![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
This article examines how Quebec and French translators rendered 104 first-person singular future actions in the Quebec and French dubbings of 10 episodes of The Simpsons. Results show that out of the different options available in the French language, periphrastic future (aller + infinitve) is the prevailing solution in both versions. An in-depth analysis of this solution in particular reveals that while the French translators only used the norm-abiding Je vais+Infinitive (almost 50% of the time), their Quebec counterparts turned more frequently to the norm-opposing Je vas+Infinitive (65% of the time) and rarely to Je vais+Infinitive (10% of the time). A variationist analysis of the different solutions along such variables as sex, age, social class, and level of education reveals some emerging but unstable patterns. Overall, the study contends that the variability observed can be perceived both as a style-shifting phenomenon and as an ideological posture taken by translators. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. In my use of the phrase ‘French version’, the adjective ‘French’ is synonymous to ‘relating to France’ (the territory) and not ‘relating to the French language’. In the latter sense, the Quebec version of The Simpsons is also a French version insofar as the language spoken in Quebec is French.
2. According to Deslandes (Citation2005) this law has never been enforced.
3. ‘A form of reactionary translation whose main goal is to overshadow some elements of discourse as well as the culture of the original, notably the connotative apparatus’ (author’s translation).
4. We are by no means suggesting that these are the only solutions available. Depending on the context, one may use ‘tu’ instead of ‘vous’, ‘arranger’ or ‘dépanner’ instead of ‘réparer’, ‘auto’ instead of ‘voiture’, and so on.
5. These questions are framed after the title of a seminal article by Fishman (Citation1965) on code-switching in multilingual settings: ‘Who speaks what language to whom and when’.
6. The word can be found in the online dictionary Trésor de la langue française. However, it does not have the meaning component identified in this example, i.e. to be taken in, to be had. http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/advanced.exe?8;s=1804924425;
7. Cited in Gemar (Citation1995, 29).
8. ‘Each labial sound pronounced by the actor in the original script is rendered by another labial sound (not necessarily the same) in French’ Le site officiel du doublage au Québec http://www.doublage.qc.ca/p.php?i=176 accessed on 9 January 2014. Author’s translation.
9. In discourse though, there are several other ways of expressing future actions including the use of modal verbs (I can call the police, I must call the police), of some future-oriented phrasal verbs (I intend to call the police, I am about to call the police), or of certain lexical choices (I plan to call the police). However, this study does not deal with such cases.
10. ‘The nuance between both forms lies in the link between the future action and the moment of speaking and not in the distance (long or short) between the two. While both forms serve to discuss future actions, they cannot always be used indiscriminately in all contexts. For instance, when an action is to take place in a near future and is deeply rooted in the present, only the periphrastic future may be called for’ Office québécois de la langue française, http://bdl.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/bdl/gabarit_bdl.asp?id=4122. Accessed on 2 February 2014. Author’s translation.
11. Emphasis in the original.
12. Je m’as is not attested in our data.
13. ‘The simple future is in competition with periphrastic future in everyday language and especially in oral speech’, http://bdl.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/bdl/gabarit_bdl.asp?id=4122. Accessed on 2 February 2014. My translation.
14. According to Brisset (Citation1990), ‘reterritorialization’ is a form of spatial appropriation, i.e. a process whereby a text travels from one geographic area to another through linguistic and cultural manipulation.
15. In S7E23, (Much Apu About Nothing), Dr Riviera takes a citizenship test, implying that prior to this he was not a citizen of the United States. He is likely of Latino descent.
16. ‘Quebec French is used by uneducated and stupid characters or by characters performing blue collar jobs. This situation results in a paradox: The elite speak a variety of French that is qualified as international or standard, whereas foreigners, including the French themselves, speak a substandard variety of French’. Author’s translation
17. ‘Perhaps if a professional so advises, I will give you a hug at some far-distant family reunion’.
18. ‘Owing to this imperialistic position, the idea of linguistic and cultural homogeneity which already prevails in writing is also applied to dubbing. That is why there are few or no sociolectal or dialectal variants [in the French dubbing] (absence of regionalisms and other regional dialects). Meanwhile, non-standard French is used by foreign characters’.
19. Gentzler’s remark in fact applies to translation everywhere, not just the Americas.
20. Even in ‘La Banque de dépannage linguistique’ of the Office québécois de la langue française or OQLF, there is no mention of je vas. This is another ideological move, because by ignoring or reducing the complexity of the periphrastic future in Quebec French, the OQLF gives the impression that there is no difference between Quebec French and Parisian French as far the periphrastic future is concerned. http://bdl.oqlf.gouv.qc.ca/bdl/gabarit_bdl.asp?id = 4122
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Jean-Guy Mboudjeke
Dr Mboudjeke is an Associate Professor of linguistics and translation at the University of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. His research interests include language variation, languages in contact, translation theory, and pragmatics.