Summary
#e article examines lexical choices preferred by a noted Slovene translator of dramatic texts. 
It is based on the assumption that in spite of the fact that lexical choices offer much greater 
freedom in translation than, for instance, grammatical choices, they are subject to a number 
of intratextual and extratextual factors defining the genre, the kind of translation, and specific 
features of individual plays. 
Although examples are taken from only one set of translations of T ennessee Wiliams’s A Streetcar 
Named Desire, they also refer to other working and published versions of drama translations into 
Slovene, including Albee’s Who ’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Miller’s Death of a Salesman, Pinter’s 
plays, and Shaw’s Pygmalion. #e shifts considered in the article relate to register, i.e. factors of 
language variation affecting lexical choices related to the field, mode, and tenor of discourse.
Key words: drama translation, shifts, register, T ennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Desire
 Povzetek
Članek preučuje izbor leksikalnih enot v prevodih znanega slovenskega prevajalca dramskih 
besedil. Izhaja iz prepričanja, da čeprav v prevodu izbira besed prevajalcu nudi veliko več 
svobode kot, na primer, izbira slovničnih oblik, je tudi prva odvisna od številnih zunaj in 
znotraj besedilnih dejavkov, ki so odvisni od vrste drame, vrste prevoda in posebnih značilnosti 
posamezne igre. 
Čeprav so primeri v članku vzeti samo iz dveh različic slovenskih prevodov ene ameriške drame, 
to je Williamsovega T ramvaja poželenja, se nanašajo tudi na nekatere druge slovenske prevode 
angleške in ameriške drame, kot, na primer, Kdo se boji Virginie Woolf? (Albee), Smrt trgovskega 
potnika (Miller), Pinterjeve igre, Pygmalion (Shaw), itd. Prevodni premiki, ki jih preučuje se 
nanašajo na register, to je na funkcijsko zvrsti jezika, ki jo določajo polje, način in ton diskurza. 
Ključne besede: dramski prevod, prevodni premiki, register, T ennessee Williams, T ramvaj Poželenje
 DOI: 10.4312/elope.2.1-2.269-276

In Lefevere’s words, translations are not just texts written in a different language; they also 
have to fulfil a function in a different place, a different time, a different society and a 
different culture (Lefevere 1992, 12). Translation is a mater of constant choice, every 
moment in the process being a moment of decision. Shifts from the source text are 
inevitable. Even the most adequacy-oriented translation involves shifts from the source 
text, dictated by differences between the linguistic and cultural systems of the source and 
target communities. Besides, translators may decide on shifts for stylistic, ideological or 
other reasons, such as, for instance, especially in the case of drama, to maintain the flow 
of the message and to comply with expectations of the target text receptors. What is 
most important is that their decisions should be motivated by and based on a thorough 
examination of all relevant facts.
In Slovene circumstances, the assumption that a native speaker is automatically capable 
of translating everything into his/her own language without specific knowledge is still 
widely held by the general public. #is is not surprising. What is surprising is that some 
literary translators, considering themselves good connoisseurs of language and culture, 
feel even more confident in this respect. Many existing translations of dramatic pieces, 
however, show that specific knowledge is essential for the job and that Slovene translators 
often succumb to the temptation to choose the first solution that comes to mind without 
considering its wider literary or social impact. 
#ough today Slovene literary translators are widely aware that the aesthetic effect of 
literature resides in the way it is expressed and formed through language, they tend to 
neglect this intrinsic connection when translating. #e lack of a more systematic approach 
to translation leads to many unmotivated shifts.
#e most common shifts in Slovene translation of English dramatic literature are 
those relating to different levels of meaning of lexical units. Such translations show an 
absence of the study of the relationship between language activity and the social context 
in which it takes place (Hatim and Mason 1990, 1997), a lack of constant decision-
making process as to the function of both texts in their several contexts (Vermeer 
and Reiss 1984; Nord 1997), and a pronounced emphasis on “semantic” rather than 
“communicative” translation (Newmark 2003). Above all, Slovene drama translators 
seem unable to remain consistent with previously introduced translation strategies and 
norms. #is is only partially dependent on the fact, as Uroš Mozetič rightly puts it, that 
“the Slovene language is not very well dictionarized and that it lacks the recording of the 
range of its nonstandard varieties”, which is especially relevant for drama translation. 

It, to a much greater extent, depends on the fact, that (again in Mozetič’s words) the 
majority of Slovene literary translators are “self-made translators with a good feeling for 
language” (1995, 123) but insufficient specialized knowledge. Slovene drama translators 
are often playwrights or dramaturges capable of considering special features important 
for shaping the process of meaning in drama (such as nonverbal communication, visuals 
and design, music and sound etc.), but not literary translation “scholars” (Lefevere 1992, 
92). #is is particularly noticeable in their unmotivated mixing of different levels of 
language variation, especially register. Besides, the examined Slovene translations of 
plays do not make a distinction between translation of plays intended for publication 
and those intended for specific production, the distinction usually denoted in terms 
of retrospectiveness/adequacy versus prospectiveness/acceptability of translation (Toury 
1980; Van den Broeck 1986).
 Lexical choices depend to a great extent on the style of writing. As Leech and Short put it, 
when studying style, we approach texts from the linguist’s angle. We do not ask ourselves so 
much what is being said but why and how something is being said. So when considering style 
we are not interested in semantic features of a text but in the way a semantic context is 
communicated to the reader. To be able to establish this, we have to constantly move 
from linguistic details to the literary centre of a work (Leech and Short 1981, 13). #is 
involves a constant process of interpretation. #e process always reflects the interpreter’s 
“own mental and cultural outlook, despite the best of impartial intentions” (Hatim and 
Mason 1990, 11). #e more knowledgeable the interpreter is, the more linguistic, literary-
historical and cultural features she or he is capable of detecting. What is not detected in 
the original is usually lost in translation. 
Linguists and translatologists divide style into individual and social levels. Individual style 
is defined as the marked, expressive quality of language, that is, its illocutionary power 
(Lefevere, 1992), being the result of motivated choices made by text producers. Social 
styles (Hatim and Mason 1990, 38–9) vary according to the use and/or user. Use-related 
varieties are known as registers (differing from each other primarily in language form, 
that is, grammar and lexis); user-related varieties are called dialects, capable of displaying 
differences at all levels (graphic, lexico-grammatical, and relevant extra-linguistic features), 
but differing from person to person primarily in the phonic medium. Social styles include 
register, idiolect and dialects (geographical, temporal, social, and (non-)standard). 
Great authors have always also been great artists in the choice and use of words. If the 
translators want to give credit to the author and to act professionally and respectfully 
towards their readers/spectators, they should make all possible efforts to establish basic 
features of the original and to functionally transfer these into another language and 
culture. #is is however not always the case. Let us take some examples.

For the sake of brevity, this presentation focuses on a consideration of the most typical 
stylistic shifts in two Slovene translations of Williams’s A Streetcar Named Desire, both done 
by the same translator and available in working and published versions. #e findings however 
also relate to a number of other Slovene translations of dramatic literature (such as, for instance, 
Albee’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Miller’s Death of a Salesman, Shaw’s Pygmalion and 
Pinter’s plays) and include a wide range of other shifts, too. 
 #ere are four Slovene translations of the play. #e first, a working translation, is by 
Herbert Grün (1952), the second is a TV adaptation, and the remaining two are by 
Zdravko Duša. Grün’s translation of the play is very old, abounding in obsolete and 
“proper” language, which often sounds strange in its context. #e first Duša translation 
(1999/2000) was originally intended for the first Slovene production of the play (here 
referred to as D1); the second was published in an anthology of American drama (Kralj 
2001), here referred to as D2. #ere are, however, no essential differences between the 
two translations concerning register. #ough having “polished” certain passages of the 
text, in general Duša’s published translation of the play is essentially the same as the 
working one. Regarding the intial norm (Toury 1980, 54) and prevailing translation 
strategy, both translations can be termed retrospective, since textual relations and norms 
expressed by this have in principle been subjected to the original text. #e translator, 
however, adopted a different strategy relating to register, thus ultimately coming up with 
a markedly different product. Let us consider an example.
In the original rendering, the protagonists of the play, Stanley and Blanche, show obvious, 
striking and even shocking differences. In Slovene translation, this distinction is completely 
blurred. 
 Stanley is an ordinary, uneducated and rude man, a characterization which is obvious from his 
acts as well as language. He expresses himself in colloquial or even lower colloquial English, 
often resorting to abusive language, too. Let us see how the authors’ lexical choices are rendered 
into Slovene and what consequences the shifts have.
Changing slang and non-standard language into standard language
When translating Stanley’s cues, Duša often changes slang and non-standard language into 
standard language, thus making Stanley sound more polite and educated than he really is. 
#ough proving a good conoisseur of both levels of language, Duša is not consistent in 
translation. Let us take some examples.

(i) Stanley after a few first casual sentences with Blanche inquires (my emphases as in the 
subsequent text):
STANLEY: You (non-standard for “you’re) going to shack up (slang for “live, dwell) 
here? (Williams 1989, 1829)
STANLEY:  Računaš ostat (non-standard)? (D1, 20)
 Se boš tu naselila (standard)? (D2, 86) 
(ii) Stella tries to prevent Stanley from being rude to Blanche, but Stanley is determined to stay 
and to have a talk with Blanche about the loss of Belle Reve:
STANLEY: You’re damn tootin’ (slang obs for you won’t stop me). I’m going to stay 
here. (Williams 1989, 1832)
STANLEY:  Seveda (standard) bom ostal, sigurna bodi. (D1, 26)
 Normalno (standard), da bom ostal. (D2, 90)
(iii) Stanley and Blanche have a conversation about women. Stanley is commenting on his 
relationship with a glamorous self-centred lady, who constantly refers to how glamorous she 
used to be. His response was “So what?” When Blanche asks him what the lady said then, 
Stanley answers: 
STANLEY:  She didn’t say nothing (non-standard). #at shut her up like a clam (non-
standard). (Williams 1989, 1833)
STANLEY:  Nič ni rekla (standard). Bila je tiho ko rit (vulgar). (D1, 28; D2, 91)
No change of register
(i) Stanley wanting Blanche to stop pretending says: 
STANLEY (booming): Now let’s cut the re-bop (slang)! (Williams 1989, 1833)
STANLEY (zagrmi): Zdaj pa nehajva nakladat (slang)! (D1, 28; D2, 91)
(ii) Stanley to Mitch during the poker game:
STANLEY: /…/ Get y’r ass of the table (vulgar), Mitch. /…/ (Williams 1989, 1836)
STANLEY: /…/ Rit dol z mize (vulgar), Mitch! /…/ (D1, 33; D2, 95)
(iii) Stanley to his poker friends who want to restrain him from doing Stella some more 
harm:
STANLEY:  Let’s the rut go of me, you sons of bitches (vulgar)! (Williams 1989, 
1841)
STANLEY:  Kurbe pizdunske, pustite me, da se zgonim (vulgar)! (D1,45; D2, 103)
#e above, and many other, examples show that in Stanley’s case Duša mostly retains the 
language level of the original, especially when it comes to vulgar and offensive expressions. He, 
however, tends to embellish Stanley’s speech. 

In the original Blanche is an educated lady, expressing herself in either a highly motivated 
personal use of language (personal style) or standard English. Her language is in sharp contrast 
with the lower colloquial or colloquial language (sociolect) used by Stanley and his poker 
friends. Blanche is well read, highly intelligent and cultured. She is also an extremely passionate 
and unrealistic person, expressing herself with rich, colourful and imaginative language. Her 
language betrays the fact that she actually lives in the world of poetry and dreams of an idealized 
past. She is particularly versed in the strange, exotic and weird, all features characteristic of 
Poe’s poetry, which she keeps quoting throughout the play. Her use of alliteration, for instance, 
serves to point out her poetic, emotional and vulnerable nature. 
In addition, Blanche is capable of creating ironic and parodistic effects. In fact irony and 
parody are her strongest weapons. No other character in the play is capable of creating such 
a discrepancy between the polite, formal (even hyperformal), imaginative language and the 
situation in which it is used. 
Preserving alliteration but changing imaginative into colloquial language
(i) Blanche notices that Stella has gained some weight:
BLANCHE:  /…/ But you, you’ve put on some weight, yes, you’re just as plump as 
a little partridge (alliteration)! And it’s so becoming (standard) to you! 
(Williams 1989, 1825)
BLANCHE:  /…/ Ampak ti – ti si se majčkeno zredila, ja, pravi polhek (alliteration) 
si. Nimaš pojma, kako ti paše (lower colloquial)! (D1,13; D2, 80)
1
Changing alliterative and imaginative into colloquial language
(i) Reproaching Stella for blaming her for the loss of the house and all the other family 
possessions, Blanche cries out:
BLANCHE:  /…/ Sit there and stare (alliteration, standard) at me, thinking I let the 
place go! (Williams 1989, 1826)
BLANCHE:  /.../ Sedi tam in me glej zabodeno (no alliteration,colloquial), češ: 
domačijo je zapravila! /.../ (D1, 17; D2, 84)
2
Lessening ironic and parodistic overtones
(i) Realizing that Stanley is convinced that she has cheated her sister and him and that she is 
hiding some possessions from them, Blanche ironically remarks:
BLANCHE: What in the name of heaven are you thinking of! What’s in the back 
of that little boy’s mind of yours (insulting)? #at I am absconding 


(formal) with something, attempting some kind of treachery on my 
sister? /…/ (Williams 1989, 1834)
BLANCHE: Pa kaj za božjo voljo misliš! Kaj se ti mota po otročjih možgančkih 
(insulting)? Da te fintiram (slang), ker hočem ne vem kako ogoljufat 
svojo sestro? /.../ (D1, 30; D2, 92)
(ii) Stanley notices some papers in Blanche’s trunk, wanting to see them all to verify if Blanche 
is telling him the truth. Blanche reacts:
BLANCHE: /picking up a large envelope containing more papers/ #ere are thousands 
of papers, stretching back over hundred of years, affecting Belle Reve 
as, piece by piece, our improvident grandfathers and father and uncles 
and brothers exchanged the land for their epic fornications (formal) 
– to put it plainly! /…/. /She pours the contents of the envelope on the 
table./ Here all of them are, all papers! I hereby endow you with them! 
(hyperformal) Take them, peruse them (hyperformal) – commit them 
to memory, even! I think it’s wonderfully fitting that Belle Reve should 
finally be this bunch of old papers in your big, capable hands! /…/ 
(Williams 1989, 1834)
BLANCHE: vzame veliko kuverto, v kateri so prav tako papirji: Na tisoče papirjev je, 
za sto let in več nazaj, v zadevi Belle Reve, ko so najini lahkomiselni 
dedje in oče in strici in bratje posestvo košček za koščkom menjali za 
svoje junaško vlačuganje (D1 pejor) /kurbirske podvige (D2 low coll) 
– po domače povedano! /…/ (Izsuje vsebino kuverte na mizo.) T u imaš vse 
papirje, vse! Izvoli jih prevzeti! (D1) /Izvoli, tu ti jih izročam (standard) 
(D2)/ Vzemi jih, preuči jih (standard) – nauči se jih na pamet, magari! 
(coll) Zdi se mi res kot nalašč (D1) /mislim, da je več kot primerno(D2)/, 
da Belle Reve nazadnje pristane (D1) /konča (D2)/ kot kupček starih 
papirjev v tvojih velikih, sposobnih rokah! /…/ (D1, 31; D2, 93-4)
#ere are additional colloquialism of the above types in the translation, all of which sound 
rather strange in the general context of the situation and tenor of discourse. 
#e most common shifts on the linguistic level of the play fall into the category of stylistic 
shifts with respect to the register element (tenor of discourse). Register provides information 
on the social distance between participants in the language situation (Leuven-Zwart, 1989). 
#e result of Duša’s frequent use of colloquialism instead of Blanche’s educated formal and/or 
hyperformal tenor, on the one hand, and her rich, imaginative and poetic language, on the 
other, lessens the social distance between her and Stanley and considerably changes Blanche’s 
characterization in translation. In Slovene translation, Blanche often sounds as rude and 
uneducated as Stanley, which was certainly not Williams’s original intention. What is more 
the translator’s willingness to degrade her language reveals a pronounced traditional male 
perception of the promiscuous woman as whore. 

A minute comparison of specific areas of language choice of a number of Slovene translations 
of plays often reveals the absence of a more systematic approach to the study of individual levels 
of language and a pronounced emphasis on the use of one register in different literary and 
pragmatic contexts. #is complies with the assumption of T oury who finds that “translator’s 
behaviour cannot be expected to be fully systematic. Not only can his/her decision-making 
be differently motivated in different prolem areas, but it can also be unevenly distributed 
throughout an assignment within a single probem area” (T oury 1995, 67). T oury’s assumption 
certainly proves true in the above examples. In our case it also points to an ideologically and 
stylistically tinged approach to translation, one which dismisses a more “scholarly” approach as 
unnecessary and not worthy of a true artist. #e latter, however, often results in the lessening 
of that same true artistic value of the original it proclaims to preserve in translation.