Next, perspective reflects the viewpoint from which the text was written. In Source Text 1, the author apparently takes sides with Prime Minister Gyurcsány and his government, which is not surprising given the fact that Népszabadság features pro-MSZP articles. Numerous references to this perspective are found in the text. For example, the author implies that the Prime Minister is a great statesman because he did not criticize his adversaries when he won the elections, and evaluates the current situation as another chance for the Prime Minister to show his understanding of the will of the voters (sentence 3). Besides praising the Prime Minister, another strategy is to decry everyone who opposes him: common people are presented as irresponsible citizens seeking merely their own interest (sentence 5), and Hungarian Medical Chamber President, Mr. István Éger is pictured as a villain, who, instead of representing the doctors’ interests properly, hazards their existence through inconsistent decision making and misinformation (sentence 8). When communicating criticism towards PM Gyurcsány, the writer of the article is rather careful. First, instead of pointing out that he is talking about PM Gyurcsány, he uses a general subject and does not refer to the Prime Minister by name: in sentence 8 we find Ez könnyen érthető álláspont [It is an easily understandable point], in sentence 13 we read Ezt nem lehet figyelmen kívül hagyni [This cannot be neglected], in sentence 14 we have hiszen nem lehet komoly politikus, aki nem hisz önmagában, a hitet elvvé kövíteni azonban a politika területén már igencsak veszélyes [no serious politician can afford not to believe in himself and making principles out of beliefs in the field of politics is quite dangerous] and sentence 16 has A kormányzásnak kötelezettségei vannak [Governing entails obligations]. All of these criticisms are targeted towards the Prime Minister but as he is not named in the sentences, his political responsibility is obscured.

Second, the journalist does not really criticize the Prime Minister for his political failure directly in the text, he only advises him not to get offended (sentence 15) and to be more flexible once people’s will has manifested (sentences 12-13) and to carry on with the reforms in health care (sentence 26). Criticism is accompanied by tentative phrasing: Ha komolyan gondolja [If he is serious] (sentence 26) and the humble suggestions on what to do in sentences 23-26 (i.e. try introducing new policies) once reforms have been torpedoed by the results of the Referendum. Also, as to whether he should resign immediately, the answer is a definite ‘no’: the Prime Minister’s resignation is to be handed in only if several other solutions fail in the future (sentences 17-21). These textual features suggest a perspective that is loyal to the Prime Minister and consequently the text exhibits political bias towards MSZP.

In terms of the perspective of Target Text 1, the text reproduces the perspective of the source text, which is not surprising given that Target Text 1 has been produced by MSZP supporter Translator 1 for MSZP. All findings described above are valid for this text, too. Thus, instead of repeating the same arguments, further specific references in Target Text 1, signalling loyalty to the Prime Minister and thus pro-MSZP perspective, are discussed below.

In sentence 3 of Source Text 1, with reference to the defeat in the Referendum, we find the tentative bebizonyíthatja [can prove], which becomes definite in Translator 1’s phrasing of will prove (sentence 3). Sentence 7 of the Source Text Ők pedig nem kompenzálnak. [And they will not compensate.] becomes And the government is not in a position to compensate for this (sentence 7), which suggests that even if the government wanted to compensate, this is impossible given the circumstances. Obviously, these textual features indicate a pro-MSZP perspective and signal stronger bias towards MSZP as compared to the source text.

Target Text 2 has been produced by MSZP supporter Translator 1 for Fidesz. The perspective reflected by the translation is a mixture of pro-MSZP elements of the source text reproduced in the target text and slight pro-Fidesz bias reflecting the client’s position. Similarly to the way the pro-MSZP elements of the source text have been detailed above, the pro-Fidesz elements are described below. These textual elements seem to reflect scepticism and negative judgement about the Prime Minister. With reference to the Prime Minister’s generosity, in sentence 3 we find the addition of if he may in the context The Prime Minister can now prove, if he may, that he does not only have the generosity…, to which there are no references in this form in the source text and which implies that he might as well fail in providing proof. The first clause of sentence 4 of the source text Ennek igazolásával még késlekedik … [He is yet to prove this.] has been rendered as He still owes proving this…, which signals disapproval through the use of owe. In sentence 27 of Source Text 1, which reads Az ugyanis miniszterelnöki tevékenységének a csődje lenne, the word csőd has been translated as fiasco in sentence 27, which, contrary to its moral neutrality in Hungarian also signals embarrassment in English. This seems to prove that the original bias of the source text article has been retained but in order to satisfy the client, i.e. Fidesz, pro-Fidesz perspective has been added.

Target Text 5 has been produced by Fidesz supporter Translator 2 for MSZP. The translation tries to be objective in that it reproduces the original perspective of the source text but features no other perspectives in the form of textual additions. To justify this, the same textual items will be referred to as with reference to Target Text 2 above. The first clause of sentence 4 of Source Text 1 Ennek igazolásával még késlekedik … [He is yet to prove this.] has been rendered in a neutral way as Justification still remains to be furnished (sentence 4). The noun csőd in sentence 27 of the source text is translated as failure (sentence 27), which does not express negative judgement. Even those parts of the source text that could possibly provide opportunities for lexis-level manipulation remain neutral in the translation: e.g. Gyurcsányék [PM Gyurcsány and his circles] in sentence 17 is translated as the Gyurcsány team, which does not feature a change of perspective. It seems then that Target Text 5 reproduces the original perspective of the source text but does not add any further or different perspective to the translation.

Target Text 6 has been produced by Fidesz supporter Translator 2 for Fidesz. This text features the original perspective of the source text and shows several signs of further pro-Fidesz perspective-related additions. Neutrality of the source text has been replaced by humour for the entertainment of pro-Fidesz readers: the first clause of sentence 6 of Source Text 2 Azóta pedig koalíciós elnöktársával, Kóka Jánossal szinte versengve bizonygatják, [Since then he and coalition partner Mr. János Kóka have been competing to prove] has been translated as Since then, him and Coalition partner President Mr. János Kóka have been having a little contest (sentence 6 of Target Text 6), where the phrasing little contest suggests poking fun at the situation. The translation of the phrase a magyar közélet egyik veszélyes kalandora [one of dangerous adventurers of Hungarian public life] in source sentence 8 sounds like allegedly dangerous adventurer of Hungarian public life (sentence 9 of Target Text 6), which signals hedging and the correction of the applied term through the use of allegedly. The word Gyurcsányék [PM Gyurcsány and his circles] in sentence 17 is translated as Gyurcsány and cronies (sentence 20 of Target Text 6), which is openly pejorative. This indicates that the original perspective of the source text has apparently been retained, but a further pro-Fidesz perspective has been added reflecting the client’s and the translator’s political orientation. Target Text 6 does no longer reflect the perspective of the source text but rather pokes fun at it through the irony surfacing in the above expressions.

The above suggests that translators mostly reproduce the perspective of the source text and include further perspectives to satisfy client expectations. Translator 1 seems to prioritise client expectations over her own political convictions and produces translation shifts accordingly, whereas Translator 2 tries to be objective in the case of texts reflecting a perspective different from that of his own and resists further manipulation. However, when client expectations of perspective coincide with his, he is ready to include further textual realisations of perspective in the target text thus producing translation shifts.

The next aspect of the Action component of the TDSI Model is implications and consequences, which reflects upon explicit and implicit statements of texts in their social, cultural and political contexts. Source Text 1 explicitly but mildly criticises the Prime Minister on the following grounds: for not showing generosity towards the voters of the Referendum (sentences 3-4) and for not compensating for the fees repealed by the Referendum; for failing to compensate GPs for the loss of income as a result of the Referendum (sentence 7); for declining the responsibility for the consequences of the Referendum (sentences 16, 24); and for not being able to push through the health care reform (sentences 17-21). Implicitly, the article suggests that the Prime Minister will have to step down if he is incapable of carrying out the planned reforms. This is situated in sentences 20 and 27-28, where the following expressions with reference to the Prime Minister are found: mennie kell [he will have to go] (sentence 20) and azt már nem lehet kompenzálni [this /failure as PM/ cannot be compensated] (sentence 28). This in the given social and political context suggests the following: there is resentment towards the Prime Minister for the result of the Referendum, the supporters of reform are getting impatient and the conclusion drawn is that if this is as much as the Prime Minister can do, he will no longer need to be a Prime Minister.

All target texts reproduce the source text’s explicit statements without exception. The phrasing of the implicit statements is, however, more varied and politically more revealing. In terms of the translation of source text sentence 20, MSZP-loyal Translator 1 uses the term resign (sentence 20) in Target Text 1 produced for MSZP, which signals that the translator explicitly prioritises MSZP’s interests over those of the Prime Minister. In Target Text 2 for Fidesz, she is less determined and uses the verb go, which reproduces the Hungarian euphemism of the source text mennie kell (sentence 20). This is telling as she seems to be defending the Prime Minister in the hostile environment of Fidesz as client. Translator 2 in Target Text 5 for MSZP also uses the term resign (sentence 23), which either suggests the same orientation as the one of Translator 1, i.e. MSZP’s interests are pivotal, or that he, being a Fidesz supporter, has phrased his own wishes with reference to the resignation of the Prime Minister. This seems to be confirmed by his phrasing in Target Text 6, where we find: step down finally in sentence 23. Here the addition of finally suggests that, in the interpretation of Translator 2, this should have happened a long time ago. This is confirmed in sentence 33 of Target Text 6: no compensation will be possible at last, which, as an addition, contains the phrase at last as opposed to the absence of an equivalent phrase in the respective source sentence.

The above suggests that explicit statements are reproduced without exception and that, depending on the client, implicit statements are either explicitly stated (explicitation) in the observance of client expectations or as a realisation of the reproduction of the translators’ own political commitments or, alternatively, are reproduced in their implicitness.

Summing up the findings with reference to the component of Action, translators mostly reproduce intentionality of the source text in their target texts, but undermine or reinforce it in line with client expectations. Translators mostly reproduce the perspective of the source text and include further perspectives in order to satisfy client expectations. Explicit statements are fully reproduced, while implicit statements present in the source language articles are reinforced or, alternatively, are undermined depending on the translators’ political orientation. Nonetheless, the extent of reinforcement or undermining is limited and, as a whole, the target texts continue to reflect client expectations.