steidlova ma thesis

8/9/2019 Steidlova MA Thesis

1/85

Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English

and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Veronika Steidlová

Humour in Czech Translations of Three Men

in a Boat

Master ‘s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Ing. Mgr. Jiří Rambousek

2010


2/85

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,

using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Author‘s signature


3/85

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my supervisor Ing. Mgr. Jiří Rambousek for his encouragement and

guidance.


4/85

Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1

1 General Information ............................................................................................... 31.1 Jerome Klapka Jerome‘s Biography .................................................................. 3

1.2 The Novel Three Men in a Boat ......................................................................... 4

1.3 The Czech Translators ........................................................................................ 7

1.4 Humour and Its Devices ..................................................................................... 8

2 Irony........................................................................................................................ 11

2.1 Irony in Three Men in a Boat ........................................................................... 11

2.2 Translation of Irony .......................................................................................... 173 Metaphor ................................................................................................................ 27

3.1 Metaphor in Three Men in a Boat .................................................................... 27

3.2 Translation of Metaphor ................................................................................... 31

4 Register ................................................................................................................... 41

4.1 Register in Three Men in a Boat ...................................................................... 41

4.2 Translation of Register ..................................................................................... 46

5 Pragmatics, Wordplay, Ambiguity ...................................................................... 55

5.1 Pragmatics, Wordplay and Ambiguity in Three Men in a Boat ....................... 55

5.2 Translation of Pragmatics-based Devices, Wordplay and Ambiguity ............. 60

6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 71

Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 75

Résumé ........................................................................................................................... 78

Resumé ........................................................................................................................... 79


5/85

1

Introduction

The present thesis is devoted to the study of humour devices in Jerome Klapka Jerome‘s

humorous novel Three Men in a Boat , first published in 1889, and their Czech

renderings by Vladimír Henzl, J. Z. Novák and Milan Ţáček. The popularity of the

novel in the Czech literary world is substantiated by the high number of translations and

republications. In 1902 it was translated by Theodor and Emil Háchas for the first time.

Four other translations followed: by Ladislav Vojtig (Vojtík) in 1922 (republished in

1929, 1948 and 1949), Vladimír Henzl in 1957 (republished in 1966), J. Z. Novák in

1972 (republished in 1975 and 1998) and Milan Ţáček in 2002. The reasons for my

choosing the last three translations were the better access to them as well as the fact that

the Czech expressions and linguistic features of the more recent translations are

certainly closer to and more readable for the present-day readership than those from the

beginning of the twentieth century.

The work is divided into five chapters, the first one providing a brief biography

of Jerome Klapka Jerome, information on the reception of the novel in the English and

Czech literary milieus and some details on the Czech translators. One of its subchapters

also presents the word ‗humour‘ and what it means, describes the traits of humour of the

Victorian era, and lists humour devices following Alison Ross‘s (1998) division.

Chapter two attempts to define the principal humour device in Three Men in a Boat –

irony. It focuses on types of irony and the techniques used to establish it, illustrating the

study with examples from the novel. Chapter three discusses metaphorical language

(including metaphors, similes and personification) and its contribution to the humorous

tone of the novel. It also deals with idioms which Peter Newmark (1988) classifies as

stock metaphors. In chapter four the study concentrates on register as a humour device,


6/85

2

especially on the inappropriate usage of formal register and juxtaposition of different

registers. Finally, chapter five concerns the pragmatics-based device of breaking the

cooperative principle, which leads to misunderstanding or misinterpretation, and the

phenomenon of ambiguity and a closely related device of wordplay. The four chapters

on humour expedients also include the study and comparison of the Czech renderings as

well as discussions on how difficult the task of translating humour is, what the main

problems of translating the individual devices are and what translation procedures can

be employed. In conclusion the findings pertaining to the translation habits of the

individual translators are summarised and compared.

Even though Jerome Klapka Jerome‘s novel Three Men in a Boat was and still is

popular in many countries, very little has been written about his style and humour, let

alone the translations of his works. The only academic study of his humour I came

across was Markéta Zemanová‘s diploma thesis ―The Literary Study of Humour in the

Novel Three Men in a Boat ‖ (2000) which, however, studies solely Jerome‘s humour

devices but not their translations. Yet it served as a ‗stepping stone‘ to my thesis and as

a basis for my study of humour devices translation.


7/85

3

1 General Information

1.1 Jerome Klapka Jerome’s Biography

Jerome Klapka Jerome, best known as the author of a comic masterpiece Three Men in

a Boat , was born in Walsall, Staffordshire, on 2 May 1859 into a highly-religious

family. His father, Jerome Clapp Jerome, worked as a non-conformist preacher and was

interested in the local coal and iron industries. One of his coal-mining ventures proved

to be a disaster and brought the family to financial ruin. He was forced to move the

family to Stourbridge and subsequently to Poplar in the East End of London where

Jerome spent his childhood in relative poverty.

At the age of fourteen Jerome left school to join various professions – a clerk on

the London and North Western Railway, an actor touring the country with a stage

company, a journalist, a schoolmaster and a solicitor‘s clerk. In his spare time he was

writing short stories, essays and satires which would be rejected for a long time. Then,

Jerome had the idea of writing about his experiences as an actor which resulted in his

work On the Stage – and Off , a volume of humorous sketches published in 1885. This

was followed by a collection of humorous essays The Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow

(1886).

In 1888 Jerome married Georgina Elizabeth Henrietta Stanley Marris (called

Ettie) and acquired a daughter – Elsie – by this marriage. His own daughter Rowena

was born in 1898. After the newly-weds‘ honeymoon, spent on the Thames, Jerome

began writing Three Men in a Boat . The book was published in 1889 and made him

famous and rich and enabled him to make the acquaintance of great writers including H.

G. Wells, Conan Doyle and Rudyard Kipling. From then on numerous literary works

came to being, among them the novels The Diary of a Pilgrimage (1891), Three Men on


8/85

4

the Bummel (1900, the sequel to the Boat ), Paul Kelver (1902), a popular morality play

The Passing of the Third Floor Back (1908), and many more. He also excelled as the

editor (of a monthly magazine The Idler and a weekly To-Day) and as the prolific

columnist.

Jerome travelled a lot to Russia, America and especially Germany where he gave

various lectures. He was fond of Germany, which prompted him to move his family to

Dresden in 1900 where they stayed for two years. When the First World War broke out,

he enlisted in the French army as a front line ambulance driver. He returned home

disillusioned and a broken man. Towards the end of his life he finished his memoirs My

Life and Times (1926) which, though short on domestic details and lacking

chronological order, is one of Jerome‘s most entertaining books.

On the way back from a motoring tour in Devon with his wife Ettie, Jerome

suffered a cerebral haemorrhage and died two weeks later (14 June 1927) in

Northampton General Hospital. He and Ettie, who outlived him by eleven years, were

buried in the Ewelme churchyard, Oxfordshire, close to their beloved River Thames

(Nicholas 7 – 10).

1.2 The Novel Three Men in a Boat

Jerome‘s novel Three Men in a Boat could be characterised as a comic pastoral

celebrating simple life devoid of luxury, false friends and high society vices. Apart from

comic events and situations the three characters experience, it contains lyrical

descriptions of nature and philosophical reflections comparing the trip up and down the

Thames to the voyage up and down the river of Life. In some parts of the novel social


9/85

5

criticism comes to the fore, frowning upon greed and excessive accumulation of

possession (Stříbrný 564).

Jerome Klapka Jerome claimed that all the events recorded in his novel Three

Men in a Boat really happened, they were only a little embellished. Even the characters

appearing in the novel were based on real people – Jerome‘s friends with whom he

made a considerable number of rows up and down the Thames and a cycling trip across

Europe. George Wingrave (George in the novel) worked as a bank clerk and he shared a

room with Jerome for some time. Carl Hentschel (Harris) was born in Poland and came

to England with his parents at the age of five. He set up his own photography business

and co-founded The Playgoer‘s Club, on which occasion he met Jerome.

Jerome‘s excellent essays The Idle Thoughts of an Idle Fellow (1886) had been

serialised in the monthly magazine Home Chimes, edited by F. W. Robinson. And it

was Robinson himself who accepted Jerome‘s next project called The Story of the

Thames. At first the book was not intended to be funny; it should have described the

river‘s scenery and historical events that had taken place near the Thames, and it should

have been interspersed with occasional humorous passages. However, it came quite the

other way round – it became a humorous novel with occasional passages dealing with

the river‘s scenery and history. Robinson readily removed some of those ‗serious‘

passages and insisted that Jerome made up a better title. Three Men in a Boat seemed to

be the most appropriate one.

The book was published in 1889 by J. W. Arrowsmith and it quickly made

Jerome‘s name, the copies being big sellers. It was extremely successful not only in

Britain, but also in the USA, Germany and Russia, and translated into many languages,

including Japanese, Hebrew, Irish and Portuguese. The novel has been filmed three


10/85

6

times (1920, 1933, 1956), adapted into a musical by Hubert Gregg, made into a stage

play, read aloud on radio and even performed in a one-man show.

The style of the novel Three Men in a Boat was completely new and fresh.

Unlike other Victorian writers – such as Conan Doyle, R. L. Stevenson and Rudyard

Kipling – whose stories captured fantastical adventures and fearless heroes, Jerome‘s

novel portrayed three ordinary pipe-smoking men having fun on an ordinary boating

trip. He used everyday language and mocked the matters of everyday life. Of course,

fervent critics (especially from The Saturday Review and Puch) soon took Jerome to

task. He was criticised for the new kind of humour and accused of ‗vulgarity‘, using

colloquial clerk‘s English. The extraordinary commercial success, however, suggested

that the general readership was not influenced by this sharp criticism and that people

wanted to take a rest from literary grandiloquence and solemnity and to spend their

spare time with a book that made them laugh (Nicholas 57 – 61).

Despite the general interest in Jerome‘s works, his writings are not very highly

thought of in the official English literary history. The Czech readership, however,

received the novel enthusiastically, which was probably due to the similarity between

Jerome‘s humour and the humour of the famous Czech writers such as Jaroslav Hašek,

Karel Čapek and Karel Poláček (Stříbrný 564). The popularity of the novel in the Czech

literary milieu is also indicated by the fact that it has been translated five times and

repeatedly republished.


11/85

7

1.3 The Czech Translators

Vladimír Henzl (1910 – 1978; pen-names Jan Kolovrat, Vladimír Černý)

Vladimír Henzl graduated in law and worked as a clerk at the Czechoslovak

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and during the Second World War at consulates in England

and the United States. He was the author of juvenile adventure literature (Zátoka pirátů;

Přiznejte se, kapitáne) and translated from English (especially works by James

Fenimore Cooper, Robert Louis Stevenson), Italian and Serbo-Croatian (Obec

překladatelů).

Jiří Zdeněk Novák (1912 – 2001)

Even though J. Z. Novák graduated from the Faculty of Law in Prague, he

devoted his professional life to cultural activities. He worked as an editor in Melantrich

publishing company, then as a script editor in Barrandov film studios and since 1951 he

had been engaged in writing, scriptwriting and translating. Novák focused mainly on

drama translation from English (Oscar Wilde) and French (Molière) but he also

translated several detective stories (W. Inge, A. Christie, P. G. Wodehouse) and many

works of other genres (Obec překladatelů).

Milan Ţáček (1974)

Milan Ţáček graduated in English and Spanish philology at the Palacký

University in Olomouc and since 2000 has been working as a freelance translator. He

specialises in translation of English fiction (Jerome Klapka Jerome, P. G. Wodehouse)

and in fantasy and horror literature (George MacDonald, H. P. Lovecraft, China

Miéville, Ian R. MacLeod etc.). He also translated two volumes of poetry by Charles

Bukowski and several children‘s books, among them Kate DiCamillo‘s The Tale of


12/85

8

Despereaux (Příběh o Zoufálkovi) which Albatros publishing company awarded as the

best translation in 2008 (Email to the author).

1.4 Humour and Its Devices

As this thesis focuses on the study of translation of humour, I would like to provide a

brief explanation of the term ‗humour‘ and to mention some of its expedients.

The meaning of the word ‗humour‘ was originally far from what it means today.

The term derived from Latin humor , meaning ‗moisture‘ or ‗body fluid‘, and in the

Middle Ages and during the Renaissance period it was used to denote the four humours

of the body – blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile (proposed by Hippocrates) –

which determined a person‘s mental dis position, character and temperament. The theory

of humours survives up to this day in such expressions as ‗ill-humoured‘, ‗good-

humoured‘, ‗yellow with jealousy‘, etc. In the sixteenth century the theory of humours

is employed in drama for the first time when Ben Jonson names the characters in his

comedy Every Man in His Humour (1598) in terms of their prevailing bodily fluids

(Cuddon 313 – 4). It is not until the seventeenth century that ‗humour‘ is used to refer to

the comic and ridiculous. In the eighteen century the word gradually got in all the

European languages, differentiating the positive, kind and comforting comicality from

caricature and satire (Vlašín 141).

The humour of the Victorian era, in which Jerome Klapka Jerome created his

literary works, can be described as domesticated, which means that it ―settles down to

chuckling over the mores of an approved social order or the harmless oddities of stock

figures and types: policemen, clergymen, urchins, schoolchildren, tramps, drunks,

professors, ar tists, eccentrics‖ (McArthur 488). This is exactly what Jerome does in his


13/85

9

Three Men in a Boat . He comments on social issues, such as poverty, superabundance

of wealth, criminality; kindly mocks various types of characters, among them villagers,

fishermen, railway employees, boasters, oversensitive ladies; and last but not least

makes fun of the three main characters themselves. The humour of this kind can be also

found in the nineteenth-century magazine Punch, ―a representative of the affluent

middle class smirking indulgently at its own foibles, at its own establishment and its

servants, at the oddities of the poor, and at the strange ways of foreigners‖ (McArthur

488).

What is important for the creation and reception of humour in general is the

social context – humour outdates very quickly and is often dependent on specific

cultures and attitudes. Humour is also a matter of personal taste as it is likely that two

people will perceive a joke very differently (Ross 2 – 4). While the study of creation

and perception of humour in social terms would be very complex and would differ from

society to society, the study of language features that contribute to humour is far less

demanding as the features are almost the same across languages and are relatively easy

to detect. Humour can be elicited by structural ambiguity on phonological

(homophones), morphological (compound words), lexical (polysemy) and syntactical

(ambiguous sentence structures) level; or by incongruity in language. Incongruity theory

―focuses on the element of surprise. It states that humour is created out of a conflict

between what is expected and what actually occurs in the joke‖ (Ross 7). Incongruity

can appear in the fields of semantics (metaphors, contradictions, verbal irony),

pragmatics (breaking of cooperative principle, misunderstanding), discourse (breaking

the expectations) and register (using inappropriate register) (Ross 7 – 51). In Three Men

in a Boat the most significant of these devices of humour are those of irony, metaphors


14/85

10

and similes, register, and lexical and syntactical ambiguity. And these particular devices

and their translations into Czech are studied in the present thesis.


15/85

11

2 Irony

2.1 Irony in Three Men in a Boat

Irony plays a vital, if not leading, role in Jerome‘s Three Men in a Boat and represents

an element that contributes most to the overall humorous tone of the novel. Jerome

employs irony mainly to observe and criticise human weaknesses, such as laziness,

lying or drinking, to express his or his companions‘ attitudes (e.g. to work or food) and

to complain about the ―natural cussedness of things in general‖ (Jerome 100).

This linguistic device is very difficult to define and even more difficult to

recognise and evaluate. Martin Montgomery presents irony as the non-literal use of

language ―in which we say one thing but mean another‖ and which ―is also often

thought of as a type of tone, a particular way of speaking or writing‖ (138). Marta

Mateo, on the other hand, thinks that this definition (adopted by most critics) is not

sufficient and does not cover the complex techniques that are used to create irony. At

the same time she admits that there is no universal set of linguistic features that could

help identify ir ony and proposes that irony depends on context ―since it springs from the

relationships of a word, expression or action with the whole text or situation‖ (172).

Irony is a matter of interpretation and can be easily misunderstood as it works at

two levels: a lower level – the situation as it is deceptively presented by the ironist – and

an upper level – the situation as it appears to the observer or the ironist. There must be

the element of opposition (contradiction, incongruity) between the two levels and they

both must be presented as true. Another element that contributes to irony is the element

of ‗innocence‘ which refers to the victim‘s unawareness of the upper level or the

ironist‘s pretending not to be aware of it. Irony is not employed to deceive the

reader/hearer but to be recognized. The reader/hearer is supposed to realise that a


16/85

12

proposition has a different – real – meaning from what is being proposed (Mateo 172).

The ability to spot irony depends mostly on the awareness of how the language is used,

on values shared by the ironist and the victim and on general world knowledge.

Montgomery (138 – 9) classifies irony into two main types: verbal (corresponds

with Mateo‘s intentional irony) and situational (Mateo‘s unintentional irony). Verbal

irony is being communicated and occurs when a combination of words and its literal

meaning seem to be somehow odd or wrong. In order to understand the irony one has to

– with the help of context and the world knowledge – find another (real) meaning.

Situational irony exists already in the situation. It is created by an author, but the

characters involved are not aware of it.

Jerome Klapka Jerome uses both verbal and situational irony in his novel.

Several examples of verbal irony appear already in the subheadings that introduce each

chapter. As Markéta Zemanová correctly points out in her diploma thesis, the irony can

be traced back only after reading the whole chapters (22). Thus we can find out that

bathing in rough sea, in windy weather is referred to as ―Delights of early morning

bathing‖ (Jerome 23). An accident in which J., after decrying his decision to have a bath

in the cold water, unwillingly falls in the river is described as ―Heroism and

determination on the part of J.‖ (Jerome 100), and the three friend‘s c onversation

concerning various diseases presented as ―The cheery chat goes round‖ (Jerome 181). In

all these examples the element of opposition or contradiction is clearly apparent – the

author renders unpleasant feelings as delights, cowardice as heroism and chatting about

diseases as a pleasant chat.

Verbal irony can be also found in large numbers in the narration itself. In the

following example, in which Jerome talks about his fellow student‘s rather odd health,

one can see how the author works with contradiction (underlined):


17/85


18/85

14

examples from the novel in which overemphatic language (underlined) is apparently

used to express the narrator‘s ironic attitude:

It is not that I object to the work, mind you; I like work; it fascinates me. I can

sit and look at it for hours. I love to keep it by me; the idea of getting rid of it

nearly breaks my heart.

You cannot give me too much work; to accumulate work has almost become a

passion with me; my study is so full of it now, that there is hardly an inch of

room for any more. I shall have to throw out a wing soon.

And I am careful of my work, too. Why, some of the work that I have by me

now has been in my possession for years and years, and there isn‘t a finger -mark

on it. I take a great pride in my work; I take it down now and then and dust it.

No man keeps his work in a better state of preservation than I do. (Jerome 148 –

9)

It was my misfortune once to go for a water picnic with two ladies of this kind.

We did have a lively time! (Jerome 62)

When a statement does not make sense or the style of a narration is not

consistent (e. g. unexpected changes in register), it is a case of internal inconsistency

which is the second type of mechanism for creating irony (Montgomery 140). Jerome

frequently switches suddenly from one register to another or from commonplace to

poetic, refined language as in this example:

And the red sunset threw a mystic light upon the waters, and tinged with fire the

towering woods, and made a golden glory of the piled-up clouds. It was an hour

of deep enchantment, of ecstatic hope and longing. The little sail stood out

against the purple sky, the gloaming lay around us, wrapping the world in

rainbow shadows; and, behind us, crept the night. We seemed like knights of


19/85

15

some old legend, sailing across some mystic lake into the unknown realm of

twilight, unto the great land of the sunset.

We did not go into the realm of twilight; we went slap into that punt, where

those three old men were fishing. (Jerome 121 – 2)

In the first part of the extract, Jerome employs poetic repertoire and language including

several poetic devices – vivid imagery (e. g. ‗mystic light‘, ‗deep enchantment‘,

‗ecstatic hope‘, ‗rainbow shadows‘), a simile (‗like knights of some old legend‘) and

personification (‗the gloaming . . . wrapping the world‘, ‗crept the night‘). In the

following paragraph, the author all of a sudden switches to ordinary language

(underlined), describing the collision with the boat. Thus, he produces a comic and

ironic effect related to the characters‘ absentmindedness.

Muecke (in Mateo 173) distinguishes three types of irony that are characteristic

of novels: impersonal irony, in which the ironist as a person is in the background and

the irony lies solely in his words; self-disparaging irony, in which the ironist presents

his qualities, such as ignorance or naivety; and ingénu irony, in which the ironist uses a

character (an ingénu) for his irony.

There are several techniques for creating impersonal irony. In Jerome‘s novel

the most frequent is that of innuendo, i.e. an indirect remark about something or

somebody:

There is an iron ―scold‘s bridle‖ in Walton Church. They used these things in

ancient days for curbing women‘s tongues. They have given up the attempt now.

I suppose iron was getting scarce, and nothing else would be strong enough.

(Jerome 78)

He said it, The Pride of the Thames, had been in use, just as it now stood (orrather as it now hung together), for the last forty years . . . (Jerome 183)


20/85

16

The first example alludes to some women‘s cantankerousness and garrulousness, the

second one to the miserable state of a boat called The Pride of the Thames.

Other techniques include overstatement (dealt with above as overemphasis) and

understatement as in this extract:

And at that precise moment the man did it, and the boat rushed up the bank with

a noise like the ripping up of forty thousand linen sheets. Two men, a hamper,

and three oars immediately left the boat on the larboard side, and reclined on the

bank, and one and a half moments afterwards, two other men disembarked from

the starboard, and sat down among boat-hooks and sails and carpet-bags and

bottles. The last man went on twenty yards further, and then got out on his head.

(Jerome 85)

The author here describes an accident when a boat hits the river bank and the passengers

fall out of the boat in different directions. He makes use of words (underlined) that do

not match the situation and thus disparages it.

Pretended innocence or ignorance also ranks among the impersonal irony

techniques that occur frequently in Jerome‘s novel. The following example again

concerns J.‘s encounter with the proprietor of the material which J. made his raft from.

The irony here is based on the double meaning of the expression ‗to teach somebody to

do something‘. The character pretends not to recognise the threat and interprets it

falsely as a mere offer made by the proprietor to teach him something new:

He says he‘ll teach you to take his boards and make a raft of them; but, seeing

that you know how to do this pretty well already, the offer, though doubtless

kindly meant, seems a superfluous one on his part, and you are reluctant to put

him to any trouble by accepting it. (Jerome 152)


21/85

17

The above example could also be regarded as self-disparaging irony as the

author of the irony himself presents his seeming innocence. Another instance of this

type of irony appears in chapter eight and refers to J.‘s ignorance of German language:

I don‘t understand German myself. I learned it at school, but forgot every word

of it two years after I had left, and have felt much better ever since. (Jerome 75)

The last type of irony – ingénu irony – occurs quite frequently in the novel as

well. The author often makes the characters of Harris and George the targets of his

irony as in the instance below, in which George‘s job is made fun of:

Harris and I would go down in the morning, and take the boat up to Chertsey,

and George, who would not be able to get away from the City till the afternoon

(George goes to sleep at a bank from ten to four each day; except Saturdays,

when they wake him up and put him outside at two), would meet us there.

(Jerome 17)

Until now I have been focusing on verbal irony. Jerome‘s work abounds with

situational irony as well, in fact, I dare say it makes it one of the masterpieces of

humoristic literature. However, as situational irony is not much workable from the point

of view of translation, I won‘t deal with it in detail.

2.2 Translation of Irony

Translation of humour is often compared to translation of poetry as ―the formal aspects

are an integral part of both types of texts. The link is also established on the basis of the


22/85

18

difficulty of both tasks‖ (Mateo 174). The difficulty of translating humour depends on

what means it is based on. If humour lies in linguistic aspects such as puns, it is highly

probable that it will be difficult to translate or even untranslatable. On the other hand,

humour based on irony or on reversal of situation or tone will be easier to deal with

(Mateo 174).

As stated above, the identification of irony depends mostly on context and

background knowledge. However, when an author works with satire and allusion to

create irony, the socio-cultural aspect becomes relevant as well. Thus, the translation of

irony is heavily influenced by the proximity of cultures – the more distant the culture is,

the more difficult the understanding of humour and irony will be (Mateo 174). In my

opinion, the Czech and English cultures and their perception of irony are close enough

to allow the translator to render all the cases of irony in Jerome‘s Three Men in a Boat

without any substantial changes. Moreover, Jerome uses similar mechanisms for

creating irony (contradiction, overstatement, pretended innocence etc.) as those that are

generally employed in world literature, as well as similar topics to be ironic about

(laziness, weather, work, Murphy‘s laws and so on), therefore the understanding and

translation of irony in this case are not very complicated.

The following example of irony is based mainly on overemphasis, contradiction

(lies vs. veracity) and on the surprise at the logic of the statement claiming that what

makes a good fisherman is not mere lying, but well-thought-out and meticulous saying

of untruths:

Some people are under the impression that all that is required to make a good

fisherman is the ability to tell lies easily and without blushing; but this is a

mistake. Mere bald fabrication is useless; the veriest tyro can manage that. It is

in the circumstantial detail, the embellishing touches of probability, the general


23/85

19

air of scrupulous — almost of pedantic — veracity, that the experienced angler

is seen. (Jerome 168)

The translations are as follows:

Henzl Novák Ţáček

Jsou lidé, kteří mají dojem,

ţe člověk, aby byl dobrým

rybářem, potřebuje jen

schopnost snadno a bez

uzardění lhát. To je však

omyl. Obyčejný holý

nesmysl není k ničemu. To

dovede kaţdý začátečník.

Zkušený rybář se pozná

podle zevrubných

podrobností a zkrášlujících

tahů provedených štětcem

pravděpodobnosti. Kromě

toho musí působit dojmem

úzkostlivé — téměř

pedantické —

pravdomluvnosti. (187)

Někteří lidé mají dojem, ţe

k tomu, aby byl z někoho

dobrý rybář, úplně stačí

schopnost plynně a bez

uzardění lhát; ale to je

omyl. Holý výmysl sám o

sobě není k ničemu; na ten

se vzmůţe i začátečník. Ale

ţe ho propracuje do

nejmenších podrobností, ţe

ho vyšperkuje prvky

pravděpodobnosti, ţe mu

dodá zdání úzkostlivé — aţ

pedantské — věrohodnosti,

teprve podle toho se pozná

rybář zkušený. (203)

Někteří lidé ţijí v

přesvědčení, ţe vše, čeho

má dobrý rybář zapotřebí,

je schopnost plynně lhát a

zachovávat si přitom

kamennou tvář; to je ale

omyl. Pouhopouhé pusté

výmysly k ničemu nejsou;

zvládne je i ten

nejnevinnější začátečník.

Zkušenost rybáře je patrná

v podruţných detailech, v

líčeních, jimiţ přikrašluje

pravděpodobné vyznění, v

pečlivosti - ba skoro aţ

úzkostlivosti -, s níţ lpí na

hodnověrnosti. (176)

To create overemphasis, Jerome uses phrases including descriptive adjectives, such as

‗circumstantial detail‘, ‗the embellishing touches of probability‘ and

‗scrupulous/pedantic veracity‘ which are easily translatable into Czech (underlined) and

for which there are plenty of different solutions. The translatability is moreover made

easier by generally shared attitude to lying as something unacceptable.


24/85

20

Another aspect that plays a role in translating humour is that of transporting

―sense‖ and ―form‖ which are both very important when dealing with humour. Keeping

the sense is more or less easy but preserving the form can cause problems as ―irony and

humour may simply spring from an alliteration in the usual syntactic order of a

sentence, from the choice of an unusual collocation or, indeed, from the very use of a

certain word‖ (Mateo 174). These formal features are very difficult to transfer to the

target text assuming that the translator wants to preserve the original sense as well.

As the irony in Three Men in a Boat is created mainly by the devices of

contradiction, opposition, overemphasis and pretended innocence/ignorance, there are

not many cases of irony in which form plays a crucial role. However, some examples

can be found. In the following extract, which describes the characters being chased by

the smell of paraffin oil, the chief device to create irony is the repetition of the

expression ‗oily wind‘ and the coordinating conjunction ‗and‘:

Sometimes a westerly oily wind blew, and at other times an easterly oily wind,

and sometimes it blew a northerly oily wind, and maybe a southerly oily wind

. . . (Jerome 31)


Někdy vanul západní

parafinový vítr, jindy zasvýchodní parafinový vítr,

chvílemi foukal severní

parafinový vítr nebo taky

jiţní parafinový vítr. (36)

Někdy foukal západní

petrolejový vítr, jindyvýchodní petrolejový vítr,

někdy severní petrolejový

vítr a snad i jiţní

petrolejový vítr . . . (38)

Občas dul západní

petrolejový vítr, jindy to byl východní petrolejový

vítr, někdy vál zase

petrolejový vítr ze severu,

moţná jsme pocítili i

petrolejový vítr od jihu.

(36)


25/85

21

Henzl and Novák opt to preserve the repetition of the ‗ -ly oily wind‘ pattern as ‗-ní

parafinový vítr‘ and ‗-ní petrolejový vítr‘, respectively. Ţáček, on the other hand, uses

this pattern only twice and then continues with ‗petrolejový vítr ze severu‘ and

‗petrolejový vítr od jihu‘, which sounds natural and smooth in Czech but is inconsistent

with the original‘s pattern which is probably supposed to create irony and emphasise the

fact that the oily smell is everywhere. All the three translators avoid the repetition of the

conjunction ‗and‘. In English this repetition contributes to the ironic tone of the

utterance, in Czech, on the contrary, it would sound clumsy and thus destroy the ironic

element there.

Another instance of irony, in which transporting the form is essential, concerns

George‘s playing the banjo accompanied by Montmorency‘s howling. George‘s

question is ironically answered by Harris‘s question of the same form, only the verbs ‗to

howl‘ and ‗to play‘ are swapped:

―What‘s he want to howl like that for when I‘m playing?‖ George would

exclaim indignantly, while taking aim at him with a boot.

―What do you want to play like that for when he is howling?‖ Harris would

retort, catching the boot. (Jerome 140 – 1)


„Co potřebuje takhle výt,

kdyţ já hraju?― zvolal Jiří

uraţeně a hodil po

Montmorencym botu.

„Co ho to posedlo, ţetakhle vyje, kdyţ já

hraju?― křičel rozhořčeně

George a házel po něm

botou.

„Proč se, kdyţ hraji, dávádo takového vytí?― ptal se

George rozhořčeně,

zatímco si psa bral na

mušku zutou botou.

„Co ty potřebuješ takhle „Co to tebe posedlo, ţe „A proč chceš vlastně hrát,


26/85

22

hrát, kdyţ on vyje?―

odpověděl Jiří1 a botu chytil.

(157)

takhle hraješ, kdyţ on

vyje?― odpovídal Harris a

tu botu vţdycky zachytil.

(172)

kdyţ tak vyje?― opáčil

Harris a botu zachytil.

(150)

Both Henzl and Novák follow the original pattern and preserve the form of the two

questions. Thus, they succeed in retaining the irony of the remark suggesting that

George‘s playing is not pleasant to listen to and that Harris prefers the dog‘s howling .

Ţáček, on the other hand, does not realise the importance of keeping the form in this

example. He does not swap the verbs ‗výt‘ and ‗hrát‘ and does not give the discussed

questions the same form in his translation, which causes the effect of irony to be

impaired.

In the last example of irony, whose form presents an inseparable part of it and

thus should be translated into the target language, Jerome overemphasises such a

common thing as ‗being full up‘ by using very refined and lofty language:

We are but the veriest, sorriest slaves of our stomach. Reach not after morality

and righteousness, my friends; watch vigilantly your stomach, and diet it with

care and judgment. Then virtue and contentment will come and reign within

your heart, unsought by any effort of your own; and you will be a good citizen, a

loving husband, and a tender father – a noble, pious man. (Jerome 94 – 5)

The poetic and philosophical tone of this extract is established by the use of descriptive

adjectives (‗sorriest‘, ‗loving‘, ‗noble‘ etc.), adverbs (‗vigilantly‘) and words concerning

morality such as ‗righteousness‘ and ‗virtue‘. These features are supplemented with a

metaphor (‗slaves of our stomach‘) and personification (‗virtue and contentment will

come and reign‘). In my opinion, the three translators are successful in transporting the

1 This is a mistake – it should be Harris.


27/85

23

form into the target language as they use appropriate adjectives, preserve the metaphor

and personification and their language contains about the same loftiness as the original:


Jsme opravdu

nejuboţejšími otroky svého

ţaludku. Nesnaţte se,

přátelé, být mravní a

poctiví. Dbejte bedlivě o

svůj ţaludek a krmte ho

opatrně a moudře. Pak

ctnost a blaţenost zavládne

ve vašich srdcích, aniţ by

bylo třeba ji namáhavě

hledat, a stanete se dobrými

občany, milujícími

manţely, něţnými otci a

ušlechtilými, zboţnými

lidmi. (108)

Jsme prostě ti nejuboţejší

otroci svých ţaludků.

Nepachtěte se po tom,

abyste byli mravní a

poctiví, přátelé moji; jenom

se bedlivě starejte o své

ţaludky a krmte je opatrně

a uváţlivě. Pak ctnost a

spokojenost samy vstoupí

do vašich srdcí a budou

jimi vládnout a vy

nemusíte vynakládat ţádné

úsilí, abyste jich dosáhli;

pak budete dobrými

občany a milujícími man-

ţely a něţně chápajícími

otci — prostě ušlechtilými,

zboţnými lidmi. (117)

Jsme opravdoví a

prachbídní otroci vlastního

břicha. Přátelé, nesápejte se

po mravnosti a

spravedlnosti, sledujte

bedlivě svá břicha a krmte

je pečlivě a uváţlivě. Pak

se dostaví i ctnost a

spokojenost, jeţ zavládnou

ve vašem srdci, aniţ o ně

budete nějak usilovat.

Stanete se dobrým obča-

nem, milujícím manţelem a

citlivým otcem - důstojným

a zboţným muţem. (102)

As Zemanová observes in her thesis, Jerome employs another device to create

irony – he uses italics to stress words and their contribution to irony (24). The use of

italics occurs, for example, in the sentence concerning Harris‘s singing a comic song:

You have never heard Harris sing a comic song, or you would understand the

service I had rendered to mankind. It is one of Harris‘s fixed ideas that he can

sing a comic song; the fixed idea, on the contrary, among those of Harris‘s


28/85

24

friends who have heard him try, is that he can’t , and never will be able to, and

that he ought not to be allowed to try. (Jerome 70)

Even though it is a common practice in Czech to stress a word by means of word order,

Henzl, Novák and Ţáček use italics as well:


Nikdy jste Harrise neslyšeli

zpívat ţertovnou píseň,

proto nemůţete ocenitsluţbu, kterou jsem

prokázal lidstvu. Jednou z

Jiřího2 utkvělých myšlenek

je, ţe umí zazpívat

ţertovnou píseň. Naproti

tomu utkvělou myšlenkou

Harrisových přátel, kteří ho

slyšeli, jak se pokouší

takovou píseň zazpívat, je,

ţe to neumí, umět nikdy

nebude a ţe by se mu

nemělo dovolit, aby se o to

pokoušel. (81)

Vy jste nikdy neslyšeli

Harrise zpívat kuplet, takţe

nemůţete pochopit, jakvelikou sluţbu jsem tím

prokázal lidstvu. Jednou z

Harrisových utkvělých

myšlenek totiţ je, ţe umí

zpívat kuplety, ti Harrisovi

přátelé, kteří uţ zaţili

Harrisovy pokusy v tom

směru, mají naopak

utkvělou myšlenku, ţe to

Harris neumí, ţe to nikdy

umět nebude a ţe by se mu

nikdy nemělo dovolit, aby

to zkoušel. (87 – 8)

Ještě jste neslyšeli, jak

Harris zpívá komickou

píseň, jinak byste pochopili, jakou sluţbu

jsem lidstvu tímto svým

skutkem prokázal. Harris

ţije s utkvělou představou,

ţe umí zpívat komické

písně. Harrisovi přátelé na

druhé straně ţijí s utkvělou

představou, ţe je zpívat

neumí, nebude umět a ani

by mu nemělo být

umoţněno, aby se o něco

takového pokoušel. (78)

The translators place the verb ‗umí‘ at the beginning of the phrase, although it would

gain more stress in the final position. However, their solutions of keeping the italics are

probably based on their assumptions that words in italics stand out from the text and

monopolise the reader‘s attention more than non-italicised words in the final position. In

this type of text the solutions are justifiable and can be considered successful.

2 This is a mistake – it should be Harris.


29/85

25

In conclusion of this chapter on irony, I would like to comment on the general

way the three Czech translators render irony in Three Men in the Boat . I will attempt to

demonstrate it on one example, the comments are, however, based on the overall study

of irony in the novel. The extract is related to J.‘s judging Harris‘s taste in clothing:

It is a great pity, because he will never be a success as it is, while there are one

or two colours in which he might not really look so bad, with his hat on. (Jerome

61)


Je to velká škoda, protoţe

takhle se nikdy nebude

líbit, a při tom je tu jedna

nebo dvě barvy, v kterých

by opravdu nevypadal tak

zle, kdyby si nechal na

hlavě klobouk. (71)

A je to pro něj veliká

škoda, protoţe takhle

jakţiv neudělá díru do

světa, ačkoli by se našly

dvě tři barvy, v kterých by

moţná nevypadal tak

strašně, kdyby si ovšem

narazil klobouk. (76)

Je to obrovská škoda, a

třebaţe by se našly jedna či

dvě barvy, v nichţ by

vskutku nevypadal zle -

pakliţe by měl na hlavě

klobouk -, za tohoto stavu

nikdy úspěchu nedosáhne.

(68)

Vladimír Henzl seems to stick to the original and does not play with the language very

much. The ironic tone is preserved but it is not so marked as that of Novák‘s and

Ţáček‘s translations. J. Z. Novák, on the other hand, tends to enhance Jerome‘s irony by

using more expressive and colloquial words and phrases, such as ‗neudělá díru do světa‘

or ‗narazil si klobouk‘ in the above example. Milan Ţáček also tries to enhance the

irony by colloquial expressions, although not as much as Novák does, or by somewhat

archaic sounding words, such as the conjunction ‗pakliţe‘ in the above table. Even

though each of the translators uses different language and has different approach to


30/85

26

translating irony, their translations are successful in transporting sense as well as

preserving the effect they should have on the readers.


31/85

27

3 Metaphor

3.1 Metaphor in Three Men in a Boat

Metaphorical language is an integral part of any literary text and is one of the most

admired features in literature. Metaphor represents one of the figures of speech and it

―occurs when a word or phrase in a passage is clearly out of place in the topic being

dealt with but nevertheless makes sense because of some similarity between it and what

is being talked about‖ (Montgomery 129). To be able to interpret metaphor, the reader

has to recognise the similarity between the two concepts and carry it over to the new

context. Metaphor can reinforce the reader‘s imagination and conceptions of the world,

as well as influence his or her attitude to the topic that is discussed (Montgomery 134).

In other words, metaphor is ―a process of referring figuratively and emo tively to an

object in terms of another‖ (Menacere 568), and serves to stimulate an image, to

provoke an interesting comparison or to provide original ways of perceiving the world

(Alvarez 480).

When studying (or translating) metaphors it is useful to be able to analyse them.

In 1936, I. A. Richards proposed and named three aspects of metaphor (96 and 117):

Tenor – the original idea; what is really being said or thought of,

Vehicle – the borrowed idea; what the original idea is compared to,

Ground – the common characteristics.

Thus, in Jerome‘s metaphor ―Sunlight is the life- blood of Nature‖ (Jerome 184),

sunlight is the tenor, life-blood the vehicle, and the shared element (or ground) probably

life or energy.


32/85

28

Peter Newmark understands metaphors as devices used to ―describe an entity,

event or quality more comprehensively and concisely and in a more complex way than

is possible by using literal language‖ (Approaches 84) and divides them into five types

(84 – 94):

Dead metaphors are fossilized metaphors (e. g. ‗arm of the chair‘); many of

them have been imported from other languages (e. g. ‗think‘ from Old

English);

Cliché metaphors usually consist of stereotyped collocations (‗leave no stone

unturned‘);

Stock metaphors are standard or common metaphors; they may be one word

metaphors (‗a ray of hope‘) or extended metaphors, i.e. idioms (‗cast a

shadow over‘)

Recent metaphors often include neologisms such as ‗head-hunters‘;

Original (creative) metaphors are invented by an author and are often dramatic

and shocking in effect (e.g. ‗the sun flung spangles, dancing coins‘).

As this division is quite complex and analysing the metaphors in Three men in a Boat in

this way would require a thorough (sometimes even etymological) study, I will confine

my focus to the most frequent types of metaphor in the novel – the stock metaphors,

especially idioms, and original metaphors. These types of metaphor are also worth of

studying from the translation point of view – it is interesting to observe what Czech

equivalents of the English idioms are used and how the translators maintain the

creativity of the original metaphors.


33/85

29

One of the subtypes of metaphor that is widely employed in Jerome‘s book is

that of simile. Like metaphor, simile also draws attention to the similarity between two

things or phenomena but whereas in metaphor the comparison is implied, in simile the

comparison is explicitly expressed with the help of words such as ‗like‘ or ‗as‘

(Montgomery 129). Jerome makes use of similes in his humorous or ironic remarks

about somebody or something, as in

The man they had got now was a jolly, light-hearted, thick-headed sort of chap

with about as much sensitiveness in him as there might be in a Newfoundland puppy (Jerome 63);

as well as in his poetic parts of the novel:

It was a glorious morning, late spring or early summer, as you care to take it,

when the dainty sheen of grass and leaf is blushing to a deeper green; and the

year seems like a fair young maid, trembling with strange, wakening pulses on

the brink of womanhood. (Jerome 49)

Personification (anthropomorphic metaphor), another category of metaphor, is

abundant in Three Men in a Boat as well. Personification appears when human traits

(qualities, feelings etc.) are attributed to non-living things, animals, phenomena, and so

on. Jerome again applies personification both in the humorous situations and in the

poetic descriptions. In the former he personifies food, toothbrushes, tow-lines, boats,

tea-kettles, towns and the like, to make fun of the things and especially of people who

are affected by the things‘ mean ‗behaviour‘:


34/85

30

That is the only way to get a kettle to boil up the river. If it sees that you are

waiting for it and are anxious, it will never even sing. . . . You get near the

kettle, so that it can overhear you, and then you shout out . . . (Jerome 93)

In the latter Jerome uses personification as a poetic device to make the poetic

descriptions more vivid and imagination-provoking:

. . . with the sunlight flashing from its dancing wavelets, gilding gold the grey-

green beech-trunks, glinting through the dark, cool wood paths, chasing shadows

o‘er the shallows, flinging diamonds from the mill-wheels, throwing kisses tothe lilies, . . . (Jerome 184)

Even though metaphor is a feature predominantly present in and typical of

poetry, it occurs very frequently in any literary text and can contribute to its humorous

tone. It is the non-literal meaning or the comparison included in metaphor that, when

used inappropriately or awkwardly, creates incongruity and thus humorous effect (Ross

35):

We are but the veriest, sorriest slaves of our stomach. (Jerome 94)

In this example, the comparison of humans to slaves who have to constantly serve their

stomachs produces a comic effect, as the statement is obviously exaggerated and

contains poor justification for people‘s indulgence in eating.


35/85

31

3.2 Translation of Metaphor

The problem of translation of metaphor has not been sufficiently researched yet and

individual translators and literary critics hold different attitudes to approaching it. Some

think that metaphor should be rendered literally, some claim that this would result in a

meaningless expression in the target text (Menacere 568). Culturally based metaphors,

i.e. metaphors in which the two images compared are perceived differently by the

source and target cultures, will be naturally more difficult to translate than those in

which the images have the same cognitive content in both cultures. This fact is also

related to the use of symbols. Some symbols have universal applications and are

perceived equally in the cultures and thus are easily translatable. On the other hand,

symbols that convey different meanings in different cultures require complete

transformation of metaphor otherwise the translation would be senseless (Menacere 569

– 70).

Since English and Czech cultures are, in terms of understanding symbols and

perceiving images, relatively close, the translation of metaphors in Jerome‘s Three Men

in a Boat did not involve any substantial changes. For example, as the concept of

‗sword‘ is understood as a symbol of power (or power gained by violence) both in

English and Czech, the Czech translators do not have to transform the metaphor in any

way:

. . . for the sword is judge and jury, plaintiff and executioner, in these

tempestuous times . . . (Jerome 107)


. . . neboť v těchto . . . neboť v těchto V těchto bouřlivých časech


36/85

32

bouřlivých časech meč je

soudcem, ţalobcem i

popravčím . . . (121)

bouřlivých dobách meč je

soudcem, porotou,

ţalobcem i katem . . . (132)

je totiţ meč jak soudcem,

tak porotou, ţalobcem i

vykonavatelem . . . (115)

Peter Newmark proposes five possible procedures of metaphor translation (48 –

9):

1.

Translating a metaphor using the same or a similar image;

2. Translating it with a different image that has the same sense;

3. Converting the metaphor into a simile;

4. Translation of metaphor by simile plus sense;

5. Conversion of metaphor into sense.

As has been already mentioned, English and Czech cultures are not so remote to

cause problems in translating metaphors or to force translators to recreate them.

Therefore, the first method was used by the translators of the Jerome‘s novel in the

majority of cases. The use of this mode is possible if the image has comparable

frequency and validity in the target language (Alvarez 484), as in this example:

Had it been a Richard there! the cup of liberty might have been dashed from

England‘s lips, and the taste of freedom held back for a hundred years. (Jerome

110)


Kdyby to byl býval některý

Richard! Číše volnosti by

byla bývala odtrţena od rtů

Anglie a ještě sto let by

Být na jeho místě takový

Richard! Pak pohár

svobody mohl být ještě

odtrţen od rtů Anglie,

Kdyby tu tak seděl

Richard! Anglii by se ještě

mohl od rtů vyrazit kalich

svobody; mohla by si na


37/85

33

byla Anglie čekala, neţ by

poznala, jak chutná

svoboda. (124)

takţe by ještě stovky let ne-

poznala, jak chutná

volnost. (135)

svobodu nechat zajít chuť

ještě nějakých sto let. (117)

Even though the translators choose different solutions for the word ‗cup‘, they still

preserve the sense of the metaphor and the cup‘s relation to the lips of personified

England. Since the metaphor of ‗the cup of . . .‘ is widely used in Czech as well (‗pohár

hořkosti‘, ‗číše zapomnění‘), the translations are perfectly understandable for Czech

readers.

When analysing metaphors in the novel, I have come across only two

applications of Newmark‘s second mode of metaphor translation, i.e. rep lacing the

source language image by different image with the same sense, both by Milan Ţáček:

It is difficult enough to fix a tent in dry weather; in wet, the task becomes

herculean. (Jerome 19)

Postavit stan je obtíţné, i kdyţ neprší; za deště se tento úkol stává hodným

Sisyfa. (Ţáček 24)

While Henzl and Novák retain the image of Hercules in their translations (‗herkulovská

úloha‘, ‗herkulovská práce‘, respectively), Ţáček chooses to describe the task as that of

Sysiphus. The images are almost the same, referring to the tremendous effort required to

accomplish the task, Ţáček only makes the task unending and futile. The second case is

as follows:

Dear old Quarry Woods! . . . how scented to this hour you seem with memories

of sunny summer days! (Jerome 123)


38/85

34

Jak nás utěšují stromy, . . . jak nás aţ do této chvíle prostupují vzpomínkami na

slunečné letní dny! (Ţáček 132)

Henzl and Novák again preserve the original image of pleasant smell (‗voníte

vzpomínkami‘) whereas Ţáček opts for the Czech verb ‗ prostoupit‘ which corresponds

with Jerome‘s idea as well (i.e. plenty of memories associated with the woods) but

deprives it of the poetic olfactory sensation.

Only one case of translating the metaphor by a simile was found. It is applied by

J. Z. Novák and it works equally to the original:

. . . and they both sighed, and sat down, with the air of early Christian martyrs

trying to make themselves comfortable up against the stake. (Jerome 62)

. . . načeţ si obě povzdychly a usedly, tváříce se jako mučednice z prvních dob

křesťanství, které se snaţí zaujmout u kůlu pozici co nejpohodlnější. (Novák 77)

The modes of transferring the metaphor by simile plus sense (Newmark

mentions this example: ‗he is a lion‘ developed into ‗he is as brave as a lion‘) and of

converting the metaphor into sense were not registered in the novel.

Until now I have been dealing with the translation of original metaphors or

metaphors that are invented by an author and that are not hackneyed and stereotyped. In

the following paragraphs I will focus on the translation of idioms – expressions that

Newmark counts into stock metaphors.

Idioms are expressions or phrases that have fixed meanings. They can

sometimes present translation problems because ―they contain more than one word but

f orm a single unit of meaning‖ (Menacere 570). Thus, if the words are interpreted

individually, then the whole cluster of those words does not make sense. Another


39/85

35

obstacle in translation of idioms can arise when an idiom is culturally specific and when

translated literally, the target readership does not understand. According to Menacere, a

reasonable approach to translating idioms is to understand the idiom, interpret its

meaning (emotive and aesthetic) and transfer the meaning in the target language (571).

The three Czech translators render the idioms in two ways, both equally successful.

First, they use Czech idiomatic equivalents where there are any or when the context

makes it possible, as in these examples:

Jerome Henzl Novák Ţáček

. . . to sell your life

dearly . . . (21)

. . . prodáte svůj

ţivot draho . . . (24)

. . . prodáte svůj

ţivot draho . . . (26)

. . . svůj ţivot za

ţádných okolností

tak lacino nedáte

. . . (26)

You might look

daggers at him for

an hour . . . (63)

Mohli jste na něho

celou hodinu vrhat

vraţedné pohledy . . . (73)

Hodinu jste ho

mohli probodávat

očima . . . (78)

Mohli jste ho celé

hodiny propichovat

pohledem . . . (70)

. . . you couldn‘t

get a Referee for

love or money . . .

(12)

. . . za nic na světě

tam neseţenete

ilustrované časopisy

. . . (16)

. . . I didn‘t care a

hang . . . (38)

. . . ţe mi houby

záleţí . . . (43)

. . . na tom ţe mi

pendrek záleţí . . .(47)

I never can make

head or tail of

those. (45)

Z těch uţ jsem teda

úplný jelen. (56)

S těmi si taky nevím

rady. (51)

She was nuts on

public-houses . . .

(50)

Panenská královna

Anglie byla do

krčem celá pryč.

Ta byla po

hospodách celá divá

. . . (62)


40/85

36

(58)

. . . they are all the

rage this season . . .

(79)

. . . letos se po nich

můţou na řece

všichni utlouct. (87)

Secondly, if there is no idiomatic equivalent in Czech or when the idiom does not fit the

context, they translate them with unidiomatic expressions with the same sense as that of

the original idioms:


. . . you couldn‘t get

a Referee for love

or money . . . (12)

. . . člověk tam

nenajde sportovního

sudího ani z lásky,

ani za peníze . . .

(14)

. . . ani za peníze,

ani za dobré slovo

tam člověk

neseţene Milovníka

sportu . . . (15)

. . . I didn‘t care a

hang . . . (38)

. . . ţe je mi dočista

jedno . . . (43 – 4)

I never can make

head or tail of

those. (45)

V těch se vůbec

nevyznám. (51)

She was nuts on

public-houses . . .

(50)

Anglická panenská

královna byla

hostinci přímo

posedlá. (56)

. . . they are all the

rage this season . . .

(79)

. . . jsou teď strašně

v módě . . . (91)

To je tuhle sezónu

strašně v módě. (99)

. . . and he would

rather be on the

safe side . . . (139)

. . . proto pro jistotu

nebude . . . (155)

. . . a tak se prý

radši přidrţí toho,

co je vyzkoušeno

. . . (170)

. . . a dá přednost

jistotě . . . (148)


41/85

37

Peter Newmark claims that similes ―are the poor cousins of metaphors‖ as they

―have none of the power and the incisiveness of metaphors‖ (Paragraphs 19). However,

Jerome‘s Three Men in a Boat abounds with them, their main function being to describe

and illustrate the events and incidents in both the humorous and poetic parts of the

novel. They normally do not cause any problems in translating and are predominantly

translated literally, as the translator does not have any reason to change or recreate them

(Newmark, Paragraphs 19). This is the case in most instances of similes in Jerome‘s

novel. Here are some examples:


. . . yet harmless,

mind you, as the

babe unborn. (53)

. . . neškodné jako

nenarozené

nemluvně. (61)

. . . neškodné jako

nenarozené batole.

(66)

. . . zároveň

neškodný jako

novorozeně. (60)

It is like the sunset

and the stars . . .

(55)

Je jako západ slunce

a hvězdy . . . (63)

Jako západ slunce a

hvězdy . . . (69)

Je jako západ

slunce a hvězdy . . .

(62)

. . . and had begun

to unravel it as if he

were taking the

swaddling clothes

off a new-born

infant . . . (81)

. . . a začal je

rozvíjet jako by

snímal plenky z

novorozeněte. (93)

. . . a jal se je

rozvíjet, jako kdyby

odmotával plenky s

novorozeněte . . .

(101)

. . . a začal je

odmotávat, jako by

šlo o zavinovačku

novorozence . . .

(89)

. . . with a noise

like the ripping up

of forty thousand

linen sheets. (85)

. . . s takovým

rámusem, jako kdyţ

se trhá čtyřicet tisíc

lněných prostěradel.

(97)

. . . s takovým

randálem, jako

kdyby se naráz

roztrhlo čtyřicet

tisíc plátěných

prostěradel. (105)

. . . za hlomozu,

jako by se páralo

čtyřicet tisíc

plátěných

prostěradel. (92)

. . . all human life . . . celý ţivot leţí . . . leţí před námi . . . jak se před námi


42/85

38

lies like a book

before us . . . (98)

před námi jako

kniha. (112)

celý lidský ţivot

jako kniha . . . (121

– 2)

lidský ţivot otvírá

jako kniha . . . (106)

In the above examples, the Czech translators preserve, more or less, the same

images as presented in the original. However, there are some cases in which the

translators opt to use different, even though equally applicable, images:


. . . standing there

like a stuffed

mummy . . . (92 –

3)

Stojíš tu jako

vycpaná múmie . . .

(106)

Stojíš tady jako kus

polena . . . (114 – 5)

. . . stojíš jak

vycpaný panák . . .

(100)

I had an idea it

came natural to a

body, like rounders

and touch. (159)

Představoval jsem

si, ţe to přijde

samo, jako kdyţ si

člověk hraje smíčem. (176)

Tenkrát jsem si

představoval, ţe na

to kaţdý přijde hned

napoprvé sám jako

při hře na babu nebo

na škatule. (193)

Myslel jsem si, ţe

jim člověk přijde na

kloub stejně

přirozeně jako třebastřílení z praku.

(168)

. . . instead of being

pitched and thrown

about like peas in a

bladder . . . (161)

. . . místo aby se s

námi třepalo a

házelo jako s

hrachem v měchu

. . . (178)

. . . uţ to s námi

nehází a nehrká jako

s hrášky v chrastítku

. . . (196)

. . . místo abychom

sebou nechali házet

jako hadr na holi

. . . (170)

I have also come across a simile which had to be adapted since it, translated literally,

would sound unnatural in Czech:


. . . holding on to . . . drţe se okrajů . . . s rukama Rukama se zarputile


43/85

39

the sides of the boat

like grim death . . .

(68)

člunu jako klíště.

(78)

křečovitě

svírajícíma luby lodi

. . . (85)

drţel boků . . . (75)

The expression ‗drţet se jako hrozná/krutá/nemilosrdná smrt‘ as an equivalent to ‗hold

on tight‘ would not make sense to Czech readers; that is why the translators have to

come up with other solutions. Henzl uses the idiomatic expression ‗drţet se jako klíště‘

which is a very successful translation. On the other hand, Novák and Ţáček recreate the

simile into adverbs (‗křečovitě‘ and ‗zarputile‘, respectively). These are good solutions

as well but they lack the comic effect of the original simile.

Personification – the last category of metaphor mentioned in the theoretical part

of this chapter – does not represent any translation problem and is usually preserved in

translations. As the three translators of Jerome‘s novel do not change or adapt the

personifications in Three Men in a Boat in any way, I will only offer one example of

their renderings by way of illustration:


Possibly the result

may have been

brought about by

the natural

obstinacy of all

things in this

world. The boat

may possibly have

come to the

conclusion,

judging from a

cursory view of

Snad je tento

výsledek nutno

přičíst přirozené

nepovolnosti všech

věcí na tomto světě.

Moţná, ţe loďka

podlehla dojmu,

který v ní vzbudilo

povrchní

pozorování naší

činnosti, a usoudila,

ţe jsme si vyjeli

Ţe to tak dopadlo, to

lze patrně přičíst

pouze přirozené

zlomyslnosti všech

věcí na tomto světě.

Ta loď

pravděpodobně, pod

dojmem zcela

povrchního úsudku o

našem chování, došla

k náhledu, ţe jsme si

vyjeli spáchat hned

Moţná k tomuto

výsledku přispěla

přirozená

zarputilost věcí

vezdejších. Loďka

snad došla k

závěru, ţe jsme se

vydali spáchat

ranní sebevraţdu, a

rozhodla se, ţe nás

zklame. To je

jediná domněnka, o


44/85

40

our behaviour, that

we had come out

for a morning‘s

suicide, and had

thereupon

determined to

disappoint us. That

is the only

suggestion I can

offer. (160 – 1)

spáchat sebevraţdu,

a proto si umínila,

ţe nás zklame. To

je jediné vysvětlení,

které mohu

nabídnout. (178)

po ránu sebevraţdu, a

v důsledku toho si

umínila, ţe nám ji

překazí. Nic jiného

mě nenapadá. (195)

níţ se s vámi mohu

podělit. (169)

Since the metaphors in Three Men in a Boat are not culture-specific and the

images and symbols contained in them are well-understandable for Czech readers, they

do not cause difficulties in translating and do not require any special renderings on the

part of the Czech translators. As for Newmark ‘s proposed modes of translating

metaphors, the way of translating metaphors using the same or a similar image is most

frequently employed. If a metaphor is modified in some way, it is the translator‘s own

initiative (i.e. it was not due to cultural reasons) and the sense and effect of the original

metaphor are preserved. As far as the translation of idioms is concerned, the translators

either substitute them with Czech idiomatic equivalents or, if this is not possible, they

replace them with unidiomatic expressions with the same sense. Both these approaches

prove to be successful. Similes and personifications are probably the easiest categories

of metaphor to translate. The overwhelming majority of similes is rendered literally and

all the cases of personifications are retained. In my opinion, the translators manage to

keep the balance between the source and target metaphorical language with no

excessive losses or gains in the target text.


45/85

41

4 Register

4.1 Register in Three Men in a Boat

The term register is used to ―describe the fact that the kind of language we use is

affected by the context in which we use it, to such an extent that certain kinds of

language usage become conventionally associated with particular situations‖

(Montgomery 55). Thus, we would use different register when speaking to friends

(informal, familiar language) and to superiors or strangers (formal, polite language).

Among the main social determinants that influence our choice of register are: age, sex,

class, occupation, religion, country of origin, generation, schooling etc. Moreover, our

choice of register is conditioned by the mode (written vs. spoken) and the occasion in

which it is used (Newmark, Approaches 121).

Montgomery (56) defines three different aspects of any situation or context

which will affect the register: the mode of communication – this relates to whether the

language is written or spoken; the tone, which is connected to the social relationships

between the participants in the situation (formal vs. informal, personal vs. impersonal

relationships); and the field , i.e. the purpose the language is used for (e.g. to convey

information, to express feelings, to intimidate, etc.) and the activities or professions it is

characteristic of (e.g. the register of legal profession, advertising, football commentary,

journalism and so on).

Since each of us switches naturally and smoothly from one register to another

and since we know which register is appropriate in a certain situation, we are all

sensitive to deviation in register (Montgomery 56). Many authors of humorous literature

rely on this sensitivity and employ registers inappropriately to create humour and

humorous situations. The same does J. K. Jerome in his Three Men in a Boat . He makes


46/85

42

use of very formal register to exaggerate certain situations or problems and thus makes

them more comic:

We are but the veriest, sorriest slaves of our stomach. Reach not after morality

and righteousness, my friends; watch vigilantly your stomach, and diet it with

care and judgment. Then virtue and contentment will come and reign within

your heart, unsought by any effort of your own; and you will be a good citizen, a

loving husband, and a tender father – a noble, pious man. (Jerome 94 – 5)

This formal, almost philosophical in tone, statement follows J.‘s account of how properdinner made the three characters content and blissful after a long day. The grand tone of

this ―recommendation‖ is apparently incongruous with the ordinary situation of eating

and thus makes it sound comic.

Jerome also uses formal language to establish irony. When the character of

George asks a lock-keeper for some drinking water, the keeper maliciously offers him

to take as much as he wants, pointing to the river and saying that he has drunk the river

water for the last fifteen years without any harm. George, in response to the keeper‘s

impoliteness, uses formal and very polite language to make an ironic insult:

George told him that his appearance, after the course, did not seem a sufficiently

good advertisement for the brand; and that he would prefer it out of a pump.(Jerome 132)

Informal register appears frequently in the novel as well and it serves to

reinforce the comic elements in the situations and to mock the characters. Jerome uses

colloquial language that can be found both in the narrative and the direct speech, as in

the following examples:


47/85

43

This was hardly what I intended. What I had meant, of course, was, that I should

boss the job, and that Harris and George should potter about under my directions

. . . (Jerome 37)

―Well, I don‘t know, gents,‖ replied the noble fellow, ―but I suppose some

train‘s got to go to Kingston; and I‘ll do it. Gimme the half-crown.‖ (Jerome 49)

The colloquial language of villagers is also employed (only in direct speech) to

make the distinction between the three main characters, who come from the middle

class, and the ‗Arrys and ‗Arriets – ―a term coined by the middle-classes to describe the

lower-classes‖ (Nicholas 60). In some cases it shows the villagers‘ simplicity and helps

to make the mockery of them more profound, as it is with the character of slow-witted

churchyard keeper:

―I‘m a-coming, sur, I‘m a-coming. I‘m a little lame. I ain‘t as spry as I used to

be. This way, sur.‖

―Go away, you miserable old man,‖ I said.

―I‘ve come as soon as I could, sur,‖ he replied. ―My missis never see you till just

this minute. You follow me, sur.‖ (Jerome 65)

As I already mentioned, using certain register inappropriately (the above

example concerning stomach) is one of the devices for achieving humorous effect.

Another register-based method for creating humour involves juxtaposition or mixing of

different registers:

The quaint back streets of Kingston, where they came down to the water‘s edge ,

looked quite picturesque in the flashing sun-light, the glinting river with its


48/85

44

drifting barges, the wooded towpath, the trim-kept villas on the other side,

Harris, in a red and orange blazer, grunting away at the sculls, the distant

glimpses of the grey old palace of the Tudors, all made a sunny picture, so bright

but calm, so full of life, and yet so peaceful that, early in the day though it was, I

felt myself being dreamily lulled off into a musing fit. (Jerome 49)

The above quoted surroundings description written in highly poetic register is suddenly

interrupted in the middle by a commonplace remark on Harris‘s intensive sculling

(underlined), which somehow surprises the reader, spoils the poetic, serious tone of the

extract and forces the reader to realise a new – humorous – dimension of the utterance.

Alison Ross mentions a further device for register-based humour – bathos.

Bathos is ―a sudden switch in style, from one which has grand overtones to one which is

commonplace‖ (45). There are about four cases of bathos in Three Men in a Boat ; here

is one example by way of illustration:

. . . and, lulled by the lapping water and the rustling trees, we fall asleep beneath

the great, still stars, and dream that the world is young again – young and sweet

as she used to be ere the centuries of fret and care had furrowed her fair face, ere

her children‘s sins and follies had made old her loving heart – sweet as she was

in those bygone days when, a new made mother, she nursed us, her children,

upon her own deep breast – ere the wiles of painted civilisation had lured us

away from her fond arms, and the poisoned sneers of artificiality had made us

ashamed of the simple life we led with her, and the simple, stately home where

mankind was born so many thousands of years ago.

Harris said:

―How about when it rained?‖

You can never rouse Harris. There is no poetry about Harris – no wild yearning

for the unattainable. Harris never ―weeps, he knows not why.‖ If Harris‘s eyes

fill with tears, you can bet it is because Harris has been eating raw onions, or has

put too much Worcester over his chop. (Jerome 18)


49/85

45

In this example, Jerome suddenly switches from poetic, lofty style to commonplace

language describing Harris‘s practicality. The difference is even amplified by the

sentence length – the poetic part is formed by one, very long sentence; while the

following text is composed of relatively short sentences (underlined). The vocabulary

and particularly the combination of words play an important role as well. In the first

part, poetic devices such as vivid imagery (‗rustling trees‘, ‗painted civilisation‘,

‗poisoned sneers of artificiality‘ etc.) and personification (the world is personified –

young, her face, her loving heart) are used; the subsequent part is formed of words of

everyday language and does not involve any unusual combinations of words.

Ross also speaks about the method of building up balanced phrases from which

the final one drops in register or style to form a sort of anti-climax (44). The method is

used by Jerome when urging the readers not to burden their lives with unnecessary

things:

Throw the lumber over, man! Let your boat of life be light, packed with only

what you need – a homely home and simple pleasures, one or two friends, worth

the name, someone to love and someone to love you, a cat, a dog, and a pipe or

two, enough to eat and enough to wear, and a little more than enough to drink;

for thirst is a dangerous thing. (Jerome 27)

In this example, Jerome begins in a noble way to name things and people one would not

do without in their lives. Towards the end, however, he proceeds to things (underlined)

that are not expected in such a clichés- based utterance (i.e. ‗pipes‘, ‗drink‘ – in this

case, the word ‗drink‘ is ambiguous as it can refer both to alcoholic and nonalcoholic

beverage).


50/85

46

4.2 Translation of Register

Unfortunately, there is not much specialised literature that would offer any useful and

detailed approaches to the translation of register. I will therefore draw only on

Newmark‘s opinion of how to render register in translation and Levý‘s attitude to

dialect translation. Peter Newmark (Approaches 121) thinks that the main interest to a

translator when dealing with register is the lexical field (including characteristic word

‗deformations‘ and syntactic markers), which s/he should recognise in the source text

and transfer to the target text. In chapter seventeen, J. and George are sitting in a pub,

steidlova ma thesis

Documents