Topics

Dealing with historiographical issues we are proposing the following topics as a basis for discussion:

Taking a transcultural angle: Most of current historiography on translation and interpreting still follows in the footsteps of its theological, literary and linguistic forerunners, and has thus most often a dichotomic structure (taking a bicultural or even binational angle). Even though translational phenomena usually also carry traces of national attributions, opening up to a genuinely transcultural view seems to be a pressing prerequisite for transcending limits and gaining new insights.
Finding proper sources: The performance of translation and interpreting historiography depends on sound information sources and their critical assessment (quality, relevance, reliability, trustworthyness, etc.). What sources do we have? What’s their actual potential (evaluation)? What limits do we face? Some sources can, for example, only be accessed through taking a detour: Just think of searching bibliographical data bases for translations. Others often remain inaccessible at all: A translator’s Nachlass can, from our point of view, be considered quite valuable, but it is usually all too rarely preserved in public or private archives.
Choosing relevant ‚objects‘: agents (translators, interpreters, clients, publishers, etc.), media, texts and paratexts (translations, correspondence, work contracts, registration files, memoirs, news items, etc.), capital (remunerations), work place (equipment), networks, actions, events, processes … What is missing in contemporary historiography on translation and interpreting phenomena? What aspects have been disregarded so far and should be brought to light? Moreover: What will still remain in the dark?
Matching established methods: In most academic disciplines, historiographic methodology has developed in stages, and slowly over time – resources, opportunities, trends, restrictions, setbacks, shifts … Is it an advantage if you can start completely from scratch and develop your own methodology? Or can translation and interpreting historiography just skip the other disciplines’ developmental processes and serve itself from their banquets (state-of-the-art insights and approaches). What do we actually need for a history of translation and interpreting? Prosopographical data? Sociological assessment? Statistical evaluation? What types of storying or which forms of analysis seem to be most promising for new insights (comparison?, connection?, entanglement?, transfer?, etc.)? Which other disciplines offer valuable approaches (litterature and cultural studies?, history?, philosophy?, sociology?, etc.)? Histoire croisée, actor-network-theory, field-theory conceptualizations, reception-focused research, etc.?
Putting it all together: We already have a plethora of anecdotal bits and pieces (individual stories) – but how do we synthesize them (with their depicted actions, events and processes) into a larger context (useful categorizations?, periodizations?, typologies?), into a common picture (connectedness, coherency, cohesion), into a history of translation and interpreting phenomena?