linguistic mediation ”
(
Sprachmittlung ) became the wider object of study (see Kade 1980), rising above a
narrow conception of translation, and Kade coined the neologism
Translation , in German , to cover both written translation and oral interpreting. The work in Leipzig
was also important for the re-definition of “translation shifts,” since the research by
Kade and Neubert increasingly focused on text-level relations. One should also admit
that the school’s relation with official Marxist ideology sometimes went beyond mere
lip-service. When
Kade approached linguistic mediation as a social phenomenon, he
sought the causes of translation problems not in the mysteries of language but in the
“non-corresponding” development of two historical societies. The systemic thought is
clear, wide-ranging and important, as indeed it is in Marx. The main work of Leipzig,
however, was on non-literary translation at text level, without major investigation of
social systems. As such, it did not become an integral part of the way the descriptive
paradigm developed (the early paradigm tended to be literary and systemic). It instead
fed into the development of the equivalence paradigm, which is where we have noted
Kade’s work on types of equivalence; it had a terminological influence on general
purpose-based approaches, which adopted the German term
Translation , as well as the
general penchant for re-naming things; some of its terms and basic text-functional
insights helped fuel the development of
Skopos theory; and Kade had his word to say in
the development of Interpreting Studies (see Pöchhacker 2004: 34-35). That said, the
Leipzig School’s impetus and identity did not live far beyond the fall of the Berlin Wall
in 1989, at least not within Germany.
Albrecht Neuber t has helped to foster text-
linguistic approaches in the United States, largely thanks to an exchange program
between Leipzig and Kent State, and