Tiana M. Tošic Lojanica1 Faculty of Philology and Arts University of Kragujevac Department of English


Is Russell Hoban’s <i>Riddley Walker</i> (Un)Translatable?


(UN)TRANSLATEABLE IN RUSSELL HOBAN'S NOVEL

RIDLEY WALKER2


Using the example of the science fiction novel Ridley Walker by Russell Hoban, the paper analyzes the linguistic abnormalities and mutations that the language of the future has undergone together with the human race. The novel takes place in post-apocalyptic England, and the narrator conveys it to us in a hybrid dialect complicated by semantic shifts of words familiar to us, folk etymology and various specificities at all linguistic levels, which is why this work has not been translated into Serbian even after 26 years. Is translation possible in this case?

Keywords: Russell Hoban, Ridley Walker, translation, (un)translatable, equivalents.


Russell Hoban’s science fiction novel Ridley Walker, published in 1980, has won many prestigious awards in the literary genre, and the renowned literary critic Harold Bloom included it in the list of works that shaped Western civilization (the so-called Western Canon)3. After 36 years and many editions, the novel continues to inspire literary and linguistic studies. It is interesting that after so many years, fans of SF in Serbia have still not had the opportunity to read this bold and acclaimed work in Serbian. A cursory look at the novel’s linguistic structure reveals why.

Already on the first page of the novel we come across the sentence “On my naming day when I come 12 I gone front spear and kilt a wyld boar he parbly ben the las wyld pig on the Bundel Downs any how there hadnt uried ben none for a long time befor him nor I aint looking to see none agen”. Of the 48 words used, 12 show some kind of unusualness or change in spelling. On the syntactic level we notice reductions of complex verb tenses, more precisely the omission of the auxiliary verb. The translator would not be too surprised because many Anglo-American writers use these techniques to conjure up some sociolect or idiolect. However, the rest of the page, or rather the novel as a whole, is written in this special language that first needs to be deciphered. We will first present the peculiarities of Ridley-speech, and then consider whether translation is possible at all, and if so, how the translation should be approached and what would cause the greatest difficulties for the translator.

In short, the novel takes place in post-apocalyptic England, more precisely Kent, a map of which the author provides as an introduction to the work. The geography is familiar, but still quite different, recognizable only by reconstructed place names (Dover is drawn as Do It Over, for example). Kent is surrounded by water, and on the site of today's Ramsgate, the island of Ram is separated, where the ruling group (Mincery < ministry) lives, which occasionally visits the island and collects taxes. Over two thousand years after the atomic catastrophe, society (at least the part we encounter) has regressed almost to the Stone Age, primitive, semi-savage, living with the inherited distorted understandings of the current, i.e. pre-apocalyptic society, which inevitably brings with it a deformation of the truth and a simplified, mythical interpretation of the world. The society is, with the exception of the "liaison man" who plays the role of a kind of priest and "ministry", completely illiterate. The story of Eussia, as a kind of interpretation of the apocalypse, is the only written document available exclusively to the priest who knows it by heart and whose job it is to explain the puppet show performed by Pry Mincer and Wes Mincer to the other members of the group. The hero of the novel learned to read and write from his father, from whom he also inherits the title of connexion man, which is why he actually belongs to the intellectual elite of his time. The novel is written as Ridley’s recollection and recording of the situations that accompany his maturation, without any particular chronological order. In this paper, we will not deal with the literary values ??of the novel, but will primarily focus on the linguistic aspect from the translator’s perspective.

peculiarities of Ridley-speech

The novel is written in English, and in three variants – the legend of St. Eustace is written in modern, standard English, The Eusa Story in the so-called old language from the period immediately after the atomic catastrophe (as Ridley says “its all ways written out in the old spell” (29)) which seems even more simplified and further from the standard, and the third is Ridley’s language, as he pronounces it and as he knows how to write it, which prevails in the novel. In the glossary example at the end of the novel, Hoban, in explaining the phrase Berstyn Fyr (bursting fire) which in Ridley’s time meant explosive, notes that the story of Eussia was written in an archaic language that predates the demotic language of Ridley’s time, explaining that “the language suffered an almost complete breakdown in the dark ages that followed the destruction of civilization” (233). Archaicness (old spell) is reflected, for example, in the definite article that has a plural form (the dog (sg), they dogs (pl)).

In constructing Ridley’s language, the author plays with language most daringly on the phonetic and lexical level. At first glance, it may seem, as Malen (2000: 401) notes, that Hoban has tried to make the deviations from the norm systematic, but he concludes that this can only be said for a class of weak verbs that seems to be a transitional system between standard and some even later English. There are certainly exceptions to the emerging system, but we cannot say whether these are printing errors or a deliberate preservation of standard forms that would make the text easier for the reader to understand. In the first pages, the reader is confused because the language seems to be invented, but it is very soon discovered that the writer relies heavily on substandard English, which has been further simplified, freed from the burden of orthography and spelling. Hoban mostly subordinates the English language to phonetic spelling, often with dialectal accents, as in the above example, parbly < probably, so that understanding the writing is possible only when the text is read aloud (and often not even then).

The following section presents striking and frequent anomalies that serve to illustrate the linguistic problems of the novel4.

The following changes are common on the phonetic and orthographic level:

Consonants that occur consecutively in a word are simplified by omitting at least one, so that the word is still understandable when pronounced: kep < kept, tol < told, foun < found.

Permutation of the letter R as in _uried_e < printout, persner < prisoner.

Omission of an unstressed syllable as in the words: guvner < governer, dispear < disappear, delkit < delicate.

Replacement of one consonant by another: TH /đ/ or /O/ become F and V in writing and pronunciation: breave < breathe, filf < filth, earf < earth.

Diphthongs are expectedly simplified, so Y changes /a?/ shyn < shine, wyld < wild, hy < high; /?u/ which in writing is represented by the sequence o_e becomes oa, as in boan < bone, joak < joke.

The consonant cluster IGH is replaced by i_e as in lite < light, nite < night, tite < tight.

Erosion of phonetic content at the beginning of words: ‘whats in us lorn and loan and oansome’ < forlorn, alone and loansome; Puter Leat < Computer Elite.

There are numerous examples of compounds that are separated, in which bound morphemes stand as free morphemes. Where possible, numbers replace bound or free morphemes: his self < himself, no 1 <_uried, every thing < everything, no body < nobody, a bout < about, a head < ahead, a live < alive, a sleep < asleep, a round

< around.

Morphologically, Ridley’s language uses suffixes and prefixes of standard English, with the same meanings (except that the superlative, for example, is without the final t, bes instead of best). The verb group in the perfect tense has undergone the greatest changes, so some strong verbs have become weak


4 The examples given are partly taken from Mullen (2000), who in his work dedicated to an exhaustive analysis of Ridley Walker’s language deals mostly with phonetics and orthography, which is his greatest contribution to this topic.


(know – knowit). Most of the changes concern the past tense morpheme

-ed, which in Standard English is phonetically realized as /-t, -d/ and /-id/, while in Ridley-speak, in accordance with phonetic spelling and depending on the stem, -t or -it is mainly used (burrit < _uried, carrit < carried, wisht < wished, callt < called, movit < moved, callit/callt < called, screachit

< _uried_ed, ternt < turned, shiffit < shifted, kilt < killed, paintit < painted). The phonetic reductions of modal verbs already known in substandard varieties of English are further simplified in Ridley-speak (it musve ben < it must have been, wudve ben < would have been, Iwl < I will, you myt say < you might say, cud < could).

The deviations from the standard in terms of syntax are minimal. Sentences begin with a capital letter, end with a period, without any punctuation in between, which corresponds to Ridley’s knowledge of the language, i.e., the level of literacy. The absence of punctuation in combination with other means creates the effect of a conversational style. The greatest deviation from the standard sentence is reflected in the predicate, and in several variations. In sentences containing a verb, auxiliary verbs are often excluded, and finite verb forms are in a changed state, phonetically or morphologically, as can be seen in examples (2) and (3). One type of sentences consists of those in which a non-finite verb form appears instead of a finite one (example (4)), and a special group consists of those where there is no verb at all (example (5)). On the other hand, in addition to examples of “poor” sentences, the novel is also characterized by complex sentences with several clauses that are not connected by conjunctions, which complicates the already slow pace of reading, as in example (1). To facilitate understanding, we also provide an interpretation in standard English below the example.

(1) I dint have no reason for going there I dint want no bother with Ram hevvys from the out poast crowdless like I wer nor I wernt even the qwipt man for roading let a loan fighting. (74) [I had no reason for going there, I didn’t want any trouble with Ram heavies from the outpost, because I was alone and I wasn’t equipped for travelling let alone fighting.]

(2) I thot if them dogs ben going to eat me theywd parblyve done it all ready. (74) [I thought that if the dogs were going to eat me, they would’ve probably done it already.]

(3) 1st thing come out wer the stink. (76) [The first thing to come out was the stink.]

(4) The black leader pressing nex to me looking in thru the doar. The other dogs keeping back. (76) [The black leader passed by me and looked through the door. The other dogs kept back.]

Double negation as ungrammatical in English is common in substandard speech, and is also characteristic of the language of the novel. The author also uses triple negation, as if double negation did not deviate enough from the standard, as illustrated by the following example:

(6) …I don’t hardly have any parper scab on it yet. (117)

Boyne (2009: 20), analyzing several pages of the novel, came to the conclusion that about 52% of the excerpted sentences were completely grammatical, about 26% were compound sentences in which conjunctions or some verb form were omitted, and “undeveloped” sentences in which the finite form is replaced by the non-finite form or do not contain a verb at all were present in about 26% of the examples. He came to a similar conclusion when it comes to the lexical plan, which will be discussed in the next part of the paper.

Lexicon is certainly the most suitable soil for experimentation and linguistic innovation. Hoban himself says in the afterword that he tried to “pack as many meanings as possible into each word” (233) and gives us an insight into what a glossary with intended meanings would look like. In order to achieve persuasiveness of the language and realism, the author resorted to the processes of dichroic linguistics5, which describe the shift in the meaning of a word, which over time can expand, narrow, take on new connotations, seeds, etc. As an example of such a semantic shift, we can cite the lexeme pirntowt. Technical terms from the field of science are the only legacy of the former high-tech era. Their original use is unknown to language users in Ridley's time. The words were only retained in form, but their meanings were lost or changed. Ridley uses the term pirntowt, derived from printout, in the sense of decide, conclude, which only deepens the image of their ignorance of the culture and life that preceded the nuclear catastrophe. The common meaning in this example is the concept of the completion of some work, in one case computer work that is finalized by printing the finished document, and in Ridley's world it refers to the result of a thought process. Hoban also uses the process of reanalysis, which is easiest to explain with an example. The English word for apron, apron, is etymologically derived from the French word naperon, in which form it was in use until the 17th century. With the indefinite article in front it was a naperon and would be transformed into an apron by the process of reanalysis. Such examples in Ridley are numerous (a head < ahead, a live < alive, a nuff < enough, inner fearens

< interference, to gether < together, ter morrer < tomorrow). In many cases we can speak of systemic deviations, for example, the prefix ex- in Ridley's language becomes a free morpheme as (as plain < explain) bound be- becomes free (be long < belong, be twean < between), as well as en-/in- (in joy < enjoy, in stead < instead).

(7) Spare the mending and tryl narrer (119)

Reanalysis of the approach also involves more complex syntagmas, such as in the previous example, which is somewhat more difficult to decipher because the verb to spare and the noun mending are used in modern English, but in this case it is impossible to bring them into a meaningful connection. The writer actually reanalyzes scientific


5 It would not be said that the use of these processes is deliberate and calculated, but rather intuitive. The author relies more on his own sense of language than on linguistic studies.


terminology as an experiment based on the principle of trial and error, or experimenting and trial and error.

When the novel talks about (al)chemistry, we again encounter deformed terms: res and due < residue, new clear < nuclear, assits

< acids, break and thru the barren year < break through the barrier, catwl twis

< catalyst, axel rate < accelerate, sess men < assessment men, some poasyum < symposium.

The word used to denote the sky in the novel is gallack seas, which becomes intelligible when we pronounce it aloud and recognize galaxy in it.

Reanalysis often goes hand in hand with folk etymology, which operates on the principle of misunderstanding or ignorance of the etymology of an expression, and the use of a closer, more understandable word that is similar in form but completely unrelated in meaning. This results in a reinterpreted word or idiom that makes much more sense to speakers of the language. A great example of Hoban's play on words is:

(8) I bes put the red cord strait…

The idiom behind this example is put the record straight, which means to state the correct version of an event. Although the idiom is formally reformulated, its meaning is the same in both versions of the language.

Proper nouns symbolically describe characters through witty wordplay. The main character, Ridley Walker, becomes someone who walks, wanders, and solves the puzzling questions of the origin and purpose of life through his first and last name. Then, the name Belnot Phist from the Ministry (Mincery) is actually a play on the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who works for the Ministry, which also has a mocking form that alludes to mincing meat (the verb to mince). We have already mentioned the envoys of the ministry, the tax collectors, Pry Mincer and Wes Mincer, who so obviously refer to the Prime Minister and Westminster (the Palace of Westminster, the seat of the English Parliament). Goodparley is one of them, and the name suggests smoothness and eloquence (good and the French parler), but also monetary gain (to parlay).

If we sum up all the oddities, the novel not only seems untranslatable, but also leaves the impression that it is completely incomprehensible even to native speakers. The truth is somewhere in the middle, or at least 30%. Namely, Boyne (2000: 6) found on a smaller sample that only 28% of the words used deviate from the norm in some way, while the rest follow orthographic standards, and that about 82% of the vocabulary consists of morphologically monosyllabic words and about the same number of monomorphemic words. What does this tell us about the possibility of translation?


from the translator’s perspective

Ridley Walker is not the first novel to play freely with language. Orwell’s 1984, Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange and Welsh’s Trainspotting, each of which uses linguistic hybrids in its own way, have been translated (with more or less success) into Serbian. Why, then, has Ridley Walker remained marginalized in the face of such “mainstream” literary success? Is it even possible to translate it, and by what method?

Translation from a source language to a target language is traditionally expected to enable an approximate equalization of the surface meaning in the two languages, while preserving the linguistic structure of the original as much as possible, but in no way to the detriment of the target language (Basnet 2002: 12).

When it comes to the possibility of translation, we encounter two opposing currents. Linguists and philosophers generally hold the view from a theoretical point of view that translation is impossible, while translators prove the opposite through practice. The first camp was also influenced by the popularity of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and the view that “two languages ??can never be so similar that we could say that they represent the same social reality. Different societies inhabit different worlds, not the same one that they just label differently” (Sapir, cited in Basnet 2002: 22). If it is true that we do not describe some objective reality with language, but rather shape it, Ridley’s world is, like language, deformed, mostly monosyllabic, yet polysyllabic. If we ignore phonetic abnormalities, perhaps it is precisely the layering of the concepts of that future society that is the greatest challenge for the reader and the greatest problem for the translator.

In the glossary at the end of the novel (pages 233–235), Hoban gives several examples of words that change meaning depending on the context, the explanation of which should also be given in the glossary after the translation (examples (9–11)):

(9) Plomercy sometimes means ‘diplomacy’, i.e. negotiations about common interests, but also ‘plea for mercy’.

(10) rwquirt means to request, to ask for, but according to the author, it can have greater weight depending on the context. It also conveys the meaning ‘helping the qwirys’. The equivalent of this phrase in modern English would be ‘helping the police in an investigation’.

(11) Suching waytion is a hybrid form of the noun ‘situation’ and ‘such is the way things are’.

A reader who strives for only basic understanding misses much of the meaning the writer wants to convey, as in the previous examples. Lawrence-Pietroni believes that if we read Ridley with the intention of finding a meaningful equivalent in modern English for every word, which is an unconscious impulse, if we skip over unclear parts and try to “smooth out the bumps” in the text, we are actually reading a bad translation (2011: 105). What would a translation of that bad translation look like, then?

It goes without saying that certain literary genres, such as poetry, ornate prose, prose that relies on wordplay or dialect, are doomed to lose meaning in translation (Newmark 1988: 194). In this case, Ridley Walker is at a double loss from the start. Bearing in mind that Hoban created a simple language that suited a primitive society, it would be important to find equally simplified and substandard structures in Serbian. Apart from wordplay (some say it can be salvaged) and the use of dialect, in translation into Serbian phonetic spelling as a prevalent means of de-normalization loses all meaning. Here we are thinking primarily of simplified diphthongs, the elimination of consonant clusters (e.g. IGH), and the replacement of vowels (boan < bone). On the other hand, for most of the previously mentioned examples of orthographic and phonetic deviation, it is possible to find an alternative, if not an equivalent.

Verbs with a reduced number of consonants that consistently occur in this form can be translated by elision of the vowel in Serbian: kep – zadržo, tol – reko, foun – našo, etc. This can also be a consistent solution for all verbs in the perfect tense, since the past tense forms in English are also non-standard (burrit < _uried, carrit < carried). In translation, we encounter the issue of gender, which is not evident in English. The translator would have to decide whether to equate the ending -la in Serbian with the masculine gender or to replace it with something similar.

Since the permutation of the consonant R is not continuous, in Serbian this change can be applied in some other lexemes where it is convenient, but in some cases it can also be translated analogously to the original: pirntowt – ispirn- tati, persner – zatrovenik, etc.

The omission of an unstressed syllable in English in some cases,

where the meaning of the lexeme is not in question, can be conveyed by omitting the syllable in Serbian (guvner – guvner). The problem arises in examples such as delkit < delicate, which has several translation equivalents, including nežan/nežna. In a two-syllable adjective, we have no possibility of further simplification, only some kind of consonant replacement or vowel elision. The polysyllabic equivalent deliktan would become delkatan, or even deliktan, according to the same pattern.

Elisions at the beginning of words are possible under the same conditions as in English, so that the possibility of understanding is not completely impaired. Of the examples given earlier in the paper, Puter Leat is easily transposed into Pjuter Leat, but the challenge is posed by examples such as ‘whats in us lorn and loan and oansome’ (forlorn, alone and loansome), which in English are easy for the reader to “decipher” because they are synonyms, each of which associates with the next. The bearer of meaning in the translation is the adjective sam, in which there is no room for reduction. With a possible extension, the changes would also affect derived adjectives, so the translation could read osomoleno, samo and usamoleno.

Examples of simplified diphthongs (when Y changes /a?/ to shyn) can sometimes be transposed. In the local slang of young people who strive for an expression that is unusual, effective and concise in written form (Palibrk and Tošic 2011), we come across myca (shirt), where Y changes the sequence AJI, which in translation can be applied as a systematic deviation for the sequence IJA as well, as in shyn < shine –syati < sijati.

Separating compounds is certainly possible in Serbian, but it is necessary to establish a pattern and be consistent with it, as Hoban does: no body – ni ko, every thing – sva šta, etc. The stressed šva (/?/), which is reinterpreted as an article in the novel, is of course not possible to separate in Serbian, but it is possible to separate the beginning of a word to stand alone as a preposition: a nuff < enough — do sta, to gether < together – za jedno, be long – pri padati, be twean < between – iz medu, in joy < enjoy – u živati, in stead < instead – u mesto, etc. This also applies to scientific terminology, in which it is more difficult to preserve the model in English. Would the translations rez and dum for res and due, barene jerere for barren year (barrier), kata li zatvor for catwl twis be good enough and understandable to the domestic audience? Syntax and neologisms are by far the biggest challenge for a translator. Translation theory always assumes Language1 and Language2, source and target, and does not offer any guidelines on what to do if within one language we encounter L3. This is precisely why syntactic constructions are the biggest challenge for a translator, as they require the design of a linguistic skeleton that would be consistently used in translation. Simplified English must be translated into simplified Serbian, with fewer cases and congruences, in short – ungrammatical must be translated into ungrammatical language that, in addition to all of the above, tends towards colloquial and substandard speech. So, in practice this implies not two, but four languages: translation from J4 to J3, as given in example (1), then follows the translation of the propositional meaning from standard English J3 to J2, i.e. Serbian, which again needs to be modified and formulated as J1 according to the model of J4.

(12) I dint have no reason for going there I dint want no bother with Ram hevvys from the out poast crowdless like I wer nor I wernt even the qwipt man for roading let a loan fighting. (J4) [I had no reason for going there, I didn’t want any trouble with Ram heavies from the outpost, because I was alone and I wasn’t equipped for travelling let alone fighting. (J3)] I had no reason to go there, I didn’t want any trouble with Ram heavies from the outpost, because I was alone and I wasn’t equipped for travelling let alone fighting. (J3)] I had no reason to go there, I didn’t want to clash with the Ram heavies who were on guard, I was alone and I wasn’t equipped for the road, let alone the fight. (J2) I had no reason to go there I had no problem with the Ram Guard reinforcements I was unmanned I was not equipped for the journey let alone the fight. (J1)

Neologisms and wordplay, on the other hand, make reading and translation difficult. Newmark believes that neologisms should be preserved in a literary text. If they are derived from known lexemes, the same or similar morphemes should be used in translation or, in the case of a newly created word aiming for a sound effect, phonemes with an analogous effect should be used. Citing Joyce's Finnegans Wake as an example, Newmark writes that such language must be recreated, systematically and creatively, in such a way as to preserve naturalness, whether morphological or phonetic (Newmark 1988: 143). In more complex syntagms, such as in example (7) Spare the mending and tryl narrer, according to Newmark’s recipe, adhering to Hoban’s changes in English, we can get ‘sperimed’ and ‘tryl narrer’ in the translation with the aim of achieving the same effect of absurd meaning. The translator is, therefore, left to himself and the quality of the translation will depend on his inventiveness and inspiration.

Puns are another segment of translation that is unfortunately usually lost in translation. Regarding the translation of jokes, coinages and puns, Landers (2001: 109) says that metalanguage is language that speaks for itself, an aspect that the translator finds most frustrating but also encouraging. The names Pry Mincer and Wes Mincer can be preserved by calquing as Pre Mister and Wes Mister, which come from the Mincery. The allusions to the prime ministership and Wesmister are preserved, with additional associations to the English-speaking world (mister). On the other hand, the name of the hero of the novel, probably together with a multitude of other examples, would be explained in a footnote that Landers (2001: 93) says destroys the mimetic effect, i.e. the writer’s attempt to create the illusion that the reader is experiencing or witnessing the events described. Footnotes break the flow, disrupt the continuity of reading because they distract the eye from the text and thus disrupt the desire to trust the text.


Concluding remarks

At first glance and on first reading, Russell Hoban’s novel seems incomprehensible even to native English speakers, so how can one translate something so obscure? From the perspective of translation theory, a combination of the semantic and communicative methods seems most appropriate. Both are faithful to the original, but differ in that the first is more consistent with the original, the writer’s language and thought, and the second is consistent with the original, but still freer, focuses on the message of the text rather than on its meaning, is aimed at a wider audience and therefore produces a text that is simpler, more natural and, therefore, easier to read (Newmark 1991: 11–12). Applying only the communicative method, although it sounds tempting, would ultimately result in a novel set in post-apocalyptic Serbia, not England. The theory, of course, applies to the half of the novel that, according to the statistics already presented, is in accordance with the syntactic standards of modern English, as well as to about 70% of the vocabulary that is orthographically and semantically unchanged (Boyne 2009). The answer to the question of how much this fact would facilitate translation into Serbian could be obtained from a translator, bold and patient, who would dare to translate Ridley Walker. Achieving linguistic, cultural and expressive equivalence in translation is a serious challenge, but as Newmark says, “the untranslatable, the unacceptable and the deviant are a luxury that a translator cannot afford” (1988: 209).

Language is undoubtedly an important factor in the novel and contributes to its overall value. It manages to convince us of the terrible story of the difficult time after the nuclear catastrophe, opens the door to a different, past-future world, and therefore it is important to understand it, because in this way we reach the essence of Ridley's story. Hoban himself says that language is "like an archaeological site full of remains of dead and living pasts, lost and buried civilizations and technologies. The language we speak is a palimpsest of the efforts and history of all humanity" (interview in Hafenden 1985: 138). It is these words that we experience while reading his novel. In an age of incredible technological and scientific discoveries, we forget how little we know about our own origins, and it is very difficult not to wonder if we are the future of Ridley's society that has rediscovered gunpowder.


Literature:

Hoban, Russell (2002) Riddley Walker, expanded edition. London: Bloomsbury. Bassnett 2002: S. Bassnett, Translation Studies (3rd edition), London and New York:

Routledge.

Bojn 2009: M. Boyne, Sentenced to Destruction: a Stylistic Analysis of the Syntax of Two Post-apocalyptic Novels, in: Gibson, Green, King and Lucas (eds.), Working With English: Medieval and Modern Language, Literature and Drama 5.1 Crossing the Divides, pp. 1–20.

Lenders 2001: C. Landers, Literary Translation: a Practical Guide, Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Lawrence Pietroni 2011: A. Lawrence Pietroni, Learning to read Riddley, The Reader (journal of The Reader Organization), No. 44, Winter, pp. 100–105.

Malen 2000: R. D. Mullen, Dialect, Grapholect, and Story: Russell Hoban's Riddley Walker as Science Fiction, Science Fiction Studies, 27, pp. 391–417.

Haffenden 1985: J. Haffenden, Novelists in Interview, New York: Routledge.

Newmark 1988: P. Newmark, A textbook of Translation, New York, London, Tokyo, Toronto: Prentice Hall.

Newmark 1991: P. Newmark, About translation, Clevedon, Buffalo, Toronto, Sydney: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Palibrk, Tošic 2011: I. Palibrk, T. Tošic, Text Messages in Serbian: Focusing on Lexicon, Caiet de semiotica, no. 22, Timisoara: Editura Universitatii de West, 117–134.




Internet sources:

Etymological Dictionary of the English Language: http://www.etymonline.com/index. php?term=apron

Glossary of terms from Ridley Walker novels: http://www.errorbar.net/rw/


[Original abstract]

Tiana T. Tošic Lojanica

IS RUSSELL HOBAN’S RIDDLEY WALKER (UN)

TRANSLATABLE?

Summary

In his novel Riddley Walker Hoban creates a unique language, a deteriorated version of English reflecting the state of the future post-apocalyptic society. Riddley-speech is charac- terized by non-standard syntax, phonetic spelling, shifted morphology, neologisms and folk etymology. Despite its literary success and popularity, this novel still has not been translated to Serbian. The first part of the paper deals with the peculiarities and difficulties of the future language, then we go on to propose possible solutions and translational equivalents in Serbian. Relying on the fact that about 70% of lexis and 50% of syntax are standard, we conclude that the translation is possible, but achieving cultural, linguistic and expressive equivalence poses a serious challenge for a translator who would dare to embark on that journey.

Keywords: Russell Hoban, Riddley Walker, translation, (un)translatable, translation equivalents