Translating The Plot
Against America
An analysis on style, dialogue, and strategies
Lisa Geijtenbeek | 3235475
Master Vertalen EN | Cees Koster | Universiteit Utecht
4-5-2012
2
Table of contents
Introduction
4
THEORY
8
1. The Plot Against America
9
1.1. Philip Roth
9
1.2. The Plot Against America
10
1.2.1. Story
10
1.2.2. Title
12
1.2.3. Setting
12
1.2.4. Characters
13
1.2.5. Themes
16
2. Text Analysis
2.1 General identification of translation problems according to Nord
17
17
2.1.1 Pragmatic translation problems
18
2.1.2 Cultural specific translation problems
19
2.1.3 Language pair specific problems
19
2.1.4 Text specific translation problems
21
2.2 Cultural Specific Elements
21
2.2.1 Aixelá’s strategies
21
2.2.2. Identity
24
2.2.3. War and anti-Semitism
25
2.2.4. Setting
26
2.3 Style
26
2.3.1. Context and cohesion
27
2.3.2. Analysis of a PAA
28
3
2.3.2.1. General
29
2.3.2.2. Nouns
30
2.3.2.3. Adjectives
30
2.3.2.4. Verbs
31
2.3.2.5. Sentence types
31
2.3.2.6. Sentence complexity
31
2.3.2.7. Phrase types
32
2.3.2.8 Word classes and figures of speech
33
2.4. Dialogue
34
2.4.1. Dialogue in The Plot Against America
36
2.4.2. Translating dialogue
40
2.4.3. Strategy for PAA
41
PRACTICE
44
6. Translation and reflection
45
6.1 My vision on translating
46
6.2 Translation problems and strategies
47
6.2.1 Title
47
6.2.2 Facts vs fiction
47
6.3 Translation The Plot Against America
48
7. Conclusion
71
Works cited
74
4
“Fear presides over these memories, a perpetual fear. Of course no childhood is without its
terrors, yet I wonder if I would have been a less frightened boy if Lindbergh hadn’t been
president or if I hadn’t been the offspring of Jews” (Roth 1).
When it comes to writing about Jewish identity in an American environment, and the
obstacles and difficulties that could entail, Philip Roth could be considered a true master of
the genre. His novel The Plot Against America is one of his most recent works, which was
first published in October 2004 and entered the New York Times best seller list at number
thirteen, where it retained its top fifteen position for weeks. Reviewers agree that the novel is
a great work in which several themes are brilliantly discussed, such as Judaism, war, identity,
trust, history etc.
The Plot Against America (from here on PAA) is set in 1940 – 1942, the period in
which the United States were voting for their new president and Europe was in the middle of
the Second World War. Roth wrote a fictive version of these years; what if Franklin D.
Roosevelt had not been elected for his third term? What if another person would have been
the president of the United States of America? What would that mean for America’s
involvement in the Second World War, and what would it mean for America’s (Jewish)
citizens? This historical fantasy is narrated by Phil, the partially autobiographical protagonist
based on Philip Roth himself, who in retrospect tells how the fictional version of his nineyear-old self experienced a fictional history. He and his family live in a Jewish community in
Newark, and their lives change dramatically when aviator Charles A. Lindbergh becomes
president. The young Phil finds himself to be continually frightened and confused, in the
middle of adults who are constantly fighting and insecure themselves. The subjects of antiSemitism, war, identity crises and so on are being seen through the eyes of a child, which
means that the reader, as an adult, will probably look at these subjects with a different line of
5
approach; Phil is not sure what he is witnessing and he is very innocent, which can shine a
new light to subjects most people already have a strong opinion on.
Although the novel revolves around a child, the reader can still empathize with the
adults and the situations each person experiences, because strong features of this novel are the
rich descriptions, and especially the speech and dialogues. Roth has achieved to give each
character his or her own voice and manner of speech. So, when the characters are having a
conversation, their speech is really convincing and lifelike. In this novel speech and dialogue
are also means to convey the differences in identity of Jewish and non-Jewish Americans, as
each character has a different vocabulary or accent and therefore distinguishes one from
another (one example from the novel is a Christian family; they have a strong Kentucky
accent, which is adopted by Phil’s older brother Sandy. This change in his speech marks a
turning point in his sense of Jewish identity).
Considering that identity and culture are such important factors in PAA could mean
that it is very hard to convey the same atmosphere in another culture. People in other
countries have experienced the Second World War in a different manner than (Jewish)
Americans, and the issue of Jewish-American identity does not exist outside the US. So,
Roth’s ability to write such characteristic dialogues, and the quite cultural specific subjects in
this novel could form a problem if the novel were to be translated; the translator could analyse
the novel and specifically the elements that could form a problem in the translating process.
As I will translate fragments from the novel where these aspects form a particular problem, I
will make analyses based on style and translation related problems and try to find an answer
to the question:
What difficulties or problems are to be found in translating Philips Roth’s The Plot
Against America, and what are the possible and most desirable options to solve those
problems?
6
In order to answer the question, I will divide this thesis into two parts: one theoretical,
one practical. The first, theoretical part will itself be divided in several chapters. In the first
chapter I will focus on The Plot Against America. I will briefly provide the reader with a
background of Philip Roth, in order to partially clarify the grounds of the subject(s) he writes
about and to give a deeper meaning to the subjects in the novel. Next to that, I will analyse the
novel, in order to understand where the subjects come from, what they mean and to
understand the characters. In addition I will discuss the context of the novel; Jewish-American
literature, and the Second World War in the United States of America. In the second chapter I
will analyse the text by means of Christiane Nord’s model for text analysis, Javier Franco
Aixelá’s strategies to translate cultural specific elements, a style checklist that can be found in
Style In Fiction by Geoffrey Leech and Mick short, and dialogue. I hope that outlining a
general idea of translation problems will later on help me analysing the more specific
problems. My focus will be for a large part on dialogue and fictional speech. As that is one of
the most important features of the novel, I think it is important to thoroughly examine the
concept.
The second part of this thesis will be practical. In this section I will present my
translation of several fragments of the novel (pages 1-5, 63-67, 96-100, and 331-334 of the
edition listed in the works cited), including dialogues, which will be accompanied by a
reflection in the form of footnotes. In these footnotes I will explain some of my choices, or
explain why I experienced a problem at a certain point etc, and I will refer to the theoretical
part of this thesis. In this practical section I will also compare my translation with the existing
translation of PAA, Het complot tegen Amerika, by Ko Kooman (pages 9-13, 75-80, 110-115,
and 360-362 of the edition listed in the works cited), and analyse the differences in the
outcome and the effect that involves.
In my conclusion I will briefly discuss the results from my presented translation of
7
Roth’s The Plot Against America, in which his subtle style elements have been conveyed in a
proper manner. I hope to proof that analysing problems thoroughly beforehand can help solve
those problems, which will result in a most desirably translation, suitable for a different
culture, without detracting from the original work.
8
Theory
9
1. The Plot Against America
1.1 Philip Roth
In 1933 author Philip Milton Roth was born into a Jewish-American family in
Newark, New Jersey. His parents - father Herman an insurance salesman, mother Bessie a
housewife - were born in the United States, his grandparents emigrated from Europe. He grew
up in Weequahic, where he attended public schools. As a young man he received an education
at Rutgers University - only a year before he transferred to Bucknell University - and at the
University of Chicago where he received his B.A. and M.A. in English. During his master
education he enrolled himself as a soldier in 1955, but was discharged soon due to an injury.
After completing his studies, he taught English at the University of Chicago, creative writing
at the universities of Iowa and Princeton, and later taught comparative literature at the
University of Pennsylvania. In 1992 he retired from teaching. Roth was married twice, to
Margaret Williams and Claire Bloom, and friends with authors such as Arthur Miller and Saul
Bellow. He currently lives in Connecticut, after living in several different cities throughout
America as well as Europe.
Roth started writing in the 1950s. In 1959 he wrote film reviews for “The New
Republic” and published Goodbye, Columbus. In 1969 he wrote the notorious Portnoy’s
Complaint, perhaps his best known novel and particularly the novel that marked the turning
point in his career and brought him to fame. He has written over thirty novels, short stories
and essays, some of which are part of a series. Four of his works were adapted into films. One
of the most important, recurring themes in his works is Jewish-American identity, and some
stories are partially autobiographical, although Roth makes it very clear that in most cases he
uses names of real characters, but places them in fictive events. During his career as an author
he has proven to be quite stable when it comes to the number of works that were published
and the quality of his novels. Some even argue that “the fiction of the past twenty years is
10
arguable his best work” (Roth Society.com), and Roth has won a considerable amount of
prizes in the 1990s, such as the Pulitzer Prize, the National Book Award, and three
Penn/Faulkner Awards etc. Critics generally commend Roth’s works highly, although some
Jewish readers found his novels quite insulting, and consider it “tasteless” (Roth, Who We Are
42).
1.2 The Plot Against America
PAA was first published in October 2004. Roth´s twenty-second novel was well
received and won “the outstanding historical novel on an American theme for 2003—2004”
of the Society of American Historians Award (HMHbooks.com). As is other historical themed
novel, PAA is seen as one of the highlights in Roth’s oeuvre (Amazon.com).
1.2.1 Story
The Plot Against America tells the story of young, innocent Philip Roth, a seven-year
old Jewish-American boy who lives with his parents, Herman and Bessie, his brother Sandy,
and their cousin Alvin in the Weequahic section of Newark, New Jersey. The story is set in
1940 to 1942, during the Second World War. In historical reality, America’s president at that
time was Franklin D. Roosevelt. Inspired by Sinclair Lewis’s It Can´t Happen Here, Roth
wrote a fictional version of history, in which another person was elected: Charles A.
Lindbergh. He intended to depict what could have happened in an alternative history, what
consequences that could have.
The novel is divided in chronological chapters that tell what happened during certain
periods and that build up the level of fear and anxiety. The novel starts at the moment
Lindbergh was elected, and the narrating protagonist tells how he could feel the fear building
up around him when he was a child, that he himself was very scared. The Roth family goes on
a trip to Washington, where they first experience actual anti-Semitism. When they return
home, Sandy has a chance to participate in a volunteer programme, “Just Folks”, in Kentucky.
11
His parents suspect that this is a way the government tries to separate Jewish boys from their
family, but he leaves after some reassurance from aunt Evelyn, who is in a relationship with
the Lindberhg supporting rabbi Bengelsdorf. When he returns, he has changed much. Mr.
Wishnow, the Roth’s ill neighbour, commits suicide, which is one of the reasons the family
later moves to Kentucky. President Lindbergh hosts a state dinner at the White House, to
which rabbi Bengelsdorf and Aunt Evelyn are invited, and she wants to bring Sandy , but
Herman bursts out in anger and does not allow it, and banishes Evelyn from their house.
Sandy, however, desires to join Evelyn to the dinner and starts another fight with his parents
and seems to alienate from his family even more. The family receives a letter from
Homestead 42, a government programme to assimilate Jewish people in society, telling that
the family is to move to Kentucky. Especially Bess is against it, and Phil tries to help by
asking his aunt, who is involved with the programme, to send their neighbours, Mrs. and
Seldon Wishnow, as well. Herman quits from work in order to avoid the mandatory move,
and starts a new, physically demanding job which makes him to start drinking a lot. American
Jews are being terrorised more every day and violence occurs regularly. Protesting radio
commentator Walter Winchell was shot and killed in Kentucky, and Bess warns Mrs.
Wishnow about it, fearing riots and violence. Lindbergh does not attend Winchell’s funeral,
after he has given a speech in Kentucky, and he disappears. Some people believed he was
kidnapped, that is was a Jewish conspiracy. Vice-president Wheeler takes office and
Bengelsdorf is fired. First Lady Mrs. Lindbergh steps in, asking to remove Wheeler from the
office and arrange a re-election, which was won by Roosevelt. The Jewish people in Newark
establish a safety programme fearing riots will come to New Jersey as well. Aunt Evelyn
returns to the Roth house, extremely afraid and worried. She tells that the Nazis planned
everything, and that all the programmes she was involved in were designed to leave Jewish
citizens unprotected. She begs her sister for protection, but she refuses, where upon Evelyn
12
seeks shelter in the family’s cellar. Bess calls Seldon in Kentucky, because she heard of riots
there and is afraid something has happened; as it turns out, Mrs. Wishnow was killed by antiSemitics, and Bess tries to help the unknowing, scared child, by asking the family Sandy
stayed with to pick him up, where Herman and Sandy will pick him up later to come and live
with them.
1.2.2 Title
The Plot Against America refers to Charles A. Lindbergh’s understanding with Hitler
during the Second World War. As said, Roth envisions what could have happened had
Roosevelt not been president in that period. In his novel, anti-Semitic aviation hero Lindbergh
is elected to be president instead of Roosevelt, and he has an agreement with Hitler to keep
America out of the war. In order to stay out of the war, Lindbergh and Hitler have regular
meetings. It can be said that Hitler therefore has an indirect power in the United States
through Lindbergh, in order to expand his Third Reich at the expense of American Jews, since
anti-Semitism seems to become accepted in the United States. The plot against America ís a
plot against America, because citizens are being separated by the government –literally
through specially designed programmes – because hatred and anxiety become prevailing
standards and people are scared; if people are against each other, it is easier to overpower
them, and to take over the country. People opt for the option that is safest in their opinion, and
associate themselves with the masses. In this case the plot is against America as a whole, but
mostly against Jewish America.
1.2.3 Setting
The story is set in Weequahic, a neighbourhood in Newark, New Jersey, in the period
between 1940 and 1942, and focuses on the Second World War. Although the novel is a
fictional history, the story is constructed and adapted around facts. Author Philip Roth grew
up in that same neighbourhood and was the same age as his protagonist around that time. He
13
therefore based some parts of the story on affairs that were true, but has altered most of his
factual childhood, including the family situation. The most important fact Roth altered, was
the current President of that time; Lindbergh instead of Roosevelt. America started to become
a fascist and anti-Semitic, and participated in the Second World War in a different manner;
violence and terrorism were now part of American day-to-day life, instead of mainly in
Europe. In Roth’s novel it can be said that there was a national persecution of Jews going on,
of a different level than in Europe, but nonetheless massive.
1.2.4 Characters
Main characters
Philip Roth
Philip is the seven to nine-year-old protagonist and narrator of the novel. He is a
Jewish boy, growing up in a Jewish community, so he never experiences any discrimination
or a feeling of being different, until the Second World War becomes part of his life. He looks
up to his older brother and his cousin. His stamp collection is the most important thing in the
world to him. At a certain point he loses his stamp collection while trying to run away from
his family, which seems to be symbolic for him losing some of his innocence, as he now is a
scared boy, knowing what is happening. He understands most of what is going on around him,
though his parents think he does not. He does not seems to choose sides, between his father
or Alvin, his father and Sandy, his parents and aunt Evelyn etc. He is a good boy, though he
sometimes makes wrong decisions. When he finds out that Seldon’s mother is killed, he is
sick with guilt. He becomes a very scared boy because of the war, but possibly mostly
because he sees his family changing a lot; fights between his brother and parents, his father
starting to drink, his mother scared all the time etc.
As Phil is a first person narrator, the reader experiences the story through his eyes,
although the narrator is an adult telling the story of his childhood in retrospect, sometimes
14
giving more information on the situation or emotions than were known at the actual time
events occurred. However, the mature narrator only mentions events and emotions he
experienced between 1940 and 1942, not how he felt about certain things years later. Even
though the narrator is an adult, it is clear how the young Phil feels about certain affairs; the
reader still experiences his innocence and childlike confusion.
Sandy Roth
Sandy is Philip’s older twelve to fourteen-year-old brother. Even though he is a child
himself, he tries to explain a lot to Philip. Unlike Philip, Sandy does choose sides, and
becomes a Lindbergh supporter more and more as the story proceeds, ending in him even
being against Judaism. His aunt Evelyn seems to get through to him, resulting in Sandy
participating in Just Folks and thus being separated from his family, living with Christians.
Throughout the story he alienates from his family more and more.
Herman Roth
Herman Roth is the thirty-nine to forty-one-year-old father of Philip and Sandy. He
starts out as an insurance salesman, but circumstances cause him to change to a physically
and emotionally demanding job. He has very strong political beliefs, and supports Roosevelt
publicly. The war and Lindbergh being president frighten him very much, and lead him to
getting in fights with his family more and more over politics and safety.
Bessie Roth
Housewife, and mother to Philip and Sandy, Bessie is thirty-six to thirty-eight years
old. Bessie is very frightened from the start, and tries to convince Herman to set up a plan to
escape to Canada if needed. She agrees with Herman on most points, although she does not
give her opinion as strongly as her husband. She cries a lot and expresses her fears often, but
shows strength and calmness when needed.
15
Alvin Roth
Alvin, twenty-one to twenty-three, is the son of Herman’s brother. After both his
parents passed away, Herman took him in. He is very rebellious and quite a bit older than
Philip and Sandy, who look up to him. He cannot keep a job and gambles in the street. He has
a very strong opinion on Lindbergh, the war, and his family, resulting in him enrolling for the
Canadian army. After a while, his family receives a letter that Alvin was wounded and
consequently lost his leg, which cause for several changes in his character.
Aunt Evelyn and Rabbi Bengelsdorf
Aunt Evelyn is Bessie’s sister. After Lindbergh is elected, she starts working for Rabbi
Bengelsdorf, the rabbi who has publicly supported Lindbergh, in order to convince the Jewish
population to vote for him as well. Evelyn is involved in several programmes, such as “Just
Folks” and “Homestead 42”, programmes that have direct consequences for her family. She
later starts a relationship with the rabbi and marries him. Rabbi Bengelsdorf helped setting up
Just Folks and Homestead 42. When President Lindbergh goes missing, he supports the First
Lady, resulting in him being denounced by the Jewish citizens, and him being arrested.
Other characters
Charles A. Lindbergh.
Aviation hero and elected president of the United States. Promises America the
country will not enter the war, though has several secret meetings with Hitler, assumedly
coming to an understanding to assimilate Jewish people into society through several
programmes, leaving Jews unprotected. Goes missing, resulting in a re-election, won by
Roosevelt.
Family Wishnow.
The neighbours of the Roth family. Mr. Wishnow is very ill, and therefore commits
16
suicide. Mrs. Wishnow has to work again, to provide for her and her son Seldon. Bessie
babysits Seldon sometimes, and she asks Philip to play with him, but he cannot stand him.
Therefore Philip asks his aunt to have the Wishnows move to Kentucky through “Homestead
42” as well, so that they can stay. Unlike the Roths they do move. Mrs. Wishnow is killed in
Kentucky by anti-Semitics, so Seldon moves in with the Roth family.
1.2.5 Themes
Jewish-American identity
As in most of Roth’s work, the sense of Jewish-American identity is an important
theme in The Plot Against America. In this particular novel that means a shift from feeling
mostly American to feeling mostly Jewish: “Philip considers himself American first and a Jew
only coincidentally” (Graham 126). Patriotism is mentioned several times throughout the
novel, e.g. Herman’s political views, Alvin’s desire to protect his country, the family vacation
to Washington etc. When anti-Semitism becomes order of the day, the Roth family starts to
experience more and more discrimination, which forces them to feel mostly Jewish, because
their being American is denied. This is a very difficult experience to them, as they are all
native-born Americans. Herman expresses in Washington: “’Read that,’ my father said,
alluding to the tablet bearing the Gettysburg Address. ‘Just read it. ‘All men are created
equal’’(Roth 65). Seen through the eyes of a child, the reader, despite his or her background,
can understand quite well how confusing this time must be for Jewish citizens in the United
States. Instead of one, patriotic United States, the people of America start to divide. Identity
becomes something that functions as a base for fear, instead of something one can be openly
proud of. It also becomes something that is forced upon people, as can be seen with the Roth
family; they are proud of being American and Jewish, but anti-Semitism forces them to
almost forget that they are more than Jews, the war almost dehumanizes them.
War and anti-Semitism
17
Another important theme in Roth’s works (e.g. Operation Shylock, and Goodbye, Columbus)
and in PAA is war. If the Second World War was not being fought at that particular time,
Lindbergh would probably not have been elected, as the campaign between the candidates
mostly revolved around joining or not joining the European war. The war is the root of
everything that happens to Philip and his family: the shift in their sense of identity, their
relationships with friends and family, and their level of fear and confusion. It can also be said
that, in the novel, anti-Semitism becomes more and more accepted, as the war inculcates a
different sense of morality into the heads of American citizens. People were indoctrinated
with the idea Jews were evil and that they had every reason to discriminate against them, even
use violence against them.
Fear and confusion
“Fear presides over these memories, a perpetual fear” (Roth 1). The novel starts telling
what a fearful time 1940 – 1942 was, when “Lindbergh [was] elected [and Philip was] the
offspring of Jews” (Roth 1). From the moment he was elected, Philip’s parents keep fearing
the worst, and everybody around seems to be in a constant state of fear as well. Fear and
confusion are important themes in this novel, as they cover the most emotions that are
experienced by the characters in this novel. Opposed to that, power can be seen as important
too, because a lot of people who are not Jewish, seem to feel they have more power than Jews,
and that they cannot be harmed, which in turn results in Jews starting to be afraid even more,
as anti-Semitism keeps increasing and strengthening without legal consequences. Fear also
causes to turn apart the Roth family, as the family members start fighting more every day.
2. Text analysis
2.1 General identification of translation problems according to Nord
In order to translate a text translators seem to agree that identifying and perhaps
18
analysing translation problems is of paramount importance, because it helps in the translation
process to reach a best result. As I will translate several fragments from PAA (pages 1-5, 6367, 96-100, and 331-334 of the edition listed in the works cited) I will make such an analysis.
In order to conveniently arrange the identified problems, I will use the four categories that
Christiane Nord distinguishes in her article “Tekstanalyse en de moeilijkheidsgraad van een
vertaling” (“Text analysis and the level of difficulty of a translation”) (Denken over vertalen
235) in order to create a clear arrangement of the identified problems during her lectures.
As I will draw up a list of more specific translation problems that concern PAA,
including a translation strategy, I will now record the more general translation problems that
are to be held into account.
2.1.1 Pragmatic translation problems
Pragmatic translation problems originate in the difference in communicative situations
in which the source and target text are embedded. An example given by Nord is the
difference between time and place, or the cultural determined difference in foreknowledge of
receivers in source and target culture.
An example of pragmatic translation problems is the difference in time and place. In
case of PAA it can be said that it is quite complicated. The novel is set in 1940 - 1942, but was
written in 2004. Still, it can be said that there is a difference between the United States in the
early 1940s and the Netherlands in 2011. The novel revolves around the Second World War,
something that was experienced in very different manners by the people in America and the
people in Europe at the time it actually occurred. Most people in 2011, European and
American, can only imagine what it must have been like to live through that war, and thus
have very different feelings and thoughts towards the subject than people who did experience
the war. Also, the Second World War still seems to be an emotionally charged subject in the
Netherlands, as it is commemorated every year and some people who have experienced that
19
war are still alive. Therefore, this aspect might be difficult to translate, as the Dutch people
are very well informed on the subject, from a European point of view.
These differences exist, though the knowledge the target audience has on the Second
World War might be an advantage; the translator does not have to give much background
information, the target audience already knows many details. What is problematic, though, is
the fact that the novel is a fictional history. It can be imagined that Americans can distinguish
between facts and fiction more easily than a Dutch audience. However, Philip Roth enclosed
some notes to the novel and added “A True Chronology of the Major Figures”, which can be
found at the end of the novel. For a translation I would suggest to position those extra texts at
the beginning of the novel, to inform the Dutch readers beforehand.
When it comes to other differences, such as Newark 1940 vs the Netherlands 2011, it
is more difficult, because the Netherlands differs from America in many ways; also Dutch
people seem to be less familiar with Jewish culture. This might be a problem during the
translation process, because it could be possible that some things needs more explanation, or
the translator has to assume that the target audience has a great interest in the subject and has
enough knowledge, or will look certain things up while reading etc. However, I strongly feel
that the Jewish-American sense of the novel should be maintained as much as possible.
2.1.2 Cultural specific translation problems
Cultural specific translation problems result from the differences in standards and
conventions between source and target culture, such as genre conventions, conventions with
regard to units of measure, conventions of courtesy etc. This will be further discussed in the
chapter on cultural specific elements, in which I discuss possible strategies outlined by Javier
Franco Aixelá, and the element that are mostly found in PAA.
2.1.3 Language pair specific problems
Such problems are specific for language pairs that result from the differences in
20
structures of the source language (in this case English) and the target language (in this case
Dutch). A lexically example is ‘you’: in English this word can be used as a plural and a
singular, and there is no distinction between formal or informal reference. In Dutch, however,
there exist a singular ‘je’ or ‘jou’, plural ‘jullie’ and formal ‘u’. A translator thus has more
options to choose from in Dutch, and especially has to be careful when it comes to an
informal or formal ‘you’. In case of PAA one clear example on this can be found in the
dialogue between the Roth family and their tour guide Mr. Taylor. The relationship between
them is impersonal, Mr. Taylor in a way works for the Roth family, and regarding the period
in which the story takes place, it is important to consider whether they address each other with
‘je’ or ‘u’ in the translation.
Another general example is syntax; English sentence structure differs from Dutch
sentence structure, and it is possible that the order of words changes a lot in the translation,
which possibly leads to a change in style. When it comes to the language pair English – Dutch
in PAA the syntactical structure of sentences in speech might form a problem. Roth regularly
chooses to let the characters of the novel communicate with one another in a very abrupt
manner or let them utter a sentence or answer that consists of only one word. This does not
undermine the fluency of the text in English, but in Dutch more words are almost always
needed to maintain fluency of the speech. Again, the best example from PAA can be found
throughout the dialogues, especially in Herman Roth’s speech. He often does not use very
elaborate sentences, which cannot be maintained in the translation:
“Not me,” my father told him.
“Something bothering you about what the lady just said?”
“No, sir. Free country.” (Roth 64)
In this case, the translation needs more words than there are in this part of the original text.
First of all, Herman could otherwise be considered quite rude, while he is trying to be neutral
21
in his replies. Second, it would not be very fluent in Dutch. If for example “[f]ree country”
were to be translated with “vrij land”, the sentence would seem incomplete.
2.1.4 Text specific translation problems
Text specific translation problems occur during the translation of an individual text
and require specific solutions. Examples are puns, style, setting etc. In case of PAA there are
several problems that are specific to the text, or perhaps specific to Philip Roth, such as style,
dialogues, setting and the descriptions to convey sense of identity.
A more specific example is the use of several kinds of cereals in the dialogue between
Bessie Roth and Seldon Wishnow. The “Rice Krispies”, “Cornflakes” and “cereal” form a
specific problem in this text, as they are product that are typically American, and cannot be
generalized, as Seldon points out a specific kind, the Rice Krispies, are his favourites. In order
to support my translation choices, I added footnotes in which I point out other text specific
translation problems and the reasoning behind the solutions.
2.2 Cultural Specific Elements
When a text is translated it is being transferred, as it were, from one culture to another.
So, not only words have to be translated, but cultures have to be considered as well. Are there
certain aspects that are ordinary in one culture, but do not exist in another? Or do they exist,
but in a different form? How do these elements need to be translated? In PAA there are several
cultural specific elements, and in my opinion they need to be discussed individually. This I
will do in the footnotes that are added to the translated fragments. There are, however, some
cultural specific elements – specific and a bit more general – that occur more often, so they
will be discussed in this chapter, alongside with the translation strategies as outlined by Javier
Franco Aixelá.
2.2.1 Aixelá’s strategies
As Aixelá points out, not only streets, institutions, people, historical figures etc are
22
cultural specific, language itself is too. CSE’s can form a translation problem when the
element does not exist or has a different value in the target culture. Aixelá has categorised
every possible translating strategy when it comes to translating CSE’s, which enables
translators to “quickly determine the general trend in a translation, concerning the [...] double
tension, i.e. the text being both a representation of an existing text as well as being an
independent text” (Denken over vertalen 199). The categories are divided under two main
categories: preservation and replacement. As PAA contains quite a lot of CSE’s, I will
elaborate on this subject a bit more below, in order to apply the strategies during the
translation process. (Denken over vertalen 200 – 203):
a. Preservation
1. Repetition; increases the archaic or exotic nature of the CSE, as the translator preserves as
much as possible from the original text. As the CSE’s is preserved completely in the
translation, the reader may receive the word or phrase to be foreign, which is an effect that
probably does not exist in the source text.
2. Orthographical adaption; transcription/transliteration. Usually applied when the source text
is written in a script that differs from the target culture’s script.
3. Linguistic (not-cultural) translation; the translator tries to translate the CSE as literally as
possible, but chooses an equivalent from the target language that is very similar, though more
understandable for the target audience. This most often happens with units of measurement or
currency.
4. Extratextual explanation; the translator uses footnotes, endnotes or other means to provide
the reader with extra information outside the main text. This happens when extra information
needs to be added, such as explanations, or quotes from a third party etc. that is unsuitable to
mention inside the main text.
5. Intratextual explanation; similar to extratextual explanation, except in this situation the
23
translator thinks it is possible or even necessary to add the extra information to the main text,
as it will not be noticeable to the reader. Aixelá provides the example: “St. Mark” > “Hotel St.
Mark” (201). This strategy helps to make CSE’s more explicit and clear up ambiguity.
b. Replacement
1. Synonymy; a strategy used to prevent unnecessary repetition of the CSE, so used out of a
stylistic point of view.
2. Limited universalisation; used when a translator thinks that the CSE is too little known in
the target culture, or when the translator knows that there exists a more well-known CSE in
the target culture that will appeal more to the target audience. This will enhance the credibility
of the text.
3. Absolute universalisation; similar to limited universalisation, except this strategy is used
when there are no CSE’s that are better known in the target culture, or when the translator
chooses to omit all foreign connotations.
4. Naturalisation; strategy that is hardly used in modern translating. The translator uses
CSE’s that are seen as target culture specific.
5. Omission; a strategy that is used when a translator deems a CSE as unnecessary. The CSE
does not add stylistic value to the text, and the reader would only have to exert themselves
while reading. The strategy is also employed when a translator feels that the CSE needs
explanation, but does not want to elaborate too much and thinks it is more appropriate to omit
the CSE entirely.
6. Autonomous creation; the translator or client decides that a CSE that is not in the source
text needs to be added to the target text. This strategy can be employed to create a text that
could be more interesting for the target audience.
24
Besides these categories, Aixelá mentions three others:
Compensation: add something elsewhere to the text, with similar effect as an omitted feature.
Transposition: place a CSE some other place in the text, without omitting.
Toning down: replace a CSE with an element that suits the target audience or the target
literary system better.
In order to translate the specific and more general cultural specific elements, I think it
is very useful to apply these strategies by Aixelá, especially as it is also discussed what the
general effect will be on the text when a certain strategy is applied.
2.2.2. Identity
As in most of Roth’s works, identity is one of the most important themes in this
specific text as well, and it occurs throughout the novel. As mentioned before, the sense of
identity in PAA comes in the form of a shift from feeling mostly American, hardly
acknowledging a Jewish background, to being forced to be Jews, as the American identity is
denied. This sense of identity struggles are less prominent in the target culture, and may
therefore cause a translation problem. When it comes to this theme, Roth is much more subtle,
so the translator has to try to capture and maintain that subtlety, perhaps even decrease the
subtlety, so the effect will be conveyed in the target culture as well.
The Jewish culture seems to exist much more in America than in the Netherlands.
Halfway the nineteenth century, (Eastern-) European Jews started to immigrate to the United
States, hoping their future would be brighter in the land of the American dream. After 1924
the major emigration waves stopped, but the Jewish-American population that stems from
these groups is still very large and can be found mainly in the larger American cities. In the
Netherlands, the Jewish population mainly consists of Jews that immigrated from Spain,
Portugal and Eastern-Europe after the seventeenth century and of Jews that took refuge during
the Second World War. The largest Jewish community can be found in Amsterdam.
25
The Jewish communities seem to be more numerous in America than in the
Netherlands, and the culture and habits are more known there as well, because Jewish culture
seems to have a more important role in e.g. movies, novels etc. in America than in the
Netherlands. Also, the notion of Jewish identity is more of an issue in America than in the
Netherlands, and forms an important theme in Philip Roth’s novels and stories. I think Jewish
cultural elements will not form much of a translation problem, because they are hardly
mentioned in PAA; the Roth family feels they are mostly American and hardly seem to
identify with their Jewish background. The Jewish-American sense of identity will form a
problem though, as it is one of the most important themes in the novel, but is quite unknown
in the Netherlands. However, Roth seems to be very explicit about it, so readers in another
culture should be able to envision what is meant, even though the effect will probably less
strong than in the American culture. I think it might be best not to struggle with it too much,
and really keep it an American matter; it otherwise might only make the story awkward or
deprive on Roth’s style. In PAA I think context plays an important role to understand the
situation, and even though it may not come on as strong in the Netherlands as it might in
America, I still think that the message will be clear and that readers in the target culture can
imagine the situation to an extent.
2.2.3. War and anti-Semitism
Other important themes based on cultural specific elements are ware and anitSemitism. From a translators point of view these elements are quite important to consider as
such, as the Second World War was experienced in a very different manner in the United
States than in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe, let alone a fictional version of that span
of history. In PAA, the persecution of Jews in Europe was much more tangible in the United
States as well, as something similar starts to develop under Lindbergh’s leadership. The
Second World War has a different position in American and Dutch culture; it seems to be less
26
prominent in American culture than in Dutch culture. Philip Roth however, has written his
novel in such a way that the Second World War could have had a much greater impact on
American culture than is the case in reality. This is a problem, because in Dutch culture the
Second World War is known for its cruelty and every citizen is aware of this history. Because
of that, it might be possible that the effect Roth has created with his novel will be less evident
in the target culture; Roth has made the war much more existing and terrific than was the
case, but in Europe, his fictional history was a fact.
2.2.4. Setting
The story is set in Newark in the 1940s and revolves around the household of a
Jewish-American family. This might form a problem, as I expect that the target audience will
not be able to envision this setting in the same way as the source target. As said before, the
Jewish community in the Netherlands is much smaller and less prominent than in the United
States. Philip Roth, however, thankfully writes his novels full of rich descriptions, so the
reader will be able to envision his or her version of the setting. Because of the large difference
in time and place, this might require some fantasy, but that is the beauty of reading. I also
believe that the target audience in 2012 is quite familiar with the American culture through
television and film, so their assumed knowledge might be an advantage while reading PAA.
When it comes to the names of streets, buildings, institutions etc, I think it is best to
consider it per individual element. In certain cases a building for example is very well known
in the target culture as well, so by applying Aixelá’s repletion strategy, the Americal feeling
of the text is maintained. In other cases it is possible that a name does not appeal to the
imagination in such a way, so a intratextual explanation or even omission (and instead a
description) could be in order.
2.3 Style
In order to translate a text, especially a piece of literature, it is important to analyse the
27
style of the original author in order to convey that style to the target audience. It can be said
that style is at least as important as the content of the text, because they enhance each other.
Philip Roth is highly-praised for his style of writing, so in order to captivate his style in my
translation, I think it is necessary to produce a thorough style analysis of the fragments I
intend to translate (pages 1-5, 63-67, 96-100, and 331-334 of the edition listed in the works
cited).
The method used for this analysis is described by Mick Short and Geoffrey Leech in
the second edition of their Style in Fiction. This text book is a very practical book of reference
when it comes to the many aspects of style in literature. In order to maintain a concise and
practical analysis, I will focus on their third chapter in part one of the book, in which they
expound a theory on how to analyse a text by means of a categorised checklist; lexical
categories, grammatical categories, figures of speech, and context and cohesion. I will apply
this checklist to a part of the first fragment. When necessary, I apply some parts of the
checklist to all of the selected fragments As the analysis will form a basis for my translation, I
will also briefly examine how the stylistic categories will influence the translation practice.
2.3.1. Context and cohesion
Most sentences (outside dialogue) in PAA are quite extensive, and in some cases Roth
tends to use enumerative descriptions. In order to maintain fluent style he regularly uses
coordinative conjunctions rather than linking adverbials. However, sometimes the sentence
links are not that clear and “rely on implicit connections of meaning” (Short and Leech 64).
Disturbing repetitions are avoided (e.g. “father”, “Herman”, “dad”, “he” throughout the novel
(Roth)). When possible, Roth mentions a name and then refers to that person by pronoun.
Proper names and pronouns alternate in a way it is pleasant and clear to read the novel. As the
alternation really contributes to the fluency of the text, I deem it important to find a way to
match the diversity of synonyms and/or equivalent words as much as possible in the
28
translation.
The readers of PAA are not directly addressed; Roth addresses them through the words
and thoughts of his character Philip. As Philip speaks in a first-person narrative, the most
clear linguistic clue is the usage of I, me, my etc. Also, the audience reads about the events
like Philip experienced them, and read about his feelings on certain matters. The only way to
know how other character experience something is through dialogue, or because Philip tells
about it. As the story is a partially auto-biographic novel it can be said it is clear that Roth
identifies and sympathizes with Philip. The characters words are represented by direct speech
(dialogue) and free indirect speech (descriptions etc). Speaking style does not change much in
the selected fragments.
2.3.2. Analysis of a PAA
I will analyse a part from the first fragment (page 1). In this part of the text, Roth
introduces his family as they were in 1940. In this fragment, Roth uses characteristic long
sentences and descriptions, which are very suitable to analyse, as there are many different
sentence, phrase, lexical etc types. As said in the introduction of this chapter, I think it is
necessary to regard all selected fragments in some cases.
“When the first shock came in June of 1940 – the nomination for the
presidency of Charles A. Lindbergh, America’s international aviation hero, by
the Republican Convention at Philadelphia – my father was thirty-nine, an
insurance agent with grade school education, earning a little under fifty dollars
a week, enough for the basic bills to be paid on time but for little more. My
mother – who’d wanted to go to teachers’ college but couldn’t because of the
expense, who’d lived at home working as an office secretary after finishing
high school, who’d kept us from feeling poor during the worst of the
Depression by budgeting the earnings my father turned over to her each Friday
29
as efficiently as she ran the household – was thirty-six. My brother, Sandy, a
seventh-grader with a prodigy’s talent for drawing, was twelve, and I, a thirdgrader a term ahead of himself – and an embryonic stamp collector inspired
like millions of kids by the country’s foremost philatelist, President Roosevelt
– was seven.” (Roth 1)
2.3.2.1. General
Short and Leech point out that it is more important to analyse lexicon rather than
semantics, in order to find out “how choice of words involves various types of meaning”
(Short and Leech 61). When choices on a lexical level are determined, a translator can see
more clearly how it effects the text as a whole. In this fragment, the register is quite informal,
as if the narrator wants to level with the reader, though I would not say it is colloquial. The
vocabulary is not very complex, even simple when one looks at it on a syllabic level.
However, the first part of this fragment contains more complex vocabulary than the second
part. In this first part Roth is describing Lindbergh’s nomination, in the second part his
family, which enhances the opinion of the protagonist. It is like a contrast between the root of
his fear and his feeling of safety. For the translation this means that it is important not use
more complex words than necessary; of course it is possible that certain equivalents do not
exist on a simple syllabic level, however, when possible, language should be simple and
informal, and the emotional emphasis should only be maintained if the language remains
fluent. Roth uses a number of descriptive words. People, places, events etc. are described
quite specifically, without being very evaluative, as they are in a way described by a fairminded child. In these descriptions, as well as in dialogue etc. Roth is very specific. He often
make use of the “emotive and other association of words” (Short and Leech 61). An example
outside this fragment is the word “terror” (Roth 1), with which he wants to specify that every
little boy has some frightful of terrible moments in their youth, but in this sense it can also
30
refer to the terrors of war, and would therefore be a much more charged word. When it comes
to specialised vocabulary in this fragment, philatelist stands out a bit. Roth earlier used the
more general term stamp collector, and by adding the Greek term it emphasises how serious
the protagonist is about his hobby.
2.3.2.2. Nouns
Roth uses both abstract and concrete nouns, although in this fragment he uses more
abstract nouns, such as “shock”, “nomination”, “week”, “Depression” etc (Roth 1). The
concrete nouns that are used, mostly describe his family and his environment (“father”,
“mother”, “school” etc (Roth 1). Proper names are used when necessary, that is, when people
are spoken to or referred to, and in this fragment the only proper nouns used are important
characters in this novel; “Lindbergh”, “Sandy”, Roosevelt” (Roth 1). In order to translate the
text, it is important to be sure that abstract nouns remain abstract and concrete nouns remain
concrete.
2.3.2.3. Adjectives
There are not many adjectives in this fragment from PAA; “first”, “international”,
basic”, “embryonic” (Roth 1). From other parts of the text is can however be deduced that
Roth mostly uses adjectives when something really needs to be emphasized, such as
negativity and simplicity: “perpetual fear”, “basic bills”, “embryonic stamp collector”, “small
two-and-a-half-family house” (Roth 1, 2), or when a space is described: “pillared building”,
and “capacious throne” (Roth 63). The adjectives used serve an emotive and visual means, as
they are used primarily when environments are described and when the reader needs to really
understand that something has to be emphasized in a bad way, raising compassion or a sense
of fear. As the adjectives serve quite a distinct purpose, I would say that it is necessary that
the translation focuses on the few adjectives that do exist in the fragments, as they are so often
31
used to emphasize, and truly contribute to the visual aspect of the novel. Though they are
limited, they are quite important.
2.3.2.4. Verbs
The verbs do not seem to carry a lot of the meaning; they mostly support the meaning,
and are dynamic , i.e. refer to actions, events, movements or psychological acts, rather than
states, e.g. “came”, “was”, “earning”, “paid”, “wanted”, “couldn’t”, working” etc (Roth 1).
The verbs are mostly transitive, that is, they have a direct object and a subject, e.g. “my
mother [...] wanted to go to teachers’ college” (Roth 1). Of course, other categories of verbs,
such as dynamic and intransitive verbs, are existing in the text, though they are less
prominent.
2.3.2.5. Sentence types
In this fragment, Roth clearly uses statements mostly. He tells the readers what the situation
is, without adding sentence types such as questions, exclamations etc (the exception being the
dialogues in other parts of the text). As is often the case, the statements enhance the
descriptive notion of the text, as there are no diversions from it.
2.3.2.6. Sentence complexity
One very important part of Roth’s style is the sentence complexity. As sentence
complexity varies quite much throughout the novel, and as I deem is quite important, I chose
to analyse this by means of all the fragments I intend to translate, as opposed to only the
fragment quoted above, because I think that will make the analysis more complete. The other
elements of the checklist can be applied to the fragment in quite a sufficient manner (with
some additions if needed).
As most sentences in PAA consist of one independent clause and in several cases
more than one dependant clause, they can be classified as complex sentences. Again, sentence
32
complexity can differ, based on the notion if they are part of dialogue or not. In order to
determine the average sentence length, I randomly chose several sentences from the selected
fragments. The average word count in sentences that are not part of dialogue is thirty-four.
The average word count in sentences that are part of dialogue is twelve, although I deem it
necessary to mention that dialogue sentence lengths diverse quite a lot; the shortest sentence
consisted of two words, the largest of sixty words. Again based on a random selection from
the fragments, it can be said that the ratio of independent to dependent clauses is fifteen :
twenty-five. Especially in his descriptions, Roth frequently uses complex sentences that
consists of one independent clause with at least one dependent clause. The complexity only
seems to vary, again, when it concerns a sentence that is or is not part of dialogue. I would say
that the complexity is due to subordination, as dependent clauses often function to highlight or
emphasize the independent clause. A most suitable translation strategy looking at sentence
types and complexity, I think, would be to apply a technique that suits each sentence best
individually, as types differ much; so, examine a sentence briefly, determine what is most
important (is the sentence complex, does the sentence serve as a means to emphasize? etc),
and translate accordingly. The difference in sentence types and complexity makes the novel
lively and diverse, which makes the story pleasant to read, therefore I think it is important to
maintain that diversity in the translation.
2.3.2.7. Phrase types
The noun phrases in PAA are rather complex. That complexity lies in the
premodification of the phrases, varying from nouns to adjectives. Some examples are
“America’s international aviation hero ”, “the country’s foremost philatelist” etc. (Roth 1).
There are not many “significant departures of the simple past tense” to be found (Short
and Leech 62). The story is narrated in the past tense, and there are hardly any other forms of
tense than the simple past.
33
Another phrase type that can be found in PAA is a prepositional phrase: “the
nomination for presidency” , “under fifty dollars a week”, “with a prodigy’s talent for
drawing”(Roth 1). Adjective phrases can be found as well, e.g. “a grade-school education”,
“an embryonic stamp collector” (Roth 1).
2.3.2.8 Word classes and figures of speech
As with sentence complexity, I think it is best to analyse all selected fragments when it
comes to word classes and figures of speech, as they, too, form much of Roth’s style. He is
often quite subtle, so for my translation, I reckon it is best if I familiarise myself with these
subtleties.
As Short and Leech point out, the major word classes have already been analysed, so
the word classes analysed here are minor ones and their effects, such as “prepositions,
conjunctions, pronouns, determiners, auxiliaries, interjections etc” (Short and Leech 63). It
does occur that Roth uses a definite article to specify a noun, e.g. “[t]he Jewish doctors and
lawyers” (Roth 3). Determiners are sometimes used to emphasize a certain aspect of a
situation, e.g. “the women worked all the time, with little assistance” (Roth 3). Interjections,
such as “[w]ell” and “[y]eah” (Roth 97) can be mostly found in the dialogues, and their effect
helps the speech acts to become very convincing and lifelike. Although many sections of the
selected fragments have a content that has a very negative or grim atmosphere, negative
words do not have a special role to achieve that; of course these words are used, however not
to emphasize more than usual.
In PAA the reader can find several forms of repetition or parallelism, such as climax
(e.g. “[f]ear presides over these memories, a perpetual fear”, “throne of thrones” (Roth 1, 63,
64)), anaphora: repetition at the beginning of clauses (e.g. “then my mother, then Sandy, then
me”, now that [...], now that [...]”, “He [...]. He [...]. He [...]. He [...]”, “Weed all afternoon.
Weed the corn. Weed the tobacco”, “I want you to [...]. I want you to [...]. I want you to [...]”
34
(Roth 64, 65, 97, 99, 333)), conduplicatio: repetition throughout a paragraph (e.g. “[...] didn’t
yet exist, [...] hadn’t yet ceased [...]”, “[...] Jewish national homeland [...] had a homeland for
generations [...] flag of our homeland every morning at school”, [...] the face of [...] the face
of America all in one” (Roth 4, 63)), epistrophe: repetition at the end of clauses (e.g. “[..] like
this. [...] like this.” (Roth 65)) etc. The repetitions function as an emphasis in the text, and
draw attention. Therefore it is important to maintain figures of speech in the translation, as
they, though simple, have quite a big effect on the story. Roth subtly emphasizes parts of the
text and story throughout the novel, which increases the effect of the story, as the reader is
guided unconsciously. It is possible that, perhaps because of grammatical reasons, something
like repetition cannot occur in the same place in the translation as in the original work, so it is
important to consider where another form of repetition can achieve a similar effect.
2.4. Dialogue
Dialogue is a feature of literature that plays a more important role than just convey a
conversation between characters. With dialogue authors can complete their specific style,
distinguish characters from one another by giving them their own voice, tell something about
communication in a certain culture etc. As was found in the stylistic analysis, dialogue often
formed an exception in certain categories, so before translating the selected fragments, I think
it is wise to discuss the subject of dialogue a little more.
One aspect of dialogue that cannot be underestimated is realism. As Short and Leech
point out in their chapter of Style in Fiction “Language and the fictional world”, dialogue is
part of a mock reality and can be used to “simulate […] what is going on in the fictional
world” (129). The language in dialogue is of a special kind, because it needs to look natural
and has to be recognizable to the reader. If the reader does not accept the way dialogue is
conveyed, the text will not be effective. It is written rather than spoken communication, so
there are certain aspects an author should keep in mind. As dialogue is the creative, fictional
35
work of a writer, and a means of simulating an everyday conversation, I think it is important
to briefly compare the concept to the notion it is based upon; spoken language. In real life
communication people tend to pause a lot, use utterances such as ‘erm’ and ‘uh’, clichés,
signals, speak at the same time, use grammatically incorrect or awkward sentences, repeat
words unnecessarily etc. Short and Leech refer to these features of communication as “normal
non-fluency” (130). This occurs because people only have a short amount of time to think
about what they will say in advance of actually saying it. However, this would be hard to read
and could also be considered unaesthetic in literary works. Also, dialogue does not depend on
the same thinking process as real-life conversation; the author can think about what characters
say for a longer period of time. Jenny Brumme and Anna Espunya quoted Gregory (1967) in
their article “Background and justification: research on fictional orality and its translation” in
which they emphasize the difference between the spontaneity of real-life speech and the
“planned, prepared behavior” of dialogue (9). Thus, in order to achieve a realistic dialogue, an
author should make use of other elements of communication in order to convince the reader.
This can be done for example by using simple lexis and grammar, omitting features of normal
non-fluency (entirely or to a certain extend), adding dialect, making sure that each character
has a unique manner of speech etc. Brumme and Espunya also point out that in order to
achieve a convincing dialogue, one should consider not only the speech activity in general
(turn-taking, non-fluency, spontaneity etc), but also the “historical-idiomatic characteristics
of the specific language” (11). This means that each language, in certain periods of the
history, has specific elements that are the norm of conversation. So if an author were to
deviate from this norm too much, the realism of a dialogue could go lost. On the other hand it
could be said that deviating from the norm can be part of a writers style, and dialogue could
still be convincing in a certain context; as pointed out by Brumme and Espunya, writers can
introduce or change certain elements. Doing this can rouse the reading experience. Dialogue
36
could be seen as the place where an author could experiment more, using “eye dialect”,
“respelling”, “pronunciation spelling”, “onomatopoeias” etc (22). Dialogue is often set up in
a traditional way, looking at layout, punctuation, paragraph breaks, pragmatic markers etc,
although playing with that can also change the reading experience and add to text content or a
certain style.
Another important literary aspect that can be supported by dialogue is the construction
of characters. By introducing direct speech, uttered by the character concerned, the author can
make the persona truly unique and round. Dialogue gives them a voice and can support them
being stereotypically. The language a character speaks can say something about them; do they
speak formal or informal, do they use simple or complex sentences, repeat words or use filler
words, do they speak slang or with or without dialect, are they upper or lower class? etc. It
can tell something about their social status, about their role in a family. It can tell if they are
dominant or subordinate to one another. Are they educated? Are they shy? Are they calm or
high-spirited? By using certain structures and techniques the author of a text can build a
strong basis for a character through dialogue and adapt this to certain situations or other
characters. Dialogue can really support the emotions they feel. As Brumme and Espunya
point out, speech can form “a window to the mind of the character” (23).
2.4.1. Dialogue in The Plot Against America
Dialogue is a very important aspect of PAA, and can be seen as something that defines
Philip Roth´s style. The dialogues in this novel appear to be very realistic and convincing, and
can be described as modern, spontaneous and life-like. Graphic presentation (i.e. punctuation,
paragraphical arrangement etc) in general is traditional, but Roth makes use of unconventional
presentation as well (omitting quotation marks or markers such as “he said”). Often dialogue
supports the emotional aspect of the text and deepens the feel of tragedy and grimness, as the
feelings of the characters are being expressed by themselves. The characters indirectly tell the
37
reader through dialogue what their situation is, and help the reader form an opinion or have
certain feelings. Realism is achieved by simple grammar and lexis, and sentences that are
short to medium in length. Also, the characters call each other by name, and turn-taking
occurs naturally.
Even though most dialogues are traditional in arrangement, one of the dialogues from
the selected fragments is quite striking; the dialogue between Philip and his brother Sandy,
who has just arrived back from an exchange program in Kentucky.
Pp. 96 – 97:
“In bed, one hour later. The lights are out all over the house. We whisper.
Did you really have a good time?
I had a great time.
What made it so great?
Being on a farm is great. You get to get up early in the morning, and you’re outside all
day, and there are all these animals. I drew a lot of animals, I’ll show you my d
rawings. And we had ice cream every night. Mrs. Mawhinney makes it herself.
There’s fresh milk there.
All milk is fresh.
No, we got it right from the cow. It was still warm. We put it on the stove and we’d
boil it and just take the cream off the top, and then we’d drink it.
You couldn’t get sick from it?
That’s why you boil it.
But you don’t just drink it right out of the cow.
I tried that once but it doesn’t taste so good. It’s so creamy.”
As said before, Roth omitted quotation marks and other signals of dialogues, and instead only
depicts what the brothers say, without any hints of their emotions or other environmental
elements that can contribute to the realism of a dialogue. As these signals are missing so to
say, language becomes even more important. The only thing the reader knows can be acquired
38
by the one single hint that is given before the dialogue: “In bed, one hour later. The lights are
out all over the house. We whisper” (Roth 96). That is enough to read the dialogue as if it
were a real conversation: the reader knows who is speaking, because of the spacing between
the lines. The reader can imagine the situation, as the boys will probably lay in their beds still,
whispering the entire dialogue. Another thing that makes this dialogue so realistic, are the
dynamics. Sentences are short, Philip asks many questions, Sandy answers concise, and often
Philip answers Sandy with another question, creating a swift and natural flow. Signal words
and phrases are used quite often during the dialogue (e.g. “Well”, “Yeah”, “aren’t they?”,
“huh?”, “Sort of” etc (Roth 97 – 100)), as well as some examples of dialect in Kentucky (e.g.
“bacca”, “I ‘clare” (Roth 99)). This dialogue is a great example of how it can contribute to
constructing characters. From this dialogue the reader learns that in this context Philip is a
young, curious boy, subordinate to his older brother, to whom he looks up as a worldly
person. From his questions it can be understood he has very little life experiences, but that he
does not mind or is jealous, he always has people he can ask about certain matters. And Sandy
is also a young boy, although he thinks quite much of himself after his trip, who informs his
brother on his experiences, though not gladly. From this conversation the reader can also
learn that Sandy is starting to alienate from his life before he went to Kentucky, as he speaks
differently and tells he ate bacon etc.
Another example of dialogue in PAA is the fragment where Mrs. Roth is on the
telephone with Seldon.
Pp. 331 – 332
“My mother said, ‘Seldon, you must take something to eat. That will help you
calm down. Go to the refrigerator and get something to eat.’
‘I ate the Fig Newtons. There’s none left.’
‘Seldon, I’m talking about your eating a meal. Your mother will be home very
39
soon, but meanwhile you can’t sit there waiting for her to feed you – you have to feed
yourself, and not on cookies. Put the phone down and go look in the refrigerator and
then come back and tell me what’s in there that your could eat.’
‘But it’s long distance.’
‘Seldon, do as I say.’
To Sandy and me, gathered closely around he in the back foyer, my mother
said, ‘She’s very late, and he hasn’t eaten, and he’s all alone, and she hasn’t phoned,
and the poor child is frantic and starving to death.’
‘Mrs. Roth?’
‘Yes, Seldon.’
‘There’s pot cheese. It’s old, though. It doesn’t look too good.’
‘What else is in there?’
‘Beets. In a bowl. Leftovers. They’re cold.’
‘And anything else?’
‘I’ll look again – just a minute.’”
This dialogue is presented in a more traditional way. The fragment is all dialogue; the only
moments that are described outside of the dialogues are parts where there is a pause in the
telephone conversation, e.g. when Seldon is looking for food or when Mrs. Roth wants Sandy
to get the phone number from the Mahwinney family, emphasizing that pause. This dialogue
has some clear domination division as well, as this is a conversation between an adult and a
child. Mrs. Roth tells Seldon what to do very clearly and remains calm and strong, while
Seldon seems very unknowing and naïve. This dialogue takes place moments after Seldon’s
mother was killed, so fear is one of the most important emotions at this point. Seldon is scared
because he is alone, Mrs. Roth is scared because she does not know what happened to Mrs.
Wishnow or what will happen to the Jews in America. Even though this emotion is not
40
articulated specifically, it is clearly noticeable, as Mrs. Roth tries to really focus and speak
clearly, in order to control the situation, and Seldon seems to become more distracted or in a
state of denial.
These examples show that Roth is able to construct dialogues in different levels of
style in one work, which are still recognizable as his work. The dialogues are really round and
realistic, and add emotional and practical information to the entire story. Also, the dialogues
help to depict the characters as being truly unique, and help to show that the characters act
and speak differently in certain situations, with certain other character, again contributing to
the realism.
2.4.2. Translating dialogue
As dialogue is a very special feature of style which encompasses many different
aspects it is important to discuss the theory1 of translating dialogue as well. Dialogue can be
seen as a simulation of real-life oral communication. This is quite important to keep in mind
while translating dialogue, as each language and culture has different norms an conventions
when it comes to communication. For example; short sentences can be seen as fluent and
complete in English, but to convey the same message that sentence entails in a Dutch
sentence, it often has to be a bit longer, adding words to support the fluency. Therefore a well
devised dialogue can be very different in style in translation, as the translator not only needs
to convey style and message to the target culture, but also needs to maintain the realism of the
dialogue. Punctuation and other “general features” (Brumme and Espunya 11) could help with
that, as those features are often similar in different languages. However, it is important to
always keep in mind that dialogue is the unique, fictive work of an author, so each word, each
letter, and each form of punctuation or sentence structure was intentional and contributes to
the style of the author and the characters, and to the atmosphere of the text and story. It is
1
The practical strategy of translating dialogue in PAA will be discussed in the chapter on
specific problems and strategy.
41
possible that there is not a sufficient equivalent in the target language, so it can be “difficult to
preserve [such features] in translation” (Brumme and Espunya 19).
As said earlier, dialogue plays a huge role in the construction of characters. This
means that a translator does not translate one dialogue, but translates each character: each
character is unique and has an own voice, so the translator should analyse what is typical for
certain personas, e.g. stopgaps, signal words, word repetition, certain sentence structures etc.
When a least desirable choice is made, the entire character or stereotype can be altered,
without that being the intention. An example of a difficulty in translating is form of address,
for example the modern English singular ‘you’, which can be translated to Dutch with ‘je
(informal) or ‘u’ (formal, authoritarian). The choice between ‘je’ en ‘u’ can determine
formality or domination, and is completely up to the translator. When an undesirable choice is
made, relationships between characters can shift and therefore change the story.
2.4.3. Strategy for PAA
Dialogue is “a unique invention [of the author]” (Cadera 36) and functions on many
levels in many ways: it tells and supports a story, can add to style by being more playful,
explicit or intense than the rest of the text, it constructs and distinguishes unique characters, it
conveys the author’s style and message, helps the readers believe the story, it can make a
story traditional of innovative, and determines the tempo and level of difficulty for a reader.
Translating means to leave a same or very similar impression on the reader in the target
culture as was done in the source culture. Details are of paramount importance, as they can
change style or characters. Realism and text flow should be remained.
Dialogue plays an important role in PAA. It supports the story and helps tremendously
in constructing the characters. Philip Roth has great talent to create individuality in dialogue,
supporting character’s qualities. Dialogues are very convincing and have nice flow. In order
to translate dialogue in PAA, I think it is wise to look at the role of the characters, to
42
determine which character is dominant in a certain dialogue. Also, I think it is important to
look at what is implied when a character says something; is he or she sarcastic? Does the text
refer to something? If any puns occur, or if there are many idioms, I think it is wise to
contemplate which target language equivalents are available or how it is otherwise possible to
maintain the style and the specific language feature.
As Susanne M . Cadera points out, dialogues are often presented in a traditional form
that is used worldwide. Some authors, however, make use of an innovative presentation, as is
the case with the previously discussed dialogue between Philip and Sandy. She points out that
a different form of presentation may not be known in the target culture and can form a
problem. As said before, quotation marks, activity descriptions or other signals are omitted in
that particular dialogue, and I think that during translating that fragment it is wise to pay extra
attention to language, so that the unconventional form of presentation will not have to be a
problem in the translation.
Not only style and presentation are important in PAA, but rhythm and flow are as well.
So in order to maintain that in the translation, I think it is necessary that to some parts of the
dialogue extra text is added; Roth often makes use of very short, simple sentence, which can
be very unnatural in Dutch. So where Roth for example may construct a correct sentence that
contains only one or two words, in Dutch it would probably be a slightly longer sentence. The
approach of translating dialogue will be further discussed in the reflection of the translated
fragments.
43
44
Practice
45
6. Translation and reflection
After discussing (translation) theories and novel content I will now present a
translation of selected fragments from The Plot Against America by Philip Roth (pages 1-5,
63-67, 96-100, and 331-334 of the edition listed in the works cited). Based on the previous
chapters I will supplement the translation with footnotes that contain explanations, choices,
considerations, parts of the theory etc. Also, I will compare my translation to the published
translation of Ko Kooman in footnotes (pages 9-13, 75-80, 110-115, and 360-362 of the
edition listed in the works cited), as to see if he has applied different strategies than I did, and
how that results in different effects.
I have chosen several fragments from PAA to translate, in order to cover certain
aspects that I think are characteristic for Roth’s work. From the first chapter, “June 1940 –
October 1940: Vote for Lindbergh or Vote for War”, I have selected pages 1 to 5. In this
fragment Roth introduces his family, his neighbourhood, and the subject of the novel. He uses
a lot of enumerations and is very descriptive. I chose this fragment, because in this part of the
text it becomes quite clear that Roth’s style can be quite complex and that he is very
descriptive. From chapter two, “November 1940 – June 1941: Loudmouth Jew”, I will
translate pages 63 to 67. In this section there exists a great balance between dialogue and
descriptions. Also, this section contains quite a lot cultural specific elements, and depicts the
atmosphere of the novel – fear, patriotism etc – in a very distinct manner. In these two
sections pragmatic and cultural specific translation problems will probably cause most
difficulties, and I intend to solve this by using preserving translation strategies mostly. The
third fragment that will be translated can be found in chapter three, “June 1941 – December
1941: Following Christians”, pages 96 to 100. This fragment contains the dialogue between
Philip and his brother Sandy that was discussed in the chapter on dialogue in the theoretical
part of this thesis. As said before in chapter 2.3.2.1, there are no marks that indicate that this
46
fragment comprehends a dialogue, so I will pay extra attention to language during the
translation process. The last fragment that will be translated comes from the last chapter,
“October 1942: Perpetual Fear”. In this fragment, page 331 to 334, dialogue plays an
important role again, though it is very different from the dialogue between Philip and Sandy.
This dialogue was discussed earlier as well, and mostly shows a clear distinction between two
characters, and show how dialogue can help to make characters unique.
After the translation is finished, I will discuss whether making an analysis contributes
to the end result or not (much), and which translation problems and strategies were most
important during the translation process rather than before the process.
6.1 My vision on translating
I think translating is a process that will be different each time a translator works on a
text; strategy depends on the text and its author, not on the translator. When translating, I
think it is more important to translate style, flow and rhythm than to translate ‘words’. Of
course translators need to look at sentence structure and lexis, and analyse the work, but in my
opinion he or she should feel enough freedom to not translate a text word for word, but as a
greater whole, staying true to the original. I think theoretical knowledge should form the base
of being successful in practice.
As stated in article one of the Dutch contract for translations of literary works
“translator[s] commit to the delivery of a flawless Dutch translation that is faithful to content
and style, directly from the original work” (GAU 1). This means that a translator, after
signing the contract, will do everything in his or her power to create a translation most
suitable to the original work, without diminishing in style or content. It means that it is the
translator’s responsibility to determine which options are best in that particular case. The
contract also states that major changes are to be discussed between original author and
translator, mediated by the publisher, so the end result of a translation will always be true to
47
the original work (GAU 1).
In case of PAA I want to focus on fluency of language as well, because there are
certain differences between the English and Dutch language: in English shorter sentences are
often fluent, whereas that same message would need to be conveyed with a more lengthy
sentence in Dutch to maintain fluency. It is part of Roth’s style to make use of abrupt
language, however, I think fluency should be prioritised over style in general to support the
language.
6.2 Translation problems and strategies
As most problems where discussed in chapter two, I will only briefly discuss the less
mentioned title and the fact/fiction aspect of the novel.
6.2.1 Title
In my opinion, the title of a novel is one of the most important aspects of the work, as
it has to appeal to the future reader and in a way tells something about the story the book
contains. The Plot Against America is very straight forward, and refers to Lindbergh’s
presidency and what effects that has. I do not think the title of this novel will form a great
problem; I think it is important that the translated title will still come across as a strong title
that appeals to the imagination. However, I do think that some of the effect will be lost, as
“America” does not have a patriotic meaning in the Netherlands. So if I were to translate the
title with e.g. “Het complot tegen Amerika”, the strength of the effect will decrease, because
the target audience will feel less addressed than the American audience, which might
experience a sense of solidarity with the characters in the novel.
6.2.2 Facts vs fiction
PAA is a fictional history. As the Dutch target culture is not informed on American
history on a same level as the Americans, this might be a problem. It is possible that readers
of the translation are less able to understand where facts stop and fiction begins and vice
48
versa. The only way to solve this problem in a way is to add extra information, in the text or
by means of footnotes, but I do not deem that acceptable. Therefore I presume that readers
could look up what they do not understand or that they will surrender to the suspension of
disbelief. Another possibility would be to emphasize the fact that the historic content of the
novel is fictional in the blurb, so the readers are prepared before starting to read the book.
Similar to the Jewish-American identity problem solution, I will let the translation remain
‘American’, as part of the style.
6.3 Translation The Plot Against America
Het complot tegen Amerika2
Juni 1940 – Oktober 1940
Stem Lindberg of stem oorlog3
pp. 1 – 5
Angst beheerst deze herinneringen4 5, een oneindige6 angst. Natuurlijk is iedereen tijdens zijn
jeugd wel eens doodsbang geweest7, al vraag ik me af of ik een minder bange jongen zou zijn
2
As discussed in chapter 6.2.1, the title does not have the same strong connotation in Dutch as it will probably
have in the American culture, as the target audience will probably not feel they are being addressed. Still I feel
this would be the best translation, as it does reflect the content of the novel; the novel is entirely about the
United States and the effect the war has on the culture, so even if I were to change the title, the novel as a
whole would not have the same effect on the target audience as on the source audience.
3
The original chapter title is really to the point and contains eight syllables. Maintaining the number of syllable
is possible, in order to maintain the slogan style, for example by translating “war” with “strijd”. “Strijd”,
however, does not have the same effect as war. Therefore, the title would have a syllable more (“Stem op
Lindbergh of stem op oorlog”), or one less, as is now the case. I chose for a syllable less, to maintain the
conciseness.
4
I thought it was important that “fear” / “angst” would be the first word; it starts the original novel, and with
that sets a tone for the rest of the story.
5
- Kooman decided to start his translation with “memories”. By doing this, in a way he puts emphasis on that
rather than on “fear”, which in my opinion should be the case. (p.9)
6
“oneindig” is the best option to translate “perpetual” in my opinion, because it feels more strongly than for
example “eeuwigdurend”. I think it is more imaginable.
7
I think the sentence is more fluent in Dutch by adding a subject (“iedereen”), instead of focusing on the
“childhood” alone. The effect comes across more strongly, than when it would have been more abstract.
49
geweest als Lindbergh geen president was, of als ik geen afstammeling van Joden was8 9.
Toen in 194010 de eerste schok kwam – het kandidaatstellen van Charles A.
Lindbergh, Amerika’s internationale luchtvaartheld, door de Republikeinse Partij in
Philadelphia11 - was mijn vader negenendertig, een verzekeringsagent zonder diploma’s, die
net iets minder dan vijftig dollar per week verdiende, wat genoeg was om de belangrijkste
rekeningen op tijd te kunnen betalen, maar niet veel meer. Mijn moeder – die een
lerarenopleiding12 wilde doen, wat niet kon vanwege de kosten, die thuis als secretaresse
werkte nadat ze de middelbare school had afgemaakt, die ervoor zorgde dat we ons tijdens het
dieptepunt van de Depressie13 niet arm voelden door het inkomen dat mijn vader elke vrijdag
aan haar overdroeg net zo zorgvuldig in te zetten zoals ze het huishouden runde – was
zesendertig. Mijn broer, Sandy, een eersteklasser14 met het tekentalent van een wonderkind,
was twaalf en ik, een jongen die een klas had overgeslagen en in groep vijf zat – en een
beginnend postzegelverzamelaar die net als miljoenen andere kinderen werd geïnspireerd
door ’s lands voornaamste filatelist, President Roosevelt – was zeven15.
We woonden op de eerste etage van een kleine twee-en-een-half-gezinswoning in een
8
In the original work there is a case of repetition (“hadn’t been […] hadn’t been”), so I wanted to maintain that,
as it emphasized that it is the case (“geen…was […] geen…was”).
9
- In Kooman’s translation, the repetition is left out. Also, by translating “offspring” with “als ouders”, I feel that
it narrows down the protagonist’s background. (p. 9)
10
There are some examples of Nord’s pragmatic translations problems in this fragment, especially when it
comes to places. Roth describes the neighbourhood in which he grew up extensively, and it is possible that it is
harder to imagine something with this descriptions for a Dutch audience than for an American audience, as the
difference in time and place are very specific.
11
I have simplified “Convention”, by just stating the party, as I am not sure that Dutch readers will be familiar
with the American Nominating Convention system. This is described by Aixelá as an absolute universalisation,
which enhances the credibility of the text in the target culture.
12
- Kooman translated “teachers’ college” with “kweekschool”, which in my opinion fits nicely to the old
fashioned atmosphere of the novel. (p. 9)
13
- In his translation, Kooman added “Grote” to “Depression”, applying thus Aixelá’s intratextual explanation
strategy. In my opinion this is an unnecessary addition, as it is quite a familiar term for a period in history that is
also know in the Dutch target culture. Also, he makes it too specific, whereas Roth chose to only use
“Depression”. (p. 9)
14
I chose to apply Aixelá’s strategy of limited universalisation here, in order to indicate the difference between
the classes that Philip and Sandy attend. Therefore I also used “groep 5”, instead of for example “de derde
klas”.
15
The way Roth has summed up the family and some of their most important characteristics is quite typical for
his style; long and complex, but in the end understandable. While translating, I had to check several times if the
sentences were still fluent and fitting.
50
groene straat16 met houtbetimmerde huizen17 voorzien van puntdaken en een rode bakstenen
bordes en daarvoor een piepklein tuintje dat werd omsloten door een lage heg. De wijk
Weequahic was net na de Eerste Wereldoorlog gebouwd op boerenkavels aan de
onontgonnen, zuidwestelijke kant van Newark, een stuk of wat straten vorstelijk18 vernoemd
naar zegevierende marinecommandanten uit de Spaans-Amerikaanse oorlog.19 Het
filmtheater20 heette, naar FDR21 22’s vijfde neef – en Amerika’s zesentwintigste president –
Theodore Roosevelt:23 The Roosevelt24. Onze straat, Summit Avenue, lag aan de top van de
heuvel in de wijk, op een hoogte als elke in een havenstad die zelden dertig meter boven het
peil van het getij van het zoute moeras uitkomt in het noorden en oosten van de stad en van de
diepe zeearm die pal op het oosten van de luchthaven staat, die rond de olietanks van het
schiereiland Bayonne zwenkt en daar opgaat in de New York Bay om langs het
Vrijheidsbeeld de Atlantische Oceaan in te stromen.Als we uit het raam aan de achterkant van
16
In Dutch there is not one simple word that is similar to “tree-lined”. In my opinion it would be too much to
describe that there are rows trees on both sides of the street, so I simplified the sentence by just mentioning
the trees in the street.
17
- Kooman chose to paint the picture by adding “wooden” to the family house, instead of to all the houses of
the street. I do not think that is a good solution, as is limits the description to that house in particular; if that
house is wood-timbered, it does not mean that each house in the street looks like that, whereas it is more likely
that if the entire street has houses like that, their house will be the same. He also chose to break the sentence
down into two separate sentences, which I think alters Roth’s style; he uses very extended descriptions, which I
think need to be maintained as much as possible. Especially in this case, as it does not necessarily add
something, such as fluency, to the translation. (p. 10)
18
This sentence can be seen as quite chaotic, so I chose to make the translation a bit more fluent, by changing
the order of words in some cases.
19
I decided to start a new sentence here, because in my opinion the sentence becomes more fluent and less
awkward to read.
20
I chose the word “filmtheater”, because I think that word is more fitting looking at the period of time in
which the novel takes place. “Bioscoop” would have a different effect in my opinion; it would make it more
modern.
21
I decided to maintain “FDR”, as it will become clear that Franklin Delano Roosevelt is meant by this
abbreviation, and because I think it emphasises the political beliefs and preferences of the Roth family in the
novel.
22
- Kooman chose to specify who was meant by “FDR”. He did not, however, explain who his “verre
bloedverwant” was. I think that is would have been wise to consider what the target audience could know or
could deduce from the context, in order to create a balance between maintaining certain CSE’s and specifying or
explaining them. (p. 10)
23
As I do not expect that Dutch readers will know who Roosevelt’s fifth cousin is, I decided to be more specific
by adding the full name, which, I assume, will sound more familiar. Aixelá describes this as an intratextual
explanation, and is here used to clear up ambiguity.
24
Because it is the name of a building, I chose to maintain the English name (by mainting “the”, instead of using
“de”). As it is foreign, I decided to use italics and add a capital “T” for “the”. Also, as the sentence now has a
different structure than the original sentence, I added a colon as to ‘announce’ the name of the theater.
51
onze slaapkamer richting het westen keken, konden we soms ver landinwaarts de donkere
boomgrens van het Watchung-gebergte25 zien; een laaggelegen bergketen omgeven door grote
landgoederen en welvarende, dunbevolkte buitenwijken, die de uiterste grens van de bekende
wereld vormde – en op zo’n dertien kilometer26 afstand van ons huis lag. Een paar straten
verderop richting het zuiden bevond zich de wijk voor de arbeidersklasse, Hilltown, waarvan
de inwoners overwegend niet-joods waren. De grens van Hilltown markeerde het begin van
Union Country, een compleet ander New Jersey.
In 1940 waren we een gelukkig gezin27. Mijn ouders waren vriendelijke, gastvrije
mensen, hun vriendenkring bestond uit28 mijn vaders collega’s van kantoor en de vrouwen die
samen met mijn moeder hadden geholpen met het oprichten van de oudervereniging van de
pasgebouwde Chancellor Avenue School, waar mijn broer en ik leerlingen waren. Iedereen
was Joods29. De mannen uit de buurt hadden of een eigen zaak – 30de buurtsnoepwinkel,
groentewinkel, juwelier, kledingzaak, meubelzaak, pompstation en delicatessenwinkel – of
hadden kleine, industriële werkplaatsen bij de Newark-Irvington spoorlijn, of waren
zelfstandige loodgieters, elektriciens, schilders en vuurstokers31. Of ze waren voetvolk
verkopers zoals mijn vader, elke dag buiten in de straten van de stad en in de huizen van
25
In this sentences I added some details – such as “gebergte”, another intratextual explanation – to make the
sentence more clear and fluent. Though long, the original sentence is quite simple, but the translation needed
to be a bit longer to be easy or pleasant to read.
26
I changed “miles” into “kilometers”, as the American units of measurements are hardly known or applied in
the Dutch language and culture. Aixelá describes this translation strategy as linguistic (not-cultural) translation.
27
- Kooman chose to translate “family” with “gezinnetje”. I think that “-tje” is an unnecessary addition,
although I assume that he chose to do that to emphasise the happy, carefree time the family at that time still
experienced. (p. 10)
28
- In his translation, Kooman used the word “keuze” for “culled”. I find this quite a strange choice of word, as it
has a, in my opinion, cold and unfriendly ring to it. (p. 10)
29
I wanted to maintain the short, three-syllabic sentence that exists in the original text, because it is to the
point, and with the short, one-syllabic words, a strong effect and emphasis is created. I found, however, that it
does not sound fluent in Dutch. I tried “Ieder was Joods”, “Allemaal Joods”, “Iedereen Joods”, but it sounds
unfinished. Therefore I chose to make the sentence four-syllabic; it is still short and the emphasis remains.
Also, I wrote “Joods” with a capital, as the Roth family and their neighbours are not practicing Jews, but merely
belong to the Jewish people.
30
I left out “owner”, because in Dutch that is already implied by saying “een eigen zaak hebben”.
31
- Kooman translated “boilermen” with “boilermontuer”, though in the context I am quite certain that this is
not what Roth meant. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boilerman#English) (p. 11)
52
mensen, leurend met hun koopwaar voor een commissieloon. De Joodse dokters en advocaten
en de succesvolle handelaars die in het centrum grote winkels hadden, woonden in
eengezinswoningen in straten die zich afsplitsen vanaf de oostelijk helling van de heuvel aan
Chancellor Avenue, dichterbij het grasachtige en bosrijke Weequahic Park: honderdtwintig
aangelegde hectares waarvan het botenmeer, het golfveld en de draverijbaan een scheiding
vormden tussen de wijk Weequahic en de fabrieken en scheepshallen die stonden opgesteld
langs Route 27 en het viaduct aan de Pennsylvania Railroad ten oosten daarvan en de
snelgroeiende luchthaven ten oosten daarvan en de uiterste grens van Amerika weer ten
oosten daarvan: de depots en dokken van Newark Bay, waar ladingen vanuit de hele wereld
werden gelost. In het westen van de wijk, het parkloze deel waar wij woonden, woonden een
aantal leraren en apothekers, maar verder bevonden zich maar weinig geleerden onder onze
directe buren en zeker geen rijke ondernemers- of producentfamilies. De mannen werkten
vijftig, zestig, zelfs zeventig uur of meer per week.32 De vrouwen werkten de hele tijd en
deden, nauwelijks met hulp van arbeidsbesparende apparaten, de was, streken overhemden,
stopten sokken, keerden kragen, naaiden knopen aan, maakten wolgoed motecht, poetsten
meubels, veegden en boenden de vloeren, lapten ramen, reinigden de gootstenen, badkuipen,
toiletten en fornuizen, zogen stof uit kleden, verzorgden de zieken, deden boodschappen,
kookten maaltijden, gaven eten aan familie, ruimden kasten en lades op, liepen schilderwerk
en klusjes in huis na, regelden de godsdienstige plechtigheid, betaalden rekeningen en hielden
de boekhouding van het gezin bij en letten tegelijkertijd op de gezondheid van de kinderen,
kleding, reinheid, onderwijs, voeding, gedrag, verjaardagen, discipline en moreel33. Een paar
vrouwen werkten aan de zijde van hun man in de familiewinkels34 in de nabijgelegen
32
I started a new sentence here, as I think it will enhance fluency.
- Kooman added “kinderen” at the end of the list, which fits much better, as Roth meant all the tasks in
combination with the children. (p. 11)
34
- In his translation, Kooman uses “familiezaakjes” for “family-owned stores”. In my opinion this sounds quite
belittling, while I think that the narrator/protagonist has quite a bit of respect for the people in his environment.
(p. 11)
33
53
winkelstraten, waarbij de oudere kinderen hen na school en op zaterdagen hielpen door
bestellingen te bezorgen en op de voorraad te letten en schoon te maken.
Werk was hetgeen dat voor mij de buren echt identificeerde en onderscheidde, religie
niet zozeer. Niemand in de buurt had een baard of kleedde zich in de stijl van de ouderwetse
Oude Wereld of droeg een keppeltje buitenshuis of binnen de huizen waar ik regelmatig met
mijn jeugdvriendjes rondhing. De volwassenen uitten niet langer een streng geloof op de
herkenbare manier, als ze al strenggelovig waren. En behalve de oudere winkeliers, zoals de
kleermaker en de koosjere slager – en de ziekelijke of afgetakelde grootouders die uit
noodzaak bij hun volwassen kinderen woonden – sprak bijna niemand in de omgeving met
een accent. Tegen 1940 praatten Joodse ouders en hun kinderen in de zuidwestelijke hoek van
New Jersey’s grootste stad in Amerikaans-Engels met elkaar, dat meer klonk als de taal die
werd gesproken in Altoona of Binghampton, dan als de fameuze dialecten die werden
gesproken door onze Joodse tegenhangers in de vijf stadsdistricten aan de andere kant van de
Hudsonrivier.35 Op het raam van de slagerij en de lateien van kleine synagogen in de buurt
was Hebreeuwse belettering aangebracht, maar nergens anders (behalve dan op de
begraafplaats) kon men zijn oog laten vallen op het alfabet van het gebedenboek, maar wel op
de bekende letters van de moedertaal die altijd werd gebruikt door vrijwel iedereen voor elk
denkbare doeleinde, hoog of laag. Bij de kiosk die voor de snoepwinkel op de hoek stond,
kochten tien keer meer klanten de Racing Form dan de dagelijkse Jiddische krant de Forvetz.
Israël bestond nog niet, zes miljoen Joden waren nog niet opgehouden te bestaan en
het plaatselijke belang van het verre Palestina (onder Brits mandaat sinds de opheffing van de
laatste wijdverbreide provincies van het verdwenen Ottomaanse Rijk door de zegevierende
Bondgenoten in 1918) was een raadsel voor me. Wanneer een vreemdeling die wel een baard
had en die nog nooit zonder hoed op was gezien eens in de zoveel maanden na het donker
35
I added “rivier” here, an intratextual explanation as described by Aixelá, because I think it will be more
imaginable for the Dutch target audience than just “de Hudson”.
54
kwam om in gebroken Engels om een bijdrage te vragen voor de oprichting van een Joods
nationaal vaderland in Palestina, snapte ik, geen onnozel kind, niet precies wat hij deed in ons
trapportaal. Mijn ouders gaven mij of Sandy een paar muntjes om in zijn collectebus te
stoppen, edelmoedig, dacht ik altijd, gegeven uit vriendelijkheid om de gevoelens van de
arme oude man niet te kwetsen die het elk jaar opnieuw niet in zijn hoofd leek te krijgen dat
we al drie generaties lang een vaderland hadden. Ik zwoer elke morgen trouw aan de vlag van
ons vaderland op school. Ik zong over zijn wonderen met mijn klasgenoten tijdens
samenkomsten. Ik vierde zijn nationale feestdagen vol enthousiasme en zonder te twijfelen
aan mijn affiniteit met het vuurwerk voor Onafhankelijkheidsdag36, of de kalkoen voor
Thanksgiving, of de dubbele wedstrijd voor de nationale herdenkingsdag37 38. Ons vaderland
was Amerika.
Toen stelden de Republikeinen Lindbergh kandidaat en veranderde alles.
November 1940 – Juni 1941
Vrijpostige Jood39
pp. 63 – 67
Terwijl hij parkeerde waarschuwde meneer40 Taylor41 ons dit keer dat het Lincoln
Memorial42 een bouwwerk was als geen andere op de wereld en dat we ons erop moesten
36
I left out the date and specified the holiday by using the name. I am not sure if every Dutch reader will
associate the fourth of July with Independence Day, but I assume they do know of the holiday.
37
Instead of making this date more specific, I made it more abstract by applying Aixelá’s limited
universalisation strategy. As Dutch culture also knows a day on which people commemorate wars and the
fallen, I think they will understand “nationale herdenkingsdag” better than the cultural specific “Decoration
Day” (now known as Memorial Day).
38
- Kooman chose to generalise and explain “Decoration Day”, as did I, but did not explain “Fourth of July”.
Thanksgiving is quite well known in the Dutch culture, but I am not sure about the other American national
holidays. So, if Kooman considered that when translating this part of the fragment, I would have thought he
would explain of rephrase “Fourth of July”. (p. 13) In general, Kooman applied Aixelá’s intratextual explanation
and limited universalisation in this part of the fragment.
39
- Kooman translated the chapter title with “Joodse blaaskaak”. I like his solution, but again I think he changes
the emphasis. In the original text, “Jew” is used by the threatening man in a much more negative, insulting
manner than “loudmouth”. In the translation however, “Joodse” is still negative, but creates much less of an
impact when being an adjective in combination with a term of abuse. Saying it out loud emphasises this shiftm
which seems to decrease the level of anti-Semitism. (p. 55)
55
voorbereiden overweldigt te raken. Vervolgens vergezelde hij ons van het parkeerterrein naar
het grote gebouw met pilaren en de brede marmeren trap die ons langs de zuilen de hal binnen
voerde naar het hoge standbeeld van Lincoln in zijn omvangrijke43 troon der tronen en44 het
gebeeldhouwde gezicht zag er in mijn ogen uit als de meest heilig mogelijke samensmelting:
het gezicht van God en het gezicht van Amerika in één.
Somber zei mijn vader: “En ze schoten hem45 zo neer, die smerige honden.46”
Met zijn vieren stonden we aan47 de voet van het beeld, die zo belicht was dat alles aan
Abraham Lincoln kolosaal groot leek. Wat normaal gesproken voor groot moest uitgaan,
verbleekte hierbij en geen kind of volwassene kon zich verweren tegen de indrukwekkende
stemming van overdrijving.
40
I considered using the same abbreviation (“Mr.”) as is used in the original text, because it is concise, and it
contributes to the American feel of the text. I chose, however, to use “meneer” instead, because I think it is
more fluent to read and because mr. is an abbreviation of the title for a person with a Master of Laws.
41
“Mr. Taylor” is a practical man, who speak in quite an abrupt manner. He does not say more than he deems
necessary, and what he says is as short as possible. He is very friendly, and wants to inform the Roth family as
much as he can on entertaining facts. In order to convey his character in the translation, I think it is best to
mostly focus on the abrupt manner of speaking in the dialogue, as that supports his businesslike character.
42
When it comes to titles or names of buildings, I apply a strategy of repetition, as described by Aixelá. As said,
it increases the exotic nature of the text, and enhances the American feel about the text. It is possible,
however, that is also increases an effect that does not exist in the original text; for the source audience, these
CSE’s are known, for the target audience, it is something new, and something they feel differently about than
the people that live in the country that is described.
43
I chose to use the word “omvangrijk” here, instead of for example ‘ruim’, because the word “capacious” itself
is a long word, which enhances the effect of the big statue the family sees.
44
I used an extra word here, instead of punctuation, because I think that enhances the fluency of the text,
which was needed in Dutch, rather than in the original text.
45
- Kooman put emphasis on the fact that it was Lincoln who was shot, rather than on emphasising the
shooting. I think that was a good choice, which I did not consider. (p. 75)
46
As said in the theoretical part of this thesis, Herman Roth is a passionate man, especially when it comes to
politics. He is not afraid to utter his opinion. In this part of the novel, in which dialogue plays an important part,
it becomes clear that some of his characteristics are reflected in the manner in which Herman speaks. He
emphasizes what he thinks, by using terms of abuse, and by taking a provocative stand. In the original text it
can be seen that Philip Roth uses quite short sentences in Herman’s parts of the dialogue, supporting his
statement-like manner of speech. This is quite difficult to maintain in the translation, as such short sentences
would not be seen as fluent. Therefore it is necessary to add more text than is present in the source text, so I
made sure to preserve the strong language, and hopefully the force behind each statement Herman utters.
47
I left out “directly”, because I felt it would be a unnecessary addition in Dutch.
56
“Als je er toch aan denkt wat dit land met zijn grootste presidenten doet…”
“Herman,” smeekte mijn moeder, “begin nou niet.48 49”
“Ik begin helemaal niks. Het was een zeer tragische gebeurtenis. Vinden jullie ook
niet, jongens? De moord op Lincoln?”
Meneer Taylor kwam naar ons toe en zei zacht: “Morgen gaan we naar Ford’s Theatre, waar
hij werd neergeschoten en naar Petersen House aan de overkant, waar hij stierf.”
“Ik merkte net op, meneer Taylor, dat het toch godvergeten is wat dit land zijn
grootse50 mannen aandoet.”
“Goddank voor president Lindbergh,” zei de stem van een vrouw een paar meter
verderop. Ze was al op leeftijd en stond in haar eentje51, raadpleegde een reisgids en haar
opmerking leek aan niemand gericht te zijn en toch werd ze52 op een of andere manier
gedreven doordat ze mijn vader hoorde.
“Lincoln met Lindbergh vergelijken53? Sjonge jonge,” klaagde mijn vader.
De oudere vrouw bleek niet alleen te zijn, maar met een excursiegroep, waaronder zich
een man bevond van mijn vaders leeftijd die haar zoon zou kunnen zijn.
48
Bessie Roth is portrayed as a strong woman, who is becoming more and more fearful due to the Second
World War. In this fragment, she is very fragile and scared, which is conveyed by her being quite silent, uttering
her insecurities and letting her family know how she feels. When she does say something, her sentences are
short, which I am preserving in the translation. I also think it is important to use language that supports her
fragility, for example “Ik kan dit niet meer aan”, instead of something like “Ik kan hier niet meer doorgaan”, or
“Ik kan hier niet meer tegen. “Ik kan dit niet meer aan” shows that she is out of control of the situation,
whereas the other to examples give the impression that she is involved and can stop things.
49
- Kooman added “weer” to this sentence, which I think is not necessarily useful, but does emphasise the
differences in behaviour between Bessie and Herman quite nicely. (p. 76)
50
- I chose “groots” here for “great”, whereas Kooman chose “groot”. I think there is a slight difference in that
choice of words, as “groots” seems to be even more impressive than “groot”, and has more of a connotation
with wisdom and being impressive than “groot”. (p. 76)
51
Again, I left out a detail of the original text to avoid an unnecessary repetition in the translation, because I
think it would make the text unpleasant to read if I left it in.
52
I chose to make her the one to be “prompted” instead of the remark, as it is more natural in Dutch.
53
- Kooman added “Gaan we” to this sentence, which in my opinion places much more of a threatening
atmosphere to the situation that I think Roth intended. It seems more of a personal attack on the elder lady,
and I think that Roth intended Herman to ‘attack’ Lindbergh. (p. 76)
57
“Zit je54 soms wat dwars?” vroeg hij assertief op ons afkomend aan mijn vader.
“Mij niet, hoor,” antwoordde mijn vader hem.
“Zit je soms wat dwars over wat de dame net zei?”
“Nee hoor, meneer. ’t Is een vrij land55.”
De man gaapte mijn vader lang aan, toen mijn moeder, toen Sandy, toen mij. En wat
zag hij? Een keurige, gespierde man van één meter vijfenzeventig lang met een brede
borstkas, knap op een sobere manier, met grijzig-groene ogen en uitdunnend bruin haar dat op
de slapen kort geknipt was en zo zijn oren op een komischer manier dan nodig was aan de
wereld toonde. De vrouw was tenger, maar sterk en ze was netjes gekleed, een lok van haar
golvende, donkere haar hing over een wenkbrauw en ze had nogal ronde wangen met wat
rouge op en een prominente neus en gedrongen armen en goedgevormde benen en smalle
heupen en de levendige ogen van een meisje die half zo jong was. Beide volwassenen bezaten
een overdaad aan voorzichtigheid en een overdaad aan kracht en hadden een stel jongetjes
nog nat achter de oren bij zich, jonge kinderen van jonge ouders, vurig attent en gezond en
alleen onverbeterlijk in hun optimisme.
En de conclusie die de vreemdeling trok uit deze observaties demonstreerde hij door
spottend zijn hoofd te bewegen. Daarna liep hij, luid sissend om niemand te misleiden over
zijn beoordeling van ons, terug naar de oudere vrouw en hun toeristengroepje met langzame
stappen die, samen met het silhouet van zijn brede rug, een waarschuwing leek te moeten
doen overkomen. Daar vandaan hoorde we hem naar mijn vader verwijzen met “een
vrijpostige Jood”, iets later gevolgd door de oudere vrouw die verklaarde “alles te doen om
hem een klets voor z’n gezicht te geven”.
54
I chose to use “je” here instead of “u”, as I do not think that the man had enough respect in this context to
use “u”.
55
This sentences was much shorter in the original text, but in order to be fluent and convincing, I found I
needed to add certain words, like “hoor”, to maintain the same quick-witted tone of Herman in the original
text. Also, I added quite substantially to “Free country”, because it would sound a bit awkward in Dutch if I only
used “Vrij land” as a translation. In order to maintain the snappy feel of the language, I kept the sentence as
short as possible, uses one-syllabic words and abbreviated “Het”.
58
Meneer Taylor ging ons vlug voor naar een kleinere zaal vlakbij de grootste, waar het
Gettysburg Address56 in een plaquette stond gegraveerd en de Bevrijding van slaven57 op een
wandschildering stond afgebeeld.
“Zulke woorden moeten horen op een plek als deze,” zei mijn vader met een verstikte
stem die sidderde van verontwaardiging. “In de tempel van een man als deze!”
Ondertussen zei meneer Taylor, wijzend naar het schilderij: “Zien jullie58 dat? Een
engel van waarheid bevrijdt een slaaf.”
Maar mijn vader zag helemaal niks. “Denk je59 dat je hier zoiets zou horen als
Roosevelt nu president was? Mensen zouden niet durven, zouden er niet over hebben
gepeinsd in de tijd van Roosevelt…,” zei mijn vader. “Maar nu Adolf Hitler onze grote
bondgenoot is, nu Adolf Hitler dikke maatjes is met de president van de Verenigde Staten –
nou, nu denken ze dat ze alles maar kunnen maken. Het is schandalig. Het begint in het Witte
Huis…”
Hoe kon het anders dan dat hij het alleen tegen mij had?
Mijn broer slenterde achter meneer Taylor aan en vroeg hem dingen over de wandschildering
en mijn moeder probeerde zichzelf tegen te houden iets te zeggen of doen, worstelend tegen
de emoties die haar eerder vandaag in de auto overmanden – en toen veel minder terecht dan
op dit moment.
“Moet je dat eens lezen” zei mijn vader, doelend op de gedenkplaat die het Gettysburg
56
- Kooman translated this CSE, applying a strategy I think comes closest to Aixelá’s Absolute universalisation.
The Gettysburg Address is something purely American, it does not exist (or I believe has another name) in Dutch
culture, so by translating it, the Dutch target audience perhaps understands better what the notion of the
concept is. (p. 77)
57
As I assume that Dutch readers will not be familiar with the Emancipation Proclamation, I chose to apply
Aixelá’s intratextual explanation strategy again, and translate the word “Emancipation” and add a detail to
make the picture a bit clearer for the target audience.
58
- Kooman translated “you” with “u”. I think this is quite ambiguous, as it can be plural, but in the context
seems to be singular and referring to only Herman. I interpreted in a way “Mr. Taylor” addresses the entire
family. (p. 77)
59
- Kooman again used the more formal “u”, which I think he uses to refer to “Mr. Taylor”. I interpreted this,
however, as a more generally uttered sentence; Herman is referring to no one in particular, so formal language
seems out of place in my opinion. (p. 77)
59
Address vertoonde. “Gewoon eens lezen. ‘Ieder mens is gelijk geschapen’.”
“Herman,” snikte60 mijn moeder, “ik kan dit niet meer aan.”
We gingen weer naar buiten en kwamen samen op de bovenste trede. De hoge schacht
van het Washington Monument stond vijfhonderd meter verderop, aan de andere kant van de
spiegelende plas die aan de voet van de verhoogde toegang naar het Lincoln Memorial lag.
Rondom stonden iepen geplant. Het was het mooiste vergezicht dat ik ooit had gezien, een
patriottisch paradijs, de Amerikaanse Hof van Eden lag voor ons en wij stonden daar dicht op
elkaar, de verdreven familie.
“Hoor eens,” zei mijn vader en trok mij en mijn broer naar zich toe. “Ik denk dat het
tijd is om allemaal even een uiltje te gaan knappen. We hebben allemaal een lange dag achter
de rug. Ik stel voor dat we terug gaan naar het hotel en even een uurtje of twee uitrusten. Wat
denk je61 ervan, meneer Taylor?”
“Dat is aan u, meneer Roth. Ik dacht dat ik de familie na het avondeten wellicht met
een ritje door het donkere Washington zou kunnen plezieren, als alle beroemde monumenten
verlicht zijn.”
“Zo mag ik het horen,” antwoordde mijn vader hem. “Klinkt goed, toch, Bess?”
Maar mijn moeder was niet zo makkelijk op te vrolijken als Sandy en ik. “Lieverd,” begon
mijn vader tegen haar, “we zijn één idioot tegen gekomen. Twee idioten. We hadden wel naar
Canada kunnen gaan en daar net zo’n rotzak tegen kunnen komen. We laten het reisje niet
door zoiets verpesten. Laten we even lekker uitrusten, wij allemaal, meneer Taylor zal op ons
wachten en dan gaan we weer verder. Moet je eens kijken,” vervolgde hij met zijn arm
uitgestrekt. “Dit is iets dat elke Amerikaan gezien moet hebben. Draai je eens om, jongens.
Kijk nog maar eens goed naar Abraham Lincoln.”
60
- Kooman used “hijgen” for “gasp” in his translation. This is adequate, but to me it seems that Bessie is trying
to stay on the background, inconspicuous. To me, “hijgen” seems to be something that is quite noticeable, or
loud. (p. 78)
61
- Kooman translated “you” with “u”. I think that would be better than “je”, considering the relationship
between Herman and Mr. Taylor, and considering the frame of time the novel is set in. (p. 78)
60
We deden wat hij ons opdroeg, maar het was niet langer mogelijk om te voelen hoe de
verrukking van vaderlandsliefde me binnenstebuiten keerde. Terwijl we aan onze lange
afdaling langs de marmeren trap begonnen, hoorde ik achter ons wat kinderen aan hun ouders
vragen: “Is dat hem echt? Ligt hij daar onder al dat spul begraven?” Mijn moeder liep vlak
naast me op de trap en ze probeerde zich te gedragen als iemand bij wie paniek niet als een
razende in zich ronddoolde en plotseling had ik het gevoel dat ik degene was die ervoor moest
zorgen dat ze niet brak, dat ik ineens een dapper nieuw wezen moest worden, verbonden met
een deel van Lincoln zelf. Maar het enige dat ik kon doen toen ze me haar hand aanreikte,
was die pakken en stevig vasthouden als het onvolwassen wezen dat ik was, een jongen wiens
postzegelverzameling nog altijd het grootste deel van zijn kennis van de wereld
representeerde.
Meneer Taylor bracht in de auto de rest van de dag in kaart. We zouden terug gaan
naar het hotel, slapen, en om kwart voor zes zou hij ons komen ophalen en naar een restaurant
brengen. We zouden nog een keer naar de cafetaria in de buurt van Union Square kunnen
gaan, waar we ook hadden geluncht, of hij zou ons een aantal laaggeprijsde restaurants
waarvan hij voor de kwaliteit instond kunnen aanraden. En na het eten zou hij ons een
rondleiding van Washington in de avond geven.
“Jij raakt nergens door van streek62, of wel meneer Taylor?” vroeg mijn vader.
Hij knikte slechts neutraal met zijn hoofd.
“Waar kom je vandaan?” vroeg mijn vader hem.
“Uit Indiana, meneer Roth.”
“Uit Indiana. Stel je dat eens voor, jongens. En wat was daar je woonplaats?” vroeg
mijn vader hem.
62
- Again, this is a matter of interpretation; I imagined that with “faze” Herman referred to the events that had
just taken place. In his translation, however, it seems that Kooman’s Herman is referring to the rest of the
evening. Considering the theme of fear in this novel, Kooman’s interpretation is a bit more light-hearted, as if
the anti-Semitism has not affected the family as well. (p. 79)
61
“Had ik niet. Mijn vader is ‘n63 monteur. Repareerde boerderijmachines. We64
verhuisden steeds.65”
“Nou,” zei mijn vader met een reden die nooit duidelijk had kunnen zijn voor meneer
Taylor, “ik neem mijn petje af voor je, meneer. Je zou trots op jezelf moeten zijn.”
Weer knikte meneer Taylor alleen maar: hij was een zakelijke man in een strak pak en
met onmiskenbaar militaire trekjes in zijn werkwijze en houding – als een verborgen persoon,
behalve dan dat er niets te verbergen viel, alle onpersoonlijke dingen waren gewoon te zien.
Hij praatte veel over Washington D.C., hield strak zijn mond over al het andere.
Toen we terug waren bij het hotel, parkeerde meneer Taylor zijn auto en vergezelde
ons naar binnen, alsof hij niet alleen onze gids was, maar ook onze begeleider, wat maar goed
was, want binnen in de lobby van het kleine hotel ontdekten we dat onze vier koffers naast de
receptie stonden.
Juni 1941 - December 1941
Christenen volgen66
pp. 96 – 100
En dus liepen we de trap op en ontdekten, gelukkig, dat onze vader al van de overloop
verdwenen was en met zijn auto was vertrokken voor zijn avondrondes.
In bed, een uur later. Alle lichten in huis zijn uit. We fluisteren.
63
“Mr. Taylor” has a very abrupt manner of speaking. In order to enhance that I chose to shorten certain
words, like ‘een’.
64
In order to maintain the abrupt manner of speaking, I wanted to keep sentences and words short as possible.
It was necessary, though, to add words in Dutch at some points in the sentences, because the abruptness that
is acceptable in English, would only cause for unnatural Dutch language.
65
- Here I think Kooman has maintained Mr. Taylor’s curtly manner of speaking very well, so Roth’s distinction
between characters through dialogue is very clear. (p. 79)
66
This chapter title seemed quite ambiguous to me, as “Following Christians” can be read as someone who
follows Christians or Christians who are following someone else. I found it not possible to maintain the
ambiguity in the translation, so I interpreted the title as ‘people following Christians’, as Sandy goes and live
with a Christian family in this chapter, and because it becomes clear in this chapter that being Jewish is
dangerous, so measurements are being taken.
62
Vond je het daar echt leuk67?
Ik vond het heel leuk68 69.
Waarom was het zo leuk?
Het leven op een boerderij is leuk. Je staat daar vroeg in de morgen op en daarna ben je de
hele dag buiten en ze hebben allemaal dieren. Ik heb heel veel dieren getekend, ik zal je m’n
tekeningen laten zien. En we kregen elke avond roomijs. Dat maakt mevrouw Mawhinney
zelf. Ze hebben daar verse melk.
Alle melk is vers.
Nee, we haalden het rechtstreeks uit de koe. Dan was het nog warm. We zetten het op het
fornuis en koken het en scheppen zo de room er van af en dronken het dan op.
Kon je er dan niet ziek van worden?
Daarom kook je het.
Maar je drinkt het niet meteen als het uit de koe komt.
Dat heb ik wel eens geprobeerd, maar dat is niet lekker. Het is te romig.
67
In this dialogue it can be seen that there is quite a clear relationship between the brother. Philip is a curious
little boy, perhaps a little naïve. He asks a lot of questions. In contrast with Sandy, his language is quite simple,
his sentences short. As said before, Dutch often needs more words than English to be fluent, but besides that, I
try to use as much simple language as possible in the translation. Also, I think it is important to maintain a
childlike feel about the sentences uttered by Philip.
68
Sandy is a bit older than Philip, and because of his exchange to Kentucky, he feels he now has a lot of
knowledge. His sentences and descriptions are more elaborate than those of Philip, but still it is clear he too is
only a child. What I think is most important in this dialogue part of the novel, is to make clear that Sandy
changed in Kentucky. He opposes Judaism more, and, as said, thinks more of himself now. As stated by Philip,
he also talks differently. I tried to show that in the translation, by using abbreviations (“m’n”, “’t”, “’tuurlijk”,
“’n’” etc), and change regular spelling to indicate spoken language. By changing the spelling, I hope it becomes
clear that the language or the manner of speaking has changed as well, because it emphasises the change in
Sandy.
69
- The story is set in the 1940s. However, I think that, when there are no particular words that indicate oldfashioned language in the source text, old-fashioned words are note necessary in the translation. In my opinion,
using “mieters” creates a certain atmosphere that Roth might not have intended. It is quite specific. (p. 110)
63
Heb jij een koe gemolken?
Orin heeft me laten zien hoe het moet. Het is moeilijk. Orin liet het eruit spuiten en dan
kwamen de katten eraan en die probeerden de melk op te vangen.
Had je daar vriendjes?
Nou, Orin is mijn beste vriend.
Orin Mawhinney?
Jep70. Hij is even oud. Hij gaat daar naar school. Hij werkt op de boerderij. Hij staat om vier
uur ’s ochtends op. Hij doet klusjes. ’t Is niet zoals bij ons. Hij gaat met de bus naar school.
Het is ongeveer drie kwartier met de bus en dan komt hij ’s avonds thuis en doet nog meer
klusjes en doet zijn huiswerk en gaat naar bed. Hij staat de volgende ochtend om vier uur op.
Het is hard werken als boerenzoon.
Maar ze zijn rijk, toch?
Ze zijn best wel rijk, ja.
Hoe komt het dat je nu zo praat?
Waarom zou ik ’t niet doen? Zo praten ze in Kentucky. Je zou mevrouw Mawhinney ’s
moeten horen. Zij komt uit Georgia. Ze maakt elke ochtend pannenkoeken als ontbijt. Met
spek. Meneer Mawhinney rookt zijn eigen spek. In een rookhok. Hij weet hoe dat moet.
At je elke ochtend spek?
70
In Dutch there is not a real equivalent for “Yeah”. I considered to translate the word with the more standard
“Ja”, but I think it is important to really put an emphasis on the fact it is (fictive) spoken language, and also
indicate that Sandy is speaking differently now. Therefore I chose to use the word “Jep”, which sounds similar
to “Yeah”, but has a more Dutch feel about it. I think that Dutch readers will understand that Sandy means to
say ‘yes’ here, but the effect is maintained.
64
Elke ochtend, ja. Het is heerlijk. En als we op zondag opstonden aten we pannenkoeken met
spek en eieren. Van hun eigen kippen. De eieren – ze hadden bijna rooie71 dooiers, die waren
zo vers. Je raapte ze bij de kippen op en nam ze mee naar binnen en at ze daar zo op.
Heb je ham gegeten?
We aten ongeveer twee keer per week ham als avondeten. Meneer Mawhinney maakt z’n
eigen ham. Het is een speciaal familierecept. Hij zegt dat-ie ham niet wil eten als het niet een
jaar wordt opgehangen om te rijpen.
Heb je worst gegeten?
Ja. Hij maakt ook worsten. Dat malen ze in een worstenmolen. Soms kregen we worst in
plaats van spek. Da’s lekker. Varkenskoteletten. Die zijn ook lekker. Die zijn heerlijk. Ik snap
eigenlijk niet waarom we dat niet eten.
Omdat het dingen van een varken zijn.
Nou en? Waarom denk je dat boeren varkens houden? Voor mensen om d’r naar te kijken?
Het is hetzelfde als al het andere dat je eet. Je eet ’t gewoon en het is heel lekker.
Blijf je dat nou eten?
‘Tuurlijk.
Maar het was daar wel heel heet, hè?
Overdag wel. Maar we gingen tussen de middag naar binnen en dan aten we broodjes tomaat
met mayonaise. Met limonade – met heel veel limonade. We rustten binnen even uit en
gingen dan weer naar de velden buiten om te doen wat we maar moesten doen. Wieden. De
71
I chose to translate “red” with “rooie”, in order to incorporate the feeling of spoken language in this part of
dialogue. In the original text, Roth uses the word “’em”, for ‘them’, but as I could not abbreviate “ze” in such a
way, I chose to find other parts of the egg description to maintain the effect to a certain extent.
65
hele middag wieden. Het maïs wieden. De tabak wieden. We hadden ook een groentetuin,
Orin en ik, die wiedden we ook. We werkten met de boerenarbeiders en er waren ook wat
negers, dagloners. En d’r was één neger, Randolph, die was een pachter en die was
opgeklommen als dagloner. Hij is een eersterangs boer, zegt meneer Mawhinney.
Kon je de negers verstaan?
‘Tuurlijk.
Kan je er eentje nadoen?
Ze zeggen “bakka”72 voor tabak. Ze zeggen “’k seg”73 ‘k seg dit en ‘k seg dat74. Maar ze
praten niet zoveel. Ze werken vooral. Als de varkens geslacht moeten worden, heeft meneer
Mawhinney Clete en Ouwe Henry om de varkens te ontweien. Dat zijn negers, ze zijn broers
en ze nemen de ingewanden mee naar huis en eten ze gebakken. Chitterlings.75
Zou je dat ook eten?
Zie ik er soms uit als een neger? Meneer Mawhinney zegt dat negers bij de boerderij weg
beginnen te gaan, omdat ze denken dat het in de stad meer verdiend kan worden. Soms werd
72
I found it very difficult to translate such strong dialect, because there are several options to consider; do I not
translate and consider it a CSE that can be maintained? Do I look up a Dutch dialect that can be compared to
this dialect and replace it? Or, as I have done, will I translate the words to something none-existing that is
similar to some extent to the sound and feel of the original text? I maintained the word “bacca”, but chose to
write it “bakka”, in order to fit to the Dutch “tabak”.
73
The “I ‘clare” was quite a bit more difficult. I presume it is in some way an abbreviation for ‘I declare’, so I
tried to find something that can be compared with that. Most literally would be ‘Ik verklaar’, but to me that
would be too unnaturally and in a way forced. I did want to maintain some sort of abbreviation, and chose to
shorten “ik” to “’k”. The only thing not translated was therefore “clare”. After thinking quite hard I came up
with ‘zeggen’, and in order to preserve the feeling of spoken language and dialect, I decided to write is with an
‘s’.
74
- Here, Kooman chose to maintain the original words used in the source text. By applying this repletion, the
exotic notion of the “Negroes” is maintained. However, I think it creates an even bigger distance than is already
the case in the source text, as there is not only a distance between two American boys and American Negroes,
but also between a Dutch target audience and Americans in general and American Negroes. (p. 113)
75
As chitterlings are a typical meal for the south of America, I decided to maintain that word, especially as it is
previously explained in detail what it is. To indicate it is a foreign word, I chose to write it in italics.
66
Ouwe Henry op zaterdagavonden opgepakt. Omdat-ie drinkt. Meneer Mawhinney betaalt de
boete om hem vrij te krijgen, omdat hij ‘m op maandag weer nodig heeft.
Hebben ze schoenen?
Sommige. De kinderen lopen op blote voeten. Meneer en mevrouw Mahwinney geven ze hun
kleren als zij ze niet meer hoeven. Maar ze waren gelukkig.
Zeiden ze nog wat over antisemitisme?
Daar denken ze niet eens over na, Philip. Ik was de eerste Jood die ze ooit hebben ontmoet.
Dat zeiden ze. Maar ze hebben helemaal niks gemeens gezegd. Dat is Kentucky. De mensen
daar zijn heel aardig.
En, ben je blij dat je weer thuis bent?
Op zich. Ik weet het niet.
Ga je volgend jaar terug?
‘Tuurlijk.
Wat als het niet mag van mam en pap?
Dan ga ik toch.
Alsof het kwam doordat Sandy spek, ham, varkenskoteletten en worst had gegeten, leek het
alsof de verandering van onze levens niet meer te bedwingen was. Rabbi Bengelsdorf kwam
bij ons eten. Tante Evelyn nam hem mee.
Oktober 1942
Oneindige angst
pp. 331 – 334
67
Mijn moeder76 zei: “Seldon, je moet iets gaan eten. Daar zul je wat van kalmeren.
Loop naar de koelkast en pak iets te eten.”
“Ik heb vijgenkoekjes77 op. Die zijn allemaal op78.”
“Seldon, ik bedoel dat je een maaltijd moet eten. Je moeder zal heel snel thuis komen,
maar je kunt daar niet gaan zitten wachten tot ze je te eten komt geven. Je moet zelf voor je
eten zorgen en dan bedoel ik geen koekjes. Leg de telefoon even neer, loop naar de koelkast
en kom dan terug om me te vertellen wat je allemaal zou kunnen eten.”
“Maar we bellen op lange afstand.”
“Seldon, doe wat ik je zeg.”
Tegen Sandy en mij, die dichtbij haar stonden in de koffiekamer, zei mijn moeder: “Ze
is heel erg laat en hij heeft nog niets gegeten en hij is helemaal alleen en ze heeft nog niet
gebeld en het arme kind is over zijn toeren en uitgehongerd.”
“Mevrouw Roth?”
“Ja, Seldon.”
“Er staat kwark79. Maar dat is oud. Het ziet er niet zo goed uit.”
“Wat staat er nog meer?”
76
In contrast with the second fragment translated, in which she was very fragile and scared, Bessie Roth is
strong in this last fragment. She is resolute and strong, and feels the need to be in control of and for Seldon. In
the second fragment she was subordinate to those who frightened her, here she is dominant over her fear and
over Seldon. This can be seen in her manner of speech: she speak with clear, short words and sentences, tells
Seldon exactly what to, though trying to comfort him as well. She is very precise in details like what needs to be
done and used, and in time. In this fragment she also hardly shows her emotions.
77
The original text states Seldon ate Fig Newtons. As these type of cookies are not known in Dutch culture and
as I think the brand name of the cookies are not of the utmost importance, I chose to apply Aixelá’s strategy of
limited universalisation by merely describing the cookies.
78
Seldon is a young boy, even more naïve than Philip. He is scared, because his mother is not home, but he still
has childlike innocence, wanting to speak with his friends, feeling it is strange to eat breakfast for dinner etc.
Even though he is subordinate to Bessie, he does not do what she asks him to do immediately, because he does
not seem to comprehend the entire situation. In order to maintain this, I tried to translate the sentences in
such a way that Seldon does not seem really scared; he seems a bit indifferent, and I wanted to support that by
letting him speak in a bit longer sentences. Also, he deviates from the subject a little sometimes, which
emphasises his indifference as well.
79
“Pot cheese” literally is ‘potkaas’ in Dutch. I do not think that this type of cheese is very familiar in Dutch. It is
mostly comparable with ‘cottage cheese/ hüttekäse’ in Dutch, but those options did not seem fitting for this
text in my opinion. Therefore I chose “kwark”, as it is quite similar.
68
“Bieten. In een kom. Kliekjes. Die zijn koud.”
“En verder nog iets?”
“Ik zal nog eens kijken, wacht even.”
Toen Seldon de telefoon dit keer even neerlegde vroeg mijn moeder aan Sandy: “Hoe
ver is het rijden naar Danville vanaf de familie Mawhinney?
“Ongeveer twintig minuten met een vrachtauto.”
“In mijn dressoir,” zei mijn moeder tegen mijn broer, “in de bovenste la, in mijn
portemonnee heb ik hun telefoonnummer. Het staat op een papiertje, in mijn bruine
portemonneetje. Pak dat alsjeblieft even voor me.”
“Mevrouw Roth?” zei Seldon.
“Ja, ik ben er nog.”
“Er is boter.”
“Is dat alles? Is er geen melk? Is er geen sap?”
“Maar dat is ontbijt. Dat is geen avondeten.”
“Hebben jullie Rice Krispies, Seldon? Of andere ontbijtgranen?80”
“’Tuurlijk,” zei hij.
“Pak dan maar degene je het lekkerst vindt.”
“Rice Krispies.”
“Pak de Rice Krispies maar en pak de melk en het sap en dan wil ik graag dat je
ontbijt voor jezelf maakt.”
“Nu?”
“Doe alsjeblieft wat ik je zeg,” gebood ze hem. “Ik wil dat je gaat ontbijten.”
“Is Philip er ook?”
80
I chose to make “Corn Flakes”, in this case a brand name, more abstract, so I could maintain the more
American cultural specific “Rice Krispies”, as it is immediately explained to the Dutch target audience what
“Rice Krispies” are.
69
“Ja, die is hier ook, maar je kan nu niet met hem praten. Je moet eerst even wat eten.
Over een half uur zal ik je terugbellen, nadat je hebt gegeten. Het is nu tien over tien, Seldon.”
“Is het in Newark tien over tien?”
“In Newark én in Danville. Het is precies even laat in beide plaatsen. Ik zal je
terugbellen om kwart voor elf”, zei ze tegen hem.
“Mag ik dan met Philip praten?”
“Ja, maar nu wil ik eerst dat je aan de keukentafel gaat zitten met alles dat je nodig
hebt. Ik wil dat je een lepel en een vork en een servet en een mes gebruikt. Eet rustig. Gebruik
servies. Gebruik een kom. Ligt er ook wat brood?”
“Dat is oud. Het zijn maar een paar sneetjes.”
“Hebben jullie een broodrooster?”
“’Tuurlijk. Die hebben we met de auto hier mee naar toegenomen. Weet je nog, die
ochtend dat we met z’n allen de auto inlaadden?”
“Luister naar me, Seldon. Concentreer je. Rooster wat brood en eet je ontbijt81. En
gebruik de boter. Smeer je brood. En schenk voor je zelf een groot glas melk in. Ik wil dat je
een stevig ontbijt neem en als je moeder thuiskomt, wil ik dat je tegen haar zegt dat ze ons
onmiddellijk moet bellen. Ze kan hierheen bellen op mijn kosten. Zeg maar dat ze zich geen
zorgen hoeft te maken over de rekening. Het is belangrijk dat wij weten dat ze thuis is. Ik zal
je hoe dan ook over een half uur terugbellen, dus ga nergens heen.”
“Het is donker buiten, waar zou ik heen moeten?”
“Seldon, eet je ontbijt op.”
“Is goed.”
“Dag,” zei ze. “Tot straks. Ik bel je terug om kwart voor elf. Blijf waar je bent.”
Daarna belde ze naar de familie Mawhinney. Mijn broer gaf haar het papiertje aan
81
I chose the more general “ontbijt” over for example “granen” or “Rice Krispies”, in order to avoid an
unnatural sentence or needless repetition.
70
waar het telefoonnummer op stond en ze vroeg de telefonist om haar door te verbinden en
toen iemand aan de andere kant van de lijn opnam, zei ze: “Spreek ik met mevrouw
Mawhinney? Met mevrouw Roth. Ik ben de moeder van Sandy Roth. Ik ben vanuit Newark,
New Jersey, Mevrouw Mawhinney. Mijn excuses dat ik u wek, maar we hebben uw hulp
nodig voor een kleine jongen die alleen in Danville is. Pardon? Ja, natuurlijk, ja.
Tegen ons zei ze: “Ze roept haar man even.”
“O nee,” kermde mijn broer.
“Sanford, daar is het nu geen tijd voor. Ik vind het ook niet leuk dat ik dit moet doen.
Ik besef me dat ik deze mensen niet ken. Ik besef me dat ze niet zijn zoals wij. Ik weet dat
boeren vroeg naar bed toe gaan en dat ze vroeg opstaan en dat ze heel hard werken. Maar
vertel jij me maar eens wat ik dan zou moeten doen. Dat kleine jongetje draait nog door als hij
daar nog veel langer alleen wordt gelaten. Hij weet niet waar zijn moeder is. Er moet daar
iemand zijn. Hij heeft voor zijn leeftijd al teveel te verduren gehad. Hij is zijn vader verloren.
En nu is zijn moeder vermist. Begrijp je dan niet wat dat betekent?”
“’Tuurlijk wel,” zei mijn broer verontwaardigd. “’Tuurlijk begrijp ik dat.”
“Goed. Dan begrijp je vast ook dat iemand hem moet gaan ophalen. Iemand –“ maar
meneer Mawhinney kwam aan de telefoon en mijn moeder legde aan hem uit waarom ze hem
belde en hij stemde meteen toe in alles dat ze hem vroeg. Nadat ze had opgehangen zei ze:
“Gelukkig is er nog wat fatsoen in dit land. Gelukkig is er nog ergens fatsoen.”
“Zei ik toch,” fluisterde mijn broer.
Ik zou haar nooit meer zo buitengewoon vinden als ik die avond deed en niet alleen
vanwege de overgave waarmee ze telefoontjes naar en van Kentucky accepteerde en pleegde.
71
7. Conclusion
In the introduction I started with the question:
What difficulties or problems are to be found in translating Philips Roth’s The Plot
Against America, and what are the possible and most desirable options to solve those
problems?
After analysing the source text thouroughly, I came to the conclusion that dialogue and
sentence structure form the two most important aspects of Philip Roth’s style in The Plot
Against America. As pointed out in chapter 2.3.2. dialogue is a great tool to construct different
personality for each character, and to enhance that personality and the story situation. By
analysing the character beforehand, and by considering their emotions and the setting in
certain fragments, I was able to focus more on what needed to be maintained, and in which
cases I could allow myself more freedom when it came to dialogue. For example, in the last
dialogue, between Mrs. Roth and Seldon, it was very important that the subordinate/dominant
roles were clear, and that the personalities – in combination with current emotions – were
unique and suitable for the characters. Therefore I tried to use strict, to the point language
when Bessie Roth was talking, and more elaborate, naïve language when Seldon was
speaking.
Overall, I thought it was very important that the text was fluent. As mentioned several
times throughout my analysis and in the footnotes, English sometimes needs less words to
still be fluent, whereas Dutch often needs more words. Therefore I truly tried to consider
where it was possible to use as little words as possible, but did not doubt to add words when
that would in my opinion enhance fluency, and therefore the quality of the translation. In the
first fragment, Roth makes use of a lot of very elaborate descriptions, and I tried to maintain
as much as possible, but because of the so important fluency, I sometimes altered the
structures.
72
In order to see what different strategies would result in, I also compared the end result
of my translation with the translation – published in 2004 – of Ko Kooman. The specific
differences have been discussed in the footnotes already, so here I will briefly discuss the
general aspects that I noticed. Firstly, I noticed that Kooman’s version is a bit more formal
and that an old-fashioned atmosphere is more present than in my translation, or in the source
text. In my opinion it would not have been necessary, but on the other hand, it does in some
way overcome the pragmatic problem of time, as the use of words as “kweekschool” will help
to enhance the atmosphere.
When it comes to cultural specific elements, Kooman mostly preserves the original
word. In some cases, for example “de Rede van Gettysburg”, he does choose to find an
alternative, which he does – I think – in order to make the text more understandable.
Lastly, where I considered repetitions, lengths of sentences, counting syllables, or with
which word the novel should start, I think Kooman did not. I believe he mostly looked at what
Roth wanted to convey generally, and then tried to translate that as fluently as possible. In my
opinion, as I have already stated in the footnotes, that decreases Roth’s style. Of course, he
probably had much pressure of a deadline, as the translation was published shortly after the
source text, though I think it is a shame that the subtle aspects of the text that form Roth’s
style were lost in the translation. In my opinion starting with the word “fear” made it so
strongly clear what this novel was about, and in Kooman’s translation that is gone, as well as
certain repetitions that really emphasise what is being said.
After comparing my translation with the translation of Kooman, I truly noticed that by
analysing the text so thoroughly beforehand, I was able to notice the subtle style elements of
Roth’s work and consider them more while translating. By analysing a text, a translator has to
read and re-read a text quite often, so that the meaning will be truly formed in the mind, and
the translator can focus more on how that message or meaning is conveyed as well. I believe
73
that by analysing The Plot Against America, I have delivered a sufficient translation, and was
more confident, alert and consistent in details, than I would have been without the analysis.
74
Works cited
- Aixela, Javier Franco. “Cultuurspecifieke elementen in vertaling.” Trans. Annemijn
van Bruchem and Hilda Kruithof. Denken over vertalen. 2nd ed. Vantilt, 2010. Pp.
197-211.
- Berman, Paul. “The Plot Against America”. The New York Times. 03 October 2012.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/books/review/03BERMAN.html?pagewanted=
all> 04 May 2012.
- Brumme, Jenny and Anna Espunya. “Background an justification: research on fictional
orality and its translation”. Pp. 7 – 28.
- Cadera, Susanne M. “Translating Fictive Dialogue in Novels”. Pp. 35 – 48.
- Chesterman, Andrew. “Vertaalstrategieen: een classificatie.” Trans. Ans van
Kersbergen. Denken over vertalen. 2nd ed. Vantilt, 2010. Pp. 153-172.
- GAU, LUG and VvL. “Modelcontract voor de uitgave van een vertaling van een
literair werk.” 2007. Website: Vereniging van Letterkundigen.
<http://www.vvl.nu/php/download.php?txt_id=338&suffix=1>. 24 March 2012.
- Hawes Publications. “Adult New York Times Best Sellers List 2004”. 2012.
< http://www.hawes.com/2004/2004.htm>. 04 May 2012.
- Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. “Philip Roth”. 2012.
<http://www.hmhbooks.com/authors/roth/>. 04 May 2012.
- Internet Movie Database. “Philip Roth”. 1990 – 2012.
< http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0744980/> 04-05-2012.
- Leech, Geoffrey and Short, Mick. Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English
Fictional Prose. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2007. Pp. 60-94.
- Liukkonen, Petri. “Philip (Milton) Roth (1933 -)”. Books and writers. 2008.
< http://kirjasto.sci.fi/proth.htm>. 04 May 2012.
- Nord, Christiane. “Tekstanalyse en de moeilijkheidsgraad van een vertaling.” Trans.
Cornelie van Rinsum and Henri Bloemen. Denken over vertalen. 2nd ed. Vantilt,
2010. Pp.145-152.
75
- Roth, Philip. The Plot Against America.New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 2004.
Pp. 1-5, 63-67, 96-100, and 331-334.
- Roth, Philip. Het complot tegen Amerika. Trans. Ko Kooman. Amsterdam: J.M. Meulenhoff
B.V. 2004. Pp. 9-13, 75-80, 110-115, and 360-362.
- Rubin, Derek et al. Who We Are – On Being (and Not Being) a Jewish American
Writer. New York: Schocken Books. 2005. Pp. 42 – 63.
- Stinson, John J. ““I Declare War”: A New Street Game and New Grim Realities in
Roth’s The Plot Against America”. ANQ. Vol. 22, no. 1. State University of New
York Fredonia.1 January 2009. Pp. 42 – 49.
- The Philip Roth Society. “Biography”. 2012.
< http://rothsociety.org/philip-roth/biography/>. 04 May 2012.
- VanDale Online woordenboeken.
<http://surfdiensten2.vandale.nl.proxy.library.uu.nl/vandale/zoekservice/?type=
pro>. 04 May 2012.
- Wiktionary. “Boilerman”. 02 July 2011.
< http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/boilerman#English>. 04 May 2012.
- Zollman, Joellyn. “Jewish Immigration to America: Three Waves”. My Jewish Learning.
2012.
< http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Modern_History/17001914/Emigration/To_America.shtml>. 04 May 2012.
76