Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English-language Translation
Mgr. Gabriela Tomková
Translating Board Games: Towards the Translation of Apples to Apples®
Master’s Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph. D.
2014
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
…………………………………………….. Author’s signature
Acknowledgement I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph.D., for bearing with my often unusual requests, and surviving the amount of text I overburdened her with. I am very grateful for her supportive attitude during the whole process and her invaluable comments. Without her encouragement, this topic would have never seen the light of day. Last but not least, I would very much like to thank Pavel Prachař, Michal Široký and Michal Šmíd for sharing their valuable thoughts with me and patiently answering all my questions; and to cauly, who made it possible.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION TO BOARD GAMES ...... 7
1.1. DEFINITION OF GAMES ...... 9 1.2. DEFINITION OF BOARD GAMES ...... 11 1.3. CHARACTERISTICS OF BOARD GAMES ...... 12 1.4. WHY PEOPLE PLAY GAMES ...... 17 1.4.1. What Makes Board Games Attractive ...... 19 1.5. DEMOGRAPHY OF PLAYERS OF BOARD GAMES ...... 21 1.6. EVOLUTION OF BOARD GAMES ...... 25 1.7. TYPOLOGY OF BOARD GAMES ...... 29 2. TRANSLATION OF GAME RULES ...... 35
2.1. GAME RULES AS A TEXT TYPE ...... 35 2.1.1. Instructions Written in English ...... 36 2.1.2. Instructions Written in Czech ...... 39 2.2. TRANSLATING TECHNICAL TEXTS ...... 40 2.3. GAME RULES AND THEIR TRANSLATION ...... 43 2.4. THE RULES OF APPLES TO APPLES® ...... 45 2.4.1. Translating the Rules of Apples to Apples® ...... 46 3. TRANSLATING BOARD GAMES ...... 50
3.1. OFFICIAL BOARD GAME TRANSLATION ...... 52 3.2. FAN TRANSLATIONS ...... 58 3.3. ISSUES IN TRANSLATION OF BOARD GAMES ...... 61 4. TRANSLATION THEORY AND BOARD GAMES ...... 64
4.1. THEORY OF EQUIVALENCE ...... 64 4.2. MÄNTTÄRI’S TRANSLATORIAL ACTION ...... 66 4.3. SKOPOS THEORY ...... 68 5. TRANSLATING CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS ...... 73
5.1. TRANSLATION PROBLEMS IN GENERAL ...... 73 5.2. PROBLEMS OF CULTURAL PHENOMENA ...... 74 5.3. CULTURE – DEFINITION OF THE TERM...... 77 5.3.1. Cultural Translation ...... 78 5.4. DEFINITION OF CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS ...... 79 5.5. TYPES OF CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS ...... 83 5.6. TRANSLATION OF CULTURE-SPECIFIC ITEMS ...... 84 5.7. POSSIBLE STRATEGIES OF DEALING WITH CSIS ...... 87 5.7.1. The Choice of Strategies for Dealing with CSIs ...... 91 6. ISSUES IN TRANSLATION OF SPECIFIC BOARD GAMES ...... 96
6.1. TEXTUAL ISSUES IN TRANSLATION OF BOARD GAMES ...... 96 6.1.1. Activity® ...... 97 6.1.2. Cards Against Humanity® ...... 103 6.1.3. Time’s Up!® ...... 105 6.2. NON-TEXTUAL ISSUES IN TRANSLATION OF BOARD GAMES ...... 108 6.2.1. Lewis & Clark® ...... 108 6.2.2. 1989: Dawn of Freedom® ...... 109 6.2.3. Fungi® ...... 111 7. APPLES TO APPLES® ...... 113
7.1. ISSUES IN TRANSLATION OF APPLES TO APPLES® ...... 117 7.2. TRANSLATION OF CARDS ...... 119 8. CONCLUSION ...... 129 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 131 10. SUMMARY ...... 138 11. RESUMÉ ...... 139 12. APPENDIX A: ENGLISH RULES OF APPLES TO APPLES® ...... 140 13. APPENDIX B: CZECH RULES OF APPLES TO APPLES® ...... 144
We don’t stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.
– George Bernard Shaw
1. Introduction to Board Games
Games have been a part of human society since its very beginnings. Once humans achieved the level of communication abilities necessary for conveying thoughts and intentions, as well as managed to reserve some leisure time not occupied by struggling for survival, then there came the perfect time for games to emerge. The fact that playing games has become a part of human nature is reflected in activities of the smallest babies and their parents, since games are played from the first months of the babies‘ lives, slowly working the way up towards games such as hide-and-seek once the child learns to walk.
The key success of games seems to lie in the fact that they represent an educational tool, while being fun at the same time. Their importance for people in general is undoubtedly great, although the reasons behind playing games remain unclear, as was observed in the Journal of Natural History: ―Both the individuals and society suffer where games are suppressed. Where games are supported, everybody benefits. We cannot say exactly why, but games are of extreme importance for humans…‖ (Journal of Natural History; cited in Zapletal 65). The possibility of playing games is thus of crucial importance for a healthy society and its individuals.
With this importance ascribed to games in general, the question remains why they have received only very little academic attention (Aarseth et al. 2003; Evans 2013;
Holbrook et al. 1984). While there have been numerous studies published on computer games and consumers‘ appreciation of video games and similar products (to name just few: Aarseth 2001, Wolf and Perron 2003, Bogost 2006, Mäyrä 2008), few authors have focused on other games – or even board games in particular – from the humanist point of view. Although there used to be a journal called Board Game Studies (1998 –
2004) dedicated to discussing board games, it focused on ancient board games and
7 development of board games only. Since games are, as Aarseth et al. (2003) call it, the
―most culturally rich and varied genre of expression that ever existed‖, it is surprising why there has not been any systematic study of games over the past centuries, as it has been the case with other genres such as music, literature, painting or films. Aarseth et al. believe that one reason might be the fact that games are too varied and therefore it is too hard to see any similarities between all the various forms. Another reason might be their fun nature, which perhaps makes games look not ―serious‖ enough for researchers to be academically studied.
Since I am sure that board games are worth studying, I chose the topic of my thesis to be board games and their translation into Czech. The aim of this thesis is to introduce the topic of board game translation, to discuss the most common issues arising during the translation, and finally to apply these findings on translation of the board game Apples to Apples®. After a brief definition of board games, I introduce here characteristic features of board games and people‘s motivations for playing them, including a short discussion of who players of board games are. A section on board game evolution and typology is included, too. After this introduction, focus is shifted towards board game rules as a text type and their translation into Czech. The translation of rules for the game Apples to Apples® is presented and discussed here, too. The greatest part of the thesis is, however, dedicated to discussing board game translation.
The third chapter describes the process of translation of board games, differences between official and fan translations and the situation on the Czech board game market.
Relevant translation theory is presented in the following chapter. The whole chapter five deals with one of the most common issues in translating board games – the translation of culture-specific items. It discusses the process of translating problematic cultural phenomena and introduces available strategies for dealing with them. Concrete
8 examples of cultural issues in translation of specific board games are presented in chapter six. The last chapter applies the knowledge gathered in all the preceding chapters to the translation of Apples to Apples® – a board game that has not been published in the Czech Republic yet. The game is introduced in great detail and possible issues arising in the process of translation are discussed. My translation of several cards from the game is presented and analysed there, too.
The aim of the first chapter is to introduce the topic of board games and prepare the necessary background for the following discussion of board game translation. For that reason, it is necessary to start by defining board games and, first of all, games in general.
1.1. Definition of Games
From the broadest perspective, game can be understood as any activity performed voluntarily and only for pleasure (Kramer 2000). A similar definition is given by Miloš
Zapletal (1991) who defines games as organized collective activities of recreational nature. Such definitions, however, may also include activities such as dancing or reading, which certainly do not fall into the category of games. To come to the core of games, it is therefore necessary to define them more precisely or, from a different point of view.
For a more precise definition of what a game is, it is necessary to look at other approaches. Aarseth et al. (2003) define game as a ―voluntary trial consisting of rules,
[which] involves one or more players. A player is a human game-participant‖ (49). In this definition, they come much closer to the core idea of games, as they stress the notion of certain rules and allow for various numbers of participants. Despite being
9 rather old, the most functional definition comes from the book Homo Ludens (1955) by
Johan Huizinga, who defines game as:
[…] a free activity standing quite consciously outside 'ordinary' life as being 'not serious' but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings that tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress the difference from the common world by disguise or other means (cited in Zapletal 7).
Huizinga here considers all aspects of games – voluntary performance, time and space boundaries, rule limitation and the social factor – and thus manages to capture the nature of games most precisely.
Finally, it should be noted that it is possible to delimit the genre of games not only by a single definition, but also by a set of characteristic features each game possesses. In the attempt to list features shared by all kinds of games, Wolfgang Kramer
(2000) mentions common experience, equality, freedom, activity and diving into the world of game. Since most games are multiplayer games, they lead to a shared experience, which persists even when the game is over. Equality suggests that all players are equal and have the same chance of winning. Playing is no one‘s obligation and we decide to participate in a game from our freedom of choice. Kramer thus states that games make people free and that this freedom is a key feature of all games. Unlike reading or watching TV, playing a game further requires active participation of its players, therefore another crucial feature of games is always activity. This can be either spiritual (such as planning, thinking, deciding), emotional (being creative, learning to cooperate, to win and lose), or motor, or a combination of more. Last but not least, by
10 playing a game one enters into the world of the given game and leaves behind the real one, which is more or less comparable to the real one, but has its temporal and spatial limitations. By considering these five factors, one should also be able to distinguish whether one is dealing with a game or not. All games, however, do not need to comply with all the characteristic features. As Wittgenstein observed, game is a cluster concept
– it is held together by a set of gamey attributes, only some of which are instantiated by any one game (cited in Margolis). All games thus do not necessarily need to share all of the above characteristics.
1.2. Definition of Board Games
The English term ―board games‖ covers a wide range of different types of games, which do not always necessarily need to be played on a board. Sometimes the game board is variable and only gets created within the course of play (such as in the game
Carcassonne), sometimes the game is limited to playing with cards only (Apples to
Apples).‖Board games‖ thus also cover games that are purely card games or games played with dice only (Schädler and Dunn-Vaturi 2009). In Czech context, it is thus desirable to think of ―společenské hry‖ (“social games”) rather than ―deskové hry‖
(board games) as a Czech equivalent of the term, because the former term corresponds to the English one better, since it also covers a wider range of different games. It is, however, also possible to use the term ―tabletop games‖ (―stolní hry‖ in Czech), which refers to any games that get normally played on a table or other similar surface
(Wikipedia). This term was created to distinguish these types of games from others such as role-playing games (RPG), LARPs (live-action role playing games), video games or sports. This term, however, is not frequently used when talking about games in general and has not been commonly adopted by literature dealing with board games. For the
11 purpose of this thesis, I will thus limit myself to using the term ―board games‖ only, while referring to all types of tabletop games as discussed above.
As board games cover a large scope of different games, it is not easy to define them. In his article Translating Board Games: Multimodality and Play, Jonathan Evans defines board games as a ―form of rule bound social interaction‖ (16). While rules are certainly important in board games, they do not distinguish them from other types of games sufficiently. d'Astous et al. came up with their definition of board games for the purpose of their research, which goes as follows: ―For the purpose of this research, a board game was defined as having the following characteristics: it could be played by two or more players, around a board (or a physical support), with a set of rules, and a clear objective‖ (3). While bearing rules in mind, this definition covers other characteristics of games, too, and even allows for various types of games to be included by using the verb ―could‖, which makes it more accurate and usable. Having defined board games, it is now possible to turn to their shared characteristic features.
1.3. Characteristics of Board Games
There are several typical features that are common to all board games. Although the term board games logically implies presence of a board over which the game is played, it was already noted that such board does not necessarily need to be present (the example of Klaus-Jürgen Wrede‘s game Carcassonne was used). What is always present though, as Evans argues, is a certain shared space where the board may or may not be located: ―board games should be able to be played on a table top, but do not necessarily have a board, although there will be some form of playing area and shared resources‖ (18). Apart from the board, there will be other game pieces necessary for the
12 play, such as cards, pawns, and tokens and such. Each board game thus always includes shared playing area, usually over a tabletop, and certain game components.
Another characteristic of board games is the rules governing the play. This system of rules, as Evans observes, must necessarily be observed and accepted by all players. They serve the purpose of setting up the game limits and explaining game mechanisms. Without rules, no playing would be possible. In modern board games, however, there is a strong tendency to minimize the length of rules as much as possible due to translation costs and greater user-friendliness. Since a vast majority of modern board games is targeted at worldwide market, they come with universal components that do not need any adaptations. Rules therefore often remain as the only text present in a game so as to minimize the amount of text that must be translated for the target audience (Evans 15). This is, however, not the case of Apples to Apples®, where all cards carry text, which needs to be translated, too. For the cost saving purposes, rules are nowadays rather concise and frequently fail to cover all possible situations, especially in the case of mass-market games (Evans). Nevertheless, they still remain a key part of the game, mainly for its informational and organizational function.
The last tangible component of board games is always the players. Only when there are people to play a game then that game is complete. As Evans argues, ―games are produced in the interaction between players, pieces and rules, making them a participatory form of text‖ (15). For that reason, Evans call board games multimodal, as they combine text, pictures, objects and people. Games are thus products of a combination of game components, rules and players playing the game in a shared space, where there also might be a game board.
13
Apart from the above discussed board game features, there are also characteristics that are not tangible, but nevertheless are present in each board game.
These are the notion of victory and loss, various game mechanisms, and chance.
When playing a game, one learns to put up with both losing and winning. As
Zapletal suggests, this teaches players self-control and games thus become a model of appropriate social behaviour. As Faidutti observes, all games include competition, which brings about losers and winners: ―All games include, to varying degrees, the idea of competition. This is obvious in classically competitive games such as chess, but it's equally true for every board game that has winners and losers, as well as for tabletop role-playing games, in which the players confront a hostile environment together‖
(Faidutti). Even in cases of collaborative games, where all players play together against the game (Forbidden Island or Pandemic), the feature of winning or losing is still present, since all players can either win or lose the game collectively.
Each board game must always include one or more game mechanisms, which govern all actions in the given game. Zagal defines game mechanisms as follows: ―A game mechanism is a physical artifact, rule, or type of interaction that implements an action in the game. Trading between players is an example of a cooperative game mechanism. Capturing territory with a token is an example of a competitive game mechanism‖ (27). Board games may combine several such mechanisms, but at least one must always be present.
The feature that distinguishes games from all other types of leisure activities
(such as reading, dancing, watching movies) the best is chance (i.e. arbitrariness).
Thanks to that, no playing of a board game is ever the same as before. Chance ensures that with every new playing of a given game each player has the same chance as
14 everybody else to win or lose. Wolfgang Kramer summarizes this in his article What is a game?
Someone who reads a book, watches a movie, or listens to music, can repeat the experience at any time, but the course and the content is always the same. You can play a game any number of times, however, and the course will always be different. Also, with each game, the course is unknown and it is uncertain who will win the game. Uncertainty and unknown, that is what make games so exciting and delightful. The reason for this is in the game rules and the chance, which play a larger or smaller role in each game (Kramer).
While the experience from reading a book or watching a movie repeatedly may also vary, the course of the activity will always remain the same, as the chapters or scenes will not be re-ordered or any other way restructured. Besides, the content of the book and movie will be kept the same, too, while the situations in a game may greatly vary. The element of chance thus makes games re-playable and more entertaining for players. Moreover, it influences the course of games to a certain degree, depending on the type of game. There are games – such as Ludo – where all success or fail depends on die rolls, which makes it a game of pure chance. On the other hand, there are board games like chess where all moves depend on the skills and decisions of players. For that reason, some writers argue that there are board games that are pure skill and no chance is present at all (Slovenko and Knight 1967). While I am not trying to contradict this argument, it is important to understand that there are two types of chance that may influence games. One is the chance most commonly brought about by rolling a dice or drawing cards, and as such it does not need to be present in every game. The second type of chance, which serves as a game characteristic and secures that no two acts of playing a game are the same, is, however, always present in each board game. Even in
15 the case of a purely skill-based game such as chess it is almost impossible to have two games of chess where the two players would use the same sequence of moves. As Evans states it, ―Each instance of the game will resemble other instances as the rules limit what can happen and the behaviour of the players, but each instance will be unique […] This makes games like recipes, where the text of the rules offers instructions for procedures, but the final product is always the result of the reader, i.e. the player or the chef‖ (17).
Although games will most probably be very similar, they will not be the same.
Therefore we can state that chance is present in each board game.
Finally, it should be noted that the combination of the above listed game characteristics (such as the type of components used, combination of game mechanisms and other) are often the key to the (un)popularity of individual board games. While it is certainly true that the name of the game creator as well as advertising also influences the success of a board game, these two could most probably not save the game if its characteristics were of poor quality. Orbanes (2002), the master of Monopoly, speaks of six factors that determine a successful board game:
[H]aving rules that are simple and clear; making the game comprehensible and accessible to all kinds of players; establishing a rhythm so that players can easily follow the evolution of the game; giving all players the possibility to influence the game outcomes, notably by having a game based on chance and on strategy; allowing the players to live a truly unique experience; and creating an off-the- board stimulating social experience (2-3).
Although these suggestions cannot probably work as a generally effective recipe for a successful board game, there are certainly some game characteristics that make some games more desirable for players than others. The motivations of people for
16 playing board games and the most popular types of games based on their characteristics will be discussed in the following section.
1.4. Why People Play Games
There can be no doubt that playing board games is not limited to children only. While history has mainly seen board games being played among social elites only, today one can say that board games have spread among the general public and they have become very popular. Berlyne (1968) believes that while there is no actual reason not to conduct daily tasks in deadly earnest, most societies devote a great part of leisure time to playful activities: ―It may be that all societies have their share of killjoys and spoilsports and prigs, but most of their members seem to prize opportunities for play and laughter and to appreciate other individuals who make appropriate use of them‖ (cited in Ellis 2). As
Slovenko and Knight (1967) observe, the reason probably lies in shorter working hours:
―More leisure time has increased the interest in board games among children and adults
[…]‖ (270). Besides, it is striking that they have maintained their popularity even in this digitalized age, when the market with electronic games keeps increasing (d'Astous et al.). This section therefore discusses motivations of people for playing board games, most popular types of board games and their importance for individuals and society in general.
There are numerous theories explaining why people enjoy playing games. Ellis
(1973) divided these theories into three groups – classical, modern and contemporaneous.
Classical theories see playing games as a human instinct. They stress the function of games as a tool for psychological, cognitive and social development
17
(Woods). This idea stems from observations of children, who are believed to occupy themselves in play instinctively, without any intentional reasons.
Modern theories claim that humans play games in order to compensate for or fulfil their unsatisfied emotional or psychological needs (Ellis). Alan Moon sees the main drive in social interaction and strengthening interpersonal relationships, while
Marshall McLuhan – one of the most prominent communication theorists – claims that games are counter-irritants, ―or ways of adjusting to the stress of the specialized actions that occur in any social group. As extensions of the popular response to the workaday stress, games become faithful models of a culture‖ (255). Games can thus be played to release particular tensions, such as stress.
Last but not least, contemporaneous theories explain motivations as efforts to maintain an optimal level of stimulation and to avoid boredom (Ellis). People are said to play games to escape everyday routine and convention, and to view situations from new perspectives. As McLuhan points out, ―Games shift familiar experience into new forms, giving the bleak and the blear side of things sudden luminosity‖ (263). Apart from their ability to let players escape from the real world into the game world, games are played for the pure entertainment they offer, too. John Huizinga, the author of the famous
Homo Ludens (1950), explains that games do not serve any function, but are played mainly for the experience they provide: ―play — and, more specifically, higher forms of play, such as the contest — operate in the realm of ritual‖ (pp. 46-75). Verenikina et al.
(2003) also argue that ―It has long been understood that play is, in itself intrinsically self-motivating‖ (cited in Woods 147). Although the individual motivations for playing games may vary, it is generally assumed that enjoyment from playing is a contributing factor to motivations of individuals to engage in playing board games.
18
While it is not possible to strictly claim one or the other theories of people‘s motivations for playing games as being true or not, it is clear that motivations for playing can be really diverse and different people can have various reasons at different occasions. Since not all games are equally popular among people, I will now briefly comment on factors contributing to popularity of different board games.
1.4.1. What Makes Board Games Attractive
In his book Eurogames: the design, culture and play of modern European board games,
Stewart Woods introduced his research into popularity of board games. What he was interested in was pointing out mechanics or features of board games that gamers value on board games the most. Woods targeted his survey at users of Boardgamegeek
(boardgamegeek.com), which is the largest online platform for board gaming community in the US. Since gaming experience is largely universal, it is possible to claim that the results are valid – at least to a certain extent – for the Czech context, too.
In general, people prefer games avoiding luck-based mechanics. In luck-based games, players can influence neither the course, nor the result of the game, which is indeed demotivational for them. In Stewart Wood‘s questionnaire, it was luck together with chaos that ended up as the least popular characteristics of board games (Woods
151). On the other hand, ―respondents consider the potential for re-playability as the most important factor in their enjoyment of games‖ (Woods 152). Woods explains how this re-playability is achieved in board games: ―All games have an element of the unknown, as each player will use different paths to get to the victory conditions. It is that implied chaos that makes games interesting and so re-playable. Games are as much about strategy and tactics as they are about social interaction and the ability to 'read'
19 people‖ (157). For a successful board game, re-playability is thus the feature number one.
Furthermore, respondents showed a high preference for games with in-game interaction and meaningful decision making, which is stimulated by that interaction.
―Together, these two elements contribute to the re-playability that is seen as crucial in player enjoyment of a particular game‖ (Woods 166). These two features, as Woods observes, are the two distinguishing features of Eurogames (as opposed to Ameritrash; these will be discussed in the section on board game typology).
The fact that interaction is of utmost importance for players was reflected in an open-ended question asking about aspects of play from which most pleasure is generally derived. In this question, respondents listed the following aspects as the top five: competition, in-game interaction, intellectual challenge, strategic play and social interaction – the last one being the most pleasurable one (Woods 151). By social interaction, as opposed to in-game interaction, respondents meant ―the spontaneous interaction that occurs as a by-product of game play‖ (168), as Woods explains.
Based on this survey, it is thus possible to state that people enjoy the most playing board games that have the following characteristics: they are not based on luck, allow for in-game as well as spontaneous interaction, include meaningful decision- making, are intellectually challenging and include strategic play and competition. This very much resembles Orbanes‘s (2002) observations about successful board games, although only partially. Finally, it should be pointed out that all of these elements are present in the game Apples to Apples®, which is the subject of translation in this thesis.
The game will be analysed in the upcoming chapters and it will be shown that it possesses all the above stated desirable elements which make up for an enjoyable board
20 game. As such, it seems to be a perfect game for translation and a perfect potential candidate for publication in the Czech Republic.
1.5. Demography of Players of Board Games
To be able to imagine the target group of the board game to be analysed and translated,
Apples to Apples®, it is necessary to define who those players of board games are.
Generally, we could state that anyone could be playing board games, from the youngest children up to people at retirement age. This is especially true for party games, such as
Apples to Apples®, which are targeted at the largest audience possible. The only limitations are then the recommended age of players for individual games. Although the actual users of board games could theoretically be anyone, it is, however, still possible to define the most probable users of board games by analysing members of board gaming communities. In the case of Apples to Apples®, it is thus necessary to focus on the gaming community in the US, where the game was originally published, and in the
Czech Republic, which is the target location of the translation. For the purpose of the analysis, the largest US gaming community Boardgamegeek (boardgamegeek.com) was chosen. With respect to the Czech situation, I focused on the community gathered around the website Zatrolené hry, which is the largest board gaming webpage in the
Czech Republic. Since there has not been any research into the demography of Czech board gamers (as it is the case with US gamers), I also draw on personal interviews with representatives of three important Czech publishing houses – Albi, MindOK and Rex hry (the latter was founded alongside one of the largest Czech sellers of board games –
Planeta her).
Members of board gaming communities usually have playing board games as their hobby, which distinguishes them from the general public, who might play board
21 games only occasionally. Hobby gamers, as Stewart Woods calls them, are rather members of a leisure subculture. Such people ―seek each other out and form loose aggregations around a shared interest‖ (129). According to an article by Jaromír
Kovařík published at www.hrajeme.cz, gamers can be identified by the following features: they know at least 30 board games; they play board games at least once a month and enjoy it; they play board games because they want to, not from other people‘s initiative; they prefer board gaming to watching TV or playing a computer game; they are happy to learn to play new board games; and they actively look for new games (Kovařík). Based on these characteristics, it is possible to distinguish regular gamers from occasional players.
Boardgamegeek, a website devoted to discussing, reviewing and listing board games, hosts the largest gaming community in the US. Its members are mostly gamers with a strong interest in board games, particularly the modern ones. As of the end of
2013, there were almost 800,000 users and the game database contained nearly 70,000 board games. Out of the total number of users, 47% come from the US. According to the 2013 annual statistics, ―growth in visitors is still trending upward, and the new users registrations continue to increase‖ (Boardgamegeek). The site is among the top 5,000 most popular websites globally, and among the top 2,000 in the US, according to the website analytics page Alexa.com.
The demographical data of Boardgamegeek users were analysed in an online survey carried out by Stewart Woods in 2007. Based on its results, the gaming community turned out to be dominantly male (96%), with the average user age of 36 years. Two thirds of respondents were married and almost 50% had children. Most respondents were university graduates, with the most common occupation being IT, teaching or engineering fields. Most users played board games at least once a week, and
22 the most frequent play environment was the home (Woods 122-5). Based on this survey, an average user of Boardgamegeek is thus an educated, middle-aged male, most probably married and with children, who plays board games at least once a week, commonly at home.
Outside the gaming community, board games are greatly popular among the general public in the US, too. According to my private interviews with several native
US citizens as well as research on the internet, board games are most popular among teenagers, but are frequently played among all age groups. The greatest popularity among young adults (18-25) is attributed to card games, namely Apples to Apples® and
Cards against Humanity® (the same game system, but targeted at more mature audience). The latter one actually enjoys so much popularity that it is currently sold out
(official website info). Board games therefore seem to be a rather common leisure time activity among younger people in the US in general.
The Czech alternative to the American BGG is the website Zatrolené hry. Not surprisingly, the community around it is much smaller – there are only about 8,300 registered members (Zatrolené hry). According to the website admin, most users were born between the years 1985–1990, which means their current age is 24–29 years; besides, hardly anyone is older than 45. Apart from Zatrolené hry, there is also the website Deskožrout, where the keenest board gamers gather and discuss all aspects of board games. There are about 800 members only (of February 2014), but they are more active than average members of Zatrolené hry. According to Michal Široký from
Planeta her, most members of the Czech board gaming community are people who were largely influenced by pop culture at their teen age – they were reading sci-fi or fantasy literature, playing computer games or role-playing games (most typically Dungeons and
Dragons), or larping. About the age of 20, these people started to look for a more
23 meaningful way of spending their free time, and thus found their way to playing board games (Široký). As Široký observes, most members of the Czech gaming community are men aged 25–35. There are lots of women (or girls), too; most frequently, though,
―they are girlfriends of somebody in the community‖ (Široký). As far as my knowledge goes, there has been no research into the education or occupations of Czech board gamers; it is therefore not possible to compare them with the American one. However,
Široký notes that players of board games are generally intelligent people who choose developing their thinking and social skills through playing board games in their free time rather than passively watching television or going to a pub. Overall, it seems that
Czech gamers are very similar to the American ones; the only difference lies in the age
– Czech players are slightly younger in general. These observations should be kept in mind when carrying out the translation of Apples to Apples®, as it may probably need adapting to a slightly younger target audience.
Last but not least, a short comment should be dedicated to the question why there are noticeably fewer women than men among board game players. Bruno Faidutti
(2000) demurs at the situation in his article What Gender Gap? and notes that:
If game players were primarily reactionary, old, male chauvinists, the shortage of women in their ranks would be as natural as it is on boards of directors and in British 'old boy' clubs. But what I know of the world of games doesn't correspond to this image: on the whole, game players are young, open to whatever is new, and often politically liberal. Those among them who lament the scarcity of female game players are numerous; those who celebrate it are rare. (Faidutti)
Faidutti tries to explain this and presumes that the reason for the absence of a larger number of women among board gamers is the element of competition present in
24 games, which is not very popular among women: ―While the last century has seen a certain evolution in this area [board games becoming less competitive], the education and socialization of children continues, even today, to emphasize rivalry and competition for boys, acceptance of others and of one's surroundings for girls. That explains why women are less attracted to the world of games, a world where it seems to them—incorrectly, I believe—that winning is the only thing that matters‖ (Faidutti). If women do not favour competitive games where winning is the only target, it seems logical that other games – knowledge/educational games or party games – where the emphasis is placed on social interaction, fun or one‘s knowledge, should generally be in greater popularity among women. It is thus necessary to expect a larger proportion of women players in a game like Apples to Apples® and potentially adapt the translation to that aspect, too.
Now that we have discussed who players of board games are today, it should be pointed out that the situation has not always been the same. The popularity board games enjoy nowadays is a rather recent phenomenon, which dates back as little as the end of
20th century. Before that, the situation was dramatically different. To understand how popularity of board games changed over years and how board games evolved into the form we know them today, it is now necessary to have a brief look at the evolution of board games from their very beginnings until today.
1.6. Evolution of Board Games
Everyone is probably familiar with classic board games such as chess or go. Hardly anyone, however, knows that board games date back much further, down to pre- recorded history. To understand how modern board games emerged, it is desirable to have a brief look at the evolution of board games.
25
The very first games were played on the ground and probably derived from divination or magic practices (Slovenko and Knight). They were games of pure chance and as Kate Jones points out, they mirrored our ancestors‘ worldviews. These games were probably drawn into sand or soil and were played with small stones or pebbles
(that is why even today we sometimes speak of ―stones‖ in a board game). Later on, people started curving game boards into wood or slate (Zapletal), which marked the beginning of true board games.
The oldest known board games come from the ancient cultures of Mesopotamia
(―The Royal Game of Ur‖) and Egypt (―S'n't‖ or later ―Senet‖) and date back more than
6000 years (Zapletal). Game mechanisms of these oldest games remain unclear, since they were not recorded. Unlike modern games, these games do not have any authors and are similar to folk songs in this way.
Another source of classic board games is China, the cradle of The Game of Go and Mah Jongg (4000 years old). Go holds the title of the oldest game preserved with complete and unchanged rules. The rules of Mah Jongg, on the contrary, were kept secret until China became a republic in the 20th century. These games emerged at the same time as Draughts, and reflected the time of wars and military expeditions. As brothers Pijanowski (2008) observe, board games reflect the development of human society; throughout history, games kept changing based on the events and the thinking of people in the given time period, but their core mechanisms remained unchanged.
Board games were introduced into Great Britain with the arrival of Romans in
43 AD. The typical game of that time was Backgammon. From various surviving records it is known today that the board games played in the 19th century were not dramatically different from those played then. When games were brought onto the
26
North American continent, they were not too different from those played in ancient times.
First board games were manufactured in the US in the mid 19th century. The first published games originally came from England (Halma) or Asia (Pachisi, called
Ludo in the US). By the beginning of the 20th century, however, ―hundreds of thousands of board games were being made each year‖ (Tech It Out UK). The first
American board game that gained worldwide prestige was Monopoly®: a game published at the time of Great Depression in the 1920s. After the Second World War, board games experienced a decline due to the rise of television and radio. However, the most famous American board game based on words comes from that time: Scrabble.
The 1970s and 1980s shifted board game design towards ―multiplayer games with an emphasis on sociability and playability over simulation‖ (Woods 45), which paved the way for future rise of modern games such as Apples to Apples®. Besides, it also gave rise to the whole genre of eurogames, which encompasses most of the modern board games today.
The genre of eurogames, where Apples to Apples® belongs, developed from gaming in Germany during the 20th century. Since war games were unacceptable in post-war Germany, the focus was on other types of board games (Woods). Thanks to high media support of board gaming, the pastime gained a highly positive reception in
Germany, incomparable to other countries then. Woods describes it as follows:
Games are reviewed on radio, designers appear on television shows with their latest creations, and many newspapers print regular board gaming columns. Additionally, a number of specialist magazines —Spielezeitschrift— are devoted exclusively to coverage of board and card games, and have wide circulation (49).
27
This popularity was reflected in the establishment of the award Spiel des Jahres
(―Game of the year‖) in 1978, which still remains the most prestigious board gaming award worldwide (Woods). While there are several game awards in the USA, too (e.g.
Origins Award), Spiel des Jahres owes its reputation to the broader focus on various types of games, appealing to people outside the gaming community, too.
The turning point in history of board games came in 1995, when Kosmos in
Germany published Klaus Teuber‘s game Die Siedler von Catan (Settlers of Catan).
Thanks to its simple rules, a short playing time, suitability for families, and thus general approachability, the game became an immediate hit (Woods). The success of the game was indeed unexpected and until today, it has not had a rival among other board games
(according to Woods, more than 15 million copies had been sold worldwide by 2009).
As such, it remains the most widely known and best-selling eurogame to date (Curry
2009; cited in Woods). The publication of Settlers of Catan® marked the massive rise of modern board games in popularity in Europe and in the US, which continues until today
(Pijanowski and Pijanowski).
Settlers of Catan® served as the introductory eurogame for many Americans and triggered the popularity of the genre in the US; it also changed the US board game market dramatically. Shapiro (2003) comments on it:
There is a branch of Mathematics that explores chaos theory. One of the tenants of the theory suggests that the flapping wings of a butterfly in China could result in a storm elsewhere in the world. In 1995 a "butterfly" in Germany flapped and unleashed a storm in the North American market that has expanded and continues to grow today (cited in Woods 71).
28
This game brought about a revolution in board game playing in the US and soon other European board games followed the international success of Settlers of Catan®, an example being the game Carcassonne (by Klaus-Jürgen Wrede, published in 2000).
The rise of eurogames forced American designers to incorporate elements of the genre into their newly published games: ―Hobby games generally began to reflect the
European design style as the influence of the genre spread through the gaming industry.
Even mainstream U.S. manufacturers were not immune to this influence‖ (Woods 77).
The gradual change of American board games in favour of the characteristics of eurogames was marked by the Spiel des Jahres being awarded to Dominion, a game of
American origin, in 2009. On top of that, more eurogames started to gain a significant place on the US mainstream board game market (Muller 2009; cited in Woods).
Since the publication of Settlers of Catan® in 1995, eurogames have influenced and transferred board gaming not only in Europe and the US, but rather globally.
Moreover, they have captured the interest of the general public and have managed to enter the mainstream culture (Woods). In doing so, they have modified the way many people spend their leisure time nowadays and as such represent a significant cultural constituent. As there are plentiful board games today, it is vital to outline their typology in order to place Apples to Apples® into a broader context.
1.7. Typology of Board Games
No one is able to estimate how many board games exactly there are worldwide. As
Niedermair observes, ―the quantity and diversity of different toys and games offered can be mind-boggling‖ (21). At the beginning of 2014, the largest board game database keeps record of almost 70,000 board games divided into 84 categories
(Boardgamegeek). Moreover, there are about 3,000 new board games published every
29 year, which makes the database grow rather quickly (Široký). Due to the large quantity of games, it is necessary to categorize them into groups in order to be able to maintain a clear overview.
On the most general level, games are classified into two groups: those that make use of chance and those that do not. Chance is typically brought into games by rolling a dice or drawing of lots, which has a large impact on the player‘s chances of winning. In the latter group, chances for victory are mostly linked to the player‘s strategy. Chance as a core game element was frequent in the classic games such as Ludo; nowadays, most board games prefer to avoid it, since the absence of chance is more motivating for players, as was already discussed in the previous sections.
Another general typology comes from game theory, where games are divided into cooperative and competitive (Zagal). Most board games, including Apples to
Apples®, fall into the latter category, while only very few could be labelled as cooperative (a recent example could be the board game Forbidden Island®). Due to that, this classification can serve as one criterion for typology, but not the only one.
Prior to the emergence of modern board games, board games used to be classified into categories of alignment games, war games, capture games, hunt games, and race games (Astral Castle). With the introduction of the new types of games (Apples to Apples® could again be used as an example), which did not fall in any category, since they combined more mechanics and/or goals at a time, it was necessary to introduce new classifications.
The most widely spread classification divides board games into two – or three, depending on the point of view – large categories with several subcategories each, namely Ameritrash and Eurogames (some games are claimed to be hybrids of the two; therefore it is possible to claim the existence of three main groups). Ameritrash refers to
30
American-style games, which means games that ―emphasize a highly developed theme
(war, horror, sci-fi, or fantasy), characters, heroes, or factions with individually defined abilities, player to player conflict, and usually feature a moderate to high level of luck‖
(Boardgamegeek). Long playing time and long, complex rules are another characteristic of Ameritrash. Examples of such games are Battlestar Galactica®, Cosmic Encounter®, or the recent hit Arkham Horror®. Ameritrash games are typically published by Fantasy
Flight Games or Avalon Hill, two leading US publishers of the American-style games.
While the label for this group of game is not generally popular, as it carries connotations of low quality, all efforts introducing substitutive titles (―Amerigames‖, ―Amerigold‖ and such) have so far been in vain (Boardgamegeek). It is crucial to stress here that this categorisation does not classify games based on their origin, but rather their style. It is therefore possible to have games from the US, which will, however, fall in the category of Eurogames.
Eurogames, frequently also called ―Designer Games‖ or ―German-style games‖, are dramatically different from Ameritrash. These games – although not all of them are from Europe, nor are all true board games played over a board – are very variable, but still share a set of common features. Not all games, however, need to fulfil all the following criteria to be labelled Eurogames. The criteria are: indirect player conflict
(competing over resources, cards and such); hardly any chance, randomness, or luck; shorter playing time (less than two hours); simple rules, frequent wooden rather than plastic components; no elimination of players during play; and focus on mechanics rather than a theme (Zatrolené hry; Boardgamegeek). To name just a few, the most famous Eurogames are Agricola®, Puerto Rico®, or the already mentioned
Carcassonne® and Settlers of Catan®. The subject of this thesis, Apples to Apples®, falls
31 in the category of Eurogames thanks to its game characteristics, though it was originally published in the US.
Within Eurogames, there are innumerable subcategories of board games, which further classify games based on their theme (e.g. ancient, nautical), dominant mechanisms (bluffing, fighting), target group of players (adult, children) and others. For the sake of this paper, I will comment on the subcategories relevant to Apples to
Apples® only.
According to the Boardgamegeek database, Apples to Apples® can be placed in two subcategories, party games and card games; the publishing house Mattel labels this game as a family game and a word game, too. Family games generally have short, simple rules, a short playing time, high player interaction, and require three or more players (Boardgamegeek). Party games are also targeted at larger groups and involve interaction, but usually require volubility and creativity as well, and often employ different topics (unsuitable for purely family games). The course of playing is more important than winning; party games also frequently display elements of group solidarity and collaboration, although not being default game elements, but rather arising from the players‘ own decisions (Jones). Card games logically make use of cards as the central – or the only – element. Finally, word games refer to linguistically oriented games, which are centred on language play. Word games further fall into three categories: spelling games, where the goal is to create words from letters (Scrabble,
Boggle®); sentence building games, where players place words on a board to build meaningful sentences (Zing ®); and finally word association games, in which one must create connections between words to reach various goals. According to various board game lists and reviews, Apples to Apples® is certainly the number one game in this
32 category; or, as the One Gamer‘s Opinion blog puts it, ―Apples to Apples is clearly the
Goliath among Davids‖ (One Gamer‘s Opinion).
Finally, it should be noted that there are numerous other, more complex typologies of board games, which operate with different criteria and categories. None of them is, however, as widely spread as the one introduced and applied here. Those interested in a deeper classification of games should consult Aarseth et al.‘s paper on A
Multidimensional Typology of Games (2003), which introduces a more sophisticated typology applicable to all types of games. This typology is, however, too comprehensive for the purposes of this paper, and will therefore not be included. The typology outlined above is indeed sufficient to understand the nature of the game Apples to Apples® and its place in the world of board games.
This chapter has discussed the interconnection of human history and games and has outlined the importance of games for society as well as individuals. It was necessary to define what a game is and what characteristic features define a game. Moreover, board games were also defined and it was made clear what terms in both the English and Czech language should be used when referring to board games in general
(společenské hry; board games). A list of shared characteristics was also introduced and it was argued that certain characteristics are more popular than others. Furthermore, this chapter also discussed motivations of people for playing board games and introduced theories explaining them. It was observed that games with low luck ad high social interaction are among the most popular ones. In the following section, focus was shifted to typical board game players and thus the most probable target users of the game to be translated here. It was pointed out that players in the Czech Republic are generally slightly younger and include a higher percentage of women, which should perhaps be
33 considered while translating. In order to understand the position and popularity of board games nowadays, a brief outline of the evolution of board games from their very beginnings was presented. Finally, one section was devoted to classification of board games, introducing the crucial distinction between Eurogames and Ameritrash.
Emphasis was put on family games, party games, card games and word games, where
Apples to Apples® belong.
The following chapter will address translating of an important element of board games – the rules. The larger context of translating of technical texts will be introduced, as well as particularities of the specific text type. Finally, the translation of the rules of Apples to Apples® will be discussed.
34
2. Translation of Game Rules
Although not all games include text onto their gaming components, there is one type of text that is always present in each board game, and that is the rules. Rules thus always need to be translated, whenever a game is to be published in a foreign country. This chapter discusses the textual nature of game rules, their structure and stylistics, and translation issues when dealing with game rules. Finally, I will also comment on my translation of rules for Apples to Apples®, which is attached in the appendix.
2.1. Game Rules as a Text Type
According to Nida, there are four types of text (both literary and non-literary): narrative, which constitutes a sequence of events; descriptive, which represents a static text with emphasis on verbs, adjectives, and adjectival nouns; discussion, where ideas and arguments are at the front; and finally dialogue, which is most typical for the genre of drama (adapted from Newmark, Textbook 13). Within these text types, game rules fall in the category of descriptive texts. Katharina Reiss, on the contrary, distinguishes between expressive, appellative and representational types of text (Pym, Exploring
Theories). Within this categorisation, rules are an appellative text, as they instruct readers on how to play the respective game. Combining the two approaches, one could state that board game rules are therefore a descriptive text with an appellative function.
Apart from text types, Newmark also discusses scales of formality, generality and emotional tone as the key factors in determining the style of a text. Regarding the level of formality in a tone of a text, Newmark speaks of eight gradual levels, from the most to the least formal ones: ―officialese – official – formal – neutral – informal – colloquial – slang – taboo‖ (14). The categories, however, as the author suggests, should be understood as fuzzy. With respect to the level of generality of a text, he proposes the
35 following scale: ―simple – popular – neutral – educated – technical – opaquely technical‖ (14). Finally, the scale of emotional tone in a text according to Newmark consists of the following four degrees: ―intense – warm – factual (cool) – understatement (cold)‖ (14). Since there are no strict delimitations of individual degrees of the given scales proposed by Newmark, it is necessary to estimate the position of game rules based on one‘s experience with the text type and one‘s understanding of the categories. I would thus suggest that game rules are generally neutral in the level of formality as well as generality, and their tone is rather warm (it varies with different games). This ascription of the individual degrees to board games is, however, subject to discussion, as it is based on my personal observation only.
The key function of game rules is to explain to players how the given board game is to be played. In other words, the rules give people instructions for playing a game, or guide them through the course of the game. Rules are therefore a type of instructions, user guide or manual, as these texts are commonly called. To understand the nature of the text, we will first focus on the style of instructions in English.
2.1.1. Instructions Written in English
Hardly anyone today has never come across the genre of instructions, as they are commonly attached to all types of products, such as various gadgets, appliances, machines, and even board games. In an online course on technical writing, David
McMurrey describes instructions as ―step-by-step explanations of how to do something: how to build, operate, repair, or maintain things‖ (McMurrey). In the case of board game rules, they explain how to play the game to which they are attached. Regarding their style, as McMurrey observes, instructions are commonly written in the imperative
(using commands or direct addressing), as they tell its readers how to carry out a certain
36 process. Besides using imperative, instructions also make an extensive use of the pronoun ―you‖, as they are trying to get the readers‘ full attention and make a direct appeal to them.
When writing instructions, one should not only keep in mind the above noted techniques, but also maintain a general tone of writing by observing several strategies.
The most important ones, according to McMurrey, are the following:
o maintaining a clear and simple writing style
o having a thorough understanding of the procedure [course of play in case
of rules]
o being able to put oneself in the place of the reader
o being able to visualize the procedure in great detail
o being willing to test the written instructions on a target reader
(McMurrey)
By observing the above listed techniques, one should therefore produce quality instructions. Finally, one should not forget about graphics when creating instructions.
They are often crucial for explaining something that could hardly be explained in words.
Illustrations, as McMurrey stresses, are frequently ―critical to readers‘ ability to visualize what they are supposed to do‖ (McMurrey). Although graphics are not crucial for the rules of Apples to Apples®, the preceding argument stays true for the more complex board games, such as Sid Mayer‘s Civilization®, where players would be completely lost in the 28-page long rules, be it not for the illustrated explanations.
Similarly to all other text types, instructions also have a common structure.
Although not all instructions need to contain all sections below – depending on the complexity of the product in question as well as the overall length of the text – a vast majority of instructive texts will consist of the following parts:
37
1. Introduction – in the introductory section, the writer should give an overview
of the whole text and what tasks will be covered, give a general idea of the
whole procedure explained, or indicate what is needed to perform or
understand the instructions.
2. General warning – writer sometimes needs to warn readers about all possible
injuries and pitfalls that may occur during the process. This is usually done in
the form of a caution, note, danger notices or warning.
3. Technical background – with some types of products, such as cameras or
other appliances requiring certain skills of its users, there might be a section
providing users with the necessary theoretical background in order to be able
to use the product.
4. Equipment and supplies – most instructions include a list of things needed to
carry out the procedure (scissors, screwdrivers or others), and a list of
components included in the package of the given product.
5. Discussion of the steps – the actual description of the course of putting
together a product or using it.
6. Supplementary discussion – sometimes additional explanation of any kind
may be needed, which is normally attached at the end of the document.
(Adapted from McMurrey)
If we compare this list of typical sections of instructions with the game rules of
Apples to Apples®, we must inevitably come to a conclusion that the rules follow the same structure of text: after a brief introduction of the game and its mechanics, the list of game components and other objects in the game box is presented (no background theory is needed in case of party games, nor any warnings – as we are dealing with a card game, there are no small components on which little children might choke,
38 therefore no warnings are generally needed). After listing the components, the main part of the rules consists of the instructions on how to play the game. Finally, there is supplementary information about different game variations and useful tips for playing.
As such, the structure of these game rules perfectly fit the text type of technical instructions. (To get a clear idea of the Apples to Apples® rules, see the appendices with both the original and the translated rules.)
2.1.2. Instructions Written in Czech
In her article into the genres of instructions, Světlá (2002) defines instructions as a text with dominant instructing function, which aims at instructing readers on how to proceed in a certain activity. Based on the more specific function or aim of the text, Světlá defines three genres within instructing texts: instructions for use, which tell readers how to operate or use a certain object; assembly instructions, which tell readers how to build or complete something from individual parts (recipes fall into this category, too); and finally instructions which help readers to reach a goal based on the steps described there (as Světlá notes, texts such as instructions to a game or filling in a form go here).
Compared to McMurrey‘s observations, the genre of instructions is similar in both cultures.
Regarding stylistics and content of instructions, the Czech textual tradition is also similar to the English one. Světlá lists general stylistic features of instructions: accuracy, factual tone, clarity, explicitness, terminological consistency, linearity, and a well-organized structure (120). Since Světlá classifies instructions as an appellative type of text due to its primary orientation towards readers (122), it is clear that Czech instructions should also be written in the imperative. It should perhaps be noted here, that while Czech instructions should use the second person ―you‖ as English does, it
39 should always be the plural form in Czech; otherwise the writer of the text might sound offensive to the readers. With respect to the content, Světlá mentions a list of steps needed to successfully compete a task, which should be presented in a chronological order. For easier orientation in the text, authors should generally use simple sentences; in the case of the individual steps, numbering or bullet points is common. Světlá also observes that graphics, such as tables, highlighting or underlining, diagrams and pictures, can help readers to understand the individual instructions as well as the overall procedure. Overall, it is clear that characteristic features of Czech and English instructive texts are generally the same, and it should therefore not be necessary to perform any fundamental changes in the text tone or composition during translation.
2.2. Translating Technical Texts
Rules, as a subgenre of instructions, are a type of technical texts. Considering their translation, technical texts have always been regarded as the type of text where translational equivalence could be applied the best (Byrne), as they convey primarily technical information with no artistic or poetic intentions.
Following Nida (1964), we can distinguish two types of equivalence – formal and dynamic. Formal equivalence aims at preserving the form and content as the most important aspects of translation. With this equivalence, ―the message in TL should match the different elements in the source language as closely as possible, be they lexical, syntactic, stylistic, phonological or orthographic‖ (Byrne). Dynamic equivalence, on the contrary, aims at maintaining the same effect on the target language audience as the original text had on the SL audience: ―With dynamic equivalence, the emphasis is not so much on finding a TL match for an SL message but rather on creating the same relationship between the target audience and the message at that
40 which existed between the SL audience and the message‖ (Nida 159). A successful dynamically equivalent text will therefore focus on the TL culture and sound natural and idiomatic. It should also be able to capture the sense of the original text, not just the words (Byrne).
The aim of establishing exactly the same effect on the target audience of the translated text is, however, problematic. As Nida and Taber (1969) aptly observe, ―no two people from the same language group will understand words in exactly the same way‖ (4). It is therefore almost impossible to determine what the original effect of the source text actually was like. Although the concept of dynamic equivalence looks desirable, it is difficult to apply in practice, as it hardly ever produces anything but vague and subjective concepts, as Jody Byrne stresses. Equivalence should therefore not be used as a prescriptive tool dictating how a translation should be produced, but rather as a means of comparing the source and target texts when the translation is done, and stating how they relate to each other. The reason for that, as Jody Byrne points out, is the fact that the translation will be judged as a part of the target culture, not as a translation of the original, and therefore equivalence as such should not be the end in itself: ―[…] scientific and technical translations will be governed and judged in the context of the norms, expectations and rules of the target text. In other words, they will be treated as if they were originally produced in the target language and not as translations‖ (11). It is therefore desirable to use equivalence as a tool rather than a prescription.
The German translation theory of Hans Vermeer and later also of Christiane
Nord – known as the Skopos theory – goes beyond equivalence and introduces the notion of translation purpose. Skopos was the first theory to claim that the aim, or the purpose of the translated text, is of the greatest importance when determining the way
41 we should translate texts (Vermeer 1982). In order to be able to determine the right
Skopos (purpose of a translation), Vermeer introduces the notion of translation brief, which is dictated by the client‘s specifications. In practice, Skopos theory can, however, still be rather tricky to use, as it does not tell one how to achieve a particular Skopos.
Nevertheless, it helps one concentrate on what is important in the translation. Although neither of these theories seems ideal for translating technical texts such as instructions for use, they certainly help translators focus on the key aspects and guide them in the process of translation by pointing out the important issues which might otherwise get lost in translation.
Technical writing involves various factors such as graphics, page layout and others, which are, however, beyond translators‘ responsibilities. Most of these elements of technical texts cannot be changed during translation process and must be accepted by translators. Translators can, however, as Jody Byrne points out, ―benefit from understanding the documents writers produce and how they produce them, as well as from adopting the writing strategies and audience analysis methods they use‖ (27), and thanks to this understanding they can produce better translations.
Technical documents, including instructions and thus also game rules, are always produced for a specific purpose they are to serve. This purpose may be helping readers to carry out a task, to make a decision, to learn to use a product, or to demonstrate a particular concept (Byrne). Regardless of the specific aim, it should be stressed that these documents serve as aids: they will be read out of necessity to perform something else, rather than for pleasure. Technical texts such as instruction guides or manuals are not ends in themselves and should therefore not try to win the attention of readers for themselves (Byrne), but rather should serve as tools for achieving something
42 else. This is of utmost importance to translators, who should bear this in mind and keep the language of technical texts simple, clear and to the point. This can be achieved, as was discussed above in the section on stylistics of instructions, by maintaining short sentences, presenting the information in chronological order, and not overwhelming readers with complex terminology and sentence structures. In fact, terms generally account for as little as 5-10% of total words (Newmark); in the case of game rules, it is likely to be even less. Although there are several terms that are commonly used in describing board games (such as drawing a card, rolling a dice, discarding, card deck and others), these are far from being difficult to understand. Translators should thus make sure that they will not make the game rules less user-friendly by constructing complex sentences and using unknown words.
Another key aspect of the language of translation is the target audience. As
McMurrey observes, technical texts should be adapted to their needs, level of understanding, familiarity with the topic, and their background. While we may never be sure who the audience will be in practice, it is generally possible to deduce this information from the context or the text type. In the case of game rules, translators should be aware of the fact that their readers may be children or teenagers as well as adults. Due to that, game rules should indeed use less specialised, less technical language than other types of technical text.
2.3. Game Rules and Their Translation
As was already discussed in the preceding chapter, rules and components constitute each game. As Wolfgang Kramer (2000) points out, rules are the borders of a game:
―Everything that is in the rules is part of the game. Everything that is not in the rules does not belong in the game. The rules are the borders and the heart of the game. They
43 only refer to the game and never exist outside of the game‖ (Kramer). Rules, as well as the components, define the game, but are not the game: ―The components are the hardware, the rules are the software. […] Both can exist independently of each other, but separately are not a game‖ (Kramer). Rules are essential for a game, as they are that what distinguishes games from other types of activities, as Parlett stresses: ―Rules are what games are made from, the abstract raw materials that separate the contrivance of games from more spontaneous forms of play‖ (3). Rules are therefore essential to game play.
While both rules and game components are similarly important elements to the game, there is a notable difference between text of rules and text on game components.
Jonathan Evans explains this as follows: ―in-game text is an essential part of the game situation — you cannot play the game without accessing it — whereas the text of the rules is supplemental to playing the game: players must know the rules before play, but they might not be consulted during the game, especially once players are familiar with how the game works‖ (18). While the two are bound together as constitutive elements of the given game, they are very different with respect to their use in the course of play.
Although we generally think of rules as a text, they frequently include some illustrations like other technical texts do. The reason again, as Evans observes, is to make the text clearer. This can also help the translators, as the illustrations ―clarify the relationship between rules and play‖ (19). In Katharina Reiss‘s typology, game rules represent an operative text, as they ―produce the conditions for the game to take place‖
(Evans 19). If the text is to continue functioning as game rules, the translation should also preserve the given text type and illustrations.
The strategies discussed for writing technical texts are generally applicable to writing game rules, too. Simplicity and clarity are of the utmost importance (Prachař).
44
When describing a board game, authors invariably emphasize how succinct the rules are, and that anybody can learn to play the game in a very short time (Woods). The aim of rules is to facilitate the play; for that reason, as Evans points out, ―rules tend to be translated in such a way that it is clear to the players just what is and what is not possible […] The experience of the game as a game therefore remains similar using the different language versions of the rules, as the rules provide a clear guide for how to play‖ (21; 27). Different fonts, marking parts of text in italics or bold or using bullet points and numbering are the most common strategies in rules. Especially in the case of family or party games, as Evans stresses, the rules are very straightforward and user- friendly: ―[with] the associated emphasis on approachability, it is not surprising to find that the operational rules of the game system are usually relatively intuitive‖ (156). To preserve the same experience from the play, it is therefore necessary to translate the rules in such a way so as to facilitate the play and guide the readers naturally through the game, without any unnecessary obstructions and difficulties.
2.4. The Rules of Apples to Apples®
The rules of the game Apples to Apples® consist of a single sheet of paper only. The layout is well arranged – all text is divided into two equal columns. The text font is easy to read and large enough.
Although there are not many illustrations, the arrangement of the individual sections is clear and pleasant. Each section is introduced by a title in large red letters, with a picture of a green apple – the symbol of the game – on the left side. For clear orientation in the text, the authors used both boldface and italics; one section is segmented using bullet points, two lists are furnished with numbering. There are also
45 two tables – one with winning conditions and the other with playing tips. The layout of the text is not too condensed either and thus makes the text look easy to read.
The language of the text is generally simple to understand. Information is presented in short sentences with the dominant linking mode of sentences being simple addition. There is no heavy use of terminology or any complex words; the language should overall be clear and accessible even to teenagers. Information is presented in a chronological order: after the initial introduction of the game and listing of game components, there is a brief setting up section, and then a section on starting the game follows; the following is the section on playing the game, which is supplemented by a short section on playing tips and Want to play again? section. Finally, the rules end with a brief list of game variations, which all carry a certain name for better remembering and clear orientation.
Overall, the rules of the game Apples to Apples® comply with the outlined characteristics of game rules or instructional texts in general. The text is written in simple language and the layout is rather intuitive and well arranged. It therefore meets all general characteristics of board game rules.
2.4.1. Translating the Rules of Apples to Apples®
When translating the rules into Czech, it is necessary to preserve both the layout of the text as well as the approximate length of individual sections. Additionally, it is important to maintain the same tone throughout the text: the original tone is rather friendly and helpful, almost as if told by a friend explaining the rules to the readers.
However, the text is written in the Standard English variety – no slang or colloquialisms are to be found in the text. The tone of the text is generally light and warm, which should be copied by the Czech version. The only aspect of the original that needs
46 adapting to the Czech culture is the level of enthusiasm: in the English [American] original, there are several sentences with an exclamation mark at the end, signalling enthusiasm or an extremely positive attitude of the writer. This is, however, not very common in the Czech style of game rules, where expressions of emotions are usually more subdued. It is therefore necessary to drop the enthusiastic exclamation marks in favour of simple full stops to sound more natural in Czech.
The greatest difficulty in translating the rules is to be found in an unexpected aspect of the text – the metaphors and word play with the word apple and related phenomena. Unlike traditional instructing texts, the rules for Apples to Apples® are written in a playful tone, making several puns hinting at the apples in the title of the game in the section on game variations. All the six titles are based on wordplay (Apple turnovers, Quick pick for four, Crab apples, Big apples, Apple potpourri, and 2 for 1 apples) and even the description of the game variants hints at apples several times, such as ―for a change of taste‖, or ―for a tart twist‖. In order to preserve the amount and tone of the wordplay, it was necessary to look for both language and cultural equivalents regarding the various apple products and cultivars. It was sometimes not possible to translate the titles of the game variants literally even if there were respective equivalents in Czech. With Apple Turnovers (jablečné šátečky in Czech), the Czech translation does not carry the notion of turning something over, which is crucial for the mechanics of the game variety. The ideal title of the game variety should thus be a name of a baker‘s product with an apple filling, which carries the notion of turning something over. After a thorough search into various apple recipes, the best solution I have come across is probably ―obrácená jablečná roláda‖ (which literally translates into English as an Apple
Swiss roll turned over). Apple Potpourri, which usually stands for a mixture of apples and other fruits or foods, is used here to signal an unpredictable combination of cards,
47 where players can never be sure of the result. Due to that, it was decided to translate the title as jablečné překvapení (apple surprise) to preserve the notion of unexpectedness. In one of the game variety descriptions, the author uses the simile that players should ―put their apples where their mouth is‖. This is a humorous adaptation of the classic simile to put your money where your mouth is, which means that one should do something rather than just talk about it. To preserve this wordplay, it was crucial to find an analogical simile and make a similar substitution. I therefore decided to substitute it with
―proměnit svá slova v jablka‖ (literally to change one‘s words into apples), which should carry the same connotations. The rest of the punning allusions to apples were not as problematic or interesting as the ones mentioned above, therefore it is not necessary to discuss all of them here. They can be seen in the translation of the game rules in the appendices.
This chapter has discussed technical writing in Czech and English languages, their structure, regularities and standard features. A conclusion was drawn that the two technical literary canons are generally the same with respect to the language used and stylistics. A section was dedicated to the translation of technical writing and its main rules. It was argued that translators should aim at preserving the tone and general characteristics of the original text with graphics, while at the same time bearing in mind the target audience and cultural expectations associated with the given genre of text.
The focus was then shifted to game rules, their typical sections, language and their importance for the game as a whole. It was pointed out that the same strategies valid for translating instructions are generally applicable to translating game rules, too.
The emphasis should be laid at maintaining a light, warm tone throughout the text and creating an accessible text with respect to its stylistics. Finally, the rules to the game
48
Apples to Apples® were analysed. I also commented on my translation of the rules from
English to Czech, focusing on the main problematic points, which turned out to be the various playful titles of game variants making use of polysemous titles of apple products and cultivars.
49
3. Translating Board Games
Nowadays, plenty of board games are designed to be published in more than one country; some translation is therefore often needed. Apart from translating the rules
(discussed in the preceding chapter), with some board games it is necessary to translate the game components, too. The aim of this chapter is to discuss general regularities of translating game components, to distinguish official translation of games from those carried out by fans, to describe the process of translating board games in both the commercial and non-commercial cases, and also to map the situation on the board game market in the Czech Republic. Finally, I will briefly discuss common issues in game translation, which will then be presented in more detail in one of the following chapters.
The games that are targeted at world market are prepared for that purpose in advance. Most remarkably, they avoid text on game components, unless it is necessary.
Instead, these board games prefer symbols on components (such as numbers or simplistic pictures), which are universal and do not need any translation. The most decisive argument about which parts of a board game will carry text is probably the price: ―Boards tend to be made of heavy cardboard and so cost more to produce than other paper elements of a game, which may explain why publishers often avoid producing boards which will need localising to each new audience. Less expensive pieces, such as cards, offer an opportunity for localisation and often contain more text‖
(Evans 21). In games such as Monopoly, cards carry information which changes actions that can be taken by players, but the board is free of any text. Other games, such as
Discworld: Ankh Morpork® or Apples to Apples®, are completely card-driven and the cards determine all actions in the game, and thus cannot avoid text.
50
The in-game text on components influences the course of play to a large degree and therefore should be translated with care. As Evans points out, ―The game in translation should offer a similar playing experience […] whatever language it is played in, if it is to remain the same game. We may assume that the textual elements of the game will be the elements most visibly changed in translation‖ (18). As the translated game should be as similar to the original as possible, translators should try to preserve the original information as closely as possible. They are, however, mostly limited by space, as the text needs to fit on the cards or the components (Evans). The in-game text, as Evans calls it, is actually an extension of the rules, and also acts in the same way.
Nevertheless, it remains distinct from the rules and unlike them, it is limited by space.
In both cases, clarity and usability are the crucial aspects of translation.
Similarly to translators of computer games, translators of board games are rather free in the way they translate. As Mangiron and O‘Hagan observe, ―translation of game texts, as compared with other types of texts, tends to allow the translator the most liberty, driven by the Skopos of game translation to convey the maximum entertainment value of the game for target players‖ (212). While it is true that translators of board games do not need to comply with any law standards as in legal translation, or with any complicated field jargon as is often the case with scientific translations, they are nevertheless bound by other factors (such as the emphasis on entertainment value). One of the most important ones is indeed the need for ―culturalization‖, as Trainor (2003) calls it, which refers to adapting the given game for the target cultural conventions and preferences. Since the question of cultural adaptation is a key aspect of the translation of the game Apples to Apples®, one of the following chapters will be solely devoted to that topic.
51
3.1. Official Board Game Translation
There are plenty of board game publishers and translation houses in the Czech Republic and the number keeps growing. New publishers arise every year, though only small ones, as the Czech market with board games keeps growing, too. Among the most prominent publishers today are Albi, Blackfire, CGE (Czech Games Edition), Hasbro,
MindOK, Piatnik, and Rex hry (established by Planeta her). While most of these houses publish mainly foreign games translated into Czech, CGE is the largest publisher of board games created by Czech authors. Nevertheless, even these board games are originally created in English and only then translated into Czech (Široký). The main reason is that CGE is largely oriented towards the world market, as it is incomparably more profitable than the Czech one (the demand there is ten to hundred times larger than on the Czech national market). Ironically enough, even the games by prominent
Czech authors such as Vláďa Chvátil thus need to be translated into Czech.
The number of board games published in the Czech Republic each year is so high that it is rather hard to estimate how many there are exactly. According to Michal
Šmíd from Albi, the number is probably somewhere between 100 and 150. The most widely translated and published types of games are card games, family games, party games and strategic games (Šmíd). Which games will find its way to the Czech market usually depends on their popularity abroad (number of sold copies, awarded prizes and such), the prestige of the author, the situation on the Czech market as well as the reactions of the target board gamers towards the game and their interest in publication of the given game (Šmíd; Široký). Besides, as Široký points out, the games with no text on game components, which are therefore cheaper to publish, are generally the most promising candidates for translation.
52
In general, the most widely translated source language in the field of board games is English. Even though there are a few games originally published in German,
French, or Japanese, these are rather marginal. As Široký observes, even German publishers – like the Czech ones – prefer to publish their games in English first, release the games in world market and only then translate them to German. Some conscientious authors of games, however, prefer to provide their new games with comments for translators in order to provide a wider context and resolve any possible ambiguities
(Široký). Translation between Czech and English is thus crucial for the Czech board game market.
From the interviews with people from both the smaller and the large publishers it seems that there are both similarities and differences in certain aspects of board game translations between them. Both the smaller and larger publishing houses generally try to employ translators who are at the same time players of board games. It is crucial for the translators to have some experience with playing board games and to know the basic game terminology. If they fail to do so, which occasionally happens in the case of mass- published board games, this is always clear at first sight when reading the game rules, as
Široký adds. However, this is becoming less and less the reality, as the situation on the
Czech board game market has greatly improved since its beginnings around 1999
(Prachař). The translators of board games are usually men at the age of 24 to 40 years both in the small and the large publishing houses. However, it is not necessarily the rule, as Pavel Prachař from MindOK claims, because there are also women translating for their publishing house. The main difference here probably lies in the translators‘ relation to the publisher: while the small publishers generally employ their in-house translators, who do all translations of games for them, the larger houses usually
53 cooperate with external translators. In the case of community-oriented publishers such as MindOK or Rex hry, the most important argument in the choice of a translator is that the person is a member of the board gaming community, or at least an active board game player. It is important for their translators to understand board games and be familiar with them, because the highest quality possible of the published game is what they aim at (Prachař). For that reason, these publishers do not generally entrust translations to translation agencies. Besides, as Prachař and Široký observe, translators of board games are not necessarily professionals in the field; more often, they are keen board game players, who are people with a feel for the Czech language at the same time.
There are also differences between small and large publishers regarding the games they produce. According to Široký, smaller publishing houses cannot afford to publish games that are not bound to make profit, and therefore carefully choose which games to translate and publish and which not. The very large publishers, on the contrary, sometimes publish low quality games, which are perhaps popular abroad, but are nevertheless rather dull. An example of this could be the notoriously famous game
Psí hovínko® (Doggie Doo®), which was a great Christmas hit several years ago.
Furthermore, larger publishers sometimes publish certain games with strong licences – such as Hello Kitty, Barbie or Hobbit – regardless of the quality of the game itself. With these games, it is then often the case that there are several problems or inconsistencies in the rules, or even the game mechanisms. An example is Hello Kitty the Party Game®, which is said by Široký to be impossible to successfully complete due to an internal problem in the game mechanisms.
The process of official translation of board games is generally universal across all publishing houses, with only little differences in a few aspects. Once the sales potential of a game is evaluated as high enough for publishing a game in a foreign
54 country, the original publisher provides the Czech one with all necessary texts – sometimes pure texts, at other times texts in graphics. The text then travels to the translator, who translates the game rules plus any necessary game components. Ideally, the translator should also familiarize oneself with the game by trying to play it, so that he or she makes sure to understand the game mechanics properly (Prachař). There is, however, not always enough time to do that, especially when working for smaller publishers (Široký). When the translation is finished by the translator, it moves to editor(s), whose aim is to make the text as understandable and user-friendly as possible.
In the next step, the edited game travels to a language and stylistic proofreader, who also needs to make sure that the game terminology is unified and that there are no mistakes or typos. When this work on the textual part of the game is done, graphics come into play. When graphical editing of the game is complete, the whole game needs to be tested for the last time (Šmíd). If there is enough time – which there usually is in the case of larger publishers – the game is then tested on a sample of target users to check that the translation has been successful. Some publishing houses, on the contrary, test the game only prior to the translation and they rather rely on consulting gamers – who are familiar with the original version of the game – such as via online discussion forums during the translation process (Prachař; Široký). Having incorporated any eventual corrections or changes, the game is then ready for publication. It is thus clear that there are normally 2-5 people working on the localization of a board game for the target culture. This, however, also depends on the complexity of the game in translation, as more people are needed for the more complex games, but only one or two people for the simple ones (Prachař). The main difference between the large and small publishing houses is probably the time devoted to the translation process: while the larger ones allow for 1-2 months for working on a game (Šmíd), the smaller ones often work under
55 time pressure and there is very little time for the translation (Široký). Nevertheless, the smaller houses ensure a high quality by employing translators who are also gamers, and therefore are familiar with the gaming terminology, which saves precious time. It could be slightly misleading though to generalize too much: as Pavel Prachař stresses, the time devoted to a translation often depends on the complexity of the game rather than on the size of the publisher: while some simple games need translating short rules only, which can be done in less than a day, the more complex games and those with extensive game rules sometimes need month(s) of work (Prachař). Overall, apart from time concerns and number of tests, the process of official translation of board games seems to be more or less universal, mostly depending on the complexity of the game and the customs of the individual publishing houses.
Although it may seem that board games are translated and published without any contact with the gaming community, the opposite is sometimes true. As all the interviewed specialists claim, publishers sometimes use translations of board games created by fans. An example of a game which was translated with the help of fan- translated rules is Milostný dopis® (Love Letter) published by MindOK. The circumstances of using fan translations, however, mainly depend on the quality of the fan translation (Prachař). Additionally, publishers also evaluate the willingness of the author to give or sell the texts to the publisher, or the publisher‘s intentions (at times it is more convenient to simply create their own translation rather than negotiate the conditions with the author of the fan texts, as Široký states). Besides, there is another parameter in which the worlds of fans and publishers meet, and that is quality control.
Especially in the case of publishers who respond to the demands of the gaming community by the games they publish, fans often require absolute precision and faultlessness in translation (Široký). After the publication of the given game, the gaming
56 community will evaluate and comment on the successfulness of the translation and eventually call for any necessary re-prints of problematic components. An example could be the use of the word ―fight‖ instead of ―combat‖ on a card in a certain game, which resulted in the card being re-printed and attached to the game in shops after the gaming community called for redress (Široký). This principle is, however, followed by small publishers bound to the gaming community only, as it is far beyond the possibilities of mass-published games to incorporate any changes once the game is put on the market, mainly because most of these games get published in countries such as
China (Zatrolené hry). This is generally the case of games published in international coproduction, as Prachař points out, where more language variants get printed at once in order to keep the publishing costs at minimum.
Not always is the communication between gaming community and publishers regarding translations as smooth though and then there might arise clashes. A recent conflict arose in an online forum on Zatrolené hry regarding the forthcoming publication of the board game Eclipse®. Having spent more than 60 hours translating the game and putting it into graphics, the fans found out that parallel to them the publishing house Blackfire was preparing an official publication of the game without letting the fans know or trying to use their translation. The people from the gaming community were thus working on the fan translation in vain due to the business tactics of the publisher, who preferred to keep their publishing plans in secret because of possible competitive fights with other publishers (Zatrolené hry). As a result, the authors of the fan translation felt cheated and lost all motivation to work on any further translations, being apprehensive that their work might come in vain again. Although such clashes do not take place on everyday basis, they add up to tensions between mass
57 publishers and gamers. Fortunately, there are other cases, too, when communication works better, which make up for these less fortunate situations.
3.2. Fan Translations
Apart from official game publications, there are plenty of cases when board gamers decide to carry out a translation of a board game themselves. The reasons for doing fan translations, or volunteer translations, as Anthony Pym (2011) calls them, may be various. Either the probability of an official publication in their country is very low (or even none), or they simply do not want to wait one or more years before a Czech publishing house introduces the game to the Czech audience (Zatrolené hry). As Stewart
Woods adds, sometimes fans also come up with additional improvements, clarification documents or rule adaptations to already existing games:
Player aids, at-a-glance summaries of the process of play, are available for a large number of games. While some are simple text documents intended merely as a handy-reference tool, others elaborately incorporate graphics from the original game in order to provide a document that not only assists in play but also augments the published game. In some cases, where the rulebook published with the game is considered inadequate, enthusiasts have entirely rewritten the rules in order to make the game more accessible for others (137).
Unlike professionals, these people produce their translations simply to be able to play the game with their friends in their mother tongue or to make the game play more understandable and entertaining, rather than for any financial reward or monetary payment. On the contrary, as Woods observes, the production of volunteer texts often costs them money.
58
Beside the difference in financial aspects, there are also differences in circulation and format of the translations when compared to the official ones. As Woods stresses, fan translations are hardly ever provided outside the gaming community for which they were created: ―because fan texts are not produced for profit, they do not need to be mass-marketed, so unlike official culture, fan culture makes no attempt to circulate its texts outside its own community‖ (136). Since the translations are targeted at the community members only, they are generally uploaded onto their website in an electronic format, which can be downloaded and printed out by all registered users. In the Czech Republic, such website is again Zatrolené hry; in the US, most fan translations are collected at the website Boardgamegeek, where the US gaming community is centred.
Probably the greatest difference between official and fan translations is the emphasis on quality. As a community member observes at Zatrolené hry, with fan translations the question is not how long it takes to produce such translation, but what the quality of the final translation is. Theoretically, fans are not pressed by any deadlines and can spend on the translation as much time as necessary, which certainly contributes to a higher quality. It is, however, also necessary for the fan translators to know what a good translation should look like in order to avoid any unnecessary complaints from other players and to come up with a functional text.
For the purpose of instructing any potential fan translators, there are several online guides at relevant pages on how to create a successful translation of a board game. With Zatrolené hry, there are two such guides: ―Překladatelem snadno a rychle‖
(A fast and effective guide to becoming a translator) and ―Malá kuchařka překladatele na ZH‖ (A short guidebook for translators at Zatrolené hry). The aim of these guides is to avoid situations when fans are eager to help, but do not understand the source
59 language enough, and thus ―merely Google-translate the texts‖, as Michal Široký puts it.
Since such texts need lots of post-editing, they are not in fact very helpful to the community and the general tendency therefore is to try to prevent them from appearing.
In these guides, future board-game fan translators learn the basic rules of game translating as put together by their more experienced colleagues. It is indeed astonishing that while the writers of the guides are not professional translators, their instructions are extremely systematic and aptly describe the basic principles of game translation. In the first mentioned guide, the author urges readers to play the particular game prior to setting out to translate it – without the context of the game, as he says, it is almost impossible to translate accurately and appropriately (the author uses the nickname
Kent). To support the argument, Kent also gives an example of his own translation carried out without consulting the game, which in the end turned out to be rather bad in several cases. Furthermore, the author stresses the need for reformulating the original text to the expectations of local players (Kent). Finally, he also emphasises the need for good knowledge of the target language rather than the source one in order to create quality translated texts. The other guide, written by the user nicknamed cauly (one of the founders of Zatrolené hry), is rather a step-by-step guide on how to proceed when translating a new game or its extension. However, the author also stresses the need for perfect proficiency in the Czech language and warns against using interfering jargon words from English in the Czech texts (cauly). Furthermore, the author urges his readers to maintain unified terminology by creating a glossary of terms, and to carry out proofreading once the translation is done. The rest of the guide mostly concentrates on discussing graphical aspects and uploading the final translation onto the website for approval by the translation section leader.
60
Overall, the fan translation community is staggeringly not unlike the official translators around the official publishers. Although the process of translation is not as complex (there are not as many proofreading or testing phases), it demonstrates very similar characteristics: there are certain binding rules for translating, there are proofreaders once the text is translated, and translators are even instructed to familiarize themselves with the game in question prior to translating. Besides, it should be mentioned that translators from the Zatrolené hry community are a highly organized group. There is a list on the website featuring all games currently being translated, giving the information on who the translator is, how much progress he or she has already made, and what the expected date of publication is (Zatrolené hry). As such, the fan translators around Zatrolené hry are very similar to the professional ones; and as
Stuart Woods observes, the quality of fan translation is very often perfectly comparable to the one of professional publishers, which makes the fans their full-fledged competitors.
3.3. Issues in Translation of Board Games
Translators dealing with board games have to face different issues in different games.
Sometimes it is necessary to adapt the language to the graphics which remains unchanged, but then there may consequently appear linguistic clashes between being true to graphics and maintaining a high language standard. In other cases, the title of the game may influence other expressions in the game and force the translator into translating in a certain way he or she finds challenging. As Michal Šmíd observes, often there is also the clash between the efforts not to change the original rules, but on the other hand to adapt the game for the target culture as much as necessary. Concrete
61 examples of these will be discussed in the chapter on translation issues in modern board games.
One of the main issues in dealing with translation of board games is their adaptation for the target culture and masking of traces of the source culture, which goes hand in hand with it. Each modern board game is always published at a certain time in history in a certain culture; consequently, it mirrors the needs or expectations of the given community of people and therefore it is rather culturally bound (Lambert). As such, board games ―lend themselves to the development of cultural formations which reflect both the moment in which they are produced and the identity and recreational choices of the players. This historical, cultural and economic contest cannot be ignored‖
(Lambert). As a result, translators try to adapt the traces of the original culture and substitute it by those of their own culture in order to make the game more suitable for the target players. Due to this process of masking the source culture one is frequently able to come across statements such as ―the American game Snakes and Ladders‖ or
―among the first published American games was Ludo‖, while they both actually come from India (Lambert). The case of the board game translation is in this aspect parallel to that of literature, as it ―arrives at its end-user as a fluent, natural text and hides any notion that translation has taken place‖ (Lambert). In literature, there has been an ongoing debate on the question of translator invisibility and in/suitability of domestication or foreignization methods. Joseph Lambert asks the question whether one would similarly question the process of board game translation. As he argues, games do not indeed carry an equal cultural weight as literature does; however, they mirror the history of particular cultures and can give us a greater insight into them. Besides, they also put the question of translator invisibility into a larger context: ―the clear way in which they demonstrate this ‗board game maker‘s invisibility‘ is an excellent indicator
62 of translation‘s own invisibility on a larger scale‖ (Lambert). The question of cultural adaptations of board games in translations is thus a rather complex issue. The next chapter will therefore be dedicated to a discussion of cultural adaptations in modern board games mainly from the perspective of Skopos theory and the theory of culture- specific items.
63
4. Translation Theory and Board Games
Having discussed the process of translation of board games, I now turn to describing translation theory relevant to the topic. After a brief look into the theory of equivalence, this chapter mainly discusses purpose-oriented theories, namely Justa Holz-Mänttäri‘s theory of translatorial action and Hans Vermeer‘s Skopos theory.
4.1. Theory of Equivalence
Equivalence is one of the central concepts in translation theory. Nevertheless, it is also a rather controversial one, as there is no general agreement regarding its validity and applicability in practice. While there are several strong supporters of the concept, who define translation process based on equivalence (Nida and Taber 1969; Toury 1980), there are also others who reject equivalence as irrelevant or inapplicable (Snell-Hornby
1988). Mona Baker (1992) holds a pragmatic opinion when it comes to equivalence, as she claims to be using the term only ―for the sake of convenience—because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status‖ (5-6). Anthony
Pym (1992) comes to a similar conclusion when he states that ―The translator is an equivalence producer, a professional communicator working for people who pay to believe that, on whatever level is pertinent, B is equivalent to A‖ (77). In his words, equivalence is a theoretical concept created by translators for other people to believe it exists; he observes that the belief in equivalence is historical, shared, and often cost- effective. Although there is no general agreement regarding equivalence, it is certainly a concept worth considering in the discussion of any field of translation.
The concept of equivalence was already discussed in the chapter on translation of board game rules. I introduced it there as a concept establishing a relationship between the source and target texts, where the source text is always superior to the
64 target one. However, this approach has turned to be rather problematic, as Nida observes, especially once we deal with translations over distant cultures. Although
Czech and American cultures are not fundamentally different, the cultural gap is still big enough to cause problems if not dealt with in translation of board games. This is especially true when we consider famous persons, important historical events or geographical locations, which are indeed distinct in the two above mentioned cultures.
There are numerous typologies of equivalence; the most commonly used one is probably Nida‘s typology of formal and dynamic equivalence introduced in the third chapter. Formal equivalence, as Nida points out, is typically applicable in cases when
―the message in the receptor culture is constantly compared with the message in the source culture to determine standards of accuracy and correctness‖ (Venuti 129). This is by no means true about board games, which are always evaluated as independent objects, irrespective of their original versions. In the case of dynamic equivalence, Nida explains that ―the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message‖ (in Venuti
129). A dynamically equivalent text aims at ―complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture‖ (in Venuti 129). What Nida describes is indeed a desirable result in the translation of board games, too.
As Byrne pointed out, dynamic equivalence is a problematic concept: it does not state how to achieve the desired goal, nor does it tell how to locate exactly the same behaviour in the two cultures. Moreover, the problem with a universal agreement about a translation in a given culture is a utopian idea; no two people, as Jody Byrne stresses, will always produce exactly the same opinions. For these reasons, it was concluded
65 there that for translation of game rules, it is best to treat the concept of equivalence merely as a tool rather than as a prescription.
In case of board games, however, I believe that one could consider dynamic equivalence as a useful theoretical strategy, since the relationship between the audience and the game remains the same. Although the theory does not tell one how to achieve the desired result, one can indeed be sure that translators of board games aim at what was described as dynamic equivalence by Nida. After all, translation theories do not always function as prescriptive, but they rather describe what translators in different cultures and historical periods do (Pym). Rather than considering equivalence of words, one should therefore address equivalence of the effect of the game on its players, which is also the core idea of functionally-oriented theory of Justa Holz-Mänttäri and Hans
Vermeer.
4.2. Mänttäri’s Translatorial Action
Perhaps the first person to avoid theory of equivalence of any kind and instead shift the focus from the source to the target text as the more important element in the translation process was the Finnish theorist Justa Holz-Mänttäri. She introduced the term translatorial action, which can be understood as ―mediated cross-cultural communication‖ (Pym 51). For her, the most important aspect of this communication across cultures is the purpose of what translators do. For Mänttäri, the aim of translation is not seen as a successful re-wording of the source text into another language, but rather as following a certain purpose of the translated text and adapting the translation to it (Pym). The question of any potential disagreement regarding the true purpose is clear to Mänttäri: to her, it is the trained translator who is the expert in translational things, and therefore should be the one deciding on the true purpose of the translation. Authors
66 and clients as she observes, on the other hand, ―tend to be experts in their own respective fields, and so should be left to decide on such things as field-specific terminology‖ (Pym 54). This approach is to a substantial degree in sharp contrast with equivalence theories, where the function of translators is repressed; translators were not seen to be entitled to decide anything freely, but rather to mechanically translate the source text into the target language. Mänttäri, on the contrary, greatly liberates and empowers translators, as Pym puts it.
The approach that Holz-Mänttäri holds is very important in translation of board games. As was observed in the previous chapter, it is frequently necessary to adapt board games to the needs and expectations of the target players who come from a different culture than the original game players. Moreover, sometimes games are published abroad several years after the original publication, and it is necessary to adapt the translation to the different temporal situation as well. Especially in the case of such deeply culturally grounded games as Apples to Apples®, it is inevitable to carry out numerous changes in the game in translation. The question one may ask oneself is, who is to decide what changes should be made and how the source text should actually be changed. As Mänttäri argues, it should always be the translators, as they are the professionals in the field and should know the best. In the case of Apples to Apples®, the question what to do with cards carrying expressions such as Bill Clinton or The Great
Fire of Chicago is therefore up to the translator and his or her perceptiveness towards such cultural concepts and their closest equivalents in the target culture. This will, however, be discussed in much more detail in the chapter on Apples to Apples®. For the time being, it is important to stress that there are translation scholars such as Mänttäri who empower translators to carry out such decisions individually.
67
4.3. Skopos Theory
Holz-Mänttäri‘s theory of translatorial action originated from Hans J. Vermeer‘s Skopos theory of translation, which appeared in 1978. These two theories signalled a shift from the linguistically-oriented theories towards more socio-culturally and functionally oriented approaches. This theory also aimed at dethroning the source text from its privileged position, as Vermeer saw it. For him, ―the translator's decisions could no longer be based solely on what was in the source‖ (Pym 54). The title Skopos theory comes from the Greek ―Skopos‖, which in a broader sense means ―purpose‖ (and also
―aim‖, ―goal‖, or ―intended function‖, as Christiane Nord adds). According to this theory, the key principle in any translation process is the purpose – Skopos – of the translational action. Translators should translate in such a way so as to achieve the
Skopos, which is the communicative purpose of the translation, rather than simply base their work on the source text (Pym). Parallel to Holz-Mänttäri, Skopos also partially contradicts traditional equivalence theories and challenges the notion that translations should be equivalent to their source texts.
According to Skopos theory, each text is translated for a certain Skopos.
Vermeer thus comes up with a Skopos rule governing all translations:
―translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function‖ (20). While most translations may have more than one potential purpose, it is always up to the translator to decide and choose the particular
Skopos in the given situation (Nord). The reason is that Skopos is not universal, but rather needs to be determined for each translation situation individually.
The Skopos rule tries to resolve the bipolarities of literal versus free translations, or dynamic versus formal equivalences. According to Skopos, any of the former
68 strategies may always be employed, depending on the Skopos of the text: ―Skopos of a particular translation task may require a 'free' or a 'faithful' translation, or anything between these two extremes, depending on the purpose for which the translation is needed‖ (Nord 29). The underlying idea of Skopos is that one should translate the purpose of the text rather than the words on the page.
Together with Katharine Reiss, Vermeer introduces the term translation brief in
1989, which specifies the kind of translation needed. Translation brief stands for the description of the situation for which the translation is being made, and is usually provided by the translation initiator. Based on this translation brief, translators then construct target texts, which are defined here as ―an offer of information formulated by a translator in a target culture and language about an offer of information formulated by someone else in the source culture and language‖ (Reiss and Vermeer 67). Guided by the translation brief, translators thus create an offer of information for the target readers in the target language in order to make the text meaningful in their situation. In this process, translators are led by their assumptions about the needs, expectations, and previous knowledge of the target audience, as Nord points out. As these assumptions will probably be different from the original author‘s assumptions, the final translation must inevitably form a new offer of another kind of information (Reiss and Vermeer).
This new offer of information in the form of the target text is called translatum.
However, translation brief and Skopos should always ensure that translatum will serve the same communicative function as the source text.
There are often situations when the source text function should be preserved. As
Skopos always depends on text receivers, the Skopos of the source and target texts frequently vary. Sometimes, however, Skopos is the same for the two texts; these situations are then called instances of constant function (Funktionskonstanz). Although
69 they do not require any change in function, Vermeer stresses that they may require other significant changes: ―In fact, maintenance of source-text function […] is probably the principle that requires the most textual shifts‖ (Nord 49). This is again mainly given by cultural, spatial, and sometimes also temporal differences between the source and target audiences.
One of the practical consequences of Skopos theory is the change of view of the status of source texts. As Baker stresses, ―It is up to the translator as the expert to decide what role a source text is to play in the translation action‖ (236). Translators decide on the basis of the purpose of the target text, the Skopos, and are guided by translation brief, and the source text is only one of the many constituents given to the translators
(Baker). As Vermeer points out, ―no source text has only one correct or preferable translation‖ (182) and it is up to the translator to carry out the translation towards a result he or she considers the most appropriate. Overall, Skopos theory liberates translators from the constraints of source text, and gives them power to make decisions regarding the target text.
Skopos theory aptly describes the case of translation of board games. In games such as Apples to Apples®, which are strongly based on language, it is usually not possible to carry out simple re-wording of the source texts. Such games, on the other hand, need certain adaptations in order to be playable with ease in the target culture, too.
With Apples to Apples®, the main issues include names of famous people (from television, radio, history, politics and other), places, historical events and cultural phenomena (such as the New York Police Department), which are commonly known by people in the USA, but most probably would cause troubles to players in other parts of the world.
70
While some potential Czech players of Apples to Apples® are most probably familiar with the current US president, hardly anyone will have deeper knowledge of any former presidents or other politicians ten or hundred years ago in the US. Although some may be familiar with the names of prominent US politicians, most Czech players of this game will probably not know much additional information on these people, which is, however, a crucial aspect of this game. Players need to be familiar with the terms on cards if possible, as they need to be able to argue about the cards and discuss various properties of the phenomena mentioned. This would, however, most probably cause great problems to a majority of potential players, as they would probably not be acquainted with details from the US history much more than Americans would be with the Czech one. A similar problem occurs with all the above listed categories appearing in the game. Bearing this mind, the translator therefore needs to adapt the game for the target players in order to maintain the Skopos, the function of the game. In order to maintain simple and smooth playability, Czech players need to come across phenomena in the game that they will most probably be familiar with. Most of such culturally bound terms will thus need to be substituted by their cultural equivalents. This substitution will necessarily be carried out by the translator, who, as Skopos theory observes, is the right professional to decide whether, when, and how to substitute such phenomena.
The aim of this chapter was to introduce translation theories relevant to the translation of board games. It was observed that in this field equivalence should be treated with care, especially in the case of culturally bound games, such as Apples to
Apples®. One should rather rely on findings of theories of translational action or Skopos theory, which empower translators to carry out decisions which are not solely based on
71 the source text. Additionally, these theories stress the importance of the purpose of individual translations and place it over the source text with respect to importance for the resulting target text. Finally, it was observed that if any substantial changes are necessary to be made to maintain a certain function or purpose of the text, it should always be translator making decisions concerning these changes based on his or her best consideration.
72
5. Translating Culture-specific Items
It was concluded in the preceding chapter that sometimes it is not possible to simply translate certain phenomena into the target language, as doing so would most probably result in incomprehension of the target text. The textual aspects bringing about the most frequent translation problems are cultural and social aspects, which are not shared or understood similarly by different cultures. This chapter looks into various aspects of translation of such problematic issues, particularly culture, and tries to propose some general outline for dealing with such translation problems.
5.1. Translation Problems in General
It is a common fact that knowledge of source and target languages alone is generally not enough for carrying out a successful translation. This was aptly pointed out by Peter
Newmark (1995), who claimed that ―any old fool can learn a language [...] but it takes an intelligent person to become a translator‖ (79). Not only does one need to master grammar, vocabulary and stylistics of source and target languages, but translators also need what Bell (1991) calls sociolinguistic competence, which is necessary for understanding context, the purpose of a text and its potential receivers. Without certain knowledge of both the source and target readers‘ culture and habits one can hardly render the source text into the target language successfully at all times.
Generally, most problems arise from the fact that languages do not share a set of existing categories, but rather articulate their own (Culler 1976: 21-22). Should it be so, people would perfectly make do with machine translation, which would always technically re-word source texts into the target ones. While this is sometimes possible with basic sentence constructions especially in the case of common phrases, machine translation usually falls short in the case of more complex texts, such as those featuring
73 cultural aspects or more difficult word or sentence constructions. An example Mona
Baker (1992) gives is an element of meaning which is represented by two words in
English (tennis player), but in other languages might be represented by only one (tenista in Czech, tenisci in Rumanian). Such examples demonstrate that there is no general word-for-word correspondence across languages and therefore one cannot always rely on categories of their native language.
The non-equivalence at word level is just one type of problems that may arise in the process of translation. The above discussed problem is one that a vast majority of translators would probably solve with ease; there are, however, some issues that demand more effort or skills. These are the cases when one has to actually seek for a target language expression to match a certain source text element, and has to make complex decisions regarding the choice of the best equivalent. Anthony Pym describes such translation problem as follows: ―A situation where a target-text element must be sought to correspond in some way to a source-text element and more than one solution is viable
(solutions may include omission or transcription)‖ (94). Such situations frequently arise in translation of board games, as was argued in the previous chapters. Perhaps the most frequent cause of such problems (not only in translation of board games, but also in general) is the differences between source and target cultures and the people‘s habits. It is therefore desirable to look at problems of cultural phenomena closer.
5.2. Problems of Cultural Phenomena
Problems of cultural phenomena are among the most common ones to arise in translation between different cultures (Paluciewski). As Bertrand Russell observed, ―no one can understand the word 'cheese' unless he has a non-linguistic acquaintance with cheese‖ (p. 113). Although one could try and provide the definition of cheese, perhaps
74 even with a picture attached to that, no one who has ever tasted cheese will get a clear idea of what it is like. This is indeed true not only about food, but all culturally grounded phenomena – such as places, religious concepts, historic events, famous people, and also social concepts. All these pose problems for translators.
Knowing the meaning of a word is often not enough for being able to render it into other languages. As Mona Baker stresses, it is generally necessary to know the word‘s connotations, stylistic features and any other important aspects to be able to grasp it properly and translate it into other languages. Regarding cultural phenomena, we often know what individual concepts mean, but it is questionable whether we are also familiar with its connotations or symbolism crucial for members of the respective cultural backgrounds. If we take the example of Route 66, which is a term on one of the cards in Apples to Apples®, we can state that some Czech people probably know that we are dealing with some kind of a road in the US. A vast majority, however, will have no deeper knowledge of the context and hardly anyone will know what symbolism or connotations this particular road has for American citizens. This cultural object will most probably not evoke any specific picture in the minds of Czech readers. This is indeed problematic in translation, as we often want our readers to understand what they are reading – especially in the case of board games, where understanding is one of the keys to enjoying the game as well. As Katharina Reiss points out, if we want to trigger the same or at least similar impulses in the target readers as the original author did in the source text readers, we need to adapt the source text in some way.
Already in 1964 Eugene Nida proposed four factors making communication and translation between languages and cultures possible. These are: (1) similarity of mental processes of all people, (2) similarity of somatic reactions, (3) the range of common cultural experience, and finally (4) the capacity for adjustment to behavioural patterns
75 of other people (Nida 1964: 53-5). Apart from Nida, Larson emphasises the fact that each society interprets texts in terms of their culture, as all texts are culturally conditioned: ―The receptor audience will decode the translation in terms of their own culture and experience, not in terms of the culture and experience of the author and audience of the original document. The translator then must help the receptor audience understand the content and intent of the source document by translating with both cultures in mind‖ (436-7). Larson thus points out here that everybody approaches texts from their own perspective, rather than seeing texts as being grounded in the source culture. Besides, as Nida observed, culture forms one of the four main pillars of understanding texts across different societies. If there is not enough common cultural experience, as Nida calls it, it is then often desirable to help target readers with understanding of the content.
There are several cases when cultural phenomena may cause difficulties in the process of translation. Most often we are dealing with concepts of the source language, which are, however, absolutely unknown by target language readers. These are the ones which bring about most problems in looking for equivalents (Paluciewski). Beside these, there are also cases when the target language lacks a ―more specific concept or term (hyponym) or a more general one (superordinate)‖ (Paluciewski 243). Finally, there may also come up a situation when the two cultures and languages make differing distinctions in meaning.
In all of the above mentioned cases, translators will need to implement certain strategies in order to overcome the cultural barrier between the two languages and cultures. It will be necessary to adapt the source text to make it understandable by the target readers, who are most probably not familiar with the source text cultural phenomena. In case of board games, this appears of utmost importance, as one should
76 always aim at highest playability and approachability possible if they want their game to be successful among target players. The cultural phenomena evaluated as most probably unknown by assumed target players will need to be dealt with in the translation of board games. Before I turn to a discussion of possible ways of dealing with cultural issues and available strategies that translators may use, it is necessary to define what is meant by culture and cultural phenomena.
5.3. Culture – Definition of the Term
Understanding the concept of culture is crucial for dealing with translation of cultural phenomena in board games. It is perhaps the reason why so many translation theorists have attempted to come up with their own definitions of the concept. As there is no space to list all of them or even their majority, I will try to present those definitions which are the most relevant to translation of board games.
Most theorists view culture as a set of features shared by a group of people.
Larson (1984) defines culture as ―a complex of beliefs, attitudes, values, and rules which a group of people share‖ (431). He also points out that translators need to understand these aspects in order to be able to translate them adequately for people with a different set of beliefs, attitudes, values and rules. A similar view is held by Davies
(2003), the author of a discussion of culture-specific concepts and their translations in
Harry Potter books. Additionally, Vermeer (1986), Gohring (1978) and Schmitt (2010) focus in their definitions on norms, conventions and forms of behaviour one has to master in order to behave like other members of the culture. All of these definitions are, however, rather vague and do not offer any clear idea of what to imagine what discussing culture. For the purpose of this thesis, I have therefore chosen the definition
77 formulated by Ward H. Goodenough (1964), an American ethnologist, who defines culture as follows:
As I see it, a society's culture consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members, and do so in any role that they accept for any one of themselves. Culture, being what people have to learn as distinct from their biological heritage, must consist of the end product of learning: knowledge, in a most general, if relative, sense of the term. By this definition, we should note that culture is not a material phenomenon; it does not consist of things, people, behavior, or emotions. It is rather an organization of these things. It is the forms of things that people have in mind, their models for perceiving, relating, and otherwise interpreting them (36).
While he also points out certain shared knowledge as one of the crucial aspects of culture, Goodenough further stresses the fact that culture represents an organization of things rather than the things themselves. Taking an example from Apples to Apples®, the main problem is not the person of Hillary Clinton whom the younger target Czech players may not know, but rather the mind concepts related to her, which members of the US culture generally associate with her. Czech players will probably not be able to relate her to any other concepts, nor to interpret her in a meaningful way. It is clear that culture is a complex phenomenon which needs careful handling in any translation, because it encompasses a great number of aspects, which are grounded in the minds of people of individual cultures.
5.3.1. Cultural Translation
The term cultural translation carries several meanings, many of which are rather vague and ideological (Pym). It was probably coined by British social anthropology in the
1960s, where it refers to the translation of cultures: ―when ethnologists set out to
78 describe distant cultures (thus technically becoming "ethnographers," writers of descriptions), they are in fact translating the cultures into their own professional language‖ (Pym 153). Later on, it was most significantly taken over by Homi Bhabha, the Indian cultural theorist. He used the term to refer to the question of translatability of the experience of people from post-colonial countries, and saw it as a means of resistance and the migrants‘ will for survival. Cultural translation was thus more concerned with people‘s identities and the work of ethnographers rather than the translation of unique cultural phenomena. Due to that, it is desirable to avoid the term so as not to sound misleading. In this work, I will therefore refrain from the term and talk about translation of culture-specific items.
5.4. Definition of Culture-specific Items
In translation theory, entities that are specific for individual cultures are referred to by various terms. Baker calls them culture-specific concepts; Nord uses the term cultureme; Newmark talks about cultural words; other scholars use the titles culture- bound phenomena, culture-specific references, or even rich points. The most commonly used term, however, is culture-specific items (Davies 2003), sometimes abbreviated as
CSIs. This term will therefore be used here.
Parallel to the disunity of terms referring to cultural phenomena causing translation problems, there are numerous different definitions of CSIs throughout translation theory, too. Some theorists even avoid defining them, as they believe that such concepts are intuitively recognizable (Aixelá). Christiane Nord (1997), however defines CSIs as a ―cultural phenomenon that is present in culture X but not present (in the same way) in culture Y‖ (34). It is questionable though what a ―cultural phenomenon‖ stands for here; it is a question whether famous people could be labelled
79 as phenomena or not. And how does one, after all, distinguish if a person is ―present‖ in a culture or not? While Nord‘s definition is too vague to provide us with any clear picture, Anthony Pym is perhaps too specific when he claims that CSIs are ―linguistic references that are supposed to indicate a specific culture, such as names of people, names of streets, specific terms for food, or names for currency units‖ (79). Claiming that the purpose of culture-specific items is to ―indicate a culture‖ seems too strong to me. Although they are bearers of cultural connotations, they do not serve the function of indicating any culture, but simply operate as carriers of certain culture-associative tokens.
Since nothing – let alone culture-specific items – is black or white, it is necessary to look at CSIs from more points of view at a time. Since we are dealing with such a complex and broad issue, it is hardly possible to come at a perfect description of the concept by employing a one-sided perspective. Since no classic translation theories were able to provide me with a functional definition of the term for my purposes, I turned to the more recent specialists on the topic, who are not all renowned theoreticians, but capture the essence of the concept better.
It seems to me that one needs to approach CSIs from two perspectives at a time: as expressions belonging to specific cultures, but also as concepts causing problems in translation. Regarding the first angle, González Davies and Scott-Tennent (2005) came up with a definition that captures them well:
Any kind of expression (textual, verbal, non-verbal or audiovisual) denoting any material, ecological, social, religious, linguistic or emotional manifestation that can be attributed to a particular community (geographic, socio-economic, professional, linguistic, religious, bilingual, etc.) and would be admitted as a trait of that community by those who consider themselves to be members of it (166).
80
Here the authors of the definition do not limit CSIs to phenomena supposed to indicate a culture, but approach the concept as traits of a given community or culture.
This needs to be combined with the translation approach, which was aptly worded by
Javier Franco Aixelá. He defines culture-specific items as
Those textually actualized items whose function and connotations in a source text involve a translation problem in their transference to a target text, whenever this problem is a product of the nonexistence of the referred item or of its different intertextual status in the cultural system of the readers of the target text (58).
Aixelá presents here a completely different view when he sees CSIs as simply features presenting translation problems due to intercultural gaps. The author then follows to observe that CSIs are context- or situation-bound, which is an important factor for the translation of board games when compared to other fields of translation:
[…] in translation a CSIs does not exist of itself, but as the result of a conflict arising from any linguistically represented reference in a source text which, when transferred to a target language, poses a translation problem due to the nonexistence or to the different value (whether determined by ideology, usage, frequency, etc.) of the given item in the target language culture (59).
According to Aixelá, it is only possible to identify culture-specific items in relation to particular translation situations. An item could thus be classified as a CSI although in general it would not be seen as causing any major translation problems. It is therefore clear that CSIs causing problems in translation do not objectively exist, but are rather given by each specific situation, the source text and the languages in translation.
An example was given by Álvarez and Vidal (1996), who discuss ―the month of April,
81 which in England suggests spring or the renewal of life, but would not do so for TL readers in whose country April was the month of severe hurricanes‖ (cited in Hosseini
2010). If the translator needed to preserve the associations of renewal of life in April, he or she would probably need to substitute it by a different month in the year to evoke the same connotations in target readers. Although April as such does not generally pose any major translation problems, it could be labelled as a CSI in this case.
This interpretation of culture-specific items is crucial for translation of board games such as Apples to Apples®. There are plenty of cards that carry terms that could perhaps be labelled as CSI only in the context of that game: Hillary Clinton, for instance, already mentioned above, is a contemporary American politician, whose name would not be considered as causing any problems in most types of texts for translation.
In the context of this game, however, where we want players to understand the concepts appearing on the cards, as well as to be able to argue about them, it is necessary for players to have these terms as a part of their cultural knowledge. While one would not dare substitute Hillary Clinton in a translation of an article on politics, it will be necessary here. The reason for this, as is clear from the arguments above, is that this represents a CSI in the context of the game and therefore needs to be dealt with in some way.
To sum up, it is important to think of culture-specific items as any expressions attributed to a specific culture or society, which are considered to be traits of that culture or society, and which pose a translation problem in a specific translation situation due to non-existence or different interpretation in the target society or culture.
82
5.5. Types of Culture-specific Items
The concept of culture-specific items covers a wide range of different aspects of everyday life. In order to be able to analyse the strategies for dealing with them in the process of translation of board games, it is necessary first to categorize them to be able to approach them systematically.
Numerous scholars have attempted to categorize CSIs, such as Newmark (2010),
Baker (1992), or Aixelá (1997). Baker lists two types of CSIs – abstract and concrete – but does not provide any examples or further explanations. It is therefore hard to apply her typology in practice. Aixelá, on the other hand, lists the most common categories:
―local institutions, streets, historical figures, place names, personal names, periodicals, works of art, etc.‖ (57). Not even his approach, however, seems ideal, as there could be an infinite number of categories, if we only listed them one after another like he did. I therefore choose the categorisation presented by Newmark (2010), which seems to be the most comprehensive one.
Newmark (2010) distinguishes six basic categories: ecology, public life, social life, personal life, customs and pursuits, and finally private passions (173-7). Ecology refers to geography and geology, such as Yellowstone National Park, The Midwest or
Los Angeles (all examples are taken from the game Apples to Apples®). Public life covers politics, law and government, such as Prime Minister or Hillary Clinton. Social life encompasses education, welfare, health, economy, and occupations, e.g., Rednecks,
My High School Prom or The Internal Revenue Service. Personal life covers areas such as clothing, housing and food – Root Beer Floats, Jelly Beans, My 16th Birthday or
Glazed Donuts. Customs and pursuits include various customs, means of entertainment and body language signs characteristic of a particular culture, e.g., Mardi
Gras, The Indy 500 or The Green Bay Packers. And finally private passions refer to
83 music, literature, religion and their social organizations, such as The Grateful Dead,
Bigfoot, Televangelists, YMCA or J. K. Rowling. While this categorization is probably the most comprehensive one I have been able to come across, there are still certain unresolved dilemmas concerning certain CSIs and their categorisation. I am not particularly sure in which category Newmark would include CSIs connected to history
(events, periods, and people), various institutions (golf clubs, museums, scientific organizations and others), specific products (cars, toys, or newspapers), important days of the year (e.g., The Fourth of July) or even animals appearing at a restricted place only. Besides, Newmark does not include famous people in any of his categories, let alone movie or TV characters, which is indeed a major group of CSIs in the game
Apples to Apples® and elsewhere. Although this categorisation is far from being a perfect one, it seems to have a reasonable number of broad enough categories and therefore it is the most suitable one. Nevertheless, if one needed to analyse the CSIs in their work more systematically, it would probably be desirable to come up with their own categories. For the purpose of this thesis this categorisation is, however, sufficient, as it gives a clear picture of what the categories might be and how we could approach the large amount of CSIs.
5.6. Translation of Culture-specific Items
As was already argued, it is often impossible to translate culturally bound words into other languages if we aim at preserving the effect of the original expression on the source readers as well as the associations with the concept. Meaning of CSIs is often tightly linked to their source culture and society and therefore needs a specific treatment. Besides, it was argued that in board games it is always necessary to aim for maximal playability, which is related to understandability and clarity.
84
The translation of culture-specific items has been a greatly debated topic in the field of translation theory. Theorists agree that CSIs are a problematic area of translation, but they are not at one regarding how to deal with them. It is, however, generally agreed that the decision should be made by translators: ―The translator is portrayed as a mediator whose task is to make these various cultural manifestations accessible to the reader of the translation‖ (Davies 68).
In general, concepts such as domestication and foreignization used by Venuti
(2001) play a crucial role in translation of CSIs. As Davies (2003) observes,
―discussions of alternative treatments for CSIs often invoke the distinction between two basic goals of translation: that of preserving the characteristics of the source text as far as possible, even where this yields an exotic or strange effect, and that of adapting it to produce a target text which seems normal, familiar and accessible to the target audience‖ (69). These opposing poles of approaching translation have been discussed by several other scholars, namely Schleiermacher (re-published in 2001), or Harvey and
Higgins (1992). These theorists generally state that translators can either retain the strangeness of the source text for the target readers by foreignising (preserving the source text CSIs, although they are most likely to be unknown by target readers), or adapt the text to the target audience so as to minimise the level of strangeness and to present the target readers with a fluent text by domesticating it. In case of translating board games, the latter is indeed desirable, as one does not want the target players to regard the translated game as strange or incomprehensible. The reasons are aptly summarised by Brigita Brasiené in her thesis on translation of CSIs in literary texts:
―The ability to identify references to participants, entities, events and practices is essential for drawing inferences and for maintaining the coherence of a text. A proper name or even a reference to a type of food or gadget which is unknown to the reader can
85 disrupt the continuity of the text and obscure the relevance of any statement associated with it‖ (242-3). It is thus clear that one needs to adopt the domesticating approach in translation of board games, if he or she wants to make the game approachable to players.
While I have already argued for the need to adapt the source text due to comprehensibility, it is also necessary to discuss how one should do that. It is actually not possible to substitute the source expressions by any target language terms – there needs to be some mental connection between the two to make the substitution justifiable. Although translators often turn to substituting terms in translation, not all the adaptations they make are always lucky. This is especially the case when the substituting term is hardly justifiable as an adequate equivalent in the target culture. An example is given by Brigita Brasiené (2010) in her thesis, where she describes a case when the translator chose to bridge the cultural gap between French and English readers by explaining the unfamiliar (Arsene Lupin) by the familiar (Boris Karloff). While the strategy used is indeed understandable, the choice of the substituent is not. As Brasiené points out, these two characters have very little in common: ―The former is the hero of a series of French detective-type stories: a thief; flamboyant, resourceful and elusive, but nevertheless a thief. The latter is a British actor associated mainly with horror films‖
(244). As these two men have very little – if anything at all – in common, it can hardly be regarded as a successful treatment of a culture-specific item. If one chooses to resort to a substitution of a CSI, it is necessary to choose such a counterpart which is able to trigger the same or at least similar associations. As Brasiené further argues, ―Identifying reference is not just a question of identifying roughly who or what the referent is but, crucially, of knowing enough about the referent to interpret the particular associations it is meant to trigger in our minds in a given context. Referents are not featureless beings
86 and entities; they have specific histories, physical and social features, and are associated with particular contexts‖ (244). It is therefore necessary to approach the translation of
CSIs with care.
Overall, readers need to be able to integrate information they come across in a text into their model of world in order to be able to make sense of it. This is possible only when the information we receive can be in one way or another related to a bigger picture in our minds. It is thus often necessary to use different strategies in dealing with
CSIs, apart from simple re-wording into the target language, in order to make the target text comprehensible.
5.7. Possible Strategies of Dealing with CSIs
There have been numerous attempts at listing possible translation strategies for dealing with CSIs.
Mona Baker (2002) introduces several strategies for dealing with non- equivalence in translation. Out of the many listed by her, there is only one that could be applied to the translation of CSIs, at that is translation by cultural substitution. Baker comments on the strategy as follows: ―The main advantage of using this strategy is that it gives the reader a concept with which he or she can identify, something familiar and appealing‖ (29). While this technique is indeed used by translators dealing with CSIs, others – which Baker does not mention – are also possible.
Newmark (2010) comes up with a more suitable list for dealing with CSIs. He suggests five different strategies: transference, that is simple transfer of the word into target language; cultural equivalent, by which he means substituting the source expression by an appropriate target language equivalent (e.g. espresso – English tea); descriptive equivalent, which is when one translates the SL term by a more generic term
87 and adds supplementary explanations (Bundestag – second chamber of parliament); componential analysis, where one uses a rephrasing definition of the concept instead of the expression itself (Methodism - a nonconformist denomination deriving from the faith and practice of John Wesley and his followers); and finally using transonym, which happens when one converts proper names into the TL (Jean – John) (Newmark
175-7). In the case of board game translation, or even translation of Apples to Apples® in particular, it is only possible to use one of the first two strategies (that is transference
– if the source concept is likely to be understood – and cultural equivalent – in the opposite case).
While the strategies listed by other scholars generally overlap with those presented by Newmark (2010), there is one typology that presents a more detailed list of possible strategies. It comes from Javier Franco Aixelá‘s article on Culture-specific items in translation (1996). In the article, he groups the strategies into conservation and substitution ones. The conservation strategies for dealing with CSIs are as follows:
Repetition – translators preserve the original expression (Seattle → Seattle)
Orthographic adaptation – transcription and transliteration
Linguistic (non-cultural) translation – translators use a reference denotatively
very close to the original, but offer a target language version (typical of
measures, currencies)
Extratextual gloss – the translator uses one of the above strategies, but
includes some explanation of the meaning or implications of the CSI
Intratextual gloss – the gloss from previous example is included as an
indistinct part of the text so as not to disturb readers‘ attention (St. Mark →
Hotel St. Mark)
(Aixelá 61-2).
88
As Aixelá observes, there are many factors that influence translators‘ choices of the strategies in specific situations. In the case of board game translation, all decisions regarding CSIs should be guided by the specific parameters of the given game and the translator‘s understanding of these. In general, these decisions should be based on the type of the game, its potential audience (especially their age) and the game‘s aim or general concept. With Apples to Apples®, one is mostly limited in deciding by the fact that it is a party game targeted at mass audience, aged twelve and above. As the vast majority of potential players will probably be teenagers and young people of both sexes and all levels of education, it is necessary to limit the demands on their knowledge of
American culture-specific items only to those that can be expected to be a part of common knowledge. Additionally, one is limited here by game principles: if players are expected to be familiar with the expressions on the cards in order to be able to argue about them, persuade others and discuss them, it follows as a logical premise that the expressions on the cards should be ones that belong to common knowledge in the target culture and society. The conservation strategies should therefore be used here with care, that is only when translators believe that the given expression is in general awareness of the target players and that the players are likely to have a good idea about its connotations and associations. From the above listed strategies, it is possible to use only the first three mentioned ones, as there is no space on cards or anywhere else in the game for any extra- or intratextual glosses.
The other group of strategies for dealing with CSIs Aixelá presents is substitution strategies:
Synonymy – this strategy is used with recurrence of CSIs in a text; translator
resorts to using a synonym or a parallel reference to avoid repetition
89
Limited universalisation – if the CSI is evaluated as too obscure, translators
may choose to replace it by a more closer and suitable CSI from the target
culture
Absolute universalisation – similar to the previous case, but translators do not
find a better CSI to replace it, so they use a neutral reference instead
Naturalization – the translator decides to bring the CSI into the intertextual
corpus felt as specific by the target language culture
Deletion – may be used in case of unacceptable, irrelevant or too obscure
CSIs
Autonomous creation – translators decide to put in some cultural reference
non-existent in the source text; this strategy is used very little
(Aixelá 63-4).
As the author adds, it is also possible to combine the strategies, such as by applying compensation (deletion + autonomous creation at a different place in the text).
These strategies come into play when translators evaluate the source text CSIs as highly improbable for the target readers to be familiar with, or otherwise causing troubles to comprehend the target text. In case of the translation of Apples to Apples®, the first and the last strategy cannot be used – there is no case of repeated expressions, as we are dealing with separate cards, and there is no space to create new autonomous CSIs elsewhere. Deletion would be an extreme case here, but the translator should most frequently use a type of universalisation instead. Concrete examples of individual strategies as applied to the translation of the game in question will be provided in the chapter on the translation of Apples to Apples®.
This section has introduced the numerous strategies, which are at hand to translators dealing with culture-specific items. While the general typology and
90 differentiation is certainly clear, the question remains how to choose individual strategies in specific translation cases.
5.7.1. The Choice of Strategies for Dealing with CSIs
It is usually up to the translator to choose the strategy he or she sees as the best in the given situation, and the choice is not a simple one. Apart from being dependent on the linguistic system of the language in question, the choice of a suitable equivalent depends on several other factors. Baker (1992) names the following: the way the translator decides to manipulate the linguistic systems; the expectations, knowledge and prejudices of readers in a specific time and place; the translator‘s understanding of the task; and finally its restrictions.
Not only is the choice of the most appropriate technique conditioned by the above listed aspects, one also needs to know when to preserve the source text expression and when to substitute it. Unless there are any hard and fast rules set by the translation initiator, translators should stick to general suggestions. As Nida & Taber
(1969/1982) point out, alterations should not be employed unless: ―(1) the text is likely to be misunderstood by the receptors, (2) the text is likely to have no meaning to the receptors, or (3) the resulting translation is so "overloaded" that it will constitute too much of a problem for the average reader to figure it out‖ (110). These conditions can freely be applied to board game translation, especially the first two. Translators need to analyse each case and decide whether the specific CSI is likely to be understood by target players and mean something to them at all.
One problem arising at this point is the fact that translators of board games can never be exactly sure about the source-text author‘s intentions. Similarly to translators of other types of texts, they do not have any direct access to the intentions of the
91 original author. The only thing they can do is therefore building a ―mental model of intended meaning on the basis of the textual record and all relevant contextual information available‖ (Baker 2009: 32). This model then needs to be compared to their knowledge of the languages and the world around them. With board games, the chunks of text on game components are often free from any context (such as the text on cards in
Apples to Apples®), and therefore translators cannot rely on any immediate textual context here. The only context they are left with is the situational one (the game) and the cultural, which are the decisive criteria in the choice of the most appropriate strategy.
In his book on semantic structures, Nida (1975) introduces a strategy of linguistic analysis for dealing with translation problems. Although it is not targeted at dealing with CSIs in particular, and it is also a rather outdated publication, it seems to me as a fitting method helping translators choose the most appropriate strategy in specific situations. What Nida introduces there is the concept of frame and substitution
(Nida 1975: 137). While the frames become rather complex in semantic analyses, it is sufficient for our purposes here to outline the core idea only. Nida observes that such frames can be applied to translation problems treated under ecology, and material, religious, social and linguistic cultures (68). These categories fit those outlined as types of CSIs in one of the preceding sections. The method of frame and substitution is therefore appropriate for dealing with CSIs, although Nida does not state any such specification.
When trying to pick the best strategy for translating a CSI according to Nida, it is thus desirable to try to construct a mental frame of the expression first. The frame of the CSI should include the cultural and textual contexts of the given source text expression (however, it will be only the cultural context in case of Apples to Apples®, as
92 has already been argued). Ideally, the translator should try to model any possible connotations, associations and symbols related to the source text concept, which are shared by members of the source culture and society. Taking the example of Bigfoot from Apples to Apples®, one could include the following information in the frame (my own list):
Bigfoot is a large, hairy apelike creature
It only appears at night and often scares children
It comes from dark forests in the North
The first mentions of the creature come from the indigenous inhabitants of
North America, where it forms a part of their mythology
It is questionable whether it actually exists
This information should then constitute the frame necessary for dealing with the
CSI. As this is a creature which is in occurrence limited to the North American continent only, it is highly improbable that it would be known by Czech players of the board game. In order to preserve playability of the game, it is therefore necessary to reach for a substitution strategy. The choice of the best technique as well as the substituting expression should be based on the frame created for the source-text expression. Ideally, the target-text expression should also be one that constitutes a hairy, apelike creature that comes from dangerous, unknown places and scares people.
Additionally, it should be a creature from the native people‘s mythology that is not confirmed to exist. And, of course, this creature should be a part of the common knowledge of Czech board game players. With the help of this frame, I arrived at a counterpart for Czech players, which I believe is ideal here, and that is Yeti. This creature holds all the above listed characteristics and forms a part of general knowledge in Czech society, and is therefore a perfect match for the source-text CSI Bigfoot.
93
It should be pointed out at this place that theory cannot always provide translators with hard and fast rules, which would ensure a perfect result for every translation. It can, however, introduce translators to various strategies and techniques available and offer principles helping them to make better choices. In the case of dealing with CSIs in board game translation, it is desirable to reach for one of the previously listed strategies with the help of constructing a mental frame for each problematic source-text item. In doing so, translators are more likely to come at better target equivalents that the unnamed translator did with Arsene Lupin, as was shown earlier in this chapter.
Finally, I should also state here that the process of translation of board games is not always as straightforward as I have described it here. Although it would be theoretically ideal to let translators decide for the best cultural equivalents of the source
CSIs appearing in the game, this is not always the practice. As Pavel Prachař from
Mindok points out, the most important factor in publication of any board game is the level of entertainment and interest it brings to the target users. It is sometimes therefore not necessary – or even desirable – to come up with the most appropriate equivalents of
CSIs. On the other hand, as Prachař observes, publishers often create their own sets of expressions regardless of the original ones, if the game allows for it, in order to compile a set of expressions that is appealing to the players, rather than just true to the original.
In case of Mindok, potential candidates for the target expressions need to go through a multi-level selection procedure where a group of specialists shortlists the best expressions. The decision regarding the choice of the best equivalents is not always up to translators. This process, however, always depends on the specific game, and is far from being universal. As with other aspects of board game publication in the Czech
Republic, these methods differ from one publisher to another and therefore it is not
94 possible to generalize very much. Overall, it is possible to claim that the method of CSI substitution outlined here can be used both by translators as well as in-house publisher‘s specialists dealing with the same problem in the situations when finding the most suitable cultural equivalent is in keeping with the market strategies of the publisher as well.
95
6. Issues in Translation of Specific Board Games
Each translation discipline probably faces certain difficulties and problems typical of the field. In the case of translation of board games, these issues can be divided into textual and non-textual. Textual problems are matters of the translation of texts (game rules or text on game components, such as cards), while non-textual ones usually deal with graphics or the clashes arising between graphics and text. Many of these difficulties appear due to cultural or social gaps, but there may be other reasons, too.
These issues typically arise with individual games and a great number of them are rather difficult to anticipate; it is therefore hardly possible to create an exhaustive list of these, as their number and types will be rising with every new game chosen for publication. In this chapter, I will introduce several translation problems that occurred in the translation of specific games and also solutions I am proposing. On top of that, I will discuss the translation of the board game that is closest to Apples to Apples® by virtue of its nature and popularity, and that is the German game Activity®.
6.1. Textual Issues in Translation of Board Games
This category comprises of issues arising from translation from one language into another – in these specific cases, it is from English – or German in the case of Activity®
– into Czech. Unlike non-textual issues, these problems are related to the textual parts of the game only. These examples are taken from the board games Activity®, Cards
Against Humanity®, and Time’s Up! ®. The greatest part of this section will be devoted to discussing Activity® and its translation into Czech, as this game is the closest to
Apples to Apples®.
96
6.1.1. Activity®
Activity® is a board game by Piatnik which was originally published in 1993. A few years later it made its way on the Czech board game market and thus the local gaming population saw the first Czech publication in 1999. This game is probably the most famous party game ever published in the Czech Republic, notoriously known even by general public outside the gaming community (Široký). It would be hard trying to find a person in the Czech Republic who has never played – or at least heard of – Activity®.
The game has become classic not only in Austria, its country of origin, but also in
Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and many other European countries.
Fig. 1: Activity® Original
This game is in many aspects similar to Apples to Apples®. Regarding the category of games it belongs to, Activity® is a party game played with cards which do not carry pictures but only text. Similarly, it is designed for 3-16 players aged 12 and up. The playing time is approximately 45 minutes. Like Apples to Apples®, this game is heavily language-dependent and as such was voted to be ―unplayable in another language‖ by Boardgamegeek users (Boardgamegeek.com) – that means, one cannot play the game in a language that is not his or her native one. Unlike Apples to Apples®,
97
Activity® is played in teams. The teams move their pieces on the board and try to reach the finish first. In each move, the team draws a card and depending on the field they stand on, they must describe, draw or mime the relevant expression on the card.
Although this game mechanism is different from the main one in Apples to Apples®, the game is also a party game with cards which is greatly language-dependent.
There is one aspect of the game that distinguishes it from Apples to Apples® and that is its reduced re-playability. Activity® has one disadvantage in its game mechanism – the cards in the game do not combine with each other or any other game components, but players always draw the cards and perform what is necessary at that moment. After a number of playing it could therefore happen that the cards and expressions start repeating. This drawback is mentioned several times in various reviews, too, where players claim to feel less excitement after several rounds of the game, when the cards begin to re-appear and they already know the expressions. With
Apples to Apples®, such situation is very unlikely to happen. The probability that one would come across exactly the same playing situation twice is at minimum. As the creators of the game claim, the number of combinations of the cards is almost infinite.
This gives the game an indisputable advantage over Activity®, but the games are otherwise very similar.
Apart from being generally popular, Activity® is also said to be very beneficial to the development of children‘s ability to express ideas. In an online review of the game, Mintaka (as the author is nicknamed) states: ―It is my opinion that this is one of the games each household with children should have. I have noticed with myself that after playing this game so many times, my way of describing things to people improved.
I think that this game encourages better expression, improves communication and certainly makes brains more susceptible to connecting and coming to quick
98 conclusions‖ (Mintaka). The same opinion appears in numerous other online reviews – both Czech and English – written by users of the game. These personal opinions are supported by the fact that the second edition of the game (Activity 2) has received the award Hračka roku 2009 (Toy of the Year 2009) thanks to the potential of the game to develop children‘s thinking and imagination in a fun way. If the general public as well as the award committee believe that the game is beneficial for children‘s linguistic and other development, it should come without saying that the game is translated in perfect
Czech. The reality, unfortunately, does not match theory.
Reviews of the game often observe that numerous cards carry text that either has typographic errors or is not meaningful or idiomatic in Czech. Although collecting and comparing all reviews of the games was not my objective, I have found more than ten reviews complaining about the quality of the Czech translation of the game. The authors of the reviews sometimes complained about typos; criticism of the bad translation was, however, far more common. Players claimed that expressions on cards are ―sometimes rather nonsensical‖, ―often illogical due to a bad translation‖, ―frequently unidiomatic due to a literal translation‖ ; that ―there is a plenty of unsuitable translations‖ and due to that ―it is not possible to demonstrate the expressions adequately‖ (my own translation; quoted from various online reviews at deskovehry.heureka.cz, mall.cz and modernihry.cz). On top of that, reviewers of later editions of the game often claim that the game contains many typos and bad translations ―as the tradition goes‖. This finding seems to me rather shocking and it only confirms what Michal Široký from Rex hry was saying when he claimed that large corporations often do not aim at quality, as they rely on the trade mark or a famous name to sell the game anyway.
Since I had the same impression from my personal experience of playing the game as the reviewers did, I decided to have a closer look at the expressions on cards. I
99 was working with the original edition of Activity® published in the Czech Republic in
1999, from which all later versions of the game derive. I have found several typographic errors (wrong letters, wrong diacritics, or missing capitalization). The numbers in brackets show the number of the cards carrying the errors. The expressions containing typos are the following ones:
• vánoce (189)
• vzduaný zámek (25)
• kulatý stˇul (225)
• krelený film (241)
• dezertní vino (262)
• návštívenka (343)
• zemé nikoho (145)
• pˇuvodní vydání (395)
• pijatika (251)
Besides these typographic errors, there were several questionable expressions: while these words do exist in the Czech language, the expressions are either unidiomatic, they have more common equivalents or forms, or they are archaic. These were:
• válek (38) – an outdated and vernacular form of the word váleček
• služební stupeň (418) – ―služební hodnost‖ is what was probably meant
• prémiové spoření (340) – a type of saving that existed in the communist
era only
• objem hrudi (297) – the common expression is obvod hrudi
• válka nervů (39) – no idiomatic expression
100
• přistání podle přístrojů (145) – ―automatické přistání‖ was probably
intended
• drtiny (337) – an archaic term for piliny
• lupiny (117) – an archaic expression for šupiny; a type of a wild flower,
commonly known as vlčí bob; lupy (vlasové) in Slovak
The last of the words on the list is the most controversial one. While this word exists in the Czech language and stands for a type of a wild flower, this sense of the word is hardly the one the translators had in their mind. If this were an expression that should be drawn in the game, this version would be possible. Since players are expected to mime the word, it could only hardly stand for the flower. Regarding the second sense of the word – fish scales – there is the common word that is used for the phenomenon in
Czech and that is šupiny. There is therefore no reason why not use that word instead if one was aiming at that meaning. What I thus find most probable is that this word is actually supposed to mean dandruffs (lupy in Czech). For some reason, the card carries the Slovak term for that phenomenon. This sense of the word as the intended one seems to me the most probable due to the fact that it could easily be expected to be mimed. As there are more words in the game that carry signs of a relation to the Slovak language, I believe the last intended sense of the word is actually the right one and this card can therefore be labelled as one carrying an expression which was translated in wrong way.
The last group of problematic expressions on cards consists of those that are nonsensical, confusing or simply translated in a wrong way. I will briefly comment on each of them, explaining what is wrong in each case:
• kazimír (284) – if capitalized, this word stands for an old Slavonic male
name; the non-capitalized form does not exist in Czech; this could perhaps be
regarded as a typographical error;
101
• Bázeň vody (321) – in this expression (―fear of water‖) there is either a
preposition missing (from), or there might be three typos to make it bazén vody
(swimming pool full of water) – otherwise the two words do not make any sense
together;
• Selský kalendář (388) – looks like a type of calendar; however, I have
not found any proof of its existence now or in the past;
• Hřbet stolu (326) – this combination of words does not make any
common Czech collocation and as such is not used;
• Výše nákladu (341) – this expression is used in plural only; this could
therefore either be a typo, or it may be caused by the translator‘s ignorance;
• Plavec záchranář (279) – this is no existing collocation in Czech; if
written with a hyphen, this exists and is generally used in Slovak;
• Reumatická deka (349) – no such expression exists in Czech; again, this
expression exists in Slovak;
• autodrožka (436) – an archaic Slovak term for taxi.
It is clear from the above listed expressions that typos and errors are numerous in Activity®. While it may not seem as a high number of typos and errors in case of a translation of a text, such number of problems is too high for a board game to be acceptable for players. Although I have tried to capture all problematic expressions, there may even be additional ones that I have overlooked. Based on the above listed explanations of the problematic expressions, I believe that either of the following is true: either the game was translated by a non-native speaker of Czech (perhaps a Slovak person), or the translation into Czech was carried out as a simple mechanical translation of the expressions from Slovak into Czech. I cannot see why there would otherwise be so many Slovak expressions, which do not exist in Czech. This is, however, only my
102 speculation, as Piatnik does not state the name of the translator of the game anywhere in the game rules or on the box.
Not to make Activity® look too bad, it should be stated that typos and errors are not scarce among board games in general. This was ironically observed in a discussion forum at Zatrolené hry. When a user asked for creating a forum where community members could map errors in board games, the reply of the admin was rather telling: ―It is a great idea, but we should cover only factual errors. […] If we were to point out all typos and stylistic errors, the forum would be swamped with this‖ (Zatrolené hry; my own translation). It is therefore clear that Activity® is probably far from being the only game suffering from numerous errors. This, however, does not make the errors there less pathetic or even excusable.
Finally, it should be mentioned that the area so important for Apples to Apples®
– culture-specific items – is very moderately represented in Activity®. The reason is that a vast majority of the terms on cards are general expressions rather than concrete cultural phenomena. From the large amount of cards in Activity® I was able to find only three expressions that must have been adapted for the target Czech audience. These were one town (Kutná Hora), one lake (Máchovo jezero) and one mountain top
(Sněžka).
6.1.2. Cards Against Humanity®
Cards Against Humanity® is an adult version of Apples to Apples® created by a group of friends in the US during their New Year‘s celebrations. The game was later changed into the form that is known today – a set of black cards with questions or fill-in statements and white cards with expressions to fill in the blanks or answer the questions.
The development of the official version was triggered by a successful campaign at
103
Kickstarter, a crowdfunding online platform for creative projects. The official version was released in 2011 and is available for purchase at the game‘s official website. Since then, it has become extremely popular across English-speaking countries. There are also several language versions available which were created by fans of the game worldwide
– Spanish, German, French and others.
The principle of the game is very simple. Each round, a judge draws a black card and asks the question written on the card. Other players have to find the best (funniest) answer from their white cards to the question asked by the judge. The judge then decides for the best reply to the question, and the player who played the card scores a point. The role of the judge changes every round so each player gets the opportunity to decide.
Fig. 2: Example of cards from Cards Against Humanity®
104
So far, a Czech version of the game has not been published. The reason is not that the game is not popular among Czech players – several young people in the Czech
Republic know the game and play the English version. The main obstacle here is probably the demanding nature of the translation. In English, all expressions on white cards are either nouns or gerunds; as such, they can always be filled in the sentences or used as answers without any problems. No matter what the questions on black cards are
(as long as they are not yes/no questions), a gerund or a noun can always be used as an answer. Czech is, however, a language with declinations, and does not make much use of gerunds. The task of creating a set of expressions that could be universally used as both fill-in words into statements or answers to questions will therefore be rather hard – if not impossible. It may be necessary to state expressions on the white cards in nominative case only and let judges inflect the words as necessary (this strategy was chosen by the fan translator into Polish). This will, however, make the course of the game less smooth and will place extra demands on judges. If the Czech translator wanted to prevent that from happening, he or she would need to adapt the questions and statements so that they only require expressions in nominative and gerunds (this strategy was not employed by the Polish translator). This might, however, need extensive adaptations of the black cards, and could distance the game from the original too much.
If there ever is a Czech fan version of the game, it will be interesting to see how the translator dealt with these textual issues. For the time being, it is only possible to outline the problems and discuss their possible solutions.
6.1.3. Time’s Up!®
Time‘s Up! ® is a successful party game published by MindOK in 2000. The game mechanism is similar to Activity®, but the playing cards carry only names of famous
105 people or fictional characters, which makes it similar to Apples to Apples®, too. In this game, players in teams try to guess as many famous people as possible within the time limit of 30 seconds. The game consists of three rounds: first the names are explained by almost any means; in the second round players are allowed to say only one word to describe the person, and in the final round players must mime the people on the cards.
The game principle is thus very simple.
This game, as it was published in the Czech Republic, is fully translated into
Czech. As the expressions on the cards are highly culture-specific, it was necessary to come up with a completely new set of famous people for the Czech publication.
Although some of the original names were preserved, because the people are famous worldwide, most names were changed into those of Czech or Slovak well-known persons.
Fig. 3: Cards from the original version of the game Time’s Up! ®
106
In this game, translators were facing the same challenge as in Apples to Apples®
– to come up with CSIs equivalent to the original ones. It is not possible to get to know the specific key based on which the person responsible for the task actually selected the final names on the cards, because this strategy is the publisher‘s marketing know-how.
From the personal interview with Pavel Prachař of MindOK it was, however, clear that the process of selection of the Czech expressions was long and complex. All candidate names went through a short-listing process consisting of several rounds, from which the best expressions ended up placed on the cards. The crucial decisive factor in selecting the names was, as Prachař states, always the matter of relevance to Czech players and the market situation at the time of publication. For MindOK, it was not important to find respective equivalents of the source-game expressions, but they rather aimed at maximum entertainment and interest value. The method of short-listing as well as the process of proposing the potential candidates remains, however, a secret of the publishing company.
Fig. 4: Cards in the Czech version of Time’s Up! ®
107
6.2. Non-textual Issues in Translation of Board Games
As was already outlined in the introduction to this chapter, there are often issues in translation of board games that arise between the text in the game and the graphics. In
Jonathan Evans‘s terminology, such problems can be labelled as multimodal, as they arise from the multimodal nature of board games. These issues are generally more serious than the textual ones: while it is mostly possible to come at an acceptable but still a good solution in the case of textual problems, one often faces here the fact that graphics of the game cannot be changed. In the cases where the graphic design is in conflict with the text that should be translated into the target language, one thus mostly needs to adapt the text to the graphics, no matter how problematic such task may be.
This is often the case with titles of board games that are not suitable for the target and need to be changed, but are bound to graphics and any changes are highly problematic.
The range of such problems is, however, very wide. In this section, I will briefly present three different games where clashes between text and graphics needed to be resolved (or need to be – in case of unpublished games). These are Lewis & Clark®, 1989: Dawn of
Freedom®, and Fungi®.
6.2.1. Lewis & Clark®
Lewis & Clark® is a highly successful strategic card game which was published in the
US last year. It has soon become very popular and so far has already received three awards, both in the US and abroad. For that reason, the Rex hry publishing house started considering publishing the game in the Czech Republic, too. Soon they, however, realized that the game would need a change of the title. The two men in the title – Lewis and Clark – were two American explorers sent by Thomas Jefferson to explore unknown land after it was purchased from Napoleon in 1803. Not only is this game
108 greatly American-bound, but no one in the Czech Republic has probably ever heard of the two explorers. As such, the title of the game is not attractive for Czech players and the game is not very likely to be successful here (Široký). For that reason, it would be desirable to change the game‘s title into something more attractive. This is, however, hardly possible, because game components carry the title of the game. It would therefore be necessary to create new graphics, which would be so expensive that the game could hardly be profit-making (Široký). It is therefore up to publisher to decide – based on their marketing strategy – if they are willing to risk a failure of the game and publish it under its existing name, or rather look for a more certain, but perhaps less interesting game, which does not face such translation issues.
Fig. 5: The box of the game Lewis & Clark®
6.2.2. 1989: Dawn of Freedom®
1989: Dawn of Freedom® is a strategic wargame published in the US in 2012. Although it is originally American, the game deals with events around the fall of the Eastern Bloc in 1989. Because the topic of the game is likely to appeal to Czech players, MindOK decided to publish the board game in the Czech Republic, too. At the time of writing this thesis, the game had not been published yet. From the interview with Pavel Prachař,
109
I, however, got to know what problems their team had to face when adapting the game for Czech players.
The first problem MindOK had to solve concerned the box of the game. As the game originally deals with events in a large number of the former-Eastern-Bloc countries, the original box carries symbols and text mainly related to Russia – irrelevant to the Czech historic situation (see Fig. 6). Although adapting the game box is extremely expensive, as Široký states, MindOK decided for adapting it in this game.
The aim of this strategy was again greater attractiveness for Czech players and higher relevance with respect to the Czech historic experience. While the style was preserved, the mottos and pictures were changed to mirror the events in Czechoslovakia.
Personally, I find the change of the game box very successful. For reference, see and compare the original and the Czech box below.
Fig. 6: The original and the Czech box of the game
Apart from this problem, there were also plentiful issues in the text of the game.
As Prachař pointed out, it was often necessary to adapt the point of view of the game.
110
Additionally, it was necessary to change the text on the cards so that it carried facts relevant to the Czech historic experience. In order to ensure that, the translation and adaptation of the game were entrusted to a board game player and an amateur translator who has personally participated in the events of November 1989 and who has personally experienced the era (Prachař). In doing so, the publisher made sure that the
Czech version of the game is true to the experience of Czech people. Whoever buys the
Czech game once it is published, they will find there statements, events and political organizations that were located in Czechoslovakia, which undoubtedly increases the enjoyment of the game.
6.2.3. Fungi®
Fungi®, originally published under the title Morels®, is a family card game published by
Pegasus Spiele in Germany in 2012. In this game, players pick, cook and sell mushrooms with the help of different tools, such as baskets or pans. At the time of my interview with Pavel Prachař, MindOK was considering the game for publication in the
Czech Republic. The topic – mushroom picking – is a popular leisure-time activity among Czech people and as such has not been used in any board game yet. The main translation problem of this game is that several cards depict mushrooms that are not typical of Czech woods and therefore Czech players are not familiar with them. The question Prachař and his team were discussing was whether the game would still be attractive enough for Czech players if the mushrooms there were not those they are used to go picking. Although it would perhaps be possible to have the graphic designers
Vince Dorse and Jarek Nocon design new pictures of mushrooms, doing so would be rather expensive, if not too complicated. Finding relevant CSIs would not be very difficult in this case; due to their interconnection with graphic features of the game, it
111 would be very expensive though and probably unprofitable for the publisher. MindOK therefore needs to decide whether to risk keeping the original mushrooms or search for a different solution. Personally, I believe that the selection of individual variants of mushrooms is not as important here, as the players will not always be active mushroom pickers. Since the game mechanism as well as the graphics signal a high level of entertainment and enjoyment of the game, I would definitely recommend publishing the game in the existing form.
Fig. 7: Cards from the game Fungi®
112
7. Apples to Apples®
This chapter is devoted to introducing the board game Apples to Apples® and its translation into Czech. After a general introduction of the game, I discuss translatability of the game and possible issues in carrying out the translation. Finally, I present suggested translation of several problematic cards in the game carrying expressions labelled as culture-specific items and explain the process of coming at – what I believe to be – the most appropriate equivalents.
Apples to Apples® is a card party game designed by Matthew Kirby and Mark
Alan Osterhaus. It was originally published by Out of the Box Games in 1999; currently its publication is mainly covered by Mattel, but there are other publishers, too. The original game has had six expansion sets published so far (not including several junior versions or special editions) and has received two awards (one of them being the prestigious award Mensa Select in 1999). Since 1999 more than three millions of copies have been sold worldwide, which evidences the game‘s great popularity. According to my quick survey among my British and US friends, it seems that everybody knows the game, has played it and is mostly very fond of it.
Despite its great success in several countries, Apples to Apples® has never been published in the Czech Republic. I believe the main reason to be the comparable success of Activity®, originally an Austrian game, which was published the same year as Apples to Apples®. As Michal Široký pointed out, the market with board games in the Czech
Republic is rather small and it was even smaller in 1999. At that time, the Czech gaming community was just forming and first modern board games were slowly finding its way to the Czech audience. In that situation it was impossible for two games so similar to catch the attention of Czech players, who were then not as numerous as they are today.
113
Nowadays publishers still keep their plans for publishing specific games secret so as not to inspire competitive publishers to publish a similar game and lower thus the possibility of success. Since Activity® has also had several re-publications and extensions published since then, there has probably never been the right time to introduce a rival game such as Apples to Apples® for fear of not attracting enough players. In 2014, fifteen years from the first publication of both Activity® and Apples to
Apples®, the situation is different. The market with board games has expanded and keeps growing every year. Board games have also become much more popular among general public than they were at the beginning of the 21st century. As Široký also noted,
Czech market has not seen a dominant successful party game for a long time. According to him, it is very hard to come across a high quality party game nowadays – he has been trying to find one for a long time, but without any luck. For these reasons, I believe that it is the perfect time for Apples to Apples® to be published in the Czech Republic now, as the board game market is definitely ready for it.
As was already suggested, the game is very similar to Activity® and Cards
Against Humanity®. It is designed for 4-10 players aged 12 and above; the playing time is about 30 minutes. The game consists of Red and Green Apple cards carrying various expressions. The expressions can mostly be categorised as geographic, historical, social or cultural expressions in one way or another related to the country of the game‘s origin
– the United States. Since all cards carry some text, the game has been evaluated as extremely dependent on language (Boardgamegeek). Moreover, users also indicated that
―some conversion is needed for the game to be playable in other languages‖
(Boardgamegeek). This shows that the game is heavily culture-bound and that many expressions in the game label phenomena unknown or hardly known by people from other countries.
114
The game mechanism is very simple and easy to learn. Red Apple cards carry things and Green Apples cards carry their descriptions. Each round, judge draws a green description card (carrying a descriptive adjective such as hairy or cunning) and other players need to secretly choose a thing card from their seven red cards in hand which matches the description best (carrying noun expressions such as Feminists or Good
Friday). The chosen red cards are placed face-down on the table and shuffled. The judge then reads out all the cards. At this moment, players have the opportunity to lobby for their card, dispraise other players‘ cards and thus generally involve in social interaction with other players. This part of the game is usually full of fun and laughter and is what players praise the most on Apples to Apples®. Then the judge chooses the one he or she believes is best described by the expression on the green card. The player who played the selected card is awarded a point in the form of the green card. Whoever scores the pre-determined amount of green cards first is the winner. The role of judge is passed every round onto the player sitting on the left from the previous judge so that the decisive role is evenly distributed.
The enormous popularity of Apples to Apples® is mainly given by its simple mechanism and a plenty of space for social interaction. As players state in online reviews, it is a short enjoyable game, incredibly simple to learn, and very subjective – by which they mean that one cannot do anything wrong in the game (Boardgamegeek).
Players also praise a decent pace and duration of the game as well as little demands on players: compared to other party games, Apples to Apples® does not force you to do miming, singing, or any other activities which might make some people uneasy.
Besides, the game is said to work well both ―with an entire group of new people as well as with mixed groups of new and old people‖ (Boardgamegeek), which makes it very versatile. As was mentioned in the comparison with Activity® in the preceding chapter,
115 the constant arrival at new green and mainly red cards when playing the game makes sure that the game keeps fresh. Even if the cards get mildly repetitive after a great number of played rounds, the situation only allows for more conversation to take place, which makes it an even better social experience (Boardgamegeek). This space for spontaneous social interaction is another feature that is frequently praised in the game‘s reviews. As everybody‘s goal in the game is to persuade the judge to pick their card as the best one, a lively discussion full of persuading and lobbying takes place in every round of the game. Players usually have a lot of fun during this phase and the game thus serves as a good tool for establishing new relationships or improving the old ones thanks to a great social experience from the interaction. Last but not least, the game is also said to improve players‘ linguistic, interpersonal and (to a certain degree) logical- mathematical intelligence. For these reasons, the game is sometimes used as an educational tool in speech therapy as well. Overall, it is therefore clear that Apples to
Apples® is a simple entertaining game, which definitely recommends it for translation.
The only drawback of the game that is sometimes mentioned in reviews is its cultural dependence. As several users point out, people may not understand what some expressions on the red cards mean due to a lack of cultural knowledge, because the game is ―quite americanized‖ (Boardgamegeek). Due to this potential lack of cultural understanding of the culture-specific items on the red cards, it is always necessary to adapt the game for the target audience in a different country. I will therefore turn to discussing the translation of Apples to Apples® into Czech now and my translation solutions of several cards.
116
7.1. Issues in Translation of Apples to Apples®
The problems arising in translation of Apples to Apples® are both linguistic and non- linguistic. While the linguistic issues greatly outnumber the multimodal ones (all Red
Apple cards carrying culture-specific expressions pose linguistic problems), the multimodal issue is again more problematic and more serious.
The multimodal issue I am considering here is the title of the game: Apples to
Apples®. After a brief familiarization with the game, one starts to wonder about a possible title for the Czech version. Logically, one should try to understand the original meaning and then consider its Czech alternatives. In the case of Apples to Apples®, the logic behind the title is explained at the beginning of the game rules as well as at the bottom of the game box: ―[The game is] as easy as comparing ‗apples to apples‘…just open the box, deal the cards and you‘re ready to play!‖ (Apples to Apples). In Czech, one might say that something is as easy as a slap in the face, but that would not make for an attractive title for a board game. Besides, it would have nothing in common with the game mechanism, where players combine red and green cards into funny combinations. In the next step, I was therefore considering titles carrying expressions containing the word apple in one way or another, as the picture of an apple is printed at the front of each card. There were several ideas such as jablečné variace, jabkáč, jabka or jablka, jablečný mošt, jablečná jízda and others. I was also considering titles avoiding apples, but preserving the game‘s subtitle, such as Bláznivé kombinace (crazy combinations). All of these candidates for the game title, however, turned out unsuitable, once I realized that I am facing a multimodal problem. While changing the game box would probably be expensive but feasible, it would hardly be possible to re- print all cards. Only then did I actually realize that the title of the game is printed at the back of all cards, which makes it almost impossible to change the title of the game.
117
Most probably, the original title would be preserved in order to save costs. This strategy is, however, becoming increasingly common among newly published games. To name just a few: Time’s Up! ®, IQ Twist®, Through the Ages®, Galaxy Trucker® or Space
Alert®.
Fig. 8: Cards in Apples to Apples®
Apart from the multimodal issue with the game title, there are lots of linguistic problems as well. These arise in the case of Red Apple cards that carry expressions that could be labelled as culture-specific. Although the majority of red cards carry culturally neutral terms as is the case in the game Activity®, there are many more cards with CSIs than in Activity®. In the original set of cards published in 1999, I have found 128 red cards that need substituting. Although the specific number would most probably vary from translator to translator, as was discussed in the chapter on translation of CSIs, it is clear that the number is somewhere above one hundred, which is a high number.
Depending on the marketing strategy of the potential publisher, one would either come up with their own set of cards regardless of the source expressions, or one could use the
118 technique of a mental frame plus substitution outlined in the CSI chapter. In both cases, the process of finding the most appropriate Czech equivalents will be very complex and time-consuming. As the aim of this thesis is not to prepare the game for publication, I will present only several problematic cards and my proposed substitutions. I will use the method of frame and substitution, as I believe it is the best one for staying true to the original, but at the same time aiming at a high attractiveness for Czech players.
7.2. Translation of Cards
Before I turn to discussing the cards with CSIs, I will briefly introduce expressions on green cards as well as those red cards which can be translated into Czech without facing a cultural gap.
The Green Apple cards always carry descriptive adjectives, which stand for potential features of the expressions on Red Apple cards. Each card always carries a main expression (such as delicious) plus three synonyms of the word (here it is tasty, pleasing and appetizing) to get a clear idea of what is meant by the word. Although it might occasionally happen that it will be hard for the Czech translator to find three synonymous expressions for an adjective in Czech when the distribution of descriptive expressions is uneven compared to the situation in English, it will always be possible to come up with some solution in the end. The following are examples of my translation of the cards in the picture below:
Lahodný – chutný, lákavý, k nakousnutí
Zásadový – svědomitý, morální, úzkostlivý
Divoký – nezkrocený, zběsilý, nespoutaný
Nevinný – bezelstný, naivní, ryzí
Znepokojivý – rozčilující, sužující, působící starosti
119
Elitářský – nafoukaný, namyšlený, samolibý
Svatouškovský – dobře vychovaný, mravný, milý
Mrtvý – zesnulý, prošlý, nereagující
As is clear from these examples, translation of the Green Apple cards into Czech should not pose any dramatic problems. As I have not found any problematic cards myself, the above examples are thus a random selection of eight green cards.
Fig. 9: Green Apple cards
First complications with translation of cards come with the Red Apple cards. As was already noted, there are multiple cards carrying CSIs and these expressions will need substitution in one way or another. Apart from these, the majority of red cards carry neutral expressions which can be translated into Czech without having to deal with cultural issues. While these expressions will probably not be causing many
120 problems, their descriptions at the bottom of the cards might. Each expression on a red card is always accompanied by a short comment at the bottom of the card. These comments are sometimes factual, but more often hilarious. Some of them, however, hint at certain US cultural experience, which is not transferrable into Czech culture in a meaningful way. There are not many of such cases though and in most cases it will be possible to find a Czech substitution of the comment. The following eight translations are examples of red cards that do not carry culture-specific expressions. The original text is again to be found in the picture below.
Dojíždění za prací – Denní dávka semletí. A to nemluvíme o kávě.
Strava v letecké dopravě – Odkdy se balíček chipsů považuje za jídlo?
Konfucius – Asi 551-479 př. n. l., Kchung-fu-c', čínský filozof a jedna
z nejvýznamnějších osob čínské historie vůbec.
Místní policie – Vědí, kdo jsi a kde bydlíš.
Nevyžádaná pošta – vyhrané soutěže, žádosti o příspěvky, výhodné půjčky a
levná viagra.
Studená pizza – Snídaně šampionů.
Švábi – Otravný hmyz schopný přežít jadernou válku. Naštěstí nepřežije
podrážky u bot.
U našich doma – Jako v Zemi Nezemi, ani tady nebudete nikdy za dospělé.
121
Fig. 10: Red Apple cards
As is clear from these examples, the comments at the bottom of cards can sometimes be problematic. However, they can generally be translated or adapted for the target culture without any greater difficulties. In the second example, I changed peanuts into chips, as I believe those to be the more classic case of airline food in Europe. In the case of junk mail, I considered the most frequent types of spams attacking mailboxes of
Czech users and listed those instead of the original ones. The rest was preserved as it seemed to me to be neutral descriptions applicable to the Czech experience as well.
The last group of cards is Red Apple cards carrying expressions that – in the context of this game – can be labelled as culture-specific. These expressions are traits of the US culture and as such are expected to be unknown by the target Czech players in the context of the game. While there are some CSIs that I believe can be preserved even in the Czech version of the game (such as Schindler’s List, King Arthur, The Cold War,
122 or Bart Simpson) as they are generally known by most Czech people, all the following expressions need to be substituted. The applied strategy for substituting the original terms is the one proposed in the chapter on translation of culture-specific items. With the help of a mental frame of the original expression, I always tried to come up with an equivalent expression that is more likely to be known by Czech players than the original one. The following are the frames of individual expressions plus the final substituting terms and their descriptions. The original cards are to be seen in the picture below.
(Note: The analysis of the expression on the first card in the picture is to be found in the chapter on translation of CSIs and therefore I am not repeating it here).
1. The Everglades
A vast marsh covering much of southern Florida
A dangerous wetland area due to occurrence of alligators
Mainly covered by grassy prairies and lakes
Because the Czech Republic does not lie in the tropical zone and there are
no specific prairies or marshes generally known, the term is too obscure. The
best strategy here is absolute universalisation, as there is no equivalent area that
could replace the original one, and therefore a more general term is appropriate.
Solution: Bažiny – Území sladkovodních mokřadů prosycené vodou. Pozor
na nohy!
2. The Great Chicago Fire
A conflagration in Chicago in 1871
Hundreds of people killed, hundreds of thousands left homeless
One of the largest US disasters in the 19th century
The history of Czech lands is not marked by any such large conflagrations
and no such accidents from other countries are commonly known here either. It
123
is therefore desirable to substitute the great fire by another great catastrophe
ideally from the 19th century. Based on Zdeňka Špiková‘s thesis on natural
disasters in Czech lands, it seems that the most appropriate Czech equivalent of
a devastating catastrophe is flooding. The strategy used here is thus limited
universalisation.
Solution: Povodně roku 1872 – Nejničivější povodně v českých zemích…to
bylo tenkrát vody…
3. Rush Limbaugh
Radio talk show host and conservative political commentator
His show is the most popular radio show in the US
A controversial, very well-paid personality once addicted to drugs
Critic of feminism, environmentalism, and African-Americans; supporter
of capital punishment
As there are no political radio shows generally popular on Czech radios,
there are no such famous Czech personalities from the field of radio
broadcasting either. On the other hand, there are several popular TV
commentators hosting their own talk shows, namely Václav Moravec and Jan
Kraus. As we are looking for a more controversial person, Jan Kraus seems the
best choice available (limited universalisation). Although his show is not a
political one, he is personally closer to Limbaugh than the tabloid-wise
invisible, peaceable Moravec, who does not rail against anything or anybody.
Solution: Jan Kraus – moderátor politické talk-show. Tvrdí, že jako jeden z
mála na TV Prima za sebou nemá pornominulost.
4. Knock-Knock Jokes
Probably the best-known type of jokes in English-speaking countries
124
A ―call and answer‖ type of joke with a standardised format
The pun is often based on an absurd misuse of the word in the previous
response
Very popular among small children in particular
This type of joke is not a part of Czech common cultural knowledge, it therefore needs to be substituted. There are several classic types of Czech jokes
(featuring policemen, blond girls, a foolish boy called Pepíček and others), none of them are, however, in the call and response format. The most suitable of these is therefore the one most frequently spread among children. The strategy used here is again limited universalisation.
Solution: Vtipy o Pepíčkovi – Přijde takhle Pepíček do školy…
Fig. 11: Red Apple cards carrying culture-specific items
125
5. NYPD
A police department with their own TV show
A large, old department, but also a controversial one
Often depicted in literature, TV programs, movies, music clips and PC
games
This expression represents a local police department which became very famous in the US. The comment on the card stresses that their fame won them their own TV series. The most suitable strategy (limited universalisation) thus suggests replacing the term with a local police department with their own TV series, too.
Solution: Brněnští četníci – Jsou tak dobří, že mají vlastní humoresky.
Note: Due to a large number of young people watching American crime series on TV nowadays, it would be justifiable here to preserve the original meaning and use “Kriminálka New York”. This would, however, depend on the preferences of the publisher. The strategy here would then be linguistic translation (a type of preservation methods).
6. Georgia O‘Keeffe
Famous 20th century American painter of still life compositions of skulls
The ironic comment at the bottom of the card says that beauty [of her
paintings] is hidden deep
Abstract paintings, often with a hidden sexual meaning, paintings of
flowers evoking sexual organs
Finding an artist painting in exactly the same style as the original American one is impossible, as no two artists in the world ever do exactly the same kind of art. The aim is thus rather to find a famous contemporary Czech author of
126
controversial paintings, whose paintings are not ―pretty at first sight‖, as the
ironic comment at the bottom of the card suggests, but nevertheless are highly
appreciated by expert theoreticians in the field. Strategy used: limited
universalisation.
Solution: Vladimír Franz – nar. 1959, český hudební skladatel, básník a malíř
známý svými kosmickými malbami a tetováním po celém těle.
7. The Grateful Dead
American rock band founded in the 1960s, no longer exists
Their fans wearing colourful hippie T-shirts (alternative, not
mainstream), famous for following the band on their tours
Their music combined multiple styles
They were very popular and inspired plenty of other bands
As was already argued in case of painters, it is hardly possible to find a
musical group with exactly the same characteristics. It is even less probable in
this case, as the political situations in the US and in Czechoslovakia were then
dramatically different. No such groups as Grateful Dead were officially allowed
to perform in Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, a popular Czech rock band which
was not a mainstream one and which inspired other groups later is what we are
looking for. Ideally, the band should have started their career in the 1960s and
should no longer exist. Strategy: limited universalisation.
Solution: The Plastic People of the Universe – Pražská rocková kapela
založená roku 1968, známá svým nepřizpůsobivým chováním a vzhledem.
From these examples of cards carrying CSIs it is clear that the most frequently used strategy in translation of these cards in Apples to Apples® would probably be limited universalisation, but others were used, too. In cases where two options were left,
127 it is always up to the publisher‘s marketing strategy to choose the more appropriate option to fulfil their aims. Overall, these examples above have demonstrated that the method of a mental frame and a substitution is one that can successfully be applied in situations like this one. If one is looking for a cultural equivalent of a CSI, which cannot be preserved in the target text, using the above applied method helps them come at relevant counterparts sharing certain set of basic features. With this method, one cannot put a foot wrong by choosing an absolutely unreasonable equivalent in the target culture.
The last chapter of this thesis introduced the game Apples to Apples® – a game that is sometimes said to be one of the best board games on the planet: a game that revolutionized the way party games are played today (Boardgamegeek). Because this game has not been published in the Czech Republic yet (for reasons stated above), the translation of the game into Czech was discussed here. After a brief analysis of possible titles for the Czech publication of the game, I have focused on presenting translation of several model cards, both red and green ones. Finally, I have presented my translation of eight cards carrying culture-specific items, which pose a translation problem due to an expected cultural gap in the knowledge of the target players of the game. I have thus presented my solutions and analysed the strategies used to come at the final solutions in the individual cases. Overall, it was argued that Apples to Apples® is a game worth considering for publication in the Czech Republic due to its mass popularity in other countries and its features making Apples to Apples® a simple, enjoyable game for everyone.
128
8. Conclusion
This diploma thesis addresses the field of board game translation in the Czech Republic.
The objective of the work is to introduce the field, map the process of, general conventions of and most common issues in the translation of board games and board game rules and to apply this knowledge on the translation of the card party game Apples to Apples®. In the case of board game translation, the focus has been laid on the translation of culture-specific items, which is one of the most common issues in this field, and which is also crucial in the case of Apples to Apples®.
It has been shown that board games are an old and variable source of entertainment, which is generally sought for its ability to release stress, provide social experiences and entertain its players. Typical board game players, who are educated young people (mostly up to the age of 35) of both sexes and all professions, prefer games with low luck, high social interaction and meaningful decision-making. These characteristics correspond to the genre of Eurogames, where Apples to Apples® also belong. Regarding the translation of game rules, it has been argued that they belong to the genre of technical instructions and as such are subject to the same norms. Game rules should, however, keep a light, warm tone so as to make the text accessible for children and teenagers, too.
It has been further argued that translators of in-game text should aim at providing maximum entertainment and preserving a similar playing experience. It has been shown that all board games published in the Czech Republic are always translations, even in the case of Czech games, and therefore the quality of translation also decides the success of each game. A comparison of small and large publishing houses has shown that the process of official translation of board games is more or less universal: depending on the complexity of the given game, there are 1-5 people working
129 on each game – translators, editors and proof-readers – and the time devoted to the game translation respectively differs, too. Fan translations, on the other hand, are produced for the purposes of the gaming community only and are not made for profit.
They are not bound by time schedules, and therefore always aim at highest quality possible. The quality, as has been argued, is always regulated by community rules and managers, who need to approve each new fan translation.
Based on functional theories of translation, mainly action theory and Skopos theory, it has been shown that translation of board games should focus on the purpose of the translation and the expectations of the target audience. It has also been argued that in order to overcome any cultural gaps, adaptations of the original games are sometimes necessary. These should, depending on the marketing strategy, be done either by translators or by publisher‘s in-house teams specialised at that. It has been argued that problematic culture-specific items should ideally be substituted with the help of one of the proposed methods, using a mental frame of the source expression and a substituting expression. The choice of the given strategy and final decision depends on the translator or the marketing strategy of the publisher. Finally, after an overview of cultural issues in several published and unpublished board games, the translation of Apples to Apples® has been presented an analysed. The focus has been laid on the translation of culture- specific items on the red cards and the individual solutions have been explained.
Overall, I have been trying to show that board game translation is a rich and interesting field of study, growing with each new game published. Besides, I have tried to show that Apples to Apples® is a highly entertaining game that should – despite the numerous complications with cultural expressions – be considered for publication in the
Czech Republic.
130
9. Bibliography
―A History of Board Games: When Did Game-Playing Start?‖ Astral Castle. CCGS.
2003. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.
Aarseth, E. et al. A Multi-dimensional Typology of Games. Utrecht: Utrecht University,
2003. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.
---. ―Computer Games Studies, Year One.‖ Game Studies 1:1 (2001). Web. 2 Feb. 2014.
Aixelá, J. ―Culture-Specific Items in Translation.‖ In Translation, Power, Subversion.
Álvarez, R. and Vidal, M. eds. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1996. pp. 52-78.
Print.
Alexa. Alexa, n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2014. http://www.alexa.com/
Álvarez, R. and Vidal, M. Translation, Power, Subversion. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 1996. Print.
―Apples to Apples.‖ BoardGameGeek. BoardGameGeek, n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2014.
―Apples to Apples as a Gateway Game.‖ YouTube. YouTube, 14 May 2013. Web. 6
Feb. 2014.
―Apples to Apples Game Review.‖ YouTube. YouTube, 21 May 2013. Web. 19 Feb.
2014.
Baker, M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge, 1992.
Print.
Baker, M. and Saldanha, G., eds. Routledge Encyclopaedia of Translation Studies.
Routledge: Abingdon/New York, 2009. Print.
Barceló, C. ―Games Localization.‖ MultiLingual 9 (2011): 36-9. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
Binmore, K. A Very Short Introduction to Game Theory. Oxford. OUP, 2007. Print.
―Board Games and Speech Therapy. Apples to Apples.‖ Obfuscated Objective. 9 Mar.
2012. Web. 16 Feb 2014.
131
BoardGameGeek. BoardGameGeek, n.d. Web. 19 Jan. 2014.
http://boardgamegeek.com/
Bogost, I. Board and Table Games from Many Civilisations. London: Dover, 1979.
Print.
―Bower's Game Corner: Apples to Apples Review.‖ YouTube. YouTube, 25 Dec. 2013.
Web. 3 Mar. 2014.
Brasiené, B. ―Literary Translation of Culture-Specific Items in Lithuanian Translation
of Orwell‘s Down and Out in Paris and London.‖ MA Thesis Vytauas Magnus U,
Kaunas, 2013. Web. 26 March 2014.
Byrne, J. Scientific and Technical Translation Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome
Publishing, 2007. Print.
Catty, U. et al. Activity Original. 1st ed. Piatnik, 1993. Print.
Chaboussit, C. Lewis & Clark. 1st ed. Asmodee, 2013. Print. d‘Astous, A. and Gagnon, K. ―An Inquiry into the Factors that Impact on Consumer
Appreciation of a Board Game.‖ The Journal of Consumer Marketing 24.2
(2007): 80-89. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
Dillon, J. et al. Cards Against Humanity. 1st ed. Self-published, 2009. Web. 13 Mar.
2014.
Ellis, M. J. Why People Play. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Print.
Evans, J. ―Translating Board Games: Multimodality and Play.‖ The Journal of
Specialised Translation 20 (2013): 15-32. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.
Faidutti, B. ―What Gender Gap?‖ The Games Journal 7 (2000): n. p. Web. 14 March
2014.
Finegan, P. ―Games: Quality, Localization and the World Market.‖ MultiLingual 12
(2006): 56-61. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.
132
Firoozkoohi, S. and Zare-Behtash, E. ―Culture-Specific Items in Literary Translations.‖
Cultural Apects 14: 1 (2010): n.p. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.
―Flavors of Word Games.‖ One Gamer’s Opinion. Game Paradise Store. 24 January
2011. Web. 15 February 2014.
Goodfellow, C. G. ―The Development of the English Board Game 1770-1850.‖ Board
Games Studies 1 (1998): 70-80. Web. 12 Feb. 2014.
―History of Board Games.‖ Tech It Out UK. Technology Teachers UK. 25 Aug. 2006.
Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
Holbrook, M. B. ―Play as a Consumption Experience: The Roles of Emotions,
Performance, and Personality in the Enjoyment of Games.‖ Journal of Consumer
Research 11:2 (1984): 728-39. Print.
Hosseini, H. A. ―Translation Strategies of Culture-Specific Items: A Case Study of
Dayee Jan Napoleon.‖ MA Thesis Proposal Alborz Higher Education Inst.,
Tehran, 2010. Web. 5 Feb. 2014.
Huizinga, J. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. London: Routledge,
1955. Print.
Jason, C. ―Apples to Apples Review.‖ Play Board Games. N.p. 18 May 2012. Web. 28
Jan. 2014.
Jones, K. ―Non-Predatory Games.‖ The Games Journal 8 (2000): n. p. Web. 14 March
2014.
Kirby, M. and Osterhaus, M. A. Apples to Apples. 1st ed. Out of the World, 1999. Print.
Kovařík, J. ―Jste hráč nebo nehráč?‖ Hrajeme. 13 May 2009. Web. 11 Feb. 2014.
Kramer, W. ―What is a Game?‖ The Games Journal 12 (2000): n. p. Web. 14 March
2014.
133
Lambert, J. ―Games Gone Global: Connecting Board Games and Translation.‖
JALTranslation. 23 Oct. 2013. Web. 21 Jan. 2014.
Mangiron, C. and O‘Hagan, M. Game Localization: Translating for the Global
Entertainment Industry. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2013. Print.
Margolis, E. and Laurence, S., eds. Concepts: Core Readings. Massachusetts: Bradford
Books, 1999. Print.
Matthews, J. and Torgerson, T. 1989: Dawn of Freedom.1st ed. Asterion Press, 2012.
Print.
Mayer, B. and Harris, Ch. Libraries Got Game. New York: American Library
Association, 2010. Ebrary. Web. 15 Feb. 2014.
Mäyrä, F. Introduction to Games Studies: Games and Culture. London: Sage, 2008.
Print.
McLuhan, M. Understanding Media. The Extensions of Man. London: Routledge, 2001.
Print.
McMurrey, D. A. ―Online Technical Writing: Instructions.‖ Online Technical Writing.
Web. 20 Jan. 2014. Melissa. ―Translating Boardgames.‖ Gone Gaming. 29 Sep. 2007. Web. 26 Jan. 2014. Newmark, P. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1988. Print. ---. More Paragraphs on Translation. New Jersey University Press: Multilingual Maters, 1998. Print. Nida, E. A. Exploring Semantic Structures. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag: 1975. Print. ---. Language, Culture and Translating. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education, 1997. Print. 134 Nida, E.A. and Taber, C. R. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969. Print. Niedermair, Ch. ―Word Games.‖ MultiLingual 9 (2005): 21-4. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. Nord, Ch. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2007. Print. O‘Hagan, M. ―Towards a Cross-Cultural Game Design: An Explorative Study in Understanding the Player Experience of a Localised Japanese Video Game.‖ The Journal of Specialised Translation 11 (2009): 211-233. Web. 21 Jan. 2014. Orbanes, P. ―Everything I Know about Business I Learned from Monopoly.‖ Harvard Business Review. March 2002. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. O‘Sullivan, C. ―Introduction: Multimodality as Challenge and Resource for Translation.‖ The Journal of Specialised Translation 20 (2013): 2-14. Web. 21 Jan. 2014. Paluszkiewicz-Misiaczek, M. ―Strategies and Methods in Dealing with Culture Specific Expressions on the Basis of Polish-English Translations of Certain Administrative and Institutional Terms.‖ Theory and Practice in English Studies 3 (2005): Proceedings from the Eighth Conference of British, American and Canadian Studies. Brno: Masaryk University. Web. 28 Feb. 2014. Parlett, D. The Oxford History of Board Games. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. Pijanowski, L. and Pijanowski, W. Encyklopedie Světových Her. Praha: Universum, 2008. Print. Povis, B. Fungi. 1st ed. Pegasus Spiele, 2012. Print. Prachař, P. Personal Interview. 7 April 2014. 135 Pym, A. ―Translation Research Terms: A Tentative Glossary for Moments of Perplexity and Dispute.‖ In Translation Research Projects 3, Tarragona: Intercultural Studies Group, 2011. pp. 75-110. Web. ---. Exploring Translation Theories. London: Routledge, 2010. Print. Rosenberg, U. Agricola. 1st ed. Lookout Games, 2007. Print. Sarrett, P. Time’s Up! MindOK, 2000. Print. Schädler, U. and Dunn-Vaturi, A. Board Games in pre-Islamic Persia. Web. 30 Jan. 2014. http://www.iranica.com/articles/board-games-in-pre-islamic-persia Shapiro, D. ―A Brief History of gaming.‖ The Games Journal 3 (2004): n. p. Web. 14 March 2014. Široký, M. Personal Interview. 21 February 2014. Slovenko, R. and Knight, J. A., eds. Motivations in Play, Games and Sports. Springfield: Thomas, 1967. Print. Šmíd, Michal. Personal Interview. 12 March 2014. Snell-Hornby, M. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Philadelphia: Benjamins, 1988. Print. Špiková, Z. ―Největší Přírodní Katastrofy na Území Českých Zemí za Posledních 1000 Let.‖ MA Thesis Palackého U, Olomouc, 2009. Web. 18 April 2014. Světlá, J. ―Návod jako Slohový Postup a Typ Textu.‖ Naše Řeč 85: 3 (2002): 119-129. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. Teuber, K. The Settlers of Catan. 1st ed. Kosmos, 1995. Print. Trainor, H. ―Games Localization: Production and Testing.‖ Multilingual Computing and Technology 14:5 (2003): 17-20. Web. 23 Feb. 2014. Vase, T. ―Apples to Apples.‖ The Dice Tower. N.d. Web. 23 Jan. 2014. Venuti, L. , ed. The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 2000. Web. 136 ---. The Translator’s Invisibility. A history of translation. London: Routledge, 1996. Print. Verenikina, I. et al. ―Child‘s Play: Computer Games, Theories of Play, and Children‘s Development.‖ Paper from IFIP Group 3 Conference Young Children and Learning Technilogies. 2003. Print. Wolf, M. J. and Perron, B., eds. The Video Game Theory Reader. London: Routledge, 2003. Print. Woods, S. Eurogames. The Design, Culture and Play of Modern European Board Games. North Carolina: McFarland, 2012. Ebrary. Web. 21 Feb. 2014. Wrede, K.-J. Carcassonne. 1st ed. Rio Grande Games, 2001. Print. Yllmaz-Gumus, V. ―Translation of Culture-Specific Items in Self-Help Literature: A Study on Domestication and Foreignization Strategies.‖ Elope 9 (2012): 117-129. Web. 16 Feb. 2014. Zagal, J. P., Rick, J. and His, I. ―Collaborative games: Lessons learned from board games.‖ Simulation Gaming 37:1 (2006): 24-40. Web. 12 Feb. 2014. Zapletal, M. Velká Kniha Deskových Her. Praha: Mladá Fronta, 1991. Print. Zatrolené Hry. Zatrolené Hry, n.d. Web. 17 Jan. 2014. www.zatrolene-hry.cz 137 10. Summary The topic of board game translation has not received much academic attention so far. If scholars analyse game translation, they usually do so in connection with computer games. The field of translation of board games has thus not been discussed much. The aim of this thesis is to introduce the topic of board game translation, to discuss the most common issues arising during the translation, and finally to apply these findings on translation of the board game Apples to Apples®. After a brief definition of board games, I introduce characteristic features of board games and people‘s motivations for playing them, including a short discussion of who players of board games are. A section on board game evolution and typology is included, too. After this introduction, focus is shifted towards board game rules as a text type and their translation into Czech. The translation of rules for the game Apples to Apples® is presented and discussed here, too. The greatest part of the thesis is, however, dedicated to discussing board game translation. The third chapter describes the process of translation of board games, differences between official and fan translations and the situation on the Czech board game market. Relevant translation theory is presented in the following chapter. The whole chapter five deals with one of the most common issues in translating board games – the translation of culture-specific items. It discusses the process of translating problematic cultural phenomena and introduces available strategies for dealing with them. Concrete examples of cultural issues in translation of specific board games are presented in chapter six. The last chapter applies the knowledge gathered in all the preceding chapters to the translation of Apples to Apples® – a board game that has not been published in the Czech Republic yet. The game is introduced in great detail and possible issues arising in the process of translation are discussed. My translation of several cards from the game is presented and analysed there, too. 138 11. Resumé Překládání společenských her není tématem, kterému by se dostávalo velké akademické pozornosti. Pokud se někdo věnuje překládání her, ve většině případů se jedná o hry počítačové. Ty společenské však povětšinou zůstávají stranou odborného zájmu. Cílem této diplomové práce je téma překladu společenských her přiblížit, nastínit nejčastější úskalí této disciplíny a následně získané poznatky aplikovat na překlad americké karetní party hry Apples to Apples®, která doposud nebyla v České republice vydána. Po krátké úvodní definici společenských her jsou představeny jejich typické vlastnosti a nejčastější důvody, proč lidé společenské hry hrají, včetně nastínění, kdo jsou hráči společenských her ve Spojených státech a u nás. Historie a typologie společenských her jsou zahrnuty v úvodu. Druhá kapitola se zabývá překladem pravidel společenských her a návodových textů obecně, kam herní pravidla spadají. Analyzuje se zde i autorčin překlad pravidel hry Apples to Apples® do češtiny. Největší část diplomové práce se však zabývá překladem společenských her. Třetí kapitola představuje proces překladu společenských her, rozdíly mezi oficiálními a fanouškovskými překlady a situaci na českém trhu se společenskými hrami. V následující kapitole je pak probírána příslušná teorie překladu, a to převážně teorie Skoposu. V práci dále autorka představuje téma překladu kulturně-zakotvených termínů (culture-specific items), které je častým problémem při překladu společenských her. Autorka nastiňuje i proces překladu těchto problematických pojmů a představuje možné strategie pro vypořádání se s nimi. V následující kapitole pak představuje konkrétní příklady překladů kulturně- zakotvených pojmů z několika společenských her. V poslední kapitole jsou nashromážděné poznatky aplikovány na analýzu a překlad karetní hry Apples to Apples®. Hra je detailně představena a jsou zmíněny i potenciální problémy při překladu do češtiny. Autorčin překlad několika karet je zde představen a analyzován. 139 12. Appendix A: English Rules of Apples to Apples® The Game of Crazy Combinations! Apples to Apples® is the wild card and party game that provides instant fun for four to ten players! It's as easy as comparing "apples to apples"...just open the box, deal the cards, and you're ready to play! Select the card from your hand that you think is best described by a card played by the judge. If the judge picks ^our card, you win that round. And everyone gets a chance to be the judge! Each round is filled with surprising and outrageous comparisons from a wide range of people, places, things and events. What's in the Box •Red Apple Cards - 749 cards, each featuring the name of a person, place, thing or event. •Green Apple Cards - 249 cards, each featuring a characteristic of a person, place, thing or event. •Blank Cards - 3 green and 7 red apple cards to write on and personalize your game. •Quick Play Rules Playing the Game 1.The judge picks a green apple card from the top of the stack, reads the word aloud, and places it face up on the table. 2.Players (except the judge) quickly choose the red apple card from their hand that is best described by the word on the green apple card played by the judge. Players place these red apple cards face down on the table. Quick Pick Option: 140 With five or more players, you might want to try the Quick Pick Option. The last red apple card placed on the table will not be judged and is returned to that player's hand. If you snooze, you lose! 3.The judge mixes the red apple cards so no one knows who played which card. The judge turns over each red apple card, reads it aloud, and then selects the one he or she thinks is best described by the word on the green apple card. The player of the selected red apple card is awarded the green apple card played by the judge. 4.To keep score, players keep the green apple cards they have won, on the table, until the end of the game. 5.The judge collects all of the red apple cards played during that round and discards them into the empty well in the box. 6.The card decks, and the role of judge, pass to the player on the left. The new judge deals enough red apple cards to bring each player's hand back up to seven. 7.Play continues following steps 1-6 until someone has earned enough green apple cards to win the game! Setting Up 1. Open the red apple card packs and thoroughly mix all the red apple cards. Evenly distribute them in the wells along the sides of the box. 2.Open the green apple card packs and thoroughly mix all the green apple cards. Evenly distribute them in the two wells located in the middle of the box. WINNING THE CAME Number of Players Green Apple Cards Needed to Win 4 8 5 7 6 6 7 5 8-10 4 Starting the Game 1. Remove ore red apple card deck and one green apple card deck from the box. Set the box aside. 2. Choose a player to be the first judge. 3. The judge deals seven red apple cards, face down, to each player (including him or herself). Players may look at their cards. 141 Want to Play Again? Discard all the red and green apple cards used in the game, shuffle them and return them to the bottom of the red and green card stacks. The next judge starts win a fresh set of cards and deals seven new red apple cards to each player. You'-e ready to play! The card combinations in Apples to Apples® are virtually limitless. Playing Tips •It's OK to play a red apple card that isn't a perfect fit. Judges will often pick the most creative, humorous or interesting response. •Lobbying and "table talk" are encouraged! Players can comment on cards and try to convince the judge to pick a particular card - either their own or a favorite choice. •Playing red apple cards that appeal to the judge can improve your chances of winning. This is often called "playing to the judge." •Red apple cards that begin with "My" should be read from the judge's point of view. For example, when the judge reads "My Love Life," it should be assumed that it is the judge's love life that is being described by the word on the green apple card. Apples to Apples® Variations After you've played the basic game, try these variations — Apple Turnovers For a change of taste, start by dealing five green apple cards to each player. The judge turns over a red apple card from the top of the stack. Players choose the green apple card from their hand that they think best describes the word on the red apple card. The judge then selects the green apple card he or she thinks is best, and awards the red apple card to the person who played the selected green apple card. Quick Pick for Four With a group of four, players may play one or two red apple cards from their hands. Players attempting to play two cards must place them on the table, one card at a time. Only the first four red apple cards placed on the table will be judged. Crab Apples 142 For a tart twist, choose and judge red apple cards that are the least like, or the opposite of, the word on the green apple card. For example, you might choose "Charging Rhinos" when the green card "Dainty" is played. Big Apples For the confident types, this is a way to put your apples where your mouth is! Two or more players boasting that the judge will pick their card can agree to each wager one of their green apple cards. If the judge selects one of their red apple cards, that player wins the green apple card and all of the wagered green apple cards. If the judge does not pick one of their red apple cards, the wagered cards are forfeited to the bottom of the card stack. Apple Potpourri For an unpredictable mix, each player selects a red apple card from his or her hand before the judge turns over the green apple card. After the red apple cards are played, the judge turns over a green apple card. As usual, the judge then selects the winning red apple card! 2 for 1 Apples For a real deal, the judge turns over two green apple cards to start the round. Each player selects the red apple card from his or her hand that is best described by both green apple cards. After the judge selects a red apple card, both of the green apple cards are awarded to the winner. 143 13. Appendix B: Czech Rules of Apples to Apples® Hra plná bláznivých kombinací Apples to Apples® je karetní party hra pro čtyři až deset hráčů, se kterou se rozhodně nebudete nudit. Je tak snadná jako řazení jablek k jablkům – jen otevřete krabici, rozdejte karty a můžete hrát. Vyberte z ruky kartu, která se podle vás nejlépe hodí ke kartě vyložené soudcem. Pokud soudce zvolí vaši kartu, vyhráváte kolo. A každý hráč se stane soudcem. Každé kolo hry je plné překvapivých kombinací osobností, míst, věcí i událostí. Herní materiál 749 červených karet – každá nese jméno osoby, název místa, věci nebo události; 249 zelených karet – každá nese vlastnost osoby, místa, věci nebo události; 10 prázdných karet – 3 zelené a 7 červených karet, které můžete popsat a hru si tak přizpůsobit rychlá pravidla hry Než začnete hrát 1. Rozbalte balíčky červených karet a důkladně je promíchejte. Rovnoměrně je rozdělte zpět do přihrádek v krabici. 2. Rozbalte balíčky zelených karet a všechny karty také důkladně promíchejte. Opět karty rovnoměrně rozdělte do dvou prostředních přihrádek krabice. Příprava hry 1. Z krabice vyjměte jeden balíček červených a jeden balíček zelených karet. Pak ji můžete odložit stranou. 2. Vyberte hráče, který bude začínat v roli soudce. 3. Soudce každému hráči (včetně sebe) rozdá sedm červených karet lícem dolů. Hráči se mohou na své karty podívat. Držte karty v ruce takto a budete mít přehled o slovech na kartách. Průběh hry 144 1. Soudce otočí horní zelenou kartu z balíčku, přečte nahlas slovo na kartě a kartu položí na stůl lícem vzhůru. 2. Ostatní hráči rychle vyberou jednu červenou kartu z karet v ruce, kterou slovo na zelené kartě zahrané soudcem nejlépe vystihuje. Hráči tyto červené karty položí na stůl lícem dolů. Varianta rychlé volby: Při hře pěti a více hráčů můžete hrát variantu rychlé volby. Poslední červená karta položená na stůl se nebude posuzovat soudcem a vrátí se hráči do ruky. Pokud zaspíte, nehrajete! 3. Soudce zamíchá vybrané červené karty, aby nikdo nevěděl, kdo zahrál kterou kartu. Pak všechny červené karty postupně vyloží na stůl, přečte slova na kartách a vybere tu, o které si myslí, že nejlépe sedí ke slovu na zelené kartě. Hráč, který tuto červenou kartu zahrál, v daném kole vítězí a získává zelenou kartu zahranou soudcem. 4. Abyste měli pořád přehled o bodování, hráči si ponechají získané zelené karty před sebou na stole až do konce hry. 5. Soudce posbírá všechny zahrané červené karty z daného kola a odloží je do prázdné přihrádky v krabici. 6. Balíčky karet i s rolí soudce se posunou ke hráči po levé ruce. Nový soudce rozdá každému hráči tolik červených karet, aby měl každý opět sedm karet v ruce. 7. Hra pokračuje kroky 1 – 6 do té doby, než některý z hráčů získá dostatečný počet zelených karet k vítězství! Vítězství ve hře Počet hráčů Počet zelených karet potřebných k vítězství 4 8 5 7 6 6 7 5 8-10 4 Chcete hrát znovu? Odložte všechny červené i zelené karty, které jste použili v první hře, zamíchejte je a vraťte na spodek balíčků karet. Nový soudce začíná s novými kartami a rozdá každému hráči sedm nových červených karet. A můžete hrát! Množství karetních kombinací ve hře Apples to Apples® je prakticky nekonečné. Herní tipy Nevadí, když zahrajete červenou kartu, která se k zelené kartě úplně nehodí. Soudci často vyberou kartu, která tvoří nejzajímavější, nejzábavnější nebo nejoriginálnější kombinaci. Přesvědčování a ovlivňování je dovoleno! Hráči mohou karty komentovat a snažit se soudce přesvědčit, aby zvolil určitou kartu – ať už jejich, nebo tu, která se jim nejvíc líbí. 145 Když budete hrát takové červené karty, jaké se soudci zamlouvají, můžete si zvýšit šanci na výhru. Tomu se říká „hrát kartu na soudce―. Červené karty, na kterých je „můj/moje―, by se měly číst z pohledu soudce. Když například soudce přečte „můj milostný život―, bere se to tak, že vyložená zelená karta popisuje právě soudcův milostný život. Herní varianty Apples to Apples® Až si zahrajete základní hru, zkuste i tyto varianty: Obrácená jablečná roláda Abyste si změnili chuť, rozdejte každému hráči pět zelených karet. Soudce otočí červenou kartu z balíčku a hráči vyberou nejvhodnější zelenou kartu z ruky k vyložené červené kartě. Soudce vybere nejlépe pasující zelenou kartu a vítěz získá červenou kartu vyloženou soudcem. Rychlá sklizeň ve čtyřech Při hře čtyř hráčů mohou hráči zahrát jednu nebo dvě červené karty z ruky. Pokud chtějí zahrát dvě, musí je na stůl položit jednu po druhé. Posuzovat se budou pouze první čtyři vyložené karty. Planá jablka Abyste prostřídali příchutě, vybírejte a volte takové červené karty, které jsou nejméně pravděpodobné, nebo úplně opačné ke slovu na zelené kartě. Zvolte například „útočící hroch― k zahrané zelené kartě „něžný―. Velká jablka Toto je příležitost pro vychloubače, aby proměnili svá slova v jablka. Dva nebo více hráčů, kteří se vychloubají, že soudce vybere jejich kartu, se mohou vsadit o jednu svou zelenou kartu. Pokud soudce opravdu vybere jejich kartu, dotyčný hráč získá k vyložené zelené kartě i všechny ostatní vsazené zelené karty. Pokud soudce vybere kartu někoho jiného, všechny vsazené karty se dají na dno balíčku. Jablečné překvapení Hráči vyberou červenou kartu z ruky a položí ji na stůl ještě dřív, než soudce otočí zelenou kartu, čímž vzniknou nepředvídatelné kombinace. Jako obvykle pak soudce vybere výherní kartu. Dvě jablka za cenu jednoho Aby se pořádně zaobchodovalo, soudce otočí hned dvě zelené karty. Hráči vyberou z ruky kartu, která se nejvíce hodí k oběma zeleným kartám. Vítěz poté získá obě zelené karty. 146