Masarykova univerzita v Brně Filozofická fakulta

Katedra anglistiky a amerikanistiky

Magisterská diplomová práce

2006 Jiří Goláň

Masaryk University in Brno Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Jiří Goláň

Swearwords in translation M.A. Major Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Simona Mazáčová

2006

2

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

…………………………………………….. Author’s signature

3

I would like to thank my supervisor for her careful guidance.

4

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Why swearwords?................................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 The thesis ................................................................................................................................................. 8

2 THEORY............................................................................................................ 11

2.1 What is “expressive” and its relation to swearwords......................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Basics of expressivity......................................................................................................................... 11 2.1.2 Kinds of expressivity.......................................................................................................................... 14 2.1.3 Expressivity in practical use............................................................................................................... 16 2.1.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 17

2.2 The concept of equivalence .................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.1 The way to Nida’s concept................................................................................................................. 18 2.2.2 E. A. Nida in critical view.................................................................................................................. 21 2.2.3 Germany and Wolfram Wills ............................................................................................................. 25 2.2.4 Jiří Levý ............................................................................................................................................. 25

2.3 Nida’s equivalence in detail.................................................................................................................. 27 2.3.1 Requirements on the translator........................................................................................................... 27 2.3.2 Principles of dynamic equivalence..................................................................................................... 28 2.3.3 Formal equivalence and the clashes with dynamic equivalence ........................................................ 32 2.3.4 Translation in theory and practice ...................................................................................................... 33

3 ANALYSIS......................................................................................................... 35

3.1 Trainspotting......................................................................................................................................... 37 3.1.1 General literary analysis..................................................................................................................... 37 3.1.2 Translation analysis............................................................................................................................ 38 3.1.3 Analysis of specific cases................................................................................................................... 41 3.1.4 The result ........................................................................................................................................... 53

3.2 Glue ........................................................................................................................................................ 53 3.2.1 General literary and translation analysis ............................................................................................ 53 3.2.2 Analysis of specific cases................................................................................................................... 54 3.2.3 The result ........................................................................................................................................... 61

3.3 Fever Pitch............................................................................................................................................. 61 3.3.1 General literary analysis..................................................................................................................... 61 3.3.2 Analysis of specific cases................................................................................................................... 61 3.3.3 The result ........................................................................................................................................... 64

4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................... 65

5 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 66

5.1 Primary works....................................................................................................................................... 66

5.2 Secondary sources................................................................................................................................. 66

5

1 Introduction

1.1 Why swearwords?

There are two major reasons that motivated the researcher to take interest in this

particular area of language use. The first is the increasing usage of explicit language in works

of art, media content and communication in general. The second is the lack of theoretical

works covering this area.

My interest in this kind of research is motivated by the rise of explicit language and its

shifting towards still younger age groups. Everyone who does not live in separation from

society can observe that politeness in common communication is on the decline. In regular

everyday communication, people tend to use words that were considered harsh and vulgar

fifty years ago. This tendency can exactly as well be observed from another point of view:

that the speakers use less of their polite vocabulary, but are aware of its existence and can use

it if needed. Regardless of whether the speakers use less of their polite style or more of their

colloquial and vulgar style, the practical result (i.e. the withdrawal of polite communication)

is the same for both of these views

One of the areas where explicit vocabulary gains prominence is the slang of the young.

Teenagers use a specific slang containing vulgar vocabulary to support their social position

among their peers. This is observed especially among male teenagers involved in

neighbourhood groups and gangs. What kind of vocabulary the teenager uses is usually

determined by the group norm. Members of a neighbourhood gang – regardless of their

individual intelligence and usual language register – tend to switch to a special mode of

behaviour and expression when they interact with their peers in the gang. This, of course,

does not alter their individual abilities of using standard language outside the gang.

6

The language of the young is gradually becoming more and more vulgar. Whereas the

children of the 1970s and 1980s were hardly calling each other “vole” in their teens, the

teenagers of today use far worse expressions without a blink. In addition the vulgar

vocabulary moves into the younger age groups. Anyone who is not completely deaf to his

environment must have noticed that pre-teen children now use staggering vulgarities that were

formerly used only by adults or teenage gang-members. Simply, this area of language

gradually gains importance for the translators, because it will increasingly penetrate the works

they translate. In the case of literature about the young, the translation of vulgarities poses

even a greater difficulty, because the gradual shift of expressive language usage and

expressive creativity towards younger age groups increases the distance between the

translators and the language they should make use of in translation.

The second reason for me to choose this topic is the desperate lack of material in this

area of language use. There are many works on dialects of the Czech language. There are

even works about youth cultures and subcultures, there are works about jargon and slang, but

there are virtually no works concerning the way the young generation talks and how they

employ slang to establish themselves among their peers. In addition, when we narrow the

search down to literature that could contribute to the debate on the field of translation from

English to Czech, the result gets very close to nothing. Of course there are many monolingual

slang dictionaries in English as well as in Czech. There are even bilingual dictionaries that a

translator can very well make use of, but the theoretical body of literature concerning

translating slang and vulgar expressions seems to be lacking.

To sum it up, language evolves and in my opinion it evolves very fast. What is

considered expressive or even vulgar today, can become the standard of tomorrow. Of course,

this proposal does not presume massive use of vulgarisms in the “higher” registers of the

language, but a loosening of standard Czech among the “ordinary folk” can be presumed with

7

a fair chance of future fulfilment. Therefore I think that translators who come across

vulgarisms and expressive language in their work shall dedicate as much attention to the

development of this language area so as to keep the language of their translations authentic for

their readership and the analytical part of this work shall throw more light on whether they do

or do not.

1.2 The thesis

This work is based on several ideas concerning the world of language and translation.

The first of them is the undisputable fact that translators are humans and the quality of their

translations is varied.

The second idea is hidden in a question - what leads the reader or the critic to

downgrade the translation as a bad one? Misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the

original should not practically occur in contemporary translation, because the resources the

translator can make use of are plentiful – from using dictionaries to consulting the author via

e-mail. Should these occur after all, they are usually not of such extent as to degrade the

translation as a whole. The answer to the initial question is that the kind of factor that can

degrade a translation as a whole is the inappropriate use of the target language. As Peter

Newmark writes – a good translator has to make sure that his translation “reads naturally, ... is

written in ordinary language, the common grammar, idioms and words...”(Newmark

2004:24). As Newmark says a translation is good when it does not sound like a translation.

The third idea is the concept of equivalence in translation. This concept, especially the

dynamic equivalence (the equivalence of effect), is most appealing in the works of E. A. Nida

and therefore it will be dealt with extensively later in this work. With the help of equivalence

supporters I will try to advocate the preservation of the original impact in translations of prose

works about the young.

8

When translating works about such a specific environment as a neighbourhood gang,

there is often very much that can disappear in the translation process. Given the harsh nature

of a neighbourhood gang, language together with the fist is the mightiest tool a teenager can

use to establish his position:

...physical superiority can be accompanied or substituted with strong expressive

utterances or the use of slang denominations... ...A better position in the group is

gained by those with an interesting way of expression – by good storytellers and

entertainers. (translated from Krčmová, 2004:1)

The works I chose to analyze tend, at least in my opinion, to describe the interesting

environment of the gang “as is”, with all its harsh attributes. In order to transmit the genuine

experience of the gang to the reader they seem to shape the dialogs to match their real-life

models.

The translator then finds himself in a difficult position when he should not destroy the

experience by smoothing the dialogs over, which can happen easily, especially when

translators are mostly educated people. They come under a different age group than the

characters they translate and they use completely different modes of behaviour and expression

from those displayed in the books.

All three above ideas combine to form my analytical approach. In the analytical part of

this work I will try to track the expressive material in chosen prose works and even more in

their corresponding translations and I will try to judge the degree of naturalness and the

degree of equivalence. The chosen works are Trainspotting and Glue by Irvine Welsh and

Fever Pitch by Nick Hornby. The hypothetical presumption that I intend to test in the

analytical part of this work is that the quality of the translations with respect to their

9

equivalence of effect and with regard to the authenticity of their explicit language will be

lowered.

10

2 Theory

2.1 What is “expressive” and its relation to swearwords

2.1.1 Basics of expressivity

An inseparable part of a work concerning slang, vulgar language and stylistic devices

connected with these should be a closer look on its parent category – expressivity. A great

help in the area of expressivity is an article called Expresivita a překlad umělecké prózy by

Oldřich Uličný. Although it dates back into the year 1988 and is concerned mainly with

translation from Russian, the basic principles still seem to be valid in 2006 and can be very

well applied to English. It supplies us with thorough definition of expressivity, its sub-

categories and attributes.

Uličný, when writing this article, experienced the same difficulties in obtaining

resources as I am experiencing now. He writes that although there is a vast body of theoretical

literature on translation and translating, works about expressivity are scarce:

A monography that would systematically describe the expressivity of language means

in all the layers and units of language, in the text and in relation to reality, with regards

to various functional styles or style formations as the case may be is missing.

(translated from Uličný 1988:329)

The lack of a single publication covering expressivity of language in different stylistic

contexts can indeed still be felt today.

11

His definitions of expressivity follow. The expression of oneself can take – as Uličný

puts it – various forms and ways. Expression can be achieved by behaviour, by the way a

person dresses, by gestures and what is interesting for the cause of this work – in verbal

communication. In his opinion, every language hosts a subsystem of conspicuous language

devices and rules by which one can shape non-expressive utterances into expressive ones.

Just like almost every scientific theory or concept, expressivity too has a wide range of

interpretations and definitions. Uličný quotes Zíma’s constitutive attributes of expressivity.

The first of them is personal interest of the speaker on what is being communicated. The

second is markedness of the utterance in the system of language. This then divides into formal

and semantic markedness for inherent expressivity and semantic-only markedness for

adherent expressivity (the various kinds of expressivity will be explained below). The third

attribute is emotionality and volitional effort.

There are other views of expressivity by Czech and Slovak linguists. Uličný mentions

Mistrík who regards expressivity as a personally motivated bias of a language tool which

comes to work in emotionally tense communication. Right below we find Miko’s opinion

who puts expressivity into his system of expressional categories as a part of subjectivity – he

sees it as an amplification of the subjective aspect in communication.

Uličný concludes that these contributions make it obvious that the notion of

expressivity has been ever evolving. However, he seems to disagree with certain aspects of

the definitions and I have to agree with him.

His argumentation is – in my opinion – based on sane logic. He argues against the

volitional basis of expressivity by stating that we can only scarcely find expressive

connotation of such semantic features as orderliness, endurance, courage, self-discipline and

the like which are volitional personal qualities. The only volitional quality that we use –

although not always – in the process of creating an expressive text is purposefulness aimed on

12

language and text, that is the intention to use expressive devices. Uličný sees the dependence

of this quality on the circumstances of the communicative act as his main reason for not

considering it a constitutive element of expressivity.

In addition, in his very right opinion, there are communicative situations where wilful

expressivity is out of question. In some contexts people are expressive without knowing it.

Sometimes the speaker does not have the intention to be expressive, but due to his regional

dialect or his personal idiolect he is. In that case the receiver of the message perceives the

utterance as expressive, but can not decipher whether this is or is not an intention.

Uličný has shown that the volitional effort then is not a constitutive factor of

expressivity. What about the other two, constitutive factors? The first of them is based on

conspicuousness (and/or contrast) of the word or construction. This presumes that the

expressive word or construction has to be differentiable from the other, non-expressive, parts

of the text or utterance – that it should visibly deviate from the language norm or custom.

Under these contrast based expressive words and collocations we find swear words and

vulgarisms which are the main focus of this work. Uličný uses the example of abbreviations

which are not expressive in themselves, but when used too much in a text they become

expressive. They signal the subjective interest of the speaker which is the second constitutive

factor of expressivity. Terminology is a similar case:

However conspicuous in the system of language, subsystems of terminology are not

inherently expressive, because they do not have connotations to subject. A term can

become an expressive element only from the point of view of textual expressivity –

that is, as soon as it is used in a text with the intention to connote some of the

attributes or intentions of the subject. (translated from Uličný 1988:336)

13

In short, certain lexical units not expressive in themselves (inherently) can become

expressive devices when used in a text to connotate intentions of a subject.

Uličný comes to widen the argumentation of his colleagues by synonymy. He argues

that when contrast or conspicuousness is needed to evoke expressivity, there has to be

something that allows for this contrast to exist. He includes synonymy into the scheme by

saying that expressivity of a language device when based on (at least potential) comparison

with a parallel less conspicuous or even neutral device or text implies that synonymy is an

important identifying feature of expressivity. This should, in his opinion, be valid even with

inherent expressivity.

2.1.2 Kinds of expressivity

Expresivity

Systemic Textual Denotative

Inherent Adherent

1. Uličný’s categories of expressivity

Expressivity can be categorized in various ways. The two key concepts are the

inherent and adherent expressivity. When used about a lexical unit, inherently expressive

means that the unit is expressive in itself. That is, it is a somehow marked word, for example

a vulgar one. “Adherently expressive” means that the unit is not expressive in itself, but only

when used in a conspicuous way, for example in an unusual context or unusual quantity. The

concept of denotative expressivity is based on the notion of markedness of the denoted object.

This means that words denoting objects that are considered vulgar or taboo (e.g. sexual

14

organs) are denotatively expressive. Uličný’s classification of kinds of expressivity is based

on Zíma’s model and broadened by the concept of denotative expressivity. Zima’s inherent

expressivity comes here under systemic expressivity and his contextual expressivity under

textual. His adherent expressivity is lexicalized and semantically bound, thus it comes under

systemic, but it comes into play only in a text and so is put under textual as well.

As Uličný puts it, it is also very useful to distinguish between an expressive language

device and his expressive use. We can identify the expressivity of a language device by its

conspicuous form (inherent expressivity) or conspicuous meaning (denotative expressivity).

We can identify the expressive use of a language device by its conspicuous meaning (adherent

expressivity) or by discrepancy in style (textual expressivity).

Below we find that expressivity of a language device depends on it use. In its root

style the otherwise conspicuous device looks neutral. Only as a result of a functional shift into

different communicational environment the expressivity of that device comes to be visible.

This is a disturbing thought, but Uličný explains below that as a result a whole stylistic layer

then becomes expressive in comparison to neutral layers. He demonstrates the rising

expressivity on various functional stylistic layers. Expressivity can not exist in academic

style, because of the aim of communication. The expressivity of marked words is neutralized

when they become the objects of scientific research. He mentions the word “hnůj” as an

example. In a technical text about agriculture it works completely different than in a linguistic

essay about taboo expressions. Expressivity rises up in journalistic style and even more in

colloquial style. In artistic style it becomes a tool of the artist’s intention.

To summarize what has been said above, what is expressivity then? Expressivity is a

concept that represents the differentiability of a language device and its use from other neutral

language devices and neutral use. This can be applied to whole texts and their parts, i.e. that

expressivity is basically is the differentiability of the text from other neutral texts. This

15

markedness of language devices and texts is a result of the subjectivity of the author and his

use of language devices when building a text. It is the projection of one’s subjective self into

the realm of language. The intention of the author doesn’t always match the impact on the

receiver and thus the intention of the author to use expressive devices in order to create an

impact on the receiver is not always visible to the receiver.

Together with Uličný, we can label as expressive those marked language devices and

texts that “connote semantic qualities of emotions, emotionally biased evaluations; aesthetic,

intensifying, associative, evocative and figurative attributes”. (translated from Uličný

1988:339) On the other hand, expressivity can be also carried by language devices connoting

the dialectal origin of the speaker, social status, education, age, sex, etc.

Expressivity is an important attribute, because it is the main quality by which we can

distinguish those constructions that we are planning to analyze later on with respect to

translation. In fact we will not be looking solely for swearwords. We will try to examine

many of those different kinds of words and constructions which have one thing in common –

expressivity.

2.1.3 Expressivity in practical use

The artistic style is expressive in itself. Whatever the author produces, it is always

stylized in his own subjective way and by the definitions mentioned above subjective equals

expressive. The writer seeks expression, a presentation of his subject. He intends to create his

own genuine message while at the same time stylizing the language of his characters – again

with the use of his subjective artistic means.

Artistic style makes use of almost all language devices of the respective language

shaping them to suit the author’s intention. The authors are free to bind words in new

unexpected ways, they can combine various styles, registers and dialects. Uličný quotes

16

Filipec and Čermák, proclaiming that expressivity is most productive in the area of lexis and

phraseology.

He goes on to describe the contrasting of artistic style versus the neutral expression of

a given period. The written work of art can compare its style with the neutral written and

spoken language, style norms and the stylistic canon or the writing of a major author or a

powerful group of authors. He states that every innovation of the given canon can be

considered as expressive.

In translation, expressivity takes a very specific position. His next sentence is crucial

for this work and I will be returning to it later in the analysis – “The aim and the purpose of

translating prose is to translate mainly the connotations in such a way that the translation is

adequate to the original even in this respect.”(translated from Uličný 1988:340) Here we can

see a notion of equivalence or adequacy which will become prominent later in this work

where I will be discussing it from various points of view.

Concerning the practical use of expressivity evaluation in translation, Uličný

concludes that the comparison of expressivity of the original and the translation is an

important part of translation analysis. The quality of the translation can be determined by the

distribution of expressivity in the text. A translator, who is aware of the hierarchy of

relationships between the expressive devices used in the source and the target language, can

achieve a certain similarity of the expressivity distribution curves of the source text and his

translation. Certainly, some constructions in the source language have a higher degree of

expressivity and therefore should be translated with different construction in the target

language with the matching expressive potential.

2.1.4 Summary

Expressivity is an attribute of language that is constituted by conspicuousness, the

subjective intentions and bias of the language user and can be observed on a wide variety of

17

levels of language from a single lexical unit to whole books. It is also influenced by regional

origin, social status, sex, age, intelligence and language skills of the language user. This factor

is very useful when it comes to analysing the expression of teenage gang-members who use

their specific expressive constructions in speech.

2.2 The concept of equivalence

2.2.1 The way to Nida’s concept

In a way Nida’s concept originated from a crisis in the area of translation in the

Western world. The so called American translation workshop with its emphasis on practice

did very little to contribute to building of a theory of translation. As we read in Gentzler when

he cites Graham:

Much that has been written on the subject of translation yields very little when sifted

for theoretical substance because it has always been written as if spoken in the

workshop. The personal anecdotes and pieces of advice may well provide some help,

but certainly not the coherent and consistent theory required for translation. (Gentzler

1993:43)

Gentzler goes on in the sense that the lack of theory is not just a contemporary

problem in America, but one that troubles translation historically. People are used to translate

– usually giving the best of them, but they were never sure what is it they are doing, what

processes go on in their minds, how do they grasp the languages.

18

Clearly, a more systematic approach to translation was needed, and the discipline that

appeared to have the theoretical and linguistic tool necessary to address the problem

was linguistics. (Gentzler 1993:43)

This is then where linguistics enters the scene in the person of Noam Chomsky. He

developed a model called generative transformational grammar that is based on “underlying”

structures of language. The model presumes several levels in every language, the main of

them being the deep structure and surface structure. At the bottom of the model was the

“initial element” which he later abandoned. This is followed by the “base component” which

consists of two types of rewriting rules – the “phrase structure rules” and “lexical rules”. He

believes that these two types are universal and common to all languages.

The phrase structure rules generate the deep structure of a sentence, which, according

to Chomsky at the time of the writing of Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, contained all

the syntactic and semantic information that determine its meaning. Finally,

transformational rules modify the deep structure, resulting in the surface structures –

all the sentences in a given language. (Gentzler 1993:48)

Although the existence of the base component that is universal and common to all

languages could be doubted, the theory was given importance. His phrase structure rules

represent the internalized and unconscious workings of the human mind. The deep structure

determines the meaning underlying sentences and surface structure determines the sound. One

of Chomsky’s most important thoughts was that most of the linguistic knowledge is innate.

He claims that babies can have a large body of prior knowledge about the structure of

language in general, and need only actually learn the features of the language. Gentzler seems

19

to be a bit sceptical about these ideas when he mentions that many people have raised

objections concerning Chomsky’s assumptions about the human mind and its innate ability to

“know” language. Besides these suspect concepts of innateness, his theory can be criticized

from a different stance. Chomsky’s “empirical” evidence concerning the language structure is

based on an idealized form of communication, regarding errors, distractions, slips of the

tongue and other “normal” phenomena occurring in communication as irrelevant. He works

with an idealized speaker-listener, homogenous speech community and perfect language

knowledge. The translation practitioners see this as the greatest problem of the generative

transformational model. In their view, as Gentzler describes, the model is

overly idealistic...divorced from all the problems of translation – from contemporary

neologisms to archaisms, from proper nouns to metaphors, from high registers to

dialects and ‘mistakes’ and all those knotty problems that make translation both

impossible and fascinating. (Gentzler 1993:50)

There is no need to go any deeper into this model. What is important in the context of

this work is Chomsky’s idea of a deep-structure/surface-structure and the interactions between

them. The fact that Chomsky revolutionized the field of linguistics, is supported by another

fact that Chomsky is the eighth most often cited scholar in history (Wikipedia). Despite

criticism, the theory was adopted by translation scientists to support their aims, even though

Chomsky himself warned against such use of his work. Most important for us is that his work

produced theoretical grounds and thus inspired Eugene Albert Nida and others to create

models of their own, working with functional equivalence.

20

2.2.2 E. A. Nida in critical view

Previously to his famous Toward a Science of Translation Nida was writing for

missionaries, not translators. His field of study was biblical exegesis and his work was based

on religious presuppositions. Gentzler writes that although he was moving towards scientific

analysis in the communication of the Christian faith, his work had still strong theological

motivation. His major text of that time was the Message and Mission which can be considered

a pre-Chomsky version of Toward a Science of Translation.

The book’s general thesis was that biblical translators should not take communication

for granted, but should bring it about, employing all the resources of linguistics and

communication theory to aid their task. (Gentzler 1993:52)

Nida worked with large-scale field work that revealed that the religious message

sometimes could not be communicated because of the different cultures to which it was

presented. Nida, in my opinion quite rightly, came to the realization that meaning is received

under the influence of personal experience and world view of the receiver. He concluded –

and this is not so positive – that ideas must be modified in order to fit in with the experience

of the different culture.

Although I feel that the basic thought of an equivalent impact on the receiver is good, I

would not go as far as Nida. Changing the “idea” of a work in translation to produce an

equivalent impact on the readership of that translation is rather excessive. Translating in such

a way that the translation achieves effects equivalent to those of the original should not alter

or distort the original message. If we have to reach to modifications of the message they

should be as minimal as possible. Anyway, let us go back to Nida and return to the evaluation

of his ideas later.

21

As Gentzler writes, Nida showed a strong interest in the response of the person

receiving the communication. Nida’s goal was to bring about the appropriate response, that is

to convert the readers to Protestantism. Unlike Chomsky and many other structural linguists

he does not prefer the sign, but the response to that sign. “If his translation can solicit the

response God intends, then the translation is successful.”(Gentzler 1993:53) He considers

words and symbols to be only labels and the form of the message is thus unimportant.

The philosophy hidden behind this is again quite sane. In real life, it is usually more

important what one says and not how he says it, although there are situations when this

relation works better when turned vice-versa, but in translating literature it should be always

the message and the form in balance, because most of the prose works elaborate on a plot that

can be rewritten in a single paragraph (see book reviews) and it is the form which makes them

extensive and artistic works.

Nida’s next publication, Toward a Science of Translating (1964), has the theological

ideas edited out of it, but Gentzler voices his opinion that they are still prominent, although in

an implicit form. Whereas Chomsky was interested in the sign torn out of its cultural context,

Nida is primarily concerned with how the sign functions in any given society. Although Nida

and Chomsky seem to be worlds apart in their opinions, Nida’s pragmatics “are not

differentiated from Chomsky’s concept of deep structure; they merely add to it.”(ibid.) His

pragmatic aspect of meaning is fitted into the system at the base which hosts a core of

syntactic structures and a vague core of universal human experience. Nida believes that the

deep structure of the language, which consists of the sign in context, can be inferred in

prolonged study of the language and culture.

22

Nida builds his theory on the premise that the message of the original text not only can

be determined, but also that it can be translated so that its reception will be the same as

that perceived by the original receptors. (Gentzler 1993:54)

The theory prefers functional equivalence to the correspondence of the form. It prefers

dynamic equivalence to literal meaning. Simply it focuses on how language works and not on

what it communicates.

According to Nida, the translated text should produce a response in a reader today

essentially like the response of the original receptors. This in itself is a creditable thought. But

already the next one is more than suspect, because it says that if the translation does not

produce that equivalent response, the text should be changed in order to solicit that original

response. Nida does not really mind making changes in the the text, the words or the

metaphors as long as the target text functions in the same way as the source text.

Once the meaning is observed solely in terms of its function and the concept gets

abstract enough to take universal structural status, the use of Chomsky’s model is at hand.

With the support of Chomsky’s model, Nida can claim that he has moved from missionary

work to scientific analysis of translation. Nida, although he has different goals than Chomsky,

uses similar terminology and comes to similar conclusions about the nature of language. He

speaks about the same kernel structures and their transformations, but he is not as ready as

Chomsky to claim that the kernels are universal. He rather seems to attribute them with

supernatural status.

Gentzler claims that Nida’s theory exhibits significant differences from Chomsky’s

model and that the intentional differences only illustrate that Nida used Chomsky’s theory,

simplified it and misappropriated it so that it can be applied to translation.

23

Nida, although he used the model for his aims, works with a different methodology.

He prefers to:

...work backwards from the surface of the original text to its deep structure, transfer

that deep structure to the deep structure of the new language and then generate a

surface structure in the second language. (Gentzler 1993:56)

He simply works with decoding and recoding in which the original message never

changes. In his own words as cited by Gentzler:

It is both scientifically and practically more efficient (1) to reduce the source text to its

structurally simplest and most semantically evident kernels, (2) to transfer the meaning

from source language to receptor language on a structurally simple level, and (3) to

generate the stylistically and semantically equivalent expression in the receptor

language. (ibid.)

These are not Chomskian procedures and again reveal that Nida has largely

misappropriated Chomsky’s model.

Nida’s theory does presuppose that the translator is able to “feel” into the author and

recreate his speech and ways to the smallest detail. The translator should have a great

admiration for the author, the same background and the same amount of talent. This approach,

according to Gentzler, gets very close to total dependence on the original author’s intent.

Gentzler concludes that “what a work says and what the author intended it to say are two

different things” (Gentzler 1993:57).

24

To sum it up, Gentzler seems to be very critical about the “science of translation”.

Although he is right with most of his points, I suggest not to bury the theory so fast. As a

contrast to this critical voice, later we shall examine closer what Nida wrote himself and try to

find some points that should not be dismissed and could prove useful.

2.2.3 Germany and Wolfram Wills

Nida’s and Chomsky’s theory found its most detailed application in Germany at the

University of the Saarland in Saarbrücken. Wolfram Wills, although he does not admit, is

very close to Chomsky in his ideas. Translation in his model works because of the existence

of syntactic and semantic universals in the deep-structure. There are “universal forms as well

as a core of common experience” (Gentzler 1993:63). His science is thus, as Gentzler puts it,

a simple matter of creating syntactic, semantic, and reception equivalents. Wills performs his

“empirical” research on largely idealized material – he strips the sentences of their form,

reformulating the message in the most basic vocabulary and grammar. Only the effect is

designed to be the same as that of the original. His model is also based on a concept of a

universal language (including universal forms and a core of shared experience) and on the

existence of deep structure transfer and a generative component that can generate surface

structures. This model appears to be very similar to that of Chomsky and exhibits even almost

the same mistakes and idealizations.

2.2.4 Jiří Levý

When speaking about functional equivalence, one should not omit the contribution of

Jiří Levý in this area. He claims in his Umění překladu that the translator should translate the

aesthetic content of the work and not only the text, because the text is just a carrier for the

25

aesthetic content. He continues that the text itself depends on language in which the work is

stylized and many values thus have to be expressed with different means in the target

language (Czech).

Theorists like Nida and Chomsky explain translation on the grounds of vague

linguistic structures and the transfers that take place in them. Levý describes it in more

worldly terms as perception and new stylization in the target language.

I understand that perception and stylization are the key terms in his theory, because he

makes it the basis of his concept of equivalence. He himself compacts the whole concept into

one sentence:

The relation of a written work and its translation is like a relation of a work of art and

its rendering in another material. What shall remain constant is not the unity of content

and form, but its concretization in the mind of the perceiving person - put in a popular

way: the resulting impression, the effect of the work on the reader. (translated from

Levý 1963:79)

From this standpoint he divides translators into two groups – those who work word-

for-word (”faithful” translation) and those who want to reproduce the original (“free”

translation) in such a way that it works as a target language written work. Anyway, he does

not observe these two norms as opposites and rather claims that they should compromise and

cooperate. His view was meant to look detached and not to favour any of the two groups, but

the functionally equivalent translation still seems to be of higher value in his writing.

26

2.3 Nida’s equivalence in detail

2.3.1 Requirements on the translator

First of all he requires that the translator has a satisfactory knowledge of the source

language. A general sense of the meaning is obviously not enough. The translator must

understand all the subtle details – emotive values of individual words and stylistic features –

in order to determine the “flavour and feel” of the message.

Secondly he has to have a complete control of the receptor language.

Certainly the most numerous and serious errors made by translators arise primarily

from their lack of knowledge of the receptor language. (Nida 1964:150)

Thirdly the translator must possess a thorough knowledge of the subject matter in

order to be able to translate specialized text (e.g. technical or slang).

These requirements are easy to agree with and I think that anybody is not afraid to sign

his name under these. It is the next requirement that causes trouble when it says that the

translator is not really competent ”unless he has also a truly empathetic spirit.” (Nida

1964:151) He quotes Basil Anderton (Anderton 1920:66) who compares this empathy of the

translator for the author to an actor’s ability to “feel” into his part. It is here that the above

mentioned objection by Gentzler comes to play. Just like every actor understands his role in a

slightly different way and performs it according to his understanding, no translator can ever

achieve such a degree of “empathy” to fully “feel” into the author and his intentions. In my

opinion, the only thing that the translator actually can feel is the author’s work.

27

Next Nida quotes O’Brien who says that “one should never translate anything one

does not admire” (O’Brien 1959:85). He suggests that there must be a natural affinity between

the translator and the translated. This, again, seems to be unnecessary and can be disproved

with the fact that there are many commercial translators translating whatever the publishers

give them and still the works do not seem to be damaged in any way.

But a good knowledge of language, subject matter and the possession of empathy does

not seem to be enough to make a brilliant translator. The thing missing is the ability of literary

expression. Nida again gives some examples in quotes which in short say that the translator

should possess a literary talent very similar to that of the author in order to produce a

translation that can match the qualities of the original work. Certainly this is an agreeable

requirement, because some prose or poetry really exhibits such genuine style that not

everybody can reproduce. The translators should have a very well developed sensitivity to

artistic style indeed.

Although it is important to judge these requirements, more important is to judge

Nida’s principles of correspondence or equivalence which should be the theoretical

background for my analysis of translations.

2.3.2 Principles of dynamic equivalence

In translations based on dynamic-equivalence (Nida calls them D-E translations) the

focus is not on the source message but on the receptor response. What Gentzler forgot to

quote in his sharp critique of Nida’s theory is the following:

It is important to realize, however, that a D-E translation is not merely another

message which is more or less similar to that of the source. It is a translation, and as

such must clearly reflect the meaning and intent of the source. (Nida 1964:166)

28

Here we can see that Nida was not as fanatic about his model and felt that the

importance of equivalence should not be overvalued. He defines the D-E translation as “the

closest natural equivalent to the source-language message.” The word natural as such is a bit

vague and Nida proceeds to define it closer. The natural rendering must fit the receptor

language and culture as a whole, the context of the particular message, and the receptor-

language audience. The accordance of the translation to the target language and culture is, in

Nida’s view, an essential ingredient of any stylistically acceptable translation. This was

basically one of my initial thoughts in the introduction of this work – the style of the

translation determines how easy it reads and thus influences the evaluation of the translation.

Nida voices a great opinion that this stylistic quality of the translation is usually noticeable

only when absent – an opinion I can more than agree with. Nida quotes J. H. Frere who states

that

the language of translation ought, we think, … be a pure, impalpable and invisible

element, the medium of thought and feeling and nothing more; it ought never to attract

attention to itself… (Frere 1820: 481)

This is it, this is the noble thought that I intend to support. The translations should read

as well as any domestic literature.

If we follow Nida’s arguments on D-E translations further, we get to know that a

natural translation includes two major areas of adaptation, first of them being grammar and

the second lexicon. To translate in such a way that we adapt the grammar for the target

language should be easy, because the grammatical rules of the target language are set firm.

We simply have to use the valid rules for the given target language otherwise the translation

would be regarded a mere rewriting of the original using target language vocabulary.

29

Adjusting the lexical structure to fit the semantic requirements of the target language is a far

bigger problem, because there are no firm rules at hand. The translator can choose from a

wide variety of alternatives. As Nida puts it, there are three kinds (or difficulty levels) of

vocabulary. The first is “universal” terms for which there are easily accessible parallels and

which describe items almost identical in the source as well as the target language. The second,

a bit harder to translate, are terms that identify culturally different objects but with similar

(equivalent) function. The third category contains culturally specific terms which cannot be

easily replaced by a target language equivalent.

Nida sees this as an obstacle that prevents the translator from reaching perfect

equivalence, or better to say a complete transposition of the work into the target culture. In

this, I think, he shows a far greater degree of “equivalence fanatism”. In my opinion, no work

of art can ever be and should not be completely divorced from the culture of its origin.

Luckily for the target readership. If, for example, one took a novel taking place in London,

exhibiting English characters, rituals and habits and translated it in such a way that it took

place in Prague with Czech characters, rituals and habits, then the Czech readership can never

get to know any foreign facts. It would be the same story, containing characters with basically

the same qualities, it would create an effect equivalent to the original story, but all the cultural

differences that can be so interesting for the target reader would get lost. If we expanded

Nida’s seeking of perfect transplantation to all literature and all languages, the world would

end up full of “universal” stories that would not convey any cultural difference between

nations.

In his following thoughts Nida gets again overly religious, finding all his examples on

the field of exegesis. Let us quickly sift through these to see if there is something not so much

contaminated that it could serve our purpose. He states that the naturalness of expression in

the target language is essentially a problem of co-suitability on several levels, of which the

30

most prominent are: word classes, grammatical categories, semantic classes, discourse types

and cultural context. Stripped of the biblical examples, these categories seem to be quite

useful. What can be expressed by a noun in one language requires a verb in another

(adaptation in a word class).

With the adaptation of semantic classes he uses an example working with swear

words:

swearwords in one language may be based upon the perverted use of divine names, but

in another language may be primarily excremental and anatomical… (Nida 1964:168)

Another exclamation mark for the analysis of translations from the point of view of

how they work: we have to take into account different origins of the various swear words in

both Czech and English.

The next requirement on a natural translation is that it should be in accordance with

the context of the particular message. Here we go back to Uličný’s article on expressivity. As

we found out there, the expressivity of a word is given by its conspicuousness in the given

context, although a text that observes expressivity almost as a norm (as is the case with the

works we will analyze later) becomes expressive as a whole and thus the words lose much of

its conspicuousness. In such a text it would rather be sophisticated technical terms or upper-

class way of expression that would become conspicuous. This is another warning for the

ensuing analysis: we should be aware of the coherence of the work with regards to the

language level in the context of the whole text.

The third element which Nida sees as crucial to the naturalness of a D-E translation is

the extent to which the message fits the target language audience. Although he largely

underestimates that audience, because he is again concerned mainly with the translation of the

31

Bible for certain remote indigenous peoples, there is still something that we can make use of.

Simply, the translator has to bear in mind for what kind of audience he translates and if he is

or is not to change the difficulty of the text. Still, adjusting the difficulty only takes place in

special cases today and moves the translation close to a mere adaptation of the original.

Serious translators rather keep the original level unchanged.

2.3.3 Formal equivalence and the clashes with dynamic equivalence

As an opposite to D-E translations Nida sees F-E translations, those based on formal

equivalence. This kind of equivalence is useful in translating, for example, poetry, where

translators tend to preserve the meter of the particular poem if possible. His description of this

kind of equivalence is again supported by biblical examples which are of almost no use for us.

Formal equivalence simply steps into play when we need, whatever the reason may be, to

preserve the form of the document we translate. The extreme variant of it can be used by

linguists to show the word order of a foreign language or to demonstrate various linguistic

phenomena. It can be of importance for historians who want to demonstrate for example

various idioms or sayings from distant times and cultures.

Although the D-E and F-E translation are basically opposite, the range is not binary.

The area between these two is more of a gradual transition and it is towards the middle of the

range where, in Nida’s opinion, problems start to occur. There may arise situations when a

word refers to an object the target culture does not know, but it can be replaced by a

functional equivalent. Or there are situations when the referent is known to the target culture

but its function there is completely different. There may be situations when there is no

equivalent – either formal or functional. Nida suggests that these conflicts can be resolved

32

with the use of explanatory marginal notes or footnotes or with adding descriptive classifiers

to a borrowed foreign term.

2.3.4 Translation in theory and practice

In his The Theory and Practice of Translation, a work that is again focused on

translating religious works, he advocates a “new concept of translating”. He distinguishes

between the old and the new focus in translating, the old one being obviously the focus on

form and the new one the focus on equivalence. This time he is again underestimating the

target language reader when he concludes that in order for the translations to communicate

effectively they must be free of those expressions that are likely to be misunderstood and the

“heavy” expressions which are likely to discourage the receptor from reading. He suggests

that each language has its genius, which is quite right. He suggests that to communicate

effectively one has to respect that genius. He suggests that anything that can be said in one

language can be said in another when the form is not an essential part of the message. And he

suggests that to preserve the content of the message the form must be changed. I presume that

this change is not necessary.

The following chapter reveals some good-sounding slogans, but sometimes they

become less attractive when one reads what Nida really means by them.

“The translator must aim primarily at ‘reproducing the message’” (Nida 1982:12) and

therefore he has to make many grammatical and lexical adjustments. This radical adjustments

may have proven effective for translating idioms, but otherwise they could pose a problem.

The focus should be on “equivalence rather than identity” (ibid.). A translator should

not work word for word. This idea can be very well employed for the sake of translating

swearwords. For example the English “fuck off” should, in my opinion, be translated in

33

different ways depending on the context. It is definitely different when uttered by an educated

character (more polite or acceptable) and a drug-addicted down low character (very coarse).

The equivalents chosen by the translator should be natural. “The best translation does

not sound like a translation.” (Nida 1982:12) Of course Nida does not suggest transplanting

stories from history to present day, he advocates authenticity as well, thus the translation

should sound like it was translated right after the publishing of the original – at least the

dialogs should. Here he does not propose “cultural” translations or transplantations as was the

subtext with his Towards a Science of Translation.

34

3 Analysis

As I already mentioned in the introduction to this work, the analysis will focus on

contemporary prose works about the young and containing expressive constructions and

explicit vocabulary. The main aim of the analysis is to judge the adequacy of the translations

with regards to the degree of expressivity, dynamic and functional equivalence. Does the

translator keep the speech of a character as coherent as in the original? Does he keep the

language evolution of a character as close as possible to the original? Do the swear words and

the slang exhibited in the translation “sound authentic”? I will try to answer all of these

questions on the following pages.

The prose works I chose are more than suited for this kind of analysis, because they

contain an abundance of explicit language and represent contemporary writing.

The first of them, Trainspotting, was written by Irvine Welsh in 1993 and translated

by Ondřej Formánek and John Comer in 1997. The second is Glue by the same author written

in 2001 and translated by Eva Poskočilová in 2003. The third book is called Fever Pitch, it

was written by Nick Hornby in 1992 and translated by Richard Podaný in 2002.

Especially the works of Irvine Welsh represent literature that is difficult to translate,

because the plot takes place mostly in Scotland and the characters are Scottish. They also

speak Scottish English most of the time, for which Welsh moved to create a transcription of

the specific pronunciation:

Everybody would have a story at the pub or at parties, even at the clubs and raves.

They were all so interesting. Then I'd read stories in books, and they'd be dead. I got to

35

thinking that it had a lot to do with standard English. I mean, nobody talks like that in

cinema, nobody talks like that on television, nobody sounds like that in song. In any

other cultural representation, we don't talk like that, so why do we in the novel?

(Powell’s.com Interviews – Interview with Irvine Welsh. 11 January 2006

<http://www.powells.com/authors/welsh.html>.)

We can read for example: “Ah go back doon tae the pub n huv another couple ay

pints” (Trainspotting, 230). Notice the special spelling of “I”, “down”, “and”, “have” and

“of”. Some characters, for example tourists visiting the Edinburgh festival, speak different

dialects of English or even their own idiolects which is again reflected in the spelling, starters,

hesitation-markers, gap-fillers, choice of vocabulary and overall tone and register.

Hornby’s Fever Pitch, on the other hand, does not play with language and does not

present large amounts of vulgarisms. It is rather penetrated with football-slang, but – as one

would presume in such a context – swear words and expressive constructions can be found

and analyzed.

The analysis is performed on randomly chosen passages that are formatted in tables

together with their translation. The left cell of the table is always the source text (abbrev. S)

and the right cell is the target text (abbrev. T). The underlined locations in the source text are

the “clusters” of expressivity – be that individual swearwords or whole expressive phrases.

The underlined locations in the target text represent the corresponding expressive potential in

the translation.

We have to take into account that colloquial language and expressivity in Czech and

English works in a different way. A single lexical unit can have various meanings and

different degrees of expressivity depending on the context. Thus we will come across

expressive clusters in the original that simply can not occur in the translation (do not have an

36

underlined counterpart in T). There are also expressive clusters that have to be translated

rather freely in order to work equivalently. There are also clusters that seemingly have to use

different degree of expressivity in order to keep the actual degree of expressivity equivalent.

We have also to take into account that judging the adequacy of a translation is very

subjective. Although I use percentages in the results for the sake of transparency, the results

still have to be observed more as qualitative rather than quantitative data.

3.1 Trainspotting

3.1.1 General literary analysis

Irvine Welsh was born in Edinburgh in 1958. He lived in London after leaving school,

but returned to his native city where he worked in the Council's housing department. He

gained a degree in computer science and studied for an MBA at Heriot Watt University.

Being Welsh’s first novel, Trainspotting was a marvellous success. It was published in 1993

and has reached the top ten for the Booker Prize. It was also adapted for the screen by Danny

Boyle in 1996 and starred Ewan McGregor and Robert Carlyle.

The book does not present a continuous story-line; it is more a collage of short

narratives, although these do keep at least an approximate time sequence. It covers an unclear

time-span (of several years probably) in the lives of the four main characters – Mark Renton,

Francis Begbie, Daniel Murphy and Simon Williamson. These characters, although they are

different, form a certain kind of a loose gang. What unites them is the use of addictive

substances and the aimless effort to make at least something of their so far futile lives. After a

vortex of drug taking, drinking, stealing, fighting, having sex, exploiting the welfare system

and being a good-for-nothing, one of the main characters, Mark Renton, steals the profit of a

drug deal from his friends and flees to Amsterdam to start a new life.

37

The main characters (together with other, less important characters) are at the same

time also the narrators of the individual stories. Each of them has his own style of narration,

his own way of speaking, his own gap fillers and pragmatic markers, which makes the

characters appear very lively and real.

3.1.2 Translation analysis

First, what is most striking about Welsh’s original text is the use of dialect and the

special spelling which is intended to emulate Scottish English. When creating the speech of

the characters, the translators tried to achieve similar effects, but the result can be disputed.

Jiří Levý claims that Czech language means are insufficient to characterize the speaker

as a citizen of for example Bavaria or Bretagne.

The only aim we can achieve is distinguishing the speech of a countryman from more

sophisticated persons that speak the national language... ...It is advisable to use

regionally unmarked language when indicating rural speech – we should not use a

specific dialect... (translated from Levý 1963:85)

Certain places in the text reveal that the characters use a language similar to the typical

Prague dialect with increased vowel length where it is not necessary: “Jó…cejtim se tak ňák

líp, jakřikám.” (Trainspotting cz, p. 130) In addition, some of the characters (living in the

1980s) in the Czech version occasionally use vocabulary resembling that from pre-war Prague

rogues’ gallery slang:

38

Je známou skutečností, že nemáš kurva šanci dostat v tomhle městě cokoliv slušnýho,

jesis nechodil do činaný školy. (Trainspotting cz, p. 70)

Tohle je prostě takňák vošajstlich. (Trainspotting cz, p. 297)

The English “giro”, meaning the social welfare or the dole, is many times translated as

“žíro”, which is a word that is not generally used to represent social benefit in this country,

not even in slang.

The translation of the characters’ nicknames is a case of its own. Renton, whose

nicknames are “Rents” or “Rent Boy” in the original, is translated as “Renta” and “Rentovací

hoša”. This nickname obviously comes from him cheating on the social welfare system and

collecting the unemployment benefits on five different addresses, but “Rentovací hoša” is a

complete miss, because of the gay connotations that do not seem to be present in the original

nickname. Simon is called “Sick Boy” in English and translated as “Šoufek”. There are

several puns in the book elaborating on his nickname and him being sick with drug

withdrawal, which obviously cannot work in Czech, because he would have to be called

“Šoufl” so that the nickname worked in ”je mu šoufl”. His name is localized into “Šimon”

whereas the names of the other characters are not, which is at least puzzling. Begbie’s

nickname “Beggar” is translated as “Betl” and it is obvious that the translators tried to keep

the “Be-” beginning of the nickname so that it matches the surname. Danny Murphy’s

nickname “Spud” (meaning “potato”) is inexplicably not translated for the target language

reader at all. These mistakes, at least for me, are signals that the translators were not

consistent and that the overall quality of the translation may be lowered.

As I emphasized above, the brilliancy of the original text is in the quasi-phonetic

spelling. The words are spelt out more in the fashion they are pronounced than in their written

39

form, which provides the readers with a lively impression of spoken Scottish English. The

authors of the translation moved to create a similar notation in their target language text. I

think that their effort was more or less in vain, because the Czech reader is not used to such

written and maybe even spoken spelling. The tradition in translation here is that the “vulgar”

characters should speak more or less standard Czech or at least colloquial Czech with only

some vulgar words inserted to imply their vulgarity. It is presumed that reading a longer text

which uses “spoken” grammar and spelling is exhausting the reader and that it often gives an

artificial impression. However, the translators went this way and thus we can read such

expression as “tajdlety”, “čéče”, “dyby”, “uďál”, “dycky”, “dyš”, “neš”, “ňákym”. They also

use never-heard-of expressions (at least for me) like “fiňáry” (meaning ”money”) that seem to

come from some Moravian dialect.

There are also places where the translators chose not to translate and rather provide the

reader with descriptive notes at the end of the book. The translators probably thought that this

will make the settings more authentic, but the result looks rather strange:

He turned tae Raymie, whae wis steadfastly keeping shoatie at the windae. Raymie could detect a labdick in a crowded street the wey that sharks can sense a few drops of blood in an ocean. Source, p. 7

…votočil se na Raymieho, kerej neúnavně zíral z vokna. Raymie byl schopnej identifikovat labdicka v davu na ulici způsobem, jakym dokážou žraloci ucejtit pár kapek krve v oceánu. Target, p.13

A note at the end of the book saying that a “labdick” is a colloquial word denoting a

member of the police force in the shire of Lothian is, in my opinion, not enough - especially

when there is no note in the vicinity of any instance of the word that says that it can be looked

up elsewhere. In addition, the foreign word looks very disturbing in the Czech text.

Another thing that should have probably been omitted in the process of translation is

the English rhyming slang. The translators kept it in their text and provided explanation only

40

for some of the rhymes. One can read for example “Nebude ti vadit, dyž pojedu tvym Joe

Baxíkem?” which a reader experienced in English instantly identifies as rhyming slang for

“taxi”. What do the other readers do is a question, because this rhyme is not provided with an

explanatory note at the end of the book.

3.1.3 Analysis of specific cases

Before proceeding to analyze the individual cases containing swear words, I

performed a test count on selected swear words. I counted the prominent vulgar expressions

on forty pages – ten narrated by each of the four main characters – to get a sample and a

clearer picture which swear words to focus on.

I found that the most vulgar character in the book is Frank Begbie who uttered on ten

pages of his narration “cunt” 114 times and “fuckin” 196 times. These two words are the most

popular with all of the four characters and that is why I will focus on them and their

translation with respect to dynamic equivalence.

3.1.3.1 Frank Begbie

Oh ya cunt ye! Ma heid’s fuckin nippin this morning, ah kin fuckin tell ye. Ah make straight fir the fuckin fridge. Yes! Two boatils ay Becks. That’ll dae me. Ah down the cunts in double quick time. Ah feel better right away. Huvtae fuckin watch the time, but. S, p. 109

Do píči, voe! Teda neska ráno mě bolí kebule jak svině, to ti teda mužu říc, voe. Razim si to rovnou k lednici. Jasně! Dvě flašky Becks, voe. Ty bodnou. Vytáhnu je dvakrát tak rychle, voe. Hned je mi líp. Musim ale sledovat čas voe. T, p. 117

It is obvious from this paragraph that in order to function in an equivalent way and

sound authentic, the translation indeed has to abandon the form to a certain degree. But is the

translation authentic and equivalent? The first sentence, as we see, is an expressive

exclamation addressed to the reader (or a virtual listener, because the stories are stylized to

41

look like a spoken narration). However, the target text contains only an expressive

exclamation without a straightforward address, moving the expressive element from the

English “cunt” to Czech “vole”, spelt as pronounced – “voe”. The omission of the direct

address, in my opinion, slightly changes the function of the sentence and thus the dynamic

equivalence is not fully achieved here. To achieve DE, the sentence would have to use the

Czech exclamation “Ty vole!”, “Ty pičo!” or “Ty kundo!” – depending on how vulgar do we

want the translation to be – the latter being the closest lexical equivalent to the original

“cunt”.

In the second sentence, whereas the expressive power is concentrated in the two

occurrences of the word ”fuckin” in the original, the translation dissolves or suppresses this

power. The sentence in Czech only makes use of colloquial words instead of vulgar words.

The function of the first “fuckin” is divided between “Teda” and “jak svině” and the function

of the second “fuckin” is again divided between “teda” and “voe”. The degree of DE is much

higher here, although the equivalence is far from perfect. The sentence would perform much

better with constructions like “Dneska ráno mě svinsky/zatraceně/kurevsky bolí hlava…” and

“to ti sakra/kurva povím, vole”. Using these expressive adjectives would also ensure greater

authenticity, taking into account how vulgar the character of Begbie is and the fact that the

translators’ formulation “to ti teda mužu říct” is an obvious Anglicism.

The expressive element is missing in the next sentence. The following exclamation is,

in my opinion, not equivalent, because one does not exclaim “Jasně!” in a situation when

something happens exactly as he presumes. This exclamation is the typical English “Bingo!”-

exclamation (often accompanied with the typical gesture) should be translated with “Jo!”,

which is the proper Czech equivalent for this kind of exclamation. The next sentence of the

translation adds an extra “voe”.

42

In the sentence after the next the original “cunts” is exchanged for a low-expressivity

“voe”. The translators move the expressive element from the bottles to the address of the

listener, which is not present in the original. A translation with higher DE should stick to the

original distribution of expressivity – “Vyžahnu ty svině dvakrát tak rychle.”

The last sentence again creates an address of the listener where there is none in the

original and shifts the expressive element. “Musím si ale kurva hlídat čas” would perform

much better, I think.

Thill be a couple ay draftpaks gittin well filled up oan the train gaun doon, he sais. Sometimes ah dinnae understand that cunt’s sense ay humour. Me n Rents go back a long fuckin wey, but it’s like the cunt’s changed, n ah’m no jist takin aboot the drugs n that shite. It’s like, he’s goat his weys n ah’ve goat mines. Still great cunt though, the rid-heided bastard. S., p.113

Tagže bude ve vlaku párek dobře nalitejch tupláků, povidá von. Někdy ten jeho styl humoru nechápu. Znám se s Rentou hodně dlouhlo, ale ten zmrd se jako změnil, a to nemluvim jenom vo drogách a podobnejch sračkách. Prostě, von má svoje spůsoby a já svoje. Ale furt je to skvělej zmrd, tohleto pako jedno zrzavý. T., p. 121

This piece of text seems to exhibit more dynamic equivalence than the previous one.

The translation of the second sentence, in my opinion rightly, omits the “cunt’s”, because it

would be difficult to implement the expressive element into this sentence structure in Czech.

The next sentence does not produce a fully equivalent effect, because the “fuckin” was

transformed into the weak “hodně” which does not deliver a sufficient amount of expressivity.

“Známe se sakra/kurva dlouho…” would work much better. The following “cunt has

changed” is translated, I think, in a stronger way than necessary – one usually does not call his

friends “zmrd” in this country, but taking into account how vulgar the character of Begbie is, I

think we can consider the translation still within limits of authenticity. “Sračkách” is used

very often among the young and in this sentence works perfectly authentic in the role of

“etcetera”. The last sentence contains “cunt” again and “red-headed bastard”. The “cunt” is

43

again very coherently translated as “zmrd”, but I would again call for a lighter expression.

“Pako jedno zrzavý” seems to substitute the “red-headed bastard” quite well, although the

term “pako” is used still less nowadays and becomes outdated.

Now we should concentrate on some dialogs, because the communication is much

more lively there and there will probably be more equivalence and authenticity problems.

- Any change fir the boy Franco? Rents sais, n this daft-lookin wee cunt hauds oot the fuckin cup; lookin it us wi they fuckin sappy eyes. - Git tae fuck ya gypo cunt! ah sais, knockin the cup oot ay his hand, n fuckin pishin masel it the daft cunt scrambling around oan the deck between cunts’ legs, tae git his fuckin coins. - Whair the fuck’s this flat then? ah sais tae Rents. - No far, Rents sais, lookin it us like ah wis fuckin…the wey that cunt looks it ye sometimes…he’s gaunnae git a sair face one ay they fuckin days, mates or nae fuckin mates. Then the cunt jist turns away n ah follay um doon oantae the Victoria Line. S., p. 119

- Franco, nedáš tomu klukovi ňáký drobáky? povidá Renta, a ten vůl, co vypadá jak dyby byl debil, zvedne ten posranej kelímek a dívá se na mě těma svejma žebravejma vočima. - Di do hajzlu, cikáne posranej! povidám já a vyrazim mu ten kelímek z ruky a chcípám smíchy, jak ten debil leze po zemi, lidem mezi nohama, aby sebral ty svoje posraný drobáky. - Tak gde je kurva ten posranej kvartýr? řikám Rentovi. - Neni to daleko, povidá Renta a podivá se na mě, jak dybych byl kurva ňákej… to, jak se ten zmrd na tebe někdy kouká… jednoho krásnýho dne ho bude bolet huba, kamarádi nebo nekamarádi, voe. Pak se ten zmrd prostě votočí a já du za nim dolu na Victoria Line. T., p. 127

The “daft-lookin wee cunt” surely has more impact than its translation. Stretching the

expression to such spatial extent deprives it of much of its expressive power. Also the “wee”

is lost somewhere in translation. Something similar to ”malej mentální/debilní kretén/zmrd”

would work much better.

The “fuckin cup” is quite well translated as “posranej kelímek”. I shall only argue for

using a “za-” prefix (“zasranej”), because it would create pleasant alliteration with the

preceding “zvedne” which is often the case in spoken communication which uses these

devices to boost or emphasize the emotional and attitudinal element.

44

In the next sentence, the authors have omitted the expressive adjective and

misinterpreted ”sappy” which in fact means “wet” or “idiotic” as “žebravý” taking some of

the expressive impact away.

The next replica presents more mistakes when it misinterprets “gypo” as “cikán”.

Although it comes from the English “gypsy” (Thorne 1990:177), gypsy does not mean the

same as the Czech “cikán” – it denotes people with low standard of living, often nomadic.

Czech people understand an ethnic minority under “cikán”. In addition, Thorne in his slang

dictionary notes that the term is often extended to encompass all Arab nations in uneducated

speech. The “gypo” here should be translated as “socka” or “žebrák” to indicate only the

man’s low status, because the main point here is that Begbie does not like his begging and

does not want to give him any money.

Another “fuckin” is left out in the translation, this time quite rightly, because an

adjective would look rather strange in the Czech construction again.

The relation “chcípám smíchy” is quite right, but can be replaced with “míním se

pochcat smíchy” which is also quite frequent and in addition is semantically equivalent to the

original.

“Daft cunt” as “debil” is an appropriate and equivalent term of contempt and the

“cunts’” translated as “lidem” is in this context right as well. “Fuckin coins” translated as

“posraný drobáky” sounds authentic and should not be disputed.

The next sentence translates well the typical phrase “where the fuck…”, but it adds the

word “posranej” and translates “flat” with the more expressive “kvartýr” which is not even

implied in the original. “Tak kde je kurva ten byt?” would be perfectly equivalent to the

original.

The relation “kurva nějakej” is all right, but I suggest again translating the “cunt” with

lighter expressions such as “vůl” when denoting friendly characters.

45

I would oppose the use of “jednoho dne ho bude bolet huba”, because this phrase is

not commonly used in this country and in addition it does not suit the character of Begbie. I

suggest translating “he is going to get a sore face one of these days” simply with the common

“jednoho dne dostane přes držku/po tlamě” to achieve an effect equivalent to the original. The

same is valid for the following “kamarádi nebo nekamarádi” which should not insert the

“nebo” although there is an “or” in the original, because in colloquial Czech one does not use

“nebo” in this kind of relations (see “hlava nehlava”). The last sentence does not need to be

commented on, because the case has been examined here before.

3.1.3.2 Mark Renton

What can be said about the other three main characters? Only thing that can be taken

for granted is that they use less vulgar words. Let us judge the authenticity of their expression

starting with Mark Renton.

- Haud oan a second. Ah wanted tae see Jean-Claude smash up this arrogant fucker. If we went now, ah wouldnae git tae watch it. Ah’d be too fucked by the time we goat back, and in any case it wid probably be a few days later. That meant ah’d git hit fir fuckin back charges fi the shoap oan a video ah hudnae even goat a deek at. S., p. 4

Počkej chvíli. Chtěl sem vidět, jak Jean-Claude sejme toho nafoukanýho zmrda. Dyž pudem teď, nikdy se na to nedokoukám. Vrátil bych se trochu moc sjetej a v mym případě by to stejnak nebylo dřív než za pár dní, a to znamená, že bych musel v půjčovně platit za video, kerý sem ani neviděl. T., p. 10

It is obvious that the author has shaped Renton to come from a ”better family”. It is the

only character who went to university for some months before he left it because of drugs. He

uses far less vulgar words.

The translation of “smash up” and “arrogant fucker” is authentic and – as far as I can

judge – even perfectly equivalent. Although translating “fucked” with ”sjetej” may appear to

be taking the expressive power from the concept, I am afraid there is no other suitable word

46

with the equivalent workings in this context. There is a shift in this particular sentence,

because Renton does not say “in my case”, so the translation should be “každopádně” and not

“v mym případě”. The next sentence omits the expressive adjective and even the “back

charges” and thus the translation does not convey a meaning equivalent to the original.

Ah wis shitein it that ah widnae get a shot here. – Fuck sakes Johnny, listen tae yirsel. Git a fuckin grip. Wuv goat the fuckin hirays here. Ah pulled some notes ootay ma poakit. S., p. 10

Byl jsem posranej starchy, že tady už žádnou šlehu nedostanu. – Kurva Johnny, víš vůbec co řikáš? Spamatuj se, kurva. Tady máme prachy. Vytáh sem z kapsy ňáký papíry. T., p. 16

In the first sentence the “shitein” is not translated with the proper authentic term –

although “posranej strachy” works well, only “posranej” is usually used among the young

with the notion of fear already built-in. The remaining two vulgar points in the text are

translated quite authentically, although a “university” character should probably use lighter

words, such as “Doprdele Johnny…” and “Vzpamatuj se, sakra.”

The degree of expressivity of one’s speech usually rises in tense situations. The book

seems to imitate this phenomenon, as we can se in a scene from a pub fight, where Renton’s

narration gets more interspersed with swearwords.

Ah’m doon thair, stickin a fuckin bar-towel oan the draftpak’s split heid, tryin tae stem the blood. The cunt just growls at us, n ah dinnae ken whether that’s um showin gratitude or ready tae stomp ma baws, but ah cairry oan. S., p. 80

Sem dole, dávám tuplákovi na rozpolcenou hlavu barovej ručník, pokoušim se zastavit krev. Ten zmrd na mě jenom zamručí a neni mi jasný, jesi tim naznačuje vděk, nebo jesi se mi chystá nakopat koule, ale já v tom pokračuju. T., p. 89

47

The first sentence in the translation omits the expressive “fuckin”, but in this context it

can be justified. What, in my opinion, can not be justified is the fact that the dull muscular

bouncer types are concistently translated as “tupláci” in the whole book. Although the original

“draftpak” is used to denote beverage containers as well as daft people, the Czech word

“tuplák” can not be used to speak about persons. Given the physical and psychical

characteristics of these people, we should be referring to them as “hranoly”, “bouchači”,

“vazby”, “korby” or “drtiči” (see Rysová 2003) in order to be intelligible to the target text

reader and create an impression equivalent to the original.

In addition, the translation of the “bar towel” in this sentence is obviously wrong. I

suppose this was meant to be an “utěrka”, because bars usually do not use “ručník”.

Addressing an enemy draftpak with “zmrd” is authentic and accords with the above

mentioned usage of “cunt” for expressing distaste. The translation of the “balls” is also

authentic.

3.1.3.3 Simon Williamson

The character of Sick Boy is one of extreme self-confidence. He believes (and his

belief is justified) that he can pick up any woman he chooses. He cherishes them in his mind,

but he speaks of them as of mere sexual objects. He usually has some vulgar words at hand –

let us have a look.

Now Rents is gibbering oan aboot Galileo and Mother Courage and Baal and aw that shite. The bitches seem quite impressed n aw. Why fuck me insensible! This doss cunt actually does have his uses. S., p. 29

Renta teď mele o Galileovi, Matce Kuráži a Baalovi a podobnejch sračkách. Ty buchty vypadají, jako že to na ně udělalo docela dojem. To mi ho teda podrž! Ten pablb má ve skutečnosti i určitý praktický využití. T., p. 36

48

The translation of “aw that shite” is quite authentic, because “podobnejch sračkách” is

used in such situations. Using “buchty” for “bitches” on the other hand, seems to be reducing

the degree of expressivity. The swearword “bitch” is quite a strong expression in English.

Thorne notes in his dictionary, that it is “normally highly offensive” (Thorne 2003:33)

whereas the “buchta” in Czech has become, although still slang, almost neutral and outdated.

This point in the translation requires in my opinion a harsher sexist term from modern youth

slang such as “loutka”, “šťáva” or even “frnda” in order to picture the self-confident sexist

character of Sick Boy in a way equivalent to the original.

The whole of the next sentence is disputable, because the Czech translation is not a

commonly used slang idiom and it seems to come from some geographically restricted area

slang or from the translator’s idiolect. Better would be the widespread and common “No to

mě poser!”

In the next sentence “doss cunt” is translated as “pablb” which again reduces the

degree of expressivity and thus results in a non-equivalent effect, because “pablb” is an

outdated term and the “doss cunt” should be translated with “debile”, “vole”, “blbče” or other

more common term that would suit the overall expressivity of the text.

…the socialist go on about your comrades, your class, your union, and society. Fuck all that shite. The Tories go on about your employer, your country, your family. Fuck that even mair. It’s me, me, fucking ME, Simon David Williamson, NUMERO FUCKING UNO, versus the world, and it’s a one-sided swedge. It’s really so fucking easy… Fuck them all. S., p. 30

… socialisti furt melou o tvejch soudruzích, tvý třídě, tvejch vodborech a společnosti. Na tyhle kecy seru. Konzervativci furt melou o tvým zaměstnavateli, tvý zemi, tvý rodině. Na to seru ještě víc. Sem to já, já, já jenom kurva JÁ, Šimon David Williamson, NUMERO FUCKING UNO, versus svět, a je to nerovnej boj. Vždyť je to kurva tak snadný… Na všechny se vyseru. T., p. 37

All of the expressive clusters in this part seem to be translated adequately with the

exception of “numero fucking uno” which is inexplicably not translated at all. A trained eye

49

will also be surprised with the use of capitals and italics in the Czech translation, because

these meaning-bearing formal elements are usually directed by different rules in Czech.

Simply, these elements are usually removed where possible in translation. The final sentence

is inexplicably translated in future tense when it should sound “Seru na všechny” in order to

keep the tense established in the previous constructions beginning with “fuck”.

Ah…the enemy ish in shite, as the old Bond would have said, and what a fuckin sight the cunt looks as well. Skinheid haircut, green bomber-jaykit, nine-inch DMs. A stereotypical twat; and there’s the woof-woof trailing loyally behind. Pit Bull, shit bull, bullshit terrier…a fuckin set ay jaws on four legs. S., p. 178

Šlídím a štopuju ve štínu a šeru, jak by řek starej Bond, a nepřítel je v dohledu. Vylepanej na skína, zelenej bomber, devítipalcový Martensky. Stereotypní debil; a hele, ňákej baf-baf se věrně vleče za ním. Pitbul, šitbul, bulšit teriér… posraný dvě čelisti na čtyřech nohách. T., p. 188

This passage of the translation successfully eliminates the pun with “sight” = “shite”

in the slight lisp of Sean Connery (with who Simon leads conversations in his mind) and the

ensuing mocking sentence “what a fuckin sight”. This could have been solved much better

with “Á, nepšítel je na dohled, jak by řekl starej Bond, a že je na toho zmrda kurva pohled.”

“Stereotypní debil” works allright, but as it should express strong hatred towards skinheads I

would advocate using the harder sense of the word – “stereotypní piča”.

The ensuing sentence is again a bit shifted, because the English definite article signals

that the word “ňákej” cannot be used. It would work much better like “a támhle se v těsném

závěsu věrně vleče hafan.”

The use of the quasi-phonetic “šitbul” and “bulšit teriér” looks quite daring. On the

other hand, the English “shit” is known quite well in the Czech Republic and is used by the

young as an equivalent to the Czech “sračka”, denoting something worthless, abortive

(Rysová 2003). With respect to this, the two expressions are translated in a very topical way.

50

The “fuckin set ay jaws” is translated adequately, but from the aesthetic point of view, it

should use something like “sada čelistí” or only “čelisti” to avoid the accumulation of

numerals.

3.1.3.4 Danny Murphy

The character of Spud has an interesting idiolect in that he speaks about people as

about cats. In my opinion, these addresses are peculiar and conspicuous and thus can be

observed as expressive, which makes them additional candidates for analysis.

Pure jungle cat, ken, but even jungle cats sit doon n huv a wee purr tae themselves now and again, likesay, usually after they’ve likes, devoured somebody. Ah sortay cannae help wondering who Franco n Lexo’s devoured likesay. S., p. 120

Klasickej kocour z džungle, né, ale i kocouři z džungle si tu a tam sednou a kapku si zavrněj, jakřikám, vobvykle poté, co někoho, prostě, schlamstli. Takňák se nemužu zbavit myšlenek na to, koho schlamstli Franco a Lexo, jakřikám. T., p. 129

Here, the “cats” are consistently translated as “kocour”. Spud also calls females

“catgirls” and males “catboys”. Whereas the former is translated adequately as “kočky”, the

latter is inexplicably translated as “kočkodani” in addresses. The translators presumably

aimed at distinguishing between “cat” and “catboy”, but the address “kočkodane” does not

have anything in common with cats and there is a shift in meaning.

Spud uses swearwords only sparsely as can be seen in the following examples, but

even these sparse occurrences can be distorted in translation.

51

The doorbell rings. Me n Franco are a bit shit up in case it’s the labdicks. S., p. 284

Zadrnčí zvonek. Sme s Frankem voba trochu nesví, pro případ, že by to byli labdickové… T., p. 298

Being “a bit shit up” definitely has a higher degree of expressivity than “jsme trochu

nesví” which can cause changes in the perception and thus limit the equivalence of effect. The

translation should be closer to “jsme trochu posraní”. In addition, the translation of the

construction “in case” is an obvious Anglicism, because one is not scared “pro případ, že by

to byli policisté”. I am not even mentioning the case of “labdicks”. The translation should be

similar to “jsme trochu posraní, že to budou fízli/flojdi/švestky”.

The wee guy takes his dough n leaves. Perr wee cunt goat nuthin really, aboot a couple ay hundred quid fae nears enough five grand, likesay. Still, bags ay loot for a cat that age, if ye catch ma drift. Mind you, ah still say thit Franco’s been a bit hard oan the nipper. S., p. 286

Ten malej sebere svý prachy a vodejde. Chudák malej dostal vlasně velký kulový, pár stovek ze skorem pěti táců, jakřikám. Teda spousta fiňárů na kocourka v tomhle věku, jesi mě kapíruješ. Ale připomínám, stejnak sem řek, že Franco byl na toho cvrčka trochu drsnej. T., p. 300

“Chudák malej” functions equivalently to “perr wee cunt” although the original seems

to be carrying more expressive charge than the translation. The “táců” in the translation,

although a bit older term, is still used quite frequently and is equivalent to the English

“grand”. I oppose to the use of the term “fiňárů” which is not common and certainly does not

appeal to all Czech readers. “Kapíruješ” is a similar case as “táců” – it is older, but

widespread. On the other hand, the original “catch ma drift” seems to imply something more

“hip” or trendy. The perfect equivalent would be the up-to-date construction “jestli mě

vnímáš/sleduješ/stíháš”.

52

3.1.4 The result

The analysed material was picked randomly from the book in approximately the same

extent for all four characters. I aimed at picking pieces of text from the beginning, the middle

and the end of the book for each character so that I could track the development of the

character, although it was possible only in some cases. While giving the verbal analysis of the

individual cases, I kept a score sheet, counting the equivalent and non-equivalent translations

of the expressive words and constructions that are underlined in the examples.

The total count of the randomly chosen swearwords from this book was 54. Only 38.9

per cent of them (i.e. 21) qualified as equivalent and authentic, while 61.1 per cent (33) either

failed to produce the effect as equivalent as possible to the original or looked unnatural in the

target language text. Taking this into account we can regard the book a worse translation with

respect to dynamic equivalence.

My initial doubts about the coherence of the character’s speech proved illegitimate,

because the way of expression of the individual characters remains almost constant

throughout the entire translation.

3.2 Glue

3.2.1 General literary and translation analysis

Glue was first published in 2001 and is Welsh’s sixth book. Just like Trainspotting it

tells the story of four friends from Edinburgh. It follows their life from their early childhood

to their middle-age. The story is similar to that of Trainspotting – it displays the heroes as

they try to make the best of their lives. The characters speak Scottish English again, only in

the case of Glue the translator chose the more advanced way and did not try to emulate it in

his translation. Therefore the translation of this book displays standard and colloquial Czech

53

and the expression of the individual characters is more or less achieved with the amount of

swearwords they use in speech and narration.

Although this book contains a slightly different portfolio of swearwords, the most

prominent remain the same – “fuckin” and “cunt”. Each of the characters has his own typical

way of expression again.

3.2.2 Analysis of specific cases

3.2.2.1 Terrence Lawson

The most vulgar character is called Terry Lawson. His speech is filled with different

words revolving around sex, because he himself lives the life of almost constantly having sex.

Blackpool. Fuckin barry doon thaire oan that Golden Mile, aw the pubs n that. Plenty fuckin shaggin doon thaire. Me n that bird fae Huddersfield, n the yin fae Lincoln n aw. The Huddersfield yin, Philippa, she wis the best but. Banged that much wi broke the fuckin bed. S., p. 38

Do Blackpoolu. Kurva, tam je to parádní, na tý Golden Mile, jedna hospoda vedle druhý a tak. Ohromný šoustání. S tou holkou z Huddersfieldu a taky s tou z Lincolnu. Ta z Huddersfieldu, Philippa, ta ale byla nejlepší. Šukali jsme tak, že pod náma rupla postel. T., p. 48

As this translation is much more adequate with respect to the naturalness of the overall

language and the language of the characters, we can only raise objections to minor

discrepancies and inconsistence of style. The swearwords create equivalent effect, but

surprisingly there is a shift in the rest of the sentence, because “jedna hospoda vedle druhý” is

not the same as “aw the pubs”. The second sentence in Czech creates a different effect than

the original, because the notion of “plenty” and “down there” is not translated and the

54

expressive “fuckin” is missing. The following two sentences are equivalent. The last sentence

omits “fuckin” again, but not at the cost of equivalence.

That’s one thing aboot Doyle; eh’s a crazy cunt, but yuv eywis goat a tale tae tell wi him. Like that time we choried aw that copper wire, that wis fuckin radge. Cunt’s still no peyed us fir that but. S., p. 55

Jedinej problém je s Doylem; je to cvok, ale pokaždý si s nim přijdete na svý. Jako tenkrát, co sme lohli ten měděnej drát, tak to byla naprostá šílenost. A ten hajzl nám za to porád eště nezacáloval. T., p. 63

The first sentence is slightly shifted in the translation. To express the same as the

original, it should say ”jedinej problém s Doylem je, že…” The following ”cvok” is a shift as

well, because the original “crazy cunt” is a bit harder, implying that he is perverted, sadistic or

fanatic, and it should be translated using “magor”. The rest of the sentence is obviously

shifted as well, but the function is, I think, preserved almost intact. The next sentence does not

exhibit any shifts in meaning and function. Only the verb “chory” which probably comes

from Romany could be translated with “čórnout” which is the Romany equivalent in Czech.

The cheek ay that fucker is that eh owes it aw tae us. If eh hudnae been mates wi me n Birrell eh would have been bullied tae fuck at school, that’s a cert. Fuckin guaranteed, the fuckin Milky Bar Kid thair. And then eh widnae have hud the confidence tae ponce around behind a set ay decks like eh hud a cock the size ay the Blackpool Tower. S., p. 259

Ten vůl má ale drzost. Dyť by nám měl bejt vděčnej! Kdyby se nekamarádil se mnou a Birrellem, ve škole by si užil šikanu jako kráva, to je jistý, malej Mlíčňák. A kde by pak byla ta jeho sebejistota, aby vařil z vody za mixákama, jako kdyby měl čuráka velikosti Eiffelovky. T., p. 251

The first sentence in this example presents a nice natural translation – the Czech

sentence is almost idiomatic. On the other hand “bullied to fuck” contains a notion of finality,

that he would be (figuratively) bullied to death, which is not present in the translation and

thus the effect of the formulation is not equivalent. In addition the translation omits the two

55

instances of the intensifying “fuckin”. The final sentence rightly replaces Blackpool Tower

which is not generally known to the Czech readership for Eiffel Tower.

3.2.2.2 Billy Birrell

The next three examples are extracted from various chapter narrated by the character

of Billy Birrell whose idiolect involves frequent usage of “brutal”.

The perr auld gadge wis shitein it; aw they wee thugs or, in Gentleman’s case, big thugs hingin roond um. Brutal really, bit what ken ye dae? S., p. 63

Ten chudák dědek byl dočista v prdeli; kolem něj byli samý gauneři, některý menší, jiný, jako Gentleman, velký. Brutální, fakt, ale co se dá dělat? T., p. 69

Whereas the “chudák dědek” in the first sentence works quite well, the following

formulation shifts the meaning. “Byl dočista v prdeli” does not create the same effect as the

original which implies rather that “chudák dědek sral strachy”. The idolectic “brutal” is

translated with the contemporary Czech youth slang “brutální” which is perfectly adequate.

Doyle laughs along at this, so does that Polmont wanker. Every other radge’s goat boots oan, it’s only me wearin trainers n ah feel a bit ay a toss n it’s fuckin brutal… …The cunt could’ve been oan a burst mooth if eh kept that up. S., p. 72

Doyle se při tom chechtá a ten debil Polmont taky. Všichni ostatní maji na nohou holinky, jenom já mám tenisky a připadám si jako magor a je to celý děsně brutální… …Jestli s tím včas nepřestane, koleduje si o jednu do držky, kretén. T., p. 77

Translating “wanker” with “debil” is rather weak and does not connote the sexual

subtext of the word. Some “sexual” swearword as “čurák” or “šulín” would be perfectly

equivalent. Translating “toss” using “magor” creates another shift, because “toss” should have

the connotation of something futile or someone hopeless (see Thorne 1999) which indicates

56

that using simply “připadám si jako blbec” would be much more precise. The last sentence

seems to be again slightly shifted, but works well as a whole.

Polmont took a step back. If any cunt was killin Gally, it wisnae gaunny be him. Eh wisnae even intae a square-go. S., p. 201

Polmont ustoupil o krok zpátky. Jestli nějakej blbec chce Gallyho zabít, tak on to bejt nemá. Dokonce ani do poctivýho souboje se mu nechtělo. T., p. 197

Using only “blbec” in this context, where the plot inevitably rushes towards a fight is

rather weak. The “cunt” in the original seems to be carrying much more expressive power

containing readiness to fight and hatred. The translator should have used “šmejd”, “hajzl”,

“zmrd” or any other suitable more vulgar word. The second marked case is another mistake,

because no Czech schemie (this is Welsh’s own term and is translated as “sídlišťák”) would

ever use “poctivý souboj” in this context. “Square-go” is translated and should be translated

as “férovka” accompanied with the preposition “na” – “ani na férovku se mu nechtělo”.

3.2.2.3 Andrew Galloway

The character of Andrew Galloway is one of the more polite, but during his life he

gradually stagnates towards a more wasted and vulgar personality.

- Andrew Galloway, sir, ah goes. The dressin-doon the cunt wis giein us wis fuckin mortifyin, cause thir wis gadges gaun past fae the other classes, n lassies n aw, n they wir aw laughin at us S., p. 83

”Andrew Galloway,pane,” povidám. To jak nám umejval hlavy, to byl teda kurevskej trapas, páč kolem nás chodili kluci z jinejch tříd a taky holky a všichni se nám vychechtávali. T., p. 88

57

The “dressing-down” again is harder than just “umejval hlavy” – not taking into

account that “umejval hlavy” is outdated and not “cool”. Using simply “sjet” or “seřvat”

would convey the mood of the original much better. “Kurevskej trapas” works well in the

given context, only the structure of the sentence as a whole would need re-building to avoid

the English look.

Blackie’s rabbittin oan n oan, but eh’s oaf ehs fuckin heid n McDonald’s telling the cunt tae sit doon. Then wir dismissed. It’s aw gaun roond the school, every cunt’s aboot wettin thirsels. S., p. 134

Blackie pořád něco mele a je doslova bez sebe a McDonald mu řiká, aby si sednul. Pak nás pustěji. Celá škola nemluví o ničem jiným, všichni se z toho můžou posrat. T., p. 135

“Off his fuckin head” is again underestimated in the translation, because “doslova bez

sebe” is a neutral idiom and lacks the expressivity of the original. Using “totálně/kurevsky

mimo” is much closer to the original. Omitting the two occurrences of “cunt” is all right in

this context, but the final “wetting themselves” is translated with the wrong bodily function,

because this idiomatic phrase is used in the sense of pissing with laughter – “všichni se můžou

pochcat smíchy”.

It couldnae be McMurray, no Polmont; no that fuckin nervous drippy cunt, that shitein puppet ay Doyle’s. She went oan n oan, and ah wanted her tae shut up. Telt her tae shut her fuckin dirty slut mooth… S., p. 215

Nemoh to bejt McMurray, ne Polmont; ten zasranej, nervní, ukňouranej hajzl, ta Doyleova loutka, co je v jednom kuse posraná starchy. Jenže ona to omílala pořád dokola a já chtěl, aby už konečně sklapla. Řek jsem jí, aby zavřela tu svojí zasranou, sprostou, špinavou kurevskou klapačku… T., p. 210

The translation of the first marked case works well, although if we take into

consideration how much Andrew hates Polmont, the “cunt” should have been translated with

58

some harsher word like “zmrd”. Translating the “shitein cunt” using a subordinate clause and

inserting “v jednom kuse” which is not present in the original seems to be a bit unlucky

solution. Using “ta strachy posraná Doyleova loutka” would be perfectly enough.

Considering how tense this piece of narrative is and how it is loaded with emotions,

even these marked words should have been translated with harder words. To create an

atmosphere equivalent to the original, I would use “zavřela hubu” instead of the smoother

“sklapla” and “držku” instead of the smoother and outdated “klapačku”.

3.2.2.4 Carl Ewart

The last fourth of the book is narrated by the character of Carl Ewart who becomes a

successful D.J. in the second half of the book.

It wis fuckin useless though: their sex education lessons. Gallagher fae Science showin ye aw they diagrams ay cocks n baws cut in half, n the insides ay lassies’ fannies; canals n tubes n unborn bairns n aw that sortay stuff. Stuff that would put ye oaf huvin a ride. S., p. 138

Jenomže to bylo absolutně na hovno, ta jejich sexuální výchova. Jak nám Gallagher, co učí přírodopis, předváděl všechny ty nákresy čuráků a koulí rozříznutý napůl a vnitřky holčičích kund; kanálky a trubičky a nenarozený děti a tak podobně. Takový věci, co by nás od šoustání akorát odradily. T., p. 139

The first marked case is a perfect equivalent. It uses a very natural, almost idiomatic

Czech construction. The next two marked places work exactly as well. I will only advocate

the use of “rozříznutejch” instead of “rozříznutý” for the sake of proper object-modifier

congruence. The last marked case is also very natural.

59

Nearly fuckin sixteen. Cunts’ll never believe that ye goat yir hole unless ye act cool, cause that’s the best part ay it, no telling every cunt ye goat it, but makin sure that they ken, sortay bein a quiet authority oan the subject. S., p. 178

Doprdele, necelejch šestnáct. Žádnej pičus by mi nikdy nevěřil, že jsem už píchal, kdybych se choval jako pako, protože takhle to je naprosto nejlepší, nikomu neřikat, že už to máte za sebou, ale přitom si zařídit, aby to každej poznal, jako bejt v tomhle směru tichá autorita. T., p. 176

As the first case works fairly equivalent, the second one shifts the degree of

expressivity, because the “cunts” in the original are in this case neutral and functioning as

“they, anybody”. In the third case the “cunt” is translated exactly as the context requires.

Ah’m shoutin at the toap ay ma voice, - C’moan Galloway, ya attention-seeking wee prick! Huv a fuckin heart! These people huv been lookin eftir us. We’re oan holiday! They didnae need aw this shite! S., p. 341

Zařvu, jak nejvíc můžu: ”No tak, Gallowayi, ty malej čuráku, co furt vyžaduješ pozornost” Měj sakra slitování! Tyhle lidi se o nás staraji. Jsme na dovolený! Takovýhle hovadiny nemaji zapotřebí!” T., p. 325

The first case works quite well, although a more idiomatic construction should be used

such as “z plných plic”. The second sentence is not very natural, because it uses a subordinate

clause to convey the meaning of “attention-seeking”. Subordinate clauses are used only

seldom in youth speech, because their usage signals that a person is educated and thus not

cool. On the other hand, we have to admit that in this case there is no better possibility than

this.

The other two cases seem to be translated under the original degree of expressivity and

should be substituted with stronger words like “kurva” and “pičoviny”.

60

3.2.3 The result

The analysed material was again chosen randomly from the beginning, the middle and

the end of the book in approximately the same extent for each of the characters. Glue seems to

contain less expressive words and phrases than Trainspotting. The total count of analyzed

cases (those underlined in the examples) in this book was 38. Out of these 42.1 per cent were

translated satisfactorily and 57.9 per cent were either not equivalent or unnatural.

This translation as a whole is much better mastered than the translation of

Trainspotting, although the percentage of successful swearword translations is only slightly

higher. The translation keeps the individual characters’ degree of expressivity and imitates the

changes in their expression as they grow older.

3.3 Fever Pitch

3.3.1 General literary analysis

The successful first novel by Nick Hornby, Fever Pitch represents the opposite side of

the swearword spectrum. Compared to the the books of Irvine Welsh that literally spout

explicit vulgar language, Fever Pitch is an ordinary book. It describes Hornby’s life and his

passion for football from its beginning in 1968 to 1992 when the book was published. It uses

swearwords economically and therefore it presents a different point of view.

3.3.2 Analysis of specific cases

And if this theory of fandom as therapy is anywhere near the mark, what the hell is buried in the subconscious of people who go to Leyland DAF Trophy games? S., p. 9

A pokud je tahle teorie o fandění jako terapii aspoň přibližně správná, co je propána zakopáno v podvědomí lidí, kteří jezdí na zápasy Leyland DAF Trophy? T., p. 16

61

Here we can see that the intensifying “the hell” is translated with “propána” which

indicates that the book uses rather decent language. Although this case could be translated

with “sakra”, the expression would not match the overall style.

It wasn’t the size of the crowd that impressed me most, however, or the way that adults were allowed to shout the word ‘WANKER!’ as loudly as they wanted without attracting any attention. S., p. 12

Jenomže na mě nejvíc ze všeho nezapůsobila velikost obecenstva, ani to, že se tu dospělým dovolovalo hulákat “ČURÁKU!” tak hlasitě, jak se jim zlíbilo, aniž by to kohokoli vyvádělo z míry. T., p. 18

If, as seemed probable, I provoked the entire terrace into a deafening chant of ‘HORNBY IS A WANKER’… S., p. 66

A jestli, jak se mi zdálo pravděpodobné, vyprovokuji celý ochoz, aby ohlušivě hulákal “HORNBY JE ČURÁK”… T., p. 78

As the book makes impression of a very decent text, the occurence of “čuráku” is

rather striking. On the other hand, the original displays “wanker” without hesitation. In order

to be faithful to the original, the translator had to reach for a stronger expression.

‘Who done him? Scousers?’ At this point the man lost patience. ‘No. He’s had a heart attack, you little prats. Now fuck off.’ S., p. 63

“Kdo ho sejmul?” zeptal se taktně. “Liverpoolský?” V tom okamžiku muž ztratil trpělivost. “Ne. Dostal prostě infarkt, vy parchanti mrňavý. A táhněte do hajzlu.” T., p. 74

In this example the phrase “do someone” is very well translated as “sejmout někoho”

which is deeply integrated in youth slang in this country. The second marked case shows a

slight shift, because “prat” should not be translated as “parchant” – it has the meaning of

“idiot” or “stupid”. The last case is translated precisely at the niveau of expressivity set in the

original.

62

…Dad … grumbling about still watching the same bloody Arsenal… S., p. 129

…tátu … vrčí něco o tom, že se pořád musí dívat na ten starý pitomý Arsenal… T., p. 147

The case of “bloody” proves again that the translation is set to be polite – the translator

could have used a stronger word such as “zatracený” or “mizerný”. The case is equivalent.

‘I know more than you ever will, you snotty little fuckwit!’ S., p. 131

“Vím toho víc, než ty kdy v životě budeš, ty mizernej usmrkanej parchante!” T., p. 149

This translation is semantically completely non-equivalent – there is no original for

“mizernej”, “little” is not translated and “parchante” definitely does not mean the same as

“fuckwit”. On the other hand if we consider only the function of the phrase in separation, it is

perfectly equivalent.

‘Fucking tear gas!’ somebody shouted, and, although thankfully it wasn’t, the alarm inevitably induced panic. S., p. 134

“Slznej plyn, kurva!” zařval někdo, a i když to naštěstí slzný plyn nebyl, stačil ten poplašný výkřik způsobit paniku. T., p. 152

This case presents another well mastered functional equivalent. The word order and

even word classes have to yield the function of this exclamation. The expressive cluster has

moved to the end of the exclamation in translation.

‘Here come the fucking Wongs’, remarked one of a group of young men… S., p. 194

“Hele, přišli i rákosáci,” poznamenal jistý mladík… T., p. 216

63

Here we can observe an offensive address that lost the expressive adjective in

translation. In addition, a slang-aware translator would use “rákosníci” (see Rysová) which is

more widespread.

‘You can stick your fucking two points up your arse,’ the crowd sang gleefully… S., p. 232

“Strrrčte si ty zasraný dva bóóódy do prdéééle!” zpívali diváci nadšeně… T., p. 256

The last case exhibits functional equivalence, although the form has slightly changed.

There is nothing in the original that would imply the changes in spelling that can be observed

in the translation which leads us to see them as an unnecessary invention of the translator.

3.3.3 The result

This text seems to achieve a much higher degree of equivalence than the previous two

with the score of nine satisfactory translations to four unsatisfactory randomly picked cases.

The higher functionality of the translation can be attributed to the low saturation with

swearwords and its aim on language decency.

64

4 Results and conclusions

We have defined what is expressive and we have shown the main features of the concept

of functional (dynamic) equivalence. Then we have judged the degree of functional

equivalence in three contemporary translations with special respect to expressive elements

they contain. The analysis showed that two of the three contemporary translations of chosen

prose works lack adequate and equivalent translation of expressive phrases and vocabulary.

Although there are virtually no misunderstandings or directly wrong translations, the

overall quality of the translations indeed seems to be lowered. This is caused, in my opinion,

by the low naturalness of the expressive phrases and vocabulary used in the target language

text. Considering the fact that naturalness is one of Nida’s basic requirements on a successful

D-E translation, we have to note that these translations lack dynamic equivalence, because

they are not natural.

What is the cause of this? First, the translators sometimes choose an inappropriate

degree of expressivity for their target language text when working with expressive source

material. Second, they choose expressions that do not match the overall slang they chose for

the individual characters which causes the occurrence of anachronisms or words from diverse

language layers.

Since I observe equivalent translations as adequate and good in my view of the matter,

the result is that two of the three analysed contemporary novels proved as inadequate. This

leads us to the suggestion that translators who translate works containing explicit expressive

phrases and vocabulary from English to Czech need to pay more attention to this language

phenomena in their future work.

65

5 Bibliography

5.1 Primary works Welsh, Irvine. Glue. Vintage 2002, London: Vintage, 2002. ISBN 0 09 928592 4 Welsh, Irvine. Lepidlo. Přeložila Eva Poskočilová. Praha: BB/art, 2004. ISBN 80-7341-268-3 Welsh, Irvine. Trainspotting. London: Vintage, 2001. ISBN 07 49336501 Welsh, Irvine. Trainspotting. Přeložil Ondřej Formánek. Praha: Maťa, 1997. ISBN 80-86013-28-6 Hornby, Nick. Fever Pitch. London: Penguin Books, 2000. ISBN 0140293442 Hornby. Nick. Fotbalová horečka. Přeložil Richard Podaný. Praha: BB art, 2002. ISBN 80-7257-861-8

5.2 Secondary sources Baker, Darren – Varadíková, Eva. Konverzace slangové angličtiny - A Book of American Slang and Conversation. Ostrava: Osna a.s., 1994. ISBN 80-85859-09-2 Bassnett, Susan. Translation studies. London: Routledge, 1991. ISBN 0-415-06528-3 ‘Chomsky’. Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia. 11 January 2006 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chomsky>. Čechová, Marie et al. Současná česká stylistika. Praha: ISV, 2003. ISBN 8086642003 Gentzler, Erwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge, 1993. ISBN 0-415-09172-1 Krčmová, Marie. ‘Stratifikace současné češtiny’ Linguistica ONLINE. 10 January 2006 <http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/krcmova/krc-012.pdf>. Krčmová, Marie. ‘Slangové výrazivo jako součást zábavných textů’ Linguistica ONLINE. 10 January 2006 <http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/krcmova/krc-010.pdf>. Krčmová, Marie: ‘Proces konstituování současné běžné mluvy’ Linguistica ONLINE. 10 January 2006 <http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/krcmova/krc-007.pdf>. Křístek, Michal: ‘Způsoby vymezování stylové příznakovosti v lexiku (na materiálu současné češtiny)’ Linguistica ONLINE. 10 January 2006 <http://www.phil.muni.cz/linguistica/art/kristek/kri-007.pdf>

66

Levý, Jiří. Umění překladu. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1963. Newmark, Peter. A Textbook Of Translation. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2003. ISBN 0-13-912593-0 Nida, E. A. The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982. Nida, E. A. Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1964. Obrátil, Karel Jaroslav. Velký slovník sprostých slov. Praha: Lege Artis, 1999. Powell’s.com Interviews – Interview with Irvine Welsh. 11 January 2006 <http://www.powells.com/authors/welsh.html>. Rysová, Kateřina. Slangový projev mládeže: slovník současné hovorové češtiny. České Budějovice: Pedagogické centrum České Budějovice, 2003. Thorne, Tony. Dictionary of Contemporary Slang. London: Bloomsbury, 1990. ISBN 07475-4594-4 Uličný, Oldřich. ‘Expresivita a překlad umělecké prózy’ Slavica Pragensia 32, p. 329 – 354 Praha 1988. Zima, Jaroslav. Expresivita slova v současné češtině: studie lexikologická a stylistická. Praha: Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1961.

67