As Source Text 2 is loyal towards Fidesz representing the mainstay of political opposition in Hungary, Source Text 2 focuses on the incapacity of PM Gyurcsány and his government to handle the political situation after the Referendum and the problem put forward in sentence 3. Interestingly, the article focuses on the Prime Minister’s faults not just within the context of the given situation but also in general. What the reader is presented with is an inventory of PM Gyurcsány’s flaws of character, ranging from minor problems first to the more serious ones: wishing to be at the centre of attention (sentence 5), defiant and moody (sentences 6-8), despotic nature (sentences 9-10), misleading people and lying (sentences 11-16). In comparison with Source Text 1, Source Text 2 has longer sentences with a high level of complexity as, on the one hand, the article is designed for more independent thinkers (which also reflects in the fact that the reader has to draw the conclusions from what is implied in sentence 18), and on the other hand, most readers of this daily paper probably know just as well as the writer of the article what to make of PM Gyurcsány, furthermore, the strong Referendum victory makes it unnecessary to indefatigably keep on convincing the readers of the opposition’s truth.

The target texts retain both the above detailed presentation of situation, problem, response and evaluation elements (cf. the superstructure) and the complexity of sentence structures. However, sentence 11 of Source Text 2 (about the differences of MSZP’s and Fidesz’s standpoints in connection with the financing of health care and education) was translated as two sentences in Target Texts 7 and 8 separating the standpoint of the governing party (sentence 10 in Target Texts 7 and 8) and that of the opposition (sentence 11 in Target Texts 7 and 8), which makes the two opposing positions more discrete and clearer to the receivers. At the same time, Target Texts 3 and 4 combine sentences 11 and 12 of Source Text 2 (the former about the reactions in the Parliament about the results of the Referendum and the latter about the budgetary financing of the health and education sectors) into one thereby obscuring the differences between the standpoints of the different parties and budgetary facts. As Target Texts 3 and 4 were composed by MSZP supporter Translator 1, while Target Texts 7 and 8 by Fidesz supporter Translator 2, the above-described changes in sentence boundaries in the target texts can be a manifestation of the two translators’ interpretation of the US vs. THEM distinction (cf. Section 4.5.2.4.4.1 and references to the US vs. THEM distinction below). To sum up the findings on participant-related features, it can be concluded that these features of Target Texts 3, 4, 7 and 8 do not differ considerably from those of Source Text 2.

The next component of the aspect of Action is higher level action, i.e. the position of texts in their political agendas and political environments. Source Text 2 was written after a major victory of the “Yes” votes at the Social Referendum initiated primarily by Fidesz. As it has already been referred to in Section 8.4.1.2, Fidesz interpreted the Referendum results as a democratic civic move against a despotic government. Many traces of this are found in Source Text 2: e.g. the reference to the opinion of a non-party public figure President László Sólyom (sentences 1-2), an analysis of PM Gyurcsány’s flaws of character and behaviour (sentences 5-16), his and his government’s dilettantish reactions to the Social Referendum (sentences 4, 10-11), etc. Also, Másnap discusses the immediate political consequences of the Referendum: how to interpret the results (sentences 5-8, 10), how to cope with the resulting political situation (sentences 8, 16). Source Text 2 shows the perspective of Fidesz and as such mirrors the pre-Referendum rhetoric of Fidesz as follows: PM Gyurcsány and his government are described to have no political support (sentences 1-4), the Prime Minister is pictured as a dilettante (sentences 5-16) and a madman (sentences 17-18).

Similarly to the case of Source Text 1 and its four target texts, strengthening or undermining the political agendas expressed in Source Text 2 is at work in all the resulting target texts associated with this latter source text. Similarly to the case of Source Text 1, the strengthening or undermining of the political agendas is achieved by lexical choice. Target Text 3 by MSZP supporter Translator 1 for MSZP undermines the higher level action realised by the article Másnap. It does not distort the fact that participation rates were record high (sentence 1) but the verb in the phrase claiming that the result speaks for itself (sentence 1) questions both President László Sólyom’s authority and any conclusion to be drawn from the result. Another means to undermine Source Text 2 is to fail to reproduce the sarcasm regarding PM Gyurcsány’s political abilities. This is achieved by choosing envisioned for vizionálni (sentence 6 in Source Text 2) in sentence 6 of Target Text 3 with reference to people who stayed at home and did not vote. Equally, lexical items pointing out PM Gyucsány’s dilettantism and madness in Source Text 2 are softened by Translator 1 in Target Text 3 (cf. choice of lexis referring to the defiant and moody nature of the Prime Minister in the discussion of implications and consequences in Section 8.4.2.1). As quotations are the least likely to be manipulated, it is in the introduction to the quotation through which Translator 1 attempts to soften the effects of higher level action expressed in Source Text 2: the introduction to the quotation is translated as his manifold statements conjure up a Shakespearean line paraphrased in the audience (sentence 17) as a rendering of Sokszori megszólalásai kapcsán pedig inkább egy shakespeare-i parafrázis fogalmazódhatott meg a hallgatóságban [based on his manifold statements one’s associations were a Shakespearean paraphrase] in sentence 18 of Source Text 2. The phrase conjure up is quite tentative and makes the parallel of the Shakespearean quotation between a madman and the Prime Minister less certain.

Target Text 4 produced for Fidesz by MSZP supporter Translator 1 more overtly reflects the higher level action in Source Text 2. This time the premise that PM Gyurcsány and his government have no political support (sentences 1-4) is not undercut by the reporting verbs used. The word motioned in sentence 2 of Target Text 4 lends a touch of dignity and authority to President László Sólyom suited to the implication of the expression arra intett, hogy in sentence 2 of Source Text 2. In sentence 17 of Target Text 4 (The content of his manifold statements reminds the audience of Shakespeare paraphrased) the verb remind is more direct and through the altered Shakespearean quotation establishes a direct link between the Prime Minister and a madman.

Target Text 7 was created by Fidesz supporter Translator 2 for MSZP. Here the first two sentences of the translation remain virtually unchanged in terms of higher level action as compared to the same feature of Source Text 2: the target text is a politically neutral rendering of the source text. However, the phrase a megszüntetésük ellen mindent bevetve sikertelenül hadakozott [unsuccessfully moving everything against their /of the fees/ repeal] in sentence 4 of Source Text 2 is softened to who had been strongly opposing the repeal (sentence 4 of Target Text 7), which is suggestive of PM Gyurcsány firmly representing a certain standpoint in the face of the opposition. In the same manner, the introductory line to the Shakespeare quotation (sentence 18 of Source Text 2) is phrased as for the audience, the essence of his numerous speeches can be summarized in a Shakespearean paraphrase (sentence 19), which softens the higher level action achieved by Source Text 2 in the following way: the expression for the audience implies that experts may have a different opinion, which reflects that lay people may misunderstand the Prime Minister.

As Target Text 8 was translated by Fidesz supporter Translator 2 for Fidesz, no traces of conflicting higher level action appears between the features of Source Text 2 and Target Text 8. All the three higher level action messages present in Fidesz-supportive Source Text 2 (i.e. PM Gyurcsány has no political support, him being a dilettante and a madman) are clearly reformulated in Target Text 8 (sentences 6-7, 18, 19).

As a conclusion to the aspect of higher level action, similarly to the case of Source Text 1 and its corresponding target texts, it may be stated that in the case of Source Text 2 and its target texts even if translators cannot manipulate the higher level action expressed by the text, they can strengthen or undermine the political agendas associated with the source texts in question through using different phrasing. Such strengthening or undermining always happens with the client in mind: favourable higher level action to the client are strengthened, while unfavourable ones are undermined.

Finally, the last aspect of the component of Context is local and global contexts, which refers to the immediate communicative context as well as to the immediate and long term social and political effects the texts create. Source Text 2 was written right after the Social Referendum as its title (The Next Day) also suggests. The article describes Fidesz enjoying the victory that came as a result of the joint civic and social effort associated with the Referendum. The call for joint action was extensively communicated by Fidesz before and after the Referendum. In Source Text 2, the joint nature of the social effort is underlined by reference to President László Sólyom (sentences 1-2) as a non-partisan authority and to the repeatedly mentioned majority vote representing the public will (sentences 1, 4, 6-8). As the Social Referendum was just over, Másnap is partly devoted to the taste of victory and partly to assessing the political opponent’s ability to tackle immediate repercussions. As Source Text 2 makes references to PM Gyurcsány’s flaws of character, which constituted part of Fidesz’s contemporary rhetoric, it is relevant to explore how this surfaces in the target texts and how Source Text 2 and the different target texts contribute to the depiction of local contexts. As it was described in Table 8.3 and its discussion, Target Text 3 undermines criticism towards the Prime Minister, Target Texts 4 and 7 are quite critical towards PM Gyurcsány, whereas Target Text 8 accentuates negative criticism expressed in Source Text 2. Below, it will be explored how the idea of the majority vote representing the public will surfaces in Target Texts 3, 4, 7 and 8. Table 8.4 lists textual references to the immediate effects of the Referendum, i.e. local contexts, in connection with the majority vote expressed in Source Text 2 and illustrates the differences in the phrasing of such references to local contexts in the respective target texts.

Fixed expressions such as the result speaks for itself (sentence 1 in all four target texts) as the translation of az eredmény egyértelmű (sentence 1 of Source Text 2) and the translation of the quotation of the Prime Minister’s words (az elmúlt másfél év változásának mélységével, tempójával – sentence 7 of Source Text 2) as speed and depth of the changes of the recent one and a half years (sentence 7 in all four target texts) are unlikely to be altered in any of the target texts. It is reporting verbs, however, which carry the potential of undermining or strengthening local contexts in such cases (cf. the discussion of reporting verbs in connection with implications and consequences above). Similarly, there is little difference between who is to pay (Target Texts 3 and 4) and who is to compensate for (Target Texts 7 and 8) in sentence 8 with reference to local contexts.

The expression submit to the wish of people in sentence 4 of Target Text 3 for MSZP suggests a degree of involuntariness on the government’s part due to their considering citizens incompetent in judging matters, while the corresponding phrase fulfil the wish of people (sentence 4) in Target Text 4 for Fidesz is suggestive of the given step being the citizens’ reasonable demand. In the same sentence, the expression motivated to take the necessary legislative steps in Target Texts 7 and 8 implies that there may be the motive of the public will behind the decision of the government, whereas want to take in Target Texts 3 and 4 does not refer to the motive. With reference to local and global contexts the above suggests that it is the credibility of the government that the target texts support or undermine in line with client expectations.

 

As a conclusion to local and global contexts, it can be stated that translators will incorporate their perception of shorter and longer term political effects in their translations through choice of lexis, and they are most likely to exhibit the local and global contexts in the target texts that favour the client. In the case of fixed phrases, paraphrases and quotations, what gets manipulated is the reporting verb introducing the phrases in question.

In conclusion to the findings concerning the second component of the TDSI Model, Context the following may be stated. As for the aspect of participants, participant-related translation shifts are more likely when the client’s and the translator’s political views coincide. When this relation does not hold, translation shifts will decrease in number, which suggests the dominance of the client over the translator’s own political conviction. Secondly, the aspect of higher level action reveals that even if translators cannot manipulate the higher level action expressed by the text, they can strengthen or undermine the political agendas associated with the Source Texts in question through using different lexis. Finally, the aspect of local and global contexts suggests that translators’ perception of immediate and long term political effects will be incorporated in their translations. The perception of such effects primarily manifests in a biased choice of lexis and is likely to lean towards the client.