This diploma thesis analyses issues of translation of phrasal compounds from English to Czech language (in fiction). All examples observed have been chosen from the database of fiction texts that is incorporated in the project InterCorp (v. 7). In particular, the thesis deals with phrasal compounds in premodifying position. The corpus analysis of Czech translation shows that phrasal compounds can be categorized in various groups, and there can also be various approaches to translation. These two sets of categories do not always necessarily overlap. The diploma thesis is based on the categorization of the translations; in each category, several examples are selected and commented upon in more detail. In Conclusion, the findings of these subchapters are summed up and the level of translation work is evaluated in general terms. In the final section, few thoughts about general recommendations for translators are formulated as well - can there be any general recommendation? Or is there a "best approach" for each individual case as it was noticeable throughout the paper? Key words: phrasal compounds, translation, corpus analysis, premodifiers

This study investigates strategies used when translating compound nouns from German to Swedish. The source text translated and used for the analysis stems from the travel book Couchsurfing im Iran. Meine Reise hinter verschlossene Türen by Stephan Orth (2015). The focus of the study is twofold: 1) examining established compounds and 2) ad hoc compounds. The quantitative part of the analysis is based on Fleischer/Barz’ (2007) morphological classification of compound nouns and Vinay/Darbelnet’s (1995/2004) translation procedures, and also forms the basis for the qualitative analysis. The quantitative analysis shows that while nearly 60% of the established compound nouns were translated literally, quite a large number were rendered using other strategies, mainly paraphrases with nominal phrases. The translations of the ad hoc compounds showed the reverse pattern: only 36% were translated literally, while nearly 60% were translated with nominal phrases. The qualitative analysis suggests four major explanations for these shifts. The first is morphological limitation, where the Swedish language in some instances does not allow a certain word to be used as a compound modifier. The second is language preference, where a tendency towards a more verbal paraphrase in Swedish was noticed. The third is based on Toury’s law of growing standardization, which states that translations tend to be more explicit, in this case preferring longer and more transparent paraphrases to denser compounds. The fourth explanation is the lexical gap where ad hoc compounds proved to be particularly difficult to translate when one of their units did not have a direct counterpart in Swedish.