Brief Interviews with
Hideous Men
On translating colloquial language
University Utrecht -Master Thesis Translation – Koster, C. – Naaijkens, A.B.N.
Dian van der Zande - 3285413
Brief Interviews With Hideous Men: On translating
colloquial language
Table of Content
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................2
Chapter 1: Context .............................................................................................................................................................3
David Foster Wallace ...................................................................................................................................................3
Modernism & Postmodernism .................................................................................................................................6
Brief Interviews With Hideous Men ......................................................................................................................7
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................................... 10
Style ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Colloquial Speech ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
Foul Language.............................................................................................................................................................. 16
Idioms ............................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Chapter 3: Analysis......................................................................................................................................................... 21
B.I. # 14........................................................................................................................................................................... 22
B.I. #15............................................................................................................................................................................ 26
B.I. #11............................................................................................................................................................................ 28
B.I. #3 .............................................................................................................................................................................. 30
B.I. #30............................................................................................................................................................................ 33
B.I. #31............................................................................................................................................................................ 34
B.I. #36............................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Chapter 4: Annotated Translation ........................................................................................................................... 40
Korte interviews met verschrikkelijke mannen ............................................................................................ 40
K.I. # 14 08-96 ........................................................................................................................................................ 40
K.I. # 15 08-96 ........................................................................................................................................................ 42
K.I. # 11 06-96 ........................................................................................................................................................ 44
K.I. #3 11-94 ............................................................................................................................................................ 47
K.I. # 30 03-97 ........................................................................................................................................................ 53
K.I. # 31 03-97 ........................................................................................................................................................ 54
K.I. #36 05-97 ......................................................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter 5: Post evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 61
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Works Cited: ...................................................................................................................................................................... 64
1
Introduction
David Foster Wallace’s Brief Interviews With Hideous Men is a collection of short stories. The
shortest story is the first being 79 words with the fitting title “A radically condensed History of
Postindustrial Life”. The longest story is the 28 page story called “The Depressed Person”. Four
of the stories are actually interviews with or dialogues between these so-called hideous men.
Those stories have the same title as the book. The stories differ much in style with some being
direct transcripts of dialogues or monologues and some being detailed explanations of situations
and emotions with long footnotes and many parentheses to avoid ambiguity. For this thesis I will
translate one complete short story from this collection, which is in itself a collection of
interviews. It is the fourth story, bearing the title “Brief Interviews With Hideous Men”. These
interviews are written in a very colloquial style, making them read like a transcription of spoken
interviews. This thesis addresses the following question: Which translational problems arise
from the specific style in David Foster Wallace’s fourth story in Brief Interviews With
Hideous Men and which possible solutions are most desirable?
To answer this question it is important to have some information about the author and
his context and style, since his persona seems to be inextricably linked to his work. This
information is given in the first chapter, together with a short analysis of his oeuvre in general
and Brief Interviews With Hideous Men in particular. The second chapter contains the theoretical
framework, where the relevant literary- and translation theory will be discussed. The third
Chapter is an in depth analysis of the fourth story, using the theory to help assessing the
translation problems and formulating desirable and possible solutions.
The second part of my thesis consists of a complete and annotated translation of the
fourth story called: “Brief Interviews With Hideous Men” (page 14 until page 28). In the fifth and
final chapter I will evaluate my findings and translation and answer my research question.
2
Chapter 1: Context
David Foster Wallace
Students of literature have been taught by Roland Barthes and his Death of the Author to not
regard the author when analyzing a work of fiction. They are told, when interpreting a novel, to
not look towards the writer for the meaning of the text. Meaning should be created through the
reading process. The text should be viewed as an entity on its own, without any author behind it
who intentionally pushes meaning into a certain direction:
[A]s soon as a fact is narrated no longer with a view to acting
directly on reality but intransitively, that is to say, finally
outside of any function other than that of the very practice of
the symbol itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its
origin, the author enters into his own death writing begins.
(Barthes 142)
However, when analyzing and translating David Foster Wallace’s work it might be very useful to
take into account the person of the writer for a number of reasons. First of all DFW himself had
trouble with this view of literature:
For Wallace, creating postironic belief was the goal of literary
communication. This is why Wallace polemically railed against
“death of the author” arguments and constructed his fictions,
and especially his epochal Infinite Jest (1996) around the
unfulfilled desire to communicate.
(Konstantinou 85)
As a writer DFW wanted to communicate through his fiction and reach his readers, to help them
cope in the world they live in. In Brief Interviews With Hideous Men he tries to achieve this
communication through the use of recognizable and accessible registers and colloquial forms of
speech. Readers are confronted with characters that are hideous but sometimes eerily familiar.
In these “Interviews” DFW uses realism, (though not Realism with a capital R, as he explains in
his interview with Larry McCaffery) to confront his readers with themselves, others and the way
they relate to one another (more under Brief Interviews With Hideous Men).
The second reason is the fact that ever since DFW’s suicide in 2008 interest in his person, his
depressions and oeuvre grew steadily. This rise in attention and his personal views about
3
literature and communication make it difficult to read his oeuvre without taking his depressions
and suicide into account. Especially since he seemed to write mostly about depression and
characters that struggle with themselves and the people around them. As Samuel Cohen and Lee
Konstantinou explain in their introduction to a collection of essays about DFW, the following
words pop up most frequently when discussing his work: “communication, connection, difficult,
human, irony, mediate, personal, sadness, suffering.” (xi). Some of these words can be directly
linked with the struggles in his own life, others emphasize the fact that he tried to communicate
through his fiction. Therefore it might be useful to look at what made DFW who he was and
what drove him to writing in the first place. It is important remember that there is no “right
interpretation” or “the truth” of a work of fiction that can be discerned when enough attention is
paid to the writer and his intention. But it might help a translator to get a better understanding
of the most important features of a complex text. So who was David Foster Wallace?
Born to a writer and philosophy professor and a community college English professor,
DFW was surrounded by books from an early age. He went on to study philosophy specializing
in math and logic. (Boswell 4) During his studies he first encountered Ludwig Wittgenstein, a
philosopher who would have a “lasting influence on his later fiction” (Ibid.). In an interview with
Larry McCaffery DFW recounts of the depression he experienced when he no longer enjoyed
technical philosophy:
I just got tired of it, and panicked because I was suddenly
not getting any joy from the one thing I was clearly
supposed to do because I was good at it and people liked me
for being good at it.
(McCaffery)
He went back home to deal with his early midlife crisis and ended up writing his first work of
fiction. The Broom of the System was his first published novel, which Boswell calls a
“fivehundred-page declaration of independence” (Boswell 5). The success of his first novel was
followed by another fit of depression, because he did not seem able to write a second novel and
also failed at an attempt at some graduate work at Harvard University. As he moved back home
again he combined teaching English at Illinois State University with writing. In 1996 he
published Infinite Jest, followed by the non-fictional A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again:
Essays and Arguments in 1997 and Brief Interviews With Hideous Men in 1999.
DFW admits that postmodern writers such as John Barth and Thomas Pynchon didn’t
only inspire him:
4
If I have a real enemy, a patriarch for my patricide, it’s
probably Barth and Coover and Burroughs, even Nabokov
and Pynchon. Their self-consciousness and irony and
anarchism served valuable purposes, were indispensable
for their times, their aesthetic’s absorption by the U.S.
commercial culture has had appalling consequences for
writers and everyone else.
(McCaffery)
The aspects that made postmodernism great now seem to be taken to extremes and hollowed
out for entertainment purposes by the commercial culture. DFW had trouble coming to grips
with his love for the postmodern tradition and his hatred for people like Rush Limbaugh and
Mark Leyner who “show us how poisonous postmodern irony’s become […] Leyner and
Limbaugh are the nineties’ twin towers of postmodern irony, hip cynicism, a hatred that winks
and nudges you and pretends it’s just kidding.” (Ibid.).
Marshall Boswell describes DFW’s oeuvre as follows: “[H]is work moves resolutely
forward while hoisting the baggage of modernism and postmodernism heavily, but respectfully
on its back” (1). Boswell argues that he is best described as a “nervous member of a stillunnamed (and perhaps unnamable) third wave of modernism.” (Ibid.) rather than a
postmodernist writer. It might be safe to say that characteristics of both traditions are present in
his work, together with some unique features of its own. A part of the postmodern discourse that
troubled DFW the most was Fukuyama’s idea of “the end of history” claiming that after centuries
of struggle we have finally “arrived at its inevitable end with liberal, consumer-oriented
capitalist democracies”, (Konstantinou 83) and all the countries that aren’t there yet, will arrive
there in the end. As some received this notion as something positive, DFW, among others,
experienced this as being an intensely sad time, since nothing would happen, nothing would
change and “daring, courage, imagination and idealism will be replaced by economic calculation,
the endless solving of technical problems, environmental concerns, and the satisfaction of
sophisticated consumer demands.” (Fukuyama 25). As Fukuyama says that no art will be made
after the end of history (Ibid.) which could make one wonder what that means for literature,
DFW “wanted to discover or invent a viable postironic ethos for U.S. literature and culture at the
End of History, that is, for an America in the thrall of full-blown postmodernism.” (Konstantinou
84-5). What DFW really wanted to achieve with his readers was to create a form of “postironic
belief” (85), this was “goal of literary communication” (Ibid.). This stresses, once again, Wallace’s
need to communicate through his fiction. And in Brief Interviews With Hideous Men he seems to
5
communicate with us through words and characters we recognize. In a story like “Brief
Interviews with Hideous Men” a familiar and colloquial register is an important feature to
inspire and help a reader reach this “postironic belief” (More about this under Brief Interviews
With Hideous Men).
Modernism & Postmodernism
As DFW is influenced by both Modernism and Post Modernism it is important to define the two.
Modernism was the main literary movement of the first half of the twentieth century, with
writers as James Joyce, Virginia Woolf and Thomas Mann. The movement was a reaction to a
world of crisis where Nietzsche, Freud and Darwin had broken down the old certainties
concerning religion, the soul and our origin. “[M]odernist writers […] abandoned the outdated
mode of nineteenth-century “objective” realism in favor of a new valorization of individual
subjective experience.” (Boswell 10). A main characteristic is, among others, the stream of
consciousness, because that was an important tool for conveying this subjective experience.
Because of this loss of universals “modernist writers propose new universals that are
paradoxically allied to subjective experience.” (Ibid.). These universals are found in the way time
is experienced and by representing the way characters remember, portray and interpret those
experiences.
Postmodernism seems harder to define; however, it could be said that one of its pillars is a
critical attitude towards everything. Some say it continues where modernism left off with many
similar topics, such as parody, irony and self-consciousness, but others like to argue it is
radically different: “that [it] is a result of new ways of representing the world including
television, film (especially after the introduction of color and sound), and the computer.”
(Felluga).
Features of Postmodernism are, among others, extreme self-reflexivity, going further
than it did in the modernist period, but it is also more playful, and high and low culture are
combined in an accessible way (Ibid.). An example of this self-reflexivity is found in the idea that
“language does not have the capacity to refer or to describe adequately. The use of language
necessarily creates fictions.” (van Alphen 819) Therefore postmodernism is “a fiction created by
the discussion about it.”(Ibid.)
6
Brief Interviews With Hideous Men
The two collections of stories (A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again en Brief Interviews
With Hideous Men) published quickly after Infinite Jest were more accessible and broadened
Wallace’s readership. The latter can be called his “most “characteristic” book” (Boswell 182),
because it contains his staple features: depression, solipsism, community and self-consciousness
(Ibid.), although it doesn’t go into them with the same depth and precision as Infinite Jest does.
The stories in Brief Interviews alternate between longer and shorter stories, with thematically
similar stories placed together to create “a dialectical pattern of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis”
(Ibid.). Four of the stories within this work are actually called “Brief Interviews With Hideous
Men” and contain 18 interviews of which most are actual interviews, in which the questions are
replaced by a Q, and two are dialogues in which the two speakers are identified by a capital
letter (A&R and E&K). The Q is usually followed by one dot and occasional by four. The
interviews are dated and numbered, but seem to be presented in random order. However Tom
LeClair points out that there might be more to it than that, because when you rearrange the
stories in chronological order “the “interviews” tell a unified though episodic story of a woman
(Q) who, after being abandoned by her lover, travels America trying to understand what men
want, what they like and perhaps whether or not they like her.” (LeClair 33). This is of course
when one interprets the Q. as being the same female person, but there is definitely something to
be said for this theory.
The four collections are accompanied by 18 other short stories, of which two bear the
title “Adult World”, two others are called “The Devil Is A Busy Man” and three are named “Yet
Another Example of the Porousness of Certain Borders”. The remaining eleven stories have their
own unique titles. According to DFW this is “his attempt to address the subject of sex. [… ] [But]
sex becomes […] another means by which [his characters] can descend deeper and deeper into
their self-made cages of self-consciousness and solipsistic dread.” (Boswell 183).
The book is riddled with characters that feign openness and honesty to win trust, by
saying in advance that they shouldn’t be trusted, all the while admitting that this could still be
just a ploy to gain said trust, and eventually break it. Wallace attempts to “ironize irony and to
reverse thrust on postmodern self-reflexivity by performing a metafictional dismantling of
metafiction.” (184). In other words, the self-awareness of his characters is ironically used to
show his readers how dishonest this so-called honesty can be, and how self-consciousness can
still be used to avoid anything real. Some of the more complicated stories are self-reflexive in
them selves and therefore very difficult to read.
Wallace confronts us with the suffering and pain of others. And because he felt that we
all suffer alone in the real world, and that real empathy is impossible he hoped that good fiction
could still “allow us imaginatively to identify with a character’s pain, we might then also more
7
easily conceive of others identifying with our own. This is nourishing, redemptive; we become
less alone inside.” (McAffery). So by showing us the pain and suffering of hideous men, and
forcing us to recognize and sympathize with them, Wallace tries to give us hope, or as was said
earlier, a form of postironic belief. What makes these hideous men even worse is that they seem
so terribly passive in there hideousness, explaining that they are just a product of their
environment in the language that they were taught by their psychologists and therapists “they
take comfort, even refuge, in regarding themselves as mere matrices of cultural bad wiring, quite
as they have been taught to do by contemporary therapeutic discourse and postmodern theory.”
(Boswell 191). Here DFW shows the flaws in postmodern theory through confronting us with
the result of these theories and testing the limits of our sympathy. Whether or not the reader
ends up feeling this sympathy, resulting in any type of postironic belief is not relevant for this
thesis, however the realistic, colloquial and familiar register is of great importance for the texts,
because it helps the reader relate to and sympathize with the characters. It is, however not
overtly obvious as is said in an announcement of the work: “If MacArthur Fellowship-winner
Wallace’s rendition of our verbal tics and trash is less astonishing now than in earlier work
(Infinite Jest; A supposedly fun thing I’ll never do again), that is because it has already become
the way we hear ourselves talk.” (Publishers Weekly 87). The characters words are our words,
their stammering, their foul language, their narcissism, their struggle, their pain, is ours. As A.O.
Scott put it:
But a handful, most of them composed since the appearance
of Infinite Jest, recover some of the squandered and
compromised satirical energies of that tradition by
suggesting that meta-metafiction, or post-postmodernism,
or whatever you want to call it, is a form of realism after all.
The feedback loop of irony and sincerity which animates so
much of Wallace’s writing turns out not to be an artifact of
literary R[esearch]&D[evelopment], but a fact of human
nature, or at least a salient aspect of the way we live now[.]
(A.O. Scott)
It is this recognizable and familiar language that makes these stories more than just stories
about hideous men, but stories about what post-modernist irony and self reflexivity can turn
people into, and that many people suffer from it. This is not only true for the story that is
translated for this thesis, but it applies to the whole collection. However, it might be possible
8
that not all characters are equally recognizable and a reader might not feel as identified with all
of these characters.
9
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
Style
Concerning style there are two main approaches: dualism and monism. Dualism is founded on the
belief that in literature there is a dualism between form and meaning (Leech & Short 13). A
writer will want to write a message, the content, and can choose between multiple forms to
write that message in, without altering that message. The monist approach is based on the
notion that form and content are inseparable. Following this monist line of thinking translation
would be impossible, because changing the style or language would change the message. This is
of course too radical a viewpoint to work with as a translator. However it is also impossible to
say that style has no influence on the message. In their Style And Fiction Leech and Short try to
move away from these two opposing views, because they are both too extreme. They propose a
pluralist approach where both views are used to balance each other out, because it is not
interesting to look at style from either of these two binary positions. They would rather try and
keep both views in mind when trying to deliver the message in the target language.
The style of a literary text confronts the translator with problems, which should be
overcome by an analysis of the source text, however this is quite difficult. Cees Koster explains
this difficulty by arguing that it is not the vagueness of the term, but the detail in which attention
should be paid to stylistic features throughout the work (Koster 1). The stylistic analysis of a
work of literature that is being translated has to be so detailed and thorough that it is virtually
impossible. The problem of most stylistic approaches is that they are not practical or useable for
a translator. Koster explains the theory of Leech and Short, who argue that the process of writing
is a series of choices that are made to convey a certain message. The choice of (the combination
of) lexical items used to convey that message is governed by the grammar of a language. This is a
dynamic set of rules, which means that it can change and that those rules can always be broken
(Ibid.). The choice of the writer to either obey or break the rules is a choice of stylistic
importance. A text that is created to function in the literary field has another set of rules that can
either be obeyed or broken, which is the rules of the literary tradition and genre in which the
text is going to function. Koster compares the writer to the translator and shows the usefulness
of this theory for translators, because both the translator and the writer have to make choices on
three levels.
Like Leech and Short, Koster explains that every texts functions on three different levels.
They refer to Halliday’s functional model of language: “Halliday´s functional model of language
acknowledges three major functions, which he calls ‘ideational’, ‘interpersonal’ and ‘textual’.²⁹”
(Leech and Short 25). According to Halliday the writer can make stylistic choices on all three of
these levels. Cees Koster explains the levels as follows: “Op interpersoonlijk niveau gaan zender
10
en ontvanger bepaalde relaties met elkaar aan en zullen de participanten aannemen dat het
taalgebruik is toegespitst op de desbetreffende situatie. Op ideationeel niveau wordt met talige
middelen in een tekst een beeld van een (al dan niet fictionele) wereld voor een beoogde lezer
(‘ontvanger’) tot stand gebracht. De tekstuele functie heeft te maken met de talige organisatie
van de betekenissen op de andere niveaus.” (Koster 5). It is through looking at these choices that
the style becomes evident. Leech and Short argue that the choices that affect style the most, are
the choices made on the ideational level. This gives the translator the freedom to refer to the
same “world” by using different words, phrases and even images than those in the source text.
However a full and complete analysis of the style of a text should focus on the choices made on
all three levels, especially on the way the choices made on the textual level influence the
meaning on the ideational level (Koster 6). It is through comparing “a writer’s choices against
other choices with the same sense, ‘what the writer might have said but didn’t’ one has a greater
control over the notion of stylistic value.” (Leech and Short 28).
Koster concludes that both the writer and the translator chose literary means that will
have a certain effect. The means do not have to be the same in both languages as long as a similar
effect is achieved. Before choosing any means it is the translators task to discern what the
authors intention was, and through which means what effect was achieved. And then he has to
choose those means available to him in the target language to achieve a similar effect (Koster 9).
Examples of these literary means that DFW uses to create the effect that the text seems like a
very real and direct representation of reality are that he uses the lay-out of a transcription of an
interview with the added features of spoken language that will be discussed under Colloquial
speech.
However, one instance of a stylistic feature is not a realistic representation of the style of
a certain text. Therefore it is wise to focus on features that occur repeatedly and consequently
stand out. These features are only stylistic features when they occur more often in a literary text
than averagely in normal language. However this is hard to prove scientifically, since that would
need elaborate quantitative research and Leech and Short already said that it is almost
impossible to come to a proper sample of texts to represent “normal average language” actually
is. Apart from this I think this is not relevant in this thesis, because in relatively short pieces of
prose repetitive features are quite easy to spot. And as Leech and Short put it, it is probably
necessary to prove “with mathematical formality what no man has yet pretended to doubt.” (38),
meaning that if what is stated is obvious in the text readers won’t feel the need to question it. It
will help to show when, where and how often the features occur, so that the reader can assess
for themselves whether or not it is a special feature of the text. Three concepts come into play
when trying to assess if something is a significant stylistic feature. These are deviance,
prominence and literary relevance. Deviance is a straightforward notion of the way the frequency
11
of a feature deviates from the “norm” in a specific text. But as said above, it is quite difficult to
assess such a norm. The second concept was explained by Leech and Short as follows:
Prominence is the related psychological notion: Halliday
defines it simply as ‘the general name for the phenomenon of
linguistic highlighting, whereby some linguistic feature
stands out in some way’. We assume that prominence of
various degrees and kinds provides the basis for a reader’s
subjective recognition of a style.
(39)
And then there is the third concept of literary relevance:
which [Halliday]calls ‘value in the game’. Like Halliday, we
associate literary relevance with the Prague School notion of
foregrounding, or artistically motivated deviation […].
Foregrounding may be qualitative, i.e. deviation from the
language code itself – a breach of some rule or convention of
English – or it may simply be quantitative, i.e. deviance from
some expected frequency.
(Ibid.)
According to Leech and Short there is a more or less direct relation between deviance and
prominence, just as there is between prominence and literary relevance. Every feature that has
literary relevance is a feature that is prominent and it is only prominent when it is deviant. But
obviously not everything that is deviant is prominent and then again not everything that is
prominent has literary relevance. Because it needs to have a certain “literary end”(40), usually
this is done through repeated occurrences of similar stylistic features which together “form a
coherent pattern of choice” (Ibid). This would then have a certain effect on the reader. And what
is made prominent through deviance are the literary means that Cees Koster discussed earlier.
The style of a text is created when multiple different prominent features together have the same
effect. But the features a translator needs to pay most attention to are the features that have
literary relevance. As was said earlier this is always measured against what is “normal”, which
L&S call a relative norm, since it is impossible to have an absolute norm in language. This is also
called the primary norm, in relation to the secondary norm, which is the norm within a text. This
is relevant when certain parts of the text deviate significantly from the rest of the text. This is
12
called internal deviation. It might be very prominent and relevant that a certain text uses very
long sentences, however it is at least equally prominent and relevant when a passage within the
text has comparatively short sentences, even though this deviation only happens once in an
entire novel. So it is not always the frequency of a feature that gives it literary relevance. These
variations of style within one text can, for example, originate from the fact that the character
might be developing, or that there are multiple characters talking.
What is prominent about Brief Interviews With Hideous Men will be discussed further
under Analysis, but it is a colloquial text with many colloquial features. When discussing
colloquial language it is difficult to draw the lines between the different features. I will try to
discuss all these features separately, but I do not claim that they are well-defined clearly
separated features. However, by specifying three different features I aim to examine every
possible feature of colloquial speech and offer a theoretical guide to help analyzing the colloquial
aspects of the text and translating those aspects. Because these aspects are the literary means
that achieve the effect of a familiar speech act and the identification with the characters.
According to James S. Holmes the choices a translator makes can turn a text into one that
is either exoticizing or naturalizing. When it is an older text the translation could also be
modernized or historicized (Holmes 185). Holmes states that it has been tradition to expect a
translator to be either modernizing and naturalizing, which he calls retentive or exoticizing and
historicizing, which is recreative. The retentive strategy makes the text easy and understandable
for the reader, with the risk of losing elements specific to the source culture and language. The
recreative strategy creates a text that is more difficult to read, but will have less of a risk of losing
important elements of the source culture and language and will be more informative for the
reader, who is now faced with unknown elements. However Holmes argues that it is usually not
that simple, and that translators choose in every situation again and again to either naturalize or
exoticize and either modernize or historicize. These choices are also means to achieve an effect,
either to be retentive and move towards the reader, or to be recreative, expecting the reader to
move towards the text.
Apart from the problems that are specific to colloquial language, there are also certain
issues that cause problems in any type of text. These are terms and phrases that refer to
something real outside of the text, that is specific for that source culture. Javier Franco Aixelá
called them Culturally Specific Items (CSI). Aixelá refers to the definition given by Newmark, who
says that CSI’s are all the items that could give the translator problems, such as “items especially
linked to the most arbitrary area of each linguistic system – it’s local institutions, streets,
historical figures, place names, personal names, periodicals, works of art, etc. – which will
normally present a translation problem in other languages.” (Aixelá 57). He adds that these are
quite arbitrary and that there are also less arbitrary items, which can still be considered
13
culturally specific. Apparently most theoreticians, when discussing these culturally specific
items, always refrain from defining what it exactly is and what it is not and assume that people
will automatically know from some sort of collective intuition (Ibid.) Aixelá argues that this way
of thinking cannot be maintained, because it is too random and static, because not every item
would be culturally specific within every language pair (Ibid.). Some cultures are more alike than
others, and cultures evolve, making some items specific at one point, and more general later. The
real problem arises when an item does not exist in the target culture, or when it does, but it has a
different meaning than it does in the source culture (Ibid.). These items are not static and what
might be a CSI between a certain language pair, might not be when a different target language is
involved.
It is possible to formulate a translation strategy on two of the levels of Halliday
(ideational and textual) in terms of Holmes strategies (retentive or recreative). On the basis of
my contextual and theoretical research I would say that my strategy is to be naturalizing on the
textual level, because it is important that the reader recognizes the register and the colloquial
words and phrases that he would speak himself. A reader would not recognize himself in a text
that was translated in an exoticizing manner, because the text would seem strange and foreign
to him, and would therefore not be conceived as his own language. This does not mean, however
that I will correct all of the grammatical errors that will be discussed in my Analysis. Those are
important for the colloquial nature of the text, which in itself is an important feature of natural
and recognizable language. And that is in turn important for the postironic belief discussed in
Chapter 1. This is in line with Holmes’ point that choices are made in each situation individually,
because it depends on the effect that the translator wants to achieve. On the ideational level I
will be more exoticizing, because today Europeans have a wide access to American culture,
through TV, internet, literature and travel. This means that the readers in the target culture are
quite aware of many of the source culture’s specific items. In this case that means that the
“world” that is created has similarities to the United States of America in the real world. A
second reason not to change CSI’s is because the readers are usually aware that they are reading
a translated text and if that text is set in the source culture it will be odd to have cultural specific
items of the target culture in the text. It would be strange to have the characters go shopping at
an Albert Heijn or a Selexyz when we know the writer was an American who will never have
known about these stores. In my view it is better to have your readers not fully understand a CSI,
which they might have to look up, rather than to belittle them by bringing the text towards them
to make things easier. I expect this much of a reader, because he is reading a David Foster
Wallace novel, and those are not known for being easy and accessible, therefore I expect the
reader to take the effort to understand the text and I will not have to explain and simplify things.
14
This tactic might not make the characters more recognizable, but it will add to the realism and
credibility of the text.
Colloquial Speech
Leech & Short show us that the literary rendering of speech acts prove to be less realistic than
they seem to be, once they are considered more closely. They provide us with a list of
characteristics of spoken language and dialogue that are usually absent in their written
representation:
(i) Hesitation pauses. […] Filled pauses are those which
are plugged by stopgap noises such as er and erm.
(ii) False starts. These can take the form either of a
needless repetition of a word […] or of a reformulation
of what has been said […]. The result is an
ungrammatical sequence of words.
(iii) Syntactic anomalies. Often we fail to keep control of
the syntax of what we are saying, and produce
anomalous constructions which, if they are not entirely
ungrammatical, would nevertheless be regarded as
awkward and unacceptable in written composition. An
example is the inconsistent sequence of pronouns and
the repetition of got in A’s first speech: ‘We’ve got . . .
you’ve got to take’.
(Leech & Short 130)
I would like to add to this the fragments, which are sentences that are left unfinished, whether it
is grammatically unfinished (missing a subject or verb etc.) or incomplete on the level of content.
They can be a sort of combination of syntactic anomalies and false starts. All of these
characteristics are usually omitted in literary representations of dialogue, because they interfere
with the fluency and would have a negative influence on the reading experience. Readers do not
miss these pauses, false starts and anomalies, because they do not pay attention to them in real
dialogue either. The reader does not register them, because they have no meaning. However a
text that has these features stands out, because the reader is suddenly made aware of these
breaks in fluency. When a writer does use any of these features it is up to the translator to try
and put similar features in the translation. The errors in fluency should naturally occur from the
way people tend to present information verbally in that language, which means that the errors
in the target text might be of a different nature than that in the source-text, because sentences
15
are structured differently. Leech and Short also argue that these errors might “indicate
something of the speaker’s character or state of mind: frequency of hesitations, for instance, may
be a sign of nervousness, tentativeness or careful weighing of words.” (Ibid. 133).
A translator is faced with the task of trying to recreate this colloquial use of language, but
he might not always be successful:
Many literary translators simply relinquish any claim to
re-create phenomena like slang or folksiness or colorful
cursing, preferring rather to aim for some sort of
neutral representation, often with a few judiciously
chosen tokens that stand in for the full inventory of
details that might have been provided.
(Foster)
This will cause a loss of features, but it is understandable as the aim of these features in the
source text is to create a natural and realistic representations of speech, and the danger is that
the translator might want to keep these features in the text by force, creating the opposite effect,
forcing colloquial speech on the text and the speaker where it might not be as natural in the
target language and culture. David Foster adds to this that many of these features are also
culturally specific and even differ from one location to another. Colloquial features could also be
regionally oriented, which makes it as problematic as translating dialect. Perhaps not all
colloquial features should be translated into colloquial features in the target text, because when
considering the overall function of the text it is clear that it is written to be natural and to
provide the reader with characters and issues to recognize and sympathize with.
In Brief Interviews there are many fragments, syntactic anomalies and false starts,
but there are not as many hesitation pauses, and especially no stopgap noises, there are however
filler-words, that have a similar function as stopgap noises, but the difference is that they are
lexical.
Foul Language
Today it seems that foul language is used by everybody in the English-speaking world. The
following quote taken from the introduction of an Encyclopedia of Foul Language points in the
similar direction, showing that the attitudes towards swearing have changed even in the most
respected circles:
It is hard to believe that Thomas Jefferson and Abraham
Lincoln spoke in the White House in the way that their
successor Richard Nixon is recorded as having done, or
16
that previous members of the British Royal Family used
the strong language for which the Duke of Edinburgh
and his daughter Princess Anne are notorious.
(Hughes ix)
Within literature a similar trend is visible, however Hughes stresses the fact that certainly not all
writers have succumbed to it:
Even in the modern era, the generalization that
swearing and foul language have become more
frequent in literature, while sound in the main, is not
absolute. There are the conspicuous exponents like D.H.
Lawrence
and
Henry
Miller,
but
they
are
counterbalanced by major authors […] whose work is
linguistically chaste.
(Hughes 297)
Even though swearing is no longer a taboo, there are numerous writers who still prefer not to
use foul language, just as there are groups of people who rally in order to ban foul language from
literature as well as everyday use of language, for example the Dutch Bond tegen het Vloeken,
which even published a little booklet about foul language in literature (Werkman). However in a
work of fiction that tries to portray colloquial speech truly and realistically, foul language will be
used. In the English language there is one word in particular that is very versatile and popular:
“fuck(ing)”. Susanne Ghassempur explains that there are multiple ways in which the word can be
used and Andersson and Trudgill regard it as “one of the most interesting and colorful words in
the English language today” (60), because it is used in so many different ways. They identify
“thirteen different semantic areas in which the meanings of the word fulfill a different function”
(Ghassenpur 55), ranging from aggression to confusion to laziness. It seems like we don’t have a
word like that in the Dutch language that is equally versatile. As Cees Koster shows by dissecting
the Dutch translation of Trainspotting, it might be wise to not translate certain words the same
way every time the translator encounters them. Where Welsch uses 2 different curse words in
his Trainspotting the Dutch translator uses seven, sometimes he uses a “calque”. However,
usually a Dutch swearword is used:
Hij heeft niet gekozen voor vaste correspondenties
tussen woorden of woordcombinaties (overal ‘lul’ voor
‘cunt’, overal ‘klote-’ voor ‘fuckin’), maar hij heeft de
17
verschillende repertoires als vertaaleenheid genomen,
en
uit
het
Nederlandse
krachttermenrepertoire
gekozen op grond van de functie in de vertaling.
(Koster 45)
Koster mentions here that a translator chooses a curse word that fits with the function that the
curse word had in the source text, in order to make sure he uses a word that has the same
function in the target text. He chooses not to consistently translate the word “cunt” with “lul” but
he mixes it up depending on the function of the word. Ghassempur also mentions the different
functions of foul language:
According to Wajnrib (2005: 25-38) the three main
categories of swearing are ‘catharsis’, ‘aggression’, and
‘social connection’. Cathartic swearing is directed at the
speakers themselves and uttered almost instinctively
when something unexpexted and unpleasant happens
[…]. The second category of searing is abusive and can
be as emotive as cathartic swearing, perhaps even more
so. It differs from the first category in its aggressive
intent and the necessary participation of other people
[…] the abusive swearers require a target because they
want to insult or inflict harm.
(Ghassempur 58)
These two can also be combined, because cursing at a person can also work cathartic, just as a
cathartic outburst can turn into abusive swearing when a victim happens to be nearby. Social
swearing is different: “In relaxed settings where people are comfortable with each other, their
language might be characterized by a high degree of swearing, depending on such variables as
social class and gender. [… these speech acts] serve to express surprise, pleasant wonder or
disbelief, rather than aggressiveness and frustration.” (58-59). Not only the function of the
swearword on the level of meaning is of importance, but also the grammatical category and it’s
collocation. A swear word can be an isolated shout of pain (fuck!), but it can also be an adjective
(fucking hell) or a proper noun (“you stupid fuck”). When someone stubs his foot and uses the
swearword: “Fuck!”, which is cathartic, it could be translated with “godver” or “kut” or even with
the calque “fuck”. However, if the character stubbed his toe against a table and shouted “Fucking
table!”, it would still be cathartic, but the word “godver” would no longer be appropriate, since
“Godver tafel!” is grammatically incorrect in Dutch. “Kuttafel” would be a solution that is used by
18
speakers of Dutch. A translator should know two things about a swearword: what is the function
of the curse in general, and what is the grammatical category of the curse within the sentence.
When translating a text of which the main function is to create a speaker that is easy to identify
with I would argue that the general function of a swearword is of more importance than it’s
grammatical category, because that gives the translator more freedom to create a sentence that
would naturally occur in Dutch It is desirable to find a translation that is grammatically and
functionally similar, but when that is impossible the function is of a bigger importance than the
grammatical category.
Idioms
Other problems of translation in this particular text are idiom, slang and creative language in
general. Idioms are described as follows: “Idioms are common figurative expressions used in
colloquial speech. They are characterized by a figurative or idiomatic meaning that cannot be
derived from the meanings of the individual words in the phrase.” (Schweigert 33). Adding to
this general definition of idiom Amineh Adelnia and Hossein Vahid Dastjerdi refer to Mona
Bakers In Other Words when they give a few “rules” that idioms usually obey. Those rules
basically mean that the idioms cannot be altered. No words can be added, omitted or changed
into others, and the grammatical structure cannot be altered (Adelnia & Dastjerdi 879-880).
Understanding these idiomatic phrases happens at two different levels (The order of which
Schweigert claims that studies at the time were inconclusive, but that is not relevant for
translation). On is the understanding of the literal meaning and the other is the construction of
the idiomatic meaning. One of the two will be deemed inappropriate by the context leaving the
reader to hopefully come to the right conclusions (Schweigert 33-34). However this is only the
description of what idioms are, but Linli Chen adds to this that “idioms best mirror the national
characteristics embodied in a language and are thus always rich in cultural connotation and
national flavor” (227). They often spring from the shared history and culture of a society and are
an expression of that culture. Because of this different cultures create different idioms: “Thus, in
translation of idioms, much attention should be paid to the dissimilarities of cultures as well as
languages themselves.” (Ibid.). It is the translator’s task to recognize, understand and translate
these idioms. To help the translator Adelnia and Dastjerdi classified five different types of
idioms: “colloquialisms, proverbs, slang, allusions and phrasal verbs” (880). Colloquialism is
explained in a similar way as I have done earlier as an informal way of saying something. An
example Adelnia and Dastjerdi give is “he died of laughter” (Ibid.) However colloquialisms
should be perceived in the more narrow and specific sense than colloquial language. Colloquial
language refers to with sentences, grammar and choices made on the level of the whole text and
colloquialisms are merely phrases that adhere to the rules given earlier by Adelnia and
19
Dastjerdi. Colloquialisms can cause a text to be colloquial, and are therefore a feature of a
colloquial text. Examples of this in the interviews are “I’m on eggshells all the time” (Wallace 16)
and “I was in this with you for the long haul” (Ibid.), which will be explained and discussed
further in Chapter 3.
Proverbs are simple and concrete sayings such as: “no pain no gain”. They contain
universal truths and border on the cliché. The third is simply explained as “the use of highly
informal words and expressions that are not considered as the standard use of language.” (Ibid.).
The words are often inappropriate and taboo and are often used to “add humor and fun to one’s
speech”. There is more to be said about the translation of slang. In an article about the
translation of Hollywood slang to Spanish Margeret Schlauch says that: “Very many of the slang
expressions are based on sporting metaphors which are probably too esoteric for direct
rendition” (Schlauch 67-68). Slang and sporting metaphors are commonly used in the English
language. They are so common that one could forget that they are indeed still metaphors and
therefore still creative language. Some of the color of these speech acts will be lost when they are
translated in general normal non-metaphoric language. Schlauch’s quote about slang is a also a
good example of the fact that there is not one established definition of slang, because that
definition could also work for what was earlier called colloquial language. In the end it is
probably not that important what it is called, but more that the language is recognized as being
prominent and literary relevant. An example of slang that is also a sports-metaphor is the phrase
“right off the bat”, stemming from baseball, which means right from the beginning, as soon as the
ball has hit the bat. The Allusion “is a figure of speech that makes a reference to a place, event,
literary work, myth, or work of art, either directly or by implication.” (880). It alludes to
something that is supposed to be common knowledge to the speaker and listener. Because
common knowledge is bigger between people within the same culture, these allusions work
better within a culture, and are probably hard to translate into a different one. An example of an
allusion in the text is “that’s all she wrote” (Wallace 23), reportedly referring to dear john letters,
which are letters women used to send to their lovers who were off fighting a war. It was used
when someone ended a relationship through one of those letters, and him explaining it with
“that’s all she wrote”, meaning there was no more to it, that was the end of it. One could argue if
it is still really an allusion if the story that it alludes to is not necessary to discern the meaning.
The Phrasal verb isn’t explained through its content but by what it exists of. “Phrasal
verb is the combination of a verb and a preposition, a verb and an adverb, or a verb with both an
adverb and a preposition. A phrasal verb often has a meaning which is different from the original
verb.” As they are explained further there seems to be some overlap with colloquialism: “They
are usually used informally in everyday speech as opposed to the more formal verbs.” (Ibid.). An
example that is given are the words “go on” for “continue”.
20
The interviews discussed here contain many colloquialisms and much slang,
however there are no proverbs and hardly any allusions. There are a few phrasal verbs, but
many of them could also be discussed under slang, such as “doing it” (Wallace 14) and “shooting
off” (Wallace 15). Within all the interviews idioms are the most common and biggest problem,
and they will be discussed further in Chapter 3.
After these classifications Adelnia and Dastjerdi provide four possible solutions:
A. Using an Idiom of Similar Meaning and Form
B. Using an Idiom of Similar Meaning but Dissimilar Form
C. Translation by Paraphrase
D. Translation by Omission
(881-882)
These are listed in order of desirability, with the most desirable solution being a translation of
an idiom with an idiom that has the same literal and idiomatic meaning as the source idiom had,
or as similar as the target language allows. The monist would actually allow solely this solution,
provided that the word “similar” is exchanged for “the same”, because to change the form of the
idiom would immediately change the meaning, and therefore be an intolerable solution. The
dualist however would not discriminate in desirability of these four options. The pluralist
approach is most useful here, because it allows for all four options to be possible, but also
creates a scale of desirability. Therefore, when there is no idiom of similar form and meaning in
the target language, the translator has the possibility to use the second most desirable solution:
an idiom that has a different literal meaning, but still a similar idiomatic meaning. If the target
language does not allow either of these solutions the translator can choose to translate by
paraphrase, explaining the foreign idiom to make it understandable for the reader. However
Aldenia and Dastjerdi explain why this is less desirable than the two earlier solutions: “Of course
by using this strategy we will face the danger of losing the intended effect that the source
language wanted to have on its audience. It will also lose the cultural significance.” (882). This
would be a strategy that Holmes would call retentive. The fourth and final solution leaves out the
idiom completely, which is the least desirable solution, because the form and meaning will be
altered the most. These are quite straightforward solutions. The choice between these four
should be guided by the possibilities of the target language and the function of the target text.
Chapter 3: Analysis
21
When following Leech and Short’s line of reasoning the style of a text is of importance for
conveying the meaning of that text. Halliday emphasized the importance of the stylistic choices
made by the author on the three levels of his functional model (ideational, interpersonal and
textual). The stylistic features that form a pattern are very important, because together they
show the style of the text and illustrate which choices the writer has made to create such a style.
I will focus on the prominent features that have literary relevance. Because this is a selection of
short interviews that might differ from each other, I will also pay attention to internal deviation.
I will focus on three aspects of style that were very prominent: colloquial speech, foul language
and idiom. I will discuss every interview individually.
B.I. # 14
The first interview starts in medias res with the sentence: “It’s cost me every sexual relationship
I ever had.” The subject of this little interview is sex, for which the terminology is “doing it”, “to
come”, “the spooge” and “shooting off”.
This interview is clearly a colloquial text, in which sentences are not finished properly and the
grammar rules are not always obeyed. The first example thereof is the fragment sentence “I am
not a political person, I don’t consider myself.” (Wallace 14). This sentence might be
grammatically complete, however when you read it in the context it should be finished by adding
a phrase like “to be (one)” or “to be a political person”. The issue here is to find a Dutch sentence
that is grammatically complete, but on the level of the content incomplete. But what is more, the
part of the sentence that was missing must be at the end, because people generally do not forget
to begin a sentence, or skip a part in such a short sentence. The solution I have chosen is quite
straight forward: “ik zie mezelf niet” with the deletion of the word “zo”, which is quite similar to
the source phrase. There are more of these short sentences, which are not always fragments, but
they are grammatically awkward and would probably not have the same structure in more
formal written language: “It’s when I start to come. That it happens. […] I think it’s just weird.
And uncontrolled. […] Only way louder. As in really shouting it. Uncontrollably. […] Only louder
than that: “VICTORY –” (Ibid.). The last sentence even gets broken off and ends after only one
word. The next question was probably already being asked, forcing the interviewee to stop
talking. These sentences are not very difficult to translate, because simple similar short Dutch
sentences are formulated easily. However there are also a few syntactic anomalies and long
sentences that also contain false starts: “I freaked out about it one time and called a radio show
about it, a doctor on the radio, anonymously, and he diagnosed it as the uncontrolled yelling of
involuntary words or phrases, frequently insulting or scatological, which is coprolalia is the
official term.” (14). There is a reformulation of words when he adds “a doctor on the radio” and
“anonymously”. The control of the sentence is completely lost by the end when he adds “is the
22
official term” as a specification that leaves the sentence grammatically incorrect. When
translating this sentence the main issue is not to explicitly add a causality between the “freaked
out about it” and “called a radio show about it” by using the word “dat” instead of “and”. Another
problem is caused by the phrase “freaked out”, which will be discussed further under idioms.
Another long sentence that would be structured differently in formal language is the last one:
And it's the ones that'll act all understanding like they don't
care and it's OK and they understand and it doesn't matter
that embarrass me the worst, because it's so fucking weird
to yell "Victory for the Forces of Democratic Freedom!"
when you're shooting off that I can always tell they're totally
freaked out and just condescending down to me and
pretending they understand, and those are the ones where
actually I actually end up almost getting pissed off and don't
even feel embarrassed not calling them or totally avoiding
them, the ones that say "I think I could love you anyway.”
(15)
Firstly, this is a very long sentence. The speaker is indirectly quoting the women he has slept
with in “like they don’t care and it’s OK and they understand and it doesn’t matter”. Which
seems to be something between what Leech and Short define as Free Direct Speech (Leech &
Short 258) and the Free Indirect Speech (260). Free Direct Speech is explained as a freer form of
Direct speech:
Direct speech has two features which show evidence of the
narrator’s presence, namely the quotation marks and the
introductory reporting clause. Accordingly, it is possible to
remove either or both of these features, and produce a freer
form, which has been called free direct speech.
(258)
The sentences I would claim were free indirect speech are “it’s OK” and “it doesn’t matter”,
because nothing has been altered in the sentences from the way they had been pronounced by
the women in question. If this is compared to the sentences that are Free Indirect Speech, which
are “they don’t care” and “they understand”, because “the reporting clause is omitted, but where
the tense and pronoun selection are those associated with I[ndirect]S[peech].” (260-1). It
23
becomes more evident, because in the direct speech sentences the tense and pronoun selection
is not associated with IS. The pronoun selection in the indirect sentence is in the third person,
which makes it indirect speech, and it’s free because there are no quotation marks or reporting
clauses. Upon translating this sentence it was important to be aware of these features, to make
sure that there was indeed a mixture of direct and indirect free speech.
The speaker seems to be rambling, because a new sentence could have easily been
started after “shooting off” and “pretending they understand”, but instead he uses the word
“and” and he keeps piling sentence after sentence as rambling speakers tend to do. He also
makes a false start with the repetition of the word “actually” in line eight. Apart from these
mistakes on the grammatical level there is also a different type of mistake. A mistake that is
made in the choice of words or word combinations, for example: “just condescending down to
me”, where the word “down” is normally not added in that phrase. The idiomatic phrase would
have been something like “condescending to me”. The problem might have arisen from the two
frequently used idiomatic phrases “talking down to me” and “being condescending (to me)”,
which get mixed up. In Dutch there are also two ways of saying someone is condescending,
which is “neerbuigend doen” and “op iemand neerkijken”, so a mixture of the two would be a
desirable translation. The translation of this sentence is quite straightforward, apart from
changes such as making the passive “that embarrass me the worst” into the active “waarbij ik me
nog het ergste geneer”, which is more a problem that stems from the language pair, rather than
the style of this text.
The instances of foul language are the phrases: “totally fucking weird”, “God, now I’m
embarrassed as hell” and “it’s so fucking weird”. The function of “fucking” in “totally fucking
weird” is aimed at a social connection, since it doesn’t insult anybody. The same applies to the
other two, however I would argue that the swearwords could also have a cathartic function
because they might relieve a certain tension the speaker feels about his condition. The
grammatical category of the curse words are adverbs (“fucking”) and nouns (“god”, “hell”). As
was said in the theoretical framework when translating foul language the function in general,
being social, cathartic or aggressive, is of more importance than it’s grammatical one, although it
is desirable that the translation could be the same on both the functional and the grammatical
level. The translation of the swear words “fucking” “god” and “hell”, was relatively easy, because
“fucking” could be translated with a “calque” giving it the same function and grammatical
category. And “god” could also be translated literally. “Hell”, however had to be changed, because
the sentence “me (als) de hel schamen” is not a sentence that would logically be formulated in
the Dutch language. The Dutch tend to swear with disease more often than the Americans do, so
a swearword in that category might be a possible solution, for example “schaam ik me echt de
24
tering”. This way it would have a similar function and the same grammatical category(that of a
noun), and it is a typical Dutch swearword.
When the interview is read with special attention for idioms and figurative language it
becomes clear that the English language is filled with creative phrase, making it difficult to keep
count of them. What helps is the classification given earlier by Adelnia and Dastjerdi:
“colloquialisms, proverbs, slang, allusions and phrasal verbs” (880). Because colloquial sentence
structures and other colloquial features have already been discussed, I will only list the
colloquiallisms that cause problems that I haven’t dealt with earlier: “I’m not one of these
America First, read the newspaper, will Buchanan get the nod people” and “Only way louder”.
The problem with the first sentence is the fact that the phrase “I’m not one of those… people” is
an idiomatic phrase that has no direct Dutch equivalent, however, a popular phrase that
expresses something similar is the “ik ben niet zo iemand van…”, which might be the most
desirable solution, because it has a similar colloquial and informal sentence structure. The
problem with the word “way” in “way louder” is that the two most desirable options, of an idiom
of similar meaning and similar or different meaning, are impossible. This forces the translator to
use the translation by paraphrase, using the word “veel”, which is a loss of an idiom.
In this interview there is also much slang used when he is talking about sex: “I’ll be doing it with
some girl”, “I start to come”, “the spooge”, “shooting off”. It is not necessarily the foulest
language, but the words used are not the terms formally used. One could wonder if there are
similar words in Dutch, but there doesn’t seem to be the same creative range in terms for sexual
acts and body parts. The verb “to come” is less problematic than “doing it”, “the spooge” and
“shooting off”, because in Dutch the word “klaarkomen” is used in informal language about sex.
“Doing it” could translated literally as “het doen”, however in this context I would take more
liberties and use the more natural “bezig zijn”, which is a bit more implicit, but is more
commonly used and less banal in Dutch. However there seems to be less variety in words,
because for the phrasal verb “shooting off”, the only translation is again “(klaar)komen”, making
it more colloquial by omitting the “klaar”. “The spooge” really causes trouble, because in Dutch
only the words “zaad” and “sperma” are used most often, but they lack the creativity. This would
be a translation by omission. There are no allusions, but there are some phrasal verbs of which
one overlaps with slang which are: “shooting off”, “freaked out” and “pissed off”. “Freaked out” is
especially difficult because it does not have a direct translation that covers every connotation it
has. It means “schrikken” but also “in paniek raken/zijn” or “zorgen maken” and also “overstuur
zijn/raken”, and it depends on the context which of these solutions is the best. Although it
would, once again, be most desirable to find a translation that covers most, if not all, of these
connotations, because more often than not a combination of them is implied.
25
B.I. #15
The second interview is different, although it is still definitely a transcription of a spoken
interview, which is recognizable because of the “[unintelligible or distorted]”. However the
register used is completely different, it is much higher than the first interview. This higher
register becomes prominent through the use of words like “benign”, “apprised” and the repeated
use of words like: “coercion” (three times), “proclivity” (four times). The whole text is more
formal than the previous one, even in sentence structure. The sentences are still winding like
spoken language, but now the twists and turns have a different nature: “Various therapists
concur, I might add, here and elsewhere.” This sentence gives the impression that the speaker is
hesitant and carefully weighs his words rather than rambling mindlessly.
This interview also consists of longer sentences and shorter sentences and even
fragments. An example of one of those longer sentences is:
“My father’s proclivity for rage, especially [unintelligible or
distorted] the Emergency Room for the umpteenth time,
afraid of his own temper and proclivity for domestic
violence, this built over a period of time, and eventually he
resorted, after a period of time and periods of unsuccessful
counseling, to the practice of handcuffing his own wrists
behind his back whenever he lost his temper with any of us.
(Wallace 16)
This sentence is followed by two fragments with just the location “In the house. Domestically.”
(Ibid.). Similarly earlier in the text there is the fragment “Temper and so forth.” (15) which both
function as additional information to the longer sentence earlier. It is also interesting that he
repeats the fragment from page 15 in the sentence “Small domestic incidents that try one’s
temper and so forth”. Repetitions like these and the ones cited earlier are important because
they make the deviation prominent. Therefore it is important that a translator pays attention to
these repetitions and translates these words and phrases consistantly, with a repetitious word
or phrase of a similar register. The long sentence quoted above is not difficult to translate, once
it is properly understood and analyzed. Apart from small changes (similar to the change from
passive to active as discussed earlier, for example: “especially” becomes three words: “in het
bijzonder”and “built” becomes “stapelde zich op” etc.) that are the result of the language pair
rather than the style of the text, the long winding sentence is translated rather easily into Dutch.
In an interview of a higher, more formal register the foul nature of swearwords is even
more prominent because of its internal deviation. “[P]ut his goddamn motherfucking gag in.”
26
sounds terribly crude in comparison to the rest of the interview, which makes it an important
feature in the interview. Especially as this interview was already noticeably different from the
others because of its higher register. It seems to signal that the speaker is losing his composure.
Even if it might be an indirect quote (Leech and Short 255) from his father, it stands out. If the
speaker felt nothing of the rage he could have easily paraphrased his father with language that
was less foul. Therefore the function of these swearwords is catharsis for the speaker. It is not
social, because it is such a deviation from the more formal way of speaking of the rest of the
interview, that it does not fit in the social context of the interview. The grammatical category of
the swearwords is adjective, because they all say something about “the gag”. The adjective
“goddamn” could be translated with the adjective “godverdomde”, but that is not the
grammatical category in which that swearword is most commonly used. It might be better to
use the more common interjection “godverdomme”, which has a different grammatical function,
but is more natural in the target language. The adjective “motherfucking” does not have a direct
Dutch equivalent, but that leaves the translator with the freedom to choose from a variety of foul
adjectives such as “kut”, “klote”, “tering” etc. The swearwords are important because they also
change the way we read the following sentences, which now also come across more angry, even
though the speaker might have regained his composure. And ending the interview with the
rhetoric question “So now we can explain my proclivities and trace their origins and have
everything tied up all nice and tight and tidy for you, can’t we.” seems now to be filled with
suppressed anger.
In line with the higher register in this interview, there is also no slang. The repetition of
certain idiomatic phrases and words is quite prominent and therefore very important in this
interview. An example is the phrase “a period of …” (either followed by the word “time” (3
times) or “unsuccessful counseling”). And also the phrase “for the umpteenth time” is used to
express that something happened very often, without naming any exact numbers. These are
both examples of colloquialisms. The problem with the “period of time” is the fact that a
translation might be “een bepaalde tijd”, but that gives trouble with the consistency when we try
to keep that phrase in combination with unsuccessful counseling, because “een bepaalde tijd van
vruchteloze therapie” is unnatural in Dutch. It would be desirable to maintain the repetition of
the phrase, but it might be necessary to change it slightly in combination with the therapy. There
is also the figurative use of “tied up” in: “But of course so now we can explain my proclivities
and trace their origins and have everything tied up all nice and tight and tidy for you, can’t we.”,
this is figuratively, because nothing is really tied up, but things make sense together, the pieces
fit together, so to speak. It works on a second level, because the speaker had just talked about his
dad tying himself up. This would give an extra reason to translate it with an idiom of similar
meaning and form. However in Dutch one would say that someone is “geboeid”, but for the
27
possible repetition of the word “tied”, it would be better to say that he is “vastgebonden”, but
then it has to be specified to what, because that information is given in the word “hog-tied”,
making the sentence longer and less natural. However this does make room for repetition of the
word “binden” when it is used again as “verbinden” in the last sentence. The translator has to
determine what is more important, the repetition of the natural flow of the text.
B.I. #11
This is the interview that is actually more an argument between two lovers, of which one is
leaving the other. However the female speaker is made silent, and her words are replaced by the
Q.. The register is more like the fourteenth interview again and it is very colloquial. However
there is no foul language.
The sentences are far from grammatically correct, but they make sense when they are
spoken aloud. There are many fragments, and even sentences that only contain one word: “I
need you to try and understand this. Okay? Look. I know I’m moody. I know I’m kind of
withdrawn sometimes. I know I’m hard to be in this with, okay? All right?” (16). What is different
about this interview compared to the other two is that there are more dashes (5 dashes), which
are used to indicate false starts where the speaker tries to reformulate what he is saying, or to
keep his opponent from interrupting: “but – wait – just try to listen and absorb this” (17). Again
there are also syntactic anomalies, for instance “But this every time I get moody or withdrawn
you thinking I’m leaving or getting ready to ditch you – I can’t take it”. The text is riddled with
either these longer sentences where the control of the syntax is lost and shorter sentences that
stress the point that is being made. Another colloquial aspect that hasn’t been discussed in my
theoretic framework, but is very prominent in this interview is the use of lexical fillers, which
are words or phrases that are added reflexively to win time or without any real purpose at all.
They have a lexical meaning, but within their context they are usually just used to fill a gap. The
speaker uses many such fillers. He uses “like” (three times) and “okay” (seventeen times) and
different forms of “can you see that?”(six times). The most important thing about this interview
is that even with all the false starts and syntactic anomalies it is still easy to follow. The reader
does not get lost because these false starts and anomalies make sense, they occur naturally that
way in spoken language. It will be the challenge for the translator, to formulate sentences that
are grammatically wrong, but that still are easy to read aloud and sound like sentences that
someone would actually say in such a situation. In most cases these long winding sentences are
less problematic than previously expected, but it becomes more difficult when different features
interplay together. Like in the sentence: “It makes me feel like I have to, like, hide whatever
mood I might be in because right away you're going to think it's about you and that I'm getting
ready to ditch you and leave” (Wallace). This sentence has a filler (“like”), that gets interjected,
28
but does not necessarily have a good equivalent in Dutch. The problem with fillers is, that they
naturally but also very arbitrarily occur in a language, and therefore are difficult to translate. In
this case a solution might be to translate the meaning of the word “like”, into the word “alsof”,
creating a false start, but losing the filler: “Het geeft me het gevoel dat ik, alsof ik altijd mijn
humeur moet verbergen omdat jij dan meteen denkt dat het aan jou ligt en dat ik van plan ben
om je te dumpen en bij je weg wil.”
This interview contains many colloquialisms and instances of creative language, so many
that it hard to keep track of them without getting lost between creative language and normal
language containing words that are simply homonymous. Because of this I will only address the
ones that might cause problems for a translator. The first is a sports metaphor: “I deserved a
whole lot of trust right off the bat”. The literal and the idiomatic meaning are both known, and
the literal meaning is inappropriate. The translator has to choose whether he wants to translate
this with another sports metaphor, which would be equally creative, but also more prominent,
since it might not be that common in Dutch to use a sports metaphor on such an occasion. A
possible solution might be “van meet af aan”, which is an idiom of similar meaning, but of a
different form, but it does have its origin in sports-related language. Another instance of a
colloquialism is when he claims to be “in it for the long haul”. A haul is, among other things, a
distance, so a long haul is a long distance, which is meant symbolically here, because he intends
to stay with her for a long time. Similar to this is the colloquialism: “I’m on eggshells all the time”,
which means that he should always be carefull around her (like one would be if he was walking
on eggshells, and didn’t want to break them). Luckily, a similar colloquialism exists in Dutch: “op
eieren lopen”, which would be an idiom of similar meaning and form. Another example is the
phrase: “things ebb and flow”, which is a metaphor for the way a relationship can sometimes go
very well and other times go less well. It comes back later as “you can’t stand ebb” and “no ebb’s
allowed”. In Dutch there is no idiom with a similar meaning and form. The next best thing would
be a translation of similar meaning and dissimilar form. But the metaphor with “pieken en
dalen” is a possible solution, however it is less creative than the original in the source text.
Another example of a colloquialism is the “I’m out of gas on it”, that is used to express that he is
tired of something. This does not have a translation of similar form and meaning, but the phrase
“Ik heb er de kracht niet voor” comes to mind, which is very idiomatic and colloquial.
Like most of interviews there are no allusions or proverbs, but there are two phrasal
verbs in the following two sentences: “going around reassuring you” and “Sometimes people are
just more into it than other times”. Especially the last one might be hard to translate, even when
it is translated through paraphrase, because it has many different meanings that are quite
specific, and does not seem to be easily represented in Dutch. Because it means that someone is
excited about something, and likes it, and wants to invest time into something. But it also means
29
you enjoy something and are really interested in something. It might be difficult to catch every
nuance of the phrase without using many words. Possible translations are “Soms hebben
mensen er gewoon wat meer zin in dan op andere momenten” or “soms zijn mensen gewoon net
wat enthousiaster dan op andere momenten”. The choice depends on what sounds most natural
in the context and what is most desirable with regard to the meaning of the phrase “being into
it.” The first phrase is also an issue, because the Dutch language does not offer a similar phrase,
because it does not mean anything other than “to keep on reassuring you”. The Dutch phrase “ik
kan je toch niet altijd gerust blijven stellen” would not be as colloquial, but there is not similar
phrasal verb in Dutch, but the adition of the word “maar” might make the sentence more
colloquial.
B.I. #3
The fourth interview is the dialogue between R. and A, which is a transcription of a dialogue that
was overheard. In comparison with the other interviews there are no questions and therefore
more dashes are used as both speakers tend to interrupt each other quite often. There is hardly
any punctuation and there are many syntactic anomalies. There is also more swearing and foul
language than in the other interviews. R. uses a sort of catchphrase when he is describing
something: “like all that business like that there”, but it comes in different forms, sometimes
containing more or less words. He uses different forms of this phrase at least eight times.
The text shows a few spelling errors, which raises an interesting question of who is to
blame for these mistakes? Judging on David Foster Wallace’s background and the rest of the
novel, these were not his mistakes, therefore they were made on purpose, serving a function. I
would also argue that it is not the mistake of the scribe, because it happens only in a few
interviews, and the mistakes could be explained through the way the words were pronounced.
Furthermore the interviews that contain these mistakes are the interviews where the speakers
think very highly of themselves and seem to know a lot. Slipping in a few of these mistakes
would make them seem less smart, putting their arrogance into perspective. For example R. is
reported to have said that someone’s faith was never “faldering”, which is not an existing word,
although faltering is, which would fit the context. Another “mistake” is when A. is saying that the
man must have faked the phone call, where “must have” is turned into “must of”, which is the
way must’ve can sound to a listener, but that is not the way that is written. For translating these
mistakes creativity is the translator’s greatest asset. Sometimes a mistake can be reproduced
within the same word “faldering” becomes “verslapde”, which even uses the same letters to
facilitate the mistake. But for “must of” it might be necessary to add a mistake somewhere else to
compensate for the loss of that particular mistake. More mistakes will be discussed in the
footnotes.
30
This interview is also of a lower register with many anomalies, false starts and repetitions.
Because of the lack of punctuation the sentences are even longer and more confusing: “Yes just
wait and relax in your seat be the last off why everybody right away all the time has to get up the
minute it stops and cram into the aisle so you just stand there with your bags all crammed in
pouring sweat in the aisle for five minutes just to be the –” (Wallace 18). But the reader can still
understand what is being said and where punctuation could have been used. It is not an
unintelligible stew of words, although it does create the sense of a character rambling on and on.
The problem here is the word order. Because of the lack of punctuation it is difficult to see which
words belong to which sentence. The danger is that the translator might stick firmly to the word
order of the source text. However, in this case that would not create a natural Dutch sentence in
the target text. A first step is to write down the implied full stops, so that the sentences don’t
interfere with each other. There would be one after “seat” and after “off”. This makes those two
sentences quite easy to understand and translate. This trick does not work for the rest of the
sentence, so the translator will have to simply puzzle with constituents of the sentence until the
most natural flow is created. Constituents that could be moved within the sentence are “pouring
sweat”, “in the aisle”, “for five minutes” and “with your bags”. Three of these are found in the end
of the sentence, but would work better earlier in the sentence: “waarom iedereen meteen altijd
maar moet opstaan op het exacte moment dat ie stopt en zich het gangpad in wurmt zodat je
daar druipend van het zweet vijf minuten maar een beetje met je tassen opgepropt in het
gangpad staat alleen om de –”
Just like the other interviews there are false starts and repetitions, this time when the
speaker cannot find the proper word, but this also happens repeatedly with the same word:
“into the you know gate area greeting area” (18).
This interview is also riddled with idioms, which are not all relevant to discuss here.
Therefore I will only list and explain a few here and leave the rest for the footnotes, when that is
necessary. Idioms that cause problems are colloquialisms like “with the waterworks”, “gets off
the fence” (19), “onetrack shitheels” and “hauls ass”. The first is problematic because it is used
multiple times. Sometimes it can be translated with “tranen met tuiten huilen”, but it is only a
noun-phrase in English, and this specific idiom only works in Dutch with the verb “huilen”,
which cannot always be added in the translation. Therefore a different idiom, that can function
without an added verb might be better, such as “waterlanders”. The second one means that
someone (finally) takes a decision, after being “on the fence” on the subject for too long. There is
no idiom of similar form and meaning in Dutch, but “een knoop doorhakken” could be used,
because it is an idiom that has the same meaning. The “onetrack shitheel” comes from someone
with a onetrack mind, which is somebody that has only one thing on his mind, which in this case
is sex. In Dutch this could be translated with “Seks beluste klootzak”, but then the subject is
31
made explicit, which is implicit in the source text. Another solution could be “klootzakken met
één doel voor ogen” or “klootzakken die maar aan één ding denken.” but that is a translation
through paraphrase, which is not desirable. The slang idiom “haul ass” uses the same word as it
did earlier, but now it is used as a verb, and it means “to hurry”. In Dutch there is no different
verb for this (other than the regular word “haasten”), but one could add a word to “haasten” to
create a similar effect, such as “kapot haasten”, “een breuk haasten”, “een ongeluk haasten”.
However, the first one sounds too young and new, but the second one is too old. The problem
with these solutions is that they are not as foul as “haul ass”. The addition of a disease might be
the best solution turning the phrase into “zich de tering/pleuris/tyfus haasten”.
This interview has many instances of foul language. Because of the colloquial nature of
the text and the abundance of foul language one could say that almost every instance of foul
language is of the social kind, because the relaxed setting they are in facilitates the use of such
language. So even if the swearing is also cathartic or aggressive in most cases the language
would not have been so foul, had it not been for the relaxed setting the speakers were in. I will
not discuss every curse word in detail, but the instances of swearing that are solely social are:
“pretty fucking incredible tits” (Wallace 19), and all the other instances where the speaker talks
about her breasts, “bitchslapping herself” (Ibid.), “heels that say fuck me in like myriads of major
languages”(20), “on his mother’s fucking life”, “haul(s) ass” (two times (20 & 21), which was
discussed earlier) and when he talks about the plane “taking some kind of almost shit” (21). It
could be said that the “fucking” in “on his mother’s fucking life” is also cathartic and maybe even
aggressive because it expresses anger towards the guy who had the nerve to swear at all that
and still not show up. With most of these instances of foul language my initial reaction was to
translate them by paraphrase and leave out the foul language creating phrases like“gruwelijk
lekkere tieten” and “zichzelf voor haar kop aan het slaan”. The second phrase seemed to be the
only solution, because the word “bitchslap” does not have a Dutch translation, and with this
translation at least the meaning on the ideational level is the same. With the “fucking incredible
tits” I noticed that the Dutch language doesn’t allow that many different swearwords in this
phrase, the only two solutions seem to be “kanker lekkere tieten” and “fucking lekkere tieten”.
The first one is too crude, because “kanker” is a very offensive swearword, and many people that
do use foul refrain from using that one. And even though “fucking” is a word that is easy to
translate as a ‘calque’, it should not always be used that way, because it is not used as often in
Dutch as it is in English. In this case in depends on the rest of the translation whether or not it is
appropriate. The problem with the “mother’s fucking life” is the fact that the word “fucking” is
not intended to say something about his mother’s life. “Fucking” is used as a filler, or and
interjection, without any real meaning. In Dutch any swearword would automatically say
something about the life like “klote leven” or “verdomde leven”. This makes a translation by
32
paraphrase the best solution, leaving out the swearword. Because the swearword is left out in
this phrase, it becomes more important to keep one in the phrase about the “fucking incredible
tits”, because it is important not to lose too many instances of foul language. “Fucking lekkere
tieten” might then be a good solution. The last sentence that was listed does not really pose any
problems and can be translated easily into a sentence with Dutch foul language.
Sometimes the speaker is aggressive in his cursing, because the other speaker who
keeps interrupting him, annoys him, which happens when he says: “Just shut it for one fucking
second” (Wallace 18), “fuck you” (20), “shut up” (Ibid.). And at other times it is a combination of
catharsis and social swearing, when they are speaking of “cheapass product” (19) and “fucking
cold calls” (Ibid.), because it is the social situation which allows for the swearing, but it also
expresses the annoyance the speakers feel towards the subject they speak of. And finally the
speakers seem to freely quote the cursing of the girl they have been talking about, which would
make it social swearing on their part, but cathartic and aggressive swearing on her part. The
speaker pretends to “feel for the girl”, which would mean that he felt the same catharsis and
aggression when he swears, but his actions in the end don’t really seem to support the idea that
he feels anything for her. Examples of swearing that show the girls catharsis and aggression are:
“finally for christsakes […] onetrack shitheels” (19) and the phrase that “men are shit” (22). The
latter is repeatedly used as a direct quote and an agreement with the girl, which makes it social
and aggressive. The word “shitheel” is used repeatedly towards the end of the story, although
the last two times they are the speakers own words, which would make them aggressive,
however the tone is not very serious, which still makes it seem more social than aggressive.
Again taking liberties and being creative is very important when similar foul language is
translated, because that is the only way that a natural solution will be found. “Shut up” can be
translated easily with a phrase like “houd je smoel”. “Fuck you” is already a bigger problem, but
even phrases like “val dood” or “rot op” can be used. The “cheapass product” poses a similar
problem as we had with “bitchslapping”, that it is a term that does not have an idiom of similar
meaning and form and a translation by paraphrase is probably the best solution, which would
be: “goedkope troep”. The interjection “for Christ sakes” does not have a solution of similar form
and meaning, however there is a solution that has the same theme and foul nature, which would
be: “godverdomme eindelijk”. The interjection has been moved to the front, but it is a religiously
themed swearword expressing the same feeling as the “for christsakes” does. The other
instances of foul language do not pose any new problems, so they will not be discussed further.
B.I. #30
The next interview is a relatively easier. It is a short monologue without any questions. The
translator doesn’t have to guess what the question might have been, which takes away some of
33
the lack of clarity that other interviews sometimes have. Another interesting feature is the fact
that when the speaker lists things he doesn’t use commas, like we are used to when listing more
than two things, but he keeps using the word “and” which makes it more of a repetitious list.
“Trim and good and good legs” (Wallace 22) and “all blown out and veiny and sagged” (23). He
does not use any foul language.
This interview has less anomalies and false starts. It does have two dashes to indicate an
abrupt change in subject. It doesn’t seem to have any hesitation pauses, there are also hardly any
grammatical anomalies. Apart from the dashes these sentences are well structured compared to
the previous interviews. This shorter interview does not contain as many idioms as the previous
one, but there are two phrasal verbs: “doing better” and “blown out”. The first is used to express
that the speaker would never find anybody that was going to be better than the woman that he
has now. Something similar could be said with the Dutch: “beter krijgen”. The second one is
meant to describe the woman gaining weight after giving birth. For which there is not really a
translation of similar form and meaning, because “opgeblazen” and “opgezwollen” seem to
express a feeling more than a physical state, like feeling bloated after eating too much.
“Opgeblazen” also has the connotation of arrogance and selfimportance that is undesirable in the
target text. A possible solution might be “uitgezakt” although it means something else. It is
something people would say about somebody losing their figure after giving birth.
B.I. #31
The longest interview has its own unique difficulty in the speaker interrupting his own story
continuously to comment on the way the interviewer is smoking a joint. This is usually not
indicated clearly, which causes the text to be confusing and random at times. This speaker also
has a filler-word, which is “type”. He uses this 21 times throughout the interview. Sometimes
dashes are used to indicate a change in subject, but more often there are no dashes, which can
make it difficult to keep track of what the speaker is talking about. The subject is also sex, with
the word “yingyang” for vagina and the word “pizzle” for penis. He also talks of “Notchers” and
“Yuppies” and “Barnes & Nobles”, all of which are problems the translator will have to overcome,
albeit some are more difficult than others. The biggest problem here is the term “Notchers”,
which is derived from the noun “notch”, which is a V shaped carving, usually used to keep score
of how often something is done, or how much time has passed. In Dutch there is the term “vink”,
and the verb “afvinken”, so “vinkers” might be a solution. This is the second interview that
contains mistakes, and the first one is the word “reciplacate” which means nothing, but deducing
from the context is supposed to mean reciprocate. The translation of reciprocate would be
something like “een wederdienst bewijzen”, which now needs a mistake. Because one word
turns into three words in the translation more mistakes are possible. It could be the misspelling
of a word, or the deletion of a word, or the use of the wrong word altogether. In the context of
34
sex the phrase “een wederdienst bedrijven” might be a good solution. And there is the same
mistake as in the earlier interview, changing the “ve” from “have” into “of” in “I could of sworn
you said you did this before”. These are the only two interviews where these types of mistakes
occur. This internal deviation makes them prominent. A reason for this could be that these are
the longer two interviews, and more space for such mistakes, but it could also be that it helped
create a certain image. The speakers of both interviews are quite arrogant en seem to think they
know everything. The first is an experienced airtraveler and sometimes uses a high register
seemingly for no other reason than to sound smart. The other one claims to know all about how
to please and charm women, and how to make them happy in bed. To have them make mistakes
will make them seem less smart and will also put their arrogance into perspective. This would
be in line with the fact that they are hideous men, because it is a hideous character trait, when
someone thinks he’s really smart, when he actually is not. The speaker also switches very often
between the second and the third person. He starts talking to the interviewer in the second
person and referring to other men in the third person, but as he gets more and more passionate
about the subject he also refers to the men in the second person. This confusion stems from the
fact that he seems to be explaining to a woman how to be a great male lover. Therefore “him”
and “you” are sometimes used interchangeably.
Compared with some interviews, this interview is not as colloquial. There are no false
starts or hesitation pauses. There are some fragments: “Not really.”(23) “ The two types.”(25)
“Custom-made.” (26) “Go on. (Ibid.) “Bullshit.” (27) “Never ever. You follow?” (28). The
sentences are also less obviously grammatical anomalies, they are very long and sometimes
commas are used where one would expect a fullstop:
I’m guessing from looking you over out here now you’ve run
up against a smoothie a time or two, with his pheromone
aftershave and strawberry oil and hand massages and the
holding and touching, that know about the earlobe and what
kind of flush means what and the aureole and the backside
of the knee and that new little ultrasensitive spot they say
they found now just back of the G, this type of fellow knows
them all, and you can be damn sure he’s going to let you
know he knows how to – here give it here. I’ll show you.
Well and now darlin’ you can just bet this type of fellow
wants to know if she came, and how many times, and was it
the best she ever – and like that.”
(24)
35
As said earlier, the way the speaker interrupts himself with comments directed at the
interviewer makes this interview interesting. However like the previous interview it is not as
much filled with grammatical anomalies, but the sentences get longer adding more information,
linking complete sentences with the word “and”. These sentences make it seem like the speaker
is rambling and piling up sentence after sentence, in a way that speakers tend to do when they
are talking. It is important that the sentences still make sense and can easily be understood. The
interview is different from brief interview #3, because there is more punctuation, which makes
it better to understand and easier to translate. Like the earlier example from #3 some
constituents of sentences can be relocated, but not as many. And the only real problem comes
from the “G”, which refers to the G-spot. In Dutch this is also called the G-spot, which would
make the use of solely the letter G confusing, because readers might read it as a Dutch “G”,
therefore not making the connection with the word G-spot. This is why I decided to make it
explicit to avoid confusion changes on the ideational level.
An example of a sentence that is grammatically incorrect is the following:
No but here's your classic symptom to tell if it's one of these
Great Lover fellows is they'll spend whole major blocks of
time in bed going down on a lady's yingyang over and over
and making her come seventeen straight times and such, but
afterward just watch and see if there's any way on God's
good green earth he's going to let her turn around and go
down on his precious little pizzle for him. How he'll go Oh
no baby no let me do you I want to see you come again baby
oh baby you just lie there and let me work my love-magic
and such like that right there.
(25)
In formal written language this sentence would have looked very different, especially the part
where “classic symptom to tell if it’s one of these Great Lover fellows is they’ll spend whole major
blocks…” after the verb “is” there should have been at least the word “that”. In Dutch however,
there is another additional problem, because the “is” from “it’s” gets a different location: “Nee,
maar hier heb je een typisch kenmerk waaraan je kan zien of het een van die Geweldige Minnaar
kerels is is dat ze dan hele blokken…” It creates a repetition of the word “is” that is not
acceptable in the Dutch writing. However it is certainly something that typically happens in
spoken language, which makes it actually fit in the text, because it achieves the same effect as the
36
omission of “that” did in the source text. Now the word “dat” can be added, making it easier to
translate the rest of the sentence. This is an example of how different means were used to create
a similar effect, by making use of the possibilities within the target language. Another change
occured in the translation of “your classic sympton” into “hier heb je een typisch kenmerk”,
because that is the idiomatic Dutch way of phrasing such a sentence, the phrase “jouw/ je
typische indicatie” does not occur in the Dutch language.
Another colloquial aspect of this text is the use of filler words. In this interview the word
“type” is repeatedly used when describing certain men. This makes the text seem more like a
spoken and natural text, even though it is prominent and strange in written language.
Translating this word consistently could have a similar effect in the target language. However,
that could be a problem, because the word is used both as a noun: “That’s your first type”, which
could easily be translated with words like “type” or “soort”, but it is also used as a sort of suffix:
“smoothie-type fellow”, which means something like “-achtige”. If I choose to translate the
meaning of each word in its context, I would choose two different words, but if I wanted to
create the same reading experience I would try to translate the word consistently. However this
should not exoticize too much, it should not pull the attention towards the word, because it is
odd or wrong in the context. The effect of the repetition is important, but not as important as the
effect of natural speech. A natural repetition is most desirable. To achieve this I have decided to
change the way the word “type” was used. Whenever it was used as a suffix and the word
“fellow” was added as in: “smoothie-type fellow” and “cracker-type fellow” I left out the word
“fellow” turning “type” into a noun which creates the possibility of a natural repetition.
This is the last interview that contains foul language, however the curse words seem of a
different register than in other interviews. When the interviewee speaks of genitals he uses
words as “pizzle” and “yinyang” instead of fouler, more explicit words. Even when he does swear
he once even uses the phrase “they’re stinky little boogers”, which really sounds soft compared
to the fouler words in previous interviews. He calls men “pigs” and “stupid-ass mechanics” who
“don’t even give a shit”. These are instances of aggressive swearing, because it is meant to show
his distaste for said pigs. When he speaks of knowledge and weed he calls it “shit”, but that is not
meant to really offend anybody, making it social swearing. Although one could argue that calling
the knowledge of those pigs “shit” shows his dislike for the “pigs”, so it might also be aggressive.
What is most important with these swearwords is that the translation should also not be too
foul. Possible solutions are the word “pikkie” for “pizzle” and “yin yang” for “ying yang”, “het zijn
kleine stinkerds” for “they are stinky little boogers”, because the word “boogers” means
something like “gevallen” or “dingen” in this context, but it does not add any extra meaning. The
word “stinkerds” has the same colloquial air as the word “booger”.
37
Towards the end of theinterview there is a change in tone, when the speaker starts to
swear more frequently and the swearwords become fouler, with words like “son of a bitch” and
“damn” when he expresses his dislike for the pigs more vehemently. He says that this “son of a
bitch isn’t a lover” (27), that he “doesn’t give a shit about you”, that he should go on and “think
about her for one damn second” (Ibid.) and “put [his] picture of [himself] on the goddamn back
burner for once in [his] life”(Ibid.). And that it is “Bullshit” (Ibid.) when he thinks he knows how
to really get a lady, because he should make her think she’s blowing [his] damn head off” (Ibid.).
Because of this increase in swearwords towards the end the speaker’s hatred becomes more
obvious. It is intended to offend these “pigs” so it could be said that it is aggressive swearing,
only the subject of his swearing is not present, so one could argue that it is cathartic swearing, to
relieve his irritation more than intentionally offend the pigs. For these swearwords fouler
solutions need to be found, compared to the ones discussed earlier.
This is an interview with many idioms, with phrases like “that’s all she wrote” and “put
your picture of yourself on the goddamn back burner”. The first means that there is no more to
something and the second one that someone should not always see himself as his main priority.
For the second one there is a similar translation in Dutch, being “op een laag pitje zetten”. But
the first one does not have a simple solution of a similar form and meaning. A possible solution is
“en dat is dat”, but that is less creative than the “that’s all she wrote” phrase. In this interview
there is some slang that will cause problems. For instance using “to nail” when talking about
having sex, or “getting off on” something and to “give a shit” about something and “going down
on” someone. Most of these are not very inappropriate, but also not formal, which makes it a
challenge to translate them, because the translation should be somewhere between formal and
foul all the while still sounding like a natural phrase that a Dutch native speaker would utter.
The first two do not cause any big problems and can easily be translated with “kicken op” and
“hij geeft geen ruk (om je)”, but the third one is a bigger problem, because there are not that
many creative ways to talk about oral sex in Dutch. The most commonly used term is the term
“beffen”, which is somewhat more explicit than “going down” on someone is, but it is the word
that would probably be used by a Dutch person talking about oral sex.
This is also the only interview that actually has two allusions. The one being “that’s all
she wrote” and the other being “[putting] notches on one’s gun”. The first one was already
explained in Chapter 2. The second one stems from the time when people kept score of their kills
by carving out notches on the handle of their gun, which is now is just meant as someone
keeping score of something (women or orgasms).
38
B.I. #36
The last interview is the shortest one, and doesn’t pose any additional new problems, apart from
the fact that the last answer is “who?”, which gives it an open ending. Once again, there is no foul
language in this interview.
This interview doesn’t have any false starts or hesitation pauses. It does have many fragments
that are grammatically complete, but could have easily been one sentence: “so I made a decision.
To get help for me.”(28) “I’ve halted the shame spiral. I’ve learned forgiveness. I like myself”
(Ibid.). The shortness of these sentences accentuates what he’s trying to say.
There are no idioms, apart from the phrasal verb “to get in touch with”, which means in
this context that someone should acknowledge his feelings and deal with them. There are idioms
of similar form and meaning and possible solutions are “zich ergens bij neerleggen”, or “in het
reine komen met”. The second option might be the best one, because it comes closer to the
meaning of the phrase of the source text, but it is also of a higher register that does not
necessarily fit in the tone of the interview.
39
Chapter 4: Annotated Translation
Korte interviews met verschrikkelijke mannen
K.I. # 14 08-96
ST. DAVIDS PA
‘Het heeft me tot nu toe al mijn seksuele relaties gekost. Ik weet niet waarom ik het doe. Ik ben
geen politiek persoon, ik beschouw mezelf niet1. Ik ben niet zo iemand van Amerika Eerst, lees
de krant, zal het Buchanan2 worden. En dan ben ik zo bezig3 met een meisje, het maakt niet uit
wie. En als ik dan op het punt sta om klaar te komen. Dan gebeurt het. Ik ben geen Democraat. Ik
stem niet eens. Ik raakte er een keer enorm van in de paniek4 en toen heb ik een radio
programma gebeld, een dokter op de radio, anoniem, en hij kwam met de diagnose van het
onbeheerst schreeuwen van ongewenste woorden of zinnen, vaak beledigend en obsceen,
coprolalia heet dat, is de officiële term. Behalve dan dat als ik dan begin te schreeuwen als ik
bijna klaarkom, dan is het niet beledigend, is het niet vulgair, het is altijd hetzelfde en het is altijd
zo raar, maar ik denk niet dat het beledigend is. Ik denk dat het alleen maar raar is. En
Here I tried to create a sentence that is content-wise incomplete even though it is grammatically
complete. Normally a “zo” or “als een politiek persoon” would be added to complete the sentence.
2 This is an example of a CSI that I did not change, although chances are a Dutch reader might not know
who is meant by Buchanan (which is Pat Buchanan, an American Republican, who ran for the Republican
presidential nomination in 1996. Getting “the nod” would mean that he would become the presidential
nominee.). I chose not to translate this into a Dutch political figure, because that would also give rise to
different problems, because would I then also say “Nederland eerst” instead of “Amerika eerst”, you
cannot express your nationalism for one country followed by a political statement about the other. I
decided it was easiest to leave this CSI as it was and translate in a retentive manner, historicizing and
exoticizing the CSI.
3 The idiomatic Slang phrase “doing it” here is translated with an idiom of a different form but similar
meaning.
4 As was explained earlier, the meaning of this phrasal verb is difficult to capture in a similar idiom in
Dutch. In this context I think the word “geschrokken” is wrong, because that would make it seem like he
called the radio right after it happened, which I don’t think is the case. I think it freaked him out over a
longer period of time, causing him to end up calling the radio show, which is why I used the phrase “in
paniek raken”, because that seems like something that takes a little longer and is a mental issue, more
than an instant shock.
1
40
onbeheerst. Het is alsof het eruit komt net als mijn smurrie eruit komt, zo voelt het. Ik weet niet
waar het op slaat en ik kan er niks aan doen.’
V.
‘ “Leve de Machten der Democratische Vrijheid!” Alleen véél5 harder. Zodat ik het echt schreeuw.
Onbeheerst. Ik denk er niet eens aan tot het eruit komt en ik het hoor. “Leve de Machten der
Democratische Vrijheid!” Alleen dus harder dan dat: "Leve de–”’
V.
‘Nou daar schrikken ze zich de pleuris van, wat dacht je dan? En dan schaam ik me dood6. Ik
weet niet eens wat ik moet zeggen. Wat zeg je als je net “Leve de Machten der Democratische
Vrijheid!” hebt geschreeuwd, precies toen je klaarkwam?'
V.
‘Het zou niet zo gênant zijn als het niet zo mega fucking7 raar was. Als ik enig idee had waar het
op sloeg. Snap je?’
V….
‘God, nu schaam ik me echt de tering8.’
V.
‘Maar er is altijd alleen maar die éne keer. Dat is wat ik bedoel met dat het kost. Ik kan zien hoe
erg ze ervan schrikken, en dan schaam ik me en bel ik ze nooit meer. Zelfs als ik het probeer uit
te leggen. En het zijn juist degenen die zo begripvol9 doen, alsof het ze niets uit maakt en het is
oké, en dat ze het begrijpen en het maakt niet uit,10 waarbij ik me nog het ergste geneer, omdat
As was explained in the analysis “way louder” did not have a proper equivalent in Dutch, but by adding
the emphasis on the word “veel” I tried to get some of the spoken expression back into the sentence.
6 Here an idiom is translated with an idiom of similar form and meaning. Although “being embarrassed”
and “zich schamen” are technically not exactly the same thing, it is the most similar idiom possible.
7 As the swearword “fucking” is translated through a “calque”, using the same word in the translation it
retains the same function and grammatical category in the sentence.
8 An English curseword with a religious connotation (“hell”) is translated into a Dutch curse word
referring to a disease, since that is more in line with the Dutch swearing tradition.
5
10
Here I used the same use of direct and indirect speech as in the source text.
41
het zo fucking raar is om “Leve de Machten der Democratische Vrijheid!” te roepen als je komt11
dat ik altijd kan zien dat ze zich kapot zijn geschrokken en alleen neerbuigend op me doen12 en
doen alsof ze het begrijpen, dat zijn ook echt degenen waarbij ik eigenlijk echt bijna echt boos
word en ik me niet eens schaam wanneer ik ze niet bel of ze volledig ontloop, degene die zeggen
“ik denk dat ik toch van je kan houden.”’
K.I. # 15 08-96
MCI- BRIDGEWATER OBSERVATIE & ASSESSMENT RUIMTE
BRIDGEWATER MA
'Het is een predispositie13, en op de voorwaarde dat er geen sprake is van dwang en geen echte
schade is het in essentie onschadelijk, ik denk dat je me daar wel gelijk in moet geven. En er is
een verrassend laag aantal dat überhaupt gedwongen dient te worden, wees geïnformeerd.’
V.
‘Vanuit psychologische oogpunt lijkt de oorsprong vanzelfsprekend. Ik kan hier ook wel aan
toevoegen dat verscheidene psychologen het erover eens zijn, hier en elders. Dus het allemaal
behoorlijk netjes.’
V.
‘Nou, u zou kunnen zeggen dat mijn vader14 een man was die vanuit zijn natuurlijke
predispositie geen goed mens was maar desalniettemin vol toewijding probeerde een goed mens
te zijn. Driftbuien15 en dergelijken.’
As discussed in the Analysis this was an instance of slang / a phrasal verb that showed the creativity of
the English language and the limits of the Dutch language, the only other slang I thought of was “(vol)
spuiten”, but that sounded too crude for the context.
12 Here I also tried to mix up two idioms one being “neerbuigend doen” and the other being “op iemand
neer kijken”.
13In this interview I used a similar higher register than in the earlier interview.
14 The word order in this sentence was changed in order to make it a more natural Dutch sentence, in this
instance I used a naturalizing strategy on the textual level. This change in word order changes the winding
structure of the sentence, which makes it colloquial in the source text, but would make it too complicated
11
42
V.
‘Ik bedoel, het is niet alsof ik ze martel of dat ik ze brand.’
V.
‘Mijn vaders predispositie voor woede, in het bijzonder {onverstaanbaar of verstoord} de
Spoedeisende Hulp voor de zoveelste keer, bang voor zijn eigen driftbuien en predispositie voor
huiselijk geweld, dit stapelde zich na een bepaalde tijd op, en uiteindelijk nam hij zijn toevlucht,
na een bepaalde tijd en een bepaald aantal16 jaren van vruchteloze therapie, tot het boeien van
zijn handen achter zijn rug wanneer hij weer eens zijn beheersing verloor met een van ons. Bij
ons thuis. Huiselijk. Kleine huiselijke incidenten die zijn geduld17 op de proef stelden en
dergelijken. Deze zelfbeheersing ontwikkelde binnen een bepaalde tijd zodanig dat hij,
naarmate hij bozer werd op een van ons, zichzelf steeds strikter in bedwang begon te houden.
Vaak eindigde de dag met de arme man geboeid18 op de woonkamervloer, woedend tegen ons
schreeuwend dat we godverdomme die klote prop in zijn bek19 moeten doen. Wat voor
in the target-text. This time I chose a strategy that would not necessarily make the text more colloquial,
but rather more natural and easy to read. This text allowed for it because of its higher register and less
colloquial nature compared to the other interviews.
15 “temper” was a word that was hard to translate, because it has many connotations which can’t really be
caught in one Dutch word. It means “humeur”, but also has something to do with “geduld” and
“driftbuien”, in this context it is meant as the person’s patience or the lack thereof and whether or not he
can remain calm, and this person obviously cannot. In the word temper the “bad” is implied, but with a
word like “geduld” the negative part is not as obvious and it could be read as a positive word. However
“humeur” could be temporary, when someone has a bad “humeur” that could be over tomorrow, however
someone’s bad temper is a personality trait. That is why I chose more explicit “driftbuien.”
16 I tried to have a similar repetition as with the “a period of time/ unsuccessful councelling” this was
easiest with the “bepaalde tijd” but to keep in natural in combination with “vruchteloze therapie”, which
forced me to add “aantal jaren”, because the function of the word “bepaalde” and period is different, it
needed an extra noun.
17 The problem that I had with the word temper earlier cannot be solved with the same word here,
because you can’t say “zijn driftbuien op de proef stellen”, because then you would need the word
“driftigheid”, which is not really the way that word is naturally used. It is usually someone’s “geduld” that
gets tried. So I chose for the idiomatic translation over the consistent one (translating the word temper
with a form of “driftbuien” everytime).
18
“geboeid” instead of “vastgebonden”, because I deemed the repetition of the word less desirable than a
natural text.
19 I added the word “bek” because it seemed to fit with the anger of the outburst and because the word
“prop” is less specific than the word “gag” it needed to be more explicit what had to be done with it.
43
interessants dit stukje geschiedenis dan ook moge bieden voor iemand die niet het voorrecht
heeft gehad om er bij aanwezig te zijn. Proberen om die prop erin te krijgen zonder gebeten te
worden. Maar natuurlijk kunnen we nu dus mijn predisposities verklaren en zijn oorsprong
herleiden en alles keurig netjes en geordend aan elkaar vast breien20, of niet dan.’
K.I. # 11 06-96
VIENNA VA
‘Oké, dat doe ik, oké, ja, maar wacht eens even, ja?21 Ik wil dat je dit probeert te begrijpen. Ja?
Kijk. Ik weet dat ik chagrijnig ben. En ik weet dat ik soms best teruggetrokken ben. Ik weet dat ik
niet de makkelijkste ben om mee in dit schuitje te zitten22, ja? oke? Maar dit iedere keer dat ik
chagrijnig of teruggetrokken ben dat jij denkt dat ik bij je wegga of ik van plan ben om je te
dumpen – ik kan het niet aan. Dit gedoe dat jij de hele tijd zo bang bent. Ik word er doodmoe van.
Het geeft me het gevoel dat ik, alsof ik altijd mijn humeur moet verbergen omdat jij dan meteen
denkt dat het aan jou ligt en dat ik van plan ben om je te dumpen en bij je weg wil. Je vertrouwt
me niet. Echt niet. Ik bedoel niet dat ik denk dat ik, gezien ons verleden, meteen van meet af
aan23 veel vertrouwen verdien. Maar je vertrouwt me nog steeds totaal niet. Er is echt nul
komma nul zekerheid, maakt niet uit wat ik doe. Ja? Ik zei dat ik beloofde dat ik niet bij je weg
zou gaan en jij geloofde me dat ik er nu wel voor altijd voor je zou zijn, maar je geloofde me niet.
because it did not need to be consistent with the “geboeid” earlier I was free to choose the most natural
option, which was still difficult, because “aan elkaar vast lullen” seemed very natural, but that would be
too foul.
21 This was the interview that was full of fillers like “Okay” (4 times), “Okay?” (15 times), “All right(?)” (3
times). I have tried to create a similar effect with the words “ja(?) and “oké(?)”. However I have not strictly
kept to translating words the same way everytime: the Okay without the question marks are usually
translated with a “oké”, because the word has a similar function in Dutch, however this would cause
problems in combination with the translation of the words “all right”, which would also be translated with
“oké”. And in the first sentence both words are used in combination with the word “yes”. This has lead me
to decide to translate the “okay”s and the “all right”s with “oké” and all “okay?”s with “ja?”, because in the
end that was what most natural in most cases.
22 translation of an idiom with a different form but a similar meaning.
23 Another translation of an idiom with a different form but a similar meaning. What is nice is that it also
has its origin in a sportsmetaphor.
20
44
Ja? Geef dat nou maar toe, oke? Je vertrouwt me niet. Het is met jou altijd op eieren lopen. Snap
je dat? Ik kan jou toch niet altijd maar24 blijven gerust stellen.’
V.
‘Nee, Ik zeg niet dat dit geruststellend is. Wat dit is is dat ik gewoon probeer om jou in te laten
zien – oke, kijk, je hebt pieken en dalen. Ja? Soms hebben mensen er gewoon wat minder zin in25
dan op andere momenten. Zo is het nou eenmaal. Maar jij kan niet tegen de dalen. Het voelt alsof
de dalen niet zijn toegestaan. En ik weet dat dat gedeeltelijk mijn schuld is, ja? Ik weet dat ik je
de vorige keren nou niet bepaald een zeker gevoel heb gegeven. Maar daar kan ik niets meer aan
doen, ja? Maar dit is nu. En nu voelt het alsof ieder moment dat ik liever even niet praat of
chagrijnig wordt, of me terug trek dat jij meteen denkt dat ik van plan ben je te dumpen26. En dat
breekt mij hart. Ja? Dat breekt gewoon mijn hart. Misschien als ik wat minder van je had
gehouden of wat minder om je gaf, dan had ik het aangekund. Maar dat kan ik niet. Dus ja, dat is
wat die tassen betekenen. Ik vertrek.’
V.
‘En ik was – dit is nou precies waar ik bang voor was. Ik wist het, dat jij dan zou denken dat dit
betekent dat je er goed aan deed om altijd bang te zijn en je nooit veilig te voelen of me te
vertrouwen. Ik wist dat het zou gaan van “Zie je, je verlaat me toch, ook al had je beloofd dat niet
te doen.” ik wist het maar ik probeer het toch uit te leggen, ja? en ik weet dat je dit waarschijnlijk
The idiomatic phrasal verb: “going around” here was not translated with an idiom, either of similar of
different form, but it is translated through paraphrase, if one could call it that, because it doesn’t really
mean anything (the words could be left out of the sentence without changing the meaning). Therefore I
added two words that could also be deleted without changing the meaning: “altijd maar”, but what do
make it a bit more colloquial.
25 As was explained in the analysis, this was a colloquialism that was hard to translate, with this being the
most desirable possible solution.
26 I created a problem for myself here by translating “getting ready to ditch you” with “van plan zijn je te
dumpen” because the more literal translation did not seem to give a phrase that one would naturally say
in Dutch “me klaar maken om je te dumpen.”. Because my main focus is to create a text that is natural and
could be heard in general Dutch speech I chose to forego the difference between the two phrases and use
the one Dutch phrase that would naturally occur in Dutch speech, even though the change from “getting
ready” and “plotting” (which implies more scheming) is lost.
24
45
toch niet zult begrijpen, maar - wacht – probeer nou eens te luisteren en te begrijpen wat ik
bedoel. Ja? Snap je dat? Het is die angst waar ik niet tegen kan. Het is je angst en wantrouwen
waar ik zo mee worstel. En ik kan het niet meer. Ik heb er de kracht niet voor. Als ik ook maar
iets minder van je gehouden had had ik het misschien aangekund. Maar hier ga ik aan
onderdoor, dit aanhoudende gevoel dat je altijd bang maak en dat je je nooit veilig voelt. Snap je
dat?’
V.
‘Het is inderdáád nogal ironisch van jouw kant bezien, dat snap ik ook wel. Ja. En ik snap dat je
me nu echt niet uit kan staan. En ik heb er lang over gedaan om mezelf erop voor te bereiden om
jou onder ogen te komen in de wetenschap dat je me niet uit kan staan en dan die blik op je
gezicht, vol complete vervulling van al je angsten en verdenkingen, als je die nu eens kon zien,
ja? Ik zweer het je als jij je gezicht nu eens kon zien echt iedereen zal begrijpen waarom ik bij je
wegga.’
V.
‘Het spijt me. Het is niet mijn bedoeling om jou alles in de schoenen te schuiven27. Het spijt me.
Het ligt niet aan jou, ja? Ik bedoel, het zal wel aan mij liggen als je na al die weken nog steeds niet
tegen wat pieken en dalen kan zonder meteen te denken dat ik bij je weg wil. Ik weet niet wat,
maar er zal wel wat zijn. Oke, ik weet dat ons verleden niet al te best is, maar ik zweer je dat ik
alles meende wat ik zei en dat ik echt voor meer dan honderd procent mijn best heb gedaan.
Echt dat zweer ik op mijn leven. het spijt me zo. Ik hoop dat je dat geloofd, maar ik geef het op
om je ervan te overtuigen. Geloof alsjeblieft dat ik het geprobeerd heb. En denk nou niet dat dit
komt omdat er iets mis is met jou. Doe dat jezelf niet aan. Het ligt aan ons, ons is waarom ik weg
ga, ja? Snap je dat? Dat het niet datgene is waar je altijd voor vreesde? Ja? Snap je dat? Zou je
27
Translating one idiom into another idiom of different form but similar meaning.
46
misschien kunnen begrijpen28 dat je wel eens géén gelijk zou kunnen hebben gehad, heel
misschien? Zou je dat toe kunnen geven, denk je? Want dit is voor mij ook niet echt een pretje,
hoor, ja? Zo weg gaan, met deze blik op je gezicht als mijn laatste mentale beeld van jou. Snap je
dat ik er misschien ook wel ontzettend van baal? Snap je dat? Dat je niet de enige bent?’
K.I. #3 11-94
TRENTON NJ [OPGEVANGEN]
R—— ‘Dus ik ben weer de laatste die uitstapt en al die onzin zoals dat gaat daar.’
A—— ‘Ja wacht gewoon rustig in je stoel stap als laatste uit waarom iedereen meteen altijd maar
moet opstaan op het exacte moment dat ie stopt en zich het gangpad in wurmt zodat je daar
druipend van het zweet vijf minuten maar een beetje met je tassen opgepropt in het gangpad
staat alleen om de – ’
R —— ‘Wacht nou eens gewoon even en eindelijk kom ik dan zo uit dat vliegtuigslurf geval en in
die je weet wel gate ruimte ontmoetingsruimte zoals gewoonlijk in de waan dat ik gewoon een
taxi naar –’
A —— ‘Ja maar toch altijd weer deprimerend om na van die cold calls29 in die gate
ontmoetingsruimte te komen en te zien dat iedereen ontvangen wordt met dat gejoel en
geknuffel en de limobestuurders met al die namen op bordkarton die niet jouw naam zijn en de
l–’
Here I translated a word that I translated earlier with the verb “snappen” with the synonym “begrijpen”,
because Dutch people do ask “snap je dat?” but they generally ask “kun je dat begrijpen” instead of “kun je
dat snappen”. Once again I chose the more natural phrase over the one that might be more consistent.
29 A CSI that I decided not to translate, because there was no Dutch translation that would convey the
same practice (of contacting someone, usually by phone, to sell a product or service to, that was not
expecting the call and never asked to be called) since it is a marketing tool that does not have Dutch name,
although some have been calling it “koud bellen”. But because it is not about calling people, but about
actually going places by plane, which is not the way we would travel in a small country in Holland I would
argue that there is no Dutch equivalent, simply because a country as small as Holland would not have
people travelling that far to sell something. Therefore I kept the English term but put it in italics as a
foreign term.
28
47
R —— ‘Hou nou eens een seconde je fucking smoel dicht want luister eens want nu is hij haast
helemaal leeg tegen de tijd dat ik er ben.’
A —— ‘De mensen zijn op dit specifieke ogenblik grotendeels verspreid30 bedoel je te zeggen.’
R —— ‘Behalve daarzo bij daar is zo’n meisje overgebleven bij de touwen die kijkt zo tuurt
staart zo dat vliegtuigslurf geval in en ze ziet dat ik het ben terwijl ik haar aankijk terwijl ik naar
buiten kom want het is helemaal leeg op haar na, en onze blikken kruisen en al die onzin zoals
dat gaat, en wat doet zij dan, ze laat31 zich op haar knieën vallen en begint te huilen met van die
waterlanders en al die onzin slaat ze en stompt ze het tapijt krabt en trekt ze plukken en vezels
uit die goedkope troep die ze kopen waarbij de polymeerlijm al haast meteen begint los te laten
op te lossen waardoor hun O & R kosten na 20 kwartalen verdrievoudigd is wat ik jou natuurlijk
niet hoef uit te leggen en zo helemaal voorovergebogen slaat en krabt ze die troep met haar
nagels zo voorovergebogen dat je wel haast haar tieten kan zien weet je wel. Helemaal
hysterisch met die waterlanders en al die onzin zoals dat gaat.’
A —— ‘Dat is nog eens een warm welkom in Dayton na die klote cold calls, we heten u graag van
harte wel – ’
R ——: ‘Nee maar het verhaal is hè het verhaal blijkt als ik daar zo je weet wel als ik daar zo
heen ga om te vragen van gaat het wel is er iets enzo en ook om dichterbij te komen voor een
beter zicht op dat moet ik echt toegeven een stel gruwelijk lekkere tieten in dat strakke kleine
topje achtige tricot-achtige ding onder die jas en ze is helemaal voorover gebogen zichzelf voor
d’r kop aan het slaan en ze doet nog steeds handmatige fieldstresses op dat gate ruimte materiaal
spul en ze zegt dat er zo’n vent was waar ze verliefd op was en al die onzin die zei dat hij ook
I could not find a word of a similar register as “dispersed”, without it being a scientific term that would
actually not be correct to use in the context. Here I failed to maintain the internal deviation of the higher
register. Although I tried to compensate through adding the word “specifiek” to make the phrase more
precise and careful.
31 Here I translated the idiomatic phrasal verb “she up and goes down”, and I translated it by omission
with the “laat”, because there was no similar Dutch idiom.
30
48
verliefd was op haar alleen dat hij al verloofd was van voordien32 en toen ontmoetten ze elkaar
en werden ze hals over kop verliefd op elkaar en dan is er van dat geheen en weer en geduw en
getrek en gedoe enzo en ik bied een luisterend oor voor dr terwijl ze daar zo staat maar
uiteindelijk zegt ze uiteindelijk hakt die vent een knoop door33 en eindelijk zegt hij dat hij zich
zal overgeven aan zijn liefde voor dit meisje hier met die tieten en zich aan haar zou binden en
zegt dat hij naar dan andere meisje waarmee hij verloofd is zal gaan in Tulsa want daar woont
hij om te vertellen over dit meisje hier en het uit te maken in Tulsa en zich eindelijk over te
geven en zich te binden aan dit hysterische meisje met die tieten dat meer van hem houdt dan
van het leven zichzelf34 en die het samensmelten der zielen voelt en al die vioolmuziek onzin en
ze denkt godverdomme eindelijk na al die klootzakken met maar één doel35 die haar om de tuin
hebben geleid36 had ze eindelijk het gevoel dat ze nu iemand had ontmoet die ze kon vertrouwen
en waar ze van kon houden en met wiens ziel ze de hare kon versmelten met al die vioolmuziek
en hartjes en bl –’
A ——: ‘En bla bla bla’
R——: ‘Bla en ze zegt daar ging die vent dan, vloog zo terug naar Tulsa om eindelijk die
verloving te verbreken met dat meisje van voordien zoals hij had beloofd en dan zou hij meteen
terug vliegen naar dit meisje hier met die tieten in Dayton hier in die grote ruimte met die
waterlanders haar ogen uit haar kop huilend bij ondergetekende…’
A. ——: ‘Alsof we dít niet kunnen zien aankomen’
R——: ‘Rot op en dat hij zijn hand op zijn hart legt en al die onzin en belooft om naar haar terug
te komen en dat hij in dat vliegtuig zou zitten daar met dit vluchtnummer en deze tijd en zij
belooft dat ze er zal zijn met die tieten om hem op te vangen en dat ze al haar vrienden heeft
The word priorly was used wrongly in the source text, but it seems like that word was chosen because it
sounds fancier than the word “earlier” or “before” therefore I tried to use a similar word of a higher
register and then apply it in a way that is deviant.
33 An idiom of a different form with a similar meaning.
34 Another mistake, because the saying is “I love you more than live itself” not “life myself”, which I tried to
copy into Dutch.
35 I could not find a fitting idiomatic slang phrase for “Onetrack shitheels”, leaving me with no other option
than to paraphrase it.
36 For “the run-around” I did find an idiom of similar meaning, although it had a different form.
32
49
verteld dat ze eindelijk verliefd is op de ware en dat hij het uit gaat maken en meteen terug zal
komen en ze ruimt haar huis helemaal voor hem op zodat hij daar kan blijven als hij terug komt
en ze laat haar haar helemaal omhoog doen zo met al die haarlak zoals ze dat doen en druppelt
parfum op haar jeweetwel plekjes en al die onzin zoals gewoonlijk en ze doet haar beste roze
spijkerbroek aan want had ik je verteld dat ze zo’n roze spijkerbroek aan heeft en van die
hakken die in een veelvoud van wereldtalen roepen om geneukt te worden –‘
A ——: ‘hehe’
R——: ‘Op dit specifieke moment zitten we nu in dat kleine koffiezaakje net buiten bij de USAir
gates, die kutte zonder stoelen waardoor je met je kutkoffie van twee dollar aan een tafel moet
staan met koffer vol monstertjes en je tas en al die troep op die goedkope tegels wat niet eens
thermoharder is die ze hebben die al begint om te krullen bij de voegen en ik blijf haar maar
Kleenex-doekjes aangeven en een luisterend oor bieden en al die onzin en ze stofzuigt haar hele
auto en vervangt zelfs die kleine luchtverfrisser die aan je achteruitkijk spiegel hangt en ze haast
zich een ongeluk37 om op tijd op het vliegveld te zijn om dit vluchtnummer te halen waarvan
deze zogenaamd betrouwbare kerel had gezworen op zijn moeders leven dat hij erin zou zitten.’
A ——: ‘Die gast is een zak van de oude stempel.’
R——: ‘Houd je smoel en ze vertelt dat hij haar zelfs gebeld heeft ze krijgt zijn telefoontje
precies toen ze het laatste beetje parfum op haar plekje druppelde en ze laat haar haar zo alle
kanten op spuiten zoals ze dat doen om zich een ongeluk te haasten naar het vliegveld en de
telefoon gaat en het is die kerel en er is allemaal van dat gekraak en geruis op de lijn en ze zegt
dat hij zegt dat hij belt vanuit de hemel zo romantisch noemt hij dat hij belt haar inflight38 tijdens
de vlucht op zo’n inflight telefoontje waarbij je je kaart door de achterkant van de telefoon moet
halen die je uit de stoel voor je haalt…’
“hauling ass” an idiomatic slang phrase that was hard to translate, which has led me to translating it by a
paraphrase, although trying to add to the slang value with the words “een ongeluk”, although that is not as
crude as it is in the source text.
38 Another CSI that I did not change in the target text.
37
50
A. ——: ‘De tarieven van die dingen zijn zes dollar39 per minuut dat is gekkenwerk en al de extra
kosten van de regio waar je over vliegt op dat moment met dubbele waarde als de regio volgens
hun ook nog eens samenvalt op het raster.’
R——: ‘Maar dat is het punt helemaal niet, wil je nou nog horen dat het punt is dat dit meisje
helemaal vroeg is in die gateruimte ontmoetingsruimte en nu al met wat waterlanders van de
liefde en de vioolmuziek en de verbintenis eindelijk en het vertrouwen en staat ze zegt ze daar
vol blijdschap en vertrouwen als een kansloze dwaas zegt ze terwijl hij eindelijk binnenkomt, die
vlucht, en wij zij beginnen zich allemaal naar buiten te dringen via dat slurf geval en hij zit niet
bij de eerste golf naar buiten en ook niet bij de tweede golf naar buiten en hoe ze allemaal in van
die golven van kluitjes naar buiten komen echt het lijkt alsof dat ding een soort van aan het
schijten jij weet wel hoe…’
A——: ‘Jezus ja dat zou ik we moeten hoe vaak ik wel niet in van die slurven’
R——: ‘En zegt als een kansloze een gigantische dwaas dat haar vertrouwen nooit verslapde40 ze
bleef maar turen en staren over dat gewoven touw rood weefsel met van die mooie nep fluwelen
afwerking het touw aan de zijkant van de ruimte tijdens al het geknuffel en die mensen die naar
de bagageband gaan en telkens verwacht ze die kerel bij de volgende kluit golf en dan de
volgende en de volgende alsmaar wachtend.’
A ——: “Arm wicht’
R——: ‘Dat ik dan aan het eind zoals gewoonlijk weer als laatste naar buiten kom en niemand
verder nog na mij komt behalve de bemanning met hun nette identieke koffertjes achter zich aan
die nette koffertjes die me om een of andere reden altijd irriteren en dat was het dan ik ben de
laatste en zij –’
the word “bucks” could not really be translated by anything other than the word “dollar” because in
Dutch we don’t have a more colloquial word for dollar, we do have them for the euro (although those are
old and actually refer to the guilder, so they might also not be very appropriate), but it would be
inappropriate to use colloquial words that refer to European money in an American context.
40 the mistake in “her faith never faldering” is translated with the wrong conjugation of verslappen, with a
d instead of a t.
39
51
A ——: ‘ Dus jij legt er41 zo uit dat jij het niet was waar ze zo de vloer slaat en loopt te
schreeuwen en dat jij alleen maar de laatste uit het vliegtuig bent en dat je niet die zak van een
vent bent. Die eikel moet zelfs dat telefoontje gefaket42 hebben, die ruis als je je Remington
aanzet maakt ie van die ruis die klinkt als –’
R——: ‘En ik zweer je je hebt nog nooit iemand gezien die zo het woord liefdesverdriet
belichaamde43 je denkt dat het alleen maar woorden zijn en bla bla bla enzo maar dan zie je dit
meisje zichzelf met haar handen voor haar kop slaan omdat ze zo dom is en zo hard huilen dat ze
amper adem kan halen en nog meer van die onzin, met haar armen om zich heen, zichzelf
wiegend, slaat ze de tafel half aan gort zodat je je koffie moet optillen om te zorgen dat ie niet
omvalt en dat alle mannen klootzakken zijn en vertrouw ze niet zeiden al haar vriendinnen en
dan heeft ze er eindelijk eentje gevonden die44 ze denkt dat ze kan vertrouwen en dat hij zich
echt zou kunnen overgeven en ervoor zou gaan en haar goed zou behandelen en ze hebben gelijk
ook ze is een dom wicht mannen zijn gewoon klootzakken.’
A——: ‘De meeste mannen zijn ook gewoon klootzakken, da’s waar, hehe.’
R——: ‘En ik sta daar maar zo. Ik sta daar maar met die koffie die ik niet eens het is te laat ik wil
niet eens cafeïne vrije en ik bied een luisterend oor en ik doe heel gevoelig enzo en ik moet
zeggen ik voel wel met haar mee45, met dat meisje en haar liefdesverdriet. Ik zweer het je kerel
je hebt nog nooit zoiets gezien als dit liefdesverdriet bij dit meisje met die tieten en ik zeg maar
dat ze gelijk heeft en dat de meeste mannen ook klootzakken zijn en dat ik zo met haar mee voel
en al die onzin.’
A——: ‘He he, en toen?’
here I compensated for the problem that will arise later on with the “must of” I already spoke of in my
analysis, I could not fit in a natural mistake at that point, so I found one here, through translating her not
with “haar” or even “d’r”, but with “er” which is what one could say, but which is not the right word in
written language. It is a similar wrongful written representation of a pronunciation of a colloquial word.
42 A colloquial phrase that I ended up using as a calque, because I was not satisfied with any of the Dutch
solutions that either were too wordy or vague.
43 The colloquial way of saying that someone can be a certain word does not work in Dutch, therefore I
chose to paraphrase it and make it more explicit through the word: “belichaamde”, which is also, sadly,
less colloquial.
44 Here I added a mistake because I have been forced to leave out many colloquial features, adding a
grammatical anomaly like this was meant to compensate.
45 An idiom of a different form with a similar meaning as in the source text.
41
52
R——: ‘He he.’
A——: ‘He he he.’
R——: ‘Moet je dat echt nog vragen?’
A——: ‘Eikel! Wat ben jij toch een zak!’
R——: ‘Ach je weet hoe dat gaat, wat doe je er aan?’
A——: ‘Wat ben jij toch een zak!’
R——: ‘Ach je weet toch.’
K.I. # 30 03-97
Drury UT
‘Ik moet toegeven dat dat een belangrijke reden was om met haar te trouwen, omdat ik dacht dat
ik waarschijnlijk toch niets beters46 zou kunnen krijgen omdat ze nog steeds een mooi lichaam
had zelfs nadat ze een kind had gekregen. strak en mooi en mooie benen – Ze had een kind
gekregen maar was niet helemaal uitgerekt, dooradert en uitgezakt. Dat klinkt vast oppervlakkig
maar het is de waarheid. ik was altijd als de dood dat ik dan met een mooie vrouw zou trouwen
en dat we dan een kind zouden krijgen en dat dat haar lichaam dan helemaal uit zou rekken
maar dat ik dan nog wel met haar seks moet hebben, omdat dit degene is aan wie ik heb beloofd
dat ik de rest van mijn leven alleen met haar seks zou hebben. dit klinkt vast verschrikkelijk,
maar in haar geval was het alsof ze alvast getest was – het kind had haar lichaam niet uitgerekt,
dus ik wist dat ze een veilige keuze was om me aan te binden en kinderen mee te krijgen en nog
steeds te proberen om seks mee te hebben. Klinkt dat oppervlakkig? Zeg eens wat je denkt. Of
klinkt de echte waarheid over dit soort zaken altijd oppervlakkig, weet je wel, iedereens echte
motivaties? Wat denk je? Hoe klinkt dat?’
the idiomatic phrase was translated by another idiomatic slang phrase, which might even be more
colloquial, in the sense that it is disrespectful in a way that people would not be in more formal writing. By
referring to a woman as a thing, or rather that there was nothing better.
46
53
K.I. # 31 03-97
Roswell GA
‘Maar wil je weten hoe je écht goed kan zijn? Hoe zo’n Geweldige Minnaar nou écht de dames
pleziert? Nou, al die gewone glijertypes47 zullen altijd zeggen dat zij het weten, dat zij een
autoriteit op dat gebied zijn enzo. Het is geen peuk, schat, je moet het48 binnen houden. De
meeste van die kerels, die hebben echt geen fucking benul van hoe ze een dame echt moeten
plezieren. Niet écht. De meeste van hun boeit het niet eens, om eerlijk te zijn. Dat is het eerste
type, zo’n opgepompt patser- type daarzo, je gemiddelde smeerlap. Deze kerel is zich sowieso
maar amper bewust van het leven, en als het op de liefde bedrijven aankomt is hij de egoïst
zelve49. Hij pakt wat hij pakken kan50, en zo lang als hij het maar kan krijgen is dat, wat hem
betreft, het enige wat er toe doet. Het type dat op haar gaat liggen en zijn ding doet en het
moment dat hij klaarkomt van haar af rolt en begint te snurken. Rustig aan. Nou ik denk dat dat
zo’n stereotiep mannelijke kerel is, ouder, het soort kerel dat twintig jaar getrouwd is en niet
eens weet of zijn vrouw ooit klaar komt. En bedenkt het zich niet eens om het haar te vragen. Híj
komt klaar, en dat is het enige dat telt in zijn ogen.
V.
‘Dit zijn niet de kerels waar ik het over heb. Dit zijn eerder gewoon beesten, D’r op en d’r af en
dat is dat51. Houd ‘m wat dichter bij het uiteinde daarzo en inhaleer niet zoveel als bij een
normale peuk. Je moet het inhouden en laten absorberen. Dit is van mij, ik teel het zelf, ik heb
een kamer volledig bekleed met Mylar en lampen, schat je zou echt niet geloven wat ik er hier
voor kan krijgen. Die kerels zijn gewoon beesten, zij doen niet eens het zelfde type spel als waar
As was explained in the analysis I left out the “fellow” for the repetition of the filler “type”. In this case
the repetition was important, because it’s effect was that the text seemed more colloquial and natural.
48 Cees wanted me to translate this with “je moet ‘m in je mond houden”, but I think the speaker is
referring to the smoke, and than “het” is more appropriate than “’m”, and “in je mond” is also not
appropriate, because the smoke should not merely stay in your mouth, but you should inhale it. Therefore
I did not change the phrase.
49 Here I translated one colloquial idiom with another colloquial idiom of a slightly different form, but of a
similar meaning.
50 Here I inserted a phrase that is perhaps more colloquial than the phrase in the source text in order to
compensate for some earlier uncolloquial phrases.
51 As was explained earlier, this was an allusion for which I could not find a similar allusion in the target
language.
47
54
wij het over hebben. Nee, want degenen waar wij het hier over hebben zijn de gemiddelde
tweederangs type kerels, de kerel die denkt dat hij een Geweldige Minnaar is. En het is heel
belangrijk voor deze kerels dat ze zichzelf Geweldig vinden. Dit neemt een groot deel van hun
tijd in beslag, dit denken dat ze Geweldig zijn en dat ze weten hoe ze haar moeten plezieren. Dit
zijn dan ook zijn die gevoelige mannelijke glijer-types. Nu, zij zullen er precies het tegenover
gestelde uitzien als die white trash52 kerels die het echt geen ruk kan interesseren. Ja zo, maar
doe rustig. Maar nu moet je niet denken dat deze kerels ook maar een haar beter zijn dan die
smeerlappen. Dat ze zichzelf als een Geweldige Minnaar zien betekent nog niet dat ze zich ook
maar een fuck meer voor haar interesseren dan die smeerlappen doen, en diep van binnen zijn
ze in bed ook geen greintje minder egoïstisch53. Met dit type kerels is het gewoon zo dat ze in
bed op het idee kicken dat zij zelf Geweldige Minnaars zijn die de dame haast gek kan maken in
bed. Zij genieten van het genot van de vrouw en haar dat genot brengen. Dat is waar dit type het
voor doet.’
V.
‘O, nou dat ie dan uur na uur d’r yin yang aan het likken54 is, en zijn eigen orgasme maar
inhouden zodat hij uren achterelkaar door kan blijven gaan, hij is bekend met de G-spot en de
extase-houding enzo. Snel even op en neer naar Barnes & Noble’s55 voor de nieuwste
vrouwelijke seksualiteit-type boeken zodat ze hun kennis op pijl kunnen houden over wat er
Another CSI that I used as a calque, because it is a term typically describing a certain layer of American
society, which we would also refer to as white trash. And as I want the story to keep its American context I
decided not to use a word like “kamper”, which is sometimes used to describe the Dutch equivalent,
although that refers to people living in trailerparks, and not all white-trash people live in trailerparks and
vice versa.
53 Another example of the diversity of the English language, they have three different phrases that all
mean something similar: “But now don't go thinking these fellows are really any better than your basic
pigs are. Seeing themselves as a Great Lover doesn't mean they give any more of a shit about her than the
pigs do, and deep down they aren't one little bit less selfish in bed.” These sentences all mean the same
thing: they aren’t better, they don’t care more, they aren’t less selfish. But after using phrases like “geen
haar beter” or “geen greintje minder egoïstisch” the bag of tricks of the Dutch language seems to be empty.
A second problem is the foul language, which forces me to use the word “fuck”, which creates a different
sentence structure, leaving me the two options for the other two sentences.
54 As was explained in chapter 3, this phrase was translated into the most desirable possible phrase,
although it was a bit more explicit than the source phrase.
55 Another example of a CSI that I kept American, because that is where the story was set and I do not wish
to naturalize CSI’s.
52
55
allemaal gaande is. En als ik je hier nu zo even bekijk kan ik wel raaien dat jij wel een paar van
zulke glijers bent tegengekomen met zijn feromonenaftershave en zijn aardbeien olie en
handmassages en dat knuffelen en strelen, die weten van het oorlelletje en welke manier van
blozen wat betekent en het aureool en de achterkant van de knie en dat nieuwe kleine
ultragevoelige plekje die ze zogenaamd zojuist gevonden hebben net achter de G-spot56, dit type
kerel kent ze allemaal, en je kunt er donder op zeggen dat hij jóu zal laten voelen dat hij weet
hoe hij – hier, geef eens hier. Ik laat het wel even zien. Nou schat je kunt er nu wel vanuit gaan
dat dít type kerel wil weten of ze is klaar gekomen en hoe vaak en of het het beste was dat ze
ooit – en zo dus. Zie je dat? Als je het uit blaast wil je dat je niet eens iets ziet. Dat betekent dat je
‘m helemaal hebt. Ik dacht dat je zei dat je dit al eens gedaan had. Dit is dus niet van dat
gemiddelde prutwiet. Het is als een extra vinkje57 achter zijn naam voor iedere keer dat haar kan
laten komen. Zo ziet hij dat. Het is godverdomme veel te goed spul om de helft weer uit te blazen,
het is alsof je een Porsche hebt en dat je er alleen mee naar de kerk rijdt. Nee, hij is een vinker,
deze kerel. Dat is een goeie manier om ze te vergelijken misschien. De twee types. je viespeuk
vinkt waarschijnlijk voor iedere vrouw die hij naait, dat zijn zijn vinkjes, die boeit het niets. Maar
je zogenaamde Geweldige Minnaar die vinkt voor iedere keer dat eentje komt. Maar beiden zijn
enkel maar vinkers. Ze zijn eigenlijk diep van binnen exact hetzelfde type kerel. Hun kick is
anders, maar het is alsnog alleen hun eigen kick waar ze voor gaan, in bed, en dat dametje zal
zich diep van binnen in beide gevallen evenzeer gebruikt voelen. Áls die dame enig verstand
heeft tenminste, maar dat is weer een ander verhaal. En nu schat, als het iets minder wordt
neem je en dan stamp je hem dus niet uit met je laars daar zoals je dat bij een normale peuk zou
doen. Maar dan moet je je vinger nat maken en zachtjes het uiteinde ervan uittikken zodat je
hem kunt bewaren, ik heb iets waarin ik ze kan bewaren. Ik, ik heb er iets bijzonders voor, maar
wat meer doorsnee is een van die kleine filmrolpotjes van de fotograaf, daarom gooit niemand
As was explained in the analysis, I made this explicit to avoid confusion.
The alluded to culture does not in exist in the target culture, but “afvinken” is a Dutch verb that is used
in such a context, which led to this derivative.
56
57
56
die dingen ooit weg. Kijk maar of je ooit ergens van die kleine filmrolpotjes ergens bij het afval
ziet.
V.
‘Nee, maar hier heb je een typisch kenmerk waaraan je kan zien of het een van die Geweldige
Minnaar kerels is is58 dat ze dan hele blokken van hun tijd in bed bezig zijn met het likken van
een dames yin yang opnieuw en opnieuw en zorgen dat ze zeventien keer achterelkaar
klaarkomt enzo, maar kijk achteraf maar eens of er ook maar een moment de kans bestaat dat hij
haar toestaat om de rollen om te draaien en zijn geliefde pikkie onder handen te laten nemen
voor hem. Dat hij dan zal zeggen van O nee schatje nee laat mij jou nou maar doen ik wil zien
hoe jij nog eens klaarkomt o schatje blijf jij nou maar gewoon liggen en laat mij maar mijn
liefdesmagie op je uitoefenen en al die dingen daar zo. Of hij weet van alles over die speciale
Koreaanse massage shit en geeft haar diepe bindweefselmassages of hij komt op de proppen met
speciale zwarte kersen olie en masseert dan haar voeten en handen – waarvan ik toch echt moet
toegeven schat dat als je nog nooit een echt goeie handmassage hebt gehad je tot op heden echt
nog niet geleefd hebt, geloof mij nou maar – maar laat hij het dametje hem ooit een wederdienst
bedrijven59 door hem ook maar één massage te geven? Nee hoor echt niet. Want de kick van dit
type kerel komt van het feit dat híj degene is die al het plezier geeft dank u vriendelijk. Zie je, het
is anders, het heeft een schroefdop die luchtdicht verzegeld is zodat het niet gaan stinken in je
zak, het zijn kleine stinkerds, en dan gaat het meteen in dit kleine flap gevalletje waar het
werkelijk alles zou kunnen zijn. Want op dit punt is zo’n glijer-type echt dom. Hierdoor voel ik
zulke minachting voor deze kerels die hun leven lang in de waan zijn dat zij het godsgeschenk
zijn voor het vrouwelijke geslacht. Want je patser-type is er tenminste nog enigszins eerlijk over,
zij willen haar gewoon naaien en dan van d’r af rollen en dat is dat. Maar je gemiddelde glijer
denkt dat hij super gevoelig is en weet hoe hij een vrouw moet plezieren alleen omdat ze weten
van clitorale zuiging en shy-atsu en als je ze in bed ziet is het net alsof je kijkt naar zo’n stomme
58
Here I translated the reciplacate mistake with a possible misuse of the dutch phrase “een wederdienst
bewijzen”.
59
57
monteur in zo’n witte jas die werkt aan een Porsche en helemaal opgeblazen is op zijn eigen
expertise enzo. Zij denken dat zij een Geweldige Minnaar zijn. Zij denken dat ze gul zijn in bed.
Nee, maar de valkuil is dat ze juist egoïstisch zijn in hun gulheid. Ze zijn geen haar beter dan de
smeerlappen, ze zijn er alleen van geniepiger over.
Nu zul je wel dorst krijgen, nu zul je waarschijnlijk wel wat Evian willen. Deze troep
droogt je smoel echt uit als een gek. Ik heb altijd van de kleine Evianflesjes bij me hier in dit
binnen gedeelte, zie je? Op maat gemaakt. Toe maar neem er een, je zult er toch een willen. Toe
maar.’
V.
‘Schat, geen probleem, houd die maar bij je, je zult wel meer willen binnen zo’n half minuutje. Ik
had haast wel durven zweren da je gezegd had dat je dit vaker gedaan had60. Ik ben hier tocht
niet een Mormoon uit Utah aan het corrumperen of wel? Mylar is beter dan folie, het reflecteert
meer licht, dus dat gaat direct de plant in. ze hebben nu van die speciale zaden waardoor de
planten niet langer worden dan dit hierzo, maar dat is dodelijk, het is echt dood op een plankje61.
Atlanta lijkt in het bijzonder over te lopen van deze kerels. Wat zij niet begrijpen dat hun soort
nog veel vervelender is voor een dame met enig verstand dan die er-op en er-af smeerlap ooit
was. Want hoe zou jij het vinden om daar maar een beetje te liggen terwijl je bewerkt wordt als
een of andere Porsche en dat je nooit het gevoel krijgt dat jij ook gul en goed in bed en sexy en
een Geweldige Minnaar bent? Hmm? Hmm? Dat is het punt waarop die glijer types altijd zullen
verliezen. Zij willen de enige Geweldige Minnaars in het bed zijn. Ze vergeten dat een dame ook
gevoelens heeft. Wie wil daar nou zo liggen met het gevoel dat ze egoïstisch en hebzuchtig zijn
terwijl een of andere yuppie met een Porsche boven je loopt te patsen met zijn Tantric Clouds en
Rain Half-Lotus en mentaal vinkjes zet voor iedere keer dat je klaarkomt? Als je het een beetje in
The last mistake I intended to keep in the target text, is now kept by deleting the letter “t” from the word
dat The solution is a bit forced, but it is a realistic pronunciation of the word.
61 “death on a cracker” is an interesting phrase, because he keeps referring to the white pigs as “cracker”types, which creates a link between the two that is now lost. Because the word “cracker” is not translated
with cracker, because it is translated on the idiomatic level (a derogatory way of referring to a white
person) this link is not apparent and the more colloquial phrase of something “op een plankje” can just as
well be used.
60
58
je mond rond spoelt blijft het langer nat, Evian is daar echt goed voor, wat boeit het dat het van
dat stomme Yuppen-water is als het daar goed voor is, snap je wat ik bedoel? Hetgene waar je op
moet letten is als de kerel als hij je aan het likken is, of hij dan zijn hand op de onderste helft van
je buik daarzo legt, om er zeker van te zijn dat je klaar komt, nou dan weet je het wel. Wil het
zeker weten. Deze klootzak is geen Minnaar, hij zet gewoon een showtje neer. Hij geeft echt geen
ene reet om jou. Wil je mijn mening weten? Wil je weten hoe je echt Geweldig kan zijn als je haar
wil plezieren, dat er nog niet één kerel op de duizend is die dat uitgevogeld heeft?’
V. …
‘Nou?’
V.
‘Het geheim is dat je moet proberen om het dametje plezier te geven en tegelijkertijd ook moet
kunnen ontvangen, met gelijke techniek om beiden gelijksoortig plezier te geven. Of je moet haar
dat tenminste laten denken. Je moet niet vergeten dat het om háár gaat. Toe maar, lik haar Yin
Yang tot ze smeekt, tuurlijk, doe maar, maar laat haar ook aan jouw pikkie zitten, en zelfs als ze
er niet echt goed in is doe maar net alsof ze dat wel is. En stel dat haar idee van een rug massage
van die kleine irritante karate klopjes op je ruggengraat is, nou laat haar dat dan doen, en jij doet
alsof je nooit had geweten dat een karateklopje zo kon zijn. Zo moet dat als een kerel een
oprechte Geweldige Minnaar wil zijn en godverdomme eens aan háár denkt voor de
verandering.’
V.
‘Nee, niet bij me lieverd. Ik bedoel meestal wel, maar ik ben bang dat ik deze al heb
opgeknabbeld. De grote ondergang van deze zogenaamd-Geweldig-type kerels is dat zij denken
dat en dame, wanneer het er op aan komt, gewoonweg dom is. Alsof een dame daar alleen maar
wil liggen en klaarkomen. Het echte geheim is: ga er maar vanuit dat zij hetzelfde wil. Dat ze
zichzelf wil zien als een Geweldige Minnaar dat ze iemand compleet versteld kan doen staan in
59
bed. Laat dat toe. Zet het beeld van jezelf godverdomme eens een keer even op een laag pitje62.
De glijer denkt dat als hij het dametje versteld kan doen staan daarzo beneden dat ze haar dan
hebben. Bullshit.
V.
‘Maar je zult er niet maar één willen hoor schat, geloof me maar. Er is een klein Super-ding een
paar straten verderop als we – whoa, kijk uit –’
V.
‘Nee je moet haar laten denken dat ze jou versteld doet staan.
Dat is het enige wat ze graag willen. Dan heb je haar echt te pakken, als ze denkt dat je haar nooit
zal vergeten. Nooit. Snap je?
K.I. #36 05-97
CENTRUM VOOR HUISELIJK GEWELD, GEMEENSCHAPPELIJKE HULPVERLENING, THERAPIE &
DIENSTVERLENING
HOOFDSTEDELIJKE DEPENDANCE
ARORA IL
‘Dus ik heb maar besloten om hulp te gaan zoeken. Ik heb me neergelegd bij het feit dat ik een
echt probleem had en dat dat niets met haar te maken had. ik zag in dat zij altijd het slachtoffer
zou spelen met mij als boosdoener.63 Ik kon haar toch niet veranderen. Zij was niet het deel van
het probleem waar ik wat, je weet wel, aan kon doen. Dus ik nam een besluit. Om hulp te gaan
zoeken voor míj. ik weet nu dat het het beste is dat ik ooit gedaan heb, en het moeilijkste. het is
niet makkelijk geweest, maar mijn eigenwaarde is veel hoger nu. Ik heb de spiraal van schaamte
doorbroken. Ik heb leren vergeven. Ik mag mezelf.’
V.
‘Wie?’
This is another example of an idiom of similar form and meaning.
The colloquial idiom of “the … to my …” does not have a Dutch equivalent of similar form and meaning,
which has left me with this paraphrase, because that would be a logical Dutch sentence. It is natural, but it
is not colloquial.
62
63
60
Chapter 5: Post evaluation
It was my intention to be recreative on the ideational level, expecting the reader to move
towards the text and putting an effort in to understand all the features of the text. This is what I
did when I encountered CSI’s such as Barnes and Nobles and American currency. On the textual
level I wanted to be retentive, providing the reader with words, phrases and sentences that he
would recognize as his own. This was important, because that is the main stylistic feature of this
story. The style of the story is very realistic and colloquial, as it is presented as a direct
transcription of interviews including many features of colloquial spoken language, such as
grammatical anomalies, false starts, fragments, idioms and foul language. These realistic and
familiar features make it easy for the reader to relate to and identify with the speakers, because
they speak the same language. And this is important for these stories in particular because it was
David Foster Wallace’s intention to communicate with his readers, and have them sympathize
and identify with his characters in order to feel less alone in their own misery. This worked on
two levels, because they were confronted with “hideous men” and if they could still feel
sympathy for those characters, there might be hope for the readers yet, because that means
others might feel sympathy for them as well. The second level is that the readers now know they
are not alone in their miseries.
The problems I expected were all related to this colloquial style and it’s features, and the
biggest problem turned out to be the idioms. There were many idioms, of many different origins,
and as expected the desirable solution of an idiom of similar form and meaning was often not
available. The list of solutions given by Adelnia and Dastjerdi was very useful because it gave a
set of possible solutions that helped me solve these problems and also keep track of how often
the most desirable solution were not available, and whether or not some compensation in other
parts of the text was needed.
Another problem I expected was that of foul language. The biggest problem was the
creativity and the wide variety of foul words and slang that the English language offers to which
the Dutch language seems very bleak in comparison. On the one hand I appreciated the
creativity and variety of words used in the source text, but as familiarity and natural language
was the most important effect, because the readers had to recognize their own language, I
decided that that was more important than maintaining the variety and creativity. The language
had to be naturally Dutch, and if that meant that it had less variety and creativity in foul and
slang language, so be it. When creative and natural language was not possible it was most
desirable that the text was natural.
Compared to the problems that idioms and idiomatic phrases and certain colloquial and
foul words posed the other colloquial aspects were relatively easy. Some long sentences were
harder to understand and took more time to be analyzed, but once they were fully analyzed the
61
translation was easier than expected. The trick was to take liberties and when certain colloquial
features caused the text to be less natural, I left them out and I tried to add other features that
would have a similar effect at other places in the text.
In the end I can say that the most important thing was to take liberties and let go of the
source text from time to time. And I can only say that I wholeheartedly agree with the pluralist
view of Leech and Short, because the style of the text is of great importance for the effect the text
will have on the reader, but there are definitely multiple ways to achieve the same effect. And I
have tried to work with the possibilities of the Dutch language to achieve the same effect as best
as I could.
62
Conclusion
The initial question in the Introduction was: Which translational problems arise from the
specific style in David Foster Wallace’s fourth story in Brief Interviews With Hideous Men
and what are possible solutions? I expected the syntactic anomalies, fragments and false
starts and to be the biggest issue, especially in the light of David Foster Wallace’s own views on
writing and communication and his intentions towards achieving postironic belief. I expected
that it was hard to write grammatically incorrect sentences that was also realistic and
recognizable enough to speak to the reader in their own language. This proved not to be the
case, because it was often possible to create similar syntactical anomalies, fragments and false
starts. When it was not I chose to leave out the errors and try and create the most natural and
colloquial sentence possible, because the main goal was a recognizable natural text. In this case a
solution was found in what Holmes called the strategy of naturalizing, by trying to make some
sentences less complex in order to make them easier to read and understand. This choice was
easy because of a well defined strategy and goal for the translation causing little problems.
The bigger problems were the idioms and foul language. When translating those taking
liberties was the best strategy I could use. Taking liberties with not translating the same words
consistently, but also taking liberties in translating idioms with paraphrase when that creates a
more natural sentence than a forced idiom and then adding idioms were possible when there
were no idioms in the source text.
However the most important tool that the theory has offered was awareness, awareness
of all the colloquial, foul and idiomatic language that can be found in a text. In the end the
choices one has to make while translating a text will be different each time and only by
translating them will a translator be able to really understand what the possibilities and
difficulties are. But giving a translator good tools to analyze and understand a source text turned
out to be the most valuable lesson.
63
Works Cited:
Adelnia A. & H.V. Dastjerdi. “Translation of Idioms: A Hard Task for a Translator.” Theories and
Practice in Language Studies.Finland: Academy Publisher. July 2011. Vol.1, No. 7. 879883.
Aixelá, J.F. “Cultuurspecifieke elementen in vertaling.” Denken over Vertalen. Naaijkens, T. et al.
(red.) Nijmegen: Vantilt. 2010. 197-212.
Andersson L. and P. Trudgill, Bad Language. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Feb. 1991
Barthes, R. “The Death of the Author.” Stephen Heath. (Ed. & Trans.) Image – Music – Text. New
York: Hill and Wang. 1977. 142-148.
Boswell, M. Understanding David Foster Wallace. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
2009.
Chen, L. “On Integrated Translation Approach of English Idioms.” Journal of Language Teaching
and Research. Finland: Academy Publishers. May 2010. Vol. 1. No. 3. 227-230.
Chesterman, A. “Vertaalstrategieën: een classificatie.” Denken over Vertalen. Naaijkens, T. et al.
(red.) Nijmegen: Vantilt. 2010. 153-172,
Cohen, S. & L. Konstantinou. “Introduction: Zoologists, Elephants, and Editors.” Legacy of David
Foster Wallace University of Iowa Press. 15 Apr 2012. xi-xxv.
Felluga D.F. “General Introduction to Post Modernism.” Purdue. 31 jan 2011. Web. 21-06-2013.
<http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/introduction.ht
ml> 22-06-2013
Foster, David William. “On translating Miguel Mendez.” Bilingual Review. Sep-Dec1994, Vol. 19,
Issue 3.
Fukuyama, Francis. “The End of History?” National Interest Washington DC: Center for the
National Interest. Summer 1989. 16. 3–18.
Ghassempur, S. “Fuckin’ Hell! Dublin soul goes German: A functional approach to the translation
of ‘fuck’ in Roddy Doyle’s The Commitments”. New Trends in Translation Studies Vol. 6:
Translating Dialects and Languages of Minorities: Challenges and Solutions. Federici, F.M.
(Ed.) New York: Peter Lang. 2011. 49-64.
Holmes, J.S. “De brug bij Bommel herbouwen.” Denken over Vertalen. Naaijkens, T. et al. (red.)
Nijmegen: Vantilt. 2010. 183-188.
Hughes, G.I. An Encyclopeadia of Swearing: The Social History of Oaths, Profanity, Foul Language,
and Ethnic Slurs in the English-Speaking World. New York: M.E. Sharpe. 2006.
Konstantinou, L. “No Bull: David Foster Wallace and Postironic Belief.” The Legacy of David
Foster Wallace University of Iowa Press, 15 Apr 2012. 83-112
64
Koster, C. “Treinen Spotten: ‘Kut. Fuck. Klote. Shit.’ Het Engels in het Nederlands. Filter. 1997.
4:1. pag. 40–46.
LeClair, T. “The Non-Silence of the Un-Lamblike.” Nation. 19 Jun. 1999. Vol. 269. Issue 3. p 31-34.
Leech, G. Short, M. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London:
Pearson Longman. 2nd edition 2007.
McCaffery, Larry. “An Interview with David Foster Wallace.” Review of Contemporary Fiction.
Chicago: Dalkey Archive Press. Summer 1993 13.2. 127–50.
------- Publishers Weekly. 29 March 1999, Vol. 246 Issue 13. 87.
<http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-316-92541-9> 22-06-2013
Schlauch, M. “Hollywood Slang in Spanish Translations” American Speech. Durham: Duke
University Press. Feb. 1939 Vol. 14, No. 1.
Schweigert W.A. “The Comprehension of Familiar and Less Familiar Idioms” Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research. New York: Springer. May 1986. Vol. 15. No. 2. 33-34
Scott, A. O. “The Panic of Influence.” New York Review of Books. February 2000. Web
<http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2000/feb/10/the-panic-ofinfluence/?pagination=false> 22-06-2013
van Alphen E. “The Heterotopian Space of the Discussions on Postmodernism: A Poetics of
Postmodernism: History, Theory, Fiction by Linda Hutcheon; After the Great Divide:
Modernism, Mass Culture and Postmodernism by Andreas Huyssen; Postmodernist
Fiction by Brian McHale.” Poetics Today. Durham: Duke University Press. Winter 1989.
Vol. 10. No. 4. p 819-839.
Wallace, D. Foster. [Brief Interviews With Hideous Men]. New York: Little Brown and Company.
1999. 14-28, 69-105, 181-199,245-271.
Werkman, H. Vloeken in de Moderne Literatuur. Amsterdam: Stichting Onderzoek- en
Publikatiefonds Bond tegen het vloeken In samenwerking met Buijten & Schipperheijn.
1986.
65