• Print a PDF copy
• If you wish to save or print this article please

Introduction

This article aims to analyse how orality is evoked, through linguistic variation, in the novel Rosario Tijeras, by Colombian writer Jorge Franco, and to establish the (in)equivalence degree of orality features of the Parlache, between the source text (ST) and its translations into English and German (target texts, TT), from translation procedures. The main contribution of my investigation will be the translation of fictive orality through linguistic variation (diatopic/diastratic/even diaphasic variety of Colombian Spanish) into German and English. Typical features of Parlache include: voseo, phraseological units and specific vocabulary relating mainly to violence, drugs, and narcotraffic, but also to love, death, life, and friendship.

On the one hand, the main goal of this article is to research the function of linguistic variation in depicting communicative immediacy —specifically, in the field of literary fictional orality. On the other hand, I intend to study the issues a translator confronts when transferring those elements of linguistic variation (Parlache) from source text to target text.

Thus, this paper aims to establish how these typical phraseological units of this variety of Spanish contribute to the construction of a believable spoken dialogue. Therefore, I will not only study translation divergences but also the description of linguistic variation (diatopic and diastratic) through phraseological units.

The novel (source text)

Rosario Tijeras is a thriller and belongs to the subgenre of the narconovela because it deals with drug (narco)-trafficking and takes place during the 1980s, an era of horrible violence in Medellín, Colombia. Some people also classify it as a novela negra (crime novel). Although the novel swings between violence and death, the Leitmotiv is love. Rosario Tijeras depicts a love triangle between two young rich men —Emilio and Antonio— and Rosario, a hit woman. Besides these three main characters, there are some secondary ones including: Ferney (Rosario’s ex-boyfriend), Johnefe (Rosario’s brother), Doña Rubi (Rosario’s mother), and Daisy (Rosario’s friend). These characters help to build up a picture of two different sides of Medellín — one belonging to the rich, middle-class “good guys” and the other belonging to deprived, struggling-for-survival “bad guys”. The story tells how these two worlds intertwined during the blood years of drug trafficking in the 1980s and is expressed in fast, vibrant prose, with poetic flare, alternating between standard Spanish, Colombian Spanish, Spanish from Medellín, and Parlache. The author, Jorge Fanco, was born in Medellín, Colombia, in 1962. He studied filmmaking at the London International Film School and Literature at the Pontificia Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá. He has already earned a prominent place alongside several world-renowned Colombian writers. Paraíso Travel and Rosario Tijeras have been adapted into films. In 2014, he was awarded the Premio Alfaguara.

Parlache

If one considers Colombian Spanish to be a diasystem, then Parlache is a diatopic, diastratic variety, belonging to the communicative language of immediacy coined by Koch & Oesterreicher (1990, 2001). It demonstrates specific social characteristics, having originated in socio-economically deprived areas of Medellín. Castañeda and Henao (1999: xvii) define Parlache as “a social dialect originated and developed in a deprived socio-economic area of Medellín, and the metropolitan area of the Aburrá Valley.”

At first, it was considered to be an ephemeral, linguistic phenomenon but Parlache has now spread, not only across the departmento[1] of Antioquia, but all across Colombia. Although the Diccionario de la Lengua Española (DRAE, 2001, p. 1683) defines Parlache as “jerga surgida y desarrollada en los sectores populares y marginados de Medellín, que se ha extendido a otros estratos sociales del país”[2], Castañeda (2005) states that Parlache is a wide-diffusion linguistic variety with characteristics of a jargon emerging in some deprived socio-economic strata but later spreading in other socio-economic strata across the whole country. In addition, Parlache has influenced radio, television, theater, cinema, and literature (Vila and Castañeda, 2006).

Parlache is clearly a Spanish variety because its word creation and word changing belong to the morphological, syntactic, phonological, and semantic processes of Spanish. It has incorporated words from colloquial Caribbean languages, the Lunfardo, the rural language of Antioquia, the colloquial language of Colombia, and Spanish jargon from Spain. Parlache also include some borrowings from English and, to a lesser extent, from Portuguese. The orality features of Parlache in Rosario Tijeras are shown through: 1) the use of specific vocabulary and vocatives such as parcero (‘buddy’), güevón (‘moron’, ‘buddy’), marica (‘queer’, ‘buddy’); 2) idioms, i.e. phrases and routine formulae; and 3) pronouns, namely the predominant use of vos (informal pronoun of second person, singular, commonly used in two-thirds of Latin America) instead of tú (informal pronoun of second person, singular) and, to a lesser extent, usted (formal pronoun of second person plural). This use of pronouns is common to all Spanish spoken in Medellín and Antioquia.

Word formation. In Parlache, word formation works in the same way as in Spanish. The often-colorful vocabulary is the result of:

• Derivation: e.g. soplar (‘to inhale cocaine’) → soplada soplador, soplete; basuco/bazuco (‘paste of coke mixed with other stuff’) → basuquero
• Compounding: e.g. parceriwafer (parcero + wafer ‘buddy’); narcopara (narcotraficante ‘drug trafficker’ + paramilitar); bombondrilo (bombón + cocodrilo ‘woman with hot body but very ugly face’); inteliburro (‘moron’); lambeculo (lambón + culo ‘like teacher’s pet but also snitch’)
• Clipping: e.g. parcero → parce; paramilitar →para; prostituta → prosti = ‘prostitute’
• Acronyms: e.g. bacrim (‘criminal gangs’); amigovio (amigo + novio ‘friend with benefits’); Metrallín (Medellín + metralla ‘submachine gun’); mafioneta (‘truck used by drug dealers or by hitmen’); gonorzobia (an insult)
• New semantic meanings (resemantización): e.g. joyita (an insult meaning ‘dangerous’); carátula →cara (‘face’)
• Revitalization: e.g. fariseo → ‘traitor’; lacra → ‘scumbag’; muñeco → ‘dead person’
• Syllabic inversion (vesre): e.g. trocen → centro (‘downtown’); misaca → camisa (‘shirt’); tolis → listo (‘ready’)
• Onomatopoeia: e.g. tilín (‘bell sound’) (from tilíntilín derives the noun phrase mucho tilín tilín… y nada de paletas): ‘someone who promises a lot but never keep his/her promises’

According to Rojo’s (2009) classification, the phraseological units of Parlache are idioms and phrases. Examples of Parlache idioms, specifically routine formulae, include ¡Qué bacanería! ‘so cool!’; todo rai ‘everything is cool’; nos vemos las carátulas ‘see you later, alligator’. The phrases are predominantly verbal (e.g. colgar los guayos ‘to die’) but also include noun phrases (asesino de la moto ‘hitman’) and, to a lesser extent, adverbial phrases (a lo sano ‘following instructions by the book’) and adjective phrases (mera mamacita ‘such a hottie’). These phrases are stable word-groups but can be creatively modified. For example, the phraseological unit abrirse del parche (‘to disappear’) can be transformed into the hybrid expression ‘open the parch’.

Theoretical framework

The term phraseological unit (PU) has been defined precisely in some German and Spanish linguistic traditions (Gläser, 1986 and Corpas Pastor, 2003) and “comprises several types of fixed phrases, such as ‘collocations’, ‘idioms’, ‘proverbs’, ‘formulaic expressions’ and ‘clichés’. All these categories are structured around a prototype that can be defined according to two essential features: the fixed and idiomatic nature of a typical phraseological unit” (Rojo 2009:133). Phraseological units have a particular communicative efficiency since they belong to the linguistic domain of a specific community. Their interpretation depends on a codified background belonging to the speakers of a linguistic community who share beliefs, ideas, and knowledge. In addition, phraseological units vary even within the same language because they are associated with the geographical location, communicative situation, and socio-cultural level of their speakers. Zuluaga (2002: 68) suggests that phraseological units can depict not only the history related to a specific community but also how the members of this group see the world.

Semantic and pragmatic aspects of phraseological units

Generally speaking, all phraseological units show a certain degree of translation. Their interpretation depends on inference operations because their meaning is not the sum of every individual components but the representations of legitimate beliefs and values of a specific community. Therefore, the most relevant aspect of using phraseological units is their pragmatic component. A phraseological unit can provide information about the physical and temporal context of their components, as well as the social level of the speakers using it, or the type of speech acts they represent. Corpas (1996: 88) defines phrases (locuciones in Spanish) as “unidades fraseológicas del sistema de la lengua que tienen fijación interna y unidad de significado, que no constituyen enunciados completos y que, generalmente, funcionan como elementos oracionales.”[3]

The process of translating phraseological units is not easy because a translator must take into consideration the whole system of values and beliefs attached to the source text (ST) rather than simply looking for equivalences. For Zuluaga (1998: 207) equivalence in translation is a relative concept: it is not a matter of total equivalences but of partial equivalences. This means that the translation of phraseological units is not a relation of fidelity/ faithfulness (Baker, 2004) per se but an invariable value that stays constant, unchanging; that is, becomes an ‘invariant’. This ‘invariant’ could be: the connotation, which will be determined by some symbolic value of the source culture (SC) or target culture (TC); the denotation; the register; the components; the fixation in sociolinguistic norms; or the formal structure. During the translation process a translator must choose which element should stay invariant in order to achieve the closest natural equivalent to the source text. Therefore, equivalence is closely linked to the greater or lesser grade of invariance associated with semantic level (denotation, connotation), morphosyntactic level (formal structure and components), and pragmatics (linguistic fixation and style). In other words, equivalence need not be considered in terms of ‘how close’ a target text is to the same reality portrayed in the source text. Rather, equivalence refers to how close a translation comes to reproducing the same effect or response in the readers of the target text as the effect produced in readers of the source text.

According to Wotjak (1995), communicative equivalence is a very important feature related to fidelity and invariance. Furthermore, a total congruency between loyalty (Loyalität) and Skopos is only possible when the latter does not show a change in the communicative function of the original text. Before stating how phraseology relates to fictional orality, I will define the latter according to Brumme and Espunya (2012: 13) as:

[A]ny attempt to recreate the language of communicative immediacy in fictional texts, including both narrative and theatrical texts as well as audiovisual or multimodal texts. Fictional orality is not opposed to actual orality but is conceived as a special technique which consists mainly of the evocation of certain characteristics of spoken communicative situations such as spontaneity, familiarity, face-to-face interaction or physical proximity.”

According to Burger (1979) and Stein (2007) there are two types of phraseological units related to communicative immediacy. The first type are referential phraseological units, which refer to objects, processes, or situations belonging either to reality or fiction. They increase the expressiveness of the story since they reflect the emotional attitudes of the speakers, the register, the social value of the phraseological unit, and a specific diatopic/diastratic/diaphasic variation. The second type of phraseological units are communicative ones, such as some fixed forms, collocations, or idioms linked to a particular pragmatic function, for example, greetings. Both types of phraseological units seek to recreate spontaneous conversation between characters and attempt to be closer to oral speech; they belong to the ‘language of communicative immediacy’ (Sprache der Nähe) (Oesterreicher 1997; Koch and Oesterreicher 1990; 2011). Likewise, phraseological units with a diasystem mark have an evocative function within fictional orality, for example, those belonging to a diatopic/diastratic variety. Since phraseological units recreate daily conversations, they become an important linguistic source in the speech of characters. Phraseological units can therefore evoke an authentic, idiomatic, or even stereotyped speech depicting the thoughts and attitudes of speakers.

Data Analysis

Literary texts are often linked to culture and literary traditions belonging to source language (Hurtado, 2001). In the novel Rosario Tijeras, for example, all the dialogues are spoken in Parlache, which reinforces orality features in terms of spontaneous dialogues, as well as familiarity, face-to-face interaction, and physical proximity between characters. Furthermore, orality features of Parlache are shown through its colourful vocabulary and phrases, both embedded in a cultural context that is also related to social, political, economic, and geographical features.

Regarding the English and German translations, it is worth remembering that translators translate texts as a whole and not just as words. However, since one of the main goals of this contribution is to find out how features of Parlache were translated into English and German, it makes sense to divide this analysis in two parts: the translation of vocabulary and the translation of phraseological units. The translation of vocabulary is based on translation techniques proposed by Molina & Hurtado Albir (2002: 498-512). In addition, I have identified one unsuitable interpretation, five omissions and one case of ambiguity. According to their classification, the following techniques were found in the translation of Parlache vocabulary in the novel Rosario Tijeras:

1. Borrowing: this technique consists of taking a word or expression from another language. All borrowings found in this study were pure borrowings. There are three examples: the German translations of oficina (written by Franco as La Oficina and meaning ‘the place where illicit operations are scheduled’), patrón (‘capo’) and bazuco (‘cocaine mixed with other substances’). Although German readers can probably get the meaning of these words through context, there could also be confusion and an important loss in connotation.
2. Calque: literal translation of a foreign word or phrase. There are two cases of calques in this study: the German translation of acostar (‘to kill someone’) as schlafen legen and the English translation of patrón (‘capo’) as boss.
3. Established equivalent: using a term or expression recognized (by language in use or dictionaries) as an equivalent in the target language. Some of the examples of this technique are: the German and English translations of bajar (‘to kill’) as abknallen and to kill, respectively; the English and German translations of viejo (‘friend’ and vocative) as man and Alter, respectively.
4. Generalization: using a more general or neutral term. Two examples of this are the English translation of bazuco as coke and the German translation of plástica (‘a woman who only worries about her looks’) as Tussi.
5. Linguistic amplification: adding linguistic elements to the target text. One example of this technique is the English and German translations of duro (‘capo’) as tough guy and knallharter Typ.
6. Reduction: suppressing an information item from the source text in the target text. There are two examples of this technique: the German translation of tumbar (‘to kill someone’) as vorknöpfen and the German translation of encarretado (‘being in love or having a lot of enthusiasm in doing something’) as haufenweise.
7. Discursive creation: establishing a temporary equivalence that it is totally unpredictable out of context. There are two examples of this technique: the German translation of duro (los duros) as die Oberharten and the German translation of bajar as abknallen.
8. Transposition: changing a grammatical category. One example of this technique is the German translation of güevón (noun, meaning ‘moron’, used also as vocative) as spinnen (verb).
9. Unsuitable interpretation: only one example of an unsuitable interpretation is identified, the German translation of solle (‘high’) as starker Typ.
10. Omission: there were five omissions. The word parcerito (‘friend’) appears several times in the novel and was omitted once in the English translation. Other omission occurred in the German translation with one of the 73 occurrences of word parcero (‘friend’) and one omission of the occurrences of word viejo. The last two omissions occurred in the English translations of the word loco.
11. Ambiguity: this case of ambiguity occurred with the English and German translations of arrecha (meaning ‘horny’ in Parlache) as sexy and geil, respectively. Although the meaning of arrecha in Parlache, Medellín and Antioquia is only ‘sexually aroused’, the fragment of the source text in which the word appears could be understood as expressing ‘very attractive, astonishing’. Sexy and geil both mean ‘sexually aroused’ and ‘attractive, astonishing’; therefore, it is impossible to assert if the translators understood the meaning of the word as stated in Parlache, or if they understood the other meaning, or if they understood there to be an ambiguity given the context.

Regarding the translation of phraseological units, it is worth mentioning the phraseological units belonging to a particular dialect, linguistic variety, or diasystem — in this particular case, Parlache — are evocative elements of fictional orality, since they reflect specific cultural and geographical features. Freunek (2007: 56-57) states that idiomatic, typical, stereotypical language is one of the most important evocations of communicative immediacy in literary texts. According to Freunek (2007), the orality evoked by phraseological units can be invariant depending on specificities of any language and culture.

The following contrastive analysis of the translation of typical phraseological units from Parlache is based on the concepts of equivalence as defined by Zuluaga (1998: 212); Baker (1992: 71-78); López (2002: 102-106); Wotjak (1987: 92; 1992: 42-43); and Zurdo (1999: 360-363).

The analysis is also based on three types of invariants affecting the semantic, pragmatic value of phraseological units: denotation, connotation, and register.

As a result, seven procedures were found for the translation of phraseological units:

1. Calque: through this procedure the translator reproduces the semantic phraseological scheme of the original phraseological unit; i.e., the phraseological unit of the source language. This technique is meant to recover expressive, figurative features of the original phraseological unit. Nevertheless, using this technique can cause a significant loss in connotation or even generate difficulties for the reader of the source text. Some examples of calques are: PU fumársela verde, with the English translation smoke it green; and oler a formol, with the German translation nach formalin riechen and the English translation stinking of formaldehyde. In all cases, denotation is invariant but not necessarily the connotation.
2. Partial correspondence of components and similar content: in this procedure both phraseological units (the one from the source language and the one from the target language) have the same connotation and functional, pragmatic equivalence but only a partial denotation, due to their different lexical composition. Some examples of this procedure are: PU billete grande, with the German translation schönes Sümmchen and the English translation big money; PU los buenos del paseo, with the German translation wohlhabende Leute—the register is invariant in both cases—; PU dar candela, with the German translation heißes Gefecht—the connotation is invariant, but the register is not; and PU probar finura, with the German translation Geschicklichkeit beweisen.
3. Correspondence in content but not in components: in this procedure both phraseological units (in source language and target language) slightly differ in their figurative base —and therefore in the literal meaning of their lexical composition — but have the same conceptual, denotative meaning; i.e. they evoke the same reality with a different lexicalization. Besides, the equivalent units of the target text belong to the same level of language as those of the source text. Some examples of this procedure are: PU cargar tierra con el pecho, with the German translation das Gras von unten wachsen sehen and the English translation worm food; PU chupar gladiolo, with the German translation Gänseblümchen von unten wachsen sehen and the English translation to push up daisies; and PU comer cuento (with the German translation kann man kein X für ein U vormachen). In all these examples the connotation is invariant, but the register is higher than in the original PU.
4. Partial correspondence regarding the semantic-pragmatic value: In this procedure, the lack of equivalence and correspondence of most units of the target language is due to differences in register. Since the source text contains a lot of colloquial and dialectal language, most cases differ in the colloquial register; for example, vulgar/colloquial register in the source text vs. standard register in the target text. Therefore, there is a significant loss in the sociolinguistic information expressed through the source text. Examples of this procedures are: PU cagarse de la risa, with the English translation dying with laughter; PU parar bolas, with the English translation to pay attention.
5. Linguistic compression: in this procedure, the denotative meaning of the phraseological unit of the source language is translated into a lexeme or binomial in the target language. Examples of this procedure are: PU los duros de los duros, with the German translation die Oberharten; and PU meter perico, with the German translation Koks reinziehen and the English translation doing coke — the register and connotation are invariant in these two examples.
6. Paraphrase (when the phraseological unit in the source language has no phraseological unit in target language): in this procedure, the denotative meaning of the phraseological unit of the source language is translated into three or more words but not a PU in the target language. Some examples of this procedure are: PU llegar el fax and its English translation to hear about that (the register does not stay invariant); PU dedicarse (alguien) al rebusque with the English translation to devote (someone) to scavenging; PU probar finura and its English translation to prove their skills.
7. Unsuitable interpretation of the PU: there was an unsuitable interpretation regarding the English translation of PU no comer cuento as not to take crap. The meaning of no comer cuento in Parlache is ‘not to let anyone fool you’; different from not to take crap which, according to the Macmillan Dictionary, is: ‘phrase, impolite, to not let someone behave in an unpleasant or unfair way to you’.
8. Omission: This procedure occurs either when the translation of the phraseological unit of source text poses great difficulty or the translator considers its translation irrelevant to understanding the target text, thus causing a semantic or pragmatic loss. There was only one example of omission and it occurred in the English translation of the PU los buenos del paseo. In this case, it is possible the translator noticed or assumed a certain redundancy in the source text regarding the phrases la gente bien (meaning ‘people of a high economic status’, according to DRAE) and los buenos del paseo (meaning ‘nice people’); therefore, there is a pragmatic loss since the meanings of the phrases are not necessarily the same. As a result, the translator unified both expressions with the standard phrase proper upright people, without noticing that the source text expressions belong to different registers.

The following tables summarize some examples of vocabulary and phraseological units of Parlache and their translations:

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Other issues have been explored but not mentioned in the analysis above due to space limitations. In the cases of calques, for example, although the metaphors of vocabulary and PU remained in their German and English translations, it is very likely that target-culture readers do not get the real communicative function of the source text. Although source language-speaker readers can understand that there is a metaphor involved in what they are reading, the image evoked for them is not necessarily the same as the image evoked for Parlache-native speakers or even Colombian readers who are able to draw on their understanding of Colombia in the 1980s. As for the other procedures, even though they are completely different their outcome is very similar. In those other cases, when translators were confronted with markers of Parlache, they did not render the source text variety but the variation itself, the semantic alteration, the register, and the relative deviation of the norm.

As demonstrated by the analysis above, when translating vocabulary and phraseological units belonging to a diatopic/diastratic variation many contextual elements related to idiosyncrasy, culture, and social reality of the source text are lost. This happens because those elements (especially, phraseological units) are language unities depicting cultural, pragmatic, historic, linguistic, and social features of a particular community and therefore their translation can be a very difficult task.

As stated previously, for this study I have established the degree of equivalence of the translation based on the elements that remained invariant. However, in the translations of vocabulary and phraseological units of the corpus there are some stylistic criteria that necessarily entail a loss. For that reason, it is advisable that a translator choose which element should stay invariant in order to achieve the closest natural equivalent of the source text. Therefore, translating phraseological units and vocabulary belonging to a linguistic variety is not just rendering into a target text the same reality portrayed in the source text but rather reproducing in the readers of target text the same response or effect produced in the readers of the source text.

Conclusions

Literary texts are often linked to culture and literary traditions belonging to a source language which, at the same time, is embedded in a cultural context related to social, political, economic, and geographical features. Therefore, the translation of a linguistic variety (dialect) poses an additional challenge to the translator due to the social, historical, and cultural aspects of that specific community related to such source language. And, as a consequence, when translating oral features belonging to a diatopic/diastratic variety many elements related to its culture, idiosyncrasy and reality are lost.

Regarding the English and German translations of the novel Rosario Tijeras, the translation of vocabulary and phraseological units of Parlache has entailed some loss. In respect of vocabulary, for instance, the greater loss occurred in borrowings (three cases), calques (two cases), omissions (five cases), and unsuitable interpretations (one case). As for the phraseological units, the greater loss occurred in calques (four cases), omission (one case), and unsuitable interpretations (two cases). As a result, the total number of cases with a greater loss in the translations was 18, which is a 2.95% of the whole corpus. Despite this, the target texts kept the communicative function of the source text because translators tried to preserve as much invariants as they could in order to achieve the closest natural equivalent to the source text. In other cases, when translators could not keep any invariant at all, they did not render the source text variety but the variation itself, the semantic alteration, the register, and the relative deviation of the norm.

It is worth mentioning that in the translation of vocabulary and phraseological units of the corpus of this study there are some stylistic criteria that necessarily entail a loss. Since the concept of equivalence is linked to the degree of invariance associated with semantic, morphosyntactic, and pragmatic levels, it is advisable that a translator choose which element should stay invariant in order to achieve the closest natural equivalent of the source text. In conclusion, translating words and phraseological units belonging to a diatopic/diastratic variety is not just rendering into a target text the same reality portrayed in the source text but rather reproducing in the readers of target text the same effect or response produced in the readers of the source text.

Lastly, it is important to add that although none of the vocabulary and phraseological units of Parlache has an equivalent vocabulary or phraseological unit in German and English, the translators did the best they could to interpret those features of the source text and to reproduce —at least in most of the cases— the same communicative function of the source text.

References

Albrecht, Jörn (2005) Übersetzung und Linguistik, Tübingen, Narr

Baker, Mona (1992) In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation, London, Routledge

Baker, Mona (2004) “The Status of Equivalence in Translation Studies: An Appraisal” in A New Spectrum of Translation Studies, J M Bravo (ed), Valladolid, Universidad de  Valladolid: 63-71.

Balzer, Berit et al. (2010) Kein Blatt vor den Mund nehmen. No tener pelos en la lengua. Diccionario fraseológico alemán-español. Phraseologisches Wörterbuch Deustch- Spanisch, Madrid, Editorial Idiomas  

Brumme, Jenny, and Espunya, Anna (eds) (2012) The Translation of Fictive Dialogue. Amsterdam/ New York, Rodopi.

Burger, Harald (1979) “Phraseologie und gesprochene Sprache” in Standard und Dialekt.  Studien zur gesprochenen und geschrieben Gegen-Wartssprache. Festschrift für Heinz Rupp zum 60. Geburtstag, H Löffler, K Pestalozzi, and M Stern (eds), Bern, Munich,  Fran>Burger, H. (2005). 30 Jahre germanistische Phraseologieforschung. Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 35, 18-43.

Cadera, Susanne (2002) Dargestellte Mündlichkeit in Romanen von Mario Vargas Llosa, Ginebra, Librairie Droz.

---- (2012) “Translating fictive dialogue in novels” in The Translation of Fictive Dialogue,  Jenny Brumme and Anna Espunya (eds), Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi: 35-51.

Castañeda, Luz Stella, and José Ignacio Henao (2015) Diccionario de uso de parlache. Versión revisada y actualizada, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.

Castañeda, L.S. (2005). El parlache: resultados de una investigación lexicográfica. Forma y Función 18, 74-100.

Castañeda, Luz Stella, and José Ignacio Henao (2002) “Parlache. El lenguaje de los jóvenes marginales de Medellín” in Movimientos juveniles en América Latina: pachuchos, malandros, punketas, Carles Feixa et alii. (eds.), Barcelona, Ariel: 79-94.

Castañeda, Luz Stella (2003). La formación de palabras en el parlache. Actas del XXIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística y Filología Románica, Vol. III. (pp. 61-68). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Castañeda, Luz Stella, and José Ignacio Henao (2001) El parlache, Medellín, Universidad de Antioquia.

Castañeda, Luz Stella, and José Ignacio Henao (2006) Diccionario del parlache, Medellín, La Carreta Editores.

Corpas, Gloria (1996) Manual de fraseología española, Madrid, Gredos

Corpas, Gloria (2000) “Acerca de la (in)traducibilidad de la fraseología” in Las lenguas de Europa: estudios de fraseología, fraseografía y traducción, Gloria Corpas (ed), Granada, Comares: 483-522.

Corpas, Gloria (2000) “Fraseología y traducción” in El discurs prefabricat. Estudis de fraseología teòrica i aplicada, Vincent Salvador and Adolf Piquer (eds), Castelló, Publicaciones de la Universitat Jaume I: 107-138.

Corpas, Gloria (2001) “La traducción de las unidades fraseológicas” in La lingüística aplicada a finales del siglo XX: ensayos y propuestas, Isabel de la Cruz Cabanillas, Carmen Santamaría García, Cristina Tejedor Martínez, and Carmen Valero Garcés (eds), Alcalá, Asociación Española de Lingüística Aplicada: 779-786.

Corpas, Gloria (2003) Diez años de investigación en fraseología: análisis sintáctivo-semánticos, contrastivos y traductológicos, Madrid, Frankfurt, Iberoamericana.

Duden. Redewendungen ( 11th ed.) (2013), Berlin, Dudenverlag.

García-Page, Mario (2008) Introducción a la fraseología española. Estudio de las locuciones,  Barcelona, Anthropos

Gläser, Rosemarie (1986) Phraseologie der Englische Sprache, Leipzig, VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.

Freunek, Sigrid (2007) Literarische Mündlichkeit und Übersetzung, Berlín, Frank & Timme

Hurtado, Amparo (2001) Traducción y traductología. Introducción a la traductología, Madrid, Cátedra

Hurtado, Amparo and Molina, Lucía (2000) “Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic and functional approach”, META, Journal de Traducteurs 47, no. 4: 498-512.

Koch, Peter, and Wulf Oesterreicher (2011) Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania. Französisch, Italienisch, spanisch, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter.

López, Cecilia (2002). Aspectos de fraseología contrastiva (alemán-español) en el sistema y en el texto, Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang.

Macmillan Dictionary (2009) Macmillan Dictionary, Macmillan Publishers Limited. URL: http://www.macmillandictionary.com/ (accessed 17 October  2017)

Oesterreicher, Wulf (1997) “Types of Orality in Text” in Written Voices Spoken Signs. Tradition, Performance and the Epic Text, Egbert J. Bakker and Ahuvia Kahane (eds.), Cambridge/London, Harvard University Press: 190-214.

Pym, Anthony (2000) “Translating Linguistic Variation: Parody and the Creation of Authenticity” in Traducción, metrópoli y diáspora, Miguel Ángel Vega and Rafael Martín-Gaitero (eds), Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid: 69-75.

Real Academia Española (2001) Diccionario de la Lengua Española. Real Academia Española. 22^a edición URL: http://dle.rae.es/?w=parlache&o=h (accessed 2 October 2017)

Rojo, Ana (2009) Step by Step. A Course in Contrastive Linguistics and Translation, Oxford, Peter  Lang.

Romero, Paula (2007) “La delimitación de las unidades fraseológicas en la investigación alemana y española”, Interlingüística, no.17: 905-914.

Ruiz, Leonor (2001) Las locuciones del español actual, Madrid, Arco libros.

Stein, Stephan (2007) “Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit aus phraseologischer Perspektive” in Phraseologie: ein Internationals Handbuch der zeitgenössichen Forschung, Harald Burger, Dmitrij Dobrovol’skij, Peter Kühn and Neal R. Norrick (eds), Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter: 220-236.

Tobón, Julio (1997) Colombianismos, Medellin, Colección Autores Antioqueños.

Vila, Neus,  Castañeda, Luz Stella (2006) “Hacia un diccionario de parlache: estudio lexicográfico de un argot colombiano”, Quaderni del CIRSIL, no.5: 121-134. URL: www.lingue.unibo.it/cirsil

Vila, Neus, and Orduña, José Luis (2012) “Locuciones del parlache y del argot común español: estudio Gramatical y léxico” in El argot entre España y Colombia. Estudios léxicos y  pragmáticos, Neus Vila and Luz Stella Castañeda (eds), Lleida, Edicions de la Universitat  de Lleida: 57-83.

Wotjak, Barbara (1987) “Aspekte einer konfrontativen Beschreibung von Phraseolexemen: deutsch-spanisch”, Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, no. 59: 86-100.

Wotjak, Barbara (1992) “Problem einer konfrontativen Phraseologieforschung am Beispiel   verbaler Phraseolexeme” in Untersuchungen zur Phraseologie des Deutschen und   anderer Sprachen: einzelsprachspezifisch-kontrastiv-vergleichend, Jarmo Korhonen  (ed), Frankfurt am Main, Peter Lang: 39-60.

Wotjak, Gerd (1995) “Equivalencia semántica, equivalencia comunicativa y equivalencia translémica”, Hyeronimus Complutensis, no. 1: 93-111.

Zuluaga, Alberto (1998) “Análisis y traducción de unidades fraseológicas desautomatizadas”,  Lingüística y Literatura, no. 34/35: 203-220.

Zuluaga, Alberto (2002) “Los ‘enlaces frecuentes’ de María Moliner. Observaciones sobre las  Lamadas colocaciones”, PhiN, Vol. 22. URL: http://www.phin.de (accessed 2  October 2017)

Zurdo, María Teresa (1999) “Sobre la adecuación del método contrastivo para el análisis  interlingüístico de fraseologismos” in La lengua alemana y sus literaturas en el contexto  europeo. Siglos XI y XX. Estudios dedicados a Feliciano Pérez Varas. (Acta  salmaticensia. Estudios filológicos 276), Brigitte Eggelte, Vicente González and Ofelia  Martí (eds), Salamanca, Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca: 353-363.

Zurdo, María Teresa (2005) “Panorama de los estudios fraseológicos en Alemania” in Fraseología contrastiva: con ejemplos tomados del alemán, español, francés e italiano, Ramón Almela, Estanislao Ramón and Gerd Wotjak (eds), Murcia, Universidad de Murcia, Servicio de Publicaciones: 39-63.

Notes