What's in a Name? Translating Names in Roald Dahl's

What’s in a name? Translating names in Roald Dahl’s children’s fiction into Dutch and French

Master thesis

Taalwetenschappen: Vertalen Eva van Gerven 5740967 Supervisor: Dr. Eric Metz Second reader: Dr. Otto Zwartjes 30 June 2016

“No book is really worth reading at the age of ten which is not equally – and often far more – worth reading at the age of fifty and beyond.” - C.S. Lewis

2 Contents

Prologue 4 Chapter 1. Introduction 5 Chapter 2. A theory of names 7

2.1 What is a name? 7 2.2 A theoretical framework of personal names in translation 10 Chapter 3. A quantitative analysis of the translation of fictional names in Roald Dahl’s works 14

3.1. Determining the method 14 3.2. Categorization problems 16 3.3 Translatorial strategies for the separate books 22 3.4 Translatorial strategies for all works combined 25 3.5 Preliminary observations 26

Chapter 4: A qualitative analysis of the translations of fictional names in Roald Dahl’s works 28

4.1 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 29 4.2 The BFG 35 4.3 The Witches 42 4.4 Matilda 46 Chapter 5. The translators’ strategies 53 Chapter 6. Conclusion 54 References 59 Appendix 60

3 Prologue

For as long as I can remember, I have loved reading fiction. I have spent countless hours with a book in my hand, utterly oblivious to everything happening around me and completely submerged in all kinds of fictional worlds. My parents stimulated my penchant for reading from a very early age onwards, taking me to the library at least once a week and giving me books on any occasion where gifts were in order. They undoubtedly did this partly for their own benefit; no matter where we were, if they gave me a book I was out of their hair. It was not until later in life that I realized how big of a role reading had played in my love for language. There are few things that give me more pleasure than reading a beautiful phrase, an eloquent metaphor or an originally phrased sentence; I have books to thank for that. It is no wonder that, while studying languages at the University of Amsterdam, I found myself being pulled back time and time again to those works of fiction that had played such a vital role in my childhood. Whenever an assignment or paper required the analysis of a work of fiction, I always found myself choosing one of the books I enjoyed reading as a child as my subject. Re-reading some of my all-time favourites, I was amazed at how funny, delightful and captivating these stories still were in my twenties, in some cases nearly two decades after I had first read them. Being able to rediscover some of these text in their original language allowed me to see them in an entirely different way, and enabled me to fully understand how much they helped shape me into the person that I am today. I was therefore not surprised to find myself more than a little interested in the art of translation. After all, I would never have been able to enjoy these children’s books without it. The decision to take a master’s degree in translation studies was, therefore, not a difficult one, and one that I have never regretted. With my master’s thesis, I wanted to go back to the stories of my childhood once again. I wanted to see if I could find a way to take a peek into the brain of the person who translated some of the books that I loved so much, by one of my absolute favourite authors of all time: Roald Dahl. His sense of humour, wordplay and unique characters delighted me like no other author’s creations. From the point of view of a translator, I became curious to see how much of a role the translator of his most popular works, Huberte Vriesendorp, played in these joys from my childhood.

Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 Aim of the study

In addition to the wordplay, puns and jokes that Roald Dahl is so famous for, the names he gives to his characters contribute greatly to the way in which the reader experiences his stories. More often than not, the names say something about a character, giving the reader little hints toward the nature of the person they are about to encounter in the story. With this thesis, my aim is to investigate how these often-expressive names are translated into Dutch and French. I have chosen to analyze four major works of children’s fiction by Roald Dahl: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The BFG, The Witches and Matilda. These books have been immensely popular since they were first published, and were translated into countless languages; not only are they some of the most widely read works in the canon of English children’s fiction, their Dutch and French translations have become part of the literary canon of their respective target cultures as well. Each of these books has been adapted into films, and the fact that a new film adaptation of The BFG was released in July 2016 proves that the popularity of the works of Roald Dahl shows no signs of waning. It is not a stretch to assume that an author known for his talent for storytelling would choose his characters’ names carefully and deliberately. This thesis will explore the descriptive nature of the names in these four major works. My aim is to analyze how the translators handle these names in their respective target texts. Undoubtedly, their translation will require a measure of creativity on the part of the translator; I am fascinated to discover the solutions they have found to these translation problems on the textual level. To what extent do they keep the descriptive nature the names may have into account? How is this reflected in the translation? All of the Dutch translations were carried out by the same person, Huberte Vriesendorp, so it will be interesting to find out whether her general approach towards children’s fiction can be deduced from the analysis. Upon first glance, she seems to apply the same strategy consistently when it comes to the translation of first names, leading to a consistent target culture canon of first names and surnames. Reading the French translations of the same four source texts, it seems that the overall translation strategy of the characters’ names in the target texts lacks the same consistency. In the French translation of Matilda especially, names seem to be translated with an entirely different approach to that of the other three source texts. While this inconsistency could be due to a possible difference in the nature of the names, which may warrant a different approach to the translation, I think that the fact that the French translations were carried out not by one, but rather four different translators has led to this disparity. I think that the names in the four source texts are descriptive in equal measure, and that the differences in their translations between the Dutch and French target text and the separate French texts respectively is due to the difference in the general approaches taken by the translators. The aim of this study is to investigate this hypothesis.

5 1.2 Method

In order to analyze the Dutch and French translations of names in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The BFG, The Witches and Matilda, I will first set up a theoretical framework in order to establish what a name is, and how this theory of names can be employed for the translation of names in children’s fiction. Subsequently, I will divide my analysis of the translated names in the Dutch and French target texts into a quantitative and a qualitative part. In the quantitative analysis, I will use B.J. Epstein’s distinction between seven different translatorial strategies. For each of the Dutch and French target texts, I will determine the translatorial strategy used for each of the target text names, analyzing first names and surnames separately. Comparing the results of this quantitative analysis, I will draw some preliminary conclusions. In the qualitative analysis, I will look at each of the Dutch and French target text equivalents of the source text names, and try to interpret these translations in order to determine the translators’ approach. I will establish whether or not the names are descriptive in nature, and determine the extent to which this possible descriptive nature is reflected in the Dutch and French translations respectively. On the basis of the analysis, I will attempt to determine the global approaches taken by each translator, and either prove or disprove the hypothesis formulated above.

Chapter 2. A theory of names 2.1 What is a name?

If the aim of this thesis is to study the role that names play in fiction, and in children’s fiction in particular, it is necessary to establish what exactly a name entails. When can something be called a name, and how does it insinuate meaning? 2.1.1 The grammar of names

In grammar, ‘name’ as a category encompasses much more than only given names and surnames of persons. It is necessary to specify that when speaking of analyzing the translation of names in Roald Dahl’s works, I am really talking about personal names. Personal names belong to the grammatical category of the noun, and when it comes to syntax, they primarily function as noun phrases in a sentence. Names are nouns, but not all nouns are names. Personal names belong to the subcategory of the proper name. In The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, proper names are described as follows:

The central cases of proper names are expressions which have been conventionally adopted as the name of a particular entity – or (…) a collection of entities. They include the names of particular persons (…) or animals (…), places of many kinds (…), institutions (…), historical events (…). The category also covers the names of days of the week, months of the year, and recurrent festivals, public holidays, etc. (515-516) The Cambridge Grammar further mentions about the construction of the personal name: Personal names typically consist of a combination of one or more given (first, Christian) names and a family name (surname) (…), given names may be reduced to an initial letter. This construction is unique to personal names (…). (519) The structure of personal names, then, is a very particular one. However, this description of the function of personal names only accounts for English grammar. It is necessary also to look at the grammar of the two target languages analyzed in this thesis: Dutch and French. In Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst, proper names (eigennamen) are characterized as follows:

Eigennamen onderscheiden individuen van elkaar. Ze worden gewoonlijk met een hoofdletter geschreven; ze kunnen ook zonder bepaald lidwoord iemand of iets ‘identificeren’. (…) Eigennamen komen vooral voor bij mensen, dieren, aardrijkskundige eenheden, schepen, vliegtuigen, gebouwen, hemellichamen, tijdsruimten, organisaties en instellingen. (140- 141)

7 Eigennamen in Dutch grammar are thus more or less equivalent to proper names in English grammar. While names of the days of the week, months of the year and holidays are not mentioned, they are classified as eigennamen further along in the book. Personal names are not further elaborated upon or in any way specified as a separate category with regard to syntax. However, they are classified as nouns and thus determined to function as noun phrases in Dutch. In French grammar, a distinction is made between the nom commun and nom propre. Le Bon Usage says of the nom propre:

Le nom propre n’a pas de signification véritable, de définition; il se rattache à ce qu’il désigne par un lien qui n’est pas sémantique, mais par une convention qui lui est particulière. (…) Il n’est pas possible de deviner que telle personne s’appelle Claude. Il n’y a, entre les diverses personnes portant ce prénom, d’autre caractère commun que ce prénom. (§461) Interestingly, only names of places and persons are classified as noms propres by Le Bon Usage. Further specifications of personal names are not made with regard to their structure, but as in English and French, they are classified as nouns and function as noun phrases. It can thus be said that personal names are interpreted in the same way in all three languages, at least when it comes to grammar and syntax. This is an important aspect to have established with regard to translation practices; if a personal name functions differently in the syntax of the target text, this may influence the choice of whether or not to translate it. In the very least, it is not unlikely to assume that such a situation might warrant a different translation strategy. 2.1.2 The semantics of personal names

More interesting than the grammatical functioning of personal names is their semantic meaning. The signification of names goes beyond grammar; semantics plays an important role in the way names are employed and understood, especially with regard to the translation debate. After all, translation is the transfer of meaning from one language into the other, so if we want to determine whether or not personal names in children’s language should be translated, we must first regard their semantics. Willy van Langendonck has written an extensive yet handy book on the subject of proper names: Theory and Typology of Proper Names. In it, he elaborates on the semantic status of the proper name, providing the reader with a concise overview of leading theories on the matter. Looking at proper names and their referential and semantic status, two general movements can be distinguished. The first is a descriptivist theory of names, which is commonly attributed to Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. This theory states that there are a number of descriptions that are associated with a particular proper name, and that these descriptions constitute its meaning. For example, the proper name Roald Dahl may be associated with the descriptions ‘a writer of children’s books’, ‘a fighter pilot with the Royal Air Force’, and ‘a father to five children’. The meaning of the name Roald Dahl is this collection of descriptions, and the referent of the name is the person or object that meets all or most of these descriptions.

8 In his lecture series Naming and Necessity, given in 1970 and published as a book in 1980, Saul Kripke rejects this descriptivist theory and proposes a new, causal theory of proper names. He follows John Stuart Mill’s theory of meaninglessness; according to Mill, a proper name is meaningless in the sense that it is purely referential. He describes the proper name as “A name utterly unmeaning…, a word which answers the purpose of showing what thing it is we are talking about, but not of telling anything about it” (qtd. in Van Langendonck 25). New in Kripke’s theory is the concept of the ‘rigid designator’. Van Langendonck explains this concept: According to Kripke (…) proper names are connected with their referents via a causal chain of references which goes back to an initial baptismal (i.e. a name-giving) act in which the reference is fixed by ostension and/or description. As soon as a name is assigned to an entity, we no longer refer with this name by means of descriptions. For example, supposing Aristotle’s parents gave him his name, they will have mentioned it to others, these other people will have passed it on again and so forth. The original name-giving act and the subsequent acts in which the name is passed on turn it into a rigid designator. (34) The rigid designator indicates the same entity in all possible contexts or worlds that it can exist in; the proper name Roald Dahl, for example, refers to the same person in all possible contexts, regardless of what description may hold true in that specific context. Had Roald Dahl, in an alternate reality, never written any children’s books, the description ‘writer of children’s books’ would not be valid. However, the proper name Roald Dahl would still refer to the same person. Descriptions are therefore seen as non-rigid designators. This causal theory of proper names was formed in order to correct a number of flaws that Kripke observed within the descriptivist theory. For example, sometimes false descriptions become a commonly accepted way of identifying a person. In addition, the same description may refer to two different people; for example, the descriptor ‘author of children’s books’ may refer to Roald Dahl, but it can also be used to identify Lewis Carroll: “This would entail that the referent can not always be retrieved by giving a set of descriptions” (Van Langendonck, 33).

9 2.2 A theoretical framework of personal names in translation

2.2.1 Reality versus fiction

It seems logical to assume that the application of the descriptivist and causal theory of reference would have different outcomes when it comes to determining translation strategies. If a name is indeed a purely referential rigid designator, it should remain the same in all possible contexts, and all possible languages. The causal theory of reference, then, would require no translation of the personal proper name. In the descriptive theory of reference, where proper names have a connotation in addition to their denotation, it might make more sense to translate or transliterate a personal proper name, so that the connotation it brings about is the same for the target text reader as for the source text reader. In other words, this, like many other translating processes, becomes an issue of domestication versus foreignization. Indeed, it seems that most of the research done on the translation of personal proper names speaks in these terms rather than viewing the debate as an issue of descriptivism versus causality. However, much like in the descriptivism versus causality debate, it seems that academics lean heavily towards either one side. Perhaps this is not entirely without logic; it makes sense to assume that in theory, translators will usually opt for either one or the other, so as to avoid any conflicts within the target text. However, the name-giving or baptismal act in the process of writing fiction is much more calculated. The name of a fictional character is important – the writer may have to think about things like difficulty of pronunciation or opt for a name that is internationally understandable. But even more so, the writer must keep in mind what a character’s name conveys. For example, James Bond is never referred to as ‘Jimmy’ in the books by Ian Fleming or in any of the hit films, even though ‘Jimmy’ is a common nickname to go with the name ‘James’ – undoubtedly a deliberate choice, because this would distract from the seriousness of his character. It makes sense to assume that writers give their characters names that ‘fit’ them, which suit their personalities – unlike in real life, where a baby is named before any of his personality traits are known. This, in fact, may very well be the most significant difference between naming an actual human baby and naming a fictional character in a text. When a baby is born, giving it a name is one of the first things that is done, before the child has had the opportunity to develop character traits and a personality. In the initial baptismal act, a name is not determined by its carrier’s personality, because that personality is not yet known. In fiction writing, it can be assumed that the name of a character comes into being more or less simultaneously with the personality traits. The character and the name are created in accordance with each other in the mind of the writer. As the development of a character progresses, names may be changed in order to better reflect new properties. For example, in a radio interview in 1999, J.K. Rowling elaborates on the importance of the right name for a character:

10 Names are really crucial to me - as some of my characters have had eight or nine names before I - I, you know, hit the right one. And for some reason I just can't move on until I know I've called them the right thing - that's very fundamental to me.1 Choosing the ‘right’ name is, at least to J.K. Rowling, a crucial part of developing a character. In this sense, personal names in fiction function in an entirely different way than personal names in real life. In his book The Nature of Fiction, Gregory Currie even goes so far as to refrain from calling names in fictional texts ‘proper names’ altogether. Rather, he uses the term ‘fictional names’:

We should not start by assuming that fictional names are genuine proper names. (…) To suppose it uncontroversial that fictional names are proper names is to confuse what is true in a story with what is true. (127) He takes Sherlock Holmes as an example, stating that while this fictional name is indeed a proper name, it is an empty proper name, because it does not refer to any real person outside of the stories, in the actual world (129). Herein Currie perceives an discrepancy between fiction and non-fiction writing when it comes to Kripke’s theory of the rigid designator. Kripke’s theory states that the rigid designator refers to the same entity in all possible worlds, but if Sherlock Holmes does not exist in the actual world, the name ‘Sherlock Holmes’ cannot refer to him in the actual world. This would mean, then, that ‘Sherlock Holmes’, while being both a fictional name and a proper personal name, is not, in fact, a rigid designator. And that is precisely where the difference between fictional names and ‘actual’ proper names lies. Personal proper names in fiction, or fictional names, as Currie calls them, are not rigid designators, and therefore more flexible and fluid when it comes to their use and translation. In “Proper Names in Translations for Children: Alice in Wonderland as a Case in Point”, Christiane Nord puts forward an interesting point about names when it comes to translating fiction:

In the real world, proper names may be non-descriptive, but they are obviously not non-informative: If we are familiar with the culture in question, a proper name can tell us whether the referent is a female or male person (…), maybe even about their age (…) or their geographical origin within the same language community (…) or from another country, a pet (…), a place (…), etc. Such indicators may lead us astray in real life, but they can be assumed to be intentional in fiction. (183)

Like Currie, Nord makes a distinction between translating non-fiction and translating fiction when it comes to personal names. It is true that in some languages, a certain form of personal names is necessary. For example, Jennifer Aniston is transliterated as 詹妮弗安妮斯頓 in Chinese hanzi characters, pronounced as “zhānnīfú ānnísīdùn”. However, it is a generally accepted rule that names referring to existing persons in the real world are not translated – they are rigid designators that always refer to the same entity or person, no

11 matter the language that is used to speak about that person. From this point onwards in this thesis, personal names in fiction will be referred to as ‘fictional names’, and personal names in reality and non-fiction will simply be referred to as ‘personal names’, in order to eliminate possible ambiguity that comes with using the latter term for both. 2.2.2 Translating fictional names

If rigid designators should not and usually are not translated, does that mean that non-rigid designators, or fictional names, should be? It seems there is no consensus among translators when it comes to the translation of fictional names. Whether or not a translator chooses to translate may depend on a variety of factors, such as the translator’s personal preferences, grammatical structures of either the target or the source language, or the audience that the fictional text is intended for. In any case, whether or not a fictional name is translated may be indicative of the translator’s choice for either domestication or foreignization, which, as mentioned above, is the form the translation debate usually takes. Both approaches have been criticized and lauded, and the source of these criticisms are usually related to the supposed ‘sacredness’ of the source text as well as to the notion of the invisibility of the translator. Those in favour of foreignization often argue that it is the only way of staying as true to the source text as possible, and that adaptations in order to move the text closer to the target reader would only result in a dilution of the original text. In this view, supported among others by Lawrence Venuti who defined the dichotomy as we know it today, it is the translator’s job to be invisible and not to meddle with the words and phrases in the source text. Some scholars are also of the opinion that foreignization can function as a means of teaching the target readers something about the source culture. Those in favour of domestication are usually of the opinion that not the words and phrases on the page, but the emotions and experiences that the audience has while reading the text are the most important element. To stay true to the original text, in their eyes, means to make sure that the target text reader experiences the text in the same way as the audience in the source culture. The choice for either option depends on which is viewed as more important: the author’s original words or the emotions these words evoke in his readers. All of these things are to be taken into account when translating any work of fiction, but they are especially relevant for the translation of children’s literature. In her book Translating for Children, Riitta Oittinen argues that the term ‘children’s literature’ inherently suggests that these types of texts are directed specifically at their readers (61). In order to be able to translate for children, the translator must read the text from a child’s perspective.

In all events, if we really take the child’s point of view into consideration, we cannot avoid the question: How do children themselves see children’s literature? How do they react to it? How do the reactions of children and adults differ? (62)

It is the translator’s job to read the text from the point of view of the young audience, and experience it like a child would. In her opinion, a ‘good’ translation

12 of a work of children’s fiction manages to evoke the same emotions in the reader of the target text as it does in the source audience. Stubbornly clinging on to the original text as a sacred work that is not to be tampered with, she says, is an “unrealistic approach that neglects the child reader’s reading experience” (163). The reader’s experience, not the text itself, should be the guiding principle. How does all of this tie in with the translation of fictional names in children’s literature? As Christiane Nord pointed out, any information that a fictional name in a children’s book contains can be regarded as intentional. In many occasions, a fictional name is designed to evoke certain connotations in the child reader. In her article ‘In Name Only? Translating Names in Children’s Literature’, B.J. Epstein argues that it makes sense to assume that in children’s fiction, names play a more important role than they do in fiction that is intended for adults:

In regard to children’s literature, names might be more commonly played with when the audience is younger (…). Words and actions naturally reveal a lot about character, but choosing an appropriate name is a swift way of starting the story and signaling to the child reader how to interpret a given character. (194) If a foreignizing strategy is adopted with regard to translation, for example by maintaining the source text names in the target text, these signs of interpretation are likely to be lost on the target text child reader. The foreignized translation, while remaining more true to the source text on the word level, may fail to evoke the same emotions in the target text reader as the author had intended for his source text audience. Whether or not a fictional name is translated depends for a large part on the translator’s personal views with regard to this aspect. Is a translator in favour of domestication, he or she may be more inclined to opt for strategies such as translation, transliteration or he or she will choose to replace the name with a target language name. Is the translator in favour of foreignization, he or she may choose to maintain the source text name, perhaps altering it slightly in order to fit the target language in terms of grammar or structure. However, the analysis of the translation of fictional names is by no means sufficient in determining the approach favoured by the translator; it is merely one element in the translation process. In the following chapters, the translatorial choices with regard to fictional names in the Dutch and French translations of four major works by Roald Dahl will be analyzed.

13 Chapter 3. A quantitative analysis of the translation of fictional names in Roald Dahl’s works

The appendix of this thesis consists of a full list of fictional names and their Dutch and French counterparts for each of the four books selected. If we want to analyze these translations, a quantitative analysis will help provide an insight into possible translation strategies. In order to be able to provide a quantitative analysis of these translations, a suitable method for categorizing these translations must first be determined. 3.1 Determining the method

Conveniently, B.J. Epstein has done a similar research into the translation of the fictional names of Roald Dahl characters from English into Swedish (as well as characters from the Lemony Snicket series by Daniel Handler) in her article. In her quantitative analysis, she distinguishes between seven different translation strategies for translating fictional names, namely deletion, direct retention, translation, adaptation, explanation, replacement and addition. She explains these terms in the following table:

Translatorial Strategy Description deletion to remove a name and/or its associations; this may be part of a larger strategy of abridgement or adaptation, and may not be because of the name itself, although it could be direct retention to keep a name as it is and, hopefully, its associations, if there are any (usually only the case for related cultures and/or languages, or if one culture has influenced another, or by chance; it is often not possible to know this for sure) translation to break down a name into the nouns or adjectives that form its constituent elements and then recreate it in the target language, sometimes without the connotations adaptation to use the name but change the spelling, grammar, usage, or some other part of it in order to fit the target language or culture explanation to add an explanation (a word or phrase in the text, footnote or endnote, introduction or translator’s note, or a signal) replacement to replace the name (with a similar name, another name from the source culture, a name from the target culture, a name from another culture, a different description or name altogether, or some other literary device or form of expressive language) addition to add a new name and/or its associations and/or some other text where there was none before; can be a way of compensating for deletion, adaptation, or replacement Table 1: Translational strategies according to B.J. Epstein, Northern Lights p. 197

Although her analysis includes non-personal proper names, such as names of buildings, Epstein’s distinction between these seven translation strategies makes for a simple, yet effective way of subdividing the translations of fictional names in this thesis, and so I will use the same distinction in my quantitative analysis of the translation of these names in Roald Dahl’s works. As not all fictional names in Roald Dahl’s books consist of a first name and surname (some characters have both, others only have a surname or only a first name) I will provide a quantitative analysis for each strategy for the translation of first names and surnames separately for each of Dahl’s works analyzed. A quantitative analysis of the translation strategies of all the books combined will also be provided in a table. Simply lumping all of the translations of the fictional names from the four works selected together into one table, without providing separate tables for each book, would provide no insights into the translation strategies for each separate book.

15 3.2 Categorization problems

While many of the fictional names in the French and Dutch target texts fell quite clearly into one of the seven categories above, there were a number of cases where arguments could be made for placing the name into two or even more categories. B.J. Epstein experienced similar problems, and, in her analysis, she made the decision to file some proper names into more than one category (199). However, I decided to adhere more strictly to the categories, in part because I felt that this would provide a more clear-cut insight into the process, and also because putting names into multiple categories would render a statistical analysis much more difficult and would convolute the frequencies of the strategies used. In this chapter, I will further elaborate on the difficulties I encountered in categorizing the French and Dutch translations of some of the fictional names in the source text. 3.2.1. On what constitutes a first name

Identifying first names and surnames in three of the four books above, namely Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Witches and Matilda, was fairly straightforward. All of the names adhered to traditional naming convention of combining a given name and a surname. The BFG, however, was a more difficult case altogether. A number of names were easy enough to identify; for example, the main character’s name is Sophie, which is a common English name that has a common Dutch equivalent and is therefore easy to translate (or in this case, adapt) into Dutch. But the book contains many other characters whose names or identifiers raise the question of whether they should be seen as names in the first place. For an example, let us look at the title character, the BFG, short for Big Friendly Giant. ‘The BFG’, at first sight, does not seem to be a name, as it does not really fit our traditional conventions for what a personal name should look like. However, throughout the book, the BFG is only identified with this moniker. Moreover, he identifies himself as such, saying: “I is THE BIG FRIENDLY GIANT! I is the BFG. What is your name?” (The BFG 22). The emphasis on the word ‘your’ implies that ‘the BFG’ is his name. Additionally, all of the other giants are identified by means of similar monikers, and they refer to themselves and to each other by using these names. However, when we take a few steps back and look at the various theories of proper names discussed at the beginning of this chapter, we see that according to Mill and Kripke, a phrase like ‘The Big Friendly Giant’ or ‘The Maidmasher’ could never be classified as a personal name. If, as Mill says, a name is indeed “utterly unmeaning… a word which answers the purpose of showing what thing it is we are talking about, but not of telling anything about it” (qtd. in Van Langendonck 25), ‘the BFG’ most certainly would not be classified as a personal name in reality. It makes sense to assume that, in this fictional universe, the giants were not given these names at birth. Surely the Big Friendly Giant was named (or named himself) for his kindness, and the Maidmasher was named for his proclivity to eating little girls. The baptismal act, as Kripke calls it, was not ‘initial’; the causal chain of references does not go back to the baptismal act, but rather, leads up to this act in the case of the giants.

16 So should the giants’ monikers be classified as true personal names? Although Mill and Kripke would most likely disagree, my tendency is to answer that question affirmatively. We must keep in mind that Mill and Kripke’s respective theories on proper names pertain to real, non-fictional personal names that exist in the real world. Fictional names, as stated above, should be seen as a separate category altogether, as they are not rigid designators in the same sense that personal names in the actual world are. This means that in fiction, personal names can be more flexible and do not have to meet the standard (Western) convention of combining a first name with a surname. Perhaps names like ‘The BFG’ or ‘The Maidmasher’ can be considered personal names in fiction. In fact, in the aforementioned article, Christiane Nord discusses a similar type of proper name in Alice in Wonderland: Apart from names typically denoting a particular kind of referent, like pet names, authors sometimes use names which explicitly describe the referent in question (“descriptive names”). If, in a Spanish novel, a protagonist is called Don Modesto or Doña Perfecta, the readers will understand the name as a description of the character. In the case of the White Rabbit or the blue Caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland, the author proceeds in the opposite direction, using capital letters in order to turn the descriptive denomination into a proper name (…). (184)

B.J. Epstein also mentions in her article that she classifies the giant’s monikers as personal proper names (202). In deciding that the names of these giants are, in fact, names, another problem arises. For Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Witches and Matilda, the first names and surnames have been analyzed separately. However, this distinction creates difficulties when it comes to the analysis of the names of the giants. Can a name like The Big Friendly Giant fall within either of those two categories? For the sake of quantitative analysis, a choice must be made. I have opted to classify these fictional names as first names, the reason for this being that to these names, one could add a prepositional phrase that would function as a surname. For instance, if ‘The Maidmasher’ is a first name, a possible surname could be ‘of Giant Country’. Having cleared up this issue, the quantitative analysis of the Dutch and French translations of fictional first names in The BFG can be represented as in table 4. 3.2.2 On addition and explicitation

There are four instances in the Dutch target text where first names are added. In Matilda, there are two characters named Wilfred. The name receives two different translations in both the Dutch and the French target text. In the Dutch target text, the first instance of the name is replaced with ‘Frederik’, while the second is directly retained. In the French target text, the name is replaced twice: once with ‘Gaston’ and once by ‘Guillaume’. It seems, then, that both translators saw these two instances of ‘Wilfred’ as referring to different characters. Upon reading the source text, I am inclined to agree; the first Wilfred appears in a hypothetical situation, in a chapter that is structured radically different from the rest of the book. In the first chapter, namely, the narrator is speaking directly to the reader, telling him what he would tell parents if he were

17 a teacher: “I might even delve deeper into natural history and say, “(…) Your son Wilfred has spent six years as a grub in this school (…)” (Matilda (En.) 11). Wilfred is not a character in the fictional universe of the book, but a hypothetical example of a student. In the second instance in which the character occurs, however, the name refers to one of Matilda’s peers: ““You!” the Trunchbull shouted, pointing a finger the size of a rolling-pin at a boy called Wilfred”(Matilda (En.) 266). It makes sense for both translators to feel that this one single name in the source text warrants two different names in the source texts; the name refers to two different boys. But is this really an addition? B.J. Epstein states that an addition means “to add a new name ad/or its associations and/or some other text where there was none before (…)” (197), and one could certainly argue that in each target text, a completely new name is added. But it is most certainly not true that there was none before. Yes, the target texts contain two names where the source text only had one, but it has become clear from the context that the Wilfreds in the source text are in fact two different people, and the translators have demonstrably opted to reflect that in the target text. If we see ‘Wilfred’ as referring to two different characters, we should perhaps also perceive of Wilfred as being not one, but two different names. In this case, the addition of a new name is a case of explicitation. The existence of the two different characters was implied in the source text, but has been rendered explicit by the addition of another first name in the Dutch and French target text. I struggled with the fact that I felt that explicitation is not entirely the same thing as addition, and so I was unsure whether the category of addition was flawed because it presented a box in which, to me, this translation choice did not precisely fit. Luckily, The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies came to my aid. It defines explicitation as follows: Explicitation is the technique of making explicit in the target text information that is implicit in the source text. Explicitation (and implicitation) strategies are generally discussed together with addition (and omission) strategies (…). Some scholars regard addition as the more generic and explicitation as the more specific concept (…). (104) Eugene Nida, for instance, indeed classifies explicitation as a subcategory of addition in Toward a Science of Translating: Of the many types of additions which may legitimately be incorporated into a translation, the most common and important are: (a) filling out elliptical expressions; (b) obligatory specification; (c) additions required because of grammatical restructuring; (d) amplification from implicit to explicit status; (e) answers to rhetorical questions; (f) classifiers; (g) connectives; (h) categories of the receptor language which do not exist in the source language; and (i) doublets. (277, italics mine) The Dutch target texts contain a total of four additions, of which only one falls clearly within the subcategory of explicitation. Not all of the additions in the translations are explicitations, but the one explicitation found in the translations of fictional names in the four works analyzed is definitely an addition. Explicitation, then, is contained within the category of addition.

18 3.2.3 On replacement and translation

One of the reasons B.J. Epstein mentions for assigning multiple categories to one translation is that “(…) sometimes, part of a name was retained, while another part was translated (…)” (199). Indeed, one of the things I struggled most with while categorizing the Dutch and French target text names was very similar to this issue. In my case, I found many names of which a part was translated and another part replaced, which made classifying these names in either of those categories difficult. I mentioned above the preliminary problems I faced with the names of the giants in The BFG. Having decided to regard these names as first names and to analyze them as such, I stumbled upon the fact that, while a number of them were demonstrable translations, a few others did not fit that category as well. For example, ST Meatdripper becomes Vleeshakker in the Dutch target text, and Empiffreur de Viande in the French target text. While the ‘meat-’ part of this fictional name is translated in both cases, neither ‘-hakker’ nor ‘-empiffreur’ are translations of ‘-dripper’; these are both replacements. Similarly, in Matilda, the ST surname Trunchbull becomes Bulstronk in the Dutch TT; partly a translation, partly a replacement. In French, this surname becomes Legourdin, which translates only the ‘trunch-‘ part of the name, but leaves the ‘bull’ connotation out. In B.J. Epstein’s definition, translation is “to break down a name into the nouns or adjectives that form its constituent elements and then recreate it in the target language, sometimes without the connotations” (197). While the translators have in these instances certainly broken the names down into their constituents, not all of them have been translated, and so I chose to view these examples as replacements. And yet, in two other cases where similar translation processes have occurred, I have opted to categorize the target text surnames as translations rather than replacements. This choice has to do with the parts of the names that have been translated. In Matilda, ST Bogwhistle becomes Siffloche in the French target text. Similarly, Rottwinkle is translated as Bigornot. While neither rottwinkle nor bogwhistle are real English words, they are both made up of two morphemes that are either English words or reminiscent of English words. In both cases, the second morpheme determines most of the meaning of the word; a rottwinkle is a kind of winkle, and a bogwhistle is a type of whistle. Therein lies the difference between these two surnames and the replacements mentioned above. In the French target text, Bigornot is a play on the word bigorneau, which means ‘winkle’. Siffloche is a play on the word siffler, meaning ‘to whistle’. In both cases, the most important connotations that the source text names carry are retained. This is why I have classified these two French surnames as translations, in the same way that I have chosen to count Dutch Dophoed for ST Trilby and French Anémone for ST Lavender in Matilda as translations. 3.2.4 On adaptation and replacement

More than once, I had trouble deciding whether or not a name should be placed in the adaptation or replacement category. There were a few names that, especially in the Dutch target texts, seemed to be situated somewhere in between, rather than falling strictly within either category. Two examples that illustrate this problem can be found in Charlie and the

19 Chocolate Factory. ST Cornelia Prinzmetel becomes Cornelia Prinsetatel in the target text, and Violet Beauregarde becomes Violet Beauderest in the translation. While both first names are directly retained, the surnames receive a peculiar treatment in the Dutch target text. In the case of Beauregarde, the first syllable is directly retained, and ‘-regarde’ is replaced by ‘-derest’. The first syllable of Prinzmetel is adapted, while the ending ‘-metel’ is replaced by ‘-etatel’. In both cases, only part of the surname is replaced. The question is whether that is enough to count them as replacements. The only other option would be to classify these names as instances of adaptation, which B.J. Epstein defines as: “to use the name but change the spelling, grammar, usage, or some other part of it in order to fit the target language or culture” (197). Indeed, in both of these cases, a part of the name is used in the target text. However, whether this was done in order to fit the target language or culture can be debated. A name like ‘Prinzmetel’, although strange, is not necessarily a bad fit in the Dutch target language or culture in this case. Replacement, according to Epstein, means “to replace the name (with a similar name, (…))” (197), and it seems that this would be a better way of describing what has been done here. The source text names have simply been replaced by a similar name in the target text. 3.2.5 On adaptation and direct retention

It seldom occurs that names in the children’s books of Roald Dahl refer to an actual person in reality. Most of the characters are entirely fictional. However, in The BFG, reference is made to two historical figures, namely King Charles the Fifth and Louis the Fifteenth. These names are mentioned in passing, and are not of great significance to the story. However, the categorization of their target text equivalents proved difficult. Seeing as both are historical figures that have existed in reality, they both have real personal names in both target languages. In the Dutch target text, then, Charles becomes Karel and Louis becomes Lodewijk; both were adapted to fit the target language and culture. However, in French, the names of the kings are the same as in English, and so they are directly retained. These two target text names may also be classified as adaptations; they do fit the target language and culture, it just so happens that in order to adapt them, the translator did not need to make any changes. The categorization of these names is completely dependent on which of these two views you find more acceptable. 3.2.6 On direct retention and translation

A similar case can be made for certain direct retentions being classified as translations. In Matilda, one character is named after a plant: Hortensia. In the Dutch target text, her name has remained the same. Huberte Vriesendorp was able to directly retain the source text name without losing the ‘plant’ connotation, because the flower carries the same name in Dutch. In the same way that the direct retentions in the French target text mentioned in section 3.2.5 can be seen as adaptations, this particular instance of a direct retention in the Dutch target text may also be regarded as a translation. Again, the choice for a certain category depends entirely on how one chooses to perceive of this target text name. According to B.J. Epstein, to translate a name is “to break down a name into the nouns or adjectives that form its constituent elements and then

20 recreate it in the target language, sometimes without the connotations” (197). Because there was no ‘recreation’ necessary, I leaned towards direct retention, although I feel that classifying these two target text names as translations would have been equally justifiable. While analyzing the translations of fictional names in these four Roald Dahl’s works, I found that, while B.J. Epstein’s distinction between the seven strategies seemed quite straightforward at first, categorizing the translations proved more difficult than I initially thought it would be. That being said, the problems I experienced in this never reached so far as to make me question whether this was because of the fact that the categories I was working with were flawed in the first place. Had I used different categories, I am quite certain that similar problems would still have occurred. Translation studies is not an exact science, and while some of the decisions for specific categories can be supported by reasonable arguments, others were based purely on gut instinct. Apparently intuition plays a large role not only in the translation process itself, but also in analyzing other translators’ tactics.

21 3.3 Translatorial strategies for the separate books

In each table, the first column contains the translation strategy, the second will show the number out of the total of fictional names that have been translated using that particular strategy in the Dutch target text, and the third column will show that number for the French target text. B.J. Epstein also calculates the percentages for the translatorial strategies used, but seeing as the number of names in the source texts is relatively small, percentages in this case would perhaps unjustly add gravitas to certain strategies and give a rather skewed image of the translation process. After all, if only one choice of translation changes, the accompanying percentages also change notably, without really telling us anything significant. The choices for the various translatorial strategies as outlined above are represented in tables 2 to 9 on the following pages.

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 0 0 direct retention 5 9 translation 0 1 adaptation 2 4 explanation 0 0 replacement 7 0 addition 02 0 Table 2. Frequency of translation strategies for first names3 in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 0 0 direct retention 2 11 translation 3 0 adaptation 1 1 explanation 0 0 replacement 7 1 addition 0 0 Table 3. Frequency of translation strategies for surnames in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

2 In the Dutch translation, Charlie’s name is technically translated as ‘Jacques’, but in the rest of the book, Jacques is referred to by the nickname ‘Sjakie’. In the source text, there is no mention of Charlie being a nickname (although it is not a stretch to assume that it is derived from ‘Charles’), and so the target text nickname could be seen as an addition. However, it is not the case that an entirely new character and name are added, leading me to count this as a replacement. 3 ‘Pondicherry’ as in ‘Prince Pondicherry’ is counted as a first name, as traditionally members of royal families are indicated by their first names (e.g. Prince Harry, Prince William etc.).

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 1 0 direct retention 2 8 translation 0 0 adaptation 4 3 explanation 0 0 replacement 4 0 addition 0 0 Table 5. Frequency of translation strategies for surnames in The BFG

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 0 0 direct retention 6 6 translation 0 0 adaptation 0 0 explanation 0 0 replacement 0 0 addition 0 0 Table 7. Frequency of translation strategies for surnames in The Witches

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 0 04 direct retention 10 13 translation 1 1 adaptation 4 5 explanation 0 0 replacement 8 4 addition 2 1 Table 8. Frequency of translation strategies for first names in Matilda

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 0 0 direct retention 0 1 translation 7 5 adaptation 3 0 explanation 0 0 replacement 3 7 addition 0 0 Table 8. Frequency of translation strategies for surnames in Matilda

4 In both the Dutch and French TT, the nickname ‘Mike’ for ‘Michael’ is not translated. This is a deletion, but because Michael’s given name is in both cases directly retained in the TT, I have opted to count it as such.

24 3.4 Translatorial strategies for all works combined

All of these results can be combined in order to represent the translators’ choice of strategy when translating first names into the following tables:

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 2,7 % 0 % direct retention 36,49 % 60,27 % translation 9,46 % 12,33 % adaptation 16,22 % 15,07 % explanation 0 % 0 % replacement 32,43 % 10,96 % addition 2,7 % 1,37 % Table 9. Frequency of translation strategies for first names

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 2,32 % 0 % direct retention 23,26 % 60,47 % translation 23,26 % 11,63 % adaptation 18,6 % 9,3 % explanation 0 % 0 % replacement 32,56 % 18,6 % addition 0 % 0 % Table 10. Frequency of translation strategies for surnames Which finally combines the results for first names and surnames in the two target languages into one table:

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 2,56 % 0 % direct retention 31,62 % 60,35 % translation 14,53 % 12,07 % adaptation 17,09 % 12,93 % explanation 0 % 0 % replacement 32,48 % 13,79 % addition 1,71 % 0,86 % Table 11. Frequency of translation strategies for personal names

25 3.5 Preliminary conclusions

While the reasons or motivations behind the translators’ choices cannot be deduced from this qualitative analysis, a number of observations can certainly be made with regard to the frequencies of translatorial strategies employed. Firstly, if we look at tables 9 and 10, the most notable difference between the Dutch and French target texts is that direct retention as a translatorial strategy for first names is employed more frequently in the French translations than it is in Dutch. The difference in frequency is striking; while a little less than a third of the ST first names is retained in Dutch, this rate for the French target texts is higher than 60%. For surnames, that difference is even greater; the French direct retention rate for surnames is almost three times as high as the Dutch direct retention rate. Secondly, for both first names and surnames, replacement as a strategy is employed more frequently in the Dutch target texts than it is in the French target texts. Source text surnames are replaced almost twice as often in the Dutch target texts as they are in French, and for first names, the Dutch replacement rate is almost three times as high as the frequency of replacement in the French target texts. Lastly, as we can see in Table 10, it is interesting to see that deletion is employed in a very small number of cases in the Dutch target texts, whereas it is not used as a translatorial strategy in any of the French translations. If we look at the rates of the translatorial strategies on the level of the separate books, we can see that the strategies are not employed consistently for each work. Whereas this is perhaps to be expected for the French translations, which were carried out by different translators, it is interesting to see that there are certainly a number of differences in the Dutch target texts too, even though they were all translated by Huberte Vriesendorp. Firstly, while direct retention comes after replacement and translation as the most frequent strategies employed for the translation of surnames in the Dutch target texts overall, it is the only strategy employed for the translation of surnames in The Witches. It is probably not coincidental that direct retention is also by far the most popular strategy for the translation of the first names from that source text into Dutch. Secondly, translation is not used at all as a strategy for translating first names in The Witches or Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. In Matilda it is only employed once. However, in The BFG, six out of 21 first names were translated: almost one third of the total. This may be explained by the fact that the giants’ monikers, which are counted as first names, are very descriptive in nature and are therefore more likely to be translated. This will be further discussed in the qualitative analysis of The BFG. For the French translation of The Witches, direct retention and adaptation were the only two strategies employed, with the former accounting for no fewer than 21 out of 22 first names and surnames in the book. The same two strategies were the only ones used for the French translations of the surnames in The BFG and of fourteen out of fifteen first names in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. In fact, direct retention is the most frequently used translatorial strategy, except in the translation of the first names in The BFG and the surnames in Matilda. It seems that over all, the translator of Matilda was more creative in his translatorial choices than the other French translators. This is further illustrated

26 by the fact that he employs replacement more often than the others, especially for surnames. For surnames, translation is his second most used option. The fact that over 60% of first names was directly retained in the French target texts can perhaps be explained by the fact that many common English given names are actually borrowed from French. However, the same cannot be said for surnames, which the French translators have nonetheless opted to directly retain in 60,47% of cases. The inconsistencies between the French target texts are likely explained by the fact that the four source texts were translated into French by different translators, while the Dutch translations were all carried out by the same person. Looking solely at the quantitative analysis, it seems that there was no consensus between the four translators on when to employ which strategy. However, this cannot be said for certain until we look at examples of translations and try to determine the motivation behind each translator’s choices. In the following chapter, each of the books analyzed will be looked at more closely, in an attempt to learn more about the reasoning behind the translators’ choices.

27 Chapter 4: A qualitative analysis of the translations of fictional names in Roald Dahl’s works

From the quantitative analysis and the preliminary conclusions that have been drawn from the outcome of this analysis, it has become apparent that there are a number of differences in the approach towards the translation of first names and surnames that is taken in both target languages. Looking at the translations in more detail will hopefully be helpful in determining where these differences come from. I will take a closer look of the ways in which each of the translatorial translation strategies outlined above are employed in both target languages.

4.1 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory 4.1.1. First names

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 0 0 direct retention 5 9 translation 0 1 adaptation 2 4 explanation 0 0 replacement 7 0 addition 0 0 Table 2. Frequency of translation strategies for first names in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Dutch target text

The numbers from the quantitative analysis in this instance show a significant difference in approach between the two target texts. In the Dutch target text, five first names are directly retained: Veruca, Violet, Charlotte, Angina and Cornelia. If we look at the data on these names in the online Nederlandse Voornamenbank by the Meertens Instituut, it becomes apparent that Charlotte5 and Cornelia6 were both common first names in the Netherlands at the time of publication of the Dutch target text. Retaining these names directly is a straightforward and logical choice, because they would not pose any problems for the young Dutch reader. Violet, Veruca and Angina are counted as direct retentions here, but they may also be viewed as translations. Besides being a common first name in English, violet is also the name of a colour, which in Dutch carries the same name. Although Violet as a first name was not popular in the Netherlands at the time of publication7, it was not unheard of. Angina and Veruca are not ‘real’ first names, but are derived from the terms for medical conditions; Verruca plantaris is a type of wart, while Angina tonsillaris is an infection of the throat. Both words are derived from the Latin medical terminology, which is employed in a similar manner in Dutch medicine. ST Angina and Veruca give the reader signs for the interpretation of the character they belong to, while the name Violet foreshadows the fate of the girl carrying it. Veruca turns out to be an extremely unpleasant girl, and Angina is a woman who seems unable to speak at a normal volume; she is always screaming, shrieking or shouting. Violet’s disobedient attitude eventually results in her turning into a giant blueberry. In this sense, these names carry more meaning than the other, ‘normal’ first names in the book, which tell the reader nothing about their carriers’ personalities Vriesendorp likely recognized these connotations; directly retaining the names in this case allows for these descriptive elements to be maintained in the target text. The direct retention of ST Veruca is further necessitated by the context in which it occurs. Upon meeting this character, Willy Wonka exclaims: “You do

5 6 7

29 have an interesting name, don’t you? I always thought that a veruca was a sort of wart that you got on the sole of your foot!” (Chocolate Factory 81). In this case, Dahl did not leave Vriesendorp a choice but to keep into account the connotations of the name. The name of Prince Pondicherry, an Indian character, refers to the Indian city of Pondicherry (which has officially been spelled Puducherry since 2006), and has been transliterated into ‘Pondicherrie’ in the Dutch target text. The reason for this is unclear, as the old Dutch spelling of the name of the city was also Pondicherry with a –y. A possible motive for this transliteration could be that replacing final –y with final –ie in Dutch gives young Dutch readers a less ambiguous clue towards its pronunciation. A Dutch child might be inclined to pronounce final –y as /ɛɪ/ rather than as /i/, or at least experience some confusion as to what the correct way to say the name would be. Replacing final – y with –ie eliminates this source of confusion. The same adaptation is made for ST Willy, which becomes Willie in the Dutch target text. Finally, seven first names are replaced in the Dutch target text. In each case, the source text name is one that is uncommon in the Dutch language, and is therefore replaced by a common Dutch first name that would be easy to understand for the Dutch child reader. For example, ST Joe becomes TT Jakob, ST George becomes TT Willem and ST Mike becomes TT Joris. These first names from the source text are all common, ‘normal’ first names in English, and so they are replaced in the target text by common, ‘normal’ first names in Dutch. It seems that the translator has opted to retain the names that are also common in Dutch directly, while names that would be difficult to understand or pronounce for the Dutch child reader are either adapted or replaced.

French target text The French translator seems to take a different approach to the translation of these first names. Of the fourteen first names in the target text, the French translator directly retains no fewer than nine: Augustus, Veruca, Mike, Charlie, Joe, Georgina, Willy, Charlotte and Cornelia. According to the 2011 Fichier des Prénoms of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Willy and Charlotte were common names in France at the time of the publication of the translation8. Mike and Joe were not very common, but also not unheard of. The other five names, however, were unknown in France at the time of publication. A difference in strategy can be perceived here between the Dutch and French translations; whereas uncommon first names are replaced in the Dutch target text, they are directly retained in the French one. Four first names from the source text are adapted. A closer look at each adaptation reveals that no great changes were made. They are as follows: TT Violette for ST Violet, TT Joséphine for ST Josephine, TT Georges for ST George and TT Pondichéry for ST Pondicherry. Necessary adaptations with regard to spelling have been made in order for the first names to fit the orthographic conventions of the target language; for example, ST Violet receives ‘-te’, an inflection that necessarily denotes femininity in French. Other than that, no changes have been made. All of these adaptations are the result of what Vinay

30 and Darbelnet call servitude (15); these adaptations are obligatory due to the structure of the target language system. The explicitation of gender in the target text is required by the systemic conventions of the French language, and is therefore an obligatory adaptation. The translator simply had no other choice. TT Angine for ST Angina is a different case. This is a translation; angine is the French word for the medical condition. As described above, ST Violet, Veruca and Angina are different from the other first names in the sense that these three names seem to carry more meaning and are a way of guiding the reader towards the interpretation of their carriers. This may be a clue as to why Élisabeth Gaspar chose to translate the latter. The fact that this is a name that has been made up, and is not used as a rigid designator in the real world, allows for more liberties when it comes to translation. Perhaps Gaspar wished to keep the connotations behind the name, and has therefore chosen to translate it. If this is the case, TT Violette for ST Violet may also be regarded as a translation; it just so happens that the French word for violet is the same. Final ‘-te’ is necessary because its carrier is female; the French rules with regard to grammatical gender dictate this inflection. Unlike in English and Dutch, the medical condition Verruca plantaris is known in French not by its Latin, but by its French name, verrue plantaire. One would perhaps expect that Gaspar would have opted for a translation in this case as well, seeing as the name is also more descriptive in nature. However, translating as Verrue would entail a much larger deviation from the source text than any of the other first names. TT Verrue for ST Veruca would simply not fit in the source text-oriented approach Gaspar seems to have taken with regard to the translation of these names. In this case, TT Angine for ST Angina is not a digression from the strategy, but an exception that proves the rule. The ‘problem’ of ST Veruca losing its descriptive nature in the target text is solved by the context; Willy Wonka’s exclamations are translated as “Quel nom intéressant tu as! J’ai toujours pensé que c’était celui d’une sorte de verrue qu’on a sur la plante du pied!” (Chocolaterie 88). The French word for wart is verrue, a cognate of the word verruca, and the likeness between the two words ensures that the reference is not lost on the French child reader.

31 4.1.2 Surnames

Only two surnames are directly retained; Wonka and Russe. Charlotte Russe, the full name as it occurs in the source text, is also the name for a certain type of French dessert made with ladyfingers – a name that this type of dessert also carries in Dutch, which means that this name would have the same connotation for a Dutch reader as for an English reader (although much like the names Veruca and Angina, this seems to be a reference only adults would understand). The reason behind the direct retention of Wonka is unclear. It is a surname that would be hard to translate because it does not really mean anything in English to begin with, and seeing as it does not pose a conflict with Dutch grammatical rules, it ‘works’ within the Dutch target text. It might be the case that Vriesendorp wanted to retain the alliteration and even number of syllables in the first and last name, and that her choice direct retention is based mostly on sound. Vriesendorp translates three surnames. ST Teavee becomes TT Teevee, both stylized spellings of the abbreviation TV, which is used in both English and Dutch. ST Prodnose becomes TT Steekneus. This, too, is a name that gives the reader a clue towards the type of character he or she is dealing with. Mr Prodnose also owns a chocolate factory and Willy Wonka, being the most popular chocolate maker in the world, is his biggest competitor. He sends spies disguised as employees to Wonka’s factory in order to steal all of his chocolate making secrets. He is nosy, prodding around in other people’s business; it is easy to see where his name comes from. The two components of the name are translated in order to create the target text name. Luckily for Vriesendorp, the translated name has similar connotations; it is reminiscent of the expression “je neus in andermans zaken steken”. Lastly, ST Foulbody becomes Vuilbuik. It must be noted that this translation is not entirely literal. Rather than translate with ‘lichaam’ or ‘lijf’, a pars pro toto is chosen here, perhaps in order to create a TT name that is easier to pronounce and understand. It is likely that the resulting assonance between the two syllables was also a point of consideration. Finally, seven surnames are replaced in the Dutch target text, to varying effects. ST Gloop becomes TT Slok; an English onomatopoeia replaced with a Dutch onomatopoeia that is also related to eating and drinking. Vriesendorp recognized the importance of clue the name gives toward the interpretation of the character of Augustus Gloop, a fat boy who is never not eating or drinking, and has replaced the name with one that gives the Dutch reader a similar hint.

32 TT Peper for ST Salt is an interesting replacement. Veruca Salt is a spoilt girl with a rich father who will give her anything she wants. She is very stuck up, and perhaps Roald Dahl was inspired by the expression ‘above the salt’ to indicate that she feels that she is above the other children. There is no equivalent Dutch expression that contains the translation ‘zout’, so Vriesendorp was forced to come up with another solution. Her target text name focuses more on the aspect of money, drawing inspiration from expressions such as ‘peperduur’ to emphasize this. TT Beauderest for ST Beauregarde could be seen as compensation; if TT Peper did not convey properly the stuck-up attitude of the character it belongs to, Vriesendorp may perhaps have wanted to express the same attitude elsewhere, in another character for example. Beauregarde is a French sounding name with little to no connotations for the English child reader. TT Beauderest, however, sounds similar to ‘boven de rest’, and may therefore be perceived as being indicative of an attitude of superiority. This is interesting, because though she is certainly an annoying child, this attitude is not something Violet Beauregarde specifically exudes. TT Prinsetatel and Stevens for ST Prinzmetel and Bucket are both a bit of a puzzle. Cornelia Prinzmetel is a character that is only mentioned once. Her personality or any other character traits are not described, so this replacement could not have been motivated by connotations. The word bucket has a clear translation in Dutch, ‘emmer’, but Vriesendorp has nonetheless chosen to replace it with the common Dutch surname Stevens. A possible explanation for this is that Bucket is also a relatively common surname in English. Perhaps the denotation of the word ‘bucket’ was not deemed important enough for translation. ST Slugworth is replaced with TT Wardeloos, a play on the word ‘waardeloos’. Although Slugworth as a name is not a play on words in the strict sense, the connotation of being low in value or worth that this name carries is maintained in the target text. Finally, the ST surname Bigelow is different from all of the other surnames in the text, because it does not refer to an actual character, but to a fictional person in a song sung by the Oompah-Loompahs. The line in the ST song is: “Did any of you ever know – A person called Miss Bigelow?” (Chocolate Factory 128). In the target text, the line is translated as “Heeft een van jullie soms gehoord – Van ene juffrouw Hanekoord?” (Chocoladefabriek 126). The rhyme scheme, which Vriesendorp sticks to in her translation, demands that this surname rhyme with the previous sentence, which for a large part determines this particular replacement. The French target text No fewer than eleven out of thirteen surnames have been directly retained in the French target text. Similarly to the first names in the TT, surnames such as Teavee, Bucket and Prodnose have been directly retained, even though a young French audience is unlikely to understand these names in the same way an English child reader would. The only French-sounding surname has been adapted; ST Beauregarde becomes Beauregard in the French target text, simply because the –e inflection at the end of the name is conflicts with French orthography; another case of servitude. The one interesting exception to the overall approach of the translator, which seems to be to retain as many of the source text names as possible, is the ST surname Bigelow, which is replaced in the TT to become Pipenoire. We have seen above that the ST name comes from a

33 song, and that the rhyme scheme of this song determines its Dutch TT equivalent. In the French target text, this is no different. The French text reads: “Connaissez-vous la triste histoire – De Miss Pipenoire?” (Chocolaterie 140). Much like in the Dutch target text, the song is not translated literally; rhyme scheme and rhythm were deemed more important than word-for-word meaning. This, however, makes the choice to retain the English honorific Miss all the stranger; mademoiselle would have been a better fit in the song’s rhythm.

34 4.2 The BFG 4.2.1 First names

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 1 0 direct retention 3 7 translation 6 7 adaptation 4 1 explanation 0 0 replacement 5 4 addition 2 0 Table 4. Frequency of translation strategies for first names in The BFG Dutch target text The sole name that is deleted is Haroun al Rashid. As opposed to the cases of deletion in the other translations, the sentence mentioning this name is omitted entirely from the translation. As a result of this, the character is deleted in its entirety. While the reason for this deletion is not entirely clear, Vriesendorp had, in the translation, of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory for example, previously kept factors like difficulty of pronunciation into account. She may have deleted this name because it would simply be too foreign to a Dutch reader (although it is equally strange to an English child). As the character is only mentioned by name and plays no significant role in the text, the impact of this deletion on the story is minimal. Three first names are directly retained: Michael, Jane and Mary. Michael had consistently been a popular name in the Netherlands for many years at the time of the publication of the Dutch target text.9 Although not unheard of, Jane was significantly less common as a first name given to Dutch children.10 The choice to retain this name is therefore more difficult to interpret. One possible reason for this translatorial strategy is that Jane might have been a well-known first name in the Netherlands because of its inclusion in the immensely popular book series about Tarzan. Dutch children might therefore be familiar with the name, although it is an English one. Mary, finally, had been a popular name for newborns in the decades prior to the publication of De GVR, so it was common in the Netherlands by the time the book came out.11 This, however, does not explain why this name was not adapted in the same manner as, for example, Willy in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The most striking difference in approach compared to the first names in the other Dutch target texts, however, is the fact that translation is the strategy that is adopted most frequently here. The only other source text first name that is adapted is Lavender, from Matilda; otherwise Vriesendorp does not translate first names. This is because the first names that are not translated are, for a large part, ‘real’ names that are used as rigid designators in real life, outside of the

9 10 11

35 fictional realm of these stories. Exceptions to this rule are names that have been counted as direct retentions but could also be considered translations, such as Angina or Veruca, as discussed above. The seven first names from this source text that are translated are all giants’ monikers, which I discussed in section 3.2.1 above. From this section, it became apparent that these names are, unlike commonplace first names in reality, descriptive in nature. Without exception, each of them gives the young English reader a clear sign for the interpretation of their carriers, much more so than the other first names in any of the source texts discussed. There are ten such names in the source text, of which, as said, seven are translated. The fact that these names are descriptive means that they are much more suitable for translation than the other first names, or even that translation is the most logical choice in these cases. Thus, ST Bonecrunching Giant becomes TT Bottekraker reus, ST Big Friendly Giant becomes TT Grote Vriendelijke Reus, and so on and so forth. In addition to maintaining the original meaning of the words, Vriesendorp also keeps elements of sound into account. For instance, the alliterations in ST Bloodbottler and Childchewer are maintained in TT Bloedbottelaar en Kinderkauwer. However, Vriesendorp translates ST Maidmasher as Meisjesstamper, losing the alliteration in the process; perhaps she was unable to find an alliterating Dutch word that was quite as strong as ‘mash’. Four first names in The BFG were adapted: ST Sophie, Amelia, Charles and Louis. TT Sofie is an interesting adaptation; the Nederlandse Voornamenbank shows that the source text spelling of this name was significantly more popular than Sofie at the time of the target text publication.12 Once again, it seems that pronunciation may have been a factor in this decision to adapt the name. A young Dutch child might be inclined to pronounce middle /f/ as /p/ or even /pɦ/, and the substitution of the middle letter would eliminate this ambiguity. TT Amalia for ST Amelia is a bit strange, because both names have been more or less equally popular during the last century in the Netherlands, with Amelia being even a bit more common than its ST counterpart.13 Perhaps Vriesendorp chose this variant of the name because the ST name is derived from it, or because Amalia is a first name that has been common among Dutch royalty throughout history. This mention of royalty brings us to the two remaining adaptations. As discussed in section 3.2.5, TT Karel and Lodewijk are adaptations that are more or less necessary; these names refer to two kings that exist outside of the fictional realm, and so they receive their Dutch variants in the target text. The five ST first names that have been replaced are ST Jack, the Welly- eating Giant, the Manhugger, the Gizzardgulper and the Meatdripper. ST Jack becomes Jakob. The context in which the ST name occurs makes it clear that this name is a reference to the English fairy tale Jack and the Beanstalk. In Dutch, the protagonist of this fairy tale is known under various names, one of them being Jakob; this replacement ensures that the reference to the fairy tale is clear to the Dutch child reader. ST Welly-eating Giant is replaced by TT Afriknabbel reus. The source text name refers to a giant who enjoys eating people from Wellington,

12 and 13 and

36 New-Zealand, who according to the BFG taste like boots. A Wellington is also a type of boot, named after the First Duke of Wellington who ordered for them to be made; this name and the derivative Wellies are often-used synecdoches meant to denote any pair of waterproof boots. This elaborate play on words would, if translated literally, go unnoticed by the Dutch child reader, who does not know what a pair of Wellies is. Vriesendorp has opted for a rigorous translatorial strategy that involves replacing the entire set-up of the joke, including the source text name. In the Dutch target text, de Afriknabbel reus enjoys eating people from Africa, who, according to de GVR, taste like little orange flowers. Afrikaantje is the Dutch word for marigold, as well as a diminutive of Afrikaan, i.e. an inhabitant of Africa. The source text pun is replaced by an entirely new target text pun. This results in a text that is radically different in meaning from the source text, but that has the same effect on the target text reader as the source text passage. ST Manhugger and Meatdripper are both partially translated, as discussed in section 3.2.3. In the replacement of ST – hugger with TT –mepper, Vriesendorp creates an alliteration where there was none in the source text; this is perhaps a compensation for the loss of the alliteration from ST Maidmasher. TT –hakker is a bit stronger and scarier for the Dutch reader than ST –dripper is for the English reader; maybe Vriesendorp wanted to emphasize the scary element more strongly. ST Gizzardgulper is replaced by TT Schrokschranzer. Like the source text name, this replacement connotes greediness, and the alliteration between the two components is echoed. Finally, two first names are added in the Dutch target text where there were none before; Hugo and Arend. Combined with their honorifics and surnames, they are both puns on two Dutch place names: heer Hugo Waard and Arend Skerke. They replace ST Mrs Sippi and Miss Souri; also names that are puns on geographical locations. French target text

No fewer than seven first names are directly retained in the French target text. Of these seven, Sophie is the only name that was common in France at the time of the publication of the target text (unsurprisingly, as this is a French name).14 Charles and Louis are not fictional names, but rigid denominators outside of the fictional realm of the story, which is why they were directly retained; they are known under the same first names in France (again, these first names are in fact French). ST Michael, Jane, Jack and Mary were not at the time of publication common first names in France. In fact, Michael, Jack and Mary each have common French variations; Mickaël or Michel, Jacques and Marie. Despite this fact, Jean-François Ménard has opted not for adaptation, but direct retention. In the case of ST Jack, this is a logical choice; Jack and the Beanstalk is known in French as Jack et le Haricot magique, so an adaptation would make the reference to this fairytale less obvious to the French child reader. The retention of ST Michael and Mary is interesting because of the contrast with the one ST first name that was indeed adapted: ST Amelia becomes TT Amélia. In this case, the name was adapted into its French counterpart. The difference is likely that ST Amelia is simply not in accordance with French orthographic conventions, and

37 the adaption eliminates the violation of these rules; this adaptation is a case of servitude. In the cases of ST Michael and Mary, no French orthographic rules are violated; these names are simply seen as foreign names. Their adaptation would entail a more rigorous interference with the source text than simply adding an accent. Perhaps Ménard opted for direct retention in these cases because he wanted to adhere to a strategy of least possible interference with the source text. Predictably, the seven names that are translated are all giants’ monikers. Because of their descriptive nature, as described above, less interfering strategies such as direct retention or adaptation are unsuitable options for the transfer of the meaning these names carry into the target language. Thus, seven out of ten ST giants’ names are translated. The direct translations in French result in a loss of elements of speech sound in some cases. TT Le Mâcheur d’enfants, for example, does not alliterate like ST Childchewer. In addition, French grammatical conventions with regard to the function of the direct object dictate that the French names necessarily require a preposition ‘de’, leading the target text names to contain more words and syllables than the source text names. These are all coincidental consequences that would have been hard to avoid; Ménard does manage to maintain one alliteration in his translation, namely in TT Gobeur de gésiers for ST Gizzardgulper. Three of the four replacements are also giant’s names. As in the Dutch target text, ST Welly-eating Giant is replaced and becomes géant de Nouvelle- Zélande. Unlike in the Dutch target text, however, the set-up of the joke remains the same. The only difference is in the punch line; in the French target text, people from Wellington do not taste like boots, but like an English general. The translator solves the pun by referring more directly and explicitly to the Duke of Wellington. The name of this duke may be more easily recognized by a French child reader than it would be by the young Dutch audience, because he defeated Napoleon in the Battle of Waterloo and is therefore an important part of French national history. Thus, the French target culture requires much less rigorous changes in the translation of this passage. ST Bloodbottler becomes Buveur de Sang. A translation would have resulted in a first name like ‘Embouteilleur de Sang’; perhaps Ménard wanted to keep the initial /b/ from the source text, or limit the number of added syllables in the target text. Interestingly, ST Manhugger becomes Étouffe-Chrétien. An étouffe-chrétien is a French expression denoting a dish, for example a pastry, that is stodgy and therefore difficult to swallow and digest; it could smother a man. Smothering men is exactly what this giant does, so the connotations that the ST name carries are very cleverly transferred into the target culture in this case. The fact that this expression is used to denote a certain type of food could also allow for a secondary interpretation of this name; this is a giant who is not afraid of eating large chunks of (presumably human) meat. Jean-François Ménard creates a double meaning in the form of a pun in the target text where there was none in the source text. The fourth replacement is TT Omar for ST Haroun. While this replacement seems a bit random, there may be a good reason for this replacement. The ST name is derived from Harun al-Rashid, the name of a caliph who ruled the Abbasid Caliphate in the eighth century. However unlikely it may seem, the French literary canon contains a character named after the same caliph, namely Haroun el Poussah from the popular Iznogoud comics. It makes sense to assume that Marie-Raymond Farré wanted to eliminate any possible

38 likeness to this character in the target text name; this would certainly explain the deviation from the strategy of least possible interference.

39 4.2.2 Surnames

The only surname that is deleted is Al Rashid, for the possible reasons mentioned above. Directly retained are ST Figgins and Tibbs. The former is the name of an arithmetic teacher who is only mentioned in passing, and it is a common English surname without any notable connotations beyond its identifying function. Another option than direct retention would have been replacement, with a common Dutch surname taking the place of the source text name; why Vriesendorp opted for direct retention in this case is unclear. Tibbs is the name of a butler. This is a reference to a short story Roald Dahl wrote for an adult audience in 1974, called The Butler, in which Tibbs is the name of the titular character. The Dutch translator of that story, Johannes van Dam, directly retained the surname in the target text, and Vriesendorp has apparently opted to do the same so as not to lose this reference. Four surnames were adapted: ST Rance, Goochey, Clonkers and Papillion become TT Ranse, Koetsie, Klonkers and Papillon. ST Rance is adapted to more closely reflect the pronunciation of the word in Dutch. ST Goochey, while in essence meaningless, sounds like some form of baby talk or child-directed speech. While TT Koetsie may at first glance seem more like a replacement, its entirely different spelling reflects the same elements of speech sound in the target language. Finally, the spelling of ST Papillion is corrected; TT Papillon is in accordance with French orthography, and this could be seen as a case of servitude. Finally, ST Upscotch, Simpkins, Sippi and Souri are replaced. The TT replacements for the latter two, Waard and Skerke, are both combined with their according first names in order to replace a ST pun with a TT pun, as discussed above. ST Upscotch is likely a play on the word hopscotch; indeed, its carrier is Sophie’s gym teacher, so this connotation of bodily movement is likely intentional. The TT replacement Butterscotch does not carry this same connotation. Perhaps speech sound once again played a role here, with Vriesendorp wanting to retain the final syllable and replacing ‘Up-‘ with ‘Butter-‘ in order to make the surname as a whole recognizable to the Dutch child reader. This translatorial choice seems out of line in comparison with the rest of the target text names, in which Vriesendorp seems to want to maintain connotations as much as possible. ST Simpkins, finally, is a commonplace English surname, and so it has been replaced by the common Dutch surname De Vries.

40 French target text As far as the translation of surnames is concerned, Jean-François Ménard seems to adhere to the same foreignizing strategy of least possible interference; eight out of eleven names are directly retained, even though these are not common French names. Unlike Vriesendorp, Ménard chooses not to adapt ST Goochey to reflect the element of child-directed speech sounds. The other three surnames in the source text are adapted; ST Sippi and Souri become TT Issippi and Ouri in order to be able to maintain the puns in the target text. However, in order to make these puns work, the target text puns must also contain English honorifics rather than French Mme or Mlle; translating the honorifics would result in both puns being lost in the target text, while creating new puns would entail a deviation from the source text that does not fit within the overall strategy adopted. The spelling of ST Papillion is corrected in accordance with French orthographic rules.

41 4.3 The Witches 4.3.1 First names

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 1 0 direct retention 9 15 translation 0 0 adaptation 2 1 explanation 0 0 replacement 4 0 addition 0 0 Table 6. Frequency of translation strategies for first names in The Witches Dutch target text Direct retention is overwhelmingly the most popular strategy for this target text, with nine out of sixteen first names and all of the surnames being directly retained in the Dutch target text. This forms a strong contrast with the translation strategies adopted by Vriesendorp for the other texts. One name was deleted in the target text. In the source text, a woman named Millie is mentioned as one of the attendees of the witches’ convention in the hotel where Bruno and his grandmother are staying. In the target text, this woman is named Marian. A few chapters further along in the book, mention is made of an attendee named Millie. In the TT, this woman, too, is named Marian. One could argue that this is not, in fact, a deletion. The two names simply refer to the same character; Millie is an abbreviation of Mildred, and Vriesendorp recognized this. However, this does not become clear from the source text; Mildred and Millie may very well be two different characters. Because of the uncertainty to whether or not these two names refer to the same character, I have chosen to classify this as a deletion, or rather, a merging of two separate characters by the translator. Nine first names are directly retained. Five of these names stand out from the rest; these names are Ranghild, Solveg, Birgit, Harald and Leif. For Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and The BFG, we have seen that with a few exceptions, Huberte Vriesendorp chose direct retention for those first names that are common in the Dutch target culture, so as to eliminate any possible sources for confusion in the Dutch child reader. Here, however, she seems to have digressed from this approach, seeing as none of these names are common in Dutch. The difference between these foreign names and the foreign names in the other texts is that these five names would also be perceived as strange and foreign by the English child reader, because they are not English but Norwegian. Not the translator, but the author employs tactics of foreignization in order to provoke a certain response in his reader. The first part of the story, in which all of these names are mentioned, takes place in Norway, rather than in England, where the stories of all of the other books take place. However, the protagonist of the story (a boy whose name remains unknown throughout the book) was born and lives in England: “My father and my mother were also Norwegian, but because my father had a business in England, I had been born there and had lived there and had started going to an English school.” (The Witches 12). Twice a year, he visits

42 his grandmother in Norway, and plays with the children mentioned there. These children, thus, carry names that are, to him, foreign, and so they are also foreign to the English child reader. In the Dutch translation, all of these Norwegian names are directly retained. It makes sense to assume that by doing so, Huberte Vriesendorp wanted to recreate the foreignizing effect for the Dutch child reader. The typically Norwegian names are retained because in the Dutch target text, the story also takes place in Norway. Had Vriesendorp chosen to substitute Norway for a different country, she probably would have renamed the children accordingly. However, there is a reason that parts of the story are set in Norway: “the Norwegians know all about witches, for Norway, with its black forests and icy mountains, is where the first witches came from” (The Witches 12). Apparently, to Dahl, these parts of the book in Norway are the perfect set-up for the story about the scary witches coming all the way down to England for a convention. Changing the country would mean changing a large part of the scenery, and this would possibly entail taking many more liberties with the translation throughout the book. The choice for direct retention in the case of these five Norwegian names is thus largely dependent on other, previous translatorial choices. The other four names that are directly retained are Bruno, Herbert, William and Topsy. Bruno and Herbert are both names that were common in the Netherlands at the time of publication.15 The choice to retain ST William and Topsy, however, is a more difficult one to interpret. Neither of these characters is of great importance; William is a waiter and Topsy is the Jenkins’ family cat. Although William had been employed as a first name in the Netherlands for a number of decades at the time of publication,16 it is a distinctly English name, and the Dutch variant Willem would have been more in line with the strategies employed in the previous two books. Unlike first names ending in –y in previous works, final /i/ in ST Topsy is not reflected by a change in spelling in the target text. These two retentions seem to fall out of line with the translator’s previously established tendencies. The two names that are adapted are ST Timmy, which becomes Timmie in the target text, and ST Beatrice, which becomes TT Bea. Timmy has been adapted in the same manner that we have seen before with Willy Wonka in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. While Bea can also be perceived as a replacement for Beatrice, it is clearly an abbreviation or nickname of the ST name. Bea is easier to read and pronounce than Beatrice for young children. It makes sense to assume that Vriesendorp abbreviated the name in order for it to be a better fit in the target language, which is why I classify it as an adaptation. This target text name also has an added connotation to the Dutch reader; it could be seen as a reference to then Queen Beatrix. Finally, four first names are replaced: ST William, Mary, Ashton and Mildred. All of these first names are common in English, but not in Dutch, and so these characters are given new names that are easier to understand for Dutch child readers. ST William and Mary are the names the protagonist gives to his two pet mice. He likely named them after King William III and Queen Mary II, the

15 and 16

43 royals who reined over England, Ireland and Scotland together in the seventeenth century and who were popularly known as William and Mary. These two royals are known in Dutch as Willem and Maria, but this combination of names is much less synonymous to their reign in Dutch as it is in English, and would probably not be as familiar to the Dutch child reader. These names are replaced by Hans and Grietje; the names of another ‘famous’ duo that a Dutch child would easily recognize from the fairy tale. French target text As becomes immediately clear from table 6, fifteen out of sixteen first names are directly retained in the French target text. The retention of the five Norwegian is, as discussed above, more or less dictated by context. Out of the other ten names that are directly retained, only Bruno and William were common in France at the time of publication.17 Unlike in the Dutch target text, English names that would sound foreign to a young French reader are not replaced or adapted. The one exception to this inclination toward direct retention, ST Beatrice, receives a simple acute accent and becomes Béatrice, in order to comply with French orthographic conventions.

17 < https://dataaddict.fr/prenoms/#bruno,william>

44 4.3.2 Surnames

All of the surnames in the source text are directly retained in Dutch. Three of these names are typically Norwegian, and are therefore likely retained for the same reasons the Norwegian first names have received this treatment. TT Spring, Stringer and Jenkins are exceptions to this rule. Stringer and Jenkins are commonplace English surnames that have been retained in spite of their foreignness. ST Spring is a name with descriptive value; Mrs Spring is a cleaning lady, and her name may very well refer to the concept of a spring cleaning. A literal translation (i.e. TT Lente) would have connoted this concept (‘lenteschoonmaak’) in a similar way. Unlike in her previous translations, Vriesendorp has opted to forego both denotation and connotation in favour of a direct retention. It seems that in this case, she may have chosen to adhere to the English source text more strictly than in her previous translations.

French target text For surnames, direct retention is the only strategy applied, just as in the Dutch target text. It seems that Marie-Raymond Farré takes a similar approach to the character’s names as the translator of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory does; retain all of the names, and adapt them if direct retention is not possible.

45 4.4 Matilda

4.4.1 First names

Translatorial strategy Dutch TT French TT deletion 0 0 direct retention 10 13 translation 1 1 adaptation 4 5 explanation 0 0 replacement 8 4 addition 2 1 Table 8. Frequency of translation strategies for first names in Matilda

Dutch target text Direct retention as a strategy is employed for the following eleven first names: ST Vanessa, Fiona, Matilda, Fred, Agatha, Angelica, Hortensia, Ollie, Julius, Amanda and Wilfred. With the exception of Hortensia, these are all common English names that do not seem to carry any further meaning beyond being identifiers. According to the data of the Meertens Instituut, Vanessa, Fiona, Fred, Agatha, Angelica, Julius, Amanda and Wilfred were or had been commonly used first names in the Netherlands at the time of the publication of the target text in 1988.18 Ollie and Matilda are the exceptions in this case; neither name was common in Dutch at or before the time of publication.19 Ollie in English is likely a shortened version of Oliver; the Dutch variant of this name, Olivier, had been commonly used as a given name for a number of years at the time of publication,20 which is possibly the reason behind this direct retention. ST Matilda, however, could have been adapted into either one of its Dutch variants, Mathilda or Mathilde, which were both very common in Dutch at the time of publication.21 Vriesendorp directly retained this name nonetheless; perhaps she simply did not want to change the name of the title character. The ST Spelling, in any case, does not pose any problems or contain any elements of confusion with regard to pronunciation for the Dutch child reader; on the contrary, the Dutch spelling could wrongly lead a Dutch child who is unfamiliar with the name to believe it should be pronounced with an audible middle /h/. Hortensia is the

18 , , , , , , and . 19 and . 20 . 21 and .

46 only first name that carries any meaning beyond being an identifier. This type of flower has the same name in Dutch, and therefore Vriesendorp was able to directly retain this name. As discussed in section 3.2.6, TT Hortensia can also be seen as a translation. An interesting case is the name of Wilfred, a name that occurs in the book in two instances. The first mention of the name occurs in the first chapter, where the narrator of the story uses it as the name of a hypothetical character. The second mention of Wilfred occurs at the very end of the book, in the penultimate chapter; in this case, the name refers to one of Matilda’s classmates. The two mentions of the name, then, refer to different entities. Whether intentionally or not, this is reflected in the Dutch translation. In the first chapter, ST Wilfred becomes Frederik in the Dutch translation, but in the penultimate chapter, the name is directly retained in the target text. Vriesendorp adds a new name to the target text here, which serves as a means of explicitation. The only ST name that is translated is Lavender, which becomes Lavendel in the target text, allowing for the connotations of the source text name to be maintained in the target text. Three names are adapted: ST Maximilian, Harry, Rupert and Eric become TT Maximiliaan, Harrie, Robert and Erik. TT Maximiliaan is the source text name’s more common Dutch counterpart.22 ST Eric and TT Erik were both popular names in the target culture the years preceding the publication of the translation, but Erik was the more popular variant in 198823, as well as the variant that is spelled more phonetically and therefore easier to understand for the Dutch child reader. ST Harry was likely adapted to give the reader a less ambiguous interpretation of its pronunciation, much like the other adapted first names ending in –y discussed above. ST Rupert is a variation of the name Robert, which is commonly used in the Dutch target culture. ST Michael, Jennifer, Nigel, Willard, Bruce and Magnus are replaced in the target text. Willard, Bruce and Magnus are replaced because they are uncommon in the target language, and so they have received replacements that would be more easily recognizable to the Dutch child reader. Nigel had been gaining popularity as a first name when the book was published, but would not become common in the Netherlands until the beginning of the 1990s.24 Contrarily, Jennifer was a common first name in the target culture at the time of publication25, so direct retention would have been an option here too. However, this ST name is regularly abbreviated to Jenny, and as explained above, final –y may cause confusion in the Dutch reader with regard to pronunciation. It is perhaps therefore that Vriesendorp decided to replace the name altogether with a target language name that is also often abbreviated (TT Marijke/Marij). Michael had been commonly used in the Netherlands for a number of decades, and was much more popular than its TT replacement Michiel at the time of

22 and 23 and 24 25

47 publication (and indeed, before that time).26 The choice for replacement in this particular case is a peculiar one, seeing as Vriesendorp had previously directly retained this very first name in her translation of The BFG. The choice for replacement may have been made more subconsciously in this case. Besides TT Frederik, another name is added to the target text. This once again concerns one ST name that receives two TT equivalents. In the first instance, Rupert is identified merely by his first name as a boy in Matilda’s class, and in another instance the name Rupert Entwistle refers to a boy who lives next door to Lavender. The impression is that these are two different boys; otherwise mention would surely have been made of the fact that the boy in Lavender’s class is also her neighbor. Huberte Vriesendorp seems certainly to have perceived them as two different characters; there are two different names in the target text. Again, she has added a first name in order to render explicit the fact that there are two different characters in the source text. French target text

Much like in the other French target texts, direct retention is the most frequently employed translatorial strategy for first names in Matilda. The retention of Angelica may also be considered a translation; the plant carries the same name in French, so the denotation and connotation are the same in the target text. At the time of publication, Vanessa, Fred, Jennifer, Fiona, Amanda and Eric were to varying degrees first names that had been commonly used in French27, although the French variant Frédéric was much more popular. Eric does not receive an acute accent in the target text, but the accentuation of capitals is not obligatory in French. ST Willard, Prudence and Magnus have no popular French variants, but the remaining three directly retained first names do: Mickaël, Agathe and Mathilde (and to a lesser extent Mathilda).28 The direct retention of the name of the titular character is understandable; adaptation or replacement would mean not only a change of name, but of the book title. As in the other target texts, the retention of the source text names that have more commonly accepted target language variants may be indicative of a strategy in which the target text must adhere to the source text as closely as possible. As in the Dutch target text, ST Lavender is translated and becomes Anémone in the French target text. This is not a literal translation, but the target text name connotes flowers and the color purple in the same way. The descriptive nature of the name is echoed in the target text; a sweet and delicate name for a sweet and delicate girl. ST Maximilian, Harry, Rupert and Julius are adapted into their French variants in the text. This seems like an inconsistency in approach; we have seen above that several other names with common French variants have been directly retained. What distinguishes these names from the ones discussed above is not clear. ST Hortensia is adapted and becomes Hortense, which is a common first name in French. The denotation of the source text name is lost in the translation

26 and 27 28

48 (the French name for the plant is hydrangea), but this connotation does not seem to have much descriptive value with regard to the character; there is no significant loss in descriptive meaning. Even more interesting are the four first names that are replaced. ST Wilfred, Nigel, Ollie and Bruce become Gaston, Victor, Paulo and Julien. It is unclear why replacement is employed in these cases; the source text names are no more descriptive or connotative than the first names that received less rigorous treatment. ST Ollie and Wilfred could just as easily have been adapted into their common French variants Olivier and Wilfried or even Willy.29 Bruce was not as common as names like Olivier in France at the time of publication, but it was also certainly not unheard of.30 The replacement of Nigel with a common French given name makes more sense, since this name would sound very strange to a French child reader, but ST names like Willard or Magnus should also have been replaced, had this been the intended approach. Thus, it seems that there are some inconsistencies with regard to the treatment of first names within the French target text. Contrary to the Dutch target text, only one name is added in the French translation. ST Wilfred receives two target text replacements: Gaston and Guillaume. The fact that there are two characters that have the same name is rendered explicit in the French target text, in the same manner as in the Dutch target text. However, whereas ST Rupert receives and adaptation and a replacement in the Dutch target text, Henri Robillot adapts both mentions of the name into Robert. As discussed above, the impression is given in the source text that there are in fact two different characters that are both named Rupert. It is unclear why Robillot decided on explicitation in the case of ST Wilfred but not in this one.

29 30

49 4.4.2 Surnames

For the surnames, only three strategies are employed, with translation being used most often. ST Wurmwood is the name of a plant that in Dutch is known as Artemisia. However, rather than opting for this translation, Vriesendorp has chosen to translate its components, and the name becomes Wurmhout in the target text. Vriesendorp is forced to make a choice between denotation and connotation in this case; the Dutch translation cannot keep both in the same manner as the English source text name. She likely considered the descriptive value of the components to be more important than the denotation. ST Plimsoll, Thripp and Ink are translated more or less literally, while Entwistle and Trilby receive target text equivalents that are freer. ST Entwistle seems to have the verb ‘entwine’ at its core, and this is reflected in TT Strengel, which is derived from the verb ‘verstrengelen’. ST Bogwhistle and Trilby, counted as translations for the reasons discussed in section 3.2.3 of this thesis, receive translations that are much less literal but that do nonetheless reflect the meanings of the source text names in essence; in these two cases, too, connotation is chosen over denotation. Adapted are the ST surnames Phelps, Hicks and Rottwinkle. No significant connotations are lost with TT Fens and Haaks; both source text names are common English surnames that do not seem to carry any descriptive meaning. ‘Hick’ is a derogatory term for an uneducated person from the countryside, but this is a term that is used mostly in American English and would be unfit to describe the character that carries the name. The spelling for ST Phelps is adapted in order to more closely reflect the accompanying speech sound of initial /f/, but the reason behind the target text –ns ending is unclear. ST Rottwinkle is different in the sense that this is not a ‘real’ English surname. The target text adaptation Rotswinkel causes a significant shift in denotation as well as connotation; the target text surname reminds the reader of a shop rather than of a shell. However, this character is only mentioned in an anecdote once, the reader is not aware of any of his personality traits and he is of no great importance to the story. This may have been a motivation behind maintaining the sound of the name rather than its meaning. ST Trunchbull, Honey and Bogtrotter, finally, are replaced. TT Bulstronk for Trunchbull also partly connotes an aggressive male animal, but the derivative ‘trunch-‘ from ‘truncheon’ is replaced by the word ‘stronk’, losing the connotation of a blunt force weapon. Once again, speech sound may have been a factor here; the strong-sounding /tr/ sound is maintained in the replacement. ST Honey is a particularly descriptive name; Miss Honey is a very kind and caring

50 person, as sweet as honey. Of course, the word ‘honey’ is also a term of endearment. The literal translation ‘honing’ would not have that same connotation, and so Vriesendorp has opted to replace the source text name with a Dutch term of endearment, which aptly describes the character and has multiple denotations like the source text name. ST Bogtrotter is an interesting case. The word bogtrotter carries, beyond its denotation, a pejorative meaning; it was used as a derogatory term for Irishmen. The Dutch child reader has no use for such a connotation, so the choice for replacement is a logical one. With TT Bokkepoot, Vriesendorp deletes the derogatory element entirely, and rather than being pejorative, the target text surname is descriptive in a more obvious way. Bruce Bogtrotter is a fat boy who is punished for stealing the Trunchbull’s cake; the target text name is a clear hint at his penchant for sweets. The alliteration of the source text surname with its accompanying first name is maintained in the target text. French target text

From the table, a difference in approach with regard to the translation of the surnames in Matilda can be detected quite quickly. Contrary to the three other text, direct retention is employed only once, and it is the least favored strategy. Added to this is the fact that the sole direct retention, namely of ST Trilby, may also be perceived as a translation; this type of hat carries the same name in French. Translation and replacement are by far the most frequently employed. Much like Huberte Vriesendorp, Henri Robillot recognized the fact that most these surnames had strong descriptive value, and echoed this aspect of the surnames in the target text. Thus, ST Wormwood, Bogwhistle, Rottwinkle, Thripp and Ink are translated with varying degrees of literality. In TT Verdebois, Robillot chose connotation over denotation in the same way as Vriesendorp. TT Siffloche and Bigornot are partial translations that echo the most important denotations of the source text names and carry similar connotations. TT Blatt and Lencre are literal translations. In some target text replacements, the connotations from the source text are transferred into the target text. Thus, ST Trunchbull becomes Legourdin; a literal translation of the word ‘truncheon’, which connotes blunt force. TT Candy connotes sweetness like the source text name, and TT Basquet evokes the field of sports like ST Plimsoll. TT Soulat and Apolon, however, carry different denotations and connotations than their source text counterparts. TT Soulat for Entwistle seems almost like an antonym of the source text surname. At its core is the verb ‘soulager’ , which means ‘to set free’, whereas ‘entwine’ connotes constriction rather than freedom. It seems that a deliberate choice was made for a target text replacement within the same semantic field, but the reason behind this remains unclear; since Rupert Entwistle is only mentioned in passing and not further described, we cannot say for certain that the name says anything significant about this character. The two most striking replacements, however, are TT Folyot and Patte for ST Phelps and Hicks. Both source text names seem to have no descriptive value besides their use as identifiers. However, Robillot decided not to replace the names with commonplace French surnames, but to create new connotations with the target text name where there were none in the source text. TT Folyot is

51 a sign for the interpretation of its carrier; the French reader will undoubtedly delight in the fact that a woman named Folyot is a librarian. Similarly, TT Patte is a hint at the punishment its carrier receives at the hand of the Trunchbull; he is forced to stand on one leg for a certain amount of time. Robillot adds more descriptive value to these target text names than the source text names originally contained.

52 Chapter 5. The translators’ strategies

In the case of each translator, the quantitative and qualitative analysis allow for the detection of a global strategy with regard to the translation of fictional names.

5.1 Huberte Vriesendorp

In general, Huberte Vriesendorp approaches the translation of these fictional names with a clear regard for descriptive value. Many of the first names in these works are commonplace in English; Vriesendorp directly retains them if they are familiar to the Dutch reader or adapts them into their Dutch variants. Other adaptations are made where there is a discrepancy in the target language between orthography and pronunciation. When possible, first names that are purely descriptive in nature are translated. If no suitable translation can be found, connotation is favoured over denotation, and the name is replaced with a target text name that carries similar connotations. Also replaced are those first names that are commonplace in English but unfamiliar to the Dutch reader; these names receive a commonplace Dutch equivalent. Speech sounds like alliteration are kept into account where possible. Commonplace English surnames that are unfamiliar to the Dutch reader are replaced with commonplace Dutch surnames. Names that are foreign to the source text reader are directly retained in order to keep the element of unfamiliarity. When possible, surnames that are purely descriptive are translated. If this is not an option, connotation is favoured over denotation, and the surname is replaced with a target text name that carries similar connotations. Sound and rhythm play an important role in translation; alliteration and assonance are maintained in the target text, surnames are adapted in order to fix any target text discrepancies between orthography and pronunciation, and some surnames are replaced to fit into rhyme schemes. 5.2 Élisabeth Gaspar, Marie-Raymond Farré

Gaspar and Fabien seem to adhere to what I have referred to above as the strategy of least possible interference. First names are directly retained, even if these are names that are unfamiliar to the French child reader. If necessary, first names are adapted in accordance with French orthographic conventions; these obligatory adaptations are what Vinay & Darbelnet call servitude. Their approach with regard to surnames is no different. Surnames are directly retained, with adaptations only made if French orthographic conventions dictate them. Surnames are replaced only when textual factors, such as rhyme schemes, are unfavourable to direct retention or adaptation. Even if a surname has descriptive value, it is directly retained or adapted; both denotation and connotation are lost in the French translation.

53 5.3 Camille Fabien

Fabien, too, interferes with the source text as little as possible. Commonplace English first names are directly retained, or adapted to adhere to French orthographic conventions (servitude). A first name that bears a likeness to that of another well-known literary character in the target culture canon is replaced. First names that are purely descriptive in nature are translated or replaced with preservation of connotations; this is allowable within the strategy due to the fact that they do not adhere to traditional naming conventions and would therefore never be considered first names outside of the realm of the story. Surnames are directly retained if possible. If not, adaptations may be made in order to comply with French orthographic conventions or if textual factors such as wordplay dictate this strategy.

5.4 Henri Robillot

Henri Robillot’s strategy strongly resembles Vriesendorp’s approach; it is a radical departure from the global strategies of his predecessors in that sense. His strategy for the translation of first names is inconsistent. Some commonplace English first names are directly retained, even if they are unfamiliar in French or have more widely accepted French variants. On the other hand, several other English first names are adapted into their French variants. Finally, a number of English first names are replaced entirely with commonplace French first names. A first name that is descriptive in nature is translated; a new target text name is added as a means of explicitation. A number of surnames that carry descriptive value are translated. Other descriptive names are replaced by names that are semantically related or that carry similar connotations. In some cases, a target text name has an added descriptive element where there was none in the source text.

54 Chapter 6. Conclusion

Many of the first names Roald Dahl gives to the characters in these four major works are commonplace English names. These names, while of course fictional in nature, do not seem to carry any descriptive value outside of their reference function; they are simple identifiers that are a mere means of recognition to the child reader. Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule; most notably, ST Violet and Angina give the reader clues towards the interpretation of their carrier. The ten first names that are purely descriptive in nature, namely those of the giants, could never be first names in reality, because they do not adhere to naming conventions in the source culture and target cultures. It seems that it is mostly the surnames that say something about their carriers. Names like Gloop, Prodnose and Honey give the reader clear signs for the interpretation of these characters. Whereas many of the first names in the books are commonplace outside of the fictional realm of the story, a great deal of the surnames in these stories have been made up out of a combination of certain words or a play on a word, of which the connotations are readily picked up by the reader. It is interesting to see how these five translators deal with fictional names in the source text. Huberte Vriesendorp attaches great significance to the descriptive nature of fictional names; if a name is descriptive, it is almost always either translated or replaced by a name with similar connotations. The fact that she favours connotation over denotation is indicative of the fact that she translates from the perspective of the child reading the text. In addition, her target texts are fully aimed at the experience of the Dutch child; she takes care to eliminate discrepancies between orthography and pronunciation in the target language and replaces names that would sound unfamiliar to the Dutch child reader. In this sense, her translations of fictional names fit within a domesticating approach. With a few minor exceptions, this strategy is employed in every target text, over the course of twenty years; an impressive accomplishment of consistency within the translated canon of one author. Of course, this canonical consistency is much harder to achieve when the works in the canon are translated by multiple people. Yet Élisabeth Gaspar, Camille Fabien and Marie-Raymond Farré manage to consistently apply the same translatorial strategies to the fictional names in the source text. Their strategy of least interference is straightforward, and ensures that the French child reader is presented with the character’s names in a consistent way between Charlie et la Chocolaterie, Le Bon Gros Géant and Sacrées Sorcières. Sadly, their source text- oriented approach results more than once in a loss of meaning. The target text reader is not presented with the same clues and hints at characters’ personality or fate as the source text reader, which may influence the French child’s interpretation and understanding of the text. This strategy fits within a foreignizing approach to translation; it is the source text, not the target reader, that is the guiding principle. Contrary to his predecessors, Henri Robillot’s approach to the translation of names seems to discard the notion of the sacredness of the source text; his method resembles Vriesendorp’s more closely. Much like Vriesendorp, his approach seems to be modelled on the experience of the target text reader,

55 rather than on the words of the source text. He recognizes the descriptive nature of the fictional names, and makes sure to recreate this element in the target text. He even takes more liberties than Vriesendorp in some instances, creating new names with descriptive value where there was none before. He sees the importance of the experience of the reader, but in his approach, causes a disparity in the cannon, between this target text and the previous three. It seems that the hypothesis formulated in the introduction to this thesis can indeed be seen as proven. The first names and surnames in Matilda are not significantly more or indeed less descriptive than those in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or The BFG, so there is no difference in the nature of these names that would warrant a different approach to their translation. Indeed, the disparity between the French target text names is due to the differences in the approach taken by their respective translators. The inconsistencies between the characters’ names within the French target culture canon of Roald Dahl’s works have their roots in the choices made by the French translators. The fact that the Dutch translations of Roald Dahl’s works of children’s fiction were all carried out by the same translator ensures that such inconsistencies exist to a much lesser extent in the Dutch target culture canon. It is, of course, impossible to tell from the analysis of the translation of fictional names only whether these translators are in favour of domestication or foreignization. The global strategy of Vriesendorp and Robillot would certainly be suitable for the former, while Gaspar, Fabien and Farré’s approach seems to fit the latter. But the translation of fictional names tells us nothing about the rest of the text. Indeed, while Vriesendorp seems to take a domesticating approach in general with her translation of fictional names, Sjakie en de Chocoladefabriek takes place in London rather than in Amsterdam. If anything, this research shows that foreignization and domestication are not simply binary opposites, but ends of a spectrum. Just because a translator chooses a foreignizing strategy in one instance, does not mean he will do so in every other case; the inconsistencies in Robillot’s target text alone prove this. The translator’s choices and strategy are influenced by a seemingly endless amount of factors. Cultural tendencies probably play a large part; looking at other translated works of children’s fiction, it seems that Dutch translators have the tendency to adhere to a more domesticating approach, at least when it comes to the translation of fictional names. The names of characters in famous works of children’s fiction like the Harry Potter series are all translated in one way or another in the Dutch target text, while the French translator chooses to directly retain or adapt them. Unless we speak to the translators personally, we cannot know the motivations behind their strategies. It may be determined by a number of factors. Intuition undoubtedly plays a large role too, as well as the translator’s experience of a text. The translator’s strategy can be influenced by vast number of internal and external factors, such as textual factors, grammatical or orthographic conventions, the publisher’s briefing and so on and so forth. The fact that there are such discrepancies between the target text names in the French translated canon of Roald Dahl alone suggest that this idea of a cultural standard is difficult to substantiate. Every translator must, at some point in the translation process, make a deliberate choice for deviation from or adherence to the source text. Where the boundary between these two strategies lies, is personal and cultural. To some

56 translators, it is the words on the page that are sacred, while for others, the emotions it evokes are more important. For the child reader, it is the reading experience that determines for a large part the interpretation and understanding of the text; at least I know it was for me. While a strict adherence to the source text ensures that the language of the story is more ‘true’ to the original wording, a translation that is too literal will result in a loss of meaning. In my opinion, this is especially true for children’s fiction, where the text’s vibrancy and livelihood lies in the experience of the reader. A translator must approach the text from the child’s perspective, and try to translate from this point of view as well as possible. More than anything, my research has taught me that much like fiction written for an adult audience, the translation of children’s fiction requires an endless amount of attention. The level of dedication it demands of the translator is equal to the dedication an author must have to write children’s books that are as good as Roald Dahl’s.

57 References

Baker, Mona and Gabriela Saldanha, eds. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. 2009. 2nd ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2011.

Currie, Gregory. The Nature of Fiction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Dahl, Roald. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 1964. London: Puffin Books, 2007. ---. Sjakie en de Chocoladefabriek. 1968. Trans. Harriët Freezer. Baarn: Uitgeverij De Fontein, 1997. ---. Charlie et la Chocolaterie. 1967. Trans. Élisabeth Gaspar. Paris: Gallimard Jeunesse, 2007. ---. De Butler. 1973. Trans. Johannes van Dam. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 2012.

---. The BFG. 1982. London: Puffin Books, 2007.

---. De GVR. 1983. Trans. Huberte Vriesendorp. Baarn: Uiteverij De Fontein, 1990.

---. Le Bon Gros Géant. 1984. Trans. Camille Fabien. Paris: Gallimard Jeunesse, 2007. ---. The Witches. 1983. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers, 1985.

---. De Heksen. 1984. Trans. Huberte Vriesendorp. Utrecht: Uitgeverij De Fontein, 2005.

---. Sacrées Sorcières. 1984. Trans. Marie-Raymond Farré. Paris: Gallimard Jeunesse, 2007.

---. Matilda. 1988. London: Jonathan Cape, 2002. ---. Matilda. 1988. Trans. Huberte Vriesendorp. Baarn: Uitgeverij De Fontein, 1997.

---. Matilda. 1988. Trans. Henri Robillot. Paris: Gallimard Jeunesse, 1994. Epstein, B.J. “In Name Only? Translating Names in Children’s Literature”. Northern Lights: Translation in the Nordic Countries. Essen: Verlag Peter Lang, 2009.

Fichier des Prénoms. Institut National de la Statistique et des Études Économiques. Ed. 2011. Web. 2 Jul. 2016.

Goosse, André et al. Le Bon Usage. Leuven, De Boeck/Duculot, 2011. Web. 28 May 2016.

58 Haeseryn, W. et al. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst Band I. 2nd ed. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff, 1997.

Huddleston, Rodney et al. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Van Langendonck, Willy. Theory and Typology of Proper Names. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007.

Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964. Nord, Christiane. “Proper Names in Translations for Children: Alice in Wonderland as a Case in Point.” Meta: Translator’s Journal 48.1-2 (2003): 182- 196. Web. 12 Feb. 2016. < http://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/2003/v48/n1- 2/006966ar.pdf> Oittinen, Riitta. Translating for Children. New York: Garland Publishing, 2000. Rowling, Joanne Kathleen. Interview by Christopher Lydon. The Connection. WBUR Radio, 1999. Web. 12 Jun. 2016.

Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet. 1958. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Trans. Juan C. Sager and M.J. Hamel. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins Publishing Company, 1995. Zeldenrust, Douwe et al. De Nederlandse Voornamen Databank. Het Meertens Instituut, Web. 2 Jun. 2016. < https://www.meertens.knaw.nl/nvb/>

59 Appendix A list of proper names in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Witches, Matilda and The BFG and their Dutch and French translations

ST title: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Dutch TT title: Sjakie en de Chocoladefabriek French TT title: Charlie et la chocolaterie ST Dutch TT French TT Augustus Gloop Caspar Slok Augustus Gloop Veruca Salt Veruca Peper Veruca Salt Violet Beauregarde Violet Beauderest Violette Beauregard Mike Teavee Joris Teevee Mike Teavee Charlie Bucket Sjakie (Jacques) Stevens Charlie Bucket Grandpa Joe Opa Jakob Grand-papa Joe Grandma Josephine Opoe Jakoba Grand-maman Joséphine Grandpa George Grootvader Willem Grand-papa Georges Grandma Georgina Grootmoeder Willemina Grand-maman Georgina Mr Bucket Meneer Stevens Mr Bucket Mrs Bucket Mevrouw Stevens Mrs Bucket Mr Willy Wonka (meneer) Willie Wonka Mr Willy Wonka Prince Pondicherry Prins Pondicherrie Le prince Pondichéry Mr Fickelgruber Piepelmans Mr Fickelgruber Mr Prodnose Meneer Steekneus Mr Prodnose Miss Bigelow Juffrouw Hanekoord Miss Pipenoire Mr Slugworth Meneer Wardeloos Mr Slugworth Charlotte Russe Charlotte Russe Charlotte Russe Professor Foulbody Professor Vuilbuik Professeur Foulbody Mr Salt Meneer Peper Mr Salt Mrs Angina Salt Mevrouw Angina Peper Mrs Angine Salt Mrs Beauregarde Mevrouw Beauderest Mrs Beauregard Mr Beauregarde Meneer Beauderest Mr Beauregard Cornelia Prinzmetel Cornelia Prinsetatel Cornelia Prinzmetel Mr Teavee Meneer Teevee Mr Teavee Mrs Teavee Mevrouw Teevee Mrs Teavee Mr Gloop Meneer Slok Mr Gloop Mrs Gloop Mevrouw Slok Mrs Gloop

60 ST title: The BFG Dutch TT title: De GVR French TT title: Le bon gros géant

ST Dutch TT French TT Sophie Sofie Sophie Mrs Rance Mevrouw Ranse Mme Rance Mr Goochey Meneer Koetsie M. Goochey Mrs Goochey Mevrouw Koetsie Mme Goochey Michael Goochey Michael Koetsie Michael Goochey Jane Goochey Jane Koetsie Jane Goochey Mrs Clonkers Mevrouw Klonkers Mme Clonkers Jack Jakob Jack Mr Figgins Meester Figgins M. Figgins Amelia Upscotch Amalia Butterscotch Amélia Upscotch Simpkins De Vries M. Simpkins Mrs Sippi Hugo Waard Miss Issippi Miss Souri Arend Skerke Miss Ouri Mary Mary Mary Mr Tibbs Meneer Tibbs M. Tibbs King Charles the First Koning Karel de Eerste Le roi Charles Ier Louis the Fifteenth Lodewijk de Vijftiende Louis XV Monsieur Papillion Monsieur Papillon M. Papillon Caliph Haroun al Rashid - Le calife Omar al Rashid

The Bonecrunching Giant De Bottekraker reus Le Croqueur d’os The Welly-eating Giant De Afriknabbel reus Le géant de Nouvelle- Gélande The BFG (Big Friendly De GVR (Grote Vriendelijke Le BGG (Bon Gros Giant) Reus) Géant) The Bloodbottler De Bloedbottelaar Le Buveur de Sang The Fleshlumpeater De Vleeslapeter L’Avaleur de chair fraîche The Manhugger De Mensenmepper L’Étouffe-Chrétien Childchewer Kinderkauwer Le Mâcheur d’enfants Meatdripper Vleeshakker Empiffreur de viande Gizzardgulper Schrokschranzer Gobeur de gésiers Maidmasher Meisjesstamper Écrabouilleur de donzelles

61 ST title: The Witches Dutch TT title: De Heksen French TT title: Sacrées Sorcières

ST Dutch TT French TT Ranghild Hansen Ranghild Hansen Ranghild Hansen Solveg Christiansen Solveg Christiansen Solveg Christiansen Birgit Svenson Birgit Svenson Birgit Svenson Harald Harald Harald Leif Leif Leif Timmy Timmie Timmy Mrs Spring Mevrouw Spring Mme Spring William Hans William Mary Grietje Mary Mr Stringer meneer Stringer M. Stringer Millie Marian Millie Beatrice Bea Béatrice Ashton Arthur Ashton Bruno Jenkins Bruno Jenkins Bruno Jenkins Mildred Marian Mildred Mr Herbert Jenkins Meneer Herbert Jenkins Mr Herbert Jenkins Mrs Jenkins mevrouw Jenkins Mrs Jenkins William William William Topsy Topsy Topsy

62 TT title: Matilda Dutch ST title: Matilda French ST title: Matilda

ST Dutch TT French TT Maximilian Maximiliaan Maximilien Vanessa Vanessa Vanessa Wilfred Frederik/Wilfred Gaston/Guillaume Fiona Fiona Fiona Mr Harry Wormwood Meneer Harrie Wurmhout M. Henri Verdebois Mrs Wormwood Mevrouw Wurmhout Mme Verdebois Michael (Mike) Michiel Wurmhout Michael Verdebois Wormwood Matilda Wormwood Matilda Wurmhout Matilda Verdebois Mrs Phelps Mevrouw Fens Mme Folyot Fred Fred Fred Miss Agatha Trunchbull Juffrouw Agatha Bulstronk Mlle Agatha Legourdin Miss Jennifer (Jenny) Juffrouw Marijke (Marij) Mlle Jennifer (Jenny) Honey Engel Candy Lavender Lavendel Anémone Nigel Hicks Nico Haaks Victor Patte Prudence Primula Prudence Rupert Entwistle Robert/Govert Strengel Robert Soulat Miss Plimsoll Juffrouw Gympjes Mlle Basquet Willard Roderik Willard Angelica Angelica Angelica Hortensia Hortensia Hortense Ollie Bogwhistle Ollie Bobbelfluit Paulo Siffloche Julius Rottwinkle Julius Rotswinkel Jules Bigornot Amanda Thripp Amanda Trip Amanda Blatt Bruce Bogtrotter Bram Bokkepoot Julien Apolon Eric Ink Erik Inkt Eric Lencre Magnus Marcus Magnus Mr Trilby Meneer Dophoed Mr Trilby