Masaryk University
Faculty of Arts
Department of English
and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Martina Bartünkovä
Translation as a Third Code:
An Empirical Study in Translatedness
Masters Diploma Thesis
Supervisor: Mgr. Renata Kamenická, PhD.
2008
/ declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,
using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
Author's signature
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank to my parents and someone who does not want to be named for their
never-ending support, to my supervisor Renata Kamenická for her help, materials, time and
inspiring comments, to Daniel Mikšík for help with the electronic form of the questionnaire. Last
but not the least thank is to all people who responded to my questionnaire, because there
would be no survey without them.
3
Content
1. INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 AIM OF THE THESIS 6
1.2 WHY THIS TOPIC 8
1.3 POSSIBLE BIAS 9
1.4 PREVIOUS PILOT STUDIES 10
1.5 FURTHER STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 14
1.6 TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS 15
2. LINGUISTIC FEATURES AND EXTRACT ANALYSIS 17
2.1 LINGUISTIC FEATURES 17
2.2 UNIQUE ITEMS HYPOTHESIS 20
2.3 EXTRACTS 21
2.3.1 LIST OF EXTRACTS 21
2.3.2 PROCESS OF SELECTING THE EXTRACTS 22
3. QUESTIONNAIRE 36
3.1 DESIGNING THE QUESTIONNAIRE 36
3.2 DISTRIBUTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE 42
4. QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS 47
4.1 METHODOLOGY OF DATA PROCESSING 47
4.2 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 51
4.3 PRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS' COMMENTS 71
4.3.1 RESEARCHER'S ANALYSIS OF THE EXTRACTS 71
4.3.2 PARTICULAR EXTRACTS 87
4.3.2 SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS 100
4.3.3 EXTRA-LINGUISTIC FEATURES 101
5. CONCLUSION 107
6. CITED AND USED WORKS I l l
4
7. APPENDIX 1 - EXTRACTS 114
8. APPENDIX 2-ENCLOSED LETTER 117
5
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 AIM OF THE THESIS
In the thesis, I inspect the ability of readers to distinguish between a piece of
text that is a translation and an originally written text. The major objective of this
thesis is to investigate whether the Czechs are able to distinguish between
translated and non-translated texts purely on basis of linguistic features of the
text. The minor objective is to examine what features lead readers to the
decision that a text is a translation or a non-translation and to what an extent
are their results achieved in the survey influenced by various factors such as
their age, field of study, reading preferences etc.
For this purpose, I chose fifteen extracts of various genres and
accompanied them with a questionnaire. Six translations from English and nine
originally produced Czech texts were chosen. The accompanied questions are
meant to help me find answers to my hypotheses. The questions accompanying
the texts focus on readers' education, knowledge of foreign languages and
reading preferences. Besides, I collected data connected with age and sex of
the respondents as well. At the end of the questionnaire, the respondents had
chance to guess the percentage of the correct answers as well as to rate the
effort invested in filling in the questionnaire.
My initial primary hypothesis is that respondents are able to distinguish
translations from non-translations even under the circumstances that they are
not provided with other than linguistic features of the text and I expect that at
6
least sixty percent of the texts might be correctly identified. In addition, I do not
expect any significant differences in correct identification of translations and
non-translations, in other words, I do not expect the respondents are more
successful in identifying translations or non-translations. Finally, I am interested
whether there are any contrasts within the genres used for this study, in other
words, whether respondents' results vary in fiction, popular-scientific literature,
newspaper articles, and travel writing.
As for my initial secondary hypotheses, I expect several differences
between men and women. I suppose more women will respond to the
questionnaire since they tend to fill in similar questionnaire voluntarily. In
addition, I expect women may more comment on the extracts. Furthermore, I
expect there might be some differences in the percentages of correct answers
achieved by men and women. On the other hand, I do not expect any notable
differences among the age groups.
Then, I suppose that people studying either English and/or Czech
language might be the most successful since they are experienced with reading
and analyzing because they work with their mother tongue and/or the source
language of chosen translations. Additionally, I believe that in general people
studying any foreign language might be more successful than people who do
not study any language since those who study a foreign language are in
everyday contact with variety of texts. Besides, I am interested in the fact
whether a hypothesis that the more languages respondents speak the more
successful may be can be valid.
7
Concerning reading preferences, I think that the more people read the
better results they may achieve. In addition, I expect that respondents preferring
original literature will be more successful in indentifying the unique items in the
extracts since they are more in the contact with the mother tongue where the
unique items tend to appear.
With regard to respondents' guesses, I think people will underestimate
their results and the results of the survey. Lastly, I do not expect there is a
notable influence of ease/difficulty of the decision-making process on the
number of correct answers.
1.2 WHY THIS TOPIC
Two years ago, when I attended the course focused on translation universals,
we dealt with a pilot study carried out by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, a Finnish
expert in translation studies. The study discussed whether Finnish people were
able to distinguish a translated text from a non-translated one and what features
helped them in their decision. Later, when I started to look for a possible topic
for my diploma thesis, my supervisor Renata Kamenická reminded me of that
research and chose a similar topic for my thesis. I have also found out that
there had been some other similar studies carried out so far not only in
connection with the written but the spoken language as well (Garwood: 2002,
Garcia: 2005), which raised my interest even more.
What is more, the interest in translation studies among young people
rises every year. One of the possible evidence might be the fact that this year a
8
new field of study was open at the Masaryk University focused on the
translation studies.
Further, as a student of translation studies, I am taught to be able to
recognize various differences between languages and to be able to identify the
signs of a translation or an original. Therefore, many times, while reading a text,
I thought that this must be a translation. Similarly, I many times thought that
Czech must have written this text. In addition, curiosity led me to find out
whether the Czechs can pass this test.
1.3 POSSIBLE BIAS
At the very beginning, it is necessary to underline inevitable bias that may arise
during the study despite the most possible objective approach. Several factors
might have influenced the results of this study. One of them was the choice of
the extracts. Only several genres were chosen for this study since it would go
beyond the scope of this thesis to include every genre. Some of the genres
were excluded from the study due to reasons, which, and much more, are
discussed in the second chapter, which deals with the process of extracts
selection. What is more, the corpus chosen for the survey was not enough
variable and it was too small to allow the results of this survey to be considered
generally valid. The selected extracts lead to a very important factor that might
affect the results - linguistic features the respondents marked in connection
with a particular extract. Possibly, different genres or even different extracts
may bring, but exclude as well, different linguistic features. Besides, many of
the features marked by the respondents were often entirely subjective and
9
causeless. Another factor that might influence the results was the respondents
themselves. Again, a different sample of population may bring a bit different
findings. To sum it up, any outcomes resulting from this survey have to be taken
with regard to all the above-mentioned facts.
1.4 PREVIOUS PILOT STUDIES
Before I started my own research, I had read two pilot studies - one was
conducted by Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, the other one by Yukari F. Meldrum.
Both of them are interested in the phenomenon called translationese. This term
can be defined either as "a pejorative term to refer to the poor of low quality of
language used for translation (prescriptive) or a neutral term to refer to the
language used in translation (descriptive)" (Meldrum: 1). Although the minor
objectives of the studies differ, the main aim of both of them was the same.
Both tried to find out whether readers are able to distinguish translations from
originally produced texts. Let me start with a short description of the TirkkonenCondit's
study.
Firstly, she deals with the term "translationese" and links it together with
translation universals (TU) saying that "hypotheses on translation universals
suggest that there are features which translation tends to bring about as a byproduct
irrespective of source or target language" (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 208).
Nevertheless she stresses that these hypotheses "do not relate to translation
errors but to frequencies of lexical items, syntactic patterns, etc. which deviate
from those in originally produced texts" (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 208). In other
10
words, there are some inevitable phenomena produced in the process of
translation that are not produced while writing non-translated texts. Further,
Tirkkonen-Condit deals with various types of TU and the hypotheses connected
with them but focus on so called "unique items hypothesis", which suggests that
"translated text would manifest lower frequencies of linguistic elements that lack
linguistic counterparts in the source languages" (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 209)
and adds that such unique items
"are not untranslatable, and they may be frequent, typical and entirely
normal phenomena in the language; they are unique only in respect of their
translation potential, as they are not similarly manifested in other languages, or
at least not similarly manifested in the source language of the translations"
(Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 209)
She claims that it is probable translators may ignore these unique items as they
do not work as one-to-one equivalent; they do not come to translators' mind
readily.
Then, she raises the most important question - Can translations be
identified at all? She claims, "If the TU hypotheses are valid, then it is possible
to expect that readers may be able to distinguish T from N-T" (2002: 209). In
her opinion, it is necessary to cross out the non-linguistic features leading to the
assumption that the text is a translation. The purpose of her study is as she
states "(i) to find out the extent to which readers can identify translations and (ii)
to find out the linguistic features shared by texts deemed to be translations as
well as those shared by texts deemed to be non-translations" (2002: ). To
examine her hypotheses, she made two pilot tests. She chose extracts from 40
published Finnish texts (20 Fi, 20 Tr). The texts were of 100 to 300 words
length, without any extra-linguistic clues, ranging from journalistic to literary
i i
texts. Her first pilot included 27 subjects (students and teachers of translation)
who were supposed to identify the extracts as texts originally written in Finnish
(Fi) or as translations into Finnish (Tr), or as unidentified (U) together with
justification or comment on their choices. The percentage of correct choices
was 61.5 % out of 1,051 possible correct choices. The second pilot was
administered to 74 teachers of Finnish as a foreign language. The number of
texts was only 6 (3 Fi, 3 Tr) and the percentage of correct choices was 63.1 %.
In neither of the tests did the subject know the proportion of translations in the
bunch of the texts. Tirkkonen-Condit chose only the first pilot study for the
further linguistic analysis. She focused on two points: "(i) do features
hypothesized as translation universals attract identification as a translation and
(ii) does the impression of original writing go together with unique items?."
(Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 211) Further, based on readers' comments, she lists
examples of comments showing which kind of arguments pointed to the
originally written texts and which to the translations.
The obvious conclusions that can be drawn based on the quantitative
results of the study according to Tirkkonen-Condit were:
- translations are not readily distinguishable from original writing on
account of their linguistic features,
- the role of the unique items is worthy of further research,
- translators' professional skills are not trusted: translations were expected
to stick out as deviant from normalcy
(Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 216-217)
Yukari F. Meldrum from University of Alberta conducted the second research
I took as a starting point for my own research. As well as for Tirkkonen-Condit,
the term translationese is the basic one for her. Nevertheless, Meldrum's study
is a bit different. The aim of her study was not only to research whether readers
12
can distinguish translations from non-translations, but also to obtain preliminary
data about reader's attitudes toward translationese. To get the needed data,
she stated three questions to answer:
1. Can the readers distinguish translations from non-translations?
2. Does knowing English or other foreign languages influence the reader's
attitudes towards translationese?
3. Do readers' selections of books correlate with positive or negative
attitudes towards translations? (Meldrum 2007: 1)
In a pilot study to her PhD thesis, Meldrum chose five passages (three
translations and two non-translations) and the readers were supposed to rate
them from 1 to 5 on clarity, naturalness and readability. Their main task was to
identify translations. Through her questionnaire, Meldrum tried to collect data
about the amount of reading, reading preferences, perceived proficiency level in
English or other foreign languages, preferred reading language, types of books
readers have recently read and their favourite authors, as well as their reasons
for book selection. Meldrum carried out the study on twelve participants, six of
them were monolingual and six bilingual. Drawing on the findings of the study,
her conclusions are the following:
• Can the readers distinguish translations from non-translations?
o Yes.
• Does knowing English or other language influence the reader's
attitudes toward translationese?
o The differences between monolinguals and bilinguals seem to
indicate so.
• Do readers' selections of books correlate with positive or negative
attitudes towards translations?
o At least for the only three participants who read translations,
yes. (Meldrum 2007: 4)
Both studies were useful for me. Tirkkonen-Condit's study helped me with
categorizing the features that readers might possibly mention in their
13
comments. On the other hand, Meldrum's study helped me to extend this study
with questions concerning readers' preferences, which may bring a wider
variety of results.
1.5 FURTHER STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
Here, I want to outline briefly the structure of the following chapters for easier
orientation in the thesis. Firstly, a short list of terminology and abbreviations
used further in the thesis comes.
Based on the previous pilot studies, I try to identify features that may take
part in the respondents' process of decision-making about the particular
extracts and to divide them into concrete groups in the second chapter.
Afterwards, I offer the list of extracts used for my study and continue with
general conditions that influenced the choice of the extracts. The most
important facts that were necessary to be either included in or excluded from
the extracts are stressed in the chapter as well. Then I describe the particular
extracts and highlight the features that in my opinion may anyhow influence the
respondents' decision.
The third chapter is devoted to the questionnaire. From description of the
process of creating the questionnaire and maintaining the most important
factors connected with this process, I shift to the way of distribution. In this part,
the pros and cons of possible ways of distribution are discussed.
After that the pivotal part of the thesis comes, which is the processing of the
data collected from the questionnaire. At the beginning, I outline the
methodology of processing the data and provide the most important pieces of
14
information about respondents. The analysis itself is divided into two parts. In
the first part, the results of the survey are discussed. The following part of the
chapter offers the researches analysis of the extracts and then it sorts out the
comments obtained from the respondents. Afterwards, the interpretation of the
comments and summary part come.
In the final part, I sum up, describe and evaluate the results of the study, and
suggest potential changes and improvements that may be considered before
starting a similar research.
After the list of sources used in the thesis, there is a CD with all the data
enclosed for further and closer investigation of the questionnaire and the
collected data. On the CD can be found:
> Two excel files: Feedback (summary data from the respondents on
the listl and detailed data about the respondents on the list 2) and
Tables (all the tables used for the analysis including those used only
partly in the thesis)
> The full version of the questionnaire
1.6 TERMINOLOGYAND ABBREVIATIONS
In the thesis, there are some concepts that I consider important to explain here,
otherwise, these might be confusing for the reader:
• a text used in the questionnaire is labelled as an extract,
• an extract that is or is considered to be translated is labelled as a
translation,
15
• an extract that is or is considered to be an original is labelled as non-
translation,
• a person who responded to my questionnaire is labelled as a
respondent (Tirkkonen-Condit calls such person "a reader", which I find
too general)
Throughout the thesis, some of the words are used more frequently than the
others are. To avoid frequent repetition of these words especially in tables and
graphs, I decided not to use them in their full form but to use abbreviations
instead. They are:
• questionnaire (Q)
• extract (E)
• translation (T)
• non-translation (NT)
• respondent (R)
16
2. LINGUISTIC FEATURES AND EXTRACT ANALYSIS
2.1 LINGUISTIC FEATURES
I considered the arguments mentioned in the Tirkkonen-Condit's research very
useful. It seems to me appropriate to list those arguments here, as they were
crucial for me while creating my own groups of features that respondents of my
study may use. Examples of comments that led readers to the decision that a
text was original were:
- Everyday vocabulary
- fluent language
- Finnish type of cohesion
- natural-sounding spoken language
- gives an impression of authentic report of spoken Finnish dialogue
- idiomatic sentence structure
- gives an impression of authentic report of spoken Finnish dialogue
- colourful imagery
- fresh expressions and an impression of freshness in the text as a whole,
compact expression
- no expressions or structures which sound unfamiliar or deviant
- nothing disturbing in the text
- no reminders of translated text
- a normal sports news item
- fluent text with good readability
- the text has a density typical of a Finnish news item
(Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 212)
To sum up the arguments she states "lack of deviant or disturbing features
was considered to be a mark of original writing, i.e. a "negative" rather than a
"positive" kind of reasoning." (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 212)
On the other hand, comments connected with texts that were supposed to
be translations "reflect an assumption that translations tend to be clumsy,
17
unidiomatic, and that they tend to sound like translations." (Tirkkonen-Condit
2002: 212). As examples of such comments, she provides us with the following:
- " nice" vocabulary
- personal rather than impersonal reference
- deviant use of pragmatic particles and the dialogue particle oi
- unnatural dialogue, unidiomatic and clumsy, 'un-Finnish' dialogue
- short sentences and phrases which sound translated
- inconsistent style, inconsistent lexical choices
- heavy and "un-Finnish" nominalisation, "noun disease" (nominal
structures rather than finite verb forms)
- long attributes and nominal structures
- unusual or rare grammatical structure, word order or tense
- complex and difficult sentence structure
- tautology
- low readability
(Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 212-213)
These comments collected from the readers were very useful for me and
helped me to formulate my hypothesis about what may be the arguments
helping readers with the allocation of an extract. Both of previously mentioned
pilot studies dealt with translationese and in Tirkkonen-Condit's study, the
aspects of translationese are one of the main clues for distinguishing between
translations and original extracts. To be brief, according to results from the
study made by Tirkkonen-Condit, the translationese hypothesis suggests that
while identifying translations, readers tend to look for negative features and
expect that a translation can never be as natural-sounding as an originally
produced text. In other words, the comments related to translations are
generally negative, whereas comments related to non-translations are generally
positive, though the form may be negative. The negative form may arise from
the fact that readers evaluated originals based on translations: if there was
missing something that appeared in translations, then the text was considered
original. This means that readers are looking for the deviant features that go
18
together with translations. That is, readers identify originals on the basis of
missing "unusual or unnatural" features that are associated with translations.
We can expect then that if the translationese hypothesis is valid and one of
the original extracts is poorly written, it might lead readers to the conclusion that
it is a translation. On the other hand, if one of the translations is good, it may
lead them to the decision that it is an originally produced text.
To continue with the linguistic features hypothesis, I expect that assumptions
leading the respondents to the decision that the extract is going to be a
translation may be the following:
> Unnatural or rare grammatical structures, word order or tense
> Phrases which sound translated
> Inconsistent style, inconsistent lexical choices
> English way of building comparatives and superlatives (such as "víc
důležitý")
> Unidiomatic and clumsy sentences and phrases
> Synonyms of frequently used words
> Grammatical mistakes
> Low readability
On the other hand, I suppose that what could lead respondents to give an
extract the label non-translation might be:
> Everyday vocabulary
> Fluent language
> Czech alliterations
> Frequent use of diminutives
19
> Colourful imagination
> No deviant or unusual structures
> Fresh expressions
> Good readability
> Complex sentence structure
2.2 UNIQUE ITEMS HYPOTHESIS
As it was mentioned earlier, Tirkkonen-Condit deals with the unique items
hypothesis, which suggests "that translated text would manifest lower
frequencies of linguistic elements that lack linguistic counterparts in the source
languages" (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 209)
In Czech, for example, a single-element verbal sentence has no
equivalent in English. Such Czech sentences correspond to two-element
sentences of various types in English: it was raining - but not pouring (pršelo,
ale nelilo), it has rained itself out (už se vypršelo), it is getting dark (stmívá se),
etc. (Dušková 2003: 369). Another example can be general personal object in
colloquial language, where for Czech "člověk' several possible translations such
as we, you or they exist (Dušková 2003: 396). To provide some examples of
particular words, Dušková claims that English, in comparison with Czech, has
many mono-morpheme words, i.e. words that cannot be broken into more
morphemes, such as look (vypadat, pohled), office (kancelář), similarly with
shortening the words, for instance ad - advertisement (inzerát), lab - laboratory
(laboratoř) or fridge - refridgerator (lednička) (Dušková 2003: 17 - 18).
Similarly, also compound words may be problematic, such as lazybones
20
(compound word) - lenoch (derivation), or warship (kompozitum) - válečná loď
(compound lexeme) (Dušková 2003: 20). Lastly, a type of compound words that
are very rare in Czech, so call quotation compounds such as a happy-go-lucky
sort of attitude towards life (bezstrarostný postoj k životu), forget-me-not
(pomněnka) or an out-of-the-way place (odlehlé místo) (Dušková 2003: 20).
In the analysis part, I will try to identify which linguistic features from the
extracts used for my survey may be considered Czech unique items.
2.3 EXTRACTS
2.3.1 LIST OF EXTRACTS
Firstly, I present the list of books, magazines and newspapers where I found the
extracts for my questionnaire. The complete information can be found later in
the sources, here I list only the title of the book or article, the author, and the
translator where needed. The extracts can be found in the appendix part. Later
in the thesis, I will refer to them under the number from this table, which
corresponds to the numbers under which they appear in the questionnaire:
21
Number Title Author Translator
1 Smutek poručíka
Borůvky
Josef Skvorecký
2 Dražby Dick Francis Jaroslava Davidová-
Moserová
3 Lord Peter zasahuje D.L. Sayers Vladimír Procházka
4 Mrtvé oči Londýna Edgar Wallace Karel Voleský
5 Vražda pro štěstí Jan Zábrana
6 Jak se postarat o
vánoční hvězdu
Luděk Motejlek
7 Příběh maminky:
Netlačím, tlačánkuju
Kamila Christian
8 Korálové moře - cesty
po starých říších
jihozápadního Pacifiku
Michael Moran Josef Orel
9 Temný Tibet Theodore lllion Kateřina Klapuchová
10 Etiopie - černý poklad
afrických pralesů.
Michaela Lorencová,
Ondřej Havelka
11 Na cestách po USA -
Yosemity
Lucie Valentová
12 Přežije Korup? Tomáš Kubeš
13 Sova a vesmír. 0
hvězdách, atomech,
životě a vědcích.
František Koukolík,
Ondřej Havelka
14 Paradox moudrosti. Jak
být duševně výkonnější,
přestože mozek stárne.
Elkhonon Goldberg František Koukolík
15 Sto astronomických
omylů uvedených na
pravou míru
Z. Horský, Z.
Mikulášek, Z. Pokorný
2.3.2 PROCESS OF SELECTING THE EXTRACTS
Looking for the most suitable extracts was a difficult and time-consuming
process. At the very beginning, it is important to stress here that though I tried
to be as objective as possible while searching for the most suitable texts,
subjectivity played part in the process of selecting the texts its part as well.
Therefore, the results are definitely influenced by the choice of the text, which
means that with different texts the results would slightly differ.
In the first part, the general rules of selection are discussed with regard
to the study carried out by Tirkkonen-Condit. In the next one, I offer a brief
22
description of the particular extracts together with highlighting the features that
might be of assistance for respondents in the process of identification.
2.3.1.1 GENERAL CONDITIONS
It was essential to determine the number, length and genre of the extracts that
would be used for this study.
To start with, the number of the extracts must be appropriate as too
many texts may discourage potential respondents, and at the same time, it
needs to be high enough to be able to collect an adequate amount of data from
respondents. The initial idea was thirty extracts, but then, after consultation with
my supervisor, the number was reduced to fifteen only. Primarily, I thought it
would have been better to use an even number of extracts, but the final number
is odd. The even number would probably call up a notion that the number of
translations and originals is equal, which might have influenced respondents'
decision-making process, and I wanted to prevent them from such kind of
thinking. In the end, the portion of translations and originals is nine nontranslations
to six translations.
Next, the length of the extracts is between 100 and 170 words, where a
unilateral word counts as one as well. Tirkkonen-Condit has used extracts of the
length from 100 to 300 words (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 210). I considered it too
long for my survey. Again, I believe respondents would have been discouraged
by the length of extracts and would not respond to the questionnaire. I think the
length of the extracts chosen for this study is enough to allow respondents to
find features that would help them with the decision whether the particular
23
extract is a translation or a non-translation. In addition, I thought this length of
extracts would not discourage them.
Lastly, choosing the genres of the extracts was the most difficult part. In
the end, there are five detective stories (two non-translations and three
translations), two newspaper articles (both non-translations), five extracts from
travel magazines or travel books (three non-translations and two translations)
and three extracts from popular-scientific literature (two non-translations and
one translation).
I was partly inspired by the Tirkkonen-Condit's study again. It was clear
that the extracts needed to be of various genres. This would not only enable
respondents to experience a variety of texts, vocabulary and sentence
structures, but it would keep their attention as well. I formed four groups of
extracts, since having every extract from of a different genre would be too
fragmented. Moreover, I thought that it would be appropriate to have more
extracts of one genre to have a chance to compare them. After having
determined these basic features of the extract, the process of selecting the
particular extracts came.
As it was already presented in the introductory part, the extracts in this
survey are to be identified purely on the basis of linguistic features of the texts.
As Tirkkonen-Condit states:
"Here it is again necessary to make a distinction between purely linguistic phenomena
and non-linguistic phenomena which may single out translations. Translated texts are often
identifiable based on other than purely linguistic features. Such non-linguistic or extra-linguistic
features which readily reveal a text as a translation for readers are, for example, culture-specific
references such as proper names and the names of institutions, as well as various intertextual
references such as allusions to and quotations from other texts in the source culture."
(Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 209-210).
24
I had two possibilities how to avoid extra-linguistic features in a text. First
possibility was not to include texts that would contain them, i.e. to exclude
especially any proper names from the texts. Second possibility was to choose
texts with such features as well, but to replace them by something neutral, for
example by single letters. The second option was found to be more
complicated to realize and what is more, it would have made reading of the
extracts unpleasant, more time-consuming and especially more concentration
demanding, that is distracting. Firstly, the visual aspect would distract them, as
we are not used see text with letters instead of proper names. Secondly, having
to think about what the particular letter stands for would take respondents more
time. Finally, yet importantly, both previous factors would need more
concentration on reading, not speaking of creating the comments on the
particular extracts, and respondents would get tired soon. To put it simply,
respondents would get bored and annoyed by reading and commenting the
extracts and that needed to be avoided.
To get back to the extra-linguistic features, there are several extracts
containing some. These are extracts number 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10. Number 4
contains two proper names - David and Diana. This extract was chosen,
because it contains a lot of direct speech, which I wanted to include among
extracts as it may be interesting how respondents would comment on it. Direct
speech sounds unnatural without proper names, so I decided for this extract, as
names David and Diana are common in the Czech language as well. Extract
number 6 contains Latin name of a flower, which, in my opinion, cannot distract
respondents in any way. Extracts 8, 9, and 10 belong to the genre of travel book
and magazines. These include proper names of people and places. I justify the
25
presence of proper names in these extracts by their genre. Presence of proper
names in travel books/magazines is common and it cannot be considered
distracting. The author of such text may be a foreigner as well as a Czech
person.
As far as the genres are concerned, there are four of them - detective
stories, travel writing, newspaper articles and popular-scientific texts.
The first text was chosen very spontaneously and had influence on the
choice of another four texts. The first text was Zabrana's Vražda pro štěstí and,
after a consultation with my supervisor, it was given that one of the genres is a
detective story. When searching for another Czech text, I came across
Skvorecky's Smutek poručíka Borůvky and found this text suitable for the
survey. Still, it was necessary to be very careful while choosing an extract from
the book since there are non-linguistic features that might be helpful for
respondents, such as title "soudruh", which was a common title in our country
but not in English speaking countries. While looking for a relevant translated
text many reasons appeared, due to which the particular texts had to be
excluded. For example, I wanted to include a text from Agatha Christie's Poirot
stories, but it was very difficult to find an extract without proper or local names
or other extra-linguistic features. When I finally found some, I did not find it good
enough for my purposes due to the lack of suitable linguistic features. Some
authors had to be excluded for their typical style of writing that possibly might
have been recognized by respondents. Generally, it was necessary to look for
texts that would not reveal clues that might lead to the author and therefore the
origin of the text.
26
Similar problems arouse in connection with popular scientific texts. It was
not so probable that respondents would identify the author but it was very
important not to include any extra-linguistic features that would be a possible
clue to the origin of the text.
The third genre - travel writing - was chosen because articles and books
about travelling write not only experienced writers but also common people. As
a good example, young people studying or working in the USA may serve. Their
language is not anyhow stylistically trained and therefore, it may be a good
example of language used in a common speech. Moreover, living in a foreign
country and using a foreign language may have impact on the use of their
mother tongue and I thought this might brought interesting and valuable
comments from respondents.
Extracts of the last genre were very difficult to find. I had already had
chosen some newspaper articles, but I found out that it was very difficult to say
whether the author wrote it as an original text, whether it was a translated text
or something in between. In other words, whether it was a summary or a part of
an article taken from a newspaper published abroad. Therefore, it was
necessary to exclude any article where instead of the name of the author
something else was stated, for example, The Reuters or an abbreviation. In
other words, I started to search for articles where the origin of the text was
transparent.
The texts were chosen under the above-described general conditions. To
conclude, the most important of them are:
> omission of possible extra-linguistic features that may be a clue for
respondents,
27
> transparent authorship of the text,
> enough linguistic features.
2.3.2.2 GROUPING OF LINGUISTIC FEATURES
In their Style in Fiction, Leech and Short divide the linguistic features in four
basic groups: "lexical categories, grammatical categories, figures of speech,
and cohesion and context" (Leech, Short 1981: 75). Leech and Short define
context as "the external relations of a text or a part of a text, seeing it as a
discourse presupposing a social relation between its participants (author and
reader; character and character, etc), and a sharing by participants of
knowledge and assumptions." (Leech, Short 1981: 79) Therefore, only cohesion
is interesting for me from the category of cohesion and context as the extracts
are too short to allow respondents to evaluate the context. Leech and Short
divide the lexical and the grammatical categories into several subcategories. I
present here only subcategories that I find relevant for this survey.
Lexical categories according to Leech and Short:
> "General" - characteristics of the vocabulary such as simplicity vs.
complexity of the vocabulary, etc., use of idiomatic phrases, the dialect,
the register, use of specialized vocabulary or morphological categories;
> "Adjectives"
> "Verbs"
> "Adverbs"
Grammatical categories according to Leech and Short:
> "Sentence types" - use of statements, questions, commands,
exclamations, etc
> "Sentence complexity" -complexity due to coordination or subordination
etc
> "Clause structure" - clause elements, unusual ordering, special kinds of
clause construction etc
> "Noun phrases" - simplicity or complexity of noun phrases
28
> "Verb phrases" - for example use of tenses
> "Other phrase types" - propositional phrases, adverb phrases or
adjective phrases
> "Word classes" - minor word classes such as prepositions, pronouns etc
(Leech, Short 1981: 7 6 - 7 8 )
I consider this division useful for my study since vocabulary, sentence
structure and cohesion are the features that respondents evaluate most
frequently. For my survey, I formed similar grouping of linguistic features based
on the Leech and Short's division with regard to the respondents' comments
listed in Tirkkonen-Condit's paper.
The categories of the linguistic features formed for this survey are the
following:
• general (G)
• lexical: particular words (PW), phrases (PH), vocabulary (V), other
(O),
• grammatical: sentence structure (SS), word order (WO), punctuation
(P), other (O),
• cohesion: readability (RY), naturalness (N), other (O).
As far as cohesion is concerned, with regard to the length of the extracts,
only the ways in which sentences are connected can be taken into account. In
other words, links between sentences or use of reference of pronouns can be
included here.
In the following part, the particular extracts are discussed one by one
using the grouping of linguistic features.
29
2.3.2.3 PARTICULAR EXTRACTS
In the tables, my comments on the extracts as well as the particular examples
are listed. Later, in the fourth chapter, I offer a detailed analysis of the extracts.
> E1 - Škvoreckýs štěbetavé hlasy
general lexical grammatical cohesion
beautiful
language
PW: výskání,
štěbetavé,
zurčení, šminka,
PH: směsice
moderní hudby,
jedna s druhou,
rýsovaly obrysy,
překotný hlahol
V: expressive,
original, many
Czech words
0:
SS: complex but
not complicated,
coordination and
subordination
WO:
P: common in
Czech language
0:
RY: good
N:high
0:
> E2 - Francis's postava k nezaplacení
general lexical grammatical cohesion
PW:
PH: mírný otřes
mozku,
jet vozem,
postava
k nezaplacení
V:
0:
SS: frequent
subordination
WO: not always
Czech - změnila
chování vůči mně
P: semicolon, ...
0:
RY: lower
N: lower
0:
> E3 - Sayers's cupital jako víla
general lexical grammatical cohesion
older date of
publication
PW: maje, musilo,
zvnitřku, svítilny,
vypinač,
PH: nepředvídané
SS:coordination
WO:
P:dashes,
semilocon
0conjunction "a"
RY:good
N:
0:
30
příhody, víte,
ujistil jsem se,
cupital jako víla
po tom milém
schodišti
být jako na koni
V:archaic and
formal
0:
> E4 - Wallace and Diana's dialogue
general lexical grammatical cohesion
direct speech PW: introductory SS: short RY: good
included, verbs - řekl, sentences N:
names David and vykřikla, WO: 0:
Diana přisvědčil, opravil
PH: jsem ale
hlupák, pro boha
živého, pokaždé
vypínáme světlo
V: formal
0:
P:dashes
0:
> E5 - Zábrana's slowfox
general lexical grammatical cohesion
colourful
language
PW: nyl,
PH: chladnému
měděnému
slunci, chystat se
na ránu košem,
vplout do náruče,
brána života pro
děti, růže jako
oltářní svícen,
bronzová maska
nepřístupné
krásy, mučivou
lhostejností, růže
se zdvihla,
V:
0: repetition of
words
SS: coordination,
subordination,
complexity
WO: sometimes
unusual - zelené
oči vzhlédly
unaveně ke mně,
cize, skoro
nepřátelsky
P: frequent
commas,
0:
RY: very good
N: high
0:
31
> E6 - poinsettie
general lexical grammatical cohesion
PW: kvítka, keřík,
lístky, listen,
zdobící,
PH: květina může
sloužit,
V: diminutives
0: register
equivalent
SS:
WO: usual
P:
0: conjunction
"ale"
RY: good
N:high
0:
> E7 -ječivá fistule
general lexical grammatical cohesion
capital letters NIKDY,
witty text
PW: ratolest,
PH: ječivá fistule,
na čelném místě
figuruje, ještě léta
předtím
V: emotive
0:
SS:
WO:
P: dashes,
exclamation mark
0: conjunction
"že"
RY: very good
N:
0:
> E8 - mušlové peníze
general lexical grammatical cohesion
bad translation,
proper and local
names
PW:
PH: přísně
rozložit v různých
délkách,
nastala diskuse,
peníze se různí,
skupiny kolem
dvaceti se
navlečou,
cítit se přiměřeně
slavnostně
V: simple,
unbalanced
register,
0:
SS: complicated
WO: confusing,
untypical for
Czech language nenápadná
dírka
se vyvrtá
uprostřed
každého
kotoučku,
P:
0:
RY: low
N:low
0:
32
> E9 - Dolminy stany
general lexical grammatical cohesion
proper names,
direct speech
PW:
PH: unnatural jednu
polovinu
stanu mé matky,
která je od
matčiny oddělena
přepážkou, už
dříve v knize...,
metoda označení
míst, s nalezením
místa bych neměl
mít nejmenší
potíže
V: descriptive,
formal
0:
SS:
WO: often
unusual
P:
0: frequent
change of tenses
RY:
N:low
0:
> E10 - šílený šaman Mursi
general lexical grammatical cohesion
PW: psaníček,
kuliček, kamínků,
chýše
PH: jen na malý
rozdíl, Afrikou
cvičené oko,
nenávratně zle,
V: diminutives
0:
SS: long
sentences
WO:
P:
0: grammatical
mistakes
RY: good
N:
0:
> E11 - neviděla reálně
general lexical grammatical cohesion
PW:
PH: pletla
nohama,
neviděla reálně,
prohlásila jsem
směrem k příteli,
sáhnout si na dno
SS:
WO:
P:
0: conjunction
"když"
RY: lower
N:good
0:
33
svých sil
V: typical Czech
phrases
0:
> E12 - poodhalení
general lexical grammatical cohesion
PW: poodhalení,
očička, číhat,
živočichy, ranger,
ošívali, finty
PH: pravdou
zůstává
V:
0:
SS: subordination
and coordination
WO: Czech
P: question mark
0:
RY: good
N:
0:
> E13 - a past se usmála
general lexical grammatical cohesion
PW: zaťatější,
nádeničina,
PH: idiomatic,
past se usmála,
snědla mi hezký
kus z několika let
práce, lákavá
past
V:
0:
SS: complex as
well as short
WO:
P:
0: variety of
prepositions
RY: good
N:high
0:
> E14 - bizarní nápad
general lexical grammatical cohesion
PW: niterně, SS: complex RY: good
heavy metalovým, WO: sometimes N:
analogie, bizarní, English 0:
PH: vzdorují P: dashes,
snahám, mám za parenthesis,
to, v širokém colon
slova smyslu, 0: rhetoric
V: question
0:
34
> E15 - kosmická cenzura
general lexical grammatical cohesion
variety of font PW: bortit, SS: RY:
styles kolaps, WO: N:
suprahustou, P: quotation 0:
PH: úřaduje marks, dashes
kosmická 0:
cenzura,
V:
0:
35
3. QUESTIONNAIRE
3.1 DESIGNING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
After selecting the extracts, the designing of the questionnaire followed. The
questionnaire comprised three parts - an introduction in form of an enclosed
letter, the questionnaire itself and a short acknowledgement. All the three parts
were in Czech since the survey was meant for Czechs. The original Czech
version as well as the English translation the enclosed letter, instructions from
the questionnaire and the acknowledgement can be found in the appendix part.
A special attention had to be paid to the structure and length of the
enclosed letter as its main function was to attract the respondents and to make
them respond. Further, it was necessary to explain the objectives of the survey
as well. In this part, respondents were also assured that the answers were
anonymous. I tried to make the letter reader-friendly, not too formal and as short
as possible.
If the enclosed letter was meant to attract and inform, the questionnaire
was meant for collecting the data for the analysis, therefore it was necessary to
keep the attention of respondents throughout the whole questionnaire. All the
questions were formulated and worded simply and clearly so that any ambiguity
was excluded. The number of questions and their length were considered as
well because too many and/or too long questions might distract the
respondents. Since I wanted to save as much respondents' time as possible,
most of the questions were set in such a way that it was possible to answer
them by ticking one of the options offered or by writing one or two words or
36
numbers in a box provided. The only exception, where the respondents had
chance to write more, were boxes for comments. All the questions, with the
exception of the respondents' comments, were compulsory.
The questionnaire itself comprises forty-five questions divided into three
parts. The first part begins with general instructions for filling in the
questionnaire. This part (10 questions) collects general data about respondents,
in the second part (30 questions) the respondents made their decisions about
the extracts and comment on them, and in the third part (5 questions), the
respondents had chance to evaluate the difficulty of the extracts or make their
predictions about the results of the study.
In the introductory part of the questionnaire, respondents answered
questions about their sex, age, field of study etc. to provide me with the general
data about them. Data collected from this part were used for confirming or
disproving my secondary hypotheses stated in the introductory part of the
thesis. The second set of questions focused on the extracts chosen for the
survey. By choosing of one of the options (translation, non-translation, and I
cannot decide) respondents provided the data for the analysis of the results of
the survey. Comments on the particular extracts provided data for the second
part of the analysis - the analysis of linguistic features. The last set of the
questions was meant as a feedback for me.
Now I discuss the questions and their importance in the survey one by
one as each of the questions collects data essential for supporting or disproving
the initial hypotheses. As mentioned before, the first part begins with the
instructions connected with the first ten questions referring to general
information about respondents. The questions went in this order:
37
> Sex
• man
• woman
> Age
• range from 18 to 99
> Nationality
• Czech
• Slovak
• other
> Field of study.
> Education attained:
• secondary school
• university degree
These were the basic questions for collecting the general data about the
respondents. In connection with nationality, I decided to include the option
Slovak, because Slovaks study at the Masaryk University as well and it might
happen they respond to the questionnaire. It was decided that these
respondents either would be excluded from the study or would be treated as a
special group depending on the number and the results of the Slovak
respondents.
The next five questions focus on respondents' language awareness and
reading preferences. The questions were the following:
> How many foreign languages do you speak?
• none
• one
• two
• three or more
> Is English one of them?
• yes
• no
38
> You prefer
• non-translated Czech literature
• translated literature
> How much time a week do you spend by reading of noneducational
texts?
• less than 1 hour
• 1 - 5 hours
• 5 or more hours
> What do you read most?
• newspapers
• magazines
• fiction
• specialized literature
In the first question, the respondents are not asked to specify the level of
knowledge of a foreign language. Extra questions would be needed; moreover,
the answers may be biased since evaluating one's own ability is always rather
subjective. In addition, it is necessary to distinguish between the ability to speak
and ability to write. One can be good at speaking but when it comes to the
writing, the level of the language may be different. Similarly, although a
respondent stated that he spoke three or more foreign languages, it did not
have to mean that the respondent spoke all the language at the same level.
Furthermore, it might also happen that language (textual) competence of a
respondent who spoke only one foreign language might be higher than
language (textual) competence of a respondent who spoke three or more
foreign language. This may be because the first respondent achieved a native
speaker level in comparison with the other one did not achieve such level in any
of the languages. Moreover, respondents with a high foreign language
competence can be identified by their field of study - respondents studying a
39
foreign language at university. Later, when processing the data, I make special
groups of learners of English and compare them with the learners of other
languages.
The question focusing on reading preferences (translations vs. nontranslations)
is closely connected with my initial secondary hypotheses whether
respondents preferring non-translations may be more successful in identifying
the unique items in the extracts. Of course, I know there might be a third option
for those who did not care what kind of literature they read. I am aware of the
fact that some respondents do not think about the origin of a text but there was
one important reason why I did not offer this option. There was a thread that
respondents would use such option too often, which would jeopardize one of my
hypotheses.
The question asking for stating the amount of reading was a bit difficult to
structure. I had to take into account that there are very different requirements on
school reading imposed on students depending on a faculty or a field studied.
Due to this fact, I decided to specify that the time spend by reading for fun is
meant here. Nevertheless, as there may be respondents reading specialized
literature even in their free time, I offered them the option "specialized
literature". The options for types of literature read by the respondents
correspond to the extracts chosen for the survey. Among the extracts each of
the genres is somehow represented.
The second part of the questionnaire refers to the extracts. At the
beginning, the respondents were instructed how to fill in this part. I also
reminded them that any of their comments was helpful for me. The order of the
selected extracts was the following:
40
1) 5 x detective story
2) 2x newspaper article
3) 5 x travel writing
4) 3 x popular-scientific text
The task connected with the extracts was very simple. Respondents
were to choose whether an extract is a translation or a non-translation. Three
times out of the fifteen decisions, they were allowed to use the third option /
cannot decide. By this option, the respondents are positively motivated to finish
the whole questionnaire. Of course, it may happen that one cannot decide. I did
not want to force the respondents into the decision. From the respondents point
of view, their "good feeling" from their own overall number of correct answers
gradates since they are not forced to explicit answers where they are not able to
decide. In addition, this option might brought a valuable data for the analysis which
of the extracts were the most difficult to decide about. Had they used this
option more than exactly three times, they were excluded from the survey, as
the results would be biased. The reason why I did not give them any scale for
rating the extracts, as for example Meldrum did, was that the number of the
extracts was quite challenging itself and having to decide whether this extract is
more probable to be a translation then the previous two or three would be too
time-consuming and concentration demanding.
The order of the extracts has its reason as well. I believe it was more
transparent to have extracts of the same genre together and easier to compare
them if respondents wanted. As mentioned previously, after each of the extract,
an empty box followed, where the respondents could comment on their choice.
41
The last set of the questions enabled the respondents to express their
overall impression of the questionnaire and predict the results of the survey.
The questions to answer were:
> To decide whether the extract is a translation or a non-translation
was:
• nearly always difficult
• mostly difficult
• mostly easy
• nearly always easy
> To fill in this questionnaire took you
• up to 20 minutes
• 2 0 - 4 0 minutes
• more than 40 minutes
> What percentage of your correct answers do you guess? Please
write only a number.
• scale 0 - 100
> What percentage of correct answers in the survey do you guess?
Please write only a number.
• scale 0 -100
Then I thanked respondents for their time and encouraged them to write me for
results in case they were interested.
3.2 DISTRIBUTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
While considering the way of the distribution of the Q, I had to take into account
several criteria: the distribution itself, filling in, collecting and processing the
data from the Q. There were two possible ways of delivering the Q: to print it
and distribute it among people personally or to take advantage of some
electronic device. To make the decision more objective and transparent, I tried
42
to find possible advantages and disadvantages of both ways of distribution.
These pros and cons are to find in the following table. I divided the advantages
(As) and disadvantages (Ds) according the above-mentioned criteria.
Criteria Personal distribution Electronic deviceCriteria
As Ds As Ds
Delivery —> Control of
number of
respondents
—> Possibility
of creating
special
groups of Rs
in advance
—> more time
demanding
—> not only
interested
people
respond
—> Respond
only people
interested
—> No control
of who
responds
—> No control
of number of
Rs
Filling in —> Some
people do not
like
handwriting
—> For majority
people more
convenient
way of
communication
—> People
may be
overloaded by
computer
work
Collecting of
Qs
—> personally
—> dependent
on the Rs
whether they
bring Qs back
or not
—> much easier
—> Less time
demanding for
Rs
Processing
data
—> More
demanding
—> Much easier
—> Data in the
PC
Number 2 6 6 3
A strong advantage of personal distributions is that it would have been
possible to create specific groups of people, such as for instance groups of
people studying Czech, English and some other foreign language, on which the
survey would have been carried out. Such a method would partly ease the
processing of the data. However, this approach would have perhaps required
cooperation with the lecturers teaching the specific groups of people, which
meant preparing the questionnaire much more in advance, finding people willing
43
to cooperate etc. Of course, I could have chosen some specific groups of
people and distribute the questionnaires among them personally without any
cooperation with the lecturers but I did not believe this would be a successful
method of delivery since the return rate would probably be too low. One of the
important disadvantages of the electronic distribution is that it is impossible to
control the number and the relative proportions of respondents. I knew that if
there were not enough respondents after one week, I would have to distribute
the questionnaire personally or talk to some of the teachers and ask them to do
this survey in some of their courses. In fact, I would have had to deliver the Q
personally. The electronic distribution gave me better possibilities of collecting
the data thanks to the fact that most of the answers were adjusted in such a
way that the computer counted them, which later simplify the processing of the
collected data. Moreover, I am sure that it is much more comfortable for the
majority of the people to fill such a Q through computer than in hand.
It is important to make clear here, that the final count of advantages and
disadvantages in the above table is not in favour of electronic distribution since
the weights of both advantages and disadvantages differ. Therefore, the final
count as such is not decisive.
After considering all advantages and disadvantages, I decided to take
advantage of one of the two possible faculty web pages - the information
system of Masaryk University or ELF, pages intended for e-learning. I chose
ELF because of several reasons. The information system is always full of
various messages, announcements, enquiries etc. and my survey would be just
another of the links that would be overlooked in haste. Moreover, in my opinion
and from my personal experience, students usually visit these pages because
44
they need to manage something - to read e-mails, to register for courses at the
beginning and to enrol for exams at the end of the semester, or for example fill
in a Q concerning the evaluation of the registered courses. In contrast, ELF is
visited by students continuously throughout the whole semester and as this Q
was intended to be displayed approximately in April, I came to the final decision
that ELF would be a better way of communication with potential respondents.
The only thing was to create the Q in one of the ELF courses.
My supervisor Renáta Kamenická gave me a chance to work in one of
the courses led by her. The creation of the electronic form of the questionnaire
was by a long way easier than creating the questionnaire itself. As was already
mentioned before, the questionnaire comprises three parts - the introduction,
the questionnaire itself and the short acknowledgements. Of course, it was very
important to work out the name of the questionnaire and the introduction
attractive and catching to make the potential respondents interested and
involved. Anyone was allowed to take part on this survey without the necessity
of being a student or a teacher at the Masaryk University. Another benefit of
distribution through ELF was that I wanted to concentrate on students of English
and most of the courses in ELF are from the department of English and
American studies. I did not expect to have respondents from other faculties.
Opening the questionnaire for anyone allowed me to compile groups of
respondents according to needed criteria later when processing the data.
In the acknowledgements, I thanked the respondents for filling in the
questionnaire and offered them the possibility of being sent the correct answers
via e-mail. I was surprised that people were really interested in their results but
it was decided to send the correct answers only after closing the questionnaire
45
and yet later not to send the answers via e-mail but to display the overall results
of the survey in the ELF system.
It is important to say that the Q was displayed from 22n d
May to 11t h
July,
which was time long enough to get the necessary number of the respondents.
At the beginning, I was afraid that there would not be enough people willing to
respond to the questionnaire in the run of the examination period but I was
pleasantly surprised that within the first week, more than seventy people
responded and within another two weeks another forty more joined them.
During the remaining weeks, the number of the people who responded to the
questionnaire raised very slowly up to the final number of 134 respondents.
46
4. QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS
This chapter is divided into several parts. In the first one, I outline the
methodology of processing the data. In the next one, the various figures
collected from the questionnaire are presented and interpreted. I divide the
respondents into several groups according to various criteria and discuss the
results with regard to the particular groups. Drawing on the findings from the
questionnaire, the hypotheses I specified at the beginning will be either
confirmed or disproved. Presentation of the processed comments from the
respondents and highlighting of the most important as well as interesting
findings are the objectives of the last part of this chapter.
4.1 METHODOLOGY OF DATA PROCESSING
Prior to the analysis itself, it is necessary to explain one inconsistence in
number of the respondents. In the previous chapter, I claim that there were
altogether 134 respondents. However, further in the analysis, only 130
respondents are included. This is because four respondents did not follow one
of the instructions set in the questionnaire. The instruction was to use the option
/ cannot decide only three times at maximum. They had used this option more
times than allowed and therefore they were excluded from the analysis. Yet, I
briefly present their results and data collected about them here:
> Sex: 2 men, 2 women
> Age: 0 27
> Nationality: 3 Czechs, 1 Slovak
> Education: 2 x secondary school, 2 x university degree
47
> Field of study: 1 x German language, 1 x French language, 2 x other
field of study
> Number of languages they speak: 2 x 3 and more languages, 1 x 2
languages, 1 x 1 language; all of them speak English
> Reading preferences: 2 prefer translations and 2 prefer nontranslations;
2 prefer fiction, 1 magazines and 1 specialized literature
> Filling in the questionnaire: 3 x less than 20 minutes, 1 x 20 - 40
minutes
> Tips on results: 3 x lower tip of the overall result and 3 x higher for their
results in comparison with the reality
> Percentage of correct answers: 37%
Before I move to the overall information concerning the respondents, it is
crucial to say here that the calculated percentages are rounded off for easier
orientation. Due to the rounding, it may happen that some of the totals do not
equal one hundred exactly, but may be slightly less or more.
There were 130 respondents, 107 women and 23 men. The average age
of the respondents was 24. Ninety (69%) respondents stated as an educational
attainment a secondary school and 40 (31%) of them stated a university, i.e.
they were teachers or students studying in a Masters' programme.
Out of 130 respondents, only two (2%) did not speak any foreign
language and only seven (5%) of them did not speak English. Thirty-three
respondents (25%) spoke one foreign language, 70 (54%) spoke two and 25
(19%) speak three or more foreign languages. It is essential to repeat here facts
Figure 1. - Education attained
100
48
that were already discussed in the third chapter. Language competence of the
respondents might vary a lot. Not all respondents stating they speak English
could be of the same level. Therefore, these data need to be looked on with
regard to this fact.
Figure 2. - Do Rs speak English? Figure 3. - How many languages do Rs
speak?
• No language
• 1 language
• 2 langu
• 3L
The reading preferences were almost equally distributed, 61 (47%)
respondents stated that they prefer reading translations to non-translations, in
comparison with 69 (53%) respondents who preferred non-translations to
translations.
Figrure 4. - Preferences - translations or
originals
Only 21 (16%) respondents read less than one hour of non-study texts a
week. Slightly more than an exact half of the respondents (69), making up 53%,
read between one and five hours. The rest of the respondents represented by
number 40 (31%) read for fun more than five hours a week.
49
Figure 5. - Hours per week spend on
reading
80
60
40
20
• up to 1 hour
• 1-5 hours
• 5 and more
The majority of the respondents prefer fiction to the other genres - 68
respondents representing 52%. Specialized literature follows with 26 (20%) of
respondents, then magazines, and newspapers with the same number of 18
respondents (14%).
Figure 6. - Genre preferences
80
60
40 6n20
• SL
• Fiction
• Magazines
• Newpaper
To sum it up, it can be said that a typical representative of the
respondents who responded to my questionnaire has graduated from a
secondary school, speaks two foreign languages (English is one of them), reads
both translations and non-translations, between 1 and 5 hours a week, and
prefers fiction.
50
4.2 DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
Since discussing all the findings at the same time would be very confusing for
the respondent, I have decided to discuss each of the hypotheses one by one. I
tried to make the structure of the analysis as transparent as possible. I offer one
of the questions stated at the beginning, provide the initial hypothesis, present
the collected data in the form of a table or a graph, and give a detailed
description and interpretation. In case there were several hypotheses
connected to the particular statement, each of the hypotheses is discussed
individually.
Hypothesis 1: Respondents are able to distinguish translations from nontranslations.
Moreover, I expect more than 6 0 % of the extracts may be
correctly identified.
Reality: Only 54.5% of correct answers is not as convincing proportion as was
expected. If the Tirkkonen-Condit's way of counting the results were used, the
result would be 57.5%. We can see the difference was not significant.
Figure 7. - Percentage of correct
answers
CD
Incorrect
Correct
5,5
40
54,5
• %
20 40 60
Note: CD - I cannot decide
51
To start with, it is essential to explain how the answers are counted.
There were 1,950 possible answers (130 respondents x 15 extracts).Out of the
total number of answers, 1,061 were correct (54.5%), 785 answers were
incorrect (40%), and 104 answers were the option / cannot decide (5.5%). From
this moment on, it is necessary to take into account this way of counting the
percentage of correct answers. To provide an example, if I state that the
percentage of correct answers with extract 1 was 35%, it means that the rest of
the percentage consists of two parts - incorrect answers and the option / cannot
decide.
Though the percentage of correct answers is not as high as was
expected, it is evident that, in comparison with the percentage of incorrect
answers, it is 14.5% higher.
In the following graph, I offer a different distribution of the answers. Out
of the 1,950 answers, 877 answers were allotted to option "NT" (45%), 969
(49.5%) of answers to option "T", and 104 answers were the option / cannot
decide (5.5%).
Figure 8. - Percentages of options
| 5
1 5 0
• %
45
0 20 40 60
Note: CD - I cannot decide, T - translation, NT - non-translation
I find it worth noting because this implies that respondents used option T
more often than NT, which might suggest that more extracts appear to be Ts
52
than NTs to the respondents, even though there are only six translations out of
the fifteen extracts. Of course, it is probably because of the context of the
survey and perhaps in the general context as well. Each of the extracts had a
hidden "marked option" for respondents that it is a translation.
In the following table, the respondents are divided according to the
percentage of achieved correct answers. In the first column, there are the
percentages achieved. In the brackets, there is the number of correctly
identified extracts the percentage represents. In the second column, there are
the percentages of respondents with the particular percentage. In the brackets,
there is the number of respondents the percentage represents.
Tab. 4.1 respondents according to % of correct answers
Percentage of CA % of Rs
20 (3) (1%) 1
27 (4) (2%) 2
33 (5) (7%) 10
40 (6) (6%) 8
47 (7) (19%) 25
53(8) (20%) 26
60(9) (20%) 26
67(10) (14%) 19
73(11) (9%) 11
80 (12) (1%) 1
87(13) (1%) 1
Totals 130 respondents
Note: CA = correct answers
As it results from the data in table 4.1, almost 60% of the respondents
belong to the groups where the percentage of correct answers varied between
47% and 60%. Interestingly, 65% of the respondents had achieved more than
50% of correct answers, only 35% of them achieved less than 50% of correct
answers, however the overall number of correct answers was only 54.5%.
Observing the data in the table, we find out that nobody achieved zero
percent, but at the same time, nobody identified all the extracts correctly. The
highest percentage achieved (87%) corresponds to thirteen correctly identified
extracts, whereas the lowest percentage (20%) corresponds to three correctly
identified extracts.
Hypothesis 2a: More women will respond to the questionnaire and they
will more frequently comment on the extractsReality:
It is true, more women responded to the questionnaire - 107 women
(82%) in contrast to 23 men (18%). Nonetheless, the distribution of the
percentage of comments was the same as the percentage of men and women out
of total 457 comments 82% were from women and 18% from men. This
means that women did not comment more frequently than men did.
Hypothesis 2b: I expect some differences in the percentage of correct
answers achieved by men and womenReality:
It is true, yet the difference is not significant. I focus only on the findings
that are exceptional in some way.
For the beginning, I offer the summary numbers, where we can see that
women achieved only slightly better results than men did.
54
Figure 9. - Overall results of
men and women
80
60
40
20
0
52 55
• Men
• Women
Now, I present the most interesting finding. The tables with the detailed
data about the differences between men and women from various points of view
are to be found on an enclosed CD.
As far as the highest percentage of correct answers concern, the highest
percentage reached was 73% among men, whereas one of the women reached
80% and another woman even 87% of correct answers. The lowest percentage
of correct answers achieved was 20% among men and 27% among women.
I want to present here the data from the profiles of the most and the least
successful respondents here. The women with the highest percentage (R34 -
80%, R76 - 87%) both studied English and preferred fiction. R34 (23 years old)
preferred translations and R76 (24 years old) preferred non-translations. Both of
them found the decisions about the extracts usually difficult and managed to fill
in the questionnaire in less than 20 minutes. R34 read for fun from 1 to 5 hours
a week, whereas R76 only up to 1 hour a week.
As far as the men with the best results are concerned (both 73%), R74
and R106 studied English; R106 (23 years old) stated secondary school, the
other one stated university degree in the question of education attainment.
55
Again, both preferred fiction, but R74 (24 years old) preferred non-translated,
whereas R106 translated literature. R74 read for fun 5 or more hours a week
compared to R106, who reads 1 to 5 hours. Both considered the decisions
about the extracts usually easy, nevertheless, R74 needed from 20 to 40
minutes to fill in the questionnaire, whereas R106 needed less than 20 minutes.
The qualities of the women with the lowest percentage did not differ too
much. R67 (21 years old) studied English, finished a secondary school,
preferred translated fiction and read more than 5 hours a week. She considered
the decisions usually difficult. If we look at the least successful man (R130), we
find out that he studied pedagogy, did not speak English but spoke three foreign
languages. He preferred non-translations and newspapers. He needed 20 to 40
minutes to fill in the questionnaire and found the decisions usually difficult.
To sum it up, studying English and higher education may have an
influence on the ability to distinguish a translation from non-translation.
Concerning the age, several interesting findings appeared. Women
achieved the best results at the age of 19 (R12, R22, R107) - 64% of correct
answers. Though the number of the respondents is low, I find it important with
regard to the following finding, which is that after the age of 25, the percentage
of correct answers achieved by women was slightly dropping. I thought that it
might be given by the absence of women studying languages, but the reality
was different. After the age of 25, there were women with the following fields of
study and the percentage of correct answers. Eight women stated English as
their field of study (R21 - 47%, R66 - 53%, R69 - 53%, R77 - 53%, R85 -
67%, 90 - 47%, R100 - 53%, R120 - 73%). Five women stated other
56
language as their field of study (R18 - 40%, R62 - 47%, R86 - 60%, R98 -
40%, R129 - 40%) and nine women studied other field (R25 - 40%, R40 -
73%, R50 - 53%, R59 - 33%, R75 - 67%, R89 - 67%, R96 - 60%, R105 -
33%, R116-73%).
As we can see, the number of the women older than 25 years was
twenty-two, representing 17% of all the respondents, which can be considered a
number with quite high informative value. They studied English, other
languages as well as no foreign language but not only women studying some
language achieved the higher results.
With regard to this finding and the fact that the women were most
successful at the age of 19, we can conclude that higher qualification and
experience in the particular field did not always equal better results. As we will
see later, the results were influenced rather by respondents' general experience
reading and analyzing texts. However, it is essential to say here that the results
were influenced by the education, experience as well as the structure of sample
of the respondents. All the respondents were students or teachers at the
university and the above findings do not have to be necessarily valid for a
sample of respondents with different characteristics.
As far as men's results are concerned, they were generally very
unbalanced, which was probably due to the fact that the number of men was
considerably lower in comparison with the number of women (23 men and 107
women) so the informative value is not so high.
Lastly, I want to present some of the data connected with identifying the
particular extracts since there are some interesting findings as well. The tables
with the detailed information can be found on the attached CD. Generally, we
57
can say that men were not afraid to make decisions even if they risked being
"wrong" (men chose the option / cannot decide less often than women).
Nevertheless, the twelfth extract (a non-translation, article from the magazine
Koktejl) was very difficult to decide about for men (22% of them could not
decide in comparison with only 5% of women). Later in the analysis of the
particular extracts, we will see what the possible reasons of this finding may be.
Some other extracts were more difficult to identify for one of the sexes than for
the other (E7, E8, E10, E11, and E14). The possible reasons will be discussed
in the chapter dealing with the respondents' comments as well.
We can conclude that the differences between men and women are not
as significant as I expected. The reason may be again the sample of
respondents. A possible area for further research arose from the comparison of
the results achieved at the particular extracts: the differences between men's
and women's way of thinking about particular texts.
Hypothesis 3: Respondents with a higher level of education achieve
better resultsReality:
This is true.
Tab. 4.2 Correct answers according to education attained
% of CA 20 33 40 47 53 60 67 73 80 87 CA (%)
Education
Secondary
school (nr
of Rs)
9 2 19 21 19 13 5 53,5
University
(nr of RS)
1 1 6 6 5 7 6 6 1 1 57
Note: CA - correct answers, Nr - number, Rs - respondents
58
As figures in the above table show, respondents with a higher level of
education achieved slightly higher percentage of correct answers. The
conclusion is that generally, education and experience reading and analyzing
matters. However, as was stated earlier, this is not connected with the particular
field of study, but rather with the general ability to analyse a text.
Hypothesis 4: The results among the particular genres will differ.
Reality: This hypothesis is true.
Figure 10. - Correct answers according to genres
• F INA
• TB/TM DPSL
Note: F - fiction, NA - Newspaper articles, TB/TM - travel books/travel magazines, PSL popular-scientific
literature
In the number of the extracts in the particular genres were five extracts
from fiction, two newspaper articles, five extracts from travel writing, and three
popular-scientific extracts.
As the data from the above figure show, there are differences in results
achieved in the particular genres. The respondents were most successful in
identifying newspaper articles, but it is necessary to take into account the
number of the extracts in this genre. The lowest results were achieved at the
59
popular-scientific extracts. The reason may be that E13 (translated by Koukolik,
30% of correct answers) and E14 (written by Koukolik, 33% of correct answers)
were probably too difficult to attribute to the correct category. Moreover, the
third extract (a non-translation about astronomy written by a team of authors)
was correctly attributed only by quite a low number of the respondents (55%).
Hypothesis 5: No remarkable differences among the age groups are
expected.
Reality: It is true.
In the following table, the brown colour represents numbers worse than
the overall result and the green colour represents the best results achieved with
regard to the age groups.
Table 4.3 Percentage of correct answers with regard to age
Age 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26-29 30-33 34-
0 64 54 62 50 65 58 51 57 56 56
Note: age - age of the respondents, 0 - percentage of correct answers
Figure 11. - Age groups
-%
25 26-29 30-33
Age
As figures from the table and the accompanied graph suggest, the results
do not vary much. None of the age groups has the percentage of correct
60
answers lower than 50%, which I consider a positive finding. Only three age
groups reach the percentage of correct answers I expected to be the overall
result - between 60 and 65%.
Hypothesis 6: I do not expect any significant differences in the
percentage of correct answers achieved with translations and non-
translations.
Reality: It is true.
Figure 12a) - Translations Figure 12b) - Non-translations
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
60
36
Totals
• Correct • Incorrect rjCD
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
51
43
-
6
1
Totals
• Correct • Incorrect DCD
Note: NT = non-translations, T = translations, CA = correct answer, IA = incorrect answer,
CD = I cannot decide
In general, 5 1 % of non-translations and 60% of translations were
correctly identified. The difference of almost 10% may suggest that translations
were easier to identify. This finding may be connected with unique items
hypothesis. This can mean that it was easier for the respondents to identify the
deviant linguistic features in the extracts than the unique items. Another reason
may be that some of the non-translated extracts chosen for the survey included,
61
in respondents' opinion, too few unique items and therefore they marked them
as translations, which resulted in lower the percentage of correct answers
achieved with non-translation.
Hypothesis 7: People studying English and/or Czech language will
achieve the highest percentage of correct answersReality:
This is not true.
There were 64 respondents studying English and/or Czech language.
This number represents 100% of respondents in the following table. In the first
column, there is the percentage of correct answers achieved by respondents
studying these languages. In the rest of the columns, the respondents are
divided according to various criteria. The figures in these columns represent the
number of respondents in the particular category.
Tab. 4.41 Respondents studying English and/or Czech
%of CA
Education Languages Preferences Hours Preferences
%of CA
SS U 0 1 2 3 T NT 1 1 - 5 5 F SL N M
55 42 20 11 40 11 26 36 9 35 18 38 9 6 9
Note: CA - correct answers, S S - secondary school, U - university,
T - translation, NT - non-translation, F - fiction, SL - specialized literature,
N - newspapers, M - magazines,
As figures in the above table show, the respondents studying English
and/or Czech achieved 55% of correct answers, which was only 0.5% more
than the percentage of all the respondents. The lower percentage than I
expected might be due to lower education of the majority of the respondents in
this category (42 of them graduated from a secondary school). As was already
62
found earlier, respondents with a higher education achieved higher percentage
of correct answers. To compare with, when Tirkkonen-Condit led her research,
the students achieved 61.5 % of correct answers and teachers 63.1% answers,
which supports my hypothesis (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 210-211).
Hypothesis 8: Generally, people studying any foreign language are more
successful than those who do not study any languageReality:
It is only partly true.
Three main fields of study were formed: English language (EL), other
language (OL), and no language (NL). Since there were respondents studying
more than one field, I decided to make these groups as follows. Providing that
respondents studied English, they were attributed to the group (EL) without
regard to their other fields of study. Providing they studied other foreign
language or Czech, they were attributed to the group (OL) without regard to
their other fields of study. Providing they studied other field of study than
language, they were attributed to the group (NL) without regard to their fields of
study.
63
Table 4.5 Correct answers according to the field of study
Criteria 20% 27,00% 33%1
40% 47%2
53% 60% 67%3
73% 80% 87% Nrof Rs
%
of
CA
Study EL 0 2 3 1 12 15 12 5 5 1 1 57 55
Study OL 0 0 1 6 6 5 5 4 2 0 0 29 53
Study NL 1 0 5 1 6 6 9 9 4 0 0 41 55
Totals 1 2 9 8 24 26 26 18 11 1 1 127 X
Note: EL - English language, OL - other language, NL - no language, Nr of Rs - number of
respondents, C A - correct answers
As the data in table 4.11 reflect, respondents studying English language
were equally successful in identifying the extracts as respondents who did not
study any foreign language, which I consider a surprising finding. I think that this
finding has quite high informative value since the numbers of the respondents in
the particular groups do not vary too much. This finding supports the finding
connected with the hypothesis 2, where it was found out that women studying
English or other foreign languages did not achieve significantly better results
than those who studied other fields.
Hypothesis 9: The number of languages the respondents speak may
have influence on the results they achieve.
Reality: This is probably not true.
In the following table, respondents are divided according to number of
foreign languages they spoke.
1
There was one reader without a specified field of study.
2
There was one reader without a specified field of study.
3
There was one reader without a specified field of study. None of these three respondents is included in
this table.
64
Table 4.6 Rs with regard to number of foreign anquaqes they speak
Criteria 20 33 40 47 53 60 67 73 80 87 Nr of Rs
CA
No L
1L
2L
3L
6
4
1
4
3
2
17
6
6
12
8
1
9
14
2
1
6
9
3
2
33
68
25
63,5
55
55
52
Note: L - language, Nr - number, Rs - respondents, CA - correct answers
Surprisingly, respondents who spoke three languages achieved the
lowest percentage of correct answers. On the contrary, those who did not speak
any foreign languages achieved the highest percentage. Of course, it is
necessary to take into account that only two respondents did not speak any
foreign languages and therefore the results were probably biased.
At this moment, one important fact needs to be repeated here. It was
already stated in the third chapter dealing with the creating of the questionnaire
that the data connected with number of languages respondents spoke might be
biased mostly because of various level of respondents' knowledge of the
particular foreign language.
Hypothesis 10: There are significant differences in the percentage of
correct answers with regard to the reading preferencesReality:
This is true.
Generally, it was not important whether respondents preferred
translations or originally written literature as their overall results did not vary too
much. Respondents preferring translations achieved 53.5% and respondents
preferring non-translations achieved 55% of correct answers.
65
In the following graph, the purple colour marks how many percents of
respondents preferring translations identified more translations than nontranslations
correctly, whereas the blue colour marks how many percents of
respondents preferring non-translations identified more non-translations than
translations correctly.
Figure 13. % of CA according to reading preferences
T>NT I I 20
NT>T
66
•
• Prefer T
• Prefer NT
20 40 60 80
This figure shows one important fact. Respondents preferring nontranslations
were more successful in identifying non-translated extracts than
respondents preferring translations in identifying translated extracts - 66% of
respondents preferring non-translations identified non-translated extracts
correctly, but only 20% of respondents preferring translations identified
translated extracts correctly.
Hypothesis 11: Generally, the more respondents read the better results
they achieve.
Reality: This is not true.
66
Table 4.7 Time spend by reading
Criteria 20 33 40 47 53 60 67 73 80 87
Total nr
of Rs
% of CA
up to 1 hour 2 1 2 2 8 4 1 1
21 58
1-5 hours 7 5 11 15 14 10 6 1
69 55
5 and more 1 1 2 12 9 4 5 4
38 52
Note: Rs - respondents, C A - correct answers
Surprisingly, the more respondents read the lower percentage of correct
answers they achieved. For example, respondent with the lowest percentage of
correct answers read 5 or more hours a week, whereas the respondent with the
highest percentage of correct answers read up to 1 hour a week. It is necessary
to say that we do not know, how many hours a week the respondents spent by
reading literature necessary for their studies. The results may be biased
therefore.
Hypothesis 12: I do not expect ease/difficulty of the decision-making process
may influence the percentage of correct answersReality:
This hypothesis is true.
Table 4.8 Decision-making process
Decision 20% 27% 33% 40% 47% 53% 60% 67% 73% 80% 87% Totals
%of
CA
NAE 1 1 1 1 4 52
ME 1 3 12 9 10 8 5 48 57
MD 1 2 7 2 11 10 11 9 5 1 1 60 50
NAD 2 2 1 6 5 1 1 18 53
TOTALS 1 2 10 8 25 26 26 19 11 1 1 130
Note: NAE - nearly always easy, ME - mostly easy, MD - mostly difficult, NAD - nearly always
difficult, CA - correct answers
67
We can observe that the majority of the respondents marked the
decisions as "generally" difficult (78 respondents), in comparison with only 52
respondents who marked the decision as "generally" easy. In general, it can be
said that the ease/difficulty of the decision-making process did not have
influence on the percentage of correct answers since the differences among
these groups were not significant.
Hypothesis 13: Generally, I think people underestimate their results and
the results of the surveyReality:
This is not trueTable
4.9 Guesses on results
In comparison with the
reality
Respondent's correct
answers tip
Research tip
Higher tip (58%) (54%)
Same tip (3%)
Lower tip (39%) (46%)
We can observe from the above data that 58% of respondents guessed
higher percentage of correct answers than they achieved in the reality.
Similarly, 54% of respondents guessed higher percentage of correct answers of
the survey than it was. Only 3% of respondents guessed the percentage of their
correct answers correctly. No respondent guessed the percentage of correct
answers of the whole research correctly.
To provide just the most interesting numbers, the respondent with the
lowest percentage of correct answers (20%) guessed 30% for himself and 50%
for the survey. Two respondents with the highest percentage of correct answers
68
(80% and 87%), guessed both 70% for the survey and the respondent with 80%
guessed 65% and the respondent with 87% guessed 50% for her.
Hypothesis 14: I expect some of the extracts might be easier and some
more difficult to identify.
Reality: This hypothesis is true.
In table 4.10, the colours represent the following: blue is for the correct
answers, red is for extracts that had lower percentage of correct answers than
the overall result was, and green is for extracts that had higher percentage of
correct answers than the overall result was.
Tab. 4.113 - Particular extracts
NT% T% CD%
E l 35 65 0
E2 36 61 3
E3 41 54 5
E4 23 74 3
E5 59 34 7
E6 65 29 6
E 7 58 38 3
E8 24 68 8
E9 27 68 5
E10 53 40 7
E l l 61 32 8
E12 43 48 8
E 13 30 63 7
E14 65 33 2
E15 55 39 6
From the last column, it is observable that there was only one extract (E1
- a detective story by Skvorecky) where the respondents did not use the option
/ cannot decide. Probably, this may be also given because it was the first
extract.
69
The range of the percentage of correct answers started at 30% and
ended at 74%. Extracts with the lowest percentage of correct answers were E1,
E13 (non-translation by Koukolik from the popular-scientific literature) and E14
(translation by Koukolik from the same genre). It is surprising that his translation
was considered to be a non-translation and vice versa. Probably, the translation
contained more unique items than the non-translation.
E4 (detective story by Wallace) had such high percentage because
despite thorough checking both my supervisor and I had overlooked an extralinguistic
feature in the extract - a unit of measurement used in the Great Britain
- a foot. Unfortunately, quite a high number of respondents referred to this
extra-linguistic feature in their comments.
From the last line of the table, it is observable that translations had higher
percentage of correct answers - 60% in comparison with 51% at nontranslations.
It is also observable that the lowest percentage was reached in the
genre of popular-scientific texts (E13, E14), whereas the highest ones were
achieved in the genre of travel books/magazines. (E8, E9)
70
4.3 PRESENTING THE RESPONDENTS'COMMENTS
First, I offer the extracts analysis from the research's point of view. Then I
discuss the comments with regard to the percentage of correct answers
achieved with the particular extracts. The summary of comments collected from
the respondents follows. I also present some general comments that appeared
often or that I considered useful for the further surveys and some comments
referring to extra-linguistic features the respondents identified in the extracts.
Since the comments had to be translated into English, the original
comments can be found as follows:
> Processed comments in the summary are presented without the Czech
originals and the number of the respondents.
> Translated comments appear again without the Czech originals, but the
number of the respondent (and the relevant extract if needed)
accompanies them.
4.3.1 RESEARCHER'S ANALYSIS OF THE EXTRACTS
It is necessary to state here that despite the most possible objectivity of the
extracts analysis, the absolute objectivity was impossible especially with regard
to unique items. The system of marking the features is the following: translation,
non-translation, ambiguous, unique items
71
E1 - non-translation - Škvoreckýs štěbetavé hlasy
Jejich výskání a štěbetavé hlasy, podmalované zurčením vody a hudbou,
kterou jim pro osvěžení mysli pouštěl do sprch z reproduktoru vrátný, rozléhaly
se prostorou umývárny. Sprchy stály v řadě vedle sebe, odděleny přepážkami a
opatřeny závěsy z igelitu. Za těmi se rýsovaly obrysy nahých dívčích těl. Dívky
se bavily jedna s druhou přes přepážky, hodně nahlas, aby překřičely tu
moderní směsici hudby a mechanických rámusů, myly si vlasy a půjčovaly si
mýdlo. Štíhlá, pevná těla se krásně leskla v bílém světle a proudy vody odnášely
šminku a pot právě absolvované generálky. Přátelská výměna mýdel a
jiných toaletních předmětů čile pokračovala v překotném hlaholu. "Holky,
která jste mi ukradla ručník?" ječela bruneta, jež stála dosud v koupacím plášti
před krajní kójí.
Generally, the text is very fluent and coherent without any disturbances.
The sentences are complex, but not complicated - for example the first
sentence. Word order sounds Czech. There are many beautiful Czech words
and phrases in this extract. However, some features might be confusing for the
respondents, for example, "šminku" or "koupacím plášti". These words might be
considered translated, since they are not typical for Czech (we tend to use
rather "make-up" and "župan") or, on the contrary unique items - "šminka" is
closely connected with the theatre. The cohesion "...závěsy z igelitu. Za těmi..."
sounds unique, on the other hand, it might sound weird to some respondents as
it is not very typical to start a sentence with a prepositions followed by a
pronoun. Phrases marked blue do not sound very Czech. To sum it up, the rich
and colourful vocabulary can help the respondents to identify the extract as a
non-translation.
Unigue items: (W - words, PH - phrases, CO - cohesion)
W: štěbetavé, šminku
PH: podmalované zurčením, čile pokračovala, překotném hlaholu, koupacím
plášti
CO: ... závěsy z igelitu. Za těmi...
72
E 2 - translation - Francis's postava k nezaplacení
„Když jsem vás pozvala na skleničku, myslela jsem... skleničku něčeho
pořádného." „Nemám žízeň," vysvětloval jsem. „Zato mám mírný otřes mozku,
a taky ještě musím jet vozem." „Ano, to je pravda." Přece jen trošku změnila
chování vůči mně. Sedl jsem si bez vyzvání. V minulosti jsem se mnohokrát
praštil do hlavy, ale tentokrát to bylo po tříleté pauze a díky tomu jsem se z toho
asi neuměl tak rychle oklepat. Zklamaně se na mě podívala a šla si svléknout
krásný, blátem potřísněný plášť. Měla na sobě zcela jednoduché šaty, jaké si
mohou dovolit jen velmi zámožní; postava, která se v těch šatech skrývala,
byla k nezaplacení. Mlčky zaznamenala můj tichý obdiv a přijala ho jako
samozřejmou zdvořilost. „Tak teď poslyšte: o tom, co se dnes odpoledne stalo,
jste zatím neřekl jediné slovo. Já bych ale od vás ráda slyšela, co myslíte, o co
vlastně těm dvěma chlapům mohlo jít?"
The number of correct answers is expected to be high here as there are
many features pointing to translation. The verb "vysvětloval" sounds weird in
this case. From the verb aspect point of view, the perfective "vysvětlil jsem", a
different verb ("odpověděl", "řekl") or no verb may sound more natural here. The
sentence as it is now is not very coherent. The collocation "lehký otřes" is used
in Czech, not "mírný otřes mozku". The phrase "jet vozem" sounds weird.
Czech would say rather "musím řídit". The word order in the following sentence
is not very Czech. Maybe "Přece jen chování vůči mně trošku změnila" or
"Přece jen se ke mně začala chovat jinak." would sound more Czech. In the
next sentence, Czech would use rather "a proto" instead of "a díky", Starting a
sentence with "Tak teď poslyšte:" is rather English. The last sentence is
incoherent, twice used "co" sounds unnatural. I would shorten it into "o co
myslíte, že těm dvěma chlapům vlastně mohlo jít". On the other hand, there are
some nice Czech phrases (see brown colour).
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases)
W: plášť
PH: skleničku něčeho pořádného, postava k nezaplacení
73
E3 - translation - Savers's cupital jako víla
To už jsem byl jako na koni, víte - sháněl jsem se hned po skrytém péru, které
tam jistě někde musilo být, a našel jsem je bez velkých obtíží. Zadní stěna
skříně se bez hluku otočila dovnitř a já se octl na vrcholu úzkého schodiště. Měl
jsem tolik rozumu, že jsem se zastavil a ujistil jsem se, že je možno otevřít
dveře skříně i zvnitřku, než jsem se pustil dále; také jsem si vybral jednu slušně
silnou paličku, kterou jsem našel mezi nástroji na poličkách - zbraň pro
nepředvídané příhody. Potom jsem za sebou zavřel dveře a cupital jako víla po
tom milém schodišti dolů. Dole byly další dveře, ale jejich tajemství jsem odhalil
velmi brzy. S pocitem příjemného rozčilení jsem je směle otevřel, maje v ruce
paličku pohotově k okamžité akci. Místnost však byla prázdná. Světlo z mé
svítilny se zalesklo na něčem tekutém a potom jsem našel vypinač na stěně.
This extract may be a teaser for respondents. There are some nice
Czech phrases and words (some of them are archaic - musilo, vypinač), the
readability of the extracts is quite high, and sentences are complex but not
complicated to follow. In the sentence structure coordination and subordination
(relative subordinate clauses) appear. The phrases in green might be confusing
for respondents as some may consider them a bad translation whereas some
may consider them unique items. Maje - participle is not very frequently used in
Czech, but again, some respondents may consider it a unique item. Some of
the phrases sound translated: bez hluku - without noise (maybe rather
nehlučně, tiše), octl na vrcholu - found myself on the top of.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
W: maje
PH:byl jako na koni, měl jsem tolik rozumu, příjemného rozčilení, cupital jako
víla, světlo z mé svítilny
74
E4 - translation - Wallace and Dianas dialogue
„Myslím, že už je mrtvý, bratře," obrátil se k doktorovi. Ten si s úlevou oddechl a
přisvědčil. „Ano, teď už bude mrtvý. Myslím, že voda stoupne za dvě minuty o
jednu stopu." „Zajeden a půl minuty o jednu stopu," opravil ho David. „Pro boha
živého, ušetřte ho!" vykřikla chraptivě Diana. „Dám vám všechno - všechno na
světě, co budete chtít. Jestli chcete peníze, dostanete je!" „Myslím, že by se na
něho měla podívat," ignoroval David její zoufalou prosbu. „Není tam světlo,"
upozornil doktor a zavrtěl hlavou. „No ovšem. Jsem ale hlupák, pokaždé
vypínáme světlo," řekl David a zdálo se, že už ho přešla zlost. „Voda přitéká do
cely malými otvory u země hodně rychle. Čerpáme ji až z velké nádrže pod
střechou a člověk, který se topí, nemůže vyplavat, protože má u nohou zátěž.
Jednou jeden vylezl na postel - pamatuješ si?" „Pamatuji," řekl doktor
pobaveně. „Museli jsme potom čerpat vodu do výše devíti stop, než se utopil."
The dialogue is quite coherent, with the variety of introductory verbs:
"obrátil se k, vykřikla chraptivě, opravil, ingnoroval". On the other hand, the
word order is sometimes strange - the first sentence. The register is too formal
for a detective story - "pamatuješ si, pamatuji, myslím". Some phrases sound
translated - "pokaždé vypínáme světlo" - "pokaždé zhasínáme", "jsem ale
hlupák" - rather "jsem to ale hlupák". Verb "myslím" is used too often. It is not
typically used this way in Czech. Probably the names might be considered
ambiguous since they are Czech as well as foreign.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
PH: Přešla zlost
75
E5 - non-translation - Zábrana s slowfox
Uklonil jsem se tomu chladnému měděnému slunci. Zelené oči vzhlédly
unaveně ke mně, cize, skoro nepřátelsky, že jsem se začal chystat na ránu
košem. Prohlížela si mě se strašlivou, mučivou lhostejností - a pak se růže
zdvihla a vplula do mé náruče, kterou jsem jí mechanicky nastavil, a obešel
jsem s ní předepsanými a rovněž mechanickými slowfoxovými kroky celý parket
kolem dokola, než jsem si uvědomil, že je to skutečnost. A když jsem si to
uvědomil, uvědomil jsem si taky, že pod dlaní své pravice cítím vlahý, měkký
dívčí bok, který byl stvořen jako brána života pro děti, které tahle růže jako
oltářní svícen bude jednou mít, nebo by měla mít, kulatou, vláčnou vláhu
ramínek a dívčí žebra s minimální tukovou vrstvou, jak tomu je u velmi
mladých dívek, velmi mladých, velmi pošetilých, které svou bezradnost
skrývají za bronzové masky nepřístupné krásy, a sebejistota se mi vrátila. Nad
námi nvl zpěvákův hlas:
This extract is full of similes, such as "chladnému měděnému slunci",
"růže jako oltářní svícen", "bronzové masky nepřístupné krásy". These similes
are marked as unique items together with "nyl zpěvákův hlas" and repetition of
some words (see the extract). Many nice Czech collocations can be found there
as well: "mučivou lhostejností", "vplula do mé náruče" or "obejít parket".
The phrase "s minimální tukovou vrstvou" may sound ambiguous to the
respondents. Some may consider it a bad translation, the other a unique item.
The sentences are complex with various conjunctions (že, a pak, a, a když, jak),
but mostly commas are used. This makes the text more difficult to read.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
PH: chladnému měděnému slunci, růže jako oltářní svícen, kulatou, vláčnou
vláhu ramínek, nyl zpěvákův hlas
CO:uvědomil, uvědomil jsem si taky, velmi mladých dívek, velmi mladých, velmi
pošetilých
76
E 6 - non-translation - pooinsettie
Vánoční hvězdě se také říká poinsettie, latinsky Euphorbia pulcherina, a patří
do velmi bohaté čeledi pryšcovitých. Na sváteční stůl ji nedáváme kvůli květům,
ale nápadným, nejčastěji červeným, ale také žlutým či růžovým listenům, které
nenápadná kvítka obklopují. Po uvadnutí tato květina končí většinou
v popelnici. Je to ale škoda, protože může sloužit léta. Když o ni budeme
správně pečovat, získáme pěkný rozvětveny keřík zdobící obydlí zářivými
barvami v době, kdy příliš rostlin nekvete. Nedlouho po Vánocích, většinou
během ledna, poinsettii začnou opadávat lístky - rostlina tím dává najevo, že
nastává čas jejího odpočinku. V tomto čase ji nehodíme do koše, ale
přeneseme na tmavší místo s teplotou 12 až 15 stupňů. Zaléváme velmi
opatrně, aby substrát nepřeschl.
The style of the article is purely descriptive and formal, which fits the
topic of the text. The text is coherent despite the author quite often used the
conjunction "ale" (four times). However, this conjunction is typical for Czech
language in adversive clauses. Diminutives ("kvítka", "keřík", "lístky") are
frequently used in the extract. They are also typical for Czech language. As far
as unique items are concerned, "listen" instead of "list" or "pečovat" instead of
"starat se" are nice examples. In "zaléváme velmi opatrně" an object is missing.
Mostly, we tend to say "zaléváme ji velmi opatrně".
Phrases "nedlouho po Vánocích" and "v tomto čase ji nehodíme do koše"
might be ambiguous for respondents, as they do not sound too Czech. The
dash used in sentence starting "Nedlouho..." may be considered a mark of
translation.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
W: listenům, kvítka, rozvětvený, pečovat
PH: Zaléváme velmi opatrně
77
E7 - non-translation - ječivá fistule
Ještě léta předtím, než jsem se stala matkou, vlastně léta předtím, než jsem si
přiznala, že bych vůbec dítě kdy chtěla, jsem si sepsala seznam věcí, které
jako matka NIKDY nebudu dělat. Například jsem si slíbila, že si nikdy
nenasliním prst, abych setřela zbytek večeře z tváře své ratolesti, stejně tak
nikdy nebudu plivat do kapesníku za stejným účelem. V seznamu na čelném
místě figuruje přísaha, že na své dítě nebudu nikdy šišlat. A už vůbec nebudu
zvedat hlas do ječivé fistule, pokaždé když se nahnu přes okraj postýlky. Tento
seznam pokračuje ještě dlouho, ale nemůžu jej zveřejnit, neboť hrozí, že
postupně všechny body poruším - a co byste si o mně pomysleli!
This extract is not as formal and descriptive as the previous one. On the
contrary, it contains expressive words, exclamation at the end or capital letters
for highlighting the word NIKDY. By the way, this word is used four times in the
whole extract.
There are some possible unique items such as "bych vůbec kdy chtěla",
"ratolesti" or "na čelném místě" and "figuruje" (instead of "na prvním místě" and
"is").
On the other hand, there are also features that might sound ambiguous
to respondents. Instead of "zbytek večeře" we tend to say a collocation "zbytek
jídla". Some respondents may consider the capital letters a sign of translation.
Lastly, there is a mistake in the comma after "fistule" - it is correct after
"pokaždé".
The phrase "seznam pokračuje ještě dlouho" sounds translated. In
Czech, we tend to use "mohla bych pokračovat ještě dlouho" or "seznam je
ještě dlouhý "or "seznam má ještě hodně bodů" or something like that.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
W: ratolesti
PH: na čelném místě figuruje, bych vůbec kdy chtěla
78
E8 - translation - mušlové peníze
Poté, co jsme si chvíli povídali, jedna starší paní vytáhla nějaké mušlové peníze
a přísně je v různých délkách rozložila na stole. Nastala živá diskuse o jejich
pořizování. Mušlové peníze se na celém Bismarckově souostroví různí. Typ z
Nového Irska se vyrábí blízko Nového Hannoveru. Dělá se ze stovek malých,
růžově zbarvených kotoučků o průměru asi sedmi milimetrů a silných asi
milimetr. Nepatrná dírka se vyvrtá uprostřed každého kotoučku a skupiny kolem
dvaceti se navlečou na tenkou černou nit, přerušované menším počtem bílých
kotoučků. Hodnota je odvozena od vzácnosti této růžové mušle Patella, sbírané
z korálových útesů. Moje šňůra byla dlouhá skoro metr a byla ukončena
červenou a žlutou perlou. Mušlové peníze se často používají, když se směňují
prasata a při vyjednávání o věnu nevěsty. Demas mi ji pověsil kolem krku a já
se cítil přiměřeně slavnostně.
At first sight, we can observe there are probably no unique items in this
extract. The readability together with coherence of the text is low. Sentences
are long and the clauses are usually connected by conjunction "a" or simply by
comma, which makes the reading even more difficult.
Many of the phrases and sentences sound translated, mostly due to
strange word order. "Přísně rozložila" is definitely not a Czech collocation, as
well as "cítil se přiměřeně slavnostně". The later phrase might be probably used
in some humoristic text but not in travel writing. Phrase "o průměru asi sedmi
milimetrů a silných asi milimetr" does not sound Czech as well. The following
sentence "nepatrná...kotoučků" has typical English word order: subject - verb object
- place in the first clause and subject - verb - object - place + post
modification. Phrase "byla ukončena" is a translation of passive voice that is
typical for English, but not for Czech. It would probably be better not to use two
different conjunctions in the clauses "když se směňují prasata a při vyjednávání
o věnu nevěsty". Lastly, the phrase "mušlové peníze" may sound ambiguous to
respondents. The phrase may be considered a translation but for some it may
sound unique.
79
E9 - translation - Dolminy stany
Bylo ujednáno, že opustím kraj dříve než Dolma. Ona a její skupina odjede o
dvě hodiny později a předhoní mě asi v poledne následujícího dne. Už dříve v
knize jsem se zmínil o tom, že viditelnost je na většině území Tibetu skvělá.
Také jsme dohodli velmi jednoduchou a účinnou metodu označení míst, kterými
budeme procházet. S nalezením místa, kde budou postaveny stany Dolmy a
jejích společníků, bych neměl mít nejmenší potíže. Hodinu nebo dvě po
soumraku jsem měl dvakrát zavýt jako vlk. Dolma pak opustí svůj stan a na
nějakou dobu se ke mně připojí. "Jsi si jistá, že tě pustí samotnou tak pozdě
pryč?"zeptal jsem se. "Ano," odpověděla. "Vymyslela jsem si to chytře. Obývám
totiž jednu polovinu stanu mé matky, která je od matčiny oddělena přepážkou.
Do mé části nesmí nikdo za žádných okolností vstoupit, pokud ho nezavolám.
Ani má matka to nedělá. Takže se vyplížím ven a pokusím se projít kolem muže
na stráži. Jestli mě uvidí, uplatím ho, aby mlčel."
The style of this extract is more balanced than in the previous case.
Nevertheless, the sentences are not very coherent and sound translated, such
as "Obývám totiž ... přepážkou." Czechs would omit "si" in sentence "Vymyslela
jsem si to chytře", since the verbs "vymyslet" and "vymyslet si" have different
meanings. Possessive pronouns are used too often ("její skupina", "jejích
společníků", "svůj stan", "mé matky," "mé části", and "má matka") and the
possessive phrases sound translated ("ona a její skupina" or "stany Dolmy").
Sometimes the passive voice sounds strange ("bylo ujednáno" or "budou
postaveny"). Verb "uplatím" may be ambiguous for respondents since we tend to
use "podplatím". Similarly, "muž na stráži" may sound rather translated, but both
features may be considered unique items. Still the text contains some nice
Czech collocations that might be marked as possible unique items: "skvělá
viditelnost", "nejmenší potíže".
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
PH: skvělá viditelnost, nejmenší potíže
80
E10 - non-translation - šílený šaman Mursi
A tak se po chvilce opravdu dostáváme až k chýši samotného šamana
šíleného kmene Mursi, která je na první pohled k nerozeznání od těch
ostatních. Jen na malý rozdíl, který pozná jen Afrikou cvičené oko, a to
zdobení malými comma skoro neviditelnými amulety, ve tvaru psaníček, kuliček,
kamínků a jiných nepatrných předmětů, zavěšených v různých částech
střechy, zábradlí nebo jen tak ledabyle pohozených na zemi. Jakmile bychom
přistoupili blíže bez očištění, nebo bychom se na neštěstí nějakého předmětu
dotkli, bylo by možná nenávratně zle. Černá magie šamanů těchto stále
nebezpečných kmenů je velice silná. Své umění si předávají kouzelníci z
generace na generaci a jejich síly jsou v přímém kontaktu s jejich mrtvými
předky. Po našich předchozích zkušenostech s voodoo už z celé jižní, střední
comma ale převážně západní Afriky comma se raději nepřibližujeme, aniž bychom
byli připraveni.
The extract is readable and fluent despite several grammatical mistakes:
"na neštěstí" has to be written as one word in Czech - "naneštěstí". There are
missing commas three times and there is one extra comma ("amulety,"). Some
of the phrases sound translated: "jen na malý rozdíl" - we tend to use "až na
malý rozdíl" in Czech. Collocation "černá magie je silná" sounds weird. Words
like "mocná" or "účinná" may be better.
Still, the text contains features typical for Czech language, such as
diminutives "psaníček", "kuliček", "kamínků". Phrases "na první pohled k
nerozeznání" and "Afrikou cvičené oko" are possible unique items as well as
words "chýše" and "ledabyle". Phrase "nenávratně zle" may be considered
ambiguous by respondents as it is not very typical collocation, but again, it may
be considered a unique item. Similarly, word "nepatrných" is a possible unique
item.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
W: chýši, nepatrných, ledabyle
PH: nenávratně zle, Afrikou cvičené oko, na první pohled k nerozeznání
81
E11 - non-translation - neviděla reálně
Zanedlouho už jsem tak tak pletla nohama, začalo mi být špatně a na nohách
jsem měla obrovské puchýře. A to nás ještě čekal finální výstup na vrchol, který
se prudkým stoupáním táhl asi 2 kilometry. To jsem neviděla reálně, protože
nám v té chvíli definitivně došla voda. Když jsme se zastavili před kopcem,
zatočila se mi hlava. Já už tam nedojdu, nech mě tady a jdi sám, prohlásila
jsem směrem k příteli. Ten mě podpořil, donutil mě sníst zbytek jídla, které
jsme měli a společně jsme se asi po dvou hodinách doplazili na vrchol. Můžu
říct, že tehdy jsem si opravdu poprvé v životě sáhla na dno svých sil. Ta radost,
když jsem spatřila naše auto, byla neuvěřitelná!
The extract is fluent, coherent and readable. It contains number of Czech
words and collocations, such as "tak tak pletla nohama", "neuvěřitelná radost",
"prohlásila jsem směrem k příteli", "můžu říct" (this is a nice phrase used often
in spoken language) or "doplazili". The linking "...k příteli. Ten..." may be
considered a unique item.
Nevertheless, respondents might consider some phrases ambiguous.
"Neviděla reálně" might be considered both a translation and a non-translation.
Instead of "sáhla na dno svých sil" we tend to omit the possessive pronoun and
use only a collocation "na dno sil".
Instead of "finální výstup" we tend to use a collocation "závěrečný
výstup". Word "definitivně" sounds also rather translated.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
W:
PH: pletla nohama, neviděla reálně
CO: ... směrem k příteli. Ten mě...
82
E 12 - non-translation - poodhalení
K poodhalení stačil podvečerní okamžik, kdy jsem pozoroval baterkou svítící
očička sladkovodních krabů a raků, kteří číhali na svůj úlovek v průzračně
čistém potoce. Jakmile to uviděli strážci parku a průvodci, ihned se vrhli do
potoka a všechny živočichy vylovili. Nechápal jsem, jak může ranger lovit
zvířata v parku, a to ještě před turisty? Strážci se chvíli ošívali, vymlouvali se,
že to jsou jen lovecké instinkty. Prý byl v minulosti každý strážce pytlákem a
pár krabů parku neublíží. Pravdou zůstává, že strážci, kteří byli v minulosti
lovci, jsou opravdovým pokladem, protože znají dokonale terén a i různé finty
pytláků.
The extract is coherent and fluent. Sentences are complex; the author
used coordination - usually with conjunction "a"- and subordination. Once he
used a question: "Nechápal jsem....turisty?"
The only thing that sounds translated is "živočichy". Some phrases like
"baterkou sivítící očička" or "pravdou zůstává" may be considered ambiguous.
Instead of "pravdou zůstává" phrases "pravda je", "pravdou je" or "fakt je" may
be used in Czech.
Phrase "podvečerní okamžik" may be considered a unique item.
Similarly, words "poodhalení", "očička" - nice diminutive, "číhali", "ošívali", "prý",
and "pár krabů" - nice example of colloquial Czech expression.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, CO - cohesion)
W: poodhalení, očička, ošívali, číhali, prý
PH: podvečerní okamžik, pár krabů
83
E13 - non-translation - ... a past se usmála
Kdo nesnese vyprávění o nádeničině a nudě, nechť tuto kapitolu přeskočí.
Nešlo mi toho moc. Počítání nervových buněk v lidském mozku mi nešlo snad
ze všeho nejvíce. Začalo jako typická a lákavá past. Že existuje celá teorie
pasti popisující lákadlo u vstupu, cestu dovnitř, rostoucí investice, čím dál zaťatější
zuby i závěrečné trpké poznání, jsem zjistil až o spoustu let později na
případu provazochodce, jenž se vydal na lano napjaté mezi dvěma mrakodrapy.
Byl to zkušený muž, přesto pokračoval v cestě po laně, i když se objevily
prudké závany větru. "Nevzdám to," říkal si tak dlouho, než ho jeden z poryvů
shodil dolů. Moje past se na mne usmála před více než dvaceti lety v průběhu
rozmluvy o tom, jak stárne lidský mozek. Snědla mi hezký kus z několika let
práce. Nutila mne, abych se k ní neustále vracel.
The sentence structure is appropriate to the style and the text is
coherent. This extract is full of nice Czech expressions and collocations,
however, several phrases may be difficult to attribute for respondents.
To start with the Czech words and collocations, "náděničina" is one of
them. "Zaťatější" is a beautiful Czech adjective and thanks to its originality, it
can be considered a unique item. "Trpké poznání" and "rostoucí investice" are
examples of Czech collocations. Phrase "typická a lákavá past" is rather
ambiguous. "Lákavá past" is a nice collocation but the connection "typická a
lákavá" sounds strange. "Past se na mne usmála" may be an example of unique
Sentence "Snědla mi hezký kus z několika let práce" sounds like a
pursuit of originality, but in the end it is rather contra productive. "Nešlo snad ze
všech nejvíce" reminds of "šlo snad ze všech nejméně" and it is a possible
unique item.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
W: zaťatější, nádeničině
PH: nešlo snad ze všeho nejvíce, past se na mne usmála, trpké poznání
CO:
item.
84
E14 - translation - bizarní nápad
Jednou z věcí, které na umění matou nejvíc, je, že jsou jeho podoby natolik
četné a rozmanité, že vzdorují všem snahám o nalezení společného
jmenovatele. Co má niterně společného japonská kaligrafie s heavy metalovým
koncertem? (Bizarní nápad - vůbec nic, proboha.) Přesto jde v obou
případech o umění, které poznáme, vnímáme-li ho. Podobnou rétorickou
otázku lze položit ve vztahu ke sportu: co mají společného stolní tenis s jízdou
na plachetnici? Tak málo jako kaligrafie s heavy metalem. Opět je analogie
mezi uměním a sportem nevyhnutelná, neboť sport stejně jako umění zahrnuje
velký počet odlišných činností vzdorujících společnému jmenovateli. Mám za to,
že podstata umění nespočívá ani tak v niterných vlastnostech uměleckého
objektu (v širokém slova smyslu), jako v povaze toho, co pro nás takový objekt
znamená. Domnívám se, že původ a funkce umění jsou blízké původu a funkci
sportu.
The text is coherent and fluent. Sentences are complex and easy to
follow. Rhetorical questions are used: "Co má koncertem?" or "co mají
společného stolní tenis s jízdou na plachetnici?". The sentence in the brackets
"(Bizarní nápad - vůbec nic, proboha.)" may sound like a translator' s comment
or like a unique item. Similarly, phrases "mám za to" and "domnívám se" may
be ambiguous for respondents - is it a sign of translation or a sign of the genre?
"Nalezení společného jmenovatele" is a nice example of a unique simile.
In the same way, phrase "vzdorují snahám" is a nice Czech collocation.
"Vnímáme-li" may be considered a unique item as well since this form of
condition is not very frequent. We tend to use the whole sentence "pokud ho
vnímáme".
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
W: vnímáme-li, niterných
PH: vzdorují snahám nalezení společného jmenovatele
CO: (Bizarní nápad - vůbec nic, proboha.)
85
E15 - non-translation - kosmická cenzura
Když hvězda vyčerpá své zásoby jaderného paliva, vypne se v jejím nitru
termonukleární reaktor, jenž svým výkonem udržoval látku hvězdy na vysoké
teplotě. Poklesne-li teplota, sníží se i tlak. Hvězdný materiál "změkne", hvězda
se začne vlastní tíhou bortit. Její konečný osud závisí na její hmotnosti. Hvězdy
podobné Slunci končí jako bílí trpaslíci, hmotnější v kolapsu pokračují dál, až
se zhroutí na malou, suprahustou neutronovou hvězdu. Má-li však hvězda v
závěru svého vývoje hmotnost větší než tři Slunce, pak už nic nemůže zabránit
tomu, aby se zhroutila do bodu - změnila se v černou díru. Černé díry jsou
pozoruhodné kosmické útvary, jejichž existenci předpovídá moderní teorie
gravitace - obecná teorie relativity. Přitažlivost v černé díře je tak mocná, že z
ní nemůže uniknout nic, ani paprsek světla. Vše může dovnitř, nic nemůže ven.
Úřaduje tu absolutní kosmická cenzura - nikdy se nemůžeme dovědět, co se
v černé díře děje. Navenek se černá díra projevuje jen svým gravitačním polem.
The register of the extract is formal, but it is relevant to the genre. The
text is easy to follow despite the specialized vocabulary. Sentences are
complex and mostly coordination is used.
The only phrase that sounds translated is "se nemůžeme dovědět".
There are not so many unique items in comparison with, for example, extracts
by Škvorecký or Zábrana, but it is given by the genre. Still, we can find there a
nice phrase "absolutní kosmická cenzura" or verbs "bortit" and "zhroutí".
"Přitažlivost" usually collocates with "silná" and therefore "mocná" may
sound untypical to respondents.
Unique items: (W - words, PH - phrases, C O - cohesion)
W: bortit zhroutí
PH: jako bílí trpaslíci, absolutní kosmická cenzura
CO:
86
4.3.2 PARTICULAR EXTRACTS
Now, I present the extracts one by one. Firstly, I offer the most frequent
comments used by the respondents that were connected with translations and
non-translations. Then I discuss the findings, possible reasons for the
percentage achieved at the extracts and offer some of the comments that may
help with the interpretation of the results. At the end of the chapter, I present
extra-linguistic features that were mentioned in connection with particular
extracts. On the attached CD, it is possible to find the particular extracts where
the words and phrases the respondents mostly referred to in their comments
were highlighted.
To start with, it is important to mention here that if all the respondents had
commented on the extracts, it was possible to get 1950 comments (15 extracts
x 130 respondents). In the reality, I collected 457 comments, which was only
23% out of the possible number. From those 457 comments, only 41% were
from the respondents who achieved the percentage of correct answers higher
than the overall result of the survey (54.5%). This means that respondents with
lower percentage of correct answers tent to comment on their decisions more
than respondents who achieved higher percentage of correct answers.
In the following analysis, I decided to refer to the number of the respondent
in connection with particular comments and to offer the number of achieved
percentage of correct answers so that the reader was enabled to match easily
the particular comments with their informative value.
In the next part, the extracts are accompanied with the following data:
• the number and "title" for easier orientation,
87
• the origin (a translation or a non-translation),
• percentage of correct answers achieved at the extract,
• number of comments on the extract,
• number of comments referring to translation and non-translation.
In tables, the summary of the comments is offered and then the
interpretation of the comments linked to the researcher's analysis comes.
E1 - non-translation - Škvoreckýs štěbetavé hlasy, 35% of correct
answers (CA), 65 comments
non-translation (23 comments) translation (42 comments)
o Rich, Czech, and expressive
vocabulary
o Czech and usual word order
and sentence structure
o Long and complicated
sentences
o Cumulating of subordinate
sentences and adjectives
o Does not sound Czech
o Unnatural word order and
sentence structure
Contrary to my expectations, the extract had very low percentage of
correct answers. What I considered original and Czech, most of the
respondents considered deviant and unnatural, such as, for example, words
"podmalované", "za těmi", or "šminku"
The examples of some of the comments may make clear why the
percentage of correct answers was so low. Two respondents (R36 - 33%, R65
- 53%) who marked the extract as a translation, suggested that all the
unnaturalness might have been an intention of the author, one respondent (R90
- 47%) stated "it might have been written by someone who wanted to be
different at any price just by something untypical". One of the respondents
(R119 - 60%) even described the extract as "almost like translated by an
88
automatic translator". It is quite clear from the comments that the respondents
were aware of the unique style of the extract, but they perceived it mostly
negatively.
Archaic vocabulary, which was considered mostly positive in connection
with E3 (Sayers's capital jako Vila) or E5 (Zabrana's slowfox), was marked here
as "inadequate to the probable time, when the story takes place"; nevertheless,
the respondent (R108 - 60%) did not specify the time anyhow. Respondent 26
(53%) wrote: "Czech writer would not try to use such clumsy constructions". If
R108 evaluated the archaic vocabulary as "inadequate", the register caught
respondent Nr. 76 (87% - the highest percent of CA achieved in the survey)
positively: "I believe that this often 'archaic' language wouldn't probably be so
nicely used by today's modern translator as here. It sounds natural to me here".
One comment was connected with the time of publishing this detective
story (R41 - 53%): "Sentence structure and choice of phrases reminds me of
fiction of the period of normalization. I would be surprised if this is a translation
since with regard to the English sentence structure it would mean that the
translator completely transformed the original". Moreover, in other respondent's
opinion (R118 - 67%) "the sentence structure is too atypical to be caused by
bad (clumsy) translation. Rather it seems to me like about a half a century old
Czech text."
To sum it up, most of the features mentioned in the comments (sentence
structure, vocabulary, word order or unusual phrases) emerged in connection
with translation and non-translation as well. Features marked by the researcher
as unique items in the extract seemed to be unique for some of the respondents
89
whereas for other strange and too untypical. Later we found out that this
subjectivity in evaluation of linguistic features was traceable at all the extracts.
E2 - translation - Francis's postava k nezaplacení, 61% of CA, 41
comments
non-translation (9 comments) translation (32 comments)
o Czech sentence structure
o Fluent language
o Sounds naturally
o Does not sound Czech, sounds
English
o Word-by-word translations, bad
translation
o Unusual punctuation
o Strange word order and too
formal register
The percentage of correct answers was one of the highest here. The
number of the comments was still high as well (more than 30% of the
respondents commented on this extract). Similarly, some of the linguistic
features appeared in connection with a translation as well as with a nontranslation.
In some of the comments, extra-linguistic features were mentioned
but these are discussed later in this chapter.
From the translation point of view, most of the respondents refer to the
similar words and phrases as the researcher ("jet vozem", "chování vůči mně" or
"a díky tomu") they even added some other phrases such as "to je pravda" or
"neuměl se oklepat". However, no respondent commented on words marked as
unique items by the researcher.
90
E3 - translation - Sayers's cupital jako víla, 54% of CA, 46 comments
non-translation (19 comments) translation (25 comments)
o Archaic language
o Fluency and good coherence
o Too long sentences
o Phrases that sound translated
and not Czech
o Too formal style and unsuitable
vocabulary
o "jsem" used too often
Note: 2 comments were from Rs who chose the option / cannot decide
The percentage of correct answers was slightly under the overall result of
the survey (54.5%). Most of the respondents who marked the extract as a nontranslation
referred to vocabulary and coherence. Many of them focused on the
archaic vocabulary used in this extract (R24 - 67%, R47 - 33%, R50 - 53%,
R114 - 53%, etc). R47 claimed: "The author uses archaic or not frequently used
forms of words and verbs. Of course, it might be an excellent translation by an
excellent translator as well - such who not only translates but also re-tells a
book in his own words. Unfortunately, there are not many such translators;
therefore I chose 'non-translation'." Another comment, a very subjective one,
was from R119 - 60%: "Specific language phrases and words. I cannot exactly
say WHY, but it has such 'Czech atmosphere', almost like from some tavern".
In the same way, respondents marking the extract as a translation
referred to the vocabulary as well, but they mostly claimed that many words and
phrases sound translated, some of them even offered the English originals. For
example R120 - 40%: "Anglicism: víte (you know), bez hluku (better tiše), na
vrcholu schodiště (on the top of...), ujistil jsem se (I made sure?), etc."
As it was expected, this extract was not easy to attribute to the correct
category. Words and phrases researcher marked as ambiguous and unique
91
items turned out to be ambiguous for the respondents since some marked them
as translated and some as original.
E4 - translation - Wallace and Diana's dialogue, 74% of CA, 49 comments
non-translation (5 comments) translation (41 comments)
o nice reading
o transparent sentence
o natural text
o Too formal register
o Deviant direct speech
(introductory verbs)
o Unnatural, not very fluent
Note: 3 respondents could not decide
At the very beginning it is necessary to say that despite my supervisor's
and my careful reading of the extracts, one extra-linguistic feature was
overlooked - the English unit of measurement "foot". Due to this fact, the
percentage of correct answers was probably biased. Thirty-one out of forty-nine
respondents who comment on the extract refer to the "foot" as to a feature that
helped them to identify the origin of the extract. Nevertheless, one of these
respondents (R65 - 53%) claimed: "Use of an old unit of measurement evokes
the text of the (English) original, but it may also be a way of evoking the
atmosphere of Anglophonic culture." R93 (47%) chose the option / cannot
decide because "it might be a translation with regard to the content - feet are
not Czech units of measurement, also name Diana is not Czech. On the other
hand, from the grammar point of view the text acts purely Czech, therefore I do
not know." R4 - 47% said: "This looks like some amateur. It is full of 'fekl' and
'myslim "'.
If the respondents commenting on "foot" were excluded, the percentage
of CA would be 55%, which would be only 0.5% more than the overall result of
the survey.
92
E5 - non-translation - Zábrana s slowfox, 59% of CA, 26 comments
non-translation (12 comments) translation (11 comments)
o Beautiful Czech words and
collocations
o Long and complex sentences
o Nicely written and coherent
o Poorly written
o Long sentences
o Unusual word order
Note: 3 respondents could not decide
Most of the respondents who marked the extract as a non-translation
referred to vocabulary and claimed that the extract was "nicely written". R32 -
47% even claimed: "It is such crazy text that I do not believe someone would
translate it so madly (and interestingly at the same time)".
Also in connection with this text opposite comments on one linguistic
feature appeared. R100 - 53% who marked the extract as a translation
evaluates the sentences as "terrible long untypical for Czech language"
whereas for example R106 - 73% thought that the sentences were "untypically
long for English".
Surprisingly, respondents listed almost no particular phrases, except
"růže se zdvihla" and "slowfoxovými kroky".
E6 - non-translation - poinsettie, 65% of CA, 26 comments
non-translation (11 comments) translation (13 comments)
o Natural flow of the text
o Czech expressions
o Typical journalistic style
o Balanced register
o Low cohesion
o Incorrect sentence structure
Note: 2 respondents could not decide
In several cases, the respondent marked the extract as a translation only
on the base of one phrase or sentence (R21 - 47%, R134 - 33%). R118 - 67%
93
commented on the style of the extract: "Text acts as secondary school pupil's
homework to translate an article from Friendship. Maybe it is due to the more
specific topic of the text but it seems to me stylistically too simple and I do not
find some sentence structures suitable as well." Most of the respondents
commented on the same phrases and words as the researcher.
E7 - non-translation - ječivá fistule, 58% of CA, 26 comments
non-translation (14 comments) translation (12 comments)
o Naturally Czech
o Correct sentence structure
o Nice Czech expressions
o Phrases that Czech would not
use
o Translated phrases
o Clumsiness
The percentage of correct answers was lower in comparison with the
previous extract. Probably, it might be given by the fact that the author of the
article has spent some time in the USA and English might influence the
language. However R118 - 67% claimed: "The text acts absolutely naturally.
The author is a woman with the typical Czech sense of humour in my opinion."
Some of the words and phrases mentioned by the researcher appeared
in the respondents' comments, in addition they referred also to "léta před tím"
(R94 - 33%, R100 - 73%, and R114 - 53%). All of them considered that phrase
translated.
E8 - translation - mušlové peníze, 68% of CA, 30 comments
non-translation (2 comments) translation (26 comments)
o Czech specialized style
o Looks like correct
o Unnatural and jerky sentence
structure
o Phrases that sound translated
o Low readability and cohesion
Note: 2 respondents could not decide
94
Most of these comments connected with this extract were negative and
referred to sentence structure and cohesion. Several times the evaluations like
"horror" (R44 - 53%) or "a terrific translation" (R60 - 53%) emerged. Some of
the respondents commented on extra-linguistic features, which I found
surprising because this extract was about travelling, therefore these features
might have been expected. As R93 - 47% claimed: "It is probably a translation
with regard to the content, but Czech may have such experience as well."
Most of the words and phrases marked by the researcher appeared in
the comments from respondents as well: "mušlové peníze", "přiměřeně
slavnostně", "přísně rozložila" or the passive constructions "byla dlouhá" and
"byla ukončena". Moreover, they added phrases "skupiny kolem dvaceti",
"nastala živá diskuse" or "v různých délkách na stole".
Unfortunately, no respondents who attributed the extract to the category
of non-translations commented on their decision.
E9 - translation - Dolminy stany, 68% of CA, 26 comments
non-translation (3 comments) translation (21 comments)
o Short sentences
o Stylistically one of the better in
this genre
o Phrases that sound English
o Passive voice
o Unnatural (short) sentences
o Too formal register
Note: 2 respondents could not decide
This was another extract with high percentage of correct answers. All
respondents who marked the extract as a non-translation or could not decide
wrote, "if this is a translation then a good one". Again, respondents commented
especially on unnatural sentences and phrases. R85 - 67% came up with
95
possible original structures: "stany Dolmy - Dolma's tents, Jsi si jista? - Are
you sure?" Similarly, as in the previous extract, almost no unique items that
respondents could refer to appeared in the extract. This supports the unique
items hypothesis that such items tend to appear in non-translations.
E10 - non-translation - šílený šaman Mursi, 53% of CA, 24 comments
non-translation (14 comments) translation (10 comments)
o Sounds like original
o Cohesion
o Complex sentence structure
o Grammar mistakes
o Clumsiness
o English constructions
The percentage of correct answers at this extract was slightly under the
overall result (54.5%). Surprisingly, no respondent was puzzled by proper
names contained in the extract (Mursi, Afrika). This time, respondent also
marked most of the words and phrases marked by the researcher as unique
items as original. Similarly, respondents had the same words and phrases
marked as translated. One of the respondents (R26 - 53%) referred to the
punctuation mistake in the text as to something "that is rather to happen to a
Czech author than to a translator".
To sum it up, most of the respondents who marked the extract as a nontranslation
referred to the unique items contained in the text.
E11 - non-translation - neviděla reálně, 61% of CA, 23 comments
non-translation (10 comments) translation (11 comments)
o Feeling
o Czech idioms a collocations
o Wrong punctuation
o Unnatural phrases
Note: 2 respondents could not decide
Despite this extract was written by a Czech author living in the USA for
some time and therefore the language of the author might be influenced by
96
English, many respondents found there Czech collocations: "tak tak plést
nohama", "doplazit se na vrchol" or "prohlásila jsem směrem k příteli". Phrase
"to jsem neviděla reálně" was three times marked as translated (R44 - 53%,
R79 - 67%, and R88 - 60%) and three times as original (R74 - 73%, R83 -
47%, and R120 - 73%). R60 - 53% claimed: "It might be Czech language of
someone who often uses English."
Generally, the respondents referred to the same features as the
researcher.
E12 - non-translation - poodhalení, 43% of CA, 19 comments
non-translation (12 comments) translation (7 comments)
o Fluent and natural
o Czech expressions and
phrases
o Particular words
o Listed examples of words and
phrases, see the enclosed CD
The respondents achieved low percentage of correct answers here. This
might be given by the fact that 22% of men were not able to decide about this
extract. Out of the total number, only three comments were from men. Two
marked the extract as a non-translation (R30 - 47% and R119 - 60%) and one
as a translation (R74 - 73%). Unfortunately, it was impossible to find any
reason why the extract was so difficult do decide about since only three men
wrote some comments. Generally, low number of the respondents commented
on the extract in any way. If any comment appeared, then it was a list of words
but no explanation. The only comment on the translation I can present here is
from R26 - 53%: "The word poodhaleni seems to me like a looking for a word
that would fit the original expression."
97
E13 - non-translation - a past se usmála, 30% of CA, 20 comments
non-translation translation (18 comments)
o English sentence structure
o Does not sound Czech
o Strange words
Note: 2 respondents could not decide
At this extract, the respondents achieved the lowest percentage of
correct answers. None of the 30% of respondents who marked the extract
correctly wrote comments on their decision, therefore no comparison with the
researcher's analysis could be done. Only several respondents who
commented on the extract provided me with examples of particular words,
phrases or sentences they consider translated. They referred to "nešlo mi toho
moc", "existuje teorie pasti", "zjistil na příkladu", "rozmluva o tom", "past se na
mne usmála", "prudké závany větru", "snědla mi hezký kus z několika let práce"
or "zkušený muž".
To sum it up, phrases that were considered unique items by the
researcher ("past se na mne usmála" and "nešlo mi toho moc") were marked as
translated by respondents who commented on the extract. Some of the phrases
that the researcher referred to ("zaťatější" or "nádeničina") were not mentioned
in the comments.
E14 - translation - bizarní nápad, 33% of CA, 19 comments
non-translation (14 comments) translation (4 comments)
o Natural sounding sentences
o Feeling
o Czech language
o Unusual sentence structure
o Rhetorical question
o Grammar
Note: 1 respondent could not decide
98
The percentage of correct answers the respondents achieved at this
extract was the second lowest one. In addition to the above comments, R100 -
53% added that there were "no traces of translation faults" and R26 - 53%
thought that "the words exactly hit what the author wants to say, the words by
no means look like Czech equivalents that were sought with difficulty, therefore
I think it is a non-translation".
In connection with phrase "co mají společného", a mention of translators'
competence appeared again (R44 - 53%): "correctly it should be co má
společného. It is of course possible that translators know the grammar better
than authors, but it is often a phrase inadvertently taken from a foreign
language during the translation process."
Again, the respondents mentioned no particular phrases or words.
E15 - non-translation - kosmická cenzura, 55% of CA, 17 comments
non-translation (9 comments) translation (8 comments)
o Natural
o Fluent
o too many possessive pronouns
o unnatural and complicated
sentence punctuation
Although the number of comments was the lowest one, the respondents
mentioned some particular words and phrases in their comments. Phrases
"látka hvězd", "mocná přitažlivost", "až se zhroutí na malou hvězdu" and extra
possessive pronouns were considered translated. Respondents who marked
the extract as a non-translation did not mention any particular examples. None
of the phrases expected to be mentioned here ("bortit","jako bílí trpaslíci",
„zhroutí", „absolutní kosmická cenzura") did not appear.
99
4.3.2 SUMMARY OF THE COMMENTS
Before I move to the summary itself, it seems to me important to mention here
two general facts about the comments. There were fifteen extract in the
questionnaire. With the rising number of the extracts the number of comments
was dropping. On the first extract, 65 respondents commented in contrast with
only 17 comments on the last extract. Moreover, with the rising number of the
extract the comments were more general without particular examples. The
number of the extracts was probably still too high and respondents were not
prone to comment on so many texts. Therefore, in case of a similar survey done
in the future, the number of extracts needs to be reduced and respondents need
to be asked to offer particular examples from the text.
In the second chapter, I divided the comments into three groups: general,
lexical, grammatical and cohesion.
In general, I found out that non-translations were evaluated positively in
comparison with translations. Most comments connected with translations were
negative. To compare the results of this study with the results of the research
done by Tirkkonen-Condit, these results are the same. Summary of the
arguments collected from her survey were the following: comments on
translations "reflect an assumption that translations tend to be clumsy,
unidiomatic, and that they tend to sound like translations." (Tirkkonen-Condit
2002: 212) On the opposite, "lack of deviant or disturbing features was
considered to be a mark of original writing, i.e. a "negative" rather than a
"positive" kind of reasoning." (Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 212)
100
Comments connected with the non-translated extracts collected from
this survey were as follows:
General comments on extracts: naturally fluent, typical Czech thinking, clear
ideas, witty, sound natural, colourful, Czech atmosphere, parabolas, no
reminders of translated text, good readability
Sentence structure: more complex, too unusual to be translated, rich in
subordinate clauses, correct sentence structure, no strange word order
Vocabulary: rich, purely and typically Czech, expressive, florid, Czech idioms
and expressions, no strange adjectives
Comments connected with the translated extracts were the following:
General comments on extracts: unnatural, strange, low fluency, word-by-word
translation, does not sound Czech, too simple text, tensed, sounds too English,
suspicious clumsiness, translator's lack of skill, slavish translation
Sentence structure: clumsy, too long and laboured, complicated and unnatural,
English word order, too many subordinate clauses, sentences without cohesion,
wrong word order, strange phrases, too much passive voice, punctuation
(dashes, semicolons)
Vocabulary: unusual, too idiomatic, too formal for the context
4.3.3 EXTRA-LINGUISTIC FEATURES
Though I did my best to exclude any extra-linguistic features that might help the
respondent to trace the origin of the text, comments on such features appeared.
101
Most of them were connected with proper names, but also some cultural
specifics were mentioned in the comments.
In connection with E1 (Skvorecky's štěbetavé hlasy) one of the respondents
wrote "that /stealing a towel/ is a purely Czech, I think they more scrupulously
keep sort of a personal distance abroad. Moreover, using somebody else's
towel is regarded as /dirty/ in /the West/." (R37 - 60%). I would like to say here
that this was the only extract that was recognized by one of the respondents
(R7 - 67%).
In connection with E2 (Francis's postava k nezaplacení), two
respondents (R26 - 53% and R60 - 53%) were puzzled by phrase "zcela
jednoduché šaty, jaké si mohou dovolit jen zámožní". None of them can imagine
this phrase in the Czech context. One of the respondents (R88 - 60%)
considered this extract a translation from Raymond Chandler's book, another
(R37 - 60%) wrote that it "reminds me of McBain's style of writing". One
respondent (R119 - 60%) evaluated the extract as of "generally too 'English
gentlemanlike', it looks like a well done translation."
In context of E3 (Sayers's cupital jako víla), R37 - 60% wrote based on
the words "palička na poličce"that "do-it-yourself is a Czech phenomenon" and
marked the extract as a non-translation.
R37 - 60% and R38 - 60% marked the E5 (Zábrana's slowfox) as a
translation because they did not believe Czechs knew slow fox. One of the
respondents (R93 - 47%) wrote: "I think I have already read similar text in the
book by McCoy."l was surprised by comment from R60 - 53%: "Škvorecký?
Beautiful, florid Czech language." This respondent marked Skvorecky's E1 as a
translation.
102
One of the respondents (R22 - 67%) thought that the text of E6 (nontranslation
- poinsettie) has already appeared in a book by an American author.
R60 - 53% was not able to decide because "I am not acquainted with
floriculture". Based on the topic of the extract, R37 - 60% marked it as a nontranslation
seeing "gardening as a Czech phenomenon".
Two respondents listed magazines where E7 (non-translation - ječivá
fistule) might appear. One of them (R32 - 47%) mentioned the magazine
Yellow. On the contrary, R93 - 47% mentioned the magazine Ona Dnes"4
. Two
respondents (R37 - 60% and R80 - 53%) marked the extract as a nontranslation
because of "spitting in a handkerchief" which they consider a Czech
custom. In contrast, R129 - 40% wrote: "the text points at worries of typical
American mother". I want to repeat here that a woman married to an American
and living in the USA wrote the extract.
Only one respondent referred to the name Dolma (R37 - 60%) in E9
(translation - Dolminy stany), moreover, the respondent added "hardly any
Czech masters wolf's howling".
Another comment that caught my attention was from respondent 118 -
67%. It referred to the E11 (non-translation - neviděla reálně):
"This time I judge that it is a non-translation, not on the base of the text
itself but on the base of its content. This way of thinking is purely Czech in my
opinion. Other nations face problems differently and also the way the man
encouraged his girlfriend is not so usual for other nations."
Two respondents (R60 - 53% and R129 - 40%) considered the style of
this extract similar to style of Zikmund and Hanzelka5
.
4
Ona Dnes is a magazine for women. It is a section of newspaper Mladá fronta Dnes.
5
Jiří Zikmund and Miroslav Hanzelka - popular Czech travellers who have published many
books about places they visited
103
In connection with E12 (non-translation - poodhalení), two respondents
commented on the context: "An American would not care whether someone is
fishing for crabs." (R79 - 67%) Similarly R90 - 47%: "Rather the context seems
to me Czech...l mean it is more probable that a Czech would be surprised by
this situation than a man of other nation."
Two respondents marking the E13 (non-translation - a past se usmála)
as a translation (R37 - 60% and R88 - 60%) marked the extract on the base of
word "skyscrapers". The author mentioned an example of some phenomena
containing this type of building not very typical in the Czech Republic , which did
not mean that the author himself came from abroad.
Two respondents (R37 - 60%, R120 - 73%) stated that E15 (nontranslation
- kosmická cenzura) reminded them of Grigar's program "Okna
vesmíru dokořán"6
.
Lastly, I want to present comments that are not connected with the
particular extracts but can be applied generally and might be useful for the
further surveys with a similar topic.
Comments referring to the language competence and abilities of a
translator appeared several times. R65/E2: "Stylistically inelegant text, even
with a mistake. I suppose that something like this may not happen to a
translator and therefore I choose a non-translation." or R26/E10: "The text
sounds like original and one punctuation mistake is something that may happen
to a Czech author rather than to a translator." Further, R79/E6: "With regard to
6
RNDr. Jiří Grygar is the author of several books about astronomy and one of them is called
„Okna vesmíru dokořán. He also used to have a program of the same name.
104
the fact that it is a newspaper article, I would not say that some scribbler would
inquire into the translation of 'celedi pryscovitych'".
Comments that might be summarised in words "a translator would never
come up with such an idea" were the extracts translations or non-translations
(R32/E1, R73/E1, R76/E1, R47/E3, R50/E3, R32/E5, and R119/E14) appeared
many times. This means that the possible unique items were identified in nontranslations
as well as in translations. Nevertheless, those comments suggested
that the qualities of translators were not evaluated positively. Another type of
comment that appeared several times could support this kind of comment: "it is
either a bad original or a translation" (R74/E11, R26/E5, and R114/E6). Further,
another kind of comment referring to the level of the text appeared several
times. It could be sum up in words "if it is a translation, then a (very) good one"
(R60/E1, R26/E2, R60/E2, R69/E3, R95/E3, R66/E5, R119/E5, R129/E5,
R95/E9, R129/E9, R60/E13, R95/E14, and R118/E15). The respondents usually
chose the option / cannot decide in these cases.
One of the respondents (R44/E12) commented on the choice of the
genres chosen for the survey: "To decide about a non-translation/a translation
of travel writing is very difficult since authors are not writers, therefore more
distinctive aesthetic aspect is missing, which is easily distinguishable from
'common' translation style." I think that the choice of travel writing was a good
one. The language of such texts might be closer to the spoken language and
therefore I considered it refreshing among the other genre used.
I consider a very useful comment from R13 that "it might be useful to
mention the year of publishing the detective story". It might have been helpful to
mention it in connection with all the extracts. It might have helped respondents
105
with the process of searching for the origin of the particular extracts. They would
have been confused by, for example, archaic vocabulary and would have been
able to focus on other features of the text.
106
5. CONCLUSION
In this thesis, the possibility of being able to distinguish a translation from a nontranslated
text was discussed. The thesis was aimed to find out whether
respondents were able to distinguish translations from non-translations purely
on the account of linguistic features of a text and to identification of such
features. It has also attempted to find out whether certain factors connected
with respondent's education, language competence, and reading preferences
influence anyhow the achieved percentage of correct answers.
With regard to the number of the extracts and the number of the genre, the
survey succeeded in finding the answer to the initial hypotheses and produced
a number of findings that made it possible to represent certain generally valid
conclusions about the linguistic features used for the identification of a text.
Similarly, it produced certain findings about how respondent's qualities
influenced the achieved percentage of correct answers.
To compare the results of this survey with the Tirkkonen-Condit's survey, we
can conclude that they were very similar. She listed three main results of her
survey:
- translations are not readily distinguishable from original writing on
account of their linguistic features,
- the role of the unique items is worthy of further research,
- translators' professional skills are not trusted: translations were expected
to stick out as deviant from normalcy
(Tirkkonen-Condit 2002: 216-217)
As for the first hypothesis of this thesis and Tirkkonen-Condit's first finding,
the survey proved that translations are not readily recognizable from nontranslations
purely on the base of the linguistic features of the text. The
107
percentage of correct answers achieved in the survey was 54.5% (compared to
57.5% according Tirkkonen-Condit's way of counting). Nevertheless, despite
the lower number, there were linguistic features that might be possible clues for
the identification of a text and therefore they deserve further and more detailed
survey. These linguistic features were:
• sentence structure, with the focus on the word order, types and way
of creating subordinate clauses, and complexity of sentences,
• vocabulary, with the focus on the register used in the particular genre
and choice of words,
• noun and verb phrases, with the focus on the idioms and expressions
typical for the particular language, and
• readability, with the focus on the cohesion.
The survey also proved that absolutely no extra-linguistic features are
allowed in the texts used for any other further survey, be it proper names or
cultural specifics, even though they are typical for the particular genre (such as
for travel writing). Further, as for the unique item hypothesis and TirkkonenCondit's
second finding, it was confirmed that the unique items deserve the
attention of the possible forthcoming surveys led in the field of translation
studies. As far as Tirkkonen-Condit's third finding concerns, it was
demonstrated that translators' skill are not trusted since many respondents
evaluated the translated extracts are "deviant from typical Czech language".
To conclude, it was demonstrated that respondents fixed to the idea they
were searching for translations and they were looking for some deviant features
in the extracts. It could be demonstrated on the fact that in many comments on
108
non-translated extract (or on extracts that were supposed to be non-translated)
respondents referred to missing deviant features.
As for the second hypothesis, it was proved that respondents'
characteristics and abilities had almost no influence the results achieved. The
criteria expected to influence the respondents' results were sex, age, education,
reading preference (translations or non-translations, preferred genre), amount
of reading for fun, number of foreign languages respondents spoke. The only
characteristic that made one prone to achieve better results was higher
education, which provided respondents with experience in reading and
analyzing texts.
Of course, as was already mentioned throughout the thesis, this finding
needs to be taken with regard to the sample of the population of this survey. All
the respondents were either students or teachers at the Philosophical faculty of
the Masaryk University (with the exception of one respondent from the faculty of
engineering), which means that all of them were in everyday contact with
reading and analysing texts. Concerning the age, the average respondents' age
was 24. Again, a different distribution of respondents in the age groups might
bring different results. Similarly, the genre chosen for the survey might influence
the results, not speaking about the choice of the particular extracts.
Suggestions for the possible forthcoming surveys are definitely
• less extracts (as it was proved that even 15 extracts were too much to
keep the respondents' attention),
• no extra-linguistic features in the extracts (not only proper names but
also cultural specifics),
109
• focus on the previously mentioned linguistic features and especially
unique items,
• and to ask respondents for specifying their comments by particular
examples from the texts (as it was demonstrated that most of the
respondents often commented too generally).
no
6. CITED AND USED WORKS
Dušková, Libuše a kol. Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny.
Praha: Academia.2003
Francis, Dick. Dražby. Praha: Olympia.1993. Přeložila Jaroslava MoserováDavidová
(str. 18, extract nr. 2)
Fronek, Josef. Velký česko-anglický slovník. Praha: Leda. 2000.
Goldberg, Elkhonon. Paradox moudrosti. Jak být duševně výkonnější,
přestože mozek stárne. Praha: Karolinum. 2006. Přeložil Koukolík, František.
(225, extract nr. 14)
Horský, Zdeněk - Mikulášek, Zdeněk - Pokorný, Zdeněk. Sto
astronomických omylů uvedených na pravou míru. Praha: Nakladatelství
Svoboda. 1988. (159, extract nr. 15)
Christian, Kamila. Příběh maminky: Netlačím, tlačánkuju. Chebský deník
sobota 22. 12. 2007. (30, extract nr. 7)
lllion, Theodore. Temný Tibet. Bratislava: Eugenika Pbl. 2003. Přeložila
Klapuchová, Kateřina (58, extract nr. 9)
Koukolík, František - Koubský, Pavel. Sova a vesmír. O hvězdách, atomech,
životě a vědcích. Praha:Vyšehrad. 1999. (71, extract nr. 13)
Kubeš, Tomáš. 2007. Přežije Korup? Geografický magazín Koktejl Číslo 9.
Září 2007. (32, extract nr. 12)
i n
Leech, Geoffrey N. - Short, Mick. Style in Fiction: A linguistic Introduction
into English Fictional Prose (English Language Series, 13). London: Longman.
1981
Lorencová, Michaela, Havelka, Ondřej. Etiopie - černý poklad afrických
pralesů. Mango 1 (12/2007). Cestovatel, o. s., 30. 11. 2007. (7-8, extract nr. 10)
Meldrum, Yukari F. forthcoming. "Investigation of reader attitudes towards
Japanese translationese: a pilot study." Paper read at the Conference „New
Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies", Tarragona, 18-20th October
2007.
Moran, Michael. Korálové moře - cesty po starých říších jihozápadního
Pacifiku. Praha:BB/art s.r.o. 2006. Přeložil Orel, Josef. (237, extract nr. 8)
Motejlek, Luděk. Jak se postarat o vánoční hvězdu. Chebský deník-sobota
22. 12. 2007 (str., extract nr. 6)
Sayers, Dorothy L. Lord Petr zasahuje. Praha: ČIN tiskové a nakladatelské
družstvo. 1940. Přeložil Vladimír Procházka. (26, extract nr. 3)
Škvorecký, Josef. 1991. Smutek poručíka Borůvky. Praha: Mladá fronta.
1991.(36, extract nr.1)
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. Translationese - a myth or an empirical
/acfZTarget: 14 (2), 2002, 207-220
Valentová, Lucie. Na cestách po USA - Yosemity. Žlutý-leden 2008. (19,
extract nr. 11)
112
Wallace, Edgar. Mrtvé oči Londýna. Praha: Vyšehrad. Přeložil Karel
Voleský. (174, extract nr. 4)
Zábrana, Jan. Vražda pro štěstí. Praha: Mladá fronta. 1962. (99, extract nr.
5)
113
7. APPENDIX 1 - EXTRACTS
TEXT 1 - DETEKTIVKA
Jejich výskání a štěbetavé hlasy, podmalované zurčením vody a hudbou, kterou jim pro
osvěžení mysli pouštěl do sprch z reproduktoru vrátný, rozléhaly se prostorou umývárny.
Sprchy stály v řadě vedle sebe, odděleny přepážkami a opatřeny závěsy z igelitu. Za těmi se
rýsovaly obrysy nahých dívčích těl. Dívky se bavily jedna s druhou přes přepážky, hodně
nahlas, aby překřičely tu moderní směsici hudby a mechanických rámusů, myly si vlasy a
půjčovaly si mýdlo. Štíhlá, pevná těla se krásně leskla v bílém světle a proudy vody odnášely
šminku a pot právě absolvované generálky. Přátelská výměna mýdel a jiných toaletních
předmětů čile pokračovala v překotném hlaholu. "Holky, která jste mi ukradla ručník?" ječela
bruneta, jež stála dosud v koupacím plášti před krajní kójí.
TEXT 2 - DETEKTIVKA
„Když jsem vás pozvala na skleničku, myslela jsem... skleničku něčeho pořádného." „Nemám
žízeň," vysvětloval jsem. „Zato mám mírný otřes mozku, a taky ještě musím jet vozem." „Ano, to
je pravda." Přece jen trošku změnila chování vůči mně. Sedl jsem si bez vyzvání. V minulosti
jsem se mnohokrát praštil do hlavy, ale tentokrát to bylo po tříleté pauze a díky tomu jsem se
z toho asi neuměl tak rychle oklepat. Zklamaně se na mě podívala a šla si svléknout krásný,
blátem potřísněný plášť. Měla na sobě zcela jednoduché šaty, jaké si mohou dovolit jen velmi
zámožní; postava, která se v těch šatech skrývala, byla k nezaplacení. Mlčky zaznamenala můj
tichý obdiv a přijala ho jako samozřejmou zdvořilost. „Tak teď poslyšte: o tom, co se dnes
odpoledne stalo, jste zatím neřekl jediné slovo. Já bych ale od vás ráda slyšela, co myslíte, o co
vlastně těm dvěma chlapům mohlo jít?"
TEXT 3 - DETEKTIVKA
To už jsem byl jako na koni, víte - sháněl jsem se hned po skrytém péru, které tam jistě někde
musilo být, a našel jsem je bez velkých obtíží. Zadní stěna skříně se bez hluku otočila dovnitř a
já se octl na vrcholu úzkého schodiště. Měl jsem tolik rozumu, že jsem se zastavil a ujistil jsem
se, že je možno otevřít dveře skříně i zvnitřku, než jsem se pustil dále; také jsem si vybral jednu
slušně silnou paličku, kterou jsem našel mezi nástroji na poličkách - zbraň pro nepředvídané
příhody. Potom jsem za sebou zavřel dveře a cupital jako víla po tom milém schodišti dolů. Dole
byly další dveře, ale jejich tajemství jsem odhalil velmi brzy. S pocitem příjemného rozčilení
jsem je směle otevřel, maje v ruce paličku pohotově k okamžité akci. Místnost však byla
prázdná. Světlo z mé svítilny se zalesklo na něčem tekutém a potom jsem našel vypinač na
stěně.
TEXT 4 - DETEKTIVKA
„Myslím, že už je mrtvý, bratře," obrátil se k doktorovi. Ten si s úlevou oddechl a přisvědčil.
„Ano, teď už bude mrtvý. Myslím, že voda stoupne za dvě minuty o jednu stopu." „Za jeden a
půl minuty o jednu stopu," opravil ho David. „Pro boha živého, ušetřte ho!" vykřikla chraptivě
Diana. „Dám vám všechno - všechno na světě, co budete chtít. Jestli chcete peníze, dostanete
je!" „Myslím, že by se na něho měla podívat," ignoroval David její zoufalou prosbu. „Není tam
světlo," upozornil doktor a zavrtěl hlavou. „No ovšem. Jsem ale hlupák, pokaždé vypínáme
světlo," řekl David a zdálo se, že už ho přešla zlost. „Voda přitéká do cely malými otvory u země
hodně rychle. Čerpáme ji až z velké nádrže pod střechou a člověk, který se topí, nemůže
vyplavat, protože má u nohou zátěž. Jednou jeden vylezl na postel - pamatuješ si?" „Pamatuji,"
řekl doktor pobaveně. „Museli jsme potom čerpat vodu do výše devíti stop, než se utopil."
TEXT 5 - DETEKTIVKA
Uklonil jsem se tomu chladnému měděnému slunci. Zelené oči vzhlédly unaveně ke mně, cize,
skoro nepřátelsky, že jsem se začal chystat na ránu košem. Prohlížela si mě se strašlivou,
mučivou lhostejností - a pak se růže zdvihla a vplula do mé náruče, kterou jsem jí mechanicky
nastavil, a obešel jsem s ní předepsanými a rovněž mechanickými slowfoxovými kroky celý
parket kolem dokola, než jsem si uvědomil, že je to skutečnost. A když jsem si to uvědomil,
uvědomil jsem si taky, že pod dlaní své pravice cítím vlahý, měkký dívčí bok, který byl stvořen,
jako brána života pro děti, které tahle růže jako oltářní svícen bude jednou mít, nebo by měla
114
mít, kulatou, vláčnou vláhu ramínek a dívčí žebra s minimální tukovou vrstvou, jak tomu je u
velmi mladých dívek, velmi mladých, velmi pošetilých, které svou bezradnost skrývají za
bronzové masky nepřístupné krásy, a sebejistota se mi vrátila. Nad námi nyl zpěvákův hlas:
TEXT 6 - NOVINOVÝ ČLÁNEK
Vánoční hvězdě se také říká poinsettie, latinsky Euphorbia pulcherina, a patří do velmi bohaté
čeledi pryšcovitých. Na sváteční stůl ji nedáváme kvůli květům, ale nápadným, nejčastěji
červeným, ale také žlutým či růžovým listenům, které nenápadná kvítka obklopují. Po uvadnutí
tato květina končí většinou v popelnici. Je to ale škoda, protože může sloužit léta. Když o ni
budeme správně pečovat, získáme pěkný rozvětvený keřík zdobící obydlí zářivými barvami
v době, kdy příliš rostlin nekvete. Nedlouho po Vánocích, většinou během ledna, poinsettii
začnou opadávat lístky - rostlina tím dává najevo, že nastává čas jejího odpočinku. V tomto
čase ji nehodíme do koše, ale přeneseme na tmavší místo s teplotou 12 až 15 stupňů.
Zaléváme velmi opatrně, aby substrát nepřeschl.
TEXT 7 - NOVINOVÝ ČLÁNEK
Ještě léta předtím, než jsem se stala matkou, vlastně léta předtím, než jsem si přiznala, že bych
vůbec dítě kdy chtěla, jsem si sepsala seznam věcí, které jako matka NIKDY nebudu dělat.
Například jsem si slíbila, že si nikdy nenasliním prst, abych setřela zbytek večeře z tváře své
ratolesti, stejně tak nikdy nebudu plivat do kapesníku za stejným účelem. V seznamu na čelném
místě figuruje přísaha, že na své dítě nebudu nikdy šišlat. A už vůbec nebudu zvedat hlas do
ječivé fistule, pokaždé když se nahnu přes okraj postýlky. Tento seznam pokračuje ještě
dlouho, ale nemůžu jej zveřejnit, neboť hrozí, že postupně všechny body poruším - a co byste
si o mně pomysleli!
TEXT 8 - CESTOPIS
Poté, co jsme si chvíli povídali, jedna starší paní vytáhla nějaké mušlové peníze a přísně je v
různých délkách rozložila na stole. Nastala živá diskuse o jejich pořizování. Mušlové peníze se
na celém Bismarckově souostroví různí. Typ z Nového Irska se vyrábí blízko Nového
Hannoveru. Dělá se ze stovek malých, růžově zbarvených kotoučků o průměru asi sedmi
milimetrů a silných asi milimetr. Nepatrná dírka se vyvrtá uprostřed každého kotoučku a skupiny
kolem dvaceti se navlečou na tenkou černou nit, přerušované menším počtem bílých kotoučků.
Hodnota je odvozena od vzácnosti této růžové mušle Patella, sbírané z korálových útesů. Moje
šňůra byla dlouhá skoro metr a byla ukončena červenou a žlutou perlou. Mušlové peníze se
často používají, když se směňují prasata a při vyjednávání o věnu nevěsty. Demas mi ji pověsil
kolem krku a já se cítil přiměřeně slavnostně.
TEXT 9 - CESTOPIS
Bylo ujednáno, že opustím kraj dříve než Dolma. Ona a její skupina odjede o dvě hodiny později
a předhoní mě asi v poledne následujícího dne. Už dříve v knize jsem se zmínil o tom, že
viditelnost je na většině území Tibetu skvělá. Také jsme dohodli velmi jednoduchou a účinnou
metodu označení míst, kterými budeme procházet. S nalezením místa, kde budou postaveny
stany Dolmy a jejích společníků, bych neměl mít nejmenší potíže. Hodinu nebo dvě po
soumraku jsem měl dvakrát zavýt jako vlk. Dolma pak opustí svůj stan a na nějakou dobu se ke
mně připojí. "Jsi si jistá, že tě pustí samotnou tak pozdě pryč?"zeptal jsem se. "Ano,"
odpověděla. "Vymyslela jsem si to chytře. Obývám totiž jednu polovinu stanu mé matky, která je
od matčiny oddělena přepážkou. Do mé části nesmí nikdo za žádných okolností vstoupit, pokud
ho nezavolám. Ani má matka to nedělá. Takže se vyplížím ven a pokusím se projít kolem muže
na stráži. Jestli mě uvidí, uplatím ho, aby mlčel."
TEXT 1 0 - C E S T O P I S
A tak se po chvilce opravdu dostáváme až k chýši samotného šamana šíleného kmene Mursi,
která je na první pohled k nerozeznání od těch ostatních. Jen na malý rozdíl, který pozná jen
Afrikou cvičené oko, a to zdobení malými skoro neviditelnými amulety, ve tvaru psaníček,
kuliček, kamínků a jiných nepatrných předmětů, zavěšených v různých částech střechy,
zábradlí nebo jen tak ledabyle pohozených na zemi. Jakmile bychom přistoupili blíže bez
očištění, nebo bychom se na neštěstí nějakého předmětu dotkli, bylo by možná nenávratně zle.
Černá magie šamanů těchto stále nebezpečných kmenů je velice silná. Své umění si předávají
kouzelníci z generace na generaci a jejich síly jsou v přímém kontaktu s jejich mrtvými předky.
115
Po našich předchozích zkušenostech s voodoo už z celé jižní, střední ale převážně západní
Afriky se raději nepřibližujeme, aniž bychom byli připraveni.
TEXT 11 - CESTOPIS
Zanedlouho už jsem tak tak pletla nohama, začalo mi být špatně a na nohách jsem měla
obrovské puchýře. A to nás ještě čekal finální výstup na vrchol, který se prudkým stoupáním
táhl asi 2 kilometry. To jsem neviděla reálně, protože nám v té chvíli definitivně došla voda.
Když jsme se zastavili před kopcem, zatočila se mi hlava. Já už tam nedojdu, nech mě tady a
jdi sám, prohlásila jsem směrem k příteli. Ten mě podpořil, donutil mě sníst zbytek jídla, které
jsme měli a společně jsme se asi po dvou hodinách doplazili na vrchol. Můžu říct, že tehdy jsi
opravdu poprvé v životě sáhla na dno svých sil. Ta radost, když jsem spatřila naše auto, byla
neuvěřitelná!
TEXT 1 2 - C E S T O P I S
K poodhalení stačil podvečerní okamžik, kdy jsem pozoroval baterkou svítící očička
sladkovodních krabů a raků, kteří číhali na svůj úlovek v průzračně čistém potoce. Jakmile to
uviděli strážci parku a průvodci, ihned se vrhli do potoka a všechny živočichy vylovili. Nechápal
jsem, jak může ranger lovit zvířata v parku, a to ještě před turisty? Strážci se chvíli ošívali,
vymlouvali se, že to jsou jen lovecké instinkty. Prý byl v minulosti každý strážce pytlákem a pár
krabů parku neublíží. Pravdou zůstává, že strážci, kteří byli v minulosti lovci, jsou opravdovým
pokladem, protože znají dokonale terén a i různé finty pytláků.
TEXT 13 - POPULÁRNĚ-NAUČNÁ LITERATURA
Kdo nesnese vyprávění o nádeničině a nudě, nechť tuto kapitolu přeskočí. Nešlo mi toho moc.
Počítání nervových buněk v lidském mozku mi nešlo snad ze všeho nejvíce. Začalo jako typická
a lákavá past. Že existuje celá teorie pasti popisující lákadlo u vstupu, cestu dovnitř, rostoucí
investice, čím dál zaťatější zuby i závěrečné trpké poznání, jsem zjistil až o spoustu let později
na případu provazochodce, jenž se vydal na lano napjaté mezi dvěma mrakodrapy. Byl to
zkušený muž, přesto pokračoval v cestě po laně, i když se objevily prudké závany větru.
"Nevzdám to," říkal si tak dlouho, než ho jeden z poryvů shodil dolů. Moje past se na mne
usmála před více než dvaceti lety v průběhu rozmluvy o tom, jak stárne lidský mozek. Snědla mi
hezký kus z několika let práce. Nutila mne, abych se k ní neustále vracel.
TEXT 1 4 - POPULÁRNĚ-NAUČNÁ LITERATURA
Jednou z věcí, které na umění matou nejvíc, je, že jsou jeho podoby natolik četné a rozmanité,
že vzdorují všem snahám o nalezení společného jmenovatele. Co má niterně společného
japonská kaligrafie s heavy metalovým koncertem? (Bizarní nápad - vůbec nic, proboha.)
Přesto jde v obou případech o umění, které poznáme, vnímáme-li ho. Podobnou rétorickou
otázku lze položit ve vztahu ke sportu: co mají společného stolní tenis s jízdou na plachetnici?
Tak málo jako kaligrafie s heavy metalem. Opět je analogie mezi uměním a sportem
nevyhnutelná, neboť sport stejně jako umění zahrnuje velký počet odlišných činností vzdorujících
společnému jmenovateli. Mám za to, že podstata umění nespočívá ani tak v niterných
vlastnostech uměleckého objektu (v širokém slova smyslu), jako v povaze toho, co pro nás
takový objekt znamená. Domnívám se, že původ a funkce umění jsou blízké původu a funkci
sportu.
TEXT 15 - POPULÁRNĚ-NAUČNÁ LITERATURA
Když hvězda vyčerpá své zásoby jaderného paliva, vypne se v jejím nitru termonukleární
reaktor, jenž svým výkonem udržoval látku hvězdy na vysoké teplotě. Poklesne-li teplota, sníží
se i tlak. Hvězdný materiál "změkne", hvězda se začne vlastní tíhou bortit. Její konečný osud
závisí na její hmotnosti. Hvězdy podobné Slunci končí jako bílí trpaslíci, hmotnější v kolapsu
pokračují dál, až se zhroutí na malou, suprahustou neutronovou hvězdu. Má-li však hvězda v
závěru svého vývoje hmotnost větší než tři Slunce, pak už nic nemůže zabránit tomu, aby se
zhroutila do bodu - změnila se v černou díru. Černé díry jsou pozoruhodné kosmické útvary,
jejichž existenci předpovídá moderní teorie gravitace - obecná teorie relativity. Přitažlivost v
černé díře je tak mocná, že z ní nemůže uniknout nic, ani paprsek světla. Vše může dovnitř, nic
nemůže ven. Úřaduje tu absolutní kosmická cenzura - nikdy se nemůžeme dovědět, co se v
černé díře děje. Navenek se černá díra projevuje jen svým gravitačním polem.
116
8. APPENDIX 2 - ENCLOSED LETTER
Poznáte, zda čtete originál, či překlad?
Vážená čtenářko, vážený čtenáři,
naskytla se Vám možnost přispět jako respondent k výzkumu v oblasti překladatelství,
která se v současné době jeví jako zvláště aktuální. Základní otázka tohoto výzkumu (a
mé diplomové práce) zní: „Je mluvčí schopen rozpoznat text napsaný v jeho rodném
jazyce od překladu čistě podle jeho jazykového utváření?"
Proč je toto téma tak zajímavé? Pokud je odpověď na výše uvedenou otázku kladná a
překlady od originálů skutečně poměrně snadno rozpoznáme, znamenalo by to, že
překlady se od původních textů liší nejen svou historií vzniku, ale i jiným, poměrně
zásadním způsobem. Mělo by pak smysl zabývat se podrobně otázkou, v čem konkrétně
se liší naše vnímání překladu při četbě od našeho vnímání čteného původního nepřeloženého
- textu, tedy zkoumat, v čem se liší kritéria, podle nichž tyto odlišné typy
textů podvědomě hodnotíme.
Spekulovat o tom můžeme již nyní, jsme však vůbec schopni posoudit, zda čteme
překlad, či originál? Jaké znaky textu nám pomohou rozpoznat originál od překladu?
Napadlo Vás někdy při čtení textu „To musí být překlad!" nebo naopak „To mohl
napsat jen Cech!"? Pak vyzkoušejte svůj jazykový cit!
Věřím, že tento výzkum zaujme nejen studenty anglického a českého jazyka, ale i Vás
ostatní (neboť údaje získané od Vás jsou neméně cenné) a že Vám dotazník umožní na
chvilku si odpočinout od Vašich povinností. Jako respondent/ka j ste vítán/a, i pokud je
Váš vztah k fakultě jiný než studentský.
Anketa je samozřejmě zcela anonymní, ale pokud by Vás výsledky zajímaly, velmi ráda
Vám je i s komentářem zašlu.
Děkuji za Váš čas a spolupráci, přeji příjemné počtení a klidné zkouškové období.
Martina Bartůňková
Stránka po dokončení
Mnohokrát děkuji za spolupráci!
Jak jsem již zmínila, pokud Vás výsledky výzkumu zajímají, stačí mne kontaktovat na
adrese 224928@mail.muni.cz.
Přeji příjemné léto.
117
Can you recognize translation from non-translation?
Dear reader,
You have chance to contribute as a respondent to the research in the field of translation
that appears to be particularly up-to-date now. The basic question of this research (and
my thesis) is: "Are speakers able to distinguish a text written in their native language
from a translated text purely on the basis of its linguistic features?"
Why is this topic so interesting? If the answer to the above question is positive and we
can quite easily distinguish translations from originals, it would mean that translations
differ not only in their genesis (history of origin) but also in another, rather fundamental
way. Then it would make sense to deal in detail with the fact how our reception of read
a translation is different from reception of read original - a non-translated text. In other
words, in what the criteria according to which we subconsciously evaluate these
different types of texts differ.
We can guess it now but are we ever able to judge whether we are reading a translation
or an original? What features of a text may help us to distinguish a translation from an
original. Have ever come to your mind "This must be a translation!" or, on the contrary,
"This must be written by the Czech!"? Then try your sense of language!
I believe this research is catching not only for learners of English and Czech, but also
for the other (because data collected from you are no less worthy) and that this
questionnaire allows you to have a rest for a while from your duties. You are welcome
as a respondent even if you are not a student.
The questionnaire is anonymous, but if you are interested in the results, I would be
pleased to send them via e-mail together with interpretation of the results.
Thank you for your time and cooperation, wish you pleasant reading and leisurely
examination period.
Martina Bartunkova
Many thanks for your cooperation!
As was already mentioned, if you are interested in the results, contact me on
224928@mail.muni.cz.
Have a nice summer.
118