How important is the way you say it? A discussion on ...

30 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion and Alan Jay Lerner's My Fair Lady, as well as the contextual factors which might have influenced the translators' choices. Keywords: ...
How  important  is  the  way  you  say  it?   A  discussion  on  the  translation  of  linguistic  varieties  

DRAFT VERSION

    Sara  Ramos  Pinto   Faculty  of  Letters  –  University  of  Lisbon   University  College  London         Discussions   of   translation   often   rely   on   the   concept   of   meaning   -­‐   not   only   the   meaning  of  the  words,  but  also  the  meaning  of  the  use  of  certain  words  in  a  certain   text  and  context.  Moreover,  translation  always  involves  a  process  of  identifying  the   different   components   of   the   texts   in   order   to   establish   a   hierarchy   of   relevance   of   those   elements   (see   Toury   1980:   38).   The   priority   given   to   some   elements   to   the   detriment  of  others  will  have  a  decisive  influence  on  the  choice  of  certain  strategies   and  the  final  outcome.       The  literary  use  of  a  dialect  in  literary  texts  seems  to  be  a  particular  good  example  of   that   balancing   of   meaning   and   prioritization   of   elements.   Not   only   because   of   its   very   localised   meaning   (both   in   time   and   space),   but   also   because   it   is   always   embedded  in  the  source  text  with  a  communicative  and  semiotic  significance.  It  can   challenge   the   translator   who,   when   faced   with   the   impossibility   of   looking   for   referential   equivalencies   and   formal   correspondences,   is   forced   to   decide   on   the   importance  and  meaning  of  the  use  of  a  specific  dialect  in  the  text.  That  decision  will   define   the   strategies   to   be   used,   which   can   go   from   total   normalization   of   the   text   to   a  recreation  of  a  linguistic  variety  in  the  target  text.     The  purpose  of  this  article  is  twofold:  to  present  for  discussion  a  model  summarising  the   different   strategies   acknowledged   by   different   researchers   in   several   case-­‐studies;   to   present  and  discuss  the  strategies  recognized  in  a  corpus  of  12  Portuguese  translations  of   Bernard   Shaw’s   Pygmalion   and   Alan   Jay   Lerner’s   My   Fair   Lady,   as   well   as   the   contextual   factors  which  might  have  influenced  the  translators'  choices.     Keywords:  Linguistic  variation,  normalization,  page  translation,  stage  translation,   screen  translation      

1

1

  The   flower   girl:   Ow,   eey   y∂-­‐ooa   san,   is   e?   Wal,   fewd   dan   y’   d∂-­‐ ooty   bawmz   a   mather   should,   eed   now   bettern   to   spawl   a   pore   gel’s  flahrzn  then  ran  any  athaht  pyin.  Will  y∂-­‐oo  py  me  f’them?   (Here,   with   apologies,   this   desperate   attempt   to   represent   her   dialect   without   a   phonetic   alphabet   must   be   abandoned   as   unintelligible  outside  London)    George  Bernard  Shaw,  Pygmalion  (1916)       The   reader   of   George   Bernard   Shaw's   Pygmalion   meets   the   surprising   italicised   passage   in   brackets  above  at  the  end  of  Eliza  Doolittle’s  third  speech,   and   it   is   likely   to   provide   relief,   since   the   time   and   effort   spent   on   the   first   three   speeches   of   the   famous   flower   girl   are   challenging  to  say  the  least,  as  the  author  acknowledges.  Although  dialects  and  accents  had   played   a   role   in   literature   by   authors   such   as   Chaucer,   Shakespeare   or   Dickens,   their   literary  representation  had  always  conformed  to  the  written  norm  and  stayed  far  from  the   real  features  of  accent  and  dialect  one  could  hear  while  walking  on  the  streets.  Accuracy   on  the  scale  illustrated  by  George  Bernard  Shaw  had  been  avoided  because,  as  his  example   illustrates,   too   much   accuracy   can   compromise   the   reader's   understanding   of   the   character’s   speech.   Generally,   therefore,   dialects   and   accents   in   literary   texts   are   literary   re-­‐creations  that  are  only  marginally  concerned  with  accuracy.  Even  G.  B.  Shaw  abandons   his   acknowledged   failed   attempt   to   reproduce   Eliza’s   dialect   accurately   in   the   remaining   acts  of  the  play.  Authors  take  advantage  of  linguistic  stereotypes  easily  recognised  by  the   average   reader,   making   sure   that   certain   assumptions   and   images   will   be   triggered   and,   consequently,   help   with   the   description   of   the   characters   in   literary   texts,   who   are   differentiated,  not  only  by  what  they  say,  but  also  by  how  they  say  it  –  to  be  more  specific  –   by  which  linguistic  variety  they  use.  As  soon  as  one  linguistic  variety  is  established  as  the   standard  variety  in  a  society,  (normally  for  political  and  social  reasons),  the  others  tend  to   be   considered   less   prestigious   and   perhaps   incorrect.   Non-­‐standard   varieties   easily   become   associated   with   peripheral   geographic   spaces   and   with   a   lower   sociocultural   status,   as   well   as   oral   speechi,   causing   language   to   be   an   important   element   in   the   characterisation  process.   It  is  this  same  notion  of  correctness,  propriety  or  adequacy  of  a  language  associated  with  a   place   or   a   person   that   has   also   made   language   a   powerful   element   in   the   production   of   comic   moments.   Reading   the   play   or   seeing   the   film,   it   is   hard   to   resist   laughing   at   the   inadequacy   of   Eliza   Doolittle’s   speech   at   Professor   Higgins’   mother’s   house,   a   place   that,   from  its  decoration  and  other  characters’  attitudes,  is  interpreted  as  prestigious  and  thus  a   place  where  non-­‐standard  speech  will  seem  “inappropriate”.  

2

2

As  we  can  see,  the  presence  of  literary  dialects  tends  to  provide  added  communicative  and   semiotic  value  to  a  text.  In  the  context  of  translation,  this  means  extra  difficulties  for  the   translator.   He/she   faces   the   difficult   problem   of   having   a   linguistic   variety   in   the   source   text   which   reflects   the   close   relationship   between   the   speaker,   the   medium   and   the   context   in   which   it   is   used.   It   evokes   and   explores   extralinguistic   knowledge,   since   speakers  attribute  value  to  the  varieties,  therefore  establishing  a  hierarchy  of  varieties,  as   well  as  a  hierarchy  of  speakers  of  those  varieties.  This  creates  moments  of  tension  (Lane   Mercier,   1995,   1997),   “culture   bumps”   (Leppihalme,   1997),   since   the   linguistic   elements   are   both   culturally   conditioned   and   socially   regulated,   leading   some   authors   to   consider   the  translation  of  accents  and  dialects  as  impossible  (House,  1973).   The  difficulty  in  translating  literary  dialects  therefore  lies  not  only  in  linguistic  problems,   but   also   in   pragmatic   and   semiotic   difficulties,   since   their   presence   in   the   text   adds   meaning   far   beyond   the   linguistic   level.   This   is   why   it   is   important   to   discuss   the   translator’s   decision   to   recreate   or   not   to   recreate   linguistic   variation   and   how   he/she   chooses   to   go   about   the   problem,   as   this   decision   may   modify,   or   even   subvert,   the   work’s   internal  coherence.     My   purpose   in   this   paper   is   threefold:   firstly,   to   present   for   discussion   a   model   which   summarises   the   different   strategiesii   acknowledged   by   different   researchers   in   several   case  studies;  secondly,  to  present  and  discuss  the  strategies  recognized  in  a  corpus  of  12   Portuguese  translations  of  Bernard  Shaw’s  Pygmalion  and  Alan  Jay  Lerner’s  My  Fair  Lady,   as   well   as   the   contextual   factors   which   might   have   led   to   them.   Thirdly,   and   since   this   corpus   comprises   translations   for   different   media   –   translations   for   the   page,   stage   and   screen   –   it   is   also   the   aim   of   this   paper   to   observe   whether   it   is   possible   to   identify   regularities  between  a  specific  medium  and  a  certain  strategy.       Linguistic  varieties  in  literary  texts   As   mentioned   above,   the   creative   use   of   linguistic   varieties   in   literary   dialogue   helps   to   inform   the   reader   about   which   character   is   speaking   and   under   which   circumstances.   It   becomes  a  textual  resource  that  helps  the  reader  to  define  the  sociocultural  outline  of  the   character,   as   well   as   his/her   position   in   the   sociocultural   fictional   context.   Knowing   the   social   stereotypes   and   assumptions   readers   have   and   share   with   the   rest   of   the   society   they   are   a   part   of,   the   author   uses   fictional   varieties   with   the   expectation   that   this   will   encourage   certain   reactions   and   assumptions   which   will   aid   characterisation.   It   leads   to   the   stratification   of   the   participants   in   the   dialogue,   since   the   speakers   tend   to   associate   higher  prestige  with  a  standard  variety,  and,  consequently,  to  undervalue  other  varieties  

3

3

culturally   associated   with   peripheral   geographic   spaces   and   with   a   lower   sociocultural   status.     As  established  above,  the  literary  recreation  of  accents  and  dialects  has  no  pretensions  of   being   accurate,   but   the   degree   of   linguistic   mimicry   depends   on   the   author's   aesthetic,   narrative,  thematic,  stylistic  or  functional  objectives.  The  literary  recreation  of  a  linguistic   variety  is  based  on  a  previous  selection,  which  results  from  different  levels  of  mediation,   being   truly   a   pseudo-­‐variety,   a   fiction,   which   Olga   Brodovich   has   labelled   as   a   ‘scenic   dialect’  (1997:  26).  Work  by  Blake  (1981,  1995),  Page  ([1973]  1988)  and  Chapman  (1994)   suggests  that  the  recreation  of  linguistic  varieties  results  from  the  mediation,  not  only  of   the   purposes   to   be   fulfilled   by   the   translation   in   the   target   culture,   but   also   from   what   has   been   established   by   that   system’s   literary   tradition   or   factors   such   as   legibility,   intelligibility  and  the  medium  in  which  the  translation  will  come  to  light.       The  model   Based  on  the  conclusions  of  several  descriptive  case  studiesiii  as  well  as  my  own  research,   it  is  possible  to  summarize  the  different  strategies  for  translating  linguistic  varieties  in  a   model   such   as   the   one   to   be   presented   below.   There   are   no   prescriptive   intentions   behind   this  model  or  any  kind  of  judgements  on  which  strategies  are  preferred  and  which  should   be   avoided.   My   aim   has   merely   been   to   gather   information   from   different   case   studies   and   organize  it  into  a  single  typology  of  strategies,  so  that  future  researchers  can  more  easily   access   this   information   and   work   with   the   same   concepts.   Existing   case   studies   tend   to   refer  to  the  same  strategy  in  different  ways  or  to  classify  the  same  concept  as  belonging  to   several  different  strategies.  This  typology  is  certainly  not  complete,  and  further  research   will   surely   bring   more   detailed   information   concerning   these   strategies   or   add   more   strategies,   but,   for   now,   it   is   hoped   that   it   will   bring   the   available   information   together   more   coherently.   I   shall   now   present   the   different   levels   of   the   typology,   as   well   as   the   strategies   it   encompasses.   Finally,   I   will   discuss   the   strategies   identified   in   a   number   of   Portuguese  translations,  in  order  to  try  to  establish  what  kinds  of  context  encourage  the   choice  of  some  of  the  strategies  present  in  this  model.    

4

4

    Figure  1:  Strategies  identified  in  the  translation  of  linguistic  variation  in  literary  text  

    From  the  data  available  in  several  case  studies,  it  seems  the  translator  is  first  faced  with   the  decision  to  preserve  or  not  to  preserve  linguistic  variation.  A  decision  to  use  only  one   variety   throughout   the   text   will   result   in   normalization   (if   the   standard   variety   is   used)   or   dialectization  (if  a  non-­‐standard  variety  is  used)  of  the  discourse.  The  common  association   made  between  standard  variety  and  written  discourse  (cf.  footnote  1)  leads  to  a  tendency   to   translate   towards   the   standard   variety,   so   it   is   not   surprising   that   strategies   of   broad   discourse   standardization   are   often   identified   in   contexts   of   authoritarian   regimes   or   societies  where  there  exists  a  broad  gap  between  standard  and  non-­‐standard  varieties  in   terms  of  prestige  (Hatim,  1990-­‐91;  Ben-­‐Shahar,  1994).  In  the  former  case,  state  censorship   is  frequently  the  manner  in  which  the  standardization  of  the  discourse  is  imposed;  in  the   latter,   the   target   public   may   express   dissatisfaction   with   the   use   of   non-­‐standard   varieties   in  such  a  prestigious  medium  as  writing.  

5

5

However,   even   though   normalization   strategies   have   been   identified   in   several   case   studies  (it  was  even  formulated  as  one  of  the  translation  universals  in  Baker,  1993),  it  is   not  common  to  find  cases  where  a  complete  normalization  of  the  discourse  has  occurred.   A   broad   normalization   of   the   discourse   tends   to   take   place   where   the   non-­‐standard   discourse  appears  in  secondary  characters’  speech.  In  addition,  the  relationship  between   the  hierarchy  established  among  plot  elements  and  the  recognition  of  linguistic  variation   as  a  peripheral  element  can  also  lead  to  a  standardization  strategy.  If  cases  like  Pygmalion,   where   non-­‐standard   speech   plays   a   central   role   in   the   plot,   make   it   difficult   not   to   translate   as   non-­‐standard   speech,   in   other   plays,   Man   and   Superman   also   by   Bernard   Shaw,   for   example,   where   the   non-­‐standard   speech   only   appears   in   secondary   characters,   the  normalization  of  the  speech  could  be  easily  accomplished  without  compromising  the   logic   of   the   plot.   As   previously   mentioned,   the   result   will   depend   mostly   on   the   importance  and  priority  given  to  each  of  the  elements  of  the  plot.     The   opposite   movement   –   the   ‘dialectization’   of   the   discourse   –   can   also   be   identified   in   specific   historic   moments.   The   studies   developed   by   Brissett   (1996),   Cronin   (1996),   Findlay   (2000)   and   Chapdelaine   (2006)   seem   to   support   the   link   between   nationalist   movements   and   the   strategy   of   dialectalization.   Acting   to   ensure   cultural   and   linguistic   autonomy,  nationalist  movements  see  translation  as  “an  act  of  reclaiming,  of  recentring  of   the   identity,   a   re-­‐territorialization   operation”   (Brisset,   1996:   165).   The   standard   variety   has  now  to  compete  with  a  non-­‐standard  variety,  with  which  more  prestige  is  associated,   and  is  seen  as  the  only  one  capable  of  expressing  the  identity  of  the  group  supporting  it.  It   reveals   a   clear   attitude   in   the   subversion   of   the   linguistic   system,   as   well   as   the   power   relations   it   supports.   Cases   like   the   one   reported   by   Annie   Brissett   in   Quebéc   or   by   Michael   Cronin   in   Ireland,   where   translation   into   a   minority   and,   consequently,   non-­‐ standard   language   has   been   used   to   affirm   the   language   as   the   unique   language   of   a   certain  nation,  are  well  known  among  translation  scholars  today.     The   decision   to   preserve   linguistic   variation   will   mean   a   long   process   of   choice   amongst   several   other   options.   The   translator   will   have   to   choose   between   preserving   or   not   preserving  the  spatial  and/or  time  coordinates  of  the  source  text,  having  four  possibilities:   »  To  maintain  the  space  and  time  coordinates  (e.g.  Pygmalion  in  London  in  1916)   »   To   maintain   the   space   but   not   the   time   coordinates   (e.g.   Pygmalion   in   London   in   2007)   »  To  not  maintain  the  space  and  time  coordinates  (e.g.  Pygmalion  in  Lisbon  in  2007)   »   To   maintain   the   time   but   not   the   space   coordinates   (e.g.   Pygmalion   in   Lisbon   in   1916)    

6

6

The   re-­‐allocation   of   the   plot   can   be   seen   as   a   tactic   to   reduce   the   “strangeness”   effect   caused   by   the   use   of   a   specific   regional   or   social   variety   in   a   foreign   environment.   The   placing  of  the  plot  in  contemporary  times  might  help  the  translator  to  avoid  the  difficulty   of   writing   in   a   past-­‐time   variety   of   the   target   language.   Keeping   in   mind   the   case   of   Pygmalion,  it  would  not  be  difficult  to  understand  the  choice  of  any  of  these  possibilities.   The  difficulty  of  finding  a  sociolect  with  the  same  social  connotations  as  Cockney  in  1916   would  certainly  make  the  options  of  re-­‐allocating  to  Lisbon  (if  translating  into  Portuguese)   or   placing   the   plot   in   2001very   tempting.   The   former   option   would   save   the   translation   from  the  incongruence  of  having  the  characters  speaking  a  Portuguese  dialect  in  London.   The  latter,  would  allow  the  translator  to  avoid  the  problem  of  recreating  a  language  from   decades   ago,   about   which   he   or   she   may   not   possess   enough   information.   Nevertheless,   and  because  of  the  modifications  it  imposes  on  the  text,  the  non-­‐preservation  of  one  of  the   coordinates  normally  leads  the  public  to  classify  the  translator’s  work  as  an  adaptation.     Having   chosen   to   preserve   the   spatial   coordinates   of   the   source   text   (ST),   the   translator   can  then  decide  to  make  use  of  familiar  features  recognized  as  non-­‐standard  in  the  target   culture   or   to   make   use   of   features   not   familiar   to   the   target   culture   receiver.   In   the   first   case,   several   strategies   can   be   identified,   outlining   a   continuum   from   a   more   to   a   less   normalized  discourse:     ·

Use   of   the   standard   variety   in   direct   discourse   followed   by   written   indications   informing   the   reader   that   the   character   was   speaking   in   a   non-­‐standard   variety.   The   introduction   of   explicit   indications   of   the   variety   spoken   by   the   character   is   a   strategy  of  compensation  for  having  erased  the  non-­‐standard  features.  

·

Reduction  of  the  linguistic  variation  to  forms  of  address  and  honorifics.  Even  though   it  erases  the  non-­‐standard  features,  this  strategy  allows  the  reader  to  understand   the  power  relations  between  the  characters  

·

Upgrading   the   level   of   standard   discourse   formality.   In   this   case,   the   linguistic   variation  comes  from  the  fact  that  standard  discourse  is  more  formal  in  the  target   text   when   compared   to   the   source   text   rather   than   from   the   use   of   non-­‐standard   features.  

·

Usage  of  oral  discourse  features.  Given  the  fact  that  oral  discourse  is  less  prestigious   than   written   discourse,   certain   characteristic   features   of   oral   discourse   are   sometimes  used  to  portray  the  discourse  as  non-­‐standard.  

·

Usage  of  features  from  different  non-­‐standard  varieties.  The  strategy  of  not  choosing   a   particular   variety   promotes   the   identification   of   the   discourse   as   sub-­‐standard   and   the   polarization   between   standard/   correct/   higher   status   versus   non-­‐ standard/  incorrect/  lower  status.    

7

7

·

Usage   of   features   of   a   specific   non-­‐standard   variety.   This   strategy   promotes   the   identification   of   a   specific   regional   and/or   social   variety   as   well   as   the   social   meaning  attached  to  it.    

The   use   of   features   that   are   un-­‐familiar   to   the   target   text   receiver   can   be   motivated   by   the   fact  that  non-­‐familiar  features  are  also  used  in  the  source  text  (as  for  example  in  Anthony   Burges’   A   Clockwork   Orange,   where   a   new   language   based   on   English   and   Russian   is   created   and   shared   by   the   members   of   a   gang)   or   by   the   fact   that   the   target   system   and   public   do   not   easily   accept   the   idea   of   having   foreign   characters   in   foreign   territory   speaking   national   non-­‐standard   varieties.   In   certain   cultural   contexts,   the   suspension   of   linguistic  disbeliefiv  might  not  be  activated  in  relation  to  non-­‐standard  varieties,  even  if  it   is   normally   activated   in   relation   to   standard   variety.   Following   Olga   Brodovich   (1997),   we   understand   that,   in   certain   contexts,   the   translation   of   foreign   linguistic   varieties   into   some  native  varieties  might  not  be  well  received  by  the  target  readership,  who  would  not   accept   the   incongruence   of   having   an   English   character   in   London,   the   case   of   Eliza   in   Pygmalion,   speaking   a   specific   Russian   dialect,   for   example.   In   this   case,   we   can   identify   three  different  strategies:     ·

The   direct   import   of   certain   lexical   features   from   the   ST.   This   strategy   consists   on   leaving   some   of   the   lexical   items   present   in   the   target   text   (TT)   un-­‐translated.   This   seems   to   happen   mainly   when   those   lexical   items   were   already   foreign   in   the   SC   (one   can   think   of   Monsieur   Poirot   in   Agatha   Christie’s   books   where   some   French   words   are   introduced   to   bring   a   ‘French   tone’   to   the   character’s   speech),   or   in   cases   where   the   vocabulary   in   the   source   language   is   familiar   to   the   target   text   reader   and   will   not   compromise   the   understanding   of   the   speech.   In   this   latter   case,  the  translator  is  the  one  choosing  to  introduce  a  ‘foreign  tone’  to  the  text.    

·

The  introduction  of  lexical  features  from  the  ST,  but  following  the  spelling  norms  of   the   TT.   Following   Berezowski   (1997),   the   polish   translation   of   Herzog   by   S.   Bellow   seems  to  point  to  another  strategy  by  means  of  which  some  source  language  lexical   items   are   imported   into   the   target   text,   albeit   in   a   target   language   graphological   form.      

·

The   conception   of   a   ‘virtual   dialect’.   Cases   like   A   Clockwork   Orange   by   A.   Burgess   seem  to  force  the  translator  to  follow  the  author’s  example  and  also  create  a  new   dialect   based   on   the   target   language,   but   full   of   lexical   items   or   syntactic   constructions  strange  to  the  target  text  reader.        

One   could   try   to   define   all   the   possible   circumstances   underlying   the   choice   of   each   one   of   these   strategies,   however,   besides   the   difficulty   of   bearing   in   mind   all   the   possible   variables  and  contexts,  one  could  only  conclude  that  strategies  cannot  be  seen  as  better  or  

8

8

worse,  but  as  products  of  choices  in  context.  In  addition,  and  taking  into  consideration  that   the  translators,  often  with  no  specialized  linguistic  knowledge  of  their  own  language,  work   normally  with  stereotyped  features  easily  recognized  by  the  target  context  community,  we   can   in   most   cases   recognize   a   combination   of   different   strategies   in   the   same   translated   text.       The  case  study   The   corpus   defined   for   this   article   comprises   12   Portuguese   translations   of   George   Bernard  Shaw’s  Pygmalion  and  Alan  Jay  Lerner’s  My  Fair  Lady.       BOOK

1966 1972

Pygmalion translated by Marina Prieto My Fair Lady translated by H. Silva Letra Pygmalion translated by F. Mello Moser Pygmalion translated by L. F. Rebelo and J. Palma e Carmo

1974

1987

Pigmalião translated by Mário Abreu

My Fair Lady translated by J. Nunes de Carvalho and Teresa Sustelo (RTP) Pygmalion translated by Ruth Saraiva (RTP) Pygmalion translated by Rosário Vieira (SIC) My Fair Lady translated by Eulália Ramos (SIC)

1994 1995 1996 2001

SCREEN

Pygmalion translated by António Lopes Ribeiro

1945 1961

STAGE

My Fair Lady translated by Filipe La Feria

My Fair Lady translated by Filipe La Feria

  Figure  2:  Portuguese  translations  of  Pygmalion  and  My  Fair  Lady  for  page,  stage  and  screen.    

    The  use  of  a  particular  non-­‐standard  variety  of  British  English  –  Cockney  –  is  central  to  the   plot   of   both   plays,   which   can   be   summarized   as   the   teaching   of   a   standard   variety   by   a   phonetician  (Professor  Higgins)  to  a  common  flower  girl  speaker  of  Cockney  (Eliza).  Only   Eliza’s  lines  were  used  and  more  specifically  her  lines  as  a  speaker  of  Cockney,  since  it  is   not   my   purpose   here   to   work   on   idiolect   speech   marks   or   the   character's   evolutionary   progress.   The   analysis   of   the   parallel   corpus   was   made   semi-­‐automatically,   using   the   computer  programme,  Systemic  Coderv.  A  number  of  translation  strategies  were  identified   and  will  be  discussed  below.  

9

9

Since  one  of  the  purposes  of  this  paper  is  to  take  into  consideration  the  variable  ‘medium’,   the  analysis  was  designed  to  show  which  strategies  were  developed  within  each  medium,   what   may   have   influenced   these   choices,   and   what   can   be   learned   about   the   differences   between  translating  for  the  page,  stage  and  screen.   A  summary  of  the  main  types  of  phenomenon  observed  is  presented  below.     The  presence  of  linguistic  variation  in  the  source  text   The   source   text,   even   though   it   resorts   to   stereotyped   features,   clearly   promotes   the   identification  of  a  specific  regional  and  social  variable  –  Cockney.  The  play  can  be  divided   in   three   parts,   which   correspond   to   the   evolution   of   Eliza   in   her   learning   of   Standard   English.   As   discussed   above,   this   case   study   will   only   focus   on   the   first   phase,   where   the   effects  of  teaching  cannot  yet  be  noticed  in  Eliza’s  speech.   The   high   percentage   of   use   of   less   prestigious   varieties   (social   sub-­‐standard   variety   and   oral   register)   compared   to   the   lower   percentage   of   use   of   the   standard   variety,   confirms   the  communicative  meaning  the  nonstandard  variety  fulfils  in  the  text  –  characterization   of  Eliza  as  an  uneducated  and  low  class  flower  girl  in  London.  Concerning  textual-­‐linguistic   features,   the   preference   for   graphic   features   instead   of   lexical   or   morpho-­‐syntactic   ones   is   noticeable,   even   though   all   the   categories   show   a   higher   frequency   than   would   be   expected  in  the  context  of  the  English  literary  traditionvi.       The  target  texts   The  first  problem  faced  by  the  translator  is  the  asymmetry  of  the  Portuguese  and  English   diasystems   (dialect   pattern).   The   translator   of   the   1972   translation,   in   an   article   about   the   difficulties  of  this  translation,  refers  to  the  fact  that  there  is  no  Portuguese  low-­‐urban-­‐class   variety  corresponding  to  Cockneyvii.  This  situation  led  the  translator  to  attempt  to  create  a   pseudo-­‐variety   resulting   from   the   combination   of   features   from   different   dialects   generally   depicted   as   “popular”,   “uneducated”   and   sometimes   “incorrect”   by   the   community.   But   what   did   the   other   translators   opt   for?   And   to   what   extent   has   the   medium  influenced  their  decisions?       Page  translations   All  the  translations  published  in  book  form  show  a  preference  for  the  preservation  of  the   linguistic   variation   in   the   target   texts   (TT),   as   well   as   the   time-­‐space   coordinates   of   the   ST   (the   action   always   takes   place   in   London   of   the   beginning   of   the   XXth   Century).   In   what   can  be  seen  as  consideration  of  the  target  context,  we  can  also  identify  the  use  of  features   familiar  to  the  target  reader,  even  though  different  strategies  were  used.    

10

1 0

All   the   translations   make   use   of   features   generally   perceived   as   distinguishing   low   educational   level   and   low   social   status,   but   lower   percentages   are   manifest   in   the   translations   before   1974   in   relation   to   both   the   ST   and   the   remaining   translations.   The   year  of  1974,  which  marks  the  end  of  the  48-­‐years  long  right  wing  dictatorship,  is  a  critical   moment  in  Portuguese  history  and  the  end  of  Censorship  is  an  important  element  to  have   into   consideration   in   the   context   of   translation   of   dialects   as   the   translators   would   no   longer   face   institutional   pressure   against   the   use   of   non-­‐standard   varieties   in   literary   discourse.  Bearing   this   in  mind,  it  should   be  noticed   that   the   translations   published   before   1974  show  a  higher  discursive  normalization.  The  translation  of  1966  shows  such  a  highly   normalized  discourse  that  the  forms  of  address  become  an  important  additional  element   of  distinguishing  the  participant’s  social  statusviii.     It   becomes   also   relevant   to   notice   the   fact   that   oral   discourse   features   are   used   to   distinguish   the   discourse   as   non-­‐standard.   Features   such   as   ellipsis   and   contractionsix,   playing   with   the   association   made   between   written   discourse,   orthographic   norm   and   standard  variety,  seem  to  have  been  used  to  identify  the  discourse  as  non-­‐standard.  Even   though   this   tendency   is   noticeable   in   all   the   translations,   its   frequency   is   lower   in   the   pre-­‐ 1974   translations.   In   terms   of   levels   of   discourse,   there   is   a   visible   preference   for   lexical   and  graphic  features  (the  so-­‐called  “eye-­‐dialect”x)  in  loss  of  morpho-­‐syntactic  features.  At   this  point,  it  is  important  to  have  in  consideration  the  fact  the,  with  the  exception  of  swear   words,  lexical  features  are  perceived  by  speakers  of  Portuguese  as  a  less  grave  deviation   from   the   standard   when   compared   to   graphic   or   morpho-­‐syntactic   features,   i.   e.,   non-­‐ standard  features  in  Portuguese  can  be  organized  in  a  continuum  in  terms  of  the  level  of   gravity  they  are  perceived  to  portray  in  relation  to  the  standard  variety.  Lexical  features   would   be   closer   to   the   standard   followed   by   graphic   features.   Morpho-­‐syntactic   features   would  be  on  the  end  of  the  continuum  representing  the  highest  level  of  deviation  from  the   standard  discoursexi.  Bearing  this  in  mind,  it  is  thus  possible  to  assume  that  the  preference   for   lexical   features   to   be   recognized   in   the   translations   before   1974   results   in   a   higher   normalization,   as,   even   though   distinguishing   the   discourse   as   non-­‐standard,   the   use   of   lexical   features   would   result   in   a   target   text’s   discourse   with   a   lower   level   of   deviation   from   the   standard   discourse.   The   translations   published   after   1974   show   a   notorious   preference   for   graphic   features,   the   so-­‐called   “eye-­‐dialect”.   Even   though   still   avoiding   morpho-­‐syntactic  features,  these  translations  assume  a  clear  strategy  of  recreation  of  the   linguistic  variation  characteristic  of  the  source  text  and  not  one  of  normalization.     Two   of   the   translations   (1962   and   1987)   attempt   to   recreate   a   specific   regional   variety   (the   northern   dialect),   but   they   make   use   of   only   one   feature   -­‐   the   lack   of   distinction   between  [b]  and  [v]  –  and  not  very  frequently  and  regularlyxii.  As  we  come  to  understand  

11

1 1

from  the  translator’s  preface  in  the  1987  edition,  the  choice  of  this  specific  regional  variety   stems   more   from   the   fact   that   the   translator   grew   up   in   that   region   and   felt   more   comfortable   using   its   linguistic   features   in   his   recreation   than   from   the   socio-­‐semiotic   correspondence  between  that  variety  and  Cockney.       Stage  translations   In   the   translations   meant   for   theatre   performance,   we   can   also   recognize   the   option   to   preserve  linguistic  variation,  the  time-­‐space  coordinates  and  the  use  of  features  familiar  to   the  target  audience.  The  choice  of  preservation  of  the  time-­‐space  coordinates  (and  not  of  a   re-­‐allocation   of   the   plot   -­‐   a   strategy   frequently   used   in   theatre   and   present   in   one   of   the   Brazilian   translations   of   Pygmalion   –   Shaw,   1964)   shows   us   an   initial   concern   for   adequacy   vis-­‐á-­‐vis   the   ST.   Similarly   to   the   translations   published   in   book   form,   all   the   theatre   translations   make   use   both   of   features   generally   perceived   as   identifying   low   educational   level   and   low   social   status,   and   oral   discourse   features   as   non-­‐standard   features,   but   in   higher   percentages   for   both   categories.   The   percentage   of   standard   discourse   is   also   very   low,   lower   than   in   the   published   translations.   In   one   of   the   translations   (1945)   the   use   of   features   from   a   specific   regional   variety   are   evident,   but,   once   again,   it   shows   a   low   frequency   and   makes   use   of   a   single   feature   -­‐   the   lack   of   distinction   between   [b]   and   [v]   typical   of   the   northern   dialect.   Concerning   textual-­‐ linguistic   features,   it   should   be   noted   that   the   higher   percentage   of   morpho-­‐syntactic   marks  almost  non-­‐existent  in  the  published  translations,  as  well  as  the  use  of  several  kinds   of  graphic  marks  such  as  for  example  the  switch  in  vowel  qualityxiii,  monothongizationxiv,   metathesisxv  or  nasalization  of  the  vowel  at  the  beginning  of  the  wordxvi.     Screen  translations     In   the   translations   for   subtitling   it   is   possible   to   distinguish   two   groups   with   two   different   strategies.  The  first  group  is  composed  of  translations  from  1987  and  1994  for  the  public   Television  channel  RTP,  and  the  second  group  consists  of  translations  from  1995  and  1996   for   the   private   Television   channel   SIC.   In   the   first   group,   the   discourse   has   been   highly   normalized:  non-­‐standard  features  are  absent  and  most  ST  features  of  oral  discourse  are   omitted   (ellipsis,   interjections,   contractions,   etc.).   The   few   non-­‐standard   features   to   be   found  here  are  lexical  features  and  it  could  even  be  said  that  the  social  difference  is  only   perceptible  by  the  use  of  certain  forms  of  address.  In  the  second  group,  the  use  of  both  the   features   generally   perceived   as   identifying   low   educational   level   and   low   social   status   is   noticeable,   as   well   as   oral   discourse   features   as   nonstandard   features.   Even   though   morpho-­‐syntactic   features   are   almost   non-­‐existent,   as   in   the   published   translations,   a  

12

1 2

higher   percentage   of   lexical   and   graphical   features   is   noticeable   when   compared   to   the   rates  in  the  first  group.     A  commentary  on  the  data   From   the   analysis   outlined   above   and   among   all   the   strategies   identified,   this   paper   will   only   focus   on   two   main   strategies:   on   the   one   hand,   a   strategy   of   normalization   of   the   discourse;   on   the   other   hand   a   strategy   of   preservation   of   the   social   difference   between   the  participants  by  the  use  of  non-­‐standard  features  and  oral  features.     Normalization  of  the  discourse   As  already  seen,  the  tendency  to  normalize  the  discourse  is  noticeable  in  the  translations   published  before  1974  and  in  subtitles  broadcast  on  public  Television.  This  suggests  that   the   effort   to   keep   the   high   level   of   written   standard   Portuguese   might   be   due   to   the   pressure   of   censorship   in   the   case   of   published   books,   and   by   the   state-­‐owned   RTP   channel  (which  defines  itself  as  public  service)  in  the  case  of  subtitles.  The  fact  that  these   translations  prefer  to  use  lexical  features  than  grammatical  or  graphical  ones  suggests  that   the  translators  are  conscious  of  the  importance  of  the  sub-­‐standard  discourse  in  the  plot,   but   want   to   follow   standard   spelling.   The   translation   of   1972,   despite   making   use   of   graphical  features,  always  italicizes  them  in  order  to  signal  them  as  shifts  from  the  norm.   There   is   still   another   important   factor   which   was   certainly   taken   into   account   by   the   translators   –   legibility.   With   the   exception   of   the   1966   translation,   the   other   two   translations  were  published  in  very  popular  collectionsxvii  aiming  at  a  middle  class  reader   with   less   extensive   reading   experience   and   most   probably   not   acquainted   with   the   “eye-­‐ dialect”   tradition.   The   audiovisual   text,   addressing   a   very   diverse   public   with   different   cultural  backgrounds  and  reading  skills,  might  not  be  easily  read  if  constantly  presenting   graphic  features,  especially  by  the  young  (10  to15  years  old)  and  the  old  (55  to  70  years   old),  who  would  be  the  target  public  of  a  film  broadcast  at  2  p.m.  as  Pygmalion  and  My  Fair   Lady  were.   In   the   case   of   subtitling,   we   can   also   consider   the   fact   that   the   choice   not   to   portray   nonstandard   features   could   also   be   a   sign   of   acknowledgment   of   the   product   as   audiovisual:   relying   on   extra-­‐linguistic   elements,   the   translators   may   be   relying   on   an   appreciation   of   the   participant’s   different   status   on   the   basis   of   both   visual   (Eliza’s   clothing)  and  audible  input.     Use  of  sub-­‐standard  features  

13

1 3

The  choice  of  sub-­‐standard  discourse  might  be  interpreted  as  a  consideration  of  accuracy   with  respect  to  the  oral  register  of  the  source  text  as  well  as  adequacy  with  respect  to  the   target   culture   oral   discourse.   This   is   noticeable   especially   in   theatre   translations,   since   what   is   being   produced   is   a   written   translation   which   will   necessarily   come   to   life   in   a   different   channel.   In   written   translations,   non-­‐standard   discourse   can   be   suggested   by   the   use  of  oral  discourse  features  even  though  they  would  not  be  considered  as  nonstandard   in   Linguistics,   simply   because   they   represent   a   deviation   from   the   written   norm.   On   stage,   the  fact  that  it  is,  indeed,  oral  discourse  makes  those  same  features  natural  and  expected,   leading   the   translator   to   make   use   of   nonstandard   features   more   frequently.   Even   in   relation   to   the   influence   of   State   censorship   before   1974,   one   can   see   from   the   data   that   censorship   seemed   to   accept   non-­‐standard   oral   discourse   for   the   stage   though   it   did   not   accept  it  in  books  designed  for  reading  only.   As   mentioned   above,   in   more   recent   book   translations   (1972,   1987   and   2001)   and   in   private  channel  TV  subtitling  one  can  witness  the  use  of  what  is  called  “eye-­‐dialect”,  which   may   be   aiming   at   a   better   public   reception,   i.e.   the   translator   tries   to   avoid   a   negative   judgment   from   the   public   by   using   oral   discourse   features   to   suggest   nonstandard   discourse.   In   the   case   of   subtitling,   where   the   source   and   target   texts   appear   simultaneously,   translators   can   never   escape   the   fact   that   there   is   always   someone,   nowadays  a  large  majority  of  the  viewers,  who  understands  the  source  language,  leading   to  the  risk  of  what  Gottlieb  called  the    “feedback  effect”  (1994:  105).  If  the  inclusion  of  oral   or   sub-­‐standard   features   in   writing   can,   in   fact,   lead   to   the   risk   of   the   translation   being   considered   as   a   bad   translation   (Lefevere,   1992:70),   the   contrary   is,   nowadays,   equally   valid:  viewers  who  understand  the  source  text  are  normally  very  critical  of  subtitling  that   does   not   present   specific   discourse   characteristics.   The   same   could,   in   fact,   be   said   in   relation  to  the  book  translations,  not  only  because  this  is  a  very  well  known  play,  but  also   because  one  of  the  translations  is  published  in  a  bilingual  edition.     One  can  thus  reach  the  conclusion  that  this  strategy  may  be  seen  as  an  attempt  to  produce   an   accurate   and   adequate   translation   of   the   source   text.   In   the   case   of   subtitling,   since   this   tendency   has   been   noticed   in   subtitling   aired   by   a   private   TV   channel,   the   data   seem   to   confirm  the  hypothesis  suggested  by  Rosa  (1999,  2001)  that  private  companies  may  feel   less  responsible  for  upholding  the  standard.     Conclusion  and  final  remarks   From   this   data   we   can   conclude   that   different   strategies   can   be   found   in   the   same   translation  and  that  the  medium,  even  though  important,  is  not  the  determinant  factor  in   the  choice  of  a  specific  strategy  and  exclusion  of  another.  Nevertheless,  it  seems  possible  

14

1 4

to  raise  the  hypothesis  that  the  medium  will  determine  the  frequency  and  type  of  features   used.  If  in  the  published  translations  several  kinds  of  grapho-­‐phonetic  features  are  used,   in   the   case   of   subtitling   the   apostrophe   indicating   the   fall   of   a   vowel   is   almost   the   only   grapho-­‐phonetic  feature  used,  which  confirms  that  the  translator  is  well  aware  of  not  only   the  “strangeness”  effect  that  this  kind  of  feature  will  create,  but  also  that  it  will  influence   the   level   of   legibility.   In   theatre   translations,   not   only   are   several   kinds   of   non-­‐standard   features   used,   but   they   also   demonstrate   higher   rates   of   frequency   than   book   translations   or  subtitling  –  once  on  stage,  the  audience  only  has  access  to  the  target  text  and  this  can   be  an  important  aspect  of  focus  on  the  main  element  of  the  plot,  as  well  as  a  form  of  comic   production  (let  us  not  forget  that  both  plays  are  comedies).   Further  study  needs  to  be  done  in  order  to  understand  the  full  extent  of  the  influence  of   the  medium  in  the  translator’s  decision-­‐making  process.    

15

1 5

  i   As   discussed   by   several   authors,   a   common   association   is   made   between   standard   discourse   and   written  

register  and  nonstandard  discourse  and  oral  register.  Most  of  the  time,  the  nonstandard  varieties  do  not  even   have  an  established  written  norm,  adding  one  more  difficulty  to  the  work  of  the  translator.     ii   In   this   context   I   will   use   Kwiecinski’s   definition   of   strategy:   “a   textually   manifest,   norm-­‐governed,   intersubjectively  verifiable  global  choice  of  the  degree  in  which  to  subscribe  to  source-­‐culture  or  target-­‐culture   concepts   norms   and   conventions”   (2001:   120).   A   difference   has   to   be   established   between   strategies   and   procedures  defined  by  the  same  author  as  “a  result,  textually-­‐manifest,  norm-­‐governed  and  intersubjectively   verifiable   translational   action   applied   to   individual   linguistic   manifestations   at   a   specific   linguistic   or   textual   level,  e.g.  the  lexical  level,  the  syntactic  level,  or  the  level  of  the  generic  structure  (format)”  (2001:  120).  It  is   also  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  identify  the  different  procedures,  regarded  as  a  consequence  of  the  different   strategies  and  possibly  the  norms  motivating  them.     iii  In  the  construction  of  this  model  several  case  studies  were  taken  into  consideration:  Hatim  (1990-­‐91);  Ben-­‐ Shahar   (1994);   Dimitrova   (1996,   2001);   Brodovich   (1997);   Hatim   and   Mason   (1997);   Rosa   (1999,   2001,   2004);   Sanchez   (1999);   Leppihalme   (2000a,   2000b);   Hervey   et   al.   (2001);   Määtä   (2004)   and   Nevalainen   (2004).     iv  Following  the  term  of  “suspension  of  disbelief”  coined  by  Samuel  Taylor  Coleridge  (1987),  we  could  use  in   this  context  the  concept  of  “suspension  of  linguistic  disbelief”.  The  concept  of  “suspension  of  disbelief”  refers   to  the  alleged  willingness  of  a  reader  or  viewer  to  accept  as  true  the  premises  of  a  work  of  fiction,  even  if  it   seems  to  contradict  everyday  reality.  The  audience  tacitly  agrees  to  provisionally  suspend  their  judgment  in   exchange   for   the   promise   of   entertainment.   In   relation   to   this,   the   concept   of   “suspension   of   linguistic   disbelief”  would  refer  to  the  willingness  of  the  reader  to  accept  situations  of  the  kind  we  often  encounter  in   translated  texts,  where  the  characters  speak  a  different  language  than  the  one  spoken  in  the  country  where  the   plot  take  place.     v  For  the  purpose  of  this  article  version  4.5  for  Windows  of  the  computer  program  Systemic  Coder,  designed  by   Michael   O’Donnell   of   WagSoft   Linguistics   software   was   used.   The   program   is   available   on   http://www.wagsoft.com/coder/.     vi   Several   authors,   such   as   Mills   (1972),   Blake   (1981,   1995),   Page   ([1973]   1988)   or   Chapman   (1994),   take   notice   of   the   fact   that   the   literary   recreation   of   linguistic   varieties   is   accomplished   mostly   through   lexical   features   and   at   a   very   low   rate   of   frequency   (the   majority   of   the   features   would   appear   at   the   beginning   of   the   chapters   to   remind   the   reader   of   the   character’s   peculiar   speech   and   in   specific   situations   where   the   use   of   linguistic  varieties  would  be  most  important).     vii  His  exact  words  were:  “De  facto,  na  nossa  língua  não  existe  nenhum  falar  que  seja  tão  comunicativo  na  sua   difícil  inteligibilidade,  nem  que  seja  do  mesmo  modo  aceite  como  susceptível  de  acarretar  discriminação  social,   ou  pelo  menos  grave  preconceito”  (1984:  223).  [In  fact,  in  our  [Portuguese]  language  there  is  no  type  of  speech   as   difficult   in   its   intelligibility   or   carrying   the   same   connotations   of   social   discrimination   or   prejudice   (my   translation)].     viii  Example  from  My  Fair  Lady  (transl.  1966)     Elisa:  Capitão,  compre  uma  flor  a  uma  pobre  rapariga.                      (Oh  Captain,  buy  a  flower  to  poor  girl.)  (back  translation)     ix  The  concept  of  ellipsis  refers  to  the  elimination  of  part  of  the  expression  through  a  process  of  condensation,   while  the  concept  of  contraction  refers  to  the  elimination  of  one  or  two  vowels  and/or  consonant  in  a  word.     Example  from  My  Fair  Lady  (transl.  2001)     Elisa:  Isso  nem  chega  p’a  uma  violeta!                      (Isso  nem  chega  para  uma  violeta!)  (Standard  Portuguese)     x   The   term   “eye-­‐dialect”   accounts   for   the   introduction   of   changes   in   word   spelling   in   order   to   portray   the   discourse   as   non-­‐standard.   Due   to   the   association   made   between   written   register   and   standard   discourse,   some  features  of  oral  discourse  like  contractions,  which  work  through  graphical  deviations  in  the  spelling  of   words,  might  lead  the  reader  to  identify  the  speech  as  non-­‐standard  (Page,  [1973]  1988;  Walpole,  1974).   xi  This  continuum  was  previously  confirmed  through  a  questionnaire  organized  by  the  author  of  this  article  in   the  context  of  her  PhD  thesis.     xii  Example  from  Pygmalion  (transl.  1987)     Elisa:  Eu  nem  sabia  como  estaba  bem.                      (Eu  nem  sabia  como  estava  bem.)  (Standard  Portuguese)    

16

1 6

xiii  This  concept  refers  to  the  substitution  of  one  vowel  for  another.  

Example  from  Pygmalion  (transl.  1945):   Elisa:  Eu  posso  vinder  as  fulôres  catrago  no  cesto.                    (Eu  posso  vender  as  flores  que  trago  no  cesto)  (Standard  Portuguese)     xiv  This  concept  refers  to  the  substitution  of  a  diphtong  (two  vowels  in  the  same  syllable)  by  one  single  vowel.  

       

Example  from  Pygmalion  (transl.  1945):   Elisa:  Eu  cá  quero  ser  caxêra  duma  loja  de  fulôres  qu’há  lá  na’nha  rua.                  (Eu  cá  quero  ser  caixeira  numa  loja  de  flores  que  há  na  minha  rua.)  (Standard  Portuguese)  

xv  This  concept  refers  to  the  alteration  of  the  position  or  the  letter  in  a  Word.  

     

Example  from  Pygmalion  (transl.  1962):   Elisa:  Num  foi  pru  male.                      (Não  foi  por  mal)  (Standard  Portuguese)  

xvi  This  concept  refers  to  the  situation  when  a  non-­‐nasal  vowel  in  the  standard  variety  becomes  nasal  in  the  

non-­‐standard  variety.  This  most  usually  happens  at  the  beginning  of  the  word.       Example  from  Pygmalion  (transl.  1974)     Elisa:  Eu  não  devia  tê-­‐lo  comido;  sou  é  muito  inducada  para  o  cuspir.                    (Eu  não  devia  tê-­‐lo  comido;  sou  é  muito  educada  para  o  cuspir)  (Standard  Portuguese)     The  opposite  –  denasalization  of  a  nasal  vowel  –  can  also  happen.     Example  from  Pygmalion  (transl.  1974)     Elisa:  E  atão,  que  mal  tem  isso?                      (E  então,  que  mal  tem  isso?)  (Standard  Portuguese)     xvii  The  1972  translation  was  first  published  in  a  low-­‐price  book  collection  sold  with  a  newspaper  (“colecção   RTP/  Verbo”)  and  the  1987  translation  was  published  in  a  low-­‐price  pocket-­‐sized  book  collection  very  familiar   to  the  Portuguese  public  (“Livros  de  Bolso  Europa-­‐América”).  

      Corpus:   Source  Texts:   Shaw,  Bernard,  (1916)  Pygmalion,  New  York:  Brentano.     ______  (1938),  Pygmalion,  [motion  Picture  of  Anthony  Asquith  and  Gabriel  Pascal].   ______  (1957),  Pygmalion,  London:  Longman  [2000,  18ª  edição].   ______  (1983),  Pygmalion,  [motion  Picture  for  TV  by  Alan  Cook].   Lerner,  Alan  Jay  (1956),  My  Fair  Lady,  London:  Penguin  Books.     _______  (1964),  My  Fair  Lady,  USA:  Warner  Brothers  [motion  picture  of  Gorge  Cukor].     Target  Texts:   Book  translations   Shaw,   Bernard   (1962),   Pigmalião   [trans.   Marina   Prieto],   Lisbon:   Degree   Thesis   by   the   Faculty  of  Letters  –  University  of  Lisbon.   Lerner,  Alan  Jay  (1966)  Minha  Linda  Senhora  [trans.  H.  Silva  Letra],  Lisbon:  Portugália.   Shaw,  Bernard  (1972),  Pigmalião  [trans.  F.  Mello  Moser],  Lisbon:  Edições  verbo,  Colecção   RTP/Verbo.   Shaw,   Bernard   (1984),   Pigmalião   [trans.   Mário   de   Abreu],   Lisbon:   Publicações   Europa-­‐ América.  

17

1 7

Lerner,  Alan  Jay  (2001),  Minha  Linda  Senhora,  My  Fair  Lady  [trans.  Filipe  La  Feria],  Lisbon:   Publicações  Europa-­‐América.     Stage  translations   Shaw,   Bernard   (1945),   Pigmalião   [trans.   António   Ribeiro   Lopes],   Lisbon:   Theatre   “Trindade”.     Shaw,   Bernard   (1974),   Pigmalião   [trans.   Luís   Francisco   Rebelo   and   José   Palla   e   Carmo],   Lisbon:  Theatre  “Teatro  Maria  Matos”.   Lerner,  Alan  Jay  (2001),  Minha  Linda  Senhora,  My  Fair  Lady  [trans.  Filipe  La  Feria],  Lisbon:   Theatre  “Politeama”.     Screen  Translation   Cukor,  George  (1987)  My  Fair  Lady  [trans.  J.  Nunes  de  Carvalho  and  subtitling  by  Teresa   Sustelo  for  RTP].   Asquith,  Anthony  and  Gabriel  Pascal  (1994)  Pygmalion  [trans.  Ruth  Saraiva  for  RTP]   Cook,  Alan  (1995)  Pygmalion  [trans.  Rosário  Vieira  for  SIC].   Cukor,  George  (1996)  My  Fair  Lady  [trans.  Eulália  Ramos  for  SIC].     References:   Ben-­‐Shahar,   Rina   (1994),   “Translating   Literary   Dialogue:   a   problem   and   its   implications   for  translation  into  Hebrew”,  Target  6:2,  pp.  195-­‐221.   Blake  (1981),  Non-­‐Standard  Language  in  English  Literature,  Andre  Deutch.   Blake,   N.   F.   (1995),   “Speech   and   Writing:   an   Historical   Overview”,   The   Yearbook   of   English   Studies  25,  pp.6-­‐21.   Brodovich,   Olga   (1997),   “Translation   Theory   and   Non-­‐Standard   Speech   in   Fiction”,   Perspectives:  Studies  in  Translatology  5:1,  pp.  25-­‐31.     Chapman,  Raymond  (1994),  Form  of  Speech  in  Victorian  Fiction,  London:  Longman.   Dimitrova   (1997),   “Translation   of   Dialect   in   Fictional   Prose   -­‐   Vilhelm   Moberg   in   Russian   and   English   as   a   Case   in   Point”   in   Norm   Variation   and   Change   in   Language.   Proceeding   of   the   Centenary   Meeting   of   the   Nyfilologiska   Sällskapet   Nedre   Manilla   22-­‐23  March  1996.  Stockholm:  Almquist  &  Wiksell  International.   ________  (2002),  “Orality,  literacy,  reproduction  of  discourse  and  the  translation  of  dialect”   in  Irmeli  Helin  (ed.)  Dialektübersetzung  und  Dialekte  im  Multimedia,  Frankfurt  am   Main:  Peter  Lang,  pp.  121-­‐139.  

18

1 8

Gottlieb,   Henrik   (1992),   “A   New   University   Discipline”   in   Cay   Dollerup   and   Anne   Lodegaard   (eds.)   Teaching   Translation   and   Interpreting:   Training   Talent   and   Experience  Amsterdam:  John  Benjamins,  pp.  161-­‐170.   Hatim,  Basil  (1990-­‐91),  “Intertextuality  and  Idiolect  as  Intended  Meaning;  A  Concern  for   both   translator   and   Literacy   Critic   Alike:   with   special   reference   to   Arabic”,   Paralléles:   Cahiers   de   L’Ecole   de   Traduction   et   d’   Interprétation   de   l’   Université   de   Genève  12:  Hiver,  pp.77-­‐87.   Hervey   Sándor   et   all.   (2001),   Thinking   Spanish   Translation   –   a   Course   in   Translation   Method:  Spanish  to  English,  London:  Routledge.   Kwiecinski,   Piotr   (2001),   Disturbing   Strangeness.   Foreignisation   and   domestication   in   Translation  Procedures  in  the  Context  of  Cultural  Asymmetry,  Torun:  Wydawnictwo   Edytor.   Leppihalme,   Ritva   (1997),   Culture   bumps:  an   empirical   approach   to   the   translation   of   allusions,  Clevedon,  Philadelphia:  Multilingual  Matters.   _______   (2000a),   “Päätalo   Idioms   and   Catchphrases   in   Translation”   in   Erikoiskielet   já   käännösteoria:  VAKKI-­‐symposiumi  XX.  Vaasa:  University  of  Vaasa.   _______  (2000b),  “The  Two  Faces  of  Standardization:  on  the  translation  of  regionalisms  in   literary  dialogue”  in  The  Translator  6:  2,  pp.  247-­‐269.     Määtä,   Simo   K.   (2004),   “Dialect   and   Point   of   View:   the   ideology   of   translation   in   the   Sound   of  Fury  in  French”,  Target  16:  2,  pp.  319-­‐339.   Mercier,  

Lane  

(1995),  

“Towards  

writing/reading/(re)translating  

a  

Rhetorical  

fictional  

Practice  

sociolects”,  

of  

RSSI:  

Mimesis:   Recherches  

Sémiotiques/Semiotic  Inquiry  15:  3,  pp.105-­‐121.   _______  (1997),  “Translating  the  Untranslatable:  the  translator’s  aesthetics,  ideological  and   political  responsibility”,  Target  9:1,  pp.  43-­‐68.   Moser,   Fernando   de   Melo   (1984),   Falares   e   idiolectos   em   Pygmalion   de   G.   B.   Shaw,   como   problemas  de  tradução,  Tubingen:  Gunter  Narr.   Nevalainen,   Sampo   (2004),   “Colloquialisms   in   Translated   Text.   Double   illusion?”,   Across   Languages  and  Cultures  5:1,  pp.  67-­‐88.   Page,  Norman  [1973]  (1988),  Speech  in  the  English  Novel,  London:  MacMillan  Press.   Rosa   (1999),   “The   Centre   and   the   Edges.   Linguistic   Variation   and   Subtitling   Pygmalion   into   Portuguese”   in   Jeroen   Vandaele   (ed.),   Translation   and   the   (Re)Location   of   Meaning,   Leuven:   Leuven   Research   Center   for   Translation,   Selected   Papers   of   CETRA,  1994-­‐1996,  pp.317-­‐337.  

19

1 9

______  (2001),  “Features  of  Oral  and  Written  Communication  in  Subtitling”  in  Yves  Gambier   and   Henrich   Gottlieb   (eds.),   (Multi)   media   translation:  concepts,   practices,   and   research,  Amsterdam:  John  Benjamins,  pp.215-­‐221.   ______   (2004),   Tradução,   Poder   e   Ideologia:   Retórica   Interpessoal   no   Diálogo   Narrativo   Dickensiano  em  Português  (1950-­‐1999)  Ph.D.  diss.,  University  of  Lisbon.   Sanchez,  María  (1999),  “Translation  as  a(n)  (Im)possible  Task:  Dialect  in  Literature”,   Babel  45:  5,  pp.  301-­‐310.   Shaw,  Bernard  (1964),  Santa  Joana  e  Pigmalião  [trans.  Dinah  Silveira  de  Queiroz,  Miroel   Silveira  e  Fausto  Cunha],  Rio  de  Janeiro:  Delta.    

20

2 0