Strategies applied by ngoc thu lang in english vietnamese translation of slang in the godfather

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

STRATEGIES APPLIED BY NGOC THU LANG IN
ENGLISH-VIETNAMESE TRANSLATION OF SLANG
IN “THE GODFATHER”

Supervisor:

Ngo Ha Thu, MCS

Student:

Hoang Thi Thu Yen

Year of enrollment:

QH.2010.F1

Hanoi 4, 2014


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH

KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

CHIẾN LƯỢC ĐƯỢC NGỌC THỨ LANG ÁP DỤNG
TRONG DỊCH ANH - VIỆT TỪ LÓNG TRONG TÁC
PHẨM « BỐ GIÀ »

Giáo viên hướng dẫn:

Th.S Ngơ Hà Thu

Sinh viên:

Hồng Thị Thu n

Khố:

QH2010.F1

Hà Nội - năm 2014


DECLARATION
I hereby state that I: Hoang Thi Thu Yen, group QH2010.F1.E21, being a candidate
for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College
relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the
library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the
library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance
with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or
reproduction of the paper.
Hanoi, 2014

Hoang Thi Thu Yen


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
supervisor, Ms. Ngo Ha Thu, MCS for her precious guidance, valuable advice as well
as her encouragement which were the decisive factors assisting me in finishing the
paper on the right track.
My sincere thanks also go to my friend Mai Thi Nga Ly for her special help in
material sources. Without her, this study cannot be completed.
I am also grateful to my classmates whose helpful comments, wholehearted
encouragement throughout the process of this paper.
Finally, I appreciate support and caring from my family and my friends from the
beginning to the end of the research.

i


ABSTRACT
Slang plays an important role in linguistic system and deserves greater attention.
However, justified significance has not been attached to slangy vocabulary due to
slang‟s features of vulgarism, in-group identification and inconsistency. Not only have
studies dedicated to slang occupied a small percentage among scientific papers but
most of them have also focused on linguistic aspects of slang. Translation in slang has
not been received appropriate attention. These factors encouraged the researcher to
carry out this paper with objectives of having a look at characteristics of slang and
translation strategies applied in rendering slang. The novel “The Godfather” and its
Vietnamese version translated by Ngoc Thu Lang were chosen as subjects of this
study. Document analysis was adopted as the research method. Slang classification
based on theories offered by Eble (1996) and Mattielo (2008) identified 9 common

types of slang. 79 slang in the novel selected after a purposive sampling process
revealed that 7 among 9 types of slang were detected. Regarding translation strategies,
softening (Blonskyte and Petroniene, 2013) and compensation (Garcarz, 2011) were
the most favorable strategies applied by translator Ngoc Thu Lang.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................ i
Abstract

......................................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................... iii
List of abbreviations .............................................................................................................v
List of tables and figures .................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1
1.1. Rationale for the study ............................................................................................... 1
1.2. Aims and Objectives .................................................................................................. 2
1.3. Scope of the study ...................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Significance of the study ............................................................................................ 3
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................5
2.1 Slang ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Definitions of slang ...............................................................................................5
2.1.2 Characteristics of slang .........................................................................................7
2.1.3 Classification ........................................................................................................8
2.2 Slang translation ....................................................................................................... 13
2.3.1 Translation ..........................................................................................................13
2.3.2 Difficulties in slang translation ...........................................................................13

2.3.3 Strategies in slang translation .............................................................................15
CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................24
3.1. Design of the study ................................................................................................... 24
3.2. Research method ...................................................................................................... 25
3.3. Puzo‟s “The Godfather” and its Vietnamese translation .......................................... 25
3.4. Sample selection ....................................................................................................... 25
3.5. Data collection procedure ......................................................................................... 26
3.6. Data analysis procedure............................................................................................ 27
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...........................................................28
iii


4.1. Research question 1: Characteristics of slang in “The Godfather” .......................... 28
4.2. Research question 2: Translation strategies applied in Ngoc Thu Lang‟s
translation ................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.1. Application of translation strategies in general ..................................................30
4.2.2. Application of translation strategies in particular types of slang .......................35
4.3. Research question 3: Dominant strategies applied by Ngoc Thu Lang ................... 37
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................42
5.1. Major findings and implications............................................................................... 42
5.2. Limitations ................................................................................................................ 43
5.3. Recommendation for further study........................................................................... 44
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................45
APPENDIX 1 ....................................................................................................................48
APPENDIX 2 ....................................................................................................................66

iv


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SL:

Source language

TL:

Target language

GF:

Godfather

BG:

Bố già

v


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page
Table 2.1.

Slang formation

12

Table 2.2.

Slang translation strategies

23

Table 4.1.

Percentage of translation strategies

38

Figure 4.1.

Types of slang in “The Godfather”

29

Figure 4.2.

Strategies applied with slang of semantic change

35

Figure 4.3.

Strategies applied with affixed slang

36

Figure 4.4.

Percentage of translation strategies

39

vi


CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION

This initial chapter states the problem of research, aims and objectives, scope of
the study as well as significance of the paper. Above all, three research questions
underlining the whole research are identified in this chapter.
1.1.

Rationale for the study

Slang, briefly defined, is “low, vulgar and unauthorized language; a popular but
unauthorized word, phrase or mode of expression” (Sullivan 1921, p. 9). Some
considered slang “below the standard of usage of present-day English” (Galperin,
1981) but its linguistic and sociological functions are so undeniable that Adams (2009)
wrote a book titled “The People‟s Poetry” exploring aspects of slang.
Thanks to its expressiveness and continuous innovation, slang is a vivid
manifestation of people‟s feelings about life and the things they encounter in life
(Hayakawa, 1967).

Garcarz (2011) has even affirmed, “no natural language can

socially exist without slang” (p.770). Its aesthetic presence in a language is so crucial.

In terms of sociology, the existence of slang meets the social needs, mostly the
complementary needs to “fit in” and to “stand out” (Adams, 2009, p.26). In other
words, this special layer of vocabulary is coined to perform the function of identifying
different social groups and distinguishing who is in these groups and who is not.
Several studies have been carried out to examine the nature of slang in linguistic
system. Research by Hayakawa (1967), Eble (1996), Dumas and Lighter (1978), and
Adams (2009) typifies the investigations done in the realm of slangy language.
Nevertheless, the studies on slang up to now have just paid attention to its sociological
importance and how it characterizes a specific social group. Regarding translation,
there has been, however, a limitation in studies on rendering slang and strategies
applied to overcome culture-related obstacles in translating.
Since slang owes its birth to criminal world (Sullivan, 1921), it is more
advantageous and reliable to study the characteristics of slang in crime fiction.
1


Therefore, the researcher chose The Godfather (1969) by Mario Puzo, which was one
of the best seller gangster fictions in the United States and was on the New York Times
best seller list for 67 weeks (Gussow, 1999), as the subject of the investigation on
slang. The novel depicts vividly the underworld in the late 1960s and put Mafia on the
map (Forshaw, 2007). With Mario Puzo‟s intimate understanding of the criminal
organization and the richness of slangy language, the novel offers favorable conditions
to fulfill the objectives of the research.
The Godfather was translated into Vietnamese several times by Ngoc Thu Lang
(1972), Trinh Huy Ninh and Doan Tu Huyen (1989). However, the version by Ngoc
Thu Lang was likely to be regarded as the best translation. D. T. Huyen, whose another
translation of The Godfather was published in 1989, claimed the excellence of the
version by Ngoc Thu Lang and in his preface he even indicated his acknowledgement
in consulting the translation by Ngoc Thu Lang (Yen, 2004). Hence, the choice of
Ngoc Thu Lang‟s translation facilitates the exploration of strategies applied in

rendering slang from English into Vietnamese.
All these conditions above offered the researcher a chance to conduct a study
titled “Strategies applied by Ngoc Thu Lang in English-Vietnamese translation of
slang in “The Godfather.”
1.2.

Aims and Objectives

First, the paper aims at exploring the characteristics of slang deployed in novel
“The Godfather” by Mario Puzo. Second, an investigation was conducted to shed light
on strategies applied by Ngoc Thu Lang in translating slang from English into
Vietnamese. Finally, a trend in the translator‟s style will be generalized.
To achieve the aims, these following questions are proposed:

2


1.

What are the characteristics of slang in “The Godfather” by Mario Puzo?

2.

Which strategies are applied by Ngoc Thu Lang in translating slang from

English into Vietnamese in “the Godfather”?
3.

What is the most dominant strategy applied by Ngoc Thu Lang?

1.3.

Scope of the study

The researcher chose the novel “The Godfather” by Mario Puzo published in
1969 and its Vietnamese version translated by Ngoc Thu Lang in 1972 as the samples
of the study. As stated in the previous part, the prime focus of this research is put on
slangy language and strategies applied to transfer slang from English into Vietnamese.
Therefore, the research is expected to just concentrate on the characteristics of slang
existing in the original version and the translation strategies applied in rendering them
into Vietnamese. Besides, to ensure its credibility, the paper investigates the whole
novel and its equivalent translation instead of any sole chapter.
1.4.

Significance of the study

Once having been completed, the paper is hoped to serve three main purposes.
First and foremost, the paper is expected to be helpful to students and translators who
have interest in slang translation and provide a closer look into slang usage.
Second, the research is hoped to be of practical value for students and
translators when they expose to academic and professional circumstances. From
procedures and strategies investigated and drawn in the study, students and translators
have wider choice of techniques to apply in order to obtain the best translation.
Besides, the researcher expects the results of the study could partially enhance
the understanding of slang in general. The researcher has no ambition in achieving a
thorough investigation into the linguistic item. Instead, review and knowledge
presented in the study are meant to offer a look into the issue of considerable
controversy and provoke further examination in the topic.
Finally, in the context of limited studies on slang the results of the study are
expected to act as a useful and reliable source of reference for research in the future.

3


The review of previous studies on the field offer a great usefulness for further studies
for those who share the interest in slang as well as slang-related domain.

4


CHAPTER II.

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter provides an overview of some research on slang, its definition and
word-formation, which gives the study a firm theoretical grounding and offers primary
criteria for the sampling process. The second focus of this chapter is on slang
translation and the discussion about strategies to coin out an appropriate framework for
analysis of translation style applied by Ngoc Thu Lang.
2.1

Slang

2.1.1 Definitions of slang
To understand strategies to translate slang, the definition of the term should be
taken into great consideration. Although the term has been frequently discussed by
linguists, there has been a divergence in offering a comprehensive definition of slang.
Few linguists have endeavored to satisfactorily define which constitutes slang.
Hotten (1859) among the very first attempts has called the term “the language of street
humor, of fast, high and low life,” implying the in-group property of slang (p. xlix).
However, which criteria should be applied to define high and low life as the definition

stated is not clearly presented. During the compilation of Dictionary of American
Slang, Flexner and Wentworth try to offer a more precise definition of slang: “slang
[...] is a body of words and expressions used by a large portion of American but not
accepted as good and formal” (as cited in Dumas and Lighter, 1978, p. 7).
Nevertheless, the scale of society in which slang is employed is not delineated, which
fails to reflecting the social inclusiveness of the term.
On the ground of aesthetic and social aspects, others follow different approaches
to describe slang. From a stylistic viewpoint, Galperin (1977) has considered slang
“below the standard usage of present-day” (p.95), which is in the same light as
Stenstrom, who has considered words that are “below the stylistically neutral
language” slang (as cited in Mattiello, 2005, p. 10). Eble in Slang and Sociability
(1996) has proposed a more elaborate definition of slang that stresses the sociological
5


feature of slang: “Slang is an ever-changing set of colloquial words and phrases that
speakers use to establish or reinforce social identity or cohesiveness within a group” (p.
11). Adams (2009) has pinpointed essential elements of slang including “casual,
playful, racy, irreverent or playful language that outlines social in-groups” (p.7). In
other words, slang is an expressive language whose function is to designate who
belongs to a group and who does not. Although these definitions to some extent have
mentioned characteristics of slang, they are not sufficient enough to provide a
linguistically useful frame to distinguish slang from other lexical layer.
Reves (1926) defined that slang is the changing vocabulary of conversation,
which is known by a particular set or class, usually has figurative meaning and
becomes trendy in a short period and then disappears or passes into standard speech (p.
216). In this definition, although fundamental features of slang are mentioned including
instability, limited popularity in a narrow social group, criteria are not well-defined
enough to serve as framework for spot out slang from other lexial layer. Dumas and
Lighter (1978) chose more detailed way to describe slang when they have claimed that

a word can be regarded as true slang if it meets at least two of the following criteria:
1.

Its presence will markedly lower [...] the dignity of formal or

serious speech or writing.
2.

Its use implies the user‟s special familiarity either with the referent

or with that less statusful or less responsible class of people who have such
special familiarity and use the term.
3.

It is a tabooed term in ordinary discourse with persons of higher

social status or greater responsibility.
4.

It is used in place of the well-known conventional synonym,

especially in order (a) to protect the user from the discomfort caused by the
conventional item or (b) to protect the user from the discomfort or annoyance of
further elaboration. (1978, pp. 14-15)

6


The authors have admitted that those words fit the third criterion are
functionally similar to those fit the first and probably the second criterion. The

overlapping makes the researcher adjusts and summarizes those criteria into three
features: (1) slang‟s informal usage is considered tabooed or non-standard in ordinary
discourse; (2) it indicates its user‟s social status or the user‟s familiarity with the
people who use it; (3) its usage can replace conventional synonym to avoid annoyance.
Those revised criteria adequately serve as framework to identify slang.
2.1.2 Characteristics of slang
Despite difficulty in defining slang, the term has some consistent characteristics.
The first one is widely agreed by many linguists that slang is ever-changing. As Eble
puts it “the slang vocabulary of a language is ephemeral, bursting into existence and
falling out of use at a much more rapid rate than items of general vocabulary” (as cited
in Adams, 2009, p. 16). No word is perpetually slang and many formal words can
adopt slang connotation or experience stylistic misuse and then pass into standard
vocabulary. If a slangy word becomes old it will be replaced by a new one. Due to the
constant supply of new words, slang only enjoys a short time of popularity, as a result
it is essential that slang requires “continuous innovation” to enliven and survive in
language (Galperin, 1977, p. 97).
Slang also serves as social identification, which indicates who is a member of a
group and who is not. Its group-identifying feature also prevents outsiders from
understanding what is being said among members of a social group and prevents the
intrusion of outsiders (Hayakawa, 1967, p. 2). By that means, slang consolidates the
solidarity among the group and ensures the confidentiality. This social identification
does not necessarily belong to only users in criminal world. It may be popular among
those who have reason to hide their illegal activities from authority (drug dealers,
prostitutes) or used by certain subgroups who want to keep secrecy from adult people
(teenagers) (Mattiello, 2008, p. 13)

7


Another characteristic of slang is expressiveness, which Rapoport has referred

to when he has called the term “a collection of vivid metaphors” (as cited in Dumas
and Lighter, 1978, p. 9). American Heritage Dictionary has stated that the
distinguishing feature of slang [...] is the intention to produce rhetorical effect (as cited
in Dumas and Lighter, 1978). Despite being identified under different names as
rhetorical effect or colorfulness, expressiveness of slang implies lively illustration of
people‟s feelings about life thanks to its strong connotation. Slang is not restricted
within denotative meaning. Instead, it is likely to cross its regular boundary to reach
the dimension of intentional aggressiveness and informality.
In addition to ephemerality, in-group function, and expressiveness, slang
reflects disagreement with established authority. In the relationship of opposition rather
than cooperation, subgroups with little politic power (adolescents, college students) or
with secret to hide from authority (prisoners, drug addicts) deliberately deploy slang,
which is deemed non-standard and offensive, to show their disrespect to conventional
social or semantic norm (Sledd, as cited in Dumas and Lighter, 1978, p. 12). This
hostility can range from slight impertinence to clear-cut rebellion (Eble, 1996, p. 124).
2.1.3 Classification
Not only is defining slang a challenging task but classification of slang is also
never easy. In fact, there has been no study categorizing slang or presenting widely
recognized classification of the term. Among existing research in slang, only Eble
(1996) and Mattielo (2008) have discussed about slang formation process as an
approach of classification. Both of them have divided slang into 8 types, some of
which see correlation. However, neither of these taxonomies satisfactorily covers all
occurrence of slang formation. Therefore, the researcher decides to present a new
framework which consists of 9 groups based on reviewing the development process of
slang by Mattiello (2008) and Eble (1996).
2.1.3.1.

Affixation involves using prefixes and suffixes. Suffixed slang can be

formed grammatically regularly as standard portion of vocabulary such as -er (the one

8


or that which) as in bummer (that which bums one out) „depressing experience’ (Eble,
1996, p.33). Some suffixes in slang are novel (e.g. -o/oo) or used differently from
Standard English (e.g. -ed) (Mattielo, 2008, p.20). Suffix -o (and its graphic variant oo) in derivational words refers to either “a stupid, unintelligent person” (dumbo) or “a
person with a particular habit or characteristics” (sicko: a disturbing and unsavory
person) (Mattielo, 2008, p.20). In the case of suffix -ed, instead of using as an
inflectional morpheme to indicate past tense, it is frequently attached to noun to form
adjectives with the meaning of “intoxicated by alcohol or drug” (box - boxed:
marijuana intoxicated). Affixation process also involves the formation Mattielo has
called “initial and final combination” or prefixoids and suffixoids (2008, p.20).
Prefixoids and suffixoids are abbreviations of other words functioning as prefixes and
suffixes usually as intensifier (e.g. buttocks (bottoms)  butt-  butt-ugly (extremely
ugly)
2.1.3.2.

Compounding process is identified by both the researchers as a

combination of two elements. Compounding can be created from individual words of
various parts of speech: noun+noun (air bag: an imaginary guitar played by rock music
fan); noun+verb (facerape: kiss passionately) (Eble, 1996, p.31) or the assimilation
(e.g. alright from the exclamation all right) or haplology (the elimination of a syllable
when two consecutive identical or similar syllables occur) (e.g. dimbo from dim bimbo)
(Mattielo, 2008, p.21). Both researchers also have agreed that although combination is
straightforward (word+word=compound), that simplicity often causes complexity in
meaning or semantic ambiguity (cake-hole (the mouth), air guitar (an imaginary guitar
played by rock music fans) because of the lack of meaning transparency of one or both
elements (Eble, 1996; Mattielo, 2008).
2.1.3.3.

In slang, conversion or functional shift is the shift from this part of

speech to another without undergoing an alteration in form (Eble, 2008). For example,
adjectives can take additional function as nouns (e.g. previous: criminal record), or
prepositions can act as adjectives (e.g. out: publicly and openly homosexual).
9


2.1.3.4.

Shortening in slang segment of vocabulary can be obtained from

clipping process in which the first letter or a part of a word is retained (H: heroin, bro:
brother) (Eble, 1996). This process is similar to abbreviation proposed by Mattielo
(2008) which includes partial blending (e.g. gaydar from gay and radar: the perceived
or real ability of one homosexual to sense intuitively that another person is
homosexual)
2.1.3.5.

The process of inversion includes back-slang (yob: boy, ecaf: face)

and spoonerism (fitshaced: shitfaced). This formation has not been realized by Eble
(1996) as a word-building process.
2.1.3.6.

Eble (1996) also regards borrowing from foreign language as a type

of slang word-building although it is not a worth-noticing feature. That can be
explained by the nature of slang which is group-identification and of low dignity. Loan

words from Greek or Latin increasing the formality of words have no place in slang.
Eble has stated that foreign borrowings are confined to greetings or playful
mispronunciations. She has also asserted that Yiddish is the most noticeable
contributor of slang borrowings for American English (p.75-76)
2.1.3.7.

The process of reduplication usually exhibits the vowel gradation or

vowel alternation (e.g. crisscross: amphetamine, wishy-washy: feeble, week). Eble
(1996) has considered this process “particularly suited to slang” (p.39) and named it
“playing with sounds”
2.1.3.8.

Infixation is unknown in Standard English. It is a peculiarity of slang

with infixes such as -bloody- and -fucking- inserted in a word to emphasize the
superlative meaning of adverbs or adjectives and indicate speaker‟s attitude; e.g. fanfucking-tastic, abso-bloody-lutely.
2.1.3.9.

Also considered one of processes particularly suited to slang,

semantic change or change in meaning refers to the extension of existing forms to the
new meanings (Mattielo, 2008). Slang produced by semantic change are simply more
specific meaning of existing words which become part of in-group language (dope or
10


stuff: drugs and narcotics). Some provided slang evoke new concepts in the same
semantic fields (e.g. bombed out, hammered, smashed, etc. for being drunk or under
influence of drugs belong to semantic field of destruction). Figurative language

(metaphor, metonym, irony, etc.) is also exploited in enrichment of slang vocabulary.
The above-mentioned word formations are summarized in the following table.

11


Table 2.1. Slang formation
Slang

Suggested by

Example

Explanation and meaning of

formations
1. Affixation

example
Eble (1996)

Dumbo

Mattielo (2008) Sicko

2. Compounding Eble (1996)

Dumb + o: a stupid person
Headache  -ache  ear + ache:

Earache

a very talkative person

Cake-hole

Cake + hole: the mouth

Mattielo (2008)
3. Conversion

Mattielo (2008) Previous

(noun): a criminal record

(functional shift) (Eble (1996))
4. Shortening

Eble (1996)

Previous (adjective)  previous

H

Heroin

BYO

Bring Your Own

Gaydar

Gay + radar: the perceived or real
ability of one homosexual to sense
intuitively that another person is
homosexual

5. Inversion

Mattielo (2008) Yob

Boy  yob

6. Borrowing

Eble (1996)

(from

Oy vey!

Yiddish)

used

for

expressing surprise
7. Reduplication Mattielo (2008) Wishy-

(i-o alternation) feeble, weak

washy
8. Infixation

Mattielo (2008) Fan-

Fantastic + fucking

fuckingtastic
9. Semantic

Eble (1996)

change

Mattielo (2008)

Hammered

Being drunk or under influence of
drugs

12


2.2
2.3.1

Slang translation

Translation

The concept of translation has attracted the academic attention from scholars for
a long time. Translation can be regarded as the product (the translated text) or the
process (the act of producing the translation, also known as translating) (Munday,
2001, p. 5). Venuti (1995) has claimed that translation is “the rewriting of an original
text,” which does not only transfer wording but also reflect the ideology and poetics (p.
vii).
Williams (2013) has mentioned a widely held definition of translation regarding
translation as “a simple and straightforward exercise” in which a word in one language
is replaced by one word in another language, despite the type of text, its purpose, and
its readership (p. 1). This definition partly negates the significance of knowledge in
comprehensive text analysis to ensure that the source text has been entirely and
correctly understood (Nord, 2005).
Based on the criterion of equivalence, Nida and Taber (2003) have defined
translation as the process of “reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural
equivalent of the source-language message” in both terms “meaning” and “style” (p.
12). This approach has been previously stated by House (1997) as she has described
translation as “the replacement of a text in the source language (SL) by a semantically
and pragmatically equivalent text in the target language (TL).” (p. 31)
Reviewing those definitions about translation, translation is a process of
transferring a text in one language into another language with the most proper form and
meaning. In other words, the transferring of text from language into language must be
accompanied by the preservation of semantic and stylistic equivalent.
2.3.2

Difficulties in slang translation

Kenny argued that the translation of non-standard language as slang poses one
of the most challenging tasks for translators: the equivalence, which is the central

concept but also controversial one in translation theory (as cited in Baker, 1998). To
13


preserve the equivalent effect, Nida (1964) has presented two different types of
equivalence: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence
“focuses attention on the message itself in both form and content ... and the message in
the receptor language should match as closely as possible the different elements in the
source language” (p. 159). This concept to some extent parallels to semantic translation
of Newmark, which attempts to maintain the similarity between effects on original
readers and that on target readers (as cited in Munday, 2001). Meanwhile, dynamic
equivalence ensures that “the relationship between receptor and message should be
sustainably the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the
message” (p. 159).

This description resembles the Newmark‟s commnunicative

translation in trying to keep both form and meaning of the source text (as cited in
Munday, 2001).
Nida claimed that translators attempting to achieve formal equivalence have to
face several formal elements including (1) grammatical units, (2) consistency in word
usage, and (3) meanings in terms of the source context. Grammatical units involve (a)
translating nouns by nouns, verbs by verbs, etc, (b) keeping all phrases and sentences
intact and (c) preserving all formal indicators (as cited in Venuti, 2000, p. 134). This
discouraging task requires careful text analysis and thorough understanding of both
source and target languages but perhaps is not always obtained due to the linguistic and
cultural disparity, which is peculiar to slang vocabulary.
In contrast, some translators may choose translation oriented toward dynamic
equivalence which is expected to contain (1) equivalence, (2) naturalness and (3)
closeness to avoid vulgarism and offensiveness of slangy vocabulary. However, these

translation probably fall into the error of sacrificing naturalness and expressiveness of
slang for complicated and technical phrases. (Nida, as cited in Venuti, 2000, p. 138)

14


2.3.3

Strategies in slang translation

a.

Newmark’s strategies

(1)

Word-for-word translation

In word-for-word translation, the SL word-order is preserved and the words are
translated individually by their most common meaning, out of context. Word-for-word
translation is useful in understanding mechanics of SL or difficult text as a pretranslation process. The following example as well as

E.g.

Johnny sat on the floor with his face in his hands
(GF, p.4)



Johnny đã ngồi trên sàn nhà với của anh ta khuôn mặt trong của anh ta

các bàn tay
(The researcher’s translation)

(2)

Literal translation

Literal translation retains the grammatical constructions of SL text but words are
still translated out of context. Like word-for-word, literal translation serves as a pretranslation process to identify the problems that need to be solved.
E.g.

Johnny sat on the floor with his face in his hands
(GF, p.4)



Johnny ngồi trên sàn với khuôn mặt của anh ta trong hai bàn tay của anh
ta
(The researcher’s translation)

(3)

Faithful translation

In faithful translation, words are translated in context but uncompromising to
TL. A faithful translation attempts to be faithful to intentions and text-realization of the
SL writer.

15

E.g., He did not have the heavy, Cupid-shaped face of the other children
(GF, p.8)



Nó khơng có khn mặt rộng như thần Cupid như những đứa con khác
(The researcher’s translation)

(4)

Semantic translation

Semantic translation takes more account of aesthetic value (the beauty and
naturalness of the SL text) at expense of meaning if necessary. Unlike faithful
translation, a semantic translation is of higher flexibility.
E.g.

He too was not expected to inherit the family business
(GF, p.7)



Típ người Fred chẳng phải trời sinh ra để chỉ huy
(BG, p.13)

(5)

Communicative translation

Communicative translation attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of
the original text with great focus on readability and naturalness. Both the content and
the language are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the reader.
E.g., He performs those miracles for strangers
(GF, p.8)



Cái thằng… chỉ hùng cho người ngoài
(BG, p.15)

(6)

Idiomatic translation

Idiomatic translation endeavors to produce a lively and natural translation to
retain the massage of the original. It prefers colloquialisms and idioms that do not exist
in the original.

16