Summary
Certain elements of language often repeat in all genres and at all levels of formality, whether 
spoken or written. #is phenomenon, either premeditated or applied intuitively, always has a 
reason, despite the fact that the speaker (or writer) is not necessarily aware of it.
A re-appearance of a certain word or word cluster is called recurrence. According to various 
definitions, it can be the direct repetition of a textual element which has appeared before in 
the text, the re-appearance of a certain word in the form of a different part of speech, or the 
repetition of a word cluster in which at least some elements of the original sentence repeat in 
the same or similar form. #e term repetition is not used because only seldom is a repetition 
of a part of a text a real repetition, carrying exactly the same meaning potential of the repeated 
phrase as did its first appearance. #is element of language is often disregarded in translation. 
It’s importance is even greater in texts where recurrences are common or, as in Pinter’s plays, 
they represent one of the important elements of the author’s style. Hopefully, this paper will 
raise awareness of how important it is to consider this element in translation.
Key words: translation, drama, drama translation, recurrence, Harold Pinter
 Povzetek
Ponavljanje nekaterih jezikovnih elementov je v večji ali manjši meri prisotno v vsakem besedilu, 
ne glede na njegovo zvrst, stopnjo formalnosti ali druge karakteristike. Avtor lahko ta fenomen 
uporablja z namenom, da doseže določene učinke na sprejemnika, ali pa naključno, vendar 
ponovitve v vsakem primeru vplivajo na celostno podobo besedila. onovna pojavitev (angl. 
recurrence) je v strokovni literaturi najpogosteje definirana bodisi kot ponovitev nekega dela 
besedila v nespremenjeni obliki, lahko gre za ponovitev določene besede s spremembo besedne 
vrste, ali pa se ponovno pojavi besedni sklop, v katerem se vsaj nekaj elementov ponovi v enaki 
ali nekoliko spremenjeni obliki. Izraz ponovitev se za omenjeni jezikovni pojav ne uporablja, saj 
so le redke ponovne pojavitve besed ali besednih sklopov prave ponovitve z enakim pomenskim 
potencialom. Ponovne pojavitve so v prevajalski praksi pogosto prezrte. Še posebej pomembno 
jih je ohranjati v besedilih, kjer so le-te pogoste, ter v primerih, ko predstavljajo pomemben 
gradnik avtorjevega sloga. T o utemeljuje in s primeri ilustrira tudi pričujoči članek.
Ključne besede: prevajanje, drama, dramski prevod, ponovna pojavitev, Harold Pinter
 DOI: 10.4312/elope.2.1-2.293-299

In poetic as well as common every day language certain parts of text or speech often appear 
more than once. #is phenomenon may be either premeditated or applied randomly as a result 
of intuition. In both cases, it produces a certain potential effect and conveys the conscious or 
subconscious intention of the speaker. 
 Beaugrande and Dressler (1988, 54) define recurrence as a direct repetition of a textual element 
which has appeared before in the text. #ey do not call it repetition because, according to 
Beaugrande (1991, 18), only seldom is the repetition of part of text a real repetition. Such 
absolute recurrence, as he calls it, would have to carry exactly the same meaning potential of the 
repeated phrase as did its first appearance. In most cases, that does not happen, as it is usually 
the very intention of the speaker that causes the recurrence:
Saying the same thing over again normally carries a context-sensitive message, 
such as approval, insistence, anxiety, doubt, surprise, or irony. /…/ thus, 
recurrence is typically 
an instance of “incremental recursion”, where the repeated event adds to the 
value of the original (Beaugrande 1991, 18).
Green (1968, 22), too, is sceptical about the reason for absolute recurrences. She believes that 
the sentence in which the same thing is said twice in the exactly same way (e.g. John ran home 
and John ran home) is senseless and unacceptable as it lowers the level of informativeness. 
A less strict variation of recurrence is partial recurrence, defined by Beaugrande and Dressler 
(1988, 54–5) as the re-appearance of a certain word in the form of a different part of speech. 
As such, it is similar to polyptoton, a figure of speech that is defined as “repetition of the same 
word in various inflected forms” (Kos 1987, 185). In a later article, Beaugrande (1991) defines 
recurrence as the repetition of a word cluster that does not repeat as a whole; not even all the 
elements need to repeat. It suffices that some elements of the original sentence repeat in the 
same or a sufficiently similar form. Some partial recurrences originate in language system 
functions and are random; others appear as a result of the writer’s or speaker’s intention:
Some language elements recur simply because they are frequent in the language 
repertory and form small or closed sets of useful options, e.g., articles, conjunctions, 
and prepositions. Other elements recur deliberately because the speaker wishes to 
point back to some previous utterance(s), and are noticeable because they are 
much less frequent or constrained within small sets (Beaugrande 1991, 19).

Recurrences can appear on various levels of the text. Numerous authors, e.g. Harris 1952, 
Van Dijk 1969, Weinrich 1972, and others, deal with special types of recurrence, but the 
most frequent is lexical recurrence where a word or a cluster of words is repeated. #is type 
is quite easy to notice as it appears on the textual level; it is enough to read or hear the text 
to perceive it. #is article mostly deals with the latter type of recurrence because it applies 
directly to translation analysis.
 #e frequency of recurrences in plays by Harold Pinter proves that they are an important 
element of his style (see Hribar 2004, 197). #erefore it is vital that as many as possible are 
preserved in translation. Sometimes this is a demanding task, especially because recurrences 
cannot be treated separately from other elements in the text. It often happens that rhythm, 
length of words, register, rhyme and similar elements need to be considered simultaneously. 
In practice the ideal situation, when all the characteristics of the original text are incorporated 
in the translation, seldom exists. More frequently the translator is forced to sacrifice one or 
more layers of the original, and it is important that those partially or completely omitted 
should be those which harm the translation the least. Needless to say, to be able to do that, 
the translator must be well acquainted with the original text. What is more, he or she must 
be able and willing to spend the time and energy to do this.
Pinter’s characters sometimes repeat whole phrases or sentences, sometimes with slight 
changes, which almost always indicate a change in the speaker’s intention. #e repeated 
passage either follows its first appearance closely, or can be delayed for a few lines – or 
sometimes pages. In general, the most noticeable recurrences for the audience are those 
which consist of many repetitions, contain unusual words or phrases attracting our attention, 
or consist of closely repeated passages. So, it is most important for at least some of these to 
be preserved in translation. 
Below, this point is illustrated with an excerpt from Pinter’s !e Caretaker and its translation 
by Janko Moder. As the comparison shows, some of the recurrences have been at least partly 
preserved, but many others have simply been lost during the process of translation.
#is example from the beginning of the play is a dialogue between Davies, a homeless tramp, 
and Aston, a slightly mentally retarded craftsman, who feels sorry for the tramp and takes 
him home. #e audience learns what has happened before the play started. Davies talks a 
lot, trying to explain to Aston or rather persuade him of the cause of an incident at a café:
DAVIES. Comes up to me, parks a bucket of rubbish at me tells me to take 
it out the back. It’s not my job to take out the bucket! #ey got a 
boy there for taking out the bucket. I wasn’t engaged to take out 
buckets. My job’s cleaning the floor, cleaning up the tables, doing a bit 

of washing-up, nothing to do with taking out buckets!
ASTON.  Uh.
       He crosses down right, to get the electric toaster.
DAVIES (following). Yes, well say I had! Even if I had! Even if I was supposed to 
take out the bucket, who was this git to come up and give me orders? 
/…/ (Pinter 1977, 18)
DAVIES.  Stopi k meni, postavi predme kanto za smeti in mi reče, nej 
jo odnesem. Ni moja stvar nosit kante ven! Za to imajo druzga. 
Nisem bil vzet, da bi nosil ven kante. Jaz sem za ribanje po tleh, za 
pospravljanje z miz, mejčkeno za pomivanje, niti slučajno pa ne za 
odnašanje smeti! 
ASTON. Saj. 
       Odide na desno v ospredje po pražilnik. 
DAVIES (raca za njim). No, pa recimo, da bi bil! T udi če bi bil! T udi če bi bil vzet 
za kante, ampak kje je tisti bog, ki lahko stopi predme in mi ukaže. /…/ 
(Pinter 1990, 4)
#e phrase to take out the bucket, with its grammatical structure slightly varied, appears five 
times, four of those times in one sole utterance. #is repetition is not coincidental. It 
brings out Davies’s urge to divert Aston’s thoughts from exploring what the real conflict 
was about. Davies gives him no time to think or reply but keeps talking. #e more he 
talks about taking out the bucket, the more he makes Aston and the audience doubt his 
story. 
#e linguistic packet, taking out the bucket, also replicates the task package for Davies. 
His contention is that tasks are divided, that taking out the bucket is a discrete task 
unit – one which does not fall into his job description. His repetitions contain a funny 
mixture of certainty and uncertainty about whether taking out buckets might not, after 
all, be his task. At the same time, the recurring phrase reveals a good portion of the 
speaker’s contempt for this task assignment, which he obviously considers inferior. 
A deeper meaning of this part of the text is also strongly supported by the carefully 
polished sound effects of several consecutive recurrences.
In the Slovene translation the repetitive effect is almost completely lost. #e translator 
replaced the original phrase taking out the bucket with five different translations: nej jo 
odnesem, nosit kante ven, da bi nosil ven kante, za odnašanje smeti and če bi bil vzet za kante. 
#ese versions more or less meet the criterion of preserving the content, but they certainly 
fail to maintain the form. Any resemblance among the translations is too vague for the 
audience to be able to grasp them as chain of recurrent phrases with only slight variations. 
What is more, such considerable differences also diminish the carefully constructed 

rhythmical effect by using either words of different length or varied word order, both of 
which create a different rhythm. My suggested translation of this passage preserves the 
relevant elements to a greater extent
1
:
DAVIES.  Pride tja k meni, postavi kanto za smeti pred mene pa mi reče, naj jo 
nesem ven. Ni moje delo, da bi nosil kanto ven! Saj imajo mulca, da nosi 
kanto ven. Jaz nisem tam, da bi nosil kante ven. Moje delo je, da čistim 
po tleh, počistim z miz, malo pomivam, ne pa da nosim kante ven!
ASTON.  Uh.
      Odide na desno v ozadje po opekač.
DAVIES  (mu sledi). No, pa recimo, da bi bil! T udi če bi bil! T udi če bi naj tam 
nosil kante ven, kdo pa je on, da bo prišel tja in mi dajal ukaze? 
In my translation, the phrase nosit kante ven is used consistently; it even takes into consideration the 
minor grammatical variations that appear in the original text. #e idea of Davies’s characterisation 
through his repeating the same sentence over and over is much better preserved. 
Moreover, the above suggestion also corresponds better to the original as far as rhythm and 
length of words are concerned. Each phrase, take out the bucket and nosit kanto ven, contains 
three stressed syllables and keeps this characteristic throughout the passage despite the 
grammatical variations. #ere is further acoustic resemblance between the key words of both 
phrases; the original bucket and the translation kanta are two-syllable words with the stress on 
the first syllable. #ey also both contain the k and t sounds and that constitutes the same kind 
of consonance in both versions. In addition to the consonance, there is a similar degree of 
resemblance between out and ven. 
Apart from the iterative effect, the word cluster take out the bucket will – especially to an 
English speaking audience – provoke a disturbing echo of the colloquial expression to kick the 
bucket (i.e. die). #e Slovene language does not have a similar phrase, so this dimension of 
meaning is not included in the suggested translation.
#ere are at least four more examples of recurrences in the above cited passage, but these are 
less prominent, especially in the presence of the one commented upon. Only one of those has 
been preserved in translation, and that is Davies’s second utterance (Pinter 1977, 18): 
“Yes, well say I had! Even if I had! Even if I was /…/”, 
which is translated as: 
“No, pa recimo, da bi bil! T udi če bi bil! T udi če bi bil vzet /…/ (Pinter 1990, 4)”.


#e phrase, my job, that appears twice in Davies’s first utterance is translated as moja stvar 
the first time and is hidden in the phrase jaz sem za the second time. #e translation moje 
delo is better because it not only preserves the recurrence but is also connected to the above 
discussion of taking out the bucket; it stresses the fact that Davies understands this “low job” 
as something that is somebody else’s job. By disregarding the recurrence my job, the translation 
fails to bring out this feature more explicitly. 
None of the three appearances of the pronoun me from the beginning of Davies’s first utterance 
is preserved in Moder’s translation. Even my translation only manages to preserve two – the 
reason being in the differentiation between the longer stressed and shorter unstressed forms 
of personal pronouns that do not exist in the English language. A larger portion of the joint 
effect of this recurrence lies in the first two that are accentuated; despite the fact that the third 
one is formally the same as the first two, it is slightly less noticeable because the stress is on 
the adjacent verb tells. A similar effect is achieved in my translation, where the first two are 
replaced by the longer forms meni and mene and manage to keep the connection, whereas mi is 
too weak and is – like the English me – almost lost. #e suggested translation is therefore closer 
to the original than Moder’s, which interrupts the recurrence with the second form predme. 
Apart from that, pred mene is also more appropriate from the point of view of register, since it 
sounds less formal.
Another partial recurrence in this passage is cleaning followed by the slightly prolonged form 
cleaning up. Even though the phrasal verb clean up can according to the English-Slovene 
Dictionary (Grad et. al. 1990, 147–8) be translated as pospraviti, it is better to use the 
translation počistiti, i.e. počistim in this case, not so much because of the meaning, but because 
of the form that resembles the preceding one čistim, the Slovene prefix po- being a substitute 
for the English up. #is choice of words in the translation sounds better than gerunds ribanje 
and pospravljanje. 
 Microstructural comparison of the original and its Slovene translation has revealed some 
plans where the translator did not consider multiple, significant elements of style that are 
crucial especially in the case of Pinter. Recurrence is one feature that does not disturb with its 
absence but does substantially enrich the translation when it is preserved. #e ideal situation in 
which all the layers of the original text would be taken into consideration and then adequately 
translated is not easy to achieve. Some factors are beyond the translator’s control; sometimes, 
for instance, a word to cover all aspects of a certain passage does not exist. However, it is almost 
always possible to reach an optimal solution that captures more than just the lexical, semantic, 
discursive, etc. meaning.