Lingua Inglese II - Modulo B, Sbobinature di Lingua Inglese

Scarica Lingua Inglese II - Modulo B e più Sbobinature in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity! The translation of children's picturebooks Basic terms The meaning of translation Etymological, the word translation appeared for the first time in the 14th century and it means “to carry across”; it makes me able to transport an idea. In context, translation could mean carrying across a message or a text. For example, if we translate a source text we make it across linguistic and cultural boundaries because it becomes a target text. But this process of carrying a meaning across has also been defined as a process of communication that involves a sender and a receiver. Like any other form of communication, the sender sends a message that is coded in a certain way by the receiver; this code is received and decoded by the receiver before it is understood. The massage is not always coded correctly tho: when we do that correctly, we understand the other person and we communicate; when we do not decode things correctly, there are misunderstandings in the communication. Comprehension and interpretation are processes that we all perform whenever we listen to or read a piece of linguistically imparted information. We continuously use our experiential baggage: the knowledge, beliefs, suppositions, inferences and expectations that are elements of personal, social and cultural life. All of these things (the experimental baggage) come into play when we decode messages both in our language or from one language into another. So we understand the other person based on how much we know the language and how well we know the cultural baggage that we have. The cultural differences between senders and receivers really complicate matters. Sometimes comes into play and becomes a very important mediator the cultural mediator translator, who utilizes his/her background cultural knowledge or background linguistic knowledge to decode a text. Also, there is always the assumption that there is a “loss” in the translation process no matter how well we know the language of the source language or the source culture. We’re always going to lose something during the process: For example, if we try to measure how much we lose during a translation to see if we can do something about the mistakes from a cultural point of view, we see that even the name means different things. Text Any given stretch of speech or writing assumed to make a coherent whole: - a minimal text may consist of a single word (for example Stupendo!) preceded and followed by silence (however short); - a maximal text may run into thousands of pages. A text can be something spoken, written or recorded. Source text (ST) The text requiring translation (from a language to another, like from English to Italian, but also like math books). Target text (TT) The text which is a translation of the source text. Source language (SL) The language in which the source text is spoken or written. Target language (TL) The language into which the source text is to be translated. The cross-cultural concept of translation The verb to translate in different countries has different meanings: “to carry across” from the Latin trans-ferre; “change of form” in Bengali; “speaking after” in Hindi; “biography” in Arabic; “turning over” in Chinese. This shows us that translation is done differently depending on the culture and the country: some countries prefer to be connected more to the source culture or the source language, while other countries prefer to move a little bit different from the original version. The most important thing is to generate comprehensible communication. The problem of translating word-for-word We shouldn’t pay too much attention to every single word because what is important is to carry across the meaning. This was a recurring problem also in Translation Studies during the ‘60s; during these years was highlighted the importance of context for a translator. Language cannot be understood outside the framework of the culture of which the language in question is an integral part of the context of the background knowledge baggage of experience. It’s important to understand the context in which the translation is taking place. So whenever we have a text we must also ask ourselves who wrote the book, where was the book written and for what purposes, are there any historical elements that we must understand or study before we start a translation, … Even without knowing all of this stuff you should have looked briefly at who the author is when the book was published and in which country. So you don't only look at every single word, you don't just focus on the language, but also on the background information necessary to understand the book. During the ‘60s a lot of attention was directed towards the importance of diverging from the source text and the amount of creativity the translator should have. We should also ask ourselves as translators how much can we diverge from the source text, how faithful should we be to the original text or if there are any limits. This is connected to creativity because the more you diverge from a source text, the more you require the translation to be creative. For example, some children's books are really hard to translate because they are written in poetry: there are linguistic elements that cannot be replicated exactly or cannot be translated literally into another language, like rhymes and alliterations; so it's not possible to recreate the same rhymes, but you can create something similar. So to diverge from the text, the translator needs to be creative and face a current problem: cultural ability. The translator has to keep in mind when he/she translate that even something as simple as the word bathroom could mean different things and so to not just simplify: Italian translators are aware of the fact that bathroom in other cultures means something else, so the translator might have to add some extra information. How does the transfer from British English (BrE) to American English (AmE) affect the way the reader interprets the voice? We should always keep in mind we’re translating a children’s book, which has limited knowledge of the language. So how difficult is it to decode something, especially if it is in another language variety? An intralingual translation is a translation that goes from one language to another, from one variety to another within the same language. Even when we do that, we do a certain type of translation and this is the work of a copy-editor (or just editor): he/she does the same job as the translator, but he/she also acts as a language mediator and as a cultural mediator sometimes. The only difference between intralingual translation and interlingual translation is the variety of language used: in an interlingual translation, the presence of the translator is clear, and we know the text went through the work of a translator (because we expect that); in an intralingual translation, we don't expect a translator, and we don't always see the work of the copy- editor (even if there is always the work of a copy-editor). We’re going to focus on the lexical choices we made, the grammatic choices and the spelling choices. Sometimes these choices make life easier for the readers but impoverish the text: a sematic impoverishment, a problem of equivalence or linguistic and/or cultural untranslatability. Characters’ direct speech and dialect are also important. For example, when characters' voices are heard we can discover a lot about them (where they come from, it is a young or old person, …) even without looking at the person just, by the way, people speak: the words they chose, if there is any slang, if they talk formally or informally, … And we can see all of this also in books: when a character speaks we get some information. This of course goes through a translation when we go from one language to another. Usually, the adaptation of British novels for the American reader leads to an Americanization of their speech; it's common to change the spelling from British English to American English. For example: in the American English edition of The Secret Diary of Adrian Mole, British terms are retained and the spelling throughout is American English: center instead of centre; check instead of cheque; tire instead of tyre. From Yorkshire dialect to American English (from Pony on a Porch by Lucy Daniels) In the original version, the characters are speaking in the Yorkshire dialect so, with a translation, we have to translate with keeping the sound of the original language. But, in this case, the cultural bumps are completely eliminated. The elderly grandfather is even given the occasional Americanism: in the British English text, he describes a horse as a great big fellow; in the American English edition, it becomes a great big guy. By levelling the language for the target audience the translator is also changing the story because the characters are no longer speaking Yorkshire English but (normal) American English. Because of this, the American English edition has made the characters less individual and vivid for the reader but also introduced a note of conflict and inconsistency between what the characters say and what the storyline tells us about them. In this way, the American English edition introduces a conflict and an inconsistency between what the characters say and what the story tells us about them: the story is located in the UK, but they speak American English. Children are not stupid, they understand this inconsistency. From British English to American English (from Flour Babies by Anne Fine) In Flour Babies several British English expressions belong to a colloquial register, but the American English terms that are utilized in the translation are more neutral. The story is about a group of students with behavioural problems in the UK. There are a lot of colloquialism, slang and swear words; in the American edition, they were changed by a copy-editor: to nick becomes to steal; “I nearly copped it” becomes “I nearly got seriously rearranged”; din-dins! becomes here comes dinner. All the foreign terms were eliminated and this creates inconsistency: you expect the kids to speak non-conventional English, but in the American version we don't see that language only used by teenagers; this is an example of semantic impoverishment and changes in spelling. The British edition of this story is very funny to read because of the way the characters speak but due to the standardisation, the American edition is pretty boring; it becomes a standard book without anything really interesting about it, so the different linguistic impositions have been raised an important trait of the characters. Equivalence in meaning Equivalence in meaning is one of the problems a translator has to face. To avoid the age-old opposition between literal and free translation, theoreticians in the 1950s and 1960s began to attempt more systematic analyses. The new debate revolved around certain key issues. The most prominent were those of meaning and equivalence, discussed in Roman Jakobsen’s 1959 paper (Intralingual, interlingual, semiotic translations). Over the following 20 years many attempts were made to define the nature of equivalence: Saussure’s concept of langue/parole; Roman Jakobson's issue of meaning and equivalence (the late 1950s); Nida’s concepts of formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effect (the late 1960s). We have words that mean something, but the relationship between the sign and the signified is completely arbitrary: for example, some symbols put together are read as house but what comes to our mind when we hear that word depends on where we live, what we know, our culture, our experience so far, … When we hear the word house, tho, we can think about an apartment because we live in an apartment, but American readers when reading the same word can think about another type of house (a single house with a garden). So equivalence in meaning becomes important for a translator because things should not be taken for granted. Linguistic universalism vs Sapir-Whorf hypothesis In translation, we have the problem of transferability (also called “equivalence in meaning”), which has been linked over the years to linguistic relativity, linguistic determinism or universalism. Linguistics were not the first ones to understand that there was something called translatability and untranslatability. Anthropologies were the first ones to understand that there was something called cultural meaning or meaning in culture, and that meaning is associated with language and different cultures. So language in cultures was really tied to one the other and we can not exclude culture when we talk about language. The two fields of study (anthropology and linguistics) started working together and this is why today we have a field called “linguistic anthropology” and also anthropology that focuses on linguistics. The two fields of study sometimes combined and over the years they have created the linguistic universalism vs the Sapir- Whorf hypothesis question: Linguistic universalism says that we have different languages but one way or another we find a way of understanding each other. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis highlights the importance of culture connecting to language. It affects us and the translator, even more, so we have to be aware of it all the time: where we were born, when did we grow up, the type of language we utilise; the way we see the world differently from someone else. This is why we always have to try to find the equivalent words possible in translation. Also, because we’re working with another language, meanings sometimes are not translatable. There are two versions of the hypothesis: • A strong version (called “linguistic determinism) in which our language determines our ability to perceive and think about objects. If we don’t have a word for something in our language, we won’t think about it or notice it. • And a weak version (called “linguistic relativity”) in which language influences the way we think but does not determine it. If we don’t have a word for something, it will be difficult, but not impossible, to think about it or notice it (and this is the work of the translator: to make something translatable even if it’s from another culture). Different types of meaning Nida (1964) and Nida and Taber (1969) tried to find a “scientific” approach to analysis and transfer of meaning; they underlined three different types of meaning. Every word can have a: - Linguistic meaning The meaning crucially differs even where similar classes are of words are used. For example, we can use his in different ways creating different meanings: • His house = he owns the house; • His journey = he did a journey; • His kindness = he’s a kind person, he has a kind character. Equivalence Equivalence is something we should always think about when we translate, creating an equivalence translation. Equivalence or similarity in meaning between the source language and target language, and how to achieve it, are major concerns in translation. Anton Popovič (famous linguist) identifies four types of equivalence in translation: The translator decides what kind of equivalence to achieve depending on the text and the audience he/she is translating for. Eugene Nida categorizes equivalence into: Formal In formal equivalence, there is complete correspondence between the two texts in terms of structure and content, and it will try to convey as much about the source language text as possible. A faithful word-by- word translation would be characterized by formal equivalence. Dynamic (most common) Dynamic equivalence aims at creating a similar impact as the source language text on its readers or to recreate a similar relationship between the reader/listener and the text. In this case, the translator works harder because he/she has to invent something; it's not about the language or the grammatical part or about choosing words, but it's the impact of the text. How do we learn to be dynamic translators? We should learn the slang of the translated language. J. C. Catford identifies two types of untranslatability (= not possible to translate): Linguistic untranslatability occurs when there are no grammatical or syntactic equivalents in the target language. There is a common mistake about gender and plurals translating from Italian to English: 1. Linguistic equivalence There is a similarity between words of the source language and target language; this occurs when we translate “word-for-word”. 2. Paradigmatic equivalence There is a similarity between grammatical components, when for example a certain number of adjectives are used in the source text and the target text components are identical in the source language and in the target language. 3. Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence There is a similarity in the structure and form of the texts; we need to change the word a lot but it’s the same structure. For example, there is a beginning (an introduction part) followed by a certain number of sentences (like descriptions) and then a closing paragraph and references; this structure is typical of scientific text and technical text. 4. Stylistic equivalence The form is different, the grammatical components are different, the words are different but there is a similarity in the meaning or impact of the expressed text/message. Sono tutte orecchie = I'm all ears Andare in cerca di guai = Ask for trouble Rompiscatole = A pain in the neck Un bidone (nel senso di dare buca) = A lime Cugino/a; cugine/i = Cousins (we should specify with the name if we're talking about a girl or a boy) Nipote = Nephew/niece; Grandson/grandaughter Cultural untranslatability concerns proverbs, films and expressions; we have to search for equivalence in meaning. Bassnett has identified a diagrammatic representation of the process of translation: Bassnett talks about the importance for a translator to achieve equivalence in meaning when it's necessary to find a solution to linguistic or cultural untranslatability. The author creates a text received by the receiver, and this is what happens in the source language. In the target language, the text is translated by the translator, which became also an editor (some sort of writer), because h/she has to create a text that should be fully understandable by the receiver. The translator's not just a creative translator but also a creative writer. Sei la luce dei miei occhi = You are the apple of my eye How much freedom does actually have a translator? There is a continuum that goes from a literal translation to a free translation. It focuses is on two diametric opposites: two opposed degrees of freedom of translation, showing extreme source language bias (*) on the one hand and extreme target language bias (*) on the other. (*) a bias is something that is not objective; a non-objective kind of view. At the extreme source language bias, the text tends to be more close to the source text than to the target text; the translator wants to be faithful without thinking about the problems that the target language readers will have in reading the text. At the extreme target language bias, the text is distant from the source text because the translator wants to focus more on the target readers of the other language. At the extreme of the source, language bias is interlinear translation, where the target text does not necessarily respect target language grammar but has grammatical units corresponding as closely as possible to every grammatical unit of the source target. We can have an original text with a word-for-word translation, without considering the original meaning at all: The interlinear translation is used in linguistics and it's done for linguistic kinds of studies. From a literal to a free translation Literal translation The same sentence is translated differently: straight from the dictionary, but the text language grammar is respected. Because of this, a literal translation very often involves grammatical transposition: the grammatical units are gonna be different from the original to the target text; it makes sense in English because grammatically it works, but the equivalence in meaning is not archive. Free translation At the opposite extreme (text language bias) there is the free translation, where there is only a global correspondence between the textual units of the source text and those of the target text. Meaning is equivalent but not in language because all words are different. Communicative translation A communicative translation is produced when, in a given situation, the source text uses a source language expression standard for that situation, and the target text uses a target language expression standard for an equivalent target culture situation. Dynamic equivalence Dynamic equivalence is based on the “principle of equivalent effect”, which is the principle that «the relationship between receptor and message should be substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors and the message». A communicative translation is an example of dynamic equivalence. Chi non risica non rosica = Who not risks not nibbles Chi non risica non rosica = Who does not risk does not nibble Chi non risica non rosica = Nothing ventured, nothing gained 1. Names are taken over unchanged Using the source text name unchanged in the target text may sometimes prove impracticable if it creates problems with pronunciation ability, spelling and memorization. This can happen with Polish or Russian names. For example, if the name in question is a source language first name (Michelangelo), the first alternative introduces a foreign element into the target text. This loss will not usually matter. More serious is the case where using the source text name introduces into the target text different associations from those in the source text. Because of this, we must be careful because a word that has no meaning in a language can have a meaning in another language; brand names are a typical danger area, and we must pay attention to logos too. 2. Adapted names to conform to the phonic/graphic conventions The names will say the same, but the spelling will be changed to be easily pronounced and remembered. This is the standard way of coping with Russian and Chinese names in English texts. Adapting names from one language to another we must be careful because the same name can have its own equivalent in the other language. 3. Transcreation The name is recreated to work for the target language readers. It communicates the same meaning and brand values through a more culture-oriented adaptation. But some names don’t need transliteration or transcreation at all because they have standard target language equivalents. The same applies to initials and acronyms: • Volkswagen Jetta in some Italian dialects means “throw away”; • Turn it Loose, a slogan by beer maker Coors, can mean “get loose bowels/diarrhea” in Spanish; • Zyclon, by Hoover, means “cyclone” in German but it’s also the name of a lethal gas used by the Nazis; • Nike's Flaming Air logo looked too much like “Allah” written in Arabic When Coca-Cola entered the market in China, opted for a translation that allowed the verbal pronunciation of the brand to be simian to the English: - Coca-Cola became ke-ke-ko-le But what the Chinese people actually spelled out was: - “Bite the Wax Tadpole” or “Female horse fastened with wax” In China, it is now known as: - K’o-k’ou’k’o-le which means “Happiness in the mounth” • The brand name Nike becomes Nai Ke in Chinese, which means “eduring and perserving”. Nike’s Chinese brand name is the most impressive as not only does it sound the same in both language, but it also has a strong meaning that matches the product. • The brand name Reebook becomes Rui bu in Chinese, which means “quick steps”. The running shoe brand’s Chinese name gives customers an idea of the product they are about to buy, while conveying an essence the English title could not hope to match. San Giovanni (Italian) = Saint Jean (French) Sankt Johannes (German) Luigi (Italian) = Liège (French) Lüttich (German) Luik (Flemish) ONU (Italian) = UNO or the UN (English) OMS (Italian) = WHO (English) Cultural transposition Sometimes when we work on a translation we might achieve something called cultural transposition. It is the main types and degrees of departure from a literal translation that may be resorted to in the process of transferring the contents of a source text from one culture into another. Exoticism and calque A target text marked by exoticism is a text which constantly uses grammatical and cultural features imported from the source text with minimal adaptation because they're faithful to the original, thereby constantly signalling the exotic source culture and its cultural strangeness. In this example, we can see slaughter-houses is an exotic element because an English native speaker wouldn't have used this expression, and there are also a lot of grammatical mistakes. So if an English native speaker would see this won't think it was written by another English native speaker. A calque (or loan translation) is a word or phrase borrowed from another language by literal, word-for-word or root-for-root translation. In the same example, we have the word-for-word translation of the Italian label shoes; from the beginning, we can see the mistakes of Complimenti! = Compliments! Cultural borrowing It means to transfer a source text expression verbatim into the target text; it introduces a foreign element into the target text. We can just hope it works in the other language. Something foreign is by definition exotic but cultural borrowing is different from exoticism because it does not involve adaptation of the source language expression into target language forms. In this case, we hope English readers know what ciabattini means but we should keep it because has a positive connotation in Italian and looks fancy and foreign in English. Communicative translation The communicative translation is usually adopted for all those clichés, idioms, proverbs, etc which have readily identifiable communicative equivalents in the target language. We must remember the importance to recreate the same impact in the other language to archive meaning even if it means recreating the text. The same particular care of the old cobblers The same particular care of the old ciabattini Piove a catinelle = It's raining cats and dogs Ha trent’anni suonati = He’s the wrong side of thirty Non si può tenere il piede in due staffe = You can't have your cake and eat it Sometimes, however, the obvious communicative equivalent will not be appropriate in the context. Cultural transplantation At the other end of the scale from exoticism, there is cultural transplantation (adaptations): the complete transplanting of the entire setting of the source text, resulting in the entire text being completely rewritten in a target-culture setting. For example, the movie Benvenuti al Sud is the Italian version of a French movie called Bienvenue chez les Ch’tis: both movies explain the differences between living in the North and the South of the countries but only the Italian version is famous in Italy. This is because we understand the differences in our county such as how we speak, what we eat, how we act in social gatherings, what we do in our free time; it's a familiar culture for us, even if we live in different parts of the country. So we don't feel close to the French one because it's not our culture, it's not familiar to us and we don't fully understand why we should laugh about them. In casa sua ciascuno è re = An Englishman’s home is his castle We can make a simple generalization (because, for example, we don't have Englishman in Italy): —> My home is my castle Or change my a little bit: —> Every man’s home is his castle (sounds like a proverb but it's not) Translating idioms Idioms are fixed expressions that generally vary greatly between languages in part because they tend to be based on a particular time and place. We may have picture books that utilize idioms that are no longer utilized. As a translator: first of all, you have to recognize the idiom, which is an English idiom so you don't take it literally; second of all, is it an idiom that is still used today or not? If it's a modern book it's easy, but if it's an old book you might have a problem. Technically, idioms are frozen patterns of language that allow little or no variation in form and, in the case of idioms, often carry meanings that cannot be deduced from their individual components (says Baker). Why should we focus so much on idioms as translators? Because if we translate idioms correctly we will greatly enhance the readability of the translations. Idioms are conventional, fixed phrases with non-literal meanings that might seem strange if one stopped to think about them, whether because of the grammar of the words themselves. Idioms and proverbs There is also a difference between idioms and proverbs: It's not easy to work with idioms and proverbs because most of the time you don't find an exact translation for a proverb in every language. Also: the meaning of an idiom is generally more opaque than that of proverbs; and idioms usually need to be learned rather than guessed from the context. If you're reading a proverb for the first time, it’s possible that you can't understand an idiom because idioms are learned growing up: you hear them with your friends, with your family, or even with teachers. Idioms need to be learned (and not studied) and this is a big problem for translators (you need to read a lot). Some idioms may not even be the same throughout one language. Even when we talk about idioms in the English language, because we have different Englishes we have different idioms. Different dialects or different varieties of a language (such as British English, American English, Indian English, or Australian English) may have different understandings of specific idioms or may not even employ the same ones. Two identical idioms have different meanings depending on the language: Why idioms are used in CL text and why do you have to try to be creative with them? (1) Idioms can quickly set the scene with just three or four words. (2) Quickly setting the scene, it's possible to portray a character the child is looking at (the name can mean if it's a male or a female, if it's old or young, if it's a wise person or if it's an animal character). (3) It's also possible to teach young readers about a particular idiom or idioms in general through books. Idiom IT’S RAINING CATS AND DOGS Proverb THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE The proverb teaches something to the readersand there is a moral. It means that people who are in trouble eventually they get help: • gets the grease means “help”; • the squeaky wheel —> the wheel creates noise that we don't like hearing but we keep hearing; there isn't an equivalent proverb in Italian, so we could standardize it and then compensate with proverbs that there aren't in the original version. Someone has been knocked off = the person has been killed (USA) Something has been knocked off = something has been produced quickly (Wales) —> This shows how much the translator has to know both the language and the context: he/she has to know that the author is from Wales because that idiom means something completely different than in American English (4) And make young readers think about language; for example, you teach a child he/she shouldn't take everything literally. (5) If idioms are used creatively, they can also be humorous or otherwise entertaining because it's fun for the kids. So the last thing we wanna do is delete the idioms; it's better to even change the story slightly if it's necessary to keep them. The idioms should stay in the translation as much as possible. Is it easy for a child to recognise idioms and proverbs? Children have obviously had less exposure to language and culture than most adults. So it may be more difficult for them to recognize idioms and to understand the meaning of phrases that seem to work against the rules of language and/or the world at large. According to Foster, it's possible to utilise idioms but we have to wait till the child is older enough so he/she can understand the language and appreciate it. The best period is from sixth grade through the beginning of high school (11-14), when the child starts to understand irony, analogy, idiom, sarcasm and allegory. Gibbs, on the other hand, believes that when an idiom is analyzable, children can assign independent meanings to its individual parts and will learn relatively quickly how these meaningful parts combine to form the overall nonliteral interpretation of the phrase; so when a kid can assign meanings to each part and he is also able to understand the different meanings. For Gibbs, the children consistently view idiomatic expressions as having figurative meanings around the age of 8 or 9. Writing with pedagogical purposes Writers for children need to decide whether to include idioms and, if so, how many and of what sort: they may decide to include only simpler, more transparent ones; use them to refer to taboo or difficult issues, as Snicket does by using kick the bucket to mean “to die”; teach about language and reality. Writers may include idioms for purely pedagogical reasons. When we teach children how to utilize the language, we are also trying to teach them how to utilize idioms: we’re empowering them, we’re making them aware of the language while they're learning it, and they become more sure of themselves. But sometimes authors invert such pedagogical purposes by redefining idioms or using them in new ways, or by adding a funny, sarcastic remark or even false explanations of the set expressions. As Lewis Carroll has done, the child is supposed to not take things seriously but here is the author who does it. For example, in Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, Alice cries so much that she worries about “drowning in her own tears”: a metaphorical idiom is made physical and literal. That idiom means that you are over exaggerating so much that you can't find a way out of the problem; the child takes it literary, so in the image we see her drawing in her own tears. But translators must be careful: if in books we exaggerate the use of idioms in a non-standard way, we can confuse the child. Translatorial strategies A good translation of idioms in a book means a good translation in general. As translators, you're reading something that doesn't belong to your native language so it might be very difficult for you to understand. So how do you recognise them? According to Baker, it's a good strategy to use the typical phraseology of the target language to greatly enhance the readability of the translation. Also, she suggests that any expression that seems to work against reality (with an odd grammar perhaps, and/or that starts with like) might be an idiom. The more difficult is an expression to understand and the less sense it makes in a given context, the more likely a translator will recognize it as an idiom. Once the translator has recognised that there is an idiom in the text, he/she has to consider: how the idiom works in the text what the idiom is used for (is it necessary for the story?) Lemony Snicket is a good example because he utilises a lot of expressive languages, and sometimes idioms. The brilliant thing about him is that in his stories he always explains the idiom just used, so after the idiom there is always an explanation: What are we gonna do in translation? There may be no equivalent idiom in the target language. There may be a similar one but used in a different context or with different connotations or meanings. If authors use their idioms very creatively, this suggests the translator must likewise be creative. If we don't have this proverb in our own language, then we’re gonna find a similar one and, if it's not the same, we should also add an explanation. Smith believes that a literal translation won't suffice for most idioms; this is the way they must be re- embodied in the rhythm of our speech. The process of translating idioms As a translator: you analyze the function of the idiom, trying to understand why the author has used the idiom and what purpose it has in the text. Did the author use it because it's in line with the character? Is it necessary for the story? you consider the role of idioms in the source and target cultures, especially from the perspective of children; it's important to think about how the source and target cultures employ idioms. Is there a similar idiom in my own language? you should look at previous translations in other books to see how the idiom or similar ones were handled in similar texts. So you research what other translators have done in the same situation. and then you chose a translatorial strategy. Strategies for translating idioms You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar —> Snicket explains: “It’s just a fancy way of saying that you're more likely to get what you want by acting in a sweet way, like honey, rather than in a distasteful way, like vinegar”. Literal translation Translating the idiom/proverb literally, ignoring the metaphorical meanings. Explanation Adding an explanation of the idiom/proverb anywhere in the book. Retention Retaining an idiom/proverb directly, only if it is in a foreign language to both the source and target cultures. For example, if I'm transalting from English to Italian and I find a French idiom. Replacement Replacing/translating an idiom lr a proverb with one from the target language, even if the meanings and/or forms are not the same. Deletion Removing the idiom/proverb completely (and then compensate for it). Compensation Adding idiomatic language elsewhere in the text. The names in the series (of both people and places) were brilliantly created by the author and then they were translated from Italian to English. Proper names are studied in the field of linguistics called onomatology and are formally divided into two subcategories called: anthroponyms (names of living things and objects); toponyms (names of geographical places). The main function of proper names is to identify a unique referent, which means that proper names are “monoreferential”. In literature, the monoreferential names always carry an extra meaning: they give information about the place or the person or the thing, and this is why we call these names “expressive elements in language”. For example, if we look at Harry Potter’s names, they are always monoreferential but they are also expressive (Neville Longbottom became Neville Paciock in the Italian version because of how the character is described at the beginning of the saga). Characters' names in Geronimo Stilton Geronimo Stilton He’s a learned and brainy mouse, editor of The Rodent’s Gazette. Although his origin is Italian, he doesn't seem to be an Italian noise at all, on the contrary, he almost looks like an English gentleman with his English name, his tweed jacket and trousers and his round reading glasses. If we, as Italians, think about how many Geronimos we’ve ever met, we get that it's not really an Italian name. Benjamin Stilton He’s a sweet and loving 9-year-old mouse, Geronimo’s favourite nephew. His name is a typical English-American name. Tea Stilton → Thea Stilton She’s Geronimo’s sister and special correspondent at The Rodent’s Gazette. In the English version, her name changes a little bit: her name was necessarily changed (with adaptation) because if British kids would have read the original version, it would have sounded like tea (the beverage). Trappola Stilton → Trap Stilton His name changes in the English translation (with literal translation); it's a very good choice because the expressiveness of the names remains the same. Patty Spring (English name) → Petunia Pretty Paws Changes according to her personality: she's very popular, very pretty, everybody likes her. The Italian name is an interesting name for young Italian readers, it sounds foreign (and cool); in the translation was created the alliteration of her name was. Also, “pretty paws” says something about her character: she's of course pretty and she probably cares about the way she looks. Pandora Woz (Polpetta) → Bugsy Wugsy (Little Tornado) Her name is completely changed: from the Italian version we get she's probably funny (because she's also called polpetta); in English, we have the repetition of a sound that makes the name interesting and funny (also, “little tornado” was chosen because it represents her character). Also, we have: Ciccioloso Cuordiciccia da Cicci → Robert Roundmouse of Stoutville It's a funny Italian name, you love the character just by looking at his name, and you also get that he’s chubby. But it's a difficult name to translate into another language, and here the translator tried to recreate the alliteration in another language but it wasn't possible to keep the same exact expressive meaning. Unfortunately, there is a little translation lost. Tanfotto Puzzodiratto da Odoruccio → Richard Reekrat of Stinkonia Even if not like the original one, we do understand who the character is (reek something that really really smells), but it's not as good as the original. Also, the first name “Richard” was added out of the blue (it helps with the alliteration so it works for English speakers, but it wouldn't in Italian), so we see a replacement in action. Places names in Geronimo Stilton Some words were changed in the translation, but only English speakers can understand: Italian English Reference in real life Stadio is replaced with “Mousidon Square Garden” which reminds us of the Madison Square Garden Salone dei concerti is replaced with “Catnegie Hall” which reminds us of the Carnegie Hall Tennis is replaced with “Blushing Meadow Tennis Courts” which reminds us of Flushing Meadows Tennis Courts Parco dei divertimenti is replaced with “Curlyfur Island Amusement Park” which reminds us of the Long Island Amusement Park Fonte Fontina is replaced with “ Cheddar Springs” which reminds us of Palm Springs Translating allusions, wordplays and nonsense in CL Allusion / intertextuality An allusion is a reference to a pre-existing object: it can be a person, a book, a film, an event, etc. It's a reference to something that someone else has written: a reference to another children’s book, to a real person in life or to a historical person. Allusions are references to other texts or cultural items; they are stylistic devices that, if recognized by the audience, can quickly create a setting or feeling or send a message. Basically, they are intentional messages that the writer includes in the book directed to the readers. By mentioning someone or mentioning a book, the author wants to create a positive relationship with the readers, which helps the readers to understand the allusion. But are they appropriate devices in children’s literature? Someone says allusions are too complicated to be fully understood by kids because they have very limited knowledge of the language; their experience of the world is limitate and, because of that, they might not get the allusion, and the special relationship with the author is no longer created. An allusion can be a single word, an entire phrase, an entire chapter, a characterization of another book or movie, a scene or more. If they work, they work well because they work as inside jokes that are culturally embedded, so only the people who have come across certain cultural elements can fully understand them. For example, in a book read in one country certain elements can be inside jokes between the reader and the author; but in the same book in another country and another culture, the inside joke doesn't work anymore. As translators, we can have a hard time dealing with them, but they're useful elements. We can allude by: quoting to send a special message or show how the character is; choosing specific names for characters or objects they refer to (if something is widely known in one country, it's easy for the author to create the atmosphere or send messages in just a few words to add an extra meaning). using reminiscent descriptions or characteristics; using a reference but in a reverse situation; employing part of a well-known or set phrase; giving a certain amount of information about a particular reference, with the apparent hope or expectation that the reader will be able to fill in the rest. Sometimes the author can use an allusion and then also explain it (or partially explain it), hoping it will be understood by the young readers. According to Lefevere, there are four types of allusions that are likely to occur with regularity in literature written in English: biblical, classical, cultural and literary. They can depend on the language the text has been written in, and the age and educational background of the intended audience. It's possible to create these types of allusions for young readers too, but we should keep them very simple because children are going to read them. Why do writers utilise allusions so much? According to Lefevere, writers are often allied to other works they are part of (or to works from other literature) to make readers aware of similarities and differences between what they are reading and what is alluded to. Leppihalme mentioned other possibilities: to create a special relationship between reader and author (if the reader understands the allusion); to expand the reader's knowledge (teaching an allusion, the writer is mentioning someone or something and with this, he/she hopes the kid is going to search that reference if he doesn't know it); to show how much the writer has read, how educated he is / to show off a little bit; to enrich the work by bringing in new meanings and associations. It's an attempt to characterise people, or suggest thoughts or unconscious impressions and attitudes in characters. If you have a character that makes a lot of literary allusions, you get that the character has read a lot. So instead of describing the character utilizing certain words, you make the character speak because it's more interesting, and when the character speaks it makes a lot of allusions YAL in translation Translation studies problems the transaltor has when he has to deal with children literature and YA literature; actually, it's a problem that belong to every novel. It's important to rememeber we’re dealing with a different type of audience, an audience that doesn't know dialects (for example). Also, kids are not patience at all (not just with reading), so when they meet something “difficult” they simply put the book down. So when we came across dialects in literature in general, these elements are very enriching because they tell us a lot of information regarding the person that is speaking. At the same time, depending on the age of the reader, the message can get through or not. For example, if in a book a character speaks with a Bergamo’s accent, and uses particular and non-standard words from the Bergamo’s dialect, you can get a lot of information depending on the types of words he uses: he's Italian, he has gew up in the Northern Italy, you can get the age of the character and how educated the character is. So you can get a lot of information through dialogue and this is why authors use this technique, because they don't have to lose time by explaining all those things about the character; you can just let the character utilises a certain dialogue or accent and tell those information quicker. And by doing that, you can also make a book speaks. In children literature and YA literature characters speak much often than in average literature because they need to keep the attention of the reader, and they do that by making the character utilising descriptions, which can boring the reader sometimes (especially the really young ones). You hear people using a certain dialogue or a certain inflection and this is due to the morphological and syntactical characteristics typical of this variety; a dialect is present almost exclusively in oral form But Dimitrova said that «the dialect features are used mainly in direct speech and other techniques that the author uses to convey the speech of fictional characters». So in the moment you receate a dialogue in written forms, you make the dialect or the inflection suffers a number of restrictions because of the different medium that is used for the transmission of the message: the author finds himself having to respect the rules of the written language also for an oral form of language. So we have a number of artistic restrinctions and linguistic restrictions we have to consider: artistic restrictions concern the content that the author decides to transmit; there are types of words that you might decide to utilize or not in one dialect. So if you know a dialect uses a lot of swearing or cruel words, you might don't want to include them. linguistic restrictions affecting how the speech is represented; you have to transcribed everything that is said and you have to transfer the sound into letters (and that can be problematic). There are markers that are used by writers to render dialects in written form are: morphosyntactic; orthographic / phonological; lexical markers. Phonological and orthographic markers have the form of an alternative spelling, whose function is to indicate a pronunciation that deviates from standard pronunciation. It's possible to change the spelling to forcing the reader to recreate a certain sound or a certain flexion. There might be a problem: we teach kids to spelling words from the standard italian, so a kid need to have the ability to recognise what he's reading is non-standard language. The word is spelled in a different way because it’s a different type of language; not incorrect, just different. The idea of a dialect is not created directly, but thanks to non- standard orthography that suggests the idea of a linguistic variety. For example, in the Harry Potter’s books Hagrid speaks with a specific dialect (and not with the standard language): “Yeh look a lot like yer dad, but yeh’ve got yer mum’s eyes.” Variation in vocabulary is the most widely used strategy used by authors who wish to introduce lexical elements in their works, together with the use of cultural stereotypes. Authors generally take advantage of linguistic stereotypes easily recognised by the average reader, making sure that certain assumptions and images will be triggered and, consequently, contribute to the description of the characters in literary texts. The use of dialects in literature goes hand in hand with the idea of utilizing those cultural stereotypes (whether they’re good or bad). Hagrid is an example in this case: he's different from the other people at Hogwarts; he’s physical different, his clothes are different, his role at Hogwarts is different, he utilises the dialect of the South West. JK Rowling knows it very well because she grew up in that area, so Hagrid is a really important character for her. Different types of dialects in the UK There are different types of dialects in the UK with different characteristics and different inflections. For example, some areas in London speak what is called a “Cockney English”, which belongs to the working class (also called blue collar). A received pronunciation is a super standard pronunciation that you learn at school. It's spoken for example by the Queen, but normally people in the UK doesn't speak like that. Only a minority utilises this pronunciation: people who want to let other seen they went to Oxford or Cambridge, or that have a professional and important job (university professors don't utilise that). This pronunciation is not located geographically, but it has to do with the accultural perception of the person (with a stereotype); it's the image you wanna give to other people Hagrid has a Wesr Country pronunciation. Every time he opens his mouth, English people perceived the classical stereotype for this part of the country: a simple person with a simple job (like a farmer), or a pirate. You can speak with a different dialect, but you're proud of it because it's your heritage. Linguistic characteristics of the Southwest British: Rhoticity → preservation or the / r / sound after a vowel (ba:rn). Voiced consonant, especially / z /, where the corresponding voiceless consonant /s/ is standard. The West Country county of Somerset in this way is sometimes rendered as Zummerzet. Also in writing, every time I should write -s I write -z even if it's not right in the spelling. Use of pronouns and verbs → there is the reversal of the normal use of pronouns in standard English (from Give it to him, not them – she doesn’t need it to Give it to he, not they – her don’t need it). Also, use of the single verb form be instead of the different forms am, is, are in standard English, and a similar use of the negative form ben’t (I be, you be, she be, they be / I ben’t, she ben’t). The perspection that we have as standard speakers of one language is that whenever we encounter something like this it's incorrect because we have learned that in school; but when we study the different varieties of English we should not move from “correct to incorrect”, but from “this is standard to this is non-standard” (it’s different but it’s okay, because it just tells me the person comes from a different place and has a whole different cultural background). Translating dialects in YA literature If it's a little bit hard to transfer dialect forms of oral English into written English, you can imagine how hard it is to transafer a dialect from one language to another language / from one country to another country. We have big problems when we try to translate dialect because it, just as idiomatic expressions and slang, are deeply rooted in a culture. So how do you transplant a language like dialect to another culture / language? Deeply steeped in the SL culture, the translator understandably wants to convey every inflexion, every nuance that distinguishes the dialect group. This is a goal that speaks well of the translator’s seriousness and dedication, but it is also an impossible one. Basically, Epstein says it's really impossible to transfer dialect from one country to another. Dimitrova, instead, says an important factor is the translator’s perception and understanding of the dialect features in the source text. Even before asking ourselves if it's possible, we should ask ourselvs if it's easy for a translator who understand the dialect to undestand what the dialect implies. It's not easy because you don't only have to know the language very well, but also you have to know the culture very well. As translator, you don't only have to know standard English really well but also all the varieties of English (if not all, many varieties), so when you meet a dialect in English you're able to understand which dialect it is, where it is located and what implies for the story and for the characters, and what the cultural connections implies. But not everybody agrees. Newark, for example, thinks that sociolects are relatively unimportant and we can opt instead for stylization/standardization; they are not that important in literature, so we can eliminate them. Bonaffini believes, instead, that dialects are essential elements in literary texts and should be dealt with care. In his works, he focused on the Italian linguistic situation and realized the importance of dialects in Italy, which have been considered in recent years important for “the rehabilitation of ethnic history and memory”. People who work in translation studies and literature studies do not always agree, but they agree on the fact that dialect elements are there for a reason: they are very useful because dialect create elements in literature but they are difficult to translate. Should dialects be used/translated in YA literature? Even if somehow we recreate a dialect in another language, is it okay for children? If a book presents non- standard language or a dialect a child is not familiar with, the comprehension of the text is seriously compromised. However, it might be, as in Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, that the author considers it necessary and fundamental to reproduce the dialectal forms typical of the different characters, since “using dialect helped to realistically portray the time, the place, and the characters”. Mark Twain was the first author to utilize dialects as a literary form to represent the culture and the living situation of the US at the end of the 19th century. At that time, people spoke with very strong accent, especially the one living in the Southern States and what he wanted to do in his stories was to recreate those scenes where young people / children between the age of 10-13 spoke with a certain kind of language; children didn't utilize only a dialect, but also slang (and it's something that happen today as well). A dialect can be a pedagogical instrument to teach, about a particular place or period in time or group of people, or helping readers accept different people, or making readers aware of stereotypes. So we don't have to completely avoid them in children literature because something that sounds different for a child, might enrich instead. A drawback of narratives that use dialects is that often adults, who function as literary gatekeepers, believe that these narratives are detrimental for the education of the youngster because it encourages children to use non-standard language or [because] it otherwise disturbs their linguistic education and training. This happens often in US where parents decide what the child can read even in school and say something like: “This is appropriate because it is standard English; this is not appropriate because the characters speak with a lot of slang or with a dialect, so I don't want my child to be exposed to non-standard language because my child is still learning the language”. A dialect could distract an already precarious concentration while reading, but it also enriching. In translation, it's also possible to simplify the dialect forms a little bit; if it's too specific, we can eliminate some forms to still make it look as a dialect but also to make it more understandable. Translation techniques Epstein proposes 8 possible techniques to translate dialects in children's literature. 1. Deletion It's the easiest way out. Deletion is an extreme technique in translation, which is adopted only when the translator feels that there are no alternatives to efficiently render a particular passage that is not essential for the story. Basically, the translator delete an entire sentence / paragraph. 2. Standardization Another easy technique, where non-standard English becomes standard English, or non-standard English becomes standard Italian (in translation). It’s perhaps the most used strategy in the translation of dialects, particularly in children's literature, and consists in translating linguistic varieties using a standard language. 3. Replacement Replacement occurs when you replace one dialect with another dialect, but this is possible only when the socio-economic and geographical conditions of the culture of origin and arrival are almost identical. In this case we can talk about Parallel Dialect Translation, which is a dangerous technique. For example, two near countries (like Sweden and Norway) have two different dialects but similar enough that people understand each other; it's possible to substitute one with the other because they are still understandable and because, culturally speaking, there are enough similarities to replace one dialect to another one. 4. Compensation It's a technique that involves inserting dialectal elements in certain parts of the target text, although there are none in the original; it compensates for the impossibility of rendering other dialectal forms in the source text. It’s used when, for example, we also use deletion. 5. Addition It's a type of compensation and consists in adding dialectal forms even if they are not present in the source text.