Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Jana Doleželová

Culture and Terminology in the Translation

of Popular Non-Fiction

Bachelor's Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph. D.

2009
 / declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Mgr. Renata Kamenická, Ph.D., for her help

and comments on my work.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 5
2. Popular Non-Fiction and Functional Approach 6
2.1. Introduction 6
2.2. Skopos Theory: Functionalist Approach to Translation 7
2.3. Language Functions in Thank You for Arguing 9
3. Students' Translations 12
3.1. Introduction 12
3.2. The References to People 14
3.2.1. Introduction 14
3.2.2. Function in the Text 14
3.2.3. Cultural Specifics 16
3.2.4. A Note on the Names IV
3.2.5. Strategies 19
3.2.6. Analysis of the Translations 19
3.2.7. Conclusion 28
3.3. Terminology 29
3.3.1. Introduction 29
3.3.2. Language Functi on 30
3.3.3. Possible Sources 30
3.3.4. A Note on the Terms 32
3.3.5. Recognition of the Terms 36
3.3.6. Analysis of the Translations 37
4. Conclusion 42
5. Bibliography 44
5.1. Primary Source 44
5.2. Secondary Sources 44
6. Appendices 46
6.1. Appendix I 46
6.2. Appendix II 51
6.3. Appendix III 53
1. Introduction

This thesis examines the issues a translator can encounter when translating popular

non-fiction. It is based on a recent American book on rhetoric called Thank You for

Arguing] I have chosen this particular text because I have translated the book myself for

a Czech publishing house. Therefore, I have concentrated on two aspects of the book

which seemed to be the most difficult ones: the terminology and the culture-specific

concepts (I have narrowed this category to proper names referring to people).

Both these categories of translation problems will be demonstrated on translations

of a passage from this book done by a group of students in a translation course. The

thesis will analyse how the students dealt with the difficult aspects of a non-fictional

text. It will be shown that proper names can be considered culture-specific concepts,

which translation strategies for dealing with these concepts were used in the

translations, which of them were used most commonly and what are the advantages and

disadvantages of the individual strategies. Terminology will be looked at from the point

of view of the degree of difficulty for the students, whose translations of the terms will

be examined and possible other translations will be suggested. It will also be examined

which of the two categories of translation problems was more difficult for the students,

what were the most common problems in the translations and how these problems could

have been avoided.

The overall approach of the thesis to these problems will be functional; it will be

examined how successful the translations and the individual translation strategies were

in maintaining the function of the text.

5
2. Popular Non-Fiction and Functional Approach

2.1. Introduction

Thank You for Arguing\s an example of popular non-fiction; this genre

encompasses a wide range of more or less technical books intended for general

audience. The book contains elements from both fiction and non-fiction; its purpose is

to explain the art of persuasion to the reader, but it tries to do so in a readable,

entertaining style, which is very different from the matter-of-fact style of technical or

scholarly texts.

Thank You for Arguing is intended as an introduction into the art of persuasion for

complete beginners. The author himself is not a scholar, but a long-time devotee of

rhetoric; he spent most of his career as an editor and manager in publishing. The book

starts by explaining the basic rhetorical terms and then goes on to more complicated

concepts, drawing mostly on ancient rhetoricians, such as Aristotle and Cicero.

However, the author concentrates on the ways these ancient rules can be used (and are

used) in modern society - in politics, at work or at home. As he deals with rhetoric, he

introduces technical terminology from this field (rhetorical figures, concepts and

strategies); but, on the other hand, he also talks about his family and shows examples

from popular culture, e.g. from the T V series The Simpsons. Even the subtitle of the

book, What Aristotle, Lincoln and Homer Simpson can teach us about the Art of

Persuasion, shows the symbiosis of popular and scholarly elements in the book.

From the translator's point of view, this mixture of elements from both technical

and non-technical types of texts means that in translation of popular non-fiction there

are issues common to both translation of technical texts and translation of non-technical

texts or even fiction; on the one hand, special terminology and certain understanding of

6
the issue is necessary (although usually not into such depth as in translation of purely

technical texts), on the other hand, the language play, metaphors or vivid examples

should be preserved as well, if the text is to preserve its function in the target language.

2.2. Skopos Theory: Functionalist Approach to Translation

Christine Nord summarizes the main idea of this approach in this way: "Let your

translation decisions be guided by the function you want to achieve by means of your

translation" (39). In other words, the methods and procedures the translators decide to

use in their translation should be justified by the text function of the target text.

As Nord herself says, this guideline can actually lead the translators to use a variety

of translation strategies, because different types of text functions can justify the use of

different translation strategies and the actual translations that arise from this approach to

translation "may not be radically new or different, since the rule can actually justify

translation strategies as old as those proposed by Cicero, Jerome or Luther" (Nord 39).

Christiane Nord is one of the advocates of Skopos theory, which puts the main

emphasis on the target text instead of the source text. According to this theory, the

"prime principle determining any translation process is the purpose (Skopos) of the

overall translation action," where the purpose usually refers to "the communicative

purpose aimed at by the target text in the target situation" (Nord 27-28). Hans J.

Vermeer, another advocate of the Skopos theory, explains this "Skopos rule" in the

following way:

"Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The

Skopos rule thus reads as follows: translate/read/ speak/write in a way that enables your

text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people you

want to use it and precisely the way they want it to function" (qtd. in Nord 29).

7
 As a means of deciding what strategy is best for any given text, Nord suggests

"translation brief - a set of information about the text (usually given by the "client",

that is the person who initiates the translation process by assigning it to the translator).

The brief should contain these pieces of information:

a) the intended text function

b) the target text addressee(s)

c) the (prospective) time and place of text reception

d) the medium over which the text will be transmitted

e) the motive for the production or reception of the text

(Nord 60). However, not all of this information must be explicitly specified by the

client or in the text itself; it can be inferred from the translation situation or from the

type of text that is to be translated (although it should preferably be discussed with the

client to avoid possible misunderstanding).

The four last points of the translation brief of Thank You for Arguing could be

summarized in this way: the text is intended for people who want to learn something

about rhetoric, public speaking, effective argument and persuasion and who are

supposed to know almost nothing of the art; the text will be published as a book in the

immediate future and the readers interested in the issues it discusses will buy it (or

borrow it from the library). Almost the same can be said about the source text; the only

difference is that it was already published (in 2007), but this time difference does not

play any significant role in the translation.

As far as the intended function of the target text is concerned, there are three

possibilities: its function can be the same as that of the source text (equifunctional

translation), it can be different (heterofunctional translation) or "the target text might be

supposed to represent the same, or a homologous, degree of originality as the original

8
with regard to the respective culture-specific corpora of texts" (Nord 52); this would be

homologous translation. The last form of translation typically includes literary or poetic

text of a certain status in the source culture, which is not the case of Thank You for

Arguing, so from the point of function it can be either equifunctional or

heterafunctional translation. In the next section the specific language functions of the

source text will be examined to find out which form of translation is appropriate for this

text.

2.3. Language Functions in Thank You for Arguing

According to Newmark's Textbook of Translation, there are six main language

functions: expressive, informative, vocative, aesthetic, phatic and metalingual. A l l of

them can be (to some extent) present in a single text; some of them are usually

dominant, while others may be insignificant or non-present, depending on the type of

text, the intended audience, the author etc. As far as Thank You for Arguing is

concerned, its most important language functions are the vocative and the informative

ones.

Newmark's list of types of text with vocative function is this: "notices, instructions,

publicity, propaganda, persuasive writing (requests, cases, theses) and possibly popular

fiction, whose purpose is to sell the book/entertain the reader [...]" (Newmark 41).

Thank You for Arguing, although it is a popular non-fiction, could be put on the list of

texts with the vocative function, as well as of those with the informative function,

because its main characteristics situate it on the borderline between these two. One of its

main purposes is definitely to "sell the book and entertain the reader", and both main

factors of vocative texts according to Newmark, "the relationship between the writer

and the readership" (Newmark 41), and "a language that is immediately comprehensible

to the readership" (Newmark 41), can be found in it. A good example of the first factor

9
may be the sidebars to the main text, where the author explains terminology, gives

additional examples of rhetorical strategies or directly invites the reader to try some of

them out in his or her personal life: "Try This with a Stubborn Opponent: When

someone says, 'There's a right way and a wrong way,' and then tells you your way is

wrong, bring up examples of when your opponent's way has failed[...]" (Heinrichs 165).

The author's endeavour to write in an understandable way is shown when he explains

the rhetorical concepts in simple terms: "Pathos: argument by emotion. Pathos forms the

root of the word 'sympathy'; a successful persuader must learn how to read the

audience's emotions" (Heinrichs 40).

On the other hand, the text is also highly informative, in the sense that it is

concerned with "the facts of a topic, reality outside language" (Newmark 40). Newmark

offers a range of styles that can be used for informative texts, and the third one on his

scale, suggested for popular science, describes the style of Thank You for Arguing

almost exactly: "an informal, warm style for popular science or art books [...]

characterised by simple grammatical structures, a wide range of vocabulary to

accommodate definitions and numerous illustrations, and stock metaphors and a simple

vocabulary" (Newmark 41).

In both these language functions, the author of the text is described by Newmark as

"anonymous", which is true for Jay Heinrichs in the sense that Thank You for Arguing is

his first book and he is neither a literary fiction writer nor a renowned scholar. The core

of texts with mainly informative function is "truth", while the core of texts with

vocative function is the readership. These are therefore the two things that a translator

should turn his or her attention to.

Other language functions are present in the text as well, although to a smaller

extent: the phatic function (the author sometimes addresses the reader directly or asks

10
rhetoric questions), the aesthetic function (the author demonstrates the use of rhetorical

figures on his own text) and metalingual function (he often explains the etymology of

some of the terms or shows a relation in meaning between two words etc.).

As stated above, the target text addressees, medium, and motive for production are

the same as those of the source text and the place of text reception will probably also be

similar. There is a difference in the time of reception, which, however, does not require

any adaption of the translation. The target text will address a general audience with

presumably no previous knowledge of rhetoric and will attempt to explain this art to

them in an understandable and entertaining way, just as the source text; to achieve this

purpose, it will also need to employ vocative and informative functions. It can therefore

be concluded that there is no reason to change or adapt the functions of the source text;

the Skopos of the target text should be "to achieve ST functions for target audience"

(Nord 51). In Nord's terminology, it is the case of equifunctional translation. The

analysis of students' translations will be therefore based on the functions of the source

text (as they are also the functions of the target text) and their translations will be

examined from the point of view of the functionalistic approach - i.e., to what extent

the translations maintain the function (purpose, Skopos) of the text.

11
3. Students' Translations

3.1. Introduction

A group of twenty two students from the translation course Developing Translation

Skills was assigned a passage from Thank You for Arguing. Developing Translation

Skills is a course for undergraduate students. A n introductory course on translation is a

prerequisite for this course, so the students were not complete beginners in translation;

moreover, Developing Translation Skills is an optional course and so by taking it the

students have shown some interest in translation. The students were told that they will

translate a passage from a popular non-fiction book on rhetoric; moreover, they were

also told to focus on the function of the text and were given some context (previous and

following passages of the text and two sidebars next to their passage).

The whole passage and the context can be found in Appendix I. The passage

consists of three shorter passages from different chapters; they were deliberately chosen

because they reflect the two main functions of the text. In the first passage, the author

describes the difference between arguing and fighting and he demonstrates this

distinction on various statements made by famous people (i.e. famous in the source

culture). The names of these people have a vocative function: they will be immediately

recognized by readers from the source culture and will help them understand the

distinction the author wants to make. These examples, however, depend on the previous

knowledge of the reader which the target-text readers cannot be expected to have. In the

next chapter, it will be examined how the students' translations deal with this problem

and to what extent they maintain the vocative function.

In the second and third passages, the author describes the difference between

demonstrative and deliberative rhetoric and their tools and so he uses rhetoric

12
terminology. These terms have an informative function; they refer to "[an] external

situation, the facts of a topic, reality outside language, including reported ideas or

theories" (Newmark 40). They should be therefore translated in a consistent way and

preferably by their established Czech counterparts, if possible. In this case, the situation

of the translator who translates just this passage is different from the situation of

someone who translates the whole book, because all the terms have already been

mentioned and explained in the previous chapters. The students might have been aware

of the fact that the terms may have been used and explained already, but at any rate they

could not be sure, as they did not read the previous part of the book. For this reason, it

will not be examined whether and how they provide explanations of the terms, but only

the accuracy of the terminology used will be dealt with.

Although the students were given some context and information about the book, it

must be taken into account that they might have chosen a different solution if they were

assigned to translate the whole book and if they would translate it for a client and not

for a teacher. In such case, they might have been e.g. more aware of a repetition of some

concept or they might have more easily realized that a certain word was a rhetorical

term. They might have also used some of the strategies more sparingly (such as the

translation by generalization, which can become monotonous when repeated too often).

These restrictions must be taken into account when examining the student's translations,

which are nevertheless still a valid source of information about the approach and

strategies used when dealing with specific translation problems.

13
3.2. The References to People

3.2.1. Introduction

The proper names referring to people which are used in the text are more than just

names: they serve as function markers of the vocative function of the text. In addition,

some of them are also culture-specific, which makes their translation more complicated.

These two sides of the problem will be discussed first and then the specific strategies

that students chose for dealing with them will be examined. As the names are '"calling

upon' the readership to act, think or feel, in fact to 'react' in the way intended by the

text" (Newmark 41), any translation strategy used to deal with them should (from the

functionalistic point of view) focus on maintaining their vocative function - that is, the

translation should maintain the comprehensibility of the text, as well as other aspects of

its function (such as humorousness).

3.2.2. Function in the Text

The first task, therefore, is to find out what specific functions the names have in the

text - what reaction are they intended to arouse in the reader. This should be normally

inferred from the name itself and the context; the problem arises when the translator

does not know the person that the author refers to. However, in this type of text which

mostly refers to modern American culture it is relatively easy to find the information

needed.

If the whole text (and not just the passage) is taken into consideration, then the

names referring to people which appear in it can be roughly divided into two groups:

names of (mostly ancient) rhetoricians or other figures of authority that the author uses

to support his statements, often by citing the respective authority (Aristotle, Quintilian,

14
Cicero, Kenneth Burke etc.): "That, at least, is how history's greatest orator, Marcus

Tullius Cicero, would say to do it" (Heinrichs 22). Such names are not part of popular

American culture and (with minor exceptions) can be as well known (or unknown) to an

American reader as to a Czech one; moreover, most of them can be translated by their

recognized Czech equivalents. In fact, the author himself does not expect that his

readers would know all these names and often provides an explanation himself:

"modern rhetorician Kenneth Burke" (Heinrichs 47), "Roman orators like Julius Caesar

or Marcus Tullius Cicero" (Heinrichs 4). These names mostly do not present a bigger

translation problem and so they were not included in the passage assigned to the

students.

A more problematic group consists of the names that an American reader is most

probably familiar with (while the Czech is most probably not) and the author depends

on this familiarity. He uses these names for a variety of reasons; sometimes he uses

them to sound more convincing, as he himself says in the second chapter, when he lists

many different examples to prove his point: "If I could speak to you personally, I

probably wouldn't veer from my son to Dick Cheney to George Foreman to Homer

Simpson to Mariah Carey. I would know which case appeals to you the most. Still, the

wildly varied examples make a point all their own: You can't escape argument"
1

(Heinrichs 17). At other times, he tries to elucidate the meaning and importance of an

old case: "It was the O. J. Simpson case of its day" (Heinrichs 83), or demonstrates the

use of a particular rhetorical figure on a statement by a famous person (and makes the

reader laugh at the same time): "Woody Allen: Those who can't do, teach. Those who

can't teach, teach gym" (Heinrichs 218). These names are never explained, because the

author assumes that the readers will be familiar with them.

1
This is probably a print error ("all their own" instead of "on their own").

15
3.2.3. Cultural Specifics

Another division of the names can be done on the basis of their cultural specificity.

According to Nord, "a culture-specific phenomenon is [...] one that is found to exist in a

particular form or function in only one of the two cultures being compared" (34). The

two cultures being compared in this case are the American and the Czech culture and

the names referring to specific people might be taken as an example of "particular form

of a culture specific phenomenon." Nord continues: "This does not mean that the

phenomenon exists only in that particular culture" (34). The "phenomenon" in this case

may be the existence of generally known or famous figures, such as politicians, actors,

criminals etc., whose names are immediately recognized by the members of a given

culture. Such figures exist in both American and Czech cultures, but the names (or

rather the specific people) are of course different and they cannot be expected to be

recognized by a member of another culture.

The names which are specific to the American culture can also be looked at as an

example of non-equivalence at the word level: there is no immediate "translation".

Mona Baker examines the problem of non-equivalence in depth in her work In Other

Words] she divides the cases of non-equivalence into several groups and then lists the

strategies which may be used when translating such words. The names, as was

discussed above, fall into a group of "culture-specific concepts"; Baker describes them

as words that "may express a concept which is totally unknown in the target culture"

(21), the "concept" in this case being the person.

The names can be therefore dealt with as culture-specific issues. As such, they can

only fulfil their function in the text if they are recognized by the reader; in other words,

if simply transferred, they are deprived of their vocative function, which would mean

not maintaining the Skopos of the text. In the next section, students' translations of the

16
names which appeared in their passage will be examined and divided according to

Baker's suggested strategies to find out which of them maintain the vocative function

best.

3.2.4. A Note on the Names

George Foreman "is an American two-time World Heavyweight Boxing

Champion, Olympic gold medallist, and entrepreneur" (Wikipedia). Since 1993 he has

been the spokesperson for Meineke Car Care Centers, but he is famous mainly for

promoting his own brand of grill called the George Foreman Lean Mean Fat Reducing

Grilling Machine. In the 1990s he also shortly starred in his own situational comedy

called George which was broadcasted by the American Broadcasting Company (ABC)

and in 2008 a reality T V show about his family called Family Foreman had its premiere

on T V Land.

The respective sentencefromthe passage for translation: "On the other hand, when

George Foreman tries to sell you a grill, he makes an argument: persuasion that tries to

change your mood, your mind, or your willingness to do something" (Heinrichs 17).

Homer Simpson is one of the main figures in the popular animated sitcom The

Simpsons created by cartoonist Matt Groening. The sitcom has also been dubbed and

broadcasted by the Czech Television.

The respective sentencefromthe passage: "Homer Simpson offers a legitimate

argument when he demonstrates our intellectual superiority to dolphins: 'Don't forget—

we invented computers, leg warmers, bendy straws, peel-and-eat shrimp, the glory hole,

andtht pudding cup'" (Heinrichs 17).

Mariah Carey is an American singer and actress. Her singing career started in

1990 and to date she has sold "over 200 million albums worldwide" (Wikipedia). Her

17
songs are played on Czech radio stations and her video clips are broadcasted on M T V ,

so she is generally known to the Czech audience.

The respective sentencefromthe passage: "Mariah Carey pitches an argument

when she sings "We belong together" to an assumed ex-boyfriend; she tries to changes

his mind (and, judging by all the moaning in the background, get some action)"

(Heinrichs 17).

Howard Dean is an American politician from the Democratic Party. He served six

terms as the Governor of Vermont (from 1991 till 2003) and in 2004 he ran

unsuccessfully for the presidential nomination. Until January 2009 he was also the

Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

The respective sentencefromthe passage: "Howard Dean saying of Republicans,

' A lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives': fight" (Heinrichs 17).

Yogi Berra is a former basketball player and manager, considered to be one of the

best catchers in history. He was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame in 1972. He is also

famous for his specific use of English and for his malapropisms, which are generally

known as "yogiisms".

The respective sentencefromthe passage: "Yogi Berra saying, 'It's not the heat,

it's the humility': argument" (Heinrichs 17).

As can be seen from the descriptions, this group of names can be divided into two

sub-groups. Homer Simpson and Mariah Carey, although definitely connected with

American culture, are no longer known only to Americans. They will be probably

almost as familiar to a Czech reader as they are to an American one and therefore do not

have to be treated as culture-specific terms. On the other hand, the other three persons -

George Foreman, Howard Dean and Yogi Berra - will be most probably only

18
recognized by an American reader and their names therefore fit into the category of

culture-specific concepts.

3.2.5. Strategies

As Mona Baker says, "the choice of a suitable equivalent in a given context

depends on a wide variety of factors. Some of these factors may be strictly linguistic

[...]. Other factors may be extra-linguistic" (Baker 17). It is certainly not possible to

pre-set a translation strategy for each of the cases, but it may be possible to find out

which strategies were used more often than the others and which of them resulted in a

better solution. According to the Skopos rule, a good solution maintains the purpose of

the text, in this case the comprehensibility of the text to the reader, which is at the core

of the main language function of these names - the vocative function.

Baker lists a variety of possible strategies for translating "non-equivalent terms",

but as "names" are a more specific category than just "terms", only some of her

strategies were used in this case and there were some strategies used which are not in

her list. I will use her names of the strategies if they are on her list; the rest of them are

taken from other sources or are my suggestions.

3.2.6. Analysis of the Translations

3.2.6.1 A. Translation by a More General Word (Superordinate)

When the particular person is likely to be unknown to the reader, it is possible to

replace the name of the person by his or her job or some other general characteristic,

depending on the specific name and context.

19
 Students' solutions:

Table 1

List of translations which used strategy A

George Homer Mariah Howard Dean (saying of Yogi Berra

Foreman Simpson Carey Republicans...) (saying...)

not used not used not used politik (na adresu sportovec (o

opozice) nevydařeném

zápase...)

politik (prohlašující trenér (bránící

špinavosti o členech prohrávající

opoziční strany) mužstvo slovy...)

This strategy in general maintains the Skopos of the text: the reader can understand

who the person is, why he is saying what he is saying and how this supports the

argument made by the author - at least in the case of Howard Dean. However, in the

case of Yogi Berra, things are more complicated. The general words (sportovec, trenér)

do describe Yogi Berra quite correctly; but there is another aspect of his personality that

the reader should be familiar with and that is his propensity to malapropisms, because

otherwise the following statement does not make any sense. The reason why the

students did not include this aspect in their description of Yogi Berra is elucidated by

their translations of his statement: "Sportovec o nevydařeném zápase: ,Není to horkem,

ale vlhkostí vzduchu'" (18) ; "Trenér bránící prohrávající mužstvo slovy: ,To není tím
2

vedrem, to je jen skromnost'" (13). The students probably did not realize that the

2
The individual translations are marked by numbers from 1 to 22 and can be found on the CD
enclosed to the thesis.

20
statement is supposed to be illogical and funny, because Yogi Berra confused the word

humidity with the word humility.

A l l in all, this strategy can be useful, if used correctly (describing all the important

aspects of the respective person) and i f not used too often, because such a text would

soon lose its entertaining aspect, which is one of its sub-functions. This strategy

therefore cannot be used consistently throughout the whole text.

3.2.6.2 B. Translation by Cultural Substitution

"This strategy involves replacing a culture-specific item or expression with a

target-language item which [...] is likely to have a similar impact on the target reader"

(Baker 31). In this case, it involves switching the name used by the author for one that

would function in a similar way in the text, but would be known to Czech readers.

Students' solutions:

Table 2

List of translations which used strategy B

George Homer Mariah Howard Dean (saying of Yogi Berra

Foreman Simpson Carey Republicans...) (saying...)

Halina not used not used Ján Slota (o Maďarskej Václav Klaus

Pawlovská ministerke...)

Horst Fuchs Jifí Paroubek o ODS Prezident

(3x) Gašparovi č

Rocky Josef Masopust

Přemek

Podlaha

Jan Správný

21
 In the case of Yogi Berra, there may be a similar problem as was described in

strategy A (the students did not realize what the reason was for using this particular

name and citation): "Václav Klaus: ,environmental!smus je inkarnace novodobého

levičáctví'" (1); "Josef Masopust říkající ,To není o zápalu, ale o pokoře.'" (20). 3

However, in this case the students might have as well been aware of the fact that the

sentence is a case of malapropism: by substituting the person, they did not necessarily

have to use a similarly illogical statement, but on the other hand, they deprived the

sentence of its humorous effect on the reader. The third student managed to maintain it:

"Prezident Gašparovič: ,Ja som skoro 400 dní absolvoval cestami po Slovensku, čo je

skoro jeden rok kompletně'" (12).

A similar issue is connected with the translation of George Foreman as Rocky.

While Rocky is also a famous (even though fictional) boxer, he never promoted any

kind of merchandise and a reader might be confused why is he used as an example of an

entrepreneur. There are other American figures that the translator might have used

instead, such as Michael Jordan trying to sell sport sneakers. Although the readers may

not know that there really is a brand of shoes called "Air Jordan" designed by the

basketball player himself, they will probably recognize him as a famous sportsman and

will understand why he would be a good person for advertising sneakers, while Rocky

is an improbable person for selling a grill.

A solution which differs greatly from the others is the translation of George

Foreman as "Jan Správný", but it was used for the same reasons as the other ones.

According to the author of this translation, she was not aware that George Foreman is a

real person and thought that the name is "pouhou invencí autora"; then she tried to

create a functionally similar invention in Czech (Kalvínova).

3
In the case of Josef Masopust, there is also another problematic issue; it can be debated whether it
is ethical to ascribe to him a statement which he did not actually make.

22
 Generally speaking, this is a very useful strategy; in this particular case, though, the

problem is that the text is clearly written by an American author, who draws examples

on the American way of life, history, celebrities, common knowledge etc. Unless the

translator would attempt to plant the whole text in Czech environment, it would

probably seem very surprising to the reader that among the mass of American names

there is a name which is clearly only known in the Czech (or Slovak) Republic (Halina

Pawlovská, Ján Slota, Josef Masopust etc.). It would probably be better to use a name

which is known to Czech readers, but not only to them (Horst Fuchs), or a name of an

American person known in the Czech Republic.

3.2.6.3 C. Combination of Strategies A and B

This strategy is not on Baker's list, but it was used by the students. It involves

substituting the particular name with a more general description - which would be

understood in the target culture, but which is not (directly) connected with the person

from the source text - or using both description and cultural substitution.

Students' solutions:

Table 3

List of translations which used strategy C

George Foreman Homer Mariah Howard Dean (saying of Yogi

Simpson Carey Republicans...) Berra

usměvavý chlápek z not used not used poslanec CSSD (o not used

teleshoppingu členech ODS)

štíhlá blondýnka z

teleshoppingu

23
 This strategy has the same advantages and disadvantages as strategies A and B: it

cannot be used consistently in the whole text, but i f concepts specific to Czech Republic

are avoided, it can be a useful alternative.

The translation of Howard Dean as "poslanec ČSSD" is specific in that from the

point of view of its structure it obviously combines translation by description

("poslanec") and translation by cultural substitution ("CSSD"), but the result is

basically the same as if the translator used only cultural substitution (such as "Jiří

Paroubek" above): the reader will most probably be aware that CSSD is a specifically

Czech concept and that it therefore does not fit into the context of an American book.

3.2.6.4 D. Translation Using a Loan Word or Loan Word Plus Explanation

This strategy was frequently used in the translations, but as there is (at least in this

particular text and in the case of references to people) a major difference in maintaining

the Skopos between the translations with and without the additional explanation, I will

split this to strategy into two sub-strategies.

1) Translation using a loan word

This was the single most frequent strategy used (see Appendix II, table 7), but it

was not always used with the same success as far as maintaining Skopos is concerned.

In the case of names (people) known to Czech readers it was the only strategy used and

because the readers of the target text are probably almost as familiar with the names as

the readers of the source text, it maintains the function of the names in the translation.

This, however, is not true in case of names unfamiliar to Czech readers.

24
 Students' solutions:

Table 4

List of translations which used strategy D 1)

George Homer Simpson Mariah Carey Howard Yogi

Foreman Dean Berra

George Homer Simpson Mariah Carey (the Howard Yogi

Foreman (9x) (the only solution) only solution) 4

Dean(llx) Berra

(lOx)

If the name is known to target language readers and the translator can use it in the

target language without any further changes and still keep its Skopos in the translation,

then the name, although still to some extent connected with the source culture, ceases to

be a culture-specific concept. This is the case of Mariah Carey and Homer Simpson, but

not of the other names, where this strategy was also the prevailing one. From all the

strategies used, this is probably the only one that completely fails to maintain the

Skopos, because the reader, unfamiliar with the name and without any additional

information, may really be at a loss as to what is the purpose of this sentence. In case of

George Foreman and Howard Dean, the reader can at least guess from the context who

this person might be (Foreman is probably famous for selling grills, Dean is a

politician). In case of Yogi Berra, all the translations that used his name as a loan word

also failed to maintain the humorousness of his statement and only kept the illogicality

or tried to adjust it so that it would look acceptable, e.g. "Yogi Berra rikajici: ,Nejde o

zanicenost, ale pokoru'" (2). In any case, the reader cannot even guess the real purpose

of such a statement.

4
In one of the translations, the name was spelled ..Mariah Carrey"; but as this is clearly a mistype
and the translator did in fact mean to translate the name using a loan word, I list this solution under the
respective strategy.

25
 From all the strategies used by the students, this is the one that does not require any

insight into the text function, because the name is only taken as it is and transferred into

the target text. "However, transference, though it is brief and concise, blocks

comprehension, it emphasises the culture and excludes the message, does not

communicate; some would say it is not a translation procedure at all" (Newmark 96). It

is therefore probable that at least some of the students who used this strategy did not do

so intentionally; they might not have been aware at all that there are some other possible

ways of dealing with this issue. This is even more probable when looking at the list of

all solutions in Appendix II: from the 22 students that submitted the translation, eight

used one strategy for all five names and in all cases the strategy used was translation by

a loan word, which suggests that the students did not think of other ways of dealing with

this problem.

2) Translation using a loan word plus explanation

This strategy consists of transferring the name and adding an (appropriate)

explanation to it.

Students' solutions:

Table 5

List of translations which used strategy D 2)

George Homer Mariah Howard Dean Yogi Berra

Foreman Simpson Carey

bývalý boxer not used not used americky politik basebalový trenér

George Howard Dean Yogi Berra

Foreman (2x)

George americky demokrat Yogi Berra,

Foreman, Howard Dean bývalý

26
bývalý šampión baseballový hráč

v boxe

George demokratický kandidát baseballový hráč

Foreman, na post prezidenta a manažer Yogi

bývalý Spojených států Howard Berra

boxerský Dean

šampión politik Howard Dean bývalý

baseballový

šampiónYogi

Berra

americký demokratický baseballový tréner

politik Howard Dean Yogi Berra

This strategy was also used in many translations. As Baker says, "following the

loan word with an explanation is very useful when the word in question is repeated

several times in the text. Once explained, the loan word can then be used on its own

[...]." This is in fact really the case of Yogi Berra, but the students could not have

known that the name will be repeated. It is also useful because it does not make the

example as vague as translation by a more general term, but at the same time (if done

properly) it fits into the American text (as opposed to some of the translations by

cultural substitution).

In the case of Yogi Berra, there is the same problem as in strategy A - only one

aspect of his personality is described.

27
3.2.6.5 E. Translation Using a Recognized Equivalent

On of the students rendered the name into Czech as "méd'a Bed'a". This, however,

arose from a misinterpretation of the name and not from any attempt at dealing with the

actual name. The student mistook "Yogi Berra" for "Yogi Bear" and then translated the
5

name via its accepted translation.

3.2.6.6 F. Listing More Possibilities

One student solved the case of Yogi Berra by listing two possibilities: "baseballový

hráč Yogi Berra, když fíká/fotbalový trenér" and dealt the same way with Howard

Dean: "Predseda demokratické komise Howard Dean mínící Republikány/politik mínící

opozici." This, however, can be attributed to the fact that the translation was done as

homework to be evaluated by a teacher and not as a real assignment from a client; in a

"real-life" situation, the student would with utmost probability not use such a solution.

3.2.7. Conclusion

As can be seen from the solutions above (the complete list is in appendix II), the

students used a variety of strategies; in an absolute majority of cases they used the

strategies (or combination of strategies) suggested by Mona Baker for the translation of

non-equivalent concepts. This clearly shows that proper names can be a translation

issue, when they are culture-specific. Moreover, only three of the five names present in

the text were treated as culture-specific concepts, even though all of them are connected

with the American culture. As Newmark says, "[in the translation of cultural words]

there will be a translation problem unless there is a cultural overlap between the source

and the target language (and its readership)" (Newmark 94), which is the case here: two

5
According to the Wikipedia, the name Yogi Bear is "commonly seen as a nod" to Yogi Berra, but
Yogi Bear's creator Hanna and Barbera denies any connection.

28
of the names, although American, are popular in the Czech Republic as well and so lose

their cultural specificity.

The strategies employed by students varied in the level of success in maintaining

the Skopos of the target text. In this case, the main purpose is to present the source text

to the reader in a way which is immediately comprehensible to him or her and preserves

other important aspects of the text (such as humorousness), because the names have a

largely vocative function in the text and are therefore reader-oriented. It can be

concluded that for names that are culture-specific (i.e. the reader is probably not

familiar with them), the strategy D 1), translation using a loan word (the most

frequently used one), fails to maintain the Skopos completely, while the other ones do

maintain the Skopos in various degrees. For the two other names, on the contrary,

translation by a loan word is the most obvious one and accordingly, none of the students

used any other translation procedure.

3.3. Terminology

3.3.1. Introduction

The subject of Thank You for Arguing is rhetoric and its use in everyday modern

life. According to Kraus (Rétorika v dějinách jazykové komunikace), this art developed

in ancient Greece as a result of a changeover to democracy in the Sicilian cities of

Acragas and Syracuse in the 5 century B.C. The new system allowed every free citizen
th

to influence politics as well as social matters and therefore a need for rhetoric, the

teaching of impressive formulation of one's thoughts and persuasion of other people,

was created. In the ancient period rhetoric was one of the keystones of higher education

and it continued to be taught throughout the Middle Ages up to the 18 century, when
th

its status began to decline.

29
 The most influential rhetoricians come from the ancient period and the author

draws on their theories very much. He especially leans on Aristotle and Cicero, but

other ancient or medieval rhetoricians, such as Gorgias and St. Augustine, are also

mentioned. Most of the terminology of the book is therefore inevitably of Latin or

Greek origin (often it is the case that one concept has two names, one from Latin and

another one from Greek).

3.3.2. Language Function

From the two main language functions of this text, vocative and informative,

terminology has predominantly the informative function: it allows the author to refer to

whole concepts by a single word. As this book belongs to the genre of popular non-

fiction, the author adds new terminology only gradually and always describes the terms

he introduces for the first time.

In this respect, the students were disadvantaged, because they got their passage for

translation with terms that the author already described in a previous part of the text

which they did not read. The disadvantage was double: from the author's description of

the terms, they might have understood the meaning of the term better and (maybe even

more importantly) they would be immediately aware that the word is a term. However,

there are many other sources on which the students could draw in their translation, as

will be shown in the next section.

3.3.3. Possible Sources

With the decline of rhetoric in the 18 century, the use of its terminology declined
th

as well (in Czech much more than in English, judging from the availability of sources)

and in some cases, it may be difficult to find an existing Czech translation of the term or

30
even to find out whether there is one. I will list the sources that a translator is likely to

use in search for the terms.

Modern Czech books on rhetoric are mostly focused on the practical side of it

(correct breathing, overcoming the stage fright, speaking clearly and intelligibly...) and

they do not deal with ancient rules for the division of speech or rhetorical figures.

However, there are books which deal with the history of rhetoric or are more

theoretical, such as Rétorika v dějinách jazykové komunikace and Rétorika a řečová

kultura by Jiří Kraus or Kapitoly ze současné rétoriky by Edvard Lotko.

Common bilingual dictionaries do not (with the exception of few of the most

common terms) contain this specialized vocabulary; monolingual dictionaries on the

internet (such as Cambridge Dictionaries Online, The Free Dictionary etc.) list slightly

more terms, but they can of course only help with understanding of the meaning of the

terms, not with their translation. There is no English - Czech dictionary of rhetorical

terminology; the only similar dictionary available is an English - Slovak philosophical

dictionary by Pavol Stekauer, but it does not contain almost any rhetorical terms. This is

also the case with the Czech encyclopaedic dictionaries of philosophy that I searched.

A good source of terminology and information on the subject are, of course, the

ancient texts; however, as opposed to English, there are often no or outdated Czech

translations of the key ancient authors. The latest Czech translation of Aristotle's

Rhetoric, which is the key book for the whole art of rhetoric (as well as the primary

source for Jay Heinrichs), is from 1948. In spite of that, it is still a good resource of

Czech terms. A l l three most important terms from the students' passage come from

Aristotle and can be found in this book. (The situation is slightly more difficult with

other books that the author quotes in other parts of the text. A selection from Cicero's

De oratoře has been published in Czech in 1940 and there is no other translation. There

31
is a quite recent translation of Quintilian's Institutionis oratoriae from 1985, but the

speeches of Isocrates and other less well known books on rhetoric have no Czech

translations at all.)

The most valuable source both for the terminology and for general information on

the subject is probably the internet. Jay Heinrichs himself runs a website devoted to

rhetorical figures, Figures of Speech - It Figures, where one can find explanations of

some of the terms and there is also a very comprehensive site devoted to rhetoric called

Silva Rhetoricae which contains almost every term used in the book. Another good

source in English is Wikipedia; its Czech version is, unfortunately, less helpful. From

the Czech websites in general, the single most useful one is probably Ottova

encyklopedie (a combination of Ottův slovník naučný and Ottův slovník naučný nové

doby).

3.3.4. A Note on the Terms

There are three important terms in the passage that was assigned to the students:

"demonstrative" (rhetoric), "logos" and "commonplace". There are other terms, such as

"the advantageous", which is, according to Aristotle, the main topic of one of the

branches of rhetoric - deliberative rhetoric - but it cannot be expected that the students

would recognize this as a term, as they did not read the previous part of the book.

Another such term is "deliberative argument": this is used as a term repeatedly in the

whole book and the author uses it as an abbreviation for "argument which belongs to the

sphere of deliberative rhetoric", but it would be difficult for the students to realize the

connection between "deliberative argument" and "deliberative rhetoric" (and in fact,

none of them did realize it).

The terminology in this text has an informative function and according to

Newmark, the core of informative function is the "truth" - that is, any translation used

32
should be accurate and should be used consistently throughout the text. This should now

be the Skopos of the target text. 6

Demonstrative rhetoric is one of the key concepts that are repeated throughout

the book. It refers to the division (according to Aristotle's Rhetoric) of rhetoric into

three branches according to their function and the kind of problems each of them tries to

solve. The author calls the three branches of rhetoric:

a) deliberative

b) demonstrative

c) forensic (legal)

These are standard English terms for these concepts, which can be found easily on

the Internet. As far as the translations of these terms are concerned, there are several
7

established names for the three branched of rhetoric in Czech. The Czech translation of

Rhetoric by Antonín Kríž calls the three rhetorical branches:

a) poradní

b) slávnostní

c) soudní

In Rétorika a rečová kultúra by Kraus, they are called:

a) poradní

b) soudní

c) demonštratívni

And Edvard Lotko in his book Kapitoly ze současné rétoriky calls them:

6
Because of this focus on accuracy, there are no comments on translations by Slovakian students,
although they are listed along with the Czech ones in Appendix III. This part of the thesis analyses the use
of Czech terminology and so commenting on the use of Slovakian terms would not be appropriate. As
there were six Slovakian students in the group, the overall number of translations commented on in this
section is 16.
7
There is some variation possible in the English terminology, e.g. demonstrative rhetoric can also
be called epideictic, but although this may cause some confusion, it should not be a problem as far as the
search for a Czech equivalent is concerned.

33
 a) deliberativní (politické)

b) epideiktické (příležitostné)

c) judiciální (soudní)

All these versions are established terms that could be used in the translation.

The respective sentencefromthe passage for translation: "Another way to foul up

deliberation is to argue simply to humiliate an opponent. This, too, is demonstrative,

present-tense, Fm-one-of-the-tribe-and-you're-not rhetoric" (Heinrichs 166).

Logos, according to Jay Heinrichs explanation, is "argument by logic. [...] It

doesn't just follow the logical rules; instead, its techniques use what the audience itself

is thinking" (Heinrichs 40). A more detailed description can be found in the book

Rétorika v evropské kultuře by Kraus. He explains that Aristotle systemized the

different kinds of argument (or rhetorical proofs) used in rhetoric and divided them into

two groups: atechnoi are the proofs which the rhetorician has at his disposal before he

begins with his argumentation, such as undisputable fact (witnesses' testimonies,

contracts etc.). The art of persuasion itself, though, is based of the other group of proofs,

technoi. These are the proofs that the rhetorician has to invent himself. There are three

modes of persuasion (i.e., of technoi): ethos, where the rhetorician's moral and

character are used as an argument, pathos, the mood into which the rhetorician puts the

audience, and finally logos, the logic and style of the speech.

Aristotle himself (in a translation by W. Rhys Roberts) puts it this way: "Of the

modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind

depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience

into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the

words of the speech itself (Roberts). (The italics are mine.)

34
 In the Czech translation of Aristotle's Rhetoric, logos is translated as "řeč" (Kříž

31); however, the original Greek word logos is usually used when referring to this

concept (it has much broader meaning than any of its possible translations).

The translation of this term may be further complicated by the fact that besides

rhetoric, it is also used in philosophy and religion, where it may have many different

meanings and therefore different translations. According to the Diderot encyclopaedia,

it may be "rozumný kosmický řád" in Heraclitus' philosophy, "světový rozum" in

stoicism, "kritérium filozofického přístupu" in modern philosophy and so on

(DEBDict). Moreover, the use of the term logos in these other fields is more generally

known than its use in rhetoric; the above mentioned Diderot encyclopaedia, for

example, only lists its use in Greek and modern philosophy and theology and does not

mention rhetoric at all.

The respective sentencefromthe passage: "Logos makes it think that your own

opinion is a very small step from that commonplace" (Heinrichs 107).

Commonplace: Heinrichs explains this term in the following way: "To shift

people's point of view, start from their position, not yours. In rhetoric, we call this spot

a commonplace - a viewpoint your audience holds in common.[...] The rhetorical

commonplace is a short-form expression of common sense or public opinion" (

Heinrichs 100).

In Rétorika v dějinách jazykové komunikace, commonplaces (topoi in Greek, loci

communes in Latin) are translated as "myšlenková schémata" (Kraus 25) and described

as mnemonics - stable formulations and motives which helped the rhetorician

remember his speech and also helped the audience understand it. However, Kraus also

adds that although topos is one of the main terms in Aristotle's Rhetoric and other

35
works, it has been interpreted and translated in various ways. For example, in the Czech

translation of Aristotle's Rhetoric by Kříž topoi are translated as "obecná hlediska".

The respective sentences from the passage: "In order to convince them, you have to

start with what they believe, value or desire. You start, in other words, with the

commonplace. [...] Logos makes it [the audience] think that your own opinion is a very

small step from that commonplace" (Heinrichs 107).

Considering the different possible interpretations and translations of this term, the

students could have decided for many different translations, but at any rate the

translation should be consistent, as the word is a term.

3.3.5. Recognition of the Terms

Commonplace is probably the most difficult word from these three to recognize as

a term, because it is normally used as a non-technical word; but it is repeated in the text

several times and it can be inferred from the context that it is not just a cliche: "The

commonplace: Any cliche, belief, or value can serve as your audience's boiled-down

public opinion. It's the starting point of your argument, the ground the audience

currently stands on" (Heinrichs 107). It is further complicated by the fact that to find the

Czech meaning of the word, the translator will most probably first have to identify the

Latin of Greek original term, which is then not difficult to look up: for example, ABZ

slovník cizích slov lists it as "doslova společné, obecné místo (lat.), přeneseně často

uváděný výrok, obecně známá myšlenka, často opakované motto" (ABZ).

As far as logos is concerned, it is not an English word and cannot be found in a

usual bilingual dictionary, which could be a sign that this word is used as a term. As

opposed to commonplace, its meaning is not difficult to find, but as it is used in more

fields, it is important to find the meaning that logos has in rhetoric, not in philosophy or

religion.

36
 Demonstrative rhetoric is probably the easiest to look up and also it should not be

too difficult to recognize that it is a term, as the collocation "demonstrative rhetoric", i f

interpreted literally, is at least unusual and should stimulate further search for its

meaning. Nevertheless, it can also be misleading, because just as commonplace it can

be used as a non-technical word, too, and can be found in any dictionary.

3.3.6. Analysis of the Translations

3.3.6.1 Demonstrative Rhetoric

Three of the students' translations were probably based on the non-technical

meaning of the word "demonstrative" - "otevřený" ; however, these translations are not
8

accurate in the context of this text and would be misleading for the reader. Some

students also seem to have inferred the meaning from the context (demonstrative

rhetoric is described in negative terms in this passage) and translated the word as

"špatná" or "rétorika typu: přítomný čas + ostrá slova", probably to emphasise the

negative meaning; it can be clearly seen from these free translations that they did not

consider demonstrative rhetoric to be a term at all.

Another problematic point was that the words "demonstrative" and "rhetoric" were

divided in the sentence by other modifiers - "demonstrative, present-tense, I'm-one-of-

the-tribe-and-you're-not rhetoric" (Heinrichs 166). In one translation the word

"demonstrative" was connected with "present-tense" as "neústupný přítomný čas".

One translation kept the word "demonstrative", but dismissed the word "rhetoric",

probably under the assumption that demonstrative is the important information, while

rhetoric is not: "demonštratívne mu dáváte najevo". This could have been avoided by

The list of all translations is in Appendix III, table 8.

37
focusing on the text function - in a non-fictional book on rhetoric, it is probable that the

author uses the word "rhetoric" consciously and intentionally.

In four cases the word "demonstrative" was completely missing from the sentence

and in one case the whole sentence was missing from the translation. This "translation

by omission" probably suggests that the students found the term either unimportant or

confusing and so decided not to translate it at all. According to Newmark, "a translator

has to account for every SL word, not to translate it" (Newmark 80), but as in this case

the omitted word is a term, it would be difficult to account for it without stating it; and

if the students did attempt to account for it in their translations, they were not very

successful.

In the rest of the translations (four, which is one quarter) the term was translated as

"demonštratívni rétorika". However, it cannot be decided whether the students used one

of the possible Czech translations consciously or just used a through translation, as

"demonštratívni" is actually not the most common Czech variant of this term.

Nevertheless, they are the only ones that managed to maintain the function.

3.3.6.2 Logos

As stated above, this term was difficult because of its polysemy, with different

meanings being used in different fields. The most frequently used translation was

"rozum", which may be correct in a different context, but in this particular text it cannot

be used. Moreover, by using the word "rozum", the students changed the meaning of the

whole sentence: logos, in the sense in which the author uses is, refers to the

rhetorician's logos - his ability to persuade by speech - while in all the translations it

was the logos ("rozum") of the audience which persuaded them.

In one case logos was translated as "slovo", which is not the best solution, but it

cannot be said that it is completely incorrect. On the other hand, it is quite probable that

38
it was inspired by the religious, and not rhetorical, meaning of the term. As Jay

Heinrichs himself clarifies in one of the sidebars, "the Book of John, written in Greek,

begins, 'In the beginning was logos in the beginning was the word'" (Heinrichs 123).

According to the Diderot encyclopaedia, in Christianity logos is identified with God's

word which, according to the Bible, created the world.

Another translation which is probably based on a (non-rhetorical) possible meaning

of the word logos is "smysl", which also cannot be said to be completely incorrect;

other translations were freer (and incorrect), such as "váš vlastní názor", "rétorika" or

"mazaný proslov". The best translations from the point of view of accuracy were "řeč"

and "logos", which were both used twice; again, it is difficult to determine whether this

is a case of a conscious use of the accurate term or a through-translation. The latter is

even more probable when the successful translations of "demonstrative rhetoric" and

"logos" are compared: both were accurately translated four times, but only in one case

(number 10, see Appendix III) they were accurately translated in one and the same

translation.

A l l in all, logos seemed to be a little less difficult term than demonstrative rhetoric,

judging from the number of (more or less) accurate translations and from the fact that

the term or the whole sentence was missing only two times. However, many students

were misled by its various meanings and only a minority of them actually translated the

term by its most common Czech equivalent (although it is the same as the English one,

i.e. logos).

3.3.6.3 Commonplace

Commonplace is probably the most difficult term for translation. It can be used in

English both as a term and as a non-technical word and in its technical meaning it may

39
be difficult to find, because the translator must first identify the original Latin or Greek

term.

This term is repeated in the passage three times; most of the students were not

entirely consistent in its translation, but on the other hand a majority of them used at

least linked or similar translations - such as "běžné, samozřejmé věci"; "klišé"; "obecně

uznávané pravdy" - which suggests that although they were aware that it is a single

concept, the were not aware at all that it is a rhetorical term which should be translated

consistently. One of the best translations was "obecně uznávané pravdy", but it was

only one of three quite different translations that the student used; another good one was

"obecně známé věci", but the same student skipped the term "demonstrative rhetoric"

and translated logos as "váš vlastní názor", so the accurate translation of

"commonplace" was probably just a chance. A l l of the students also translated the term

"commonplace" in at least two of the three sentences; in two cases the whole last

sentence of the passage (which includes this term) was missing, while the term was

translated before, which suggests that the term itself was not the reason for this

omission. This signalizes that the students were not aware that the word may be

problematic.

This term is just one of many terms used in this book which do not actually look

like terms; another example may be the word "babbling", which is taken from

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and refers to the tendency of the speaker to repeat the

same thing over and over again. If translated by its usual meaning, such as "blábolení"

or "žvanění", it does not fit the context very well. However, in the Czech translation of

Nicomachean Ethics (by Kříž), it is translated as "mnohomluvnost", which makes better

sense in the context of Thank You for Arguing as well. In case of commonplace, it is the

40
same problem: the students were actually translating an English translation of a Greek

word (with unsatisfactory results) instead of looking up the Czech translation of it.

A l l in all, most probably none of the students was aware of the real (technical)

meaning that the word has in this context, although they were aware that it is a single

concept and mostly translated it in all three cases by similar words, which sometimes

approached the actual meaning of the word.

41
4. Conclusion

As far as the terminology is concerned, it can be concluded that the students were

not very successful in dealing with this issue. It is possible that the colloquial style of

the style misled the students, so that they did not expect the appearance of terminology

in it, and probably also the fact that some of these terms also have a second, non-

technical meaning and can be found in a normal dictionary confused the students,

because this probably would not be the case with e.g. legal or medical terminology.

Considering the fact that all the terminology comes from one (Greek or Latin) source

and hence the terms are similar in both English and Czech, it is sometimes difficult to

determine whether the students used the right terminology consciously or just used

through-translation; at any rate, the result was that students who used the appropriate

terms did not interpret (and misinterpret) the source text in any way and hence achieved

the best results. Another interesting finding was that the non-English term seemed to be

the easiest one, while the ones which are commonly used, but with a different meaning,

were more difficult.

It also can be derived from the student's translations that proper names can be dealt

with as culture-specific concepts, but as they are a specific case of this category, not all

the strategies proposed for dealing with this problem were be used and some other

appeared. However, it is important that the translator makes sure he or she understands

the reality behind the text and the real function of the particular proper name in it to

avoid misinterpretation.

In general, the students were slightly more successful in maintaining the vocative

function than in maintaining the informative one; but considering that obtaining

information about the markers of the vocative function was incomparably easier than

42
obtaining the same amount of information about the markers of the informative

function, the level of successfulness in maintaining the vocative function could have

been much higher. In both cases (but much more often in the case of informative

function), the failure to maintain the function sometimes resulted in distortion of

meaning of the text, which could have been avoided relatively easily, if the students

focused on the text functions and were more consistent in looking up information about

the individual concepts.

It can be concluded that the Skopos rule can be a useful tool in the translation of

popular non-fiction, because it allows the translator to concentrate on the most

important aspects of the text; translations of the students who failed to maintain the

function of the text were invariably worse than those of the students who did. It can be

also concluded that the Skopos rule can indeed require different translation strategies: in

the case of proper names, maintaining the function often required freer translation of the

source text, while in case of terminology it was the other way around, as the closest

translations managed to maintain the function best. It is therefore important to be aware

what is at the core of the text function and also of different parts or elements of the text,

as their individual functions can be different from the function of the text as a whole.

43
5. Bibliography

5.1. Primary Source

Heinrichs, Jay. Thank You for Arguing. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2007.

5.2. Secondary Sources

A B Z slovník cizích slov. 2005-2006. Radek Kučera & daughter. 26 Apr. 2009

<http://slovnik-cizich-slov.abz.cz/>.

Baker, Mona. In Other Words : A Coursebook on Translation.

London: Routledge, 1992.

Cambridge Dictionaries Online. 2009. Cambridge University Press. 26 Apr. 2009

<http .11ÓA cti onary. cambri dge. org/>.

DEBDict. Vers. 1.7.13. 25 Apr. 2009 <http://deb.fi.muni.cz/index-cs.php>.

The Free Dictionary. 2009. Farlex, Inc. 26 Apr. 2009

<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/>.

Heinrichs, Jay. Figures of Speech - It Figures. 2005. 26 Apr. 2009

<http://www.figarospeech.com/>.

Lotko, Edvard. Kapitoly ze současné rétoriky. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého

v Olomouci, 1999.

Newmark, Peter. A Textbook of Translation. 9th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education

Limited, 2004.

Nord, Christiane. Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist Approaches

Explained. 3rd ed. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2007.

Kalvínova, Martina. "Re: Jan Správný". E-mail to Renata Kamenická. 14 Apr. 2009.

Kraus, Jiří. Rétorika v dějinách lidské komunikace. Praha: Academia, 1981.

44
—. Rétorika v evropské kultuře. Praha: Academia, 1998.

Kříž, Antonín, trans. Rétorika. By Aristotle. Praha: Jan Laichter, 1948.

—, trans. Etika Níkomachova. By Aristotle. 2nd expanded ed. Praha: Petr Rezek, 1996.

Ottová encyklopedie. Seznam.cz, as. 26 Apr. 2009 <http://encyklopedie.seznam.cz/>.

Roberts, W. Rhys, trans. Rhetoric. By Aristotle. Internet Classics Archive. Ed. Daniel

C. Stevenson. 20 Apr. 2009 <http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric>.

Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric. Gideon O. Burton. Brigham Young

Univeristy. 26 Apr. 2009 <http://rhetoric.byu.edu/>.

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 26 Apr. 2009

<http://en.wikipedia.org/>.

45
6. Appendices

In Appendix I, there is the passage from the text that students were translating; the

dotted lines divide the three individual passages from different chapters.

In Appendix II, table 6 shows the students' translations of the proper names. In

each line 1 to 22 there are translations of one student; the column Str. shows the

respective translation strategy which was used. For the sake of lucidity, the translations

are presented in the first case. Table 7 shows the how many times each strategy was

used for each name and also the overall sum of times each strategy was used.

Table 8 in Appendix III shows the students' translations of the terms, also in the

first case.

The CD enclosed to the thesis contains all the translations marked by numbers.

6.1. Appendix I

The whole text for translation and the context that the students were given are

shown here. The passages that were translated are underlined; otherwise, the whole text

is presented here in the same way as the students got it.

From: Jay Heinrichs: Thank You for Arguing. What Aristotle, Lincoln
and Homer Simpson Can Teach us About the Art of Persuasion.

When Gottman announced his findings in 1994, though, rhetoricians around the country
tried not to look smug, because the data confirmed what rhetoric has claimed for several
millennia. Gottman found that couples who stayed married over those nine years argued
about as much as those who ended up in divorce. However, the successful couples went
about their arguments in a different way, and with a different purpose. Rhetoricians
would say they instinctively followed the basic tenets of argument.

When some of the videotapes appeared on network television, they showed some
decidedly uncomfortable moments, even among the happy couples. One successfully
married husband admitted he was hopelessly, pathologically lazy, and his wife
cheerfully agreed. Nonetheless, the couples who stayed married seemed to use their
disputes to solve problems and work out differences. They showed faith in the outcome.
The doomed couples, on the other hand, used their sessions to attack each other.

46
Argument was a problem for them, not a means to a solution. The happy ones argued.
The unhappy ones fought.

Much of the time, I'm guessing that the happy ones also seduced, a practice that entails
no small amount of manipulation. That's a good thing. While our culture tends to
admire straight shooters, the ones who follow their gut regardless of what anyone
thinks, those people rarely get their way in the end. Sure, aggressive loudmouths often
win temporary victories through intimidation or simply by talking us to exhaustion; but
the more subtle, eloquent approaches lead to long-term commitment. Research backs
me up here as well. Biologists at T K W H E R E discovered that a small minority of male
9

fruit flies are dominant, violent characters that habitually rape females. The problem is,
this kind of fly usually ends up alone. Everyone else—especially the females—avoids
the jerk, who ends up mating less often than his peaceful counterparts, rape and all. He
wins the most fights, but he doesn't get what he wants. Corporate recruiters will
confirm this sentiment. There are a few alpha types in the business world who live to
bully their colleagues and stomp on the competition; but if you ask headhunters what
they look for in executive material, they describe a persuader and team-builder, not an
aggressor.

You succeed in an argument when you persuade your audience. You win a fight when
you dominate the enemy. A territorial dispute in the back seat of a car fails to qualify as
argument, for example, unless each child makes the unlikely attempt to persuade instead
of scream. ("I see your point, Sister. However, have you considered the analogy of the
international frontier?")

At the age of two, my son George became a devotee of what rhetoricians call "argument
by the stick"; when words failed him, he used his fists. After every fight I'd ask him:
"Did you get the other kid to agree with you?" For years he considered it a thoroughly
stupid question, and maybe it was. But eventually it made sense to him: argument by the
stick—fighting—is no argument. It never persuades, it only inspires revenge or retreat.

In a fight, one person takes out his aggression on another. Vice President Dick Cheney
was fighting when he urged U.S. Senator Pat Leahy to commit an auto-erotic act on the
Senate floor. Cheney said this spleen-venting made him "feel better," but it wasn't an
argument. (It would have been one i f Cheney really wanted Leahy to do what he
suggested, God forbid.)

On the other hand, when George Foreman tries to sell you a grill, he makes an
argument: persuasion that tries to change your mood, your mind, or your willingness to
do something.

Homer Simpson offers a legitimate argument when he demonstrates our intellectual

superiority to dolphins: "Don't forget—we invented computers, leg warmers, bendy
straws, peel-and-eat shrimp, the glory hole, and the pudding cup."

Mariah Carey pitches an argument when she sings "We belong together" to an assumed
ex-boyfriend; she tries to changes his mind (and, judging by all the moaning in the
background, get some action).

9
The context for students was not taken from the printed version of the book, but from an electronic
version, which occasionally contained mistakes or editor's notes, such as this one (TK means "to come").

47
Daughter screaming at her parents: fight.
Business proposal: argument.
Howard Dean saving of Republicans, " A lot of them have never made an honest living
in their lives": fight.
Yogi Berra saying. "It's not the heat it's the humility": argument.

The basic difference between an argument and a fight: an argument—done skillfully—

gets people to want to do what you want. You fight to win; you argue to achieve
agreement.

Two short paratexts of the side of the main text:

Try This with

You Career
The growing
profession of
"leadership
branding
coaches" teaches
CEO wannabes
how to serve as
the embodiment of
a company. The
ideal trait? Not
aggression, not
brains, but the
ability to tell a
compelling life
story and make
yourself desirable.
Later on, you '11
see how
storytelling is
critical to
emotional
persuasion.

Persuasion Alert
The ancients hated
arguing through
books, partly
because an author
can't see his
audience. If I
could speak to you
personally, I
probably wouldn't
veerfrommy son
to Dick Cheney to

48
George Foreman
to Homer Simpson
to Mariah Carey.
I'd know which
case appeals to
you the most. Still,
the wildly varied
examples make a
point all their
own: You can't
escape argument.

Foul: The "Right Way"

This foul is closely related to avoiding the future, because it sticks to values—covering
Right and Wrong, Who's In and Who's Out, instead of the main topic of deliberative
argument, the Advantageous.

Dorothy Senior will not want me to mention this, but one of our longest-running
arguments has to do with canned peaches on Christmas Eve. For years, she insisted on
serving—not just peaches, not some other kind of canned fruit, but canned peaches with
our Christmas Eve dinner.

Me: None of us particularly likes canned peaches. You don't like canned peaches.
Dorothy Sr.: It's what we always had on Christmas Eve.
Me: It's what you had when you were a kid. We had franks and beans, and you don't see
me clamoring for weenies during the holidays.
Dorothy Sr.: It's tradition, and that's all there is to it.
Me: Why can't we start a new tradition? Like fresh pears, or single malt scotch?
Dorothy Jr. [Getting into the spirit]: Or M & M s !
Dorothy Sr.: If it's new, it isn't a tradition.
Me: We're celebrating the birth of Jesus! A Christian tradition that began with. ..anew
baby.
Dorothy Sr.: Can't we just enjoy Christmas the right way, without arguing about it?
The "right way" precludes a choice; without choice there's no argument; and therefore
it's a rhetorical foul. When your opponent commits one, you have several choices. You
can call the foul.
Me: The "right way" would be a dish that makes everyone happy.
Why don't we start a new tradition—one that our children can use to torture their
spouses someday?
Or you can bring the argument to an abrupt close—take the ball away, if you will.
Me: If we can't have a discussion that gets us somewhere, there's no use in talking to
you.
Or you can decide that marital relations have precedence over getting your way all the
time. This is the option I took: I shut up and ate my peaches. Which, to my surprise,
proved to be persuasive. Dorothy was so pleased she had won that, the following
Christmas Eve, she served peach-pie. It became the new tradition.

49
Five Good Reasons

If you stick to the present tense when you're supposed to make a choice, or if you talk
only of Right and Wrong when the argument should be about what's the best choice,
you commit a foul. Don't take me for a hypocrite here. Sticking to the present tense and
to values is not Wrong. It just makes deliberative argument impossible. You can't
achieve a consensus; you can only form a tribe and punish the wrongdoers. Another
way to foul up deliberation is to argue simply to humiliate an opponent. This, too, is
demonstrative, present-tense, I'm-one-of-the-tribe-andyou're-not rhetoric.

The Tools

Public opinion "is held in reverence," said Mark Twain. "It settles everything. Some
think it is the Voice of God." The original definition of "audience" had the same pious
tone. It meant a "hearing" before a king or nobleman. The first audience, in the other
words, was a judge. According to Aristotle, it still is. Your audience judges whether
your opinion is the
right one.

But we're talking deliberative argument, not a court of law. So the statute books don't
determine the outcome; the audience's own beliefs, values and naked self-interest do.
To persuade it, you offer a prize: the advantageous, which is the promise that your
choice will give the judges what they value.

In order to convince them, you have to start with what they believe, value or desire. You
start, in other words, with the commonplace.

The Advantageous: This is the uber-topic of deliberative argument, persuasion that

deals with choices and the future. The other forms of rhetoric cover right and wrong,
good and bad. Deliberative argument talks about what's best for the audience. That is
where persuasion comes in; you make the audience believe that your own choice to be
the advantageous one.

The Commonplace: Any cliche, belief, or value can serve as your audience's boiled-
down public opinion. It's the starting point of your argument, the ground the audience
currently stands on. Logos makes it think that your own opinion is a very small step
from that commonplace.

Babbling: When your audience repeats the same thing over and over, it probably is
mouthing a commonplace.

The Commonplace Label: Apply a commonplace to an idea, a proposal, or a piece of

legislation; anyone who opposes it will risk seeming like an outsider.

The Rejection: Another good commonplace spotter. When your audience turns you
down, listen to the language it uses; chances are, it's a commonplace. Use it when the
argument resumes.

50
6.2. Appendix II

Table 6

List of all translations of the names

George Foreman Str. Homer Str. Mariah Str.

Simpson Carey
1 Halina Pawlovská B Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carrey
2 George Foreman Dl) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
3 bývalý boxer George D2) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Foreman Simpson Carey
4 Jan Správný B Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
5 George Foreman Dl) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
6 Horst Fuchs B Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
7 George Foreman, bývalý D2) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
šampión v boxe Simpson Carey
8 George Foreman Dl) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
9 George Foreman Dl) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
10 George Foreman Dl) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
11 usměvavý chlápek z C Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
teleshoppingu Simpson Carey
12 Horst Fuchs B Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
13 Rocky B Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
14 George Foreman Dl) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
15 bývalý boxer George D2) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Foreman Simpson Carey
16 George Foreman, bývalý D2) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
boxerský šampión Simpson Carey
17 George Foreman Dl) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
18 Přemek Podlaha B Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
19 George Foreman Dl) Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey
20 Horst Fuchs B Homer D 1) Mariah D 1)
Simpson Carey

51
21 štíhlá blondýnka z C Homer Dl) Mariah Dl)
teleshoppingu Simpson Carey
22 George Foreman Dl) Homer Dl) Mariah Dl)
Simpson Carey

Howard Dean Str. Yogi Berra Str.

1 politik A Václav Klaus B
2 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
3 americký politik Howard D 2) basebalový tréner Yogi Berra D 2)
Dean
4 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
5 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
6 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
7 Americký demokrat D 2) Yogi Berra, bývalý baseballový D 2)
Howard Dean hráč
8 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
9 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
10 Howard Dean Dl) Méďa Béďa E
11 Demokratický kandidát D 2) Baseballový hráč a manažer Yogi D 2)
na post prezidenta Berra
Spojených států Howard
Dean
12 Ján Slota B Prezident Gašparovič B
13 Politik A Trenér A
14 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
15 Politik Howard Dean D 2) Bývalý baseballový šampiónYogi D 2)
Berra
16 americký demokratický D 2) baseballový tréner Yogi Berru D 2)
politik Howard Deana
17 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
18 Poslanec ČSSD C Sportovec A
19 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)
20 Jiří Paroubek o ODS B Josef Masopust B
21 Předseda demokratické F Baseballový hráč Yogi Berra, F
komise Howard Dean když říká/fotbalový trenér
mínící
Republikány/politik
mínící opozici
22 Howard Dean Dl) Yogi Berra Dl)

52
Table 7

Number of times the individual strategies were used

Strategy George Homer Mari ah Howard Yogi Overall Overall

Foreman Simpson Carey Dean Berra sum percentage
(without (without
Carey & Carey &
Simpson) Simpson)
A 0 0 0 2 2 4 6,06
B 6 0 0 2 3 11 16,67
C 2 0 0 1 0 3 4,55
Dl) 9 22 22 11 10 30 45,45
D 2) 4 0 0 5 5 14 21,21
E 0 0 0 0 1 1 1,52
F 0 0 0 1 1 2 3,03

6.3. Appendix III

Table 8

List of all translations of the terms

demonstrative rhetoric commonplace logos

1 rétoriky typu: přítomný čas + otřepané fráze; fráze;
ostrá slova životní klišé mazaný proslov
2 běžné samozřejmé věci
a hodnoty; běžné
demonštratívni hodnoty; názor většiny řeč
3 Tento faul je tiež otvorený . 10
Logická
v prítomnom čase, v štýle „Ja samozrejmosť; to argumentácia,
som členom tlupy a ty nie" samozrejmé, bežné logos
4 obecně známé věci; A to dá rozum, že
missing 1u
obecně známé Váš vlastní názor
5 missing něj aké fráze; fráze smysl
6 běžné; samozřejmost;
demonštratívni rétorika veřejné rozum
7 neskrývaná prítomnosti sa
držiaca rétorika fráza; daná fráza logos
8 otevřená rétorika klišé; tento jejich názor smysl toho všeho
9 samozřejmé; běžné
the whole sentence missing 12
fráze; toto tvrzení vaše řeč

If it is difficult to identify the translation of the term in the sentence, the whole sentence (or a part
of it) is listed and the term is underlined.
11
The term is missing from the sentence (or is unidentifiable).
12
The whole sentence in which the term should be is missing from the text.

53
10 obyčejné věci; klišé;
demonštratívni běžné logos
11 samozřejmá pravda;
otevřená rétorika samozřejmé pravdy rozum
12 šikovná
nezmyselná rétoriky samozrejmé myšlienka
13 běžné, samozřejmé věci;
klišé; obecně uznávané
„špatná rétorika" pravdy rétorika
14 běžné a samozřejmé; to
samozřejmé; the whole the whole
demonštratívni rétorika sentence missing sentence missing
15 bežne známa pravda;
demonštratívny spôsob bežna pravda slovo
16 Tak ako na
počiatku bolo
slovo, váš
missing otrepaná fráza počiatočný výrok
17 to nej základnější (2x);
the whole sentence
missing missing missing
18 I v tomto případě se používá
neústupný přítomný čas, jedná se
o rétoriku typu: Já jsem členem samozřejmé; věci
klanu a ty ne. samozřejmé logos
19 obecné oblasti; obecný
otevřená rétorika základ pouhé slovo
20 missing všednost; všednosti rozum
21 univerzální
samozřejmosti;
samozřejmost; co j e
demonštratívne mu dáváte vlastně zcela
najevo... samozřejmé rozum
22 vášnivá reč samozrejmosť rozum

54