Familiarly Foreign: Realia and affect in the English and Finnish translations of Er ist wieder da by Timur Vermes

(1)

1

Jani Kokkonen

FAMILIARLY FOREIGN

Realia and affect in the English and Finnish translations of Er ist wieder da by Timur Vermes

Faculty of Information Technology and Communication Sciences

Bachelor’s Thesis January 2021

(2)

ABSTRACT

Jani Kokkonen: ”Familiarly Foreign: Realia in the English and Finnish translations of Er ist wieder da by Timur Vermes”

Bachelor’s Thesis Tampere University

Degree Programme in English Language, Literature and Translation January 2021

This thesis analyses the treatment of realia in the Finnish and English translations of the satirical novel Er ist wieder da (2012) by Timur Vermes, with a secondary focus on the effect that these translatorial choices have on the affective nature of the texts.

The thesis relies primarily on Ritva Leppihalme’s categorization of translation strategies for realia in identifying and categorizing the realia in the prologue and two opening chapters of the novel Er ist wieder da and its translations into Finnish and English. The concept of affect is treated with a focus on the difference between geographical and emotional distance when considering domestication and foreignization as outlined by Kaisa Koskinen.

The research builds on an initial identification of realia in the chosen chapters followed by a categorization of the strategies used for them in the translations. This data is then used as basis for a more in-depth analysis of the similarities and differences between the utilization of the strategies as well as their effect on the affective nature of the texts.

A very clear difference was observed in the affective distance created by the two translations, with the English translations favoring strategies considered traditionally foreignizing to create a more comfortable and domesticated reading experience by distancing the reader from the National Socialist themes of the novel.

This is contrast with the original novel and the Finnish translation, which both use very familiar everyday language to bring the reader uncomfortably close to these same themes. In short, the original and the Finnish translation use language to tie together modern Germany and that of the National Socialist era, while the English translation seeks to separate the two.

Keywords: realia, domestication, foreignization, affect

The originality of this thesis has been checked using the Turnitin OriginalityCheck service.

(3)

TIIVISTELMÄ

Jani Kokkonen: ”Familiarly Foreign: Realia in the English and Finnish translations of Er ist wieder da by Timur Vermes”

Kandidaatintutkielma Tampereen yliopisto

Englannin kielen, kirjallisuuden ja kääntämisen kandidaattiohjelma Tammikuu 2021

Tässä tutkielmassa tarkastellaan reaalioiden käsittelyä Timur Vermesin satiirisen Er ist wieder da -romaanin englannin- ja suomenkielisissä käännöksissä. Pääasiallinen fokus on reaalioiden käännösstrategioissa ja niiden vaikutuksessa käännösten affektiiviseen luonteeseen. Tutkielman pääasiallinen tavoite oli selvittää, millaisia strategioita käännöksissä on käytetty, miten valitut strategiat vaikuttavat tekstin emotionaaliseen etäisyyteen ja onko käännösten välillä huomattavia eroja. Toissijainen tavoite oli myös selvittää, onko Leppihalmeen mallia mahdollista mukauttaa satiirisen tekstin erityisvaatimuksiin tutkielman rajoitusten puitteissa.

Teoriapohja on reaalioiden osalta Ritva Leppihalmeen erottelu seitsemästä strategiasta reaalioiden kääntämiselle. Affektin käsittely nojaa puolestaan vahvasti Kaisa Koskisen hahmottelemaan eroon maantieteellisen ja emotionaalisen kotouttamisen ja vieraannuttamisen välillä.

Reaaliat tunnistettiin sekä lähdetekstin että käännösten prologista ja kahdesta ensimmäisestä luvusta, minkä jälkeen käännöksissä käytetyt strategiat luokiteltiin Leppihalmeen mallin mukaisesti. Näin kerättyä aineistoa käytettiin sitten pohjana käännösten väliselle vertailulle sekä analyysiin käytettyjen strategioiden vaikutuksista affektiiviseen etäisyyteen.

Käännösten välillä havaittiin merkittävä ero affektiivisessa etäisyydessä, ja tämä ero näkyi juuri maantieteellisen ja affektiivisen etäisyyden eroina. Englanninkielinen käännös käyttää maantieteellisesti vieraannuttavia strategioita luodakseen etäisyyttä lukijan ja tekstin synkempien aiheiden välillä, mikä tekee lukukokemuksesta tunnetasolla helppolukuisemman, ja näin ollen kotouttaa tekstiä affektiivisella tasolla.

Suomenkielinen käännös sen sijaan hyödyntää maantieteellisesti kotouttavia strategioita avainkohdissa tuodakseen tekstin epämiellyttävän lähelle lukijaa. Konkreettisesti tämä ero näkyy siinä, että englanninkielinen käännös pyrkii jatkuvasti erottamaan kielellisesti Natsi-Saksan nyky-Saksasta, kun taas suomenkielinen käännös ja lähdeteksti sitovat niitä yhdeksi erottamattomaksi jatkumoksi.

Leppihalmeen malli soveltui tutkielman tarkoituksiin ja satiirin erityisvaatimuksiin melko hyvin. Joitakin ongelmia kuitenkin esiintyi muun muassa sanaleikkien kohdalla sekä tapauksissa, joissa reaalioihin viitattiin epäsuorasti.

Avainsanat: reaalia, kotouttaminen, vieraannuttaminen, affekti

Tämän julkaisun alkuperäisyys on tarkastettu Turnitin OriginalityCheck –ohjelmalla.

(4)

1. Introduction

The thesis will look at cultural realia in the English and the Finnish translation of the prologue and the two opening chapters of the novel Er ist wieder da (2012) by Timur Vermes, translated as Look Who’s Back into English by Jamie Bulloch in 2014 and into Finnish in 2016 under the title Täällä taas by Tähti Schmidt. The aim of the thesis is firstly to see if there are any noticeable differences in the strategies utilized in the English translation as opposed to the Finnish translation, analyze the effect these differences have on the affective nature of the texts, and to see if the model chosen for analysis is flexible enough to account for the specific requirements of satire, wordplay and affect.

Realia are culturally specific words and expressions referring to the material world within a certain culture. They are a common cause for problems in translation, because they represent phenomena that might not exist in the target culture or might carry meanings and connotations that the closest equivalents in the target cultures do not.

Er ist wieder da is a satirical work that uses German history, especially the time of the Nazi regime and the character of Adolf Hitler, to critique and parody the German culture both past and present.

As a natural symptom of this approach the text is filled with realia relating to both modern German life and to an average German’s common knowledge of the World War II era, and therefore poses a distinct challenge to a translator working to bring the story to a non-German audience. This results in an especially interesting comparison between the English and the Finnish translations, as while neither culture is very far removed from the German culture, each of the three cultures has distinct similarities and differences with the other two, causing some realia to be fully translatable in one language while presenting much larger difficulties in the other.

My hypothesis is that the factors mentioned above result in noticeable differences in the strategies employed by the two translators. I expect this to be especially noticeable in the treatment of the Nazi terminology, as the countries have very different histories and conventions about the communication of those histories, Germany and Great Britain being the loser and victor,

respectively, and Finland shifting between fragile alliances and neutrality. For this reason, I also expect to see differences in the affective or emotional distance created in the texts. The inclusion of this last aspect is partially motivated by the difference observed in the affective response to the English translation as opposed to the other two texts by myself personally.

The main tool for analysing the translations is Ritva Leppihalme’s (2001) categorisation of translation strategies for realia. The conceptualization and analysis of affect in the texts draws

(6)

2

mainly from the writings on the subject by Kaisa Koskinen (cf. 2012). The foundation of the analysis is the collection of the realia in the chapters being examined, followed by categorization of these realia according to Leppihalme’s model. This data is then used to examine the differences in the strategies utilized in the two translations, possible reasons for them and the effects they have on the overall affective effect of the texts.

2. Culture, Realia and Satire in Translation

An often-cited definition of culture in translation studies is that of the prevailing social norm and the expression of it in a given society (Reiss & Vermeer, 1986, 17–18). The reason this is especially useful when studying translation is that it inextricably ties culture and language together. Therefore, the distance between cultures is measured not only by how different the everyday experience is, but also the limitations and freedoms given to the expression of that experience by the language used in the culture.

The term cultural distance is generally used to describe the degree to which norms and values in a country differ from those in another (Hofstede, 2001). Here, to accommodate for the wider concept of culture defined above, the term is also extended to include differences in the shared history that shape these norms and values, and the everyday experience that is directed and affected by them.

When the cultural distance is short, both material and the linguistic aspects of culture can often overlap. Terms, expressions and concepts can be shared to a point, but no two cultures

conceptualize the world around them in exactly the same way, and in literature it is often the translator’s responsibility to choose how to bridge this distance.

2.1 Foreignization and domestication

A very commonly used way of categorizing the ways in which translator can bridge the cultural distance between the source and target cultures is Venuti’s concept of foreignization and

domestication. It is often simplified into the idea of the translator either bringing the reader to the writer (foreignization) and bringing the writer to the reader (domestication), but while Venuti does use these expressions borrowed from Schleiermacher to explain his concept, the model he himself puts forward is a more complex one (Munday 2012, 218). As Koskinen (2012, 15) points out, the operative word throughout Venuti’s writing on domestication is fluency:

A domesticated, or tamed, translation does not unsettle or challenge the reader in any way. In that sense it is indeed reader-oriented. But fluency means more than just using homebrewed variants and deleting unfamiliar references to the source culture; it also means not being challenging or provocative, not renewing the literary tradition. Domesticating, in this sense, is taking the easy way out, not taking risks.

(7)

3

So, if a culture is used to foreign terminology in a given context, the very act of translating that terminology in a “domesticating” way will have a foreignizing effect on the text as a whole.

Foreignization is also more complex than the simplification might make it appear. Firstly, Venuti does not provide a ready-made set of foreignizing translation strategies (albeit some can be

inferred), and in fact still considers foreignization as a fundamentally domestically-based strategy, as the ways of making the foreign visible in a text are confined to those accessible in the target system (Koskinen 2012, 15).

With this more nuanced approach to domestication and foreignization the classic Schleiermacherian imagery of the reader or the writer moving towards the other is problematic:

This imagery of a physical distance, with either the reader or the writer being asked to bridge that distance, may obscure the fact that we are actually dealing with degrees of emotional affinity more than with degrees of cultural affinity. (Koskinen 2012, 17)

To accommodate for this discrepancy between physical and emotional distance this thesis will attempt to not categorize translation strategies as simply foreignizing or domesticating, but also seeks to distinguish between geographical and emotional distance when considering them.

2.2 Modulation of Affect

Affect as a concept is multifaceted and its specific definition varies between disciplines, and writers within disciplines. At base level, however, affect relates to the subconscious bodily reactions to stimuli although it has also been used as an umbrella term for these stimuli (Koskinen 2012) as well as the more conscious emotions that are derived from them (Cvetkovich 2007, 13). It is this latter sense in which the term is used in this thesis.

Affects are very heavily shaped by individual traits and acculturation to the society we live in and the norms it places on affects. We learn to expect certain affects in certain situations, and we learn to link these affects to certain emotions either negative or positive.

In the context of literary translation especially, affect can function as an intensifier of the reading experience – a text with no affect leaves the reader unable to become emotionally invested in the narrative. It is therefore important that translators be at the very least aware of the affective aspects of translation. (Koskinen 2012, 20).

In relation to domestication and foreignization Koskinen (2012) presents the effects they have on affect as follows:

Domesticating strategies can be used for arousing interest by linking the new to the already familiar, and by relying on aesthetic solutions that are familiar and thus not likely to cause negative affect. Conversely, with its in-built aim of unfamiliarity, foreignizing also has a lot of potential for affect (either positive or negative), and although it has greater risk of arousing negative affect, it is less likely to leave the reader entirely unaffected.

(8)

4

Therefore, from the point of view affect, elements traditionally considered foreignizing such as foreign loan words can in fact have a very comforting and domesticating effect if that is the convention in the target culture – a British reader, for example, might find it strange reading about the German air force instead the Luftwaffe in the context of Nazi Germany. On the other hand, a highly geographically domesticated translation in a culture not used to it can have an uncanny, foreignizing effect, as was the case in the language policy instituted in Finland in the lead up to and early years of its EU membership (Cf. Koskinen, 2012).

It should be noted that affect is by definition a difficult subject of study, as it deals with the

subconscious, the ‘gut feeling’ of an individual, and is therefore very hard to measure or categorize effectively outside of neuroscience. It is, however, a concept inseparably linked to culture,

language, literature and translation, and as such serves as a very useful way of theorizing the motives for and effects of certain translatorial choices.

In Er ist wieder da, the aspect of affect is especially fruitful source of analysis, since the text is (1) dealing with the very negative affect of the Nazi history, (2) mimicking the intentionally

emotionally affective style of Adolf Hitler’s writing and speeches, and (3) trying to elicit positive affects through the use of humor and satire. The experience and history of Nazi Germany, in particular, are also different in the three cultures being examined: the English-speaking sphere of the United Kingdom and the United States were the victors, Finland impartial and later a reluctant ally to both the Axis and allied powers at various points, and Germany the perpetrators. This difference between the experiences of the third Reich have also been visible in the treatment of this history in these cultures. The English-speaking sphere has had the least problematic discussion of this era, painting it as a stereotypical victory of good over evil. Germany has had a very troubled yet open discussion of its national shame over the years that has directed the attitudes and legislation regarding the symbols of the era. In Finland the narrative of the second world war tends to focus on the war between Finland and Russia, downplaying the affiliation with Nazi Germany, and even in academic circles the topic has been sometimes met with resistance and silence (cf. Gullberg 2011).

Due to these different histories the language used to describe these events also vary between the cultures, as different strategies are used to verbalize and conceptualize the past. Much of these differences as well as differences in the ways of defining modern everyday experience are expressed through realia.

(9)

5

2.3 Realia in translation

In translation studies, realia are words and expressions referring to extralinguistic objects and concepts that are specific to the culture in which a language is spoken. They are effectively the opposite of the cultural universals, which are realities that remain unchanged from culture to culture (Leech 1974, 238). As pointed out by Ketevan and Pareshishvili (2014) concepts related to realia can be found in translation studies as far back as Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), who speak of

“differences of metalinguistic character” that “represent a combination of the relations connecting social, cultural and psychological phenomena to linguistic structures”.

In translation studies today there are several typologies for realia and realia-adjacent concepts.

Nedergaard-Larsen (1993, 211), for example, has four main categories for what she calls

extralinguistic culture-bound problem types: geography, history, society, and culture, which then divide into more detailed subcategories. Kujamäki (1998, 26–27), on the other hand, uses a six- category model consisting of society, leisure activities, proper names, nature, mythology and everyday items while talking about realia in the context of a 19^th century Finnish novel.

As Leppihalme (2011) points out, the typologies for realia may differ in detail, but generally agree that an all-encompassing classification is not realistic. Niemi also shares this view of the difficulty of a strict definition of realia (2015, 16), and offers a broader definition of realia as terms and expressions that “carry connotations shared by the participants of a certain culture” (2015, 68).

There are indeed some terms classified as realia in this thesis that might not fit the strictest definition of the term. Under 4.8.2, for example, a word as simple as Karte (map, ticket etc.) is treated as realia, as it presents a translation problem precisely because of the set of extralinguistic points of reference it has in context.

Regardless of their specific definition, realia are problematic in translation because they tend to carry socio-cultural and historical undertones that are difficult to transfer into another language.

They often refer to phenomena that might not exist in the target culture or might carry meanings and connotations that the closest equivalent in the target culture does not. Florin (1993) even goes so far as to claim that realia are “untranslatable as a rule”. This view has been disputed by, among others, Leppihalme (2011), who points out that translators do not operate solely at the level of individual lexical items but seek solutions that serve the translation situation and target culture norms. What this does highlight, however, is that even if translatable, realia can cause the translation to lose certain aspects of the original text or at the very least require the translator to make direct efforts to prevent this loss of meaning.

(10)

6

2.4 Leppihalme’s strategies for translating realia

Leppihalme (2001) offers a seven-category model of translation strategies for realia. These strategies are as follows:

Direct transfer occurs when the source language term is transferred either directly or with minor adaptations to spelling or pronunciation into the target language, often to create a sense of the foreign (Leppihalme 2001, 141).

Calque means translating all the component parts of a word or expression into the target language in a very literal word-for-word translation (Leppihalme 2001, 141). A very simple example of this would be Hitlerjugend being translated into Hitlernuori in Finnish.

Cultural adaptation is a mainly domesticating strategy, where the source culture realia is substituted with a target culture equivalent, thereby “hiding” the foreign behind the more familiar (Leppihalme 2001, 142). The more familiar the culture, the less cultural adaptation is necessary. This last

observation is noticeable in the data set used, since very few cultural adaptations occur. A generic example of cultural adaptation would be substituting a source culture newspaper with a more familiar one to the target text reader.

Superordinate term is used when specific realia is replaced with a more generic term (Leppihalme 2001, 143). These are very rare in the data, and most of the small number of cases found can be arguably classified as other strategies as well.

Explicitation means adding explaining passages that are not present in the source text, making the target text longer in the process. Effectively the reader is given the same information with more words, since the term alone in the target text does not convey all the meanings it does in the source text (Leppihalme 2001, 143).

Addition refers to any the extratextual explanations to the text such as forewords, afterwords, translator’s notes or vocabularies (Leppihalme 2001, 144). While not present in the Finnish translation, some additions can be found in the English translation in the form of a narrative glossary (titled Translator’s Note) at the end of the book, and a brief addition at the opening page informing the reader of said glossary’s existence.

Omission is often considered a last resort solution. A term that is foreign or presents some form of insurmountable obstacle is simply left out entirely. This is often done to achieve a smoother reading experience, and is usually acceptable in the context of fiction, as the specific details are there more to flavor the story being told than as providers of factual information (Leppihalme 2001, 145). An example of this would be the omission of the term Lagezentrum in both translations, though the

(11)

7

motivation for this omission differs somewhat from those outlined as the common motivations for this strategy by Leppihalme, as will be discussed further in 4.8.2.

While this categorization is very useful, it does pose some challenges when dividing the data rigidly into individual categories as is necessary to fit the confines of this thesis. In some instances a

translation strategy can be interpreted as falling into more than one category, and when observed as a part of the larger part of the textual or sentence level the realia can require a combination of several strategies in order to be rendered in an understandable which Leppihalme (2001) does point out. This is especially visible in the context of Er ist wieder da’s use satire and wordplay.

2.5 Satire and wordplay in translation

Satire as a literary style seeks to persuade its audience that someone or something is worthy of ridicule or reproach using exaggeration or juxtaposition. A key feature of satire is that it never entirely forsakes the real world, rather drawing its “victims” from the culture in which it exists (Griffin 2015, 1). Therefore, satire is a fertile ground for research into realia, as it draws from the same socio-cultural and historical surroundings that the realia exist to describe.

Many satirical works, including Er ist wieder, da, also utilize wordplay as a comedic device. While not the main focus of this thesis, wordplay does factor into the analysis of some of the translation strategies analysed, and therefore a brief introduction is necessary.

Delabastita (1996, 128) defines wordplay as follows:

Wordplay is the general name for the various textual phenomena in which structural features of the language(s) are exploited in order to bring about a communicatively significant confrontation of two (or more) linguistic structures with more or less similar forms and more or less different meanings.

In other words, wordplay seeks to bring about a conflict within the linguistic framework of the language or languages in which it operates. Because of this wordplay does not just refer to specific words or ideas, but to the systematic way in which a particular language operates, therefore

comprising “the self-referential signature of that language” (Davis 1997, 23). Wordplay is effectively the language system referring to itself, and some have even suggested that this makes them impossible to translate (e.g. House 1973). The reality is, however, that wordplay is translated or at the very least rendered in target languages in some way on a regular basis in books, television programs, cinema et cetera and indeed in the translations of Er ist wieder da. Still, it does present unique problems to the translator especially when combined with the equally culture-bound realia, as will be discussed under 4.8.2.

3. Data and method

(12)

8

The data set consists of the novel Er ist wieder da by Timur Vermes, and its translations into English by Jamie Bulloch and into Finnish by Tähti Schmidt. The specific prints of the novel used in the analysis are the 2014 paperback print of the 2012 original, the paperback edition of the 2014 English translation Look Who’s Back by Jamie Bulloch and the 2016 hardcover edition of the Finnish translation Täällä taas by Tähti Schmidt. The three chapters examined are the prologue, called Erwachen in Deutschland in the original, Awakening in Germany in English and Herääminen Saksassa in Finnish, as well as the first numbered chapters one and two.

The method relies on an initial categorization of realia in the texts according to Leppihalme’s strategies, followed by a more in-depth assessment based mainly on Leppihalme’s writing on realia.

Where applicable the affective aspects of the translatorial choices regarding realia are also discussed.

3.1 Er ist wieder da

Timur Vermes’ debut novel Er ist wieder da was published in 2012 and was both lauded and harshly criticized for its choice of topic and the handling of said topic. The story begins with Adolf Hitler waking up in modern day Berlin in 2011 and follows his misadventures as he tries to make sense of the nation Germany has become in his absence. In a culture where his character has become a staple for comedians and satirists, he is taken for an especially committed character actor and eventually given his own television program, bringing him to odds with the contemporary far right, gaining him praise from the left, but still giving him a fair amount of power and influence.

The story is told in first person in the guise of Adolf Hitler, and while the entire story takes place in 2011 Berlin, much of the prose is very reminiscent of the language of the speeches of the historical Adolf Hitler and especially of his writings such as Mein Kampf (1925). (Beyer 2012). The book is therefore full of not only purely cultural but also historical realia such as references to specific Nazi era historical figures and institutions as well as terminology that has fallen out of use in modern German specifically as a response to the history of the second world war.

From the perspective of affect the novel is also especially interesting, as it has three highly affective strands running throughout the entire narrative: Firstly, the first-person narrative places the reader in an uncomfortable position inside the of mind of one of the most universally negatively affective figures in history – Adolf Hitler. Secondly, the stylistic choice of mimicking the writing style of Hitler means much of the narrative is told in a propaganda-like style, meant to stir emotions in the reader. Thirdly, the genre of satire is by design highly affective, as it attempts to induce new

(13)

9

reactions to familiar concepts in the reader, be it joy or amusement by critiquing entities with negative affect, or a certain level of unease by shedding a harsher light on something familiar.

The three chapters examined mainly deal with the narrator Adolf Hitler waking up in modern day Berlin and coming to grips with the new surroundings in which he finds himself. Much the actual narrative is dedicated to humorous misunderstandings and the narrating Hitler’s misreading of elements of modern day life, but the reader is also given subtle hints both to Hitler’s relevance in Germany today and to his aspirations in relation to them – both themes that the novel later builds on.

3.2 Method

I compiled a list of all terms classifiable as realia in the source text and their counterparts (or lack thereof in some cases) in the two target texts. While not wholly unproblematic, the list of realia in the German original comprises of 79 instances of realia, with the number varying slightly in the English and Finnish translations due to omissions, additions and other factors that shall be in discussed in detail later.

A notable unexpected difficulty encountered early on dealing with realia was actually defining which terms classified as such. Because of the relatively short cultural distance between the three cultures many of the “classic” examples of realia such as flora and fauna were not applicable, as, for example, the plants mentioned in the data are equally familiar to the target readers by their target language names and were therefore not included. On the other hand, when placed in the larger context of the text some terms that would normally be a clear case of cultural universalis became extremely problematic, a prime example being the case of the term Karte with its multiple equally valid translations (card, ticket, map etc.), which will be discussed under 4.8.2.

Another problematic aspect in defining realia is that, especially in the English-speaking world, some of the cultural terminology has become enshrined in the lexis. Therefore, what superficially appears as a direct transfer is often a foreign loan word that has developed its own set of

connotations, and therefore has a separate meaning from the term of origin. These were, however classified as realia for the purpose of this thesis for reasons that shall be specified at a later point.

Having identified the realia I categorised each translation unit according to Leppihalme’s seven strategies for translating realia as far as it was possible and counted the frequency with which these strategies were deployed in the two translations. I then compared the data gathered from the two translations with each other to see how similar or different the deployment of the strategies is. I then sought to appraise the effect the choices of strategies have on the affective or emotional aspect of

(14)

10

the texts and find possible causes for the translatorial choices in general as well as for the differences between the two translations.

4. Realia in The Translations

Following is a strategy-by-strategy breakdown of the findings with relevant examples where they exist, followed by a more detailed examination of some more complex cases that do not neatly fit into one of the seven categories. The specific aspect of affect in relation to the realia will be discussed where relevant.

4.1 Direct transfers

While direct transfers are fairly common in the Finnish translation, the translator often uses a variety of calques, omission and superordinate terms for the same term. Therefore, Hitlerjugend is translated as Hitlernuori at some places, while the direct transfer is used at others, same as with Führer and johtaja. It is possible that the motivation behind this decision is to make the text more varied and also easier on the reader, as the direct transfer, while excellent at creating a foreignizing effect, can also make the text harder to read if the reader is not familiar with German spelling or pronunciation.

The English translation, on the other hand, favors the use of direct transfer very heavily, although interestingly enough the one term it only uses the calque variant of is Hitlerjugend, (Hitler Youth) which is one of the few term that the Finnish translation translates with a direct transfer far more often. Reich, Führer, Luftwaffe, Reichsleiter, and Volk are just some of the many direct transfers that are used almost exclusively instead of their native English translations. This is consistent with the American and British convention of using much of the German vocabulary when referring to concepts in certain time periods in Germany.

It should be noted, however, that many of these terms have become lexicalised into English, and Führer and Luftwaffe among others are currently entries in the Oxford English Dictionary, but the reasons they are included as direct transfer in this thesis are firstly that they have originated as direct transfers – albeit some, such as volk, before the rise of the NSDAP (OED Online 2020) – and secondly, as Stubbs (1998) points out, the motivation for using them is to make the subject being discussed seem more alien and foreign. Their usage is therefore motivated by the same impulse as direct transfer: foreignization.

Relevant to further discussions is also that the terms have slightly different meanings in modern English than in German. Luftwaffe, for example, simply means air force in German, but in English texts Luftwaffe almost always refers specifically to the air force of Nazi Germany (Stubbs 1998).

(15)

11

What the usage of these terms does for the English target text overall is create a separation between Hitler’s Germany and the one in which the narrating Hitler finds himself. While the German

original does employ some archaic terms such as Volksgenosse (a term for fellow citizen very popularly used by the Nazis), it makes no clear distinction between Germany then and Germany now lexically. Not only does this create an uncomfortable continuum from the Nazi era to present day, but it also gives an air of dread to the chapters – as misguided as his early endeavors are, Hitler’s aims and goals are very much oriented toward goals in the present and the future.

In the English translation the narrator’s constant references to the German Reich and the Volk tie the rhetoric to the past and create distance between his plans and the reality in which he finds himself.

Especially in the opening chapters discussed the Third Reich-specific vocabulary in conjunction with the somewhat comical characterization of Adolf Hitler in them gives the impression of someone who is fixated on the past and detached from modern realities much more so than the Finnish translation or indeed the original text.

Contrastingly, the Finnish translation is very consistent in tying together the past and present Germanies. It uses commonplace Finnish terms for both Volk and Reich, so instead of talking about the historic German Reich and its Volk, the narrator in Finnish uses Saksan valtakunta, (German empire) and Saksan kansa (the people of Germany), the former being also notable for not utilizing the more common kolmas valtakunta (third reich) which would, in turn tie it to past events. Not only is this closer to the reading experience of the original text, but it also makes the reading experience uncomfortable in a way that the English translation does not. By blurring the line between Nazi Germany and Germany today the source text and the Finnish translation make Hitler’s plans seem more rooted in current reality than some nostalgic view of the Germany he remembers, and also highlights the fact that he does not make a distinction between the Germany he created and the one in which he finds himself.

4.2 Calques

The previously mentioned term Hitlerjugend is an interesting case, as it is one of the few terms for which the English translation does not use direct transfer, but the Finnish translation does. The English translation translates it exclusively with the calque Hitler Youth, while the Finnish translation uses the calque Hitlernuori only once in the exclamation Hitlernuori Ronaldo! Mistä pääsen kadulle?

(16)

12

Here the motivation seems to have been to make the term of address more easily readable, as the alternative would have been a combination of a foreign word and a foreign name, which might make the sentence harder to understand in the context.

One feature present in the English but not in the Finnish translation are calques involving German loan words. For example, Reichskanzlei is translated as the pure calque valtakunnankanslia in Finnish, while the English combines a loan word with a native word into Reich Chancellery. This again is consistent with the usage of German loan words in English texts to refer to entities specifically in the third Reich, and the effect it has on the reading experience discussed under 4.1.

4.3 Cultural adaptation

As the cultural distance between the three cultures is fairly short, clearly definable cultural adaptations are rare in both translations. Even when they do occur it is debatable if the usual motivation of domesticating in the sense of bringing the source culture closer to the reader applies.

One of the few instances is the mention of Theater heute, which is rendered as Theater Today in English. The motivation for this choice seems to be more to make the context clear and more fluent to the reader rather than to domesticate the passage culturally. The speaker in the source text is trying to imply that due to this magazine arriving the following morning he will have many visitors with connections to the TV industry, and the translators seems to have tried to assure that the reader understands this by substituting the English language publication. This is supported further by the fact that the Finnish translation seems to try to address the same issue, but in the absence of such a clearly named theatre magazine in the target culture uses a calque to create one, since Teatteri tänään -lehti is not an actual publication available in Finland.

Another instance happens in the English translation of chapter 2. On page 21 the character of Hitler asks for a mirror, only to have the listener point him to a newspaper by the name Der Spiegel (literally meaning the mirror), which just happens to have Adolf Hitler on the cover, causing the narrating Hitler to mistake this paper for an actual mirror.

Der Spiegel war orangefarben gerahmt, “Der Spiegel” hatte er sicherheitshalber darauf geschrieben, als ob man es sonst nicht gewusst hätte. (p.21)

The interesting factor here is that the paper Der Spiegel is already fairly well known in English speaking countries and especially the United Kingdom, so there is no cultural reason to adapt this passage. Furthermore, The English translation uses cultural adaptation simply to make the same wordplay possible in the target language:

The mirror had an orange frame, on which was printed ‘The Mirror’, just for good measure, as if this were not obvious enough. (p.16)

(17)

13

It is noteworthy that the translator uses The Mirror as translation for Der Spiegel throughout the book (even outside the scope of the three-chapter data set used here) for seemingly no other reason than to keep the translation consistent with the first mention within the wordplay.

Another interesting choice here is that the translator substitutes The Mirror for Der Spiegel yet keeps the mention of an orange frame (Cover of Der Spiegel has a distinct orange outline) even though the British Mirror uses a white font on a red background for its logo. It is unclear what the motivation behind this discrepancy is, but it is feasible that the translator was trying to stay as loyal to the source text as possible while still making the wordplay possible. Additionally, it is possible that the translator wanted to still make a distinction between the “German” Mirror and the actual British publication of the same name by using the mismatching title and description.

At any rate, it can be said with some certainty that the main reason for this adaptation is to facilitate the wordplay rather than to domesticate the item culturally per se. This also holds true for the rest of the text, as the most if not all of the rare instances of clear cultural adaptation would seem to have other explaining factors beyond attempts to bring them closer to the target audience culturally. This is also supported by the myriad of other publications both historical and contemporary that have not been adapted such as Völkischer Beobachter, Berliner Zeitung and Focus.

4.4 Superordinate term

Not many superordinate terms are present in the data. This is most likely due to the short cultural distance between the three cultures, and the fact that much of the historical realia are meant to be fairly obscure even to the German readership. One instance where superordinate terms can arguably be found is the mention of Plumeau, a type of sofa. The reason why even this instance is debatable is that the source text mentions the term Sofa before specifying that it is more specifically a

Plumeau. Therefore, while the Finnish translation calls it sohva – technically a superordinate term – it is actually translating the word Sofa and omitting the mention of Plumeau altogether.

In the English translation, on the other hand, the text has separate translations for Sofa and Plumeau, but it is debatable if divan is a superordinate term or a similar piece of furniture more familiar to an English speaking readership, which would make it a case of cultural adaptation.

There is one term, namely VolksgenossIn (national comrade) where the English translation uses a superordinate term in a way that slightly diverges from the foreignization of the past discussed in earlier chapters. While the term predates the Nazi era, it was extensively used by the National Socialist party who reserved it only to those “of German Blood”, and as such it fell out of use after the war due to its negative connotations. The English translation sidesteps this issue entirely by

(18)

14

simply using the translation fellow German for all instances of this term. While it does match the German term superficially, it does not carry the same negative affective weight or archaic tone of the original term.

One possible reason for this difference in strategy is that there simply is no corresponding term in the English language that has that history attached to it, and the rare mentions of the term do not merit, for example, the introduction through explicitation as is the case with Volk as will be discussed in 4.5. Another possible reason why the translator does not see it necessary to underline the foreign in this case is that both mentions of the term happen in dialogue between the narrator Hitler and people he meets. In both of these dialogues Hitler uses other archaic terminology and references to specific historical events as well as phrases such as the purity of the German blood, making the disconnect between his Germany and the Germany of today in that specific instance clear enough even with the fairly neutral fellow German. Furthermore, the responses of the

characters to whom he is speaking underline this disconnect as they are either horrified, annoyed or amused, and take them as attempts at satire by a dedicated comedic method actor.

4.5 Explicitation

As both translations favor the more traditionally foreignizing strategies for realia, explicitation is not very common in either. The Finnish translation has a few minor explicitations, such as rendering Adlon as hotelli Adlon and adding the translation johtaja after the first use of the direct transfer Führer, but newspapers, media personnel, and historical figures among other items appear for the most part in both target texts with no more explanation than is offered in the source text.

This makes it all the more curious that both translations do decide to offer an explanation for the fairly obscure German wartime newspaper Panzerbär:

Aber jetzt brauchte ich zuvernachlässige Nachrichten, einen “Völkischen Beobachter”, einen “Stürmer”, ich wäre wohl sogar furs einen “Panzerbär” zufrieden gewesen. (p.16)

But at that moment I needed some reliable news, a Völkischer Beobachter, a Stürmer; Why, I’d have settled for the local Panzerbär, which had only been going for a few issues. (p.12)

Mutta nyt tarvitsin luotettavia uutisia, lehtiä kuten Völkischer Beobachter, Stürmer, ensi hätään tyytyisin vaikka Berliinin puolustajien Panzerbär-rintamalehteen. (p.16)

While the English translation merely adds that the item, which it does not specify as a newspaper, is local and has only been going for a few issues, the Finnish translation not only specifies that the narrator is talking about newspapers (which the very next sentence in the source text specifies), but also that the paper is a rintamalehti (a paper meant for soldiers on the front) and further explains that it was for the forces defending Berlin.

(19)

15

It is not possible to infer a definite reason for this departure from the generally foreignizing approach to realia simply from observing the texts. As the translations were published two years apart with the English translation releasing first, it is possible that the Finnish translator could have been familiar with and influenced by the English translation. While this would go some way to explain why both translations diverge from the overarching strategy at the same, seemingly unremarkable point, it is pure speculation.

And instance relevant to the discussion of the larger scale strategy of the English translation touched upon under 4.1 and 4.2 is found at the very start of the prologue chapter:

Das Volk hat mich wohl am meisten überrascht. (p.5)

It was probably the German people, the Volk, which surprised me most of all. (p.1)

Here the English translation uses explicitation to introduce the term Volk, which it then uses

extensively. The significance to the discussion of the separation created between past and present is that this strategy seems to indicate that the translator assumed at least a part of the readership to be unfamiliar with this term, yet after the term is introduced it is used it to the extent that this is the only mention of people in the entire data set. This further adds to the separation between the modern and the historic, as the Volk is traditionally used in English almost exclusively in the context of the Third Reich.

4.6 Addition

There are no additions in the Finnish translation, but the English translation does offer a brief nine- page narrative glossary at the end of the book, as well as a brief note on the opening page directing readers to it. This glossary, titled Translator’s Note, consists mainly of explanations of actual people mentioned in the book as well as explanations of the many acronyms littered throughout the novel, and is written in an easy-to-read, almost conversational style with passages such as he also composed the forgettable “Wadde hadde dude ha” at the 2000 Eurovision song Contest, somehow finishing fifth (p.374).

The motivation for this glossary seems to have been to offer a little more insight to those readers especially interested, rather than to be crucial to the understanding of the foreign in the novel. The translator even states in the first paragraph of this glossary that “most of the material in the novel will resonate with audiences in all Western societies rather than just Germany” (p.367).

4.7 Omission

Omissions are very rare in both translations. The only observed instances that could classify as omissions were the treatment of Plumeau in the Finnish translation mentioned under 4.4

(20)

16

Superordinate terms and the handling of the word Lagezentrum, which is omitted in both

translations. The reasons for the latter are, however, more complex than the label of omission would lead to believe and will be examined further under 4.8.2.

4.8 Complex cases

Several passages in the texts also deal with realia without falling neatly into any of the above categories. Majority of these complex cases seem rooted in the special requirements placed upon the target text by the satirical style of the source text. Some of these have to do with the reasons for the changes between the source and target texts being linguistic (in order to make wordplay

possible, for example), some deal with extralinguistic concepts alluded to but not directly named, and yet others seem to be complicated combinations of the two.

4.8.1 Cultural phenomena alluded to but not named

An example of realia-adjacent problems arising without a specific entity being explicitly named is the passage where Adolf Hitler, the narrator, ponders the meaning of several Turkish language papers hanging at a newsagents’ window:

Zahlreiche bunte Blätter hingen an der Auẞenwand, in türkischer Sprache. Offenbar verkehrten hier jüngst viele Türken. (p.17)

The narrator then goes on to describe a hypothetical series of events where someone (by his

reckoning the Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz) must have convinced the Turkish people to ally with the German war effort in the second world war. The English and Finnish translations render the passage as follows:

Myriad colourful papers hung on the outside wall – in Turkish. A large number of Turks must now be living in this area. (p.12–13)

Ulkoseinällä riipui lukuisia väripainettuja lehtiä, turkinkielisiä. Ilmeisesti täällä oli viime aikoina alkanut liikkua paljon turkkilaisia. (p.17)

While there are no specific realia named with a single expression or term, the entire premise of the passage hinges on the average German reader recognizing an extremely mundane element of everyday life. Especially in a large city like Berlin it is more a rule than an exception that a newsagent would cater to a Turkish-speaking readership, as the country has a high number of citizens with Turkish origins. It is also widely known that this population has no connection to the Nazi era, rather having its roots in several foreign worker programs in the 1960s and 1980s (Panayi 2000). Therefore, the passage aims to bring humour into the situation by giving an alternative meaning to a normal event through the narrator giving a humorously misguided explanation to an everyday occurrence – a staple feature of satirical writing.

(21)

17

These historic and socio-cultural aspects are not shared by the English or the Finnish reader as readily and might well create confusion or even unease instead of amusement in the reader – this early in the novel it could be feasible, for example, that the writer is constructing some form of alternative history narrative, and that the “foreign” language papers are meant to be some form of foreshadowing. It is therefore interesting that neither of the translations makes any attempts to explicitate the scene, both opting for a more literal translation. This is particularly interesting in the case of the English translation, as the aforementioned Translator’s Note section would have allowed for an explanation of this scene without disrupting the flow of the text.

A likely explanation is that both translators have oriented their translations towards a readership with at least a tangential interest in modern Germany. While not exactly universal knowledge to a Finnish or English readership as a whole, this background knowledge would be fairly self-evident to a reader with even basic level knowledge of Germany.

4.8.2 Wordplay as a creator of realia

A more linguistically interesting difficult to categorize realia occurs on page 23 of the source text:

“Haben Sie einen Flyer? Oder eine Karte?

“Leider nein”, sagte ich betrübt, “die Karte ist im Lagezentrum.” (p.23)

The term Lagezentrum, (situation center), classifies as realia but has been omitted in both

translations, apparently to make a substitute joke possible. The more complex element is the use of the word Karte and its multiple meanings in German as the crux of the wordplay. The word Karte in isolation could be translated in number of ways including map, card, and ticket in English and kartta, kortti and lippu in Finnish. In the example above the first mention of Karte refers to a business card, while the second mention refers to a map.

The Finnish version translates the initial mention of Karte as kortteja, and while this does in the first instance classify as a direct translation, it lacks the additional meanings for the wordplay to work in the second instance. The Finnish translation solves this problem by simply omitting the reference to Lagezentrum, using the additional meanings for kortti and substituting the joke about the map with the addition of one about playing cards:

Onko teillä flaijereita? Tai kortteja?

-Kortinpeluusta en ole koskaan perustanut. Sitä paitsi minun täytyy jatkaa matkaa. (p.22)

In the English translation, on the other hand, the translator – faced with the same dilemma of the multiple meanings of Karte – latches instead onto the shared term Flyer, omits the reference to Lagezentrum as well as the second mention of Karte, and introduces a new, shared historical realia by using the multiple meanings of the word present in English but not in German:

(22)

18

“Have you got a card? Any flyers?”

“Don’t talk to me about the Luftwaffe,” I said sadly. “In the end they were a complete failure.” (p.18)

While none of the individual meanings of the word Karte are realia per se, the set of meanings held by Karte is specific to German, and the problems it presents are the same as for the more narrowly defined realia as soon as more of those meanings are utilized at once. It is in effect the wordplay that makes the word act as realia. In the first instance it is a simple cultural universalis that could simply be translated as map or kartta, respectively, but as soon as the context necessitates more than one meaning at once it becomes something very tied to the German language and culture.

It is also worth pointing out for the larger discussion of the affective nature of the texts, that even when creating adaptive translations for something “untranslatable” the two translations follow a pattern observed earlier.

Aside from the wordplay, the original text has the narrator Adolf Hitler lamenting the fact that he has no access to his Lagezentrum, the center of the action, as well as his lack of a map. While this is technically oriented towards the past, as his Lagezentrum is long gone, it does portray the character as someone seeking action and information with relation to the immediate future.

The Finnish translation omits these undertones and opts for something ubiquitous albeit mundane – namely a simple game of cards that could happen at any point in history, past or present. The English translation, on the other hand not only ties his rhetoric firmly to the past with the mention of Luftwaffe, but it also has the narrator openly lamenting failures regarding said past. This shows the narrator once more as someone more oriented towards the past and out of touch with the present.

4.8.3 Deutscher Gruß, saksalainen tervehdys and Nazi salute

A complex case that seems to be at the same time cultural and linguistic to the point of being lexical is the treatment of the term Deutscher Gruß (German greeting), which refers to the raised-armed salute of the German National Socialist party. The gesture is still banned in Germany, where it is known more commonly today as Hitlergruß (Hitler greeting). The purpose that the older name for the gesture in the source text seems to serve apart from historical accuracy (as it is the term Adolf Hitler would most likely have used himself) is once more tying together the past and present

Germanies. While Deutscher Gruß is a fixed expression with highly negative affective attachments, it is still deutscher – it is still something German, even to the extent that a reader unfamiliar with the history behind it might read it as a neutral term.

(23)

19

The Finnish translation renders the term systematically as saksalainen tervehdys (German greeting).

While technically a calque, it does not carry over the negative affect on a lexical level, as

saksalainen tervehdys is not a fixed expression for the gesture in Finland. The context of the text makes it very clear which greeting is being referred to, but as there are words for the gesture in Finnish, such as Natsitervehdys (Nazi greeting), it is interesting that the translator seems to have deemed it necessary to preserve the element of saksalainen, German, rather than use the fixed expression available. It is also possible that rather than aiming to preserve saksalainen the translator was in fact avoiding the use of the term Natsi as it would be slightly out of character for Adolf Hitler to use. Whichever the case, while this does not instantly translate the negative affect of the German original, it does add to the overall uneasy feeling of a single historical continuum from Hitler’s Germany to modern Germany.

The English translation, on the other hand, goes the opposite route as deutscher Gruß is translated exclusively with the fixed English expression Nazi salute. While it is more or less the only correct term for the gesture in English, it is strangely anachronistic when used by the narrator Adolf Hitler, as the term Nazi was originally a derogative term for members of the National Socialist Party, and was never used in the official language of the party itself (cf. Znamenski 2015). It could be

considered a form of lexicalized cultural adaptation, replacing complexities of German national identity before, during and after the National Socialist era with the more easily defined Nazis. It is also yet another instance where a clear distinction is made in the English translation between Germany then and Germany now.

4.9 Discussion

A fairly traditionally foreignizing tendency is observable in both translations as far as the realia are concerned, while the specific strategies utilized vary. It is notable, however, that while both

translations favour strategies traditionally considered foreignizing in translating realia, the English translation does take a more domesticating approach stylistically and grammatically, utilising British idioms, structures and exclamations and adapting the language for a more fluent reading experience. The Finnish translation, on the other hand, follows the original structures more closely, though it does still make some concessions for fluency. In the larger context of the texts the specific distribution of the strategies used for realia combined with the stylistic and grammatical differences make the affective undercurrent of the two translations very different.

Direct transfers and loan words – both traditionally foreignizing strategies – were a major part of main affective difference observed between the treatment of historical realia in the English translation versus the other two texts. The English text uses the foreign words to refer to Nazi

(24)

20

Germany specifically along with several other strategies to draw a very distinct line between Germany of Adolf Hitler and contemporary Germany. On the level of affect this creates a more comfortable reading experience, as the reader is given more opportunities to not focus on the uneasy parallels being drawn between then and now. It is, in effect, the foreignization on the level of realia that makes the text feels more fluent and comfortable to read – it becomes domesticated in the affective sense.

The German original and the Finnish translation, on the other hand, confront the reader constantly with the full historic continuum from Hitler to today. The constant mentions of deutsch and saksalainen, respectively, alongside everyday terminology and references to people in general (as opposed to the more restrictive use of volk in the English translation) gives the reader the feeling that the narrator Adolf Hitler sees the modern day Germany as fundamentally the same country he once lead. This creates a foreboding sense of dread throughout the opening chapters, which the rest of the book builds on.

The lack or at least a significantly reduced sense of this dread in the English translation serves well to highlight the difference between emotional and physical distance pointed out by Koskinen

(2012). On the level of realia, the English translation is geographically transporting the reader to the writer through the use of foreign terminology, but on an emotional level this transportation into a foreign place also allows the reader to observe the events from a more comfortable distance

emotionally. Conversely, the Finnish translation chooses to bring the source text closer to the reader geographically through the use of traditionally domesticating strategies at key points, but it is precisely this uncomfortably close distance to an uneasy subject that foreignizes the text at an emotional level.

6. Conclusion

As hypothesized, a difference in the utilization of translation strategies for realia is indeed observable between the two translations. The data also supports the initial, anecdotal observation that the affective distance differs one from translation to the other, which in turn lends validity to the hypothesis about the disconnect between geographical and emotional distance with regards to foreignization and domestication.

The chosen method proved mostly suitable for the thesis. There were some unexpected difficulties in identifying the realia relevant to the research, as well as fitting the translatorial choices into Leppihalme’s seven categories. This categorization of strategies for translating realia was extremely useful in categorizing simple instances, and even some more complex contexts, but especially with

(25)

21

wordplay the categorization of strategies as well as the given usual motives for using them did not apply. Also, the traditional lines between strategies considered foreignizing and ones considered domesticating did not hold entirely true when viewed through the lens of affect, and this was especially evident in the case of the English translation.

While no grand generalizations can be made based on the findings of this thesis, they do build upon the amount of research of realia in translation. Furthermore, the use of Leppihalme’s fairly widely utilized model makes the data quite comparable with other similar studies in the field. Finally, they do hint at some potentially interesting directions for further study on the level of affect. Firstly, whether or not this tendency towards foreignizing German history is prevalent in other works translated from German into English, or even in texts dealing with the Nazi era written originally in English. Secondly, as the texts are from the 2010s, are there some of these tendencies present in translations of similar earlier texts. Finally, are these tendencies present in texts translated into different directions between these three languages.

The study itself could be expanded upon in several ways. The most obvious route would be to include the remaining chapters left out due to the constraints of the thesis and see if the affective undercurrents of the two texts remain the same throughout the book. Another useful addition could be the inclusion of linguistic elements apart from realia, which have only been hinted at thus far, as the data would suggest that the realia in and of themselves do not dictate the affective distance, but their effect on the reading experience is highly affected by strategies used in conjunction with them.

(26)

22

Primary sources

Vermes, Timur 2012. Er ist wieder da. Bastei Lübbe AG, Köln.

Vermes, Timur 2015. Look Who’s Back. London: MacLehose Press. Translated by Jamie Bulloch.

Vermes, Timur 2016. Täällä taas. Helsinki: Tammi. Translated by Tähti Schmidt.

Other references

Beyer, Evelyn (2012) Er ist wieder da - Timur Vermes schreibt klasse Satire aus Hitlers Sicht.

http://www.neuepresse.de/Nachrichten/Kultur/Uebersicht/Er-ist-wieder-da-Timur-Vermes- schreibt-klasse-Satire-aus-Hitlers-Sicht Accessed 27 October 2020.

Davis, Kathleen 1997. Signature in Translation. Rutgers, State University of New Jersey. USA.

Delabastita, Dirk 1996. Introduction. The Translator 2:2. 127–139. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.

Griffin, Dustin 2015. Satire: A Critical Reintroduction. 1st ed. The University Press of Kentucky.

Print.

Gullberg, Tom 2011. The Holocaust as History Culture in Finland. Historicizing the Uses of the Past. Vol. 6. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag, 45–56.

Hitler, A. (1925). Mein Kampf, Band 1, Verlag Franz Eher Nachfahren, München. (Volume 1, publishing company Fritz Eher and descendants, Munich).

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (2 ed.). Beverly Hills: Sage.

House, Juliane. On the Limits of Translatability. Babel: Revue Internationale de La Traduction/International Journal of Translation, vol. 19, 1973, 166–167.

Ketevan, Djachy & Pareshishvili, Mariam. Realia as Carriers of National and Historical Overtones.

Theory and Practice in Language Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 2014, 8–14.

Koskinen, Kaisa 2012. Domestication, Foreignization and the Modulation of affect. In

Domestication and Foreignization in Translation Studies, edited by Marja Jänis, et al., Frank

& Timme, 2012.

Leech, Geoffrey 1974. Semantics. Aylesbury: Hazell Watson & Vinay.

Leppihalme, Ritva 2001. Translation strategies for realia. In Pirjo Kukkonen & Ritva Hartama- Heinonen (eds.). Mission, Vision, Strategies, and Values: A Celebration of Translator Training and Translation Studies in Kouvola. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press 139–147.

Leppihalme, Ritva 2011. Realia. In Y. Gambier, & L. van Doorslaer (Eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies Online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Munday, Jeremy 2012. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. London:

Routledge, 218–221.

Nedergaard‐Larsen, Birgit, 1993. Culture‐bound problems in subtitling. Perspectives, 1(2), 207–

240.

OED Online, Oxford University Press, September 2020, Available: www.oed.com. Accessed 30 November 2020.

Panayi, Panikos 2000. Ethnic Minorities in 19th and 20th Century Germany: Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Turks and Others, Taylor & Francis Group. 212–224.

(27)

23

Stubbs, Michael 1998 German loanwords and cultural stereotypes. English Today, 14 (1), 19–26.

Vinay, J.-P., Darbelnet, J. (1958). Stylistique comparée du français et de l'anglais. Paris: Didier Erudition. 259.

Znamenski, Andrei A 2015. From "National Socialists" to "Nazi": History, Politics, and the English Language. The Independent Review 19.4. 537–561.

Familiarly Foreign: Realia and affect in the English and Finnish translations of Er ist wieder da by Timur Vermes

Jani Kokkonen