Masaryk University Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English-language Translation
Bc. Sofie Ferklová
Subtitles vs. Dubbing: Approaches to Translation of Swear Words and Slang in Film 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.
…………………………………………
2
Acknowledgements
In first place, I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph.D.,
for her kind support and patient guidance.
I would also like to thank my dear Kryštof for standing by my side,
Tomáš for helping me keep a cool head,
and Veronika for sharing these few weeks with me, with all their ups and downs.
3 Table of contents
Introduction ...... 5
Chapter 1 Audiovisual translation: subtitling and dubbing ...... 7
Chapter 2 Translation of swear words and slang ...... 17
Chapter 3 Swear words and slang in audiovisual translation: Presumed differences
between subtitles and dubbing ...... 28
Chapter 4 Analysis ...... 31
The Big Lebowski ...... 32
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels ...... 46
Fight Club ...... 56
Conclusion ...... 65
Works cited ...... 71
English résumé ...... 73
České resumé ...... 74
4 Introduction
The translation of swear words and slang is always a tricky matter and it seems to be even more so in film. This may be because while reading books is a private activity, watching films is more of a social event – and one might be a little embarrassed by the swear words in front of their friends and family. It may be because of the constraints of audiovisual translation which leave the translator little space to express these complex elements satisfactorily. Whatever the reasons, these are issues that arise in film translation increasingly often and translators have to find a way to approach them.
When we examine papers and research on the topic, though, the words that most commonly describe approaches to translation of swear words are under-translation, omission, mollification, (self-)censoring and so on. Translators seem to be rather unified in their strategy, regardless of country or method. It is my goal in this thesis to study several Czech translations for dubbing and for subtitles to see if Czech translators employ the same strategy and if it differs for the two methods. In addition to the study of translation of swear words, I will attempt to uncover possible patterns that may be found in the translation of slang.
I will begin my theoretical research with a chapter on audiovisual translation, its uses and particularly its restricting factors. I will focus on the differences between the two most common methods of audiovisual translation, subtitling and dubbing, and discuss how they affect translator’s choices. I will continue with a classification of swear words, discuss their origins and the ways they are used in language and indicate the possible ways of translating them. Additionally, I will explain what slang is and suggest how it can be approached in translation. On the basis of my findings about audiovisual translation and about the translation of swear words and slang, I will try to present how these elements may be approached in subtitles and in dubbing and what
5 differences can be expected between these two methods.
In the second part of the thesis, I will present a detailed analysis of the original dialogues of several films and their corresponding Czech translations for subtitles and for dubbing, with focus on swear words and slang. I will analyse how these elements are used in the original and how they are transferred in the translations, with the aim to uncover possible patterns. I will compare the differences between the subtitles and the dubbing of each film and note whether they met the expectations based on the theoretical research. Finally, I will summarise my findings and discuss what approaches can be observed and whether they can be considered general or isolated, imposed by the method of translation or independent.
6 Chapter 1
Audiovisual translation: subtitling and dubbing
Audiovisual translation (AVT) is a term well established in contemporary translation theory. It is used by theoreticians and professionals to distinguish this specific type of translation from the “plain” translation of text, be it literary or technical. AVT can have many forms and work with many different types of media but the core of the concept lays in the fact that it is not “just” text that is being translated but a more complex audiovisual material. Naturally, the most prominent part of the field is the translation of films and television shows but AVT is also used in theatre and opera and of course for a large range of material available on the Internet. Some scholars also consider the practice of subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing and audiodescription for the blind and visually impaired (Orero VIII) even though it does not concern translation in the strict sense of the word. In this chapter, I will concentrate mainly on the translation of films and the two most common methods of AVT: subtitling and dubbing.
The need for translation of film material emerged as early as the first films with dialogue appeared. Naturally, in the era of silent films, translation only concerned the intertitles but with the quick rise of the talkies “different forms of language transfer on the screen have been required” (Díaz Cintas and Anderman 4). The most prominent among these forms are two basic approaches: replacement of the original dialogue by a new soundtrack – Díaz Cintas and Anderman call this method revoicing (4) – and transfer to written text which is generally shown in the form of subtitles. Revoicing can be applied in two ways; the original can be replaced totally with lip synchronised dubbing or partially with voice-over where it can still be heard in the background.
Preference of either of the above mentioned methods depends on the tradition of the target country (scholars often talk about “subtitling” and “dubbing” countries), target
7 audience (even in subtitling countries, shows for children are often dubbed), genre
(while fiction films and TV series tend to require lip sync, documentaries and other types of informative programmes work well with voice-over), media (cinema, DVD, television) and a number of other factors including financial issues. Since I will focus on the translation of fictional films for which voice-over revoicing is rarely used (even though more often so in some countries such as Poland), I will not discuss this method in much depth and I will work mostly with the concept of lip sync dubbing.
Both major techniques have their supporters and opponents but it is nowadays
“generally accepted that [the] different translation approaches make their own individual demands while remaining equally acceptable” (Díaz Cintas and Anderman
5). It is undoubtedly true that both methods have their advantages and their disadvantages and several scholars have taken the care to enumerate and compare them without partiality, which is an effort I would like to reproduce here. Firstly though, I believe it is important to clarify the process the translated text goes through for each of the techniques. The technical aspects of each method demand a more “complex” treatment than translation of textual media and more people who influence the final state of the translation are involved. It is necessary to appreciate this influence because it affects every aspect of the translation. This is especially true for dubbing but we shall discuss both techniques here.
Regardless of the used method, the translation process starts when the translator receives the source materials (copy of the film, original script and/or transcript of the actual dialogues, sometimes explanatory notes and subtitles in a third language – typically English when the film is in another language) and usually also some instructions on what their product should look like (maximum length of a subtitle, whether subtitles should be timed, whether songs are to be translated and if so, whether they should be dubbed or subtitled etc.). Already the provided materials may pose
8 significant problems to translators: the original script may differ from the actual dialogues to various extents forcing the translator to work only with the audio which is not always clear. It is also increasingly common that the copy of the film has intentionally a very low quality, is distorted or incomplete. This approach employed by production companies to prevent piracy makes the translator’s task often unreasonably difficult and causes mistranslations and other mistakes which they can hardly prevent
(Fuka).
The translation process itself can have various forms. In the case of translation for both subtitles and dubbing, the translator is required to do more than simply translate the given text because the desired product needs to comply with very specific restrictions. Perego defines translating for subtitles as “a simultaneous three-stage process: a double transfer 1) from the oral to the written code and 2) from L1 to L2, together with 3) a reduction of the text” (65) while Sánchez identifies several phases of this process and four ways in which they can be ordered. She defines three main phases: pre-translation – “translation of dialogue list before creation of subtitles”, adaptation –
“separation and adjustment of pre-translated text into subtitle units”, and spotting –
“capturing of [time codes] for all subtitles” (9); and four “subtitling methods” based on their order: “1. Pre-translation – Adaptation – Spotting, 2. Pre-translation – Spotting –
Adaptation, 3. Adaptation – Spotting – Translation, [and] 4. Translation/Adaptation –
Spotting” (10). She then elaborates on the situations that call for each of these methods.
In the Czech Republic, the first or fourth method would be the most common since the spotting is usually performed by an editor, not the translator (Fuka), “in a process akin to that of the dubbing script adjuster” (Sánchez 11).
While the first part of the translation process may be similar for subtitles and for dubbing, the diametrically different requirements of the two methods mean that the approach to the adaptation of the pre-translated text will also be different. When
9 adapting the text for subtitles, the main goal is keeping it short so that the viewer has enough time to read it and also watch the action on the screen. Furthermore, the text should be divided so that it follows the original dialogue as closely as possible and does not overlap too much. This is generally part of the translator’s job although it can occasionally fall to the editor or someone else. As mentioned above, the last phase, spotting, can be done by the translator as well or by an editor. Somewhere during the process, the translated text should also be proof-read, whether by the editor or a third party specialist depends on the production company.
The adaptation of the pre-translated text for dubbing, on the other hand, is a task rarely performed by just one person. While the translator is already trying to prepare the text so that it matches the original dialogue as closely as possible from a formal point of view, their product is just a “starting point for a lengthy and complex process during which the text will pass through many hands and operations, which may be more or less respectful of the original translation” (Martínez 3). The first of those (except possibly a proof-reader) is the synchroniser whose task is matching the translated dialogues to the actors’ mouth movements and the other images in the film. This may or may not be the director of the dubbing or, rarely, the translator him/herself. Further changes happen in the recording studio when the director and/or the actors are trying to make the dialogue sound good and natural, often disregarding the meaning of the original. Martínez points out that it is quite possible that no one concerned except the translator will understand the original language and that “form is a priority [...], while content receives rather less attention” (5). On the other hand, she claims that during the dubbing process, translator’s mistakes can sometimes be detected and corrected, especially when it comes to irregularities between the text and what is shown on the screen (6). As we know from
Fuka’s article, such mistakes are likely to happen when the translator has a bad or incomplete copy of the film. In dubbing countries, such as the Czech Republic, the
10 quality of the translation for the dubbed version often exceeds that of the subtitles because the producers pay it more attention (Pošta 78).
Nevertheless, even in a hypothetical ideal situation when all the available materials are in perfect condition and there is enough time for the translation and the technical preparation of the subtitles/dubbing, along with sufficient proof-reading, both methods have their undoubted constrictions. Their comparison is a popular exercise among AVT scholars and I would like to summarise their observations here.
As mentioned above, the most restricting factor for subtitling is the necessity to keep the subtitles short which can lead to loss of information. Thus, a subtitler is constantly forced to choose what parts of the original dialogue they can omit “without leaving out information that is essential for the viewer’s understanding” (Koolstra,
Peeters and Spinhof 328). In many cases, this means the omission of redundant linguistic features which are often present in speech (repetitions, expressive elements with little informational value) and conveying the information in a clearer and more concise manner than in the original (328). Koolstra, Peeters and Spinhof then continue to claim that “condensation is [generally] not necessary in dubbing” (328) but that it may occur in individual sentences. This is confirmed by Pošta, who finds that the translation of a sentence can often be shorter and more condensed in dubbing than in subtitles (76). Nevertheless, in dubbing, we can also come across the opposite situation
“when the translated text has to be stretched because the on-screen speaker is still talking while the translation is simple and short” (Koolstra, Peeters and Spinhof 329).
Such a problem can rarely be encountered in subtitles.
A rather obvious advantage of dubbing over subtitles is its ability to express nuances and emotions through stress, rhythm and intonation (Tveit 86). These elements would require lengthy explicitations in the written form for which there is no capacity in subtitles. On the other hand, the proponents of subtitling argue that in many cases the
11 viewer is capable of understanding these elements from the original dialogue, especially if it is in a language that they at least partially understand. This is very often true for programmes in English and may also apply if the original and the viewer’s languages are related (Koolstra, Peeters and Spinhof 329). Tveit reminds us, though, that viewers benefit very little from the original dialogue if the source and target languages are
“poles apart” (87). I believe this is especially true when European viewers watch for instance Asian films and vice versa. Not only will they probably not understand anything from a lexical point of view but also the prosodic features differ greatly between such distant cultures.
The fact that viewers can understand the original dialogue may also be a disadvantage or a constraint for the subtitler because it makes his/her product vulnerable to criticism. The vulnerability of subtitles (similar to the concept of vulnerability of consecutive interpreting) is mentioned by Díaz Cintas (34) and Pošta (77) and can lead to a tendency for more literal translations than one might otherwise prefer. We can observe this tendency especially in comparison with the dubbed version which is not vulnerable in this way. Koolstra, Peeters and Spinhof add that dubbing offers more opportunities for adapting the original since the viewer will not be able to compare them; for instance replacing untranslatable jokes with different ones or giving explanations “when part of the content of the programme is unknown to the new target group” (331). I believe, though, that subtitling offers the same possibilities and that viewers are aware that not everything can be translated literally and can even appreciate a creative replacement; it is actually the word-for-word translations of idioms and other phrases that are criticised the most.
The loss of prosody is not the only issue resulting from the transfer of spoken language into written text for subtitles. Tveit mentions the problematic expression of dialectal and sociolectal features and register for which dubbing is better suited (88). As
12 written text, subtitles sometimes tend toward a more formal language than would be appropriate for reflecting the original and that might be used in the dubbed version.
Pošta observes that this tendency can lead to combining of formal and informal language and argues that subtitles are not attempting to imitate spoken language but are a mere stylisation (35). He demands nevertheless that they sound natural and do not combine stylistically clashing elements (too formal with too informal) (36). Tveit observes that the overuse of formal language and reducing of informal stylistic features
(such as four-letter words) which used to be common in Norwegian subtitling practice has fallen out of fashion in the new millennium (88-89).
Since dubbing works with spoken language, it is presumed to use more colloquial language. It is also the collaboration of more people, such as the director and actors, who can change the translator’s original solutions to make the dialogue sound more natural. Koolstra, Peeters and Spinhof propose, on the other hand, that dubbing is more likely to be “censored” since the viewer cannot check it against the original (330).
This “censorship” can especially affect swear words and other expressions which may be deemed inappropriate1. The production company or television channel which produces the programme in the target country may want to tune down the profanities to get the film a less strict rating and a better airing time.
When it comes to the viewer’s enjoyment of the translated programme, subtitles seem to be the less suitable of the two methods. The viewer is forced to divide his/her attention between what is happening on the screen and the subtitles and may miss some of the action. While it is not very likely that this would lead to any serious loss of information, the visual experience is definitely corrupted to a certain degree. This is also
1 An interesting case of such censoring is found in the dubbed version of Fight Club. In one scene, the character of Marla Singer proclaims: “I haven’t been fucked like that since grade school.” This controversial line is left properly translated in the subtitles (Takhle mě nikdo neošoustal od základky.) but in dubbing it has been changed to “Takhle jsem si nezašukala od střední školy.” Of course, it is hard to say if it was intentionally censored or just misunderstood.
13 why it is very important to keep subtitles short; it is not that the viewers would not be able to read them but they should have enough time to watch the film as well (Fuka).
Another visually limiting factor is that subtitles are partially obstructing the view of the film image. For this reason, they are usually projected at the very bottom of the screen while the most important events occur usually in the middle. Nevertheless, there are cases when the position of the subtitles may indeed cause difficulties. One of the most common ones would be when there already are other subtitles or captions on the screen
(for instance in news bulletins, or if some characters talk in a different language than the primary language of the film). Sometimes, the original captions can be replaced by the translated ones but that is not always possible or desirable. In other cases, it is necessary to ensure that the two layers of subtitles do not collide. Tveit also mentions that problems may occur if the subtitles would “interfere substantially with the visual information and composition of the picture” (90-91), citing as an example the animated series South Park where “the bodies and faces of the characters fill up most of the screen” (91).
Recently, another problematic situation for subtitlers arose with the spread of 3D films. In these films, the positioning of the subtitles has to be handled with more caution since different objects appear in different layers of the picture. In the beginning, Czech distributors seemed to be unwilling to subtitle 3D films and only 2D copies of these films (e.g. Avatar) were subtitled while all of the 3D copies were dubbed. It is hard to say if it was due to technical difficulties, fear that the audience would have problems reading the subtitles, or they simply were films that would be mainly dubbed anyway
(action family films). Nowadays though, many 3D films are subtitled (even family films which are also dubbed) and the audience does not seem to mind. The subtitles often appear to the left or right of the screen so as not to cover what is shown in the front layer. Thus, we can see that while subtitles are partially covering the screen, this is not a
14 great obstruction for this method and it can be quite easily overcome when the norms are slightly changed.
With dubbing, the translated film is not compromised visually and from that perspective, the viewing experience is the same for the target viewer as for a native viewer of the original. But of course, the film is changed significantly in a different way.
The replacement of the original dialogue means a loss of authenticity (Tveit 92) and this is a large drawback for many viewers. While they can choose not to read subtitles, with dubbing such an option is not available and an important part of the original film’s narrative as well as the acting performance is lost. Even if the quality of the new version is very high, it rarely exceeds that of the original2 and more likely, it will be lower. And in case there are mistakes in the translation, the viewer is much more limited in discovering them than with subtitles and the meaning of the film’s dialogue may be shifted or difficult to decipher.
Regardless of their various advantages and disadvantages, the preference of the two methods seems to still depend mostly on the tradition of the target country. While the Czech Republic is traditionally a dubbing country, there is a distinction between cinematic distribution and television: in television, almost all programmes are dubbed
(both lip sync and voice over are used for different types of programmes), for cinema, some films are only subtitled, some are only dubbed and some have both options available (in that case, usually fewer copies are subtitled than dubbed). A similar situation is in many other European countries (including Germany, France and Spain).
The reason many dubbing countries tend towards subtitling in cinema may be that dubbing is simply too time-consuming and there is often very little time before the release date. It is true, nevertheless, that there is a demand for subtitled copies in
2 Cases of such “congenial” dubbing are known, nevertheless, for instance the excellent performance of František Filipovský in films with Louis des Funès.
15 dubbing countries and sometimes, when these copies are not available, cinemas show original copies without subtitles. While they are aimed mainly at foreigners living in the target country, there are also local viewers who prefer them to the dubbed ones.
An opposite situation in which viewers from a subtitling country would demand dubbing is more unlikely. Tveit mentions an experiment performed by a big Norwegian television channel in which they dubbed several episodes of a popular American family show and asked the viewers if they preferred dubbing or subtitles. A large majority of viewers wanted to watch the show with subtitles (94). Of course, the most important factor in their choice was habit – Norwegians prefer subtitles because they are used to them. Given the choice, the majority of Czech television viewers would probably prefer dubbing for the same reason.
It is not my intention here to give my opinion on what method is better as they both clearly have their pros and cons. I agree with the conclusion of many scholars that the best option is to have a choice – which is increasingly easier to achieve with modern technology (even though it is improbable that production companies in subtitling countries would start dubbing on a large scale simply because of the costs). First and foremost, I believe that whichever method is used, it is important to pay more attention to the quality of the translation. When translators work with bad materials and without enough time, when there is not sufficient proof-reading and double-checking, mistakes occur and they can significantly worsen the viewer’s experience.
16 Chapter 2
Translation of swear words and slang
Swear words, dirty words, vulgarisms, profanities, taboo words... there seem to be almost as many names for these “bad” words as there are the actual words. It shows how important their role is in human language, behaviour and society, and therefore also in fiction, be it literature or film. While we all know instinctively what words they are, we might still be surprised by the wide range of semantic as well as pragmatic categories they occupy. Let us explore these categories then as they have been described by experts in the field.
What language and words are perceived as foul in a culture is in strong connection with what is considered taboo in that culture. The concept of taboo is crucial here because like taboos, the condemnation of some words as dirty and inappropriate is a social construct of that particular culture. Taboo is a term of Polynesian (more precisely Tongan) origin that we use to label areas of our lives which are forbidden or frowned upon. While some taboos are specific for a certain culture, many of them are, in some form, almost universal (Allan and Burridge 4). It is not the purpose of this chapter to explore the differences between taboos of different cultures; it will be useful, however, to discuss the main taboo categories of the Western world (notably English- speaking countries and the Czech Republic since they will be the primary focus of this work) as they lie at the basis of most swear words.
The first large category of taboo words revolves around sex, sexual acts and body parts as well as related bodily functions, including menstruation. “Sexual activity is tabooed as a topic for public display and severely constrained as a topic for discussion” argue Allan and Burridge (144) and the most prominent swear words in the
17 English language belong to this category. Indeed, from the Seven Dirty Words3, five are of sexual content. While all sex is “subject to taboos and censoring” (145), the most offensive are deviations from traditional procreative sex between a man and wife: masturbation, adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality and others. The reason these activities are most frowned upon is – as with many other taboos – religious: they are against God’s plan and many are explicitly forbidden in the Bible. (Even though some of these, primarily incest, are taboo in most societies.) Closely related to the taboo of adultery is also prostitution; the oldest profession serves as a source of offensive words in many languages.
Apart from sexual activities of various kinds, an undeniable part of the sex taboo is reference to sexual organs, genitalia as well as secondary sex characteristics such as breasts; and the bodily fluids produced by them. These fluids may be procreative
(semen) or not, as is the case of menstrual blood which is by its very nature non- procreative. Allan and Burridge observe that “[a]lthough menstrual blood is more strongly tabooed than either faeces or urine, it is scarcely used in insult or malediction, although the epithets bloody/bleeding possibly receive some boost from the fact” (173).
This is an interesting point in the classification of the word bloody which otherwise eludes the typical categories of profanity.
The next large category, also thematically connected to the human body, is revolving around excrements or more generally bodily waste products and the body parts that produce them. While the underlying reason for this taboo is related to health issues, like other taboos, it is created by society. “The repulsion these substances arouse in us,” argue Allan and Burridge, “is not instinctive; it is something we learn” (162).
Unsurprisingly, many dirty words originate from this taboo since, as observed by Jay,
3 Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits; as listed in George Carlin’s monologue “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” (1972).
18 “the products of disgust become a form of insult in almost every culture” (166). This is certainly true for the English language and even more so for Czech in which this seems to be a very popular category of swear words. We can actually find a number of situations when in English, the most used word would come from the sex category
(usually fuck), but in Czech, the common choice is scatology (Fuck! – Do prdele!, fucking (adj.) – posraný, fucker – sráč etc.). Czechs possibly “inherited” this preference from their German neighbours who are “more attentive to scatological references than others” according to Jay (9).
In almost all societies, there are also taboos revolving around food. Like the previous category, this one also has origins in health protection but is nowadays a matter of habit and social prescription. Thus, modern Jews or Muslims do not eat pork because their religion forbids it, not because pigs may carry diseases. Nevertheless, the presumed filthiness and other unfavourable qualities of farm animals can lead to creation of insults. Otherwise, this category is not a rich source of swear words. It does, on the other hand, produce euphemisms for sexual acts and body parts (such as nuts for testicles, muffin for vagina, similarly in Czech vejce, buchtička). Allan and Burridge also mention the interesting phenomenon of “gastronomic xenophobia” (188-189) when nations are insulted with reference to the food they (stereotypically) eat. Some well- known examples would be kraut for German or frog-eater (žabožrout) for French but many variations exist and can be invented.
Race and ethnicity are taboo in modern society to a degree that even mentioning a person’s skin-colour is deemed inappropriate and if necessary, only politically correct terms can be used. Words like nigger have moved to the highest ranks of offensiveness
(Jay 166). Allan and Burridge notice how new taboos have evolved in contemporary society around other minorities as well; discrimination against gender, sexuality, disability, and religion is met with the same reproach as racism (105). Disabilities
19 especially are a traditional source of offensive words, both physical (cripple) and mental
(idiot).
Another large taboo category in many cultures is death and, along with it, disease, dying and killing. Allan and Burridge reveal that this taboo can be largely attributed to fear and superstition: we do not speak about disease and death to not attract them (203). Other reasons may be not to cause discomfort – to the sick or to the bereaved by reminding them of their affliction, or to others by talking about our illness.
When we do talk about these issues, we use euphemisms. For the creation of euphemisms, this taboo has been and is used widely, but there are few swearwords originating here except those associated with disabilities as already mentioned in the previous paragraph. Nevertheless, wishing disease or death upon someone certainly falls into the categories of offensive language, especially when dysphemisms are used
(chcípni!).
The last but certainly not least category relates to religion and the names of God.
It is quite logical that since religious belief is the most spiritual part of many people’s lives, the words associated with it are considered to have a certain power and should be only spoken with reverence. In Judaism and Christianity, taking God’s name “in vain” is prohibited as one of the Ten Commandments. Even now, “[d]espite secularization during the twentieth century, there are plenty of constraints on the names of our god(s) and their acolytes” (Allan and Burridge 127). Breaking these rules is called profanity or blasphemy and is a very common way of swearing even though (or maybe because) it has lost some of its zest in modern society. Indeed, Jay confirms that religious taboos are not as offensive as others except to devout people (167). Thematically, swear words coming from the religious taboo can be divided into two groups: “celestial” (Jesus
Christ) and “diabolic” (hell), or more generally the good and the evil (damn).
The classification of taboos reveals the basic semantic fields most swear words
20 belong to; to be more precise, the semantic fields of their denotative meaning. Swear words, however, are often “used to express connotative meaning, such as the emotional overtones of [the] word, the feelings, moods, attitudes and power that is comprehended along with the denotative referent” (Jay 10). Connotations are crucial in use of dirty words because they are what makes them “dirty”. Poo, shit and faeces all have the same denotation but their different connotations mark them as euphemistic, dysphemistic or neutral, appropriate or inappropriate (Allan and Burridge 29).
The connotative or emotional meaning of swear words comes primarily from the attitude and intentions of the speaker. In fact, when the speaker’s intention is to offend or insult, almost any word can become offensive, regardless of its denotation. Let us consider for example the word bitch. Its denotation is “female dog” but it is more commonly used as an insult or an offensive word that connotes sexist contempt. While bitch is an old dirty word, new ones can be easily created when they are given new connotations as we have seen with the insults based on gastronomy – frog-eater is not a dirty word the way fuck is but it becomes offensive due to the xenophobic attitude.
The idea of classifying swear words by their connotation, rather than their denotation, is suggested by Lie in his master’s thesis. He proposes several attitudes they can connote: blatancy (direct reference to a taboo, primarily the taboo of sex and excrements), blasphemy, and then several kinds of –isms – sexism, heterosexism, racism and ableism (33-34). All these attitudes are derived from the taboos mentioned above but the advantage of this re-classification is that it can help clarify cases when the semantic field of the word’s denotation differs from it connotative attitude like with the word bitch. Similarly, the same word can be used with different attitudes, for instance the word cunt can be used as blatant or as sexist. It is questionable though that Lie’s categories are exhaustive, I believe that many insults do not fall under any of the –isms, it is a more general contempt that might account for them (scum, douche bag; svině,
21 šmejd).
Lie’s classification may also serve as a bridge between the semantic approach to offensive language and a pragmatic one. Jay argues that “[f]or the study of cursing, the pragmatics of usage, or how the words function in use, is more important than fitting the words in grammatical or etymological categories.” (1) In other words, people use dirty words for many different purposes – Jay divides them into ten categories: cursing, profanity, blasphemy, taboo, obscenity, vulgarity, slang, epithets, insults and slurs, and scatology. Already from the titles we can see that his categories overlap with some of the semantic and connotative categories discussed earlier as well as with one another.
We shall summarise their definitions here to learn if they offer anything new that can be used to analyse how swear words are translated.
Cursing accounts for phrases that wish for some kind of harm to come to the addressee. They can come from various taboo categories, even though their origin is probably religious (by cursing someone we ask a higher power to bestow harm upon them). Nowadays, a religious curse like damn you may be effectively replaced by more vague invitations like fuck you or go fuck yourself with semantics of sex (in Czech, the category of excrements proves popular once again: jdi do prdele, polib si/mi (prdel)).
Such curses are now “conventionalized expressions of hostility or anger” (Jay 2) and their denotative meaning is not really important.
Profanity and blasphemy are in Jay’s interpretation both part of the religious taboo but with a different intention. A blasphemy is an attack on religion, religious doctrine and figures (screw the Pope) (3-4) while profanities are common expressions
“employing religious terminology in a profane [...] indifferent matter” (Jesus H Christ)
(3). From these two, profanity is much more popular, while blasphemy seems to be quite restricted. Actually, most theories do not make the distinction between these two and just call all swearing of religious origin blasphemy (like in Lie’s classification). For
22 our purpose, such approach should suffice as well.
Jay’s next category is taboo – prohibition of the use of certain words or speech – which is very general and can hardly be seen as a subtype of offensive language. On the contrary, it is more accurate to view offensive language as one of the taboos implemented by society. The next one, obscenity, is related; Jay defines it as speech which is restricted by law and explains that obscenities can come from any semantic field but in American English they are primarily of a sexual nature (5). This is supported by the previously mentioned Seven Dirty Words. The category of vulgarity is in Jay’s view also rather general: it includes all aspects of common or base speech which do not necessarily have to be obscene or taboo (6). As examples he offers a range of words and expressions such as booger, crap, slut, and up yours, which are not really offensive but can be considered inappropriate or impolite. These three categories can account for many different types of swear word use, and because of that broadness, neither of them will be particularly useful to us.
The next category Jay lists is slang. Slang is not really a category of offensive language but the two often go hand in hand. Jay defines it as “a vocabulary developed in certain sub-groups [...] for ease of communication” (6) and adds that it can be especially important in illegal activities (such as dealing and use of drugs) because it helps avoid the law. Slang expressions sometimes become popular and start to be used by a more general public. In such cases, sub-groups are forced to invent new ones. Slang terms do not by any means have to be offensive (even though they can make use of dirty words) but slang is often discussed in connection with swear words. The reason is they both are features of substandard language and people are likely to use them both in the same contexts. This is not to claim that all sub-groups which have specific slang (for instance basketball players and methamphetamine users) are comparable but simply that people will be more familiar to each other inside their sub-group, using more colloquial, less
23 restricted language.
The consequent categories refer to more particular uses of offensive language.
Epithets are “brief but forceful bursts of emotional language” (7) – they are what we would generally imagine as swearing. They are the vocal expressions of frustration, anger, surprise or many other emotions and they can come from any semantic field
(fuck, shit, damn; sakra, do prdele, kurva). Allan and Burridge cite neurological findings that reveal that these emotional outbursts are generated in the right hemisphere of the brain unlike the majority of linguistic expression which is generated in the left one (78,
88) and it was also found that swearing can actually relieve pain, especially in people who swear rarely (Stephens and Ulmand). This means that swearing in such situations is a less conscious activity than the average use of language but it is still controlled by the left hemisphere. People may choose to refrain from swearing or to use less offensive words. For such purposes we invent “replacement” words, euphemisms of popular swear words (darn instead of damn, jeez instead of Jesus; do prčic instead of do prdele, kurňa instead of kurva etc.) which are called “minced oaths” in English. These expressions can naturally be used in other ways as well, not just for swearing (freaking or effing instead of fucking).
It is rather obvious what insults and slurs are; name calling is one of the basic uses of offensive language. As we have discussed previously, insults do not have to originate from taboo categories, it is the intention of the speaker that makes them offensive. They may be “racial, ethnic, or social in nature and may indicate the stereotyping or prejudice of the speaker” (Jay 8) which correlates with the notions suggested by Lie. While insults are primarily meant to hurt the addressee, they can also be used jokingly or as terms of endearment (nigger among African Americans, bitch among girl friends; popular Czech expression vole which has almost lost its derogative meaning).
24 Last of Jay’s categories is scatology and is more semantic than pragmatic. It simply means to the use of words which refer to “human waste products and processes”
(9) and we have already discussed it as one of the taboo categories. We can see then that
Jay’s classification combines several different approaches, some of the categories being more sociological, some semantic and only a few truly examining how swear words function in use. Nevertheless, these few are particularly interesting since in translation, it is more important to preserve the function of the swear word than its semantic field. A curse like fuck you can be appropriately translated as jdi do prdele (literally “go to ass”) because despite their different origins, the two phrases serve the same purpose in the two languages. But Jay’s functional categories are certainly not exhaustive and others should be added because they will be important for my analysis.
The first distinction that needs to be made in the use of offensive words is whether they are used denotatively/literally or not. We have already mentioned that the denotative meaning of swear words is not always the most important but they all have some and can be used to express it. In a sentence like He is fucking her, the word fuck is used denotatively and is essential to the understanding of the sentence. In a sentence like He is fucking crazy, the word is used for emphasis and can be left out without harming the basic understanding of the sentence. Of course, the distinction is not always that easy. Not all swear words are offensive when used in their primary sense. This is especially true for words in the religious category (there is nothing offensive about a sentence like I believe in Jesus Christ.) or those that designate animals4. When used literally, swear words cannot be omitted in translation but they may be replaced with a less offensive synonym (fuck someone – spát s někým). It is even possible that the target language lacks an equivalent dirty word and must use a neutral one to express the
4 Even though their connotation still plays a role as we can see in the preference for the word rooster over cock in contemporary English.
25 denotative meaning.
In opposition to literal use, offensive language can be used figuratively in many different ways. We have already seen three possible uses in Jay’s overview: curses, swearing (which he calls epithets but I think the term is somewhat misleading since, in syntax, it is used for adjectives or phrases describing a characteristic of a person or thing which is a role dirty words can also take), and insults. In these cases, the connotation of the used word is more important than its denotation and that is also the aspect that the translator should try to maintain. For instance, if a character swears blasphemously, it is not desirable to replace the religious swear words with those which connote sexual or excremental blatancy and vice versa. If they employ sexist insults, replacing them with racist ones will change the character significantly.
Even when used figuratively, swear words can replace ordinary words or form phrases which can function as many different parts of speech and constitute the basic meaning of a sentence. Common examples of such use are phrasal verbs based on the word fuck like fuck sth. up or fuck sb. over. In such cases, the primary concern of the translator should be the figurative meaning of the verb which needs to be transferred correctly. Secondarily, they can try to find a vulgar expression with the same meaning in the target language which does not necessarily have to be based in the same semantic field. With this approach, the above phrases can be translated into Czech as posrat něco and vojebat někoho respectively.
On the other hand, swear words can often be used “just” for emphasis. They can emphasise many different types of words – nouns (in the fucking car), adjectives (he’s fucking crazy), verbs (he fucking did it) and others – as well as entire sentences (what the fuck happened here?). When used as emphasisers, these words can be left out in translation without changing the primary meaning of the sentence but the emotional charge will be different. It is logical, though, that particularly in translation for subtitles
26 they will be reduced to save space.
When it comes to translation of slang, it can be approached similarly as the translation of figuratively used swear words: the translation of the primary meaning is the most important while whether or not source slang terms are replaced by equivalent slang terms in target language influences the style. Because of the constantly changing nature of languages, it is difficult to determine what words currently constitute specific slang and which are a part of the common colloquial vocabulary. It is up to the translator to decide how to transfer such stylistic features but I believe it is safe to say that translating slang terms with neutral or formal ones flattens the style and may even change how characters are perceived. The way characters speak is one of their basic defining characteristics and if they use many slang or swear words, the translator cannot significantly reduce them without influencing the characters’ personality.
27 Chapter 3
Swear words and slang in audiovisual translation:
Presumed differences between subtitles and dubbing
As we have seen in the previous chapter, swear words and slang are stylistic features which serve to add expressivity to film dialogue and to define characters. While swear words express emotions rather than carry basic information essential to understanding, slang usually caries denotative meaning as well as connotative and emotional charge. In heavily constrained audiovisual translation, these elements can often be largely reduced or replaced; the translator will rely on other channels of the audiovisual material to provide the necessary expressivity to the viewer. Nevertheless, “linguistic choices are never random in film” (Díaz Cintas and Remael 185) so the translator has to be careful not to suppress them too much as they may “affect character representation [and] ultimately the message of the film” (200). The two different methods of AVT may allow and require different approaches to this task. In this chapter, I will try to formulate what differences may be found between the translations of swear words and slang for subtitles and for dubbing based on previous research made in this field.
When it comes to the quantity of swear words, the presumption is that it will be significantly lower in subtitles than in dubbing. The reason we expect it to be so is that subtitles have to be quite condensed; they have less space than dubbing, and usually eliminate repetitions and other marks of spoken language that are not necessary to the understanding of the dialogue. Díaz Cintas and Remael in their guidelines for subtitlers also agree that “not each and every swearword needs to be translated”, that it is enough to put them in occasionally to suggest the characters’ expressivity (200). They also claim that taboo words are more offensive, or more precisely, make us more uncomfortable when they are written, “especially if they appear in enormous letters on
28 the cinema screen” (196) where we read them in the company of other people.
Nevertheless, the same can be argued for dubbing and the original dialogue – we are in the same company when we listen to these words being said in booming voices. Tveit is also not convinced by this argumentation, claiming: “If anything, it ought to be the other way around; a printed representation is probably only a weaker version of a word pronounced with stress and intensity” (89). Since subtitles are written, they are expected to use a more formal language than dubbing which works with spoken language (Pošta
35). We may therefore expect that subtitles will show a normalising tendency in the translation of slang, replacing slang terms with less colloquial, neutral expressions, while dubbing may be more expressive in this regard.
In the previous chapter, we have discussed several different ways swear words can be used in language. From these, we can presume which are more likely to stay in the translation and which will be left out. When offensive words constitute the essential meaning of a sentence, either used literally, or figuratively, they cannot be entirely omitted. Some expressions may be translated using a dirty word with the same meaning, others can be replaced with less offensive or neutral synonyms. Emphasisers, on the other hand, can be easily reduced without harming the comprehensibility of the sentence and they probably largely will be, especially in subtitles. Curses, swearing and insults all play a specific role in dialogues and they will need to be expressed in the translation, as well. They may, once again, be softened. Also, if there are repetitions of these elements, which is typical of spoken language, subtitles are likely to eliminate them.
We can also expect a qualitative shift regarding the semantic origins of the used words. Some shift is actually inevitable; as I have already suggested in the previous chapter, in English the sex category – particularly the word fuck – is the most popular, while in Czech many expressions are based in the excrements category. These two categories have approximately the same strength (are equally offensive) in the two
29 cultures. Nevertheless, since translators may have a tendency to tune down the offensiveness, apart from reducing the number of swear words, they may also choose milder alternatives, which would mostly come from the category of religion (sakra).
From the two methods, dubbing is more prone to such changes due to its possibilities of
“censoring” the original, which we have discussed in the first chapter. Subtitling cannot by its very nature hide the original dialogue so such “censorship” is not possible. It is also vulnerable to the viewers evaluating the translation so subtitlers may tend to stay closer to the original and its level of expressivity in their word choices. It may seem inconsistent that subtitlers would readily reduce the number of swear words but hesitate to use milder expressions but Hjort explains that “many translators consider the omission of swearwords a better strategy than mollification, as viewers may react negatively to the mild words when used as equivalents of stronger original expressions”
(4).
To summarise, we can expect these general tendencies in film translation of swear words: lower overall number of offensive words in subtitles than in dubbing; from the functional categories, emphasisers would be the most reduced, possibly more in subtitles than in dubbing; semantically, a large shift from the category of sexual acts toward the category of excrements and others is probable, as well as a rise in the category of religion (possibly more in dubbing than in subtitles). Slang terms might more often be translated with corresponding slang expressions in dubbing than in subtitles which are more likely to use neutral, less colloquial language. We will see whether these presumptions will be supported by my own research in the following chapter.
30 Chapter 4
Analysis
In this chapter, I will analyse the original dialogues of three films and their translations for dubbing and for subtitles with focus on swear words and slang. I have chosen two
American and one British film from late 1990s with certain thematic and linguistic similarities: they often feature small-time criminals, drugs and violence, and coarse language and/or slang play a significant role in them. Since I wanted to work with official subtitles which should be getting all the possible attention, the translations are taken from DVDs; the ones made for cinemas are very difficult to obtain and work with.
The dubbing was usually created for VHS release and then used again on DVD, unless the two media were released simultaneously.
Unfortunately, the fact that I need to work with DVDs has rather narrowed my selection due to two main problems: some films I could have used were not yet released on DVD in the Czech Republic (True Romance, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas); others did not have original translation for subtitles, using a transcript of the dubbed version instead (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting). Especially the Tarantino films would have been a perfect object for my analysis as he is quite famous for using verbal violence. In the end, the selected films are: The Big Lebowski, Lock, Stock and
Two Smoking Barrels (Sbal prachy a vypadni), and Fight Club (Klub rváčů), all made at the end of the 1990s and released on DVD in the Czech Republic in the 2000s.
Another problem with DVD releases is that they usually do not mention the names of the subtitlers. While with dubbing, it is common practice to list everyone who participated in its creation (actors, director, translator, synchroniser, producers, sound editor and others) at the end of the film, with subtitles, this is not necessarily true and so the translators are often not known. The production company which distributed the
31 films in the Czech Republic claims they are unable to find the information for older films so it remains a mystery to us. Regardless of who made the translations, though, they were made for subtitles and can be studied as such.
The Big Lebowski
The Big Lebowski (in Czech without the definite article) is a 1998 film by the Coen brothers which centres around Dude, his bowling friends and the presumed kidnapping of a millionaire’s wife. Dude is a slacker who likes to drink White Russians, smoke joints and bowl and his language reflects his lifestyle – he and his friend Walter use a swear word in almost every sentence. It is not surprising that the film is in the top ranks on the list of films that most frequently use the word fuck. The characters also speak very colloquially, using slang of the bowling alley and some marijuana-related terms.
Let us first consider the number of offensive words and their categories in the original dialogue. According to my count, the overall number of all uses of offensive words or expressions in the film is 401. This includes 21 literal and 83 figurative uses,
213 emphasisers, 50 insults, 13 curses and 21 cases of swearing. From this overview, we can see that swear words are most often used for emphasis in the film which is also the category in which we expect the largest drop in translation. The word most often used for emphasis is fuck and it is used in two forms: fucking (“This is a fucking show dog with fucking papers”) and the fuck (“What the fuck are you talking about?”). In fact, from the 213 uses of emphasisers, 193 are with this word and in one case it is a euphemism of the word (frigging) that is used. Most of the rest – 14 cases – is covered by religious swear words – the hell (“What the hell is this?”), (god)damn(ed) (“It’s all goddamn fake, man”) and its euphemism darn – and a few more isolated instances with the words shit (“I sure as shit don’t fucking roll!”) and jerk-off.
32 The case of jerk-off is particularly interesting because it is used four times in one sentence, the first three times as emphasisers with the intention to insult and the last time as a clear insult: “I don’t like your jerk-off name, I don’t like your jerk-off face, I don’t like your jerk-off behaviour and I don’t like you, jerk-off.” The first three cases can be left out as it was done in the dubbing, even though it harms the expressivity of the statement: “Nelíbí se mi tohle jméno a nelíbí se mi váš ksicht, nelíbí se mi vaše chování a nelíbíte se mi vy, troubo.” The last case could, strictly speaking, be left out as well but since the character makes a little pause before saying it to emphasise it, it would not work in the dubbing and it would seem rather weird in the subtitles, too. The subtitler chose a different strategy, leaving out the repetitions of the verb and keeping the adjectives instead: “Nelíbí se mi tvý idiotský jméno, tvůj idiotskej ksicht a tvý idiotský chování. A ani ty se mi nelíbíš, idiote.” We can also observe that the dubbing uses a slightly milder insult trouba (literally “trumpet” or “oven”, figuratively “fool”,
“nitwit”) probably because it has just two syllables and ends with o, similarly to jerk-off.
Apart from the role of an emphasiser, the word fuck is used figuratively 47 times
(“You fucked it up”), 13 times as a curse (“Fuck you!”), 8 times as an insult (fucker, fuck up, fuckhead etc.), and 5 times as a swear word per se (“Fuck!”), giving a total score of 266 uses. It represents 66% of all the offensive words used in the film and also an overwhelming majority of words from the sex category. From this category, we can find two other words for a sex act (screw, used once figuratively, and bang, used once literally); 10 instances of reference to a body part related to sex, used figuratively (“I don’t wanna be a hard-on about this”), literally (dick, rod, and Johnson), and as an insult
(“the little prick”); a term referring to masturbation used 5 times (I have described 4 of the uses of jerk-off above, one time it is used literally), 4 insults referring to prostitution
(strumpet, whore, slut – used twice) and one referring to adultery (bastard). Altogether that counts 289 dirty words from the sex category.
33 The second most used semantic field is the excrements category – referring to human waste products, body parts that produce them and the act of producing them. In
English, the words for the products and for the acts are usually the same (a shit, to shit) but in Czech, they differ so it will be useful to make the distinction. Let us start with the products: I have already mentioned the two instances of emphasisers but most often they are used figuratively (22 times) when shit usually suggests “nothing” – “They are not gonna kill shit, they’re not gonna do shit,” “I don’t give a shit” and so on. The popular expression Bullshit! meaning basically “that is not true, you are lying” combines the category of excrements and animals. The word shit and its derivates are also used for swearing (Shit!) and insulting (you piece of shit).
When it comes to the act, two interesting cases on the edge of literal use can be found in the film: “we are supposed to shit ourselves with fear” and “Yeah, the Pope shit in the woods?” While they both refer to the actual process, they are part of fixed expressions and need to be addressed as such. The first can be translated literally into
Czech since we have the same expression, the second is trickier which is probably why both translators chose to express its message directly (“To je přece jasný” / “Jo, jasně a plný” – Dude is answering that he wants another drink).
Since part of the film’s story revolves around a carpet that has been peed on, we can also find instances of words relating to that act. Most often the characters use the word pee which is not offensive but in two cases, they use piss instead, once for the act itself and once to designate its performers (carpet-pissers). Interestingly, in both Czech translations, the word chcát is used, rendering them more vulgar in this aspect. The word piss is also used figuratively once: “we got the kidnappers all pissed off at us.”
Last in this category is reference to body parts, namely anus and buttocks. In The
Big Lebowski, such references are used 5 times as an insult (asshole), 10 times figuratively and 4 times literally, even though these uses are sometimes difficult to
34 distinguish. For instance, in the sentence “Or I’ll decide to kick your ass out,” your ass signifies the whole person and is therefore used figuratively; but in the case of “I’m the guy who’s gonna kick your phony goldbricking ass!” it refers to the whole person as well as kicking him in his actual buttocks. Similar threats are used throughout the film and in them the line between figurative and literal use is very thin.
The last large semantic category concerns religious references, of which there is a total score of 23. As already mentioned, 14 of those are emphasisers and the rest are, as could be expected, cases of swearing (Goddamnit, Jesus Christ) with one figurative expression: “You mix a hell of a Caucasian, Jackie” (Caucasian = White Russian).
While this use could be mistaken for emphasis, a simple test of omitting the swear word proves that the sentence does not make sense without it. Hell of a in this case stands for
“really strong” as reflected by the translations – in subtitles expressed explicitly: “Dost silnej ten smíchanej Běloch,” in dubbing in a more implicit way: “Vy ale mícháte
Medvěda, Jackie” (in dubbing, the drink was translated as Bílý medvěd, literally “White
Bear”).
From the remaining categories, none is particularly prominent. We can find three cases of reference to mental handicaps, or general stupidity (moron, dunce), on the verge of literal use and insult (“You are not dealing with morons here”), and one literal reference to physical handicap (cripple). Three insults use the word bitch which – as we have discussed in the second chapter – comes from the semantic field of animals and is offensive due to its sexist connotation. Particularly interesting are cases of xenophobic insults, two of which are based on food (Kraut and fig-eaters) and one on a sex deviation (camel-fucker). Interestingly, the more inventive insults are translated faithfully: fig-eaters as “požírači fíků” (subtitles) and “fíkožrouti” (dubbing) and camel- fucker as “šoustač velbloudů” (subtitles) and “velbloudí sodomita” (dubbing); but the xenophobic connotation of Kraut disappears in both translation, in dubbing the insult is
35 left out completely and in subtitles it is translated as vepř (“pig”). In subtitles, however, we can find one more xenophobic insult: rákosník (an insult for the Vietnamese based on their traditional straw hats) which replaces the military slang Charlie used in the original.
Apart from these cases which can be traced to semantic fields of taboo words described in the second chapter, there are 20 instances of insults that do not belong to any of them. As I have observed in that chapter, almost any word can be insulting when that is the intention of the speaker. Half of these insults are directed at the protagonist and are reflecting his lifestyle: loser (3 times), deadbeat (4 times), and bum (3 times).
The only other that is repeated is brat (3 times) which also refers to a single character, a child. The others are more isolated cases: creep, pendejo (used by a Hispanic
American), nitwit, scum, human paraquat, goldbricker, and crybaby. Some of these are on the verge of larger categories, creep could be considered as a reference to sexual perversion, pendejo (literally “pubic hair”) would probably be included in the sex category in Spanish but I left it out because of its foreign origin, and nitwit refers to a stupid person but is not a word for a mental handicap per se. For these reasons, I decided to consider them separately.
36 To summarise the use of offensive words in the source, I have prepared a table with the semantic fields on one axis and the functions on the other:
Figure 1: All cases of offensive words in the source, The Big Lebowski
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX ACT 1 48 194 8 13 5 269 67% BODY 8 1 1 10 2,5% MASTURB. 1 3 1 5 1% PROSTIT. 4 4 1% ADULTERY 1 1 0% EXCR PRODUCT 22 2 4 8 36 9% ACT 4 1 5 1% BODY 4 10 5 19 5% RELIGIOUS 1 14 8 23 6% ANIMAL 3 3 1% HANDICAPS 3 1 4 1% FOOD 2 2 0,5% OTHER 20 20 5% 21 83 213 50 13 21 401 approx. percentage 5% 21% 53% 13% 3% 5%
Let us now pass to the translations and the ways the offensive words were transferred in them. The overall numbers, as I counted them, are 236 occurrences in subtitles and 246 in dubbing. This means that the number is indeed higher in dubbing, as expected, but only very slightly. The subtitles preserve 59% of the original’s dirty words, the dubbing 61%. It has to be noted that not all swear words in the translations are found in the same places where they are in the original. In the process of compensation, the translators may add expressive elements in convenient places. We can find such additions more often in the dubbing but some instances are in the subtitles as well (I already mentioned the use of more insulting rákosník in the translation of
Charlie; the dubbing uses neutral nepřítel).
As far as the functions are concerned, the subtitles contain 29 literal uses, 45 figurative, 84 emphasisers, 50 insults, 9 curses, and 19 cases of swearing. As expected, the use of emphasisers has dropped the most (only 39% of the original’s) but other categories have gone lower as well, with the exceptions of insults which stayed on the
37 same level and literal uses which have gone up because of the word chcát (instead of pee) as already mentioned above. In the dubbing, we can find 30 literal uses, 65 figurative, 66 emphasisers, 57 insults, 3 curses, and 25 cases of swearing. We can see that emphasisers were reduced even more than in the subtitles (only 31% of the original’s emphasisers remain), which is surprising because we expected that there will be less space for them in the subtitles than in the dubbing. Curses were also more reduced but other categories are more populous than in the subtitles and, with the exception of figurative use, also more than in the original. To make the numbers clearer,
I include a table with percentages of the original:
Figure 2: Comparison of uses of offensive words in the source and in the two translations, The Big Lebowski
SOURCE SUBTITLES approx. DUBBING approx. LITERAL 21 29 138% 30 143% FIGUR. 83 45 54% 65 78% EMPH. 213 84 39% 66 31% INSULT 50 50 100% 57 114% CURSE 13 9 70% 3 23% SWEAR. 21 19 91% 25 119% 401 236 59% 246 61%
Already from the numbers we can see some tendencies but before making any conclusions, we shall explore how words in each functional category are transferred. We have seen that in the original, the majority of emphasisers make use of the word fuck.
We expect that the overwhelming majority of these cases, if not all, will be translated by words with a different denotation because, as I have mentioned in the second chapter, words for sex acts are not used in Czech that often, giving preference to words from the excrements category or others. In the subtitles, the most popular category of emphasisers indeed proved to be the excrements category with 38 references to acts
(“Zasranej pes se zasranejma papírama”) and 19 body part references (“O čem to do prdele mluvíš?”). 20 emphasisers were of religious origin with two types: “O čem to
38 sakra mluvíš?” and “Kde jsou moje zatracené peníze, vy pobudo?” Interestingly, the second type can only be found in places where in the original the word goddamn or one of its variants is used and no other word is used to translate them (they are left out several times). The translator reflected the difference between religious and sexual emphasisers which is particularly important in characters who are defined by not using words like fuck. In the dubbing however, this distinction is not made and the same character is heard saying “Kde jsou moje zasraný peníze, ty lotře?” which changes their perception (albeit for the sake of lip synchronisation).
The remaining emphasisers in the subtitles came from the categories of mental handicaps (idiotský – already mentioned above in the translation of jerk-off; pitomý – used once to translate frigging, probably to reflect the lower level of offensiveness) and prostitution (“Na tohle kurva nemám čas”). These are always used by minor characters, which sets them slightly apart from the protagonist. I believe that the translator made this distinction on purpose.
In the dubbing, most emphasisers – 26 cases – are religious (of the same two types as in the subtitles), 22 refer to the act of producing excrements and 13 to prostitution (kurva or zkurvený). Particularly interesting is expression kurvafix which is used one time and combines a reference to prostitution with the religious expression krucifix. The remaining cases use different words from different categories: blbej, mental handicap, used twice; do hajzlu, a reference to toilet which I classify under excrements – other; and rather peculiar “Ani se nám nesnilo vzít vaše falešný prdlý prachy, piňďo,” (in original “As if we would ever dream of taking your bullshit money”) which can probably be included in the excrements category as well. These particular cases show that the translator for dubbing was more creative than the subtitler; on the other hand, he did not pay so much attention to the distinction of individual characters. We can also see the difference of preferences of the two
39 translators: the subtitler frequently employs the word for buttocks, while the translator for dubbing never uses it, preferring references to prostitution. To a certain degree, this can be attributed to the restrictions posed by dubbing – “Co to kurva je?” has the same number of syllables as “What the fuck is that?” and “Co to do prdele je?” does not – but that does not explain all of the cases; a personal preference is at play as well.
We should also observe the different ratio of religious emphasisers. In the previous chapter, I have mentioned that words from the category of religion are less offensive than those referring to sex or excrements and that we can expect a shift toward them in the translations, especially in dubbing. This seems to be true so far. While the simple number of religious emphasisers is not much higher in the dubbing than in the subtitles, when we consider it in relation to the whole, the difference is clear. In the original, religious words accounted for only 7% of all emphasisers; in the subtitles, the percentage is 24%, three times higher, and in the dubbing 39%, more than five times higher.
All of the offensive words that are used literally in the source, are also translated as such in the subtitles (with the exception of does the Pope shit in the woods? as discussed earlier) and in several places, the word pee is translated as chcát accounting for the higher number of literal uses in the translation. In the dubbing, the situation is similar; only two cases of literal use in the original are translated without an offensive word: “I got a rash so bad on my ass I can’t even sit down” – “A já mám pro změnu zase takovýho vlka, že si ani nemůžu sednout,” and “Well, I still jerk off manually” –
“No, já si to dělám furt ručně” (in subtitles honím manuálně which is slightly more explicit). Apart from using the word chcát, the dubbing also adds others creative uses of dirty words: dirty undies are translated as posrávačky, and when Dude explains that a woman he sleeps with is not his special lady, just his ladyfriend, in Czech he explicitly insists: “Není moje přítelkyně, je to moje šukačka” (literally “fuck-buddy”).
40 When it comes to figurative use, we saw that it has been largely eradicated in the subtitles with only 54% of the original’s offensive expressions remaining. Once again we have to realise that some of these figurative uses of dirty words are in places where in the original there is not an offensive word: “This is a bummer, man. That’s a bummer” (slang) – “To je pěknej průser” (subtitles) – “To je pěkně v prdeli, to je pěkně na hovno” (dubbing). Semantically, the figurative uses mostly come from the excrements category: 15 cases of reference to the act (“Posrals to!”), 11 to the product
(“Dude, hovno zabijou, udělaj úplný hovno”), which is the only way this subcategory is used in the subtitles, 6 to the body part (“Myslíš, že si dělám prdel?”), and one euphemism originating from the word for toilet hajzl: “všechno může jít do háje”. From other categories, 8 refer to sexual acts (“Tohle se stane, když vojebeš cizího člověka!”),
3 to animals (svinstvo, kravina), and one to prostitution (“To nám kurví plán”).
In dubbing, the percentage of remaining figurative uses is significantly higher
(78%) but semantically they are similar. In the category of excrements we have 25 references to the act, 17 to the product (once again exclusive use for this subcategory with the one exception of emphasiser prdlý as mentioned above), 10 to the body, and 3 particular cases of a connected word šoufek: “Takhle to dopadne vždycky, když si uděláš z lidí šoufky.” Šoufek is a special kind of large ladle that was used to empty the contents of a dry toilet so I have decided to include the word even though most people would probably not know its origins, nor would they perceive it as offensive. From the remaining categories, we can find 5 references to sexual acts, 4 to prostitution, and 2 to animals, including a particular word čubčit se which is of the same origins as English bitch and means something along the lines of “to sleep around”.
Insults are very close in numbers in the original and the two translations. In fact, in the subtitles, there are 50 insults like in the original and almost all are in the same places as well; in the dubbing the number reaches 57 so we can see that a few were
41 added. Similarly as in the original, they are also very diverse in origin. The most popular taboo category proved to be that of mental handicaps in both translations, even though such word was only used once as an insult in the original. From other categories, in the dubbing we find 10 words from the animal kingdom (svině, vůl, and one particular case of skunk), while in the subtitles there is just one (vepř, discussed above); there are instances of insults referring to the act of producing excrements (sráč, posera) and to prostitution (kurva, děvka) in both. I have already discussed several different types of xenophobic insults earlier. In the subtitles, we can also find references to adultery (parchant); in the dubbing, some insults refer to body parts (kunda, pičus), to the toilet (hajzl), or to sexual acts (kazimrd). But the largest proportion of the insults does not belong to any of the categories. They reflect the insults used in the original to a certain degree – where in the original, we have deadbeats and bums, in the translations we can find words like povaleč, vagabund, flákač, pobuda, darmožrout, otrapa, and nula; brat turns into spratek, fakan, and smrad; crybabies into ufňukanci / usmrkanci; pendejo stays in the subtitles (while in the dubbing, kazimrd is used), and human paraquat is translated literally as lidskej herbicid (in the dubbing, he becomes trhlej skunk). Others are less traceable and appear in various places: špinavec, trouba, lotr,
šlejška, magor, zmetek, and šmejd. From these examples, we can see once again, that the subtitles tend towards more literal solutions, possibly due to their vulnerability or it was simply the translator’s style.
The shift in curses is quite straight-forward in both translations: they were omitted or replaced to a large extent and the rest moved expectedly from the category of sexual acts to the excrements category. The used expressions are: jdi do prdele, jdi do hajzlu, do hajzlu s tebou, and poser se. When it comes to swearing, the situation is also not complicated. In the subtitles, the cases of swearing were omitted a few times and the rest belongs either to the category of body parts related to excrements (Do prdele!) or to
42 the category of religion (Sakra!), with one case of a euphemism based on the word for toilet (Do háje!). In the dubbing, the occurrences are slightly more numerous than in the original and they are either religious (in the majority of cases) or refer to prostitution
(Kurva!) – in one case by an especially artful euphemism Kurňajs! The only reference to buttocks is by a euphemism as well (do prčic). This supports my previous observation about the preferences of the two translators when it comes to using the expressions kurva and do prdele.
Figure 3: All cases of offensive words in the subtitles, Big Lebowski
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX ACT 1 8 1 10 4% BODY 8 8 3% MASTURB. 1 1 0% PROSTIT. 1 3 6 10 4% ADULTERY 4 4 2% EXCR PRODUCT 11 11 5% ACT 12 15 38 4 69 29% BODY 4 6 19 5 10 44 19% OTHER* 1 3 4 1 9 4% RELIGIOUS 20 8 28 12% ANIMAL 3 1 4 2% HANDICAPS 3 4 13 20 9% FOOD 1 1 0% OTHER 17 17 7% 29 45 84 50 9 19 236 approx. percentage 12% 19% 36% 21% 4% 8% * References to toilets and other excrements-related paraphernalia. In the table above, we can see the distribution of offensive words as they are used in the subtitles. When compared with the table that presents data from the source
(see Figure 1), we can see several trends. Firstly, in the original, the most populous functional category was by far the category of emphasisers, accounting for 53% of all cases. In the subtitles, this category is still the largest but not so dominantly. Logically, the other categories have grown compared to the whole (with the exception of figurative use, which dropped slightly), especially literal use and insults. In the semantic categories, the shifts followed our expectations. While in the original, the
43 overwhelmingly most popular category was that of sexual acts (fuck), in the subtitles, this category is negligible and the most prominent categories are those referring to the producing of excrements and the related body parts. Combined, these two sub- categories (excluding literal use) account for 41% of all the words. Equally expectedly, religious terms have doubled their relative number.
Figure 4: All cases of offensive words in the dubbing, Big Lebowski
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX ACT 3 5 1 9 4% BODY 7 4 11 4,5% PROSTIT. 4 13 3 4 24 10% DEVIATION 1 1 0% EXCR PRODUCT 17 1 18 7% ACT 14 25 22 6 1 68 28% BODY 3 10 2 1 16 6,5% OTHER* 3 1 4 8 3% RELIGIOUS 26 20 46 19% ANIMAL 2 10 12 5% HANDICAPS 3 2 12 17 7% FOOD 1 1 0% OTHER 15 15 6% 30 66 65 57 3 25 246 approx. percentage 12% 27% 27% 23% 1% 10% * References to toilets and other excrements-related paraphernalia. In the dubbing, the category of emphasisers has lost its dominance and shares its place with figurative use, with insults close behind. Literal use and swearing have also gained more relative strength. Compared to the subtitles, the semantic sub-category of references to buttocks is much less prominent but references to prostitution have gained popularity. Words of religious origin are also more numerous, with a percentage more than three times higher than in the original.
Let us now consider the approaches to translation of slang in the film. The original dialogue uses very colloquial language with occasional slang terms. In translation, these can be either transferred into corresponding Czech slang terms or expressed in more common language. Since it is not always possible to use a slang term in place where there is one in the original for various reasons, translators also employ
44 the strategy of compensation, adding slang expressions in new places. Sometimes, especially if the used slang is rather obscure, we can find cases of misunderstood expressions which are translated literally. We can find one such case when a character in
The Big Lebowski complains that his wife is always “busting [his] frigging agates”. In this case, agates refer to testicles and the expression is equivalent to bust someone’s balls, i.e. to nag. The subtitler unfortunately did not decipher it and the translation reads:
“Vždycky zláme moje pitomý acháty.”
One of the protagonist’s favourite phrases is “Fucking A,” expressing agreement and/or content. He uses it several times throughout the film and is translated in various ways from which the most colloquial is the expression jasná páka used once in the dubbing. Of course, the dubbing is often limited by the actor’s mouth movement so such translation can only be used in some places. Interestingly, in one case, the expression is translated with a contradictory phrase in the dubbing:
Original: “Are you surprised at my tears, sir?” – “Uh, Fucking A.”
Dubbing: “Překvapují vás mé slzy, pane?” – “Ani ne, kurva.”
The logic behind such change is hard to understand since the translator obviously knew what the expression meant. It is possible that he simply misunderstood in this particular scene because the actor mumbles, and did not check in the script or did not have it available.
Altogether, the dubbing uses more colloquial language and adds more slang expressions. This is probably not surprising given the nature of the two methods – dubbing is always expected to use elements of informal spoken language more freely.
The dubbing is also much less literal and uses more creative and diverse translations than the subtitles as I have already mentioned before. This, too, follows our expectations. The fidelity of translation in the subtitles may be partly attributed to their vulnerability but I believe a stronger motivation might be the subtitler’s feeling that
45 their task is more to support the understanding of the original dialogue than to create an autonomous text.
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (in Czech Sbal prachy a vypadni) is a 1998 film written and directed by Guy Ritchie and set in London. The heroes of the story are four young friends, occasional thieves and small-time criminals, who have a plan to win a lot of money in a game of poker. Consequently, they get involved in a complicated web of more or less dangerous members of the London criminal underground. The language of the characters corresponds to their social environment – they use crude language with many swear words and slang terms. Some characters use Cockney rhyming slang which can be especially tricky to decipher. The particularity of the British expressions and offensive words used in the film sets it apart from the prevalent American film production; it will be interesting to see if and how the translators reflected it.
Let us start with the analysis of offensive words. The overall number of all uses is in my count 233 cases. Similarly as in The Big Lebowski, the majority – 113, almost half of all the cases – act as emphasisers. From the rest, 38 words are used figuratively,
36 as insults and 31 in an act of swearing. In the less populous categories, we find 12 literal uses and only 3 curses. Semantically, the word fuck is the most frequent once again, accounting for over 54% of all the cases. I will discuss all the categories in more depth in the following paragraphs.
As I said, most offensive words in the film are used for emphasis. From the 113 emphasisers, 102 use the word fuck in the same two ways described in the previous section. Otherwise, 5 emphasisers are religious, inserting the hell in a sentence; damn or any of its variations is not used. 3 times the popular British swear word bloody is used, which eludes the typical taboo categories – some connect it to menstrual blood and
46 others to the blood of the Christ but it is disputable that any of these connections are really at play in the use of this word. In two places, another British expression sodding is used. Sod is shortened from sodomite so this word belongs to the category of sex deviations. In one case, less offensive stinking can be found.
Figurative use is the next most used category and it also employs the word fuck most often. This word is used to form various phrasal verbs such as fuck around/about, fuck sth. up etc. From other categories, we can find 9 references to excrements: shit is used several times as a slang term for marijuana, other times in fixed phrases (“I don’t give a shit”). The word crap is also used to express that something is useless, bad quality. The word arse or arsehole is used figuratively 4 times, in expressions like “It’s enough to give me the arsehole,” meaning “to put in a bad mood” or “make angry”. In 4 cases, the act of producing waste products is also used (piss off). In the remaining categories, we find two references to a body part related to sex (talk bollocks – a similar expression to talk shit), one to prostitution (ponce around – ponce is a slang term for a pimp, figuratively, it refers to being weak or effeminate), and one to a sex deviation
(“I’m buggered if I’m gonna count it,” indicating a refusal to do something; to bugger originally means “to sodomise”).
Insults are almost as numerous as figurative use but a little more varied. The most frequent insult is bastard, implying adultery, used 11 times. From other sex categories, we can find 5 references to body parts related to sex (cunt – used twice, twat
– also a reference to vagina, tit, and dick), 4 to prostitutes (slag and tart), 4 to homosexuals (fairies, poofs, faggots, mincer), 3 to masturbation (wanker), one to the sexual act (“you yuppie fucker”), and one to a deviation (nonce – slang for paedophile).
From the other categories, two times someone is called a shite, referring to excrement, two animal insults (“northern monkeys” and “stupid cow”) are used and one reference to a mental handicap (idiot). Two times, the word muppet, not belonging to any of the
47 described taboo categories, is employed.
As far as literal use is concerned, we can find 6 instances of reference to body parts related to the producing of excrements, 2 to the act itself, 2 literal uses of the word bollocks, one reference to a prostitute (a brass) and one to homosexuals (faggots – bordering with an insult). The category of swearing is the only one where religious references are the most popular with 19 out of 31 cases. The others either refer to excrements (8 times), to a sexual act (3 times), or at one time to testicles (Bollocks!)
Curses are very monotonous, only using the expression Fuck you!
The following table presents an overview of all the uses of offensive words in the original dialogue:
Figure 5: All cases of offensive words in the source, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX ACT 17 102 1 3 3 126 54% BODY 2 2 5 1 10 4% MASTURB. 3 3 1% PROSTIT. 1 1 4 6 3% ADULTERY 11 11 5% DEVIATION 1 2 1 4 2% HOMOSEX. 1 4 5 2% EXCR PRODUCT 9 2 8 19 8% ACT 2 4 6 3% BODY 6 4 10 4% RELIGIOUS 5 19 24 10% BLOOD 3 3 1% ANIMAL 2 2 1% HANDICAPS 1 1 0,5% OTHER 1 2 3 1% 12 38 113 36 3 31 233 approx. percentage 5% 16% 49% 16% 1% 13%
Since we are now acquainted with the distribution of offensive words in the source, we can proceed to how they were transferred in the two translations. Expectedly, the numbers of dirty words have dropped significantly in both translations but contrary to our expectations, more so in dubbing than in the subtitles. In the subtitles, we can find 96 cases, which is approximately 41% of the uses found in the original, in the
48 dubbing, the number is 82, roughly 35%. The distribution in the individual functional categories may also surprise us. In the subtitles, we find 6 cases of literal use, 4 cases of figurative use, 29 emphasisers, 28 insults, 1 curse and 28 instances of swearing. This means that the biggest drop did not happen in the category of emphasisers but in figurative use (only 11% of the offensive words used in original). In the dubbing, the situation is similar, except for emphasisers, which were even more reduced. So far it seems that our presumption that dubbing has more space to use emphasisers than subtitles may be false. The numbers of offensive words used in individual categories in the dubbing are: 7 cases of literal use, 3 of figurative, 12 emphasisers, 29 insults, 2 curses, and 29 cases of swearing. In the dubbing, figurative use of swear words has dropped to only 8% and emphasisers are close behind with 11% of the original’s. Unlike in the translations of The Big Lebowski, here none of the categories have grown which could mean a lower level of compensating. For a detailed comparison, see the table below.
Figure 6: Comparison of uses of offensive words in the source and in the two translations, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels / Sbal prachy a vypadni
SOURCE SUBTITLES approx. DUBBING approx. LITERAL 12 6 50% 7 58% FIGUR. 38 4 11% 3 8% EMPH. 113 29 26% 12 11% INSULT 36 28 78% 29 81% CURSE 3 1 33% 2 67% SWEAR. 31 28 85% 29 94% 233 96 41% 82 35%
Let us now discuss how the individual categories were approached in the two translations. We can only find literally used dirty words in the translations where they are in the original as well. One exception is found in the dubbing when the sentence “Be lucky to find your penis for a piss, the amount you keep smoking,” is translated replacing the neutral penis with péro but leaving out the action: “Buď rád, že najdeš
49 vlastní péro, když tolik hulíš.” In the subtitles, this sentence is translated more literally.
In other cases, the offensive words are replaced with neutral ones (arse – zadek) or eliminated.
As I have already indicated, the category of figurative use has been reduced the most in the translations. Most of the expressions have simply been eliminated or translated with neutral or colloquial ones without a dirty word. “Stop fucking about,
Tom,” – “Nech toho, Tome!” (subtitles), “Kašli na to,” (dubbing). Those that were kept in the translations follow the expected practice of transferring expressions referring to sexual acts into phrases from the category of excrements: “This is fucked,” – “To je v prdeli.” The subtitles also add one figurative expression when there is not one in the original (there is an emphasiser instead): “That's fucking it,” – “Vyser se na to.” Less common figurative expressions may be quite difficult to understand and may lead to mistakes in translation. For instance, the already mentioned sentence “I’m buggered if
I’m gonna count it,” meaning something as “I am not going to be the one counting it” was understood as “I’ll be worn out before I can count it” and translated accordingly:
“Budu hotovej (subtitles) / mrtvej (dubbing), než to spočítám.”
Emphasisers have also dropped significantly in the translations. In the subtitles, they come from three semantic categories: references to prostitution (“To mě kurva nezajímá”) and to the producing of excrements (posraný or its euphemistic equivalent podělaný), and religious emphasisers (zatracený, sakra). There are no cases of added emphasisers where there is not one in the source. In the dubbing, almost all emphasisers are of religious origin, with a few references to the producing of excrements. Only in one place is an added emphasiser along with an insult when they are not in the original.
Overall, most emphasisers are simply eliminated in both translations and they do not seem to reflect the differences between religious and other emphasisers in the original.
Insults were retained more often in the translations and they are also
50 occasionally added in places where they are not in the original. Semantically, they come from various categories but in both cases, the category of mental handicaps is the most common – in the original used only once. This category proved popular in the translations of The Big Lebowski as well, so it would seem that Czech translators have a preference for such insults. References to adultery are also used a number of times. In fact, the subtitles follow the use of such insults in the original quite closely: from the 11 cases of the word bastard used in the source, 7 are kept in the translation. While the subtitles use this word, the dubbing works with its Czech equivalent parchant (used 4 times) which sounds more natural. It shows that the subtitles have a tendency to stay closer to the original.
We can find 5 references to animals in both translations; apart from the more common kráva, vůl, osel, we can also observe the influence of “northern monkeys” used in the original. In the original dialogue, this insult is used only once and is retorted with a reference to homosexuality: “Fucking northern monkeys.” – “I hate these fucking southern fairies.” In the translations, however, the reference to monkeys extended into the second part of this exchange: “Zasraný severský opičáci,” – “Nesnáším tyhle jižanský gorily” (subtitles); “Podělaný vopičáci,” – “Nenávidím tyhle nafouněný vopičáky” (dubbing). We can see that in the dubbing, the translator alluded to the original’s reference to homosexuality by the adjective nafouněný but completely left out the distinction between northern and southern. This can be possibly attributed to the fact that in the dubbing, the characters lose their distinctive accents that identify the region they are from. In the dubbing, we can also distinctly hear the prothetic v in the beginning of the word vopičáci which is typical of spoken language but, unsurprisingly, it is not used in the subtitles.
From other categories, both translations use the colloquial word for toilet 3 times, in the subtitles we can also find one reference to homosexuality (buzíci) and one
51 to a sexual body part (čurák). Several insults that do not belong into any of the taboo categories are found in both translations (tupec, srabi, grázlové, zmetek, pako, šašek, and a xenophobic insult cizák).
There are only three curses in the original dialogue, all based on the word fuck.
In the subtitles, only one of these remains, transferred into the field of body parts related to excrements: Jdi do prdele! In the dubbing, two cases are retained, one also using this expression and the other a more euphemistic phrase: Polib si šos. While this phrase does not contain any dirty words, it is employed as a curse and could be considered a euphemism of the more offensive Polib si prdel, which is why I chose to include it.
Similarly to the original, the most popular category used in swearing is the religious one. From the other categories, a few cases from the excrements category can be found (do prdele, do hajzlu) as well as some references to prostitution (kurva). This functional category was preserved the most in the translations but it was slightly toned down by using a higher percentage of religious swear words than in the original. The detailed distribution of all offensive words used in the two translations can be found in the tables below.
Figure 7: All cases of offensive words in the subtitles, Sbal prachy a vypadni
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX BODY 2 1 3 3% PROSTIT. 8 3 11 12% ADULTERY 7 7 7% HOMOSEX. 1 1 2 2% EXCR PRODUCT 1 1 1% ACT 1 1 11 13 14% BODY 2 2 1 3 8 8% OTHER* 3 3 3% RELIGIOUS 10 22 32 33% ANIMAL 5 5 5% HANDICAPS 9 9 9% OTHER 2 2 2% 6 4 29 28 1 28 96 approx. percentage 6% 4% 30% 29% 1% 29% * References to toilets and other excrements-related paraphernalia.
52 If we compare the distribution of offensive words in this table and in that representing the original (Figure 5), we can see how the use of each category has changed in the translation for subtitles. While in the original, emphasisers accounted for almost half of the cases, and figurative use and insults were almost equal, in the translation, emphasisers are only barely in the first position, with insults and swearing close behind, and figurative use has dropped between the least populous categories.
While the drop of emphasisers was expected, such a large elimination of figuratively used offensive words is more surprising. The most used semantic category in the original was that of sexual acts. Expectedly, this category was not used at all in the subtitles but others have grown instead, mainly references to acts and body parts related to excrements, references to prostitution, and the religious category which accounts for a third of all used swear words.
Figure 8: All cases of offensive words in the dubbing, Sbal prachy a vypadni
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX BODY 3 3 4% PROSTIT. 1 1 2 2% ADULTERY 4 4 5% HOMOSEX. 1 1 1% EXCR ACT 1 3 4 5% BODY 2 2 1 2 7 8,5% OTHER* 3 1 4 5% RELIGIOUS 9 25 34 41,5% ANIMAL 5 5 6% HANDICAPS 10 10 12% OTHER 7 1 8 10% 7 3 12 29 2 29 82 approx. percentage 9% 4% 15% 35% 2% 35% * References to toilets and other excrements-related paraphernalia. In the dubbing, the changes are even more radical than in the subtitles: the use of emphasisers have dropped even more and among the semantic categories, religious words have gained a dominant position, replacing many words which could be considered more offensive (from the sex and excrements categories). Among insults, the category of mental handicaps has gained the most uses compared to the original.
53 Compared to the subtitles, the dubbing uses slightly more creative insults with more words outside the outlined taboo categories. Overall, the subtitles stay closer to the original in the use of offensive language than the dubbing.
The use of slang is particularly prominent in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking
Barrels. The characters in the film are members of the London criminal underground and many of the used slang expressions refer to illegal activities: “hustle a few quid here and there”, “there’s no shortage of punters” (= gamblers), “this gear is getting heavier”
(= marijuana is getting stronger), “we’ll take you to the cleaners” (= swindle you out of your money), “he was on the take” (= corrupt, bribed) and so on. Others are used for more common situations: “getting the hump with your stupid questions” (= being bothered by them), “handy for the Tube” (= the Underground is nearby), “who’s the guv?” (= the boss), “depends what flicks your switch” (= what you like) and many more.
A specific type of slang – Cockney rhyming slang – is also used throughout the film by several characters. The principle of rhyming slang is that the word which is meant to be expressed is replaced by a phrase which rhymes with it: mouth → north and south. In most cases, this phrase is afterwards shortened so that only its first part (which does not actually rhyme with the original expression) remains: north and south → north. Some of these shortened phrases have become quite common and are used by a wider public but others are very obscure and difficult to understand. Such expressions may pose considerable difficulties to translators unless they are explained in the provided dialogue list. Examples of rhyming slang in the film are: “all right, keep your alans on” (alan – Alan Whicker – knickers → keep your knickers on = calm down), “no one’s watching the custard so he switches the channel over” (custard – custard and jelly
– telly = television), “that look slapped all over your chevy chase” (Chevy Chase – face).
54 Regardless of the origin or the use of the slang expressions, in translation, it is most important to discover its denotative meaning and transfer it correctly into the target language. Additionally, the translator can try to find corresponding slang terms and use them where possible. For instance, the sentence “Rory's roger iron rusted”
(roger – Roger Mellie – telly; iron rusted – busted) could be translated neutrally as
“Rorymu se rozbila televize” or more colloquially as “Rorymu kiksla bedna”. In the translations of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the translators have tried to supply some expressivity by using colloquial expressions but most of the slang expressions have been neutralised (to nick sth. – in both versions translated as ukrást, rather than some of the slang terms like šlohnout, čmajznout, or čórnout). In some cases, the subtitles use slang expressions where the dubbing does not: “It’s all completely chicken soup,” (chicken soup – kosher = everything is in order) – “Nesmrdí to,” (subtitles) – “Je to čistý,” (dubbing); but generally, the dubbing uses more colloquial language as can be expected.
Misunderstandings of the original slang expressions can also be found in both translations. For instance, the sentence with Rory’s television was translated in the subtitles as “Rorymu Rogerovi bouchla televize,” including the slang term as part of the character’s name (in the dubbing simply “Rorymu bouchla televize”). In the dubbing, the expression meet me half-way was misunderstood in its context and translated as
“Dej mi adresu,” literally “give me the address,” (in the subtitles correctly “vyjdi mi vstříc”). Such mistakes can easily happen with less known slang expressions which reaffirms the necessity of thorough proof-reading.
On the whole, the dubbing uses more colloquial language and more often chooses informal variants of words typical of spoken language (suffixes and other morphological elements) than the subtitles. The subtitles, on the other hand, use stronger language – they preserve a higher number of swear words and generally use
55 those from the more offensive semantic categories. The translation for subtitles is also following the original more closely, both in sentence structure and word choices.
Fight Club
While the two previous films are primarily comedies, Fight Club is a more serious drama. Based on a novel by Chuck Palahniuk, the screenplay was written by Jim Uhls and the film directed by David Fincher in 1999. The nameless narrator of the film is an average employee of an insurance company whose life changes completely when he meets Tyler Durden, an eccentric man who makes it his mission to sabotage the ways of consumerist society. Together they form Fight Club, a place where men can fight to feel more like men, but under Tyler’s command it grows into a terrorist organisation with the goal of destroying the oppressions of modern society. The film depicts quite a lot of violence, many unlawful activities, as well as some offensive language corresponding to the violent behaviour of the characters.
Compared to the two previous films in which emphasisers were by far the most popular way to use offensive words, accounting for about a half of all cases; in Fight
Club, the use is quite different with emphasisers only forming a third of the cases, the same percentage as swearing. Let us have a look at the numbers: the overall score of all offensive words in the film is 166, 15 of which are used literally, 24 figuratively, 47 as emphasisers, 23 as insults, 11 as curses, and 46 in an act of swearing. Unlike emphasisers, curses are in a stronger position in comparison to what we have seen in the previous films, possibly because of the overall attitude of anger present in Fight Club.
In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the individual categories and the words used in them.
Similarly as in the previous films, the word fuck is the most frequently used one.
56 It is mostly used as an emphasiser but it appears in all other categories as well. In the category of emphasisers, it has a prominent position, in fact 45 out of the 47 emphasisers use this word, while the other two are religious, one with the added the hell in a sentence and one emphasising another swear word: “Holy shit.” The word fuck is also at the basis of all curses in the film. The common expression Fuck you! is found in many variants, cursing other people and entities beside the interlocutor: “Fuck Martha
Stewart,” “Fuck damnation. Fuck redemption.”
Most literally used offensive words also refer to sexual activity, 8 times with the word fuck, and once with screw. Otherwise, we can find 4 references to breasts (tits), and two to buttocks (ass). In figurative use, on the other hand, references to excrements are most frequent, using words shit and crap to refer to something insignificant or low quality; references to sexual acts are also used (fuck, screw) usually in phrasal verbs, similarly as we have seen in the previous sections of this chapter; and one time the word piss, also in a phrasal verb (pissed off). Two times, a word from the animal category, bitch, is used figuratively: “Bob had bitch tits,” (= breasts like a woman).
Insults are as usual the most semantically varied category. From the 23 insults found in the film, 4 refer to sexual acts (fuck or fucker) and 3 similar ones to incest
(motherfucker). From the sex category, there is also one insult with reference to a vagina
(cooze). In other categories, we find 3 references to excrements (shit, crap), 2 to the related body part (asshole), several different animal insults (bitch, jackass, pigs – insulting policemen), and twice the word moron, referring to a mental handicap. Outside these categories are words loony and freak. The word crap appears twice in the film in the same sentence (“You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world,”) and it is particularly difficult to categorise, lying on the verge of insult and figurative use.
The words used for swearing are rather predictable, with the most (34 out of 46) coming from the category of religion (oh God, Jesus, Goddammit, etc.) From the
57 remaining, half uses the word fuck, 5 the word shit, and one time the word motherfucker is used for swearing. In the following table, we can see all the cases of offensive words as they are used in the original dialogue in the film.
Figure 9: All cases of offensive words in the source, Fight Club
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX ACT 9 8 45 4 11 6 83 50% BODY 4 1 5 3% INCEST 3 1 4 2% EXCR PRODUCT 13 3 5 21 13% ACT 1 1 1% BODY 2 2 4 2% RELIGIOUS 2 34 36 22% ANIMAL 2 5 7 4% HANDICAPS 2 2 1% OTHER 3 3 2% 15 24 47 23 11 46 166 approx. percentage 9% 14% 28% 14% 7% 28%
Now, we can pass to how these offensive words have been transferred in the two translations. Rather unexpectedly, the number of dirty words is quite significantly higher in the subtitles than in the dubbing. In the subtitles, we can find 128 cases altogether, roughly 77% of the original number, in the dubbing, it is only 99 cases, about 60%. As far as the individual categories are concerned, the numbers in the subtitles are: 11 words used literally, 10 used figuratively, 24 emphasisers, 22 insults, 7 curses, and 54 cases of swearing. As we can see from these numbers, almost all categories have dropped compared to the original, insults have almost the same frequency, but there are more instances of swearing. The reason this category has grown is that the translator transfers emphasisers into swearing a number of times by moving the swear word from its emphasising position to the beginning or end of the sentence and separating it with a comma: “I’m fucking Lou,” – “Já jsem Lou, hergot,” or “Get the fuck out of here,” – “Do prdele, vypadni odtud.” Of course, in such cases the line between emphasis and swearing is very thin but I have always considered this use as swearing in my analysis, so for the sake of consistency I do so in these cases as well.
58 The translator probably felt that such use is more common in Czech which rarely uses emphasisers the same way English does, especially the adjectival kind (fucking).
In the dubbing, there are 7 cases of literal use, 5 cases of figurative, 18 emphasisers, 16 insults, 10 curses, and 43 instances of swearing. In both translations, figurative use has dropped the most. In the subtitles, more than half of the emphasisers used in the original are preserved, which is the highest percentage we have seen so far and that is without counting those that have been transferred into swearing. All numbers with comparison of each category with the original are found in the table below.
Figure 10: Comparison of uses of offensive words in the source and in the two translations, Fight Club / Klub rváčů
SOURCE SUBTITLES approx. DUBBING approx. LITERAL 15 11 73% 7 47% FIGUR. 24 10 42% 5 21% EMPH. 47 24 51% 18 38% INSULT 23 22 96% 16 70% CURSE 11 7 64% 10 91% SWEAR. 46 54 117% 43 94% 166 128 77% 99 60%
Let us now compare how words from each category have been translated in the two translations. In the subtitles, 11 cases of literally used offensive words are preserved, the remaining 4 are softened into neutral words (ass – zadek) or euphemistic phrases (“You fucked her,” – “Taky jsi ji měl,”) or left out. No such word is used in a new place. In the dubbing, the situation is similar but fewer words are kept offensive
(tits are translated as kozy only once, in other places the neutral expression prsa is used).
One time a word in its literal sense is added, replacing a different expression in the original and changing the meaning: “She needs a fucking case worker,” – “potřebuje
šukat.”
Figurative use, as we have seen, was reduced the most in the translations.
Mostly, the offensive expressions are simply translated by non-offensive ones: “Who
59 gives a shit?” – “Komu na tom záleží?” (subtitles) – “Co vám brání?” (dubbing). In both translations, a figuratively used adjective is replaced by an emphasiser a few times:
“They give shitty basement apartments letters instead of numbers,” (shitty = bad) –
“Posraný byty v suterénu označují písmeny;” (subtitles); “You wanna go back to your shit job?” – “Chceš zpátky svou zasranou práci?” (subtitles) – “Chceš do zasraný práce?” (dubbing). The words posraný and zasraný do not have the same meaning as shit or shitty, which indicate that these things are bad or unimportant.
Emphasisers are translated rather differently in the two versions. In the original, almost all emphasisers used the word fuck, only two were religious. In the dubbing however, almost all emphasisers are from the category of religion, using words zatracený or sakra: “Co to k sakru děláš?” Only one emphasiser from the excrements category is used (see previous paragraph). In the subtitles, the majority of emphasisers comes from the more offensive categories: references to producing excrements
(posraný, zasraný) and to related body parts (“Co to mělo do prdele za význam?!”), and references to prostitution (kurva). Only a third of them are words of religious origins.
An interesting case of an emphasiser inserted in the middle of a word “un-fucking- believable” is translated in the subtitles as “Zasra… neuvěřitelné,” in an attempt to imply the interconnection of the two words.
In the category of curses, the dubbing is also working with milder alternatives than the subtitles. In the subtitles, all curses are based on the word for buttocks: “Jdi do prdele,” “Do prdele s Marthou Stewartovou,” and so on. Some curses are translated by means of a differently used swear word – “Fuck you!” (curse) – “Do prdele!”
(swearing) – or simply omitted. In the dubbing, most curses come once again from the category of religion, referencing to the devil: “K čertu s Marthou Stewartovou.” One case makes a reference to the toilet (“Jdi do hajzlu,”) and several use a more euphemistic expression trhni si (nohou). This expression does not contain any dirty
60 words but similarly to the expression polib si šos, discussed in the analysis of Lock,
Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, it is intended as a curse so it should be included.
The preference for words from the category of religion in the dubbing is consistent also in the translation of swearing where all cases come from this category
(panebože, k sakru). In the subtitles, the semantic categories of swearing are more varied, with 33 cases from the religious category (in the original, there are 34 cases), which are slightly more varied than in the dubbing (Ježíšmarja, hergot, prokristapána, zatraceně are used apart from some more common expressions like sakra or bože); 18 references to buttocks and 3 to prostitution. As I have already explained, the number of swearing is higher in the subtitles than in the original.
Insults are as usual the most varied category in the translations as well as in the source. In the subtitles, the largest category of insults refers to toilets (hajzl). In the dubbing, this category also counts several cases. From other categories, we can find references to mental handicaps (debil, idiot, pitomec, kretén, blbec) and to the producing of excrements (sráč) in both translations. In the subtitles, there are also references to adultery (parchant), to a vagina (pizda), and to excrements themselves (hovno, used as the translation of crap in the problematic sentence mentioned earlier). In the dubbing, there are 2 animal insults, hovado and prasata (as the translation of pigs¸ a common derogative term for policemen which is however not really used in Czech). From outside the common taboo categories, there are 4 insults in the subtitles (mrcha, pošuk, used twice, and cvoci), and 6 in the dubbing (mrcha, šílenec, used twice, blázen and póvl, used as the translation of crap where the subtitles use hovno). We can see that these insults thematically correspond to those used in the source (bitch – mrcha; loony –
šílenec, pošuk; freaks – cvoci).
61 In the following tables, we see the distribution of all offensive words in both translations:
Figure 11: All cases of offensive words in the subtitles, Klub rváčů
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX ACT 7 7 5% BODY 4 1 5 4% PROSTIT. 1 5 3 9 7% ADULTERY 2 2 2% EXCR PRODUCT 4 2 6 5% ACT 5 11 1 17 13% BODY 1 7 18 26 20% OTHER* 8 8 6% RELIGIOUS 7 33 40 31% HANDICAPS 4 4 3% OTHER 4 4 3% 11 10 24 22 7 54 128 approx. percentage 9% 8% 19% 17% 5% 42% * References to toilets and other excrements-related paraphernalia. This table presents the use of offensive words in the subtitles. In comparison with the data found in the source (see Figure 9), we can see where the most important shifts occur. Among the functional categories, swearing has become the most prominent, while figurative use and emphasisers have dropped the most. Semantically, the category of sexual acts has logically lost its leading position with most of the words moving to other categories, more commonly used in Czech: references to the producing of excrements, the related body parts and toilets, and references to prostitution, categories which are rarely or not at all used in the original. Combined, these categories account for almost 47% of all offensive words used in the subtitles, almost as much as the word fuck in the original. The category of religion represents a larger proportion of the offensive language used in the subtitles than it did in the original.
62 Figure 12: All cases of offensive words in the dubbing, Klub rváčů
LITERAL FIGUR. EMPH INSULT CURSE SWEAR SEX ACT 5 5 5% BODY 2 2 2% EXCR ACT 1 1 1 3 3% OTHER* 4 1 5 5% RELIGIOUS 17 6 43 66 67% ANIMAL 3 2 5 5% HANDICAPS 3 3 3% OTHER 1 6 3 10 10% 7 5 18 16 10 43 99 approx. percentage 7% 5% 18% 16% 10% 43,5% * References to toilets and other excrements-related paraphernalia. In the dubbing, as we can see from this table, the category of swearing is also the most prominent while other categories are represented even less than in the subtitles
(especially figurative use). Curses form the only other category that is relatively larger in the dubbing than in the original. Semantically, the category of religion has an overwhelming majority, accounting for 67% of all cases, a three times higher percentage than in the original. The other – more offensive – categories have become almost insignificant, making the dubbed version much milder than the original.
Slang does not play such a significant role in Fight Club as it did for instance in
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Nevertheless, a few terms can be found throughout the film, some more common, some unique. Let us see some examples and their translations: “Strangers with this kind of honesty make me go a big rubbery one,”
(= make me feel unaroused, unpleasant) – “Neznámí lidé, kteří jsou takhle upřímní, mě dokážou úplně vykolejit,” (subtitles, colloquial expression with a similar meaning – they make me feel unpleasant, nervous) – “Cizinci s takovou dávkou upřímnosti mě vždycky přinutí k něčemu nepřístojnému,” (dubbing, neutral expression with a different meaning – they make me do something unacceptable); “Candy-stripe a cancer ward,” (= go volunteer at a cancer ward) – “Běžte do špitálu na onkologii,” (subtitles, colloquial language, less specific meaning – go to a cancer ward) – “To jsou zbytečný řeči,”
(dubbing, colloquial language, complete change of meaning – there is no point in what
63 you are saying); “First person to get out of this fucking door gets it… gets a lead salad, you understand?” (= will be shot with a couple of bullets, invented expression) – “První
člověk, který vystrčí nos z těchhle dveří, dostane olověný salát! Rozumíte?” (subtitles, literal translation) – “První osoba, která vejde do dveří, dostane olověnou spršku do hlavy, jasný?” (dubbing, slightly changed expression with the same meaning). From these examples, we can see that the informality of language is quite similar in both translations but the subtitles stay closer in meaning to the original while the dubbing sometimes completely changes it (as we have already seen before in the sentence with a case worker). In fact, we can find a number of changes of meaning or misunderstood expressions in the dubbing. For instance, the idiom “let the chips fall where they may” is translated word for word in the dubbing as “ať si chipsy padají, kam chtěj” (chips are translated as potato crisps which does not make much sense), and other sentences, not containing any idioms, are mistranslated as well. It would seem that the translator’s understanding of English was not as good as one might hope and there was not sufficient proof-reading to discover her mistakes.
Overall, the dubbing is much less offensive than the subtitles – the number of offensive words is smaller and those that are used are mostly from the category of religion while the subtitles use stronger language. The dubbing not only mollifies individual words but often the meaning of entire sentences as well (“I fuck like you wanna fuck,” – “měl jsem tě rád, jak sis to sakra přál”), whether on purpose or because they were misunderstood, it is hard to say. Nevertheless, it shows the possibilities of
“censoring” available to dubbing and not to subtitles. The level of informality and colloquial language is similar in the two translations, except in the beginning of the film, when the two main characters address each other informally (T-form) in the subtitles, and formally (V-form) in the dubbing. This is simply a question of the translator’s choice, probably not based on the translation method.
64 Conclusion
In this thesis, I have analysed translations of swear words and slang in film with the aim to find the differences between translations for subtitles and for dubbing. I have based my research on the observations of several theoreticians of audiovisual translation combined with the classifications of offensive language offered by Allan and Burridge’s overview of taboo in language and Jay’s psycholinguistic study of dirty language. I have then applied their theoretical findings to my analysis of three films and their Czech translations, trying to uncover patterns which may show conscious or unconscious preferences of the translators based on the used method.
In the first chapter, I have described the practice of audiovisual translation, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the two most common methods – subtitling and dubbing. I have explained how each method works and the process the translated text goes through. I have summarised the constraining factors imposed on the translation in both methods, suggesting how they may affect translator’s choices and what differences they may lead to in the language used in subtitles and in dubbing. The most important observations for the purpose of my thesis were that dubbing is presumed to use more informal language and more colloquial expressions than subtitles and that subtitles will probably tend toward more literal translations than dubbing.
In the second chapter, I have outlined a classification of swear words from two basic perspectives. The first system of classification is based on Allan and Burridge’s typology of taboos, organising swear words into several categories: sex (including sexual activities, sexual relations and sex-related body parts), bodily waste products (for simplification excrements), social minorities (based on race, gender, sexuality, and disabilities), and religion (blasphemy). The second system draws inspiration from Jay’s sociolinguistic categories but I have adapted it to reflect the ways swear words function
65 in language rather than in society. The categories I used in my analysis are: literal use
(offensive word used in its primary, denotative sense), figurative use (offensive word used to express a different meaning than its primary one, often in phrases), emphasisers
(devoid of meaning, used to add expressiveness to a word or a sentence), insults (used to express contempt for someone, the meaning of the used word may or may not be relevant), curses (used to wish harm upon someone, denotative meaning is of little importance), and swearing (used to express an emotion, typically frustration, anger, surprise, or pain). I have also suggested how these categories can be approached in translation and which are more likely to be omitted. Apart from swear words, I have also discussed how slang works in language and how it can be translated.
In the third chapter, I have proposed what can be generally expected in the translation of swear words and slang for subtitles and for dubbing. The main propositions are: the overall number of offensive words is likely to be lower in subtitles than in dubbing because subtitles have to be more condensed and they tend to use less informal language. While in subtitles, many swear words may be omitted, the remaining ones will possibly stay closer to the level of offensiveness of the original; in dubbing, less offensive expressions, mainly from the category of religion, may be used. Among the semantic categories, a shift from references to sexual acts to references to excrements is presumed, since Czech has a preference for different dirty words than
English. From the functional categories, we expect emphasisers to be reduced the most because they are not essential to comprehensibility. In the translation of slang, it is possible that more slang terms will be used in dubbing than in subtitles since it works with spoken language which is generally more colloquial and informal than written text.
The fourth chapter comprises analyses of three films, The Big Lebowski, Lock,
Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (Sbal prachy a vypadni), and Fight Club (Klub rváčů).
In each analysis, I have described how swear words and slang are used in the original
66 dialogue and how they are transferred in the two translations. The results were quite varied for each film and each translation and I will now summarise them here and discuss whether they reflect the expectations formulated in the third chapter.
In the two translations of The Big Lebowski, the overall number of swear words was quite similar, slightly higher in the dubbing, with both translations preserving about
60% of the cases found in the original. As expected, emphasisers were the most reduced category, more so in the dubbing than in the subtitles. Semantically, the category of sexual acts was largely replaced by references to the producing of excrements and the related body parts (especially in the subtitles), and to prostitution (more in the dubbing).
The category of religion also gained prominence, chiefly in the dubbing. Generally, the dubbing used more creative and diverse translations than the subtitles, which stayed rather close to the original. The subtitles, on the other hand, reflected the use of different types of swear words by different characters better than the dubbing. In the translation of slang, the dubbing employed more colloquial language and slang expressions, and also the level of compensation was higher.
The two translations of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels also retained a similar number of offensive words, but this time it was the dubbing that reduced them more, keeping about 35% of those used in the original, while in the subtitles it was over
40%. The most reduced categories were figurative use and emphasisers – both were reduced more in the dubbing than in the subtitles. Semantic shifts were similar as in The
Big Lebowski, the category of sexual acts eliminated while references to acts and body parts related to excrements and references to prostitution gained prominence, especially in the subtitles. The religious category has become the most popular in both translations, particularly in the dubbing. Once again, the subtitles stayed closer to the original in the use of offensive words while the dubbing used milder variants. Slang, which is rather prominent and important in the film, was largely neutralised in both translations with
67 only occasional hints at the original’s expressivity. From the two translations, the dubbing generally uses more colloquial language.
Out of the three pairs of translations, the difference between the subtitles and the dubbing was most prominent in Fight Club. The overall number of offensive words was significantly higher in the subtitles (77% of those found in the original) than in the dubbing (only 60%). Both translations (dubbing more markedly than subtitles) reduced figurative use and emphasisers the most. While the subtitles used a wide range of semantic categories with a large proportion of the three already mentioned in the previous paragraph (producing excrements, body parts related to excrements, and prostitution), the dubbing is rather monotonous in this aspect, with 67% of all offensive words originating in the category of religion. Thus, the dubbed version is much milder than the original and the dubbing, undermining the angry tone of the film. While slang expressions are not numerous in the film, they are generally more accurately translated in the subtitles; the dubbing repeatedly changes the meaning of entire sentences and also features a number of mistranslations.
From the comparison of translations of these three films, we can conclude several observations. Firstly, the expectation that the number of swear words would be higher in dubbing has not been confirmed. In two cases, we have seen quite similar numbers for the two methods; in one case, the percentage of offensive words kept in the translation was significantly higher in the subtitles than in the dubbing. Emphasisers especially were retained more in subtitles. It would seem that subtitles can in the end preserve a larger proportion of expressive elements than their condensed nature would suggest.
As far as the semantic choices and the level of offensiveness are concerned, subtitles tend to stay closer to the original, with more words from categories that correspond in strength to the original choices (categories of sex and excrements); while
68 in dubbing, there is a larger tendency for mollification, with more words from the category of religion replacing the more offensive ones. Overall, subtitles tend toward more literal translations where dubbing can drift further apart from the original, whether it serves to produce more creative translations, like in the case of The Big Lebowski, or to tone down the offensiveness and expressivity of the original, like in the case of Fight
Club. This difference between the two methods is consistent with what we have expected, reflecting the ideas of vulnerability of subtitles and of possible “censoring” in dubbing which I have mentioned in the first chapter.
In the translation of slang, ta general tendency toward neutralisation can be observed. Most slang expressions are simply translated with neutral ones, using colloquial language where possible. However, when it comes to unusual or specific slang terms, they are used very rarely, even if such words can be found in the original.
Translators employ the strategy of “suggesting” linguistic variation occasionally throughout the film rather than translating every slang word found in the original. They also compensate by adding slang and colloquial expressions where they sound more idiomatic. Generally, dubbing uses more colloquial language than subtitles; this can probably be attributed mainly to the different nature of the two methods as one works with spoken language and the other with written text.
To conclude, it seems that the method of audiovisual translation does not significantly affect the simple number of swear words; how many of them will be preserved in the translation probably depends more on the individual translators than on the method they work with. It appears however that subtitlers are more influenced in their semantic choices by the original than translators for dubbing, possibly because they are aware that viewers will be able to compare their translation with the original or because they feel that subtitles serve more as a support to the understanding of the original dialogue than an independent text. In dubbing, the offensiveness of the original
69 is more likely to be toned down by using less offensive expressions mostly of religious origins. On the other hand, dubbing generally uses more colloquial and informal language that might better imitate the original dialogue. In the end, the quality of the translation depends more on the translator and on other people involved in the process of its creation than on the chosen method.
70 Works cited
Primary sources
Big Lebowski. Dir. Ethan Coen, Joel Coen. 1998. Trans. Petr Sitár (dubbing).
BontonFilm, 2006. DVD.
Klub rváčů. Dir. David Fincher. 1999. Trans. Irena Tyrychtrová (dubbing). BontonFilm,
2001. DVD.
Sbal prachy a vypadni. Dir. Guy Ritchie. 1998. Trans. Petra Valentinová (dubbing).
BontonFilm, 2002. DVD.
Secondary sources
Allan, Keith, and Kate Burridge. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of
Language. Cambridge/New York: CUP, 2006. PDF File.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge. “Dubbing or subtitling: The eternal dilemma”. Perspectives: Studies
in Translatology 7.1 (1999): 31-40. Web. 5 Apr. 2013.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge, and Gunilla Anderman, eds. Audiovisual Translation: Language
Transfer on Screen. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. PDF File.
---. Introduction. Díaz Cintas and Anderman 1-17.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge, and Aline Remael. Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling.
Manchester/Kinderhook: St. Jerome Publishing, 2007. Print.
Fuka, František. “Konec titulků v Čechách?” FFFilm, 26 May 2011. Blogger. Web.
28 Mar. 2014.
Hjort, Minna. “Swearwords in Translation: A Balancing Act.” The Translation of
Dialects in Multimedia. Spec. issue of inTRAlinea (2009). Web. 4 Apr. 2014.
Jay, Timothy. Cursing in America: A Psycholinguistic Study of Dirty Language in the
Courts, in the Movies, in the Schoolyards, and on the Streets.
Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1992. Print.
71 Koolstra, Cees M., Allerd L. Peeters and Herman Spinhof. “The Pros and Cons of
Dubbing and Subtitling”. European Journal of Communication. SAGE
Publications, Sept. 2012: 325-354. Web. 8 Mar. 2013.
Lie, Sondre. Translate this, motherfucker: A contrastive study on the subtitling of taboo
words. MA Thesis. University of Oslo, 2013. PDF File.
Martínez, Xènia. “Film dubbing: Its process and translation.” Orero 3-7.
Orero, Pilar. “Audiovisual translation: A new dynamic umbrella.” Introduction. Orero
VII-XIII.
---, ed. Topics in Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins
Publishing Company, 2004. PDF File.
Perego, Elisa. “Evidence of Explicitation in Subtitling: Towards a Categorisation.”
Across Languages and Cultures 4.1 (2003): 63-88. Web. 15 Apr. 2013.
Pošta, Miroslav. Titulkujeme profesionálně. Praha: Apostrof, 2011. Print.
Sánchez, Diana. “Subtitling methods and team-translation.” Orero 9-17.
Stephens, Richards, and Claudia Ulmand. “Swearing as a Response to Pain: Effect of
Daily Swearing Frequency.” The Journal of Pain 12.12 (2011): 1274-1281. Web.
13 Apr. 2014.
Tveit, Jan-Emil. “Dubbing versus Subtitling: Old Battleground Revisited.” Díaz Cintas
and Anderman 85-96.
Websites
Cambridge Dictionaries Online. CUP, 2014. Web 24 Apr. 2014.
Česko-Slovenská filmová databáze. POMO Media Group s.r.o., 2001-2014. Web.
4 Mar. 2014.
Dabingforum.cz. phpBB Group, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007. Web. 4 Mar. 2014.
Oxford Dictionaries. OUP, 2014. Web. 5 Apr. 2014.
Urban Dictionary. Urban Dictionary, 1999-2014. Web. 5 Apr. 2014.
72 English résumé
This thesis offers a comparison of approaches to the translation of swear words and slang in subtitles and in dubbing. First, it suggests what the differences between these two methods might be based on theoretical research and then proceeds with a detailed analysis of several films and their Czech translations to see if they reflect these presumed differences or not.
The first chapter describes the practice of audiovisual translation, its uses and particularly its restricting factors. It discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the two most common methods – subtitling and dubbing – and suggests how they may affect translator’s choices and what differences in language they may lead to. The second chapter presents a classification of swear words from two basic perspectives.
The first system of classification is based on Allan and Burridge’s typology of taboos, organising swear words into several semantic categories; the second system takes inspiration in Jay’s sociolinguistic categories but I have adapted it to reflect the ways swear words function in language, rather than in society. The chapter continues with a discussion of how these categories can be approached in translation and which are more likely to be omitted. Apart from swear words, it also considers slang – how it works in language and how it can be translated. The third chapter serves as a summary of previous two, formulating what general differences can be expected between the translations of swear words and slang for subtitles and for dubbing.
The fourth chapter presents a detailed analysis of the original dialogues of three films and their corresponding Czech translations for subtitles and for dubbing, with focus on swear words and slang. It analyses how these elements are used in the original and how they are transferred in the translations, with the aim to uncover possible patterns and compare them with the expectations based on the theoretical research.
73 In the conclusion, the analyses of the three films and their translations are summarised and discussed, revealing what role the translation method plays in the use of swear words and slang. I argue that the method does not significantly affect the simple number of swear words but influences the semantic choices of the translators who tend to stay closer to the original in subtitles and to tone down the offensiveness in dubbing. On the other hand, dubbing generally uses more colloquial and informal language than subtitles. In the end, the quality of the translation depends more on the individual translators than on the chosen method.
České resumé
Tato práce si klade za úkol srovnat postupy při překladu pro titulky a pro dabing se zaměřením na sprostá slova a kletby a také na slang. Nejprve předkládá teoretický výzkum daného problému, z kterého vyvozuje možné rozdíly mezi těmito dvěma metodami filmového překladu, a poté nabízí vlastní detailní analýzu několika amerických a britských filmů a jejich českých překladů.
První kapitola vysvětluje postupy, použití a omezení překladu audiovizuálních děl a rozebírá výhody a nevýhody dvou hlavních metod, které se k tomuto překladu využívají – titulkování a dabingu. Popisuje, jakým způsobem ovlivňuje daná metoda překladatele ve výběru jazykových prostředků a k jakým rozdílům v použitém jazyce to může vést. Druhá kapitola předkládá klasifikaci sprostých slov z dvou různých pohledů.
První je rozdělení těchto slov do několika sémantických okruhů, založených na typologii tabu podle Allana a Burridgeové; druhý systém klasifikace se inspiruje sociolingvistickými kategoriemi z pera Timothyho Jaye, ale je upraven, aby lépe reflektoval fungování sprostých slov v jazyce, spíše než ve společnosti. Dále se kapitola zabývá tím, jak se může lišit přístup překladatele k jednotlivým typům těchto slov a u
74 kterých z nich je pravděpodobnější, že budou v překladu vypuštěny. Kromě sprostých slov se v kapitole mluví také o slangu, jeho fungování v jazyce a možnostech jeho překladu. Třetí kapitola shrnuje poznatky z dvou předešlých a na jejich základě naznačuje, jaké rozdíly můžeme očekávat mezi překlady sprostých slov a slangu pro titulky a pro dabing.
Čtvrtá kapitola již obsahuje samotné analýzy tří zkoumaných filmů a jejich překladů pro titulky a pro dabing. Zaměřuje se na to, jak jsou sprostá slova a slang použity v originále a jak jsou převedeny v příslušných překladech. Výsledky jsou porovnávány s očekáváními založenými na teoretickém výzkumu. Závěr práce pak tyto analýzy shrnuje a rozebírá, jaký vliv měly jednotlivé metody filmového překladu na použití sprostých slov a slangu. Ve výsledku vyvozuje, že zatímco zvolená metoda nemá velký vliv na prostý počet sprostých slov použitých v překladu, ovlivňuje překladatele ve výběru slov. Zdá se, že překladatelé titulků více zachovávají sílu výrazů použitých v originále a vybírají slova z podobných sémantických kategorií, překladatelé pro dabing naopak expresivitu více zeslabují a častěji používají jemnější výrazy. V dabingu se ovšem většinou objevuje více hovorových a nespisovných prvků. Celková kvalita překladu pak záleží spíše na konkrétním překladateli než na samotné metodě.
75