The perspective offered by Source Text 2 and its related Target Texts 3, 4, 7 and 8 is different from that of Source Text 1 and its translations. Source Text 2 is written from the opposition’s perspective. This perspective reflects in both the source and target texts, which are abundant in statements criticizing the government. There are statements of both indirect and direct criticism aiming at PM Ferenc Gyurcsány, and, to a lesser extent, at the government in power. First, the perspective of Source Text 2 will be described, to be followed by an account of the perspective of Target Texts 3, 4, 7 and 8.

In sentence 1, Source Text 2 starts with the fact that the nation voted (kiemelkedő részvétellel lezajlott és az igenek elsöprő sikerét hozó szociális népszavazás [Social Referendum with high voter turnout and a strong Yes-victory]) and in sentences 1 and 2 refers to Hungary’s President László Sólyom’s statement rendering the results obvious and their implications obliging: Sólyom László köztársasági elnök kijelentette: az eredmény egyértelmű. Majd arra intett, a törvényhozókon és a politikusokon a sor, hogy megtegyék a szükséges lépéseket és levonják a következtetéseket [President László Sólyom said the results are clear. Then he warned that now it is up to the legislative sector and the politicians to take the necessary steps and draw the conclusions]. Quite clearly, both the emphasis on the Yes-victory and the suggestion that legislation and politicians should make some changes based on the results of the Referendum are instances of implicit criticism towards the government (people voted against the government’s measures of introducing the three fees and thus changes must be made accordingly). Also, the fact that the article quotes the President, that is a well-respected non-partisan (President László Sólyom is not a member of any political organisation) makes people’s judgement sound more objective and suggests that the results of the Referendum are not a party issue but a fact.

Sentences 3 and 4 of Source Text 2 go on to discuss how the next session of the Parliament reacted to President László Sólyom’s request. The only common denominator between the government and the opposition was that they wanted to take legislative steps to accommodate voters’ wish that had manifested in the Referendum. In sentence 4, the phrase a megszüntetésük ellen mindent bevetve sikertelenül hadakozott kormánypártok [the governing parties having fought unsuccessfully against the public will of requesting their /i.e. that of the visit fee, the hospital daily fee and the tuition fee/ repeal] undermines the credibility of the intention of the government regarding these steps, though.

Sentences 5-10 focus on showing Prime Minister Gyurcsány’s incompetence in handling the situation. The Prime Minister is pictured as a second-rate musician-actor in this part of Source Text 2: a fő szólamot Gyurcsány Ferenc igyekezett megadni [the main tune was played by Mr. Ferenc Gyurcsány] (sentence 5), kialudva valamelyest engedékenyebb húrokat pengetett [well-slept, he played more lenient tunes] (sentence 6), az Őszödi Böszme és a színlap egyéb kisbetűs szereplői [the Liar of Őszöd and other minor actors of the cast] (sentence 10). The Prime Minister is explicitly criticised for the following: considering all who did not cast their votes as No-voters (a nem szavazókat a szocialisták támogatójaként próbálta meg vizionálni [he tried to envision “No” voters as the supporters of the Socialists] – sentence 6), depicting Yes-voters as irresponsible pénztárcapárti [people who prefer their wallets] (sentence 7) and being inconsistent about his interpretation of the Referendum results. Sentence 7 has még azt mondta: tiszteletben tartják az eredményt [then he said they would respect people’s will] quoting Prime Minister Gyurcsány’s own words, then sentences 8 and 9 contain később azonban előkerült a megszokott vádaskodó hang [later, there came the same old accusations against the public will] and megkapták a magukét szép sorjában… [everybody was told off] (sentence 9). This suggests that Source Text 2 depicts PM Gyurcsány as inconsistent in the interpretation of the Referendum results.

Sentences 11 to 16 communicate the opposition’s criticism towards PM Gyurcsány. The first two sentences state two important facts Mr. Tibor Navracsics called the Prime Minister’s attention to: those who claim that education and health care are free of charge do not speak the truth because people pay tax, social and health contributions to use these services (sentence 11), and that the Prime Minister did not say a single word about the GDP proportionate state contribution allocated to health care and education (sentence 12). Sentences 13 to 16 communicate the opposition’s opinion on what the Prime Minister did say criticising him explicitly for the following: stating that Hungary lost with the Referendum in the long run (sentence 13), his practice of privatising a formerly state-owned property (sentences 14), his lack of self-reflection (sentence 15), his habit of telling lies and for his ungrounded criticism of the Leader of Fidesz Viktor Orbán (sentence 16). To conclude the article, the writer goes back to the second-rate musician-actor metaphor stating explicitly that Prime Minister Gyurcsány is a bad actor (nem latinovitsi fokon Cipollát alakító Gyurcsány [passionately acting Cipolla but not as well as actor Latinovits] (sentence 17) and, as such, he talks nonsense: őrült beszéd, de nincs benne rendszer [a madman’s speech with no system or structure in it] (sentence 18).

These textual features suggest a perspective that is negative towards the government and especially the Prime Minister. Source Text 2 reveals a perspective against the Prime Minister and his government. Anti-government and anti-Prime Minister contents dominate over pro-Fidesz ones in this text. Criticism of the Prime Minister does not come only from the opposition’s mouth as, in the first part of the article, an independent source, President László Sólyom is quoted and there are references to voters’ will (sentences 1-4) for the justification of the anti-government and anti-Prime Minister attitude. Also, Mr. Tibor Navracsics’s criticism is presented to be based on facts (sentences 11-12), therefore criticism is made to appear more objective, whereas opinions without any factual support criticizing Gyurcsány directly (sentences 5-10 and 13-18) come from the journalist. Overwhelmingly, the target of criticism is mainly Prime Minister Gyurcsány himself.

In terms of the perspective of Target Texts 3, 4, 7 and 8, all findings described above are valid for these texts, too. Thus, instead of repeating the same arguments and quoting the referent parts of the target texts, further specific references regarding the perspective of the target texts will be provided below. Translated by MSZP supporter Translator 1 for MSZP, Target Text 3 reveals the following translation shifts in perspective in comparison with Source Text 2. First, in sentence 1, instead of a neutral reporting verb for kijelentette [stated] (sentence 1 of Source Text 2), the translator uses claimed, which questions the truth content of President László Sólyom’s statement. Similarly, the lexical choice of declared for arra intett [he warned] in sentence 2 and Target Text 3 suggests that the president acts like a despotic ruler.

Source Text 2 mentions that Gyurcsány criticizes the opposition, but Target Text 3 makes his criticism sound much milder through the intervention of Translator 1: consider that the expression in sentence 16 of Source Text 2 a Fidesz elnökét ostorozó [decrying the president of Fidesz] is translated as directing criticism at the president of Fidesz (sentence 15 of Target Text 3). Moreover, there are many instances in Target Text 3 that try to soften the effects of Source Text 2 in terms of Gyurcsány’s depiction. The expression Mr. Ferenc Gyurcsány’s speeches dominated the pre-agenda session in sentence 5 is less pejorative than the corresponding phrasing in sentence 5 of Source Text 2 a fő szólamot Gyurcsány igyekezett megadni [Gyurcsány was trying to play the main tune]. Also, the term in sentence 6 kialudva valamelyest engedékenyebb húrokat pengetett [after having slept enough he /PM Gyurcsány/ was more lenient] gets translated as more relaxed in sentence 6 of Target Text 3. Sentence 11 of Target Text 3 contains less pejorative phrasing that the expressions in sentence 11 of Source Text 2: az újrahangolt kormánypárti kortesbeszédek [pro-government canvass-speeches retuned] is translated as speeches advocating the standpoint of the government and homályban maradt [was obscured] with reference to the factual figures of state contribution to health care and education services is rendered as was not elaborated on, moreover the phrase mint tényadat [as a fact] is missing from Target Text 3. Next, in sentence 13 of both Source Text 2 and Target Text 3, privatization in connection with PM Gyurcsány’s practice of privatising a formerly state-owned property is less pejorative than megszerzéséből [snatching]. Finally, sentence 16 of Target Text 3 has like a passionate Cipolla, which does not sound as a negative image of PM Gyurcsány especially if the non-Hungarian reader does not know what kind of character Cipolla was. Last, in sentence 10 of Source Text 2, the expression a színlap egyéb kisbetűs szereplői gets translated as the more insignificant characters of the cast (sentence 10 in Target Text 3) by a word-by-word translation, yet, the negative connotation of the source lexis disappears through translation.

With reference to Target Text 3, based on the above, it can be concluded that there is a tendency to soften those parts of Source Text 2 that decry the Prime Minister. Therefore, it can be stated that Target Text 3, even if it does not reproduce the perspective of the government (as Source Text 2 is strongly anti-government), it leans towards the client, MSZP in perspective where possible and also reflects the political conviction of MSZP supporter Translator 1. Yet, with MSZP as client and Translator 1 being an MSZP supporter, it is not revealed whether the above shifts in the target text are due to the translator’s political stance or her aim to satisfy the client’s expectations.

Target Text 4 was translated by the same MSZP supporter Translator 1, but this time the client is Fidesz. Let us now see whether the above alterations in perspective leaning towards MSZP also occur in the text. The first change in comparison to Target Text 3 is that the reporting verbs attacking President László Sólyom disappear: claim is replaced with said in sentence 1 of Target Text 4 just as declared is with motioned in sentence 2. Most of the pejorative expressions referring to the Prime Minister and his government in Source Text 2 are translated in Target Text 4 using more pejorative expressions than in Target Text 3: Mr. Ferenc Gyurcsány played the more dominant tune (sentence 5 in Target Text 4) for Mr. Ferenc Gyurcsány’s speeches dominated the pre-agenda session (sentence 5 in Target Text 3), softer than in his defiant Sunday night reactions (sentence 6 in Target Text 4) as opposed to more moderate than in his castigating Sunday night reactions (sentence 6 in Target Text 3), retuned pro-government canvass-speeches (sentence 11 in Target Text 4) as opposed to speeches advocating the standpoint of the government (sentence 11 in Target Text 3) and was deliberately obscured (sentence 11 in Target Text 4) as opposed to was not elaborated on (sentence 11 in Target Text 3), reprimanding (sentence 15 in Target Text 4) as opposed to directing criticism (sentence 15 in Target Text 3) and Őszöd speech of lies (sentence 15 in Target Text 4) as opposed to well-known Őszöd speech (sentence 15 in Target Text 3). Interestingly, if Target Texts 3 and 4 are further compared, the expressions the more insignificant characters of the cast and the reporting verb argued remain unchanged in sentence 10, similarly to privatization in sentence 13. This is so either because this is a way for Translator 1 to reflect her own beliefs or because Translator 1 was not aware of the manipulative potentials of the use of these lexical items. To sum up, Target Text 4 reproduces the perspective of the client to a greater extent than Target Text 3. Most of the textual elements softening criticism against the Prime Minister disappear even if they could be phrased to reflect the translator’s own beliefs. It therefore can be stated that in terms of the reproduction of perspective the perspective of the client is of more importance than the translator’s political views.

Target Text 7 is another example illustrating the potential political conflict of the translator and the client: this target text was translated by Fidesz supporter Translator 2 for MSZP as client in the reproduction of perspective. Upon examining the reporting verbs referring to President László Sólyom (kijelentette and arra intett – sentences 1 and 2 in Source Text 2), the neutral said is used in sentence 1 and urged in sentence 2, with the latter expressing the translator’s sympathy towards the President. Shift in perspective towards the client is again at work. For example, strongly opposing in sentence 4 of Target Text 7 is milder than the Hungarian mindent bevetve [moving everything] in sentence 4 of Source Text 2, just as gave the keynote speech in sentence 5 of Target Text 7 is more neutral than the Hungarian phrasing (fő szólamot […] megadni) in sentence 5 of Source Text 2. Similarly, the phrases a megszokott vádaskodó hang [the usual accusing tone] in sentence 8 and megkapták a magukét [they were given what they deserved] in sentence 9 of Source Text 2 are more negative than their translations of usual accuses and got scolded (sentence 8 and 9 of Target Text 7). Again, the phrases the less significant members of PM Gyurcsány’s team in sentence 10 and re-echoing pro-government propaganda in sentence 12 of Target Text 7 are not translated as pejoratively as the Hungarian phrases színlap egyéb kisbetűs szereplői [the Liar of Őszöd and other minor actors of the cast] (sentence 10) and az újrahangolt kormánypárti kortesbeszédek [pro-government canvass-speeches retuned] (sentence 11 in Source Text 2). The same holds true for the expressions under fire in sentence 17 in Target Text 7 (for ostorozó [decrying] – in sentence 16 of Source Text 2) and passionately acting in the role of Cipolla but not as perfectly as Latinovits in sentence 18 of Target Text 7 for nem latinovitsi fokon Cipollát alakító Gyurcsány [passionately acting Cipolla but not as well as actor Latinovits] (sentence 17 in Source Text 2).

Yet, there are a few cases where the translator’s political convictions reflect. Sentence 6 has his speech was more manageable than his insolent Sunday night reactions, where insolent has more negative connotations than dacos [defiant] in sentence 6 in Source Text 2, and the expression more manageable is also negative, with the implications of “the man is crazy sometimes, and is difficult to handle”. Another potential instance of Fidesz lean in perspective can be found in sentence 13 of Target Text 7, where deliberately cloaked is used for gondosan homályban hagyatott (sentence 12 of Source Text 2), and in sentence 17, where the expression infamous Őszöd speech of lies as a translation of hírhedt hazugságbeszédét (sentence 16 in Source Text 2) is used without any attempt to down-tone the negativity of the Hungarian phrase. Interestingly, sentence 14 of Target Text 7 has the word-by-word translation lethargic for letargikus in sentence 13 in Source Text 2, which expression in English is more pejorative in political contexts. In conclusion, if compared with the perspective of Source Text 2, Target Text 7 is more tentative in the reproduction of the perspective of the source text: Translator 2 seems to cater for the client, MSZP primarily, and only occasionally reproduces the perspective he shares. All in all, the target text reflects the client’s perspective.

Last, let us consider Target Text 8, where Translator 2, sympathising with Fidesz, translates Source Text 2 for Fidesz as client. The reporting verbs of the first two sentences of Source Text 2 are not changed as compared to Target Text 7. As Source Text 2 itself has a Fidesz perspective and both the translator and the client share the political conviction resulting in this perspective, it is not surprising that Target Text 8 reproduces the same perspective. There are many expressions that reflect an anti-Gyurcsány and anti-government viewpoints in Target Text 8. For example, instead of strongly opposing in Target Text 7 for mindent bevetve [do all in their power] in sentence 4 of Source Text 2, sentence 3 of Target Text 8 has the expression moving heaven and earth, which is more emphatic than the Hungarian phrase. Similarly, in sentence 5 of Target Text 8, acted as the lead piper is more pejorative than gave the keynote speech in Target Text 7. In Target Text 8, next to insolent, the word impertinent is added for dacos [defiant] (sentence 6 in Source Text 2), and in Target Text 8 more agreeable (sentence 6) replaces more manageable for engedékenyebb húrokat pengetett [he played more lenient tunes] in sentence 6 of Source Text 2, which lends a different value judgement to the target sentence: more manageable has to do more with PM Gyurcsány being unpredictable from time to time, whereas more agreeable refers more to the question of accepting or rejecting him. The phrase standard accusations in sentence 8 of Target Text 2 is sarcastic and pejorative as opposed to the neutral usual accuses in Target Text 7 expressing habitual behaviour of the Prime Minister, PM Gyurcsány’s cronies in sentence 10 of Target Text 8 is likewise more pejorative than PM Gyurcsány’s team in sentence 10 of Target Text 7, extended to as little as this is added in Target Text 8 to assess Gyurcsány’s introspection in sentence 16 implying that Gyurcsány’s speech was not much of an introspection, just as not nearly as perfectly as Latinovits appears in sentence 18 in Target Text 8, where the addition of nearly, which is completely missing, in Target Text 7, implies that Gyurcsány is a bad actor. The above lexical items in sentences 9, 12-15 and 17-18 of Target Text 7 remain unchanged in Target Text 8, and also preserve the negative standpoint towards the Prime Minister and the government expressed in Source Text 2. Not surprisingly, Target Text 8 is more negative towards Prime Minister Gyurcsány and his government than Target Text 7. Target Text 8 reflects the opposition’s perspective unanimously and unequivocally. There was no conflict in the reproduction of perspective in the case of Target Text 8: Fidesz supporter Translator 2 had to translate a text for Fidesz that reproduces the perspective shared by Fidesz, consequently the perspective of Source Text 2 is fully reproduced in Target Text 8.

As an overall conclusion to the aspect of perspective concerning Target Texts 3, 4, 7, 8, it can be stated that, with respect to Source Text 2, the most dominant perspective that gets observed in the target texts is the perspective expected by the client: the target texts produce the perspective shared by the client of the actual target text. When there is a conflict between the translator’s perspective and that of the client, it is always the client’s perspective that is of primary importance. The above confirms that translators mostly reproduce the perspective of the source text and include further perspective to satisfy client expectations.

The last aspect of the component of Action of the TDSI Model, implications and consequences deals with explicit and implicit statements of texts in their social, cultural and political contexts. Similarly to this part of the analysis of Source Text 1, explicit statements will be tackled first. Source Text 2 opens with the writer indirectly quoting President László Sólyom and mentioning how successful the Referendum was (sentences 1-2). This happens in order to make further steps to be taken by legislators and politicians seem necessary (sentence 2). In the next paragraph, it is explicitly stated what positions the different political forces assumed throughout the Referendum campaign (sentences 3-4). The next paragraphs (sentences 3-17) echo some typical arguments of the post-referendum debate: people voted “Yes” because they do not want to pay the three fees (sentences 8 and 10), education and health care services are not free as taxpayers pay taxes and contributions to use these services (sentence 11), what sums the state contributes to the maintenance of these services was not focalised by political parties (sentence 12), Hungary lost with the Referendum in the long run (sentence 13), etc. Finally, the text closes with expressing an explicit opinion on the Prime Minister picturing him as a second-class actor (sentence 17).

In connection with the implications expressed in the above sentences, the following can be stated. Reference to President László Sólyom (sentences 1-2) implies that the President is an independent, therefore acceptable and unbiased source, who urges legislators and politicians to draw the necessary conclusions from the Referendum results. The next paragraph (sentences 3-4) has the following implications. For some politicians it is difficult to draw the consequences of the Referendum: ezt a feladatot kísérelték meg abszolválni [they tried to absolve this task] (sentence 3), and the actions and the position of the government are inconsistent: now they want to be the first to fulfil the people’s wish, formerly they moved everything to prevent the Referendum from taking place (sentence 4). Paragraphs 3 (sentences 3-12) and 4 (sentences 13-15) have several implicit statements: mostly centring on PM Gyurcsány, communicating criticism towards him. These explicit statements are as follows: the Prime Minister likes talking and being at the centre of attention (sentence 5), he is defiant and moody as he keeps changing his mind (sentences 6-8), he is like a despotic ruler scolding everyone who is not of the same opinion as him (sentences 9-10), he is misleading people and is not telling the truth (sentences 11-16). Finally, the article concludes with picturing PM Gyurcsány as a second-rate actor, who has lost his wits (sentences 17-18).

In comparison with Source Text 1, it becomes visible that Source Text 2 contains more implicit statements than Source Text 1. When communicating criticism in paragraphs 3 and 4, Source Text 2 starts with presenting milder criticism against PM Gyurcsány first and it then proceeds to list more notable flaws of his character. Similarly to the findings in connection with Source Text 1, explicit statements are reproduced without exception in all four target texts of Source Text 2: in sentences 1-2 in Target Texts 3, 4, 7 and 8 and in sentences 3-17 in Target Texts 3 and 4 and 3-19 in Target Texts 7 and 8, respectively.

Implicit statements show a more diverse picture. As for the reference to President László Sólyom (sentences 1-2), the reporting verbs claim and declared undermine his authority in sentences 1 and 2 in Target Text 3, whereas in Target Texts 4, 7 and 8 sentences 1 and 2 use the neutral said (Target Texts 4, 7 and 8), and the pro-President phrases motioned (Target Text 4) and urged (Target Texts 7 and 8). The implication of sentence 3, i.e. it requires an effort on the part of the Parliament to draw the conclusions, is retained in Target Texts 3 and 4: This task was attempted to be absolved (sentence 3) but it is dropped in Target Texts 7 and 8: The House of Parliament was engaged in doing so (sentence 3). The implication of sentence 4 of Source Text 2, regarding the inconsistence of the government, comes across in all four target texts but a variety is observable in the intensity of the lexical item describing that the government previously opposed to the abolition of the fees: vehemently (Target Text 3), fiercely (Target Text 4), strongly (Target Text 7) and moving heaven and earth (Target Text 8). The implicit statements of Source Text 2 concerning PM Gyurcsány in paragraphs 3 and 4 also differ in their lexical realizations in the four target texts, and this obviously has an impact on what the target texts actually imply with reference to the Prime Minister. While Target Texts 3 and 7 simply suggest that the Prime Minister likes talking through the use of Gyurcsány’s speeches (sentence 5 of Target Text 3) and Gyurcsány gave the keynote speech (sentence 5 of Target Text 7), playing the dominant tune in sentence 5 of Target Text 4 and acted as a lead piper playing the dominant tune in sentence 5 of Target Text 8 already have negative connotations in terms of the content of the speech. Several lexical items underpin that references to the Prime Minister are downtoned in Target Text 3 whereas Target Texts 4 and 7 are considerably more critical towards PM Gyurcsány and his government. Target Text 8 is harsher in its negative tone as compared to Source Text 2 in sentences 5, 6-8 and 9-10. For the comparison of the lexical realisations of implicit statements, Table 8.3 shows the implications expressed in the above sentences of Source Text 2 and their target textual realisations in Target Texts 3, 4, 7 and 8.

As the examples in Table 8.3 below show, Target Text 3 undermines criticism towards the Prime Minister, Target Texts 4 and 7 are considerably more critical towards PM Gyurcsány than Target Text 3, whereas Target Text 8 accentuates negative criticism expressed in connection with the Prime Minister in Source Text 2. These features are very much in line with client expectations: Target Texts 3 and 7 have been produced for MSZP, while Target Texts 4 and 8 for Fidesz, thus the translators reproduce implicit statements with the client in mind.

 

In conclusion to the component of Action, the analysis has revealed the subsequent findings. First, as for the aspect of intentionality, both source texts were written in an urge to explain the Social Referendum results, and the related target texts were created to perform a translation assignment commissioned by two opposing political parties, MSZP and Fidesz. Second, the aspect of perspective reveals that Source Text 2 was composed from the perspective of the opposition. As far as the related target texts are concerned, the general tendency is that the client’s perspective and expectations seem to dominate and, in conflicting cases, these override the translator’s own political views and convictions in the production of the target texts. Lastly, the aspect of implications and consequences shows that explicit statements are reproduced without exception and implicit statements are reproduced to satisfy client expectations.