Department of English and American Studies

Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies English-language Translation

Jana Doleželová

Plagiarism in Translation Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph. D.

2011

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

I would like to thank my supervisor, dr. Kamenická, for her time and her valuable comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Ing. Rambousek for his insights and for the materials he kindly provided for this thesis.

Table of Contents 1.

THEORETICAL PART-------------------------------------------------------------------------------6

1.1. INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6 1.2. PLAGIARISM IN GENERAL ---------------------------------------------------------------------------7 1.2.1. HISTORY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 1.2.2. CURRENT SITUATION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 1.2.2.1. Motivation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 1.2.2.2. Learning ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 1.2.2.3. Memory ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 1.2.2.4. Inspiration ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 1.2.3. CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14 1.3. PLAGIARISM IN TRANSLATION -------------------------------------------------------------------- 15 1.3.1. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TRANSLATION SCHOLARS --------------------------------------- 15 1.3.2. FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE LAW --------------------------------------------------------- 20 1.3.3. AVOIDING PLAGIARISM IN TRANSLATION -------------------------------------------------------- 22 1.3.4. TRANSLATION PLAGIARISM: TYPES AND MOTIVES ---------------------------------------------- 25 1.3.4.1. A. Translation Passed Off As Original Work -------------------------------------------- 26 1.3.4.2. B. Original Work Passed Off As Translation -------------------------------------------- 27 1.3.4.3. C. Translation Published under Somebody Else’s Name by the Translator ------ 28 1.3.4.4. D. Translation Published under Somebody Else’s Name by the Publisher ------- 29 1.3.4.4.1. Skřipec 1998 and 2004: Ottovo nakladatelství, Translation of Le Petit Prince 30 1.3.4.4.2. Skřipeček 2003: Bastei Moba, Various Translations -------------------------------- 31 1.3.4.4.3. Skřipec 2009: Millenium Publishing, Translation of The Hound of the Baskervilles ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 33 1.3.4.4.4. Other Cases ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34 1.3.4.5. E. Translation in Which the Translator Used Other Translations ------------------ 35 1.3.4.5.1. Tradition ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 1.3.4.5.2. Quality---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39 1.3.4.5.3. Memory & Learning ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 39 1.3.4.5.4. A Difficult Original Text ------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 1.3.4.5.5. Convenience -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 40 1.3.4.6. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41 2.

PRACTICAL PART --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42

2.1. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 42 2.2. THE WIZARD OF OZ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 42 2.2.1. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 42 2.2.2. SOFTWARE ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 45 2.2.3. MANUAL ANALYSIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 2.2.3.1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 50 2.2.3.2. Analysis of the Differences ----------------------------------------------------------------- 52 2.2.3.2.1. Syntax, Punctuation, Words Added or Omitted -------------------------------------- 54 2.2.3.2.2. Changes within a Word ------------------------------------------------------------------- 55 2.2.3.2.3. Near-Synonyms ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 56 2.2.3.2.4. A Minor Adjustment of a Phrase -------------------------------------------------------- 57 2.2.3.2.5. Different Translation ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 59 2.2.3.2.6. Conclusion ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 59

2.2.3.3. Analysis of Similarities ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 2.2.3.4. Other Strategies to Prove Plagiarism by Manual Analysis --------------------------- 63 2.2.3.4.1. Comparison with another retranslation----------------------------------------------- 63 2.2.3.4.2. Translation of proper names ------------------------------------------------------------ 63 2.2.4. CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 65 2.3. LE MORTE D’ARTHUR ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 2.3.1. INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 68 2.3.1.1. The Original Text ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 68 2.3.1.2. The Czech and Slovak Translations ------------------------------------------------------- 68 2.3.2. SOFTWARE ANALYSIS ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73 2.3.2.1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 73 2.3.2.2. Rodriguez & Caha ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 75 2.3.2.3. Rodriguez & Castiglione -------------------------------------------------------------------- 76 2.3.2.4. Castiglione & Caha --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 77 2.3.2.5. Volume III of Rodriguez’s Translation --------------------------------------------------- 77 2.3.2.6. Conclusion ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 78 2.3.3. MANUAL ANALYSIS BY ČERMÁK ------------------------------------------------------------------ 79 2.3.3.1. Introduction ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 79 2.3.3.2. Analysis ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 80 2.3.3.2.1. Conclusive Findings in table 6A --------------------------------------------------------- 84 2.3.3.2.2. Inconclusive Findings in Table 6A ------------------------------------------------------ 85 2.3.3.2.3. Conclusive Findings in Table 6B -------------------------------------------------------- 89 2.3.3.2.4. Inconclusive Findings in Table 6B ------------------------------------------------------ 91 2.3.3.3. Summary --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 91 2.3.3.4. Comparison with Podaný’s Approach ---------------------------------------------------- 92 2.3.3.5. Comparison with Vosková’s Retranslation of The Wizard of Oz -------------------- 94 2.3.3.6. Translator’s Motivation --------------------------------------------------------------------- 94 2.3.4. STUDENTS’ TRANSLATIONS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 96 2.3.5. CONCLUSION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 98 2.4. CONCLUSION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 103 3.

WORKS CITED ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104

3.1. PRIMARY SOURCES ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 104 3.2. SECONDARY SOURCES --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 104 4.

SUMMARY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 109

5.

RESUMÉ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 110

6.

APPENDICES (ON CD)-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 111

1. Theoretical Part 1.1. Introduction This thesis will examine plagiarism in translation, a topical but not very well documented issue: while plagiarism as such is nowadays widely discussed, plagiarism in translation is relatively unexplored. For this reason, the theoretical part of the thesis will first discuss the topic more broadly, endeavouring to show the similarities and differences between plagiarism in translation and in other fields and concentrating on some of the flaws implicit to conventional definitions of plagiarism and on the relevance of these definitions to translation plagiarism. It will also explore the topic from the scholarly and the legal standpoints, showing that they may not always coincide. Finally, it will endeavour to establish a general categorisation of the cases in which translation plagiarism takes place. The practical part will concentrate on a one of the categories of translation plagiarism established in the theoretical part – a translator using existing translations of the source text in his or her own work. This part of the thesis will analyze two modern Czech translations from English, endeavouring to prove that both of them plagiarise previous translations. For this purpose, the texts will be analysed both manually and mechanically to find out whether software can assist manual analysis (or perhaps even substitute it). The thesis will endeavour to find out what strategies can be used in the manual analysis to reveal and give evidence of plagiarism in translation. It will also focus on the motivation of the translators to take advantage of existing translations and on the strategies they used.

6

1.2. Plagiarism in General 1.2.1. History The Oxford English Dictionary defines plagiarism in the following way: 1. The action or practice of taking someone else's work, idea, etc., and passing it off as one's own; literary theft. 2. A particular idea, piece of writing, design, etc., which has been plagiarized; an act or product of plagiary. (“Plagiarism”)

As a dictionary definition, it is inevitably very broad and general, but the essential idea is easy to understand: plagiarism equals taking somebody else’s work and pretending it is one’s own. The definition also presumes that the authors of the “idea, piece of writing, design, etc.” have the right to claim these products of their creativity as their own; in other words, it presumes the existence of the concept of intellectual property. It is important to note that this concept is relatively new to Western culture. According to Richard Kearney’s The Wake of Imagination: Ideas of Creativity in Western Culture, one can distinguish “three dominant paradigms, the mimetic (premodern), the productive (modern), and the parodic (postmodern)” in the Western imagination (qtd. in Pennycock 204). In the mimetic era (“biblical, classical and medieval”, Pennycock 204), it was believed that the creative process stems from an inspiration of divine origin. The shift from mimetic to productive paradigm, where “the imagination was no longer viewed as a mimetic capacity but as a productive force” (Pennycock 204), only occurred during the Enlightenment era; and the Statute of Anne – the first British copyright law, generally regarded to

7

be the first copyright law in the world – was enacted in the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1709. Undoubtedly, much more could be said about the development of the complicated concepts of authorship, originality and plagiarism. This brief note is just to show that the views on what is and what is not acceptable in terms of using other people’s texts and thoughts differ significantly in different historical periods and in different cultures. This thesis will examine the issue of plagiarism from the modern Western point of view; in other times and other places it might have been viewed very differently.

1.2.2. Current situation Nowadays, the issue of plagiarism is probably most pressing and most debated in the fields of education and research. Students and scholars alike are expected to submit papers which are original and which cite their sources properly; this requires a clear set of rules that writers have to comply with. As no such strict rules are set for translators and as there are relatively few sources devoted to these problems in the field of translation and to cases of (suspected) translation plagiarism, standards and examples from the fields of education and research will be used to highlight similar issues in the field of translation. Even though the criteria for citing and avoiding plagiarism may be different for each institution (be it a school, a university or a scholarly journal), the definition of plagiarism is, in essentials, always the same as the following one: “Plagiarism is defined as the failure to properly document all materials from sources, published or otherwise, that are included in an essay, research paper, examination, or other assignment” (“Academic Information”).

8

Based on this definition, students who fail to document their sources properly are guilty of plagiarism, as the work they submit as their own contains other people’s (undocumented) original work – regardless of what the students’ motivation is and even regardless of whether it is an intentional act or only a failure to cite properly. This is only one of the possible problems which this seemingly very clear definition fails to take into consideration: other omitted issues are those of memory, learning and inspiration. The following sections will, therefore, discuss these important issues in more detail.

1.2.2.1. Motivation Students committing plagiarism intentionally (to save their time or to improve their work with other people’s ideas) and unintentionally (because they fail to cite properly) are, technically speaking, committing the same offence. However, from a less technical point of view, there is a sizeable difference between a student who copied an article from an internet site and submitted it as his or her own, and a student who forgot to attribute a thought or a paraphrased sentence to its original author. Moreover, students and researchers whose first language is not the same as the language in which they write their papers may also unintentionally commit plagiarism in an attempt to improve the language of their papers: they do not use other peoples thoughts, but their words. “Researchers in countries where English is not the first language may believe that language re-use (to improve ‘the English’ and avoid rejection because of language or writing faults) is not plagiarism” (Shashok 303). The ones who judge their work may, however, be of a different opinion and refuse to accept the paper on the grounds of plagiarism.

9

1.2.2.2. Learning Another possible problem may lie in the fact that when students work on an essay (or any other project), they are expected to get acquainted with scholarly articles and papers on the topic. This will undoubtedly influence their ideas on the subject – in fact, that is the reason for doing the background reading – and unless they fail to comply with the citation standards required by their teachers, they are not guilty of plagiarism. Critical reading, comprehension and assessment of other people’s texts form an important part of the learning process. Accordingly, when students of translation are assigned a translation of a certain text, they may – among other sources – consult the existing translations (if there are any) of the text in question; in fact, they are often encouraged or required to do so. While studying these translations should improve students’ work (just as a thorough background reading should improve an essay), their own translations are expected to be original and not dependent on any previous translation. However, some students may not be aware of the danger of being influenced by other translators’ solutions, or of the fact that translation is, in fact, an original piece of writing which can be plagiarised. Hence, it may happen that when a student’s translation project is compared to a published translation, the connection between them is easy to see, as in the following example: 1. Alan Sillitoe: On Saturday Afternoon 2. Alan Sillitoe: V sobotu odpoledne 3. Alan Sillitoe: V sobotu odpoledne 1. The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner, W. H. Allen, London 1980 (first published in 1958). P. 104-105.1 2. Trans. by Petr Pujman. Osamělost přespolního běžce, SNKLU, Praha 1965, p. 54-

1

“The Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner, W. H. Allen, London 1980 (poprvé 1958). S. 104-105.”

10

55.2 3. (unpublished translation)3 1. I once saw a bloke try to kill himself. 2. Jednou jsem vám viděl chlápka, jak se chystá zasebevraždit. 3. Jednou jsem vám viděl chlápka, jak se pokouší vodkrouhnout. 1. I'll never forget the day, because I was sitting in the house one Saturday afternoon, 2. Na ten den do smrti nezapomenu, protože jsem seděl doma takhle v sobotu odpoledne, 3. Na ten den nikdy nezapomenu, protože jsem seděl doma v baráku jednu sobotu odpoledne, 1. feeling black and fed-up because everybody in the family had gone to the pictures, 2. byl jsem naštvanej a votrávenej, protože celá rodina odešla do bijáku; 3. byl jsem naštvanej, protože celá rodina vodešla do bijáku. 1. except me who'd for some reason been left out of it. 2. [-] mě z nějakýho důvodu vynechali. 3. [-] Mě z nějakýho důvodu nevzali. (Rambousek, Introduction to Translation)

The student obviously used the official translation in his or her own text, most likely without realising the possible consequences of such an action. It seems that the student not only strove to improve his or her translation by adopting some particularly apt renderings from the published translation (such as biják or vám), but also used the text as a general guideline for his or her own project. It is of course possible that the primary motivation for this was to make the task easier, but the student might also have simply liked the published translation and strove

2 3

“Přeložil Petr Pujman. Osamělost přespolního běžce, SNKLU, Praha 1965, s. 54-55.” “(nepublikovaný překlad)”.

11

to produce one which would be similarly good, going to the extreme of partly copying his or her model text.

1.2.2.3. Memory Even if students do not intentionally copy passages from their sources, they can still use other people’s words without being fully aware of it. In his paper on plagiarism, Alastair Pennycock cites an example of one of his students, who submitted an essay (a short biography of Abraham Lincoln) obviously cribbed from another source. However, Pennycock found out that the student did not actually copy it; he had learnt it by heart as a pupil and he could still remember it, so he just wrote down what he already knew (201-2). This is perhaps an extreme example, but it demonstrates a generally valid fact: our thoughts and words are shaped by other people’s thoughts and words. After all, in Kearney’s terminology, we live in the postmodern “parodic” age. As Goethe said: “Everything clever has already been thought; one must only try to think it again” (qtd. in Pennycock 208).

1.2.2.4. Inspiration For this reason, it may be difficult to avoid using other people’s words and thoughts. Despite the copyright laws, the concept of intellectual property and the strict academic rules concerning plagiarism, the debate on what is original and what is plagiarism is far from over. This debate goes beyond the fields of education and research. A very recent example of this can be found in Axolotl Roadkill, a recent novel by a young German author Helene Hegemann, which raised a heated debate in Germany about the boundaries between inspiration and plagiarism. The author’s first novel is controversial enough in itself: it is a fictional diary of a 16-year-old drug-addicted and emotionally unstable Mifti from Berlin, written in complex and sometimes

12

barely understandable language; the blurb in the Czech translation of the book describes it as a “collage of meta-reality”4 (Dobrovolná). However, this controversy was soon surpassed by another: literary critics discovered that the book also contained citations, sometimes paraphrased or translated and intertwined to the narrative, without attributing them properly to the respective authors. In the afterword to the Czech translation of the book, the translator described the resulting situation in the following way: Without informing the readers or the copyright owners, the author inserted into her text not only allusions to other works, but also excerpts from them. […] The German literary scene then experienced a heated debate, resembling (in Mifti’s words) a debate between the modern and the postmodern. The main topics of the debate were plagiarism v. intertextuality, originality v. genuineness […]5 (Dobrovolná 183).

While Helene Hegemann actually used excerpts from other works – or, to put it differently, other people’s words – an author can also use other people’s thoughts and ideas without using the same words. If a student paraphrases a sentence from a scholarly paper and fails to document the source, he or she is guilty of plagiarism just as if they had taken the sentence word by word. It would, however, be difficult to prosecute an author because he or she was inspired by someone else’s poem or novel. Throughout the history of literature, it is possible to find thousands of examples of works inspired by other authors’ works. To cite at least one of them: in 1950, an American author and translator Paul Bowles published a collection of short stories, including one titled “The Circular Valley”. The title is very similar to a “koláž metareality”. “Aniž by autorka čtenáře či držitele autorských práv upozornila, zakomponovala do textu nejen aluze na jiná díla, ale i jejich útržky. […] Na německé literární scéně následovala bouřlivá diskuse, připomínající (slovy Mifti) debatu mezi modernou a postmodernou. Jejími hlavními tématy byly plagiátorství vs. intertextualita, původnost vs. opravdovost […].” 4 5

13

short story written in Spanish by Jorge Luis Borges and called “Las ruinas circulares”6, which Bowles had translated four years earlier. At the first glance, the two stories are completely different, with different characters, settings and narrative, but they do share certain elements: “Both are set in previously sacred land now abandoned or profaned, and similarly blur reality and fantasy in exploring shared experience between different types of human and non-human beings” (Borges, qtd. in Perlow 114). For a reader familiar with both stories, the inspiration by Borges is clear to see in Bowles story, which is nevertheless a very original work.

1.2.3. Conclusion All in all, it can be said that even though plagiarism is easy to define, it can sometimes be very difficult to put the definition into practice. In the education system and in research papers, it is relatively straightforward: there are rules which students and scholars have to comply with if they want their essays and papers to be accepted. The situation is much more complicated in the field of fiction, but in spite of this, certain elements are present in both cases: the motivation of the plagiarist and the interconnected factors of memory, learning and inspiration. As will be shown in the following section, the same factors may also play a significant role in translation plagiarism.

6

Literally, “The Circular Ruins”.

14

1.3. Plagiarism in Translation 1.3.1. From the Point of View of Translation Scholars In the European countries, translation has had a very long history. According to Jiří Levý, it even pre-dates original literature: the Roman literature stemmed from translations from Greek, just as the European national literatures stemmed from translations from Latin (České theorie překladu 17). However, translation norms and aesthetics have often changed, ranging between the free and the literal, the “word-for-word” and “sense-for-sense”, between those that kept the form and those that kept the meaning, and many other polarities. Furthermore, the boundary between the author and the translator has not always been as clear-cut as it is today. During the Middle Ages, translation merged with original literature: the concept of the original in our understanding of the word was not known; translations and translations of translations were used as source texts. The aim of the person known as translatour was not to present – freely or faithfully – the qualities of the original in his own language, but the source text was for him but a starting point serving his own purpose […]7 (Cejp, qtd. in Levý, České theorie překladu 20).

Translation and original only began to be clearly distinguished during the era of humanism. In brief, there have been many – often contradictory – views on what translation is, what is should be, and to what extent the translator is a creator of a new work of art or a mere rewriter or “cribber” of the original. It is not the aim of this thesis to

“pojem originálu, jak my jej chápeme, nebyl znám, nýbrž […] se překládaly překlady a překlady překladů. Cílem toho, který se zval translatour, nebylo podat ve vlastním jazyce kvality originálu, ať volně či věrně, nýbrž výchozí text mu byl jen odrazovým můstkem k jeho vlastnímu záměru […].” 7

15

engage in this discussion, so for the purpose of its research the following modern definition of translation shall be taken as valid: The aim of translator’s work is to preserve, express, communicate the original work, not to create a new work with no predecessor; the aim of translation is reproduction. The working method of this art is substituting one language matter for another, and thus independently using all the artistic resources stemming from the language itself; therefore, in its own language area, translation is original and creative. A translation as a work of art is an artistic reproduction, translation as a process is a creative and original process, translation as an art form is a border case between reproductive and original art8 9 [emphasis added]. (Levý, Umění překladu, 49-50)

From the point of view of translation plagiarism research, the most important part of the definition is that “a translation as a work of art is an artistic reproduction, translation as a process is original and creative”, which could also be rephrased as “despite the imitative nature of a work of translation, the translating process is original creation”. In still other words: translators' work is their own, and they have as much right to the fruits of their labor as original writers. In other words, there is such a thing as translation plagiarism, and the lines between legitimate creativity and theft are not so clearly drawn as is the case with original literature. (Leighton 69)

As far as the verifiability of plagiarism in translation is concerned, Jiří Levý is of the same opinion as Leighton: “Plagiarism in translation is much more common “Cílem překladatelovy práce je zachovat, vystihnout, sdělit původní dílo, nikoliv vytvořit dílo nové, které nemělo předchůdce; cíl překladu je reprodukční. Pracovním postupem tohoto umění je náhrada jednoho jazykového materiálu jiným, a tudíž samostatné vytvoření všech uměleckých prostředků vycházejících z jazyka; v jazykové oblasti, v níž se odehrává, je tedy původně tvůrčí. Překlad jako dílo je umělecká reprodukce, překlad jako proces je původní tvoření, překlad jako umělecký druh je pomezný případ na rozhraní mezi uměním reprodukčním a původně tvůrčím.” 9 The first English translation of Levý’s Umění překladu by Mark Corness was not yet available at the time of the writing of the thesis; therefore, all quotes from it are translated to English by the author of the thesis. 8

16

and more difficult to trace than in original literature”10(Umění překladu, 67). While both scholars acknowledge that translation plagiarism exists, they both also state that it is less easy to detect than in original literature. However, based on the academic definition of plagiarism cited above, plagiarism in translation could be quite clearly defined as “the action or practice of taking someone else’s translation (or a part of it) and passing it off as one’s own”. Why, then, should the “lines between legitimate creativity and theft” be less obvious in translation than in any other work and why should plagiarism be “far more frequent and more difficult to detect” in translation, compared to original literature? One might suggest that perhaps translation has traditionally been considered “inferior” to original literature, so that cribbing a translation may not be considered such an offence as cribbing an original work and hence can more easily go undetected. It is also possible that the “invisible” translator is not as prominent figure as the writer, so it is easier to forget that the translated text is protected by copyright just as the original text. However, the most important reasons for this discrepancy have already been mentioned above: they are memory and learning. While an original piece of writing – be it a poem, a novel or a school essay – is only written once, there are often, depending on the status of the text in question, several subsequent translations of a work of art (translation as “repeated action”11 in Levý, Umění překladu 65), usually because the previous translation or translations are already considered linguistically, methodologically or otherwise out-dated. Moreover, translators do not necessarily have to look for inspiration only to translations to their own language, but may also consult translations into other languages, especially ones that are related to their own language (and such 10 11

“Plagiát je v překladatelství daleko častější a nesnadněji zjistitelný než v literatuře původní.” “opakovaná činnost”.

17

“interlingual” inspiration would then be even more difficult to detect). While this situation might be quite rare, it is not impossible, as will be discussed later in the thesis (see section 2.3). Whichever the case, the new translators have two difficult questions to answer. Can (or even should) they draw on any existing translation of the work? And if so, then to what extent? The answer to the first question is positive. It seems to be generally accepted that translators can use previous translations – if there are any – to improve their work. Viktor Janiš, a well-known contemporary Czech translator, answered the question whether a translator can seek inspiration in previous translations in the following way: In my opinion, it is all right for a translator to translate a work without being familiar with the previous translation and then consult that translation to possibly find his own mistakes. […] If there is a perfect rendering, of, say, one verse, then I think it may be useful to adopt it. It is definitely better than trying to find a new rendering at all costs, when it is not better than the old one in the end.12 (“Podvody”)

All in all, while translators should not let the first translation influence them too much – a difficult task in itself – it seems to be considered a legitimate practice to use some of its solutions (even though this would have to be considered plagiarism by academic standards). Jiří Levý even states that if this is not the case, then “all achievements of previous translators are null and void, and each translator begins it all from the start again” (qtd. in Leighton 71).

“Myslím si, že je korektní, když překladatel bez znalosti předchozího překladu dílo přeloží a pak se zpětně podívá do překladu konkurenčního, aby případně odhalil chyby vlastní. […] Pokud je to řešení geniální, dejme tomu jednoho verše, pak myslím zase není na škodu to řešení převzít. Je to rozhodně lepší, než naprosto krkolomně vymýšlet nějaké řešení konkurenční, které by nakonec nebylo lepší.” 12

18

To sum it up, referring to what has already been mentioned: just as students are expected to do their background reading to improve their work, translators should get acquainted not only with the author and the original text itself, but also with existing translations of the text. According to Levý, a new translator in this way “follows in the footsteps of his predecessors and learns from their experience, or else is misled by their errors”13 (Umění překladu 66). This not only allows, but presupposes that translators are influenced by existing translations and use them in their own work in some way. There is, however, a clear difference between a student and a translator in this matter: not only that translators can hardly “cite” the existing translations in their texts, but there are no clear rules whatsoever as to how much they can use them. Furthermore, a translator who has dutifully read the existing translation or translations of a particular source text can be influenced by them without even realizing it. As a result, there is no clear benchmark by which to judge whether he or she is guilty of plagiarism. To the second question there is, therefore, no simple answer. There are no hardand-fast rules about the degree to which a translator can draw on an existing translation without committing plagiarism. “A translator’s dependency on his predecessors debases his work only in case that he adopts their solutions for his own convenience and to a degree posing a threat for the original character of his work,”14 says Jiří Levý (Umění překladu 67), but even though a little more specific, this definition nonetheless does not help to distinguish what is “a degree posing a threat to the original character of his work” and for what reasons can the

“navazuje na dílo interpretů předchozích, poučuje se na jejich zkušenostech, případně podléhá jejich omylům”. 14 “Znehodnocující je závislost na práci předchůdců teprve tehdy, přebírá-li překladatel starší řešení z pohodlnosti a v míře, která ohrožuje původní charakter jeho díla.” 13

19

translator take over his predecessor’s solutions, if not it cannot be “for his own convenience”. From an ethical point of view, translators should always cite the translations they have used in their own work, perhaps in the preface or afterword to their translation; they can also use the note “this translation takes into account the translation by…”15. However, such a note or statement can encompass both very minor and very major borrowings from the respective translation or translations. If a translators wishes to use an existing translation extensively, he or she should first seek permission from the respective translator (or the owner of the copyright to the translation), but again, there is no definition of “extensively”. All in all, the only rule of thumb that translators can apply is their own conscience and their views on the matter.

1.3.2. From the Point of View of the Law While the previous section discussed the issue from the view of translators and scholars, this section looks at the same problems from the view of the law, which is more unambiguous. The Czech copyright law explicitly lists translations among the original works which are protected by law. This means that translators stand on equal footing with writers: just as a writer is the author of an original work, the translator is the author of its translation. The law also states that the author cannot waive neither his personal (“osobnostní”) nor his economic (“majetková”) rights to the work or transfer them to another person16; after the death of the author, the

“přeloženo s přihlédnutím k překladu…”. “The author may not waive his personal rights; these rights are non-transferable and become extinct on death of the author. […] Economic rights may not be waived by the author; such rights are not transferable” [official translation]. (Copyright Act) 15 16

20

economic rights to the translation come into possession of his heirs and only expire after 70 years. The penalty for copyright infringement is as follows: Whoever without authorisation infringes the rights to a work protected by copyright, artistic performance, sound or audio-visual recording, radio or television broadcast or database shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of a maximum of two years, or by a financial penalty, or by forfeiture of the object. (Copyright Act)

In spite of the law, a large proportion – about 14%17 – of the translation antiawards Skřipec and Skřipeček have been awarded for plagiarism on the part of both publishing houses and translators themselves. According to the translator and former chairman of the Skřipec jury Libor Dvořák, one of the reasons for that may be the fact that the maximum fine that the publisher could face for publishing a “stolen” translation is relatively low – twice the amount of the translator’s fee (Dvořák, “Uloupené překlady”). He is right; the copyright law says that: the amount of unjust enrichment incurred on the part of whoever uses the work unlawfully without having been granted the necessary licence shall be double the remuneration that would have been awarded under habitual conditions at the time of unauthorised use of the work [official translation]. (Copyright Act)

As there is no statistic evidence of the number of lawsuits that concern translation plagiarism (and as not all cases of plagiarism get to the courts), it is difficult to judge how common this procedure is among Czech translators and publishers; however, judging by the number of cases dealt with by the jury of Skřipec and by the relative “safety” of this crime – it is difficult to detect, given the Obec překladatelů established the annual anti-award Skřipec in 1994. In 1997 it established another accompanying anti-award Skřipeček for non-fiction; this award was cancelled in 2008. As there were sometimes several “winners” and sometimes there were none, Skřipec and Skřipeček were altogether awarded 28 times; out of the 28 awards (for years 1994 to 2009), 5 were awarded for plagiarism (one plagiarised translation received the award twice), which is 14.3 %. 17

21

amount of translations that are published every year, and it is punished relatively leniently – the recipients of Skřipec are not just rare exceptions. To find real-life examples of lawsuits concerning translation plagiarism or translation copyright infringement, a software application for lawyers called Codexis was used. The software contains a database of selected Czech judicial decisions, which is searchable by names or numbers of laws on which the lawsuits are based. Among the cases which concern the Copyright Law, there was only one case – a ruling by the Supreme Court from 2008 – when a person was prosecuted for “stealing” a translation. In this case, a translator sued a representative of his publisher18, who published his translation after the publisher’s licence agreement with the translator had expired. The court, in compliance with the law, sentenced the publisher to a fine amounting to the double of the usual translator’s remuneration (CODEXIS). All in all, it can be concluded that while the Czech legislation does explicitly protect translators’ copyright, its infringement is still relatively common, as can be seen from the number of Skřipec and Skřipeček anti-awards awarded for this offence; one of the reasons for that is probably the relative leniency of the penalty.

1.3.3. Avoiding Plagiarism in Translation Translators are thus caught between two contradictory approaches: on the one hand, they should learn from existing translations; on the other hand, they must take into account the professional and legal consequences of being accused of copyright infringement. In particular, translators working on a retranslation of a work whose existing translation is well-known are aware that their work will be not only scrutinized for adequacy and quality, but also compared to and checked 18

The court rulings in the database are anonymous.

22

against the previous translation. This may lead to situations when the translators not only avoid any renderings used by their predecessors, but they attempt to minimize similarities between the two translations to the extent that they consciously create less-than-ideal solutions (the ideal ones having been used by their predecessors) or rewrite their translation to change accidentally corresponding places. Levý cites the Czech translator Jarmila Loukotková and her difficulties with the previous translation of Villon’s poetry by Otokar Fischer: Very often, when comparing a translated passage to Fischer’s translation, I found places where my expressions, phrases, even rhymes were identical to Fischer’s; we were both lead to them by the wording of the original, independent on each other. In some places I kept my translation as it was; elsewhere, where the similarity was too striking, I translated the verses differently, so as not to be suspected of plagiarism […].19 (Umění překladu 66)

Another example can be found in two recent translation of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. The translations were published two years after each other (in 2003 and 2005 respectively) and by different publishing houses; a very unusual situation only made possible by the publication of a new edition of the very popular – and well-selling – original text. Thus, the new translation was not commissioned because the old one was outdated or inadequate, but because a publisher used the rare opportunity created by the new edition (the only difference between the two editions being that the second one was illustrated), bought the rights to this edition and assigned a new translation of the text to a different translator.

“Na mnoha místech se mi stalo, když jsem přeloženou pasáž srovnala s Fischerem, že výrazy, vazby i rýmy byly shodné s Fischerem, jak nás k nim oba neodvisle dovedlo znění originálu. Někde jsem ponechala převod v oné verzi, jinde, kde byla podobnost příliš nápadná, jsem verše přeložila jinak, abych nebyla podezírána z plagiátu […].” 19

23

The author of the retranslation was in a rather precarious position: she must have been aware that her text would be compared to the previous translation. The result is that “instances when whole sentences are identical [in both translations] form only a negligible percentage of the text. Most of them are short sentences, which do not present the translator with more stylistic alternatives […]”20 (Kufnerová 101). In other words, rather than focusing on creating a text that would be as good a representation of the original text as possible, the translator concentrated on creating a text that would be as different as possible from the previous translation. While it need not necessarily mean that her retranslation is in some way inferior to the first one, such a strategy can hardly be considered the easiest way to arrive at a good translation. Furthermore, despite the fact that the translator was under pressure to create a good translation, she thus automatically excluded good and near-ideal solutions used by her predecessor, which made her position even more difficult. In addition to creating as “original” a translation as possible, the translator (or the publishing house) also changed the book title – from Šifra Mistra Leonarda to Da Vinciho kód. Regardless of the fact that the first title is probably a better rendering of the original, the title of the first translation (which was also used as the Czech title of the movie based on the book) was so well-known at the time that the change could have easily confused the readers and made them think it was an entirely different book. Even though this was perhaps an extreme example, the effort to avoid solutions used in the previous translation(s) is by no means limited to texts published two “případů shodného znění na úrovni věty či souvětí [mezi oběma překlady] je jen nepatrné procento. Vesměs jde o krátké věty, jež neumožňují více stylistických variant […].” 20

24

years after each other. Virginia Woolf’s famous novel Mrs. Dalloway was first translated into Czech in 1975 by Vlasta Dvořáčková; the first retranslation by Kateřina Hilská was published almost thirty years later, in 2004. While it is highly improbable that differing from the previous translations was the primary aim of the author of the retranslation, it is possible to find evidence of this effort in her text. The very first – and also very famous – sentence of the book, “Mrs. Dalloway said she would buy the flowers herself” (Woolf 7) was, almost inevitably, translated by Dvořáčková as “Paní Dallowayová řekla, že květiny koupí sama” (Dvořáčková 7). Hilská changed it to “Květiny obstará sama, řekla paní Dallowayová” (Hilská 5)– a translation which arguably has no merit apart from the fact that it is different from the previous one. In conclusion, it is obvious that even though translators might be expected to learn from their predecessors, the fear of being accused of plagiarism is often stronger – even in cases when the two texts only coincide by chance or because the respective part of the text only has one obvious translation. However, there are also ample cases when translators rely on the work on their predecessors – occasionally even more than they should – and these will be discussed in the following section.

1.3.4. Translation Plagiarism: Types and Motives The previous sections examined the important role of learning in translation, but it is also necessary to examine another factor that the academic definition of plagiarism has failed to take into account – motivation. This section will examine the possible motives behind translation plagiarism while looking more broadly at the types of instances where there might be a suspicion of plagiarism in

25

translation; that is, it will list all possible situations in which the name of the translator stated in the translation is not the name of the actual translator. However, as will be shown, not all of these situations fall into the category of translation plagiarism: A. Translation passed off as original work. B. Original work passed off as translation. C. Translation published under somebody else’s name by the translator. D. Translation published under somebody else’s name by the publisher. E. Translation in which the translator used other translations.

1.3.4.1. A. Translation Passed Off As Original Work Lawrence Venuti cites the example of I. U. Tarchetti, the Italian author whose fantastic short story The Elixir of Immortality was considered to be the “first Gothic tale written in Italian” (Venuti 7), at least until Venuti discovered that it was, in fact, a translation from English and that the real author of the tale was Mary Shelley. Venuti attempted to find reasons for the conduct of the author, which – even though not illegal due to the lack of international copyright law – was still morally doubtful. He suggested two possible motives: financial (an original short story would have brought the author more money than a mere translation) and socially-cultural – in Venuti’s opinion, the tale “wouldn't have had the same impact if it had been identified as a translation” (7) and he came to the conclusion that Mary Shelley herself might have agreed with Tarchetti’s conduct. Another, more recent example involves a South African poet Melanie Grobler, who “relinquished her prize from the prestigious Eugýne Marais literature contest after a plagiarism controversy regarding her work erupted on the Internet” (Bailey). According to Bailey, Grobler used another poem – “There Is No City That

26

Does Not Dream” by Anne Michaels, written in English – as a model for her own prize-awarded poem “Stad”, written in Afrikaans. Even though she denied plagiarism and attributed the similarity between the two poems to the fact that she was a fan of Michaels’ work, her poem was apparently “an almost word-for-word translation” (Bailey) of the one by Michaels’. In both cases, the main motivation for plagiarism seems to be personal gain: in case of Tarchetti, the might have been financial reasons, while Grobler probably sought recognition of her work and perhaps personal fame (even though she may have only been naive and unaware of the possible consequences of her actions). However, it is important to note that Tarchetti might have had another, sociocultural motivation – to enhance and push forward the Italian literature. In the Czech translation history, there was also a period at the beginning of the National Revival era when translation served as a means of enhancing domestic literature (at the time almost non-existent) and language. Even though Tarchetti took his efforts one step further, to actually passing his translation off as his own work, it is still possible to see the similarity of Tarchetti’s motivation and the motivation of the Czech translators of the National Revival period. It might therefore be suggested that Tarchetti’s deed was in fact only an extreme example of a motive which is otherwise normally found in the field of translation: to enhance the literature of one’s own culture.

1.3.4.2. B. Original Work Passed Off As Translation This category has been included in the overview only as a counterpart to the previous one; even though pretending that one’s own work is a translation is unusual, it is not plagiarism. Such situations are, in fact, relatively rare, but may occur in times when literary production is subject to censorship and the

27

translation label can make it easier for the authors/translators to express ideas in the text that would certainly be censored if they acknowledged their authorship of the work. In the Czech translation history, it is possible to find such examples especially in the National Revival period of the 19th century. To circumvent the censors, the authors sometimes published their own works as translations. For example, J. K. Tyl probably wanted to avoid censoring of his play Zeman ze starého času and so he “intentionally pretended that the work, which was mostly his own, was of a different origin”21 (Strejček, qtd. in Levý, České teorie překladu 79). Another option available to translators was to adjust their translations to the current situation and thus express their own political views in the text. According to Jiří Levý: As topicality was then seen as an important aspect of translation, it is more than probable that it was reflected not only in clear deletions and insertions, but also in the interpretive undertone of the text, and that translators often stressed and highlighted ideas that were relevant for the current Czech situation […].”22 (České theorie překladu 80)

1.3.4.3. C. Translation Published under Somebody Else’s Name by the Translator In situations when a translation cannot be published under the name of the real translator – usually for political reasons – the translator might use another person’s name to figure in the publication instead of his or her own. It is obvious that the translations in this category could only by mistake be accused of plagiarism: not only that the name substitution takes place with the real

“práci z větší části vlastní dával úmyslně znak cizího původu”. “Je více než pravděpodobné, že aktuální chápání překladové literatury se obrazilo nejen v jasných škrtech nebo vsuvkách, ale i v interpretačním odstínění, že překladatel mnohdy podtrhl a vyhrotil myšlenky, které bylo možno vztahovat k současné situaci české […].” 21 22

28

translator’s consent, but the person who allows the translator to use his or her name for this purpose could potentially face serious consequences for signing the translation instead of the “banned” translator. Recent Czech translation history is rife with examples of such a substitution; for example, the entry for the translator Jitka Beránková in the database of Obec překladatelů shows three translations of her own and four translations which she signed for colleagues who could not publish at that time: three for František Vrba and one for Karel Kyncl (“Beránková, Jitka”). In case of Karel Kyncl and Jiřina Kynclová, a married couple who often translated together, the importance of this procedure is even more obvious. In the above mentioned database, the entry of Jiřina Kynclová lists 16 translations, all translated together with her husband (“Kynclová, Jiřina”). The translations were all published between 1972 and 1984 and all of them under other people’s names; most the names belong to other translators from English, such as Soňa Nová, Eva Kondrysová, Rudolf Neznal or Miroslav Jindra. While translators guilty of translation plagiarism use their colleagues’ work to facilitate their own, these translators have actually enabled their colleagues to work at all.

1.3.4.4. D. Translation Published under Somebody Else’s Name by the Publisher The best documented cases of this type of translation plagiarism are those that were highlighted by the Skřipec anti-award. As was mentioned above, the annual translation anti-awards Skřipec and Skřipeček have often been awarded to translators and publishing houses not for the poor quality of the translation, but for plagiarising previous translations. This was the case with Skřipec 1997 (translation of Le Morte d’Artur by Thomas Malory), Skřipec 1998 and 2004

29

(translation of Le Petit Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry), Skřipeček 2003 (various translations) and Skřipec 2009 (translation of The Hound of the Baskervilles by sir Arthur Conan Doyle). The first mentioned award (1997, Le Morte d’Arthur) comes into a different category, as it was awarded to the translator rather than the publishing house, and will be examined later on; the other three translations and the motives of the publishing houses will be discussed here. 1.3.4.4.1. Skřipec 1998 and 2004: Ottovo nakladatelství, Translation of Le Petit Prince Le Petit Prince by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry was first published in Czech in 1959 by the SNDK/Albatros publishing house in a translation by Zdeňka Stavinohová. As Albatros has continually prolonged the licence to the translation, no other publisher has ever had legal access to it. The book was republished 11 times, with the latest publication in 2005, and it was only retranslated in 2010 (by Richard Podaný); a sign of the immense popularity of Stavinohová’s translation. Her entry in the translation database of Obec překladů says that “her translation of SaintExupéry’s Le Petit Prince has merged with the original for the Czech readers”23 (“Stavinohová, Zdeňka”). However, there was one more attempt at a “retranslation” before Podaný’s version was published. In 1998, the publishing house Ottovo nakladatelství published a translation of Le Petit Prince signed by Martin Sasák. However, two text analyses (by Jan Vaněk and by Richard Podaný) proved that the text was not a new retranslation, but only an edited version of Stavinohová’s translation. As Richard Podaný says in his analysis of the text, the fake “retranslation” was only a trick to allow Ottovo nakladatelství to publish Stavinohová’s translation, which 23

“její překlad Saint-Exupéryho Malého prince v českém prostředí splynul s originálem”.

30

was otherwise inaccessible (as the licence to it had always been owned by Albatros). The publisher, however, continued to sell the book even after it received the anti-award and “thanks to the dumping price allowed by the piracy, the book entered the list of bestselling children’s books”24 (Podaný). The publisher therefore received another anti-award for the same book in 2005. 1.3.4.4.2. Skřipeček 2003: Bastei Moba, Various Translations Bastei Moba is a publishing house founded in Brno in 1991 and according to the information on its website, it offers “books and paperback romances for the whole family”25 (“O firmě”). However, in 2004 it became known for its publications of classic fiction, because it used older translation without acquiring the necessary licences from the copyright owners. According to Libor Dvořák’s article in Týden magazine (Dvořák, “Uloupené překlady”), the plagiarism of Bastei Moba was disclosed when another publishing house, Academia, decided to publish a reprint of Dostoyevsky’s short stories. The editor abandoned the plan when she found out that the stories had already been published by Moba, but she compared Moba’s new translation by Ruthová to the first translations made by three different translators and found out they were almost identical. However, this was not the only such case: Moba used this “translation method” to publish at least six books (by Maupassant, Dostoyevsky, Defoe, Turgenev, Balzac and Stifter). Some of the translations were attributed to M. Ruthová, others to Ivana Foltánová. The novel by Adalbert Stifter was published without any translator’s name and the publishing house substantially shortened the translation “in a number of cases very insensitively, at the expense of the basic intelligibility of “díky pirátstvím dosažené dumpingové ceně [se] dostala na žebříčky nejprodávanějších dětských knih”. 25 “knihy a románové sešity pro celou rodinu”. 24

31

the text”26 (Dvořák, “Ještě jednou”), and, of course, without any permission from the translator of the novel. Bastei Moba received the anti-award Skřipeček for these translations and the case was also made public in a news programme on the Czech TV 1 channel (ČT1) and on the Czech Radio 6 (ČRo 6). It is apparent that Bastei Moba took the decision to avoid paying for the translation to raise its profits (to this end, it also chose original texts which are no longer protected by copyright law, i.e. their copyright expired and they entered the public domain). Libor Dvořák, the then-chairman of the OP committee, also commented on the fact that Moba chose mostly translations by deceased translators: “It is contemptible, even disgusting, that Moba chose primarily works by deceased translators, because it probably did not expect anybody to search for the real authors of the translations”27 (“Krádež uměleckých překladů”). The editor-in-chief of the publishing house, Ivana Fabišíková, finally publicly apologized to the injured parties in a broadcast of ČRo 6, after first trying to drive the reporters of the Czech TV channel ČT1 away, saying that they should not “meddle in something they do not understand”28 (“Krádež uměleckých překladů”). Moba afterwards claimed it would endeavour to settle the matter with all the translators. Just as in the other cases of copyright infringement by publishers, the chief motivation of the publishing house was obviously to avoid paying the translators or their heirs for the license to publish the translations legally. According to Viktor Janiš, the amount that the publisher thus avoided paying for each translation was not very high: “Translators are paid about 70% of the original payment for “v řadě případů velice necitlivě a na úkor logické svázanosti a elementární srozumitelnosti textu”. “Zavrženíhodné až odporné je, že Moba se zaměřila především na překladatele zesnulé, protože pravděpodobně předpokládala, že po skutečném autorství překladů nebude nikdo pátrat.” 28 “strkat nos do věcí, kterým nerozumíme” 26 27

32

republications. In this case, the amount would be between fifteen and twenty thousand [Czech crowns]”29 (“Podvody v nakladatelstvích”). Nevertheless, it allowed the publisher to sell the translations relatively cheaply (about 170 Czech crowns per copy) and thus raise its profits even further. 1.3.4.4.3. Skřipec 2009: Millenium Publishing, Translation of The Hound of the Baskervilles The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle has been translated into Czech twice. The first translation by Josef Pachmajer was published in 1905, so it is nowadays considerably outdated. (Nevertheless, it has been recently published by the XYZ publishing house.) The author of the retranslation is František Gel; his translation was first published in 1964 by SNDK/Albatros and republished four times, with the latest republication in 1997. In 2009, a translation of the novel was published by Millenium Publishing. According to the publication information, it was translated by a Josef Puchmajer, a name almost identical to that of the first translator of the book. It is difficult to say whether it was a mistype or a conscious attempt at further complicating the matter. However, the translation itself is the one by František Gel. The publisher added brief information about the author and changed the position of the explanatory notes (they are placed at the respective pages, not at the back of the book as in the previous editions by SNDK/ Albatros); the text itself is nevertheless almost identical to that of Gel’s translation. It is obvious that the publisher’s motivation for plagiarism was to avoid dealing with the owner of the copyright and having to pay for the translation.

“Za reedice se platí zhruba 70 procent původního honoráře. V tomto případě by to byla částka někde mezi 15–20 tisíci.” 29

33

1.3.4.4.4. Other Cases These are by far not the only known recent cases of copyright infringement on the part of the publishers. As Libor Dvořák says: “In recent years, instances of translation misuse have unfortunately been quite common among the Czech publishers.”30 (Dvořák, “Moba Bestia”). In the cases discussed above, there are two apparent patterns in the way the publishers misused the translations: either they used a translation with only marginal or no editing and changed the name of the translator (especially when there was reason to believe that nobody would notice the name substitution), as was the case with Bastei Moba and Millenium Publishing, or they attempted to change the translation so that its origin could not be proved (with more recent or known translations), as in the case of Ottovo nakladatelství. However, there are many other ways in which publishers can infringe the rights of translators (and often also the rights of other publishers, too). One such situation has already been mentioned above (see section 1.3.2.): a representative of the publisher used a translation to which his employer previously held licence and illegally republished it. Another, very high-profile case of copyright infringement was uncovered in 2004, when it was accidentally found out that the publishing house Ottovo nakladatelství (mentioned above in connection with the stolen translation of Le Petit Prince) printed and sold “ten thousand forged copies of Harry Potter a Ohnivý pohár [Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire] by the British author J. K. Rowling”31 (Rychetský). The holder of the licence to the book was again

“Případy bezesmluvního zneužití překladů jsou v posledních letech v české nakladatelské praxi bohužel dosti běžné.” 31 “deset tisíc padělků knihy britské spisovatelky J. K. Rowlingové Harry Potter a Ohnivý Pohár”. 30

34

the Albatros publishing house. The director of Ottovo nakladatelství was sentenced in 2010 to a suspended sentence and a fine amounting to 300 000 Czech crowns. Yet another example of a publisher infringing the translators’ rights to their translation is the following excerpt from a contract which a certain Czech publishing house routinely offers their translators: The translator thus explicitly acknowledges that his or her work is done on commission and that the copyright and all rights of intellectual property to the work, to the maximum extent permitted by the law, are owned by the publisher or the publisher of the original work.32 (Translation contract)

This part of the contract contradicts the copyright law and therefore is not valid; however, many translators may not be aware of that. On the whole, it can be concluded that the infringement of translation copyright on the part of publishers seems to be relatively common in the Czech Republic. Even though buying the licence to publish the translations legally would hardly be unaffordable for the publishers, to avoid paying it lowers their costs and allows them to sell the books for a lower price. They may also use this strategy to publish translations to which they cannot obtain a licence, thus damaging not only the translator, but also the owner of the licence.

1.3.4.5. E. Translation in Which the Translator Used Other Translations As was already mentioned above, it is not necessarily unethical for translators to learn from previous translations and use the renderings created by their predecessors to improve their own retranslation of the text. However, it can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between what is acceptable and even

“Překladatel tímto výslovně uznává, že dílo je „prací na zakázku“, a že veškerá autorská práva včetně veškerých práv duševního vlastnictví v míře maximálně umožněné zákonem k dílu vlastní nakladatelství, resp. původní vydavatel.” 32

35

beneficial and what is plagiarism. There are also a number of different motives which may induce the translator to use the solutions of his or her predecessors. This section will therefore endeavour to describe these possible motives, before proceeding to the analysis of specific examples. 1.3.4.5.1. Tradition Translators are sometimes compelled to keep a certain translation solution so as not to confuse the readers. This concerns especially book titles, names of literary figures, well-known phrases etc. According to Levý: The pressure of translation tradition is strongest and to a great extent binding in cases when the translation solutions of previous generations, such as well-known sayings and concepts, book titles etc., have become a part of Czech culture. If the older solution is satisfying and a new rendering is not markedly better, it is in such situations useless and harming not to use the older solution, as this makes the established cultural facts less stable; in fact, the tradition is sometimes so strong that the translator cannot do anything about it anyway33 [emphasis added]. (Umění překladu 69)

This was the case with the Czech translations of J. K. K. Jerome’s books Three Men in a Boat (To Say Nothing of The Dog) and Three Men on the Bummel. Both books were first translated in the first half of the 20th century under the titles Tři muži ve člunu and Tři muži na toulkách. When they were retranslated in 1972, the translator Zdeněk Novák wanted to change the titles, because he considered them inadequate.

“Tlak překladatelské tradice se nejsilněji uplatňuje a je do značné míry závazný v těch případech, kde překladatelské řešení dřívějších generací se již stalo součástí českého kulturního povědomí, jako např. u okřídlených rčení a pojmů, u knižních titulků apod. Pokud starší řešení vyhovuje a nové znění není výrazně lepší, je v těchto případech zbytečné a škodlivé se od něho odchylovat, protože se tím rozkolísávají tato vžitá kulturní fakta; někdy je ostatně síla tradice taková, že je překladatel proti ní bezmocný.” 33

36

Three men in a “člun”? No rower or water sportsman calls their craft “člun”. Everybody sets off on a “loď’. For this reason, I wanted to translate the title of the first part of the book as TŘI MUŽI NA LODI. And the title of the whole volume was to be TŘI MUŽI NA LODI A NA ČUNDRU, because the trip of three friends to Germany, that’s not “toulky”.34 (Novák 336)

However, despite Novák’s original intentions, the change never took place, because he found out that the existing titles were so popular that it was better to leave them as they were. “But the wishes of the translator can be overcome by tradition. The titles of the first Czech translations proved to be so popular with their countless readers that it was decided to leave them unchanged”35(336). On the other hand, there are also examples of relatively well-known book titles which have been changed in the retranslation. The two Czech translations of The Da Vinci Code, which were titled Šifra mistra Leonarda and Da Vinciho kód respectively, have already been mentioned (see section 1.3.3.), as well as the reason for the change. Jane Austen’s novel Persuasion is another example: it was first translated by Eva Ruxová in 1968 and the translation was titled Anna Elliotová, after the name of the main character. This translation was republished three times, always under the same title (in 1993, 2004 and 2008), so it can be assumed that it was relatively successful and known among the readers. In spite of that, the retranslation by Eva Kondrysová published in 2010 was titled Pýcha a přemlouvání (“Pride and Persuasion”) in an apparent allusion to the author’s most

“Tři muži ve člunu? Žádný veslař ani vodák nemluví přece o svém plavidle jako o člunu. Každý si vyjede na lodi. Proto jsem chtěl i titul první části této knihy přeložit TŘI MUŽI NA LODI. A název celého svazku měl znít TŘI MUŽI NA LODI A NA ČUNDRU, neboť ten výlet tří přátel do Německa, to nejsou toulky.” 35 “Ale překladatel míní, tradice mění. Ukázalo se, že titul prvních českých překladů těch slavných Jeromových knih tak mezi nesčetnými čtenáři zdomácněl, že bylo rozhodnuto nechat ho beze změny.” 34

37

famous novel. Such a change can be quite confusing for the readers, who may fail to realise that these are translations of the same novel. Names of literary figures are also normally kept in retranslations. If they are changed, it is usually for relevant reasons: for example, names which were “translated” into Czech in the older translations, in correspondence with past translation norms, can be changed back their original form in more modern translations. An example of this can be found the in the three translations of The Wizard of Oz (see analysis in section 2.2.). The first translation (Markovič, 1962) changed the names of Dorothy’s aunt and uncle from Henry and Em to Jindřich and Ema; the first retranslation (Vosková, 1995) changed the name Jindřich back to Henry, but left Ema unchanged; and the latest translation (Čížková, 2011) leaves both names in their original form. Nevertheless, translators may sometimes fail to keep the names for other reasons as well. For example, Gerald Durrell’s famous novels My Family and Other Animals and its sequel, Birds, Beasts and Relatives, were translated into Czech by two different translators. In the translation of the first novel, two puppies which were given to young Gerry by a local family (and which proved difficult to be house-broken) were called Bobek and Blink (Widdle and Puke in the original) (Tilschová). The translator of the second novel, who was apparently unfamiliar with the name renderings from the first translation and the stories connected with the two dogs, called the puppies Kňourek and Fousek (Wolfová) – a change not only confusing, but also incomprehensible to a reader familiar with the first novel. All in all, it is obvious that in case of book titles, names of literary characters, well-known phrases or sayings and so on, keeping the previous translator’s renderings cannot be considered plagiarism, but rather a service to the readers, for

38

whom any change might be confusing. This is also an important reason why translators should be familiar with the existing translation or translations of the book in question (and, if the book is part of a series, also with translations of other books from the series). 1.3.4.5.2. Quality A translator may decide that he or she wants to keep their predecessor’s solution or solutions in their retranslation because of their quality; the opinion on Viktor Janiš on this matter – that adopting a perfect rendering from the previous translation may be better than creating a new bad one – has been cited above. His opinion. His opinion is echoed by another translator, Antonín Přidal, who admits in the foreword to his translation of O Kaplan! My Kaplan! that when he first thought about translating the book, whose previous translation was very popular, he was afraid to fall short of his predecessor; therefore, his first idea was to use the old translation to create a new one on its basis (Přidal, 13). It thus seems that the quality and/or popularity of an existing translation – or parts of it – can be in itself a sufficient motivation for translators to use it and if used sparingly it can be a legitimate translation procedure. 1.3.4.5.3. Memory & Learning When the translator is familiar with the existing translation(s), he or she might use the same solutions because they remember them, without even being aware that they are not theirs. However, this only concerns renderings of individual words or, at most, sentences; translators can hardly claim that they translated the whole book in the same way as their predecessors because they remembered the text of the existing translation. If a translator is indeed familiar with the previous

39

translation to such a degree, it might be better if the work was retranslated by somebody else; it would be very difficult for someone who knows the existing translation so well to create a new original one. As was shown in section 1.2.2.2., students of translation may also overly rely on existing translations when working on their own translation projects, perhaps because they like the published translation and want to improve the quality of their own translation in this way (not aware that they are thus committing plagiarism) or simply because it is convenient. However, a professional translator whose work is going to be published must be aware of the danger of copying somebody else’s text. 1.3.4.5.4. A Difficult Original Text In cases when the original text is very difficult to understand and/or to translate, the translator may rely on the work of the previous translators more than would be case with a less complicated text. This might have been one of the reasons why Ivory Rodriguez, whose translation of Le Morte d’Arthur will be later discussed in more detail (see section 2.3.), used the previous Czech and Slovak translations to such an extent that he received the anti-award Skřipec for his translation of the work. 1.3.4.5.5. Convenience The translator uses the existing translation(s) for his own convenience, either simply to make his or her work easier, or based on an agreement with a publisher, who wants to publish an existing translation (because of its qualities or because of time pressure) to which they do not own the necessary licence, such as in case of the retranslation of Le Petit Prince (see section 1.3.4.4.1.).

40

1.3.4.6. Conclusion On the whole, it is obvious that translation plagiarism is a relatively complicated concept and that it may indeed, in Levý’s words, be “much more common and much more difficult to detect” than plagiarism in the works of literature themselves. Moreover, out of the five categories cited in this section, only two are by definition instances of outright plagiarism: A – a translation passed off as an original work – and D – translation published under a false translator’s name by the published so as to cut down costs. On the contrary, no plagiarism takes place in categories B and C. However, the last and also the least clear-cut category E – a translation in which the translator uses renderings from existing translations – covers both very minor and very major “borrowings” from the other translations, to which the translators may be lead by a variety of motives and reasons. The practical part of the thesis will thus concentrate on two instances in this final category when the translators demonstrably plagiarised their predecessors’ work, and it will examine the ways of proving this as well as the possible motivation of the translators.

41

2. Practical Part 2.1. Introduction The practical part of the thesis will examine two actual cases of translation plagiarism to find out what are the difficulties of proving plagiarism in translation and what methods can be used in such cases; it will also endeavour to find out the possible motivation of the translators for drawing on existing translations. It will then compare the two cases to find out whether there are any similarities which might be valid for translation plagiarism in general.

2.2. The Wizard of Oz 2.2.1. Introduction The Wonderful Wizard of OZ (also published as The Wizard of OZ) is a children’s novel by L. Frank Baum, first published in 1900. The book has been republished many times and also made into a play (in 1909) and a film version (1939). The popularity of the film gave rise to the popularity of the book, which has been translated into more than fifty languages. The author of the first Czech translation was Jakub Markovič; his translation was published by the SNDK publishing house in 1962 and it has never been republished. In 1995, The Wizard of Oz was retranslated by Monika Vosková and published by Nakladatelství Svoboda; this retranslation was also republished by Aventinum in 2004 and by Garamond in 2005 (bilingual edition). In 2011, a third and so far the latest translation by Helena Čížková was published by the XYZ publishing house (Čížková is also the author of the latest translations of The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Graham, published by XYZ the same year).

42

For the sake of clarity, it should be noted that due to the popularity of The Wizard of OZ, several adapted versions were also published in Czech. The first of them, a translation of a Russian adaptation of the book, was translated by Hana Vrbová and published in 1988. This is the only adaptation which keeps the original format of the book; two of the other three adaptations are picture books intended for very young children, with extensively edited and abridged texts, and the third one is a comic adaption. The first one of the two picture books was published in 1997; the adaptation was written by Lucy Kincaid and translated from English by Jarmila Jurečková. The other picture book was published in 2006; it contains fullpage illustrations with only one sentence describing each of them and it was translated from Spanish by Lenka Jagošová. The comic adaptation was published in 2010 and translated from English by Irena Klímová. The only one of these adaptations where the text is relatively close to the text of the original (as far as can be judged from the Czech translation) is the 1978 Russian adaptation; however, as none of them can be used for comparison with the translations of The Wizard of Oz itself, they will not be dealt with in this thesis. With the first translation published in 1962, it is understandable that when Nakladatelství Svoboda decided to publish The Wizard of OZ in Czech again in the early 1990s, it chose to assign a new translation rather then republish the first one, which would have already been outdated at that time. Nevertheless, the translator (or the publishing house) decided to draw on the previous translation, as a reader can find out from the information on the last page of the book: “Newly translated by Monika Vosková, taking into account the first Czech translation from 1962. […]

43

Second edition, first edition in this translation”36 (Vosková). By this note, the translator acknowledges her indebtedness to the author of the first translation, while ascertaining that her translation is new and original. When the retranslations were republished in 2004 and 2005, only Vosková was credited as the translator; there was no mention of the previous translation anymore. The Nakladatelství Svoboda publishing house was able to use the text of The Wizard of Oz without purchasing a licence: in accordance with the US Copyright Act of 1909, Baum’s work entered the public domain in 195637 (that is, even before the first Czech translation was published). However, the copyright situation with the first translation by Markovič was quite different. The Czech copyright law recognizes translation as an original work protected by copyright; at the time of the publishing of the retranslation, this protection was granted for the life of the author and 50 years after his death (this period has since been extended to 70 years). Therefore, there is no doubt that Markovič’s translation was protected by copyright when Vosková’s retranslation was published in 1995 (and in fact, it still is at the time of the writing of this thesis). In spite of this – and despite the fact that the text is explicitly labelled as a new translation – Vosková’s dependence on her predecessor’s text is extensive. This part of the thesis will attempt to prove that her retranslation did not only “take the first Czech translation from 1962 into account”, but that it plagiarised the text, thus infringing the copyright of its translator or his heirs. The following chapters will endeavour to find out to what extent the retranslation copied the text of the first “S přihlédnutím k prvnímu českému vydání z roku 1962 nově přeložila Monika Vosková. […] Vydání druhé, tohoto překladu první.” 37 “That the copyright secured by this Act shall endure for twenty-eight years from the date of first publication […] the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of twenty-eight years […] .” (Copyright Act of 1909) The Wizard of OZ was first published in 1900 and entered the public domain 56 years later, in 1956. 36

44

translation – by means of a software analysis of the two texts – and to find out in what way the text was changed, by means of a manual analysis. The thesis will also endeavour to show what strategies and tools can be used when dealing with plagiarism in translation.

2.2.2. Software Analysis The programme which was used as a tool for the software analysis is called “Jako vejce vejci”38. This programme was implemented into the Information System of Masaryk University (IS) in 2006 to help teachers identify plagiarism in student’s essays, theses, etc. The software contains an algorithm that allows it to compare different texts and find similarities between them; the teacher can then decide whether the student’s work is plagiarism or not. The algorithm itself was devised by the IS team: “The general principle of finding similar texts is wellknown to IT professionals, but the specifics of the algorithm are the know-how of the IS development team”39 (Brandejsová). The software only shows results if the level of similarity between the documents is higher than 5%. To find texts similar to the one that an IS user wishes to check for plagiarism, the application searches the database of documents in the IS, looking for similarities between the examined text and any text in the database. However, it has other uses as well: it can be used to find documents within the database and students can use it to check their own work before submitting it (to make sure they are not guilty of unintentional plagiarism). To do this, the students need to upload their essay or another document into the IS (all students have a so-called

A part of a Czech idiom “podobný jako vejce vejci” – “similar like an egg to an egg”; similar meaning to the English “like two peas in a pod”. 39 “Obecný princip vyhledávání podobných textů je v branži informačních technologií znám, přesný implementovaný algoritmus je však speciálním know-how vývojového týmu IS MU.” 38

45

“Depository”40, a certain amount of space that they can use for storing documents) and select the option “find similar documents41”. The same method was used to compare the two translations; the only prerequisite was to upload both of them into the IS, so that the software had access to them. For the purpose of this comparison, both translations were scanned and then translated by optical character recognition software (OCR42) from PDF files into editable text files. They were then checked for spelling mistakes both manually and by the Microsoft Word spellchecker. Even though some mistakes caused by faulty recognition of the respective word by OCR may have been overlooked, it is very unlikely that they could influence the final results. After the conversion, both translations were uploaded into the IS and the application Jako vejce vejci was run on the retranslation. Unsurprisingly, the software did find a similar document in its database: the uploaded first translation. The results show that the retranslation by Vosková matches the previous one by Markovič by 49% – in other words, the algorithm marked almost half of her retranslation as identical (by the application’s criteria) to Markovič’s translation. The application then produced a report which shows fragments of the examined document (the retranslation) with highlighted passages found in both texts (see Appendix I for the full report). A part of the application’s report can be seen in the right-hand column of Table 1 on page 48: it is the text of Vosková’s retranslation. The application marked the sections of Vosková’s text that it found to be identical to Markovič’s text by bold “Úschovna.” “Najít podobné dokumenty.” 42 “Optical character recognition, usually abbreviated to OCR, is the mechanical or electronic translation of scanned images of handwritten, typewritten or printed text into machine-encoded text. It is widely used to convert books and documents into electronic files, to computerize a recordkeeping system in an office, or to publish the text on a website.” (“Optical character recognition”) 40 41

46

red type. The left hand column contains the respective part of Markovič’s translation for comparison. To make it easier to see to what extent the application was able to recognize slightly differing sections of the retranslation as identical to the first translation, all the places where the retranslation differs from the first translation are marked by grey highlighting. From the table it can be seen both that the software is a very powerful tool for identifying plagiarism and that its capability to do so is in certain ways relatively limited. For example, the software was in some cases able to detect sentences which were slightly changed: as it does not seem to take punctuation into account, it was able to mark sentences where there were commas missing or added in the retranslation. It also marked one sentence where a conjunction was left out: vyjekla a přitiskla si ruce na srdce pokaždé, když se ozval holčičí veselý hlas; (a) dosud se nepřestala divit […]. 43

and another with changed word order: Pracoval těžce od rána do večera a nevěděl, co to je radost. (Markovič) Pracoval těžce od rána do večera a nevěděl, co je to radost. (Vosková)

On the other hand, it is apparent that a longer sequence of the texts must match for the software to mark it as identical – for example, it did not mark the first sentence of the text (or parts of it), even though only one word had been changed by Vosková: Dorotka žila u svého strýčka Jindřicha uprostřed kansaské prérie. (Markovič) Dorotka žila u svého strýčka Henryho uprostřed kansaské prérie. (Vosková)

43

There are many citations from the three translations of The Wizard of OZ in this part of the thesis, many consisting of just a word or a phrase. To make the text easier to read, they are marked by italics rather than by quotation marks. When more translations of the same word or passage are cited, they are always arranged from the oldest to the latest.

47

TABLE 1: Jako vejce vejci Jakub Markovič Dorotka žila u svého strýčka Jindřicha uprostřed kansaské prérie. Strýček byl farmářem a teta Ema byla jeho ženou. Měli jen malou chalupu, protože dřevo na stavbu musili dopravovat koňmi ze vzdálenosti mnoha mil. Chalupa měla čtyři zdi, které spolu s podlahou a střechou tvořily jeden pokoj; stála v něm rezavá plotna, kredenc na nádobí, stůl, tři nebo čtyři židle a postele. Strýček Jindřich a teta Ema měli velkou postel v jednom koutě místnosti, a v protějším koutě měla postel Dorotka. V chalupě nebyla ani půda, ani sklep, jen malá jáma vyhloubená v zemi, které říkali větrný sklep. Tam se mohli schovat, kdyby se hnala některá z velkých vichřic, které bývají tak silné, že smetou cestou jakoukoli budovu. Sestupovalo se tam padacími dveřmi uprostřed podlahy, od nichž vedl žebřík dolů do malé tmavé jámy. Když se Dorotka rozhlížela ze dveří chalupy, neviděla daleko široko nic než ohromnou šedivou prérii. Ani strom ani domeček nikde nepřerušovaly rozlehlou rovinu, která kolem dokola se dotýkala okraje oblohy. Slunce sežehlo zoranou půdu v šedivou hmotu, jíž probíhaly tenké praskliny. Ani tráva nebyla zelená, protože slunce spálilo konečky vysokých stébel, až všechna dostala stejnou šedivou barvu, kterou bylo vidět všude kolem. Kdysi byla chalupa pestře natřena, ale barva sluncem popraskala a deště ji smyly. Ted byla chalupa stejně bezbarvá a šedivá jako všechno ostatní. Když se sem teta Ema nastěhovala, byla mladá a hezká. Avšak slunce a vítr změnily i ji. Vysály jí z očí lesk a zanechaly v nich jen šeď. Vytáhly červeň z její tváře a rtů, a nakonec i ty zešedly. Byla hubená, vyzáblá a už se nikdy nezasmála. Když Dorotka osiřela a nastěhovala se k nim, smích dítěte tetu tak lekal, že vyjekla a přitiskla si ruce na srdce pokaždé, když se ozval Dorotčin veselý hlas; a dosud se nepřestala divit, že malá holčička má proč se smát. Strýček Jindřich se nikdy nesmál. Pracoval těžce od rána do večera a nevěděl, co to je radost. I on byl šedivý od dlouhých vousů až po hrubé boty. Vypadal přísně a vážně, a mluvil jen málokdy.

Monika Vosková Dorotka žila u svého strýčka Henryho uprostřed kansaské prérie. Strýček byl farmář a teta Ema byla jeho žena. Měli jen malinkou chaloupku, protože dřevo na stavbu museli dopravovat koňmi ze vzdálenosti mnoha a mnoha mil. Chaloupka měla čtyři zdi, které spolu s podlahou a střechou tvořily jeden pokoj; stála v něm rezavá plotna, kredenc na nádobí, stůl, tři nebo čtyři židle a postele. Strýček Henry a teta Ema měli velkou postel v jednom koutě místnosti a v protějším koutě měla postel Dorotka. V domku nebyla ani půda, ani sklep, jen malá jáma vyhloubená v zemi, které říkali větrný sklípek. Tam se mohli schovat, když se hnalo některé z velkých tornád, jež mívají takovou sílu, že smetou z cesty jakoukoli budovu. Dolů do té malé tmavé díry se sestupovalo po žebříku, který byl pod padacími dvířky uprostřed podlahy. Když se Dorotka rozhlížela ze dveří chaloupky, neviděla široko daleko nic než nedozírnou šedivou prérii. Ani strom, ani domeček nepřerušovaly nikde rozlehlou rovinu, která se kolem dokola dotýkala okraje oblohy. Slunce sežehlo zoranou půdu v šedivou hmotu, protkanou tenkými prasklinami. Ani tráva nebyla zelená, protože slunce spálilo konečky vysokých stébel, až všechna dostala stejnou šedivou barvu, kterou bylo vidět všude kolem. Kdysi byla chaloupka pestře natřená, ale barva sluncem oprýskala a deště ji smyly. Teď byla stejně bezbarvá a šedivá jako všechno ostatní. Když se sem teta Ema nastěhovala, byla mladá a hezká. Avšak slunce a vítr změnily i ji. Vysály jí z očí lesk a zanechaly v nich jen šeď. Vytáhly červeň z její tváře a rtů, až nakonec i ty zešedly. Byla hubená, vyzáblá a už nikdy se nezasmála. Když Dorotka osiřela a nastěhovala se k nim, její dětský smích tetu tak lekal, že vyjekla a přitiskla si ruce na srdce pokaždé, když se ozval holčičí veselý hlas; dosud se nepřestala divit, že se má dívenka čemu smát. Strýček Henry se nesmál nikdy. Pracoval těžce od rána do večera a nevěděl, co je to radost. I on byl šedivý, od dlouhých vousů až po hrubé boty. Vypadal přísně a vážně a mluvil jen málokdy.

48

The following two sentences of the text were not marked either, even though to a human eye the degree of similarity between them must seem very high: Strýček byl farmářem a teta Ema byla jeho ženou. Měli jen malou chalupu, protože dřevo na stavbu musili dopravovat koňmi ze vzdálenosti mnoha mil. (Markovič) Strýček byl farmář a teta Ema byla jeho žena. Měli jen malinkou chaloupku, protože dřevo na stavbu museli dopravovat koňmi ze vzdálenosti mnoha a mnoha mil. (Vosková)

Obviously, the software is not able to recognize that the words farmář and farmářem only differ by a case ending, that museli is the modern spelling of musili or that chaloupka is only a diminutive version of chalupa. To see how improbable it is that two translators would translate these sentences in such similar ways, one can look at the third translation by Čížková: Bydlela u strýce Henryho, farmáře, a jeho ženy, tety Em. Dům měli malý, protože dřevo na jeho stavbu sem museli dopravovat koňským povozem z místa vzdáleného mnoho mil. (Čížková)

In spite of this, it might still be argued that the high similarity between the two translations of The Wizard of Oz is accidental: after all, they are translations of the same text, so they have to be – at least to a certain extent – similar. This possibility can, however, be ruled out, if another translation of the same text exists and can be subjected to the same software analysis. As was mentioned above, The Wizard of Oz was published in a new translation by Helena Čížková in 2011. A manual comparison (see Tables 4 and 5 below and Appendix II for the full analysis) shows that her translation is very dissimilar to both previous translations. Accordingly, when all three translations were uploaded into the IS Depository, the application Jako vejce vejci found no documents similar to this latest translation, as can be seen in Figure 1. 49

FIGURE 1: No Similar Documents Found

Therefore, it can be concluded that the application Jako vejce vejci (or any similar software able to indentify similar texts) can be a very useful tool for proving plagiarism in translation. However, the disadvantage of the application is that it is only able to mark the parts of the texts as similar if the correspondence between them is almost absolute. Consequently, if the application does find a high percentage of similarity between two texts, it can be used as a proof of plagiarism. On the other hand, a lack of such similarity does not necessarily prove the opposite; the texts would still have to be checked manually to prove that beyond doubt.

2.2.3. Manual Analysis 2.2.3.1. Introduction While software analysis has only recently become an option for proving plagiarism, manual analysis has traditionally been used for the same purpose. It can reveal telling sings that a translator has been using his or her predecessor’s work: the same or very similar renderings which are unlikely or impossible to have occurred accidentally. These can constitute a proof of the translator’s reliance on another translation; and they may carry even more weight when combined with a

50

software analysis documenting a high level of similarity between the respective texts. In case of The Wizard of Oz, the level of similarity between the two texts revealed by the application Jako vejce vejci was so high that the software analysis in itself could be considered a sufficient proof of plagiarism. Therefore, the manual analysis looking for similarities in the texts will be merely illustrative; it would be possible to enumerate dozens of examples of such “improbable” correspondence between the two texts, where whole sentences or even paragraphs are identical. Instead, this section will focus on an analysis of the differences between the two texts, rather than the similarities. It will attempt to find out how significantly the text of the first translation was changed in the retranslation, whether the changes follow any recurring patterns and whether there is any overall strategy which could be described; it will also seek evidence showing whether Vosková worked with the original text at all or only concentrated on editing or rewriting the previous translation. Given the time span between the two texts, it can be supposed that the she sought to modernise the text, and considering the high level of similarity between her retranslation and the previous translation, it can also be supposed that she worked mostly (or exclusively) with the first translation which she rendered into modern Czech, but otherwise did not change the text in any substantial way. As a comparison of the whole texts of the two translations would be too time demanding and probably unnecessary, only several sections of the texts were compared, namely chapters 1, 2 and 22 (of the total of 24 chapters). The chapters for analysis were chosen from the beginning and the end of the book, because any attempts at distinguishing one’s translation from the previous one seemed to be

51

most likely to occur in those places. The length of the compared sections put together is 10.8 norm pages (NS) in both translations, which is about 10-11% of the respective texts.

2.2.3.2. Analysis of the Differences The types of changes found in the retranslation can be categorized into several main groups: TABLE 2: Summary of Changes Description44 Changes within a word

Occurrences Percentage45 29

Spelling, prefixes, case, verb aspect etc. Example: myslit – myslet.

15%

Synonyms

In otherwise identical phrases, one words is substituted by a near-synonym. Example: krásné stromy s bohatým sladkým ovocem krásné stromy s hojným sladkým ovocem.

Diminutives

60 35% 7

words changed to/from diminutive form

Syntax

Word order or sentence division.

Punctuation, Words added or omitted A minor adjustment of a phrase

A different wording of a part of otherwise identical sentence. Examples: které bývají tak silné – jež mívají takovou sílu.

Different translation

A whole sentence or several sentences are translated differently.

46

25%

38

20%

7

4%

190 (17,5/NS)

Total

As can be seen both from the table and from the manual comparison of the two translations (see Appendix II), the changes made in the retranslation are mostly insignificant and concern such aspects as word choice, punctuation and grammar.

The division of changes into the different categories is based on the type of changes that were found in the text and does not follow strict rules; some changes could belong to more categories. 45 The percentages do not add up to 100% because of the rounding to whole numbers. 44

52

It is, of course, impossible to tell to which extent these changes were made by the translator herself and to which extent they are the work of an editor or proofreader. A closer look at the individual changes will also reveal that “modernisation” of the text does not seem to be the single focus of the retranslation and perhaps not even the main one. As can be seen in Table 3, there are, in fact, only nine changes which can be undoubtedly attributed to an attempt to modernise (or normalise) the language. TABLE 3: Modernisation Jakub Markovič musili natřena s ramen svobodni protože jistě budou mít o mne starost ukláněje se jí hluboce uklonila se jí hluboce až uviděli před sebou zbývá už jen jedna zlá čarodějnice v zemi Oz balón

Monika Vosková museli natřená z ramen svobodní protože o mě jistě mají starost s hlubokou poklonou hluboce se jí uklonila až před sebou uviděli zbývá v zemi Oz už jen jedna zlá čarodějnice balon46

This motivation probably also underlies several changes in compound words (z ničeho nic – zničehonic, konec konců – koneckonců). It should be noted that all these changes listed above only concern spelling, grammar and word order. As for lexical changes, the situation is more complex. Although many expressions were changed to more modern and usual words (rokování – na radě, děvčátko – holčička), other expressions which could be considered equally old-fashioned were left unchanged: nuže, jémine, ztracen, ohrnky, vděčni, I propána!, máme-li and opáčila. Several changes even went in the opposite direction: čaromocné panovnice instead of “Platná Pravidla českého pravopisu doporučují psát mnohá slova se zakončením -en, -in, -iv, -iva, -ivum, -ivní, -emie, -erie, -on, -onek, -ona, -onka, -ped jen krátce” (“Psaní samohlásek”). 46

53

čarodějnice, střevíce instead of boty, dobrá tedy instead of no dobrá. As the original says witches, shoes and very well, it must be concluded that these changes were made more or less arbitrarily. All in all, even though it is clear that some modernisation took place, the hypothesis that it was the main goal of the translation was not corroborated. Therefore, the individual groups of changes will now be examined in an attempt to find out what – if not modernisation – was the overall strategy and purpose of the retranslation. 2.2.3.2.1. Syntax, Punctuation, Words Added or Omitted In case of punctuation, the changes were carried out with similar inconsistency as in the case of “modernisation”. The retranslation often added commas in places where they were missing in the first translation, even though both options were grammatically correct. The following sentences are identical in Vosková and Markovič, with the exception that Vosková added commas: Ani strom(,) ani domeček nepřerušovaly nikde rozlehlou rovinu […]. I on byl šedivý(,) od dlouhých vousů až po hrubé boty. Toto si hrál(,) jak byl den dlouhý(,) a Dorotka si hrála s ním a velice ho milovala.

On the other hand, in similar or identical cases she also removed them; in the following cases, the sentences of Vosková’s and Markovič’s texts are also identical, except that Vosková removed the commas this time: Vypadal přísně a vážně[,] a mluvil jen málokdy. […] ve vzdělaných zemích nejsou[,] pokud vím[,] už žádné čarodějnice ani čarodějové.

The word order (13 changes altogether) and sentence division (2 changes) were usually left unchanged and the changes that were made are mostly insignificant, often concerning just two words, e.g.:

54

Strýček Jindřich se nikdy nesmál. (Markovič) Strýček Henry se nesmál nikdy. (Vosková)

Some of them (like the change cited above) are probably based on FSP reasons, and some fit into the category of modernisation (see Table 3). The rest of them seem more or less arbitrary, lacking any apparent pattern (Markovič’s renderings are in the left hand column, Vosková’s on the right): a nevěděl, co to je radost. ................................. a nevěděl, co je to radost. Tak to asi bude tím […] ...................................... Tak to bude asi tím […] Nedovolíme vám projít....................................... Projít vám nedovolíme.

As the same is true for omission and inclusion of words from/into the first translation, it can be concluded that changes in syntax and punctuation are not only relatively few, but also insignificant and that they do not seem to be systematic. 2.2.3.2.2. Changes within a Word This category includes changes in prefixes (zdobených – ozdobených, nejdivnější – nejpodivnější), cases (farmářem – farmář, i Tota – i s Totem), capital letters (kladivové hlavy – Kladivové hlavy, jih – Jih), tense (není – nebude), active v. passive (vymrštil – se vymrštila), compounds (z ničeho nic – zničehonic), spelling (velký – veliký, myslila – myslela, balón - balon) and verb aspect (rozesmál – rozesmával). Some of these changes can be again attributed to modernisation; apart from that, there are two other discernible tendencies within this group of changes. Firstly, the compounds which are written separately in the first translation are written as one word in the retranslation (zničehonic, koneckonců); however, it is difficult to say what prompted this change, as both versions are correct. Secondly, the words which are capitalised in the original but not in the first translation are

55

capitalised again (Kladivové hlavy, Sever, Jih, Východ, Západ). This is actually one of the few changes that are undoubtedly based on the original, thus proving that Vosková did work with the original text as well. 2.2.3.2.3. Near-Synonyms Most of the changes within this largest category again seem to be based on personal preferences rather than on any obvious strategy. Some of them are purely arbitrary: for example, in the first paragraph of Chapter 2, the word Dorotka, which was used in the first translation, is changed to holčička (“little girl”), while in the following paragraph, the word holčička is changed to Dorotka (in both paragraphs, the original says little girl). Only the change from the name Jindřich back to the original name Henry is obviously based on the knowledge that while it used to be standard to localize names in translation, the usual present-day translation norm is transference – leaving the names as they are. However, there is a group of changes within this category which might have been motivated by a certain strategy: a number of words from the first translation are substituted by diminutives in the retranslation, where there are no corresponding diminutives in the original. The translator seems to be – consciously or intuitively – aware of the Czech “unique item” (Tirkkonen-Condit) of diminutives, which are commonplace in children’s literature on a much larger scale than in English. However, there are inconsistencies even in this strategy; there does not seem to be any reason to change the sentence: Přes bublající potůčky vedly důkladné mosty. (Markovič) (“The bubbling little brooks were bridged by solid bridges.”)

to

56

Přes bublající potoky vedly důkladné mostky. (Vosková) (“The bubbling brooks were bridged by solid little bridges.”)

While in the first translation it may be unusual that mere “little brooks” need to be bridged by “solid bridges”, the collocations bublající potoky (“bubbling brooks”) and důkladné mostky (“solid little bridges”) are not the most commonplace, either, and the translator could have solved the lack of logic in the sentence by simply getting rid of all the diminutives or vice versa. As many of the changes discussed above, this seems to point to the fact that rather than relying on the original for her retranslation and using the first translation for reference, Vosková’s approach was exactly the opposite of this. 2.2.3.2.4. A Minor Adjustment of a Phrase This category basically comprises changes concerning several words, a whole phrase or a clause, where the rest of the sentence is identical or almost identical to the first translation. Many of them seem to be simply rewordings of the first translation (které bývají tak silné – jež mívají takovou sílu) which, however, do not arise from the wording of the original (mighty enough). In some cases, the retranslated version is actually freer than the first translation: At last she crawled over the swaying floor to her bed, and lay down upon it … . (Baum) Nakonec se odplazila po houpavé podlaze ke své posteli a vlezla si do ní. (Markovič) Nakonec se odplazila po houpavé podlaze ke své posteli a vlezla si pod peřinu. (Vosková)

57

TABLE 4: Different Translations L. Frank Baum It was reached by a trap door in the middle of the floor, from which a ladder led down into the small, dark hole. But Dorothy, knowing her to be a witch, had expected her to disappear in just that way, and was not surprised in the least.

Monika Vosková Dolů do té malé tmavé díry se sestupovalo po žebříku, který byl pod padacími dvířky uprostřed podlahy. Ale Dorotka o ní věděla, že je čarodějka, a domyslela si, že zmizí právě takhle. Proto nebyla ani trochu překvapená, když se to stalo. Další cesta lesem proběhla v klidu, a když poutníci vyšli z ponurého lesního přítmí, uviděli před sebou strmý kopec pokrytý odshora dolů velkými, tmavými balvany.

Helena Čížková Do sklepa se vcházelo padacími dvířky uprostřed světnice, od nichž do té malé temné díry vedl žebřík.

The four travelers passed through the rest of the forest in safety, and when they came out from its gloom saw before them a steep hill, covered from top to bottom with great pieces of rock.

Jakub Markovič Sestupovalo se tam padacími dveřmi uprostřed podlahy, od nichž vedl žebřík dolů do malé tmavé jámy. Ale Dorotka věděla, že to je čarodějnice a byla připravena na to, že zmizí právě takovým způsobem. Proto když to viděla, nebyla ani trochu překvapena. Čtyři poutníci prošli zbývající částí lesa bez nehod, a když vyšli z jeho ponuré tmy, uviděli před sebou strmý kopec posetý od shora až dolů velkými a temnými balvany.

"That will be a hard climb," said the Scarecrow, "but we must get over the hill, nevertheless." So he led the way and the others followed.

„Přes tohle se těžko poleze,“ řekl Hastroš, „ale přes ten kopec stejně musíme, chceme-li se dostat dál.“ Hastroš se pustil do kopce první a ostatní šli za ním.

„To bude náročný výstup,“ usoudil strašák, „ale nezbývá nám než ten kopec přejít.“ Šel tedy napřed a ostatní ho následovali.

"Keep back!" Then a head showed itself over the rock and the same voice said, "This hill belongs to us, and we don't allow anyone to cross it." After a few moments she came back to say that Dorothy and the others were to be admitted at once.

„Nepřibližuj se sem!“ Nad balvanem se ukázala hlava a týž hlas řekl: „Tento kopec je náš a nikomu nedovolíme, aby přes něj šel.“ Za okamžik se zas vrátila a hlásila: „Dorotku a její přátele vpustit dovnitř!“

„Přes tohle se nám poleze těžko,“ řekl Hastroš, „ale máme-li se dostat dál, musíme ten kopec zdolat.“ Hastroš začal šplhat první a ostatní ho následovali. „Sem nelez!“ Za balvanem se vynořila hlava a hlas prohlásil: „Tenhle kopec je náš a nikdo na něj nesmí vkročit.“ Za chviličku byla zpátky a hlásila, že Dorotka a její přátelé mohou vstoupit.

Ale Dorotka věděla, že má před sebou čarodějku, a předpokládala, že zmizí právě takhle, a tak ji to vůbec nepřekvapilo. Naši čtyři poutníci v pořádku dorazili na konec lesa, a jakmile vyšli z jeho příšeří, spatřili před sebou strmý kopec pokrytý od vrcholku až k úpatí velkými balvany.

„Dál ani krok!“ Potom se nad balvanem ukázala hlava a týž hlas řekl: „Tahle hora je naše a nedovolíme, aby ji někdo přešel.“ Za pár chvil se vrátila, aby Dorotce i ostatním sdělila, že je její paní přijme hned.

2.2.3.2.5. Different Translation As can be clearly seen from Table 4 (page 58), even the segments that are translated in a significantly different way are often quite close to Markovič’s translation, compared to the latest translation by Helena Čížková. A telling sign of this can be found in the translation marked by grey in the table: while the original speaks about “great pieces of rock”, Markovič added the word temný to the translation, which was kept by Vosková, even if substituted by a synonym tmavý, but is missing from the translation by Čížková. It is an obvious sign that while Čížková worked directly with the original, Vosková more or less only “reworked” the first translation without consulting the original very much – it is very improbable that two different translators would add (almost) the same word to the same sentence where there is no such word in the original. 2.2.3.2.6. Conclusion On the whole, Vosková worked primarily with the first translation rather than with the original. The changes she (and/or the editor and proofreader) made in the text are mostly insignificant and most of them are not based on the original; the only exceptions to this are the transference of the name Henry to the Czech text and the capitalization of several words. Despite the fact that her text is supposed to be a “new retranslation”, it should be more properly called a new edition of the previous translation. However, the supposition that the retranslator concentrated on modernising the text was only partially confirmed. As far as can be judged from the analyzed segments (about 10% of the texts), the translator endeavoured to eliminate what she probably judged to be the most telling markers of outdated language: archaic

59

word order, short forms of adjectives and older usage in spelling and grammar. Nevertheless, as was pointed out above, the modernisation was not carried out consistently in the text, with some outdated forms remaining in the text and even some new ones added by the retranslator herself; also, the changes which can be attributed to modernisation only represent about 5% of the overall number of changes. Other changes in the text are also very inconsistent and – with the exception of the diminutives – seem to point out to personal preference rather than a strategy.

2.2.3.3. Analysis of Similarities To prove that a retranslation draws on a previous translation of the text or that it plagiarized it, one can look for specific similarities between the two texts which are improbable to occur incidentally. In the case of The Wizard of Oz, the software analysis proved such a high level of similarity of the retranslation to the previous translation that further evidence is hardly needed; however, with other books, such an examination could be vital. In his analysis of a Czech retranslation of Le Petit Prince, Richard Podaný uses several strategies to prove that the translator is guilty of plagiarism (Podaný): 1)

Technical details: punctuation, quotation marks, direct speech in separate paragraphs etc.

2)

Infrequent adjectives: adjectives which do not have a single obvious translation, but in spite of that they were rendered in the same way in both translations.

3)

“Bold renderings”: unusual, free renderings.

4)

Incomplete editing: small changes within sentence which nevertheless leave the overall sentence structure intact.

60

In Podaný’s opinion, all these are supportive, “indirect” proofs, while the irrefutable proof is: 5)

Recurrence of mistakes: when mistakes of the first translator are repeated in the retranslation.

All of these signs of plagiarism can be found in Vosková’s retranslation: 1)

Technical details:

One of the features common in English texts but relatively rare in the Czech ones are the semi-colons. They can be treated in different ways: sometimes they can be kept, but often they are changed into commas or colons, or the sentence is split into two. In the first chapter of The Wizard of Oz, there are ten semi-colons, and both translators render each of them in the same way. As there are at least four different ways of rendering them, this is highly unusual. 2)

Infrequent adjectives:

The English adjective “brilliant” can be rendered into Czech in many different ways: the Lexicon 2000 dictionary suggests “skvělý”, “oslnivý”, úžasný”, “zářivý”, “jasný”, třpytivý”. However, both Vosková and Markovič rendered this word in the same and relatively unusual way: birds with rare and brilliant plumage (Baum) ptáci se skvostným peřím (Vosková, Markovič)

Moreover, this category could be extended to include “infrequent words” in general: if both translators render a certain words in an unusual way, even if it does have an obvious counterpart in the target language, it is very improbable that they arrived at it independently: glistened […] like diamonds (Baum) ........... třpytily jako démanty (Vosková, Markovič)

61

The Czech word for “diamond” is “diamant”; Slovník spisovného jazyka českého describes the word “démant” as “only used in non-technical context; often poetic”47 (DEBDict). While the context of the word usage is non-technical, there is nothing about the sentence that requires a poetic rendering and the choice of “démanty” over “diamanty” is thus purely a matter of personal preference, unlikely to occur in two different translations. 3)

“Bold renderings”:

Both translators render the word bells as rolničky (“jingle-bells”). An even more obvious example can be found in the fact that in both translations, Dorotka uses the T-form of address when talking to the Witch of the North, which is a very unusual choice of address for a little girl talking to an unknown elderly woman; in the translation by Čížková, she uses the V-form of address. 4)

Incomplete editing:

There are several instances where direct speech, divided into two sentences in the original, has been translated by both Markovič and Vosková as one sentence; even though Vosková sometimes rephrases the sentence, she does not divide it into two: “There's a cyclone coming, Em,” he called to his wife. “I'll go look after the stock.”(Baum) „Blíží se vichřice, Emo,“ zavolal na svou ženu, „jdu se podívat na dobytek.“ (Markovič) „Blíží se tornádo, Emo,“ zavolal na svou ženu, „jdu se podívat na dobytek.“ (Vosková) „Em, žene se tornádo!“ zavolal na svou ženu. „Půjdu se podívat na dobytek.“ (Čížková)

5)

Mistakes:

In the scene from the first chapter where the tornado is coming and Uncle Henry calls to his wife to warn her, he says: I’ll go look after the stock. The correct

47

“jen neodb. a často bás.”.

62

translation of this sentence would be “Půjdu se postarat o dobytek”, but both the first translation and the retranslation render it as Půjdu se podívat na dobytek (“I’ll go look at the stock”). However, this proof is not as ultimate as it looks. As can be seen in the previous paragraph (4) Incomplete editing), the third translator made the same mistake, apparently by chance. Obviously, a more unusual deviation from the original would have to be found for it to be an ultimate evidence. This shows that while Podaný’s strategies are definitely valid, in different types of texts there might be different kinds of evidence to look for: his strongest point, a mistake made by one translator and repeated by another, has to be a relatively unusual mistake to make an ultimate proof. Also, there are other possible strategies to prove plagiarism which he does not mention; these will be dealt with in the following section.

2.2.3.4. Other Strategies to Prove Plagiarism by Manual Analysis 2.2.3.4.1. Comparison with another retranslation Podaný said that the evidence he found with his first four strategies was inconclusive; however, it might gain more weight if it was juxtaposed to renderings of the same words or phrases from another retranslation. It is generally acknowledged that two different translators of the same text will produce two different translations; however, Podaný rightly suggests that anyone not familiar with this “truth” may need other proofs of the fact. Any similarities between two (supposedly independent) translations are much more obvious when the texts are placed next to another, original translation, as has been shown in Table 4. 2.2.3.4.2. Translation of proper names A convincing proof of plagiarism can also be found in the way the translator deals with a specific group of words: proper names. Even though the most obvious 63

translation of a proper name is to transfer it more or less unchanged to the target text, there are many cases in which this is not an appropriate rendering. For example, a name of a famous person who is virtually unknown in the target culture may require an explanation or it may be substituted by a cultural equivalent, etc. In this book, most of the proper names are original storybook names of non-existent creatures; they require an equally original translation which may differ significantly from the original. It is highly improbable that two different translators would arrive at the same rendering and translate all such names in the text in the same way. On the other hand, there is a good reason for a translator to use his or her predecessor’s renderings: the names of the characters of a book are likely to be remembered by the readers and any change might be confusing – all the more so in case of a children’s book with storybook names. In their respective retranslations of The Wizard of Oz, Vosková chose to keep the names used by Markovič (which were also used in the Czech dubbing of the The Wizard of Oz film), while Čížková changed them, as can be seen from Table 5 (page 65). However, Vosková’s decision to keep the names might have been better for the readers, who would be thus able to immediately recognize the characters.

64

TABLE 5: Proper Names L. Frank Baum

Jakub Markovič

Monika Vosková

Helena Čížková

Aunt Em Boq Cowardly Lion Dorothy Gayelette Glinda Hammer-Heads Kalidahs Mr. Joker Munchkins Quadlings Queen of the Field Mice Quelala Scarecrow

teta Ema Bak Zbabělý lev Dorotka Radostněnka Glinda Kladivové hlavy klabouni pan Vtipkal Mlaskalové Čtvermoňové Královna polních myší Kvelala Hastroš

teta Ema Bok Zbabělý lev Dorotka Radostěnka Glinda Kladivové hlavy klabouni pan Vtipálek Mlaskalové Čtvermoňové Královna polních myší Kvelala Hastroš

Tin Woodman Toto Uncle Henry Wicked Witch Winged Monkeys Winkies

Plechový drvoštěp Toto strýček Jindřich Zlá kouzelnice okřídlené opice Mrkalové

Plecháč Toto strýček Henry Zlá kouzelnice okřídlené opice Mrkalové

teta Em Bak zbabělý lev Dorotka Veselka Glinda kladivohlavouni tygvedlaci pan Vtipálek Žvýkalové Čtveráčkové Královna polních myší Tralalák strašák plechový dřevorubec Toto strýc Henry zlá čarodějnice okřídlené opice Mžikalové

2.2.4. Conclusion On the whole, it can be concluded that both software and manual analysis proved that Vosková’s retranslation is to a large extent based on the previous translation, rather than on the original. The software analysis found a similarity of 49% between Vosková’s and Markovič’s texts, while it found no similarity between Čížková’s translation and the previous two. The manual analysis of the similarities in Vosková’s and Markovič’s texts showed that all the sings of plagiarism defined by Podaný are present in Vosková’s translation; the analysis also suggested other possible ways of proving plagiarism.

65

However, the manual analysis of the differences between Vosková’s and Markovič’s text failed to reveal a consistent strategy in the way the text of first translation was modified in the retranslation. It is also difficult to judge what might have been the motivation for using an older translation instead of producing a new one. The first part of the thesis cited five possible reasons for plagiarism in translation: tradition, quality, memory, difficult original text and copyright reasons. Tradition might have certainly played a role in Vosková’s decision to keep the names of the characters, but it could not have been the reason for using the whole text. It is also unlikely that the quality of the first translation was a motive: if that was the case, the publishing house could have edited the text and published it under the original translator’s name. Given the extent to which the two translations are similar, memory can also be ruled out as a reason; and Baum’s text is relatively simple and straightforward, thus ruling out the option that the first translation was used to overcome the difficulties with the original text. All in all, the only possible motive left seems to be copyright. It is possible that the publishing house did not wish to pay for a new translation, yet was for some reason unable to purchase the licence to the first translation – or it wished to avoid even this cost. It is also possible that the translator used the previous text on her own accord: either to facilitate the translating process, or because of a lack of knowledge of the copyright law and of the fact that one text can be translated in many different ways. It should be noted that in the early 1990s, the situation on the Czech publishing market was rather chaotic and the standards of quality and ethical norms of translating and publishing were often underestimated or disregarded; after all, this situation gave the impetus to create the translation antiaward Skřipec.

66

However, another motivation, which has not been mentioned in the first part of the thesis, might have come into play. As Baum’s text was in the public domain, any publishing house could have decided to publish it, whether in Markovič’s translation or in a new one. Therefore, it is possible that the publishing house chose the option which was not only the cheapest, but also the quickest: instead of tracing the holder of the copyright to first translations and dealing with them, or commissioning a new translation which might take several months, the publisher decided to alter the first translation and publish as a new one. It also cannot be ruled out that the publishing house did, in fact, contact Markovič or his heirs and gained the permission to use the first translation in this way. Whichever the case, Vosková’s retranslation should not have been labelled a “new translation”, but rather a “new edition” of Markovič’s translation. Moreover, when her retranslation was republished in 2004 and 2005, it was attributed solely to her, in spite of her apparent indebtedness to her predecessor. It can therefore be concluded that regardless of the motives and the situation in which the retranslation was published, the way Markovič’s translation was treated by Nakladatelství Svoboda and by the translator herself was, if not unlawful, at least unethical.

67

2.3. Le Morte d’Arthur 2.3.1. Introduction 2.3.1.1. The Original Text Le Morte d’Arthur is, together with Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, probably the best-known piece of English medieval literature; it is also one of most famous works of Arthurian literature, which served as inspiration for many other books on King Arthur. It was written by Sir Thomas Malory, who used older French and English Arthurian legends as a basis for his work about King Arthur and the stories of the Knights of the Round Table. Besides the facts that he finished the work in prison and that he was a nobleman, little is known about him, and there are several known historical figures of the name who might be the author of Le Morte d’Arthur. The text itself is written in Middle English and was first published by William Caxton in 1485. There were many subsequent editions of the book, but most of them were based on the one by Caxton, until a previously unknown manuscript of the book – the so-called Winchester manuscript – was discovered by W. F. Oakenshott, the headmaster of the Winchester College library, in 1934. Thus, a new edition of the book, edited by Professor Eugène Vinaver and based on the newly-found manuscript, was published in 1947.

2.3.1.2. The Czech and Slovak Translations There are two existing Czech translations of the book: one by Jan Caha, first published in one volume in 1960, and one by Ivory Rodriguez, published in three volumes by Jota (vol. I and II published in 1997, vol. III in 1998). This retranslation was awarded the translation anti-award Skřipec for drawing too much on the first translation by Caha (Tuckerová). The website of Obec překladatelů (OP), the

68

organization granting the award, does not state explicitly which volume(s) of the book were concerned, but several facts suggest it must have been the first one: the award was given for the year 1997, so it cannot have concerned the third volume, as it was not yet published; and of the first two volumes, only the content of the first one is included in the previous translation. The second volume contains stories about Tristan and Isolde (books VIII–X according to Caxton’s edition), which Caha did not translate (expcept for an episode about Lancelot and Elaine, which he included in book VII of his translation). According to Libor Dvořák (“Uloupené překlady”), the jury of Skřipec was made aware of Rodriguez’s translation by the Aurora publishing house, which published a new edition of Caha’s translation of Le Morte d’Arthur only several monts after Jota published the first volume of Rodriguez’s new retranslation. From Aurora’s point of view, which Dvořák cites in his article, the events preceding the publishing of the controversial translation and its nomination for Skřipec were as follows: Aurora purchased the licence to publish Caha’s translation of Thomas Malory’s Le Morte d’Arthur from Caha’s heirs in the summer of 1996. Later on, they found out that Jota was preparing the publishing of the same translation. When they alerted them to the fact that they did not own the necessary license, Jota offered them a joint publication. In December 1996, Aurora refused the offer, and in five months – May 1997 – Jota published Malory’s work in a new translation by Rodriguez. While the information in the previous paragraph only represents one party’s point of view, it does make certain facts clear: apparently, two publishing houses decided to publish the same work at the same time. As Malory’s work is in the public domain, this could have easily happened; the publishing houses did not have to deal with any copyright owners of the original text prior to the publishing.

69

However, if two different editions of the same text are published at the same time, the revenue for each publisher is inevitably substantially diminished – even more so in such a limited book market as the Czech one is. Consequently, Rodriguez must have been under pressure from the publisher to finish the translations as soon as possible, so that they could be published before Aurora’s, and this might have contributed to him overly relying on the previous translation. Rodriguez received the anti-award Skřipec in May 1998, a year after the first volume of his translation was published. The information available in the newspaper articles from 27 May 1998 commenting on the presentation of the antiaward suggests that the event was relatively controversial. According to an article published in the daily newspaper MF Dnes, the Skřipec jury was aparently unprepared to meet the awarded translator, who unexpectedly came to collect the award in person, and they did not have any professional text analysis to support their claims (Anýž). Lidové noviny, another daily newspaper, published an article saying that similarly sounding passages from the two translations were read at the event and that this was used as a proof. The article also cited a dialogue between Rodriguez and the jury chairman Libor Dvořák, in which Rodriguez asked whether he received the award on the grounds of plagiarism and Dvořák retorted that “the translation was not stolen, but (Rodriguez) was overly dependent on it […]S”48 (Tuckerová). The OP archive contains an analysis of the translation by Jan Čermák (a scholar who specializes on the historical development of English and on the English medieval literature), assigned by the OP, and a copy of an article49 which Čermák

“překlad není zcizen, ale (Rodriguez) se příliš octl v jeho vleku […]”. Besides the analysis and article by Čermák, the archive also contained the copies of two newspaper articles (both mentioned above); there were no other analyses or other materials. 48 49

70

published in the weekly journal Respekt and in which he sums up his analysis. The analysis is not dated; the article was published on 13 July 1998, approximately eight weeks after the award presentation, showing that the analysis was indeed only assigned and finished after the event. Moreover, as will be shown later, the findings of the analysis are contradictory to the verdict of the Skřipec jury and it can therefore be assumed that the jury was not familiar with them. This leads to the conclusion that regardless of whether Ivory Rodriguez was “overly dependent” on the previous Czech translation or not, the decision to award him the Skřipec was not, at least at the time of the presentation, suported by sufficient evidence. The jury awarded the anti-award without having a professional text analysis to support their decision and apparently did not feel confident enough to accuse Rodriguez explicitly of plagiarism. Furthermore, the analysis they later assigned contradicted their argument: as opposed to the jury, Jan Čermák came to the conclusion that despite the similarities,“it is not possible to prove a systematic formal dependence of Rodriguez’s translation on Caha’s”50, but that it is possible to prove his dependence on the Slovak translation by Eduard Castiglione (Čermák, “Falešný Artuš”). On the other hand, the fact that the jury accused Rodriguez of plagiarising Caha rather than Castiglione can be partly explained by the fact that all the three translations (not only Rodriguez’s and Caha’s, but also Castiglione’s) resemble one another more than would normally be the case with independent translations. Apparently, Castiglione himself also relied on Caha’s translation: “the Slovakian text by Castiglione draws on Caha’s translation in a similar way and in no smaller

50

“Přesto soustavnou formální závislost Rodriguezova překladu na Cahově nelze dokázat.”

71

extent [than Rodriguez]” (Rambousek, E-mail to the author)51. However, despite the obvious similarities between Caha’s and Castiglione’s texts it must be stressed that Castiglione’s dependency on Caha has never been publicly discussed or formally proven. Naturally, the standpoint of the translator himself was rather diffent. In the foreword to the first volume of his translation of Le Morte d’Arthur, Ivory Rodriguez commented on the previous two (Czech and Slovak) translations and acknowledged his indebtedness to both of them; at the same time, however, he stated that “the Czech reader is now presented with a modern translation”52 (Rodriguez, Artušova smrt, 11). After receiving the anti-award, he published several articles in which he defended himself and denied the (albeit non-explicit) accusation of plagiarism. In the first of these articles, he stated that while accusing him of being dependend on Caha’s translation, the jury’s chairman Libor Dvořák never mentioned that Caha only translated about half of Malory’s work, while Rodriguez translated the whole book. In Rodriguez’s opinion, plagiarising only half of the text would inevitably lead to considerable variation in style throughout the book, which is something that nobody attempted to demonstrate. In his view, the third volume of his translation, which was yet to be published at that time, would bring the final answer to this and show that he works independently. He also claimed that while the excerpts which were presented as evidence do sound similar, this is only due to the fact that they are translations of the same book. He concluded his defense by saying that he had been interested in the text for many years, that he had cooperated with specialist scholars while working on the translation and that 51 52

“Už slovenský text Castiglionův čerpá z Cahova překladu podobným způsobem a v nemenší míře.” “Českému čtenáři se zde předkládá překlad moderní […]”.

72

he was ready to prove his innocence by factual evidence from his translation (Rodriguez, “Tímto se ohrazuji”). The following analysis will attempt to find out whether it is possible to prove that the first volume of Rodriguez’s translation of Le Morte d’Arthur was, in fact, “overly dependent” on either or both of the previous two translations. For this purpose, similar methods will be used as in analysing The Wizard of Oz (see section 2.2). First, a software analysis will be carried out to find out to what extent the text of Rodriguez’s translation matches the text of the translation by Castiglione and/or Caha. Second, the manual analysis provided by Jan Čermák and another comparative analysis by Jiří Rambousek (a teacher at the English Department at the Faculty of Arts of Masaryk University) will be presented and commented on.

2.3.2. Software analysis 2.3.2.1. Introduction Compared to the software analysis of The Wizard of Oz retranslation, the situation with the retranslation of Le Morte d’ Arthur is much more complex. In case of The Wizard of Oz, the translator apparently used the text of the first translation with relatively few changes, so that whole segments of the texts were absolutely identical, allowing the software to mark them as such. However, from the discussion described above, it seems that Ivory Rodriguez did attempt to create his own original translation, but (according to the analysis by Čermák, which will be discussed in detail later on) he failed to do so, drawing too much on the previous Slovak translation by Eduard Castiglione. Moreover, he was also accused (by the Skřipec jury) of plagiarising another, Czech translation by Jan Caha, so there is more than one text that he might have drawn on. For these reasons, it is possible that the software will not be able to spot the similarities between his text 73

and either of the other two. As was shown by the software analysis of the translations of The Wizard of OZ, differences which might seem negligible to an attentive reader can be too great for the software. Another difficulty is caused by the fact that not only more than one text, but also more than one language is involved. Čermák’s analysis, assigned by the Skřipec jury, found that while Rodriguez does rely on Caha’s translation, it is not possible to prove his “systematic dependence” (Čermák, “Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”, 11) on Caha; however, it claims that it is possible to prove Rodriguez’s dependence on the Slovak translation by Castiglione. This poses a major problem for the software analysis: even though Czech and Slovak are mutually intelligible, the software application Jako vejce vejci would not be able to recognize the similarity between texts written in two different languages. A possible solution to this problem, suggested by my supervisor dr. Kamenická, might lie in rendering a part of Castiglione’s text to Czech in as straightforward way as possible: substituting the Slovak endings with the Czech ones, “rewriting” the words which only differ in spelling, and finding near-synonyms to words which are different in the two languages, with little or no syntactic changes and without taking into accoung the stylistic or other differences between Czech and Slovak usage of the vocabulary. The result of such a rendering would not be a true translation, but rather a Slovak text made to look Czech, so that the software would be able to recognize it as such and compare it to another Czech text. It is possible that the application will not be able to find matching parts of text between such a crude rendering of the Slovak translation and Rodriguez’s text; on the other hand, any similarities found would carry even more weight.

74

As was mentioned above, it has been suggested that Castiglione also drew on Caha’s translation to a large extent. However, this suggestion has never been formally proven; the fact that their texts seem to be very similar is not a conclusive proof in itself. Therefore, a Czech rendering of Castiglione’s text will also be compared to Caha’s text, to find out whether it would be possible to prove his dependence on Caha in this way.

2.3.2.2. Rodriguez & Caha The first volume of Rodriguez’s translation is divided into seven books, each in turn divided into a number of chapters. For the purpose of the software analysis, books III and VI were randomly chosen. To include at least parts of the other books (I, II, IV and VI) of the volume in the analysis, the chapters which Čermák chose from each of them for his manual analysis53 were also included. Book V of Rodriguez’s translation was not included in the analysis, as Caha did not translate it. The sections which were compared encompass approximately 93 pages out of the 355 pages of the whole text of Rodriguez’s translation (excluding the foreword, table of contents, etc.); that is, approximately a quarter (26%) of Rodriguez’s translation was thus compared to Caha’s. The chosen parts of the texts were then processed in the way described in detail in section 2.2.2.: they were scanned, the text in the scanned pictures was recognized by an OCR54 software and saved in an editable text format. Both texts were then uploaded into the IS Depository and the application Jako vejce vejci was used to search in the IS database for texts similar to Rodriguez’s translation. It found no matching document, which means that it did not recognize Caha’s text as being similar (by the applications criteria) to Rodriguez’s. The analysis was the 53 54

Book I, chapters13 and 19; II – 3, 14; IV – 12,22; VII – 15. Optical character recognition.

75

repeated with both texts divided into three separate documents55, with the same result. While this in itself does not disprove the accusation of plagiarism (the application only marks as similar such parts of the texts that are almost identical), it does corroborate the findings of Čermák’s analysis, which came to the conclusion that is not possible to prove that Rodriguez plagiarised Caha.

2.3.2.3. Rodriguez & Castiglione For the comparison of Rodriguez’s translation, sections from two books – III and V – were used. The books were chosen to represent two different parts of the text: a part which Caha did not translate (book V), meaning that Rodriguez could have only relied on Castiglione’s rendering, and a part which all three of them translated (all the other books). From book V, the chapters which Čermák used for his analysis (1, 4 and 5) were chosen; one chapter which Čermák did not analyse was also added (chapter 2). Altoghether, 6 NS of text from book III were analysed. To represent the part of the text translated by all three translators, chapters 2, 6, 9, 10 and 14 from book III were chosen (approximately 8-9 NS). Castiglione’s text was then translated into Czech in the way described above; Rodriguez’s text was scanned and recognized by the OCR software. The respective chapters from each translation were uploaded into IS in two separate documents, one containing the chapters from book III, the other containing the chapters from book V. Contrary to the expectations, the software was able to find a relatively high level of similarity between the texts by Castiglione and by Rodriguez: 23% in case of chapters from book V, 16% in case of chapters from book III (the complete report can be found in the Appendices). It is interesting to note that the software

55

This additional test was done because the application only marks documents as similar if the level of similarity is higher than 5%.

76

found a higher percentage of similarity in the book which only Castiglione and Rodriguez translated; in other words, based on the software analysis it seems that Rodriguez drew on Castiglione’s translation more in the sections which Caha did not translate and less in the sections which Caha did translate. This corroborates Čermák’s claim that Rodriguez used Caha’s translation “as a guideline to the content of the book”56. However, the text sample used for the analysis was too small to draw any ultimate conclusions in this matter.

2.3.2.4. Castiglione & Caha Chapters 2, 6, 9, 10 and 14 from book III of Castiglione’s translation, which had been translated to be compared with Rodriguez’s text, were also compared with Caha’s version. This time, the software found no similarity between the two texts. While this is not a conclusive proof that Castiglione did not plagiarise or at least draw on Caha’s translation, it might be a sign that he did not draw on it to such an extent as Rodriguez drew on Castiglione’s.

2.3.2.5. Volume III of Rodriguez’s Translation A small sample of text (approximately 3 NS) from volume III of Rodriguez’s translation of Le Morte d’Arthur (chapters 3 and 7 from book XI) was also compared to Castiglione’s and Caha’s translations of the respective chapters (in Caha’s translation they are chapters 3 and 7 of book VII). The application found no similarity between them. However, these findings do not in any way affect the results from the analysis of volume I; and while Rodriguez asserted that volume III would be the ultimate proof of the originality of his translation, it rather seems a proof that he has changed his translation method after receiving Skřipec, and that several translations of the same text can be quite dissimilar. 56

“jako pevné vodítko obsahové”

77

2.3.2.6. Conclusion On the whole, the software analysis shows that Rodriguez plagiarised Castiglione’s text in volume I of his translation of Le Morte d’Arthur; the application found a level of similarity of 16% for several chapters which were not translated by Caha, and 23% for several chapters which were translated by all three translators. Furthermore, the difference in the percentage might suggest that Rodriguez also relied on Caha when his translation was available; that would explain the higher level of similarity with Castiglione in chapters which Caha did not translate. On the other hand, the analysis did not show any similarity between Rodriguez and Caha, corroborating Čermák’s conclusion that no “systematic formal dependence” on Caha can be found in Rodriguez’s text. Apart from comparing Rodriguez’s translation to the ones by Caha and Castiglione, two smaller tests were also run. In the first one, several chapters from Castiglione’s translation were compared with corresponding chapters from Caha’s translation; the application found no similarity between them. This suggests that Castiglione’s dependence on Caha was smaller than Rodriguez’s dependence on Castiglione; however, it is not a conclusive proof that Castiglione did not, in fact, plagiarise Caha’s text. In the other test, two chapters from volume III of Rodriguez’s translation were compared to the respective chapters from Castiglione’s and Caha’s texts; again, the application found no similarity. This shows that Rodriguez probably strove for a more original way of translating the rest of the book after receiving the anti-award Skřipec.

78

2.3.3. Manual Analysis by Čermák 2.3.3.1. Introduction As was mentioned above, OP assigned an analysis of Rodriguez’s translation of Le Morte d’Arthur to Jan Čermák to support its claim that Rodriguez plagiarised Caha’s earlier text in his retranslation of the work. In his analysis, Čermák comes to the conclusion that while this claim cannot be proved, it can be proved that Rodriguez relies too much on the Slovak translation by Castiglione. However, in the introduction to his analysis, Čermák states that his analysis “cannot and does not endeavour to solve this dispute”57 (the dispute between the Aurora and Jota publishing houses, Aurora accusing Jota of “stealing” Caha’s translation) (Čermák, “Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”, 1), and that his primary intention is to compare Rodriguez’s translation to the original text; comparing the two Czech and one Slovak translation was to him secondary. Consequently, not all Čermák’s comments can be used to establish whether Rodriguez’s translation is dependent on Castiglione’s (and Caha’s). In his analysis, Čermák examines a number of randomly chosen chapters from the first volume of Rodriguez’s translation of Le Morte d’Arthur and compares them to the original and both the existing Czech and Slovak translations. First, he analyses chapters from books that were translated by all three translators: book I – chapters 13, 19; book II – chapters 3, 14; book III – chapter 10; book IV – chapters 12, 22; book VI – chapter 11; and book VII – chapter 15. Next, he analyses chapters 1, 4 and 5 from book V, which was only translated by Castiglione and Rodriguez (Caha only translated a part of the original and this book is among the sections he omitted). 57

“Příští řádky tento spor nemohou a nechtějí řešit.”

79

2.3.3.2. Analysis Čermák cites a number of examples from the texts in his analysis; he marks the text excerpts by letters a) to w). To facilitate the comparison of his text excerpts in this thesis, they have been converted into two tables, with the first table showing excerpts from books translated by all three translators and the second table showing excerpts from book V, which was not translated by Caha. The tables also show Jan Čermák’s working translations of the respective text segments, which he occasionaly used to demonstrate his point. The complete text of Čermák’s analysis is available in the Appendices. Čermák describes the relation of Rodriguez’s text to the original and to the other two translations in five categories: 1. Compared to the original, Rodriguez’s transation is amplified and the amplification is clearly prompted by another translation. 2. Compared to the original, Rodriguez’s transation is amplified [and the amplification is not prompted by another translation]. 3. Rodriguez’s translation is incomplete, the incompleteness often prompted by another translation. 4. Rodriguez’s translation does not adequately render the original, the inadequacy often prompted by another translation. 5. Rodriguez’s translation is identical to another translation or there is a clear lexical or syntactical correspondence between them.58 (Čermák, “Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”, 2)

This section will comment on Čermák’s findings, showing how they support Čermák’s conclusion that Rodriguez drew extensively on Castiglione’s translation. Čermák’s approach will also be compared to the approach of Podaný to find out 58

The original Czech version can be found in the Appendices.

80

whether there are any common points in their strategies which could be used for formulating a universal strategy for proving translation plagiarism in texts in general. The following comments often just summarize what Čermák says about the text excerpts himself; any explicit citations are marked as such, and any comments by the author of the thesis are underlined. The words and phrases which are cited from the translations or from the original are marked by italics; the ones in quotation marks are their renderings to Czech or English, provided by the author of the thesis to facilitate understanding the comments.

81

TABLE 6A: Čermák’s Analysis I (Caha, Castiglione and Rodriguez) No Thomas Malory Jan Caha Eduard Castiglione Category 1 …and they met with the fore-riders of I potkaly se s jízdními hlídkami A stretli sa s hliadkami severného a the north and made them to tell which way the host came, and then they told it to Arthur…

b

“For sir,” said they, “the most part of us have been here this seven years their prisoners, and we have worked all manner of silk works for our meat, and we are all great gentlewomen born.”

vojska severního a donutily je, aby jim řekly, kterou cestou jejich voje táhnou. A pak oznámili králi Artušovi… „Většina z nás,“ pravily, „je tu vězněna již celých sedm let, a ačkoli všecky pocházíme z velmi vznešených rodů, byly jsme nuceny vykonávati zde všemožné práce v hedvábí za pouhý pokrm.“

Ivory Rodriguez

vojska a donútili ich, aby vyjavili, ktorou cestou tiahnu ich voje. Naskutku to dali vedieť Artušovi…

I střetli se jeho lidé s hlídkami severního vojska a donutili je vyzradit, kudy táhnou jejich voje. Ihned to dali vědět Artušovi…

„Vedzte totiž, pane,“ riekli, „že väčšina z nás je tuná v temnici už sedem rokov a hoci jsme z urodzeného rodu, museli sme si tu na skyvu chleba zarábať tkaním.“

„Vězte totiž, pane,“ řekly, „že většina z nás tu byla zajatkyněmi oněch obrů už sedm let a musely jsme si tu vydělávat na obživu tkaním hedvábí, až jsme všechny urozené krve.“

(Jan Čermák: … a abychom dostaly najíst…)

Category 2 c

“Well,” said the lady, “I ask the head of the knight that hath won the sword.”

“Nuže, žádám hlavu rytíře, který získal ten meč,” pravila panna.

d

And therewith he spurred his horse straight to the sycamore tree, and blew so the horn eagerly that all the siege and the castle rang thereof. And therewith Sir Gawain plight his troth unto Sir Pelleas to be true and faithful unto him; so each one plight their troth to other / and so they changed horses and harness, and Sir Gawain departed...

To řka, zasadil koni ostruhy a zamířil přímo k smokvoni a dychtivě zadul v roh, že jeho zvuk se rozlehl po celém hradě i ležení. Tu když pan Gawain složil panu Pelleasovi slib, že věrně podle pravdy bude při něm stati, vyměnili si koně a zbroj a pan Gawain odejel.

“Dajte mi teda hlavu rytiera, ktorý získal meč...” riekla panna.

“Žádám tedy hlavu onoho rytíře, který vytáhl meč z pochvy...”

Category 3

e

I poduril tátoša, prišiel k platanu a mocne zatrúbil na roh, že sa jeho zvuk rozl'ahol po celom hrade i okolí. I zaprísahal sa pán Gawain pánu Pelleovi, že mu bude verne pomáhat', vyměnili si zbroj i kone a pán Gawain odišiel.

I popohnal koně, přijel k platanu a zatroubil na roh tak mocně, až se jeho zvuk rozlehl po celém ležení i hradu. Když složil pan Gawain přísahu, že bude panu Pelleovi věrně pomáhat a podle pravdy při něm stát, vyměnili si zbroj i koně a pan Gawain odjel.

Category 4 f

g

So it was then in the month of May that she and Sir Gawain went out of the castle and supped in a pavilion, and there was made a bed, and there Sir Gawain and the Lady Ettard went to bed together... “Now, tell me,” said Arthur, “how far am I from Camelot?” – “Sir, ye are two days journey therefrom.” – “I would fain be at some place of worship,” said Arthur, “that I might rest me.”

A byl tehdy měsíc máj, i vyšla s panem Gawainem z hradu, a povečeřevše ve stanu, odebrali se spolu na lože.

Bol mesiac máj, a tak spolu s pánom Gawainom vyšli z hradu, navečerali sa v šiatri a zatým obaja uľahli na odostlané lôžko.

Byl měsíc květen, a tak s panem Gawainem vyšli do zahrady, povečeřeli ve stanu a pak spolu ulehli na lože.

“A nyní mi řekněte,” pokračoval, “jak daleko je odtud do Camelotu.” – “Dva dny cesty, pane můj.” – “Rád bych vyhledal nějaký počestný útulek, kde bych si odpočinul,' děl král.”

“A teraz mi recte, ako ďaleko som od Camelotu?” – “Asi na dva dni cesty, král'u.” – “Rád by som sa uchýlil do nejakého počestného útulku a tam si trocha odpočinul,” riekol král' Artuš.

“A nyní mi řekněte, jak daleko je do Camelotu.” – “Asi dva dny cesty, králi.” – “Rád bych se uchýlil do nějakého počestného útulku a tam si trochu odpočinul,' řekl král Artuš.”

...and came to the castle whereas stood the pavilions of this lady without the gate. And as soon as Ettard had espied Sir Gawayn she flede in toward the castle. And then they all three left Sir Kay, and turned unto Sir Launcelot, and there began great battle. When his fellow saw that, he ran away as he were wood, for fear of the horrible strokes...

A když se přiblížil k hradu, kde stály stany panny Ettardy vně brány, a ona jej zpozorovala, dala se na útěk do hradu.

Keď sa přiblížil k hradu, zazřel, že pri ňom stoja šiatre tej panny. Sotva ho zočila, dala sa na útek.

Když se přiblížil k hradu, uviděl, že u něj stojí stany té panny. Sotva jej spatřila, dala se na útěk.

I ustali hned a nechali ho – byl to pan Kay – a obrátili se proti panu Lancelotovi a prudký boj započal. Spatřiv to druhý obr, dal se na útěk jako šílený, zděšen tou strašnou ranou.

Ti traja přestali dotierať na pána Kaya, obrátili sa proti pánu Lancelotovi a začal sa l'úty boj. Keď to uzřel jeho druh, dal sa v nohy ako šialený, tol'me sa bál, že aj on príde o život takým ukrutným úderom.

Ti tři pak nechali pana Kaye být, obrátili se proti panu Lancelotovi a začal krutý boj. Když to uviděl jeho druh, dal se na útěk jako smyslů zbavený; tolik se bál, že i on přijde o život tak ukrutným úderem.

Category 5 h

i j

(Jan Čermák: Když to spatřil jeho druh, dal se na útěk jako šílený ve strachu z těch strašných ran.)

2.3.3.2.1. Conclusive Findings in table 6A a) Both Castiglione and Rodriguez render the English then (“potom”) as “immediately” (naskutku, ihned). d) Both Castiglione and Rodriguez omit the word straight in their translations. Moreover, they make the same mistake in rendering the name of the tree: “the Middle English word sycamore means smokvoň egypská; the meaning platan was first recorded in 1814 and comes from American English”59 (Čermák, “Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”, 4). While omitting the word straight in both translations might be accidental, the fact that both Castiglione and Rodriguez make the same mistake here, rendering sycamore as platan (“platan”), suggests copying on the part of the latter translator; however, the mistake might have also been caused by a lack of knowledge about the etymology of the word. e) All translators ommit the clause underlined in the original text. g) All translators make the same mistake, translating place of worship as počestný útulek (“honourable lodging”). h) “Rodriguez’s literal imitation of the Slovak version leads to two fundamental mistakes: the tents are, in fact, outside the gate, and lady Ettard flees to the castle, rather then just taking to her heel’s”60 (Čermák, “Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”, 5). Both Rodriguez’s and Castiglione’s text reads that the tents are “by the castle” rather than “outside the gate” and that lady Ettard simply “fled” rather than “fled to the castle”.

“středoanglické sycamore je smokvoň egyptská; význam platan je poprvé doložen až roku 1814 a pochází z americké angličtiny.” 60 “Rodriguezova doslovná nápodoba slovenské verze (viz kategorie 5) zde vede ke dvěma zásadním omylům: stany jsou skutečně vně brány a panna Ettarda prchá do hradu, nikoli tam, kam ji nohy nesou.” 59

84

j) Both Rodriguez and Castiglione amplify the sentence: in their rendering, the (giant’s) fellow “ran away like crazy, so much he was afraid that he was also going to lose his life by such a terrible stroke”. Čermák does not comment on this example. 2.3.3.2.2. Inconclusive Findings in Table 6A b) Čermák does not comment on this example; however, while both Castiglione’s and Čermák’s renderings of the phrase are rather free, there is no direct indication that Rodriguez drew on Castiglione. c) “While Rodriguez renders the meaning of the original correctly, his rendering is based on information from one of the previous chapters and does not correspond linguistically to the meaning of the sentence”61 (Čermák, “Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”, 3). There is no connection to any of the other two translations. f) Čermák comments on the shortcomings of Rodriguez’s rendering; however, there is no indication that they were caused by his reliance on another translation. i) According to Čermák, the author himself made a mistake here; as Sir Kay is mentioned for the first time in this situation, his name should have been stressed. The only translator who corrected the author’s mistake here was Caha; however, the fact that both the other translators repeat the author’s mistake can hardly be used as a proof of plagiarism.

“Rodriguezovo řešení zde odpovídá věcně (na základě dějové souvislosti s jednou z předchozích kapitol), ne však jazykově.” 61

85

TABLE 6B: Čermák’s Analysis II (Castiglione and Rodriguez) No Thomas Mallory Jan Čermák Eduard Castiglione (New English spelling) (working translation) Category 1 …zde mrtva leží vévodkyně, jež byla Tu, v tomto čerstvom rove, leží k …here lieth a duchess dead, the which was the fairest of all the world... “He that all the world wieldeth give thee short life and shameful death; and the devil have thy soul. Why hast thou murdered these young innocent children, and murdered this duchess? Therefore arise and dress thee, thou glutton, for this day shall thou die of my hand.” Then the knights fetched the club and the kirtle...

nejkrásnější na celém světě…

n

And so he ascended up into that hill till he came to a great fire, and there he found a careful widow wringing her hands and making great sorrow, sitting by a grave new made.

A vydal se na kopec, až přišel k velikému ohni; u něj nalezl zkormoucenou vdovu, jak sedí nad čerstvým hrobem, lomí rukama a žalostně pláče.

o

...and went forth by the crest of that hill, and saw where he sat at supper gnawing on a limb of a man, baking his broad limbs by the fire, and breechless, and three fair damosels turning three broaches whereon were broached twelve young children late born, like young birds.

l

m

Pak si rytíři vzali kyj a plášť…

mrtva vojvodyňa, ktorej se krásou nevyrovnala nijaká žena na světe. “Ten, kdo vládne celému světu, nech ti dožičí len krátký život a potupnú smrť, a dušu tvoju nech si odnesie čert do horúceho pekla. Prečo si pohubil tých desať nevinných diétok, prečo si zmámil vojvodkyňu? Vstaň a hotuj sa do boja, ohava, dneska zhynieš mojou rukou.” I vzali rytieri paloš, železný kyjak a plášť...

Ivory Rodriguez Zde, v tomto čerstvém hrobě, leží mrtvá vévodkyně, které se krásou nevyrovnala žádná žena na světě. “Ten, kdo vládne celému světu, dej ti jen krátký život a potupnou smrt, a tvou duši ať si odnese ďábel do horoucích pekel za to, žes zahubil ty nevinné děti a zabil vévodkyni. Vstaň a hotov se do boje, ohavo, dnes zhyneš mou rukou.” I vzali rytíři meč, železný kyj a plášť...

Category 2 Keď sa ocitol na končiari, uzřel veľkú vatru a v jej světle ustarostenú vdovu, ktorá zalamovala rukami a náramné bedákala, sediac pri čerstvom rove.

Když vystoupil na kopec, uzřel velký oheň a v jeho světle zkroušenou dámu oděnou ve smutku. Seděla nad čerstvým rovem, lomila rukama a náramně bědovala.

Category 3 S tým podišiel až na kraj hrebeňa, a tam zočil obra, obhrýzajúceho l'udský koštial. Obor si zahrieval pri vatre holé nohy a tri panny krútili tromi ražňami, na ktorých bolo ponastýkaných dvanásť nevinných novoradeniatok – holiatok.

A odešel až na samý vrchol kopce a tam spatřil obra, jak ohryzává lidskou kost. Obr si u ohně ohříval bosé nohy a tři panny otáčely třemi rožni, na kterých bylo nabodeno dvanáct nevinných novorozeňátek.

p

And anon the king commanded that none of them, upon pain of death, to missay them nor do them any harm, and commanded a knight to bring them to their lodging; 'and see that they have all that is necessary and requisite for them, with the best cheer, and that no dainty be spared, for the Romans be great lords...

A král ihned nařídil, aby jim (tj. římským vyslancům) pod trestem smrti nikdo neublížil slovem ani skutkem, a jednomu z rytířů přikázal, aby je odvedl do jejich komnat a postaral se, aby dostali vše, co potřebují, a aby (tj. na stole) nechyběla nejvybranější jídla a žádná lahůdka, neboť ti Římané jsou vznešení páni...

Avšak král' Artuš zakázal pod trestom smrti skriviť vyslancom čo len vlások na hlavě a jednému rytierovi náručil, nech ich zavedie do komnaty, ktorú im vyhradil, a nech sa postará, aby dostali všetko, čo potrebujú, aby im nechýbali ani najvyberanejšia jedlá, lakoty a paškrty a ani najvzácnejšie vína, lebo Rímania sú naozajstní vel'kopani.

Avšak král Artuš zakázal pod trestem smrti vyslancům zkřivit jen vlásek na hlavě a jednomu z rytířů poručil, aby je zavedl do komnaty, kterou jim vyhradil, a aby se o ně staral; aby dostali vše, čeho je jim třeba, aby jim nechyběla nejvybranější jídla, pamlsky a pochutiny, a ani nejvzácnější vína, neboť Římané jsou vskutku velcí páni.

Category 4 q r

She was wife unto thy cousin Sir Howell, whom we call full nigh of thy blood. ...now late he hath taken the Duchess of Brittany as she rode with her meyne, and hath led her to his lodging which is in a mountain.

…o němž je známo, že je vaším blízkým příbuzným.

And so they three departed thence and rode forth as fast as ever they might till that they came to the foreland of that mount. And then King Arthur saluted her, and demanded of her wherefore she made such lamentation, to whom she answered and said, “Sir knight, speak soft, for yonder is a devil, if he hear thee speak he will come and destroy thee...” And anon this was known through all the country, wherefore the people came and thanked the king.

A tak to místo všichni tři opustili a jeli, jak jen nejrychleji mohli, až dorazili k úpatí toho vrchu.

Vojvodkyňa je ženou vášho bratanca, pana Howella. “Len toť,” povedal sedliak, “zmocnil sa vojvodkyne bretónskej aj sjej sprievodom, uniesol ju do svojej jaskyne v nedalekej hore...”

Ta dáma je ženou vašeho bratrance, pana Howella, který však není hoden vaší krve. “A před nedávnem,” pravil sedlák, “se zmocnil vévodkyně bretaňské, když jela se svým průvodem, unesl ji do svého obydlí v nedalekém lese...”

Category 5 s

t

u

A ihned to vešlo ve známost po celé zemi a lidé přicházeli ze všech končin a králi děkovali.

Zatým všetci traja rušali výcvaľom, kýmkoľvek nepřišli k úpätiu vrchu.

Poté všichni tři hnali koně cvalem, dokud nepřijeli k úpatí kopce.

Kráľ Artuš ju pozdravil, spýtal sa jej, prečo toľme bedáka, a ona mu odvětila: “Pán rytier, vravte tichšie, lebo támhla je ten diabol. Akže vás začuje, naskutku přiběhne a zmarni vás.”

Král Artuš ji pozdravil, zeptal se jí, proč tolik běduje, a ona mu odpověděla: “Pane rytíři, mluvte tišeji, neboť tamhle je ten ďábel. Uslyší-li vás, okamžitě přiběhne a zabije vás.”

O tomto počine sa naskutku rozletěl chýr po celém kraji a hněď sa začali zbiehať ku kráľovi Artušovi ľudia zo

O tomto činu se ihned rozletěla zvěst po celém kraji a hned se začali k Artušovi sbíhat lidé ze všech končin,

v

…and though their message please me not nor my court, yet I must remember my honour.

w

...him seemed that a dreadful dragon did drown much of his people, and he came flying out of the west, and his head was enamelled with azure, and his shoulders shone as gold, his belly like mails of a marvellous hue, his tail full of tatters, his feet full of fine sable, and his claws like fine gold; and an hideous flame of fire flew out of his mouth, like as the land and water had flamed all of fire. After, him seemed there came out of the orient a grimly boar all black in a cloud, and his paws as big as a post; he was rugged looking roughly, he was the foulest beast that ever man saw, he roared and roamed so hideously that it were marvel to hear. Then the dreadful dragon advanced him and came in the wind like a falcon giving great strokes on the boar, and the boar hit him again with his grizzly tusks that his breast was all bloody, and that the hot blood made all the sea red of his blood. Then the dragon flew away all on an height, and came down with such a swough, and smote the boar on the ridge, which was ten foot large from the head to the tail, and smote the boar all to powder both flesh and bones, that it flittered all abroad on the sea.

…a ačkoli mě ani můj dvůr jejich poselství netěší, musím mít na paměti svou čest.

všetkých končin, aby sa mu poďakovali za jeho hrdinský skutok. “Hoci poslostvo, s ktorým přišli,” riekol král', “vzbudilo nevôlu moju i môjho dvora, musím dbať, aby moja česť v ničom neutrpela.” Snívalo sa mu, že hrozné dračisko přiletelo zo západu, tvár málo belasú, na pleciach sa mu blyskotali zlaté šupiny, brucho sa mu jarabelo prazvláštnymi farbami, chvost malo samý franforec, nohy čierne ako žúžoľ, pazúry akoby z rýdzeho zlata a z papule mu šibali plamenné jazyky, že všetko, more i zem, akoby horeli. Odrazu sa v mračné sťa uhol přihnalo z východu ozrutné diviačisko, nohy malo grubizné ako stľpy, že ohavnejšieho zvěra ľudské oko azda ani nevidělo. Kančisko grúlilo, až to bolo hrozné počúvať. Avšak strašný šarkan sa rýchlo sťa sokol vrhol na diviaka, nemilosrdne doňho dorážal a diviak mu zasa klami trhal brucho, až krv síkala a sfarbila morskú hladinu. Tu vzlietol šarkan do výšavy, vzápátí sa vrhol strmhlav dolu, zaťal pazúry do chrbta diviakovi, ktorý od hlavy po chvost meral desať stôp, a roztrhal ho na márne kúsky, až franforce mäsa a koštiale fŕkali ďaleko po mori.

aby mu poděkovali za jeho hrdinský skutek. “Třebaže poselství, s nímž přišli,” řekl král, “vzbudilo nevoli mou i mého dvora, musím dbát o to, aby moje čest v ničem neutrpěla.” Zdálo se mu, že od západu přiletěl hrozitánský drak, který utopil velké množství jeho lidí. Tvář měl bělostnou, na hrudi se mu třpytily zlaté šupiny a jeho břich byl jako háv z nejroztodivnějších barev, ocas měl plný fáborů, nohy černé jako uhel, drápy z ryzího zlata a z tlamy mu šlehaly plamenné jazyk}', že všecka zem i moře byly v jednom ohni. Znenadání se v mračnu jako uhel přihnal obrovitý kanec s nohama tlustýma jako sloupy, že ohavnější zvíře lidské oko snad ani nespatřilo, a spustil takový řev, až to byla hrůza poslouchat. Avšak ten strašlivý drak se rychle jako sokol vrhl na divočáka, nemilosrdně naň dorážel a kanec mu zase kly trhal břich, až krev stříkala a barvila mořskou hladinu. Tu vzlétl drak do výše, vzápětí se vrhl střemhlav dolů, zaťal dráp do hřbetu divočákovi, který od hlavy po ocas měřil deset stop, a roztrhal jej na malé kousky, až maso a kosti létaly daleko po moři.

2.3.3.2.3. Conclusive Findings in Table 6B k) Both Castiglione and Rodriguez alter the clause in the same way: instead of saying that the duchess was the fairest of all the world, both say that “no other woman in the whole world could match her beauty”. Čermák does not comment on this example. l) Both translators amplify the clause the devil have thy soul in the same way (“may the devil take your soul to the burning hell”). They also both miss the pun with the word dress; the word not only means that the giant should “get ready for the fight”, as they translate it, but also that the giant should put his trousers on (he was previously described as breechless). Moreover, both mistranslate the word glutton as “monster”. m) Both translators add the word “sword” (paloš, meč) to the text. Čermák does not comment on this example. o) As has been mentioned, both translators omit the word breechless in their texts. They also both omit the word fair in the phrase fair damosels. p) Both translators translate the clause to missay them nor do them any harm rather figuratively, using the same idiom. They also both amplify the clause with the best cheer, and that no dainty be spared in the same way, adding “rare wines”. Both also omit the definite article in the phrase the Romans, as if King Arthur talked about Romans in general, not about the Romans that had just arrived. Čermák does not comment on this example. q) Rodriguez, as opposed to Castiglione, does not omit the clause whom we call full nigh of thy blood, but he mistranslates it. r) On the one hand, Rodriguez renders the word lodging more exactly than Castiglione (who translates it as “cave”). On the other hand, Rodriguez translates 89

the word mountain as “forest”, obviously misled by the Slovak translation (the Slovak word hora used in the text can mean both “forest” and “mountain”). t) Both translators render the phrase a devil as “the devil”. Both also add the word “immediately” (naskutku, okamžitě) to the phrase he will (immediately) come. u) Both translators amplify the sentence in the same way (“The news of this deed have immediately spread all over the country and immediately people started coming to Arthur from all parts to thank him for his heroic deed.”). v) Both translators amplify the underlined clause; their translations read “yet I must take care that my honour does not suffer any harm”. w) “To comment on the most serious misinterpretations: the phrase ‘his head was enamelled with blue’ means ‘jeho hlava byla, jako by ji vymaloval modří’ (ev. ‘modře zbarvená’); Rodriguez’s translation ‘bělostná’ [‘snow-white’] is again a (faulty) translation from Slovak, where ‘belasý’ means ‘modrý’ [‘blue’] […] The water and the sea were only ‘like’ in a fire (as apposed to Rodriguez, Castiglione translates this correctly). Neither of the translations says that the boar comes from the east, and he is ‘příšerný’ [‘grim’], not ‘ohromný’ [‘giant’]. It is the boar who is all black, not the cloud (Rodriguez’s translation again corresponds with Castiglione’s here). The phrase ‘he was looking roughly’ is omitted in both translations; it means ‘štětiny se mu ježily’. ‘Marvel’ is not ‘hrůza’ [‘terror’], but ‘div’ or ‘úžas’ (both translators). The dragon advances the boar (omitted by both translators), and he does not do this ‘quickly’ (as both translators say) but ‘s větrem’ [‘in the wind’] […] The fact that the boar’s tusks are grizzly is again omitted by both translators, just as the fact that his blood is hot. And finally, it is not the boar who measures ten feet, but only its ridge (both translators).” (Čermák, “Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”, 10)

90

2.3.3.2.4. Inconclusive Findings in Table 6B n) Čermák does not comment on this example and there is no indication of plagiarism in it. s) Both translators omit the pronoun “that” in the phrase “that mountain”, but this similarity may be accidental.

2.3.3.3. Summary To sum up the text excerpts from both tables, it is obvious that Čermák concentrates mostly on renderings of individual words or phrases; in his analysis, there are no references to sentence structure, puctuation, paragraph division etc. In spite of this, his analysis – even though its proclaimed goal was to compare Rodriguez’s translation to the original, not to the other translations – does show that Rodriguez drew to a large extent on the Slovak translation: the instances where their translations agree almost word-for-word, or where they both make the same mistake, are too numerous to be accidental. On the other hand, Čermák’s analysis also shows that Rodriguez did work with the original as well, as can be seen in excerpt c), where Rodriguez renders the text very differently from the other two translators, or from excerpt q), where he translates a clause Castiglione omitted. However, the overall conclusion based on this analysis must be that Rodriguez was dependent on Castiglione’s translation. When Čermák’s analysis is compared to the results of the software analysis, it is interesting to note that most of his examples come from book V (translated only by Rodriguez and Castiglione, not by Caha). While this may be accidental, it is also possible that he in fact found more instances of similarities between Rodriguez’s and Castiglione’s texts in this book than in the chapters from other books of the volume. This is consistent with the results of the software analysis, which found a 91

higher percentage of similarity between Rodriguez’s and Castiglione’s text in chapters from book V (23%) than in chapters from book III, which was translated by all three translators (16%). As was already noted, the software analysis is also consistent with Čermák’s findings in that it did not reveal any similarity between the translations by Rodriguez and Caha.

2.3.3.4. Comparison with Podaný’s Approach Podaný defined five categories of “similarities” between a translation and a retranslation which can serve as proofs of plagiarism: technical details (concers punctuation), infrequent adjectives, “bold” renderings, incomplete editing (overall sentence structure rememains the same despite changes in vocabulary) and recurrence of mistakes (of the first translator in the retranslation). Unlike Podaný, Čermák endeavours to establish the relation between (Rodriguez’s) translation and the original text in the first place, rather than comparing it with the other translations. It is probably for this reason that he mostly concentrates on shifts of meaning in the translation; this can be seen from the description of four of the five categories he uses to examine Rodriguez’s translation: amplifications – either inpired by another translation or independent – omissions in the text and inadequate renderings. (In the fifth category he examines cases where Rodriguez’s translation corresponds to another translation rather than to the original.) However, even this narrower approach was sufficient to prove Rodriguez’s dependence on Castiglione. Moreover, it is possible to draw a parallel between these two relatively dissimilar strategies. As Čermák concetrated on shifts of meaning, his text excerpts could be – irrespective of the categories he placed them in – roughly divided into two groups: 1. places where both translators leave something out (e.g. excerpts D,

92

O, P), 2. places where they add something which was not in the original text (“amplifying”) and 3. places where they make mistakes. While some of the examples, especially from group 2., fall into Podaný’s category of “bold renderings” (such as examples K, where both Castiglione and Rodriguez translated “glutton” as “ohava” – “monster”, and L), most of Čermák’s examples from all groups more or less fall into Podaný’s category of “mistakes”. Even though many of them are perhaps inaccuracies rather than outright mistakes, they are still too conspicuous (and too numerous) to be accidental, and therefore they constitute the ultimate proof of plagiarism that Podaný expects from examples in this category. In excerpt M, for instance, both translators add the word “sword” (“paloš”, “meč”), a decision that cannot have been motivated by the original text, which does not mention a sword at all. Similarly, in excerpt O, it is highly improbable that two translators working independently would both omit the adjective “breechless” and, at the same time, omit the adjective “fair” from the phrase “fair damosels”. In contrast to that, there is one aspect of Čermák’s findings about Rodriguez’s retranslation that is missing in Podaný’s overview: Čermák found two instances of mistranslations in Rodriguez’s text which were clearly caused by the interference of Slovakian. In excerpt R, Rodriguez incorrectly renders the word “mountain” in Malory’s text as “forest” incorrectly, apparently based on the Slovak version, which uses the ambiguous word “hora” (meaning “forest” or “mountain”). In excerpt W, he makes a similar mistake, rendering the word “azure” as “snow-white” (“bělostný”); this time, his mistake was probably caused by the similarity the Slovak word “belasý” (“blue”) to the Czech word “bělostný” (“snow-white”). In both cases, it is highly improbable that Rodriguez could have arrived at those renderings in any other way than through the Slovak text.

93

2.3.3.5. Comparison with Vosková’s Retranslation of The Wizard of Oz The analyses of the two retranslations show that while both translators plagiarised the previous translations to Czech and to Slovak, their approaches to the texts were rather different. The manual analysis of the retranslation of The Wizard of Oz shows that Monika Vosková probably used the text of the previous translation as a basis for her retranslation, adapting and editing it rather than endeavouring to produce a new translation. Correspondingly, the software analysis of her retranslation and the first translation by Markovič revealed a very high similarity of 49%. In contrast to that, it seems that Rodriguez intended to create a new translation, but failed to do so, relying too much on the work of one of his predecessors; his indebtedness to the Slovak translation in particular is such that can be called plagiarism. The software analysis found a similarity of 16% and 23% in chapters excepted from books III and V respectively; while it is a significantly lower number than in the case of The Wizard of Oz, it still is relatively high, considering that a comparison of his retranslation with the previous Czech translation shows no similarity at all, just as the comparison of the latest translation of The Wizard of Oz by Čížková was not found similar to the previous two translations. However, it further corroborates the fact that even though both Rodriguez and Vosková plagiarised their predecessor’s work, their approaches to translation – and perhaps also their intentions – were probably quite different.

2.3.3.6. Translator’s Motivation Just as the two translators’ approches to the text were rather different, their motivation or reasons for drawing on the previous translations was probably not entirely the same, either. Ivory Rodriguez states in one of the articles to his defense

94

that he had been interested in Malory’s work since he was a student (Rodriguez, “Tímto se ohrazuji”). He must have been familiar with both translations of the text; after all, he acknowledged his indebtedness to both Caha and Castiglione in the foreword to his own translation. It is therefore possible that he remembered some of their renderings and used them unconsciously; he might have also used them on purpose, being convinced of their quality. Another reason was suggested by Jiří Rambousek in his e-mail to Jan Čermák. While informing Čermák of the examination of Rodriguez’s translation he undertook, Rambousek mentions a discussion with Rodriguez, which convinced him that “Ivory is honesly surprised that the translations are so similar, and that he has not fully realized before how different translations normally are from each other”62 (Rambousek, E-mail to Jan Čermák). (A similar situation, albeit in student’s homework translation, has already been mentioned in section 1.2.2.2.) Rodriguez’s unawareness of this fact might have been further enhanced by the similarity between Castiglione’s and Caha’s translation. It has also already been mentioned that the publishing house which commissioned the translation of Malory’s work to Rodriguez was pressed for time, as they wanted to publish Rodriguez’s translation before a rival publishing house published the new edition of Caha’s translation of the book. The translator must have been under pressure to finish the translation as soon as possible, which might have caused him to draw on the other translations so as to make his work easier and, above all, quicker. Time pressure thus might have been a common trait in the motivation of both Rodriguez and Vosková.

“[…] že Ivory je upřímně překvapen, jak značná je nastalá shoda mezi překlady, a že si do té doby ani pořadně neuvědomoval, nakolik se za běžných okolností různé překlady liší.” 62

95

2.3.4. Students’ Translations Apart from the manual and software analysis, there is another way to show that the similarity between two different translations can hardly be accidental: a comparison to another translation of the same work. The Wizard of Oz has lately been translated by Helena Čížková, so it was possible to take advantage of this translation; however, there are no other translations of Le Morte d’Arthur than the ones which have already been discussed. In these circumstances, the only available option is to have a part of the text translated by (preferably) several different translators and then compare the texts they produce to the existing translations, as will be done in this section The material presented in Table 7 was obtained from Jiří Rambousek, who assigned the translation of excerpts from Malory’s text to his students as homework (Rambousek, E-mail to the author). While the students’ translations are sometimes less than perfect, they can still be used to show how many possible renderings there are to a single phrase. Some phrases or whole sentences may not present the translators with many options (such as the title of the chapter, segment A), but most can be translated in many different ways. In segment B, for example, all three translators render the sentence in precisely the same way, with Rodriguez only slightly changing the word order: Na radu Merlinovu i král Artuš vyslal jízdné hlídky, aby prozkoumaly krajinu. (Caha) Na radu Merlinovu aj král Artuš vyslal hliadky, aby preskúmali krajinu. (Castiglione) Na Merlinovu radu i král Artuš vyslal jízdní hlídky, aby prozkoumaly krajinu. (Rodriguez)

96

In contrast to that, each student translated the same sentence quite differently; some of them even joined the sentence with the following one, and none of them starts it with the phrase “on Merlin’s advice”: 1. A tak dle Merlinově rady byli vysláni zvědové, aby prozkoumali zemi, 2. Tehdy byli na radu Merlinovu vysláni zvědové, by prozkoumali okolí. 3. Tak podle rady Merlinovy vysláni byli jezdci na výzvědy 4. A tak na merlinovu radu byli vysláni zvědové aby pročesávali krajinu 5. Tak na Merlinovu radu vyslán byl předvoj, co prozkoumat měl zemi, 6. I byli na Merlinovu radu vysláni zvědové, aby prozkoumali okolí,

When the published translations are compared to the translations of the students, there is a noticeable shift in vocabulary and syntax, which is more modern in the students’ solutions. This is understandable in case of Caha (and maybe even Castiglione), whose translations are relatively old, but Rodriguez’s translation was published in 1995 and – in his own words – it was supposed to be a “modern translation”, so there was no reason for him to use archaic vocabulary or sentence structure. An example of this can be seen in segment D, where all published translations render the word host as voje; while this is by no means a mistake, it is a relatively unusual and archaic word nowadays and none of the students used it, opting instead for the words nepřítel (“enemy”), vojsko (“soldiery”) and armáda (“army”). In G, Castiglione and Rodriguez are the only two translators who start the sentence with the verb (I prisnil…, I měl…). Segment E has already been discussed by Čermák, who pointed out that both Rodriguez and Castiglione mistranslated the English then as immediately, in contrast to Caha, whose rendering is correct; the improbability of this being a coincidence is even further highlighted in comparison to the six students’

97

translations, all of which also render the word correctly. In segment G, it is again only Rodriguez and Castiglione who render the English word wind as vichřice (“windstorm”), while all the other translations use the words vítr (“wind”) or vichr (“great wind”). In sample K, all three official translations render the beginning of the sentence very freely and all in the same way: Then by counsel of Merlin, when they wist … (Malory) Když tedy Artuš a králové Ban a Bors zvěděli, (Caha) Keď teda kráľ Artuš i králi Ban a Bors zvedeli, (Castiglione) Když se tedy král Artuš a králové Ban a Bors dozvěděli, (Rodriguez)

However, neither of the six students’ translations is in the least similar to there renderings, and they are also quite different from each other. Just as the examples discussed above, this proves another point of Rodriguez’s defense wrong: several translations of the same text do not need to be similar. Moreover, if they all render one clause very freely and yet all almost the same, it can be considered a proof that the translators drew on each other’s texts.

2.3.5. Conclusion All in all, both manual and software analyses showed that while Rodriguez did not plagiarise Caha’s translation of Le Morte d’Arthur (contrary to the accusation of OP), he did plagiarise Castiglione’s Slovak translation of the word, the probable motivation being time pressure, familiarity with the two previous translations and the fact that he was not fully aware that translations normally do not resemble each other. It is important to note that the software analysis proved to be useful even in this situation, where the retranslator does not primarily work only with the previous

98

translation (as Vosková did), but sets out to create his own text while drawing on the existing translation(s). It was also shown that relatively different approaches to proving plagiarism by means of manual analysis, such as the ones of Podaný and Čermák, may yield useful results, and a mistake or inaccuracy found in both translations seems to be the ultimate proof of translation plagiarism.

99

TABLE 7: Students’ Translations Malory63

A

B

C

D

E

Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Book I, Chapter 13 Of a dream of the King with the Hundred Knights. O snu Krále sta rytířů O sne Kráľa sto rytierov O snu Krále sta rytířů Ze snu o králi a sto rytířích. — O snu krále se stem rytířů O snu krále sta rytířů. — Ze sna o králi sta rytířů So by Merlin's advice there were sent fore-riders to skim the country, Na radu Merlinovu i král Artuš vyslal jízdné hlídky, aby prozkoumaly krajinu. Na radu Merlinovu aj král Artuš vyslal hliadky, aby preskúmali krajinu. Na Merlinovu radu i král Artuš vyslal jízdní hlídky, aby prozkoumaly krajinu. A tak dle Merlinově rady byli vysláni zvědové, aby prozkoumali zemi, Tehdy byli na radu Merlinovu vysláni zvědové, by prozkoumali okolí. Tak podle rady Merlinovy vysláni byli jezdci na výzvědy A tak na merlinovu radu byli vysláni zvědové aby pročesávali krajinu Tak na Merlinovu radu vyslán byl předvoj, co prozkoumat měl zemi, I byli na Merlinovu radu vysláni zvědové, aby prozkoumali okolí, and they met with the fore-riders of the north, I potkaly se s jízdnými hlídkami vojska severního A stretli sa s hliadkami severného vojska I střetli se jeho lidé s hlídkami severního vojska a potkali se se zvědy ze severu. Ti se setkali se zvědy ze severu a potkali zvědy ze severu a ti se setkali se zvědy seveřanů A ten setkal se s předvojem ze severu, a potkali zvědy ze severu, and made them to tell which way the host came, a donutily je, aby jim řekly, kterou cestou jejich voje táhnou. a donútili ich, aby vyjavili, ktorou cestou tiahnu ich voje. a donutili je vyzradit, kudy táhnou jejich voje. Přinutili je vyzradit, odkud přichází nepřítel, a přinutili je vyzradit, kudy přichází nepřítel, a přiměli je povědět, kudy přichází vojsko a přiměli je říci kudy přichází jejich armáda A přinutil ho prozradit, kam vojsko jelo, jež přiměli prozradit, kudy přichází nepřítel. and then they told it to Arthur, A pak oznámili králi Artušovi, co zvěděli, Naskutku to dali vedieť Astušovi Ihned to dali vědět Artušovi a pak to sdělili Artušovi, a poté to oznámili Artušovi, a řekli to pak Arthurovi a to pak pověděli Artušovi, A to potom Artušovi vypověděli, To pak oznámili Artušovi

Only the New English version of Malory’s text, which adapts the spelling and punctuation to modern norms but otherwise makes no changes to the text, is presented in the table. 63

100

Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez F

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory

G

H

I

J

Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. 2. 3.

and by King Ban and Bors' council they let burn and destroy all the country afore them, there they should ride. a na radu králů Bana a Borse přikázali spáliti a v pustinu obrátiti celou tu krajinu před nimi, kudy měli táhnouti. a na radu kráľov Bana a Borsa naručili spáliť a spustošiť celú krajinu, ktorou mali voje tiahnuť. a na radu králů Bana a Borse přikázali spálit a zpustošit celý kraj, kudy měla vojska táhnout. a jak řekla Velká rada, nechali spálit a zničit vše, co jim stálo v cestě. a na radu králů Bana a Bora spálili a zničili zemi, kterou měl nepřítel projet. a podle rady králů Bana a Bora pálili a pustošili před sebou všechnu zemi, kterou projížděli. a na radu krále Ban a Bora nechali vypálit a zplenit vše po cestě kterou se ubírali. A na radu krále Bana a Borse nechali před sebou spálit a zplenit celou zemi, kudy pak jet měli. a dle nařízení Rady nechali spálit a zničit vše, co jim stálo v cestě The King with the Hundred Knights met a wonder dream two nights afore the battle, V ten čas měl Král sta rytířů podivný sen, a bylo to dvě noci před bitvou. I prisnil sa Královi sto rytierov dva dni pred bitkou čudesný sen. I měl Král sta rytířů dva dny před bitvou podivný sen. Dva dny před bitvou měli král a sto rytířů ve snu vidění, Dvě noci před bitvou měl Král s družinou čítající sta rytířů podivuhodný sen. Druhé noci před bitvou zdál se králi se stem rytířů podivný sen, Král sta rytířů měl po dvě noci před bitvou podivný sen Dva dny před bitvou měl král sta rytířů podivný to sen, Král se sto rytíři měl dvě noci před bitvou ve snu vidění, that there blew a great wind, and blew down their castles and their towns, I zdálo se mu, že vál veliký vítr a rozvál jejich hrady a města Snilo sa mu, že sa strhla velká víchrica, poválala ich hrady a mestá Zdálo se mu, že se strhla velká vichřice, pobořila jejich hrady a města že foukal velký vítr, který zničil jejich hrady a jejich města, Zdálo se mu, že zadul silný vítr a smetl jejich hrady a jejich města, že zadul mocný vichr a zbořil hrady, města jejich že zvedl se ukrutný vichr a rozmetal jejich hrady a jejich města, Že silný vítr vanul a rozprášil jejich hrady i města, že foukal ohromný vítr, který zbořil jejich hrady a města and after that came a water and bare it all away. a po něm že přišla voda a vše odnesla. a po nej prišla povodeň, ktorá všetko odniesla. a po ní přišla povodeň, která vše odnesla. a pak se přivalila voda, která to všechno odplavila. a pak přišla velká voda a vše odnesla. a po něm přišla voda a vzala všechno pryč. a nato přišla voda a vzala všecko s sebou. A po něm přišla voda, která vše spláchla. a poté přišla velká voda, která všechno spláchla. All that heard of the sweven said it was a token of great battle. Tehdy všichni, kdožkoli slyšeli o tom snu, pravili, že je znamením veliké bitvy. A všetci, ktorí počuli o sne, vraveli, že vešti veľkú bitku. A všichni, kdo o snu slyšeli, říkali, že věští velikou bitvu. To všechno bylo symbolem velké bitvy. Všichni, kdož o tom snu slyšeli, prohlašovali, že značí velikou bitvu. Kdo slyšel o tom vidění, měl za předzvěst je velké bitvy.

101

4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1. K

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez

L

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Malory Caha Castiglione Rodriguez 1.

M

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

všichni kdo o snu slyšeli řekli že je předzvěstí veliké bitvy. Všichni, co o tom vidění slyšeli, naznali, že předzvěstí je velké bitvy. A toto vše bylo předzvěstí velké bitvy. Then by counsel of Merlin, when they wist which way the eleven kings would ride and lodge that night, Když tedy Artuš a králové Ban a Bors zvěděli, kterou cestou těch jedenáct králů potáhne a kde budou té noci tábořiti, Keď teda kráľ Artuš i králi Ban a Bors zvedeli, kadiaľ sa budú uberať jedenásti králi s vojskom a kde budú táboriť tej noci, Když se tedy král Artuš a králové Ban a Bors dozvěděli, kudy se bude ubírat jedenáct králů se svým vojskem a kde budou té noci tábořit, Na Merlinovu radu pak, když zjistili, kudy pojede těch jedenáct králů a kde tu noc přenocují, Brzy poznali, kterou z cest se bude oněch jedenáct králů ubírat a kde se tu noc uloží. Pak na Merlinovu radu, když věděli už, odkud té noci jedenáct králů přijede a útočiti bude, Pak když zvěděli kudy se bude jedenáct rytířů brát a kde budou nocovat, na radu Merlinovu Pak na Merlinův pokyn, znajíce cestu, kterou se jedenáct králů vydá a kde noc stráví, Pak na Merlinovu radu, když zjistili, kudy jedenáct králů pojede a kde přenocuje at midnight they set upon them, as they were in their pavilions. udeřili na ně o půlnoci, jak jim byl Merlin poradil, když již leželi ve stanech. udreli na nich, ako im Merlin poradil, v polnočnú hodinu, keď všetci ležali vo svojich šiatroch. udeřili na ně o půlnoci, jak jim Merlin poradil, neboť tehdy všichni leželi ve svých stanech. se za nimi o půlnoci vydali, když spali ve svých stanech. Merlin radil, aby je o půlnoci, až budou odpočívat ve stanech, přepadli. Tak se také stalo. v půlnoc je přepadli, právě když byli ve stanech. přepadli je o půlnoci v jejich stanech Se na krále v půlnoci snesli, když ve svém táboře meškali. o půlnoci, když byli ve svých stanech, se za nimi vydali But the scout-watch by their host cried, Lords! at arms! for here be your enemies at your hand! Avšak stráže jejich vojska vzkřikly: "Nepřítel! Do zbraně, pánové!" Avšak stráže skríkli: "Páni, do zbrane! Nepriateľ!" Ale stráže vojsko zpozorovaly a vykřikly: "Pánové, do zbraně! Je tu nepřítel!" Ale nepřátelské hlídky volaly, Páni! Do zbraně! neb vaši nepřátelé jsou na dosah. Ale jejich stráž vzkřikla: “Páni! Do zbraně! Nepřátelé jsou na blízku!” Leč hlídka jejich vojska vzkřikla: Hej, vstávat! Do zbraně! Neb nablízku je nepřítel! ale hlídka z vojska vzkřikla: Páni! Do zbraně! Neboť váš nepřítel je nablízku! Však hlídka jejich vojska křikla: “Lordové! Do zbraně! Nepřítel je na blízku!” ale nepřátelští zvědové zvolali “Páni! Do zbraně! Vaši nepřátelé jsou na dosah!”

102

2.4. Conclusion The theoretical part of the thesis showed that plagiarism in translation is a relatively complicated problem and that while it is in essence very similar to plagiarism in other fields (such as education or research), it is often more difficult to define and detect. It also showed the conflict that many translators are facing: while it may be recommendable and in certain circumstances even necessary for them to be familiar with existing translation of the source text they are translating, they are at the same time aware that if their translation bears resemblance to their predecessor’s translation, they may be accused of plagiarism. Finally, the theoretical part of the thesis attempted to categorise the situations in which translation plagiarism takes places, showing that some translation which might be suspected of plagiarism are, in fact, very far from it, while in cases of translations which are plagiarised it can be difficult to find substantial evidence. To find out how such evidence could be acquired, the practical part of the thesis looked for evidence of plagiarism in two modern Czech translations, showing which methods and strategies can be used to that end. It showed that software analysis can be a very useful tool in this examination, especially if accompanied by manual analysis, and it suggested strategies which can be used in manual analysis. It also examined the translators’ motivation for using their predecessors’ work, showing that the reasons can be multiple and that the translator may not even be aware that he or she is guilty of plagiarism.

103

3. Works Cited 3.1. Primary Sources Caha, Jan, trans. Artušova smrt. By Thomas Malory. Praha: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1960. Trans. of Le Morte d’Arthur. Castiglione, Eduard, trans. Artušova smrť. By Thomas Malory. Bratislava: Tatran, 1979. Trans. of Le Morte d’Arthur. Čížková, Helena, trans. Čaroděj ze země Oz. By L. Frank Baum. Praha: XYZ, 2011. Markovič, Jakub, trans. Čaroděj ze země Oz. By L. Frank Baum. Praha: SNDK, 1962. Trans. of The Wizard of Oz. Rodriguez, Ivory, trans. Artušova smrt. By Thomas Malory. Trans. of Le Morte d’Arthur. Vosková, Monika, trans. Čaroděj ze země Oz. By L. Frank Baum. Praha: Svoboda, 1995. Trans. of The Wizard of Oz.

3.2. Secondary Sources “Academic Information.” 2011. The University of West Alabama. 4 Oct. 2011. . Anýž, Daniel. “Obec překladatelů si nalíčila past.” MF Dnes 27 May 1998. Bailey, Jonathan. “Translation Plagiarism”. 2005-2011. Plagiarism Today. Ed. Jonathan Bailey. 24 Oct. 2011. . “Beránková, Jitka.” Obec překladatelů. 13 Oct. 2011. .

104

Brandejsová, Jitka. “Odhalování plagiátů na Masarykově univerzitě.” Ikaros: elektronický časopis o informační společnosti 10.11 (2006). 6 Oct. 2011. . CODEXIS. 1997-2011. ATLAS consulting. Software. CD-ROM. Vers. 11/2011-(3). Copyright Act (Law No. 121/2000 Coll. on Copyright, Rights Related to Copyright, and on the Amendment of Certain Laws). 7 Apr. 2000, Czech Republic. Trans. of Autorský zákon. 4 Sept. 2011. . Copyright Act of 1909 (An Act to Amend and Consolidate the Acts Representing Copyright). Pub. L. 60-349. 4 March, 1909, USA. 35 Stat. 1075. 17 Oct. 2011. Čermák, Jan. “Falešný Artuš: Skřipec Obce překladatelů po zásluze”. Respekt 13 July 1998. ---. “Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”. Scholarly analysis, ts. 1998: 1-11. Archive of Obec překladatelů, Praha. DEBDict. Centrum zpracování přirozeného jazyka při FI MU. Software. Vers. 1.7.27. 7 Oct. 2011. Dobrovolná, Eva, trans. Axolotl roadkill. By Helene Hegemann. Praha: Odeon, 2011. Dvořáčková, Vlasta, trans. Paní Dallowayová. By Virginia Woolf. Praha: Odeon, 1975. Dvořák, Libor. “Ještě jednou o uloupených překladech.” JTP. Jednota tlumočníků a překladatelů. 28 Oct. 2011. <www.jtpunion.org/spip/IMG/rtf/podvody.rtf>. ---. “Moba Bestia”. Literární noviny 7 June 2004. 29 Aug 2011. .

105

---. “Uloupené překlady: Drzé edice klasiků nakladatelství Moba”. Týden 13 Apr. 2004: 76. Hilská, Kateřina, trans. Paní Dallowayová. By Virginia Woolf. Praha: Odeon, 2004. Jako vejce vejci. IS development team, MU. Software. 19 Sept. 2011. . Kufnerová, Zlata. “K psychologii překládání již přeloženého díla. Lze poznat plagiát?” Tajemná translatologie? – Cesta k souvislostem textu a kultury. Ed. Eva Kalivodová. Praha: FF ÚK, 2008. 101-111. “Krádež uměleckých překladů.” Eva Hrnčířová & Libor Dvořák, pres. Reportéři Čt. Česká televize. 28 Oct. 2011. <www.ceskatelevize.cz/pub/reporterict/204452-80124-0003.doc>. “Kynclová, Jiřina.” Obec překladatelů. 13 Oct. 2011. . Levý, Jiří. České theorie překladu. Praha: Státní nakladatelství krásné literatury, hudby a umění, 1957. ---. Umění překladu. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1963. Leighton, Lauren G. “Translation and Plagiarism: Puškin and D. M. Thomas.” The Slavic and East European Journal 38.1 (1994): 69-83. JSTOR.18 July 2010. . Novák, J. Z., trans. Tři muži ve člunu a na toulkách. By J. K. Jerome. Praha: Odeon, 1972. Trans. of Three Men in a Boat and Three Men on the Bummel. “O firmě.” Internetové knihkupectví nakladatelství Moba. 2011. Moravská Bastei MOBA. 9 Oct. 2011. .

106

“Optical character recognition.” Wikipedia. 7 Dec. 2011. Wikimedia Foundation. 8 Dec. 2011. . Pennycock, Alastair. “Borrowing Other’s Words.” TESOL Quarterly 30.2 (1996): 201-230. JSTOR. 5 Oct. 2011. . Perlow, Lawrence S. Out of Africa and South of the Border: Paul Bowles’ Literary Work in the Western Tropics. Diss. Drew University, 2008. Ann Arbor: UMI, 2011. Google Books. 10 Oct. 2011. . “Plagiarism.” OED: Oxford English Dictionary. 2011. Oxford University Press.15 Oct. 2011. . Podaný, Richard. “Malý princ dvakrát, a přec stejně.” iLiteratura.cz 25 Apr. 2005. 13 Apr. 2010. . “Podvody v nakladatelstvích a ochrana autorských práv.” Pres. Terezie Jirásková. Studio STOP. ČRo6 17 March 2004. Transcript. 29 Oct. 2011. . Přidal, Antonín, trans. Pan Kaplan má stále třídu rád. By Leo Rosten. Praha: Odeon, 1987. Trans. of O Kaplan! My Kaplan! “Psaní samohlásek v zakončení přejatých slov.” Internetová jazyková příručka. 2008. Jazyková poradna ÚJČ AV ČR. 18 Oct. 2011. . Rambousek, Jiří. E-mail to the author. 8 Nov. 2011. ---. Introduction to Translation. Course home page. ELF: E-learning na FF MU. Feb. 2011-May 2011. Dept. of English and American Studies, Faculty of Arts, Masaryk University. 8 Nov. 2011. .

107

---. “K prekladu Maloryho.” E-mail to Jan Čermák. 24 Jun. 1998. Rodriguez, Ivory. “Tímto se ohrazuji proti postupu Obce překladatelů!” Literární noviny 15 July 1998: 2. Rychetský, Jan. “Distributoři se distancují od padělků Pottera.” Novinky.cz 16 May 2005. 28 Oct. 2011. http://www.novinky.cz/kultura/56479-distributori-sedistancuji-od-padelku-pottera.html>. Shashok, Karen. “Authors, editors and the signs, symptoms, and causes of plagiarism.” Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia 5.3 (2011): 303-7. 5 Oct. 2011. . “Stavinohová, Zdeňka.” Obec překladatelů. 13 Oct. 2011. . Tilschová, Emanuela, transl. O mé rodině a jiné zvířeně. By Gerald Durrell. Praha: Odeon, 1968. Trans. of My Family and Other Animals. Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja: “Translationese –a myth or an empirical fact?” Target 14.2 (2002): 207-220. Translation contract. Closed 15 Dec. 2010 in the Czech Republic between the author of the thesis and a Czech publishing house [name withheld for confidentiality reasons]. Ts. Author’s archive. Tuckerová, Veronika. “Při předčítání z ‘oceněných’ překladů zazněl smích.” Lidové noviny 27 May 1998. Venuti, Lawrence. “The Awful Crime of I. U. Tarchetti: Plagiarism as Propaganda.” New York Times Book Review 23 Aug 1992: 7. 2011. The New York Times Company. 16 Oct 2011. . Wolfová, Zora. Ptáci, zvířata a moji příbuzní. By Gerald Durrell. Praha: Mladá fronta, 1979. Trans. of Birds, Beasts, and Relatives.

108

Woolf, Virginia. Mrs. Dalloway. Ed. G. Patton Wright. London: Vintage, 1992.

4. Summary This thesis examines the issue of plagiarism in translation. The theoretical part discusses the topic of plagiarism in general and the specifics of plagiarism in translation, attempting to establish the relationship between these two categories. It examines the conventional definitions of plagiarism and their shortcomings and attempts to find out whether these definitions can be applied to translation plagiarism; it then looks at the issue from the point of view of translation scholars and from the point of view of the law. Finally, it suggests a categorisation of translation plagiarism, looking at a number of individual cases. The practical part builds on this categorisation, examining a specific category of translation plagiarism: a translation in which the translator draws on other existing translation or translations. It examines two modern Czech translations, attempting to prove that they plagiarise other previous translations. To that end, it uses both manual and software analysis, showing that both of them are very useful tools for detecting translation plagiarism; it also discusses different strategies which can be used to find evidence of plagiarism in translation. This part of the thesis also focuses on the motivation of the translators to take advantage of existing translations and on the strategies they used to that end.

109

5. Resumé Tato diplomová práce se zabývá problematikou plagiátorství v překladu. Teoretická část zkoumá plagiátorství obecně a specifika plagiátorství v překladu ve snaze určit, jaký je mezi těmito dvěma kategoriemi vztah. Zkoumá také obvyklé definice plagiátorství a jejich nedostatky a pokouší se zjistit, jestli se tyto definice dají aplikovat na plagiátorství v překladu. Na problematiku plagiátorství v překladu následně nahlíží také z pohledu odborníků zabývajících se překladem a z pohledu českého právního řádu. Nakonec navrhuje kategorizaci plagiátorství v překladu na základě množství konkrétních příkladů. Praktická část práce staví na této kategorizaci a soustředí se na poslední kategorii: překlad, jehož autor využívá při své práci starší překlad či překlady. Zkoumá dva české překlady z devadesátých let ve snaze prokázat, že oba překladatelé se při využívání starších překladů dopustili plagiátorství. K tomuto účelu využívá diplomová práce jak ruční, tak softwarovou analýzu a ukazuje, že obě jsou při odhalování plagiátorství v překladu velmi užitečné. Zabývá se také různými strategiemi, které je při hledání důkazů o plagiátorství v překladu možné použít. Tato část práce se také zaměřuje na motivaci překladatelů k využívání starších textů a na strategie, které při práci s těmito texty používají.

110

6. Appendices (on CD) Appendix I: .........IS Report: Similarities found between Vosková’s and Markovič’s translations of The Wizard of Oz. Appendix II:........The complete manual analysis of the differences between Vosková’s and Markovič’s translations of The Wizard of Oz (by author) – chapters 1, 2, and 22. Appendix III: ......IS Report: Similarities found between Rodriguez’s and Castiglione’s translations of Le Morte d’Artur (vol. I, book III) Appendix IV: ......IS Report: Similarities found between Rodriguez’s and Castiglione’s translations of Le Morte d’Artur (vol. I, book V) Appendix V: ........“Krále Artuše dvojí smrt”, Jan Čermák. Analysis of Rodriguez’s translation of Le Morte d’Arthur and comparison with the translations by Caha and Castiglione.

111