1

1. Introduction

1.1. Introducing the topic

In this thesis, I examine translation strategies applied to culture specific items

(CSs), concentrating on expressions specific for a culture other than English and inserted foreign words (FWs), or elements of languages other than English, in novels written by

English writing authors of Indian origin. To be able to outline some general rules about how these distinct kinds of items in this specific kind of texts is handled by translators, I investigate three Czech translations, made by different translators, of books written in

English by Indian authors. The main objective of the thesis is to outline which are the factors that influence translators‟ choice of strategies and the reasons for this.

There were several factors which influenced my choice of this topic. While much has been written about translating CSs from the language of their origin into the target language, it is not so for CSs coming from a different culture or for elements of other foreign languages used in the source text. Now, when English is the code of communication for people of very different cultural backgrounds and the languages influence each other faster than ever, a multi-lingual environment has been created; I find it interesting to investigate how translators cope with this linguistic situation. I decided to concentrate on Indian CSs and FWs since English is commonly used by writers from the subcontinent and since the Indian culture is distant and rather exotic for

Czech readers and thus the Indian CSs and FWs require more attentions than for example those coming from a culture considerably close and generally well-known to the readers. 2

1.2. Terms specific to a different culture than English in English texts

Translating from one language into another breeds the problem of translating

CSs from a culture where they are commonly understood into another culture where the concepts might be not known and thus there is no word available to refer to it, e.g.

Baker‟s example of Speaker at the House of Commons (Baker 21). However, the situation of CSs that I examine in my thesis differs in that the terms are not specific for the Anglophone culture, i.e. British or American, and thus not well-known to the British or American readership, but for Indian culture. Besides, the chosen texts reflect the influence of other languages as the characters of the books are not native speakers of

English and the settings of the books are also outside the English-speaking world. In this respect, even for the British or American readers of the English original, these elements are striking as foreign, implying a foreign setting and giving the local color of a distant place to the text, which also needs to be reflected in the translations. Translators have at their disposal several strategies which they can apply to them; but before discussing the different translation procedures, I specify which the items in question are.

1.3. Cultural Categories

Newmark (95) divided CSs into the following categories (examples are from the selected texts):

1) Ecology – flora, fauna, winds, plains, hills

2) Material culture (artifacts) a) Food (samosas, chapati, roti, tikka masala, momos, paratha) b) Clothes (sari, mundu, dhoti) 3 c) Houses and towns (haveli, gompa) d) Transport (rikshaw, tonga)

3) Social culture – work and leisure (ayah, paan)

4) Organisations, customs, activities, procedures, concepts a) Political and administrative (ICS, Muslim League, rani) b) Religious (bhajan, puja) c) Artistic (thangkhas)

5) Gestures and habits (namaste, namaskar)

Since the listed categories have direct relation to the setting of the book or the lifestyle of the characters, and as the selected books are set in India and most of their characters are Indian, these terms are specific of the Indian culture, even though the code of narration is English. The words belonging to these categories are referred to as CSs in this thesis, and if not explicitly stated as different (e.g. American Chinese in Desai‟s novel), their home-culture is Indian. Beside these, there are also phrases, expressions or whole sentences in different languages inserted into the English texts with no or little relation to the culture; to these, I decided to refer as FWs in order to distinguish them from the culture-specific terms, as they have proved to have different functions in the texts and are usually handled differently by translators. This distinction is explained in more detail in the characteristics of different strategies (see 2.2., points 4) and 5)). 4

2. Translation strategies in question

To sort the CSs and FWs according to the translation strategies applied to them,

I first need to outline a suitable list of applicable strategies. There are also several possible categorizations of the strategies, thus I first comment on my choice of approaches to the categorization and my reasons for choosing these as opposed to other possible approaches; then, I briefly name the categories (Newmark‟s and Baker‟s) on which I based the final division; finally, I characterize each category from this final list in more detail and provide examples from the chosen texts with the focus on border cases.

2.1. Translating Culture

The final list of 9 translation strategies which are applied to CSs and FWs in the selected texts most often is based mainly on Newmark‟s division of translation procedures (Newmark 103) and Baker‟s examples of strategies used by professional translators (Baker 26). The reason why I did not adopt either of them fully is that they both deal with translation strategies (TSs) in general, whereas I only investigate the CSs and FWs; or more precisely, only terms specific for a culture different from English and elements of languages different from English. Having narrowed my focus in this way, I also had to adjust the list of strategies according to this. For this reason, some strategies mentioned in Newmark‟s and Baker‟s lists could not be applied at all, e.g. those commenting on non-equivalence or grammar structures or Baker‟s translation by illustration; some are mentioned in both lists with only a slight difference in naming – these I simply adapted and named as it best suited my purposes, e.g. Baker‟s d) and 5

Newmark‟s 1) refer to a very similar procedure, which I adopted as using a loan word with a further subdivision based on the nature of the explanation given, as this was also relevant for my work; and some procedures which I added to my list are not mentioned in either Newmark‟s or Baker‟s categorization, but were applied by the translators of selected texts: the nature of the texts where parts in other languages, e.g. Hindi,

Malayalam, Nepali, are inserted leads to adding strategies like retaining the original

(Hindi/Malayalam/Nepali...) phrase.

I also decided to base my own division mainly on Newmark‟s and Baker‟s lists because I needed categories which make it possible to focus on specific parts of the texts rather than whole text units and could be more easily applied only to chosen phenomenon (Indian CSs and FWs) than for example Chesterman‟s (1997) or Hatim &

Mason‟s (1997) classifications of strategies. For the same reason, it would not be possible to base such an analysis on Tymoczko‟s holistic approach to translation,

where instead of focusing primarily on the surface aspects of culture in a text,

particularly the material aspects or customs of a culture as the occur in a

localized and linear fashion, a translator begins by considering (however

briefly) the entire scope of cultural underpinning that come into play in the

specific source text being translated (Tymoczko 234).

This approach to translation of culture as such or of CSs as its manifestations is surely a useful strategy when translating a particular text, and as Tymoczko states, there is “[n]o doubt many translators do this on an intuitive level” (ibid), but for the purposes of my thesis, which is based on a quantitative comparison of translation strategies applied in different situations by different translators, and as the holistic approach is such a broad area aspects of which could hardly be expressed quantitatively, I decided to concentrate 6 exclusively on the manifestations of the culture in the texts rather than on the culture as a whole.

Baker‟s Strategies used by professional translators (Baker 26 – 42) are: a) Translation by a more general word (superordinate) b) Translation by a more neutral/less expressive word c) Translation by cultural substitution d) Translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation e) Translation by paraphrase using a related word f) Translation by paraphrase using unrelated words g) Translation by omission h) Translation by illustration

Newmark‟s Translation Procedures (Newmark 103) are:

1) Transference 7) Componential Analysis

2) Cultural Equivalent 8) Deletion

3) Neutralization (Functional/ 9) Couplet

Descriptive Equivalent) 10) Accepted standard translation

4) Literal translation 11) Paraphrase, gloss, notes, etc.

5) Label 12) Classifier

6) Naturalization

Other strategies mentioned in the chapter are: Synonymy, Through-Translation/Calque,

Shift or transposition, Modulation, Compensation, Reduction and Expansion,

Equivalence and Adaptation. 7

2.2. Possible strategies to translate CSs and FWs

1. Using a loan word (without any additional information)

2. Neutralization (functional or descriptive equivalent)

3. Omission

4. Retaining the original (phrases, sentences...)

5. Using a loan word + gloss

6. Using a loan word + explanation in the text

7. Retaining the original + translation in the glossary

8. Using a loan word + in-text explanation + gloss

9. Transference of brand or proper names with additional information

The first four points are the most commonly used strategies; the next four points are the most frequent couplets/triplets, i.e. combinations of procedures applied at the same time; and the last point refers to a strategy often used to make a brand and proper names, a distinct kind of CSs, more understandable to Czech readers. Points 5) to

9) actually all refer to different kinds of explicitation, “the technique of making explicit in the target text information that is implicit in the source text” (Routledge 80). On the importance of this phenomenon in this particular type of translation, I comment later (see

3.4.). The individual categories are defined as follows:

1. Using a loan word (without any additional information)

“In regional novels and essays [...], cultural words are often transferred to give local color, to attract the reader, to give a sense of intimacy between the text and the 8 reader...” (Newmark 82) This procedure is applied when for example a concept is unknown in the target language (TL) culture and thus the TL imports with the introduction of the concept the name from the source language (SL). When they are already commonly understood by the TL users, the loan words can appear in texts without any explanations or glosses or sometimes it is simply clear from the context what does the loan word refer to. Typical examples of this procedure are: sárí, rikša, mahárádža, karí, sáhib, etc.

2. Neutralization (functional or descriptive equivalent)

“Functional equivalent...applied to cultural words, requires the use of a culture- free word, sometimes with a new specific term, it therefore neutralizes or generalizes the

SL word...” (Newmark 83) In the Czech translations, general culture-free words are sometimes used where there were CSs in the original, for example: “...soft white muslin dhoti” (God 103) – “...měkkou bílou mušelínovou bederní roušku” (Bůh 108); or even for FWs (although this is much less common – it only appears in Pešinová‟s translation):

“There was... even a murga-murgi in a cage under the cart. They were a foreign breed and that hen laid more eggs than any other murgi I have known” (Inheritance 60). –

“Měli jsme s sebou... dokonce, v kleci pod vozem, i kohouta a slepici. Byla to cizí odrůda, nikdy v životě jsem neviděl žádnou slepici , která by tolik nesla” (Dědictví 69).

3. Omission

“If the meaning conveyed by a particular item or expression is not vital enough to the development of the text to justify distracting the reader with lengthy explanations, translators can and often do simply omit translating the word or expression in question”

(Baker 40). For example in this description of a situation: “...the music would have been 9

Baby Elephant Walk from Hatari. Or colonel Bogey‟s March” (God 97) – “...a hudba hrála Procházku slŧněte. Nebo Pochod plukovníka Bogeyho” (Bůh 103), the name of the film from which the song comes is not mentioned in the translation: it is not very well- known to the Czech readership and as the name of the song is translated, it is hardly possible to identify it anyways. Moreover, what is more important here is to retain the atmosphere of expectation which is depicted in this scene.

4. Retaining the original (phrases, sentences...)

Since the code of the original narrative is English, but the setting is of non-

English speakers, there are many instances of local expressions infusing into English. It is easy to recognize a case of retaining the original when it is applied to a whole non-

English sentence which stands out of the English text as well as from the Czech version, but it is sometimes difficult to decide whether to classify a foreign expression in the

Czech translation as a loan word or rather a retained original phrase or expression when it is not a whole sentence.

I decided according to the following criteria: if the expression has an English equivalent which is nevertheless purposefully not used, and if the expression left in the original language is used only once in a particular situation or as a specific comment of a person, I regard it a belonging to this category, e.g. “Ay! Eda cherukka!” (God 101) –

“Aj! Edá čerukka!” (Bůh 107) This differs considerably from instances when new expressions mentioned in 1), for example words like sari, roti, chapati or riksha which have no English equivalents are established as part of the vocabulary of the book and used several times throughout the story. Thus the difference is not so much in the nature of the translational process as in the nature of the expression in the original which nonetheless has an effect on how the translator finally decides to handle the phrase. I 10 decided to treat these two categories separately since they usually differ in their functions in the text, too (see 3.3.4.2.), and this has important implications for the choice of the TS.

It is also notable that these original phrases are transcribed into English from languages using a different alphabet; and in the Czech translations, they appear transcribed directly from the original language (Hindi/Nepali/Malayalam...) into Czech following the rules of transcription into Czech, thus they differ from the English transcriptions, for example: “Inquilab Zindabad! Thozhilali Ekta Zindabad!” (God 66) –

“Inkiláb Zindábád! Tořílá Ékata Zindábád!” (Bůh 74)

5. Using a loan word + Gloss

“Translation using a loan word or loan word plus explanation...is particularly common in dealing with culture-specific items...” (Baker 34) As mentioned above

(points 1) and 4)), this strategy is used for CSs which are part of the authors vocabulary, but not very commonly known among the readership of the TL, so that it is helpful to give the readers an explanation of the expression at the end of the book. It is also a useful way of avoiding sometimes clumsy explanations within the text, especially if the expression requires a longer, comprehensive definition. Examples of such loan words could be maulví, kasaundí, samózy (Děti); báppa, mundu, món (Bůh); or huzúr, rótí or tikká masála (Dědictví).

6. Using a loan word + explanation in the text

Where possible, the additional information should be inserted within the text,

since this does not interrupt the reader‟s flow of attention... However, its

disadvantage is that it blurs the distinction between the text and the translator‟s

contribution, and it cannot be used for lengthy additions (Newmark 92). 11

As the length of such an explanation is limited, this strategy is mainly applied when explaining loan words that are less important for general understanding the text, or those which can be explained briefly and easily, for example: “Huge haveli like a palace”

(Inheritance 56) – “V haveli, velkém domě s patiem, obrovském jako palác” (Dědictví

65); or: “There was still trade for the horse-drawn tongas, but it was dwindling...”(Children 49) – “O tongy, lehké dvoukolové vozíky tažené koňmi, byl sice stále ještě zájem, ale i ten zvolna upadal” (Děti 72). “Once explained, the loan word can then be used on its own; the reader can understand it and is not distracted by further lengthy explanations.” (Baker 34)

7. Retaining the original + translation in the glossary

The only difference between 7) and 4) is in providing translation in the glossary of the phrases or sentences which are uttered in a foreign language (Malayalam/Hindi/

Nepali) in the English original, thus giving the readers of the Czech version additional information which is not available to those speaking only English (when there are no glossaries in the original English novels, which is the case of the chosen books), but is only available to those who have mastered both English and the other language in question. Examples: “Onner. Runder. Mooner.” (God 64) – “Onnu. Randu .Múnnu.”

(Bůh 72) + “malajálamská číslovka jedna, dva, tři” in the glossary; or: “Hup! Hup! Poda

Patti!” (God 90) – “Jedeš! Jedeš! Pódá patti!” (Bůh 96) + “táhni, psisko” in the glossary. The difference between points 5) and 7) reflects the difference between points 1) and 4): these are also expressions or whole sentences uttered in a foreign language, but with little relation to the

Indian culture as such, used only in a specific situation in the book; notably, almost always in direct speech (there was only one exception in the selected samples when it was not the case: on page 67 in Dědictví ztráty).

12

8. Using a loan word + in-text explanation + gloss

This is the only case of a triplet in my table, it combines three strategies: translating a CS by a loan word, providing a short explanation or specification within the text, and adding an explanatory entry in the glossary. Examples of applying this triplet are: “his lunchtime parathas” (Inheritance 51) – “se smaženými plackami parátha k obědu” (Dědictví 60) + in the glossary: “parátha – placka vyrobená z celozrnné mouky a osmažená na ghí, která se většinou plní...” (Dědictví 340); or: “Hartal! Which is to say, literally speaking, a day of mourning, of stillness, of silence” (Children 33). – “Hartál!

Den klidu! Což znamená, doslova řečeno, den smutku, nehybnosti, ticha” (Děti 48). + in the glossary: “hartál (hind.), všeobecná stávka, zastavení práce” (Děti 691). Notable is the considerably higher level of explicitation in the Czech version, as demonstrated by the use of this triplet, if compared with the original.

9. Transference of brand or proper names with additional information

Transference of brand or proper names with additional information is a possible way of dealing with brand or proper names which have a significant meaning in their language. According to Baker and Malmkjaer, this is an example of pragmatic explicitation:

Pragmatic explicitations of implicit cultural information are dictated by

differences between cultures: members of the target language cultural

community may not share aspects of what is considered general knowledge

within the source language culture and in such cases, translators often need to

include explanations in translations... a translator might for instance write „the

river Maros‟ for Maros... (Routledge 83) 13

The real names of products and proper names are generally transferred; but as opposed to

Indian readers, who are familiar with them (but probably not American and British readers of the original), readers of the translation are given additional information about the products and names in question, e.g.: “The vehicles paused and quickly the crates were unloaded – Teacher‟s, Old Monk, Gilby‟s, Gymkhana” (Inheritance 55) – “...vozy zastavily, posádka rychle vyložila bedny s lahvemi známých značek - Teacher‟s, Old

Monk, Gilby‟s, Gymkhána” (Dědictví 64); or: “...along with a chunky Ganesh”

(Inheritance 50) – “vedle zavalité sošky slonního bůžka Ganéši” (Dědictví 59).

Similarly as in the distinction between categories 4) and 5), the decisive factor for distinguishing translating by a loan word plus an explanation and transferring a brand or proper name while providing additional information was not the nature of the strategy but rather of the original word itself. Brand and proper names are granted a separate category because they are a distinct type of CSs – I comment on implications of their nature for the translation in the analysis (see 3.3.4.1.). 14

3. Analysis

3.1. Methodology

My analysis is based on the comparison of selected parts of Czech translations, by different translators, of three books written in English by Indian writers: Salman

Rushdie‟s Midnight‟s Children, Arundhati Roy‟s The God of Small Things and Kiran

Desai‟s The Inheritance of Loss. I extract all CSs or FWs from a selected sample of each book, the length of which is adjusted according to the density of CSs and FWs, so that each book provides 24 to 37 examples; classify them according to the categories introduced above (see Appendices 1 – 3); and then count how often each TS is applied, which I use to make a table of quantitative representations of each translator‟s use of each strategy (see 3.3.) which reveals what the most common strategies are and how the three translations differ. Then I examine the CSs and FWs to which the same strategy was applied, the common features of the translations and their differences, and finally conclude by outlining a list of factors which come in question when choosing appropriate TS to be applied in this type of writing.

Although the analysis is based on the division of strategies into clearly defined categories, there are inevitably several sources of possible bias of the analysis of which I am aware because the translation could also be affected by other factors than those examined. The main possible sources of bias are:

1) Density of CSs and FWs in each of the books differs: in the abstract from

Desai‟s book, the CSs and FWs are four times more frequent than in Roy‟s; and the number of examples from the text also differs. To avoid the bias caused by this 15 condition, I provided the information on how often each strategy was used in real numbers and in percentages.

2) Once established words are repeated with different frequency in each book, for example, the expression Mon appears several times on few pages, the expression Mol is included in the way a girl is almost always addressed, thus although readers are reminded of the Indian setting on almost every page, only few examples appear in the table.

3.2. Selected books

The three quite different texts were chosen for the analysis for a number of reasons. In all of them, the settings (even if different in each book) and the cultural backgrounds of the characters are crucial for the story, and the languages spoken by the characters play an important role, too. CSs and FWs appear in the books for different purposes and with different functions and also the ways they are handled by the translators bear both similarities and major differences in approaches. All three novels are considerably well-know; they were all awarded The Man Booker Prize.

The selected parts of the books differ in length because of the different density of the CSs and FWs used in them: in Rushdie‟s novel, there is one example of a CS or

FW per page on average, whereas Roy‟s novel provides half of this and Desai‟s twice as much. Thus the sample from Desai‟s book is the shortest and from Roy‟s the longest. All the samples are chosen from the first halves of the books when the vocabulary of the narrator is still being established and the settings and characters are still being characterized (nevertheless, as none of the stories is told in a strictly chronological order, 16 it does not actually tell the beginnings of the stories). Short introductions to the novels and their authors follow.

3.2.1. Salman Rushdie - Midnight’s Children

Salman Rushdie was born in Bombay in June 1947. He has lived in India,

Pakistan and Great Britain and he studied history at Cambridge. As a

novelist, essayist, travel writer and screenwriter, martyr for free speech and

purveyor of story as political statement [...] Rushdie has taken history as his

subject and fictionalized it, thus instituting a new genre. He has received

almost every award in the course of a near 30-year career... (British Council)

The novel Midnight‟s Children was awarded the title “The Booker of the Bookers”, the best of all the books which ever won The Man Booker Prize. It “narrates key events in the history of India through the story of pickle-factory worker Saleem Sinai, one of 1001 children born as India won independence from Britain in 1947” (British Council). As the independent India, Saleem was born on August 15, 1947, and as Rushdie, he was born in

Bombay. His fate is bound to the fate of his homeland; his struggles are a simile of the struggles of the new born country, in the end leaving him mutilated and sterile. There are dozens of settings and dozens of named characters appearing, disappearing and reappearing though out the whole book. Rushdie concludes his story by stating, that “it is the privilege and the curse of midnight‟s children...to be unable to live or die in peace”

(Children 463). The novel was translated into Czech by Pavel Dominik in 1995 under the title Děti pŧlnoci, the translation was published in Praha by Mladá fronta. 17

3.2.2. Arundhati Roy - The God of Small Things

Arundhati Roy was born 1961 in Shillong, India, to a Keralan mother and a

Bengali father. After her parents‟ divorce, she and her mother moved to Aymanam, a small town in Kerala. She left Kerala at the age of 16 for New Delhi, studied architecture, got married, divorced and married again; she went through a range of various jobs. Her first (and so far only) novel The God of Small Things was published in

1997.

Daring in its theme and innovative in concept and language, the novel had

many detractors in India, but won international acclaim and secured the author

the prestigious Booker Prize for the best novel by a Commonwealth author. She

was the first Indian writer to win that award (Literary Project).

Since 1997, Roy has concentrated on writing non-fiction. She is an activist, leading anti- nuclear campaigns, supporting the philosophy of non-violence, fighting for women rights and against forced displacements of people from the countryside. For her achievements, she has been awarded the Sydney Peace Prize and several similar prizes.

The God of Small Things bears several autobiographical features: it is set in

Kerala in 1960‟s and most of the story is presented through the eyes of seven-year-old siblings Estha and Rahel, “a rare breed of Siamese twins, physically separate, but with joint identities” (God 2), whose mother is divorced. The author describes the atmosphere in Kerala in 1960‟s as follows:

...there's Christianity, Hinduism, Marxism and Islam and they all live

together... When you see all the competing beliefs against the same background

you realize how they all wear each other down. To me, I couldn't think of a

better location for a book about human beings (Feng). 18

Therefore, the setting is crucial for the plot of the novel which “tells the story of a traditional middle-class Syrian-Christian family that disintegrates after the death of a child and an illegitimate inter-caste love affair” (Nandi), as well as the social background of all the main characters. “The novel is unique in its outspoken, yet non-melodramatic social-critique, its rich, imaginative language...” (ibid). In 2001, the Czech translation

Bŧh maličkostí by Michaela Lauschmannová was published in Praha by Mladá Fronta.

3.2.3. Kiran Desai – The Inheritance of Loss

Kiran Desai was born 1971 in New Delhi to Anita Desai, a well-known writer who has also been short-listed for The Man Booker Prize four times. She grown up and was educated in India, Great Britain and the USA. Her experience of living in both

Western and Eastern society mirrors in her works as well, her award-winning novel The

Inheritance of Loss is also based on her life experience, even though it is not an autobiographical writing. The novel is set in 1980‟s in Kalimpong, West Bengal, near the boarder with Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet. During her visits to Kalimpong, Desai became familiar with this place and with its highly multi-cultural environment, where several native communities, Nepalese, Bengalis, Anglo-Indians, Bhutanese, Tibetans and other ethnic groups live together. Despite the place being a part of India, the majority of the inhabitants is Nepalese; their rights are considerably restricted which finally leads to major ethnic tensions and unrests. The characters of Desai‟s novel are similarly diverse: a Cambridge-educated grumpy old judge; his granddaughter Sai, sent to him as a child after the death of her parents, now a teenage girl; a Hindi-speaking cook; Sai‟s Nepali tutor of sciences with whom she falls in love, several more local characters with different ethnic backgrounds; and finally, cook‟s son Biju whose story creates a parallel narrative 19 set in New York where he works illegally and experiences all kinds of struggles which an illegal immigrant has to face in the USA. Besides depicting the characters and these two settings, the author describes the Nepali uprising, the fight of the Nepalese for an independent country without a foreign (Indian) rule and impacts of this fight. The

Inheritance of Loss “is a story of exiles at home and abroad, of families broken and fixed, of love both bitter and bittersweet” (Chause). The Czech translation Dědictví ztráty by Blanka Pešinová was published in 2008 by Odeon in Praha.

3.3. The Table of Comparison of the Selected Translations

The following table is based on Appendices 1 to 3. It states how many times different strategies were applied by each translator in real numbers and in percentages. If an expression appears more than once in the sample and the translator applies the same procedure in all instances, I count is as one example of this procedure. Nevertheless, if for one word from the original different procedures are applied in different situations, I count the word extra for each procedure; for example when Lauschmannová translates the word Mon sometimes as món (loan word) and other times as váš kluk (neutralization),

I count it as an example for each of the strategies. Thus not the frequency of CSs and

FWs in the original is quantified, but the number of examples of different strategies applied. Highlighted are the highest percentages of occurrences (for each translator). 20

Dominik Lauschmannová Pešinová

1. Using a loan word 4 13,3% 2 8,2% 5 13,5% (without additional info) 2. Neutralization (func. or 3 10% 3 12,5% 4 10,8% descriptive equivalent) 3. Omission 1 3,3 % 1 4,1% 2 5,4%

4. Retaining the original - - (1) (4,1%) - - (phrases, sentences...) 5. Using of a loan word+ 17 56,7 % 6 25% 12 32,4% Gloss 6. Using of a loan word + 2 6,7% - - 3 8,1% explanation in the text

7. Retaining the original + - - 9 37,5% 6 16,2% translation in the glossary 8. Using a loan word with 1 3,3% - - 1 2,7% in-text explanation + gloss 9. Transference of brand or 2 6,7 % 2 8,2% 4 10,8% proper names with additional info 30 (27 pages) 24 (52 pages) 37 (18 pages) cca 1,1 (CS/p) cca 0,5 (CS/p) cca 2,1 (CS/p)

3.4. Evaluations of the Table

First of all, I summarize my observations concerning each of the translations, and then I proceed to compare them and summarize the common features of them as well as their differences, before coming to a general conclusion.

3.4.1. Pavel Dominik’s Translation: Děti půlnoci

When comparing Midnight‟s Children and Děti pŧlnoci, it seems reasonable to start from the end, as the most striking difference is the glossary. There is no glossary in the original, but quite a comprehensive one in the translation (see Appendix 5). The 21 items included in the glossary are culture specific concepts, religious items and figures, names of gods, local dishes, real historical persons and events and different forms of addressing people, it also includes explanations of some proper names, i.e. Padma. The glossary gives rather detailed information, it is 13 pages long; origins of glossed items are stated (usually it is Hindi, Sanskrit, Urdu or Persian), historical persons are briefly introduced and their biographical dates are given. One of the reasons for such a comprehensive glossary could be seen in the nature of the novel. The text alludes to some prominent events, personalities and facts from Indian history which are quite likely to be known to Indian readers; to some extent, to British readers, too, but supposedly not known to Czech readers. In using the analogy of Saleem‟s destiny and that of the independent India, Rushdie also alleges his opinions on these facts, which is a prominent component of the book, and thus being aware of these historical facts is also important for understanding the message of the book.

Looking at the succession of strategies by the frequency of their use, it is also clear how prominent the glossary is: the strategy of translating a CS by a loan word plus an explanatory gloss is applied in more than 56 % cases from the selected sample, together with the triplex of a loan word plus an explanation plus a gloss, it is 60 %. Thus the readers‟ use of the glossary is relied on quite heavily. (More on the use of the glossary is to be found in 3.3.4.1.) The second most frequent strategy is translating by a loan word without any additional explanation, the loan words are karí, sáhib, rikša and rikšák and it could be assumed that they do not require any additional explanations. The third most common strategy was neutralization, i.e. using functional or descriptive equivalents. Since there are many cultural specific expressions in Rushdie‟s text that require explanations (for the reasons mentioned above), and it is probable that many of the words are totally unknown to the reader and thus have to be searched for in the 22 glossary, the translator can naturally assume that looking up more than one or two expressions from each page could be rather disturbing for the reader. Thus, besides in- textual explanations of some CSs, we can find some CSs being replaced by a neutral term, especially when they are only used once (or few times) and have no distinctive role in the book, for example the expression chugha-coat does not play an essential role in the book and is used only in one sentence. “Clothes as cultural terms may be sufficiently explained for TL general readers if the generic noun or classifier is added: e.g., „shintigin trousers‟...or again, if the particular is of no interest, the generic word can simply replace it.” (Newmark 97) Chugha-coat is here translated by a descriptive equivalent kabátec z ovčí vlny; but quite surprisingly, čúgha is listed in the glossary: “čúgha, čógha (tur.), prošívaný teplý kabát z ovčí vlny nebo velbloudí srsti; nosí se přepásaný” (Děti 688), even though it does not seem necessary as the word does not appear in the book at all.

Similarly, although there is a gloss on the word šikára explaining that it is a unique means of transport used only on the Dal Lake in Kashmir and is therefore characteristic for the area, the word shikara-man is translated simply as převozník. As the function of the word is conveyed and the frequency of other CSs and FWs in this part of the text is rather high, the choice of functional equivalent here appears to be fully legitimate.

Besides the relevance of the CS in question, the density of other CSs or explanatory phrases relating to specifics of the Indian culture plays its role, for example the above mentioned chugha-coat appears among other explanatory phrases about the Kashmiri fashion which might have had an impact on the final choice of neutralization as well. 23

3.4.2. Michaela Lauschmannová’s Translation: Bůh maličkostí

In The God of Small Things, the author inserts culture-specific expressions of

Hindi or Malayalam origin or whole phrases (usually without any relation to a specific culture) in Malayalam; whereas sometimes these are accompanied by their translations into English, sometimes they are not but their meaning is clear from the context, and sometimes they are neither translated nor can their meaning easily be deduced from the context, but in the last case, the meaning of the words is not decisive for the message of the book. In the Czech translation, little difference is made between expressions translated into English within the text, those clear from the context and those opaque: the Czech translations are provided with the glossary at the end of the book where all these instances are listed, for example: “‟Chacko Saar vannu,‟ the travelling whisper went” (God 171) –“‚Čákkó sár vannu,„ šuškalo se kolem.“ (Bůh 172); in the glossary: “

Čákkó sár vannu – pan Čákkó (Jakob) přišel” (Bůh 327). Beside these, the glossary (see

Appendix 6) contains names of mythological figures, gods and religious events, local dishes, ways of addressing family members and it also provides translations of some proper names. Origins of the expressions, with only few exceptions, are not stated (it could be assumed that the expressions are Malayalam). However, the glossary is not written by the translator herself, but by Dr. Jan Filipský, Ph.D. who also transcribed the

Malayalam and other foreign expressions into Czech (Bůh 324). Ediční poznámka at the end of the Czech translation comments on the glossary as follows:

...Román Arundhatí Royové je totiž nejen plný neologismŧ, nepřeložitelných

slovních hříček, z jazyka do jazyka nepřeložitelných fines (a dalších úskalí), ale

především indických reálií a malajálamských výrazŧ, jež jsou evropskému

čtenáři nesmírně vzdáleny a často si s nimi bez pomoci a vysvětlení neví rady. 24

Proto jsme text opatřili slovníčkem, který, jak alespoň doufáme, přiblíží text

českému čtenáři – a zvýhodní jej tak například oproti čtenářŧm pŧvodní

anglické verze, kteří žádnou podobnou pomŧcku k dispozici nemají (Bůh 324).

Mrs Laušmanová (who has changed the spelling of her name from Lauschmannová since her translation of Roy‟s novel was published) was kind enough to answer several of my questions concerning her translations and some general issues regarding this specific kind of CSs and FWs in translations. She provides this comprehensive explanation to the nature of glossaries and reasons for higher explicitness of the Czech version:

Rozhodně to nejsou věci zásadní pro pochopení příběhu a jejich nedořečenost

vytváří atmosféru, kdy se anglický čtenář musí do příběhu trochu více nechat

vtáhnout a snažit se vycítit. Asi bychom to byli mohli nechat podobné i v českém

překladu, ale společně bylo rozhodnuto, že se pokusíme být dŧslední a

"papežštější než papež" a z malajálamštiny se pokud možno přeloží všechno,

aby zvědavý čtenář eventuálně netápal. Ptáte-li se mne na mŧj názor proč, zdá

se mi, že zatímco spisovatel-ka následuje svoji uměleckou intuici a tudíž klidně

a občas nedŧsledně v díle improvizuje, překladatelský tým pro jistotu sází spíše

na technickou dŧslednost, která by čtenáři pochopení díla usnadnila, a méně na

uměleckou improvizaci (Laušmanová).

Other examples of explicitation in the Czech translation are the glosses on proper names.

English names are left in their English spellings in the Czech translation, as it is common, but the originally Malayalam names are used in their Czech transcriptions and additional explanatory information is provided to their meanings which English-speaking readers of the original do not have at their disposal: “Ammukutty – Little Ammu” (God

74) – “Ammukutti – Malá Ammu” (Bůh 82), whereas there is also a gloss: “kutti – mládě” (Bůh 329); similarly: Kocchu Maria becomes Kočču Marie, the gloss says: 25

“kočču – malý” (ibid), Sophie Mol becomes Sofie Mól, with the gloss: “mól – dcera”

(Bůh 330); Estha Mon becomes Esuta Món, the gloss: “món – syn” (ibid).

Beside Malayalam, English also plays a prominent role in Roy‟s book; and moreover, an important feature of the book is the play with the English language. John

Updike, cited on the book cover of The God of Small Things: “A novel of real ambition must invent its own language, and this one does...“ (God) As already mentioned in

Ediční poznámka, Roy uses many neologisms, re-shapes common words or uses them in uncommon situations and she often uses an idiosyncratic language to imitate the language or the way of thinking of the children, e.g.: “Margaret Kochamma told her to

Stoppit. So she Stoppited” (God 141). – Margaret Koččamma jí příkázala Nechtoho. Tak

Tohonechala” (Bůh 144). As one of the characteristic features of the Keralan society, some of the locals despise English words or English speakers or speak improper English:

“And I‟ve finished my pocket money.“

“Porketmunny?“ the Orangedrink Lemondrink Man said with his teeth still

watching. “First English songs, and now Porketmunny! Where d‟you live? On

the moon?“ (God 102)

The choice of language, especially when it plays an important role in characterizing a person or a situation, is sometimes explicitly stated:

“Feeling hot, baby?” the man like a knot asked Rahel kindly in Malayalam...

“Hello, sister,” the man said carefully in English. “What is your name

please?”...

“What about Modalali Mariakutty?” someone suggested with a giggle.

Modalali in Malayalam means landlord. (God 79-80) 26

Being an English-speaker or simply speaking English thus bears specific connotations.

This reflects in the translation, too; for example the scene when the British aunt of the twins arrives is translated in rather uncommon way:

“How d‟you do, Esthappen?” Margaret Kochamma said.

“Finethankyou.” Estha‟s voice was sullen.

“Estha,” Ammu said affectionatelly, “when someone says How d‟you do?

You‟re supposed to say How d‟you do? back. Not “Fine, thank you.” Come on,

say How do YOU do?” (God 145)

„Hau d‟ju dŧ, Esutappan?” pozdravila ho Margaret Koččama.

„Děkujudobře,” Esutŧv hlas zněl otráveně.

„Esuto,” začala Ammu s láskou, „když někdo řekne Hau d‟ju dŧ? Od tebe se

čeká, že také odpovíš Hau d‟ju dŧ? A ne Děkuji, dobře. Tak pojď, řekni Hau du

JŦ dŧ?” (Bůh 147)

The translator commented her choice of the transcription of the English introductory phrase as follows:

Z hlediska dvoujazyčnosti pŧvodního textu mi přišlo celkem přirozené nechat některé výrazy v pŧvodním anglickém originále...Myslím, že to dokresluje tu dvoujazyčnou atmosféru, v níž Esuta a Ráhel žili (Laušmanová).

Thus, besides Malayalam and Hindi expressions and Indian CSs, the Czech translation also contains English elements which are either, as above, transcribed phonetically into

Czech, or left in English including the spelling, for example in: “The silence gathered its skirts and slid, like Spiderwoman, up the slippery bathroom wall” (God 93) – “Mlčení si vykasalo sukně a jako Spiderwoman lezlo nahoru po kluzké stěně koupelny” (Bůh 99); or: “Coca-ColaFanta? IcecreamRosemilk?” (God 109) – “Coca-ColaFanta? 27

ZmrzlinaRosemilk?” (Bůh 114) In this way, the translator highlights the importance of the role of English in the book.

The table in 3.3. reveals that the most frequently applied strategy is that of retaining the original phrase plus giving its translation in the glossary (37%), the second most frequent is using a loan word plus translation in the glossary again. As I explained in the categories‟ characteristic, the difference between these two categories is not in the nature of the procedure itself, but rather in the nature of the original, with loan words being established and used throughout the whole book to refer to a certain concept or something similar, and original phrases being mainly specific phrases used only once in a specific situation which the author decided to use in a language other than English.

Thus, if one counts them together as all the cases when an expression or a phrase was retained as in the original language (while consistently transcribed according to the rules of transcription into Czech) it is applied to 62,5%, which is a rather significant proportion, especially considering that no other strategy is applied to more than 13 %.

Again, it should probably be pointed out that the frequency of the CSs and FWs is rather low here and that, once established, the same words are then used quite often in the original, illustrating the bilingual atmosphere and supporting the local color of the text which also reflects in the translation – some CSs that are common constituents of Roy‟s vocabulary and reappear often throughout the book, especially those translated by a loan word, are usually translated into Czech in the same way.

3.4.3. Blanka Pešinová’s Translation: Dědictví ztráty

The multilingual and multicultural environment is one of the crucial themes of

The Inheritance of Loss, therefore it is often explicitly stated in which language the 28 conversation is held or which language is the native tongue of each individual character:

“She [Sai] who could speak no language but English and pidgin Hindi...” (Inheritance

176); or: “‟No Nepali?‟ he spat, his lips sneering to show what he thought of that, but he continued in Hindi” (Inheritance 5). The ethnic background of the characters is drawn into readers‟ attention and it becomes more significant in the course of the book, as the revolutionary tendencies of the Indian Nepalese become prominent.

In Pešinová‟s translation, the differences between how often each strategy is used are not as blatant as in the other two books; but nonetheless, the most favorite strategies are again translations by a loan word and a gloss and retaining the original phrase and a gloss, which together make for 49 % of all CSs and FWs. But considering the number of CSs and FWs used in the book (their frequency is the highest in this book, with the average of 2,3 of them per page), the glossary is considerably short, taking only

6 pages altogether and providing rather brief explanations of the glossed terms (see

Appendix 7). Similarly as in the two previous books, it translates phrases which appear in the text in other languages, explains culture-specific concepts, names of local dishes, religious items and different forms of addressing people, but despite the number of different ethnic and language groups and the significance of belonging to them, mainly for characterizing the speakers who uttered them, the glossary does not say from which language the glossed items, terms or sentences come and it is rather selective, i.e. it does not include all of the expressions in a foreign language used in the book, for example:

“Džaj Gurkha!” (Dědictví 166, 169), the often proclaimed motto of the Gurkha revolution which significantly affects destinies of all main characters, is not included in the glossary at all.

As for the names of the characters, there seems to be no hard and fast rules as for which names are treated in which way. Usually, English names are left in their 29

English spellings; Indian names transcribed into English are in their Czech transcriptions in the translation: Biju – Bidžu, Harish-Harry becomes Hariš-Harry. But there are also cases like: Thomas – Tomáš or Salomon – Šalamoun. Names which have meanings (or certain connotations) are usually translated: Father Booty – Páter Kulička, Uncle Potty – strýček Cvoček, Mutt – Ťuňťa; “„Chhang, Bhang, Owl, Donkey,‟ he called his friends by their nick-names” (Inheritance 156). – „Ahoj Pivsone, Trávo, Sovo, Osle,” zavolal na své přátele jejich přezdívkami” (166). To the names of women, the ending –ová is usually added, as in Slečna S. Mistryová, paní Senová, Lola Banerdžíová; but nonetheless, the actress Hema Malini stays Hema Malini.

In Desai‟s novel, one of the most often mentioned themes is food; two of the main characters are the cook and his son Biju, who tries to make his living in the USA by working in restaurants, bakeries or as a delivery boy, whereas his social status seemingly alters according to whether he cooks Indian or Anglo-American food. Here again, the density of CS and FWs plays quite a significant role, as the translator tends to omit or neutralize names which appear exotic if there are many of them near each other, for example: “Szechuan wings and French fries, just $ 3.00. Fried rice $ 1.35 and $ 1.00 for pan-fried dumplings fat and tight as babies... General Tso‟s chicken, emperor‟s pork...” (Inheritance 49) – “Kuřecí křidélka po sečuánsku s hranolkami za pouhý 1 dolar

35 centů a 1 dolar za smažené knedlíčky, baculaté a hlaďoučké jako dětská prdelka...

Kuřecí směs na česneku, císařská vepřová...” (58) where one dish is completely omitted and one is neutralized. These examples belong to a slightly different category of CSs, as these are not words specific for the Indian culture, but rather for American Chinese (see

Appendix 4 on Pešinová‟s translation of Anglo-American CSs); nevertheless, these terms, if transferred without, do not necessary have the connotation of American Chinese cuisine for Czech readers as they have for Americans. 30

Desai also mentions various brand names of (in their home country) mainly commonly known products. In the Czech translation, these are mostly transferred and a classifier is added, for example: “a gulp of icy Kingfisher” (Inheritance 65) – “doušek ledového piva Kingfisher” (Dědictví 74). Sometimes, the additional information specifies not only the type of the product, but adds other information, too: “The vehicles paused and quickly the crates were unloaded – Teacher‟s, Old Monk, Gilby‟s,

Gymkhana” (Inheritance 55) – “...vozy zastavily, posádka rychle vyložila bedny s lahvemi známých značek – Teacher‟s, Old Monk, Gilby‟s, Gymkhána” (Dědictví 64).

As one of the themes of the book is the contrast between the Indian and

American culture (to a lesser extent the British culture, too), the author refers, besides typical Indian concepts and products, to those American and British, too. Brand names or typical dishes are used as representative of each of the cultures, for example British marmite or After Eights, Indian pakoras or Amul, or American (or rather Chinese

American) hot-and-sour soups and egg foo yong. Concerning the Czech translation, it is rather surprising that the translator deals with the CSs from the British or American culture in a very similar way as with those Indian, e.g. quite consistently adding explanatory information, for example: “The mayor found a rat in Gracie Mansion”

(Inheritance 53). – “Starosta města narazil v reprezentačním sídle radnice Gracie

Mansion na krysu” (Dědictví 62). Again, this applies for the British or American brand names too:

Her suitcases were stuffed with Marmite, Oxo bouillon cubes, Knorr soup

packets, After Eights, daffodil bulbs, and renewed supplies of Boots cucumber

lotion and Marks and Spencer underwear – the sense, quintessence, of

Englishness as she understood it (Inheritance 46-7).

31

Kufry přivezla nadité k prasknutí skleničkami dožďové pomazánky Marmite,

balíčky hovězího vývaru v kostce Oxo, polévkami Knorr v sáčku, mentolovými

čokoládami After Eight, cibulkami narcisŧ, novou zásobou okurkového

pleťového krému Boots a spodního prádla značky Marks & Spencer – které pro

ni bylo ztělesněním, symbolem anglickosti, jak ji chápala ona (Dědictví 56).

3.3.4. Comparison of the three translations

Having briefly characterized the individual translations, I proceed to summarize their common features and their differences, and deduce the implications of them for my objective.

3.3.4.1. Common features of the translations and common issues

Although the approaches of the three translators differ considerably, they are uniform in regards to the most frequently applied translation procedures: in Dominik‟s and Pešinová‟s translation, the most frequent was the combination of a loan word and an accompanying glossary entry, which was also the second most frequent strategy applied by Lauschmannová. „[W]hen the translator has to decide whether or not to transfer a word unfamiliar in the target language [...] then he usually complements it with a second translation procedure...“ (Newmark 81) A glossary entry often appears to be the best fitting second procedure, as the CSs and FWs usually represent considerably foreign and unknown concepts which require longer explanations than just few words that could easily be inserted within the text. “The argument in favor of transference is that is shows respect for the SL country‟s culture. The argument against it is that it is the translator‟s 32 job to translate, to explain” (Newmark 82). When transferring a word as a loan word and adding an explanation to its meaning in the glossary, both these criteria are met. The advantage of an explanation in the glossary, as opposed to an explanation within the text, is more space for commenting on the meaning, use, origin, or even connotations of the word (this opportunity was fully used by Dominik); and as opposed to the explanation within the text, it also makes it possible for the reader to search for the meaning of an expression even when it reappears later in the book and the meaning has been forgotten in the meantime (which is especially likely to happen if there are many unknown expressions in the book). Thus, when using this strategy, the translator can provide explanation and still the expression, which is usually also a loan word in the English text, can have the same function as in the original (for functions of Indian CSs and FWs see

3.3.4.2.1.).

Unlike the strategy of using a loan word with an explanation in the glossary, the strategy of using a loan word without any explanation can/should only be applied when the loan word is already established in Czech, when there is the probability (or at least possibility) that the readers are familiar with the meaning of the word and perceives it as characteristic of a certain area or culture:

V překladu má smysl zachovávat jen ty prvky specifična, které čtenář překladu

mŧže cítit jako charakteristické pro cizí prostředí, tj. Jen ty, které jsou schopny

být nositeli významu “národní a dobová specifičnost”. Všechny ostatní, které

čtenář nechápe jako odraz prostředí, pozbývají obsahu a poklesají na

bezobsažnou formu, protože nejsou schopny konkretizace (Levý 80).

Looking at the examples of words to which this strategy is applied, we can see that these are really words commonly used in translations from Indian languages or used by Czech authors writing about the subcontinent: rikša, karí (Děti); sáhib (Bůh); basmati, sárí, 33 mahárádža (Dědictví). I would suggest that the familiarity of the readers with the meaning of loan words should probably be not taken for granted in the cases of tikka

(Inheritance 46)– tiká (Dědictví 55), and an old Bihary coolie (God 89) – starý bihárský kuli (Bůh 95), which are not so widely known to Czech readers, but are not included in the glossaries. This strategy is also the second most frequent in Dominik‟s translation, whereas for both Lauschmannová and Pešinová, the second more frequent is retaining the original phrase. This does not necessarily show the difference in the translators‟ preferences, but rather in the nature of the texts – in Rushdie‟s book, there are almost no phrases (and none in the selected sample) that could be retained in the original language; in Roy‟s and Desai‟s books, there are not so many CSs or FWs which could easily be translated by a loan word without any explanation.

Somehow different is the case of the word rikšák which could stand for both the English riksha boy (Children 49) or riksha-wallah (Children 43), thus it could be regarded as a case of naturalization (as in Newmark‟s division): as this “procedure succeeds transference and adapts the SL word first to the normal pronunciation, then to the normal morphology (word-forms) of the TL” (Newmark 82). Here, the productive

Czech ending –ák is added to the transferred word rikša according to the rules of Czech word-formation. But it could just as well be taken as an example of a through translation, or a calque, of the word riksha-wallah (rikša for rickshaw, -ák for -wallah). Regardless of the preferred approach, I consider both these procedures as sub-categories of the category translating by a loan word without any other explanation.

I would also like to approach another issue concerning almost all languages from the subcontinent: the suffix -wala (or -wallah), a “Hindi-Urdu suffix, derived from the original Arabic meaning proximity or belonging to” (Anand) which is widely used all over India, usually referring to a person engaged in a certain kind of activity, for 34 example: “tongawala, rikshawala (the driver of the carriage), chaiwala (tea seller) [...] gharwala (man living in the family, husband), policewala (a police agent)” (ibid). In

Rushdie‟s novel, it only appears in the expression rikshaw-wallah which becomes rikšák

(on which I commented above), and in: “Gai-Wallah means cow-fellow” (Children 49).

– “Gáeválá znamená honák krav” (Děti 72). where it is explained within the text. In

Pešinová‟s translation, the suffix is listed in the glossary with its translation: “vála –

člověk spojený s určitou prací” (Dědictví 342) and she uses it as a loan word in her translation, but despite her general tendency to add explanations and to be more explicit

(and wordy) than the original, she surprisingly uses the suffix without the root of the word: “This place, this market where he... insulted, yes insulted, the fruit wallah with happy impunity, enjoyed the rude words about decayed produce that flew from his lips...” (Inheritance 278) – “To místo, ten trh, kde...s klidem a beztrestně urážel, ano urážel, místní vály a chrlil na ně nezdvořilé poznámky o jejich shnilém zboží...”

(Dědictví 290)

As already mentioned, the second most frequent strategy in Lauschmannová‟s and Pešinová‟s translation is retaining a whole phrase in the original language plus providing a gloss on its meaning. The reasons for the translations in the glossary in Bŧh maličkostí as the translator explained them (see 3.4.2.) could, I believe, be regarded as valid for Pešinová‟s translation, where all the inserted phrases in foreign languages were consistently translated, too. I originally included the category of retaining the original phrase without any explanation into my working list of possible procedures mainly because I wanted to prove that this procedure is (above all, on grounds of the rather significant tendency of Czech translations of the CSs and FWs to be more explicit) not applied. Nevertheless, the table shows that it is actually not the truth: there is one example of this in the sample from Lauschmannová‟s translation “Ay! Eda cherukka!” 35

(God 101)– “Aj! Edá čerukka!” (Bůh 107). The translator confirmed my original presumption that this occurred by mistake, but I then discovered that there is a markedly similar expression in the glossary “Adá čerukka – poslyš, hochu” (Bůh 326), thus the mistake was more probably made in spelling than in omitting the expression. I therefore considered removing the category from the table as nonexistent, but finally decided to leave it in the list, since there was no other place where I could place this one example because it actually is a retained phrase without any explanation; and since I found examples of this strategy being used (although it might also have been by mistake) in

Pešinová‟s translation, too (though not in the selected sample), as in the case of “Džaj

Gurkha!” (Dědictví 166, 169) which I already addressed in 3.4.1. Nevertheless, this procedure appears to be rather unproductive when compared with the other procedures and taking into consideration the probable reasons of its occurrence.

My investigation also revealed some interesting facts about the difference between dealing with CSs and FWs: While strategies like neutralization, omission or in-text explanations are used for CSs, although their use is marginal when compared to translations by loan words, they are not applied to FWs. FWs are in all three translations used in a way imitating their use in the original and the translators provide translations of them outside of the texts. This can be attributed to the function of the FWs in the text, which differs from the use of CSs: CSs are often used for concepts which have no name in English and thus talking about these concepts is only possible by using a CS, while FWs are expressions which almost always have English equivalents (especially considering whole sentences in other languages), but are intentionally used in a different language, thus drawing the reader‟s attention to the code rather than the meaning of it. For the equivalent effect to be secured in the Czech translations, translators acknowledge the importance of 36 the code and retain the FWs in the original language (only adjusting the spelling according to the rules of transcription from languages using a different alphabet into

Czech). Nonetheless, although this rule is generally valid for other examples in the books (outside the selected samples), it is not always observed by Pešinová, who neutralizes also FWs without any relation to the culture, as in: “There was a thunder box for the bathroom tent and even a murga-murgi in a cage under the cart. They were a foreign breed and that hen laid more eggs than any other murgi I have known” (Inheritance 60). – “Měli jsme s sebou přenosný záchod do stanu a dokonce, v kleci pod vozem, i kohouta a slepici. Byla to cizí odrůda, nikdy v životě jsem neviděl žádnou slepici, která by tolik nesla“ (Dědictví 69); while there seems to be little reason to do so.

Brand and proper names are a special category of CSs: while meanings of phrases in the original languages could be often deduced (as Laušmanová suggests, see

3.4.2.) and many of the used loan words are either known (like sárí, rikša, sáhib) or could be looked up (like maulví, mundu, parátha), brand and proper names could be perceived by the readers of the original as simply common names without any connotations and without any assumption of the significance of their meaning, or the slightly ironic undertone of it, which is thus accessible only to those who also understand the original language. For example, “it said Abhilash Talkies in English and Malayalam”

(God 94) – “tam ještě anglicky a malajálamsky stálo Bio Abhiláš” (Bůh 100), the glossary entry reveals: “Abhiláš – ouha [(sic) it should probably have been touha)], tužba” (Bůh 326), which might be a common name for a cinema, but taking into consideration what happened in the cinema and the context of it (the twins‟ desire for a complete family, the sexual abuse of the little boy, the attitudes of the old nun...), the name appears to be quite significant. Similarly, one of the characters in Midnight‟s 37

Children is Rani of Cooch Naheen – rání z Kučh Nahínu which does not raise any suspicion as for the meaning of the title, but the glossary entry in the Czech translation explains that: “Kučh Nahín (hind.), nic; rání z Kučh Nahínu = královna z Vůbecnic; fonetická analogie ke skutečnému panstvíčku Kučh Bihár (Cooch Behar) na východě

Indie, kde vládla také rání” (Děti 692), again with a hint of irony which is hardly detectable for the English speaking readers of the original. It is also interesting to note that the additional information explaining proper and brand names used in this way in the book reflects the preferences of the translators, thus Dominik relies strongly on the reader‟s use of the glossary, while Pešinová tends to be rather more explicit in the text itself, adding classifiers, as in “a gulp of icy Kingfisher” (Inheritance 65) – “doušek ledového piva Kingfisher” (Dědictví 74), or “...along with a chunky Ganesh”

(Inheritance 50) – vedle zavalité sošky slonního bůžka Ganéši (Dědictví 59).

Lauschmannová, who generally does not add extra information to the text (see 3.3.: no examples of loan words plus in-textual explanations) transfers proper and brand names

(the latter being very few in the book) usually without any classifiers, as in: “Calves and brown feet in Bata sandals” (God 71) – “Lýtka a hnědé nohy v sandálech od Bati” (Bůh

79), while here it is notable that the brand name Bata is well-known to both Indian and

Czech readers, even if it has different connotations, as Czech usually regard it as a typical Czech brand whereas in India, it is simply the biggest footwear chain ever. On the other hand, there is a gloss: “velutta – bílý” (Bůh 332), even if in the text, the meaning is already explained: “He was called Velutha – which means White in Malayalam” (God

73) – “Jmenoval se Velutta – což v malajálamštině znamená bílý” (Bůh 81). It would be interesting to examine further the role of proper and brand names in this kind of texts, but for the purposes of this thesis, I would only like to stress, firstly, that this additional information alters the quantity of information and the level of explicitness provided to 38

Czech readers when compared with the readers of the original; and secondly, that the way of adding the extra information reflects the translators‟ general preferences.

It is also interesting to note that although English expressions (except for proper names) do not appear in Dominik‟s or Pešinová‟s translations (as opposed to

Lauschmannová‟s translation, see 3.4.2.), there is one phrase which appears in both; and moreover, one that is not used in the same form in the originals:

“...umbrellas...mostly black ones...but also a pink, synthetic made-in-Taiwan

one, abloom with flowers” (Inheritance 11) – “deštníky...obarvené převážně na

černo... jen jeden, Made in Taiwan, byl růžový, z květovaného silonu”

(Dědictví 20).

“Did they see themselves from a perspective beyond this moment, these

unleashed Bruce Lee fans in their American T-shirts made-in-China-coming-

via-Kathmandu?” (Inheritance 157) – “Vidí si tito ze řetězu vypuštění

fanouškové Bruce Leeho v amerických tričkách Made in China pašovaných

přes Káthmándú dál než na špičku nosu?” (Dědictví 167)

“„Indian-made,‟ he whispered, as if that explained everything.” (Children 51) –

“‚Made in India,‟ zašeptal, jako by se tím vysvětlilo všechno.” (Děti 74); but

also later: “It had been locked from the outside, but only with and Indian-made

lock, so it had been easy to force” (Children 62). – “Byly zamčeny zvenku, ale

jenom nějakým zámkem vyrobeným v Indii, takže se daly snadno vypáčit”

(Děti 91).

This (underlined) English phrase is nonetheless so notorious and moreover bearing in this context the connotations of something cheap and of low quality, that the translators can quite rightfully assume there could be no confusion about the meaning of the English words, and moreover, it is also quite probable that the Made in... phrase is the most vivid 39 description of the mentioned items and the reader can easily imagine it is really written on them.

As for graphical representation of CSs and FWs, italics are sometimes used as a supporting procedure to other strategies. Dominik uses italics to stress some CSs, but only very few. Italics usually indicate stressing of an important word in a sentence, are used for interjections, titles or for names in other languages like: “Pískal starou německou písničku: Tannenbaum” (Děti 58). It does not correspond to Rushdie‟s use of italics in English, for example: “But where have you been, my God?” (Children 36) becomes: “Ale kde jsi, můj ty Bože, byl?” (Děti 53) Lauschmannová uses italics to emphasize some CSs and most of FWs, but also to indicate stressing, for names of books or songs, but above all, for distinguishing Roy‟s rather idiosyncratic use of language, for example to distinguish expressions which Roy‟s marks by using a capital letter, as in:

“The Waiting filled Rahel...”(God 64) – “Čekání Ráhel naplňovalo...”(Bůh 72)

Pešinová‟s use of italics does not correspond to Desai‟s use either; she often uses italics to mark words which the reader can find in the glossary: “In Stone Town they ate samosas and chapatis, jalebis, pilau rice...” (Inheritance 53) – “Ve Stone Townu jedli samósy, čapatí, džalébí a pilaf...” (Dědictví 62) She uses it to mark foreign phrases, part of speech which are stressed, names of books, magazines, songs and similar items. As italics are used for a number of other purposes than just indicating CSs and FWs, it does not provide a clear clue to the reader as for which words to look up in the glossary. We can regard it as a supporting procedure of other strategies, but for the above mentioned reasons, its role in this respect is rather marginal.

What all the Czech translations have in common is that they all provide their readers with additional information when compared with the readers of the original.

They include glossaries and tend to be more explicit than the originals, e.g. explain 40 concepts that are not explained in the original, sometimes even providing both the explanation in the text and a gloss just to explain one concept; and in addition to this, the glossaries often include notes on meanings of proper names or on historical events that might be important to know to be able to understand the text. The use of strategies differs to suit the nature of the original text and the preferences of the translators, which could be seen from examples of similar situations which different translators treated differently.

3.3.4.2. Choosing the appropriate strategy

...the overriding purpose of any translation should be to achieve „equivalent

effect‟, i.e. to produce the same effect (or one as close as possible) on the

readership of the translation as was obtained on the readership of the original

(Newmark 48).

Comparing examples within each translation and the three translations to each other and trying to detect guidelines which the translators use, I discovered that there are very few clear rules (and where they are, there are however exceptions to them) about the use of different strategies which one could generalize. Choosing the most appropriate strategy to deal with Indian CSs and FWs in an English text is a complex issue and thus the final choice is influenced by several factors. Based on my investigation of the selected samples, I suggest the following outline of aspects which influence the choice of appropriate strategies which most significantly:

1) The function of the CS or FW in the text, the nature of the text

2) The frequency of CSs or FWs in the text

3) The translator‟s general preferences, specifics of each translation 41

3.3.4.2.1. Functions of Indian CSs and FWs in the English texts

Main functions of Indian CSs and FWs in the English texts are: a) Giving local color to the text:

When CSs and FWs are used to support the local color of the novel, the code itself appears to be more important than the meaning of the expressions; these expressions are then left in the original language in the Czech translation, too. The following situation can serve as an example:

The sound of a thousand voices spread over the frozen traffic like a Noise Umbrella.

„Inquilab Zindabad!

Thozhilali Ekta Zindabad!‟ (God 66)

Zvuk tisíce hlasŧ se nad zamrzlou dopravou rozprostřel jako šumící deštník.

‚Inkiláb Zindábád!

Tořílá Ékata Zindábád!‟ (Bůh 74)

b) Characterizing the speaker by mirroring his choice of language:

“Dhanyawad. Shukria. Thank you. Extra tip. You should buy topi-muffler- gloves to be ready for the winter” (Inheritance 50). – “Dhanjavád. Šukrijá. Děkujeme.

Daly Bidžuovi velké spropitné. Měl by sis koupit tópí – rukavice – šálu, než přijde zima”

(Dědictví 59). This is a very similar situation to the first group, with only the object of characterizing being not the whole settings, but rather just the character speaking. Again, the code is more important than the meanings, therefore similarly as in a), the language of the original is retained in the Czech translations. 42

c) CSs referring to culture-specific concepts for which there is no other word in English

(or Czech):

Here, as opposed to the two previous categories, the concept is more important than the code in which it is described, for example “a rare thangkha” (Inheritance 253) –

“vzácnou thangku, malbu na hedvábí” (Dědictví 264). When a situation is described by stating: “come out of purdah” (Children 34) –“vyšla z pardy” (Děti 49), understanding of what living in purdah means (a concept rather known in English-speaking countries where there are numerous Muslim communities, but probable to be less known among the Czech readers) and what changes in the life of a woman coming out of it brings is rather essential for understanding the implications of the statement. As this concept is not common in the Czech culture, there is no domestic name for it, thus the original expression (in its Czech transcription) is used, nevertheless here, some sort of explanation appears to be the most necessary.

3.3.4.2.2. The frequency of CSs or FWs in the texts

I have mentioned in relation to several examples that the density of CSs and

FWs in the text has significant implications for the choice of the strategy. This is most apparent in Pešinová‟s translation, since Desai‟s book has the highest frequency of CSs and FWs, with approximately two Indian CSs on every page and often several more

American or British. Thus, when these cluster together, Pešinová often uses neutralization or omission, as in: “Szechuan wings and French fries, just $ 3.00. Fried rice $ 1.35 and $ 1.00 for pan-fried dumplings fat and tight as babies... General Tso‟s chicken, emperor‟s pork...” (Inheritance 49) – “Kuřecí křidélka po sečuánsku s 43 hranolkami za pouhý 1 dolar 35 centů a 1 dolar za smažené knedlíčky, baculaté a hlaďoučké jako dětská prdelka... Kuřecí směs na česneku, císařská vepřová...” (Dědictví

58). There was a similar example in Dominik‟s translation of the chugha-coat (see

3.4.1.). It is not only in connection to explanations of CSs or FWs – generally, if there are many explanatory phrases in the text or the sentence structure is already rather complicated, translators are naturally more reluctant to insert additional explanation. As the frequency of CSs or FWs cannot be simply shown on examples from the table and is a rather complex issue based on general observations about the texts, and also because it appears to be the least decisive from these three influencing factors, I will regard it as such and only draw it into attention as a possible source of influence.

3.3.4.2.3. Translators’general preferences, specifics of each translation

Examples of how translator‟s preferences differ are already mentioned above

(3.4.); however, these are sometimes rather difficult to differentiate from the differences between the original texts. As mentioned in the characteristics of each book, some general differences between the source texts necessarily reflect in the translations, e.g.

Rushdie‟s focus on facts (even if sometimes modified) from Indian history and his similes to the destiny of the independent India; Roy‟s play with the English language; or

Desai‟s theme of cultural differences between Indian and American (or British) culture.

Besides these, some general observations about the preferences of individual translators‟ could be deduced from the investigated texts:

Pavel Dominik relies on the reader‟s use of the elaborate glossary most significantly, all CSs and FWs used in the book appear in the glossary, the translation nears the original in the terms of coherence and explicitness of the text itself (respecting 44 the distinct style of the author) with almost all additional information to be found in the glossary and also relying on readers‟ ability to understand what is implicit in the text.

Besides Malayalam in The God of Small Things, the role of English is significant, too. By translating the book with its bilingual atmosphere into Czech,

Lauschmannová creates a trilingual one – with Malayalam, English and Czech blurring into each other. In terms of explicitness, a major part of the additional information is again included in the glossary which is nonetheless rather brief.

In Pešinová‟s translation, the level of explicitation of the translation is the most blatant from the three selected texts. She adds explanatory information to almost all foreign concepts (even those Anglo-American); and whereas the glosses are brief and the glossary does not include translations of all CSs or FWs used in the book, the text itself is considerably altered by explanations and classifiers inserted inside the text (see the table 3.3.: in-textual explanations of loan words in 8 % of examples; additional information to accompany brand and proper names 11%), even for concepts which could also be regarded as used only to support the local color of the book: sometimes, classifiers or additions are used even when no misunderstanding is imminent if they had not been used, for example in: “to roll into chapatis” (Inheritance 56) – “aby z něj uválela placky čapátí” (65).

The individual specifics of each text should be taken into consideration whenever comparing the translations, however, in terms of achieving the equivalent effect, Dominik‟s clear tendency to provide all the relevant information while hardly altering the source text appears to be more efficient than Pešinová‟s rather opposite approach of altering the text quite significantly by inserting additions and explanations, but being brief with the provided glosses. 45

4. Conclusion

In this thesis, I concentrate on translations of expressions specific for Indian culture and elements of other languages which appear in English novels written by

Indian authors. Firstly, I characterize the CSs and FWs and I make a list of nine translation strategies which can be applied to them. For the analysis, I chose translations of Rushdie‟s Midnight‟s Children, Roy‟s The God of Small Things and Desai‟s The

Inheritance of Loss: in all the three novels, the settings, cultural environment and languages spoken (the last point more prominently in Roy‟s and Desai‟s books than in

Rushdie‟s novel) are very important features; therefore CSs and FWs are a major issue for translators. In extracts from the translations, I examine the Indian CSs and FWs

(samples from each book providing 24 to 37 examples of different strategies being used) and divide them according to which of the nine TSs was applied to them (see

Appendices 1-3). Then, I point out characteristics of each of the translations, common features of all of them and also their differences and finally state general observations based on the findings: what are the most commonly used strategies; and above all (as it was the main objective of my thesis), what influences the translators‟ choice of the appropriate strategy.

Comparing the original novels with their translations, the most striking difference is the use of glossaries in the Czech versions, while there are none in the originals. In concordance with this, the most frequent strategies applied to CSs and FWs are translation by a loan word and an explanation in the glossary, and retaining the original phrase with its translation in the glossary (the latter in Lauschmannová‟s and

Pešinová‟s translation; while in Dominik‟s translation it was translation by a loan word without any explanation). These are applied in a large majority of cases, while no other 46 strategy is applied in more than 14 % of the examined examples. This proves how strongly the glossaries are relied on and how the quantity of provided information is much higher in the translations than in the original (as additional information provided in glossaries is generally more extensive than that provided within the text), and also its quality is different. These translations thus support the theory that “the tendency towards explicitation is always stronger than the tendency towards implicitation” (Routledge 84).

As Laušmanová suggested in our correspondence, she had no clearly defined strategy how to deal with the CSs or FWs or with the bi-cultural and bi-lingual environment of the novel, and considering the complexity of the issue, any generally applicable strategy would be hard to define. However, based on my observations and comparisons, I came to the conclusion (see 3.3.4.2.) that the most prominent factors influencing the choice of TS are the following:

1) The function of the CS or FW in the text and the nature of the text.

While CSs and FWs supporting the local color of the writing or helping to characterize certain characters in the book tend to be translated in such a way that the prominence of the original language is preserved, for CSs referring to concepts which are unknown in

English or Czech culture tends to be explained or their meaning is at least indicated

(classifier, in-textual additional information). However, it is also useful to note that words often have both these function at the same time and the translator has to consider the relevance of the meaning of each word and the role of the language used, before deciding for a certain strategy. Notwithstanding, the general tendency of all the Czech translations is towards higher explicitness, preferring explanation of all foreign items.

2) The frequency of CSs or FWs in the text.

This factor is to be considered when there are many CSs or FWs clustered together or where the structure of the text is already too complicated for in-text explanations to be 47 inserted, thus the word can be explained in the glossary, or neutralized or omitted (the choice between these usually based on the relevance of the item in question for the plot or the overall message of the book). As I stated in the analysis, this factor is difficult to measure and nonetheless appears to be less prominent than points 1) and 3).

3) The translator’s general preferences, specifics of each translation.

Different texts require different kinds of treatment and the preferences of translators are diverse, too; again, issues too complex to summarize in a few sentences. Nevertheless, several characteristics appear to be more prominent than others when talking about each translator‟s preferences: Rushdie relies on his readers‟ awareness of various facts and of issues from Indian history, his novel is however a strongly authoritative text written in a distinct style. This was reflected in the translation by providing a very comprehensive glossary, but altering the level of explicitness of the text itself very little (with translation by a loan word with or without a gloss together making 70 % of all examples of strategies applied to CSs and FWs). In Roy‟s novel, the word play is an important feature, CSs and FWs were not so frequent (although those used frequently reappear) and more often used to support the local color or characterize some speakers, with not many

CSs and FWs relating to concepts which require explanation, even though the novel is an open exposition of certain culture-bound concepts, like the caste system. The Czech translation strives to provide translation of all FWs used, and except for the glossary, the level of explicitness of the translation is not much higher than that of the original novel

(in the selected sample, there are no examples of any in-textual explanations or of the triplet of a loan plus explanation plus a gloss). In Desai‟s book, where the frequency of the CSs and FWs used is the highest, the contrast between Indian and American culture plays an important role; lots of CSs of both Indian and American culture are pointed out.

The translation is more explicit with many explanations and additions (all kinds of 48 translation involving in-textual explanations make together 21 % of examples of used strategies), thus naturally altering the tone of the text, although the glossary is rather brief and does not include all the CSs and FWs used in the book.

When writing this thesis, several other issues which were not dealt with here struck me as interesting topics for further research, for example how TSs applied to CSs from different cultures (e.g. American, British and Indian) differ within one book and which factors may affect the choice of them (for which Dědictví ztráty would be a rather challenging source text); or how brand and proper names are dealt with in translations, possibly comparing the procedures applied according to the culture of origin; and it would probably also be interesting to examine the differences in treating the third languages in books which have very different settings, for example comparing one of these books which deal with the Indian culture with another one where the culture in question is a completely different one and in different relation towards the target Czech audience.

I hope that this thesis managed to point out an area of translation which is not studied so often and contributed to understanding the complexity of the issue of how to deal with items from a different cultural environment inserted into English texts in Czech translations, especially in providing examples and comparisons of different translations and suggesting prominent factors that are to be considered when choosing the appropriate strategy. 49

5. Works Cited

Anand. “Reflections of a language-wala.” The Hindu. Online edition of India's National

Newspaper. 5 Feb, 2006. 15 Mar, 2009

.

“Arundhati Roy.” The South Asian Literary Recording Project. Library of Congress. 15

Nov, 2002. 21 Mar, 2009

.

Baker, Mona. In Other Words: a Coursebook on Translation. Great Britain: Clays Ltd,

St Ives plc, 1992.

Baker, Mona and Kirsten Malmkjaer, eds. Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies.

London: Routledge, 1998.

Chesterman, Andrew. Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co., 1997.

Cheuse, Alan. “Review of The Inheritance of Loss, by Kiran Desai.” World Literature

Today. Jul/Aug 2006. Vol. 80, Iss. 4; 36.

Desai, Kiran. Dědictví ztráty. trans. Blanka Pešinová. Praha: Odeon, 2008.

Desai, Kiran. The Inheritance of Loss. New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2006.

Feng, Pin-chia and Kate Liu. “Arundhati Roy.” 23 Mar, 2000. 15 Apr 2009

.

Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge,

1997. 50

“Kiran Desai.” British Council: Contemporary Writers. 28 Mar, 2009. 30 Mar, 2009

kVi15FB83>.

Laušmanová, Michala. E-mails to the author. 7 Apr 2009, 8 Apr 2009.

Levý, Jiří. Umění překladu. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1963.

“Midnight‟s Children.” The Man Booker Prize, Prizes, 1981. 17 Sep, 2008. 21 Mar,

2009 .

Nandi, Miriam. "Arundhati Roy". The Literary Encyclopedia. 21 Jan, 2009. 27 Mar,

2009 .

Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. Singapore: Prentice Hall International,

1988.

Roy, Arundhati. The God of Small Things. New Delhi: Penguin Books India, 2007.

Royová, Arundhati. Bŧh maličkostí. trans. Michaela Lauschmannová. Praha: Mladá

fronta, 2001.

Rushdie, Salman. Děti pŧlnoci. trans. Pavel Dominik. Praha: Mladá fronta, 1995.

Rushdie, Salman. Midnight‟s Children. Reading: Cox & Wyman Ltd, 1981.

“Salman Rushdie.” British Council: Contemporary Writers. 28 Mar, 2009. 30 Mar, 2009

.

Tymoczko, Maria. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St

Jerome Publishing, 2007. 51

6. Appendix

APPENDIX 1

Dominik Midnight’s Children Děti půlnoci Procedure pp 24 – 51 (27 pages) Food chutney (37) čatní (55) Loan + gloss

kasaundies (38) kasaundí (55) Loan + gloss samosas (50) samózy (73) Loan + gloss

chapati (43) čapátí (62) Loan + gloss pakoras (32) pakóry (47) Loan + gloss

curry (41) karí (60) Loan (without gloss) Clothes ...his only concession to jeho jediným ústupkem Neutralisation winter was to put his zimě bylo, že si přes chugha-coat over his tlející volné kalhoty putrescent pyjamas. The přehodil kabátec z ovčí little basket of hot coals vlny. Košíček s horkými which he carried inside uhlíky, který nosil podle the chugha, in the kašmírských zvyklostí Kashmiri fashion, to keep pod ním, aby se zahřál... him warm...(27) (39)

dupatta (57) dupatta (83) Loan + gloss to come out of purdah vyšla z pardy (49) Loan + gloss (34) Houses and on the Agra maidan (40) na ágerském majdánu (58) Loan + gloss town Transport shikara (30) šikára (43) Loan + gloss

rickshaw (43) rikša (63) Loan (without gloss) rickshaw-wallah (43) rikšák (63) Loan (without gloss) In Agra the cycle- V poslední době byly v Neutralisation rickshaw had recently Ágře rikši, mezi jejichž Loan + expl. replaced the kind where a dřevěnými ojemi stál man stood between člověk, nahrazeny rikšami wooden shafts. There was taženými bicyklem. O still trade for the horse- tongy, lehké dvoukolové drawn tongas, but it was vozíky tažené koňmi, byl 52

dwindling... (49) sice stále ještě zájem, ale i ten zvolna upadal. (72) Social at the paan-shop (47) u stánku se smotky pánu Loan + gloss culture (69) Institution, Hartal! Which is to say, Hartál! Den klidu! Což Loan word + customs, literally speaking, a day znamená, doslova řečeno, expl + gloss concepts of mourning, of stillness, den smutku, nehybnosti, of silence. (33) ticha. (48)

Addressing/ Aadam baba (30) Adam bábá (43) Loan + gloss referring to people, titles Ilse begum (30) bégam Ilse (43) Loan + gloss Rani of Cooch Naheen rání z Kučh Nahínu (58) Loan + gloss (40) Proper name + gloss maulvi (42) maulví (62) Loan + gloss

Doctor Sahib (26) pane doktore (38) Neutralization

not yet, Doctor Sahib (57) ještě ne, sáhibe (84) Loan (without gloss) goes into gullies to fight se chodí rvát na ulici s Neutralisation with goondas (35) darebáky (50)

A khansama merely? (38) Pouhý chánsámán? (55) Loan + gloss

Gai-Wallah means cow- Gáeválá znamená honák Loan + expl. fellow... (49) krav. (72) Padma... ther is no shame Padma ...není hanba mít Proper name in being named for the jméno po Bohyni lejna. + expl. + Dung Goddess. (32) (46) gloss Exclamations Oh, too good, yara! (44) Ohó, výborně, járá! (65) Loan + gloss

Arré baap (46) Aré báp (67) Loan + gloss

Higher and higher, yara, Šplhalo vejš a vejš a oči Omission and the assassins‟ eyes vrahů se rozšířily, became wide as their poněvadž jim údy pod members made tents rouchy rozbily stany. (69- under their robes. (47-8) 70)

53

APPENDIX 2

Lauschmannová The God of Small Bůh maličkostí Procedure Things pp 64 – 116 (52 pages) Clothes soft white muslin dhoti měkkou bílou Neutralisation (103) mušelínovou bederní roušku (108) mundu (71) mundu (78) Loan + gloss Organization, An Oxford avatar of the Oxfordské vtělení staré Neutralisation customs, old zamindar mentality-a zamíndárské mentality – Loan word + concepts landlord forcing his zemský pán, vnucující gloss attentions on women who svoji pozornost ženám, depended on him for their jež jsou na něm livelihood. (65) existenčně závislé. (73) bhajan (86) bhadžan (92) Loan + gloss

Referring to for your little Mon (109) pro vašeho malýho Neutralisation people kluka (114) your Mon (109 váš Món (114) Loan + gloss Mol (111) Mól (116) Loan + gloss an old Bihary coolie (89) starý bihárský kuli (95) Loan (without gloss) ...reminded ther of Baba. ...jí to připomíná Báppu. Loan + gloss Their father. (84) Jejich otce. (90) sahib (89) sáhib (95) Loan + gloss He was called Velutha – Jmenoval se Velutta – Proper name which means White in což v malajálamštině transferred + Malayalam... (73) znamená bílý... (81) expl. + gloss Full sentences/ Velutha! Ividay! Velutha! Velutto! Ivide! Velutto! Retaining + exclamations in (71) (79) gloss different languages Hup! Hup! Poda Patti! Jedeš! Jedeš! Pódá patti! Retaining + (90) (96) gloss

Onner. Runder. Mooner. Onnu. Randu. Múnnu. Retaining + (64) (72) gloss

Inquilab Zindabad! Inkiláb Zindábád! Retaining + Thozhilali Ekta Tořílá Ékata Zindábád! gloss Zindabad! (66) (74)

What about Modalali Co takhle Mudaláli Retaining + Mariakutty?... Modalali Mariakutti? ... Muduláli gloss in Malayalam means v malajálamštině 54

landlord. (79-80) znamená pan statkář. (86-87)

Ay! Eda cherukka! (101) Aj! Edá čerukka! (107) Retaining (without a gloss) “Thanks, keto!” he said. “Díky, kéta!” zavolal. Retaining + “Valarey thanks!” (70) “Valare díky!” (78) gloss Retaining + gloss Miscellaneous it said Abhilash Talkies tam ještě anglicky a Proper name in English and malajálamsky stálo Bio transferred + Malayalam. (94) Abhiláš. (100) gloss Big Man the Laltain, VELKÝ PÁN LÁLTÉN Retaining + Small Man the Mombatti MALÝ PÁN gloss (88) MÓMBATTÍ (94) Retaining + gloss ...the music would have ...a hudba hrála Omission been Baby Elephant Procházku slůněte. Walk from Hatari. Or Nebo Pochod colonel Bogey‟s March. plukovníka Bogeyho. (97) (103)

55

APPENDIX 3

Pešinová The Inheritance of Loss Dědictví ztráty Procedure pp 46 – 64 (18 pages) Food Chicken tikka masala! Yes, Kuře à la tikka masala! ... A Loan + gloss and I got us some basmati as k tomu jsem objednala rýži Loan (without well. I do think it‟s the best basmati. Ta je podle mě ze gloss) rice, don‟t you? (46) všech nejlepší, co říkáš? (55) chhang (54) čhang (63) Loan + gloss

his lunchtime parathas (51) se smaženými plackami Loan + expl. + parátha k obědu (60) gloss eat cream and ghee (55) pijí smetanu a ghí (64) Loan + gloss

a gulp of icy Kingfisher (65) doušek ledového piva Brand name + Kingfisher (74) additional info ate their Dadi‟s roti with ale zručně jedly prsty Loan + gloss adept fingers (50) babiččiny rótí (59)

in the dhobi pie (63) tradičního nákypu dhóbí Loan + expl (73) to roll into chapatis (56) aby z něj uválela placky Loan + gloss čapátí (65) Dog Special Roti (56) jednu rótí pro psy (65) Loan + gloss

The vehicles paused and ...vozy zastavily, posádka Brand names + quickly the crates were rychle vyložila bedny s additional info unloaded – Teacher‟s, lahvemi známých značek - Old Monk, Gilby‟s, Teacher‟s, Old Monk, Gymkhana (55) Gilby‟s, Gymkhána (64)

In Stone Town they ate Ve Stone Townu jedli Loan + gloss samosas and chapatis, samósy, čapatí, džalébí a Loan + gloss jalebis, pilau rice... (53) pilaf... (62) Loan + gloss Loan + gloss Clothes donned a sari (50) oblékaly se do sárí (59) Loan (without gloss) Houses and Huge haveli like a palace. V haveli, velkém domě s Loan + expl towns (56) patiem, obrovském jako palác. (65) Institutions, ...was prayed over and ...mu požehnali a označili Loan (without customs, thumb-printed red and ho červenými a žlutými tiká, gloss) concepts yellow tika marks. (58) otisky prstů (67)

Dhanyawad. Shukria. Dhanjavád. Šukrijá. Retaining + 56

Thank you. Extra tip. Děkujeme. Daly Bidžuovi gloss (50) velké spropitné. (59)

You should buy topi-muffler- Měl by sis koupit tópí – Loan + gloss gloves to be ready for the rukavice – šálu, než přijde winter. (50) zima. (59) Miscella- There was a thunder box Měli jsme s sebou přenosný Neutralization neous for the bathroom tent and záchod do stanu a dokonce, Neutralization even a murga-murgi in a v kleci pod vozem, i cage under the cart. They kohouta a slepici. Byla to were a foreign breed and cizí odrůda, nikdy v životě that hen laid more eggs jsem neviděl žádnou slepici, than any other murgi I která by tolik nesla. (69) have known. (60)

sipping Ovaltine, he usrkával Ovaltinu, nápoj ze Brand name + filled out the registers sladu, a ve světle plynové additional info with the day‟s gleanings. lampy (72) Neutralization The Petromax lantern would be lit (63)

57

APPENDIX 4

Pešinová The Inheritance of Dědictví ztráty Procedure (British and Loss American pp 46 – 64 (18 CSs) pages) Her suitcases were Kufry přivezla nadité k Additional info stuffed with Marmite, prasknutí skleničkami Additional info Oxo bouillon cubes, drožďové pomazánky Additional info Knorr soup packets, Marmite, balíčky hovězího (British CSs) After Eights, daffodil vývaru v kostce Oxo, bulbs, and renewed polévkami Knorr v sáčku, supplies of Boots mentolovými čokoládami cucumber lotion and After Eight, cibulkami Marks and Spencer narcisů, novou zásobou underwear – the okurkového pleťového essence, quintessence, krému Boots a spodního of Englishness as she prádla značky Marks & understood it. (46-7) Spencer – které pro ni bylo ztělesněním, symbolem anglickosti, jak ji chápala ona. (56) The mayor found a Starosta města narazil v Additional info rat in Gracie reprezentačním sídle (American CS) Mansion (53) radnice Gracie Mansion na krysu. (62) ...hot-and-sour ...s pikantní kyselou Neutralization soups and egg foo polévkou a vejci foo young (Chinese/Asian cuisine) yong... (49) (58) Loan (American Chinese cuisine) the scallion pár cibulových placek se Neutralization (Chinese pancakes (51) sýrovou pomazánkou (60) cuisine)

Szechuan wings Kuřecí křidélka po Omission and French fries, sečuánsku s hranolkami za (Chinese/Indian just $ 3.00. Fried pouhý 1 dolar 35 centů a 1 cuisine) rice $ 1.35 and $ dolar za smažené knedlíčky, Neutralization 1.00 for pan-fried baculaté a hlaďoučké jako (American Chinese dumplings fat and dětská prdelka... Kuřecí cuisine) tight as babies... směs na česneku, císařská General Tso‟s vepřová... (58) chicken, emperor‟s pork... (49)

58

APPENDIX 5 – Děti pŧlnoci – glossary

5

59

60

APPENDIX 6 – Bŧh maličkostí – glossary

61

62

APPENDIX 7 – Dědictví ztráty - glossary

63