Cover not available
Article published In:
Text and Context Revisited Within a Multimodal Framework
Edited by Yves Gambier and Olli Philippe Lautenbacher
[Babel 70:1/2] 2024
► pp. 17–39

Translation as de- and reconstructing synsemiotic relationships

Contextual dimensions of opera libretto translation

| Leopold-Franzens University of Innsbruck
In order to describe the nature of opera as a polysemiotic artifact and to address the challenges around its transfer, reference is often made to the concept of “context,” which, however, is usually used rather casually and intuitively and is rarely defined precisely. Building on the theory of synsemioticity, a somewhat tighter analytical grid will be presented that allows the extension of context to become clearer. This is achieved in two ways: first, the status of nonverbal in the polysemiotic artifact is addressed, which, referring to Catford, must be defined as co-text rather than as context. Second, it will be shown on which semiotic levels contextuality can be described. The examples given here are taken from the opera Orfeo ed Euridice (1762) by Christoph Willibald Gluck and from some of the translations in German and French based on this work.
Keywords: libretto translation, context, polysemiotic communication, semiotics, Christoph Willibald Gluck, Orfeo ed Euridice
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Context – co-text – text and polysemioticity
  • 3.Synsemioticity
    • 3.1Symphysis
    • 3.2Syntactics
    • 3.3Synsemanticity
    • 3.4Sympractice
    • 3.5Recontextualization
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00371.agn
References (53)
References
Primary sources
Orfeo – Gluck, Christoph Willibald / Calzabigi, Raniero de’ ([1762] 1963): Orfeo ed Euridice. Vienna version of 1762. Ed. by Anna Amalie Abert und Ludwig Finscher. Kassel / Basel: Bärenreiter.Google Scholar
Orfeo_de_HA – Singable German translation of Orfeo by Hermann Abert (1914). Gluck, Christoph Willibald / Calzabigi, Raniero de’ (UA [1762] 1914): Orfeo ed Euridice . Ed. by Hermann Abert. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
Orfeo_de_HS – Singable German translation of Orfeo by Hans Swarowsky, printed below the original text in Orfeo. The translation was already published in 1962 in a piano reduction by Bärenreiter.
Orphée – Gluck, Christoph Willibald / Calzabigi, Raniero de’ (UA [1774] 1967): Orphée et Euridice. Paris version of 1774. Translation by Pierre-Louis Moline. Ed. by Ludwig Finscher. Kassel / Basel: Bärenreiter [= BA 2282].Google Scholar
Orphée_de_HS – Singable German translation of Orphée by Hans Swarowsky (1967), printed below the original text in Orphée .Google Scholar
Secondary sources
Agnetta, Marco. 2019. Ästhetische Polysemiotizität und Translation. Glucks Orfeo ed Euridice (1762) im interkulturellen Transfer. Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2022. “On Syntactic Shifts in the Translation of Music-Bound Texts, Illustrated by the Example of Recitative Translation.” In Dimensions of Human Translation, edited by Larisa Cercel, Marco Agnetta, and Tinka Reichmann, 185–226. Bucarest: Zeta books.Google Scholar
Anheisser, Siegfried. 1938. Für den deutschen Mozart. Das Ringen um die gültige deutsche Sprachform der italienischen Opern Mozarts. Emsdetten i. Westf.: Verlagsanstalt Lechte.Google Scholar
Apter, Ronnie, Mark Herman. 2016. Translating for Singing: The Theory and Craft of Translating Lyrics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Béhar, Pierre, Rainer Schmusch, and Herbert Schneider. 2006. “Librettoübersetzung und Kulturtransfer – ein Forschungsprojekt.” In 50 Jahre Musikwissenschaftliches Institut der Universität des Saarlandes, edited by Herbert Schneider and Rainer Schmusch, 27–35. Saarbrücken: Musikwissenschaftliches Institut.Google Scholar
Berlioz, Hector. (1862) 1877. À travers chants. Musikalische Studien, Huldigungen, Einfälle und Kritiken, translated by Richard Pohl. Leipzig: Leuckart.Google Scholar
Brecher, Gustav. 1911. Oper-Uebersetzungen. Leipzig: Otto Junne.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. (1934) 1982. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. (1965) 1978. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. (1916) 2013. Cours de linguistique générale. In Ferdinand de Saussure: Cours de linguistique générale. Zweisprachige Ausgabe französisch-deutsch mit Einleitung, Anmerkungen und Kommentar, edited by Wunderli, Peter, 60–440. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.Google Scholar
Drinker, Henry S. 1950. “On Translating Vocal Texts.” The Musical Quarterly 36 (1–2): 225–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dürr, Walther. 2004. “Wort und Musik: Liedtexte und Libretti als Übersetzungsphänomen.” In Translation: An International Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, edited by Harald Kittel et al., 1036–1047. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eckkrammer, Eva Martha, and Gudrun Held, eds. 2006. Textsemiotik. Studien zu multimodalen Texten. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Franzon, Johan. 2008. “Choices in Song Translation: Singability in Print, Subtitles and Sung Performance.” In Translation and Music, edited by Şebnem Susam-Sarajeva, 373–399. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Franzon, Johan, Annjo K. Greenall, Sigmund Kvam, and Anastasia Parianou. 2021. “Preface / Vorwort.” In Song Translation: Lyrics in Contexts, edited by Johan Franzon, Annjo K. Greenall, Sigmund Kvam, and Anastasia Parianou, 9–12. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves, and Henrik Gottlieb, eds. 2001. (Multi) Media Translation. Concepts, Practices, and Research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geiringer, Karl. 1987. “Hector Berlioz und Glucks Wiener Opern.” In Kongressbericht Gluck in Wien. Wien 12.–16.11.1987, edited by Gerhard Croll and Monika Woitas, 166–170. Kassel: Basel: Bärenreiter.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Henrik. 1997. “Quality Revisited: The Rendering of English Idioms in Danish Television Subtitles vs. Printed Translations.” In Text Typology and Translation, edited by Anna Trosborg, 309–338. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenall, Annjo, and Løfaldli, Eli. 2019. “Translation and Adaptation as Recontextualization: The Case of The Snowman .” Adaptation 12 (3): 240–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenall, Annjo K., Johan Franzon, Sigmund Kvam, and Anastasia Parianou. 2021. “Making a Case for a Descriptive-Explanatory Approach to Song Translation Research: Concepts, Trends and Models.” In Song Translation: Lyrics in Contexts, edited by Johan Franzon, Annjo K. Greenall, Sigmund Kvam, and Anastasia Parianou, 13–48. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Heinzelmann, Josef. 2004. “L’avis du praticien de la traduction de livrets: étude critique du travail de traducteur.” In La traduction des livrets. Aspects théoriques, historiques et pragmatiques, edited by Marschall, Gottfried, 467–478. Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne.Google Scholar
Hennecke, Angelika. 2015. “Multimodale Texte und ihre Bedeutung für die Übersetzungspraxis.” trans-kom 8 (1): 202–232.Google Scholar
Honolka, Kurt. 1978. Opernübersetzungen. Zur Geschichte und Kritik der Verdeutschung musiktheatralischer Texte. Wilhelmshaven: Heinrichshofen.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2006. “Text and Context in Translation.” Journal of Pragmatics 381: 336–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howard, Patricia. 1981. C. W. von Gluck. Orfeo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jewitt, Carey, ed. 2009. The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaindl, Klaus. 1990. “Sangbare Sprache. Die Wonne der Vokale, die Patina der Konsonanten.” In Ü wie Übersetzen. Zeitschrift der österreichischen Übersetzergemeinschaft I (3–4): 41–52.Google Scholar
. 1995. Die Oper als Textgestalt. Perspektiven einer Interdisziplinären Übersetzungswissenschaft. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Klaper, Michael. 2008. “Die Wahrnehmung und Beurteilung des Phänomens Oper in Frankreich bis zu Mazarins Tod (1661).” Musica e storia 161” 295–340.Google Scholar
Kloepfer, Rolf. 1986. “Mimesis und Sympraxis: Zeichengelenktes Mitmachen im erzählerischen Werbespot.” In Narrativität in den Medien, edited by K. Rolf Kloepfer, Karl-Dietmar Möller-Nass, 141–181. Münster: MAKS-Publikationen.Google Scholar
Leopold, Silke. 2006. Die Oper im 17. Jahrhundert. Laaber: Laaber-Verlag.Google Scholar
Low, Peter. 2002. “Surtitles for Opera. A Specialized Translating Task.” Babel: International Journal of Translation 48 (2): 97–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Singable translations of songs.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 11 (2): 87–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “The Pentathlon Approach to Translating Songs.” In Song and significance: Virtues and vices of vocal translation, edited by Dinda Gorlée, 185–212. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maser, Siegfried. 1977. „Arten der Superzeichenbildung“. In: POSNER, Roland / REINECKE, Hans-Peter [Hrsg.] (1977): Zeichenprozesse. Semiotische Forschung in den Einzelwissenschaften, edited by Roland Posner and Hans-Peter Reinecke, 83–106. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Mayoral, Roberto, Dorothy Kelly, and Natividad Gallardo. 1988. “Concept of Constrained Translation. Non-Linguistic Perspectives of Translation.” Meta: Translators’ Journal 33 (3): 356–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morris, Charles W. 1946. Signs, Language and Behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orero, Pilar, and Anna Matamala. 2007. “Accessible Opera: Overcoming Linguistic and Sensorial Barriers.” Perspectives. Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 15 (4): 262–277. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poyatos, Fernando, ed. 1997. Nonverbal Communication and Translation. New Perspectives and Challenges in Literature, Interpretation and the Media. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosendorfer, Herbert. 1962. “Wer hilft dem Ritter Gluck? Über die ‚Bearbeitungen‘ der Oper ‚Orpheus‘.” Neue Zeitschrift für Musik 1231: 449–451.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Sigmund. 1915. “Translating to Music.” The Musical Quarterly 1–21: 291–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spillner, Bernd. 1980. “Semiotische Aspekte der Übersetzung von Comic-Texten.” In Semiotik und Übersetzen, edited by Wolfram Wilss, 73–85. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Sternfeld, Frederick William. 1966. “Expression and Revision in Gluck’s ‘Orfeo’ and ‘Alceste’.” In Essays presented to Egon Wellesz, edited by Jack Westrup, 114–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thur, Reinhold. 1990. “Modest Mussorgskijs ‘Boris Godunow’ in deutschen Übersetzungen: ein Beitrag zur Frage der Übersetzungen fremdsprachiger Opernlibretti.” Ph.D. diss, University of Vienna.
Ulm, Renate. 1991. Glucks Orpheus-Opern. Die Parma-Fassung von 1769 als wichtiges Bindeglied zwischen dem Wiener Orfeo von 1762 und dem Pariser Orphée von 1774. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wagner, Richard. (1852) 2008. Oper und Drama. Stuttgart: Reclam.Google Scholar
Zopff, Hermann. 1868. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Oper. […]. Bd. I: Die Production. Leipzig: Arnoldische Buchhandlung.Google Scholar