Germania; Vierteljahrsschrift für deutsche alterthumskunde ...

Editors: 1856-68, F. Pfeiffer.--1869-87, K. Bartsch.--1888-92, O. Behaghel.

The origin of the German carnival comedy,

"Presented in substance at the March, 1919, meeting of the Johns Hopkins philological association and ... afterwards published in the Journal of English and Germanic philology. [XVIII, (1919) 402-454]"

Handbuch zur bücherkunde für lehre und studium der beiden alten klassischen und deutschen sprache.

Mode of access: Internet.

Kleinere schriften

Each volume has also special t.-p.

Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie.

Title from volume title page.

Jahresbericht über die Erscheinungen auf dem Gebiete der germanischen Philologie

"Hrsg. von der Gesellschaft für deutsche philologie in Berlin."

Études germaniques.

Mode of access: Internet.

Translating Nietzsche, mediating literature: Alexander Tille and the limits of Anglo-German intercultural transfer

Dr. Alexander Tille (1866–1912) was one of the key-figures in Anglo-German intercultural transfer towards the end of the 19th century. As a lecturer in German at Glasgow University he was the first to translate and edit Nietzsche’s work into English. Writers such as W. B. Yeats were influenced by Nietzsche and used Tille’s translations. Tille’s social Darwinist reading of the philosopher’s oeuvre, however, had a narrowing impact on the reception of Nietzsche in the Anglo-Saxon world for decades. Through numerous publications Tille disseminated knowledge about British authors (e.g., Robert Louis Stevenson, William Wordsworth) in Germany and about German authors (e.g., Johann Wolfgang von Goethe) in Britain. His role as mediator also extended into areas such as history, religion, and industry. During the Boer war, however, Tille’s outspoken pro-German nationalism brought him in conflict with his British host society. After being physically attacked by his students he returned to Germany and published a highly anglophobic monograph. Tille personifies the paradox of Anglo-German relations in the pre-war years, which deteriorated despite an increase in intercultural transfer and knowledge about the respective Other. [From the Author]

Contrastive terminology: semitic, anglo-germanic and latin concept building through complex terms. (avoiding one-way method procedures in translation

This paper aims to present a contrastive approach between three different ways of building concepts after proving the similar syntactic possibilities that coexist in terms. However, from the semantic point of view we can see that each language family has a different distribution in meaning. But the most important point we try to show is that the differences found in the psychological process when communicating concepts should guide the translator and the terminologist in the target text production and the terminology planning process. Differences between languages in the information transmission process are due to the different roles the different types of knowledge play. We distinguish here the analytic-descriptive knowledge and the analogical knowledge among others. We also state that none of them is the best when determining the correctness of a term, but there has to be adequacy criteria in the selection process. This concept building or term building success is important when looking at the linguistic map of the information society.

Borrowing and shift-induced interference: contrasting patterns in French-Germanic contact in Brussels and Strasbourg

The main aim of the present article is to test hypotheses derived from the model for contact- induced language change as formulated in Thomason and Kaufman (1988 et seq.). As the model correctly predicts the asymmetries between the mutual influences of the Germanic and the Romance varieties in Brussels and Strasbourg it is a very powerful tool for describing the contact patterns in these cities. The analysis shows that the contact patterns are very similar, both from a quantitative and from a qualitative point of view, despite important differences in the sociolinguistic situation of both cities. The striking similarities in the outcome of language contact seem to find a plausible explanation in the fact that the language contact situations in both cities are similar from a typological point of view: in each city a variety of French is in contact with a Germanic variety (Alsatian and Brussels Dutch). Thus, the claim of the present article is that the structure of the languages plays a more prominent role in the outcome of language contact than the sociolinguistic history of the speakers.