13

Language Varieties in Translation

THE concept of a 'whole language' is so vast and heterogeneous

that it is not operationally useful for many linguistic purposes,
descriptive, comparative and pedagogical. It is, therefore, desir-
able to have a framework of categories for the classification of
'sub-languages', or varieties within a total language; that is,
idiolects, dialects, registers, styles and modes.
13. l In theory, a 'whole language' may be described in terms
of a vast inventory of grammatical, lexical, phonological and, in
some cases. graphological forms, together with information about
relevant substan ce (e.g. features of phonic substance utilized in
the phonology), and statistical information (on relative frequency
of forms, etc.). 1 All of these may be said to constitute features of
the language.
Within this theoretical total inventory of featu res we can
establish sub-groupings or sub-sets of features. Such sub-sets might
be made up more or less at random-for example a sub-set of
English items like the following:
arthropoda, ashet, bedight, caitiff, cannot, can't, outwith, triploblastic.
All the items in this sub-set arc 'English ' in the sense that all
may be found in English texts. On the other hand, it is difficult
to see much value in a grouping such as this--except for the
specific purpose of illustration, as here, or perhaps as an exam-
ination-item (as a test of the candidate's ability to recognize
varieties of English).
13.11 For most linguistic purposes it is desirable to establish
sub-sets of 'features' characteristic of varieties of the language
which regularly correlate with certai~ broad contextual or
situational categories. I t is clear that the items listed above can
be grouped in such a way. Arthropoda and triploblastic are charac-
1 Whether this 'inventory' is, indeed, an inventory or systematic listing (as
in 'taxonomic' description) or an ordered set of rules (as in 'transformat ional'
description) is irrelevant. In either case the description is unmanageably vast.

83
A LINGU ISTIC THEO RY OF TRANSLA T ION

teristic of scientific, specific ally zoologic al, English . Ashtt and

outwith are charact eristicaJly Scottish - they occur in texts written
or spoken by Scotsme n. Bedight and caitiff are archaic -they are
most characte risticall y found in texts written a few centurie s ago.
For many users of English cannot is characte risticall y a written
rather than a spoken form. The form can' t may also occur in
written texts, but it differs from cannot in that it correlat es with
situatio ns in which there is a greater degree of familiar ity between
the writer and his reader(s).
13.2 A language variety, then, is a sub-set of formal and/or
substan tial features which correlates with a particu lar type of
socio-si tuationa l feature. For a general classification of varieties
we confine ourselves to a conside ration of situatio nal correlat es
which are constants in languag e-situat ions. These constants are
(i) the performer (speake r or writer), (ii) the addressee (hearer or
reader) , and (iii) the medium (phonology or graphology) in which
the text is presente d.
These three are 'constan ts' in the sense that they are invariab ly
present, or implied , in all languag e-situati ons. Perform er and
addressee are socio-linguistic roles-w hether or not both roles are
played by differen t individu als is quite irreleva nt. A man may
talk to himseJf, in which case he is simulta neously fi lling the roles
of perform er and addresse e ; or a broadca ster may talk into a
'dead' microp hone, unawar e that a breakdo wn has occurre d,
in which case there are n o listeners to fill the r ole of addrc~scc,
but the addressee-role is still implicit in the perform er's selection
of language-mater ial. Finally, every text is externalized in some
form or other- the perform er must always select one or other
medium in which to expoun d the gramm atical/lexical forms he
is using.
Varieties fall into two major classes: (i) those which are more
or less permanen t for a given perform er or group of p erforme rs, a nd
(ii) those which are more or less trarlsient in tha t they change with
changes in the immedi ate situation of utteranc e. The major
varieties are listed in I 3.2 1, and d iscussed in m ore detail in
13.4 onward s.
13.21 T ypes of variety related to perman ent charact eristics of
the perform er(s) .

84
 LANGUAG E VARIETIES IN TRANSLATION

13.21 1 Idiolect: language variety related to the personal iden•

tity of the performe r.
13.212 Dialect: language variety related to the performe r's
provenan ce or affiliations in a geograph ical, temporal or social
dimensio n.
(i) D ialect (proper) or Geographical Dialect: variety related to the
geograph ical provenan ce of the performe r: e.g. 'America n
English', 'British English', 'Scottish English', 'Scots Dialect'.
(ii) Etat de langue or Temporal Dialect: variety related to the
provenan ce of the performe r, or of the text he has produced , in
the time dimensio n: e.g. 'Contemp orary English', 'Elizabet han
English', 'Middle English'.
(iii) Social Dialect: variety related to the social class or status of
the performe r: e.g. 'U and non-U' (U = Upper Class).
13.22 Types of variety related to 'transien t' characte ristics of
the performe r and addresse e-i.e. related to the immedia te
situation of utterance.
13.22 l Register: variety related to the wider social role being
played by the performe r at the moment of utterance : e.g.
'scientific' , 'religious', 'civil-service', etc.
13.222 Style: variety related to the number and nature of
addressees and the performe r's relation to them : e.g. 'formal',
'colloqui al', 'intimate '.
13.223 Mode: variety related to the medium m which the
performe r is operating : 'spoken', 'written'.
13.23 It would, no doubt, be possible to add to this list of
variety-ty pes, particula rly by sub-division or conflation. For
instance, a more delicate classification of medium-manifesta tion
might supply 'secondar y modes'- such as 'telegrap hese', a sub-
type of the written mode. Again, a kind of conflatio n might
provide us with a 'poetic genre' ~ a super-var iety character ized
by potential use of features appropri ate to all varieties. For the
present study, however, we confine ourselves to the varieties
listed here.
13.3 All language s may be presumed to be describab le in terms
of a number of varieties, though the number and nature of these
varies from one language to another -a fact of importan ce in
connectio n with translatio n.
85
A LINGUIS TIC T HEORY OF TRANSLA TION

All the varieties of a languag e have features in commo n- these

constitu te a common core of e.g. gramma tical, lexical and phono-
logical forms. In addition to the commo n core, howeve r, every
variety has features which are peculia r to it, and which serve a.a
formal (and sometimes substan tial) criteria or markers of the
variety in question.
The markers of particu lar varietie s may be at any level:
phoneti c, phonolo gical, graphol ogical, gramma tical, lexical. As
far as dialect is concern ed, many languag es have a 'standar d' or
' literary ' dialect, which shows little variatio n (in its written form
at least) from one locality to another . I t is conveni ent, particularly
in connect ion with translat ion, to regard such a dialect as
unmarked.
13.4 An idiolect is the languag e variety used by a particu lar
individual. The markers of an idiolect may include idiosync ratic
statistical features, such as a tendenc y to exceptio nally frequen t
use of particu lar lexical items. A person's idiolect may change in
detail from day to day (e.g. by the adoptio n of 'new pronuncia-
tions', the acquisit ion of new lexical items, etc. ), and may change
extensively in a life-time . For most purposes, however, we may
regard an adult's idiolect as relative ly static.
It is not always necessary to attemp t to translate idiolects:
i.e. the persona.I identity of the perform er is not always an
importa nt feature of the situation. It may happen , howeve r, that
the perform er's identity is relevan t. For instance , in a novel,
idiolect al features in the dialogu e of one charact er may be worked
into the plot; other charact ers may remark on these, and they
may partly serve to identify the charact er. In such a case the
translat or may provide the same charact er in his translat ion with
an 'equiva lent' idiolectal feature2 •
13.5 A dialect, as we have seen, is a languag e variety, marked
by formal and/or substan tial features relatabl e to the provena nce
of a perform er or group of perform ers in one of the three dimen-
sions-s pace, time and social class.
~Tnose features of what is often called the individua l 'style' of a particula r
author are idiolectal , and in a literary translatio n some attempt may have to
be made to find TL equivalen ts for them. Unusual collocations may also
sometimes be regarded as idiolectal-for an example see l 4.52.

86
 LANGUA GE VARIETI ES IN TRANSLA TION

13.51 Geographical dialects may be defined with greater or lesser

specificity; thus among dialects of English, for instance , we may
for some purpose s distinguish between British English, American
English, Australian English, etc.-su ch broad, inclusive, dialects
being formally distinguished from one another by relatively few
markers . For other purposes we may specify sub-varieties within
these broad categories, e.g. Scots English, and within this, again,
still more strictly localized varieties. Similar ly, etats de langue may
be arbitrar ily marked off along the time-di mension very broadly ,
as Old English , Middle English , M odem English, etc., or more
strictly located within these broad periods , e.g. 19th Century
English . . .
13.52 Dialects may present translation problems. As we have
said in 13.3 above for most major languages there is a 'standa rd'
or 'literary ' dialect which may be regarde d as unmark ed. Texts
in the unmark ed dialect of the SL can usually be translat ed in an
equival ent unmark ed TL dialect. When the TL has no equival ent
unmark ed dialect the translat or may have to select one particu lar
TL dialect, create a new 'literary ' dialect of the TL, or resort to
other expedie nts. This problem not infrequ ently arises in the
translat ion of the Bible into pre-lite rate languages, and has been
discusse d at some length by E. A. Nida3•
13.53 When an SL text contain s passages in a dialect other
than the unmark ed dialect (e.g. in the dialogu e of novels) the
translat or may have to select an equivalent TL dialect. Transla tion
equival ence, as we have seen in 7.4 above, depends on relation-
ship of SL and TL text to ' the same, substan ce; for total trans-
lation, this is situatio n substan ce. In the selection of an equival ent
TL geograp hical dialect this means selection of a dialect related
to ' the same part of the country , in a geograp hical sense. Geo-
graphy is concern ed with more than topogra phy and spatial
co-ordin ates-an d human geograp hy is more relevan t here than
mere location . Thus, in relation to the dialects of Britain, Cockney
is a south-eastern dialect. In transla ting Cockne y dialogu e into
French, howeve r, m ost translators would select Parigot as the TL
equival ent dialect, even though this is a norther ly dialect of

• Bible Translating, Chapter 3.

87
A LINGUISTIC THEORY OF TRANSLATION

French. The criterion here is the 'human' or 'social' geographical

one of 'dialect of the metropolis' rather than a purely locational
criterion.
13.54 The markers of the SL dialect may be formally quite
different from those of the equivalent TL dialect. There are
certainly Cockney markers at all levels, but in many literary
texts, Cockney is marked chiefly by phonological features,
reflected in such graphological forms as 'alf or 'arf for 'half', wiv
for 'with', and a few grammatical features such as aint for 'isn't/
aren't'. In addition there are often pseudo-phonological features,
indicated by graphological peculiarities such as orful for 'awful'
and ter for 'to'. These graphological forms can be interpreted
phonologically only in perfectly normal 'standard' English ways
-they are the markers of a purely visual, literary, dialect.
The markers of Parigot may include a few graphological/
phonological features, but are likely to be largely at the lexical
level, in the form of extensive use of argot. This illustrates another
case, like those cited in 7.6 above, where phonological/grapho-
logical features appear to have translation equivalents at the level
of Iexis; but, as in those examples, this is an illusion. If the
translation equivalent of 'e's gom is il afoutu l'camp this does not
mean that lexical items are here translation equivalents of
phonological features. The translation equivalence is set up
between varieties (specifically Cockney and Parigot): of which the
SL markers are phonological, and the TL markers are lexical;
there is no equivalence between phonological and lexical features
as such.
13.55 Temporal dialects, or itats de langue, may also present
translation problems. A contemporary etat de langue of the SL may
normally be regarded as unmarked, only archaic varieties being
marked. In spoken-spoken translation 4 both SL and TL texts are
normally 'contemporary' or 'unmarked' dialects in the time-
dimension. An archaic SL text, however, raises the problem of

• Here we imply a categorization of'external' aspects of translation not dealt

with in the pre:,ent essay. For this categorization at least four dimensions have
to be considered; viz. those of media (SL spoken/written, TL spoken/written),
time-relation (simultaneous/successive), agent (human/machine), and for human
translation at least, direction (L 1 to L 1 , or La to LJ.

88
 LANGUAGE VARIETIES IN TRANSLATION

whether, and how, the translator should seek to select an equi-

valent archaic TL text. Here, as in the case of geographical
dialect, equivalence of absolute location in time is normally
neither possible nor desirable. The 12th Century Russian Slouo
o polku Igoreve, for example, would not normally be translated into
12th Century English; in this form it would be considerably less
intelligible to a contemporary English reader than the original
is to a contemporary Russian. Dennis Ward5 in his article on
translation of the Slovo has argued against archaisrn in the TL
text, with the exception of his deliberate selection of host as
translation equivalent of the lexical item polk. Nevertheless, p arts
of his brilliant translation have a somewhat 'archaic flavour·-
the markers here being lexical items such as girded, beasts, warri >rs,
behold, the use of brothers as a term of address, not to mention
lexical items which are of low frequency in contemporary English
texts because their contextual meanings relate to archaic objects
or institutions such as bows, quivers, shields, pennons, gerfalcon, pagan
hosts; occasional features of clause-structure; phonological fea-
tures of alliteration and metre (successful partial phonological
translations) and so on. Such features are for the English reader,
markers of a slightly archaic ital de langue, appropriate to the
subject as well as being to some extent a translation equivalent
of the SL itat de langue.
13.6 Register, Sryle and Mode are language varieties related to
the immediate situation of utterance.
13.61 By register we mean a variety correlated with the per-
former's social role on a given occasion. Every normal adult plays
a series of different social roles-one man, for example, may
function at different times as head of a family, motorist, cricketer>
member of a religious group, professor of biochemistry and so on>
and within his idiolect he has varieties (shared by other persons
and other idiolects) appropriate to these roles. When the pro-
fessor's wife tells him to 'stop talking like a professor' she is
protesting at a misuse of register.
13.611 Registers, like dialects, can be defined with lesser or
, 'On translating Slovo o polku lgoreve', Tk Slavonic Review. The translation
itself 'The Talc of the Host of Igor .. .' appeared as a supplement to Ward's
paper to the IV th International Congress o.f Slavists, Moscow I 958.

89
A LINGUI STIC THEOR Y OF TRANSL ATION

greate r specifi city; thus, while in Englis h we may identif y a

genera l scimtijic registe r, we may also differe ntiate sub-reg isters
within this. Registe r-markers are chiefly lexical (most obviou sly
'techni cal terms', but includ ing other items), and grammatical,
particu larly gramm atical- statisti cal feature s such as the high
freque ncy (30% to 50%) of passive verb forms, and the low
freque ncy of the pronou ns / you he and she in Englis h scientifi,c
registe r.
13.612 In transla tion, the selecti on of an approp riate registe r
in the TL is often impor tant. Here, if the TL has no equiva lent
r egister , untranslatabi lity may result. One of the proble ms of
transla ting scienti fic texts into certain langua ges which have
recentl y becom e Nation al Langu ages, such as Hindi, is that of
finding , or creatin g, an equiva lent scientif ic registe r. And here
again, the equivaunce is betwee n varieties; an Englis h scienti fic text
may have, inter alia, a relativ ely high percen tage occurr ence of
passives; its Russia n transla tion a relativ ely high percen tage
occurr ence of javlaets'a +instrumental. The Russia n javlaets'a is
not necessa rily the transla tion equiva lent of an Englis h passive;
both are merely markers of equivalent registers.
13.62 By styu we mean a variety which correla tes with the
numbe r and nature of the addressees and the perform er's rela-
tionshi p to them. Styles vary along a scale which may be roughl y
charac terized as forma l ..• informal. For Englis h, Martin Joos
has sugges ted five styles: frozen, formal, consultative, casual and
intimate".
The marke rs of styles may be lexical , gramm atical or phon~
logical. Not much is known in detail about English styles, though
it is probab ly true, as Joos points out, that ellipsis is one marke r
of casual style: e.g. Coffee's cold. Bought it ye.st.erday. Leavin g?-
anothe r is the use of slang. For Englis h we can probab ly regard
consultative style as the unmar ked styie in the spoken mode,
though formal style may be the unmar ked style in the written
mode.
As with registers, so with styles, transla tability depend s on the
existen ce of an equiva lent style in the TL. In Englis h, style-
• 'The Isolatio n of Styles', Georgetown Monographs on lmzguages and Linguistics
12 (1959), pp. 107- 13.

90
 LANGUAG E VARIETIE S IN TRANSLAT ION

markers tend to be dispersed over a number of levels of the

language , including lexis and phonolog y. In many language s,
particula rly in South East Asia, the translatio n equivalen ts of
particula r English styles may be more rigidly built into grammar
and lexis-as the use of specifical ly ' self-abasi ng' or 'honorific '
terms in a system of pronouns , or similar obligator y alternativ e
items in lexical sets.
Here again, however, translatio n equivalen ce must be set up
between the varieties as such, and the specific m arkers may be
very different in the SL and TL texts. Moreove r, the equivalen ce
is ultimatel y based on similarili es of situation -substanc c--only,
those which are stylistical ly relevant in one language may not be
in another. An English youth may easily address his father in
casual style; an oriental youth on the other hand may have to
use honorific forms in such a situation. Both respect and affection
may be present in the situation , but respect may not be a
stylistical ly relevant feature for the English son, while it is rele-
vant for the Asian son.
This is one reason for divergenc es here, as elsewhere , between
formal-co rresponde nce and translatio n equivalen ce. Two lan-
guages might possess a roughly correspon ding set of styles; but
cultural factors may dictate the use of a non-corre sponding style
as translatio n equivalen t.
13. 7 It should be noted that there may be syncretisms and
incompat ibilities between varieties. For one thing, in English, as
we move 'down' the st yle~scale from formal to casual the registral
differenc es become less marked. A professor of zoology may give
a lecture to a learned society in zoologica l register and formal
style. He may continue to use zoologica l register with the con-
sultative style he uses in a seminar with graduate students, or
with the casual style he uses in common- room scientific gossip
with colleague s. Specific lexical items- the 'technica l terms' or
zoology- will still be there as register-m arkers in his casual style,
but most of the other markers of scientific register- the less
specifically zoologica l, but still scientific , lexical items, the
grammat ical markers and so on- will have disappear ed.
There may be incompat ibility between, say, a rural dialect and
scientific register, or between casual style and religious register
91
A LINGUISTIC THEORY OF TRANSLATION

and so on. Such incompatibilities may have an effect on trans-

lation. Thus some Hindi translations of English novels and short
stories show no attempt to use a particular Hindi 'marked
dialect' as translation equivalent of rural (geogyaphical) dialect
or 'uneducated' social dialect in English dialogue. It is possible
that this reflects a dialect/mode incompatibility in Hindi-i.e.
the non-compatibility of 'sub-standard' Hindi dialect with the
written mode.
In many cases a change of style or register involves a corres-
ponding change of dialect or even language. In Arabic, for
example, the Classical dialect is hardly compatible with casual
style. Many Indians will switch from, say, Hindi or Marathi to
English whenever they speak or write about scientific subjects;
such people have no scientific register in their 'mother tongue',
but only in English.

92
 Chapter 11

Communicative Translation

Newmark (1988) argued that when we use communicative translation method, we attempt
to translate contextual meanings in the source language text to the target language text, both in
aspects of language and its contents, so the target readers can easily accept and understand the
translation (p. 47). Furthermore, Machali (2009) stated that communicative translation method pays
attention to the principles of communication, both the readership and the purpose of translation (p.
55). The translation of the word ‘spine’ in the phrase ‘thorns spines in old reef sediments’ into other
meanings can be the example. If ‘spine’ is translated by a biologist, the equivalent is ‘spina’ (Latin
technical term), but if it is translated for other general purposes, it can be translated to 'thorn'
(=duri).
On the other hand, Nababan (2003) explains that communicative translation basically
emphasizes the transfer of messages (p. 41). This translation method is very concerned with the
reader or listener who does not expect any difficulties and obscurity in the translated text.

This method also pays attention to the effectiveness of the target language and of course the
readership. The expression, for example, ‘Awas Anjing Galak’ can be translated to ‘Beware of the
dog!’, instead of using the expression ‘Beware of the vicious dog!’. Indeed in that context, the dog
is fierce or vicious. In this case, the word fierce or vicious is not mentioned in the phrase 'Beware
of the gog'. Thus the expression basically indicates that the dog is fierce (vicious).
According to Handoko (2017), communicative translation is very subjective because it tries
to achieve the effect of certain thoughts or actions on the target language. It aims more at
satisfaction not on the accuracy, so that what is asked is not a matter of accuracy but is satisfied or
not. Therefore, the weakness of communicative translation is the loss of some of the meaning of
the source language. Any simplification in the communicative method, for example, often results
in the loss of some meaning, that always causes partly omission meaning.
On the other hand, Handoko (2017) conveys 24 characteristics of communicative translation.
The followings are the characteristics:
1) Reader centered;
2) Pursues author’s intention;
3) Related to speech. It adapts and makes the thought and cultural content original more
accessible to reader;

4) Effect-oriented. Formal features or original sacrificed more readily;

5) Faithful, freer;
6) Effective;
7) Easy reading, more natural, smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional,
confirming to particular register of language but longer;
8) Social;
9) Target language biased;
10) Under translated: use of ‘hold-all’ term;
11) Less powerful;
12) Maybe better than original because gain in force and clarity, despite loss in semantic
content;
13) Ephemeral and rooted in its context,’ existential’;
14) ‘Tailor-made’ or targeted for one category or readership; does one job, fulfils one
particular function;
15) A certain embroidering, a stylistic synonymy, a discreet modulation is condoned, provided
the facts are straight and the reader is suitably impressed;
16) The translator has the right to correct and improve the logic and style of the original,
clarify the ambiguities, jargons, normalize bizarre personal usage;
17) The translator can correct mistakes of facts in original;
18) Target: a ‘happy’ version, i.e. a successful act;

19) Unit of translating: tends to sentences and paragraph;

20) Applicable to impersonal texts;
21) Basically the work of the translating is a craft;
22) Sometimes the product of a translation team;
23) Conforming the ‘universalist’ position, assuming that exact translation maybe possible;
24) More consider to the message than meaning.