Translating orality, recreating otherness

Abstract

This article discusses the problem posed by linguistic variation for interlingual translation, in particular by the relation between language, context and identity in speech and orality, within the framework of descriptive translation studies. It starts by defining linguistic variation as a correlation of linguistic form, communicative meaning and sociocultural value. It examines the particular case of literary representation of varieties to suggest strategies and procedures for their translation. It ends with an analysis of selected examples of canonized British fiction and their translation into European Portuguese, and a discussion of causes and consequences of the patterning resulting from the translation of speech and orality in fiction.

Keywords:

• translation studies
• literary translation
• linguistic variation
• speech representation
• orality
• Charles Dickens

Note on contributor

Alexandra Assis Rosa is assistant professor in the Department of English at the University of Lisbon. She is vice-director of the University of Lisbon Centre for English Studies-ULICES, where she has led a research group on reception and translation studies since 2007. Her main areas of research are descriptive translation studies, applied linguistics, and norms in both literary and media translation. She has recently co-edited “Voice in Retranslation”, a special issue of Target 27:1 (2015), and is editing “East and West Encounters: Translation in Time”, a special issue of Journal of World Languages (due 2016) and “Indirect Translation: Theoretical, Terminological and Methodological Issues”, a special issue of Translation Studies (due 2017).

Notes

1. Communicative competence corresponds to an awareness of linguistic routines, of the use of speech in social situations or of its use for the expression of personality in a linguistic community; it also includes attitudes, judgments and intuitions towards speech (Hymes 1972, 282–288).

2. Such hybridity is also stressed by Gambier and Lautenbacher (2010, 5). On further mode variation, see Hatim and Mason (1990, 49).

3. Orality appears systematically related to speakers’ attitudes toward illiteracy, poverty, rural and non-western areas, and defined as a deficit or lack of skills needed to read, write and use the internet or mobile phones. However, Ong (1982, 11) also mentions the rising prestige of secondary orality or new orality.

4. Some formal features have an indexical function, leading speakers to evaluate other speakers; linguistic stereotypes include the most salient elements in a variety (Hickey 2000, 58, 65).

5. For a more thorough discussion, see Chatman (1978), Page (1988), Chapman (1994) and Rosa (2003).

6. See Gellerstam (1986, 91), Robyns (1992), Ben-Shahar (1994, 1998), Venuti (1995), Berman (1996, xviii), Dimitrova (1997, 63), Hatim and Mason (1997, 145), Bassnett and Lefevere (1998, 4) and Leppihalme (2000b, 253). House (1973, 167) and Lane-Mercier (1997, 43) even consider literary varieties untranslatable.

7. Analysis of the English examples is based on Hughes, Trudgill, and Watt (2012, 19–36), Melchers and Shaw (2011, 50–55), Gramley and Pätzold (2004, 227–249), and on Chatman (1978), Page (1988), Blake (1981) and Chapman (1994); analysis of the Portuguese examples is based on the author's native command of standard European Portuguese. Both the analyses of English and Portuguese versions are based on Ong (1982).

8. Glosses have been back-translated by the author; both examples and glosses are marked for emphasis by the author (orality and speech features in bold; written standard underlined).

9. This creates a very strong contrast to the use of family names or orality in Charles Dickens, whereby his caricatured characters are made memorable.