Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English-language Translation Bc. Tereza Rotterová Translating Sociolect in the Works of Charles Dickens Master’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Ing. Mgr. Jiří Rambousek, Ph. D. 2017 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………….. Author’s signature I would like to thank my supervisor Ing. Mgr. Jiří Rambousek, Ph.D. for valuable advice. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 5 1) THEORETICAL BACKGROUND FOR ANALYZING DIALECT IN TRANSLATION....................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 KEY TERMINOLOGY IN ANALYZING DIALECT TRANSLATION .................................... 7 1.2 THE NOTION OF STANDARD: CZECH AND ENGLISH ............................................... 10 1.2.1 THE NOTION OF STANDARD: ENGLISH ................................................................ 10 1.2.2 THE NOTION OF STANDARD: CZECH ................................................................... 13 1.3 STRUCTURAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENGLISH AND CZECH ................................. 18 1.4 APPROACHES TO TRANSLATING DIALECT AND SOCIOLECT..................................... 19 2) DICKENS AND THE LITERARY DIALECT ....................................................... 24 3) METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH ....................................................................... 28 4) ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL TEXTS ALONGSIDE THEIR TRANSLATIONS INTO CZECH ........................................................................................ 33 4.1 DIALECT SPEAKERS IN THE POSTHUMOUS PAPERS OF THE PICKWICK CLUB AND IN THE TRANSLATIONS INTO CZECH ........................................................................................... 33 4.2 DIALECT SPEAKERS IN DAVID COPPERFIELD AND IN THE TRANSLATIONS INTO CZECH .............................................................................................................................. 56 4.3 DIALECT SPEAKERS IN BLEAK HOUSE AND IN THE CZECH TRANSLATIONS ............ 74 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................................................................................................. 87 RESUME ............................................................................................................................ 92 RESUMÉ ............................................................................................................................ 93 Introduction The use of a dialect in a work of fiction has always presented a considerable difficulty for translators, as it is an important tool for characterization and as such, it cannot be treated lightly. This thesis aims to explore the translation strategies adopted in Czech translations of three novels by Charles Dickens whose work is known for elaborate dialect usage in the speech of the characters. For the analysis, the translations of three novels by Charles Dickens were chosen – The Posthumous Papers of the Pickwick Club (1836), David Copperfield (1849) and Bleak House (1853). The choice was based on three criteria. Firstly, only novels that include dialect speakers were considered. Secondly, each novel had to be translated into Czech at least twice so that a comparison of the translations could be made. Thirdly, novels from different periods of Dickens’s life were preferred in order to compare his early use of dialect to the dialectal usage in his later work. Out of seventeen Dickens’s novels, five fulfilled the criteria. Oliver Twist and Great Expectations were excluded since a similar research has already been conducted on the two novels. The fact that two novels take place in London while one is partly situated in north Norfolk will allow for a comparison of the use of an urban dialect and a rural one in Dickens’s work. However, as the focus of the thesis is on social dialects, general non- standard features of both English in the original and Czech in the translations common to all three novels will be then identified in the conclusion of this thesis, as they position its speakers on the social scale only. This thesis includes translations that were produced as early as 1899 and as late as 1980 and as such, it also aims to provide a comprehensive account of the development of strategies in translating dialect in Dickens’s work into Czech. 5 The first chapter provides theoretical considerations on analyzing dialect in a work of fiction including also a comparison of stratification of the standard and non-standard varieties in both English and Czech. In the second chapter, the representations of dialect, and in particular social dialect, in literature and more specifically, in Dickens’s novels are examined. The third chapter is concerned with the explanation of methodology applied in the analysis. Finally, chapter four consists of the analysis of dialect in the individual novels and in the Czech translations. Dialect markers, as defined by Berezowski (1997), are identified in both the source and target texts and their numbers are then compared. In the conclusion of the thesis, individual translators’ strategies are summarized with regard to transferring the social deixis of the source text and it proposes suggestions for futher research. 6 1) Theoretical Background for Analyzing Dialect in Translation This chapter deals with considerations that need to be taken into account when analyzing dialect in translation, be it geographical or social dialect. Firstly, it focuses on defining terminology of dialect translation which is used throughout this thesis. Secondly, the two languages employed in this project, English and Czech, are subjected to an analysis in terms of stratification of the varieties in the two languages examining the standard and non-standard varieties on the basis of which the dialects can be studied, including the publications that are discussed in order to determine the standard in both languages. It also concentrates on the structural differences between the two languages, as they play a role in analyzing dialects and interpreting the results. Finally, this chapter presents an overview of approaches to translating dialect and strategies adopted by translators. 1.1 Key terminology in analyzing dialect translation In order to be able to analyze dialect use in Dickens, key terminology has to be explained. In A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, David Crystal defines dialect as “a regionally or socially distinctive variety of language, identified by a particular set of words and grammatical structures” (2008: 142). Chambers and Trudgill add that while accents differ from other varieties in its phonological features, dialects also, in addition to phonological features, differ in grammar and lexis (2004: 4-5). As dialects are user- dependent, they should not be confused with styles and registers, which are varieties used only in a particular social situation and therefore are use-depentent (Trudgill, 1992: 24). Crystal further develops the claim that any language will form dialects particularly if its speakers live in geographically isolated groups and/or if there is substantial social 7 stratification. As for the division between dialect and language, dialects are defined as subvarieties of language that are mutually intelligible. According to this rule, dialects are mutually intelligible while languages are mutually unintelligible. However, Crystal refuses the principle of mutual intelligibility. Examples of Chinese dialects whose speakers are not able to understand each other and on the other hand, examples of Swedish and Norwegian whose speakers communicate quite easily, prove this principle wrong. Chambers and Trudgill add that these languages and dialects do not have to be intelligible in both directions, saying that Danes generally do not have problems in understanding Norwegians, while Norwegians may not be able to understand Danes. In Introducing Language and Society, Trudgill adds that mutual intelligibility is also dependent on the time of exposure to the variety and that understanding can be enhanced through time (1992: 54). Chambers and Trudgill propose an alternative way of defining languages and dialects based on the fact whether or not the linguistic variety has a codified standard variety with defined grammar and orthography (2004: 3-4). In order to describe differences between dialects, the term linguistic variable is used in this thesis. It refers to a feature, most often phonological but also grammatical or lexical, that appears in some dialects and is absent from other dialects. Its absence or presence determines differences between dialects. An example of such variable is the presence or omission of initial h in stressed words like hammer or home. Absence of h in initial position is then termed h-dropping (Trudgill 1992: 50). Sociolect, sometimes also social dialect or class dialect, is then defined as a variety of language through which the speaker’s position on the social scale can be identified (Crystal 2008: 143). Trudgill points out that similarly to regional dialects, where geographical barriers like mountains or rivers play a role in the differences between dialects, social dialects also vary due to barriers