1

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
UNIVERSITY OF DANANG
PHAN THỊ THU THỦY
AN INVESTIGATION
INTO ENGLISH - VIETNAMESE
TRANSLATION OF EUPHEMISM

Subject Area : The English Language
Code : 60.22.15
M.A. THESIS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE Supervisor: TRẦN ĐÌNH NGUYÊN, M.A.


translated from English into Vietnamese in translated works as well as to
find out what are the main approaches taken by translators in translating
euphemism from English into Vietnamese. A collection of samples taken
from literary works written in English and their Vietnamese versions have
been analyzed to explore ways in which euphemisms are transferred.
Besides, quantitative analyses have also been carried out to show
distribution of ways of translating, on the basis of which to identify
preferences. The findings, it is hoped, will help to put forward some
suggestions for the translation as a profession and for the teaching and
learning of English to overcome the misunderstandings and barriers during
the cross-cultural communication.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
DECLARATION i
ABSTRACT ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iii
LIST OF FIGURES vi
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Rationale 1
1.2. Signification of the Study 2

3.1.2. Objectives 34
3.2. Research Design 34
3.3. Method of Research 35
3.4. Data Collection and Description 35
3.5. Research Procedures 36
CHAPTER 4 - DISCUSSIONS OF FINDINGS 37
4.1. The Ways of English-Vietnamese Translation of Euphemisms as
Manifested in Translated Works 37
4.1.1. Translation of Euphemisms expressing Death 37
4.1.2. Translation of Euphemisms expressing Sex 49
4.1.3. Translation of Euphemisms expressing Pregnancy 63
4.1.4. Translation of Euphemisms expressing Childbirth 71
4.2. Three main Approaches to Translation of Euphemism 79
4.2.1. Translation of Euphemism into an Equivalent Euphemism by
Finding the Exact Counterpart in the TL text 79
v
4.2.2. Translation of Euphemism into a Non-equivalent Euphemism by
Translating the Euphemistic Meaning of the SL text or by
Adding Footnotes and Explanatory Words in the TL text 81
4.2.3. Translation of Euphemism into a direct form in the TL text 82
CHAPTER 5 – CONCLUSIONS 83
5.1. Summary of the Findings 83
5.2. Implications for Translation 85
5.3. Implications for Language Teaching and Learning 85
5.4. Some Limitations of the Study 86
5.5. Some Suggestions for Further Research 87
REFERENCES 88
QUYẾT ĐỊNH GIAO ĐỀ TÀI
70

78

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. RATIONALE
It is well known that human culture, social behavior and thinking
cannot exist without languages. Being a social and national identity and a
means of human communication, languages cannot help bearing imprints of
ethnic and cultural values as well as the norms of behavior of a given
language community. Obviously, ideas, notions and feelings are actually
universal but the way we describe them in different languages is very unique.
Therefore, translation plays a crucial role in enhancing better understanding

1. How euphemism is translated from English into Vietnamese as seen
in examples taken from works of literature?
2. What are the main approaches taken by translators in translating
euphemism from English into Vietnamese?
1.5. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
- “Source language” is the language in which a text was originally
written.
- “Target language” is the language in which a text is translated.
- “Euphemism” is a figure of speech. It is used as an alternative to an
expression, in order to avoid possible loss of face: either one’s own face or
through giving offense, that of the audience, or of some third party.
- “Semantic approach” is an approach to translation which has these
features:
 SL bias
 Keeping semantic and syntactic structures as closely as possible
 Author- centered
- “Communicative approach” is an approach which has these features:
 TL bias
3
 Keeping effect as closely as possible
 Second reader-centered.
1.6. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY
This research paper consists of five chapters:
Chapter one: Introduction
In this chapter we would present the statements of the problem, the
justification for the study, the scope of the study, the organization, as well as
definitions of terms.
Chapter two: Literature Review
The chapter covers a review of literature on translation of euphemism.
Prior studies on the problems are reviewed for the groundwork of the

p. 62-64] introduces some features of euphemism and also presents some
notes on translating euphemisms.
In “Euphemism and Dysphemism - Language Used as Shield and
Weapon” (1990), Allan and Burridge [21] mentions about the development,
the classification of English euphemisms and the differences among
euphemism, slang, dysphemism and taboo.
D.J. Enright [30] in “Fair of Speech” (1986), introduces euphemisms
and sex, death, politics, the media, the law and many others as well as
mentioned about the uses of euphemism.
In “Stylistics” (1977), Galperin [31] gives a definition of euphemism
and also divides them into several groups according to their spheres of
application: 1) religious, 2) moral, 3) medical, 4) parliamentary.
In Vietnamese, euphemisms have been discussed by some linguists:
Bằng Giang [1] in “Tiếng Việt phong phú” (1997), investigates over
1,000 variants of the word death with illustrations.
5
In “Phong cách học Tiếng Việt” (2001), Đinh Trọng Lạc [4, p.126]
puts forward the basic theoretical background of euphemisms in the
Vietnamese language. He assumes that euphemism is the delicate expression
in communicative situation in which the addresser feels uncomfortable to talk
about taboo topics because he is afraid that it will hurt or offend the addressee
“Uyển ngữ là phương thức diễn ñạt tế nhị trong hoàn cảnh giao tiếp mà
người nói không tiện nói ra vì sợ quá phũ phàng hoặc sợ xúc phạm ñến người
nghe”.
Trương Viên [19] (2003; Ph.D. Thesis) focuses on the linguistic
features of euphemisms by analyzing their formation by syntactic, phonetic,
lexical and stylistic means. With the contrastive analysis, the author also
pointes out some features related to the method of translation.
Nguyễn Thị Lê [15] (2006; M.A thesis) focuses on the study on
commonly-used euphemisms in English and Vietnamese newspapers in three

involving the negotiation of meaning between producers and receivers of
texts. In other words, the resulting translated text is to be seen as the evidence
of a transaction, a means of retracting the pathways of the translator’s
decision-makings.
Another author, Nguyễn Hồng Cổn [11] mentions that the activity of
translation is still a language activity and language plays core and basic roles.
However, he says that together with the attention to linguistic problem,
translators also need to pay attention to the problems relating to the SL and
TL such as social environment, culture and religion.
7
Furthermore, Vũ Văn Đại [20] claims that there is an unequivalence in
culture of translators and original texts, so in order to become good
translators, it is very necessary to enrich the cultural and national knowledge
of the TL.
Peter Newmark’s theory [48] is different from the point of view of
above mentioned authors. He defines that translation is rendering the meaning
of a text into another language in the way that the author intended the text.
Briefly, the starting point of translation is a message. This message is
expressed in a specific language, which is called the SL. When doing
translation, we aim to re-express that message in another language (TL). We
have already known that the form of each language is unique. Thus,
translation will involve some changes of form. This does not matter provided
that that the meaning of the message is retained unchanged. Moreover,
translation not only involves understanding the general meaning of the
communication but also calls upon the ability to understand the culture of the
communication. Before we can translate a message, we must understand the
total meaning of the message within its own cultural context.
2.2.1.2. Language and Culture
Dealing with language and culture, Whorf who endorsed Sapir’s
theory declares firmly that “No language can exist unless it is steeped in the

Peter Newmark [49, p.94] indicates that culture is the way of life and
its manifestations that are peculiar to a community that uses a particular
language as its means of expression. Frequently, where there is cultural focus,
there is a translation problem due to the cultural “gap” or “distance” between
the SL and TL.
9
2.2.1.3. Translation Equivalence
Equivalence can be said to be the central issue in translation although
its definition, relevance, and applicability within the field of translation theory
have caused heated controversy, and many different theories of the concept of
equivalence have been elaborated within this problem. Translation
equivalence occurs when a SL and a TL text or item are relatable to (at least
some of) the same features of substance. The greater the number of situational
features common to the contextual meanings of both SL and TL texts, the
“better” the translation.
According to Peter Newmark, translation equivalence is an unwritten
rule about translation which people know and which influences the form of
translating exchange. “Translation equivalence will not be achieved word for
word, collocation for collocation, clause for clause, sentence for sentence, but
possibly only paragraph for paragraph, or, rarely, text for text. For this
reason, translation equivalence, like the term ‘unit of translation’, is
sometimes a useful operational concept, but it can be only roughly and
approximately indicated for a stretch of language.” [49, p.123]
Mentioning translation equivalence, Eugene Nida [51, p.26]
distinguishes two types of equivalence: formal equivalence and dynamic
equivalence. Formal equivalence focuses attention on the message itself, in
both form (poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, concept and concept) and
content (gloss translation, aim to allow the reader to understand as much of
the SL context as possible). However, dynamic equivalence is based on the
principle of equivalent effect, i.e. that the relationship between receiver and

consisting of the components (syntactic, semantic and pragmatic). These
components are arranged in a hierarchical relationship, where semantic
equivalence takes priority over syntactic equivalence and pragmatic
11
equivalence conditions and modifies both the other elements. Equivalence
overall results from the relation between signs themselves, the relationship
between signs what they stand for and those who use them.
In general, to achieve translation equivalence requires translators to
produce the same effect (or one as close as possible) on the readership of the
translation as was obtained on the readership of the original. The translation
equivalence is showed in some rules and principles which are very useful for
the translators. The focus is to assure the equivalence in translation of
participants for translating to take place smoothly and effectively. These
principles help people best achieve their goals not only in communication but
also in translating: exchanging information and establishing and maintaining
social relations.
2.2.1.4. Translation Methods
In order to have a good translated version, the translator should have
knowledge about translation theory. When we mention translation, we also
refer to a process which involves the negotiation of meaning between
producers and receivers of texts. Translation plays such an important role in
life that there have been many researchers who mention it with many different
methods.
Peter Newmark [49, p.24] mentions the difference between translation
methods and translations. He indicates that, "While translation methods relate
to whole texts, translations are used for sentences and the smaller units of
language". He goes on to refer to the following methods of translation:
(1) Word-for-word translation: is the process the SL word order is
preserved and the words translated singly by their most common meanings,
out of context.

The translation in these three types properly describes the process of
transferring from the SL to the TL. He goes on immediately to point to the
central problem in all types: while messages may serve as adequate
interpretations of code units or messages, there is ordinarily no full
equivalence through translation.
Engene Nida [51] provides the model of the translation process
consisting of the following stages:
SL TL
TEXTTRANSLATION

Analysis Restructuring

Transfer
For example:
SL TL
HELLO

ÇA VA?

Friendly greeting on arrival Decision to distinguish between forms
of greeting available

Transfer

Firth [24, p. 22] defines meaning as “a complex of relations of various
kinds between the component terms of a context of situation”. He points out
that, in determining what to use in English, the translators must:


Literal Free

Faithful Idiomatic

Semantic Communicative
He admires that all of the translation versions in some degree contain
the both semantic and communicative, social and individual. According to
Peter Newmark [48], in communicative translation approach, the only part of
the meaning of the SL which is translated is the part which fits the TL
reader’s understanding of the identical message. In this translation, the
translator has the right to modify, correct and improve the translation version,
but the translator has to consider what extents of the SL should be suitable to
the knowledge, intelligence of the TL readers. Communicative translation
addresses itself solely to the second reader, who does not anticipate
difficulties or obscurities, and would expect a generous transfer of foreign
elements into his own culture as well as his language where necessary.
Communicative translation is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more
direct and more conventional, conforming to a particular register of language.
Communicative translation emphasizes “the force” rather than the content of
the message.
Semantic translation, in contrast, is a translation in which the translator
is loyal to the author of the SL. It means that he has to translate the meaning
of the SL material into the TL text. However, if the text is not updated, the
translation version has to be put into modern language. Semantic translation
attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the
16
second language, the exact contextual meaning of the original. Semantic
translation remains within the original culture and assists the readers only in
its connotations if they constitute the essential human (non-ethnic) message of

meaning quite different from its apparent surface meaning. It is an indirect
way of saying something, usually used in order to avoid being offensive”. [23,
p. 98]
Allan and Burridge [21, p. 57] define euphemism as “an alternative to
a dispreferred expression, in order to avoid possible loss of face: either one’s
own face or, through giving offense, that of the audience, or of some third
party”. The dispreferred expression may be taboo, fearsome, distasteful, or
some expressions with negative connotations.
According to Galperin [31, p. 76], "Euphemism is a word or phrase
used to replace an unpleasant word or expression by a conventionally
acceptable one". The origin of the term “euphemism” discloses the aim of the
device very clearly, i.e. speaking well (from Greek - eu = well + pheme =
speaking). He also shows that euphemism is sometimes figuratively called "a
whitewashing device". According to him, euphemisms may be divided into
several groups according to their spheres of application. The most recognized
spheres are the following: 1) religious, 2) moral, 3) medical, 4) parliamentary.
In “Style Guide”, Pam [55, p. 620] defines euphemisms as “the fine-
sounding words and phrases we used for things which are not so fine or
beautiful. The word itself goes back to the Greeks and Greek civilization,
suggesting that they had found the need for inoffensive expressions to refer to
what was unpalatable, unacceptable and unmentionable in their culture".
Moreover, Geoffrey Leech [43, p. 102] insists that “euphemism is the
practice of referring to something offensive or delicate in terms that make it
18
sound more pleasant or becoming than it really is”. Therefore, people use
euphemisms to get rid of the negative meaning or connotation the word or
topic.
Euphemistic expressions occur at all levels of society, but throughout
the history people have found certain areas to be more uncomfortable and
unpleasant to discuss than others. These include sex, death, killing, crime,