Within Translation Studies literature, the issue of the (un‐) translation of linguistic variation has received a certain degree of attention (Catford 1965; Newmark 1988;
Hatim and Mason 1990; Brisset 1996; Sanchez 1999; Sanchez 2009). The attention, however, has been quite unflinchingly focused upon (un)‐translatability of dialect — in particular, socio‐ and geographic dialect — and the problems associated with it.
The present paper would like to suggest that the limited scope of the discussion has caused research into various other aspects of linguistic variation — bilingualism, multilingualism, and diglossia,1 to name a few — to be left underdeveloped. The call for increased awareness and broadened scope for discourse related to
translatability of linguistic variation is not new. The issue has been raised before and even with particular reference to diglossia (Muhammad Raji Zughoul &
Mohammed El‐Badarien 2004; Meylaerts 2006; Anderman 2007). However, based upon research carried out for the present paper, it seems that the Chinese diglossic situation, in particular, has never before been considered within the Translation Studies Literature. It will be dealt with in the present paper. It remains to be seen whether or not a call to broaden the scope of the discussion will be answered.
A simple example of the limited scope of recent research upon the topic of
translatability of linguistic variation may be observed in the limited treatment of the subject in two of Translations Studies’ most general, but comprehensive, resource texts — Jeremy Munday’s (2009) The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies and Mona Baker’s (2011) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies.
Munday’s text, for example, provides an extensive treatment — written by Basil Hatim (2009:36‐53)— of register‐related issues that pertain, in particular, to register and discourse analytic models imported from applied linguistics and to
1Diglossia, the focal point of the present paper, will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 3. The term generally describes a language contact situation in which two variants of the same language co-exist in an asymmetrical relationship — across variables of function, prestige, literary heritage, acquisition,
standardization, stability, grammar, lexicon, and phonology — within a society (Ferguson 1959:325-340).
translation quality assessment models such as those developed by Julian House.
With respect to translation of other types of linguistic variation, the book offers a brief discussion of dialect — ideolect and sociolect — in audiovisual translation (2009:158‐159) and a short definition of ‘dialect translation’ as a practice
characterized by general adherence to the norm of ‘homogenizing’, or standardizing, the target text language (2009:181). Diglossia as a form of linguistic variation is not mentioned. In Baker’s (2011) The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, dialect, register, and style are all presented and dealt with extensively. Diglossia, however, receives only a single, obscure reference in a section of the book dealing with ideology and translation. In particular, diglossia is mentioned in reference to a promising, yet sluggish, increase in awareness of alternative perspectives on
translation in non‐Western cultures (2011:140)
The aim of the present paper is to further address through presentation and explication of the Chinese diglossic situation the lacuna that exists within
Translation Studies and the discourse on translatability of linguistic variation as it pertains to diglossia. In particular, the present paper will investigate both the potentiality and importance of translation of diglossia as a form of linguistic variation.
In order to address issues relating to the potentiality of translation of diglossia as linguistic variation, the present paper will compare and contrast popular variety‐
for‐variety, equivalence‐fidelity‐based approaches to translation of dialect with more general, register‐based, relative‐distance styled approaches taken from Catford (1965) and Pym (2000) readings of the problem. A comprehensive review and discussion of Translation Studies literature as presented in the subsequent section of the present paper will function to identify an overall trend in the field toward discourse that focuses upon translation of linguistic variation issues that pertain to structuralist notions of equivalence and fidelity to source text. The trend, considered to be out of fashion amongst post‐structuralist translation theorists, will serve as comparison to infrequently referenced, relativist notions based upon the
author’s reading of Catford (1965) and Pym’s (2000) treatment of the issue of translatability of linguistic variation. Finally, analysis of a representative instance of literary linguistic variation and its translation will serve to highlight the potentiality of a more register‐based, relative‐distance styled approach to the translation of variation.
The importance of translation of diglossic variation will be addressed by way of analysis of a representative piece of Chinese fiction and its translation into English.
Lu Xun’s (魯迅, 1881‐1936) novella Ah Q Zhengzhuan (阿Q正傳, The True Story of Ah Q) (1921) will serve the purpose.2 In her examination of the translingual
reinvention of the national character myth in China and its association with the May Fourth literary discourse, Lydia Liu (1995) takes as her point of focus Lu Xun’s Ah Q Zhengzhuan. Liu approaches Ah Q Zhengzhuan, the climactic event of the May Fourth discourse (1995:47), as a means to explore the complexity of 20th century China’s intellectual battle with the seemingly contradictory paths of Chinese tradition and Western modernity. The present paper makes use of Lu Xun’s influential novella for a similar reason. The burden of the Chinese intellectual, as Liu refers to it (ibid.), is tied quite closely to the Chinese diglossic language contact situation.
Early 20th century Chinese intellectuals found themselves positioned precariously at the precipice of modernization. The situation was made all the more urgent by debris from peaks of ancient Chinese history and tradition that had begun to crumble to the ground all around. In “Blossoms in the Snow: Lu Xun and the Dilemma of Modern Chinese Literature,” Theodore Huters explains the scenario,
“traditional Chinese thought underwent such severe distortion in the years after 1900 that it could not (or would not) recognize itself” (1984: 75). During first two decades of the 1900s, amidst the influences of Western modernization and strong nationalist concerns, Chinese intellectuals began a drive for the advancement within
2The writer known by the pen name Lu Xun was born Zhou Zhangshou (周樟壽) in Shaoxing, Zhejiang province, China. Although he also used the name Zhou Shuren (周樹人), he is generally referred to in Western literature and research by his pen name, Lu Xun.
China of democracy, science, and literary change (Chen 1999:72). In hopes of
thrusting China into the new modernity, intellectuals championed the abandonment of the traditional Chinese diglossic scenario in which the “standard written language (wenyan) was completely divorced from actual speech” (ibid.) — thus, exacerbating the already widespread issue of illiteracy, for a more accessible, vernacular standard (baihua).
It is against the backdrop of linguistic, cultural, and intellectual revolution that Lu Xun, the narrator of Ah Q Zhengzhuan, and the story’s protagonist Ah Q, all co‐exist.
As Liu points out, the asymmetric power relation between Ah Q and his narrator functions to foreground a “vast chasm existing between them as members of two different classes” (1995:75). Moreover, according to Liu, “the narrator’s criticisms of Ah Q and condescension, sympathy, and even ambivalence toward him are
conditioned by his elevated status as a writer and by his exclusive access to knowledge” (ibid.). In the present paper, Lu Xun’s portrayal in the text of the written‐vernacular diglossic language situation, referred to by Liu above, will form the base upon which an argument for the consideration of Pym’s ‘syntagmatic alteration of distance’ approach to variation translatability will be built.
In the section that follows, Chapter 2, I will present a thorough review and
discussion of the Translation Studies literature pertaining to the translatability of linguistic variation. The literature review will help to demonstrate the lack of attention given to translation of diglossia and the Chinese diglossic situation. Also, the discussion presented in Chapter 2 will provide opportunity for further
explication of Pym’s concept of syntagmatic alteration of distance.
Chapter 3 will provide review and discussion of the literature pertaining to
diglossia. Definitions of the term ‘diglossia’ will be presented and they will also be compared and contrasted with other language contact situations — namely, bilingualism, stadards‐with‐dialects, and code‐switching.
Chapter 4 will present further discussion of the term diglossia and its manifestation in the Chinese language contact situation in Mainland China. Unique characteristics of the Chinese diglossic situation will be considered.
Chapter 5 provides a detailed description of Lu Xun’s Ah Q Zhengzhuan, the four English translations, and relevant issues pertaining to Chinese Historiography and language use. Also, Chapter 5 comprises the main analysis and discussion of the text excerpt used to present the Chinese diglossic case. In particular, the chapter will address issues relating to narrative function, parody, Lu Xun’s representation of diglossia, and translation of diglossia.
Chapter 6, the final section of the main body of the present paper, presents
conclusions and suggestions for future research into diglossia and the translatability of linguistic variation.
2.
Translation Studies and linguistic variation
2.1 Early Considerations
Early writings on the subject of translation of linguistic variation, J C Catford’s (1965) A Linguistic Theory of Translation, for example, were concerned with the possibility of finding an equivalent target‐side representation to match the variation found in the source text. Catford’s unique notion of equivalence with respect to language variation is concomitant to his claim that “all varieties of a language have features in common,” but that they also have “features which are peculiar” to each individual variety (1965:86). These peculiar features [phonetic, grammatical, lexical,
phonological, graphological, et cetera] “serve as formal (and sometimes substantial) criteria or markers of the variety in question” (ibid.). As such, a distinction can be made between standard, unmarked dialect, which Catford points out, “shows little variation (in its written form at least) from one locality to another, (ibid.)” and marked, non‐standard dialects such as idiolect, geographical dialect, and social dialect. These are the only three forms of non‐standard dialect discussed by Catford.
This marked‐unmarked distinction makes it possible for Catford to assert that
“equivalence is set up between varieties [of dialects],” without the need for equivalence to occur across homologous features. A unique feature of Catford’s views on the (un‐) translatability of linguistic variation — dialect, register and style are all classified by Catford as forms of language variation — is that “equivalence must be set up between the varieties as such, and the specific markers may be different in the SL and TL texts” (1965:91). This is an important point that I will return to in my discussion of Anthony Pym’s (2000) claims about translation of linguistic variation and syntagmatic alteration of distance.
Eugene Nida (1976) categorizes linguistic variation as an aspect of form (as opposed to content). Linguistic variation is reduced to an issue of style. Nida accepts that both conceptual and formal features can create and influence meaning in the text, but maintains that choices relating to (non‐) translation of formal features should