語言變異的(不)可譯性：以中文的文白並陳為例

全文

(1)國立台灣師範大學翻譯研究所碩士論文 A Thesis Submitted to Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation National Taiwan Normal University. 語言變異的(不)可譯性：以中文的文白並陳為例 (Un-) Translatability of Linguistic Variation: Chinese Diglossic Situation as Case in Point. 指導教授：賴慈芸博士 Thesis Advisor: Dr Sharon Lai. 研究生：牟傳門 Advisee: Todd Klaiman. 中華民國一O二年一月 January 2013 .

(2) . .

(3) 國立台灣師範大學翻譯研究所碩士論文 A Thesis Submitted to Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation National Taiwan Normal University. 語言變異的(不)可譯性：以中文的文白並陳為例 (Un-) Translatability of Linguistic Variation: Chinese Diglossic Situation as Case in Point. 指導教授：賴慈芸博士 Thesis Advisor: Dr Sharon Lai. 研究生：牟傳門 Advisee: Todd Klaiman. 中華民國一O二年一月 January 2013 .

(4) .

(5) .

(6) Dedications I would like to dedicate this work to Sunny, Cecibel Martinez and the memory of Sheila Gray. Their love, patience, and support made it possible for me to complete my studies and produce the present thesis.     . . i .

(7) Acknowledgments I would like to thank my thesis advisor Dr Sharon Lai for all her help and support in the preparation and writing of the present work. Also, I would like to thank the staff and faculty of the Graduate Institute of Translation and Interpretation for their support and guidance throughout my studies at the National Taiwan Normal University.  . . . ii .

(8) Abstract The present paper addresses (un‐) translatability of linguistic variation as it pertains to literary translation of diglossia from Chinese to English. The paper investigates issues of potentiality and importance of translation of diglossic linguistic variation. Discussion of potentiality is carried out through an extensive review and comparison of major trends in the Translation Studies literature on linguistic variation. The discussion brings into contrast discourse‐ restrictive, yet ubiquitous, “translatability of dialect” issues with a rare, yet discourse‐liberating, notion of “syntagmatic alteration of distance” put forth by Anthony Pym (2000) as basis for translation of linguistic variation. A brief example from Lu Xun’s (魯迅, 1881‐1936) novella The True Story of Ah Q (阿Q正傳, A Q Zhengzhuan) (1921) provides an argument for importance. The example focuses on parody and linguistic variation as they function together in the language and qualities of the novella’s main antagonist and his biographer, the narrator, as they are translated out from the historicized Chinese referential frame of the original text into the English‐speaking‐world of the translation. Analysis is carried out across four English‐language translations: Wang Chi‐ chen’s Ah Q and others: Selected stories of Lusin (1941); Yang Xianyi and Gladys Yang’s The true story of Ah Q (1956); William A. Lyell’s Diary of a madman and other stories (1990); and Julia Lovell’s The real story of AhQ and other tales of China (2009).   Keywords: Diglossia, historiography, linguistic variation, standard‐with‐dialects, Lu Xun   . . iii .

(9) Table of Contents 1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...………. 1 2. Translation Studies and Linguistic Variation 2.1 Early Considerations……………………..……………………………………………. 6   2.2 Minority Languages and Power Relations…………………………………... 10 2.3 Reflexivity and the (Un‐) Translatability of Linguistic Variation….. 10 2.4 Reconsideration of Textual Function…………………………………………. 16 2.5 Beyond Standards‐with‐Dialects……………………………………………….. 18 3. Diglossia . . 3.1 Definition and Ferguson’s 9 Variables….………………………….. 22 . . . 3.2 Classical and Extended Diglossia………………………………….…. 31  . . . 3.3 Diglossia and Bilingualism……………………………………………… 33  . . . 3.4 Diglossia and Standards‐with‐dialects…………………………….. 36   . . . 3.5 Diglossia and Code‐switching………………………………………..... 37  . 4. Chinese Language Situation . . 4.1 Chinese Diglossia…………………………………………………...………. 40 . 5. Parody, Translation, and Chinese Diglossia   5.1 Chinese Historiography and Language Use………………..…….. 45 5.2 Ah Q Zheng Zhuan……...…………………………………………..……….. 47   5.3 Translators and Translations …………………………………………. 51 5.4 Text Excerpt: Analysis and Discussion…………………….………. 60 5.4.1 Text Excerpt (Original)…………………………………....... 60 . . . 5.4.2 Text Excerpt (Wang)……………………………………….... 63 . . . . 5.4.3 Text Excerpt (Yangs)……………………………………....... 64 . . . . 5.4.4 Text Excerpt (Lyell)………………………………………….. 67 5.4.5 Text Excerpt (Lovell)……………………………….............. 69 . 6. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………........ 72   Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………......... 76 . iv .

(10) 1. Introduction 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                                                           1. Diglossia, 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).. . 1 .

(11) 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 . 2 .

(12) 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                                                           2. The 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.. . 3 .

(13) 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. . 4 .

(14) 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.    . . 5 .

(15) 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 . . 6 .

(16) depend upon their relevance to the text and to the text receiver. In particular, he sees dialect as “not rhetorical, but rather [are] role related” (1976:55). According to Nida, dialect gives information about “the roles of those who participate in the discourse or about the settings in which the discourse takes place” (ibid.). I would suggest that this view of linguistic variation, dialect in particular, has persisted in Translation Studies literature at least until the early 1990s and in the practice of translation right up to present day (See Lane‐Mercier 1997, below). In spite of his view of dialect as not related to rhetorical function in the text, or perhaps because of it, Nida touches upon two issues that to‐date have remained central to the (un‐) translatability of linguistic variation debate; namely, authenticity and risk of meaning creation (See Lane‐Mercier 1997, below). In his treatment of the subject a decade earlier, Catford (1965) did not make any mention of either of these two issues. My own contention is that Catford’s notion of equivalence as it relates to the maintenance of relative distance between marked and unmarked dialect enables him to avoid dealing with many of the issues that have come to define the linguistic variation debate.     Peter Newmark (1988) provides an extremely short discussion of linguistic variation. He does, however, introduce a few novel points. Newmark refers to a case in which dialect appears meta‐lingually. It is transferred to the target text as is then translated into neutral language and accompanied by clarification — in the form of footnote, presumably — of its function in the text (1988:195). Neither Catford nor Nida provide any discussion of the possibility of clarification of dialect through the translator’s use of footnotes. Perhaps, this can be attributed to the fact that such visible involvement of a translator into a text is something that did not receive much consideration until well into the 1990s. As Susan Bassnett points out in the preface to the third edition of Translation Studies, “so important has research into the visibility of the translator became in the 1990s, that it can be seen as a distinct line of development within the subject as a whole” (2002:9). Of course, the visibility Bassnett refers to goes well beyond the mere introduction of footnotes by the . . 7 .

(17) translator, but such simple exchanges between translator and reader are essential aspects of research into the (in‐) visibility of the translator.   A second novel notion Newmark introduces to the conversation is the issue of the translator’s (un‐) familiarity with a given dialect. Unfamiliarity with dialect(s) is not a problem that is necessarily so difficult to resolve, however. Both Catford (1965) and Pym (2000) point to the fact that in the majority of cases, dialect as it is reproduced in literature is not an exhaustive cataloguing of a real‐world dialect markers, but rather a caricature produced through an exaggeration of commonly acknowledged stereotypes. As such, it is not perfect knowledge of dialect that is important, but rather understanding of stereotypes of dialects. I will return to this point in my discussion of Pym’s (2000) claims regarding the distinction between authenticity and parody of dialect. One final point that seems to set Newmark apart from both Catford (1965) and Pym (2000) is his view of dialect as “a self‐contained variety of language not a deviation from standard language” (1988:195). Such a view does not allow for relative translation approaches such as Catford’s “equivalence across varieties” or Pym’s syntagmatic alteration of distance.     Based on models of register analysis proposed by Halliday, McIntosh, and Strevens (1964) and Corder (1973), Basil Hatim and Ian Mason (1990) focus their discussion of language variation upon geographic dialect, temporal dialect, social dialect, standard dialect, and idiolect (1990:39‐45). As with Newmark, Hatim and Mason, too, bring up new concerns regarding (un‐) translatability of dialect, some of which include: issues of aesthetics, comprehension, ideology, politics, and social implications. Of the various forms of variation and their associated problems of (un‐) translatability mentioned, geographic and social dialect and issues of ideology and politics seem to have dominated the discussion within the Translation Studies literature.   André Lefevere, in relation to theories and practices of literary translation, briefly discusses sociolect, idiolect, and language variants (1992a:64‐70). Lefevere points . 8 .

(18) out that “distinction between sociolect and idiolect is not always easy to make and less easy to maintain” (1992a:67). This is true because, as Lefevere explains, each of us is not only a solitary individual, but also a member of a social group. Language tendencies within a social group affect language tendencies of individuals within the group and, of course, language tendencies of individuals within the group also affect tendencies of the group as a whole. As a result, categorizations of sociolect and idiolect may best be seen as dynamic points along a continuum instead of static, poles of a dichotomy. The only mention in Lefevere’s Translating Literature: practice and theory in a comparative literature contex of strategy for translation of language variation is “to merely replace one sociolect by another that is perceived to play a similar part in the receiving culture” (1992a:66). In a discussion of what he refers to as language variants (seems to still be talking about sociolect) that follows the sociolect/ideolect section, however, Lefevere does bring up issues relating to comprehensibility, authenticity, and social implication. Moreover, in Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame — also published in 1992 — Lefevere chastises translators of American and Scottish versions of Aristophanes’s Lysistrata for choosing to use Texan and Scots to render “Dorian, a variant of Greek [spoken by the Spartans], which appears to the Athenians as a funny kind of sociolect” (1992a:65). He explains, “neither translator stops to consider either the ‘validity’ or the stereotypes, cultural mechanisms to ‘affirm’ the superiority of one subgroup over another, or the possible anachronistic effect of the use of Scotch and Texan in classical Athens” (1992b:49). It is in a similar vein — concern over possible social implications — that much of the research of the remainder of the decade continues. Although geographic and social dialect remain the main objects of research, issues relating to language‐dialect distinctions begin to arise and bring to the foreground power and nationalist‐related struggles.   . 9 .

(19) 2.2 Minority Languages and Power Relations    Michael Cronin (1995), Annie Brisset (1996), and John Corbett (1997) explore translation into and out from Irish, Québécois, and Scottish, respectively. Their treatment of the subject presents the three as languages in their own right — minority languages — instead of mere geographical variations of a preferred, standard dialect. Brisset (1996), in particular, highlights the post‐colonial, colonizer‐ colonized struggle concomitant with minority languages and their translation. In a similar vein, Lawerence Venuti (1996) infuses the debate with the idea of the existence of hierarchical power struggles occurring between centre and periphery language variants. Venuti sees hierarchical power relationships existing between standard and non‐standard dialects. He explains, “language is a continuum of dialects, registers, styles, and discourses positioned in a hierarchical arrangement and developing at different speeds and in different ways” (1996:109). As a result of the supposed pervasiveness of these power struggles, Venuti sees any variation away from the norm (standard dialect) as an important means of subversion of “the major form by revealing it to be socially and historically situated” (1996:91).   2.3 Reflexivity and the (Un) Translatability of Linguistic Variation If we take Nida’s (1976) search for an equivalent target‐side dialect and Venuti’s (1996) subverting of imperialist norms as two extremes upon a continuum that makes up two decades of discussion of (un‐) translatability of language variation, Gillian Lane‐Mercier’s (1997) treatment of the subject may be seen as a middle ground attempting to reveal the shared inadequacy inherent in these two extremes. To the continuum of views (translator’s responsibility at the semantic, aesthetic, ideological, and political level), Lane‐Mercier’s work adds the idea of responsibility at the ethical level. “Ethical” responsibility, here, refers to “the translator’s own ethical code, his or her responsibility and engagement with respect to the choices for which he or she opts and the aesthetic, ideological and political meanings these . 10 .

(20) choices generate” (Lane‐Mercier’s, 1997:63). Lane‐Mercier seems to propose a sort of ethical subjectivism of translation practices. Stated simply, if we accept the notion — championed by post‐structuralist translation theorists — that translator agency cannot be removed from the act of translation — nor from the translational product, itself — then we must also accept that each individual translator has the right and, perhaps, the responsibility to translate in any way he or she sees fit. As a result, much of the discussion that fills the literature about the (un‐) translatability of linguistic variation becomes irrelevant. In contrast to this expectation for ethical responsibility, Lane‐Mercier suggests that in relation to translation of dialect issues, translation scholars have tended to put forth arguments that reactivate “the very assumptions of fidelity to and transparency of source‐text meaning that post‐ structuralist approaches to translation have sought to combat” (1997:49). In order to support this claim, Lane‐Mercier neatly summarizes the main issues of the sociolect (un)‐translatability debate; namely, risk of meaning creation or loss, risk of ethnocentricity, risk of unauthenticity, and risk of conservatism or radicalism. These all‐too‐ubiquitous arguments do seem to endlessly revolve around questions of equivalence, fidelity, and original meaning.   In a 1999 paper titled “Translation as a(n) (Im)possible Task: Dialect in Literature”, Maria Sanchez takes translation of literary dialect as a case in point to argue for the inclusion of both translatability and untranslatability under a single definition of the term “translation”. Sanchez begins with a brief presentation of the varying views found within Translation Studies literature that take translation as either a possible or impossible proposition. Again, much of the disparity inherent in the varying views can be found to revolve around questions of the aforementioned issues of equivalence, fidelity, and original meaning (Sanchez 1999:301‐302). Based on the notion that translation be perceived as an act of communication, albeit imperfect at times, Sanchez sees translation as “necessary and unavoidable in spite of all its limitations” (1999:301). In other words, although translation may be impossible in theory, the fact that translations have been carried out throughout history and continue to be created today is an irrefutable fact. The aim of Sanchez’s paper is to . 11 .

(21) suggest that a complete definition of the term “translation” must incorporate both the theoretical impossibility and the empirical evidence of its existence. She chooses to present her argument by way of discussion of translation of literary dialect.   In her paper, Sanchez hits upon several important points that continually surface within Translation Studies literature on translation of linguistic variation. Firstly, by way of Sumner Ives’ (1950) discussion of dialect, Sanchez refers to the approximate representation of dialect in literature. As with both Catford (1965) and Pym (2000), Sanchez, with the help of Ives, alludes to the fact that literary dialect is merely a representation and not word‐for‐word reproduction of dialect. In contrast to Catford and Pym, however, Sanchez sees the imprecise nature of literary representation of dialect as a problem for the author/translator to overcome rather than a simplification to the task of representation. For whatever reason, it seems that Sanchez misinterprets Ives’ discussion of dialect. She takes what Ives describes as the problem of dialect to the linguist — “every variation from the conventional system of writing the language is a problem for the linguist” (1950:138 quoted in Sanchez 1999:304) — and incorrectly extends it to include writer and translator — “From Ives' comments we can deduce that, from the start, any form of language which deviates from the norm is a problem for the linguist, the writer and the translator” (Sanchez 1999:304). As can be seen from the original quotation,3 however, Ives did not wish to extend the problematic to either the writer or the translator. On the contrary, in fact, Ives points out that the author’s — and presumably the translator’s — incomplete rendering of dialect is deliberate and artistic. As with Catford (1965) and Pym (2000), Ives’ description of literary dialect as a mere representation of reality offers both writers and translators, alike, a certain degree of freedom with regard to choice of characteristics to be represented .                                                           3 “Nearly. all examples of literary dialect are deliberately incomplete; the author is an artist, not a linguist or a sociologist, and his purpose is literary rather than scientific. In working out his compromise between art and linguistics, each author has made his own decision as to how many of the peculiarities in his character's speech he can profitably represent” (Ives 1950:138).. . 12 .

(22) in the text. This point will be discussed further in the present paper’s section on Pym’s (2000) work.       The second point brought up in Sanchez’s paper is one mentioned above in relation to Hatim and Mason’s (1990) work — namely, ideology. In contrast to Hatim and Mason, however, Sanchez’s mention of ideology as a problem in translation of literary dialect is merely done in passing — “usually, but not always, the language they speak [dialect] carries some connotations of inferiority” (Sanchez 1999:304)— and is only developed slightly further in order to applaud a Spanish translator’s use of Andalusian to represent Pygmalion character Eliza Doolittle’s Cockney dialect. Sanchez’s discussion, in this case, seems to side‐step the issue of creation of meaning — referred to in the present paper with reference to Nida (1976) and Lane‐Mercier (1997).  Although dialects from different languages or cultures may appear to have “similar sociolinguistic connotations” (Sanchez 1999:308), in many cases, dissimilar connotations also will exist. The creation of meaning produced through dissimilar sociological connotation is the main issue at the root of the ideological question of translation of dialect.   Two final points discussed by Sanchez include the translator’s degree of familiarity with source language (SL) dialect and the degree of importance of dialectal features for the conveyance of overall effect of the source text. Familiarity with SL dialect is an issue discussed earlier in the present paper with regard to Newmark’s (1988) work. As mentioned previously, I suggest it is not perfect knowledge of dialect that is important, but rather an appreciation of stereotypes and characteristics used by authors in the representation of dialects. With regard to the issue, however, Sanchez does bring to the forefront the importance of a basic understanding of SL dialect in order that translators may avoid semantic mistranslation (Sanchez 1999:305). Sanchez presents examples from two Spanish‐language translations of Wuthering Heights in order to emphasize the point. In both cases the translator misinterpreted the meaning of certain terms in the source text dialect and, therefore, represented them incorrectly in the target text. The basic issue of source text comprehension is . 13 .

(23) one that individual translators must deal with as they see fit. One obvious solution to this problem is for translators to seek out advice from an expert (this could take any number of forms — linguist, native speaker, author, and so on) in the form of dialect being used. It is not, however, an issue that is of concern for the translation of dialect alone, but rather something to be considered in many other kinds of translation scenarios — translation of field‐specific jargon, slang, and cultural terms, for example.   Finally, with respect to degree of importance of dialectal features for the conveyance of overall effect of source text, Sanchez falls back upon something similar to what Pym (2000) calls the easy answer: Often use of target‐side standard language to replace source‐side dialect is a choice in favor of ease and economy (1999:306). As Pym points out, however, the crux of the issue is for the translator to “know what [linguistic] varieties are doing in cultural products in the first place” (2000:69). Perhaps, discussion of dialect in the depth necessary to tease out such subtleties is beyond the scope of Sanchez’s paper. After all, her investigation of issues relating to translation of dialect is meant to highlight the assumption that translation is at times possible, but in other instances impossible. As mentioned earlier, Sanchez’s paper takes translation of dialect as the obvious starting point from which to add weight to her claim, “any definition of translation should never exclude the possibility or impossibility of language transfer, but should include both aspects as unavoidable and complementary” (1999:309).   One final point I would like to add is in her 2009 book, “The problems of literary translation: a study of the theory and practice of translation from English into Spanish”, Sanchez does make a slightly more thorough study of dialect and its translation. Again, however, her investigation of specific examples — Shaw’s Pygmalion; Brontë’s Wuthering Heights; and Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s Lover (2009:205‐228) — is aimed toward the goal of providing support for her claim that any definition of translation must include aspects of both possibility and . . 14 .

(24) impossibility. Sanchez’s work does introduce into the translation of dialect debate a couple of novel issues.     Firstly, in a section dedicated to discussion of the “use of non‐standard language for literary purposes” (2009:197), Sanchez — by way of a quote taken from Altano (1988) — presents the notion, “when we speak of a literary work written in non‐ standard – or dialectal – language, we usually mean that the non‐standard variant has been used for direct speech, while the standard norm has been used in the narrative passages” (ibid.). Sanchez goes on to suggest universal applicability (ibid.) of Altano’s claim that Italian dialectal novels almost always use standard language for narrative voice and dialect “for the scope of characterization” (1988:152). This seems like quite an oversimplification since, for example, obvious counter‐examples in English — Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Irvine Welsh’s Trainspotting — are readily provided. I would suggest the universality of Altano’s distinction remains to be shown.   Secondly, as in her 1999 paper, Sanchez quotes Ives (1950) reference to the inauthenticity of literary dialect. Although in her 2009 book she does not make the same erroneous extrapolation to apply Ives quote to translator and author as she does in her paper, she does still, however, seem to miss the point that literary dialect is deliberately created as a caricature of the real‐world language variant. This is a point that will be developed further in the present paper’s discussion of Pym’s (2000) claims regarding the distinction between authenticity and parody of dialect. As mentioned earlier, appreciation of the function of linguistic variation in a literary text is of utmost importance with regard to any meaningful discussion of the translation of variety (Pym 2000:69). Although this is not a novel issue, it does seem that, as it is with Sanchez, a great deal of Translation Studies literature on the subject still posits faithful replication of reality as one of the goals of the author who uses literary dialect in his or her work. As a result, anything short of “faithful replication of reality” — whether it be source‐side or target‐side reality — by the translator is considered, as Sanchez suggests, proof of an impossibility of translation. . 15 .

(25) The issue seems to bring us back to Lane‐Mercier’s suggestion that in relation to translation of dialect issues, translation scholars have tended to put forth arguments that reactivate “the very assumptions of fidelity to and transparence of source‐text meaning that post‐structuralist approaches to translation have sought to combat” (1997:49). The twelve years between Lane‐Mercier and Sanchez’s publications do not seem to have moved Translation Studies much distance away from issues of faithfulness and fidelity.   2.4 Reconsideration of Textual Function If Lane‐Mercier’s discussion of sociolect can be said to have been the pinnacle of the linguistic variation (un)‐translatability debate’s swing away from the semantic moving toward the aesthetic to the ideological, the political, and the ethical, then Ineke Wallaert’s (2001) discussion of the illocutionary force inherent in sociolect brings us full‐circle back to the textual. Although Wallaert does not make light of ideological and political concerns referred to in research that precedes her work, she does feel that “considerations of the textual functions of literary sociolects should precede questions regarding the translator’s ideological responsibility (2001:171). Wallaert returns the conversation to the question of the function of sociolect in the text. In particular, she points to the self‐referential, illocutionary nature of sociolect to “say something about language by using a particular form of language” (2001:177). Wallaert argues that although “the way literary sociolects are translated does indicate the translator’s ideological stance” (2001:171), it is equally, if not more, important to recognize that literary sociolects function in texts as meaning‐creating and foregrounding devices. It is in this line of argument that Wallaert brings up the notion of the illocutionary effect of literary sociolects. In her article, Wallaert focuses the discussion entirely on self‐reflexive texts, ones in which the language of the text is used to point directly to, and overtly make comments on, the nature of language itself. For example, Wallaert looks at Baudelaire’s translation of Edgar Allen Poe’s The Gold Bug in order to raise questions about the validity of . 16 .