Official and internet translations – comparison of culture-related aspects from the perspective of foreignisation and domestication dichotomy

Aim. The study aimed at establishing whether any signi cant differences exist between the two translations of the same novels: one published unof cially and anonymously on the Internet, and the other published of cially for the retail market. The elements taken into consideration in the analysis were: the culture-bound elements, the vulgar terms, and syntactic calques. Methods. The theoretical part of the research is based on the refraction theory by A. Lefevere (1992), according to whom translation is a process regulated by a system in which it functions. In opposition to the regulated translational activity stands unof cial Internet translation. The comparative analysis of the translations was further developed with the application the foreignisation and domestication dichotomy proposed by L. Venuti (1995). Results and conclusion. The results of the study imply that there are signi cant differences between the of cial and unof cial translations; the of cial translations aim at domesticating techniques, whereas the unof cial translations are more likely to apply foreignising techniques, even at the cost of breaking cultural values of the target culture. Cognitive value. The Internet has become an inseparable part of modern people’s daily life, yet Internet activities are still not regulated and researched to such a degree as the ‘real world’ ones. The study aims at showing differences between the Internet and of cial translation; however, it is not able to answer the question regarding the roots of these differences. Further inquiries would be necessary in this case – if even possible.


Introduction
The world has changed dramatically over the last decade.Thirty years ago, if one wanted to see a movie, he or she needed to go to the cinema or watch it on TV or VHS.If one wanted to read a book, he or she needed to borrow it from somebody, go to the library or to the bookstore.Today, there is the Inter-doi: 10.15503/jecs20182.136.153net.The rapid development of the technology and the wide Internet access have changed the eld of the cultural reception -it is much easier to access and consume the cultural products.However, not only the eld of the cultural reception has been affected, but also the eld of cultural production.One of the areas that are subject of change is the area of translation.Anonymous and unof cial translations are becoming increasingly popular; it is becoming more and more common that there is an of cial, paid translation on the commercial market and an unof cial, free translation on the Internet.
As translation is considered to be a product of culture, Cultural Studies is a signi cant part of Translation Studies.There are theories dealing with the issues such as the domination of cultures, cultural hierarchy and valuation of culture, which agree mostly in claiming that these are processes reaching far beyond solely the translational eld.Hence, if one attempts translation, one's stance towards source language (SL) and target language (TL) culture and one's treatment of the cultures should not be solely the product of translational education or area in which the translation was produced.On the other hand, there are systemic views on translation.One of the most famous systemic theories in Translation Studies is the refraction theory proposed by André Levefere (1982,2009), who claims that the treatment of the SL and TL cultures in translation is regulated by the receiving (TL) literary system.
In the view of these two competing theories, the aim of this study is to attempt to answer the following questions: Are there any signi cant differences in the translations of cultural elements produced within the system (of cial translations) and outside the system (Internet translation), which would suggest the validity of A. Lefevere's theory?Which translations are more prone to committing calques and being vulgar?If there are differences, how are they realised in terms of foreignisation and domestication?Or, perhaps, there are no signicant differences between those texts?In order to answer those questions, A. Lefevere's theory is analysed to provide the full understanding of the systemic theory of translation and its implications.Furthermore, the changes in translational practices caused by the development of technology are also explored.The analysis is performed with the application of Krzysztof Hejwowski's and Lawrence Venuti's theories.The subject of the analysis are six texts -three pairs of of cial and unof cial translations of the same text into Polish, all published after the year 2015.The results are compared with a similar study performed in 2015 for 856 cultural elements in the of cial translation (Karpi ska, 2015).

Lefevere's refraction theory
André Lefevere is one of the most valued Translation Studies scholars, the co-creator of the cultural turn in Translation Studies and the representative of the so-called Manipulation School.His most recognized theory deals with refraction, which is a process of the adaption of the text that aims at a certain reading of a text (Lefevere, 2009, p. 227).The refraction can take place within the same language or can involve two or more languages; examples of the rst kind of refraction are censorships (e.g.performed in the USSR on the native texts), summaries of the school readings, anthologies and other actions often related to literary criticism.All these actions are performed in order to decide for the reader which elements are more signi cant and attention-worthy than others and result in a speci c reading of a text.The example of refraction which involves two or more languages is translation.One could even claim that every translation will be a refraction, understood as an attempt at matching the SL text to the standards ruling in TL and target culture.
There are three elements that in uence the nal shape of the text: patronage, poetics, and natural language.Patronage can be performed by a person -in the past it was a king or a backer -or by a group of people who share the same ideology.Importantly, the patrons do not affect translators directly but in order to do so, they use other persons functioning in the given literary system, such as editors, who correct translations and decide on the nal shape of the text before publishing; literary critics, who in uence the readers with their reviews of the translations; translation and literary scholars, who often perform texts analyses (including the analyses of translations) and give their opinion on the quality of the text, using evaluative vocabulary; or academics teaching translation at universities and on various courses, who signal their students which approaches to and techniques in translation are preferred (Lefevere, 2009, p. 228).There are three spheres in uenced by patronage -ideological (there should not be any ideological revolution in the receiving literary system), economical (the author and the translator may or may not be paid) and status (the literary work allows the author -and rarely the translator -to achieve certain status in the receiving culture).Europe is characterized by a diversi ed patronage, meaning there are various ideological agencies competing with each other.However, not so long time ago, Poland was an example of a country with a uni ed patronage performed by one political party, namely the communist party.
Poetics can be de ned as a code of conduct; it is a set of given techniques and procedures in translation and in writing which present themselves as more or less attractive to the author and to the translator (Lefevere, 2009, p. 229).Therefore, the poetics in uence the construction of the narration, action, and characters in the text, yet not only these; they also decide which situations are acceptable and desired in a text, which genre is preferred, or even how the literature and its function are viewed in general.As A. Lefevere notices, "[i]n systems with differentiated patronage various poetics will compete, each trying to dominate the system as a whole, and each will have its own critical establishment, applauding work that has been produced on the basis of its own poetics and decrying what the competition has to offer, relegating it to the limbo of 'low' literature, while claiming the high ground for itself" (1982, p. 6).Interestingly, both commercial and ideological literatures are similarly in exible in terms of their poetics.Ergo, each of the poetics offers a set of techniques and procedures which is severely restricted, only in a different manner.
The natural language is connected with the issues encountered by a translator and caused by both the language and the culture (Lefevere, 2009, p. 229).This problem is perhaps one of the most heavily explored in the Translation Studies, resulting in numerous competing theories regarding the issue.For example, Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf, after their study of the Napi Indians' language, concluded that the language one uses shapes his or her view of the world1 (after Kielar, 1988, p. 86).Krzysztof Hejwowski notices that the theory would imply that the languages one knows restrict cognition and, as a result, intercultural and interlinguistic communication is impossible -which is not true (2007, pp.[13][14].On the other side of the radical understanding of untranslatability is the statement provided by Albrecht Neubert and Gregory M. Schreve, who claim that there is only one case of untranslatability and it occurs when there is no one interested in translation.Otherwise, the translation of a text is always possible (1992, p. 85; after Hejwowski, 2007, p. 16).
Olgierd Wojtasiewicz presents a more balanced view on the issue of untranslatability and distinguishes two types thereof: linguistic and cultural.The case of linguistic untranslatability can be illustrated, for instance, by the differences between tenses used in two different languages (e.g. the English Perfect tenses have no equivalent in the Polish language); lack of relevant grammatical categories (there is no equivalent in Polish of the English articles a/an); or the issues regarding the dictionary de nitions of equivalent words in Polish and English (Wojtasiewicz, 2007, pp. 29-58).Cultural untranslatability is understood by O. Wojtasiewicz as the lack of connotations in the TL readers, which are present in the case of SL readers (2007, p. 61).Ergo, the cultural untranslatability is illustrated by any cultural elements in the text, such as proper names, traditional dishes, traditions themselves, political, educational, or legal systems, and allusions to the other products of SL culture (Wojtasiewicz, 2007, pp. 61-95).
Summing up, "[a] refraction which tries to carry a work of literature over from one system into another represents a compromise between two systems and is, as such, the perfect indicator of the dominant constraints in both systems" (Lefevere, 1982, p. 7).Now, the question is whether systemic (of cial) and non-systemic (unof cial) translations illustrate the hierarchy of cultures and languages similarly or differently; the second option would imply that A. Lefevere's theory is correct and that, even though the said hierarchy is overwhelming, given systems (in this case, literary system) 'bend' it in their own logic, similarly to the light going through the prism.

Translation as a non-systemic process
Profound social changes and technological revolution have both resulted in the transformation of Translation Studies; the areas affected are the scope of the research, views on the aim of translation and effects following thereafter.As a result, there are new directions in the research on translation, such as studies on translation as a representation, studies on translation as one of the factors shaping the relation between the minority and majority, or studies on translation in the context of globalisation and global resistance (Baker, 2014, p. 15).These new directions and the conclusions that come thereof suggest that nowadays literary translation is not only a systemic phenomenon -there are numerous translations functioning outside of the literary system, such as the one described by A. Lefevere (2009).
For instance, there is a branch of Translation Studies that analyses the manner in which one society constructs their view of the others on the basis of the translated texts.One of the heavily described cases is the case of India; the culture of India was rst presented by their colonisers, the British, as exotic, spiritual, or simple.However, as time passed and India 'consumed' the British texts describing it, such representation was also adopted by India itself, which is visible, for example, in the way in which Indian authors present their culture for wider readership (Baker, 2014, p. 16).Even though the studies on the representation focused rst on the postcolonial countries, now it seems that such process takes place also in the case of the countries which did not have a colonial past.Loredana Polezzi notices that the representation of Italy in translation did not only create the picture of Italy in the collective minds across other countries, but also came back and in uenced the manner in which the Italians perceive themselves (after Baker, 2014, p. 16).
What is more, the studies on the role of translation in the process of globalisation also lead to interesting conclusions.Mona Baker notices that globalisation is a sign of our times and it intensi es, as "the world has become a dense web of interrelations that are continually being reshaped through various forms of linguistic and cultural mediation"2 (2014, p. 19).On the one hand, the globalisation has led to the enforcement of the position of the English language as the dominating one.On the other hand, globalisation and the Internet have allowed for the development of new practices and new forms of resistance.The technological advances have resulted in the creation of the virtual world (and virtual culture) that may (and sometimes does) escape the enforced hierarchy and that is based on the activity of the participating individuals (Baker, 2014, p. 21).In the case of translation, one could mention such phenomena as fansubbing, which is illustrated by the gamers creating game subtitles in their national languages or fans creating subtitles to the movies and TV series (sometimes even within twenty four hours of the episode premiere) long before their ofcial premiere in the target country; scanlation, which is unof cial translation of manga; or nally, unof cial literary translation, which can be the result of the lack of of cial translation or unsatisfactory of cial translation of a given book.
It seems that the described activity -the activity of the 'Internet' translators -does not t into A. Lefevere's refraction theory.Internet translations are potentially created in an environment free of the hierarchy, structure, or rules, similar to the ones regulating the activity within the literary system.Internet translation is an activity willingly undertaken by various individuals who do not necessarily function in the literary system and who do not expect any nancial reward.Moreover, these individuals are not constrained by the patrons, controlling the translational process, do not need to possess certain skills or education in order to accept a commission -they are the ones who decide what their commission is and whether their competencies are suf cient.Therefore, it is worth comparing the translation created within the system and outside the system to see whether there are any signi cant differences and if there are, whether they suggest that the unof cial translation is an element of the resistance or whether it still follows the rules provided by the system.

The method -foreignization and domestication dichotomy
Translation is a highly complex phenomenon and a thorough analysis of all its aspects at once is an overwhelming task, in which potential bene ts do not match the amount and intensity of work required in order to perform it.Therefore, the analysis of translation usually focuses on one or more of the aspects, e.g. on the ideology promoted in the translation, on the shifts occurring, or on the translation of the cultural elements.In this study, the focus is on the culture-bound elements, cultural norms (especially vulgarity in translation), and the syntactic structure (especially on the syntactic calques).
The issue of cultural elements in translation is discussed, for instance, by Krzysztof Hejwowski.According to K. Hejwowski, culture is overwhelmingly present in the text and is re ected also in the language, hence it is not possible to fully comprehend the translation of SL culture.However, it is possible to examine so-called culture-bound elements which are "a convenient term covering many different types of phenomena whose common denominator is the fact that because of their cultural speci city ... they usually pose serious translation problems.Culture-bound items include most proper names ..., names and phrases connected with the organisation of life in the SL country …, with the source culture habits and traditions (e.g.holidays, eating habits), quotations from and allusions to the same language literature, both oral and written …, allusions to the country's history, and other spheres of culture such as music, lm, painting etc." (Hejwowski, 2004, p. 128).
The issue of vulgarity in translation is closely related to the cultural norms regulating what is acceptable in a given language.While in the past what was considered to be well-mannered behaviour regulated the level of vulgarity in the text (especially literary texts), today the previously accepted code of manners is often being violated.This is re ected in literature, in which appear elements that were considered to be taboo in the past (Pycia, 2012, p. 136).Vulgarity poses problems in translation especially if the levels of the accepted vulgarity differ in the literary and linguistic conventions of both SL and TL.In such a case, the translator faces a dilemma whether he or she should conform to or break the conventions of the TL culture and translational norms (Pycia, 2012, pp.136-137).There is a set of translational techniques, allowing translators to face the issue (e.g.Garcarz, 2006, pp.168-170), and, interestingly, their description almost instantly signals which approach should be adopted by the translator.For instance, descriptive translation is applied "to avoid the use of the most sacrilegious vulgarisms" (Garcarz, 2006, p. 169), whereas the enriching translation is considered to be the one used the least (Garcarz, 2006, p. 170).Also Ryszard Engelking comments on this issue, claiming that in the case of translation into Polish, the texts are less vulgar than their original counterparts, as such seems to be the translational norm (Zaleska, 2015, p. 312).
Syntactic calque is one of the translational mistakes and belongs to the category of mistakes in syntagmatic translation.According to K. Hejwowski (2007, p. 126), this type of mistake may be a result of insuf cient knowledge of culture or language, insuf cient knowledge of translation techniques or even lack of time.Mistakes in syntagmatic translation are, in other words, understood as translation without thorough interpretation and understanding of a translated text.Calques occur when a translator renders a text syntagmatically, meaning without thorough interpretation.It may result in unnatural or incorrect word order or the use of collocations which do not appear in the TL.An example of calques can be found in the translation of a fragment of Lauren Weisberger Fragments presented above differ signi cantly.While the reader of a SL text knows that it is Leigh who calls and introduces herself, the reader of a TL text may think that it is someone else who calls and introduces Leigh.The perspective shifts from Leigh's to an unknown person.
The three aforementioned aspects can be all analyzed with the application of the foreignisattion and domestication theory, proposed by Lawrence Venuti (1995).Such dichotomy is not new in Translation Studies -already in 1813, Frederick Schleiermacher wrote about similar concept using the metaphor of a travel and either "taking the reader to the author" or "taking the author to the reader" (in Venuti, 2006).What distinguishes Venuti's theory is its grounding within the modern context and the domination of the English language.He views domestication and foreignisation from the perspective of the valorisation of culture; hence, domestication is "an ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target-language cultural values" (1995, p. 20), whereas foreignisation is "an ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register the linguistic and cultural difference of foreign text" (1995, p. 20).In the later work on these two concepts, Venuti notices that translation is an inevitably domesticating process as language and culture are so closely bound that translating a text from one language into another results also in the translation of the culture (2004, p. 485).Therefore, it is not possible to 'transfer' the culture between languages; translator may solely signal the culture of the original in an implicit manner, by introducing certain 'otherness' into text.Yet this otherness will function in the context of the target language and target culture only; the elements of the source culture will be interpreted through the prism of the target culture (Venuti, 2004, p. 483).As a result, foreignisation should not be understood as a transfer but rather as an alienation or resistance.Foreignising translation should not be an easy reading but it should resist the reader through its otherness, on both linguistic and cultural levels (Venuti, 1995, pp. 20-24).
Venuti notices that nowadays, in the Anglo-American cultural sphere, the translation is more likely to receive the positive reviews from the literary critics if it masks its origins and pretends to be a text written in the Anglo-American culture (1995, p. 1).Venuti's analysis suggests that the preferred translation is natural, modern, and domestic (i.e.not showing any signs of the otherness) -or, in two words, highly domesticated.In a sense, the preferred translation should mimic the texts written in the target culture to such an extent that it is not a translation anymore.The main aim is to blur the differences between the culture and "to bring back a cultural other as the same, the recognisable, even the familiar" (Venuti, 1995, p. 18).The very opposite tendency can be expected in the case of the cultures dominated by the Anglo-American one.

Comparative analysis
The subject of the analysis were three sets of novels -original text, its of cial translation, and its unof cial translation.The analysis comprised of randomly chosen parts of the texts and focused on three aspects: culture-bound elements, vulgarity, and syntactic calques.They texts had to ful ll three criteria: rstly, the analysed books were all awarded and/or best-sellers.This criterion was motivated by the assumption that well-selling books will be translated by more experienced translators and in a more careful manner, as they may potentially bring a higher pro t to the publisher.Secondly, all the books and translations were published after the year 2014.This criterion was dictated by the fact that literary trends (but also translational trends) change over time, hence it was important that all texts were published fairly recently.Thirdly, and nally, the unof cial translation needed to be published rst, in order to avoid potential in uence of the of cial translation on the second analyzed text.
The rst set comprised of Colleen Hoover's Maybe Someday and its two translations.C. Hoover is currently one of the most popular authors in a genre called New Adult ction, which are novels created for the readers aged 18-30.All her novels were on the New York Times bestseller list and Maybe Someday took second place in the prestigious literary competition Goodreads Choice Awards in the category of romance in 2014 (lubimyczytac.pl).The Internet translation was done by a person under the nick "marika1311".Marika1311 has been functioning in the Internet as a translator for at least three years now and she regularly posts new translations, which are frequently translations of novels and short stories written by C. Hoover.Her translation appeared before the of cial one and, as it can be concluded from other posts, the main motivation for her translations is lack of the of cial translations (chomikuj.pl).The of cial translation was done by Piotr Grzegorzewski and published by Wydawnictwo Otwarte in 2016.Grzegorzewski belongs to Polish Literary Translators Association (pl.Stowarzyszenie T umaczy Literatury) and specialises in the translation of the popular literature, especially for children and young adults.His pro le states that he is "a Polish philologist and, for 20 years, a translator of English literature, both low-brow and high-brow.He has worked with the biggest Polish publishers and has got over 70 published translations" (stl.org.pl;translation mine).
The second set comprised of Take a Chance written by Abbi Glines and its two translations, this time functioning under two different titles -Ryzykuj c mi o (unof cial title) and Graj c w mi o (of cial title).A. Glines is also one of the bestselling American authors.Take a Chance is the seventh part of one of her series, The Rosemary Beach, and it was published in 2014 (wikipedia.com).The unof cial translation was published the same year by the group called More-ThanBooks, which seems to be present and active on the Internet at least since 2013 (facebook.com).Their translation appears to be surprisingly professional in terms of both visual experience but also content.The pdf le looks as if it were published by the of cial publisher and each chapter is signed not only with the translator's pseudonym, but also with the editor's.Similarly to marika1311, MoreThanBooks share their translations via chomikuj.pl(chomikuj.pl/More-ThanBooks).The of cial text was published by Wydawnictwo Pascal in the second half of 2015 and it was translated by Agata bikowska.A. bikowska is an alumnus of ethnology and anthropology, currently PhD student, and works as both translator and editor (goldenline.pl;kaczazupa.wordpress.pl).
The third and the last set comprises of Cora Carmack Losing it and its two translations.Losing it is the rst title of the series entitled Losing it, which currently holds ve titles and was on the New York Times USA Today bestselling lists.The book was originally published in 2012 by HarperCollins (after goodreads.com).Its third part, Finding it, was nominated to the title of the book of the year on the website lubimyczytac.pl.Unof cial translation was performed by the user under the nick waydale, yet it is dif cult to establish exactly when it was published on the Internet for the rst time.On her chomikuj.plpage, she claims to have nished more than thirty literary translations.There is also a note that she removes translations from her page once they are of cially published in Poland; and indeed, there is no translation of Losing it on her chomikuj.plpro le (the text, however, is available on the blog losing-ittlumaczenie.blogspot.com).The of cial translation was published by Jaguar in 2015 and it was undertaken by Iwona Wasilewska, who seems to be an active literary translator with at least a dozen or so of translated novels.
The rst analyzed issue is the issue of culture-bound elements.The table below presents selected examples from the three novels and their translations: A mo e przemeblowuje mi mieszkanie kopniakami, wkurzony tym, e zwia am i zostawi am go tam jak ostatnia winia (Wasilewska, 2015).
Source: author The rst example illustrates the issue of metrical system; these translations are usually not that problematic, as there are two options: either the translator removes the imperial units and changes them into centimetres, metres etc. or leaves the imperial units in translation, risking, however, that the reader will not be able to mentally place the described objects 3 .The rst example shows that while marika1311 chose to leave the imperial units, P. Grzegorzewski decided to translate them.This example illustrates the tendency present in all analysed texts; of cial translators were more likely to translate the units or choose functional translations, whereas unof cial translators opted for leaving imperial units or switching between imperial units and functional translations (which seems to be the least preferable from the professional point of view as the aim is to provide the reader with a consistent and coherent text).In the second example, coming from the same set of texts, there is a proper name -Pine-Sol.Pine-Sol is a company producing household cleaning products; it belongs to Clorox, which is not available on the Polish market.On the protagonists in the story, Ridge, keeps alcohol in an old dishwashing liquid bottle so as to hide it from one of his atmates.When Ridge offers alcohol from the Pine-Sol container to another character, Sydney, it results in her clear confusion.P. Grzegorzewski, aiming at the preservation of the effect, translates "container of Pine-Sol" as "butelka p ynu do mycia naczy " (eng.bottle of the dishwashing liquid), which results in the domestication of the text.Marika1311 translates as simply "butelka Pine-Solu" (eng.bottle of Pine-Sol), risking the reader's consternation, rooting however from a completely different source than the original one.Interestingly, in the latter part of the text, marika1311 uses Pine-Sol and descriptive translations (e.g."butelka z detergentem," which is bottle with a detergent) interchangeably.Nevertheless, it seems that the rst, highly foreignising translation may result in a misunderstanding on the reader's part.The third example shows different conventions used in addresses.In the English speaking world, in the address rst there is the number of the house and only then name of the street -completely opposite in Poland.The unof cial translation follows the Anglo-American convention, unknown to Poland and thus foreignises the text, whereas the of cial translator changes it into Polish convention.
The last two examples, coming from Losing It, are particularly interesting.In the fourth example, there are two culture-bound elements, titles of two popular American series -Saved by the Bell and Gossip Girl.Whereas in the case of Gossip Girl¸ which was a popular TV series broadcast just a couple of years ago and present also in the Polish TV, both translators have no doubts and replace the title with its Polish counterpart, Saved by the Bell results in two different translations.Saved by the Bell is an American sitcom produced in the years 1989-1993 and tells a story about of group of friends in high school.It was extremely popular in the United States, resulting in numerous spin-offs but also received numerous awards (wikipedia.pl).However, the TV series was not popular in Poland.Perhaps this fact resulted in I. Wasilewska's decision, who changed Saved by the Bell into Alf, which was (and still is) highly popular in Poland and was produced at the similar time, in the years 1986-1990.It is worth noting that the choice of these two TV series by the author is not coincidental -both series depict life in high school and the comparison aims to show how drastically the life of teenagers changed between the end of the 80s and the 21 st century.None of the two translations preserves this comparison; the unof cial translation is likely to result in the lack of understanding, whereas the of cial translation completely loses it by changing the TV series dealing with a high school into TV series dealing with a friendly alien who has a particular taste in cats.The last example refers to a situation that took place in 2009 during MTV Video Music Awards, when Taylor Swift received an award for "Best Female Video."Her speech was interrupted then by a famous rapper, Kanye West, with the following words: "Taylor, I'm really happy for you.Imma let you nish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time!One of the best videos of all time!" (after news.com.au).The incident was widely commented on the American media (e.g.The Wall Street Journal, CNN, The Telegraph) and it was considered to be one of the most infamous moments in American show-business, which severely affected both Kanye West and Taylor Swift careers and resulted in still-lasting conict.However, in Poland the topic was mostly discussed by tabloids and websites with gossips.Therefore, when waydale leaves the elements in the text, she risks again that the reader will not understand the reference.The option preferred by I. Wasilewska also does not seem to be the best, as the translator simply removes the culture-bound element from the text, which is a very radical, highly domesticating, and an often avoided procedure.Even a brief analysis of the table above results in one conclusion -unofcial translations are generally more vulgar than the of cial ones.Comparing the original text and its of cial translation, one can conclude that of cial translations usually tone down the original text, e.g.'prick' is translated as 'dupek', which is closer to the English word 'asshole'; 'bitch' is translated as 'j dza', which is 'a hag'; and nally 'hoe-bag' is translated with the use of the verb 'puszcza si ', the English counterpart of which is 'to screw around'.Furthermore, not only are the unof cial translations more vulgar than the of cial ones, but also they are sometimes more vulgar than the original text.This point is illustrated by the seventh example, in which 'to be screwed the hell up' is translated as 'przejebane od zawsze'.Therefore, it is possible to argue that of cial translations aim at preservation of the Polish cultural code and as the readers do not expect the text of translation to be vulgar, the translators tone it down in the process.Hence, these translations follow the expectations of target language readers and can be considered examples of domestication in translation.However, unof cial translations break the code and display signi cant vulgarity -as they do not follow the expectations of TL readers and they can make a reader mentally 'stop' or 'stumble' upon them, they can be considered examples of foreignisation.The analysis implies that, again, unof cial translators are more prone to committing syntactic calques.Example no. 12 displays an interesting tendency that quite often causes calques in translation.Polish is an example of an in ected language, which means in the words, there are grammatical morphemes performing one or more functions, e.g.expressing gender, person etc.This is not true for English, in which the verb is not in ected by the gender and only rarely by the person, hence the personal pronouns often serve as subjects.In example 12, we can see that the construction with the personal pronoun is calqued into Polish, even though this construction is unusual for this language as the person is already in the verb -which is displayed in the of cial translation.However, the examples of most striking calques are numbers 14. and 15.The phrase 'go heavy on' is translated as 'posz a ci ko' and 'scanned' as 'przeskanowa am'.Natural Polish usually does not use the verb 'skanowa ' to describe the action of looking around, yet it might be still understandable somehow from the context of the situation.The word-for-word translation of the rst phrases makes it, on the other hand, almost non-sense.What is more, waydale decides to leave 'Jack' in the text, which is a common reference to Jack Daniel's whisky in English, but quite rare in Polish.All these procedures result in a sentence that might be difcult to understand and that certainly strikes as odd.The most odd of all, however, is the collocation in the example 15, which is a clear calque of the English phrase 'to have sex', which does not function in Polish.
Finally, it is worth taking a look at example 13.There are two points to be made concerning this example.The rst one is the translation of the phrase 'kick in the gut'; there is quite a similar expression in Polish 'dosta pi ci w brzuch', which does not express the same movement but functions similarly in the literature.This expression is used by the of cial translator.Yet, MoreThanBooks decide on the expression 'dosta kopniaka w dup ', which is quite vulgar and replaces the neutral English phrase.Secondly, in the unof cial translation there is an example of lexical calque in the translation of the word 'truck', as the American picture of a 'truck' and Polish of 'ci arówka' are quite different from each other:

Picture 1. Comparison of 'truck' and 'ci arówka' on the basis of Google Image Search
In this context it is worth noting that professional translators are not free of the interference of English as well.The studies show that, in fact, the language of translated literature and the language of national literature differ noticeably and this difference can be assigned to the factor of interference (e.g.Olejniczak, 2016).Still, it seems that in this case, unof cial translations present signi cantly more striking syntactic calques and violation on the rules of Polish grammar than the of cial translation.
Finally, it would be valuable to refer the results of this study to similar research on the topic in order to gain a wider perspective on the issue.In 2015, there was a similar study focusing on the translation of culture-bound elements (Karpi ska, 2015).Therein, the author compared 856 distinctive culture-bound elements from ten novels and their Polish translations, all published after 2000.The aim of the research was to nd the distribution of foreignising and domesticating techniques in literary translations.The methodology applied in the study was the same as in the case of this inquiry; however, it concerned only culture-bound elements, hence only this part of the study can be compared.The results were as follows: foreignising techniques comprised 39% in all investigated translations; domesticating techniques amounted to 50%; whereas 11% were so called on-thefence techniques, which were procedures aiming at combining both source and target cultures -an example of such technique is the transfer of a cultural element with explanation.Interestingly, while all translators applied domesticating and foreignising techniques, sitting-on-the-fence techniques seemed to be dependent on the translator's preference.As a result, there were texts in which translators widely applied this category of techniques, whereas in others there was not a single example of a sitting-on-the-fence technique (Karpi ska, 2015).
The overall number of analysed culture-bound elements in this study is 94.The comparison of the results can be seen on the gure below: Several conclusions can be drawn from the graph.First of all, it is likely that even though the difference between the previously studied translations and now varies over 10 to 15 years, the translational norms have already changed.It seems than now translators are even more likely than previously to choose domesticating techniques, as in all cases, the percentage usage of domesticating techniques is higher than the average from the previous study.As a result, the percentage of applied foreignising techniques is also lower than in the previous study.Second, unof cial translations present usually similar or lower application of domesticating techniques than in the previous research and signi cantly lower percentage in comparison to their of cial counterparts.Consequently, foreignising techniques are chosen more often.Third, on-the-fence techniques are the least preferable choice and they are even more rare in the case of unof cial translations.These considerations, however, are only qualitative in their nature and the study can only suggest the existence of certain trends.

Conclusion
Summing up, there are signi cant differences between the of cial and unof cial translations of the same novels.It appears that of cial translations are more likely to domesticate the text than unof cial ones; foreignisation in unof cial translations may even prevail (as in the case of the novel Losing it).These differences could be interpreted in terms of the dominance of an English-speaking world, as Venuti relates these two issues in his work (1995).It seems that of cial translations aim at preservation of the target culture and do not prefer source culture at all costs (though it is still very much present in the target text).Unof cial translations, on the other hand, aim at preservation of the source culture, even at the cost of violating the cultural standards and rules of the target culture (e.g. as in the case of vulgar expressions in the text).The question is where these differences stem from: are they conditioned by systemic factors?Are they the result of the publishers' actions?Or maybe are they the result of translators' education?This study only implies that there are differences between of cial, systemic translations and unof cial, non-systemic ones.Perhaps further inquiry into the issue is not even possible, as it would require copious information on the conditions in which the translations were created as well as on both of cial and unof cial translators, the latter wishing to remain anonymous and not providing any.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.The comparison of the percentage usage of domesticating, foreignising, and sitting on the fence techniques

Table 1 .
Comparison of the translation of culture-bound elements

Table 2 .
Comparison of the translation of vulgar fragments

Table 3 .
Comparison of the translations with syntactic calques Source: author