become a fashionable synonym for “total” or “overall”. Dictionaries show that “global” is a recent addition to the vocabulary of German. It is missing in Paul’s “Deutsches Wörterbuch” (1967), while Wahrig (1968/71) has only the adjective “global”. The “Duden-Wörterbuch” (1989), on the other hand, includes not only “global”, but also a number of compounds, though not “Globalisierung”. One-to-one equivalents across languages, such as “Globalstruktur/global structure/structure globale” or “Globallösung/global solution/solution globale” show that all things “global” are very much in vogue internationally. One should bear in mind that the term “global” is not restricted to use in the language of economic policy. Tendencies towards globalization can also be observed in the political, technological and sociocultural fields. Political globalization is evident (as Europeanization) within the EU and in many other international organizations. Technological globalization can be seen in the rapid spread of multimedia throughout the world. Sociocultural globalization can be observed in the international success of CocaCola, baseball caps and McDonalds, all of which we owe to the USA, or in the new pictogram languages, the most obvious symptom of the visualization of national and international communication. Globalization is not a new phenomenon, but it is one which has gained immensely in significance. Even in antiquity, and certainly during the exploratory voyages around the world, there was a form of “mondialisation”, as it is (and was) known in the Romance languages. The first great economic globalizers were the Genoese Cristóbal Cólon, better known to us as Christopher Columbus, who set sail for the west with his small flotilla from the Spanish port of Palos some five hundred years ago, on 3 August 1492; and the Portuguese Vasco da Gama, who sailed from Lisbon on 8 July 1497 with three years’ supplies and sailed around the Cape of Good Hope as far as the Indian port of Kalikut. Among his crew were twelve men condemned to death or exile. On his first voyage, Vasco da Gama used these men to establish contact with the native inhabitants . We do not know how this was possible linguisti-

THE PRESENT DAY

183

cally, but it is known that in Kalikut Vasco da Gama sent one of the condemned men on land, and that he was greeted (in a decidedly unfriendly manner) in Spanish by an Arab from Tunis. In his treatise “Zum ewigen Frieden” (On eternal peace), first written in 1795, Kant wrote extremely negatively on the mentality of these and other early globalizers: The injustice shown by the educated, mainly trading nations of our continent when they visit foreign lands and peoples (which to them are the same once they are conquered) is almost frightening: for them, America, the Spice Islands, the Cape were countries that belonged to no one when they were first discovered, since the indigenous population counted for nothing. (1947: 19)

Half a century after Kant, Marx comments on the globalization of the market economy in the “Communist Manifesto”, published in March 1848, above all criticizing its excesses: The bourgeoisie, through its exploitation of the world market, has put the production and consumption of all countries on a cosmopolitan basis ... the old local and national contentment and isolation is being replaced by a universal intercourse, a universal dependence of nations on each other. This is true both of material and intellectual production. (1966: 29f.)

Let us return from this brief historical excursus to the present. Of the many magic words which determine our view of the world today, the word “globalization” — the ultimate “connotative stereotype” (Pörksen 1988: 11) — is by far the most frequent. It is the buzz-word with the greatest (positive and negative) appeal. The remarkable thing is that, actually, very little has changed in the world economy. We cannot identify any far-reaching economic shifts or catastrophes which can be claimed to have forced the globalization of world markets. What we do notice, however, is that politicians, nationally and internationally, have allowed businessmen to take the front seat: The world is growing, growing together — not gradually or as a result of long voyages, as was the case earlier, but at jet speed, and with the simultaneity of electronic data and communications transmissions. (Jürgen Jeske, FAZ, 28 November 1997: 1)

Globalization is the logical, economically normal (and, following the collapse of socialism, predictable) development of liberalization, without there having been any need for a fundamental change of economic model. This becomes clear if one considers the worldwide economic development of Bayer/ Leverkusen, Mannesmann and Siemens in the second half of the 19th century.

184

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

To take the example of Siemens, which celebrated its 150th anniversary in 1997 (the year in which the present book was written): Siemens thought globally from the very beginning. After starting out originally with 90 workers, the company now has 37,900 employees producing products and services in 250 business sectors in 189 countries, from light bulbs to simultaneous interpreting equipment and megachips. The company’s policy has been summed up by its chairman Heinrich von Pierer as follows: “What we need is speed, significant productivity increases, new growth markets, and innovation”. When we speak of “globalization” today, we mean an “economy without frontiers” (without a world cartel authority). This development, foreshadowed by Siemens and others, has unleashed a heated discussion on economic policy (see “Zeit-Dokumentation” No. 15ff., 1996). Bernd Jagoda, the present head of the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit in Nuremberg, considers “globalization” to be one of the seven “megatrends” in the labour market, “which can only be compared in significance with the transition from an agricultural to an industrial society” (“FAZ”, 16 November 1996). 1997, in fact, was a key year in the political and economic restructuring of Europe: NATO enlargement, the reform and expansion of the EU institutions, the stepping up of convergence policy in readiness for monetary union etc. are all signs of a development in which the significance of the nation states (but not of the national languages) is being reduced. Today globalization is the magic word in the business world. This is especially true of the EU, which is above all an economic rather than a political union. The objective of present-day (highly undemocratic) economic policy is to secure a presence in the world‘s most important markets, and accounting is carried out increasingly with a view to the needs and conditions of the American capital market. Added to this is the tough competition with low-income countries, which has led to widespread outsourcing of jobs (Chapter 7. 3). New products must be marketable all over the world, and the employees of exporting companies do not merely need company know-how, but also “sociocultural/multicultural competence”. Many products are losing their national identity. Instead of “Made in Germany” we now read “Made by Mercedes Benz”. No other word better sums up the political and economic ambivalence of a world in which, on the one hand, political conflicts are breaking out everywhere, while on the other markets are being brought closer together, than the term globalization.

THE PRESENT DAY

185

The fundamental drive behind globalization is an obsession with size. This obsession gives rise to hectic activity. Speed is the ultimate criterion: everyone wants to be first when it comes to launching a new product on the international market and outwitting the competition. To achieve this goal, translators and interpreters are required. Contrary to various forecasts, more, rather than less, translation work is being done in the world today. At the same time, the demand for personnel who can speak foreign languages is growing. (A prospective study of this development would be well worthwhile.) Globalization and informatization go hand in hand. The International Association for Language and Business (IALB) dealt with this subject at its conference in Mons from 7-9 November 1997: One consequence of globalisation became clear from many of the papers, that companies are now having to handle many more languages than in the past, and that the languages of the Pacific Rim countries, particularly Chinese, were assuming an increasing importance. (Language Today 3, Dec. (1997); 7)

Such developments are still at an early stage, but it is clear that all internationally exposed service sections within companies — and these include language services — are, with their new technologies, an important factor in the process of globalization. Clearly some major change of awareness of the importance of the need for overcoming linguistic barriers must have occurred for translation to have risen to such prominence in our training profiles and intellectual pursuits. (MS. Sager 1997)

Before our very eyes, a shift is taking place from national communication to international, multilingual communication, which has destroyed any notion of the unlimited sovereignty of one nation and one language (Chapter 4.2). Lockwood et al. have characterized the future development of (machineaided) translation/interpreting as follows in their pioneering study “Globalisation. Creating New Markets with Translation Technology”: Globalisation is one of the most significant business trends of the 1990s. It is the process by which companies break free from home markets and take advantage of business opportunities wherever they arise. Companies which globalise: – have an international perspective — their product planning and selling assume that they will operate across national boundaries – are sensitive to local requirements for their products and services — they think globally, but act locally

186

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN – develop and manufacture products in the most appropriate localisations, not necessarily in their home markets – distribute products as widely as possible, to maximise their market opportunities – take advantage of new technology to bind together global distributed organisations. Many of the barriers to global operation are being removed. International trading agreements encourage global integration of business, while large regional trading blocks and “economic communities” create large multinational markets, the most advanced of which is the European Union. Computing and telecommunications technologies (sic) can now support operations virtually anywhere in the world. Using these new technologies, global companies can be integrated without being centralised — a key feature of the globalisation phenomenon. The most significant barrier to globalisation, however, is neither technical nor political — it is cultural. Operating in multiple markets requires a sensitivity to local needs and expectations, most of all, demands a knowledge of language. Globalisation is fundamentally, therefore, the process of creating products, product information, and services in the local languages of any markets worldwide. Translation is clearly at the heart of the process of globalisation. True globalisation, however, requires more than the pure translation of words. It is a process which considers the need for multi-linguality at all stages of product development and delivery, and throughout the organisation. Moreover, it takes into account the cultural environment in which products and services are delivered. (1995: 7)

An important aspect of globalization is regionalization. In the countries of Europe, regionalization means Europeanization, as the development of the EU shows. In the US, regionalization means “Asianization”; i.e. America is looking west, to China, Japan and India. “ ... the ocean of the 21st century is the Pacific” (Frühwald 1997: 29; see also “Mitteilungsblatt für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer”, Special: Asian Languages 6/97). Further evidence of this is provided by the fact that the XVII World Congress of Political Science — attended by almost 2,000 academics from all over the world — was held in Seoul. Even in the eastern United States people are more interested in Asia as an economic factor than they are in Europe, and to an extent Europeans are more interested in Asia than in Europe itself. There are very clear reasons for this shift in interests. According to a study published by the World Bank (before the crisis in the Tiger economies), China will have ousted the United States as the world’s biggest economy by the year 2020. Germany is expected to fall to from fourth to sixth position,

THE PRESENT DAY

187

since India and Indonesia will make great advances. The percentage of Asian students at American universities is growing constantly. At MIT (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in Cambridge, for example, 25% of students already come from Asia. There is a corresponding increase in the USA, hardly surprisingly, in Asian markets, cultures and languages. MIT has reacted accordingly. The “MISTI” programme (MIT International Science and Technology Initiative) is now operating there: it has developed out of the Japanprogramme (launched in 1981) and a China-programme (launched in 1994). For the sake of completeness it should be mentioned that there is also a Germany-programme at MIT, with a three-year budget of $75,000 per year: a modest sum by comparison with the China-programme, which has an annual budget of $1 million (“FAZ”, 27 September 1997). Originally, globalization began in Europe, above all in England, Holland, France, Spain and Portugal. Europe had a real lead in the globalization of the world thanks to its level of cultural development. The interpretation of this phenomenon has long been a field of interest in philosophy, historical studies, cultural history and sociology (and more recently in evolutionary biology; Diamond 1997). It is apparent everywhere that major companies today simply cannot afford to concentrate exclusively on national markets just because these are more easily manageable in terms of market policy than globalized markets, which are subject to turbulences, as the bank crashes of October/ November 1997 so graphically illustrated. In terms of language mediation, globalization is important for two reasons: first, as already mentioned, due to the increase in the amount of work; and second, because the question arises (or will soon arise) whether English will remain the main language of global communication, or whether diversification will take place. At the beginning of the 1960s most people were of the opinion that the world economy would soon be dominated by a small number of American multinational companies. Jean-Jacques Schreiber declared, somewhat sensationalistically, that the USA was in the process of taking over Europe with the help of such companies, all of which were under American control. But this did not happen. Only one fifth of the world’s largest companies today are American, the rest being based in Japan or in Europe, and a growing number of companies are based in the emerging nations. This could have consequences for international communication, which might begin to move towards multilingualism rather than monolingualism (see “International Translation Day”, Translation, a key to economic development: “Babel” 41/1 (1995), 47).

188

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Galinski has pointed out that, almost incredibly, over 70% of highly qualified employees (including those in management positions) in Europe today speak only their mother tongue. In his view this indicates that “in the multilingual ‘global village’ of the future ...the efficient acquisition, administration and processing of information ... can only take place with the help of multilingual terminological data, methods and tools” (1994, no page number). He continues: Whenever terminology is not adequate (i. e. is inaccurate, defective or incomplete) in a given special language, there are inevitably problems of transfer, even errors. In business terms, this means extra costs — even enormous costs, taken on a European level! Europe must do something about its terminologies, it must develop them in an active, aware and dynamic way. The European common market cannot work properly unless the right terminologies are available in all the (relevant) languages to the extent necessary (i.e. in terms of quantity and quality). (1994, no page reference)

Whether the European idea can ever be realized does not, of course, depend only on the co-ordination of terminological activities on a European level. It depends also on the agreement of political, economic, artistic, cultural and scientific objectives. Language mediation will play a central role in any such efforts, for they show on a daily basis that linguistic co-operation, and not linguistic assertiveness, are the key to success.

7.3 Virtualization/outsourcing Anyone who looks into the phenomenon of “globalization” is sure, at some stage, to come across the notion of “virtualization”. Mowshowitz claims to have first introduced the concept during his research on office automation (1986). The concept does not enjoy the same level of public awareness as globalization. There are two reasons for this: on the one hand, the word “global” does not require as much imagination as “virtual”, since the term “global” is quite transparent, and on the other, the concept of “virtualization” is rather confusing, if not misleading, even though we live today in a world of dual realities. Alongside “real reality” we now have, thanks to computer simulation and the Internet, a world of “virtual (artificial, imagined) reality”. This second reality can certainly make our lives easier in many ways, but it can also make them more difficult, which explains why people generally prefer material to imagined reality. The material world is there, while the

THE PRESENT DAY

189

virtual world exists only in the imagination. Let us try to shed some light on the debate surrounding the concept of virtualization. Three questions are especially important: 1. What is virtualization, and how is it manifested? 2. What is the aim of virtualization? 3. What does virtualization have to do with language mediation? 1. Virtualization is a management or organizational term which has both a functional and an institutional dimension. Klein has described these two dimensions as follows: From a functional point of view, virtual organization is a principle of (intraorganizational) planning (of companies; W. W.). Information such as that on products, prices, customers, statistics which can, in principle, be accessed anywhere, makes it possible to free working processes from the usual constraints of time and space and to introduce new forms of distribution. From an institutional point of view, virtual organization denotes a frequently cooperative and flexible network of legally independent enterprises which share resources and place their individual strengths at the disposal of the common organization. The joint organization is then able to function without the institutionalization of central functions and hierarchical structures. As a rule, such a joint organization will only exist for a limited period of time. The concept of virtual organization, then, accentuates specific features of company networks. (1997: 45)

Expressed in somewhat simpler terms, one might say that virtualization is the most effective use of all company resources and connections in order to maximize profits, whereby the fluidity and flexibility of company structures play a central role. 2. The goal of virtualization is to create profitable business partnerships (Wertschöpfungspartnerschaften, Müller-Stewens 1997a/b) designed to provide optimal “customizing” (the very precise fulfilment of customer needs, see below in this chapter, and Chapter 8.2). In this context it is absolutely irrelevant whether the product in question is produced in part or in its entirety by one company, or whether a company buys the product in (in part or in its entirety) for a vendor (the “make or buy” principle). The only thing that matters is price. This explains, for example, the dual strategy of organizations which have their own internal language service and yet still use outsourcing for translation and interpreting activities. As a management concept, virtualization is nothing new. “Virtual

190

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

money” in the shape of non-cash transactions has been in existence for a long time. The “make-or-buy” principle has been well-known in business studies circles for many years. So, too, do the principle of competition, which has always dominated the free market, and the idea of joint business activities using internal and external resources (e. g. VW/Audi, or so-called “assembler companies”) have a long tradition. Nevertheless, new developments are taking place, in three areas in particular: – The “seller’s market” has (we are told) turned into a “buyer’s market” (a market driven by the needs of customers); – Business partnerships have a different structure today. Manufacturer/supplier relations are now horizontal rather than vertical. The fundamental equality between the two is the result of the (relative) locational independence of business chains, which is, in turn, the result of the worldwide impact of modern information and communications technologies; – The old tendency towards centralization has been replaced (or at least reduced) by a combination of centrality and decentralization (suppliers). Decentralization requires network management (networking of supplier companies). Companies linked in this way can increase their turnover without substantial growth, since they use the sales infrastructure of their partner companies and can share the cost of setting up the necessary information and communications infrastructure. Where a global service network is in place, even relatively small companies can achieve major (virtual) size. Technical know-how, and knowledge of customers and markets in particular, but also organizational, procedural expertise are brought in from outside or used jointly under co-operation agreements. The importance of external links for the acquisition of know-how is reflected in the network of relations with other companies, which is constructed on several levels: from informal social networks of experts, through networks which co-ordinate quality improvement as a result of customer suggestions, to the co-opting of board members. (Klein 1997: 48)

3. In language mediation, the most common form of virtualization is the outsourcing of language services from the centre to the periphery of a company’s operations. This is especially common nowadays on account of the high cost of institutionalized language services (they do not pay for themselves in economic terms, see Chapter 6.4.1). This is a particular problem for management boards in industrial companies which operate language services. Some of them have implemented drastic cuts. Hoechst, for example, has

THE PRESENT DAY

191

disbanded its language service and converted it into a separate limited company. Other companies (such as Siemens; Chapter 6.4.3) have cut back radically and farm out most of their language servicing work to freelancers or to foreign subsidiaries, where it is carried out by locally employed staff. Measures like these hardly augur well for the future of the language mediation profession, but they are able to meet customer demands (which come and go at an alarming rate nowadays) without the need for internal structures like an institutionalized language service. Outsourcing of language services is, of course, only viable if the advantages of increased flexibility and specialization outweigh the costs of co-ordination and telecommunications. The establishment of global telecommunications networks (such as the Internet) has given decentralized structures a distinct cost advantage. The distributed processing of orders and the joint use of information make it possible for companies to offer their products on a global scale and to process customer orders around the clock, quite independently of regulated working hours. And all this is done with a view to the principle of the “fine granulation of market segmentation”, as the media prefer to call it nowadays. Competent outsourcing management is required if the process is to function properly and without negative effects on the “outsourced” staff involved (Hartz 1997). Management must put in place an organizational structure which, on the one hand, leaves the co-ordination of tasks and quality assurance to a central unit and yet, on the other hand, guarantees outsourced staff engaged in “mobile working” as much scope as possible (Wild 1997). The two levels should interact constructively, which presupposes mutual trust and the delegation of responsibilities. At the moment, the integration of “insourcing” and “outsourcing” appears to be more of an abstract idea than a practicable and tested process. The advantages and disadvantages of the outsourcing of language services are still not entirely clear. In general one can say that outsourcing offers a company significant gains in terms of flexibility, since it can co-operate with different partners on different products. Outsourcing has become a key factor in lean production, which aims to reduce the often very high running and personnel costs. For language mediators, outsourcing offers the advantage that it allows them to specialize to a certain extent, or, to put it more bombastically, it gives them the opportunity to focus their activities on their core competences and

192

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

thus to gain better control of the two central factors in their work, quality and speed. Whether outsourcing is worth it in the long run, i.e. whether it leads to real professional independence or its opposite, an apparent independence which carries significant risk, can probably only be decided in individual cases. In our age of unbridled competition, the battle for customers stands at the centre of all thinking on production and sales strategies. No company today can afford to believe that its policy is clearly defined for a longer period. Whereas previously it was the company that decided which products should be launched and how customer policy should be shaped, nowadays the fulfilment of customer needs is the major consideration in management plans. This is due to the fact that today’s customer might go somewhere else tomorrow, that customer behaviour can change dramatically overnight, which makes it very difficult for a company to develop long-term quality management and to maintain its competitive edge for the future. In terms of the outsourcing of language (and other) services, “customizing” means that answers must be found to the following questions: – How can the needs of existing and/or potential customers be brought into line with a company’s interests and strengths? – What is the function (and importance) of language services within the company’s structure? – How are teams set up to deal with orders, and how do these teams operate? – What might be considered to be a reasonable balance of insourcing and outsourcing from the point of view of customizing? – Are contact staff available within the company for outsourced employees? – How can outsourced staff be involved in an effective, professional and interactive system of customer care? In the area of software development in particular, the two concepts “just in time” and “time to market” have become extremely important for reasons of cost and competitiveness. If a company has access to a team of freelancers who have experience of working together, it can pass on a piece of work (a “service package”) from one translator who has just finished work to another who is just starting: in this way, work can be done around the clock. Outsourcing thus becomes part of an “interorganization” in which customer satisfaction is the main form of feedback and control. However impressive this may sound, one should not forget that (as in the case of globalization) every innovation a company introduces — such as

THE PRESENT DAY

193

outsourcing — solves some problems while creating new ones. As far as one can ascertain from the very sparse information and observations on the outsourcing of language mediators, the social implications of the phenomenon (which would be worth a separate study) have not thus far been given proper consideration. Traditional relationships disappear, and are replaced by new ones. What is needed here is a new form of staff management that monitors the organizational and individual basis of outsourcing. Outsourcing is a new kind of “business configuration” in which (ideally) all those involved carry out their individual part of the process. The process is at its most effective where “insource/outsource information co-operation” is kept to a minimum and the freelancers working on the periphery are fully aware of their function in the company’s business operations. From the point of view of the freelance language mediator, outsourcing can mean increased freedom. Since freelancers are not committed to one individual partner, they can offer their services to different companies (especially where these produce the same, or similar, products). But there is another side to the coin. Many people in the working world do not appreciate freedom and independence and, because of the largely reproductive nature of their work, translators/interpreters often belong to this category. They like to have an organizational “home base”, with which they can identify, and they are wary of the unknown risks involved in independent self-employment. They do not regard their PC as a gateway to a global network of information, but as a machine which allows them to use their local knowledge in the service of a precisely defined task. This knowledge, for them, involves specialist expertise, and not (general) information on customers and markets. The PC sets learning processes in motion which do not focus primarily on increasing the user’s knowledge of a company’s business processes and structures, but on gaining new qualifications. From the point of view of companies which are organized flexibly, qualified and competent freelancers represent a knowledge potential that facilitates a local and global presence on the basis of centrally and decentrally stored information. Outsourcing in general, and the outsourcing of language services in particular, functions best within the framework of an integrated “insource/ outsource management/human management”, which thinks and operates on the basis of partnership. Ideally a virtual corporation embodies the principles of multipreneuring — providing cost-effective means of adding value and managing risk through a

194

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN productive, flexible resource. Virtual companies can be platforms on which experts of every stripe work to maximum efficiency, doing what they do best. Virtual corporations ... can even be created to exploit a short-term opportunity, with all the players knowing they are in a three-to-five year business. At their best, virtual corporations offer – rapid response and state-of-the-art quality – high-level experts, managed into a team – intense project-focused effort – technology-enabled communications and other technological capabilities – coherent corporate image, with fewer expenses and administrative burdens. (Gorman 1996: 156)

This sounds very plausible, but it is hardly world-shattering or revolutionary. Quite the opposite: it is evolutionary. National and international competition has always operated on these principles. Just like globalization, virtualization is merely a reformulation of the inevitable economic processes that are constantly unfolding before us. In other words, virtualization is simply a linguistic label attached to something that is happening anyway. Whether the language mediation profession will be one of the winners or losers in this process depends very much on its success in establishing itself as a significant factor in human resources management.

7.4 Specialization It is a commonplace that we live in the age of specialization. There has, of course, always been specialization, but terms like “expertocracy”, “expert culture”, “expert systems”, “expert knowledge” etc. show that it has gained a new importance in the modern world. “Man can only understand reality today if he is professionally specialized: only then is he sure of reality”. (Schelsky 1972: 31) We have moved from knowledge to knowledges ... What we now consider knowledge is of necessity highly specialized. We never before spoke of a man or a woman ‘of knowledge’. We spoke of an ‘educated person’. Educated persons were generalists. They knew (original italics) enough to talk or write about a good many things, enough to understand a good many things. But they did not know enough to do any one thing. Knowledge today must prove itself in action. What we now mean by knowledge is information effective in action, information focused on results. Results are outside the person, in society and the economy, or in the advancement of knowledge itself. To

THE PRESENT DAY

195

accomplish anything, this knowledge has to be highly specialized. This is as great a change in intellectual history as any ever recorded. (Drucker 1994: 16)

It is not possible to establish when the modern form of specialization began, nor whether there actually was a precise starting-point. One would probably have to go back to Leibniz, who is generally regarded as the last universal scholar. He captured his concept of knowledge in the formula “characteristica universalis”, and it is only logical that he was probably the first person to turn his attention to the principles and structures of an interdisciplinary specialist dictionary. It is not possible in the present context to go into such matters any further. Let us instead examine a few selected entries from contemporary dictionaries, as we did in the case of globalization. The “Deutsches Wörterbuch” by Paul (1967) contains the entries “spezial” (adding “now replaced by ‘speziell’”) and “Spezialist” (adding “from around 1850, from French ‘spécialiste’”). In the “Duden-Wörterbuch” dictionary, on the other hand, the entry “spezial” covers one and a half columns, including “Spezialisierung” (with the somewhat unhelpful gloss “das Sichspezialisieren”; 1989: 1430) and many derivations and compounds with “spezial”. One early indication of the word “Spezialisierung” in German lexicology is to be found in the “Wahrig” dictionary (with the addition “das Spezialisieren; das Sichspezialisieren”; explained as “restriction to, and study of, a special area”; 1968/71: column 3245). What is meant here by “Sichspezialisieren” is actually something much older, as university examination regulations from the post-war period show (I am not entirely sure what is meant by “Spezialisieren”). The various editions of the handbook of the German “Hochschulverband” (Association of University teachers), the latest of which lists more than 4,000 specialist areas (though very unsystematically; Mittelstraß 1996), show that academic particularization is very far advanced. Even individual disciplines like mathematics are nowadays subdivided into many categories. The “American Mathematical Society” today identifies 3,400 subject areas. The field has become completely unmanageable, and a mathematician today can only exchange ideas with a handful of colleagues around the world. “Everyone works with the draft manuscripts of their five best friends” (Wolfgang Blum, Die Zeit, 5 December 1997: 52). It is obvious that the rapid spread and increasing sophistication of the sciences and the technological disciplines have given specialists the status they enjoy today. Special languages and specialist translation have expanded accordingly (Chapter 5.4). It is estimated that around 80% of all translations

196

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

today are specialist translations (excluding Bible translation, which is also a form of specialist translation), which explains why the main task of the (German) training institutes is to produce specialist translators for various employers who operate on a national and international level (Chapter 6.6). These translators are expected to translate texts on various specialized subjects from one or more foreign languages into their native language, or vice versa. Only rarely are they given the opportunity to concentrate on one particular area, as do translators at IBM, where company know-how is translated from English into other languages. The lack of opportunity for specialization runs quite contrary to the fact that translators and interpreters who wish to avoid being considered dilettantes must nowadays specialize in only one field, however broadly or narrowly this might be defined. The vast amount of knowledge which is required if one is to keep in touch with developments in any particular field makes such specialization inevitable. The idea that one person can do everything, and should be able to do everything, is absurd. The language mediator cannot know everything, either in terms of substantive or linguistic knowledge: nor can the technical writer, who has the task of producing technical information in a user-friendly form. The days of all-round translators and interpreters are numbered, as are those in which all law students study for the same qualification irrespective of which branch of the law they wish to work in later. Professionalization in language mediation means concentrating on one area of specialist text production, which in turn implies a need to increase one’s specialist knowledge both vertically and horizontally. In everyday practice, however, such specialization is still the exception in translation, and even more so in interpreting (Chapter 8.1). In setting performance priorities, one should not forget that specialization does not merely have a positive effect, i.e. an increase in quality: it also has its drawbacks, in as far as it can serve to reduce motivation. Mittelstraß exaggerates when he writes: ... the specialist (moves along) like a mole, who, with his (almost) blind eyes, has long lost sight of the world ... The specialist is no longer the symbol of knowledge, but of the lack of it. (1997: 49; see also Mittelstraß 1992)

In professions which demand specialist knowledge, it is inevitable that the persona of the individual plays a less important role than it used to: after all, the balance between general and specialist knowledge has been lost. Special-

THE PRESENT DAY

197

ization means, especially in our age of the universal publication of all scientific (and pseudo-scientific) discoveries, that the knowledge of the individual has become far more specific and limited. The controversy surrounding specialization/generalization is one thing: the professional practice of language mediation is another. The two job advertisements printed below demonstrate just how important specialist knowledge has become in the world of language mediation. They are taken from the “FAZ” of 14 October 1979: V 21 and 12 February 1994: V respectively: We are seeking scientists who also work as freelance translators to translate the journal “Scientific American” into German on a regular basis. Applicants should be able to offer the following: native German, very good English (beyond school-level competence), residence in Germany, and a university degree in one of the following subjects: astronomy, archaeology, biology, chemistry, history, mathematics, medicine, physics. Previous experience in translation is desirable. European Investment Bank .. seeks a qualified native German translator/ revisor. Requirements: university diploma in translation or similar plus several years work experience, preferably with a financial institution or an international body; a sound knowledge of economics and finance; readiness to work with a PC. Graduates in economics, business studies or economic law with an excellent command of foreign languages will also be given consideration. Languages required: native German, good knowledge of English and French. Competence in further languages would be an advantage.

One particularly striking development in this area is the move away from the idea of education (Bildung) towards that of training (Ausbildung). Words like “education system”, “educational goals”, “education system”, “educational opportunities” do not mean much in modern society, and the vast size of German universities has virtually killed off Humboldt’s famous “Bildungsideal”. The discussion on the future of the universities is dominated by the idea of (specialist) training rather than (general) education. The universities are no longer autonomous islands of disinterested learning. The university as envisaged by Humboldt no longer exists, if, indeed, it ever did. Even in the 19th century it was the aim of lawyers, clerics, medicine students at the Church- or court-dominated universities to acquire both specialist knowledge and a certain amount of methodological flexibility, and to learn to apply such (limited) knowledge in their professional lives. Alfred Boettcher pointed out as long ago as 1968:

198

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN To make knowledge so generally available that it enables the majority of people to react independently to changes in the world around them is an ideal that can never be realized using our present methods of teaching and learning. The more specialization spreads, the more remote this goal will become, because the number of factors that determine our lives is increasing and the functional relations between them are becoming ever more complex. The need for guidance, for authority based on knowledge, will grow stronger; this will have to be determined in essence by the present and be in a position to communicate with others. (“Die Zeit”, 8 November 1968: 32)

Unlike educational knowledge (which is practically indefinable), training knowledge is vocationally directly relevant. Training is aimed at the acquisition of specific (epistemic) knowledge which is reflected in manual or cognitive skills (Wilss 1992). While the concept of education is growing ever vaguer and now exists at universities only in the form of often poorly attended “interdisciplinary” public lectures, specialized training communicates the kind of knowledge which is important for human activity and orientation. This kind of knowledge makes learners receptive to subjects which can be assimilated gradually and effectively by carefully targeted training. It filters perception and observation, allows a clear understanding of relationships which had hitherto been only partly understood, and opens up new fields of research and activity which have new and stable value systems. These fields cannot be dismissed as “unscientific” just because they are not part of the classical educational canon. Whether we like it or not, we have to accept that a large part of what has always been considered “education” — the entire emotional and aesthetic world — is not, and cannot be, covered by the modern, rationally (not hermeneutically) conceived notion of (vocational) “training”, which also includes the training of language mediators. It is not relevant in the present context whether the infiltration of the computer sciences (Chapter 7.6) into almost all other disciplines (except, perhaps, theology) has served to accelerate the process of specialization. There are, clearly, two forms of behaviour: those which can be produced from a repertoire and are programmable (as algorithms), in which the function of distinct parts and the function of distinct wholes can be clearly related to each other; and those which cannot programmed due to the scientific and sociocultural pluralism of our world. That programmable modes of behaviour are more highly specialized than non-programmable ones is something we can observe every day.

THE PRESENT DAY

199

7.5 Fragmentation A development which is similar to that of specialization is that of “fragmentation”, which plays an important role in the “cultural society”. Fragmentation is to be understood as “taking sides with the particular” (Hauke Brunkhorst): it can be seen as a counterbalance to economic, political and cultural globalization. Cultural diversity, in itself, can imply both intercultural conflict and peaceful co-existence. Unfortunately, the former is dominant. Basque terrorism and fundamentalist violence in Algeria show very clearly that there is a widespread fear that local, regional and national structures might be swallowed up by a globalized economy. Beck is fairly optimistic: The fact that globalization does not just mean de-localization, but also implies re-localization, is an important part of economic thinking. No one can produce “globally” in the strict sense of the word. Companies that produce and sell their products “globally” must develop local ties ... “Global” really means, when translated and brought down to earth, “in several places at the same time”, i.e. translocal. (1997: 86)

Taken together, “de-localization” and “re-localization” produce a new “glocalized” form of transnational business: The idea that one can understand the modern world, with its shifts and turbulences, without reference to those phenomena which are dealt with under the headings of the “politics of culture, cultural capital, cultural difference, cultural homogeneity (sic), ethnicity, race and gender” seems absurd. (Beck 1997: 90f.)

As early as at the beginning of the 1980s, Sir Jeremy Isaacs prayed at the launch of his “Channel Four” television channel: “God protect us from international sameness”. At that time it was regarded as polite to speak highly of a “Europe culture” and its power to bring peoples closer together. There was talk of a “European Year of Music”, of the “European Cultural Capital” (led by Athens), even of an “EC culture”, although the latter does not exist, as the emphasis on “interculturalism” or “multiculturalism” and the agenda of modern cultural studies show. It is national cultures which call the tune in Europe and which act as a counterbalance to the dominance of the two de facto “Eurolanguages”, English and French. How we define culture today is a different question. If we bandy around terms such as “company culture”, “conflict culture” and all the other modern “cultures”, right through to the “closure culture”, it is not surprising that the very concept of culture — in both

200

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

its everyday and academic senses — ends up becoming diluted and trivialized. The trend towards fragmentation is especially marked in France (Chapter 4.6). The ban on the use of foreign words in advertising and on the Internet, and the chauvinistic behaviour of the French UNESCO delegates show that France is hardly reticent in the defence of its national interests (Chapter 4.6). Other signs of the tendency towards fragmentation include the insistence on Arabic as the official business language of all companies, including nonArabian ones, in all transactions with the Saudi Arabian government and businessmen; the (abortive) attempt to establish Valencian as a separate language; and the cultural struggle in the autonomous region of Catalonia (“SZ”, 31 December 1997: 10). There have also been developments in Hong Kong. Chinese is now the dominant language in theatre programmes, especially at the Kowloon Cultural Centre, and the same is true of theatre and opera performances. Whereas the texts shown above the stage used to be in English, they are now in Chinese. In this context the individualization of society should also be mentioned, which has been discussed by the Frankfurt sociologist Karl Otto Hondrich in his brilliant article “Der neue Mensch und seine Herkunft” (“New man and his origins”; FAZ, 31 May 1997). The former German trades union leader and current EU commissioner Monika WulfMathies commented similarly a number of years ago: Neither our trades union structures nor our current practice are ready for the challenges of European unification. The political ideas and strategies for a united Europe are just as diverse as the European trades unions, both in terms of their national particularities and their social importance.

It is highly unlikely that this will change in the near future. Despite the trend towards globalization, a knowledge of foreign languages and cultures will remain necessary for international understanding, for the development of individual mobility, and for the active participation of the individual in shaping the future. The German writer Siegfried Lenz points out the kind of subtleties one encounters when one looks into the question of “cultural diversity” (Sowell 1992), using the example of names: How important names are, how much they give us and tell us! A Don Quixote would be unthinkable in Northern Germany, as would be Theodor Storm‘s Hauke Haien in the warm climate of Mancha. Wagner’s Brunhilde could never come from Seville, have dark eyes, wear acacia blossoms behind her ear, and be able to sing and dance. It would be equally impossible for Carmen

THE PRESENT DAY

201

to be from the Rhineland, have blond hair and pigtails, wear a steel breastplate over her impressive bosom and display a pair of biceps so large that Siegfried first thinks she is a man. No, every name belongs to its own world, the world which it represents ... (“FAZ”, 29 June 1985, “Bilder und Zeiten”; 2)

Just how important the principle of “cultural diversity” is, even in technical fields, is demonstrated by differences which exist in technical standards and requirements. This has led Mercedes Benz, for example, to set up its own database containing the relevant data from all over the world (verbal communication from Peter A. Schmitt). Globalization has produced global communication (in the “global village”), but no world culture or world civilization: Different countries have different customs, and this is also true in foreign business. The success of a deal can often depend not just on knowing the market, but also the unwritten laws of the country you are dealing with. Our overseas representatives are usually natives of the foreign country in question. (From an advertisement of a German bank which is headed: “Außenhandelsfinanzierungen scheitern bei uns nicht an Übersetzungsfehlern” (Our foreign deals do not fail because of translation errors; “FAZ”, 24 June 1997: 7)

English may well be the global language (Chapter 4.4), and in many countries (e.g. India with its 1,652 and Nigeria with more than 400 regional forms or dialects; Pörksen 1988: 15f.) it may be the only possible official language. But this does not give anyone the right to dismiss languages other than their own (in this case English) as a “trade barrier”, as once happened at a cultural conference at the Tutzingen Academy (“FAZ”, 19 November 1997: 44). For an understanding of intracultural and intercultural phenomena, for international co-operation and the exploration of interdisciplinary relationships, etc., multilingualism (e.g. in the form of trilingualism: native language + English as the international language of specialist communication + one other foreign language) is absolutely essential.

7.6 Technologization/Automatization The idea of “technologization” is even more firmly established in our consciousness than that of “globalization” and “specialization”. Technology is to be understood here in its broadest, dual sense, i.e. both as fundamental knowledge-based research and as the practical application of such work in

202

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

everyday life. It is to be understood as the final stage in a development which Max Weber called “occidental rationalism”, i.e. as the shift from the “mythos” to the “logos”. Technology today enjoys a power matched only by that of bureaucracy and corruption and exerts a decisive influence on the contemporary human world. It has infiltrated, in an arrogant and ruthless manner, all the organizational structures of modern society and allows processes to be set up and developed in accordance with the logic of a universal superstructure which monopolizes and subjugates the individual in the name of “instrumental reason”. The incarnation of this instrumental reason is the computer. It is the “proteus of machines” (Seymour Papert), because it is supremely multifunctional and has led to an electronic liquefaction of our world. Technologization (or, today, its synonym “automatization”) is a bottomless subject because it knows absolutely no limits. It is tornado which has created a new way of looking at the world, which blows away traditional ideas like rotten trees, and has caused a fundamental shift in thinking from analogue to digital (binary) modes: Automatization does not just mean ... an increase in the number of machines. It also means the adjustment of the individual to this world of machines, and subjugation to its ultimate principle: pure functionalism. Automatic processes can only run smoothly if the people operating them work in the appropriate way, i.e. eliminate all individual characteristics and idiosyncrasies which result from their biophysical make-up. (Breuer 1992: 109)

The reason for this shift is the rise of the computer sciences, which have no use for pragmatic and discursive modes of thinking. These sciences operate with categories such as “parameterization”, “methodologization”, “calculization”, “syntacticization”, “algorithmization”, “proceduralization”, “modularization” and work on the assumption that mathematics will prove to be the drivingforce behind a new, all-embracing technologization. We live today in the force-field of a mathematical philosophy which has lost its power of differentiation and seeks to convince us that the principles of mathematically calculable processes are identical with the principles of human life itself. Mathematics, especially in its applied form as information technology, is a mode of thought which (whether rightly or wrongly we shall one day see) seeks to replace individual cultures with a more or less homogeneous, technically oriented world culture in which computer software is the ultimate yardstick of all human thought and behaviour. The most impressive testimonies to this development are the 30,000 industrial robots in operation in the

THE PRESENT DAY

203

world today. They represent a “global information technology” for which the current state-of-the-art in industrial robot technology is just the beginning. The aim of the development is to move away from isolated methods of production towards the total automatization of industrial production, in which “social accounting” is replaced by “business accounting”. The global society of today is fully prepared to accept that robotization will inevitably bring with it an incalculable loss of cultural substance, since automaticity has become an essential element in our world: At least two changes are widely agreed upon and constitute the core of the concept of automaticity. The first is that practiced operations no longer impose capacity demands, so they can operate without experiencing interference from, or generating interference with, other ongoing mental activities. The second is that practiced operations are not subject to voluntary control ... (Pashler 1998: 357)

Language mediation will be affected by the computerization of life and learning in three ways: – machine translation (MT) – machine-aided translation (MAT) – terminology work for translation/interpreting.

7.7 Machine Translation People have been trying for some fifty years now to automatize the process of translation. These attempts have been fed by the post-war trend towards placing empirical phenomena onto a logical footing, by advances made in the formal sciences, by systems theory/analysis, and, finally, by the development of program-driven data processing systems. MT rests on the hypothesis that natural languages can be understood as fully describable, controllable, quasimathematical codes which can be manipulated and operationalized by machines. Translation is seen — in a grotesque distortion of reality — as a specific form of linguistic data processing which can be reduced to the substitution of source-language signs by target-language signs and can therefore be carried out by a computer, given appropriate programming. A good example of this is provided by German patent number 911187 of 10 May 1954, in which R. L. Gourdon describes “Processes and devices for the independent and immediate translation of written texts into various languages”.

204

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Many people (including some who should have known better) have made the mistake of equating human and machine data processing/information processing, although there has always been plenty of evidence that machine (binary) and neurophysiological (networked) data processing operations are fundamentally different from one another. The first point to be borne in mind is that a computer program is “not a psychological model for linguistic processes” (Wettler 1980: 5). Cognition, imagination and intelligence are human privileges. One can teach a computer certain forms of artificial operation or procedure with the aid of algorithms of varying complexity, but this, as far as we know today, only enables them (and presumably will do for some time) to conduct operations of relatively low complexity: We ascribe complexity to events that are composed of a network consisting of a large number of variables linked in a generally complex manner. This network of variables initially enlarges the scope for subjective decisions, but at the same time it forces the individual to process larger volumes of information. Since the interdependence of variables is not always entirely clear to us at present, we make decisions under conditions of intransparency and uncertainty. (Dörner 1994: 72)

Whether computers will ever be able to make such decisions, and, if so, whether such decisions will have any value, is a question that cannot be answered at present. Helbig is right when he says: ... we do not really know today whether, and to what extent, different material structures (in our case man and machine) are able to produce the same performances on a functional level. (1996: 18)

All the talk one hears today about the “electronic brain”, “our colleague, the computer”, the “man/machine interaction”, or even the “smart machine” is the result of technocratic thinking. Such things go down well because they have a “cybernetic touch” and allow us (perhaps unconsciously) to resist the idea that thinking is something exclusively human. The idea put forward by Newell/ Simon that “a programmed computer and a human problem are both a species of information systems” (1972: 870) can only be accepted if one believes that heuristic problem-solving strategies (trial and error) are of no major importance and can be replaced by pre-formed, deterministically established algorithms. But the algorithmization of reality has its limits: However precise an observation of all present facts may be, it will never be able to predict future events. At best it will open up a certain range of

THE PRESENT DAY

205

possibilities, and indicate certain probabilities for their realization. (HansPeter Dürr, “SZ”, 21/22 January 1984 “SZ am Wochenende”)

Another important reason for the difference between the human brain and the computer lies in the fact that the computer has no consciousness. It cannot think, and it cannot think about itself, which means that it is unable to think about the meaning of its program and react critically to it. “Every individual creates a subjective reality via internal processes” (Schiepek 1990: 193) and thus operates within a “second-order cybernetics” (Heinz von Foerster). This, supported by the powers of imagination and introspection, puts the individual in a position to select between or combine various possible modes of behaviour. The fundamental distinction between man and machine is that the former is a biological, sense-processing system, while the latter is a physical, symbolprocessing (algorithm-processing) system. In comparison with the combinatory capabilities of the human mind, those of the computer are modest indeed, and are inevitably limited to a form of “roaming within a system” (Aebli 1981: 222). This restrictedness has to do with the nature of the machine: it is the quintessence of the defined. For that reason, machines cannot paraphrase, nor distinguish between seriousness and irony, nor recognize the difference between truth and falsehood. Computers do not argue, nor do they fall in love. They are “senseless” in the true sense of the word. They cannot see, they cannot hear, nor feel, they have neither smell nor taste. The errors they make, which are nowadays called (somewhat euphemistically) “Störungen” (disturbances), are not their own, but those of the programmer. It is up to the programmer to decide which error-searching strategies should be used to localize disturbances and to eliminate them by making changes which do not threaten the rest of the program. It is not the computer that learns from experience, but the human. There is no such thing as an “intelligent” computer that can distinguish between information and knowledge. The machine is merely a world of bureaucratized rationality. No one has ever dreamed of testing a computer’s IQ. All the vague talk about the replacement of man by machine is nonsense produced by the “fascination with automatization” which Gehlen discussed forty years ago (1957). A third point is that computers have no experience of space or time. Because they cannot remember anything, they cannot forget anything. “Computer intelligence”, if there is such a thing, is an intelligence without a history or morality. Computers do not age, nor do they die, at least in the anthropological sense:

206

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN The age of the natural sciences is chronometrical and atemporal. It has metre and duration, but no tenses in the sense of past, present, future. It knows such relational definitions as “earlier than”, “later then” and “simultaneously with”. But it cannot distinguish between past, present and future. All natural laws are formulated in the atemporal present. The age of the human sciences is temporal and historical. The human sciences can decide between future and past. Their time is centred in the present, in which that which was previously future becomes, from a certain point on, the past. (Franck 1990: 928)

All this shows that attempts to compare the computer with the human psyche are futile. The computer is not a facsimile of the brain, nor is its binary principle compatible with the thought processes of the human brain. Our brain works in a very different way to that commonly suggested in computer (simulation) models (Haken/Haken-Krell 1997). The question: “How similar is man to the computer?” would need to be answered cautiously today. “People (are) smarter than machines” (McClelland et al. 1986: 3). “Nature is always a little too difficult for mathematics” (Jürgen Spreckels). As Adolf Portmann puts it, the brain is an “instrumental management structure” which is capable of the kind of routine processes undertaken by computers and the kind of creative behaviour that no computer has (yet) achieved. This management structure enables man to engage in decisionmaking processes and to develop problem-solving strategies with the help of the imaginative, combinatory, selective and differentiating powers of the human consciousness. These powers cannot be reduced to the level of mechanical calculations, which is why consciousness — an insoluble mystery — is today the greatest challenge facing the sciences, above all psychology, biology and mathematics, the disciplines which inspire the world of science today more than they ever have in the past. Computer programs are not creative; they can only trigger off creative impulses in as far as they support humans in solving problems (for example as expert systems). The encounter between man and machine (or, to be more precise, man’s preoccupation with the machine) is the main research area in the field of “artificial intelligence” (AI), which seeks to grasp cognitive processes using a cybernetic theory of consciousness, i.e. on the basis of “apparative intelligence”. But many of the conclusions reached in this field show an alarming lack of common sense and realism. Linus S. Geisler, chief consultant in internal medicine at the St. Barbara Hospital in Gladbeck/Germany, for example, claims in all seriousness:

THE PRESENT DAY

207

The encounter between man and machine clearly shows the blurring of the boundary between the two. This is a gradual process which will eventually lead to a complete change of roles. Language (meaning: the use of language; W. W.) unmasks the role relations. Man “services” the machine, “feeds” it with programs. Man sees himself more and more as a computer ... and thus becomes, without noticing it, the creator of a new, non-biological species, a “machine species” of highly developed computers which become vessels of artificial intelligence. (“FAZ”, 4 August 1993: N4)

Anyone who reads such nonsense can understand how it is that such unbelievable claims have been made for MT, which was first developed in 1948. As early as the 1960s people were dreaming of “push button translation”, which would put an end to all problems of international communication. There were, though, some sceptical observers, as the following ironical comment shows: Once, so the story goes, they fed into a mechanical translating machine the saying “out of sight, out of mind” and it came out in Japanese at the other end as “invisible, insane”. It was probably the same machine which translated “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak” as “The whisky’s fine, but the meat’s a bit off”. (“The Manchester Guardian Weekly”, 18 June 1959)

Perhaps MT research, which has still not really produced anything significant, might have taken a different course if professional translators had been involved in its development, or if they had shown some interest in getting involved. But they did not, perhaps because they thought that MT was the private business of a small group of eccentrics, or because they did not feel able to deal with complex issues of computer technology. Significantly, MT research was initiated by communications and information theoreticians, and not by linguists or even practising translators (Locke/Booth 1955). I am not aware of a single MT project from the 1950s, 60s, or 70s (before 1978) in which the translation profession or teachers of translation/interpreting were involved. A particularly dark chapter in this context is the “Verbmobil” project mentioned earlier, which involves automatic interpreting between German and Japanese via English (see Chapter 3.2.5). The project, most generously funded by the German Ministry for Research and Technology, has been running for several years at the AI centre at the University of the Saarland, Saarbrücken. And yet it never occurred to the leaders of the project to invite colleagues from the institute of translation and interpreting to take part, although they were literally only a stone’s throw away. (It should be mentioned, in fairness, that a representative from Germersheim was a member of the

208

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

team.) So far “Verbmobil” has managed to produce translations of travel information and hotel reservations, two fields of communication which were presumably chosen because they are dominated by standardized lexical, phraseological and syntactic structures. Incidentally, the “TITUS” system, the MT project run by the “Institute Textile de France”, had been working with a carefully controlled lexis and syntax long before “Verbmobil” emerged. The major problem facing MT is that of developing programs to cope with lexical ambiguity and syntagmatic-syntactic complexity. Both of these phenomena are very common in language use, which makes MT the most critical area of “translation technology”. A simple example of lexical ambiguity is the sentence “All men are born free/Alle Menschen sind umsonst geboren”. Syntagmatic-syntactic complexity can be seen in the following text, which contains a sequence of prepositional phrases (nominal chains) and gerunds commonly found in specialist and administrative texts: ... the European Commission invites proposals for pilot or exploratory projects with the following object: To contribute to the enhancement of the current multimedia rights trading environment in the Union by raising the effectiveness and efficiency of multimedia rights clearance processes between rightholders and multimedia product developers (info 2000 ECHO facts for users 4/97: 1)

For MT, simple syntactical structures are important because they demonstrate the central role of syntax in translation. All translators know that complex syntactical (or syntagmatic) features represent a major problem in translation. In such cases, the translator does not have a choice between literal and nonliteral translation, but must translate non-literally. Since non-literal translation requires more processing than literal forms, it makes sense (or, perhaps, is even obligatory) to write texts designed for machine translation in a syntax which can be relatively easily analyzed and transferred before being synthesized in the target language (Haller 1997). In the case of texts which go beyond a relatively low degree of complexity, MT programs have to work extremely hard indeed, and there is no guarantee that the end product will justify the effort made with regard to syntax, transfer and synthesis. The reason why MT is not making any significant progress in this area is that extra-linguistic knowledge (contextual, situational, world, encyclopaedic knowledge) is not programmable — except, perhaps, in a few domains which are thematically and linguistically closely circumscribed. One example of such a domain is the weather report, which in Canada is translated from

THE PRESENT DAY

209

English into French by the “METEO” program developed at the French University of Montreal. The MT research team in Montreal had no success, however, with the thematically and terminologically more ambitious “AVIATION” project. The SYSTRAN system used by the EU language services (Chapter 6. 3, and below) is merely a translation aid which has grown increasingly sophisticated in recent years, while the MT project “EUROTRA”, launched at great expense and shielded from the public from start to finish, has been unceremoniously abandoned. Frank Knowles, a leading figure in MT, comments as follows: Only bureaucratic error or political disingenuousness could lay down in advance in “blue skies” research that a “research phase” WILL be complete in two years. Only an honest assessment of work achieved — rather than “milestones” specified a priori — can determine progress and the managerial options surrounding it ... The true nature of the complexity is not known beforehand and those funding it having (sic) to accept that quite openly at the beginning ... (“Language International” 1/1 (1989), 28; Final Report of the European Commission: 10. October 1994)

Observations like this, with their implied or explicit criticism of MT management, are, of course, rather unpleasant, and even embarrassing. But they show why MT research has never been able to achieve the aim of FAHQT formulated (and soon abandoned) by Yehoshua Bar-Hillel (Chapter 6.4.3), and has therefore turned to more modest tasks, which go under the heading of MAT (Chapter 7.8). In this regard, Bar-Hillel is in agreement with the American MT expert Martin Kay, who, in an article written in 1980 but first published in 1997, describes the results achieved thus far by MT as “linguistic scrap”. It should, however, be pointed out that even linguistic scrap can have a useful function: for some readers, automatically translated texts only have to be good enough to tell them what information a text contains, and they do not have them postedited by a human translator if a machine-produced raw translation can be produced in minutes.

7.8 Machine-aided translation As indicated above, MAT was born out of the fact that MT, a form of automatic translation designed to function without human correction, has proved to be utopian:

210

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN Fully automatic translation requires different types of knowledge: – language-dependent knowledge – language-independent knowledge, i. e knowledge of meaning – culture-dependent knowledge. From this view point, existing machine translation systems remain at the language-dependent level. In other words, current technology in machine translation systems has produced pre-commissioned systems and not has (sic) actually put systems into practical operation as yet. (Fujiwara et al. 1997: 9)

Machine-assisted translation concentrates today on two areas: machine-aided human translation (MAHT) and human-aided machine translation (HAMT). Both of these, unlike MT, are interactive systems, for which the term “man/ machine interaction” is used in MT circles. This term is not entirely appropriate. An “interaction” always presupposes the collaboration of two social agents: this is not true of MAT, since only the human is active (not the machine), and only the human has intelligence (and not the machine). It is fundamentally wrong to ascribe to the machine the status of an agent. It has no social experience, and cannot therefore engage in social action. Interactions cannot be induced purely technically, but have a social component. The difference between the two systems lies in the fact that MAHT supports the translator with a computer program containing an alphabetical or (better) text-based list of terminological target-language equivalents. An MAHT system, then, consists merely of a word processor which searches for terminological equivalents and sorts them according to text-based principles. This process, as the Bundessprachenamt in Hürth discovered in the 1960s, is much faster than conventional word-searches in dictionaries. Recent MAHT systems contain a “KWIC” component (= keyword in context), which gives the translator specific words in context and might one day provide a basis for a specialist phraseology component. The interactive component of the HAMT system, with its “man/machine interfaces”, is more highly developed than that of MAHT. HAMT is based on a program which is able to carry out simple transfer operations, and produces rough translations which are post-edited by human translators. It is also possible for the human translator to pre-edit the text in order to make it easier for the computer program to cope with. Whether one needs qualified translators for this task, or whether qualified translators will be prepared to clear up the mess left by MT remains to be seen.

THE PRESENT DAY

211

7.9 Translation memories A “labour sharing” arrangement between man and machine seems more promising than the automatic systems outlined above, and “translation memories” are now becoming available (see the contributions in Lauer et al. 1996). Translation memories are databases containing linguistic segments either as context-independent, non-lexicalized phraseologies or as “standard building blocks” (Hamilton 1992). They are endlessly repetitive loops in different contexts, and can be useful (i.e. cost-effective) where formatted texts display a high frequency of standard building blocks and have little linguistic individuality (Wilss 1997), or in the translation of updates (e.g. software handbooks): Controlled language, coupled with machine translation, is most likely to be used in publication departments of manufacturing companies. They often have very rigid requirements regarding how information is presented and written, with strict rules regarding terminology, grammar and syntax. This makes the style of text in many technical documents highly instructive, simple to read and repetitive, all characteristics which benefit from an automated approach to translation. (Lockwood et al. 1995: 42)

IBM/Sindelfingen uses translation memories (developed by TRADOS in Stuttgart) in the following way: Every sentence of a translation is stored in TM/2-TMem in English and German. (At IBM, translation only takes place from English into German and other languages; W. W.) If the same sentence re-occurs somewhere else in the original, the translator is offered the German translation from the TM/2-TMem for re-use. TM/2 invoicing file. TM/2 keeps a log of how many sentences have been translated and classifies them as – new translations – re-translations, or – modifications. This allows a very precise invoicing of translation services. (IBM-TC Manual. Johanna Possemis, MK Offering Information & NLS (NLS = National language Support; W. W.), T1-71)

Such formulations clearly show that the anthropological notion of translation and interpreting has been replaced by a technocentric conception. There is no place here for the kind of individual differentiation, empathy, or hermeneutic sophistication which are considered necessary (sometimes too much so) for literary translators. Translation memories have no concept of individual stylis-

212

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

tic or cultural considerations, of semantic nuances or associations. Their sole aim is to produce translations to meet deadlines set by management, observing the following (minimum) criteria: We aim to give the customer – error-free translations – on time – at low cost. (IBM-TC Manual T1-7)

To work efficiently, translation memories require a (sometimes intensive) process of quality control to ensure that the individual entries are reliable and that incorrect entries are not simply perpetuated ad infinitum (Chapter 8. 1). Translation memories are of varying importance in the individual areas of language mediation. Logically, they are used more in “technical” language services than they are elsewhere, e.g. by the EU or the German Foreign Office. But they are used in the EU, too, to name just one example, since standardized text components and text norms occur frequently in the Union’s work. The following German text and its English translation (Resch 1993) demonstrate this. (The italicized passages are standardized building blocks, my emphasis; W. W.): Herr Präsident! Wir beehren uns, Ihnen den Gesamtbericht über die Tätigkeit der Gemeinschaften im Jahr 1992 vorzulegen, den die Kommission nach Artikel 18 des Vertrages über die Einsetzung eines gemeinsamen Rates und einer gemeinsamen Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaft zu veröffentlichen hat. Es handelt sich um den Sechsundzwanzigsten Gesamtbericht seit der Fusion der Exekutivorgane. Gemäß der “Erklärung betreffend das System zur Festsetzung der Agrarpreise der Gemeinschaft” in der Beitrittsakte vom 22. Januar 1972 wird die Kommission dem Parlament in Kürze den Bericht 1992 über die Lage der Landwirtschaft in der Gemeinschaft übermitteln. Ferner bereitet die Kommission entsprechend einer am 7. Juni 1971 im Parlament eingegangenen Verpflichtung auch den Zweiundzwanzigsten Jahresbericht über die Wettbewerbspolitik vor. Genehmigen Sie, Herr Präsident, den Ausdruck unserer ausgezeichnetsten Hochachtung. Brüssel, 9. Februar 1993. Sir, We have the honour to present the General Report on the Activities of the Communities, which the Commission is required to publish by Article 18 of

THE PRESENT DAY

213

the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities. This report, for 1992, is the twenty-sixth since the merger of the executives. In accordance with the procedure described in the Declaration on the system for fixing Community farm prices contained in the Association Documents of 22 January 1972, the Commission will shortly be sending Parliament the 1992 Report on the Agricultural Situation in the Community. And, in accordance with an undertaking given to Parliament on 7 June 1971, the Commission is preparing its twenty-second annual report on Competition Policy. Please accept, Sir, the expression of our highest consideration. Brussels, 9 February 1993.

These texts, and there are many like them in the EU, show very clearly that thinking and acting in schematic configurations is one of the most important things in dealing efficiently with everyday problems of national and international communication. That is why researchers in cybernetic systems theory, biological epistemology and cognitive psychology seek to examine the various manifestations of schemes and reduce them to basic fundamental principles which guarantee “ordered finiteness” (Jürgen Mittelstraß). Constructing and developing repertoires of schemes which are ordered according to subject areas is an important step in learning how to communicate. Where we use schemes to achieve our communicative goals, we are at our most effective, economical and interlocutor-oriented. Whether we see schemes positively or negatively depends on our individual perspective; what we lose in (individual) freedom, we gain in terms of a feeling of (collective) security. Or to put it the other way round: what we lose in terms of a feeling of (collective) security we gain in (individual) freedom. This is a problem which, as far as I know, has not been fully considered by the language mediation profession: that of “technology impact assessment” (Steiner 1996). The relevant question here is whether the new “translation technology”, including, for example, translation memories, will make language mediators even more marginalized socially than they are at present (Chapter 6.12). Schemes have a “memoria” function. They are organizing principles or mini-programs which allow, in real-life situations, a sensible input/output relationship in our intellectual and physical behaviour. They make it easier for us to prepare, carry out, monitor and evaluate our actions. The same is true, by analogy, of translation. The existence of schemes forms a background for our decisions and actions: they function as gravitational centres of skill-based, quasi-automatic behaviour. Schemes act as signposts, directing us away from false and unnecessary courses of action. They are like the needle of a compass

214

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

which can help us to navigate safely through future uncertainties. Schemes allow us to reconstruct, with relative ease, the behavioural attitudes of the individual, since they function as generalizations. They are a constitutive element of reality, encourage homogeneity, and function as anchors in the constantly shifting tides of consciousness. Furthermore, they facilitate a form of “collective organization of interests” and show that human nature values familiarity as much as it does variety. Schemes are the result of a process of abstraction which allows us to structure knowledge. This structure comes about as a product of perception, conceptualization, comparison and imitation. It is motivated by the needs of individuals, who, whenever and wherever possible (and sometimes when and where it is not possible), avoid complex procedures (for example, in problemsolving). This is particularly true where they are (or feel) certain that they can deal with a (linguistic or non-linguistic) situation in a routine manner, i.e. without much heuristic effort (see Luhmann‘s “Lob der Routine” (“In Praise of Routine”), 1971), and convert standardized patterns of behaviour into creative techniques.

7.10 Computerized terminology work Since the most important points relating to the field of terminology work for language mediation were made in Chapter 5.5, a few additional observations will suffice here. Difficulties arising from the selection of words and phrases in the source and target languages are undoubtedly the greatest problem facing translators and interpreters, both during their training and in professional practice. Man uses language because the need to communicate with his fellow humans is an essential part of the “conditio humana”. The function of the translator is to provide a material basis for interlingual communication. Communication takes place through words, which we combine into phrases and clauses. Clauses are linked by principles of cohesion (linguistic combination) and coherence (logical relations) to form texts, in which five “levels of relevance” can be identified, focused in turn on the sender, receiver, topic, situation and (as an overarching level) knowledge. Our success in communicating depends primarily on our choice of words and secondly on the correctness of our syntax. That, incidentally is why the fundamental assumption of syntax-centred generative grammar is wrong, as performances of incompetent

THE PRESENT DAY

215

speakers show: “Me Turkish man. Me no eat German sausage” (extract from an authentic conversation in a Frankfurt butcher’s shop, reported by Karl Korn). To speak a language means above all to be able to process (both receptively and productively) words, word formations (derived and compound forms) and word combinations in textual contexts. In translation, this means receptive competence with regard to the source language, and productive competence with regard to the target language. All forms of linguistic activity are conceived as communicative acts, and these can only succeed if both the sender and receiver have access to a common ground of meaning, i.e. if the sender’s intention and the receiver’s expectations coincide, at least approximately. This presupposes that the role of the sender as stimulus and that of the receiver as response stand in a reciprocal relationship to each other. Such reciprocity can only exist where a common fund of knowledge is shared by the participants, i.e. where the consciousness of the two participants is more or less approximately “exposed”. A common knowledge base is indispensable in all the higher functions of human consciousness, since it puts the receiver in a position to derive from a text the sender’s intellectual processes, which are in turn important for the receiver’s own (re)actions. It is a conditio sine qua non of all successful linguistic communication that these conditions be fulfilled. If this is not the case, because the sender and receiver speak different languages and cannot understand the other language, mediators are required. Terminology work for the purposes of language mediation is today largely computerized. It proceeds from the assumption that the flow of data from the (source-language) data-producer via the data-processor (the terminologist) to the (target-language) data-user must be efficient, i.e. economical, fast, accurate and “user-friendly”. Such work concentrates above all on the development, programming, management and updating of terminological databases which exist today all over the world and whose resources can generally be accessed online. Referring to Ingo Hohnhold, Bühler stresses the importance of the principle of individual and independent endeavour in terminology compilation: Translation-relevant terminology work differs from institutionalized terminology standardization and the terminography encoded in dictionaries in as far as it is intended to meet specific personal requirements (regarding terminology) ... The institutionalized and dictionary forms aim to satisfy an as-

216

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN sumed general demand ... whereas the translation-relevant form seeks only to fulfil the translator’s own needs. This might apply to the work of an individual translator, a group, or a translation service ... (Hohnhold 1996) In other words: terminology work is only possible, practicable, and valuable for (independent) professional translators in specific cases, for a specific market, in specific situations in which their specific terminological needs are met. Translators have no use for the general collections of terminology mentioned above, which aim to fulfil assumed general requirements. Collections made by translators for their own purposes, usually without any quality control, are of only very limited value to any other users. (1997b: 482f.)

The main reason why terminology work is not always carried out satisfactorily is the time pressure under which translators work, as mentioned above. Speed is the ultimate criterion in all language services, especially in industry, and all other factors are subordinated to it. The language services directors at IBM and SAP both confirmed that original texts and their translations must appear more or less simultaneously (“simship” = simultaneous shipment of product and documentation), since, given the competitiveness of the market, even a one-month delay can have terrible consequences for a company which sends out its documentation later than its rivals. (The same time pressure is evident in the world of publishing. Markus Wolf’s “Spionagechef im geheimen Krieg” was released on 2 June 1997 in 14 countries and 11 languages simultaneously: “SZ”, 4 June 1997: 13.) Pressure of time has also given rise to a new form of language, a “third language” which is a type of specialist language consisting of abbreviations. These third languages are highly company-specific, and owe their existence to technological and scientific progress. Only experts are today able to comprehend a world in which scientific knowledge and everyday experience are drifting further and further apart. Abbreviations have, of course, always been common in special languages, and many of these abbreviations have found their way into the everyday language. However, in the world of computers the extent of this trend shows that there is currently an obsession with “fast is smart” and highspeed communication. The revolution in production techniques goes hand in hand with a revolution in language, as the following extract from the German IBM TC manual shows (printed here by permission of the director of the language service at IBM/Sindelfingen, Mrs Johanna Possemis):

THE PRESENT DAY

217

Stichwortverzeichnis Numerische Stichworte 5 ups siehe TC-Geschäftsziele Abbildungen siehe Bildbearbeitung Abkürzungen IX-9 ACRONYM T3-62 Abrechnung siehe auch Rechnung NLS-Service-Marketing T3-7 Abrechnungsdatei Abrechnungsseite IX-9 Abruf T2-26, T2-33 siehe auch Einkaufsanforderung Abrufauftrag T2-26, T2-77, T3-79 siehe auch Auftrag Abrufschein T4-11 Abrufschreibung siehe auch Abrufauftrag ABS siehe Abrechnungsseite

Anlagegüter siehe Property Control Facility Announcements/Proposal Inserts xvii, T1-14 Anrede T7-14 Antwortbrief T2-87, T4-49, T7-55 Ablauf T2-87 Muster T4-49 Antwortkarte siehe Antwortbrief APAR-Bearbeitung T2-41 Ablauf T2-41 DIFF T2-41 Kosten T2-42 Arbeitsanweisung Aufbau T6-3 Arbeitsnachbereitung T2-67, T7-56 CSU-Literatur T7-56 MRI/PII-Ablauf T2-67 PUB-Ablauf T2-43 Arbeitsvorbereitung iii, T2-43 AIX-MRI/PII T2-46 Activity-Reporting T2-85, T3-37 AIX-PUBs T2-46 Ablauf T2-85 MRI/PII-Ablauf T2-43 Anweisung T3-37 PUB-Ablauf T2-43 AIX T2-11 Archivierung T2-27, T2-37, T2-70, T2-82 siehe auch Lead-TC siehe auch BIS AV T2-46 ARCHPROT T2-70 Allgemeiner Leistungsvertrag MRI T2-29, T2-82 siehe Rahmenvertrag PII T2-82 Allgemeinsprache T3-53 Protokoll T2-70 Allocation IX-9 PUB T2-82 AN Tütenarchiv T2-37 siehe Arbeitsnachbereitung Archivierungsprotokoll T2-37, T2-70, T7-56 Änderungen von Dokumenten u. Daten Archivordnung (ISO 9001-4.5.3) Tütenarchiv T3-81 siehe ISO 9001 ARCHPROT T2-70 Angebotstexte siehe auch Archivierungsprotokoll siehe Announcements/Proposal Inserts Artwork T4-39 Ankündigungen Auflistung T4-39 siehe Announcements/Proposal Inserts AS/400 T2/30 siehe Produktankündigungen siehe auch Lead-TC siehe auch RTMS

CHAPTER 8

Beyond 2000

8.1 Knowledge-based translation beyond 2000 It is difficult at the end of a study such as this to predict future developments in the practice and teaching of translation as we move into the next century. The history of MT shows that any prognoses can only be speculative. There is, however, one common conclusion that might be drawn from the various developments outlined in the preceding pages: language mediation will only prove productive if translators and interpreters have the knowledge resources necessary to enable them to operate reliably and quickly in unfamiliar areas, to adjust to the characteristics of the text-to-be-translated, and to use available translation tools (including the Internet) effectively. This prediction hardly seems illuminating. Its full significance can only be understood if one remembers that the technologization of our lives over the past few years has given rise to a completely new concept of knowledge. The acquisition, organization, selection and application of knowledge are four areas with which the language mediation profession will have to engage from a technological point of view. The computer, a multi-purpose tool, is playing an ever greater role in the activity of language mediation. This is especially true for “technical” translators working, for example, for international translation services, as outsourced freelancers (Chapter 7.3) in importing/exporting companies, for major software companies, or for the Bundessprachenamt in Hürth. But for “non-technical” translators, too, employed (for example) by the EU or the in the political-diplomatic language services of the Auswärtige Amt or the Bundestag, the ability to use computerized resources will prove crucial for survival. Even literary translation will not remain unaffected by this trend. Twenty years ago, for example, the founder of the Europäisches Übersetzerkolleg in Straelen, Elmar Tophoven, attempted to set up a form of computerized phraseological database (a predecessor of today’s translation memories)

220

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

for the authors he translated ; Chapter 7.9), much to the amusement of some of his colleagues. The aim of the system was to collect characteristic stylistic markers and preferences shown by the authors and to classify them according to various criteria (descriptors). This underlines the fact that it is the question of knowledge that will ultimately decide whether, and how well, a translator can deal with a given task. In this process, the ability to identify patterns which initiate and organize human behaviour is extremely important, since translation naturally implies engaging with two separate languages and cultures, when, as we all know, just one language and culture is complex enough to deal with. Translators are therefore grateful for any help which is available. For translators, who by definition are forced to move to and fro between the source and target text, the limits of their own knowledge are also the limits of the quality of the work they produce, and of the quality controls they undertake (Chapter 6.4.2; Boers 1995). The physical and intellectual ability of translators to constantly assimilate new knowledge (without forgetting old knowledge) is as limited as that of anyone else. Memory research, which has not, surprisingly, been registered at all in translation studies (with the exception of Wilss 1992), confirms this. Our main intellectual asset is our long-term memory: it is the link between perception and reflection, and makes translation/interpreting processes of varying complexity, under varying conditions (text type, client’s instructions etc.) possible. If we did not have memory, which can register and decipher information input (or parts of it), we would be unable to retain our experiences and the conclusions drawn from them. We would, then, have no way of building up our private library of knowledge, of activating “knowledge building blocks” in comparable spatio-temporal situations, and thus of dealing with the world around us (textual or otherwise) in a problem-oriented or routine manner. Memory is required for all forms of intelligent activity. It forms the basis of all information processing operations; it is our major source of information, and the better organized it is, the more productively it functions. Without memory, there would be no organization of perceptions, no increase in knowledge, no identification of patterns, no recollection. “Memory is the only paradise we cannot be expelled from” (Jean Paul). All forms of text comprehension and text production depend on the fact that we are able to recall parts of our memory in a situation-specific way. Memory is omnipresent. It is our “inner eye”, and is required every time we initiate or co-ordinate

BEYOND 2000

221

new activities. We use it day and night. Even our dreams are the product of (uncontrolled) memory processes. Translation and interpreting are activities which require exceptional memory performances, which is why consistent memory training plays an important part in training. Language mediators must not only store knowledge in two (or even three or four) different languages; they also need to be familiar with a variety of specialist areas, since translators with only one special field are the exception today. According to Reinhard Hoheisel: “Translators know everything” (Chapter 7.4). This can lead to a vicious circle: where large amounts of new information are constantly being stored, there is a risk that existing information might be forgotten, resulting in confusion. In order to relieve pressure on their long-term memory, i.e. their internal memory, translators/interpreters rely on external memories (Chapter 7.10). Some such memories have been in existence for years, while others are new. The older types include conventional dictionaries, encyclopaedias, card index systems, and interlingual parallel texts (texts in different languages on the same phenomenon, which provide contrastive terminology). The new external memory systems are electronic, domain-specific online databases, which have virtually replaced the use of paper in translation work (Chapter 5.5). They are part of the much-discussed “translator workbench” or “workstation” (Chapter 4.2), an EU-funded “ESPRIT” research project (Project EP 2315) which aims to integrate multilingual text processing, terminology databases and MAT and thus to control the present exponential growth in knowledge which makes life harder, not easier, for translators (“Language International” 4/1 (1992), 23). This is where the translation memory systems mentioned above (Chapter 7. 9), which are now an established part of training in Saarbrücken, can support language mediators in their work. Lockwood et al. write: As users become more sophisticated at globalisation, they come to realise that document and translation methodologies are linked. Companies in many sectors are beginning to analyse how they can best exploit the text and translations which are currently held in their organisations (a process which has been termed “leveraging”). They are moving toward a unified documentmanagement approach where text can be accessed on-line, either for textgeneration or for translation matching. Such a system requires advanced archiving and indexing capabilities, centred on a relational or an objectoriented database. Users would like to see these requirements reflected in the translation and terminology tools they use. There is also an opportunity for technical consultancy in this area. (1995: 13)

222

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

The usefulness of translation memories is judged differently by the various language services that use them. Reinhard Hoheisel has, rather surprisingly, pointed out that they are of little or no use for communication within the EU, since less than 10% of all texts produced there contain recurring segments: for this reason, it is hardly worth investing effort into developing a system. It has also been pointed out that translators working with translation memories only have a monitoring and supervisory function, which requires absolutely no creative potential. Another argument against the systems is the fact that they leave no room for real quality control: it is quite conceivable that translation memories recall segments from poor translations and perpetuate them from one translation to the next (Chapter 7.9), as happens with inaccurate entries in dictionaries, which are copied uncritically by other dictionary makers. This danger is particularly acute in the translation of software manuals, where the individual “periodically updated” versions contain only a small amount of new information and otherwise appear in a virtually unchanged form. Translation memories are, certainly, little more than a stopgap, but they are better than nothing, just as are the raw translations produced by MAT systems, which can at best be understood by the specialists concerned. According to Lockwood et al., this is especially important for organizations in which translation activities are still conducted on less modern principles: In such organisations, translation is often dictated and then typed or wordprocessed. Translation is done ‘from scratch’, with little ability to re-use what has been translated before. There is no opportunity for the translator to make any input into the document methodology (if there is one), as this function is very separate. In less sophisticated companies, documents are written with very limited reference and editing support, perhaps with a dictionary or thesaurus, plus the spelling and grammar checking functions of a word processor. (1995: 57)

In a previous publication, I commented as follows on what are now called “translation memories” (without knowing the term at the time) from the point of view of “knowledge and skills”: When a translator first encounters a translation situation, the intellectual competence to deal with it in a novel fashion is of foremost significance. If the same or a similar translation situation is facing translators at a later stage in their professional work, they can presumably activate ‘repetitive’ strategies of executive routines. In other words: The lesser the resources that must be devoted to processing novel translation tasks, the more resources are left over for routinized performance. Conversely: If translators can automize more

BEYOND 2000

223

translation information processing, they have more additional resources at their disposal for dealing with unexpected translation situations. As a consequence, one may hypothesize that there is a trade-off (or interaction) between originality and routinization, between information processing and stimulus/ response theories. As experience with translation increases, the demand of cognitive expenditure decreases, with the result that automaticizaton skills come into play. If this assumption is correct, the most interesting point from a translation-teaching perspective is to determine when a novelty becomes less urgent and routinization of translation performance sets in. This means that we have to come to grips with the higher levels of translator behavior. (Wilss 1996b: 102)

8.2 Knowledge acquisition in translation teaching beyond 2000 Today the whole world is talking about the fundamental social changes which will result from modern information technologies. These technologies have already given rise to an entirely new system of concepts, some of which are catchy, highly metaphorical or artificial codewords, e.g.: “data networks” (“data highway”), “teleworkstations”, “teleteaching”, “telelearning”, “on-line text production”, “virtual kiosk”, “interactive multimediality”, “global village”, “electronic cottage industries” etc. All of these terms — and they are fast developing into a (sometimes esoteric) insider language whose value is open to question — are discussed today under the heading of the “digital revolution”. They are surrounded by much media excitement and, often, little common sense. The digital revolution is the (temporarily) final stage in a development which seeks to put science at the disposal of social (and blatantly commercial) interests, obscuring (if not completely abandoning) the distinction between “pure” and “applied” science. The natural sciences have been the most active promoters of this trend, since they have long been concerned to demonstrate the practical value that their work can produce. Bacon spoke pragmatically of the power of knowledge. Halley was careful to point out the navigational value of his astronomical observations. Hobbes defined knowledge as man’s opportunity to control nature. Brecht meant the same when he wrote in his drama “Leben das Galilei” (“The Life of Galileo”) that the only legitimate goal of science is to relieve human suffering. It is still too early to predict exactly where the new information and communications technologies will take us, where their possibilities and limita-

224

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

tions lie, and what their social and economic consequences will be. The way in which today, in our age of cybernetic progress, the idea of the “computer culture” is uncritically propagated, with promises of a golden future, makes a detached and objective assessment very difficult. There is no such thing as a computer world running ahead of man. Human experience, and this is also true of the activity of translation, is so rich and diverse that it could never be captured by the categories of universal thought systems. The world, man, history, language and, consequently, language mediation are too complex to be grasped by a single mode of intellectual enquiry. Language and understanding (even in their relatively simple forms) are based on highly complex processes, which means that the “translation chip” (like the biochip and the biocomputer) will remain part of the “prophecy of the possible” (Adolf Muschg). The formal (formal-logical) possibilities of the computer cannot be combined in a productive synthesis with the enormous scope of human thought and judgement. The computer does not touch the core of human knowledge, and there is no sign of any fundamental algebra of the world. There is even the danger that the computer will eventually lose its function as an “intelligence amplifier” and become an obstacle to intelligence. We must occasionally remind ourselves that there are many ways of thinking, and that every one of them implies, to varying degrees, what we call “method”. It is undoubtedly true that computers are a useful tool which help us to understand our world, above all our professional lives. Three factors are especially relevant here: 1. The collection, processing, application and rapid transfer of knowledge will become a central feature of our professional and private lives. 2. The information society will place great pressures on our flexibility and adaptability, and vague concepts such as “creativity” and “innovation” will require further, “technological” specification. 3. Access to global data networks like the Internet will make our work more complex and demanding, but it also allows greater self-determination, which is the highest human value in the “post-industrial age”. In a report entitled “Building the Information Highways — To ReEngineer Europe”, the European “Round Table of Industrialists” has predicted that “information highways will have an even greater influence on the future of the economy and society than that exerted by the physical infrastructures of rail, electricity and telephone networks”.

BEYOND 2000

225

In other words, data highways allow us to access all kinds of information anywhere, any time, and at ultra-high speed, provided one knows how to get onto (and, later, off) the highway in order to move from A to B (from the problem to its solution) as effectively as possible. To achieve this, one needs to know what information is needed at what time, where this information can be found, and how it can be used economically. It is an indisputable fact that the modern information and communications technologies will have far-reaching consequences for the work of translators, the shape of their workplace, and the style (cognitive style) of their work. This style is, depending on the field in question, more or less technical and rational in character, as terms like the “language industry” and “translation technology”, which are often heard in translation/interpreting, show. The training of specialist language mediators must respond to these developments if future graduates are not to fall seriously short of the standards expected of them in professional practice today, or if translators and interpreters are not to be ousted by subject specialists with a knowledge of languages. As a Spanish proverb says: “People do not go where they want, but where they can”. The training institutes are certainly reacting to such developments. In a wide-ranging study under the significant title “Language Engineering and Translation. Consequences of automation” (sic), Sager points out: This book ... seeks to bring together many traditional and several new ideas I consider necessary for the training of language engineers and mediators in courses which must combine computational linguistics and modern languages. My main purpose in writing this book stems from the dual recognition that potential translators need to be aware of the technology available and likely to develop in future to support translation; and that potential language engineers and designers of machine translation systems need to acquire an understanding of what is involved in certain types of human translation. (1994: V)

This is a major problem facing translator/interpreter training. It is quite conceivable that some teachers will shy away from the computer (and other) technologies which will become increasingly necessary for the survival of the profession. In conversation, a representative of SAP told me quite openly that he would not employ graduates of the university institutes of translation and interpreting because they did not have the right qualifications to work effectively in a software company.

226

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Such comments do little to bridge the unfortunate gap between training and professional practice. They are not helpful for the self-confidence of language mediators, which is, anyway, undermined by working in a field which encourages insecurity and a fear of failure (Wilss 1996b). It is paradoxical that society on the one hand demands greater expert knowledge from language mediators and yet on the other refuses to grant them the status of experts. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that translators, in their role as “experts on general subjects”, have no idea what knowledge they need at what time. They therefore have to store large amounts of knowledge “in reserve”, including knowledge which is completely unnecessary. As outlined in Chapter 8.1, knowledge is the prerequisite for intelligent translational activity. All translation work requires the application of knowledge which can be acquired from external sources or via self-instruction: ... one must .. today (as a language mediator; W. W.) know a great deal, one must always push forward into new areas, enquire into vast fields of knowledge; one never stops learning. (Hans Wollschläger, “FAZ”, 18 September 1996)

Knowledge enables us to understand the most diverse subjects, draw conclusions, harmonize our views, organize our actions and plan efficiently. This is especially true today, in the age of knowledge, knowledge engineering and the (self-proclaimed) knowledge society. That explains why educational studies have declared knowledge acquisition to be the ultimate goal in education. Hellmuth Becker, former director of the Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (Max Planck Institute for Research in Education) in Berlin, once commented: By education we mean ... not the development of the personality for its own sake, but its ability to live in our world and to function effectively in that world. ... The real aim of education today must be to prepare people to cope with change.

The most important resource in the world today is knowledge which can be accessed in the form of words, pictures and statistics, and which shapes our culture and values. As mentioned above, Bacon has taught us that “Wissen ist Macht” (knowledge is power). The corollary slogan, popular in alternative circles: “Und Nichtwissen macht nichts” (And ignorance doesn’t matter) fails to recognize the importance of knowledge and of the practice-oriented, methodical transfer of knowledge in dealing with the routine and specialized

BEYOND 2000

227

tasks facing us in the world today. The latter are more complex today than they have ever been before. Whereas classical science was based on a belief in stability, order and balance, the modern sciences are characterized by change, instability and extraordinary complexity. The efficient use of knowledge depends on the three fundamental principles of storage, storage systems and access. Only that knowledge which is stored and can be accessed is true knowledge. Large parts of the information we consume daily are never processed into knowledge, but slip past our longterm memory. The problem in our age of over-information is that we cannot know everything that is worth knowing and that we find it difficult (e. g. in our use of the Internet) to distinguish between what is and what is not worth knowing. Furthermore, we are unable to call up much of what we actually do know (more or less consciously) because we cannot remember in which part of our memory we have stored it. The difference between data material and actual knowledge was concisely expressed in a remark once made by the former chairman of Siemens, Karl-Heinz Kaske: “If Siemens knew everything that Siemens knows”. Each time we use the Internet, we are naturally limited by time and by the processing capacity of the human brain. What really matters when it comes to knowledge is what we ourselves actually know, not what we could know with the help of the Internet, or how we can access information and then forget it again straight away. Efficient translating and interpreting does not just mean buying and being able to use a large (bilingual) dictionary. We must also realize that it is worthwhile and necessary (from the point of view of operational efficiency) to set our sights lower and to keep an open mind on the question of whether having more information would really have helped us find a better solution or make a more informed decision. Even without the insights of “knowledge psychology” (a term introduced in German in 1984), language mediators know from experience that the important thing in dealing with knowledge is not just to collect it, but also to organize it. We can only recall knowledge which has been organized before it is stored. In order to put knowledge into some kind of systematic order, we have to categorize it. However, every attempt at categorization demands a degree of abstraction that runs counter to reality. Some concepts overlap, phenomena can belong to more than one category or can be placed in more than one category, and some cannot be meaningfully related to each other. The urgent need for new forms of training and education, for new

228

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

educational goals and methods, or, to put it in fashionable terms, for a new “teaching and learning culture”, is self-evident. One will ultimately have to face the question of what the so-called “virtual classroom” can actually achieve, and of what possibilities university and in-service training can realistically offer. The “Posi”-project, which seeks to “Europeanize translator training”, looks promising (“Posi takes shape”, “Language International” 8/4 (1996), 7-9; see also Schreiber 1997). Other projects include the European Language Council, which is similarly concerned with translation and interpreting, and the “European Translation Platform”. One can only hope that too many cooks will not spoil the broth. “Giving European translation a structure” is the title of an article which reports on the efforts of the European Commission to create the “European Translation Platform”: The European Commission’s Directorate-General XIII, the Directorate responsible for the information industry and for language processing applications, is anxious that in Europe the translation industry should be able to meet the challenges of the information revolution. Traditionally translation has been a scattered and largely unstructured activity, slow to adapt to change. Earlier this year (1995; W. W.) DG XIII initiated a consultation process, with small groups of representatives of organisations, active in the translation domain ... These representatives, coming together for the first time, have decided to establish an Association of European Translation Companies, which will be formally launched this summer ... One objective of this new association is to set up an accreditation procedure which will provide a “quality mark”, which will provide some degree of customer protection in this largely unregulated field. The association will also seek to enhance awareness of the importance of getting translation done by competent and skilled practitioners. It will also promote the European translation industry in other parts of the world ... It is intended that the Association of European Translation Companies will be one element in an “European Translation Platform” and the consultation process is continuing, with associations of the smaller translation companies, and with CIUTI, the organisation of universities teaching translation. (“Language International” 7/3 (1995), 14)

The involvement of CIUTI in the project is welcome, since the organization can function as a link between training institutions and professional practitioners and is able to make employers understand that they cannot expect graduates to have exactly those skills they require. Instead they are employing young people who are able (and must be able) to identify and cope with complex regularities and structures in the context of a realistic world view, in

BEYOND 2000

229

keeping with the principle propagated by the Greek philosopher Solon: “I constantly grow older, and yet I never finish learning”. The SAP advertisement printed below shows the kind of requirements companies have and how important business knowledge is today: We are looking for: – A university degree – A sound knowledge of business – Experience in data processing would be an advantage – Several years experience in translating are necessary – Commitment, a sense of responsibility and the ability to convince others – The ability to work independently and as part of a team. A particularly important area in the field of technical translation today is “software localization”, which has become significant part of the job market: Launching products on foreign markets means adapting both the technology of the product itself and the language of the accompanying documentation. Previously, consumers were often content to be given a brief set of instructions for the product in English, but nowadays they expect, apart from any necessary technical modifications to the product, detailed literature in their own language. This tendency is especially clear in the field of computer software, at least when it comes to standard software for the general market ... This has meant that software localization for foreign markets has become one of the major activities for translation agencies and for staff and freelance translators ... The use of the term localization is intended to make clear that this is not just a question of translation in its narrower sense, i.e. the transfer of texts, but of adapting the entire product to the sociocultural conditions and formal requirements of the foreign market. (Freigang 1997: 135; see also Pajatsch 1994; 1997)

A forum for work in software localization was recently set up under the name “LISA” (Localization Industry Standards Association). In August 1997 it held a congress in Peking which was attended by more than 150 localization specialists from all over the world and which came to the following (surprising) conclusion: “Cultural and Management Issues (are) even more important than Technology” (TermNet News 56/57 (1997): 18). Software localization is important for language mediation above all because it means a return to multilingualism in a field where such a development might have been completely unexpected. The world of computerized communication, as Freigang points out, seemed to be moving towards the universal use of English. But even English is not a universal code, and

230

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

therefore a commercially determined multilingualism has begun to emerge. Recently the concept of localization has taken on a new meaning beyond that of software localization. Dieter E. Zimmer points out the growing importance of “monitor dataware”, which seems set to become a major translation tool of the future: In an unparalleled translation enterprise Microsoft had the 29-volume Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia translated simultaneously into four languages: German, French, Japanese and Spanish. 27 editors, up to 400 translators and several dozen authors worked on the German localization for one and a half years: many articles, including hundreds of specifically German biographies, were specially written for it. (“Die Zeit”, 20 December 1996: 62)

One could comment here on the relationship between technology and culture, on the possibilities and limitations of a “global culture” (such as that implicit in the concept of globalization, albeit in the form of a “management culture”), on cultural levelling and integration, but the lack of space forbids such observations here. Presumably, the future intensity of global traffic will not threaten the survival of local languages and cultures. It is not yet possible to tell what this will mean for translation and interpreting in the 21st century. Now that man has tried to understand physical and technical processes, it is time for a new form of learning. In the age of extreme quantities, training and professional practice must begin to understand how knowledge-based processes can be set in motion, carried through and brought to an appropriate conclusion. The most serious problem, as should have become clear from the foregoing comments, is coming to terms with the current explosion of information, which will never be overcome using purely quantitative and cumulative methods. There is simply no system available which could be expanded or further computerized to achieve an adequate degree of efficiency or clarity. On the contrary: sooner or later the problem of information flow will arise, and this problem will be exacerbated rather than alleviated by the mere accumulation of information. What is required is training in the use of sources, which can give students a specific idea of the amount of theoretically available information, the necessity to select from it, and how to use it. This is obvious if one considers that the number of systematically indexed and thus retrievable publications runs at somewhere between one hundred thousand and several hundred thousand per year. Teaching students such technical skills as using monitors is therefore not enough. Man’s physical and mental ability to absorb and process new information is limited. Man is a creature who needs to work

BEYOND 2000

231

economically by proceeding selectively and reducing available information to its essentials before he can use it effectively in his work. As is well known, time is money, which means that wasted time is a waste of money. The “discovery of slowness” is a nice phrase, but what really matters is speed (Nikolaus Piper, “Die Diktatur der Gegenwart” (The Dictatorship of the Present), Die Zeit, 29 December 1995: 25). The language mediation profession can and must come to terms with the “digital revolution” in two related ways. First, it must find out whether technologies like the data highway can be used as a tool in teaching and learning. Second, it must determine to what extent the activity of translation can gain in quality, speed and cost-efficiency (the three major considerations in the profession) by using the data highway. In my view four factors are especially relevant in this context: 1. A dramatic increase in data storage capacities; 2. Improved access (in terms of both quality and quantity) to information, which translators currently have to search for and compile via time-consuming background research (Holz-Mänttäri 1985; Thiel 1985); 3. The exchange of information via the electronic media (telecooperation); 4. Greater individual differentiation of further training programmes, which must be planned through consultation between the training institutes and professional practitioners (Zimmer 1992). Media research today defines “multimediality” as a technique of linking up different media, characterized by interactivity, individuality, asynchronicity and multifunctionality (Klimsa 1993). The ultimate aim of such linking is the telecooperation mentioned above, which opens up the possibility of accessing information independently of space and time. This will undoubtedly prove beneficial to professional practice. Projects such as “Computer Supported Cooperative Works” (CSCW) show just how important telecooperation is today. Its inventors seek to make learning processes faster, more individual and more flexible by integrating the various information and communications technologies currently available. Of course, whether this will prove as easy as some people imagine (and like to tell others, especially ill-informed laypeople with too much money and a desire to impress), is open to question. There are at least some people who warn against a general euphoria on this subject. Many people who enter the web today get caught up in it, and the tradename “WorldWideWeb” has quickly been modified to “WorldWideWait” or even “WorldWideWaste”.

232

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Queues form on the data highway just as they do on traffic highways, especially during off-peak telephone periods. Whether one uses a slow or a highspeed modem does not make much difference. As someone once said: “An East German Trabbi is just as fast as a Porsche in a traffic jam”. Detours (even if the user knows them) are no use either. It cannot be stated with any certainty today what possibilities there will be in future, and what will just prove to be “virtual promises”. Working with data networks does not, as yet, form part of translator training, at least in Germany. In order to make advances here, the training institutes will have to invest in academic projects designed to establish the precise value of “teleteaching” and then test them in practice. Important here are the projects launched by the EU, “ECOLE” (European Collaborative Open Learning Environment), which is part of the “DELTA” programme (Development of European Learning through Technological Advance), and “PLUTO” (Project to Link Universities and Training Organisations), part of COMETT II. The latter is a further training project which aims to instruct teachers in the use of communications technology and to develop and test teaching materials. There are, however, other ways of acquiring information. How many readers know, for example, that the German newspapers “FAZ” and “SZ” have research departments with their own databases and access to international information systems, which can answer enquiries on the most varied subjects (e.g. economics, education and employment, society, science, technology, congresses, countries and regions)? No one knows at present whether data highways and telecooperation will prove to be the ultimate answer to translators’ problems, or whether they are just another massive hype, as the fuss surrounding so-called “smart” computers seems to suggest. On the other hand, data highways and telecooperation do open up possibilities for language mediators to access urgently needed “justin-time” information, as long as they have been trained beforehand in “just-intime” search methods. This leads us to the question of the relationship between knowledge and skills in translator behaviour, which I have discussed in detail elsewhere (Wilss 1992; 1996b). What knowledge and skills do language mediators need in order to be able to meet the standards expected of them today? Clearly, they require linguistic, extra-linguistic, situative (sociocultural, textual, pragmatic) knowledge. But that is not sufficient. They also require technical knowledge, i.e. they must be able to use modern information and communications tech-

BEYOND 2000

233

nologies effectively and learn to use techniques which help them cope with the massive volumes of information that pose serious problems of knowledge management (Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1997). If we understand “technical competence” as people’s ability to use the means they have at their disposal in their work, then the availability of such means must be guaranteed. This can only happen if translators are familiar with the functional principles of the new technologies and are in a position to weigh up their advantages and disadvantages. They must be aware that the data highway is useless if it is only used to increase the volume and speed of information transfer. Too much knowledge is just as dangerous as too little knowledge. Translators must be able to confront in a critical manner the huge amount of information now available to them, e.g. in the form of a “computer pool” (Leipold 1989), and to sort the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise they will exclude themselves from the artificial world of “virtual reality”, which they see as a threat to their existence, and seek refuge in their “primary experiences”, which will continue to play a significant role in human activities. In other words, having new technologies and being able to use them are two quite different things. Especially in the world of language mediation it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a balance between self-experience and vicarious experience in view of the rapid growth of outsourcing. This poses a number of questions for training techniques, and these have not yet been fully taken on board: for example, the question of further training facilities for outsourced translators and interpreters. These questions can only be answered in collaboration with the people who actually develop the technology. There is no point in excluding professional translators, translation students and their trainers from the debate on technology. Quite the opposite! These groups must be involved in these new developments, so that they have the opportunity to get to know them and to use them in their work. This requires a coherent scheme developed jointly by trainers and practitioners which aims to exploit specific technologies for specific learning goals and situations, thus preparing students for a professional world which is characterized above all by complexity, networking, its own inherent dynamism, and flexibility. CIUTI should act here: it has not (in my view) done enough on this question, which is crucial for the future of the profession. The CIUTI memorandum of 1997 confirms this view: all it does is call for closer co-operation between the EU and the university institutes of translation and interpreting.

234

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

One of the most important factors in the professionalization of language mediation will undoubtedly be producing graduates who are prepared for the modern information and services society, who know where developments are leading, and who have learned to calculate professional risks on a realistic basis. New skills are required in this age of networked intelligence. It is not the lone translator who is in demand today (although they, too, will find work), but the teamleader who is able to modularize the special skills of a group of language mediators and thus achieve optimum efficiency. The following text from the “ORACLE WORLDWIDE PRODUCT TRANSLATION GROUP” in Dublin shows the challenges training must face today, at least in the field of technical translation: OUR MISSION is to be the FASTEST to market in providing our Worldwide customer base with the HIGHEST QUALITY local language products available — using the MOST EFFICIENT and COST EFFECTIVE translation process in the industry. Translation is important to Oracle. It represents a key element in worldwide competitiveness and in bringing about our strategic intent globally. For that reason and with the anticipated market growth throughout the various countries and regions, it is important to be able to deliver quality translated products for the relevant market place. (The group) currently employs 130 people in 29 countries, all working together to translate and ship a wide variety of Oracle products ... involving over 100 million source words translated into 30 languages and marketed in the European, Middle Eastern, Japanese and Asian Pacific regions. WPTG uses both external translation companies and internal Oracle resources to produce the final translated product. Software, on-line, and printed documentation is translated externally. Engineering and functional quality assurance is sourced in-house and remains the responsibility of a project team. Linguistic quality assurance is sourced in-country by WPTG Language Specialists. Along with translation company development, this aspect remains the responsibility of the Vendor and the Language Service Group. (TermNet News 56/ 57 (1997): 32)

The days of the “all-round translator” (Chapter 7.4) are clearly over, and this has serious consequences for training, which, in its traditional form, is a relic from the past rather than a model for the future. Translators who sit and translate quietly in their rooms are no longer in demand: what is required are language mediators who are trained in business studies and marketing strategies and know how to organize work on a co-operative basis (Freibott 1989). In this respect, translator training can learn a great deal from the “translators’ group practices” which are similar in structure to lawyers’ and doctors’ group

BEYOND 2000

235

practices and are becoming increasingly important as more work is passed on to freelancers (especially in low-income countries like India) and internal language services are wound down. This outsourcing (Chapter 7.3) might even lead to a new form of “client-server relationship” like that practised today in many companies, but if this is to happen it must be included in training programmes. Freelancers, however, are not treated equally everywhere. I was often told during the interviews I held for the present study that “sensitive texts” are not usually outsourced. Outsourced texts are also subject to very stringent quality checks, in order to maintain uniform standards. For the language mediation profession, co-operative client-server relationships imply a level of business quality that may be able to free the profession from its image as a second-rate service industry and its anonymity, at the same time increasing its visibility. Nowadays it is not only producers of ideas who are innovative: so, too, are all companies which pick up on new ideas, develop them and engage dynamically with the competition. “Customizing” is the new approach to the language mediation profession, i.e. the fast and individual handling of client orders using all available resources of intelligence and creativity (Fischer 1995). Translator’s groups are able to operate as information-acquisition and problem-solving communities which offer their expertise simultaneously to a number of clients and achieve maximum time efficiency. Once an order has been taken, translators’groups bring the appropriate people together to work short-term on a specific project. Those involved work either in-house or as a home-based business using on-line services. Work like this is at its most effective when the client and the language mediator collaborate and understand that the computer and the information systems it provides can only assist in the acquisition of information. Organizing and using that information is not the task of the computer: it cannot be, for there is no such thing as an “intelligent” computer (in the sense of human, i.e. combinatory, selective intelligence). For these activities, thought processes are required which can distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. Only if quantitative and qualitative thinking are combined will the professional language mediator be in a position to use the mass of information provided by computer technology sensibly and avoid the fundamental mistake of confusing information with cognitive information processing. Everyone who uses computers will know that no computer is any good without a program, however many data-access-

236

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

ing possibilities it offers. All language mediators must know the “factors of their talent” and work accordingly. What is required today are practical knowhow, mental agility and a balance of rationality and imagination, routine and creativity. Acquiring such “key qualifications” in a carefully planned and methodical training course seems to me to be the most important thing in improving translator competence or, as one might also put it, “translator maturity”.

Bibliography*

Aebli, H. 1981. Denken: Das Ordnen des Tuns. Bd. II: Kognitive Aspekte der Handlungstheorie. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Ammon, H. (ed.) 1994. English only? in Europa/in Europe/en Europe. In Sociolinguistica (International Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics, Vol. 8). Tübingen: Niemeyer. Arntz, R. 1995. “Sprachenpolitik und Sprachwissenschaft - eine Herausforderung für Südtirol.” In Academia, Europäische Akademie Bozen, Juni-Heft: 1-5. Arntz, R. and Thome, G. (Hg.) 1990. Übersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Narr. Baker, M. 1995. The Translator’s Diary (8 May 1985). Bar-Hillel, Y. 1971. “Some Reflections on the Present Outlook for High Quality Machine Translation.” In W.P. Lehmann and R. Stachowitz (eds.), Feasibility Study on Fully Automatic High Quality Translation I. Austin: University of Austin, Texas, 73-76. Bartenschlager, K. 1995. “Literarisches Übersetzen - lehrbar? Zum Münchner Aufbaustudiengang “Literarische Übersetzung aus dem Englischen””. In Anglistik und Englischunterricht 53/56. Realities of Translating, 21-36. Beck, U. ²1997. Was ist Globalisierung? Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp. Berglund, L. O. 1990. “The search for social significance.” In Lebende Sprachen XXXV: 145-151. Bernardini, E. 1995. 75 Jahre Österreichischer Verband der Gerichtsdolmetscher - Entstehung, Geschichte, Zukunftsperspektiven. (Ms.). Birse, A. H. 1967. Memoirs of an Interpreter. London: Michael Joseph. BDÜ-Memorandum 1986 = Bundesverband der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer (BDÜ), Koordinierungsausschuß “Praxis und Lehre”: “Berufsbild für Übersetzer, Dolmetscher und verwandte Fremdsprachenberufe”. In Mitteilungsblatt für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 5/32: 2-8. Boers, M. 1995. “Should the translation industry be regulated?” In SATI Bulletin (SATI = The South African Translators’ Institute) 6: 1. Bohlen, C. E. 1973. Witness to History 1929-1969. New York: Norton. Bonsal, S. 1944. Unfinished Business. Introduction by H. Gibson. Garden City N. Y.: Doubleday. Born, J. 1994. “ ‘Europa der Regionen’ - Terminologische und sprachpolitische Anmerkungen zu den Minderheiten in den Mitgliedsstaaten in der Europäischen Union.” In U.

* In order to save space current dictionaries have not been listed in the bibliography.

238

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Helfrich and C.M. Riehl (Hg.), Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa - Hindernis oder Chance? Wilhelmsfeld: Egert, 11-29. Born, J. and Schütte, W. 1995. Eurotexte. Textarbeit in einer Institution der EG. Tübingen: Narr. Born, J. and Stickel, G. (Hg.) 1993. Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa. Institut für deutsche Sprache, Jahrbuch 1992. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Bowen, M. 1989. “The Terminology of Translation Studies.” In Monterey Institute of International Studies (ed.), Twentieth Anniversary Symposium “The Training of Teachers of Translation and Interpretation.” Proceedings Monterey CA, December 1-3, 1989: 1-9 (Ms.). Bowen, M. 1994a. “Negotiations to end the Spanish-American War.” In M. Snell-Hornby et.al. (eds.), 1994. Translation Studies. An interdiscipline. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 73-81. Bowen, M. 1994b. “Interpreting Studies and the History of the Profession.” In C. Dollerup and A. Lindegaard (eds.) 1994. Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 167-173. Bowen, M. 1995. “Community Interpreting.” In The Jerome Quarterly 10/3: 7-9. Bowen, M. 1996. “Interpreting at the League of Nations.” In H. Tonkin (ed.), Report of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the Center for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems in Cooperation with the Office of Conference Services, United Nations, New York. West –Hartford: Center for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems, University of Hartford. (Ms.). Bowen, M. 1998. “The Terminology of Translation Studies”. In The Jerome Quaterly 13/1: 3-5. Bowen, M. et al. 1995. “Interpreters and the Making of History”. In J. Delisle and J. Woodsworth (eds.), Translation through History. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins/UNESCO PUBLISHING, 245 – 273. Bower, W. W. 1959. International Manual of Linguists and Translators. New York: Scarecrow Press. Brace, C. 1997. “Future Tense for Euro Systran”. In Language International 9. 3: 14 – 16. Brackeniers, E. 1993. “Mehrsprachigkeit – eine Herausforderung im Europa ohne Grenzen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rolle der deutschen Sprache in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft“. In Mitteilungsblatt für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 39/2: 17-20. Braun, P. et al. 1990. Internationalismen. Studien zur internationalen Lexikologie und Lexikographie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Breuer, S. 1992. Die Gesellschaft des Verschwindens. Von der Selbstzerstörung der technischen Zivilisation. Hamburg: Junius. Bryan, L. L. and Farrell, D. 1996. Market Unbound: Unleashing Global Capitalism. New York: John Wiley. Budin, G. 1998. Globalisierte Fachkommunikation – Chance oder Gefahr für kulturelle Diversität? (Ms.). Budin, G. and Galinski, C. 1993. “Comprehensive Quality Control in Standards Text Production and Retrieval”. In R.A. Strehlow and S.E. Wright (eds.), Standardizing Terminology for Better Communication: Practice, Applied Theory, and Results. Phila-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

239

delphia: American Society for Testing and Materials (sic), 65-74. Bühler, H. 1997a. “Sprache, Terminologie und Übersetzen. Rückblick und Ausblick”. In N. Grbi´c and M. Wolf (Hg.), Text – Kultur Kommunikation. Translation als Forschungsaufgabe. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 85-96. Bühler, H. 1997b. Arnold Lissance (1906 – 1994): “Übersetzer und Terminologie”. In P. Eichner et al. (Hg.), Sprachnormung und Sprachplanung. Festschrift für Otto Back zum 70. Geburtstag. Wien: Edition Praesens, 477-488. Burger, H. 1997. “Die Vertreibung der Mehrsprachigkeit am Beispiel Österreichs 1867 – 1918“. In G. Hentschel (Hg.), Über Muttersprachen und Vaterländer. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang, 35-47. Carr, S. E. et al. (eds.) 1997. The Critical Link: Interpreter in Community. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CIUTI-Memorandum 1997 = Memorandum Dolmetschen und europäischer offizieller Multilingualismus. Lage, Probleme, Aktionen. (Ms.). Coffin, E.A. 1982. “Translation: An Exceptional Form of Language Use”. In L.K. Obler and L. Menn (eds.), Exceptional Language and Linguistics. New York etc.: Academic Press, 103-111. Congrat-Butler, S. (ed.) 1979. Translation and Translators. An International Directory and Guide. New York etc.: Bowker. Cronin, M. 1996. Translating Ireland. Translation, Languages, Cultures. Cork: Cork University Press. Crystal, D. 1997. English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deák, I. 1995. Der K. (u.) K. Offizier 1848-1918. Wien etc.: Böhlau. Delisle, J. 1977. “Les pionieers de l’interprétation au Canada”. In Meta: 22/5-14. Delisle, J. and Albert, L. 1979. Guide bibliographique du traducteur, redacteur et terminologue. Ottawa: Université d’ Ottawa. Denison, N. 1970. “The Use of English as a Medium of Communication in Europe”. In English – A European Language? A Conference in Luxembourg organized by the Institute of Linguists, London, 1-8. (Ms.). Deutsch, K. W. 1990. “Wissen und Macht. Wirtschaftliche und soziale Bedeutung von Wissen“. In H. Scheidgen et al. (Hg.), Information ist noch kein Wissen. Weinheim/ Basel: Beltz, 187-198. Diamond, J. M. 1997. Guns, germs and steel: the fates of human societies. New York: Norton. Dietrich, Y. 1991. Die Mannesmannröhren-Werke 1888 – 1920. Stuttgart: Steiner. Dollerup, C. 1996. “Language Work at the European Union”. In M.G. Rose (ed.), Translation Horizons Beyond the Boundaries of Translation Spectrum. Translation Perspectives IX 1996. Binghamton: Center for Research in Translation. SUNY Binghamton, 297-314. Dörner, D. 1994. “Planspiel, Pannen und Parcours”. In Bertelsmann Briefe 131: 72-74. Drucker, P. F. 1994. “The Rise of the Knowledge Society“. In Dialogue 2: 13-18. Edwards, A. B. 1995. The Practice of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Erdmann, R. and Karg, S. 1991. Berufschancen und Berufliche Situation von Studierenden der Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung an der Fachrichtung 8.6, “Angewandte

240

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen”, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken. Felber, H. 1979. “Die internationale terminologische Grundsatznormung – Rückblick and Ausblick”. In H. Felber et al. (Hg.), Terminologie als angewandte Sprachwissenschaft. Gedenkschrift für Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eugen Wüster. München etc.: Saur. Feldweg, E. 1996. Der Konferenzdolmetscher im internationalen Kommunikationsprozeß. Heidelberg: Groos. Fischer, P. 1995. Die Selbständigen von morgen – Unternehmer oder Tagelöhner. Frankfurt/M.: Campus. Forstner, M. (ed.) 1995. C.I.U.T.I. Translation and Interpreting Studies. Germersheim: C.I.U.T.I. Forstreuter, K. 1981. “Das Seminar für orientalische Sprachen in Berlin 1887-1936/1945”. In K. Forstreuter, Wirkungen des Preussenlandes. Köln/Berlin: Grote, 194-206. Franck, G. 1990. “Die zeitliche Differenz von Natur und Geist”. In Merkur 500: 927-938. Frank, A. P. and Team, 1986. “Towards a Cultural History of Literary Translation: An Exploration of Issues and Problems in Researching the Translational Exchange between the USA and Germany”. In REAL The Yearbook of Research in English and American Literature 4: 317-380. Freibott, G. 1989. “Quo vadis, Translator? Der Übersetzer als Desktop Publisher”. In Lebende Sprachen XXXIV/1: 1-6. Freigang, K.-H. 1997. “Zum Stellenwert von Softwarelokalisierungsprojekten in der Übersetzerausbildung”. In E. Fleischmann et al. (eds.), Translationsdidaktik. Grundfragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft. Tübingen: Narr, 122-132. Friedrich, H. 1965. “Zur Frage der Übersetzungskunst”. In Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philos.-Hist. Klasse Heidelberg. Frühwald, W. 1997. “Fachkulturen im Wandel”. In Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung. Mitteilungen 70, Dez. 1997: 25-30. Fujiwara, Y. et al. 1997. “Terminology Activities in Japan. Current Trends and Future Directions”. In TermNet News 56/57: 1-10. Fuller, F. 1973. A Handbook for Translators with special Reference to International Conference Translation. Gerrards Cross: Buck. Galinski, C. 1987. “Die Einbindung von Terminologie, Terminologiedokumentation und Dokumentation in den fachbezogenen Fremdsprachenunterricht unter Berücksichtigung der Entstehung neuer Berufe im Bereich des Informationsmanagements”. In Infoterm 287 de. Galinski, C. 1994. “Terminologie und die Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa”. In Infoterm 21-94 rev. de. Galinski, C. and Schmitz, K.-D. 1995. “Internationale Zusammenarbeit auf dem Gebiet der Terminologie”. In Infoterm 22-95 de. Gambier, Y. et. al. (eds.) 1997. Conference Interpreting. Current Trends in Research. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Gehlen, A. 1957. Die Seele im technischen Zeitalter. Sozialpsychologische Probleme in der industriellen Gesellschaft. Hamburg: Rowohlt. Goebl, H. 1994. “Geschichte lernen und aus Geschichte lernen: Die altösterreichsche Sprachenvielfalt und –politik als Modellfall für ein Europa von heute und morgen”. In

BIBLIOGRAPHY

241

U. Helfrich and C.M. Riehl (Hg.), Mehrsprachigkeit in Europa. Wilhelmsfeld: Egert, 55-82. Goffin, R. 1994a. “L’expérience de la terminologie à la Commission des Communautés européennes”. In P. Martal and J. Maurais (eds.), Langues et Societés en Contact. Mélanges offerts à Jean-Claude Corbeil. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 149-158. Goffin, R. 1994b. “L’eurolecte: Oui, Jargon Communautaire: Non”. In Meta XXXIX/4: 636-642. Goffin, R. 1998. “Terminographie bei der Europäischen Union”. In L. Hoffmann et al. (Hg.), Internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter (in print). Gollwitzer, H. 1962. Die Gelbe Gefahr. Geschichte eines Schlagworts. Studien zum imperialistischen Denken. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Gorman, T. P. 1996. Multipreneuring. New York: Simon & Schuster. Graf, K. (Hg.) 1993. Vom schwierigen Doppelleben des Übersetzers. Berlin: Volk und Welt. Gran, L. and Riccardi, A. (Hg.) 1997. Nuovi Orientamenti negli Studi sull’ Interpretatione. Padova: Università degli studi di Trieste. Scuola superiore di lingue moderne per interpreti e traduttori. Greule, A. 1994. “Internationalismen – falsche und echte Freunde?” In DAAD (Hg.), Germanistentreffen Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Polen, 26.9.-30.9. 1993. Bonn: DAAD, 305-312. Haken, H. and Haken–Krell, M. 1997. Gehirn und Verhalten. Unser Kopf arbeitet anders, als wir denken. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Haller, J. 1997. MULTILINT. In Forum Sprache ohne Grenzen. DLR Köln, 37-48. Halliday, M.A.K. et al. 1965. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London: Longmans. Hamann, J. G. 1950. Sämtliche Werke, II Bd. Wien: Thomas-Morus-Presse im Herder Verlag. Hamilton, I. 1992. Phraseology in Translation at the United Nations: some examples. In: terminologie & traduction No 2/3, Commission des Communautés européennes, 245249. Hammond, D. (ed.) 1996. Professional Issues for Translators and Interpreters. ATA Scholarly Monograph Series VII. Binghamton: SUNY Binghamton. Harris, B. and Kingscott, G. (eds.) 1997. Translation and Interpreting Schools. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 1997. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge. Hartz, P. 1997. “Einführung“. In H.-E. Müller and A. Prangenberg., Outsourcing-Management. Handlungsspielräume bei Ausgliederung und Fremdvergabe. Köln: BundVerlag, 7-13. Hauck, W. 1993. “Die Amtssprachen der Schweiz. Anspruch und Wirklichkeit”. In J. Born and G. Stickel (Hg.), Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 147-163. Helbig, H. 1996. Künstliche Intelligenz and automatische Wissensverarbeitung. Berlin: Verlag Technik. Herbert, J. 1952. The Interpreter’s handbook: How to Become a Conference Interpreter.

242

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Geneva: Libr. de l’université. Herbert, J. 1978. “How Conference Interpretation Grew”. In D. Gerver and H.W. Sinaiko (eds.), Language Interpretation and Communication. New York/London: Plenum Press, 5-10. Hinderling, R. and Eichinger, L.M. (Hg.) 1996. Handbuch der mitteleuropäischen Sprachminderheiten. Tübingen: Narr. Hoefer, S. 1977. Berufsausbildung und Berufsausübung von Diplomdolmetschern und Diplomübersetzern. Eine empirische Studie. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Hoffmann, L. et al. (Hg.) 1997. Fachsprachen/Languages for Special Purposes. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Fachsprachenforschung und Terminologiewissenschaft. An International Handbook of Special Languages and Terminology Research. 1. Halbband. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Holborn, H. 1925. Aufzeichnungen und Erinnerungen aus dem Leben des Botschafters Joseph Maria von Radowitz, Bd. 2. Stuttgart etc.: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Holz-Mänttäri, J. 1985. “Die Recherchierarbeit des Berufstranslators”. In Studien zur Klassifikation 14: 131-138. Hönig, H. G. 1995. Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Hoof van, H. 1962. Théorie et pratique de l’interprétation avec explication particulière à l’anglais et au français. München: Hueber. Horguelin, P. A. 1977. “Les premiers traducteurs (1690 à 1791)”. In Meta 22/1: 15-25. Huber, E. 1993. Übersetzungsorientierte Phraseologieverwaltung mit Terminologieverwaltungssystemen. Diplomarbeit (MA-Arbeit) an der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Wien. Hutchins, W. J. 1986. Machine Translation: Past, Present, Future. Chicester: Ellis Horwood. Jessnitzer, K. 1982. Dolmetscher: Ein Handbuch für die Praxis der Dolmetscher, Übersetzer und ihrer Auftraggeber im Gerichts-, Beurkundungs- und Verwaltungsverfahren. Köln etc.: Carl Heymanns. Kade, O. 1963. “Aufgaben der Übersetzungswissenschaft (Zur Frage der Gesetzmäßigkeit im Übersetzungsprozeß)” In Fremdsprachen: 84-100. Kalusche, B. 1979. Sprache und Technik. Zu Ausbildung und Berufspraxis des Fachübersetzers/(Technik) in der Europäischen Gemeinschaft. Hannover: Institut für Regionale Bildungsplanung – Arbeitsgruppe Standortforschung. Kant, I. 1947; 11795. Zum ewigen Frieden. Schwenningen: Neckar-Verlag. Katschinka, L. 1997. FIT – Der Internationale Übersetzerverband. In I. Kurz and A. Moisl (Hg.), Berufsbilder für Übersetzer und Dolmetscher: Perspektiven nach dem Studium. Wien: WUV-Univ.-Verlag, 190-193. Kay, M. 1997. “The Proper Place for Men and Machines in Language Translation”. In Machine Translation 12/1-2: 3-23. Klein, S. 1997. “Zur Rolle moderner Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien”. In G. Müller-Stewens (Hg.), Virtualisierung von Organisationen. Zürich: SchäfferPoeschel/Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 43-59. Kleist, H. von 1990. Sämtliche Werke und Briefe in vier Bänden. Bd. 3. Frankfurt/M.: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag. Klimsa, P. 1993. Neue Medien und Weiterbildung. Anwendung und Nutzen in Lernprozes-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

243

sen der Weiterbildung. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Kloepfer, R. 1967. Die Theorie der literarischen Übersetzung. München: Fink. Kloosterhuis, J. 1993. “Friedliche Imperialisten”. Deutsche Auslandsvereine und auswärtige Kulturpolitik 1906-1918. Zwei Teile. Frankfurt/M. etc.: Lang. Kocourek, R. 1972. “A semantic Study of Terminology and its Application in Teaching the Technical Language”. In V. Fried (ed.), The Prague School of Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Oxford University Press, 182-195. Kohn K. et al. 1997. Vikis. Videokonferenz mit integrierter Simultandolmetschkomponente. (Ms.). Kramer, J. 1990. “Sprachilloyalität”. In P.H. Nelde (ed.), Language Conflict and Minorities. Sprachkonflikte und Minderheiten. Bonn: Dümmler, 15-22. Kreiner, J. 1989. “Zur 100. Wiederkehr der Gründung des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen Berlin/Bonn”. In Orientierungen. Neue Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen der Universität Bonn 1/1989: 1-24. Kreuser, K. 1979. “Englisch-training für internationale Konferenzen”. In Bertelsmann Briefe 97: 37-38. Kruger, A. 1998. “A look at training and qualifications”. In SATI-Bulletin 1/1998: 1-2. Kurz, I. 1985. “Als Dolmetscher beim Nürnberger Prozeß”. In Mitteilungsblatt des Österreichischen Übersetzer- und Dolmetschverbandes. Universitas 2: 2-7. Kurz, B./Kurz, I. 1995. “The Naulilaa Case: A Border Incident Caused by Misinterpretation”. In The Jerome Quarterly 11/1: 12-13. Kusterer, H. 1995. Der Kanzler und der General. Stuttgart: Neske. KÜWES Terminologie 1990. Empfehlungen für die Terminologiearbeit. Bern: Schweizerische Bundeskanzlei. Lamberger-Felber, H. 1997. “Im Sprachengewirr zu Brüssel. Der Dolmetschdienst der Europäischen Kommission”. In I. Kurz and A. Moisl (Hg.), Berufsbilder für Übersetzer und Dolmetscher. Perspektiven nach dem Studium. Wien: WUV-Univ.-Verl., 108-116. Lansing, R. 1921. The Big Four and Others of the Peace Conference. Boston/New York: Houghton Mifflin. Lauer, A. et al. (Hg.), Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch. Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Narr. Lederer, W. J. 1968. Our Own Worst Enemy. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett publications. Leikauf, G. 1997. “Metamorphosen eines Dolmetschinstituts. 50 Jahre Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung an der Universität Graz”. In N. Grbic and M. Wolf (Hg.), Text – Kultur Kommunikation. Translation als Forschungsaufgabe. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 15-29. Leipold, K. 1989. “Kooperative Computer”. In Com. Siemens-Magazin für Computer. Communications 24/3: 13-19. Locke, W.N. and Booth, A.D. 1955. Machine Translation of Languages. New York: The Technology Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lockwood, R. et al. 1995. Globalisation. Creating new Markets with Translation Technology. London: Ovum Ltd. Luckmann, T. 1981. “Einige Überlegungen zu Alltagswissen und Wissenschaft”. In Pädagogische Rundschau 35: 91-109. Luhmann, N. 1971. “Lob der Routine”. In N. Luhmann, Politische Planung. Aufsätze zur

244

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Soziologie von Politik und Verwaltung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 113-142. Mackintosh, J. 1995. “A Review of Conference Interpreting: Practice and Training”. In Target 7:1: 119-133. Marias, J. 1995. My Heart so White. London: Harvill. Martin, H.-P. and Schumann, H. 1996. Die Globalisierungsfalle. Der Angriff auf Demokratie und Wohlstand. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1966; 11848. Ausgewählte Schriften in zwei Bänden, Bd. I. Berlin: Dietz, 25-57. Mayer, F. 1996. Eintragsmodelle für terminologische Datenbanken. Ein Beitrag zur übersetzungsorientierten Terminographie. Diss. Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken. McClelland, J. L. et al. 1986. Parallel Distributed Processing, Vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. Menzel, U. 1997. Globalisierung versus Fragmentierung. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp. Michaels, A. 1996. Fluchtstücke. Berlin: Berlin Verlag. Mittelstraß, J. 1992. “Auf dem Weg zur Transdisziplinarität”. GAIA (Ökologische Perspektiven in Natur-, Geistes- und Wissenschaftswissenschaften) 92/5: 250. Mittelstraß, J. 1996. Stichwort Interdisziplinarität. Basel: Europainstitut an der Universität Basel. Mittelstraß, J. 1997. “Universität und Effizienz? Eine philosophische Betrachtung”. In H. Hoebing (Hg.), Perspektiven für die Universität 2000. Reformbestrebungen der Hochschulen um mehr Effizienz. Neuwied etc.: Luchterhand, 47-62. Monien, O. 1940. “Dolmetscher – Sprachmittler”. In Der Sprachmittler. Mitteilungen der Reichsfachschaft für das Dolmetscher- und Übersetzerwesen in der Rechtsfront 1.1: 12. Mowshowitz, A. 1986. “Social Dimensions of Office Automation”. In Advances in Computers, Vol 25: 335-404. Müller-Stewens, G. (Hg.) 1997a. Virtualisierung von Organisationen. Zürich: SchäfferPoeschel/Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung. Müller-Stewens, G. 1997b. “Auf dem Weg zur Virtualisierung der Prozeßorganisation”. In G. Müller-Stewens 1997a. Virtualisierung von Organisationen. Zürich: SchäfferPoeschel/Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 1-21. Müßig-Trapp, P. and Schnitzer, K. 1997. “Vorbereitung auf Europa durch Mobilität und Internationalisierung des Studiums”. In HIS Kurzinformation (HIS=Hochschul-Informations-System), Hannover, November 1997. Nellißen, F. J. 1996. Das Mannesmann-Engagement in Brasilien. Evolutionspfade internationaler Unternehmenstätigkeit aus wirtschaftshistorischer Sicht. Diss. Köln. Newell, A. and Simon, H.A. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. Nicholson, H. 1934. Peacemaking 1919. London: Constable. Nida, E. A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill. Novotny, A. 1957. Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Berliner Kongresses 1878, Bd. I. Graz/Köln: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. Obst, H. 1990. “Summary History of Language Services in the U.S. Department of State”. In D. Bowen and M. Bowen (eds.), Interpreting – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. American Translators Association. Scholarly Monograph Series, Vol. IV. State Univer-

BIBLIOGRAPHY

245

sity of New York at Binghamton (SUNY), 8-13. O’Flanagan, R. and Uhden, W. P. 1994. “Sprachunterricht am Arbeitsplatz: Angebote and Erfahrungen eines Bildungszentrums”. In J. Benecke and R. Freudenstein (Hg.), Die Sprache des Kunden. Fremdsprachenlernen für Wirtschaft und Beruf. Bonn: Dümmler, 147-164. Pajatsch, H.-J. 1994. Internationalisierung und Lokalisierung von Software: Ein Erfolgsfaktor auf dem Softwaremarkt. (Ms.). Pashler, H. E. 1998. The Psychology of Attention. Cambridge Mass.: The MIT Press. A Bradford Book. Patterson, G. B. 1981. “The Problems Arising from the Multilingualism of the European Community”. In Lebende Sprachen XXVI: 7-11. Petermann, F. ³1996. Psychologie des Vertrauens. Göttingen: Hogrefe. Petioky, V. 1983. “Vierzig Jahre Institut für Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung der Universität Wien”. In Festschrift zum 40jährigen Bestehen des Instituts für Übersetzerund Dolmetscherausbildung der Universität Wien. Tulln: Ott-Verlag, 9-28. Petrits, A. 1997. The Commission’s Machine translation System. DG XIII – Translation Service. Pfeil, W. 1996. “Der Aspekt der Mehrsprachigkeit in der Union und sein Einfluß auf die Rechtsfortbildung des Europäischen Gemeinschaftsrechts”. In Zeitschrift für Rechtsvergleichung und Verwaltung 37: 11-20. Picken, C. (ed.) 1983. The Translator’s Handbook. London: Aslib. Piontowski, U. ²1982. Psychologie der Interaktion. München: Juventa. Pörksen, U. 1988. Plastikwörter. Die Sprache einer internationalen Diktatur. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Possemis, J. 1997. MK Offering Information & NLS Organisation 1.1.1997. Böblingen/ Stuttgart: IBM. Postgate, J. A. 1922. Translation and Translations. London: Bell. Resch, M. 1993. Die Europäische Gemeinschaft – Aufbau, Dokumente, Textbausteine (Deutsch/Englisch). Diplomarbeit (MA-Arbeit) an der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Wien. Rieger, S. 1994. Probleme und Perspektiven der Synchronisation. Dargestellt anhand der amerikanischen Kriminalserie ‘The Fall Guy’ – ‘Ein Colt für alle Fälle’. Diplomarbeit Fachrichtung Angewandte Sprachwissenschaft sowie Übersetzen und Dolmetschen. Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken. Roland, R. A. 1982. Translating World Affairs. Jefferson N.C.: McFarland. Ranshofen-Wertheimer, E.F. 1945. The International Secretariat. A Great Experiment in International Administration. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Rübberdt, I. 1998. Weil nicht sein kann, was nicht sein darf? Kategorien und Kompetenzen bei der Übertragung von Lyrik. (Ms.). Sager, J. C. 1974. “Employment Prospects for Graduates of University Institutes for Translators and Interpreters”. In The Incorporated Linguist 14/I: 2-8. Sager, J. C. 1993. Language Engineering and Translation. Consequences of automation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Sager, J. C. 1997. What distinguishes major types of translation? (Ms.).

246

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Salevsky, H. (Hg.) 1996. 1894-1914: “Reminiszenzen. Dolmetscher- und Übersetzerausbildung Gestern, Heute und Morgen”. In Berliner Beiträge zur Translationswissenschaft. Frankfurt/M. etc.: Lang, 15-34. Salevsky, H. 1998. Über die Sprache hinaus. Beiträge zur Translationswissenschaft. Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT-Verlag. Samson-Himmelstjerna, C. von 1996. “Protest und Boykott – Literarische Übersetzer schlagen zurück”. In Mitteilungsblatt für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 42/6: 10-11. Schäffner, C. 1997. “Political Texts as Sensitive Texts”. In K. Simms (ed.), Translating Sensitive Texts: Linguistic Aspects. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 131-138. Schelsky, H. 1972. “Die Bedeutung des Berufs in der modernen Gesellschaft”. In T. Luckmann and W.M. Sprondel (Hg.), Berufssoziologie. Köln: Kiepenheuer und Witsch, 25-35. Schiepek, G. 1990. “Selbstreferenz in psychischen und sozialen Systemen”. In K.W. Kratky and F. Wallner (Hg.), Grundprinzipien der Selbstorganisation. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 182-200. Schmid, A. 1998. “Geschichte des Instituts für Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung der Universität Innsbruck”. In P. Holzer and C. Feyrer (Hg.), Text, Kultur und Sprache. Festschrift zum 50jährigen Bestehen des Instituts für Übersetzer- und Dolmetscherausbildung der Universität Innsbruck. Frankfurt/M.: Lang, 15-28. (Ms.). Schmidt, P. 1949. Statist auf diplomatischer Bühne. Wien: Ullstein. Schmidt, P. 1954. Sprachen Lernen. Warum und Wie? Bonn: Athenäum. Schmitt, C. 1996. “Euromorphologie: Perspektiven einer neuen romanistischen Teildisziplin”. In W. Dahmen et al. (Hg.), Die Bedeutung der romanischen Sprachen im Europa der Zukunft. Romanistisches Kolloquium IX. Tübingen: Narr, 119-146. Schmitt, P. A. 1990. Die Berufspraxis der Übersetzer. Eine Umfrageanalyse. Berichtssonderheft des Bundesverbandes der Dolmetscher und Übersetzer. Bonn (no publ.). Schmitz, K.-D. 1996. “Technische Infrastrukturen in der europäischen Terminologiekooperation”. In R. Arntz et al. (Hg.), Akten des Symposiums Terminologie für ein vielsprachiges Europa. Köln: Deutscher Terminologie-Tag e.V., 61-71. Schmitz, K.-D. 1986. Computer in der Übersetzerpraxis. Ergebnisse einer Umfrage. Saarbrücken: Sonderforschungsbereich 100 “Elektronische Sprachforschung”, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken. Schreiber, I. 1997. “POSI, POSI?, POSI!”. In Mitteilungsblatt für Dolmetscher und Übersetzer 43/1: 4-8. Schunck, P. 1996. “Französische Hochschulgründungen links des Rheins in der unmittelbaren Nachkriegszeit: Warum kam die Hochschule nach Germersheim?” In K.-H. Stoll (Hg.), 50 Jahre FASK – Geschichte und Geschichten. Germersheim: Eigenverlag, 25-53. Schunck, P. 1997. Dokumente zur Geschichte der Dolmetschhochschule Germersheim aus den Jahren 1946-1949. Germersheim/Mainz: Universität Mainz. Shuttleworth, M. and Cowie, M. 1997. Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing. Skudlik, S, 1988. “Die Kinder Babylons”. In E. Oksaar et. al., Gerechtfertigte Vielfalt. Zur Sprache in den Geisteswissenschaften. Darmstadt: Luchterhand, 73-129. Slocombe, G. 1937. A Mirror to Geneva. Its Growth, Grandeur and Decay. London: Jonathan Cape.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

247

Snell-Hornby, M. et al. (Hg.) 1998. Handbuch Translation. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Snyckers, A. 1938. “Die Bedeutung der Handels-Hochschule Leipzig für das deutsche, insbesondere für das sächsische Wirtschaftsleben”. In Sächsische Wirtschaft 26: 2-12. Soukup-Unterweger, I. 1997. “DIN 2345 “Übersetzungsaufträge””. In Universitas 4: 8-11. Sowell, T. 1992. “How Civilizations Advance”. In Dialogue 1: 29-34. Steiner, E. 1996. “Systemic Functional Linguistics – A Chomsky-Theory or a MeadTheory?” In J. Klein and D. Vanderbeke (eds.), Anglistentag 1995 Greifswald. Proceedings, Vol. XVII. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 169-192. Steiner, G. 1975. After Babel. Aspects of Language and Translation. London etc.: Oxford University Press. Stoll, K.-H. 1996. “Vorwort”. In K.-H. Stoll (Hg.), 50 Jahre FASK – Geschichte und Geschichten. Germersheim: Eigenverlag. Störig, H. J. (Hg.) ²1969; ¹1963. Das Problem des Übersetzens. Stuttgart: Henry Goverts. Stork, B. 1996. Leitfaden für die Übersetzung. Brüssel: Europäischer Rat. (Ms.). Süddeutsche Zeitung 1997. “Wissensmanagement”. Eine Serie der Süddeutschen Zeitung. Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge UK etc.: Cambridge University Press. Thiel, G. 1985. “Parallel Text Production. An Alternative in Pragmatically-Oriented Foreign Language Courses”. In C. Titford and A.E. Hieke (eds.), Translation in Foreign Language Teaching and Testing. Tübingen: Narr, 117-133. Thierfelder, F. 1995. “Darf der Übersetzer den Text des Originals verändern?” In Babel I: 51-54. Viaggio, S. 1995. Report on an Experiment in Remote Translation. United Nations Office at Vienna (UNOV). (Ms.). Viaggio, S. 1998. Simultaneous Interpreting for Television and Other Media: Translation Doubly Constrained. United Nation Office at Vienna (UNOV). (Ms.). Walters, V. A. 1978. Silent Missions. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday. Weber, G. 1997. “Top Languages. The World’s 10 Most Influential Languages”. In Language Today 9/3: 12-18. Wessel, H. A. 1990. Kontinuität im Wandel. 100 Jahre Mannesmann 1890-1990. Düsseldorf: Mannesmann AG. Wettler, M. 1980. Sprache, Gedächtnis, Verstehen. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Wild, A. 1997. “Das virtuelle Büro”. In telecom report 4/20: 38-39. Wilss, W. 1958. “Das Eindringen anglo-amerikanischer Fremdwörter in die deutsche Sprache seit Ende des zweiten Weltkriegs”. In Muttersprache 68/6: 180-188. Wilss, W. 1970. “Betrachtungen zum Verhältnis von Angebot und Nachfrage bei Diplomübersetzern und Diplomdolmetschern”. In Berufskundliche Mitteilungen 14: 607-614. Wilss, W. 1972. “Diplom-Dolmetscher, Diplom-Übersetzer. Zur Berufssituation in der gewerblichen Wirtschaft”. In Informationen für die Beratungs- und Vermittlungsdienste der Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, Nürnberg: 1047-1058. Wilss, W. 1974. “Die Bedeutung des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens in der Gegenwart”. In V. Kapp (Hg.), Übersetzer und Dolmetscher. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 13-25. Wilss, W. 1977. Übersetzungswissenschaft. Probleme und Methoden. Stuttgart: KlettCotta. Englische Übersetzung (1982), The Science of Translation. Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Narr.

248

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Wilss, W. 1979. “Fachsprache und Übersetzen”. In H. Felber et al. (Hg.), Terminologie als angewandte Sprachwissenschaft. Gedenkschrift für Univ.-Prof. Dr. Eugen Wüster. München etc.: Saur, 177-191. Wilss, W. 1988. Kognition und Übersetzen. Zu Theorie und Praxis der menschlichen und der maschinellen Übersetzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Wilss, W. 1992. Übersetzungsfertigkeit. Annäherungen an einen komplexen übersetzungspraktischen Begriff. Tübingen: Narr. Wilss, W. 1996a. Übersetzungsunterricht. Begriffliche Grundlagen und methodische Orientierungen. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr. Wilss, W. 1996b. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Wilss, W. 1997. “Textbausteine”. In E. Fleischmann et al. (Hg.), Translationsdidaktik. Grundfragen der Übersetzungswissenschaft. Tübingen: Narr, 36-45. Winograd, T. 1983. Language as a Cognitive Process, Vol. I: Syntax. Reading Mass. etc.: Addison-Wesley. Wüster, E. 1931. Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik, besonders in der Elektrotechnik. Die nationale Sprachnormung und ihre Verallgemeinerung. Berlin: VDIVerlag. Zerban, H. 1963. “Das Dolmetscherinstitut der Universität des Saarlandes”. In BDÜJahrbuch: 157-162. Zimmer, G. 1992. “Multimediales Lernen in neuen Qualifizierungsstrategien”. In BIBB (Hg.), Multimediales Lernen in neuen Qualifizierungsstrategien. BIBB – 2. Fachkongreß, Dezember 1992 Berlin. Nürnberg: BW Bildung und Wissen Verlag und Software GmbH, 19-25.

Author Index* A Aebli, H. 205 Albert, L. 154 Ammon, H. 60 Arntz, R. ix, 55 B Baker, M. 42 Bar-Hillel, Y. 103, 130, 209 Bartenschlager, K. 77 Beck, U. 181, 199 Berglund, L.O. 144 Bernardini, E. 12, 14 Birse, A.H. 34, 39, 40 Boers, M. 220 Bohlen, C.E. 34 Bonsal, S. 34 Booth, A.D. 207 Born, J. 55, 106 Bowen, M. 3, 5, 11, 13, 34, 37, 40 Bower, W.W. 154 Brace, J.C. 112 Brackeniers, E. 54, 57 Braun, P. 82 Breuer, S. 202 Budin, G. 88 Bühler, H. 89, 215 Burger, H. 25 C Carr, S.F. 13 Coffin, E.A., 173 Congrat-Butler, S. 154

Cowie, M. 142 Cronin, M. 169 Crystal D. 59, 61, 66 D Deák, I. 24 Delisle, J. 3, 154 Denison, N. 65 Deutsch, K.W. 174 Diamond, J.M. 187 Dietrich, Y. 122 Dollerup, C. 56 Dörner, D. 204 Drucker, P.F. 195 E Edwards, A.B. 14 Eichinger, L.M. 55 Erdmann, R. 167 F Felber, H. 88 Feldweg, E. 71 Fischer, P. 235 Forstner, M. 131 Forstreuter, K. 18 Franck, G. 206 Frank, A.E. 78 Freibott, G. 234 Freigang, K.-H. 229 Friedrich, H. 6 Frühwald, W. 186 Fujiwara, Y. 210

* The author index contains only names of scholars whose works are listed in the bibliography.

250

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

Fuller, F. 154 G Galinski, Chr. 87, 88, 90, 188 Gambier, Y. 175 Gehlen, A. 176, 205 Goebl, H. 23 Goffin 95, 106 Gollwitzer, H. 115 Gorman, T.P. 194 Graf, K. 2 Gran, L. 15 Greule, A. 82 H Haken, H. 206 Haken-Krell, M. 206 Haller, J. 208 Halliday, M.A.K.. 82 Hamann, G.J. 58 Hamilton, I. 211 Hammond, D. 180 Harris, B. 131 Hartz, P. 191 Hatim, B. 94 Hauck, W. 67, 68, 70 Helbig, H. 204 Herbert, J. 3, 30, 37, 40, 42 Hinderling, R. 55 Holborn, H. 4 Holz-Mänttäri, J. 231 Hönig, H.G. 172 Horguelin, P.A. 4 Huber, E. 91 Hutchins, W.J. 112 J Jessnitzer, K. 14, 154 K Kade, O. 154 Kalusche, B. 137 Kant, I. 183 Karg, S. 167 Katschinka, L. 155 Kay, M. 169, 209

Kingscott, G. 131 Klein, S. 189, 190 Kleist von, H. 79 Klimsa, P. 231 Kloepfer, R. 6, 7 Kloosterhuis, J. 18 Kocourek, R. 82 Kohn, K. 76 Kramer, J. 63 Kreiner, J. 18, 19 Kreuser, K. 64 Kruger, A. 156 Kurz, B. 18 Kurz, I. 18, 75 Kusterer, H. 134, 170 KÜDES 91 KÜWES 87, 89, 91 L Lamberger-Felber, H. 105 Lansing, R. 38 Lauer A. 211 Lederer, W.G. 174 Leikauf, G. 132 Leipold, K. 233 Locke, W.N. 207 Lockwood, R. 63, 159, 185, 211, 221, 222 Luckmann, T. 89 Luhmann, N. 214 M Mackintosh, J. 156 Marias, J. 169 Martin, H.-P. 181 Marx, K. 183 Mason, I. 94 Mayer, F. 91 McClelland, J.L. 206 Michaels, A. 78 Mittelstraß, J. 195, 196, 213 Mowshowitz, A. 188 Müller-Stewens, G. 189 Müßig-Trapp, P. 60 N Nellißen, F.J. 122

AUTHOR INDEX Newell, A. 204 Nicholson, H. 35, 36 Nida, E.A. 154 Novotny, A. 4 O Obst, H. 22 O’Flanagan, R. 124 P Pajatsch, H.J. 229 Patterson, G.B. 56 Petermann, F. 174 Petioky, V. 3, 17, 132 Petrits, A. 112 Pfeil, W. 53 Picken, C. 154 Piontkowski, U. 176 Pörksen, U. 183, 201 Possemis, J. 211, 216 Postgate, J.A. 7 R Radewitz von, J.M. 4 Ranshofen-Wertheimer, E.F. 30, 31, 32, 33, 38 Resch, M. 212 Riccardi, A. 15 Rieger, S. 10 Roland, R.A. 30, 32, 37 Rübberdt, I. 80 S Sager, J.C. 77, 167, 185, 225 Salevsky, H. 48 Samson-Himmelstjerna, C. 80 Schäffner, C. 94 Schelsky, H. 72, 194 Schiepek, G. 205 Schmid, A. 132 Schmidt, P. 5, 42, 43, 47 Schmitt, C. 46, 106 Schmitt, P. viii, 162, 167, 201 Schmitz, K.-D.J. 87, 91, 167 Schnitzer, K. 60 Schreiber, I. 228

251

Schumann, 181 Schunck, P. 134 Schütte, W. 106 Shuttleworth, M. 142 Simon, H.A. 204 Skudlik, S. 29 Slocombe, G. 30 Snell-Hornby, M. viii Snyckers, A. 47 Soukup-Unterweger, I. 156 Sowell, T. 200 Steiner, E. 213 Steiner, G. 180 Stoll, K.-H. 134 Störig, H.J. 7, 9, 71 Stork, B. 112 Süddeutsche Zeitung 233 Swales, J.M. 125 T Thiel, G. 231 Thierfelder, F. 6 Thome, G. viii U Uhden, W.P. 124 V Van Hoof, H. 40 Viaggio, S. 76 W Walters, V.A. 34, 35 Weber, G. 58, 60 Wessel, H. 121 Wettler, M. 204 Wild, A. 191 Wilss, W. viii, 1, 29, 84, 130, 131, 145, 146, 154, 162, 166, 169, 173, 198, 211, 220, 223, 226, 232 Winograd, T. 79 Wüster, E. 88 Z Zerban, H. 134 Zimmer, G. 231

Subject index*

A abilities and skills 9 adaptation 149 aemulatio 6 Agenda 2000 163 AIIC 155, 156, 168 all-round translator 164, 196, 234 “ALPAC” report 103 American way of life 59, 85 Americanization 85 Anglicization 85 apparative intelligence 206 area studies 19 artificial intelligence 206, 207 Atlantic world civilization 108 AVIATION 209 awareness 165, 177, 188 B BDÜ 156, 159, 160, 165, 170, 171 BFB 158 biological epistemology 213 black box 148 business accounting 203 business configuration 193 business quality 235 business studies 234 C CD-ROM 102 CELEX 109

centipede argument 147 century of translation 147 certainty 77 chain of behaviour 166 characteristica universalis 195 CIUTI 54, 131, 138, 139, 167, 228, 233 client-server relationship 235 cognitive “map” 166 cognitive psychology 213 coherence 214 cohesion 214 combinatory, selective intelligence 235 communicative difference 86 compound bilinguals 10 computer culture 224 computer linguistics 14 computer sciences 198, 202 computer software 229 computer technology 167, 207, 235 conditio humana 214 connotative stereotype 183 consciousness 36, 40, 146, 147, 205, 206, 214, 215 contrastive terminology 221 coordinate bilinguals 10 court interpreting 14, 76 creativity 2, 173, 224, 235, 236 cultural diversity 200, 201 cultural practice 167 cultural studies 19 customer protection 228

* In order not to overload the subject index, frequently occurring and in TS familiar terms have not been listed.

254

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

customizing 189, 192, 235 cybernetic systems theory 213 cybernetic touch 204 D decision-making 78, 173, 206, 213 derived message 172 digital revolution 223, 231 diplomat-interpreter 34, 35 diplomat-interpreters 33, 35, 37, 38, 42 diplomat-translator 35 Dragomanat 17, 21 Dragomane 18, 21, 23, 49 dual language culture 63 dual qualification 160 dual realities 188 dual responsibility 177 dubbing 11 E education 197, 198 EEC 55, 163 engineer-translator 23 ERASMUS 131, 139 Esperanto culture 59 Esslingen Conferences 2, 155 Esslinger Gespräche 2 EU texts 106 EURODICAUTOM 90, 95, 109 Eurodiploma 139 EUROKORPS 24 Eurolanguage 58 Eurolanguages 199 Eurolect 106 Euromorphology 106 Europe culture 199 European Language Council 228 European Translation Platform 54, 228 Europhonie 67, 68 Eurospeak 106 Eurotexts 106, 108 EUROTRA 209 experiential world 57 explosion of information 230 external memory 221

F Fachsprachenforschung 81 FAHQT 130, 209 fast is smart 177, 216 Film dubbing 10 FIT 13, 72, 155, 156, 158 fully automatic high quality translation 130 functional translation 8 functional variance 149 G “Gestalt”-knowledge 36 global information technology 203 global society 51 good enough translation 112 H HAMT 210 I IALB 185 IBM interpreting system 75 IfS 158 ILO 41 imitatio 6 in-house use 51 in-service-training 33 Index Translationum 51, 87 INFOTERM 88 “ingroup” behaviour 36 innovation 224 insecurity 226 integrated workstations 57 intelligence 9, 204, 210, 224, 235 “intelligent” computer 205, 235 interactive systems 210 interactive translation systems 177 intercultural competence 124 internal memory 221 Internet 59, 158, 188, 191, 200, 219, 224, 227 interpretatio 6 interprètes-résidents 3 intuition 77

SUBJECT INDEX ISO 87 J jargon 36, 84, 146 job description 164 jobless growth 181 just in time 192, 232 K key qualifications 236 knowledge acquisition 226 knowledge and skills 85, 222, 232 knowledge building blocks 220 knowledge engineering 226 knowledge psychology 227 knowledge society 88, 226 Koine 86 Koordinierungsausschuß 160 KWIC 210 L language experts 90 language industry 225 lesser used languages 56 leveraging 221 lexical ambiguity 208 LEXIS 90, 104, 105 lingua franca ix, 3, 29, 54, 177 LISA 229 M MAHT 210 “make or buy” principle 189, 190 man/machine interaction 204, 210 management culture 230 memory 220, 221, 227 memory processes 221 memory research 220 memory training 221 METAL 130, 131 METEO 209 mistrust 125 mondialisation 182 monitor dataware 230 multi- or interculturality 21

255

Multilingual Information Society 54 multimediality 231 N native language principle 10, 43 natural translation 73, 169 networked intelligence 234 “non-technical” translators 219 O occidental rationalism 202 Open Day 152 Open House 152 originality 223 ortholanguage 86 Österreichische Normungsinstitut 88 P parallel texts 89, 221 post-editing 112 postulate of untranslatability 3 pragmatic equilibrium 148 pre-editing 112 pre-translational analysis 175 problem-solving skills 173 problem-solving strategies 206 product liability 156 professional motivation 165 push button translation 207 Q quality assurance 123 quality control 104, 105, 108, 123, 220, 222 quality management 192 R receiver expectation 86 relay translation 116 remote interpretation 76 remote translation 76 reproduction 149 retrospective/prospective translation 7 routine 3, 10, 11, 31, 170, 173, 206, 214, 220, 226, 236

256

T & I IN THE 20TH CENTURY: FOCUS ON GERMAN

routinization 223 S SATI 13, 72, 157 schematic configurations 213 School of Toledo 177 SCIC 105 second-order cybernetics 205 security 73, 213 self-confidence 176, 226 Seminar für Orientalische Sprachen 18, 22, 46, 48 sender intention 86 sensitive texts 104, 235 Septuagint 177 simship 216 simultaneous translation 1 situational knowledge 36 social accounting 203 social interaction 176 software handbooks 211 software localization 89, 229, 230 software translation 149 speed 192, 216, 231, 233 speed of information transfer 233 sputnik shock 52 standard configurations 57 subtitling 10, 11 Sütterlin 21, 44 syntagmatic-syntactic complexity 208 SYSTRAN 109, 112, 113, 114, 209 T teaching and learning culture 228 TEAM 90, 129, 130 technical competence 233 technical knowledge 232 technical service 101 “technical” translators 219 third language 216 time to market 192 TIS 109 TITUS 208 total immersion 3

Toubon law 65, 66 training 197, 198 transfer of technology 84 translation chip 224 translation industry 228 translation method 146 translation science 144 translation studies 144, 145, 146, 147 translation technology 208, 213, 225 translation theory 145, 146, 147 translation tools 109, 219 translator maturity 236 translator workbench 221 Translatoren 23 transoceanic leap 60 trust 125, 174, 175, 191 U Übersetzersozietäten 22 uncertainty 158, 176, 177, 204, 214 UNESCO xii, 51, 67, 88, 155, 200 United Bible Societies 1 ut interpres/ut orator 7 V VDÜ 1, 155, 156 Verbmobil 42, 207, 208 videoconferencing 73, 76 virtual classroom 228 virtual reality 233 visibility 235 W what the text says 2 white box 148 work in progress 152 workbenches 57 workstation 158, 221 World Postal Association 5 Z ZDF 10

In the BENJAMINS TRANSLATION LIBRARY the following titles have been published thus far or are scheduled for publication: 1. SAGER, Juan C: Language Engineering and Translation: Consequences of automation, 1994. 2. SNELL-HORNBY, Mary, Franz POCHHACKER and Klaus KAINDL (eds): Translation Studies: An interdiscipline. Selected papers from the Translation Congress, Vienna, 9–12 September 1992. 1994. 3. LAMBERT, Sylvie and Barbara MOSER-MERCER (eds): Bridging the Gap: Empirical research on simultaneous interpretation. 1994. 4. TOURY, Gideon: Descriptive Translation Studies — and beyond. 1995. 5. DOLLERUP, Cay and Annette LINDEGAARD (eds): Teaching Translation and Interpreting 2: Insights, aims, visions. Selected papers from the Second Language International Conference, Elsinore, 4–6 June 1993. 1994. 6. EDWARDS, Alicia Betsy: The Practice of Court Interpreting. 1995. 7. BEAUGRANDE, Robert de, Abdulla SHUNNAQ and Mohamed Helmy HELIEL (eds): Language Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East. Selected and revised papers from the conference on Language and Translation, Irbid, Jordan 1992. 1994. 8. GILE, Daniel: Basic Concepts and Models for Interpreter and Translator Training. 1995. 9. REY, Alain: Essays on Terminology. 1995. 10. KUSSMAUL, Paul: Training the Translator. 1995. 11. VINAY, Jean Paul and Jean DARBELNET: Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A methodology for Translation. 1995. 12. BERGENHOLTZ, Henning and Sven TARP: Manual of Specialised Lexicography: The preparation of specialised dictionaries. 1995. 13. DELISLE, Jean and Judith WOODSWORTH (eds): Translators through History. 1995. 14. MELBY, Alan with Terry WARNER: The Possibility of Language. A discussion of the nature of language, with implications for human and machine translation. 1995. 15. WILSS, Wolfram: Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behavior. 1996. 16. DOLLERUP, Cay and Vibeke APPEL: Teaching Translation and Interpreting 3. New Horizons. Papers from the Third Language International Conference, Elsinore, Denmark 9– 11 June 1995. 1996. 17. POYATOS, Fernando (ed.): Nonverbal Communication and Translation. New perspectives and challenges in literature, interpretation and the media. 1997. 18. SOMERS, Harold (ed.): Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in language engineering in honour of Juan C. Sager. 1996. 19. CARR, Silvana E., Roda P. ROBERTS, Aideen DUFOUR and Dini STEYN (eds): The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community. Papers from the 1st international conference on interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Geneva Park, Canada, 1–4 June 1995. 1997. 20. SNELL-HORNBY, Mary, Zuzana JETTMAROVÁ and Klaus KAINDL (eds): Translation as Intercultural Communication. Selected papers from the EST Congress – Prague 1995. 1997. 21. BUSH, Peter and Kirsten MALMKJÆR (eds): Rimbaud’s Rainbow. Literary translation in higher education. 1998. 22. CHESTERMAN, Andrew: Memes of Translation. The spread of ideas in translation theory. 1997.

23. GAMBIER, Yves, Daniel GILE and Christopher TAYLOR (eds): Conference Interpreting: Current Trends in Research. Proceedings of the International Conference on Interpreting: What do we know and how? 1997. 24. ORERO, Pilar and Juan C SAGER (eds): Translators on Translation. Giovanni Pontiero. 1997. 25. POLLARD, David E. (ed.): Translation and Creation. Readings of Western Literature in Early modern China, 1840–1918. 1998. 26. TROSBORG, Anna (ed.): Text Typology and Translation. 1997. 27. BEYLARD-OZEROFF, Ann, Jana KRÁLOVÁ and Barbara MOSER-MERCER (eds): Translator Strategies and Creativity. Selected Papers from the 9th International Conference on Translation and Interpreting, Prague, September 1995. In honor of Jirí Levi and Anton Popovic. 1998. 28. SETTON, Robin: Simultaneous Interpretation. A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. 1999. 29. WILSS, Wolfram: Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century. Focus on German. 1999. 30. DOLLERUP, Cay: Tales and Translation. The Grimm Tales from Pan-Germanic narratives to shared international fairytales. 1999. 31. ROBERTS, Roda P., Silvana E. CARR, Diana ABRAHAM and Aideen DUFOUR (eds.): The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community. Papers from the Second International Conference on Interpreting in legal, health and social service settings, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 19–23 May 1998. 2000. 32. BEEBY, Allison, Doris ENSINGER and Marisa PRESAS (eds.): Investigating Translation. Selected papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998. 2000. 33. In preparation. 34. In preparation. 35. In preparation. 36. SCHMID, Monika S.: Translating the Elusive. Marked word order and subjectivity in English-German translation. 1999. 37. TIRKKONEN-CONDIT, Sonja and Riitta JÄÄSKELÄINEN (eds.): Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting. Outlooks on empirical research. 2000. 38. SCHÄFFNER, Christina and Beverly ADAB (eds.): Developing Translation Competence. 2000. 39. CHESTERMAN, Andrew, Natividad GALLARDO SAN SALVADOR and Yves GAMBIER (eds.): Translation in Context. Selected papers from the EST Congress, Granada 1998. 2000. 40. ENGLUND DIMITROVA, Birgitta and Kenneth HYLTENSTAM (eds.): Language Processing and Simultaneous Interpreting. Interdisciplinary perspectives. 2000. 41. NIDA, Eugene A.: Contexts in Translating. n.y.p.