See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/250006630

The Translation of English Dialectal Dramatic Dialogue into Arabic

Article in Across Languages and Cultures · October 2004

DOI: 10.1556/Acr.5.2004.2.5

CITATIONS READS

2 345

2 authors, including:

Alya Al-Rubai'i
University of Duhok
4 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alya Al-Rubai'i on 10 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2), pp. 233–255 (2004)

THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL

DRAMATIC DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC

ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I1 AND ASEEL AL-ANI2

1
Department of Translation, College of Arts
Al-Mustansiriyya University, Baghdad, Iraq
E-mail: alyai_alrubaii2@yahoo.com
2
Department of Training and Continuous Education
Al-Nahrain University, Baghdad, Iraq
E-mail: asilalani@yahoo.com

Abstract: Dramatic dialogue usually serves a number of purposes such as develop-

ing the plot, and presenting the characters and providing information about them. Al-
though it is impossible for a play to present life as it is in reality, playwrights usually re-
sort to the use of dialects within dramatic dialogues to portray a real piece of life, reflect-
ing a character’s social status, educational background, and/or regional origins. But too
much closeness to actual speech may result in a dialogue that would seem dull and unin-
teresting. This is why playwrights attempt to achieve a balance between some features of
actual speech and the employment of literary dialogue. This paper proposes a new proce-
dure by which problems of translating dialects as a whole might be considered. The prob-
lems include identifying the source text’s dialect, which in turn includes the difficulty of
delimiting dialect boundaries, the translator’s limited knowledge, and intelligibility; and
prejudiced attitudes. The study discusses previous attempts at engaging with the issue of
translating dialects, viz., those by Catford (1965), and Hatim and Mason (1990), pinpoint-
ing their strengths and limitations. It then discusses three strategies for translating English
dialectal dramatic dialogue into Arabic. These are: translating the English dialect into
Standard Arabic or Classical Arabic, translating the English dialect into an equivalent
Arabic dialect and translating the English dialect into an “intermediary” Arabic dialect.

Key words: dialect, dialect continuum, dialect in dramatic dialogue, translating dia-
lects, strategies for translating dialects

1. DIALECT

1.1. Definition

The term ‘dialect’ was originally borrowed from Greek in the Renaissance. In
the Greek culture, a distinction was made between ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ ow-
ing to the fact that a number of obviously distinct written varieties were used in
Classical Greek in association with a different area and for a different kind of
literature (Hudson 1980:31). The meanings of the Greek terms (translated as
‘language’ and ‘dialect’) were therefore different from the meanings of their

1585-1923/$ 20.00 © 2004 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

234 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

present-day English equivalents (‘language’ and ‘dialect’) which are distin-

guished on the basis of two criteria: size and prestige (pp. 31–32).
The size-based distinction is made on the assumption that a language is
larger than a dialect in terms of the number of items it contains. But Hudson
(pp. 34–35) argues that a given variety may look larger when compared with
one variety but small when compared with another. The other way in which this
size-based distinction can be made less relative is that of “mutual intelligibility”
(ibid.). Two varieties can be seen as instances of the same language if their
speakers are able to understand each other. Some varieties, however, may be
mutually intelligible but are referred to as different languages, e.g., the two
Scandinavian languages: Continental (Swedish, Danish, and two standard varie-
ties of Norwegian) and Insular (Icelandic, Faeroese), whereas other varieties
may be mutually unintelligible but are referred to as instances of the same lan-
guage for political, historical, or cultural reasons (e.g., the three main dialects of
Lapp) (Crystal 1987:284–285 and Hudson 1980:35). Another serious problem is
encountered in cases where there is a “dialect continuum,” i.e., “a chain of ad-
jacent varieties in which each pair of adjacent varieties are mutually intelligible,
but pairs taken from opposite ends of the chain are not” (pp. 35–36), e.g.,
speakers in eastern Switzerland cannot understand speakers in eastern Belgium
despite the fact that they are linked by a chain of mutual intelligibility through-
out the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria (Crystal 1987:25). Hudson
(1980:36) argues that the criterion of mutual intelligibility is based on a rela-
tionship between languages that is different from the relationship of sameness
of language. The former is an intransitive relation “if A and B are mutually in-
telligible, and B and C are mutually intelligible, C and A are not necessarily
mutually intelligible,” whereas the latter is a transitive one “if A is the same
language as B, and B is the same language as C, then A and C must also be the
same language” (ibid.).
The prestige-based distinction, on the other hand, is made on the assump-
tion that a language has a prestige which a dialect lacks because the former is
used in formal writing (p. 31). This criterion is evident, for instance, in Crystal’s
description of English.

In the case of English, for example, even though regional vocabulary and
local differences of pronunciation can make communication difficult at
times, no one disputes the existence of an underlying linguistic unity that
all speakers identify as English, and which is confirmed by the use of a
standard written language and common literary heritage (Crystal
1987:284). (Emphasis mine)

Hudson (1980:37) concludes that no real distinction can be made between

‘language’ and ‘dialect’ except with reference to prestige where the term ‘stan-

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 235

dard language’ or just ‘standard’ would be better used than simply ‘language.’
But even when prestige is involved, ‘standard language’ is also referred to as
‘standard dialect’ (see, e.g., Crystal 1985: standard(isation) and thought of as a
dialect (see, e.g., Catford 1965:86; Trudgill 1983:16–17; Crystal, 1987:24; and
Finch 2000: dialect).
Amid all these complications, even if one opts for a definition that retains
the distinction between ‘language’ and ‘dialect’ in terms of prestige, saving the
term ‘standard’ to premodify or substitute ‘language,’ the writers’ discussion of
translation strategies with respect to dialect do not observe the same distinction.
Accordingly, one has to be content with the fact that the terms ‘standard lan-
guage’ and ‘standard dialect’ are used in free variation, and ‘standard language’
is thought of as a ‘dialect’ in so far as it differs from the non-standard varieties.
In the context of this paper, the term dialect is defined as “a regional, tem-
poral or social variety of language, differing in pronunciation, grammar and vo-
cabulary from the standard language, which is in itself a socially favoured dia-
lect” (Hartmann & Stork 1976: dialect).

1.2. Types of Dialects

The aforementioned definition of dialect makes it possible to recognize four

types of dialect: temporal, regional, social, and standard.

1.2.1. Temporal Dialect

A temporal dialect is “a variety … of language which was used at a particular

stage in its historical development” (ibid.: temporal dialect), e.g., Old English,
Middle English, and Modern English.
All living languages constantly undergo changes which can only be
examined by means of the available written records. After longer periods of
time, these changes can become dramatic to the effect of rendering those written
records, wholly or partly, inaccessible to present-day readers who may require
notes or even a full translation into their modern language in order to
understand. Consider the following excerpts cited by Fromkin and Rodman
(1988:297) to illustrate this fact.
(1) An excerpt from Caedmon’s Hymn, written in the 7th century C.E.,
representing Old English (449–1100 C.E.): This excerpt needs full translation:

“Nū sculon herigean heofonrīces Weard,

Meotodes meahte ond his mōdgeÞanc,
weorc Wuldorfæder, swā hē wundra gehwæs,
ēce Drihten, ōr onstealde.”

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

236 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

“Now we must praise heaven-kingdom’s Guardian,

The Creator’s might and his mind-plans,
the work of the glory-father, when he of wonders of every one,
eternal Lord the beginning established.”

(2) An excerpt from The Canterbury Tales by Chaucer, representing

Middle English (1100–1500): Though more easily understood in comparison
with the first one, this excerpt still needs partial translation:

“Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote

The droghte of March hath perced to the roote…”

“When April with its sweet showers

The drought of March has pierced to the root…”

(3) An excerpt from Hamlet by Shakespeare, representing Early Modern

English (1500–1660): This excerpt is much more easily understood:

“A man may fish with the worm that hath eat of a king, and eat of the fish
that hath fed of that worm.”

Though the above-mentioned descriptive terms, viz., Old English, Middle

English, and Early Modern English, are marked by specific dates, these dates do
not determine exactly the beginning and end of a given temporal variety or
varieties. They refer to important events in English history, for instance, the
Norman invasion of 1066 that influenced the English language to a great extent
(ibid.). Gregory and Caroll (1978:14), in this regard, explain that “language
forms a continuum in time so that when we look back at a given period it is not
possible to determine precisely when one temporal dialect begins and another
ends.”

1.2.2. Regional Dialect

A regional dialect (also known as Local, Geographical, or Territorial) is a

variety of language spoken by the people living in a particular geographical
location in a speech community (Hartmann & Stork 1976: dialect). For
instance, if one asks for a tonic in Boston, one will get a drink called soda or
soda-pop in Los Angeles; and a freeway in Los Angeles is a thruway in New
York, a parkway in New Jersey, a motorway in England, and an expressway or
turnpike in other areas (Fromkin & Rodman 1988:258).
Regional variation is a function of physical space relationships, i.e., it may
be slight if one passes from one village to the neighbouring one or “dramatic if

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 237

one passes into a dialect enclave or crosses over a dialect boundary” (Gregory
& Caroll 1978:17–18). Distance and barriers such as mountains, oceans, or
swamps, therefore, prevent social interaction to lesser or greater degrees and
lead to the development of regional dialects.
The systematic study of regional varieties is known as “dialectology”
(Crystal 1987:26). Dialectologists study the geographical distribution of typical
local vocabulary or pronunciation and plot their findings on maps which help
them identify dialect patterns by drawing boundary lines (known as
“isoglosses”) around the places where particular linguistic features are used in
the same way (Hudson 1980:39 and Crystal 1987:28). Dialect boundaries can
then be demarcated in the light of the existence of a “bundle” of isoglosses. But
isoglosses have been found to criss-cross maps and so do not necessarily
coincide (ibid.). Afterwards, the supplementary notions of “focal areas,”
“transition areas,” and “relic areas” have been suggested, where the first notion
refers to relatively homogenous areas, the second to the merging of focal areas,
and the third to the presence of isolated features not being affected by the
linguistic change in the areas around them (ibid.). For instance, there is a
transitional area in the eastern United States where grease is pronounced with
an [s] and greasy with a [z], whereas in the northern zone both are pronounced
with an [s], and in the southern zone both are pronounced with a [z] (Spolsky
1998:29). Trudgill (1983:44–45), on the other hand, maintains that regional
varieties are not distinct entities but are better envisaged as forming a
continuum. The distinction, for instance, between such regional varieties as ‘the
Norfolk dialect’ or ‘the Suffolk dialect’ is not as straightforward as one might
think as “no clear linguistic break between… [both dialects exists]. It is not
possible to state in linguistic terms where people stop speaking Norfolk dialect
and start speaking Suffolk dialect” (p. 15).
Traditional dialectologists were interested in the speech of rural uneducated
old people living all their lives in the same location (p. 37 and Crystal 1987:32).
Modern dialectologists, however, have included in their investigation the
socioeconomic status of urban informants as indicated by their occupation,
income, or education, together with age and sex; thus giving rise to “urban
dialectology” (ibid.). For instance, in British English, the most prestigious
accent pronounces [h] in the initial positions of words, e.g., head, whereas in
most other accents of England and Wales, it is commonly omitted (Chambers &
Trudgill 1980 ibid.). But regions do not pronounce or drop this variable with
total consistency. Two studies were carried out in Norwich and Bradford to
calculate the proportion of [h]-dropping. The subjects were divided into five
classes on the bases of a number of factors, e.g., occupation, income, and
education. These classes were middle middle class, lower middle class, upper
working class, middle working class, and lower working class, respectively.
The results showed that the dropping of [h] becomes greater as one moves down

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

238 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

the social scale and that the proportion is greater in Bradford probably because
the phenomenon is longer established there (ibid.). They also indicate the
important bearing that socieconomic factors have on regional variation.

1.2.3. Social Dialect

A social dialect (also known as Class Dialect or Sociolect) is a variety of

language “spoken by the members of a particular group or stratum of a speech
community” (Hartmann & Stork 1976: dialect).
Trudgill (1983:34–35) explains the development of social variation in
terms of social distance and social barriers; thus suggesting a parallel between
the development of these varieties and regional ones. But he also notes that
subjective attitudes to language have their impact on dialect differences.
Generally speaking, social classes are “aggregates of individuals with
similar social and/or economic characteristics” (p. 35). However, the factors
that determine class membership such as family lineage, wealth, rank, and/or
occupation are often in conflict or defined on the basis of different criteria that
work differently in different societies (Crystal 1987:38). Sociolinguists have,
therefore, recognized the broadest distinctions, such as high vs. low, or upper
vs. middle vs. lower, so as to determine the correlations that exist between
social classes and language variation (ibid.). But other influencing factors such
as sex and style have also been noticed. In Detroit, for instance, higher-class
speakers use non-standard multiple negation less frequently than lower-class
speakers do. Women, however, are much more likely to use fewer non-standard
forms than men are (Trudgill 1983:85).
Trudgill (pp. 44 & nbsp; 45) argues here as well that social varieties, like
regional ones, are not distinct entities. If one talks of a social dialect such as the
middle-working-class Norwich in comparison with middle-middle-class, lower-
middle-class, upper-working-class, and lower-working-class Norwich, one must
be very clear that (a) these divisions may be arbitrary, (b) the linguistic
differences observed are relative, dealing with the frequency of occurrence of
particular features, and (c) different results may be obtained if other linguistic
variables are investigated. He concludes:

Popular stereotypes of social-class dialects are therefore almost always

misleading: it is not accurate, for example, to make statements like ‘The
Detroit Black dialect has no third-person marker on present-tense verbs.’
Detroit Blacks of all social classes use forms both of the it go and of the it
goes type – it is only the proportions which are different. (Trudgill
1983:45).

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 239

1.2.4. Standard Dialect

A standard dialect (also known as Standard Language and Standard Speech) is

the
socially favoured … variety of a language, often based on the speech of the
educated population in and around the cultural and/or political centre of the
speech community. Such standard … dialects are limited and used as
auxiliary language by speakers of other regional and social dialects for the
purpose of formal discourse and writing as well as for teaching the
language to foreigners. (Hartmann & Stork 1976: standard language)

Hudson (1980:33) explains that for a particular variety to develop into a

standard language, it must have passed through the processes of selection,
codification, elaboration of function, and acceptance. The standard, then, must
have been selected to be developed into such a variety which consequently
gains prestige because of the great social and political importance assigned to it.
It must also be codified, i.e., have written dictionaries and grammar. Gregory
and Caroll (1978:22) point out that codification is inherent in the process of
institutional support which takes the form of “universal education, media, the
growth and spread of government administration or of armies.” This support
can be seen as a natural consequence of the third process, viz., elaborating the
function of the standard to the effect that this variety is used in all functions of
central government, and formal discourse and writing (Hudson 1980:35). This
sense is evident in Trudgill’s (1983:17) definition of Standard English as “that
variety of English which is usually used in print, and which is normally taught
in schools and to non-native speakers learning the language. It is also the
variety, which is normally spoken by educated people and used in news
broadcasts, and other similar situations.” Finally, the variety in question must be
recognized by the relevant population as the standard variety of the community
(Hudson 1980:33).
Deviations from a recognized standard are called non-standard or sub-
standard. The former term is usually seen as neutral, whereas the latter one is
associated with pejorative connotations (Hartmann & Stork, 1976: non-standard
and sub-standard). But this should not be taken to mean that non- or sub-
standard varieties “ ‘lack standards’ in any linguistic sense” (Crystal 1985:
standard(isation)).

2. DIALECT IN DRAMATIC DIALOGUE

Real speech in operation is not smooth. The flow of spoken conversational

language may be constantly interrupted due to performance limitations.

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

240 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

Psychological studies confirm that our “ability to plan utterances is not

sufficiently good to allow planning and production to co-occur smoothly and
without interference; and so there are periods when production must suffer if
planning is to proceed” (Harris & Colheart 1986:229). That is why spontaneous
exchange is full of false starts, repetitions, omissions, incomplete utterances,
hesitation pauses (filled or unfilled with such markers as er, erm, sort of, or I
mean), syntactic anomalies, and battles for the floor which frequently cause the
utterances of participants to overlap. Consider the following extract taken from
a conversation recorded for research purposes by John Sinclair in Edinburgh:

A: We’ve got these... exercises and you’ve got to take the er butt and erm
hold point it a way up three of course (laughter) our aim used to shut it up
and down it came.
B: well I er joined for these... reasons and plus the er driving you get taught
you’re taught to drive.
C: well erm also my father says I need a bit of discipline you know.
A: Doesn’t (matter what you do)
B: (You won’t get any) there (honestly it’s just terrific).
( .. pauses; ( ) material uttered simultaneously)
(Leech & Short 1981:160)

Such features are not likely to be used in their entirety in dramatic dialogue. The
playwright should be highly selective in that he should not merely simulate real
life talk with its clumsy and desultory nature, giving us “a transcript of our
chaotic fragmentary sentences” (Barnet, Berman & Burto 1989:7). Rather, he
should introduce, only selectively and functionally, specific features that are
meant to suggest something of the speaker’s character or state of mind.
Language, therefore, “has to be abridged and edited” as the following example
from Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, Act III illustrates:

NORA. I told you, no; I won’t have it. I’ll accept nothing from starngers.
HELMER. Nora – can I never again be more to you than a stranger?
NORA (picks up her bag). Oh Torvald – then the most wonderful of all
would have to happen –
HELMER. Tell me what that would be –!
NORA. For that to happen, both you and I would have to change so that –
Oh Torvald, I no longer believe in the wonderful.
HELMER. But I will believe. Tell me! Change, so that –?
NORA. So that our living together would become a true marriage.
Goodbye.
(Barnet, Berman & Burto 1977:888)

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 241

Dramatic dialogue then, as Styan (1963:11) suggests, is “more than

conversation.” “Conversation is rather like a tropical forest, while literature is a
trim garden” (Ball 1953:59).
Playwrights also resort to the incorporation of dialect in dramatic dia-
logue in order to cast a touch of greater realism. Here again, the playwright’s
primary aim is not exact reproduction. Otherwise, his play would be a series of
linguistic puzzles both for the reader and the spectator who are not familiar with
the type of variety used. Indications of dialect are only presented to suggest the
presence of a dialect without attempting to render it completely (see Page
1973:86). Discussing literary dialect, Ives explains:

Nearly all examples of literary dialect are deliberately incomplete; the au-
thor is an artist, not a linguist or a sociologist, and his purpose is literary
rather than scientific. In working out his compromise between art and lin-
guistics, each author has made his own decision as to how many of the pe-
culiarities in his character’s speech he can profitably represent; conse-
quently, examples of literary dialect vary considerably in the extent to
which they are ‘dialectal’, and no very definite rules can be given regard-
ing what to consider in that category. (Ives in Sánchez 1999:304)

Furthermore, indications of dialect may become less frequent in some

parts because the reader has already been supplied with the general lines of the
character’s speech (see Page 1973:63). Consider the following example from
Pygmalion:
“The Flower Girl: Ow, eez 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 awy athaht pyin. Will y – oo py me f’them?” (Shaw 1957: Act I, 9)
Shaw tried here to represent the flower girl’s Cockney in her first appearance
and added a note in which he states: “Here, with apologies, this desperate
attempt to represent her dialect without a phonetic alphabet must be abandoned
as unintelligible outside London” (ibid.). Then, in the following exchanges
between the flower girl and the other characters he made her speech intelligible,
though still containing slang words such as tanner, which is explained in the
notes to the play as “the silver coin worth sixpence” (Ward 1957:139):
“The Flower Girl: I can give you change for a tanner, kind lady” (Shaw
1957: Act I, 9).

But this strategy can be adopted in plays which are read and not acted on the
stage because it would be odd for a character to shift from the non-standard to
the standard without an obvious reason in real time.

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

242 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

3. PROBLEMS OF TRANSLATING DIALECTS

The translator may face a number of problems in translating dialects. Firstly,

identifying the source text (ST) dialect may constitute a problem for translators.
This problem in turn affects their ability to choose an equivalent dialect in the
target text (TT). The translator’s failure to decide on the ST dialect can be
attributed to the following reasons: the difficulty of delimiting dialect
boundaries, the translator’s limited knowledge, and intelligibility. These reasons
are dealt with respectively.
(1) Dialects, as previously mentioned (see 1.2. above), are not distinct
entities with clear-cut boundaries. One cannot identify the point at which a
certain variety starts or ends and a particular linguistic feature may be present in
more than one variety but taken as indicative of a given variety because of its
frequency of occurrence. The translator should, therefore, avoid stereotyping
which may be misleading (see 1.2.3 above).
(2) The translator may not be acquainted with the type of variety or
varieties used in the ST. In this case, he has to rely on other sources, viz., clues
in the ST as to the type of variety used and critical works on the play in
question; a critical work may guide the translator in his endeavour to identify
the original’s variety. But these sources may not always be available. In this
case, even the translator’s attempt to arrive at the original writer’s intention
behind the use of a certain variety may be affected.
(3) Even if the translator succeeds in identifying the ST dialect, this dialect
may simply be, wholly or partly, unintelligible to the translator due to the
manner employed in its representation by the original writer on the various
linguistic levels, as the previous example from Pygmalion shows (see Section 2
above). Some editors provide their readers with notes for clarification to
overcome this problem. For instance, unlike Barnet, Berman and Burto
(1977:598), Ward (1957:139) re-writes the flower girl’s speech mentioned in
Section 2 as follows: “Oh, he is your son, is he? Well, if you had done your
duty by him as a mother should, he would know better than to spoil a poor girl’s
flowers and then run away without paying. Will you pay for them?” If the
translator, then, does not understand the original dialect, he is more likely to
mistranslate it. In Gaite’s (1993 in Sánchez 1999:305) translation of Emily
Brontë’s Wuthering Heights into Spanish, Sánchez finds several instances of
semantic mistranslation which she attributes to the translator’s unfamiliarity
with the ST dialect. She cites the following sentence spoken by the old
Yorkshire servant, Joseph, in Chapter Three of the novel:

“‘maister nobbut just buried, and Sabbath nut oe’red, und t’sahnd uh’t
gospel still I’yer lugs, and yah darr be laiking!” (Emphasis mine)

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 243

The translator, it seems, has misunderstood the word laiking, the Yorkshire
equivalent of playing, and translated the sentence into “[…] y tenéis el cinismo
de meteros ahí ” which if backtranslated would be “[…] and you have the
cynicism to go in there.” The translator has not only misunderstood laiking, but
also changed the content of the original (ibid.). Intelligibility may, in fact, be a
problem for the SL readers in the first place. Page (1973:66), for instance,
mentions that Charlotte Brontë, after her sister’s death, revised the second
edition of Wuthering Heights (published in 1850, the first edition was published
in 1847) and modified the orthography of Joseph’s Yorkshire dialect to make it
more accessible to Southerners, e.g.,:

“‘Noa!’ said Joseph… ‘Noa! That manes nowt – Hathecliff maks noa
‘cahnt uh t’mother, nur yah norther – bud he’ll hev his lad; und Aw mun
tak him – soa nah yah knaw! ’ ” (Brontë 1847) (Emphasis mine)
“‘Noa!’ said Joseph… ‘Noa! That means naught – Hathecliff maks noa
‘count o’ t’mother, nor ye norther – bud he’ll hev his lad; und I mun tak
him – soa now ye knaw!’ ” (Brontë 1850) (Emphasis mine)

Secondly, overcoming the problem of determining the ST dialect does not

necessarily mean that a satisfactory solution to the problem is secured. The
existence of the above-mentioned varieties is neither accidental nor
meaningless. Spolsky (1998:43) in this regard maintains that variation in
language adds a fundamental set of social dimensions in that it (1) “reflect[s]
and record[s] an individual’s demographic, geographic, sociological,
educational, and religious background,” (2) “constitute[s] identity,” (3) “claims
solidarity,” and (4) “expresses attitudes towards power and prestige.” These
social dimensions can have various effects on inter-group relationships. Some
of these effects can be really harmful if they are associated with prejudice.
Telephone operators at car factories in Detroit were trained to identify Afro-
Americans by the variety they speak and to inform them accordingly that jobs
were not available (ibid.). In a study undertaken in New York, the addition of
non-standard features to a taped sample of a voice affected listeners’ judgement
of the possibility of employing a speaker (ibid.). The use of language is very
important to Britain’s class structure, on the other hand. Some educated English
people, irrespective of their class origin, “strive to free themselves of regional
or local accents in order to sound like educated English-speaking people”
(United Kingdom, Ch.3, B., 2003), probably for the sake of assuming a better
social standing in a socially desirable prestige group which may in turn secure
better job opportunities. Spolsky (1998:42) calls this process whereby the
speaker modifies his speech in the direction of the other party
“accommodation.” Of course, this modification need not be in the direction of a
prestige variety only, but the other way round in order to sound warmer and

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

244 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

friendlier among one’s friends and peers, or to express solidarity among

individuals in a social group (p. 43).
The above discussion clearly indicates that the problem of finding an
equivalent dialect is further complicated by the fact that variation in language
has a host of social dimensions, which can easily bring about prejudiced
attitudes if they are not duly considered by the translator. Hatim and Mason (p.
40) mention as an example the negative attitudes caused by the use of Scottish
accents in order to represent the speech of Russian peasants in TV
dramatization of a foreign play, allowing for the inference that Scottish accents
may be held in low social esteem.

4. STRATEGIES FOR TRANSLATING DIALECTS

4.1. Catford’s Strategies

According to Catford (1965:86), all language varieties have grammatical,

lexical, and phonological forms that act as a “ common core;” yet every variety
has its own unique features which serve as “markers” of that variety. However,
many languages have a standard variety, which shows little variation among
different regions, at least in its written form and consequently may be regarded
as “unmarked.” The unmarked dialect is usually less difficult to translate. The
translator can resort to an equivalent unmarked target language (TL) dialect (p.
27); (see 5.1.1. below). But, if the TL has no such equivalent dialect, “the
translator may have to select one particular TL dialect, create a new ‘literary’
dialect of the TL, or resort to other expedients” (ibid.). Catford, however, does
not make it clear what is meant by one particular dialect. Furthermore, no
reference whatsoever is made to any criterion on which the translator may rely
when choosing this particular dialect. The other solution is not more helpful.
How can the translator create a new ‘literary’ dialect? On what grounds can
this dialect be based? What are the points of resemblance between the ST
dialect and the new TT dialect that the translator should preserve? Catford then
offers to resort to other expedients if these two solutions would fail to solve the
problem. Again, he does not specify these expedients, nor does he make any
suggestions regarding their nature.
On the other hand, when the dialect used in an ST is marked, Catford (p.
87) believes that translation equivalence is set up between varieties of language
rather than phonological, grammatical, and lexical features as such.
When selecting an equivalent TL geographical dialect, the translator should
keep in mind that the meaning of geography extends beyond the limits of mere
location to cover human geography (ibid.). For instance, Cockney, which is a
southeastern British dialect, may be translated into French by selecting Parigot,

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 245

which is a northerly French dialect (ibid.). Catford (p. 88) mentions that the
criterion here is not the locational, but the “human” or “social” geographical
one. But choosing Parigot as an equivalent to Cockney, which is held in low
social esteem, implies that Parigot is held in a similar esteem even if the
translator does not intend this implication. Hervey, Higgins and Haywood1
(1995:12–13 in Sánchez 1999:307) also suggest that the translator may choose a
TT dialect which has popular connotations similar to those of the ST dialect on
the grounds that “there may be certain stereotypical assumptions associated
with given ST dialects which might be helpful in choosing a TT dialect.” But
they do not reject the geographical considerations which may influence the
choice of a TT dialect.
Sánchez (ibid.), on the other hand, argues that the former option is a
challenging one because quite often the connotations of the two dialects are
very dissimilar due to the fact that they have different sociolinguistic
backgrounds. Nevertheless, examples to the contrary are not hard to find. She
(pp. 307–308) mentions Mazía’s Spanish translation of Pygmalion where Eliza
is portrayed as a typical girl from the South of Spain or South America,
speaking the Andalusian variant which has “the sociolinguistic connotation of
wit together with fatalism; the cockney variant has the reputation of being loud,
cheeky and cheerful.” However, the chosen variety may not be well known by
all readers and it also has the negative aspect of lacking a “natural background
atmosphere… a fact which contributes to give [sic] an artificiality to the whole
play in translation” (p. 308). Of course, this negative aspect can be strongly felt
between societies that are culturally dissimilar.
As for the translation of temporal dialects, Catford (1965:88–89) indicates
that translation problems become complicated only when archaic varieties are
used in the TT. A contemporary dialect in the source language (SL) may be
regarded as unmarked and, hence, rendered into an equivalent TL contemporary
or unmarked dialect in the time dimension. But when the ST dialect is an
archaic one, Catford (p. 89) suggests that the translator should avoid rendering
an SL archaic dialect into a TL variety which is equivalent in the absolute
location of time. He favours instead representing the SL archaic état de langue
only slightly by using those markers which suit the subject in question and serve
to give an archaic flavour. These markers may include lexical items,
“occasional features of clause-structure,” and “phonological features of
alliteration and metre,” etc. (ibid.). Extreme archaization of a translation is
therefore avoided. In the words of Kashkin (1968:453–454 as in Leighton,
1991:51–52), “a translation must not remain only an archival, museum value, it
must answer to the needs of the modern reader.”
At any rate, the whole problem of translating the ST marked dialect may be
related to whether the dialectal features in question have an important function
in the ST. Hervey, Higgins and Haywood (1995:112 in Sánchez 1999:306)

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

246 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

maintain that if such features are incidental, the translator has the option of
translating the ST dialect into a standard TL dialect. Rabandán (1991:89 in
Sánchez 1999:306–307), on the other hand, suggests that in the written medium,
it is more preferable to use the standard variety of a language. Sánchez (p. 307)
mentions as an example Bosch’s (1993) Spanish translation of Lawrence’s Lady
Chatterley’s Lover, where Mellor’s dialect is translated into the standard but
with the addition of such explanatory phrases as “said in dialect” and “added in
his language.”

4.2. Hatim and Mason’s Strategies

Hatim and Mason (1990:40–43) also deal with the difficulties involved in the
translation of dialects. They start by noting the fuzzy boundaries of dialectal
variation and the necessity of considering this variation as “a ‘continuum’ with
inevitable overlaps” (p. 40).
Translators, they argue, should be alert to the ideological and political
implications, which may be involved in geographical variation. Accent, for
instance, constitutes a source of problems due to potential negative attitudes
towards certain accents (see Section 3 above). Hatim and Mason (p. 41) add that
the difficulties involved in selecting an equivalent TL dialect become apparent
to those who have experienced translating for the stage. Choosing a standard TL
dialect as an equivalent for an ST non-standard dialect leads to the loss of the
original effect, whereas choosing a non-standard for a non-standard produces
unintended effects.
As for the translation of temporal dialects, Hatim and Mason (ibid.) believe
that translation problems arise when the ST uses archaic language, a point
already discussed by Catford (see 4.1.), or comprises new idioms, especially
those with which dictionaries have not yet coped. They (p. 42) further maintain
that in literary translation, there is also the problem of preserving the aesthetic
effect. For instance, if an archaic lexical item is used in the ST, for example,
petty in “Creeps in this petty pace from day to day” (Macbeth, Act V, Sc. V),
the translator should choose an equivalent lexical item that preserves the
referential meaning and the aesthetic value such as “‫ ” وﺋﻴﺪ‬in Arabic.
With regard to social dialects, the translator faces the problems of
intelligibility, and ideological, political and social implications, which can be
solved by neutralizing these dialects in translation (ibid.). However, no
exemplification is offered.
Discussing the translation of standard vs. non-standard dialects, Hatim and
Mason (pp. 42–43) seem to perceive no problem in translating the former. In the
latter, however, problems arise. They quote Catford’s (1965:88) solution of the
human or social geographical criterion, and maintain that equivalence should be
established on functional grounds.

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 247

The aim will be to bring out the user’s social/linguistic ‘stigma’, not
necessarily by opting for a particular regional variety but by modifying the
standard itself. The user’s status may have to be reflected not primarily
through phonological features but through non-standard handling of
grammar or deliberate variation of the lexis in the target language. (Hatim
& Mason 1990:43)

But how is the standard modified on the proposed levels? And, in what sense
can the proposed deliberate variation of the TL lexis take place? These
questions remain unanswered because the authors do not provide their readers
with exemplification.

5. STRATEGIES FOR ENGLISH-INTO-ARABIC TRANSLATION

OF DIALECTAL DRAMATIC DIALOGUE

5.1. A Preliminary Remark

The translator should firstly take heed of the fact that the use of dialectal
features in dramatic dialogue is not meant to reproduce the speech of real life,
but to cast a touch of reality. This in turn means that he is not expected, when
choosing an equivalent dialect, especially a marked one, in the TT, to reproduce
that dialect as it is spoken in real life (see Section 2 above). Secondly, he should
keep in mind that translation equivalence is set up between varieties of language
rather than phonological, grammatical, and lexical features as such (Catford
1965:87). Thirdly, he should take into consideration that he is expected to opt
for the strategy that helps to minimize losses. No strategy can claim that it can
surmount all problems and so incur no losses through translation.

5.1.1. Translating the English Dialect into Standard Arabic

or Classical Arabic

According to this strategy, marked regional and social dialectal dialogue is

rendered into Standard Arabic. Assuming that the translation is not intended for
performance on the stage, the translator can resort to further means to make up
for the loss of dialectal features. He can write an introduction to the play in
which he mentions the dialect used and the intention behind its use. He can also
add a very brief description of the character’s dialect, for instance, ‘ ‫وﻗﺎل ﺑﻠﻬﺠﺔ‬
‫( ’ ریﻔﻴﺔ‬He said in a rural dialect), in order to help the reader make the right
impression. This method is already used in translating dialects (see 4.1. above)
and is, in fact, used in novels originally written in Arabic. In Bidāya wa Nihāya

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

248 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

(The Beginning and The End), for instance, Naguib Mahfouz (1959:218, 255–
256) supplies such introductory remarks as “‫( ”وﺳﻤﻌﺖ اﻷم ﺻﻮﺗﺎ یﻘﻮ ل ﺑﻠﻬﺠﺔ ریﻔﻴﺔ‬The
mother heard a voice speaking in a rural dialect) and “‫”وآﺎن یﺨﻄﺐ ﺑﺎﻝﻠﻐﺔ اﻝﻌﺎﻡﻴﺔ‬
(He was speaking in the non-standard). If, however, the translation is intended
for performance, the translator should be aware of the losses involved in
applying this strategy. The realistic and emotive touch of the ST dialect will be
lost as well as the relevant social dimensions and differences in speech styles,
which stem from the use of different dialects in the same play. These losses in
turn affect the playwright’s intentions behind the use of a certain variety.
Consider the following example from Pygmalion:

The Flower Girl: Well, if you was a gentleman, you might ask me to sit
down, I think. Don’t I tell you I’m bringing you business?
Higgins: Pickering. Shall we ask this baggage to sit down, or shall we
throw her out of the window?
The Flower Girl: [running away in terror to the piano, where she turns at
bay]. Ah-ah-oh-ow-ow-ow-oo! [Wounded and whimpering.] I wont
be called a baggage when Ive offered to pay like any lady.
Motionless, the two men stare at her from the other side of the room,
amazed.
Pickering [gently]: But what is it you want?
The Flower Girl: I want to be a lady in a flower shop stead of sellin at the
corner of Tottenham Court Road. But they wont take me unless I can
talk more genteel. He said he could teach me. Well, here I am ready to
pay him – not asking any favor – and he treats me zif I was dirt.
(Shaw 1957: Act II, 23)

According to the first strategy, Eliza’s Cockney can be translated into

Standard Arabic:

‫ أﻝﻢ أﺥﺒﺮك أﻧﻲ أﺣﻀﺮت إﻝﻴﻚ ﻋﻤﻼ؟‬.‫ ﻝﻮ آﻨﺖ رﺝﻼ ﻧﺒﻴﻼ ﻝﻄﻠﺒﺖ ﻡﻨﻲ اﻝﺠﻠﻮس آﻤﺎ أﻋﺘﻘﺪ‬:‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
‫ أم ﻧﻠﻘﻲ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻡﻦ اﻝﻨﺎﻓﺬة؟‬، ‫ هﻞ ﻧﺪﻋﻮ هﺬﻩ اﻝﻔﺘﺎة اﻝﺼﻔﻴﻘﺔ ﻝﻠﺠﻠﻮس‬.‫ ﺑﻜﺮﻧﻚ‬:‫هﺠﻨـﺰ‬
‫ ] ﺗﺮآﺾ ﻡﺮﺗﺎﻋﺔ ﻧﺤﻮ اﻝﺒﻴﺎﻧﻮ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺒﺪأ ﺑﺎﻝﺪﻓﺎع ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ[ ﺁﻩ ﺁﻩ أوﻩ أوو أوو أوو وو ]ﺗﻨﺸﺞ‬:‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
.‫ﺝﺮیﺤﺔ[ ﻝﻦ أﺳﻤﺢ ﺑﻨﻌﺘﻲ ﺑﺎﻝﻔﺘﺎة اﻝﺼﻔﻴﻘﺔ وﻗﺪ أﺑﺪیﺖ اﺳﺘﻌﺪادي ﻝﻠﺪﻓﻊ آﺄیﺔ ﺳﻴﺪة راﻗﻴﺔ‬
.‫یﺤﺪق اﻝﺮﺝﻼن ﺑﻬﺎ ﻡﻦ اﻝﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻵﺥﺮ ﻡﻦ اﻝﻐﺮﻓﺔ دون ﺣﺮاك وهﻤﺎ ﻡﻨﺪهﺸﻴﻦ‬
‫ ] ﺑﻠﻄﻒ[ وﻝﻜﻦ ﻡﺎ ﻝﺬي ﺗﺮیﺪیﻨﻪ؟‬:‫ﺑﻜﺮﻧﻚ‬
.‫ أریﺪ أن أﺻﺒﺢ ﺳﻴﺪة راﻗﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻡﺤﻞ ﻝﻠﺰهﻮر ﺑﺪﻻ ﻡﻦ اﻝﺒﻴﻊ ﻓﻲ زاویﺔ ﺵﺎرع ﺗﻮﺗﻨﻬﺎم آﻮرت‬: ‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
‫ هﻮ ﻗﺎل أن ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺘﻪ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻤﻲ‬.‫ﻏﻴﺮ أﻧﻬﻢ ﻝﻦ یﻮﻇﻔﻮﻧﻲ إﻻ إذا ﺗﻤﻜﻨﺖ ﻡﻦ اﻝﺘﺤﺪث ﺑﻠﻐﺔ أآﺜﺮ رﻗﻴﺎ‬
.‫وهﺎ أﻧﺎ ذا ﻡﺴﺘﻌﺪة ﻷن أدﻓﻊ ﻝﻪ ـ أﻧﺎ ﻻ أﺳﺄﻝﻪ ﻡﻌﺮوﻓﺎ ـ وهﻮ یﻌﺎﻡﻠﻨﻲ آﻤﺎ ﻝﻮ آﻨﺖ ﺵﻴﺌﺎ ﻗﺬرا‬

This strategy involves a great deal of loss which can be identified on two
levels. The first is the playwright’s intention. In the preface, Shaw (1957:5) says

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 249

that “The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their
children to speak it;” then he encourages “people troubled with accents that cut
them off from all high employment” stating that “the change wrought by
Professor Higgins in the flower girl is neither impossible nor uncommon.”
Shaw’s words clearly indicate that he used the dialectal dialogues in the play
not for the sole purpose of representing reality but also to state his opinion with
regard to the differences that exist between the various social classes. This
opinion is also clearly stated by the note taker, who will be later identified as
Mr. Higgins, the professor of phonetics, in the following lines:

The Note Taker: A woman who utters such depressing and disgusting
sounds has no right to be anywhere – no right to live. Remember that you
are a human being with a soul and the divine gift of articulate speech: that
your native language is the language of Shakespeare and Milton and The
Bible; and don’t sit there crooning like a bilious pigeon. (Shaw 1957: Act
II, 16)

This shows that Shaw has rather strict ideas about socially low dialects such as
the one spoken by the flower girl. Therefore, her dialect has an important
function in the play. Rendering her dialect into Standard Arabic will definitely
misfire.
The second level concerns the course of events. Basically, the play tells a
story about a poor ignorant girl, Eliza, who dreams of obtaining a job in a
flower shop. She resorts to a professor of phonetics to teach her a language
which would not form an obstacle to getting this job. If this girl’s dialect is
translated into Standard Arabic, as in the above attempt, what more will she be
seeking to learn? There will surely be a contradiction between the language she
is using and the development of events. Eliza experiences an overwhelming
change in her personality throughout the play. After six months of training, she
can eventually speak and behave like a lady who is able to mix with the higher
classes in the society. If her dialect is translated into Standard Arabic, the
gradual progress in events will have to be imagined rather than being directly
felt.
Unmarked dialectal dialogue, on the other hand, is less difficult to
translate, as Catford (1965:27), for instance, suggested. The translator can resort
to an equivalent unmarked TL dialect. But, with regard to the English-into-
Arabic translation, the situation may be a bit complicated. Unlike English,
Arabic operates in a context of diglossia. Diglossia is

A relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary

dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional
standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

250 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected

body of literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech
community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for
most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any sector of
the community for ordinary conversation. (Ferguson 1964:435)

The superposed Arabic variety (often referred to as Classical Arabic) is not used
as the normal medium of ordinary conversation, whereas Standard English is
used both as the normal medium of ordinary conversation and as the superposed
variety (Trudgill 1983:115) in the sense of “being imposed from above over the
range of regional dialects” (p. 18). In fact, even the standard varieties of the
superposed Arabic variety are not used in ordinary informal conversation.
Therefore, when translating a dialogue written in Standard English, which is
meant to be spoken naturally in the ST setting, into Standard Arabic, the
dialogue might seem artificial, snobbish, or pedantic. Consider the following
example from Ibsen’s The Doll’s House, Act III:

HELMER. Oh, this is shocking! Betraying your most sacred duties like
this!
NORA. And what do you consider my most sacred duties?
HELMER. Do I need to tell you that? They are your duties to your husband
and your children.
NORA. I have other duties equally sacred.
HELMER. You do not. What duties would they be?
NORA. My duties to myself.
(Barnet, Berman & Burto 1977:885)

If this excerpt is translated into Standard Arabic, it would seem artificial for
husband and wife to talk using this variety.

.‫ هﺬا ﻓﻈﻴﻊ ! ﺗﺨﻮﻧﻴﻦ واﺝﺒﺎﺗﻚ اﻷﻗﺪس ﻋﻠﻰ هﺬا اﻝﻨﺤﻮ‬، ‫ أوﻩ‬.‫هﻠﻤﺮ‬

‫ وﻡﺎ هﻲ واﺝﺒﺎﺗﻲ اﻷﻗﺪس ﺑﺮأیﻚ؟‬.‫ﻧﻮرا‬
.‫ وهﻞ ﻋﻠﻲ أن أﺥﺒﺮك؟ هﻲ واﺝﺒﺎﺗﻚ ﺗﺠﺎﻩ زوﺝﻚ وأﻃﻔﺎﻝﻚ‬.‫هﻠﻤﺮ‬
.‫ ﻝﺪي واﺝﺒﺎت ﺗﺘﺴﻢ ﺑﺎﻝﻘﺪﺳﻴﺔ ذاﺗﻬﺎ‬.‫ﻧﻮرا‬
‫ وﻝﻜﻦ ﻡﺎ ﻋﺴﺎهﺎ أن ﺗﻜﻮن؟‬.‫ ﻝﻴﺴﺖ ﻝﺪیﻚ واﺝﺒﺎت‬.‫هﻠﻤﺮ‬
.‫ واﺝﺒﺎﺗﻲ ﺗﺠﺎﻩ ﻧﻔﺴﻲ‬.‫ﻧﻮرا‬

But the choice of Standard Arabic may sometimes be the only choice available
for the translator depending on the context of situation in question. In the case
of Higgins’ speech, for instance, the translator has no other alternative but to
translate it into the standard because the character is a professor of phonetics

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 251

who detests the non-standard use of language as evident in the note-taker’s

words quoted above.
Translating the English temporal dialect into the superposed Arabic variety
may be deemed successful in preserving the original’s aesthetic effect, but runs
the risk of unintelligibility if the translator uses obsolete lexical items,
expressions, proverbs, etc. The translator’s decision should of course be guided
by the sort of readership or audience he has in mind. Consider the following
example from Shakespeare’s Othello:

“Montano: Methinks the wind hath spoke aloud at land;

A fuller blast ne’er shook our battlements.
If it hath ruffianed so upon the sea,
What ribs of oak, when mountains melt on them,
Can hold the mortise? What shall we hear of this?”
(Shakespeare 1973: Act II, Sc. I, 39)

This excerpt was translated by Jabrā (1978:87–88) into:

:‫ أﺣﺴﺐ أن اﻝﺮیﺢ ﺻﺎﺣﺖ ﻋﺎﻝﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻝﺒﺮ‬:‫”ﻡﻮﻧﺘﺎﻧﻮ‬

.‫زﻋﺰع أﺵﺪ ﻡﻨﻬﺎ ﻝﻢ ﺗﻬﺰ یﻮﻡﺎ ﺵﺮﻓﺎت ﻗﻼﻋﻨﺎ‬
،‫وإذا آﺎﻧﺖ ﻗﺪ ﻋﺎﺙﺖ ﻓﻲ اﻝﺒﺤﺮ هﻜﺬا‬
،‫ ﺣﻴﻨﻤﺎ اﻝﺠﺒﺎل ﺗﺬوب ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ‬، ‫أي أﺽﻼع اﻝﺴﻨﺪیﺎن‬
“‫ﺑﻮﺳﻌﻬﺎ أن ﺗﺘﻤﺎﺳﻚ؟ أي ﻧﺒﺄ ﺳﻨﺴﻤﻊ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ؟‬

Jabrā managed to translate this excerpt into a literary piece by opting for literary
lexical items such as “ ‫( ” زﻋﺰع‬blast) and “ ‫( ” ﻋﺎﺙﺖ ﻓﻲ‬ruffianed) instead of the
commonly used equivalents ‫( ﻋﺎﺻﻔﺔ‬violent gale) and ‫( ﺙﺎرت‬raged), respectively.
Probably, he even considered “ ‫“( ” اﻝﺴﻨﺪیﺎن‬kermes oak” or “scarlet oak”) (Al-
Khatib, 1988: oak; oak tree) more literary than ‫( اﻝﺒﻠﻮط‬oak), though the former
is only one type out of about thirty-five types of oak. He also opted for the
word order SVO in “‫ ” زﻋﺰع أﺵﺪ ﻡﻨﻬﺎ ﻝﻢ ﺗﻬﺰ یﻮﻡﺎ ﺵﺮﻓﺎت ﻗﻼﻋﻨﺎ‬instead of the basic
word order VSO ‫ زﻋﺰع أﺵﺪ ﻡﻨﻬﺎ ﻝﻢ ﺗﻬﺰ ﺵﺮﻓﺎت ﻗﻼﻋﻨﺎ یﻮﻡﺎ‬.

5.1.2. Translating an English Dialect into an Equivalent

Arabic Dialect

Finding an equivalent TL dialect has already been tackled (see Section 4

above). The discussion in 5.1.1. has clearly indicated that even with the
translation of Standard English, which is supposed to be unmarked and hence
not difficult to render, problems are likely to occur because it carries for its
speakers a value different from the one carried by Standard Arabic for its
speakers.

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

252 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

According to this strategy, Eliza’s dialogue can be translated into an

equivalent Arabic dialect. Al-Rashīdī (1967: Act II, 69–70) has chosen the
Egyptian dialect of Cairo as an equivalent dialect to the non-standard dialogues
in Pygmalion, including, of course, the regional dialect of Eliza as in the
following:

.‫ یﺎﺥﻲ دﻧﺎ ﺝﺎیﺒﺎﻝﻚ ﺵﻐﻞ‬.‫ آﻨﺖ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻝﻲ اﻗﻌﺪي‬،‫ إن آﻨﺖ ﺝﻨﺘﻠﻤﺎن زي اﻝﺴﺖ ﻡﺒﺘﻘﻮل‬:‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
‫ هﻞ ﻧﺪﻋﻮ هﺬﻩ اﻝﺒﻘﺠﺔ ﻝﻠﺠﻠﻮس أم ﻧﻠﻘﻲ ﺑﻬﺎ ﻡﻦ اﻝﺸﺒﺎك؟‬،‫ ﺑﻴﻜﺮﻧﺞ‬:‫هﺠﻨـﺰ‬
‫ ) ﺗﺠﺮي ﻓﻲ وﺝﻞ ﻧﺤﻮ اﻝﺒﻴﺎﻧﻮ ﺙﻢ ﺗﺘﺠﻪ إﻝﻰ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺰیﺪ اﻝﻤﺴﺎﻓﺔ ﺑﻴﻨﻬﺎ وﺑﻴﻦ هﺠﻨـﺰ( ﺁﻩ ﺁﻩ أوﻩ‬:‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
‫أوو أوو أوو أوو أو! )ﺗﻨﻬﻨﻪ ﺝﺮیﺤﺔ اﻝﻜﺒﺮیﺎء( أﻧﺎ ﻡﺤﺪش یﻘﻮل ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻘﺠﺔ أﺑﺪا! أﻧﺎ ﺣﺎدﻓﻊ زي أي‬
.‫واﺣﺪة ﻡﻦ اﻝﺴﺘﺎت اﻝﺮاﻗﻴﻴﻦ‬
.(‫) ﻝﻌﺠﺒﻬﻤﺎ یﺤﻤﻠﻖ آﻞ ﻡﻦ اﻝﺮﺝﻠﻴﻦ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ دون ﺣﺮاك ﻡﻦ اﻝﻨﺎﺣﻴﺔ اﻷﺥﺮى ﻡﻦ اﻝﺤﺠﺮة‬
‫ ) ﺑﻠﻄﻒ( ﻡﺎذا ﺗﺮیﺪیﻦ یﺎ ﻓﺘﺎة؟‬:‫ﺑﻴﻜﺮﻧﺞ‬
‫ ﻋﺎیﺰﻩ أﺑﻘﻰ ﺳﺖ راﻗﻴﺔ ﻋﺸﺎن أﺵﺘﻐﻞ ﻓﻲ دآﺎن زهﻮر ﺑﺪل ﻡﺎ ﺑﻴﻊ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻧﺎﺻﻴﺔ ﺵﺎرع ﺗﻮﺗﻨﻬﺎم‬:‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
.‫ ﻝﻜﻦ ﻡﻴﻦ یﺸﻐﻠﻨﻲ إن آﻨﺘﺶ أﺗﻜﻠﻢ زي اﻝﺴﺘﺎت اﻝﺮاﻗﻴﻴﻦ؟ ﺳﻤﻌﺘﻪ ﺑﻴﻘﻮل إﻧﻪ یﻘﺪر یﻌﻠﻤﻨﻲ‬.‫آﻮرت‬
‫وأدیﻨﻲ ﻡﺴﺘﻌﺪﻩ أدﻓﻊ ﻝﻪ ـ هﻮﻩ أﻧﺎ ﺑﺎﻃﻠﺐ إﺣﺴﺎن ﻋﺸﺎن یﻌﺎﻡﻠﻨﻲ زي ﻡﺎآﻮن زﺑﺎﻝﺔ؟‬

The problem with this strategy is obvious. Choosing the Egyptian dialect as
equivalent to the regional dialect of the original, which is held in low social
esteem, implies that the Egyptian dialect is held in a similar esteem. The other
thing is that the Egyptian dialect is spoken by the educated in informal settings
and as such it is not confined to the uneducated. This means that the SL dialect
and the TL dialect function differently in their respective cultures. The chosen
variety also lacks the natural background atmosphere. The flower girl speaks
the Egyptian dialect but the play has maintained its geographical environment,
i.e., London (see 4.1. above).
Al-Rashīdī, however, does not only use this dialect in translating the
speech of Eliza but also uses traces of this dialect in translating the speech of
Higgins, namely, the word “‫” اﻝﺒﻘﺠﺔ‬as an equivalent for “baggage”. This is
unfortunate as Higgins is presented as a professor of phonetics who abhors the
non-standard speech (cf. 5.1.3. below).

5.1.3. Translating the English Dialect into an “Intermediary”

Arabic Dialect

The “intermediary” dialect can be defined as the standard modified on the

grammatical level by non-standard handling of grammar (see 4.2. above),
wherever possible, and dropping of case markers in plays that include
performance. In writing, however, those markers are usually not included
whether the written form is the standard or the non-standard. On the lexical
level, this dialect is marked by the choice, wherever possible, of those lexical

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 253

items that can be found in the standard and non-standard use of language but at
the same time also used in as many Arab countries as possible in order to avoid
the problem of social implications. ‘Wherever possible’ is emphasized because
such modifications cannot be always made and the translator has no other
choice but to resort to the standard. This strategy is, therefore, the most
recommended in this paper for translating regional and social dialects.
Modification on the grammatical level and choices on the lexical level should
be carried out with, borrowing Wellwarth’s (1981:140–141) term,
“speakability” in mind if the play is written to be acted on the stage. In other
words, lines should lie easily on the actor’s tongue so that no pronunciation
difficulties are faced. This strategy, accompanied by the right make-up, costume
and setting, helps to create the intended impression by the playwright. The
problem with this strategy is that it would render the TT rather alien to the
target audience.
Consider again the same excerpt from Pygmalion translated in accordance
with the proposed strategy:

‫ ﻗﻠﺖ ﻝﻚ ﻋﻨﺪي ﻝﻚ‬.‫ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻡﺎ أﻋﺮف‬،‫ ﻝﻮ آﻨﺖ ﺳﻴﺪ ﻡﺤﺘﺮم آﺎن ﻗﻠﺖ ﻝﻲ ﺗﻔﻀﻠﻲ اﺳﺘﺮیﺤﻲ‬:‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
‫ﺵﻐﻞ؟‬
‫ أم ﻧﺮﻡﻴﻬﺎ ﻡﻦ اﻝﺸﺒﺎك؟‬، ‫ هﻞ ﻧﻄﻠﺐ ﻡﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻝﺒﻨﺖ اﻝﺠﺮیﺌﺔ أن ﺗﺠﻠﺲ‬:‫ ﺑﻜﺮﻧﻚ‬.‫هﺠﻨـﺰ‬
‫ ] ﺗﺮآﺾ ﻡﺮﺗﺎﻋﺔ ﻧﺤﻮ اﻝﺒﻴﺎﻧﻮ ﺣﻴﺚ ﺗﺒﺪأ ﺑﺎﻝﺪﻓﺎع ﻋﻦ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ[ ﺁﻩ ﺁﻩ أوﻩ أوو أوو أوو وو‬:‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
.‫ أﻧﻲ ﻡﺴﺘﻌﺪة أدﻓﻊ ﻝﻚ ﻡﺜﻞ أي وﺣﺪة ﻡﺤﺘﺮﻡﺔ‬.‫]ﺗﻨﺸﺞ ﺝﺮیﺤﺔ[ ﻡﺎ أﺳﻤﺤﻠﻚ ﺗﻘﻮل ﻋﻨﻲ ﺑﻨﺖ ﺝﺮیﺌﺔ‬
.‫یﺤﺪق اﻝﺮﺝﻼن ﺑﻬﺎ ﻡﻦ اﻝﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻵﺥﺮ ﻡﻦ اﻝﻐﺮﻓﺔ دون ﺣﺮاك وهﻤﺎ ﻡﻨﺪهﺸﻴﻦ‬
‫ ] ﺑﻠﻄﻒ[ وﻝﻜﻦ ﻡﺎذا ﺗﺮیﺪیﻦ؟‬:‫ﺑﻜﺮﻧﻚ‬
‫ ﻝﻜﻦ ﻡﺎ یﻘﺒﻞ‬.‫ أریﺪ أﺻﻴﺮ ﺑﻨﺖ ﻡﺤﺘﺮﻡﺔ ﻓﻲ دآﺎن ورود ﺑﺪل ﻡﺎ أﺑﻴﻊ ﺑﺰاویﺔ ﺗﻮﺗﻨﻬﺎم آﻮرت‬: ‫ﺑﺎﺋﻌﺔ اﻝﺰهﻮر‬
‫ وأﻧﺎ ﻡﺴﺘﻌﺪة أدﻓﻊ ﻝﻪ – ﻡﺎ‬.‫ هﻮ ﻗﺎل أﻧﻪ یﻘﺪر یﻌﻠﻤﻨﻲ‬.‫أﺣﺪ أﺑﻴﻊ إذا ﻡﺎ أﻋﺮف أﺗﻜﻠﻢ ﻡﺜﻞ اﻝﻨﺎس اﻝﺮاﻗﻴﺔ‬
.‫أریﺪ ﻡﻨﻪ أي ﻡﻌﺮوف – وهﻮ یﻌﺎﻡﻠﻨﻲ آﺄﻧﻲ زﺑﺎﻝﺔ‬

The dialect used is made as neutral as possible in order not to instigate any
negative feelings. Of course, its “speakability” depends on the director. Barnet,
Berman and Burto (1977:536) point out that the playwright’s dialogue “rarely
reaches the stage intact.” The director then may feel the necessity of replacing
lexical items, sentences and expressions by other ones that flow more easily
when uttered. As noted above, the only problem with this dialect is that it is
alien to the TL audience. Furthermore, Higgins and Pickering’s speech is
translated into a standard more simplified than the one used in 5.1.1. above
because note has been taken of the fact that both men are addressing a woman
who speaks the non-standard and so they have to make their speech
understandable to her.

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

254 ALYA’ AL-RUBAI’I & ASEEL AL-ANI

6. CONCLUSIONS

Dramatic dialogue shoulders most of the responsibility of telling the story on

the stage. It is the vehicle for furthering the plot and unfolding a character’s
personality which in its turn is unfolded through that character’s speech,
reflecting his social status, educational background, and/or regional origins.
In their attempt to deal with dialectal dramatic dialogue, translators usually
face a number of problems, viz., identifying the ST dialect, which in turn
includes the difficulty of marking dialect boundaries, the translator’s limited
knowledge, and intelligibility; and prejudiced attitudes.
Discussing previous attempts to translate dialects, viz., those by Catford
(1965), and Hatim and Mason (1990); and pinpointing their strengths and limi-
tations points, the study has discussed three strategies for translating English
dialectal dramatic dialogue into Arabic. These are: translating the ST regional,
social and standard dialect into Standard Arabic, and temporal dialect into Clas-
sical Arabic; translating the ST dialect into an equivalent Arabic dialect; and
translating the ST regional and social dialect into an “intermediary” Arabic dia-
lect. It has further recommended that the translator should differentiate between
a play translated to be read and a play translated to be performed because the
methods employed in translating each are rather different.

References
Al-Khatib, Ahmad Sh. (ed.) 1988. Chihabi’s Dictionary of Agricultural and Allied Terminology.
Beirut: Libraire du Liban.
Ball, W. J. 1953. Conversational English. London: Longman.
Barnet, S., Berman, M. & Burto, W. (eds.) 1977. An Introduction to Literature. Boston: Little,
Brown and Company.
Barnet, S., Berman, M. & Burto, W. (eds.) 1989. Types of Drama: Plays and Essays. Glenview:
Scott, Foresman and Company.
Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crystal, D. 1985. A Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Crystal, D. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Ferguson, Ch. A. 1964. Diaglossia. In: Hymes, D. (ed.) Language in Culture and Society. New
York: Harper. 429–439.
Finch, G. 2000. Linguistic Terms and Concepts. Hampshire: MacMillan Press.
Fromkin, V. & Rodman, R. 1988. An Introduction to Language. Fort Worth: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Gregory, M. & Caroll, S. 1978. Language and Situation: Language Varieties and their Social
Contexts. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Harris, M. & Coltheart, M. 1986. Language Processing in Children and Adults: An Introduction.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Hartmann, R. R. K. & Stork, F. C. 1976. Dictionary of Language and Linguistics. London:
Applied Sciences.

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

 THE TRANSLATION OF ENGLISH DIALECTAL DIALOGUE INTO ARABIC 255

Hatim, B. & Mason, I. 1990. Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.
Hudson, R. A. 1980. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. N. & Short, M. H. 1981. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional
Prose. London: Longman.
Leighton, L. G. 1991. The Soviet Concept of Time and Space. In: Larson, M. L. (ed.)
Translation: Theory and Practice Tension and Interdependence. Binghamton: State
University of New York. 49–62.
Mahfouz, N. 1956. Bidāya wa Nihāya. Cairo: Dār Rawz Al-Yūsuf.
Page, N. 1973. Speech in the English Novel. London: Longman.
Sánchez, M. T. 1999. Translation as a(n) (Im)possible Task. Babel Vol. 45. No. 4. 301–310.
Spolsky, B. 1998. Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Styan, J. L. 1963. The Elements of Drama. London: Cambridge University Press.
Trudgill, P. 1983. Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
United Kingdom, Ch. 3, B. 2003 ed. In: Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library. CD-ROM.
Everett: Microsoft Corporation. © 1993–2002.
Ward, A. C. (ed.) 1957. Introduction and Notes. In: Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw.
London: Longman. 119–148.
Wellwarth, G. E. 1981. Special Considerations in Drama Translation. In: Rose, Marilyn Gaddis
(ed.) Translation Spectrum: Essays in Theory and Practice. Albany: State University of
New York. 140–146.

Sources
Al-Rashīdī, Jirjīs Fū?ād (trans.). 1967. Pijmālyon. By George Bernard Shaw. Pygmalion. Cairo:
Dār Al-Kitāb Al-‘arabī.
Ibsen, H. 1977. A Doll’s House. In: Barnet, S., Berman, M. & Burto, W. (eds.) 826–889.
Jabrā, Ibrāhīm Jabrā. 1978. Ma?sāt ‘utayl: Maghribī Al-Bunduqiyya. By William Shakespeare.
Othello. Beirut: Al-Mu?assasa Al-‘arabiyya.
Shakespeare, W. 1973. Othello. Ed. Salgādo, Gāmini. Essex: Longman.
Shaw, G. B. 1957. Pygmalion. Ed. A. C. Ward. London: Longman.

Notes
1
Though Hervey, Higgins and Haywood (1995) in their book Thinking Spanish Translation deal
with the problem of translating dialects, they are not assigned a section on their own be-
cause the authors of this paper do not have access but to some of the verbatim quotations
made by Sánchez (1999).

Across Languages and Cultures 5 (2) (2004)

View publication stats