The author approaches the subject of translating for theatre both as a theatre practitioner and professional translator working in three languages. Translation is generally regarded as process of linguistic transfer from one language to another language in written form. Theatrical texts are an unique literary form because their written form is a base, anchor and springboard for the text in performance. Until recently, translation studies have tended to oscillate between lofty pronouncements which remain too general to be easily applicable to the practical task of translating and close textual analysis which may appear fastidious and overly specific. The art of translation has often wanted to call itself a science, thereby ostensibly increasing its credibility. However nowhere more in the context of theatre can it be justifiably called an art, with all that entails in terms of subjectivity, cultural bias and transitory or timeless validity. There is no such thing as a perfect translation. Translation is a process of endless learning. Several translation theorists have offered broad categorisations or lengthy rationalised lists to help define the parameters of this most tangible practice. No such lists exist which addressed the specific criteria of translation for theatre. Through personal experience and critical reflection, this thesis will offer the beginning of a blueprint which may be useful for translators working in this field / Master of Arts (Hons)(Performance)

This study analyses five British translations of Bertolt Brecht's 'Mutter Courage und ihre Kinder'. Two of these translations were written by speakers of German, and three by well-known British playwrights with no knowledge of the source text language. Four have been produced in mainstream British theatres in the past twenty-five years. The study applies translation studies methodology to a textual analysis which focuses on the translation of techniques of linguistic "Verfremdung", as well as linguistic expression of the comedy and of the political dimension in the work. It thus closes the gap in current Brecht research in examining the importance of his idiosyncratic use of language to the translation and reception of his work in the UK. The study assesses the ways in which the translator and director are influenced by Brecht's legacy in the UK and in turn, what image of Brecht they mediate through the production on stage. To this end, the study throws light on the formation of Brecht's problematic reputation in the UK, and it also highlights the social and political circumstances in early twentieth century Germany which prompted Brecht to develop his theory of an epic theatre. The focus on a linguistic examination allows the translator's contribution to the production process to be isolated. Together with an investigation of the reception of each performance text, this in turn facilitates a more accurate assessment of the translator and director's respective influence in the process of transforming a foreign-language text onto a local stage. The analysis also sheds light on the different approaches taken by speakers of German, and playwrights creating an English version from a literal translation. It pinpoints losses in translation and adaptation, and suggests how future versions may avoid these.