Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
Teaching English Language and Literature for Secondary Schools Jitka Grycová
Kingsley Amis‟s Campus Novel Lucky Jim and its Czech Translations Master‟s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Ing. Mgr. Jiří Rambousek
2013
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the biography.
.....................................................................................
I would like to thank my supervisor Ing. Mgr. Jiří Rambousek for his guidance and good advice. I would also like to thank Mrs. Kateřina Hilská for answering my questions about her translation of Lucky Jim.
List of Abbreviations JM – Jiří Mucha KH – Kateřina Hilská SL – source language ST – source text TL – target language TS – translation studies e.g. – for example e.i. – that is etc. – et cetera
Table of Contents 1
Introduction ...........................................................................................................7
2
Contextual parameters of the source text ..............................................................9
2.1
Kingsley Amis ......................................................................................................9
2.2
Lucky Jim ...........................................................................................................10
3
Contextual parameters of the target texts ...........................................................13
3.1
The Translators ...................................................................................................13
3.1.1
Jiří Mucha ...........................................................................................................13
3.1.2
Kateřina Hilská ...................................................................................................14
3.2
The Translations .................................................................................................14
4
Specific translation areas ....................................................................................18
4.1
Translation of culture-specific concepts .............................................................18
4.2
Translation of humour/sarcasm ..........................................................................36
4.3
Translation of similes..........................................................................................40
4.4
Translation of songs and ditties ..........................................................................43
4.5
Translation of expressive/colloquial words ........................................................45
4.6
Translation of idioms ..........................................................................................47
4.7
Translation of the verb “say” ..............................................................................50
4.8
Translation of names ...........................................................................................52
4.9
Translation of Dixon‟s facial expressions ..........................................................54
4.10
Speech stylisation – accents and registers ..........................................................56
4.11
Foreign and specialised terms .............................................................................60
4.12
Pragmatic aspects – forms of address .................................................................62
4.13
Cohesion .............................................................................................................64
5
Problematic translation issues .............................................................................69
5.1
Ageing of translation ..........................................................................................69
5.2
Translation errors ................................................................................................70
5.3
Other issues .........................................................................................................74
6
Translation strategies ..........................................................................................76
6.1
Translation by omission ......................................................................................77
6.2
Adding expressivity ............................................................................................79
6.3
Adding information (explicitation) .....................................................................82
6.4
Transposition ......................................................................................................83
6.5
Modulation ..........................................................................................................85
7
Results .................................................................................................................87
8
Conclusion ..........................................................................................................90
Appendix 1 – More Examples ........................................................................................93 Bibliography .................................................................................................................100
1
Introduction The aim of the present diploma thesis is to analyze, compare and contrast two translation versions of Kingsley Amis‟s campus novel Lucky Jim. For 52 years, there was only a translation made by Jiří Mucha (republished three times so far); however in 2011, a new translation version by Kateřina Hilská was published. I believe that this five-decade difference poses a good starting point for the investigation into the topic of strategies and overall approaches used in translation studies in the 50s and 60s as compared to those used by contemporary translators. Based on the Retranslation hypothesis formulated by Berman, which states that “first translations tend to be assimilationist (or, domesticating), and this creates a need for a retranslation that stays closer to the original (i.e. that would be more foreignizing) (as cited in Koskinen, 2012, p. 23), I assume that Mucha‟s version will be more on the domestication side of the translation continuum, whereas Hilská‟s version will be more on the foreignization side. Moreover, following the second part of Berman‟s hypothesis, which claims that “while originals remain forever „young‟, translations will age with the passage of time, thus giving rise to a need for new translations” (as cited in Baker and Saldanha, 2009, p. 234), I presume that one of the reasons for the commission of the new translation might be the fact that the Mucha‟s version may be a bit outdated for the current target audience. My other research question is based on Knittlová‟s proposal (2000) stating that “[i]n the new translations besides certain modernization and better command of the translation technique we find a number of differences resulting from greater creativity, enrichment of the style” (p. 11). She adds that this is particularly true for translations with a generation gap between them (p. 10). Furthermore, she claims that new translations are readable, more explicit and “semantically more saturated” and we can 7
observe a trend in which inventive translation strategies and lower language levels are used to comply with expectations of the target readers (p. 11). As far as methodology is concerned, I am working with numerous examples from the source text and both translation versions. These examples are analysed and compared, and advantages and disadvantages of different renderings by the two translators are discussed and evaluated. The examples have been selected from the whole book on the basis of their different renderings by the translators and should be considered a representative sample as it was not possible to include all of them in the main text of the thesis – more examples are to be found in the Appendix section. Regarding the structure of the thesis, the first section – Contextual parameters of the source text – focuses on the book Lucky Jim and its author Kingsley Amis is introduced and discussed there. The following section – Contextual parametres of the target texts – deals with both translators and their translation versions. The analysis, including the representative examples, is focused on the comparison of both translation versions and is divided into three main sections: Specific translation areas, Problematic translation issues and Translation strategies. These main sections are further subdivided into 21 distinct subsections which include both a theoretical and a practical part. Significant space is given to translation of culture-specific concepts as the book is full of cultural references. The thesis is grounded on a number of renowned translation scholars, e.g. Mona Baker, Peter Newmark, Anthony Pym, Eugene Nida, and Vinay and Darbelnet, to name just a few. Moreover, insights of Mrs. Hilská, the translator of the second version, are included in some subsections.
8
2
Contextual parameters of the source text All experienced translators know how important for translating having thorough knowledge of the context is, and therefore the book Lucky Jim and its author Kingsley Amis will be introduced in this section. According to Nida (1999), one of the first tasks of a translator is to:
[C]onsider the contexts that are prior to the formation of the source text (ST). Information about the author, the circumstances that prompted the writing of a text, and peculiarities of the author‟s style or special interests and knowledge can all figure significantly in translating. (p. 80)
2.1
Kingsley Amis Kingsley Amis was born in London on 16 April 1922 and studied at St John‟s College, Oxford. He joined the army in 1942 and served there until the end of the Second World War. In 1945, he graduated from Oxford with English as his major. Apart from being a novelist and poet, he also worked as a university teacher in England, Wales, and the United States. In 1948, he married his first wife, Hilary Bardwell, with whom he had three children. His son, Martin Amis, followed in his father‟s footsteps and became a famous British novelist. They divorced and Amis remarried but his second marriage did not last either. Amis‟s literary works include many different genres such as novels, short stories, scripts, science, and poetry. However, he is probably best known for his first novel Lucky Jim which turned out to be a huge success and is often regarded as his best work. After its publication in 1954, literary critics grouped him among the Angry Young Men 9
movement which dealt with topics such as the British class system, conflicts with authorities and the elitist British universities. His novels are said to reflect his life and experiences and include some autobiographical features. The book That Uncertain Feeling, with a similar antihero as Jim Dixon, was published a year after. In 1960, he wrote Take a Girl Like You, often considered as his second best novel. After that, he mainly focused on writing James Bond novels and mystery and horror genres. In 1986, The Old Devils, which won the Booker Prize, was published. Amis was an outspoken atheist and his poems and stories reflect his disbelief in God and religion. Altogether, Amis wrote more than 20 novels as well as many poetry volumes and essays collections. He was known for his lifestyle characterised by frequent alcoholic binges which he tried to justify “as an influence of the characters in his novels” (Kingsley Amis, 2013, para. 9). In 1990, he was knighted and five years later, on 22 October 1995, he died in London (Keulks, 2011, pp. 10-12; Sir Kingsley Amis, 2013, para. 1-4).
2.2
Lucky Jim Lucky Jim is a campus novel which can be defined as “a novel, usually comic or satirical, in which the action is set within the enclosed world of a university [...] and highlights the follies of academic life” (Baldick, 2008, p. 47). David Lodge, a famous British campus novelist, says the following about the university setting of campus novels: The high ideals of the university as an institution – the pursuit of knowledge and truth are set against the actual behaviour and motivations of the people who work in them, who are only human and subject to the same ignoble desires and selfish ambitions as anybody else. The contrast
10
is perhaps more ironic, more marked, than it would be in any other professional milieu. (as cited in Edemariam, 2007, p. 155)
The book is set in the early 1950s at an unnamed provincial British university where its main character, James (Jim) Dixon, works as a junior history lecturer. It is believed that Amis had been inspired by the adoption of the Education Act in 1944 which removed the inequalities of the previous system where university education was provided only to the rich upper classes. As a result, the new university system needed to accommodate more and more students which led to the establishment of provincial redbrick universities across Great Britain. The students coming from working or lowermiddle class had problems with embracing upper-class values which were omnipresent in the academic setting (Womack, 2006, para. 2-3). Dixon, struggling with the contradictions of his background and academic life, is said to be partly based on Amis‟s lifelong friend Philip Larkin to whom the book is dedicated. As Larkin worked at the University of Leicester, it is possible that the university from the book is based on there (Metcalf, 2012, para. 2). Furthermore, there have also been some speculations concerning the fact that Dixon might not be entirely based on Larkin: “Jim Dixon in the end is an Amis-Larkin hybrid who manages to be sweeter and more engaging than either of the men on their own. They were both Lucky Jim” (Gessen, 2012, para. 19). At the beginning of the book, Dixon is far from being “lucky”; he is rather passive and compliant as he is afraid of being fired by his haughty boss, Professor Ned Welch, whom he tries to please and impress as much as possible. However, the more he tries, the worse it gets for him. Moreover, apart from having problems with Welch, his love life is complicated too. He falls in love with Welch‟s son‟s girlfriend, Christine, and at the same time tries to subtly get rid of his colleague, Margaret, who wants to be
11
romantically involved with him. Gradually, Dixon is more and more disgusted and disillusioned by pretensions and hypocrisy by which he is constantly surrounded and finally learns to stand up for himself. At the very end of the book, he eventually finds his “luck” – he leaves the university and moves to London with his new girlfriend Christine. The book was first published in 1954 by Victor Gollancz and has been republished many times since then. It has become very popular in Great Britain and won the prestigious Somerset Maugham Award for fiction (Gessen, n.d., para. 1). However, Amis initially did not expect it to be a big success: “[my novel] would never make an author‟s or publisher‟s fortune, but I think it is quite funny; that, at any rate is its aim” (as cited in Sarvas, 2007, para. 5). Seeing its success, filmmakers took an interest in it and a comedy film Lucky Jim directed by John Boulting was released in 1957 (Whitehead, n.d.). Lucky Jim has been translated into more than 20 languages (Keulks, 2011, p. 11) and it was so successful in the Czech Republic that Amis‟s next novel The Russian Girl, with the main character named Anne was published in 1995 under the title Šťastná Anna (Šťastná Anna, 2012).
12
3
Contextual parameters of the target texts In this section, both translators, Jiří Mucha and Kateřina Hilská, will be introduced and their translation versions will be presented in connection with the Retranslation Hypothesis.
3.1
The Translators
3.1.1
Jiří Mucha Jiří Mucha, son of the famous Czech painter Alfons Mucha, was born on 12
March 1915 in Prague. Throughout most of his childhood, he stayed abroad, in the USA, Italy, Germany, Switzerland and France, where he studied medicine at Sorbonne University. Upon his return to Czechoslovakia he began studying Art History and Orientalism. Apart from translating from English, in which he engaged mainly during the 50s and 60s, he worked as a journalist, BBC war correspondent and novelist. In his books (e.g. Válka pokračuje, 1949), he mainly dealt with themes such as totalitarian societies and war, but he also wrote novels (e.g. Podivné lásky, 1988) with autobiographical features. As far as his translation career is concerned, he focused on translation of drama, e.g. The Public Eye (Veřejné oko, 1964) by Peter Shaffer, Gaslight (Plynové lampy, 1966) by Patrick Hamilton and novels, e.g. The Naked and the Dead (Nazí a mrtví, 1957) by Norman Mailer, The Man Who Knew Coolidge (Muž, který znal presidenta, 1957 – translated in collaboration with František Vrba) by Sinclair Lewis. Lucky Jim was not the only Amis‟s book he translated; in 1991 he completed the translation of I Want It Now (Chci to hned) and died in the same year on 5 April in Prague (Jiří Mucha, 2012).
13
Mucha was apparently a rather controversial figure. On one side, he was an educated bohemian, and on the other, a secret agent. In 2010, Charles Laurence, a British journalist, wrote a book The Social Agent: A True Intrigue of Sex, Lies, and Heartbreak Behind the Iron Curtain in which he accuses Mucha of being an StB agent (Nezbeda, 2012, para. 2). 3.1.2
Kateřina Hilská Kateřina Hilská was born on 7 May 1949 in Prague. She studied English and
Spanish at Charles University and gained the title of Doctor of Philosophy (PhDr.) in 1985. She translates from and into English and focuses on translation of novels, e.g. To the Lighthouse (K majáku, 1999) by Virginia Woolf or Sons and Lovers (Synové a milenci, 2005) by D.H. Lawrence; children‟s literature, e.g. Dog Friday (Pes pátek, 2001) by Hilary McKay; and drama, e.g. The Crucible (Čarodějky ze Salemu, 2009) by Arthur Miller or Amy’s View (Jak to vidí Amy, 1999) by David Hare. In 1995 and 2005, she was awarded Josef Jungmann prize for her translation of Virginia Woof‟s Orlando (Orlando, 1994) and Mrs. Dalloway (Paní Dallowayová, 2004), respectively. In 2007, she was nominated for the Magnesia Litera prize for her translation of Henry James‟s The Portrait of the Lady (Portrét dámy, 2006) (Kateřina Hilská, 2012). I have contacted Mrs. Hilská who kindly answered my questions concerning her translation version of Lucky Jim. Her views and insights are added to the relevant sections of the thesis.
3.2
The Translations There is a five-decade difference between the two translation versions. The first version, made by Mucha, was published in 1959, and the second one, made by Hilská,
14
in 2011. Mucha‟s translation has so far been republished three times; in 1970, 1992 and 2001 (Šťastný Jim, 2012). As far as the reasons for a commission of a new translation is concerned, Mrs. Hilská states that she was asked by a publishing house to do a new translation version, probably because an editor assumed that the time difference of 52 years calls for a new version (personal communication, April 5, 2013). Retranslation is usually seen as “a positive phenomenon, leading to diversity and a broadening of the available interpretations of the source text” (Baker and Saldanha, 2009, p. 233). There are quite a few translation scholars who focus on the retranslation phenomenon and its potential use in translation studies. Koskinen and Paloposki (2010) argue that the existence of more translation versions of a single source text may be used as useful data for translation issues such as changing translation norms and strategies (p. 295). Nida (1999) adds that many readers, when approaching a new translation version, are influenced by the already existing translations (p. 80). Koskinen and Paloposki (2010) also see the possible influence of first translation versions on later translations and talk about retranslation as a product (translation of the same source text into the same target language) and as a process (phenomenon taking place over some time) (p. 294). Pym also differentiates between two types of retranslations; passive retranslations, which differ in geographical location or time, and active retranslations, which have the same cultural and temporal background (as cited in Baker and Saldanha, 2009, p. 235). Koskinen and Paloposki (2010) list a number of reasons for the genesis of more translation versions of a single source text: change of source texts (e.g. editorial changes) and language over time, new target audience, ageing of translation, and increased knowledge of the source text (p. 296). They also mention the fact that the retranslation might be needed due to “a deficient previous translation” (p. 296).
15
However, Venuti points out that we should not forget that “the claims of the inadequacy or insufficiency of a previous translation may be part of a strategic repositioning aimed at supporting the value of the new translation either by the retranslator, or by the others involved” (as cited in Koskinen and Paloposki, 2010, p. 296). Antoine Berman works further on the concept of retranslation and devises what is called by Chesterman the Retranslation hypothesis which states the following:
[F]irst translations are somehow poor and lacking, whereas subsequent translations can make use of the first translation‟s paving the way and bringing the source text‟s true essence through to the target language. The first (domesticating) translation having introduced the text, the second (foreignizing) translation can be truly loyal to the spirit of the source text. (as cited in Koskinen and Paloposki, 2010, p. 295)
Similarly, Andreas Poltermann believes that the first translations are more domestic than subsequent versions which “need to legitimize themselves with regard both to existing versions and to the original” (as cited in Hermans, 1999, p. 140). However, Berman‟s and Poltermann‟s views are being criticized for oversimplifying things and according to Koskinen and Paloposki, a number of case studies show that it is not true that first translations are always domesticating and second translations more foreignizing (as cited in Baker and Saldanha, 2009, pp. 233-234).
Mrs. Hilská‟s insight into retranslation: As for Mucha‟s version, Hilská claims that she never reads the first translation version before she finishes her own version because she is afraid that she could be, even
16
subconsciously, influenced by it. She compares the translations only afterwards in order to eliminate the same translation solutions. Hilská believes that translating an already translated book can have advantages (e.g. translators can refer to the solutions of their predecessors in cases of ambiguity in the source text) as well as disadvantages (e.g. there is always a possibility that readers will not accept the new version and will compare it with the previous one which is firmly established in the reading community) (personal communication, April 5, 2013). Concerning the evaluation of translations, Koskinen (2012) mentions the significant role of affect memory as it seems that critics as well as readers “approach retranslation not only analytically but also emotionally” (pp. 23-24). Hilská also claims that many people still regard new translation versions as “some kind of a luxury” which is not needed if the first version is still generally “readable”. It is also sometimes assumed that new translation versions are just edited versions of the first translation (personal communication, April 5, 2013).
17
4
Specific translation areas In this section, thirteen specific translation areas will be discussed. They have been chosen with regard to the specificity of the source text. Each subsection contains a theoretical introduction and examples of renderings from both translation versions which are described in detail and generally evaluated at the end of each subsection. Graphs were added to some subsections in order to illustrate translators‟ strategies concerning a particular translation area which could be quantitatively observed (e.g. occurrences of the verb “say” in the source text and its rendering in the target texts).
4.1
Translation of culture-specific concepts The term culture-specific concepts, which will be used in the present thesis, has been proposed by Mona Baker but it is not the only term employed in translation studies. Other translation theoreticians use different terms such as cultural words (Newmark), culturemes (Vermeer, Nord), culture-specific references (Gambier), culture-bound terms (Harvey), realia (Schäffner), culture-specific items, culturespecific words, and culture-specific expressions. Apart from the terminological heterogeneity, there appears to be another problem in that it is not easy to define these terms precisely: “In general, when speaking about „cultural references‟, „socio-cultural terms‟, and the like, authors avoid any definition, attributing the meaning of the notion to a sort of collective intuition” (Aixelá, 1996, p. 57). Nord (1997) states that a cultureme “is a social phenomenon of a culture X that is regarded as relevant by the members of this culture and, when compared with a corresponding social phenomenon in a culture Y, is found to be specific to culture X” (p. 34). Aixelá (1996) proposes the following definition of culture-specific items:
18
Those textually actualized items whose function and connotations in a source text involve a translation problem in their transference to a target text, whenever this product of the nonexistence of the referred item or of its different intertextual status in the cultural system of the readers of the target text. (p. 58)
The book Lucky Jim, taking place in British academic setting, is full of culturespecific concepts and cultural references, some of which might be known to Czech readers and some not. As Aixelá (1996) says, “[e]ach linguistic or national-linguistic community has at its disposal a series of habits, value judgements, classification systems, etc which sometimes are clearly different and sometimes overlap” (p. 53). Nord (1997) agrees that “translating means comparing cultures” (p. 34) and it is the translator‟s knowledge concerning cultural concepts which enables them to analyze and interpret these concepts correctly (p. 34). She adds that “[c]ultural translation problems are a result of the differences in the norms and conventions guiding verbal and nonverbal behaviour in the two cultures involved” (p. 66). Similarly, Toury (1995) believes that “[t]ranslation activities should rather be regarded as having cultural significance” (p. 53). Concerning domestication and foreignization, Levý (1983) argues that translators base their decision concerning which foreign elements should be retained in the translation on the expected knowledge of the target audience (p. 97). He adds that a translation method which is chosen by a translator is determined by the current epoch and its cultural needs (p. 99).
19
There are a number of strategies1 which can be employed for rendering of culture-specific concepts. Mayoral & Muñoz devised a model which is based on a binary structure and enables translators to choose a possible strategy. Martín (2000) admits that the binary structure of the model may be problematic, as the thinking process does not have to be binary. However, he emphasizes that the main purpose of the model is to present the questions that translators should attempt to answer which can then lead to potential solutions (p. 137).
Diagram 1: Mayoral and Muñoz‟s model of translation strategy for culturally marked text segments (from Martín, 2000, p. 136)
1
See Section 6 for more information about translation strategies
20
4.1.1
Translation of measures, weights and currencies Newmark (1988) claims that translation of units of the metric system strongly depends on the genre of the text and the intended target audience. He distinguishes between translating newspaper and magazine articles in which the units of the metric system are usually converted, and translating professional or specialised articles in which the units of the metric system are usually transferred (p. 217). As far as translation of fiction is concerned, he believes that “the decision whether to convert or transfer depends on the importance of retaining local colour” (p. 218). However, currency is almost always transferred (p. 218). Similarly, Levý claims that “[f]oreign currencies cannot be converted because a currency is always specific to a certain country and the use of Mark would localize the translation in Germany” (as cited in Gutt, 2000, p. 392).
Example 1: (Chapter 5) Both translators retained the English currency. However, they worked with it quite differently. Mucha transferred sixpence from the source text without any changes, whereas Hilská used a direct translation. Nowadays, Mucha‟s version with the English numeral six looks rather “foreign”. However, sixpence was normally used in Czech translations in the past. ST:
... that a new sixpence had tinkled into the works of the bar-billiard table.
JM:
Ve stolním kulečníku nadto zazvonila další sixpence.
KH:
... kdosi hodil novou šestipenci do minikulečníku.
21
Example 2: (Chapter 19) Mucha used a direct translation, whereas Hilská converted the half crowns2 into shillings, which are probably more familiar to Czech readers. It is quite interesting that in this case Hilská translated it as šilinky but in another place (Chapter 2), where florins are mentioned, she used a generalization and Mucha translated it as šilinky. ST:
Dixon searched his pockets and gave him two half crowns.
JM:
Dixon si prohledal kapsy a dal mu dvě půlkoruny.
KH:
Dixon prohrabal kapsy a dal mu pět šilinků.
Example 3: (Chapter 24) According to Newmark (1988), “[w]hen approximate figures are given in the SL text, translate with correspondingly approximate figures” (p. 218). Mucha used a cultural substitution but he did not convert miles3 into kilometers precisely as the correct speed should be six kilometers an hour. In Mucha‟s case, the use of Czech kilometers instead of English miles is inconsistent, because as far as translation of currencies is concerned, he employs the English system. Hilská, on the other hand, avoided this problem of inconsistency by using a generalization without mentioning any specific figures. ST:
... the sight of anything between a removal-van and a junior bicycle halved his speed to four miles an hour...
JM:
... pohled na cokoliv od stěhovacího vozu po dětský bicykl sníţil jeho rychlost na čtyři kilometry v hodině...
KH:
Jakmile spatřil cokoli od stěhovacího vozu aţ po dětské kolo, sníţil rychlost o polovinu...
2
One half crown is equivalent to two and a half shillings; half crowns stopped to be used in 1970 when the United Kingdom adopted decimal currency (Clayton, 2013). 3 1 mile is 1.609 km
22
Graph 1: Instances of the use of miles and strategies for its rendering:
5
4
3 Instances 2
1
0 Jiří Mucha
Transference
Conversion
Generalization
Omission
Kateřina Hilská
In total, I have counted eight instances of miles in the source text. As follows from the graph, Mucha employed a wide range of strategies, whereas Hilská used only two – either a generalization or a conversion. Mucha‟s overall approach seems to be rather inconsistent as he sometimes converted miles into kilometers, and in other cases, maintained the number and added kilometers to it, and sometimes transferred English miles from the source text.
Example 4: (Chapter 18) Both translators converted inches4 into centimetres. However, they did it with a different precision, Hilská, unlike Mucha, converted it more precisely. ST:
... Dixon rejected the six-inch corridor left to him between the door and the sidewall nearest him...
JM:
... protoţe deseticentimetrovou mezeru, která zůstala mezi dvířky a zdí na jeho straně vozu, zavrhl.
KH:
4
... zavrhl Dixon patnácticentimetrovou mezeru, která vznikla na jeho straně auta...
1 inch is 2.54 cm
23
Example 5: (Chapter 18) Both translators converted English inches into the Czech metric system. However, they used different Czech units. Again, Hilská was more precise. ST:
... with a single frightful bound, brought the car to rest within a couple of inches of the inner wall.
JM:
... zastavil jediným divokým trhnutím několik milimetrů od zdi.
KH:
... jediným strašlivým přískokem zastavil auto pár centimetrů od vnitřní zdi.
Example 6: (Chapter 24) Both translators converted English yards5 into Czech meters. ST:
... the bus crept on, while every few yards troupes of old men waited to make their quivering way aboard.
JM:
... zastavuje kaţdých několik metrů, aby se další skupiny čekajících starců mohly třaslavě šourat dovnitř.
KH:
... kaţdých pár metrů navíc čekala skupinka staříků s úmyslem roztřeseně nastoupit do vozidla.
Graph 2: Instances of the use of yards and strategies for its rendering:
14 12 10 8 Instances 6 4 2 0 Jiří Mucha
Substitution
Omission
Kateřina Hilská
5
1 yard is 0.9 m
24
Generalization
In total, I have counted 16 instances of yards in the source text. As follows from the graph, both translators used three strategies to deal with it: substitution (metres instead of yards), generalization (KH: kousek dál, JM: dva nebo tři kroky) and omission.
Example 7: (Chapter 10) Both translators substituted fifteen-stone6 by metráková. ST:
... since every woman here to-night had come with a partner (except for women like the sexagenarian Professor of Philosophy or the fifteen-stone Senior Lecturer in Economics)...
JM:
...ale jelikoţ kaţdá jiţ s někým přišla (aţ na takové, jako byla šedesátiletá profesorka filosofie nebo metráková lektorka ekonomie)...
KH:
...ale jelikoţ dnes večer kaţdá přítomná ţena přišla s partnerem (výjimku představovaly třeba jistá šedesátnice, profesorka filozofie, nebo metráková docentka ekonomie)...
Translation of measures, weights and currencies – evaluation: Both translators worked with conversion of units where necessary, e.g. they converted less familiar yards, inches and stones, and transferred familiar currency such as pence. However, in most cases, Hilská converted the units more precisely and was more consistent than Mucha.
4.1.2
Translation of concepts related to schools and universities Not only do the Czech and English system of education differ, but academic ranks are distinct too and it can pose numerous problems for the translators. They had to decide whether they would use Czech equivalents which do not correspond precisely to the concepts in the source text and by thus localizing the translation into the Czech setting. Another possible approach is to use the English concept and employ an in textexplanation or generalization. The decision was also partly influenced by the target audience and its presupposed knowledge of the English educational system. 6
1 stone is about 6.35 kg
25
Example 8: (Chapter 1) According to the dictionary, a registrar is “an official at a school or college who maintains students‟ personal and academic records, issues reports of grades, mails out official publications, etc.” (Registrar, n.d.). However, as Lockwood (1979) says “there is no internationally recognisable term to define or describe the senior career administrator in a university” (p. 299). The problem with its translation into Czech is that at Czech universities, we differentiate between kvestor7 and tajemník8 who have distinct functions.
It is impossible to tell from the source text which of these
“functions” is being talked about; therefore both translations are acceptable. ST:
... he‟d been passing behind the Registrar‟s chair at the first Faculty meeting...
JM:
... na první schůzi fakulty procházel za kvestorovou ţidlí...
KH:
... procházel za ţidlí tajemníka na první schůzi akademického sboru...
Example 9: (Chapter 1) Principal is defined as “the head or the director of a school, or especially in England, a college” (Principal, n.d.). Hilská used the term děkan for which there is another term in English – dean. However, apart from principal, there is an English term rector who is “the head of certain universities, colleges, and schools” (Rector, n.d.) but it is used only in Scotland in this sense. Thus again, both translations are acceptable as the Czech system is different. ST:
I‟ve been talking to the Principal about the College Open Week at the end of term.
JM:
Mluvili jsme s rektorem o týdnu veřejných přednášek na konci semestru.
KH:
Mluvil jsem s děkanem o týdnu otevřených dveří na konci semestru.
7 8
Kvestor is in charge of financial administrative of the whole university. Tajemník is in charge of financial administrative of the faculty.
26
Example 10: (Chapter 17) General Certificate of Education (GCE) is “a public examination in specified subjects taken in English and Welsh schools at the ages of 17 and 18. The GCSE has replaced the former GCE O-level for 16-year-olds” (GCE, n.d.). Again, there is no direct Czech equivalent, though A-levels are sometimes translated as maturita. Mucha avoided this problem by using a generalization, whereas Hilská used maturita and by thus localized the text into the Czech setting. ST:
... your schools are full of teachers who couldn‟t pass the General Certificate themselves, let alone teach anyone else to pass it.
JM:
... máte školy plné učitelů, ze kterých by nikdo nepostoupil do vyšší třídy, natoţ aby někoho k tomu uměl připravit.
KH
... máte školy plné učitelů, kteří by neuspěli ani u maturity, natoţpak aby někoho k té maturitě připravili.
Example 11: (Chapter 21) In this example, the importance of pragmatic context can be seen. Gore-Urquhart is asking Dixon about his educational background and by school he probably means university. Mucha interpreted Dixon‟s answer as ironical, downplaying the traditional importance of attending a “good” university and tried to retain the irony by translating it as místní obecná. Hilská, on the other hand, substituted it with its Czech functional equivalent gymnázium which probably does not retain the irony. ST:
„What school did you go to, Dixon, if I may ask you?‟ „Local grammar school.‟
JM:
„Do které školy jste chodil, Dixone, jestli se mohu zeptat?” „Do místní obecné.“
KH:
„Kde jste studoval Dixone, jestli se smím zeptat?” „Na gymnáziu u nás doma.“
27
Example 12: (Chapter 17) As there is a Czech equivalent for Firsts, Mucha used it and translated it první ročník. Hilská‟s translation seems rather odd; the term prvňáci usually refers to the first grade of a primary school, whereas prváci is a more common term in a university setting. ST:
... who‟s resisting all this outside pressure to chuck Firsts around like teaching diplomas and push every bugger who can write his name through the Pass courses.
JM:
... který si nedá zvenku nic namluvit, nepiplá se s prvním ročníkem a nenechává projít kaţdého spratka, který se umí podepsat.
KH:
... který odolává vnějšímu tlaku chovat se k prvňákům, jako by to byli diplomati, a dostrkat dál kaţdého otravu, co se dokáţe podepsat.
Translation of concepts related to schools and universities – evaluation: The translations differ in the use of terminology, e.g. Example 8 and Example 9. Concerning domestication and foreignization, both translators localized some of the concepts into the Czech setting, e.g. maturita, gymnázium, místní obecná.
4.1.3
Translation of material culture (artefacts – food, drinks, clothes, furniture) Lucky Jim contains a number of references to cultural artefacts and the translators had to decide whether they would exoticize their translation by transferring them into Czech or whether they would rather neutralize or domesticate it by generalizing or substituting them. Concerning the translation of food, Newmark (1998) states that it “is for many the most sensitive and important expression of national culture; food terms are subject to the widest variety of translation procedures” (p. 97). As for translation of clothes, Newmark says that the generic noun or classifier could be added to the term or in same cases it might be substituted by the generic word (p. 97).
28
Example 13: (Chapter 5) Hilská probably assumed that Guinness is well known among Czech readers and transferred it from the source text (she changed the capital letter to a lower case). Mucha, on the other hand, used a generalization and translated it lahvové pivo. ST:
... the white-coated barman struggled in with two fresh crates of Guinness.
JM:
... barmana v bílém saku, jak vleče dovnitř další dvě basy lahvového piva.
KH:
... hospodský v bílém plášti s námahou vnesl dovnitř dvě další přepravky guinnessu.
Example 14: (Chapter 6) The terms sázená and smažená vejce are more or less interchangeable. Concerning the translation of sauce, it is interesting that Mucha translated it for the first time as rajský protlak and later as omáčka. Hilská translated it in both cases as omáčka and did not specify it any further. ST:
The remains of a large pool of sauce were to be seen on her plate beside a diminishing mound of fried egg, bacon and tomatoes. Even as he watched she replenished her stock of sauce with a fat scarlet gout from the bottle.
JM:
Na talíři měla zbytek veliké kaluţe rajského protlaku vedle zmenšující se hromady sázených vajec, slaniny a rajských jablek. Dokonce i nyní sáhla ještě jednou po láhvi a přilila si hustou, rudou kapku omáčky.
KH:
Na talíři byly patrné zbytky záplavy omáčky vedle zmenšující se mohylky smažených vajíček se slaninou a rajčaty. A sám byl svědkem toho, jak si dokonce širokým červeným hrdlem láhve chrstla na talíř další příděl omáčky.
Example 15: (Chapter 15) Both translators decided on an omission but they omitted different information. Mucha omitted not only the exact number of cigars but also their flavour. Hilská, on the other hand, omitted the brand of the cigars and used a generalization but, unlike Mucha, retained their flavour.
29
ST:
... half promised himself to send Gore-Urquhart a box of twenty-five Balkan Sobranie (Imperial Russian blend)...
JM:
... v duchu si takřka slíbil, ţe pošle Gore-Urquhartovi krabičku nějakých hodně dobrých cigaret, řekněme Balkan Sobranie...
KH:
Napůl si v duchu umanul, ţe pošle Gore-Urquhartovi krabici pětadvaceti speciálních doutníků (imperiální ruská směs)...
Example 16: (Chapter 16) Concerning the translation of Paisley frock, Mucha added vzor to it, which was not necessary. However, he omitted quasi and translated the shoes as mokasíny which sounds a little bit old-fashioned9. Hilská, on the other hand, used a modern equivalent balerínky and translated quasi as rádoby. ST:
She was wearing the green Paisley frock in combination with the low-heeled, quasivelvet shoes.
JM:
Měla na sobě zelené šaty s kašmírovým vzorem ve spojení se sametovými mokasíny.
KH:
Měla na sobě zelené kašmírové šaty s rádoby sametovými balerínkami.
Example 17: (Chapter 24) Hilská translated the Guardsman’s peaked cap by an explicitation. Mucha, on the other hand, used its Czech equivalent brigadýrka královské gardy and did not add any further description. ST:
... her hat, which resembled a Guardsman‟s peaked cap that had been strenuously run over and then dyed cerise.
JM:
... její klobouk, který připomínal brigadýrku královské gardy, několikrát přejetou a obarvenou na červeno.
KH:
... její klobouk, připomínající čepici se štítkem, jakou nosívají stráže, kterou však někdo několikrát přejel a poté obarvil načerveno.
9
See subsection 5.1 for more information about ageing of translation
30
Example 18: (Chapter 20) Pall Mall chair, not a widely-used term these days, resembles an armchair. Mucha employed a generalization, whereas Hilská added an explanation to it. However, the collocation kuřácké křeslo is not very usual in Czech and sounds rather odd. ST:
He sat down on the arm of the Pall Mall chair and removed his beret...
JM:
Posadil se na opěradlo křesla a sundal si baret...
KH:
Posadil se na opěradlo toho ohromného kuřáckého křesla, odloţil baret...
Translation of material culture – evaluation: Generally, Hilská‟s approach could be summarized as more exoticizing and Mucha‟s one as more naturalizing which confirms the Berman‟s Retranslation hypothesis.
4.1.4
Translation of social culture and customs The book contains some references to habits and customs which are specific to the source-text culture. The translators had to decide whether they would naturalize the translation by e.g. substituting these references with Czech concepts or whether they would rather exoticize them.
Example 19: (Chapter 20) The Light Programme was a BBC radio station which focused on broadcasting popular music and mainstream entertainment (BBC Light Programme, n.d.). Hilská decided on a generalization. Mucha, on the other hand, used a cultural substitution which localized the translation into the Czech setting. The Czech concept dechovka seems rather odd and striking in this context.
31
ST:
... to resist the importation into more and more public places of loudspeakers relaying the Light Programme...
JM:
... proti zavádění dalších a dalších ampliónů, otravujících veřejná místa dechovkou...
KH:
... odolávali instalaci amplionů pro vysílání zábavných programů na další a další veřejná místa...
Example 20: (Chapter 16) R.A.F. is the abbreviation of the Royal Air Force and N.A.A.F.I. is the abbreviation of Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes which is “a British organization that provides shops and places to eat for members of the armed services in Britain and abroad” (Crowther, 2001, p. 364). Mucha translated R.A.F. as vojna which localizes the translation into the Czech setting. Hilská, on the other hand, used its Czech equivalent královské letectvo. Concerning the translation of N.A.A.F.I., both translators used a generalization. ST:
... a man with an unintelligible accent and Service glasses whom he‟d known by sight in the R.A.F. and had never seen doing anything except sweeping out the N.A.A.F.I. and wiping his nose on his sleeve.
JM:
... muţe s nedefinovatelným přízvukem a v sluţebních brýlích, kterého znal z vojny, kde, pokud se pamatoval, nedělal nic jiného, neţ ţe zametal podlahu v kantině a utíral si nos do rukávu.
KH:
...muţe s nesrozumitelným přízvukem a vojenskými brýlemi, kterého znal od vidění z dob svého působení u královského letectva, a pokaţdé ho zastihl v situaci, kdy zametal podlahu v kantýně a utíral si nos do rukávu.
Example 21: (Chapter 6) Mucha added anglický to the accent in Chapter 6 but he translated it literally as severní přízvuk in Chapter 22. Hilská, on the other hand, used a modulation. The best solution is probably Mucha‟s severoanglický přízvuk as it localizes the accent to England. Hilská‟s přízvuk lidí ze severu is rather vague and does not directly imply an English accent.
32
ST:
Deliberately intensifying his northern accent, Dixon said...
JM:
Úmyslně zdůrazniv severoanglický přízvuk, Dixon řekl...
KH:
Úmyslně zvýrazněným přízvukem lidí ze severu tedy podotkl...
(Chapter 22) ST:
This time he chose an exaggerated northern accent...
JM:
Tentokrát si zvolil přehnaný severní přízvuk...
KH:
Tentokrát zvolil výrazný přízvuk ze severu...
Example 22: (Chapter 1) It is quite interesting that both translators translated the term Staff Cloakroom differently at various places in the target texts. Mucha used a rather archaic10 term profesorské umývárny but changed it into profesorská toaleta later in the same chapter. Hilská translated it at first as záchodky zaměstnanců and at another place in the text as zaměstnanecké šatny. However, it follows from the context that the cloakroom here is used rather in the sense of toaleta than šatna. ST:
... run heavily with him up the steps, along the corridor to the Staff Cloakroom, and plunge the too-small feet in their capless shoes into a lavatory basin...
JM:
... vyběhl s ním po schodech a chodbou k profesorským umývárnám, vrazil jeho příliš malé nohy v neforemných botách do záchodové mísy...
KH:
... pak by sním vysupěl do schodů, po chodbě aţ na záchodky zaměstnanců, kde by ty mrňavé nohy v polobotkách vrazil do mísy...
10
See subsection 5.1 for more information about ageing of translation
33
(Chapter 1) ST:
He clattered down the back stairs, an escape-route he often used himself, and into the Staff Cloakroom.
JM:
Seběhl zadním schodištěm, ústupovou cestou, které často sám pouţil, a vrazil na profesorskou toaletu.
KH:
S klapotem seběhl po zadním schodišti, kudy často unikal sám, aţ do zaměstnanecké šatny.
Example 23: (Chapter 12) It is clear from the previous context that Christine is asking Jim to not act so polite to her. Hilská captured the meaning of it well by translating it as zdvořilá vytříbenost. Mucha, on the other hand, was not so specific and translated it as literární dialogy. None of the translators mentioned John Galsworthy, a renowned English novelist and playwright. Concerning the translation of C. and A. sale, both translators used a generalization. ST:
„None of your Galsworthy dialogue here, please, Jim. Can‟t we go and sit down for a bit? This is a bit too much like a C. and A. sale for me.‟
JM:
„Nechte si laskavě své literární dialogy, Jime. Nemůţeme se na chvíli posadit? Tady je to jako při výprodeji v obchodním domě.“
KH:
„Tady, Jime, na zdvořilou vytříbenost zapomeň, prosím. Nemůţeme si jít na chvilku sednout? Připadá mi to tu jako zahájení výprodeje v obchoďáku.“
Example 24: (Chapter 1) Hilská, unlike Mucha who used a generalization, transferred the name of the newspaper from the source text. ST:
Anyway, there it was in the Post as large as life...
JM:
Druhý den to stálo v novinách černé na bílém...
KH:
Zkrátka v Postu nakonec stálo černé na bílém...
34
Example 25: (Chapter 11) A mohock, not a very common term, is “one of a group of aristocratic ruffians who attacked people at night on the streets of London in the early part of the 18th century” (Mohock, n.d.). As there is no direct Czech equivalent, Mucha tried to translate it by the word milionář which has entirely different connotations. Hilská, on the other hand, used a cultural substitution of Arsené Lupin which is quite suitable in this context. ST:
As he left the bar with Christine at his side, Dixon felt like a special agent, a picaroon, a Chicago war-lord, a hidalgo, an oil baron, a mohock.
JM:
Vycházeje z baru s Christinou po boku, cítil se Dixon jako tajný agent, jako korzár, chicagský král podsvětí, hidalgo, petrolejový magnát, milionář.
KH:
Kdyţ Dixon vyšel z baru s Christinou po boku, připadal si jako zvláštní agent, jako pirát, jako chicagský obchodník se smrtí, španělský šlechtic, ropný magnát, takový Arséne Lupin.
Translation of social culture and customs – evaluation: Concerning the Berman‟s Retranslation hypothesis, Hilská‟s renderings are more foreignizing, whereas Mucha‟s version is more domesticating. Mucha, unlike Hilská, localized some concepts into the Czech setting (Example 19 and Example 20). Nevertheless, both of them tended to use generalizations (Example 23).
Translation of culture-specific concepts – overall evaluation: As for the Berman‟s Retranslation hypothesis, Mucha‟s translation is more domesticating as he used generalizations and localizations more often than Hilská did. Nevertheless, he sometimes transferred some concepts from the source text, but not as often as Hilská. Overall, Hilská‟s version is more precise and accurate, whereas Mucha‟s translation is freer and some of his renderings of the culture-specific concepts are a bit archaic.
35
Mrs. Hilská‟s insight into translation of culture-specific concepts: Hilská says that it was necessary to bring oneself to the time which is nowadays quite distant. However, there still might be readers who remember those times. These days, a lot of people have at least some basic understanding of England and English; therefore it is quite common to keep local names in the original language – mainly in the cases where their Czech equivalents might not sound very natural. However, translators cannot proceed globally and should decide case-by-case. As a result, inconsistencies may occur but they are part of every translation. She adds that contemporary translators have much better opportunities for checking realia than their predecessors; therefore we should not criticize mistakes or inaccuracies in earlier translation versions and translators of new versions should make sure that they correct them (personal communication, April 5, 2013).
4.2
Translation of humour/sarcasm Lucky Jim is full of humorous moments and situations but it goes also deeper; “the humour in Lucky Jim, which is almost exclusively verbal, results from mismatches and clashes of register [...] but the role of linguistic register in the novel goes beyond the mere achievement of humorous effects” (Snow, 2006, para. 9). Generally, translation of humour is challenging for translators as “it is often seen as a paradigm case of „untranslatability‟” (Vandaele, 2010, p. 149). These days, the challenges connected to it attract quite a few translation scholars and there are many different articles and works which deal with some aspects of translation of humour (Chiaro, 2010, pp. 1-2). Numerous strategies for solving problems concerning translation of humour can be employed, however, as Chiaro (2010) points out:
36
Verbal humour travels badly. As it crosses geographic boundaries humour has to come to terms with linguistic and cultural elements which are often only typical of the source culture from which it was produced thereby losing its power to amuse in the new location. (p. 1)
Often, functional equivalence is used because “recipients of translated humour will expect to be amused by it” (Chiaro, 2010, p. 7) but it is sometimes difficult to judge the intended effect of the translated passage on the target audience because as Chiaro (2010) says “humour is, after all, in the eyes and ears of the beholder” (p. 18). Example 26: (Chapter 3) Mucha translated your oboe literally but it did not change the humorous effect. Hilská, on the other hand, substituted it by sladký dřevo (adding an informal ending “-ý”) which is usually used jokingly by buskers to refer to their guitars. Both renderings are acceptable as they maintained the humorous effect on the target audience. ST:
„Sit down and tell me about your oboe.‟
JM:
„Tak se posaď a povídej, co dělá hoboj.“
KH:
„Posaď se a pověz mi o tom svým sladkým dřevě.“
Example 27: (Chapter 20) In this passage, Dixon accuses Bertrand of being a tail-chaser, who is a man who chases after women in different places (Tail-chaser, n.d.). Hilská used a generalization, whereas Mucha decided for a substitution of Byron by Don Juan who has similar connotations to more expressive děvkař used by Hilská. Moreover, Mucha added an adjective kapesní which used to be a frequent collocation in the past.
37
ST:
„I‟m not like you. I can take Christine away from you without that, you Byronic tailchaser.‟
JM:
„Nejsem jako vy. Dovedu vám vyfouknout Christinu i bez toho, vy jeden kapesní Done Juane.“
KH:
„Nejsem jako ty. Dokáţu ti přebrat Christinu i bez toho, ty děvkaři!“
Example 28: (Chapter 10) Mucha retained the repetition of fetch from the source text but it does not work in Czech as it does in English (the verb fetch is polysemic). We can colloquially say “chytl mě žaludek” in Czech but is sounds odd in connection with the preposition za. Hilská did not retain the repetition and changed the meaning of the second fetch, but she managed to preserve the humorous effect. ST:
... and I must say that one or two pastels seemed to fetch him… Fetch him a vomitingbasin, Dixon thought...
JM:
A přiznám se, ţe jeden nebo dva pastely ho chytly… Chytly za žaludek, div nezvracel, pomyslel si Dixon...
KH:
... a musím říct, ţe některé pastely ho opravdu zaujaly... Co z něj ještě vypadne? pomyslel si Dixon.
Example 29: (Chapter 19) In this passage, Dixon is not sure which tense to use in his lecture draft and writes the possible alternatives in the brackets. Mucha solved it by using two different Czech participles which works quite well. Hilská decided on an omission which is a pity as she destroyed the humorous effect caused by the fact that Dixon, even though he is an academic, does not know which tense to use.
38
ST:
What would he think, accustomed as he was (had been? would have been? is?) to making his own music (must look at Welch at this point), of a society where people like himself are regarded as oddities...
JM:
Co by si pomyslel, jsa (jsouc? jsouce?) zvyklý provozovat vlastnoručně hudbu (zde pohlédnout na Welche), o společnosti, která lidi jeho druhu pokládá za podivíny...
KH:
Co by si asi pomyslel, pakliţe byl zvyklý na vlastní muzicírování (v tomto místě musí věnovat pohled Welchovi), o společnosti, kde jsou lidé jako on povaţováni za podivíny...
Example 30: (Chapter 24) Mucha omitted the best known and translated obscene as nejpotupnější which sounds rather strange in connection with a gesture. Hilská‟s version – nejznámější sprostý posunek – is more comprehensible. ST:
Dixon stopped running and favoured the conductor, who was still watching unemotionally, with the best-known obscene gesture.
JM:
Dixon se zastavil a udělal na průvodčího nejpotupnější gesto, které ho napadlo.
KH:
Dixon se zarazil a obdařil průvodčího, který stále lhostejně sledoval jeho počínání, nejznámějším sprostým posunkem.
Example 31: (Chapter 1) It is not entirely clear what Amis means by short hyphenated indecency. There have been numerous speculations about it and some people believe that he probably meant bull-shit by it (Fenton, 2009, p. 133). Both translators solved it satisfactorily – Hilská compensated the omission of hyphenated by o třech slabikách, whereas Mucha omitted it altogether and translated it stručné a poměrně neslušné podstatné jméno. ST:
From one of these, the thing‟s worth could be expressed in one short hyphenated indecency...
JM:
Jednak mohla být jeho hodnota vyjádřena stručným a poměrně neslušným podstatným jménem...
KH:
Zaprvé se dala hodnota onoho spisku shrnout neslušným výrazem o třech slabikách.
39
Example 32: (Chapter 14) Hilská did not capture the sarcasm expressed by Ha ha ha, if he did – she interpreted it that Jim believes that he can be the right man for Christine. Mucha, on the other hand, tried to express this sarcasm by translating it Měl chuť se bohatýrsky zasmát. ST:
It should be possible for the right man to stop, or at least hinder; her from being a refined gracious-liver and arty-rubbish-talker. Did he think he was the right man for that task? Ha ha ha, if he did…
JM:
Dá se ovšem předpokládat, ţe by z ní jiný, ten pravý muţ, všechny její vznešené a pitomé názory na umění s velkým U dostal. Představoval si sám sebe v roli onoho pravého muţe? Měl chuť se bohatýrsky zasmát.
KH:
A tak je tu jistá pravděpodobnost, ţe by jí nějaký správný muţ pomohl překonat – nebo alespoň přitlumit – tu její bohorovnou pózu i amatérské řečnění o umění. A je snad on ten pravý pro tenhle úkol? To se ještě ukáže!
Translation of humour/sarcasm – evaluation: It is difficult to evaluate translation of humour as everybody‟s sense of humour is different. However, I believe that in most cases both translators managed to retain the author‟s intended humorous effect on the audience. As for the “creativity hypothesis” proposed by Knittlová (2000, p. 10), both translations are quite similar in this respect, Mucha‟s version is definitely not less creative than Hilská‟s translation.
4.3
Translation of similes There is not much relevant literature on the subject of translation of similes as translation theoreticians have always focused more on metaphors. Newmark (1993) states that:
Similes are the poor cousins of metaphors. […] Their purpose is to describe approximately, to illustrate, and often to decorate. Normally,
40
they present no translation problems, and are translated literally in any type of text, however improbable or bizarre they may be. (p. 19)
They can be classified as conventionalized similes which are fixed expressions that “display a formally explicit opposition between two distinct conceptual domains which are related by nonliteral similarity” (Steen, 2007, p. 182) and creative similes which are innovative. In Lucky Jim there are a number of creative similes that the target audience in not familiar with and whose function is to create a humorous effect.
Example 33: (Chapter 3) Mucha changed the toast into kotleta. Hilská, on the other hand, retained the toast but changed the grill into trouba. ST:
Fury flared up in his mind like forgotten toast under a grill.
JM:
Zuřivost v něm vzplanula jako zapomenutá kotleta na grilu.
KH:
Hluboko uvnitř v něm vzplál vztek hodný topinky zapomenuté v troubě.
Example 34: (Chapter 6) In this passage, Christine is described by Dixon as having a schoolmarmy attitude. A schoolmarm is defined as “a woman who is a schoolteacher especially in a rural or small-town school” (Schoolmarm, n.d.). Both translators managed to retain the humorous effect. Hilská slightly changed the simile by translating it as ředitelka instead of učitelka, and Mucha added information. ST:
She drew herself upright in her seat in a schoolmarmy attitude.
JM:
Zdvihla hlavu, vzpřímila se a seděla trochu jako přísná staropanenská učitelka.
KH:
A napřímila se na ţidli jako ředitelka dívčí školy.
41
Example 35: (Chapter 3) Hilská followed the source text and translated the creative simile rolled his eyes together like marbles literally, whereas Mucha used a more natural sounding Czech collocation obrátit oči v sloup. ST:
At the memory, Dixon rolled his eyes together like marbles and sucked in his cheeks...
JM:
Při této vzpomínce obrátil Dixon oči v sloup a vtáhl tváře...
KH:
Při této vzpomínce teď mladík stočil oči k sobě jako dvě kuličky a současně vcucl tváře...
Example 36: (Chapter 15) A tank is a polysemic word meaning either a large container or a military vehicle. Mucha changed it into rakev and translated sealed as kovový. Hilská, on the other hand, followed the source text and retained the simile as it is. ST:
All the others were apparently drawn and the room was like a sealed tank.
JM:
Ostatní záclony zůstaly zataţeny a v pokoji bylo tma jako v kovové rakvi.
KH:
I všechny ostatní byly očividně zataţené a místnost připomínala neprodyšně uzavřený tank.
Example 37: (Chapter 9) Mucha again changed the simile into a more natural sounding Czech expression, whereas Hilská followed the source text and translated it literally. ST:
He felt as if he‟d crunched a cracknel biscuit...
JM:
Měl pocit, ţe se omylem zakousl do mýdla...
KH:
Měl pocit, jako by kousl do tvrdé sušenky...
Translation of similes – evaluation: Mucha‟s translation of similes contradicts the “creativity hypothesis” proposed by Knittlová (2000, p. 10). Unlike Hilská, who followed the source text quite carefully, his solutions are freer and more creative. However, Amis uses similes in an innovative way and they do not sound natural in English either. It is questionable whether a translator has a right to change a significant
42
feature of the source text in order to make the text more natural and comprehensible for the target readers. Knittlová (2000) argues that “[the creativity of the translator] must not surpass the intention of the author of the source text” (p. 9) and Nord (1997) adds to this topic that “the translator should by no means spoon-feed the target receivers” (p. 93). Mucha himself was a writer and it is possible that he wanted to show off and “better” the text without thinking what Amis wanted to achieve by inventing these “bizarre” similes. Nord (1997) states to the topic the following:
If the source text has an innovative effect because it deviates from the standards prevailing in the source-cultural literary system, the target text can only achieve an equivalent effect when it deviates to the same extent from the standards of the target-cultural literary system. (p. 91)
Hilská apparently followed the above mentioned proposition and as a result her solutions do not sound as natural and colloquial as Mucha‟s ones.
4.4
Translation of songs and ditties There are a few songs in the source text; some of them are just comical ditties, some of them are more complicated and work with rhyming schemes. The translators had to decide how to retain the content of the songs and at the same time the humorous effect and/or rhyming. Example 38: (Chapter 4) Hilská did not follow the source text and translated the song in standard language (she did not “deform” the language in any way). Mucha, on the other hand, changed the
43
letter “a” into “o” and repeated the letter “o” in pó-óuhý to give it a song-like impression. ST:
„Yet by, and by, they‟ll arl, deny, arnd say „twas bart in jast,‟ Goldsmith sang tremulously and very loudly.
JM:
„Všok koždá čosem svá zruší slova, neb byla pó-óuhý žort...“ zpíval Goldsmith rozechvěle a velice hlasitě.
KH:
„Vţdyť zakrátko to všechny popřou, ţe to byl pouhý ţert,“ prozpěvoval Goldsmith chvějivým a velice zvučným hlasem.
Example 39: (Chapter 5) The song from the source text known as Wreck of the Old 97 was inspired by the 1903 train wreck in Virginia and has become widely-known (Lofgren, 1998, para. 1-3). Mucha followed the source text, whereas Hilská added and translated also the next line from the song: He was scalded to death by the steam. The song is not known in the Czech setting but another song, Casey Jones (translated as Strojvůdce Příhoda by Jiří Voskovec and Jan Werich), with a similar theme is quite popular here, therefore it might have been substituted with it. ST:
„He was going down-grade making ninety miles an hour, when his whistle began to scream,‟ Dixon sang. „He was found in the wreck with his hand on the throttle…‟
JM:
„Řítil se po svahu rychlostí sto dvacet mil, z píšťaly vyrazil zoufalý kvil,“ zpíval Dixon. „Našli ho v troskách, na brzdě ruku…“
KH:
„Řítí se s mašinou na plný pecky, píšťala zmučeně kvílí,“ vyzpěvoval Dixon. „Našli ho ve vraku s rukou na brzdě, pára ho zabila v tý krutý chvíli…“
Example 40: (Chapter 11) Hilská followed the source text and was not very inventive in the use of interjections as she employed only two. Mucha, on the other hand, used a wide range of interjections which created a humorous effect. Moreover, he also managed to retain rhyming.
44
ST:
„Ah‟ll be parp tar gat you in a taxi, honny, Ya‟d batter be raddy „bout a parp-parp eight; Ahr, baby, dawn‟t be late, Ah‟m gonna parp parp parp whan the band starts playeeng…‟
JM:
„Přijedu prk trk taxíkem dnes večer srk chrk pojedem drk si ti chrk chrk do klína má milá žrk chrk teprv zaáčíná…“
KH:
Taxíkem, pam pa, k tobě se chystám, v osm se, lásko, pam pam objevím. Připrav se zavčas, pam pam však já vím, že večer pam pam tím si buď jistá.
Translation of songs and ditties – evaluation: Mucha‟s translation of songs contradicts the “creativity hypothesis” (Knittlová, 2000, p. 10) as his solutions are more humorous and creative than Hilská‟s (Example 38 and Example 40). She sometimes followed the source text too carefully. However, in some cases, she decided to use standard Czech where Amis uses colloquial English and did not manage to retain the humorous effect (Example 38).
4.5
Translation of expressive/colloquial words The book is full of expressive words and there are also some situations in which swear words are used. However, the swearing is always used rather creatively and not vulgarly. Jim swears mostly in his thoughts, but his curses, as Mullan (2003) notices, are mostly “idiosyncratic, even playful sounding” (para. 3). At the time when Lucky Jim was published, it was not very common for novels to contain F-words; Dixon‟s “selfcensorship is made to seem deeper. Not being able to speak honestly seems a condition of life in 50s England” (para. 4). Apart from Jim, Bertrand tends to swear too, but in his case it seems that “Amis invites the reader to find Bertrand‟s swearing absurd and hysterical” (para. 7).
45
Example 41: (Chapter 2) A sod is defined as “someone considered unpleasant or difficult” (Sod, n.d.). Mucha translated it as had which has slightly different connotations in Czech. Hilská‟s translation – mizera – is better because it carries similar connotations to sod. ST:
„I‟ll strangle that little sod before I get into the same... ‟
JM:
„Spíš bych ho uškrtil, hada, neţ bych s ním vlezl do stejného...“
KH:
„Toho mizeru snad radši uškrtím, neţ bych s ním sedl do stejného – “
Example 42: (Chapter 5) Mucha‟s translation of little bastard captures its meaning well. Hilská translated it as mrňous which has different connotations. ST:
I‟ll wring that little bastard‟s neck one of these days.
JM:
Jednou té kryse na mou duši zakroutím krk.
KH:
Tomu mrňousovi jednoho krásnýho dne zakroutím krkem.
Example 43: (Chapter 8) The translators chose different strategies in order to translate the list of swearwords which Dixon says to himself about Welch. Mucha decided on a list of expressive words without any rhyming. Hilská, on the other hand, followed the source text and employed rhyming. There are italics in the source text but none of the translators used them in their versions. ST:
„You ignorant clod, you stupid old sod, you havering slavering get…‟ „You wordy old turdy old scum, you griping old piping old bum…‟
JM:
„Pitomče pitomá, hloupá, omezená, blboune, vrtáku, vole…“ „Hyeno, jelito, pisklavá rachoto…“
KH:
„Seš votravnej blb, seš natvrdlej škrt, blábolíš, slintáš a kecáš jak…“ „Seš hajzl a šupák, votravnej zupák, pisklavej somrák...“
46
Example 44: (Chapter 12) Mucha translated the phrase drained his glass more formally as vyprázdnil sklenici, whereas Hilská used colloquial language and instead of glass employed a concretization zbytek piva. ST:
He panted a little with the enormity of it, then drained his glass...
JM:
Trochu se pod jeho tíţí zadýchal, pak vyprázdnil sklenici...
KH:
Málem se z té představy zadýchal, pak do sebe kopl zbytek piva...
Example 45: (Chapter 8) In this passage, Welch is talking about Dixon‟s predecessor Faulkner. Dixon tries to encourage himself by thinking stop himself dashing his fist into your face. Mucha translated it too literally and as a result, it does not make much sense in this context. Hilská, on the other hand, translated it pragmatically and used a natural sounding collocation přestaň se od něj nechat válcovat. ST:
Stop himself from dashing his fist into your face, Dixon thought.
JM:
Aby někomu nedal přes hubu, pomyslel si Dixon.
KH:
Přestaň se od něj nechat válcovat! kladl si na srdce Dixon.
Translation of expressive/colloquial words – evaluation: Both translators usually used colloquial expressions which sound natural in Czech. As for the “creativity hypothesis” proposed by Knittlová (2000, p. 10), both translations seem to be quite similar in this respect, Mucha‟s version is definitely not less creative than Hilská‟s.
4.6
Translation of idioms Translation of idioms may be quite challenging for the translators as idioms are often culture-specific and do not always have a direct equivalent in the target language. Baker (2011) defines idioms as “frozen patterns of language which allow little or no
47
variation in form and [...] often carry meaning which cannot be deduced from their individual components” (p. 63). Fernando (1996) classifies idioms into three groups: pure idioms semi-idioms literal idioms (p. 35). Baker (2011), on the other hand, distinguishes between four types of idioms: idioms with no equivalent in the target language idioms with similar counterparts in the target language but with different context of use idioms which are used in the source text with two senses – literal and idiomatic idioms whose conventions, contexts and frequency of use may differ in the source and target languages (pp. 68-70). There are a number of strategies which can be employed for rendering of idioms; Baker (2011) proposes four: using an idiom with similar meaning and form, using an idiom with similar meaning but different form, paraphrase and omission (pp. 72-76).
Example 46: (Chapter 21) The idiom a kick in the teeth describes a situation in which somebody is treated badly and/or unfairly (A kick in the teeth, n.d.). Mucha followed the source text and translated it literally as vykopnout zuby which sounds rather odd. Hilská, on the other hand, translated it more freely and naturally.
48
ST:
Quoting from a film he‟d once seen, he said to Christine: „Better do as he says, lady, otherwise he‟s liable to kick your teeth in.‟
JM:
Cituje dialog z filmu, který kdysi viděl, pravil Christině: „Bude lépe, kdyţ uděláte, co vám říká, dámo, jinak by vám mohl vykopnout zuby.“
KH:
Z jednoho filmu, který kdysi viděl, Dixon Christině ocitoval: „Radši udělej, co říká, jinak můţeš čekat, ţe ti jednu vrazí.“
Example 47: (Chapter 9) The idiom you can bet your bottom dollar is used when somebody is completely certain that something is true or will certainly happen (You can bet your life bottom dollar, n.d.). There is a similar phrase in Czech – vzít na něco jed – which both translators used. However, their rendering of the second part differs. Mucha followed the source text, whereas Hilská slightly changed the meaning by comparing the woman to jed. ST:
„Oh, she‟s female all right, you can bet your bottom dollar on that. And “bottom” is the exact word.‟
JM:
„Na to můžete vzít jed, ţe jde o ţenskou. A když říkám jed, tak vím, o čem mluvím.“
KH:
„Jasně ţe ţenská, na to vemte jed. A to si pište, že je jako jed.“
Example 48: (Chapter 12) The idiom bloody but unbowed means “showing signs of a struggle, but not defeated” (Bloody but unbowed, n.d.). Hilská captured its meaning well, whereas Mucha slightly changed it; his version se štítem, nebo na štítě was a motto of the Spartans meaning “victory or death” (Chlubný, 2004, para. 14). ST:
Bloody but unbowed, eh? That‟s the spirit.
JM:
Se štítem, nebo na štítě. Tak to má být.
KH:
Samej šrám, ale ještě na nohou, viď? Tak se na to musí.
49
Translation of idioms – evaluation: Mucha followed the source text (Example 46) more carefully than Hilská whose solutions are quite inventive and creative (Example 46 and Example 48) which confirms the “creativity hypothesis” (Knittlová, 2000, p. 10).
4.7
Translation of the verb “say” The verb “say” is the most frequent English reporting verb. In Czech, there are apart from the direct equivalent říci many other possible equivalents (e.g. ptát se, odpovědět, poznamenat) which are more specific and contain more semantic information (Knittlová, 2010, pp. 55-57). English literary convention differs from the Czech one as Czech language is more sensitive to repetition of words. Repetition of řekl/řekla in almost every dialogue often gives an impression of a rather tedious translation. Therefore, the translators should be aware of this fact and should not overuse it. Example 49: (Chapter 13) Mucha followed the source text and translated said as řekla, whereas Hilská used its near synonym ozval se. ST:
„Well, thank you very much, Dixon, for trying,‟ Barclay said.
JM:
„Děkuji, Dixone, bylo to od vás velice laskavé,“ řekl Barclay.
KH:
„Nicméně vám moc děkuju, Dixone, za vaše snahy,“ ozval se Barclay.
Example 50: (Chapter 6) Mucha, unlike Hilská, used the verb řekl twice in a single sentence. Hilská translated it more specifically and as a result added some information. ST:
... or being told by Beesley something Johns had said.
JM:
... kdykoliv mu Beesley řekl něco, co řekl Johns.
KH:
... kdyţ mu Beesley zatepla donesl, co šíří Johns.
50
Example 51: (Chapter 12) Mucha used a specification and, unlike many other cases, translated the verb said as ohradila se. Hilská, on the other hand, translated it as řekla which she generally did not use very often. ST:
She snatched her arm away. „Oh don‟t,‟ she said...
JM:
Vytrhla se mu. „Ne, ne,“ ohradila se...
KH:
Ucukla s paţí. „Nechte toho,“ řekla...
Graph 3: Instances of the use of verb říci in the first five chapters: 60 50 40 Instances 30
20 10 0 Jiří Mucha
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Kateřina Hilská
In Mucha‟s translation, I have counted 109 instances of řekl/řekla in the first five chapters. However, there are only 47 instances in Hilská‟s version. As follows from the graph, Mucha used the direct Czech equivalent řekl/řekla more often than Hilská did. However, there are some sentences (Example 51) in which she used it too, but she did not overuse it as much as Mucha. In some cases, where he used it three times in one paragraph, it is rather disturbing for the reader.
51
Translation of the verb “say” – evaluation: The fact that Mucha‟s translation was made at the time when the norm concerning the translation of say was not yet firmly established, should be taken into consideration when assessing his translation. As Levý argues, “the value of a given rendering depends on its relation to a historically determined norm” (as cited in Hermans, 1999, p. 21).
4.8
Translation of names Amis sometimes plays with the names of some characters and distorts them in a comical way or includes an allusion which might be quite problematic for the translators.
Example 52: (Chapter 16) In this passage, Dixon is talking with Carol about Christine‟s uncle Gore-Urquhart to whom he is mockingly referring to as Gore-Itchbag. An itchbach is defined as “an irritating, annoying and/or nagging person” (Itchbag, n.d.). Hilská did not distort the name in any way. Mucha, on the other hand, changed the name but his version is not as funny as the one in the source text and there is a high chance that the readers will not notice it at all. I would probably try to retain the humorous effect and translate it as Gorec-Tupec or Gorec-Borec. ST:
You were all over that Gore-Itchbag character hadn‟t got time to say a single word to me, had you?
JM:
Ţe jste se pověsila tomu Gore-Urquellovi na krk tak, ţe se mnou ani nemohl promluvit.
KH:
Byla jsi celá divá do Gore-Urquharta, ani ses neobtěţovala prohodit se mnou slůvko, ne?
Example 53: (Chapter 19) In this passage, Dixon is speaking over the phone with Caton about the publication of his article. It is quite interesting to see how both translators worked with distortions of 52
Dixon‟s name. In case of Mr. Dickerson, both translators followed the source text, but later when the name is distorted into Mr. Dickinson (which is probably a reference to Charles Dickens), Mucha decided that he would not confuse the readers and used the same distortion Dickerson. Hilská, on the other hand, followed the source text and used two different distortions. ST:
Ah, now, Mr. Dickerson, things are very difficult these days, you know.
JM:
Ovšem, pane Dickersone, jenţe chápejte, všechno je dnes velice obtíţné.
KH:
Podívejte, pane Dickersone, doba je těţká, víte.
(Chapter 19) ST:
I‟m sorry to hear of your difficulties, Mr. Dickinson, but I‟m afraid things are...
JM:
Lituji, ţe máte obtíţe, pane Dickersone, ale tady je bohuţel situace...
KH:
Moc mě mrzí, ţe máte problémy, pane Dickinsone, ale bohuţel tady je...
Example 54: (Chapter 4) By the Neddies, Dixon is jokingly referring to Ned Welch and his wife, Celia Welch. Mucha followed the source text, whereas Hilská substituted it by domácí. ST:
Of course we can‟t go out; what do you suppose the Neddies would think?
JM:
Samozřejmě ţe nikam nemůţeme; co by si pomysleli Neddyovi?
KH:
Jistěţe odtud nemůţeme odejít – co by si asi domácí pomysleli?
Example 55: (Chapter 12) In this passage, Carol is talking about Margaret and she is being ironical by referring to her as dear Margaret. Mucha translated it as milá, drahá and added a diminutive of her name, whereas Hilská used only the name Margareta.
53
ST:
We started to, anyway, until dear Margaret decided she could make sweeter music with old Julius than I could.
JM:
Nebo alespoň dokud si ta milá, drahá Margaretka nezačala myslet, ţe by mu dovedla zobat z ruky rozkošněji neţ já.
KH:
Alespoň to tak vypadalo, dokud si Margareta neumínila, ţe ona s Juliem rozhodně souzní líp neţ já.
Translation of names – evaluation: Mucha‟s translation of names contradicts the “creativity hypothesis” (Knittlová, 2000, p. 10) as his renderings are more creative than Hilská‟s (Example 52 and Example 55).
4.9
Translation of Dixon‟s facial expressions Dixon‟s comical facial expressions are described in meticulous detail as they play an important role in the book, Dixon usually expresses his feelings of frustration rather by them than by any verbal means – “[...] all his faces were designed to express rage or loathing” (Amis, 1962, p. 250 ). He has even named some of them – e.g. Eskimo-face, Martian-invader face, lemon-sucking face or Sex Life in ancient Rome face. Example 56: (Chapter 18) In this passage, one of Dixon‟s grimaces is described. Both translators followed the source text. However, Mucha‟s version sounds a little old-fashioned11 due to the use of participles. Moreover, the collocation dovolil svému obličeji sounds strange.
11
See section 5.1 for more information about ageing of translation
54
ST:
He allowed a terrible grimace to dawn on his features, forcing his chin down as far as possible and trying to bring his nose up between his eyes.
JM:
Dovolil svému obličeji vytvořit strašnou grimasu, stlačiv hlavu, jak nejdál to šlo, a pokoušeje se zároveň pokrčit nos aţ k očím.
KH:
Dopřál si strašlivou grimasu, při níţ zatáhl bradu k hrudi, jak to nejvíc šlo, a snaţil se přitom pozvednout nos mezi oči.
Example 57: (Chapter 21) Both translators used an exoticizing approach and retained Evelyn Waugh, an English novelist, who “had a reputation as a rude, bad-tempered man with fixed, rather rightwing views” (Crowther, 2001, p. 571). However, not many Czech readers would know him; therefore I would probably substitute him with another British writer who is better known among the Czech audience. Concerning the rest of the passage, Mucha slightly changed the description by translating his upper lip as spodní ret. ST:
While he was using the lavatory, he began making his Evelyn Waugh face, then abandoned it in favour of one more savage than any he normally used. Gripping his tongue between his teeth he made his cheeks expand into little hemispherical balloons; he forced his upper lip downwards into an idiotic pout; he protruded his chin like the blade of a shovel. Throughout, he alternately dilated and crossed his eyes.
JM:
Zatím co pouţíval záchodu, udělal obličej Evelyna Waugha, kterého se však vzdal ve prospěch ještě divočejšího a zuřivějšího výrazu, neţ jakého kdy pouţil. Stisknuv jazyk mezi zuby, nafoukl tváře do dvou vydutých polokoulí; spodní ret svěsil idiotsky co nejníţe, bradu lopatovitě vystrčil kupředu. Současně koulel a šilhal očima.
KH:
Kdyţ stál nad mušlí, začal napodobovat výraz Evelyna Waugha, pak toho ale nechal a dopřál si o něco víc divokosti neţ obvykle. Nejprve pevně sevřel jazyk do zubů a tváře nafoukl do polokulovitých balonků. Poté zatlačil horní ret směrem dolů jako učiněný idiot a bradu vystrčil jako lopatu. Během celého manévru střídavě kulil oči a šilhal.
Example 58: (Chapter 3) Mucha translated his shot-in-the-back face literally as there is a similar collocation in Czech. Hilská‟s rendering – zatvářit se jako vrahoun – has different connotations.
55
ST:
First making his shot-in-the-back face, Dixon stopped and turned.
JM:
Dixon udělal nejprve obličej člověka střeleného do zad, načeţ se zastavil a obrátil se.
KH:
Dixon se nejdřív zatvářil jako vrahoun, ale pak se přiměl zastavit a otočit.
Example 59: (Chapter 19) A lascar is defined as “an East Indian sailor, army servant, or artillery trooper” (Lascar, n.d.). Mucha used a generalization and added an adjective otrlý, whereas Hilská translated it more precisely as indický dělostřelec. ST:
It didn‟t discompose him, but before saying anything he made his lascar‟s face in order to draw off his anger.
JM:
Nevyvedl ho z míry, ale přesto, neţ promluvil, udělal obličej otrlého námořníka, kterým dal volný průchod své nelibosti.
KH:
Nezneklidnilo ho to, ale neţ se ozval do sluchátka, provedl grimasu indického dělostřelce, aby ze sebe setřásl vztek.
Translation of Dixon‟s facial expressions – evaluation: Both translators followed the source text and managed to retain a humorous effect. As for the “creativity hypothesis” (Knittlová, 2000, p. 10), both versions seem to be equally creative. Concerning the Berman‟s Retranslation hypothesis, both translations are rather foreignizing (Example 57).
4.10 Speech stylisation – accents and registers Amis uses a number of different accents and registers in order “to establish a „hierarchy of discourses‟ by which the reader is supposed to judge individual characters” (Belsey as cited in Bentley, 2007, p. 141). Dixon speaks in “Standard English with a slight northern accent” (p. 141), whereas the speech of upper-class characters such as Bertrand is mocked (pp. 141-142). In my view, the translators should try to retain this important characteristic of the main characters as it can significantly
56
affect readers‟ understanding of them. Epstein (2006) discusses a few possible strategies which can be employed when translating dialects: the dialect might be translated into the standard language but the fact that the author has decided to use a dialect should not be ignored. She therefore proposes to translate it geographically, socioeconomically or by “equivalency of meaning” (para. 2-3).
Example 60: (Chapter 19) In this passage, Dixon is on the phone with Mrs. Welch pretending to be someone else and mocking upper-class speech (Bentley, 2007, p. 142). Mucha followed the source text and distorted the speech as well as Christine‟s surname, whereas Hilská translated it in standard Czech by which she deprived the readers of an additional layer of meaning. However, it is quite interesting that she distorted Christine‟s surname. ST:
„Hallaher, have yaw a Miss Kellerhen steng with yaw, plizz?‟
JM:
„Haló, je u vós jistó sločna Colloghonová, prosím?”
KH:
„Ha-lóo, mohu prosím mluvit se slečnou Kalahernovou?”
Example 61: (Chapter 4) Dixon is making fun of Bertrand‟s upper-class accent in this passage. Both translators used a similar approach in that they devised a translation of sam and explained how it was created. Both versions are acceptable and retain a humorous effect. However, Mucha‟s version seems to be more inventive.
57
ST:
And I happen to like the arts, you sam. The last word, a version of „see‟, was Bertrand‟s own coinage. It arose as follows: the vowel sound became distorted into a short „a‟, as if he were going to say „sat‟. This brought his lips some way apart, and the effect of their rapid closure was to end the syllable with a light but audible „m‟.
JM:
A já náhodou mám umění rád, žánop? Poslední slovo bylo Bertrandovou vlastní formou slova že ano. Vzniklo tímto způsobem: obě samohlásky se stáhly, zmizely v jakémsi mečivém a, zatím co rty po závěrečném o široce otevřené sklaply se zvukem zjevně slyšitelným jako p.
KH:
A já mám náhodou umění rád, vite. Poslední slovo pronesl Bertrand s výslovností sobě vlastní. Vzniklo takto: samohláska se zkrátila, jako by se chystal vyslovit slovo „viďte“, v poslední chvíli si to však rozmyslel a „ď“ vypustil.
Example 62: (Chapter 13) In this passage, Dixon is shouting at the taxi-driver who is speaking with a workingclass accent and uses a generic name Jack meaning a lad or chap. Both translators translated it pragmatically. Concerning the translation of taxi yourself, Mucha based it on homophony taxi – tak si, whereas Hilská translated it as trhni si. ST:
When they were right at the corner, Dixon stepped into the road and raised his hand, shouting urgently: „Taxi. Taxi.‟ „Taxi yourself,‟ a shrill voice called from the back seat. „Ah, taxi off, Jack,‟ the driver snarled, accelerating past him.
JM:
Kdyţ došli aţ na roh, vykročil Dixon do jízdní dráhy, zdvihl ruku a začal naléhavě volat: „Taxi! Taxi!“ „Tak si vyliž kapsu,“ ozval se pronikavý hlas ze zadního sedadla. „Jó, taxi, to víš,“ zavrčel řidič a přidal plyn.
KH:
Jak dorazili na roh, vkročil do vozovky, zvedl ruku a naléhavě volal: „Taxi! Taxi!“ „Trhni si!“ ozval se pronikavý hlas ze zadního sedadla. „Vodprejskni!“ zavrčel řidič a dupl na plyn.
Example 63: (Chapter 24) Dixon is inquiring about the departure of a train to London. He finds out that the train has already left and the man, who is speaking with a working-class accent, expresses his sympathy by saying: “Sorry, George”. Mucha translated it as a conventional answer to
58
thanks. Hilská, on the other hand, tried to follow the source text and translated it colloquially as chybička se vloudí. ST:
Dixon swallowed. „I think I must have done,‟ he said. „Thanks.‟ „Sorry, George.‟
JM:
Dixon polkl. „Uţ asi jo,“ pravil. „Děkuji.“ „Není zač.“
KH:
Mladík polkl. „Nejspíš ano,“ uznal. „Díky.“ „Chybička se vloudí.“
Example 64: (Chapter 9) In this passage, the porter, who has confused Dixon‟s name, uses contracted forms in his speech. Mucha translated it in standard Czech, whereas Hilská‟s version is even more colloquial than the source text. ST:
„Oh, Mr. Jackson, there‟s someone on the telephone for Professor Welch, but I can‟t seem to find him. Would you take the call for him, please? You‟re the only person in the History Department I can find,‟ he explained.
JM:
„Někdo chce k telefonu profesora Welche, pane Jacksone, ale nemůţu ho nikde najít. Vzal byste to za něj? Jste tu z jeho katedry jediný,“ vysvětloval.
KH:
„Helejte, pane Jackson, někdo volá profesora Welche, ale já ho ňák nemůţu najít. Vy jste jedinej z katedry histórie, kdo je zrovna k mání,“ vysvětlil
Example 65: (Chapter 16) Dixon, under the name of Joe Higgins, writes a letter to his colleague, Evan Johns, marking “the class background of „Joe Higgins‟ through the use of stock phrases and misspellings” (Bentley, 2007, p. 142). Both translators followed the source text and distorted the language in order to show the presupposed “illiteracy” of the author of the letter. However, Mucha did not go as far as Hilská who probably exaggerated it too much.
59
ST:
Dear Mr. Johns, Dixon wrote, gripping his pencil like a breadknife. This is just to let you no that I no what you are up to with yuong Marleen Richards, yuong Marleen is a desent girl and has got no tim for your sort, I no your sort. She is a desent girl and I wo’nt have you filing her head with a lot of art and music, she is to good for that, and, and I am going to mary her which is more than your sort ever do. So just you keep of her, Mr Johns this will be your olny warning.
JM:
„Váţený pane Johns,“ psal Dixon, drţe tuţku jako nůţ. „Já vám chci akorát povědět ţe vím co provádíte s Marleen Richardsovou to je slušný děvče Marleen a nemá na takový jako ste vy čas já dobře vím co ste zač. Je to slušný děvče a já se na to nebudu koukat jak ji cpete do hlavy samý to umění a muziku, na to je moc dobrá a já si jí chci vzít a to je víc neţ co by někdo jako vy pro ni moch udělat. Tak koukejte dát ruce pryč pane Johns já vás timhle varuju naposled.
KH:
Váženej pane Johns, pasal Dixon a svíral tužku jako kudlu. Jen vám chci dát na vjedomí že vim co mate za lubem s mladou Marleen Richardsovou. Marleen je slušna holka a nebude se s vama zaházovat. Znam typky jako ste vy. Je to slušna holka a nedopustim aby ste ji cpal do hlavi to vaše umněni a muziku. Na to je moc hodna a já si jí vezmu coš se o takovejch jako vy říct nedá. Hele tak pracki pryč, jo, pane Johnsi páč todle je varovani.
Speech stylisation – evaluation: Both translators translated the accents and registers quite successfully. As far as the “creativity hypothesis” is concerned (Knittlová, 2000, p. 10), Hilská‟s approach to speech stylisation is more creative, but it is also quite exaggerated in some cases (Example 64 and Example 65).
4.11 Foreign and specialised terms Amis uses some specialised terms and French and Latin words in the book. It was up to the translators to decide whether the target audience would be acquainted with these terms and keep them as they are or whether they would explain or substitute them.
60
Example 66: (Chapter 2) Margaret is talking about her fake attempted suicide in this passage. Mucha decided on an explanation but he did not explain it correctly, as compos mentis means při plném vědomí. Margaret probably used it because she wanted to sound “educated” but this is lost in Mucha‟s translation. Hilská, on the other hand, kept the Latin phrase and added an explanation. ST:
By the time I was fully, er, compos mentis again the worst was over, as far as feeling awful was concerned.
JM:
Kdyţ jsem byla jakžtakž při vědomí, to nejhorší jsem měla za sebou, alespoň co se týče pocitů.
KH:
Kdyţ jsem konečně byla zase plně při vědomí, takříkajíc compos mentis, to nejhorší jsem měla za sebou, aspoň pokud jde o pocity.
Example 67: (Chapter 3) A cyclostyle is “an early device for duplicating handwriting” (Cyclostyle, n.d.). Hilská followed the source text and transferred the term into Czech but these days not many readers would know what cyklostyl is. A possible alternative could be e.g. namnožená stránka. Mucha tried to explain it but he did not manage to do it correctly as a typewriter and cyclostyle are two different devices. ST:
Beesley nodded and handed Dixon the cyclostyled sheet.
JM:
Beesley přisvědčil a podal Dixonovi list psaný strojem.
KH:
Spolubydlící přikývl a podal Dixonovi cyklostylovanou stránku.
Example 68: (Chapter 20) Mucha again decided on an explanation, whereas Hilská used a term, which even though it is a borrowing, is nowadays very common in Czech.
61
ST:
... to say one word against the Yellow Press, against the best-seller, against the theatreorgan...
JM:
... proti bulvárnímu tisku, proti špatné, a1e kritikou vychvalované literatuře, proti elektrickým varhanám...
KH:
... abychom vznesli aspoň slůvko výhrad vůči bulvárnímu tisku, vůči bestsellerům, vůči náhraţkám hudebních nástrojů...
Example 69: (Chapter 10) Dix-huitiéme is a French numeral meaning eighteenth. Both translators decided that the Czech audience would not know this French term and resorted to an explanation. Mucha went a step further and specified it by translating it as rokoko. ST:
You must know it, of course; one might really be back in the dix-huitiéme.
JM:
Přirozeně ţe to asi znáte; úplně jako by se člověk přenesl do rokoka.
KH:
Určitě ho znáte, jako by se člověk ocitl v osmnáctém století.
Foreign and specialised terms – evaluation: The translators employed a very different approach which could be linked to the fact that the translations were created in different eras. Mucha‟s approach was more naturalizing as he usually explained all foreign words, but his explanations were not always very accurate. Hilská‟s approach, on the other hand, seems to be more exoticizing as she probably presumed that the readers would be familiar with many foreign or specialised terms and would not need any additional explanation.
4.12 Pragmatic aspects – forms of address Besides transferring the propositional meaning, the translators had to pay careful attention to pragmatic features too. As Newmark (1991) says: “one‟s purpose in translating [...] is to be referentially and pragmatically accurate” (p. 115). Nord (1997) agrees with him and claims that special attention should be given to pragmatic
62
translation problems as they occur in every translation and “arise from the differences between [the source-text and target-text situations] and can be identified by checking on the extratextual factors” (p. 65). One of the pragmatic aspects which differs across cultures is politeness. The English system of address does not grammatically differentiate between formal and informal forms. Formal and informal relationships between people are usually expressed only implicitly. However, Czech can indicate these relationships by the way people address each other. The translators therefore had to gather the information from the context and express it explicitly in the target texts. Example 70: (Chapter 8) In Mucha‟s version, the relationship between Margaret and Dixon is more formal than in Hilská‟s translation. ST:
„Hallo, dear, how are you to-day?‟
JM:
„Dobrý den, Margareto. Jak se vám daří?“
KH:
„Ahoj, zlato, jak se dneska máš?“
Example 71: (Chapter 15) In Hilská‟s version, Dixon and Christine start to be on first-name terms in Chapter 15, whereas in Mucha‟s translation, they use a formal form of address throughout the whole book. ST:
It‟s nice of you to say that, but the trouble is, there isn‟t much more to know than you know already.
JM:
To je sice hezké, ale bohuţel ve mně toho víc není, neţ co uţ jste poznal.
KH:
Je to od tebe milé, ţe to říkáš, ale potíţ je v tom, ţe uţ toho o moc víc nepoznáš.
Example 72: (Chapter 18) Depending on the situation Bertrand and Dixon use either formal or informal forms of address in Hilská‟s version. In Mucha‟s version, they use only formal forms of address
63
which seems a bit strange when they adopt some “strong” language when talking to each other. ST:
Bertrand suddenly yelled out in a near-falsetto bay: „I‟ve had about enough of you, you little bastard. I won‟t stand any more of it, do you hear?‟
JM:
Bertrand náhle zaječel mečivou fistulí: „Držte uţ jednou hubu, šašku všivácká. Uţ toho mám dost, slyšíte?“
KH:
Bertrand náhle zařval skoro fistulí: „Mám tě aţ po krk, ty hajzle! Tohle uţ si nenechám líbit, slyšíš?“
Pragmatic aspects – evaluation: The characters in Mucha‟s version use a polite form of address which sometimes sounds rather weird when it is used between friends or in connection with informal and colloquial language. Hilská‟s translation captures the relationship between the characters better. However, it has to be taken into account that Mucha created the translation at a time when a polite form of address was commonly used even between friends.
Mrs. Hilská‟s insight into translation of formal and informal forms of address: Hilská claims that it is a translator‟s task to find an appropriate moment when the characters start to use an informal form of address. She states that both translation versions differ a lot in this respect (personal communication, April 5, 2013).
4.13 Cohesion Translation of cohesive devices should follow the norms of the target language, as Callow points out: “Each language has its own patterns to convey the interrelationships of persons and events; in no language may these patterns be ignored, if the translation is to be understood by its readers” (as cited in Baker, 2011, p. 180). Halliday and Hasan differentiate five cohesive devices:
64
reference substitution ellipsis conjunction lexical cohesion (as cited in Baker, 2011, p. 180). Blum-Kulka (1986), on the other hand, focuses on cohesion shifts and differentiates two basic types: shifts in levels of explicitness shifts in text meaning(s) (p. 18). Knittlová (2000) adds that cohesion is directly linked with coherence which is “reflected in the cohesive devices used in the translation” (p. 10). Example 73: (Chapter 9) Hilská often omitted Dixon‟s name and substituted it by mladík, whereas Mucha followed the source text and almost always used the name. ST:
Dixon picked up the phone and said: „Dixon here.‟
JM:
Dixon zvedl sluchátko a pravil: „Tady je Dixon.“
KH:
Mladík zvedl telefon a ohlásil se: „Tady Dixon.“
65
Graph 4: Instances of the use of the name Dixon in the first chapter and strategies for its rendering:
50 45 40 35 30 Instances 25 20 15 10 5 0 Jiří Mucha
Transference
Omission
Substitution
Addition
Kateřina Hilská
In total, I have counted 51 instances of Dixon in the source text. As follows from the graph, Hilská did not use Dixon as often as Mucha did. She sometimes omitted it or substituted it by e.g. mladík. In one case, where there was a pronoun in the source text, Mucha added the name.
Example 74: (Chapter 18) Mucha, unlike Hilská, kept Welch‟s name. Hilská substituted it by stařík. ST:
Welch nodded as if pleased, and gathered up the papers to put them into his „bag‟.
JM:
Welch přikývl, coţ mělo pravděpodobně vyjadřovat potěšení, sebral papíry a začal je ukládat do „brašny“.
KH:
Stařík jakoby potěšeně přikývl a uţ sahal po papírech, aby si je dal do tašky.
66
Graph 5: Instances of the use of the name Welch in the first chapter and strategies for its rendering:
40 35 30 25 Instances 20 15 10 5 0 Jiří Mucha
Transference
Substitution
Kateřina Hilská
In total I have counted 38 instances of Welch in the source text. As follows from the graph, Mucha always transferred Welch from the source text, whereas Hilská sometimes substituted it e.g. by starší muž, nadřízený, šéf or společník.
Example 75: (Chapter 15) Hilská substituted Christine‟s name by dívka, whereas Mucha transferred it from the source text. ST:
„Is it open?‟ Christine asked at his elbow.
JM:
„Otevřeno?“ otázala se vedle něho Christina.
KH:
„Jsou otevřené?“ zeptala se dívka vedle něj.
Example 76: (Chapter 18) Mucha transferred the pronoun his from the source text. However, it was not necessary as it was quite clear from the context that the pronoun refers to Bertrand‟s mother.
67
ST:
His mother put a hand on his arm.
JM:
Jeho matka mu poloţila ruku na paţi.
KH:
Matka se dotkla jeho paţe.
Cohesion – evaluation: As far as cohesion is concerned, Mucha followed the source text quite closely and did not use as many cohesive devices as Hilská who worked with these devices quite extensively; therefore her translation often sounds more natural than Mucha‟s version.
68
5
Problematic translation issues The following section focuses on three problematic translation issues which have arisen during the analysis of both translation versions. These issues are theoretically introduced and followed by the specific examples from both translations.
5.1
Ageing of translation There is not much relevant literature on the subject of ageing of translation as this area of translation is rather subjective and not well-researched. Hrala (2004) claims that translations age faster than the source texts and that free adaptive translations do not age as quickly as faithful literal translations. Moreover, he adds that the “lifetime period” is different for each translation (pp. 161-162).
Example 77: (Chapter 4) Dispens12 is a generally known word but these days it is not used very often. ST:
Well, that lets me out, anyway.
JM:
Z toho mám alespoň dispens.
KH:
Sláva, aspoň nebudu muset účinkovat.
Example 78: (Chapter 10) Posupně13, meaning in an unfriendly, unkind, contemptuous way is outdated and not used very often these days. ST:
Bertrand, too, was watching and grinning.
JM:
Také Bertrand zíral posupně.
KH:
I Bertrand sledoval Dixonovu promluvu s úšklebkem.
12
There are 17 instances of dispens (most of them are used in a collocation “papal dispens”) in the Czech National Corpus (Dispens, n.d.). 13 There are 36 instances (4 of which are a typing error of “postupně”) of posupně in the Czech National Corpus (Posupně, n.d.).
69
Example 79: (Chapter 11) Mucha used a participle which is nowadays considered a bit archaic. Moreover, he used two same words in a single sentence which makes the translation rather clumsy. ST:
They moved down the floor away from the band, through the sound of which Dixon faintly caught a baying laugh.
JM:
Pohybovali se napříč sálem, vzdalujíce se od hudby, a Dixon na chvíli zaslechl vzdálený mečivý smích.
KH:
Pustili se po parketu směrem od orchestru, v jehoţ zvuku Dixon slabě zachytil mečivý smích.
Ageing of translation – evaluation: Concerning the year of publication of Mucha‟s translation, it can be expected that some passages would be rather dated or archaic. However, only some lexical items, syntactic features (e.g. participles) and pragmatic features (e.g. formal way of address) seem a little old-fashioned. This can be put in connection with what has been mentioned above by Hrala that Mucha‟s translation is quite free and the fact that it was published in 1959 does not make it outdated. As for Hilská‟s version, I believe that it might become outdated quite soon as she uses contemporary expressive and colloquial language (e.g. nebudeš mít problémy z toho, že to ve škole zapíchneš, právě jsem mluvil s tvou kočkou po telefonu, baví ji to vzrůšo, jen tak zevloval) which is quite susceptible to ageing.
5.2
Translation errors Wills defines a translation error as “an offence against a norm in a linguistic contact situation” (as cited in Nord, 1997, p. 73). There are many different types of errors which can occur in a translation, e.g. pragmatic, stylistic, semantic or idiomatic, and there are also various reasons for them. As Hansen (2010) says:
70
Translation „errors‟ can be caused by misunderstandings of the translation brief or of the content of the ST, by not rendering the meaning of the ST accurately, by factual mistakes, terminological or stylistic flaws, and by different kinds of interferences between ST and TT. (p. 385)
Various translation scholars have diverse opinions on treating and classifying translation errors. Functionalistic approaches see a translation error as something which can be analyzed only in relation to the purpose of the translation and its communicative function (Nord, 1997, p. 73), whereas approaches based on equivalence see a translation error as “some kind of non-equivalence between ST and TT or non-adequacy of the TT” (Koller as cited in Hansen, 2010, p. 385). Hansen (2010) asks what exactly should be considered as an error: “Should changes, omissions or additions be regarded as errors – and if not, when precisely are they warranted?” (p. 386). Concerning classification of translation errors, Nord (1997) proposes four basic categories: pragmatic errors (which are the most serious because they are not very easily spotted without the source text) cultural errors linguistic errors text-specific errors (pp. 75-76). McAlester, on the other hand, distinguishes only two categories of translation errors: errors which violate the target language norms (errors in grammar, usage, register, etc.) errors which misinterpret the source text (omissions, mistranslations, additions) (as cited in Sin-wai, 2004, p. 249).
71
Example 80: (Chapter 21) Dixon had a fight with Bertrand in Chapter 20. The passage describes his examining of his black eye. Mucha completely changed its meaning by translating the singular eye from the source text as the plural oči. ST:
Dixon went to the mirror above the wash-basin and examined his eye. It looked a good many shades brighter than he‟d remembered it.
JM:
Dixon se zastavil u zrcadla nad umyvadlem a prohlíţel si oči. Zdálo se mu, ţe se lesknou mnohem, mnohem víc neţ kdy jindy.
KH:
Mladík popošel k zrcadlu nad umyvadlem a prohlédl si oko. Připadalo mu o několik odstínů světlejší, neţ si pamatoval.
Example 81: (Chapter 24) Dixon is thinking about Christine in this passage. He consoles himself by the fact that he has had an opportunity to see her at least a few times. It refers to the past, but Mucha translated it as Dixon is talking about the future. ST:
But, anyway, he‟d met her and talked to her a few times.
JM:
Ale sejde se s ní a chvíli s ní aspoň promluví.
KH:
Nicméně, setkal se s ní a párkrát si popovídali.
Example 82: (Chapter 7) In this passage, Margaret is shouting “stop pushing and pulling me” at Dixon. The meaning of the phrase is figurative in this sentence. However, Mucha translated it literally and it gives the impression of Dixon physically assaulting Margaret which is not the case. ST:
Get away. How dare you. Stop pushing and pulling me about. Who do you think you are?
JM:
Jděte pryč. Co si to dovolujete. Přestaňte do mne strkat. Kdo si myslíte, ţe jste?
KH:
Jdi pryč! Jak se opovaţuješ! Přestaň si se mnou pohrávat jako kočka s myší. Co ty jsi vlastně zač?
72
Example 83: (Chapter 3) Hilská‟s translation of a silent mover – somebody who appears unexpectedly and nobody usually notices them – is not correct. Since the Czech collocation táhnout se jako smrad usually refers to somebody who moves very slowly. ST:
... Johns was a silent mover, a potential eavesdropper...
JM:
... Johns byl tichošlápek, byl schopen poslouchat za dveřmi...
KH:
... Johns se totiţ vţdycky táhl jako smrad, byl podezřelý z donašečství...
Example 84: (Chapter 24) Apart from this passage, Mucha omitted one more passage in Chapter 24. It is quite interesting that it has happened only at the very end of the book which might have been caused by a rush to finish the translation. I believe that these omissions are quite serious as Mucha did not omit only a word or two but almost the whole paragraph. ST:
The clock over the ticket-office pointed to one forty-seven. At once the minute hand stepped one pace onward. Dixon flung himself at the barrier. A hard-faced man confronted him.
JM: KH:
Hodiny nad pokladnou ukazovaly tři čtvrtě na dvě a dvě minuty. Minutová ručička však vzápětí poskočila na další dílek. Dixon se rozběhl k nástupišti. Cestu mu zastoupil muţ s nepříjemným výrazem ve tváři.
Example 85: (Chapter 4) Mucha changed the number of pounds which is not a serious mistake in this context. On the other hand, translators should not change the numbers and other figures without having any legitimate reason for it. ST:
In the bank he had twenty-eight pounds...
JM:
Na kníţce měl sice ještě dvacet devět liber...
KH:
V bance má osmadvacet liber...
73
Translation errors – evaluation: As follows from the above mentioned examples, Mucha made all types of translation errors from omitting and altering information to pragmatic errors. Hilská‟s translation, on the other hand, is more precise and accurate; I have noticed only one instance of translation error.
5.3
Other issues It can happen that translators encounter ambiguities in the source text and they have to decide how they should proceed. In both translations of Lucky Jim there is a passage which an observant reader may consider strange.
Example 86: (Chapter 25) In this passage, Dixon is thinking about London districts in which he could possibly live and he immediately refuses Chelsea. However, there is no reason for it mentioned anywhere in the text. Both translators followed the source text and probably did not think about it any further. There is an explanation provided by Morrison (1986): “For Dixon Chelsea smacks too much of Bertrand Welch and Bohemia” (p. 64). However, as Rosenthal (1999) claims there was not “Chelsea” but “Bloomsbury” in the edition published by Victor Gollancz. He argues that Malcolm Bradbury named his collection of essays No, Not Bloomsbury and he borrowed this epigraph from Lucky Jim (para. 2). He adds that “one can see why Amis‟s comic hero, Jim Dixon, and indeed Amis, would want to have nothing to do with Bloomsbury. All that high thinking and plain living would not appeal to them” (para. 3). Another possible reason why Jim does not want to live in Bloomsbury might be that it is the place where the University of London is situated. It is quite difficult to say why it has been changed into Chelsea as it is not very probable that it was just a mistake. Maybe the connotations of Bloomsbury changed and Amis himself might have adapted it in other editions. 74
ST:
While he explained, he pronounced the names to himself: Bayswater, Knightsbridge, Notting Hill Gate, Pimlico, Belgrave Square, Wapping, Chelsea. No, not Chelsea.
JM:
Zatím co jí všechno vysvětloval, odříkával si v duchu jednotlivé názvy: Bayswater, Knightsbridge, Notting Hill Gate, Pimlico, Belgrave Square, Wapping, Chelsea. Ne Chelsea ne.
KH:
Zatímco jí vysvětloval situaci, uţ si v duchu přeříkával názvy londýnských čtvrtí a míst: Bayswater, Knightsbridge, Notting Hill Gate, Pimlico, Belgrave Square, Wapping, Chelsea. Ne, Chelsea radši ne.
Other issues – evaluation: It is possible that the translators did not notice it or the editors might have told them to follow the source text and not to add anything. However, a little explanation such as Ne, snobskou Chelsea ne could help the readers to understand this passage better.
75
6
Translation strategies As far as the term translation strategy14 is concerned, there is a similar terminological heterogeneity as in the case of terms for culture-specific concepts. As Gambier (2010) states “[s]trategy is one of those ambiguous terms in TS: it is only used in different ways, but it also seems to be in competition with a dozen other terms (in English): procedures, techniques, operations, changes, shifts, methods, replacements, etc.” (p. 412). Similarly, Wills states that “translation strategy seems to be a rather diffuse concept which refers to the general transfer perspective or transfer concept of a particular text” (as cited in Martín, 2000, p. 129). Moreover, translation scholars use various terms for specific strategies/changes/shifts. The most widely known and accepted system of translation procedures is the one devised by Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) in which there are seven basic procedures: borrowing calque literal translation transposition modulation equivalence adaptation (pp. 30-39). Newmark (1988) proposes fifteen procedures (pp. 81-93), whereas Nida (1964) talks about three “techniques of adjustment”: additions subtractions 14
Some of the strategies for rendering culture-specific concepts have already been discussed in Section 4.1; therefore only strategies which were employed most often by both translators will be discussed in this section.
76
alterations (pp. 226-240).
6.1
Translation by omission The translation by omission strategy is sometimes referred to as zero translation and is sometimes seen as rather controversial. Some translation scholars believe that “deleting any part of the original text is the equivalent of unconditional surrender, an admission that a certain word, phrase, or construction is beyond the translator‟s ability to render” (Landers, 2001, p. 95). Baker (2011) admits that translation by omission “may sound rather drastic, but in fact it does no harm to omit translating a word or expression in some contexts” (p. 40). However, she warns that this strategy should not be overused and translators should resort to it “only as a last resort, when the advantages of producing a smooth, readable translation clearly outweigh the value of rendering a particular meaning accurately in a given context” (p. 43). Example 87: (Chapter 22) Mucha omitted that Bill Atkinson could be unwilling to distinguish between the two signals which he agreed on with Dixon. This omission is not justifiable as the omitted information is quite important for understanding Bill Atkinson‟s character. ST:
Half-way down the Hall Bill Atkinson, unable at that distance, or unwilling, to distinguish between the scratching and the covering of ears, collapsed full length in the aisle.
JM:
V samém středu přednáškové síně Bill Atkinson, neschopný na dálku postřehnout rozdíl mezi zacpáním a poškrábáním uší, zavrávoral a klesl jak dlouhý tak široký mezi sedadla.
KH:
Bill Atkinson, který na dálku nepoznal či nechtěl poznat rozdíl mezi drbáním se za ušima a jejich zacpáním, sebou v polovině sálu sekl jak široký tak dlouhý do uličky.
77
Example 88: (Chapter 2) In this passage, Margaret is talking about her fake attempted suicide. Mucha omitted the specific questions which was Margaret asked, whereas Hilská followed the source text and translated them. ST:
... I might prefer not to be bombarded with kind inquiries, “and how are you feeling, my dear, after your unpleasant experience” et cetera.
JM:
... ţe bych asi raději neslyšela spoustu laskavých otázek.
KH:
... ţe bych si třeba radši odpustila všechny ty vlídné dotazy typu „Jak se cítíš, drahoušku, po tom nepříjemném zážitku?“ a tak dále.
Example 89: (Chapter 6) In this passage, Christine is talking with Dixon about a man whom she describes using the adjective little. Mucha, unlike Hilská, omitted it. ST:
„Oh, then you did go to the pub, like that little man said – what was his name?‟
JM:
„Aha, tak jste přece jenom byl v hospodě, jak tvrdil ten – jak se jmenoval?“
KH:
„Takţe jste přece jen šel do té hospody, jak tvrdil ten mrňous – jak se jmenuje?“
Example 90: (Chapter 2) Hilská omitted the exact amount which was given back to Dixon. ST:
Pocketing the eightpence change from his two florins...
JM:
Zastrčil do kapsy osm pencí, které dostal zpět ze svých čtyř šilinků...
KH:
Dixon strčil do kapsy osm pencí, které dostal nazpět...
Example 91: (Chapter 11) Mucha omitted what the innocent bystander was supposed to do. ST:
... but the feminine manoeuvre of using an innocent bystander as whipping-boy was one he‟d learnt to recognize and dislike.
JM:
... ale typický ţenský manévr – nastrčit nevinnou třetí osobu – uţ dávno uměl rozpoznat, a nikterak se mu nelíbil.
KH:
... ale tenhle ţenský manévr spočívající v tom, ţe nevinný přihlíţející poslouţí jako fackovací panák, uţ dobře zná a nesnáší ho.
78
Example 92: (Chapter 24) Mucha completely omitted the hat the Principal‟s wife is wearing. ST:
He was nearly there when the face of the Principal‟s wife, wearing a hat like a biretta, appeared at the back window, frowning at him from what had looked like an empty rear compartment.
JM:
Takřka ho jiţ doháněl, kdyţ spatřil v zadním okénku tvář rektorovy ţeny, mračící se na něho z vnitřku vozu, který mu předtím připadal prázdný.
KH:
Skoro vůz dohonil, kdyţ v tom se v zadním okénku objevila tvář děkanovy manţelky v klobouku podobném kněžskému kvadrátku a zamračila se na něj ze sedadla, které jinak zelo prázdnotou.
Translation by omission – evaluation: As far as translation by omission strategy is concerned, it is quite clear from the above mentioned examples that Mucha, compared to Hilská, used it quite extensively. However, translators should be careful about employing this strategy too often and should resort to it only marginally, as Hilská did. On the other hand, Mucha‟s omissions, apart from Example 87, did not lead to any substantial changes in his translation version.
6.2
Adding expressivity Expressivity is often added to translations for various reasons, e.g. when a translation is targeted at a specific audience. Knittlová (2000) points to the long-lasting problem concerning differences in expressivity between two languages, asking: “if one language (e.g. Czech) takes quite a different stance on the expressivity/emotionality axis than the other one (e.g. English), is the same degree of expressivity in the translation from English to Czech satisfactory, or is it necessary to increase, intensify it?” (p. 11).
79
Example 93: (Chapter 7) It is quite clear from the context of the whole book that Dixon and his colleague, Johns, do not like each other. Hilská added the expressive word slizoun, whereas Mucha followed the source text. ST:
Johns grinned at him as he passed.
JM:
Johns, kdyţ ho míjel, se zašklebil.
KH:
Kdyţ míjel Johnse, ten slizoun se na něj zašklebil.
Example 94: (Chapter 5) Hilská translated the neutral term third party by the rather expressive term floutek, whereas Mucha followed the source text. ST:
... a claim which was somehow invoked by the sight of his wife being handled by a third party, especially that third party.
JM:
... ţe nedovedl zůstat lhostejný při pohledu na jeho ţenu v rukou třetí osoby, zvláště pak takové třetí osoby.
KH:
... a ten o sobě dal nyní vědět, kdyţ uviděl jeho ţenu v objetí někoho třetího, a ke všemu takového floutka!
Example 95: (Chapter 24) In this passage, Dixon is talking with his friend Bill Atkinson who is referring to Bertrand as the bearded sportsman. Mucha used a generalization and translated the sportsman as pán which sounds too formal for a conversation between two friends. Hilská, on the other hand, added expressivity and translated it as svalouš. Moreover, she used a colloquial ending “-ej”. ST:
... I mean the other one, the one you say belongs to the bearded sportsman.
JM:
... ale druhá, ta, jak říkáte, ţe patří k pánovi s plnovousem.
KH:
... myslím tu druhou, tu, co si podle tebe omotal kolem prstu ten fousatej svalouš.
80
Example 96: (Chapter 8) Hilská, unlike Mucha who followed the source text, was again more expressive and translated the neutral term correcting as překopat. ST:
... just glancing through (i.e. correcting) the proofs of a long article Welch was having printed in a local journal of antiquities...
JM:
... nebo jestliţe „přehlédne“, tj. zkoriguje, dlouhou studii, kterou Welch otiskuje v místním odborném časopise...
KH:
... nebo jen “přemrknout” (čili doslova překopat) korektury sáhodlouhého článku, který Welch zamýšlel uveřejnit v místním historickém časopisu...
Example 97: (Chapter 11) Christine is talking with Dixon about her behaviour in this passage. Mucha again followed the source text, whereas Hilská used a common Czech phrase jako studenej čumák with a colloquial ending “-ej”. ST:
I‟m afraid I must have sounded a bit unfriendly over the phone the second time...
JM:
Myslím, ţe jsem byla podruhé do telefonu trochu nepřívětivá.
KH:
Bohuţel jsem vám asi při tom druhém telefonátu připadala jako studenej čumák...
Adding expressivity – evaluation: As far as expressivity is concerned, Hilská worked with the fact that expressivity is often expressed by specific words in Czech, whereas in English it is usually only inferred from the context. Mucha followed the source text more closely and as a result some of his solutions seem quite formal (Example 95).
Mrs. Hilská‟s insight into adding expressivity: Concerning expressivity, Mrs. Hilská admits that she tends to be a bit conservative and that editors sometimes “push” her into being more expressive and using more “actualized” expressions (personal communication, April 5, 2013). There are some places in Hilská‟s translation in which I feel that she was probably “pushed” into being more expressive. It is quite clear that editors want to publish expressive translations 81
(which confirms the hypothesis about a nowadays trend of colloquial language used in translations (Knittlová, 2000, p. 10)) that sell well but I think that it should not be overdone as the translator‟s overall style should be respected by editors.
6.3
Adding information (explicitation) The proposition that target texts are more explicit than their corresponding source texts has become known as the “explicitation hypothesis” and was formulated by Blum-Kulka in 1986. Initially, it referred only to “cohesive explicitness” but a number of researches confirmed its general application (Pym, 2005, p. 30). Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) define explicitation as “the process of introducing information into the target language which is present only implicitly in the source language, but which can be derived from the context or the situation” (p. 8).
Example 98: (Chapter 24) Both translators added the specific information. ST:
Catchpole, already there when Dixon arrived...
JM:
Catchpole, který jiţ čekal u baru, kdyţ Dixon vstoupil...
KH:
Catchpole uţ seděl v hospodě, kdyţ Dixon dorazil.
Example 99: (Chapter 24) Mucha added information by translating a drink as pivo, whereas Hilská followed the source text. ST:
He got Dixon a drink...
JM:
Objednal Dixonovi pivo...
KH:
Objednal pro Dixona něco k pití...
82
Example 100: (Chapter 20) Mucha added the information about the exact number of his ape imitation. Hilská, on the other hand, omitted it altogether. ST:
With a long, jabbering belch, Dixon got up from the chair where he‟d been writing this and did his ape imitation all round the room.
JM:
Dixon dlouze, rozechvěle říhl, vstal od stolu, u kterého psal, a provozuje svůj opičí tanec, obskákal dvakrát dokola celý pokoj.
KH:
S dlouhým členěným říhnutím se Dixon zvedl ze ţidle, kde tenhle proslov psal, a jal se předvádět svůj opičí kousek.
Example 101: (Chapter 20) In this passage, Bertrand comes to Dixon‟s room and sees him doing his ape imitation. Mucha added the specific location, whereas Hilská followed the source text. ST:
„What are you doing up there?‟
JM:
„Co děláte na té posteli?“
KH:
„Co tam nahoře vyvádíš?“
Adding information – evaluation: Mucha‟s renderings tend to be more explicit than Hilská‟s. This does not comply with Knittlová‟s proposal about second versions being more explicit (2000, p. 11).
6.4
Transposition Newmark (1988) defines a transposition as “a translation procedure involving a change in the grammar from SL to TL” (p. 85). He argues that “transposition is the only translation procedure concerned with grammar, and most translators make transpositions intuitively” (p. 88). Whereas he distinguishes four types of transpositions (pp. 85-87), Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) differentiate between two basic types of transposition:
83
obligatory transposition which is used when the language system of the target language allows only one form optional transposition which is used in order to retain stylistic nuances of the text and its natural usage (p. 36).
Example 102: (Chapter 20) Mucha followed the source text, whereas Hilská used a transposition and changed the adjectives touchy, vain and sensitive into nouns. ST:
Touchy and vain, yes, but not sensitive.
JM:
Urážlivý a ješitný ano, citlivý ne.
KH:
Jsi netýkavka a ješita, ale s citlivostí to nemá nic společného.
Example 103: (Chapter 1) Mucha copied the passive structure from the source text and translated it as kterému byl předveden. By contrast, Hilská was aware that passive constructions in literary texts are not used in Czech as often as in English, and translated it using an active voice. ST:
He looked like an African savage being shown a simple conjuring trick.
JM:
Vypadal jako africký divoch, kterému byl předveden jednoduchý kouzelnický trik.
KH:
Připomínal afrického divocha, kterému právě předvedli jednoduchý kouzelnický trik.
Example 104: (Chapter 2) Mucha used the verb phrase studuje balet instead of the noun phrase a ballet student in the source text. Hilská kept the noun balet but omitted the word student as she used it in the following sentence as a verb. ST:
„A ballet student? I didn‟t know there were such things.‟
JM:
„Studuje balet? To existuje?“
KH:
„Balet? To se taky studuje?“
84
Transposition – evaluation: On the whole, Hilská employed transpositions more often than Mucha, who sometimes copied the structures (e.g. passives) from the source text.
6.5
Modulation Vinay and Darbelnet (1995) define modulation as a “variation of the form of the message, obtained by a change in the point of view” (p. 36). In contrast to transpositions which operate on the level of syntax, modulations have an impact on mental categories and present “the same reality in a different light” (p. 88). They are used when a literal or transposed rendering would result in an unidiomatic translation (p. 36). As in case of transposition, there are two basic types of modulation: obligatory (fixed) optional (free) Example 105: (Chapter 1) Mucha, unlike Hilská who followed the source text, changed the point of view of the speaker: instead of “you” he used “I”. ST:
„You‟re taking me home for tea,‟ Dixon enunciated.
JM:
„Jedu k vám na čaj,“ oznámil Dixon.
KH:
„Pozval jste mě k sobě domů na svačinu,“ pronesl důrazně Dixon.
Example 106: (Chapter 2) Mucha again changed the point of view: instead of “I” he used “it”, whereas Hilská followed the source text and did not use any transposition. ST:
And then, just before I went under, I suddenly stopped caring.
JM:
A pak, právě než to přišlo, mně najednou začalo být všechno jedno.
KH:
A pak, chviličku předtím, než jsem ztratila vědomí, mi to najednou začalo být jedno.
85
Example 107: (Chapter 1) Mucha followed the source text, whereas Hilská used a negated contrary – she changed the positive point of view into a negative one. ST:
„That‟s right, Professor. Hope it‟s still convenient.‟
JM:
„Ano, pane profesore. Doufám, že se vám to dosud hodí.“
KH:
„Přesně tak, pane profesore. Tedy pokud vám do toho něco nepřišlo.“
Modulation – evaluation: Generally, Mucha tended to use optional modulations more often than Hilská did.
86
7
Results Table 1: The following table summarizes the findings concerning the “creativity hypothesis” from the individual subsections:15
Mucha
Hilská
~ ~ +
~ ~ -
(exaggerations)
(followed the ST more carefully)
Songs and ditties
+
Expressive/colloquial
~
~
-
+
Culture-specific concepts Humour/sarcasm Similes
words Idioms
(followed the ST more carefully)
-
The verb “say”
(repetition of the verb říci)
Names
+ ~ -
Dixon‟s facial expressions Speech stylisation Foreign and specialised
~ -
terms Pragmatic aspects
~ +
(exaggerations)
~ + (different forms of address)
-
+
Not particularly creative
Not particularly creative
+ +
+ + -
Cohesion Other issues
+ (various synonyms of the verb říci)
Adding expressivity Adding information Transposition Modulation Legend: + more creative ~ same level of creativity - less creative
15
The subsections Ageing of translation, Translation errors and Translation by omission are not included as they are not relevant for the “creativity hypothesis”.
87
Table 216: The following table summarizes the general observations and findings from the Specific translation areas section:
Mucha Culture-specific concepts
More domesticating approach Some concepts archaic
Humour/sarcasm Similes
More humorous renderings More inventive Some exaggerations
Hilská More foreignizing approach More precise and accurate Less humorous renderings Followed the ST
More humorous renderings
Less humorous renderings
Natural-sounding renderings
Natural-sounding renderings
Idioms
Followed the ST
More inventive
The verb “say”
Followed the ST
Wide range of synonyms
Names
More inventive
Not very inventive
Dixon‟s facial
Followed the ST
Followed the ST
(foreignizing)
(foreignizing)
Speech stylisation
Followed the ST
Some exaggerations
Foreign and specialised
More naturalizing
Songs and ditties Expressive/colloquial words
expressions
terms Pragmatic aspects Cohesion
Less precise and accurate
More exoticizing
Only formal forms of address
Different forms of address
Less cohesive devices
More cohesive devices
16
Different variables, some of them rather subjective, are observed, therefore Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 should be considered only illustrative of some general tendencies discovered during the analysis.
88
Table 3: The following table summarizes the general observations and findings from the Problematic translation issues section:
Mucha Ageing of translation
Less outdated than expected
Translation errors
Hilská Prone to ageing due to some expressive/colloquial language
Quite a few translation errors (mistranslations, omissions, pragmatic
Only few translation errors
errors) Other issues
Followed the ST
Followed the ST
Table 4: The following table summarizes the general observations and findings from the Translation strategies section:
Mucha Translation by omission
Quite a few omissions
Hilská Only few omissions
(even whole sentences) Adding expressivity
-
+
Adding information
+
-
Transposition
-
+
Modulation
+
-
Legend: + more - less
89
8
Conclusion The aim of this thesis was not to decide which translation version is better as both of them are undoubtedly of high quality; rather I wanted to compare them and verify the initial hypotheses concerning the foreignization – domestication dichotomy, ageing of translation and creativity. It goes without saying that no translation can be timeless. Nevertheless, Mucha‟s version is not as outdated as was initially expected and it is still very readable even nowadays. Of course, there are some lexical and syntactic features which may sound archaic for present-day readers but they do not hinder the overall understanding of the text. Mucha‟s translation is creative and inventive which does not correspond to the Knittlová‟s “creativity hypothesis” (2000, p. 10) mentioned in the introduction section. Concerning creativity, Hermans argues that (1985) “the more one is constrained, the more one is creative” (p. 9) which might be linked to the period in which Mucha‟s version was published – the late 1950s were characterised by censorship of literature in Czechoslovakia. As Ury argues: “a translator is first of all a reader and every reader [...] seeks out in [the text] those values most congenial to him” (as cited in, Henitiuk, 1999, p. 470). Mucha, being himself a writer, sometimes got quite carried away by his own “literariness” and resorted to solutions (e.g. when translating similes) which are attractive for the target audience but could not be fully justified in the source text. As far as the Berman‟s Retranslation hypothesis is concerned, it proved to be only partly correct – Mucha‟s translation can be characterised as more domesticating, but he still employed some strategies (e.g. transference) which correspond more with the foreignization approach. Hilská‟s translation is more foreignizing but she uses some
90
strategies (e.g. substitution) which could be regarded to belong to domestication approach. However, Mrs. Hilská herself admits that she mostly does not have any overall translation strategy. She tries to empathize with the characters and imagine the situations and settings being described in the source text. Above all, she strives to create a translation which corresponds to the period in which the source text was written or is set in, and at the same time to use “current” language (personal communication, April 5, 2013). In my view, the dialogues between the characters are believable as she used colloquial and expressive language for their rendering. However, as a result, her translation might be more prone to ageing than Mucha‟s version. Hilská‟s version is more precise and accurate than Mucha‟s translation. More thorough editorial review would help to eliminate some of the errors which appear in his translation from time to time. Nevertheless, we should be careful when judging accuracy of older translation versions as “our contemporary standards of accuracy in translation [...] differ from those in the past” (Venuti as cited in Hermans, 1999, p. 3). A translator‟s personality can have quite a large influence on their translations. According to Henitiuk (1999), readers “read the text via the lens of a third person‟s interpretation, which is inspired by his/her unique temperament” (p. 470). I believe that Mucha‟s “bohemian” personality is reflected in his translation of Lucky Jim. It is, as mentioned above, not very precise but it flows smoothly and is surprisingly humorous. Hilská‟s version is humorous too but it is more sophisticated and refined. Other factors which might have played a role in Mucha‟s and Hilská‟s translations might be their age and gender, Mucha was 44 when he translated it, which makes him closer to Amis who was 32 when he wrote Lucky Jim, whereas Hilská was 62. As far as the gender of the translators is concerned, feminist literary critics argue that women and men “[...] do not view [the world] identically, in that sexual difference as a social construct has
91
implications for how one interprets as well as how one is interpreted” (Henitiuk, 1999, p. 470). Overall, I believe that both translation versions may successfully co-exist sideby-side and will find their prospective readers.
92
Appendix 1 – More Examples TRANSLATION OF CULTURE SPECIFIC CONCEPTS KH: ve Velké Británii X JM: v britské říši (ST: Great Britain) KH: Times Literary Supplement X JM: Times Literary Supplement (ST: Times Literary Supplement) KH: ze třetího programu BBC X JM: z třetího programu BBC (ST: Third Programme) KH: celá fotografická redakce z Picture Post X JM: fotografové z Picture Post (ST: camera team from Picture Post) KH: pro zobcovou flétnu a klavichord X JM: pro dulcián a klavír (ST: for recorder and keyboard) KH: místního Konzervativního sdružení X JM: místního konzervativního klubu (ST: the local Conservative Association) KH: vedle Obilné burzy X JM: za plodinovou burzou (ST: Just by the Corn Exchange) KH: sníţil rychlost o polovinu X JM: sníţil jeho rychlost na čtyři kilometry v hodině (ST: halved his speed to four miles an hour KH: u baru v Dubové dvoraně rozlehlého hotelu X JM: u baru ve výčepu venkovského hotelu (ST: at the bar of the Oak Lounge in a large roadside hotel) KH: z oběda pořádaného toynbeeovskou společností X JM: z večeře pořádané Dějepisnou společností (ST: the Toynbee Society dinner) KH: nazval třecími miskami X JM: poznával středověké rošty na dřevěné uhlí (ST: chafingdishes) KH: jako levý nahazovač, který se vynoří před pálkařem zpoza rozhodčího X JM: jako hráč kriketu, který míří nečekaně k brance (ST: like a left-arm bowler coming into a batsman‟s view round the umpire) KH: školní knihovně X JM: universitní knihovně (ST: college library) KH: konference examinátorů v Durhamu X JM: od zkoušek v Durhamu (ST: examiners‟ conference in Durham) KH: Kolejní ulice X JM: Universitní ulice (ST: College Road ) KH: o týdnu otevřených dveří X JM: o týdnu veřejných přednášek (ST: College Open Week) KH: jak by měl napřesrok naloţit se studenty, kteří pouze projdou X JM: co by chtěl, aby Dixon probíral v příštím běhu s prvním ročníkem (ST: what he wanted Dixon to do with the Pass people next year.) KH: v klubovně druhého ročníku X JM: do kolegia druhého ročníku (ST: Second-Year Common Room) KH: profesor historie X JM: profesor dějepisu (ST: Professor of History) KH: Zatímco učitelé rádi kladli vnímavost studentů do souvislosti s „premianty spícími támhle přes ulici“, studentům i dalším zainteresovaným nebylo proti srsti přirovnávat stráţce vzdělanosti ke hřbitovním zřízencům. X JM: Přednášející s velkou oblibou chválili studentům poměrně vyšší vnímavost „posledního semestru na druhé straně ulice“, zatímco přirovnání činnosti hrobníka a mistrů vysokého učení se nabízelo i širšímu okruhu, neţ byli studenti. (ST: Lecturers were fond of lauding to their students the comparative receptivity to facts of „the Honours class over the road‟, while the parallel between the occupations of graveyard attendant)
TRANSLATION OF HUMOUR/SARCASM KH: Dóóhááájééé, zvolal v duchu, kdyţ na to pomyslel. Cííííífiks. X JM: „Ajejejeje,“ řekl si při té představě. „Auauauauau.“ (ST: „Ooooeeeeyaaa,‟ he called out to himself, thinking of it. „Waaaeeeoooghgh.‟) KH: uměnomilovnou sešlost X JM: umělecký večer (ST: arty get-together)
93
KH: kam si má strčit to svý sladký dřevo X JM: kam si má strčit svůj hoboj (ST: „Tell Johns from me where to put his oboe before you go.‟) KH: Ale co se týče poradny strýčka Jima, takhle by to bohatě stačilo X JM: ale tím končí moje rady mladým dívkám (ST: But that‟s quite enough of Uncle Jim‟s Corner.) KH: infantilní popěvky X JM: dětské tralala (ST: some infantile fa-la-la-la stuff) KH: vystřelovací topinku X JM: výbušné toasty (ST: her explosive toast) KH: Uvidíš, že to zabere. Žádnej strach. X JM: „Zanesu zmatek do řad nepřátel.“ (ST: „It‟ll create a diversion all right. Don‟t you worry.‟) KH: ţe bude působit jako jedinec stiţený záchvatem imbecilních pochybností X JM: ţe tím vyvolá dojem slabomyslné zadumanosti (ST: seeming assailed by imbecilic doubt) KH: pocítil skutečnou, všepohlcující, až orgiastickou nudu a její věrnou souputnici, ryzí nenávist X JM: ţe pociťuje skutečnou, nepřekonatelnou, vášnivou nudu a její družku, nenávist (ST: he thought he felt real, overmastering, orgiastic boredom, and its companion, real hatred.) KH: dílo frekventanta mateřské školy X JM: dílo jakéhosi blbečka z mateřské školky (ST: The work of some kindergarten oaf) KH: Setkám se s kaţdou skupinou svých studentů jednou, abych jim odpověděla na všechno, co podle nich bude stát za dotaz. Tedy pokud jim úsilí vymyslet nějaké otázky nezamotá ty jejich hlavinky. X JM: Uvaţovala jsem, ţe bych zašla alespoň jednou do kaţdé posluchárny pro případ, ţe by potřebovali vyloţit nějaké otázky. Totiţ, jestli se vymýšlením otázek úplně nezhroutí. (ST: Well, I shall see each of my classes once to answer any questions they may think worth putting. If the effort of thinking up questions won‟t turn their poor little brains, that is.) KH: čímţ docílil dojmu jakési ambiciózní recitační úderky X JM: aţ vznikl dojem jakéhosi dvouhlasého básnického souboje (ST: giving between them the impression of some ambitious verse-speaking effect)
TRANSLATION OF SIMILES KH: jako když obr ochraptí X JM: obra v posledním tažení (ST: like that of an ogre at the onset of aphasia) KH: odešel do tmy s Christinou, která mu visela na paži jako poutnická hůl X JM: odešel do tmy s Christinou, opírající se mu celou vahou o paži. (ST: then went off into the darkness with Christine holding on to his arm like a staff.) KH: se zasmál jako vůdčí chrt smečky, který ohlašuje konec pátrání X JM: se zachechtal jako ohař, vyrážející v čele smečky za kličkující kořistí (ST: laughed like a leading hound announcing the end of a check.) KH: brýle dnes vypadaly víc neţ obvykle jako víčka zavařovaček X JM: Jeho brýle se mu zdály větší neţ obvykle. (ST: His glasses seemed more goggle-like than usual.)
TRANSLATION OF SONGS, DITTIES AND RHYMES KH: „Já u lásky své věrnou lásku hledal jsem“, četl, „však našel jsem jenom nestálost a plané sliby. Kdyţ tázal jsem se proč...“ X JM: „Kdyţ z lásky své já lásku hledal a libý cit květu“, četl, „já zjistil, ţel, ţe sliby jsou jen pramenem mých běd. Kdyţ jsem se však své hvězdy ptal...“(ST: „When from my love I looked for love, and kind affections due,‟ he read, „too well I found her vows to prove most faithless and untrue. But when I did ask her why…‟) KH: „Kaţdý se svou lepou děvou posadí se do trávy, la-la-la-la, la-la-la-la-la-la, la la-la“ X JM: „Kaţdý svému děvčátku na zeleném trávníčku: tralala, trala-la-la-la-la“ (ST: „Each with his bonny lass, a-a-seated on the grass: fa-la-la-la, fa-la-la-la-la- la la la-la…‟) KH: Raz dva, raz dva, raz dva, pochodem v chod a čelem vzad. X JM: Boty, boty, boty, boty, pochodující nahoru, pochodující dolů. (ST: Boots, boots, boots, boots, marching up and down again.)
94
TRANSLATION OF EXPRESSIVE/COLLOQUIAL WORDS KH: ten Bertrand je ale mizera X JM: ten Bertrand je ale zvíře (ST: God, what a swine Bertrand is.) KH: „Ned Welch je sentimentální blbec s ksichtem jako prasečí zadek.“ X JM: „Ned Welch je velkej Vůl a má ksycht jako prase.“ (ST: „Ned Welch is a Soppy Fool with a Fase like A Pigs Bum‟) KH: Před tím podrazníkem bych si tak zrovna pustil hubu na špacír X JM: Jak bych si před tou krysou nedával dost pozor (ST: As if I‟d have said a word in front of that little ponce…) KH: jsi podrazák, snob, surovec a magor X JM: Jste levák a snob a klacek a blázen. (ST: you‟re a twister and a snob and a bully and a fool) KH: „Tak se zvedej, ty barovej povaleči, ty vodpornej namyšlenej hajzle.“ X JM: „Zvedněte se, vy jedna hospodská štěnice, vy jedna hnusná brejlatá škrkavko.“ (ST: „Come on, stand up, you dirty little bar-fly, you nasty little jumped-up turd.‟) KH: při nějaké blbince od Brahmse X JM: slátaninu od Brahmse (ST: some Brahms rubbish) KH: dostrkat dál kaţdého otravu, co se dokáţe podepsat X JM: nenechává projít kaţdého spratka, který se umí podepsat. (ST: push every bugger who can write his name through the Pass courses.) KH: majznout ho něčím po hlavě X JM: rozbít mu hlavu (ST: I don‟t even want to bash his brains out any more.) KH: Čajzli jsme jim taxíka. X JM: Vyfoukli jsme jim taxi (ST: We‟ve pinched their taxi) KH: „Hele, Dixone, vy si jasně koledujete vo pořádnou nakládačku, co?“ X JM: „Poslyšte, Dixone, mluvíte jako byste chtěl dostat jednu do nosu.“ (ST: „Look here, Dixon, you‟re talking as if you want a bloody good punch on the nose, aren‟t you?‟) KH: aby študákům vykládal něco o cenách skotu za Edvarda III X JM: nemůţe vyslovit nic závaţného o ceně zatracených krav za vlády Eduarda III (ST: the price of bloody cows under Edward the Third.‟) KH: „Co děláš, Alfrede?“ zeptal se Dixon. „Přišels flámovat?“ X JM: „Co to vidím, Alfréde?“ zeptal se Dixon. „Ve spárech alkoholu?“ (ST: „What‟s this, Alfred?‟ Dixon asked. „A bender?‟) KH: ten se nekamarádíčkuje s místní lůzou X JM: sem mezi chátru nepřichází. (ST: he doesn‟t mix with the rabble in here) KH: Tohle uţ jsme u nás doma prakticky sbalili. X JM: Víceméně jsme to uţ pověsili na hřebík. (ST: We‟ve more or less packed it in, that side of things.) KH: jako dědictví po jakémsi vtipálkovi z čety transportérů, z jehoţ hlavy čepice nechtěně sklouzla pod pásy a kola celého praporu. X JM: kde při posledním vojenském cvičení spadl tento předmět nějakému vyjevenému lemounovi z tankového podvozku pod kola a pásy celého pluku útočné vozby. (ST: the legacy of some skylarking lout in the carrier platoon, from whose head it had fallen under the tracks and wheels of an entire battalion.)
TRANSLATION OF IDIOMS KH: Teď se ale snaţím vzít to i s chlupama. Jinak jsou ty „chlupy‟, jak tomu říkám, pořád stejně drsné, jako kdyţ jsme se o tom bavili v taxíku. X JM: jenţe já se teď snaţím přijímat věci, jak jsou, dobré i špatné. To, co je špatné, se od našeho rozhovoru cestou z plesu nezměnilo. (ST: What I‟m trying to do now is take the rough with the smooth. The rough parts are still as rough as they were when we talked about it in the taxi.) KH: ne, bohuţel v tomto ohledu nebude moc co ohledávat X JM: ne, bojím se, ţe to žádné zvláštní sousto nebude (ST: Oh no, I‟m afraid there won‟t be much meat in it from that point of view.) KH: musí tu kachnu okamžitě rozpracovat, neţ ji Bertrand stihne rozmetat X JM: v okamţitém objasnění pravého stavu věcí, a to dříve, neţ na to přijde Bertrand sám. (ST: dismantling the hoax at once, before Bertrand could get round to blowing it up himself.)
95
KH: Jen mě dost udivuje, ţe sis k tomu vybrala zrovna tohohle divnýho patrona...X JM: Jen se mi zdá, ţe jste si vybrala na můj vkus… trochu zvláštní číslo. (ST: It‟s just that he seems such a queer fish for you to have… gone for in that way.) KH: Kdybych se o něco pokusil, nejspíš by mi vlepila facku. X JM: Kdybych se o něco pokusil, poslala by mě s ostudou tam, kam patřím. (ST: I‟d only get sent off with a flea in my ear.) KH: Vím, ţe lidi ve vašem postavení si rádi myslí, ţe editor si hravě poradí se vším, ale věřte mi, to je velký omyl. X JM: Samozřejmě ţe lidé jako vy si myslí, takový redaktor, ten si žije. Ale věřte mi, není no ţádný med, pane Dickersone. (ST: I know chaps in your position think an editor‟s job‟s all beer and skittles; it‟s very far from being that, believe me.) KH: ţe další den nebudete zrovna jako rybička X JM: ţe vám je ráno špatně (ST: you must expect to feel a bit off colour the next day) KH: neschopnosti hasit požáry X JM: podařilo přilít ohně do oleje (ST: to pour water on troubled oil) KH: dokud si Margareta neumínila, ţe ona s Juliem rozhodně souzní líp neţ já X JM: dokud si ta milá, drahá Margaretka nezačala myslet, ţe by mu dovedla zobat z ruky rozkošněji neţ já (ST: We started to, anyway, until dear Margaret decided she could make sweeter music with old Julius than I could.)
TRANSLATION OF THE VERB “SAY” KH: „Jenţe udělali hloupoučkou chybu,“ pokračoval profesor historie X JM: „Ale udělali hloupou chybu,“ řekl profesor dějepisu (ST: „They made a silly mistake, though,‟ the Professor of History said) KH: Ten si to v podstatě pochvaloval stejně. X JM: Ten řekl něco podobného. (ST: He said very much the same thing.) KH: „Aha,“ poznamenal Welch a poprvé na mladíka pohlédl. „Dneska odpoledne, říkáte?“ X JM: „Aha,“ řekl Welch a po prvé pohlédl na Dixona: „Aha. Řekli jsme dnes odpoledne?“ (ST: „Oh,‟ Welch said, and looked at Dixon for the first time. „Oh. Did we say this afternoon?‟)
TRANSLATION OF NAMES KH: Nesmíš se nechat takhle deptat. Řekl bych, ţe Welch ani nevnímá, co mu ten Bertram, nebo jak se jmenuje, navykládá X JM: Nesmíte věšet hlavu. Mně se nezdá, ţe by dal Welch na to, co mu jeho Bertrand nebo jak se jmenuje řekne. (ST: You mustn‟t be so gloomy. I don‟t think Welch would take any notice of what Bertram or whatever his bloody name is says to him.) KH: Sakriš, to je teda váţná věc. Neddy zřejmě konečně přichází o poslední zbytky rozumu. X JM: Proboha, je to docela váţné; Neddy konečně přichází o rozum. (ST: My God, this is really serious; Neddy must be going off his head at last.)
TRANSLATION OF DIXON‟S FACIAL EXPRESSIONS KH: Pronesla to tónem, který ho přiměl, aby se k ní u příborníku otočil zády a zašklebil se jako čínský mandarín s ohnutými rameny. X JM: Řekla to takovým způsobem, ţe se k ní obrátil zády, a stoje u příborníku, udělal obličej čínského mandarína. (ST: She said this in a tone that made him turn his back for a moment at the sideboard and make his Chinese mandarin‟s face, hunching his shoulders a little.) KH: V komoře odstrčil terč na lukostřelbu, přičemţ ho sjel výrazem šíleného venkovana X JM: V komoře odstrčil lukostřelecký terč, udělal na něj obličej vesnického idiota (ST: In the junk-room he nudged aside an archery target, making his crazy-peasant face at it) KH: a připojil eskymáckou grimasu, která obnášela – krom rozšíření a zkrácení obličeje asi tak o polovinu – i zrušení krku tím, ţe ho dočasně vtáhl mezi ramena. X JM: Dixon udělal eskymácký obličej, kterého dociloval jednak zkrácením a rozšířením tváře přibliţně o
96
polovinu, jednak úplným vyřazením krku tím, ţe zatáhl hlavu mezi ramena. (ST: and made his Eskimo face, which entailed, as well as an attempt to shorten and broaden his face by about half, the feat of abolishing his neck by sucking it down between his shoulders.)
SPEECH STYLISATION – ACCENTS AND REGISTERS KH: „Hele, Dixone, tohle si zapiš za uši: mám plný zuby těch tvejch srandiček. Christina je moje holka a mou holkou zůstane, jasný?“ X JM: „Koukněte, Dixone, dejte si pozor, co vám řeknu. Mám těch vašich zábaviček právě dost. Christina je moje děvče a bude dál moje děvče, žánop!“ (ST: „Now just you get this straight in your head, Dixon. I‟ve had enough of your merry little quips. Christine is my girl and she stays my girl, got mam?‟) KH: „A o to hlavně jde v mexickém umění, Christino,“ pronášel právě Bertrand. „Primitivní technika sama o sobě ţádnou hodnotu nemá, to dá rozum.“ X JM: „V tom je základní podstata mexického umění, Christino,“ tvrdil Bertrand. „Primitivní technika není sama o sobě nic vzácného, žánop.“ (ST: „That‟s the real point about Mexican art, Christine,‟ Bertrand was saying. „Primitive technique can‟t have any virtue in itself, obviouslam.‟)
FOREIGN AND SPECIALISED TERMS KH: způsobený nedávnou záměnou X JM: nad nedávným imbrogliem (ST: over the recent Loosmore-Gallaghan imbroglio.) KH: projevy bolesti X JM: allotropy bolesti (ST: all the allotropes of pain) KH: jako její “milenec” by se ocitl v situaci kovboje na prvním a nezadrţitelně tragickém scestí X JM: jako „milenec“ by z něho byl cowboy, tváří v tvář svému prvnímu a pověstně nebezpečnému býkovi (ST: as her „lover‟ he‟d be a cowboy facing his first, and notoriously formidable, steer.) KH: mohutnému čtyřstěnu s rozšířenými póry X JM: velikému houbovitému tetraedru (ST: a large, openpored tetrahedron) KH: prohlásila s mírným koknejským přízvukem X JM: pravila s ne patrným předměstským přízvukem (ST: she said with a faint cockney intonation about her voice)
PRAGMATIC ASPECTS – FORMS OF ADDRESS KH: Ano, miláčku, ano, a pak jsem se zase začala ukrutně litovat, jako obvykle. X JM: Ano, Jamesi, měla a strašně jsem se litovala. Jako obyčejně. (ST: Yes darling I did, and it‟s made me terribly sorry for myself) KH: takţe bys měl našpicovat uši X JM: tak koukejte poslouchat, aby vám nic neušlo (ST: and you‟d better listen) KH: Boha do toho nepleť X JM: Neříkejte proboha (ST: Don‟t say “Oh God”)
AGEING OF TRANSLATION KH: zavázal si šňůrku u pyţama X JM: zavazuje si tkanici od pyţama (ST: tying his pyjamacord) KH: do kina X JM: do biografu (ST: cinema) KH: skoro vůbec X JM: skorem nikdy (ST: I hardly ever go there.) KH: pocítil rozpaky X JM: trapné hryzení (ST: A routine qualm) KH: Nic menšího neţ epileptický záchvat ho z téhle šlamastyky nedostane X JM: Mohl ho zachránit leda záchvat padoucnice (ST: Nothing short of an epileptic fit could get him out of this.) KH: na stropě nad hlavou se mu ozývaly kročeje X JM: Po podlaze nad hlavou mu chodily kroky (ST: Footsteps walked the floor above his head)
97
TRANSLATION ERRORS KH: čtyřiačtyřicetiminutovou přednášku X JM: pětačtyřicet minut o čem mluvit (ST: fortyfour minutes worth of lecture) KH: patnácticentimetrovou mezeru X JM: deseticentimetrovou mezeru (ST: the six-inch corridor) KH: popošli do drogerie X JM: zašli do lékárny (ST: they‟d gone to a chemist‟s) KH: ţe s naším přítelem malířem spím X JM: ţe jsem se s naším přítelem malířem vyspala (ST: I suppose you‟ve guessed I‟ve been sleeping with our friend the painter, haven‟t you?) KH: Dokážu se z toho ještě vůbec vyvléknout, aţ mě chytí? X JM: A co kdyţ mne chytí? Uklouznu? (ST: Will I be able to get away again if he catches me?) KH: vešel do pracovny, o niţ se dělil X JM: Vešel do pokoje, o který se dělil (ST: He went into the room he shared)
TRANSLATION BY OMISSION KH: To je fakt kámoš. X JM: Kristepane, to je chování! Tomu se říká přátelská laskavost. (ST: My God, that‟s good, isn‟t it? Nice friendly spirit.) KH: hudebníci zřejmě doladili, noty mají připravené, smyčec ošetřený kalafunou a jen se tak poflakují, kouří a baví se X JM: kteří zřejmě skončili ladění, otevřeli noty a nyní stáli, pokuřovali a hovořili (ST: tuning evidently completed, music set up and bow resined, were hanging about smoking and chatting.) KH: starouš Julius a já se na leccos díváme stejně X JM: jsme se s Juliem docela dobře shodli (ST: old Julius and I have got a lot in common.) KH: k odpočívadlu se blíţily čísi kroky X JM: Bylo slyšet kroky stoupající po schodech. (ST: Feet were mounting the stairs to the landing.) KH: před křiţovatkou zpomalil tak, že jim stačili i pěší X JM: zpomalil, dojíţděje ke křiţovatce (ST: slowed to a walking pace at a road junction.) KH: měla snědou, byť zároveň zarůţovělou tvář X JM: Měla zvláštní obličej, jako rusalka, ale zdravý, zarůţovělý (ST: She had the kind of water-gipsy face, dusky but rosy)
ADDING EXPRESSIVITY KH: omrknout to X JM: podívat se (ST: „Have a look at it?‟) KH: uchechtl X JM: krátce zasmál (ST: laughed briefly) KH: slíbil jste, ţe rozdáte kopie toho plánu adeptům magisterského studia X JM: slíbil jste, ţe ho naklepnete a rozdáte nejvyšším ročníkům (ST: You said you were going to distribute copies to the Honours people) KH: s tou bandou kumštýřů X JM: s umělci (ST: with the artists) KH: Řeknu ti, to mělo grády X JM: Na mou duši, ohromě působivé (ST: Very powerful, I thought.) KH: lelkoval X JM: chodil sem a tam (ST: Here he wandered about for a few minutes) KH: ty a to děvče jste z toho měli pořádnou bžundu X JM: ţe jste se oba dobře bavili. (ST: finding it all pretty funny, though.) KH: „Novináři jsou klasa, já vím.“ X JM: „Chovám velké sympatie k tisku. Nesmírně důleţitá sloţka.“ (ST: „Very fine body of men, the gentlemen of the Press.‟) KH: Křepčení při quickstepu mi jde X JM: Tohle bych tančit uměl. (ST: I can do quick-steps.) KH: „Jak jsem Bertrandovi nabulíkoval, ţe jsem reportér.“ X JM: „Nepamatujete se? Kdyţ jste mne Bertrandovi vylíčila jako novináře.“ (ST: „You know, me pretending to Bertrand that I was a reporter.‟) KH: nebo chce pustit k vodě jednu, aby si narazil druhou X JM: nebo se pokouší zbavit se jedné ve prospěch druhé? (ST: trying to discard one in favour of the other?) KH: To mě taky zdrblo X JM: a to člověka dožere znova (ST: That got me down again.)
98
KH: přišel na způsob, jak si natlouct čumák ještě hůř neţ obvykle, a to veřejně X JM: znemožnil sám sebe více neţ obvykle, a na veřejnosti k tomu. (ST: he‟d thought of a way of hurting himself more severely than usual, and in public.) KH: přišlo jako slušná sviňárna X JM: ţe zašel trochu daleko (ST: it had been a bit thick) KH: „Tys ho sejmul?“ X JM: „Srazil jste ho na zem?“ (ST: „Did you knock him over?‟) KH: Byl nejvyšší čas zvednout kotvy X JM: Nastal čas vydat se na cestu. (ST: It was time to move.) KH: Zachovala jsem se jako kačena X JM: Chovala jsem se jako hloupá holka. (ST: I acted like a perfect fool.) KH: jsem byla dost zdrchaná a dneska večer to prostě byla poslední kapka X JM: jsem byla stejně otrávená, ale dnešní večer mi dodal. (ST: I‟ve been feeling very depressed recently, and it all seemed to get too much for me to-night.) KH: právě takovéhle věci ho ještě drží nad vodou X JM: záţitky toho druhu v něm živí neutuchající plamen optimismu (ST: it was things like this that kept him going.) KH: Podle mě tady mluvíme o koze a o voze. X JM: Mám dojem, ţe si stále nějak nerozumíme. (ST: I think we‟re talking rather at cross-purposes, aren‟t we?) KH: „To je pěkná sviňárna, co?“ X JM: „To je ale drzost,“ (ST: „That‟s pretty rich, isn‟t it?‟) KH: mohl přivést svou novou buchtu X JM: mohl přivést toho nového zajíce (ST: can bring his new piece) KH: Michie z něj uměl, nebo to Dixonovi alespoň tak připadalo, opakovaně dělat blbce, a to bez varování. X JM: Michie měl pozoruhodnou schopnost znovu a znovu ho zesměšňovat, a to bez nejmenšího varování (ST: Michie was, or seemed, able to make a fool of him again and again without warning.)
ADDING INFORMATION (EXPLICITATION) KH: své dvojznačné role utěšovatele X JM: své dvojí úlohy prostředníka (ST: his dual role of conciliator) KH: „Pokud se na to díváte takhle, tak uţ vás vyslýchat nebudu.“ X JM: „V tom případě se nedá nic dělat.“ (ST: „If that‟s your attitude, then there‟s nothing more to be said.‟) KH: „Zdravím, Dixone“ X JM: „Zlomte vaz, Dixone,“ (ST: „Hallo, Dixon,‟) KH: naprosto nečekaný dárek X JM: zcela nesobecký dárek (ST: a completely unprovoked gift) KH: „Chce se mi hrozně spát. Je mi mizerně. Nejradši bych se neviděla.“ X JM: „Jde na mne strašlivé spaní. To je hrozné, protože spát nechci.“ (ST: „I feel awfully sleepy. It is wretched; I don‟t want to be.‟) KH: jako by tím zdůrazňovala svou osobitost X JM: chtěla působit dojmem levné originality (ST: as if making an easy claim to individuality) KH: Zřejmě je ta blonďatá prsatá slečna Callaghanová uţ passé, a koneckonců neprodělá. X JM: Pravděpodobně se tedy plavovlasá, plnoštíhlá Callaghanová octla ke své cti mimo okruh Bertrandovy působnosti. (ST: Presumably Bertrand‟s blonde and busty Callaghan piece had now, to her credit, been discarded.) KH: Christina nesplnila tak docela jeho očekávání, nebo aspoň ne dost pohotově X JM: Christina mu asi dost rychle neřekla jo nebo co. (ST: I think perhaps Christine wasn‟t coming up to scratch or not quickly enough, possibly.) KH: Záleţí na tom, jak hluboko sahá ta její upjatost. X JM: Záleţí na tom, jak hluboko v ní vězí ta její ctnost, na kterou je tak hrdá. (ST: It depends how deep that prim, prissy look of hers goes.) KH: a tak se na ní projevila ta špetka krásy, kterou byla obdařena X JM: uplatňovala minimum své vzhlednosti, jak nejlépe dovedla (ST: her sort of minimal prettiness was in evidence) KH: který si Welch nedávno pořídil a který nyní visí v hale X JM: který byl nedávnou Welchovou akvisicí a předmětem jeho nekonečných rozhovorů a nyní visel v hale. (ST: a picture Welch had recently bought and talked about and which now hung in the hall.) KH: tichounké ševelení X JM: tiché vytrvalé šumění, jako když se přiloží k uchu škeble (ST: faint sea-shell whispering.)
99
Bibliography Primary sources: Amis, K. (1962). Lucky Jim (3rd ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Amis, K. (1970). Šťastný Jim (2nd ed.). (Jiří Mucha, Trans.). Prague: Odeon. (Original work published 1954). Amis, K. (2011). Šťastný Jim. (K. Hilská, Trans.). Prague: Plus. (Original work published 1954). Secondary sources: Aixelá, J. F. (1996). Culture-specific items in translation. In R. Álvarez & M. C.-Á. Vidal (Eds.), Translation, power, subversion (pp. 52-78). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Baker, M. & Saldanha, G. (Eds.). (2009). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge. Baker, M. (2011). In other words: A coursebook on translation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Baldick, Ch. (2008). The Oxford dictionary of literary terms (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bentley, N. (2007). Radical fictions: The British novel in the 1950s. Bern: Peter Lang. Blum-Kulka, S. (1986). Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In J. House & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds.), Interlingual and intercultural communication: Discourse and cognition translation and second language acquisition studies (pp. 17-36). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. Chiaro, D. (2010). Translation and humour, humour and translation. In D. Chiaro (Ed.),
100
Translation, humour and literature (pp. 1-32). London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Crowther, J. (Ed.). (2001). Oxford Guide to British and American culture (3rd ed). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Edemariam, A. (2007). Who‟s afraid of the campus novel?. In M. Moseley (Ed.), The academic novel: New and classic essay (pp. 154-166). Chester: Chester Academic Press. Fenton, J. (2009). Kingsley Amis: Against fakery. In Z. Leader (Ed.), The movement reconsidered: Essays on Larkin, Amis, Gunn and their contemporaries (pp. 106122). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fernando, Ch. (1996). Idioms and idiomaticity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gambier, Y. (2010). Translation strategies and tactics. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 412-418). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Gutt, E.-A. (2000). Translation as interlingual interpretative use. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 376-396). London: Routledge. Hansen, G. (2010). Translation „errors‟. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 385-388). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Henitiuk, V. (1999). Translating woman: Reading the female through the male. Meta: Translators’ Journal, 44 (3), 469-484. Hermans, T. (1985). Translation studies and a new paradigm. In T. Hermans (Ed.), The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation (pp. 7-15). Worcester: Billing & Sons Limited. Hermans, T. (1999). Translation in systems: Descriptive and systemic approaches
101
explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Hrala, M. (2004). Zastarávání překladů jako obecný problém. In M. Hrdlička & E. Gromová (Eds.), Antologie teorie uměleckého překladu: Výběr z prací českých a slovenských autorů (pp. 81-91). Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, Filozofická fakulta. Keulks, G. (2011). Amis, Kingsley. In B. Shaffer (Ed.), The encyclopedia of twentiethcentury fiction (Vol. 1, pp. 10-13). Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Knittlová, D. (2000). On the degree of translators‟ creativity. In J. Flajšar (Ed.), Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis, Facultas Philosophica, Philologica Anglica, 73-2000 (pp. 9-12). Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. Knittlová, D. (2010). Překlad a překládání. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci. Koskinen, K. & Paloposki, O. (2010). Retranslation. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 294-298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Koskinen, K. (2012). Domestication, foreignization and the modulation of affect. In H. Kemppanen, M. Jänis & A. Belikova (Eds), Domestication and foreignization in translation studies (pp. 13-32). Berlin: Frank & Timme GmbH. Landers, C. E. (2001). Literary translation: A practical guide. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Levý, J. (1983). Umění překladu (2nd ed.). Prague: Panorama. Lockwood, G. (1979). The role of the registrar in today‟s university. The International Journal of Higher Education Research, 8 (3), 299-320. Martín, R. M. (2000). Translation strategies: Somewhere over the rainbow. In A. Beeby,
102
D. Ensinger & M. Presas (Eds.), Investigating translation (pp. 129-140). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Morrison, B. (1986). The movement: English poetry and fiction of the 1950s. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation. London: Prentice-Hall. Newmark, P. (1991). About translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Newmark, P. (1993). Paragraphs on translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Nida, E. (1964). Toward a science of translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Nida, E. (1999). The role of contexts in translating. In G. Anderman & M. Rogers (Eds), Word, text, translation: Liber amicorum for Peter Newmark (pp. 79-83). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing. Pym, A. (2005). Explaining explicitation. In K. Károly & Á. Foris (Eds.), New trends in translation studies. In honour of Kinga Klaudy (pp. 29-34). Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó. Sin-wai, Ch. (2004). A dictionary of translation technology. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press. Steen, G. J. (2007). Finding metaphor in grammar and usage. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Vandaele, J. (2010). Humor in translation. In Y. Gambier & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.),
103
Handbook of translation studies (Vol. 1, pp. 147-152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Vinay, J-P. & Darbelnet, J. (1995). Comparative stylistics of French and English: A methodology for translation. Amesterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Electronic sources: Dictionaries, encyclopedias and databases: A kick in the teeth. (n.d.). In The Free Dictionary. Retrieved from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/a+kick+in+the+teeth BBC Light Programme (n.d.). In TheMediaBriefing. Retrieved from http://www.themediabriefing.com/companies/bbc-light-programme Bloody but unbowed. (n.d.). In The Free Dictionary. Retrieved from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/bloody+but+unbowed Cyclostyle. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/cyclostyle Dispens (n.d.). In Český národní korpus. Available from http://ucnk.ff.cuni.cz/verejny.php GCE. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/GCE Itchbag. (n.d.). In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=itchbag Jiří Mucha (2012). In Databáze českého uměleckého překladu. Retrieved from http://www.databaze-prekladu.cz/prekladatel/Ji%C5%99%C3%AD%20Mucha Kateřina Hilská (2012). In Databáze českého uměleckého překladu. Retrieved
104
from http://www.databazeprekladu.cz/prekladatel/Kate%C5%99ina%20Hilsk%C3%A1 Kingsley Amis. (2013). In The Famous People Website. Retrieved from http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/kingsley-amis-5.php Lascar. (n.d.). In The Free Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lascar Mohock. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mohock Posupně (n.d.). In Český národní korpus. Available from http://ucnk.ff.cuni.cz/verejny.php Principal. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principal Rector. (n.d). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rector Registrar. (n.d.). In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/registrar Schoolmarm. (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster. Retrieved from http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/schoolmarm Sir Kingsley Amis. (2013). In Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/20807/Sir-Kingsley-Amis Sod. (n.d.). In Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Retrieved from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sod_1?q=sod Šťastná Anna (2012). In Databáze českého uměleckého překladu. Retrieved from http://www.databazeprekladu.cz/preklad/%C5%A0%C5%A5astn%C3%A1_Anna
105
Šťastný Jim (2012). In Databáze českého uměleckého překladu. Retrieved from http://www.databazeprekladu.cz/preklad/vyhledat?nazev=%C5%A1%C5%A5astn%C3%BD+jim Tail-chaser. (n.d.) In Urban Dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tail%20chaser You can bet your life bottom dollar. (n.d.). In The Free Dictionary. Retrieved from http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/you+can+bet+your+your+bottom+dollar
Other electronic sources: Chlubný, J. (2004, August 29). Sparta. Antika. Retrieved from http://antika.avonet.cz/article.php?ID=1317 Clayton, T. (2013, January 1). Thirty pence („Two and six‟ or half crown). Coins of the UK. Retrieved from http://www.coins-of-the-uk.co.uk/halfc.html Epstein, B. J. (2006, August 19). Translating dialects. Brave New Words [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://brave-new-words.blogspot.cz/2006/08/translating-dialects.html Gessen, K. (n.d.). Lucky Jim. New York Review Books. Retrieved from http://www.nybooks.com/books/imprints/classics/lucky-jim/ Gessen, K. (2012, October 3). Amis and Larkin: Hate in a cold climate. NewStatesman. Retrieved from http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2012/10/hatecold-climate Lofgren, L. (1998). The Wreck of Old 97. Remembering the the Old Songs. Retrieved from http://www.lizlyle.lofgrens.org/RmOlSngs/RTOS-Old97.html Metcalf, J. (2012, October 18). Have you read: Lucky Jim. The Yorker. Retrieved from
106
http://www.theyorker.co.uk/arts/art-and-literature/literature/12182-have-youread-lucky-jim Mullan, J. (2003, May 10). Four little letters. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/may/10/kingsleyamis Nezbeda, O. (2012, October 14). Svůdný agent Jiří Mucha. Respekt.cz. Retrieved from http://respekt.ihned.cz/c1-57896190-svudny-agent-jiri-mucha Rosenthal, T. (1999, November 26). Blooming of a square set. The Times Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/157409.article Sarvas, M. (2007, June 21). More on Lucky Jim. The Elegant Variation. Retrieved from http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2007/06/more-on-lucky-j.html Snow, P. (2006, December 15). Inside Lucky Jim. The Oxonian Review. Retrieved from http://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/inside-lucky-jim/ Whitehead, T. (n.d). Lucky Jim (1957). BFI Screenonline. Retrived from http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/465385/index.html Womack, K. (2006). Kingsley Amis: Lucky Jim (1954) [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://kennethwomack.wordpress.com/essays-reviews/kingsley-amislucky-jim-1954/
107
English Resume The thesis compares and contrasts two translation versions of Lucky Jim by Kingsley Amis. The first version was made by Jiří Mucha in 1959 and the second one by Kateřina Hilská in 2011. The starting point of the thesis was based on two hypotheses – the Berman‟s Retranslation hypothesis and the Knittlová‟s “creativity hypothesis”. According to these hypotheses, Mucha‟s translation should be more domesticating, less creative and also rather outdated. Hilská‟s version, on the other hand, should be more foreignizing, creative and explicit. After the thorough analysis and comparison of specific translation solutions from both target texts, the initial hypotheses proved to be only partially correct. Although features of both approaches can be found in both translation versions, Mucha‟s translation is generally more domesticating and Hilská‟s more foreignizing. However, the assumption concerning the “outdatedness” of Mucha‟s version showed to be incorrect as there are only a few lexical and syntactic features which can be considered outdated. Moreover, the Knittlová‟s “creativity hypothesis” does not correspond to the results of the analysis which showed that Mucha‟s translation is not less creative than Hilská‟s version. The outcome of the thesis is the finding that both translation versions are of such a high quality that they can co-exist side-by-side and will find their prospective audience.
108
Czech Resume Práce se zabývá srovnáním dvou překladových verzí Šťastného Jima od Kingsleyho Amise. První překladová verze, jejímţ autorem je Jiří Mucha, vyšla v roce 1959, druhá verze Kateřiny Hilské byla vydána v roce 2011. Východiskem práce byly dvě hypotézy – Bermanova retranslační hypotéza a „kreativní hypotéza“ Knittlové. Podle těchto hypotéz by Muchova verze měla být spíše domestikační, méně kreativní a jiţ značně zastaralá. Překlad Hilské by naopak měl být spíše foreignizační, kreativní a explicitní. Hypotézy se po důkladné analýze a porovnání konkrétních příkladů překladatelských řešení z obou cílových textů ukázaly pouze jako částečně správné. V obou překladech sice můţeme nalézt prvky obou přístupů – u Muchy ale spíše převaţuje domestikace a u Hilské foreignizace. Naopak předpoklad, ţe Muchův překlad bude jiţ značně zastaralý, se ukázal jako nepravdivý, neboť se v něm vyskytuje pouze několik lexikálních a syntaktických prvků, které by mohly být povaţovány za zastaralé. A dále také „kreativní hypotéza“ Knittlové nekoresponduje s výsledky analýzy, jeţ ukázaly, ţe Muchova verze není méně kreativní neţ překlad Hilské. Výsledkem práce je tedy zjištění, ţe obě překladové verze jsou natolik kvalitní, ţe mohou existovat vedle sebe a kaţdá z nich si najde okruh svých čtenářů.
109
