DIALECT AS A STYLE MARKER: TRANSLATING AFRICAN AMERICAN VERANCULAR ENGLISH IN MARK TWAIN’S ‘A TRUE STORY’ INTO GERMAN

O DIALETO COMO MARCADOR DE ESTILO: TRADUZINDO O INGLÊS VERANIL AFRO-AMERICANO PARA O ALEMÃO EM ‘A TRUE STORY’ DE MARK TWAIN

Abstract

The study analyzes the role African American Vernacular English plays in Twain’s ‘A true story’ investigating how the source text’s dialect features were translated into German in order to find out whether the two German translations studied achieve functional equivalence with the source text. First, using Register and Genre Theory, the dialect features in Twain’s short story were analyzed determining their function. Next, the two German translations were studied. The analysis indicated that the original text’s dialect features were generally normalized in the earlier translation and dialectized in the second one. However, neither translation achieved functional equivalence because the non-standardness of language is lost in the first translation and the inconsistent use of invented ungrammatical features in the second translation actually causes an opposite stylistic effect in the target language reader. The study therefore concludes that dialect in literary texts is an important style marker that warrants careful consideration by the translator.

Keywords:
Literary translation; dialect; non-standard language; translation of dialect; Register and Genre Theory

RESUMO

O estudo analisa o papel que o inglês vernacular afro-americano desempenha em “A true story” de Twain, investigando como as características dialetais do texto original foram traduzidas para o alemão a fim de descobrir se as duas traduções alemãs estudadas alcançam equivalência funcional com o texto original. Primeiro, usando a Teoria do Registro e do Gênero, as características dialetais do conto de Twain foram analisadas, determinando sua função. Em seguida, as duas traduções alemãs foram estudadas. A análise indicou que as características dialetais do texto original foram geralmente normalizadas na tradução anterior e dialetadas na segunda. No entanto, nenhuma das traduções alcançou a equivalência funcional porque a não padronização da linguagem é perdida na primeira tradução e o uso inconsistente de características não gramaticais inventadas na segunda tradução, na verdade, causa um efeito estilístico oposto no leitor do idioma de destino. O estudo conclui, portanto, que o dialeto em textos literários é um marcador de estilo importante que merece consideração cuidadosa por parte do tradutor.

Palavras-chave:
Tradução literária; dialeto; linguagem não-padrão; tradução de dialeto; teoria de registro e gênero

INTRODUCTION

A dialect is a non-standard variety of a language (FROMKIN et al., 2011) that functions as a “textual resource that helps the reader to define the sociocultural profile of the character” (RAMOS PINTO, 2009, p. 291). Given that dialects therefore carry communicative significance and considering the fact that dialects “do not always have a corresponding referent in the target culture and language” (DI BIASE, 2015, p. 6), the translator’s decision “to recreate or not to recreate linguistic variation and how he/she chooses to go about it” (RAMOS PINTO, 2009, p. 291) affects the translated text’s functional equivalence. Adopting Katharina Reiss and Hans Vermeer’s (2014) skopos rule and for the purpose of this article, I consider a target text as functionally equivalent if it achieves the same purpose in the target context as the source text did in the source context.

African American Vernacular English (AAVE), the non-standard variety of English the present study is concerned with, is considered a social dialect of American English (see FROMKIN et al., 2011). Since the use of non-standard language in any given text produces a particular stylistic effect on the readers, a translator is advised to consider the metafunctions of language expressed through the dialect in order to “generate the same effect aimed at by the original” (ECO, 2001, Translating and Being Translated chapter, Translating Rhythm section, p. 45). The translator is thus faced with the choice between what I consider two macro-strategies of translation, translation-as-assimilation and translation-as-diversification. Using the former, also known as normalization (RAMOS PINTO, 2009), the “dialect is assimilated into the target standard language and the target text is homogeneous” (DI BIASE, 2015, p. 46). The latter, also referred to as dialectization (RAMOS PINTO, 2009), retains, or recreates, the dialect in the target text (DI BIASE, 2015). A translator who decides to normalize the text risks the loss of the text’s additional meanings expressed through the metafunctions of language while a translator who opts for dialectization faces the challenge of finding a local dialect with equivalent connotations (RAMOS PINTO, 2009) or creating a non-standard form of language that may result in an unintended effect on the target reader (ALBALADEJO MARTÍNEZ, 2012).

Given the opposite extremes of how to approach the translation of dialect in the source text, Boase-Beier (2004a) aptly points out that translation studies scholars have been grappling with the issue of dialect as a style marker even before Jakobson’s famous argument that ‘creative transposition’ must be adopted as the only viable strategy for translating texts in which style is particularly important. However, according to Boase-Beier (2004a, p. 9), “approaches and insights from stylistics have had surprisingly little effect on the developing discipline of translation studies” leaving the questions of “what sort of transposition is possible, how creative it can be, [and] how translation does justice to the style and the messages it conveys” (BOASE-BEIER, 2004a, p. 9) unresolved.

The present study thus explores the problem of dialect in the translation of literary texts and proposes the use of Register and Genre Theory as a concrete approach to the analysis of the dialect’s function in the source text since, as Yu (2017, p. 57) claims, to date “clear methods for identifying the functions of register features and varieties” are missing in the translation literature. Register and Genre Theory, discussed in detail below, is an offer to provide such a method since it goes beyond Nord’s (2005) text analysis model summarized below.

The source text (ST) is Mark Twain’s ‘A true story’ (Twain, 2014). The target texts (TT) are two German translations, version one published by Lutz in 1892 (Twain, 1892) and version two published by Anaconda in 2018 (Conrad et al. 2018).¹ The main objective of the present exploratory study is to determine whether the translators of Twain’s short story were successful in creating a functionally equivalent German translation, as defined above.

Concretely, I aim to answer the following two research questions:

• 1. How were the ST’s non-standard linguistic features of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) translated into German? Specifically,

  • a.In what ways are both translations similar or different?

  • b.Which strategies did the translators use?

  • c.Can an overall translation strategy be identified?

• 2. Which translation appears to be more functionally equivalent to the ST and why?

Section two below provides a brief discussion of the theoretical background of the present study followed by a description of the methodology in section three. Section four discusses the results of the study in detail and in section five, I offer my conclusions.

1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This section provides the theoretical foundation of the present study. First, I briefly review the problem of translating dialect in literary texts followed by a discussion of the functional approach to translation and text analysis. The section concludes with an explanation of Register and Genre Theory, proposed as a concrete approach to text analysis in order to analyze the stylistic function a dialect carries in a given text, which, I believe, is vital to understand if we aim to produce a functionally equivalent translation.

1.1 The translation of dialect in literary texts

As I argue in this article, the dialect in the present study’s ST plays a significant role because it is used as a marker of identity. Any translator who takes up the challenge of translating the original text, and wishes to do so successfully, therefore ought to understand that “translation involves far more than [the] replacement of lexical and grammatical items between languages” (BASSNET, 2014, p. 35). In fact, even though any translation should meet at least the four basic requirements of “making sense, conveying the spirit and manner of the original, having a natural and easy form of expression, and producing a similar response” (NIDA, cited in HATIM and MASON, 1990, p. 16), the translator of literary texts needs to be especially mindful of the artistic devices used in the source text in order to achieve equivalence rather than succumbing to the common pitfall of considering “content as separable from form” (BASSNETT, 2014, p. 120, emphasis in original). Similarly, Boase-Beier (2004b) maintains that a translator acts as communicator of the ST author’s intended message to the potential target text audience and as such must detect the original author’s intention expressed by the style of the original text since the style represents the original author’s choices and attitudes. The translator, Boase-Beier (2004b) therefore argues, should focus his/her efforts on the style of the ST. Newmark (1988, p. 48) also claims that “equivalent effect […] is essential” for literary texts.

The previous opinions thus coincide in that the linguistic features present in the source text are of importance when translators attempt to create a target text that evokes a similar response in the readers of the translation. Of the three kinds of translating that exist, author-centered, text-centered, and reader-centered (HATIM and MASON, 1990), the translation of literary texts, I believe, should therefore be focused on the target text readers if the translation is to achieve a similar effect. However, since “actual effects on receivers of texts are difficult to gauge” (HATIM and MASON, 1990, p. 7), Hatim and Mason (1990) suggest that translators focus on achieving a similar intended effect on the target audience by considering the particular linguistic strategies employed by the author of the source text.

What becomes clear is that a translator, of literary texts in particular, “must attempt […] an effective blend of ‘matter and manner,’ for these two aspects of any message are inseparably united” (NIDA, 2006, p. 149). A translator who exclusively focuses on content will produce a text resulting in “flat mediocrity, with nothing of the sparkle and charm of the original [whereas] sacrifice[ing] […] meaning for the sake of reproducing the style may produce only an impression, and fail to communicate the message” (NIDA, 2006, p. 149).

In a similar vein, Bassnett (2014, p. 88-89), citing Cluysenaar, warns us that instead of working with preconceived notions about how to translate which structure, the translator “should work with an eye ‘on each individual structure […]’, since ‘each structure will lay stress on certain linguistic features […] and not on others’”. What is important, therefore, “‘is a description of the dominant structure of every individual work to be translated’” (CLUYSENAAR, cited in BASSNETT, 2014, p. 89). With the aforementioned argument in mind, in the present study, I used Register and Genre Theory to better understand the role AAVE plays in the ST in order to evaluate the degree to which the TTs linguistic features manage to create an effect similar to the ST. By proposing Register and Genre Theory as a model for the analysis of the role of non-standard language in literary texts and demonstrating how the model can be used to gain a deeper understanding of the function of the non-standard language in the source text, I intend to add a concrete tool for the analysis of translation solutions.

1.2 Towards a functional approach to translation and text analysis

What makes a good translation? It appears that the debate over whether to translate ‘word-for-word’ or ‘sense-for-sense’, effectively representing the two dominant models of translation to this day (VENUTI, 2006), is as old as the field of translation itself. Yet, rather than determining which model is to be preferred in which translation context, I agree with Bassnett (2014) who argues that translation practice must be tightly linked with translation theory since it is a translator’s selection of criteria that will result in one translation solution and not another. When translating literature, in particular, the translator needs to carefully consider each individual structure when determining what to preserve from the target text and what not rather than working with generally, and I might add prescriptive, preconceived notions about how to translate the text (BASSNETT, 2014). Unfortunately, many translators fail “to understand that a literary text is made up of a complex set of systems existing in a dialectical relationship with other sets outside its boundaries [which] has often led them to focus on particular aspects of a text at the expense of others” (BASSNETT, 2014, p. 89) which may result in less appropriate or acceptable translations. Thus, how can we approach a literary text and how do we know which structures to focus on?

First of all, Bassnett (2014) suggests, and I agree, that translation does not only involve the transfer of a set of source language signs into a set of target language signs but also extra-linguistic information that must be accounted for by the translator. This means, rather than considering translation a strictly linguistic activity, it should be more properly placed within the field of semiotics since “the translator […] operates criteria that transcend the purely linguistic, and a process of decoding and recoding takes place” (BASSNETT, 2014, p. 26). Figure 1 below represents this decoding/recoding process:

Figure 1
The decoding/recoding process during translation (BASSNETT, 2014, p. 21)

As can be seen in Figure 1 above, the translator must first analyze a particular source text structure, considering both the linguistic signs and the extra-linguistic information contained in them, then transfer the meaning represented by the particular structure to the target language, and finally restructure the linguistic target language signs by selecting the appropriate form that best represents the meaning of the source text structure. How do we, however, know which target language form is appropriate? This question leads us to the discussion of equivalence.

1.2.1 The issue of ‘equivalence’

To begin with, as Nida (2006, p. 141) aptly points out, “since no two languages are identical, either in the meanings given to corresponding symbols or in the ways in which such symbols are arranged in phrases and sentences, it stands to reason that there can be no absolute correspondence between languages. Hence there can be no fully exact translations.” In addition, translations differ because of three basic considerations:

• (1) the nature of the message,

• (2) the purpose […] of the author and [hence] the translator, and

• (3) the type of audience. (NIDA, 2006, p. 142)

Considering the target audience and the purpose of the translation, the translator must therefore decide whether the content or the form of the message is of primary importance. However, even though we may assume that the translator’s purpose will be generally similar to that of the author of the source text, Nida (2006) reminds us that this is not necessarily the case leading me to argue that we do need a more objective norm, such as Skopos Theory to be discussed below, in order to be able to evaluate the degree to which a target text (TT) is equivalent to the ST and whether the translation served its intended purpose. I agree with Nida (2006, p. 144) when he claims that we “must in translating seek to find the closest possible equivalent” but what exactly do we mean by ‘equivalence’?

For Nida (2006, p. 144), there are two types of equivalence: formal and dynamic. Both concepts are summarized and compared in Table 1 below:

Table 1
Types of equivalence

	Formal equivalence	Dynamic equivalence
Focus	The message itself (both form and content)	The effect the text evokes
Equivalence	Correspondence of sentence-to-sentence or concept-to-concept	Matching of the ST relationship between message and receivers to that of the TT
Aim	Matching the TT to ST linguistic elements meeting accuracy and correctness standards	Natural expressions that allow receivers to relate to the text within their own cultural context

As outlined in Table 1 above, formal translation focuses on matching the original message with the message in the translated text while aiming to use linguistic elements that are structurally as similar as possible to the source language. Since the exact wording may be of particular importance in legal or medical contexts, for example, formal equivalence may be essential. For the translation of literary texts, however, I believe that dynamic equivalence is more appropriate. Since this type of translation is more focused on achieving a similar stylistic effect, to be explained below, the linguistic elements used to achieve such effect may actually vary widely. Nida (2006, p. 144) also points out that dynamic equivalence “does not insist that [the receiver] understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message” which is essential for texts that deal with socio-culturally and/or geographically removed context, as is the case of the present study’s ST, since the audience is asked to understand the message from within their own cultural understanding rather than from the perspective of the ST audience. To me, this also means that varying degrees on the continuum of dynamic translation exist (NIDA, 2006), which, in turn, suggests that some translations are actually better labeled as recreations because they may differ substantially in content and/or form from the ST. Thus, I believe, an objective criterion that serves as foundation for a particular translation solution, such as Skopos Theory, is called for.

Another well-known classification of types of translation equivalence is the one put forth by Popovič (cited in BASSNETT, 2014, p. 35):

• 1) Linguistic equivalence, where there is homogeneity on the linguistic level of both SL and TL texts, i.e. word for word translation.

• 2) Paradigmatic equivalence, where there is equivalence of ‘the elements of a paradigmatic expressive axis’, i.e. elements of grammar, which Popovič sees as being a higher category than lexical equivalence.

• 3) Stylistic (translational) equivalence, where there is ‘functional equivalence of elements in both original and translation aiming at an expressive identitywith an invariant of identical meaning’.

• 4) Textual (syntagmatic) equivalence, where there is equivalence of the syntagmatic structuring of a text, i.e. equivalence of form and shape.

Popovič’s types one and four can be considered similar to Nida’s formal equivalence outlined above since they focus on the linguistic structures (type one) and the textual structures (type four) of the translation. Type two, paradigmatic equivalence, in my opinion, could be placed somewhere between Nida’s formal and dynamic equivalence, since, according to Bassnett (2014), Popovič considers grammatical equivalence a broader category than word-for-word, or lexical, equivalence. The type that best matches Nida’s dynamic equivalence is Popovič’s type three, stylistic equivalence, since it focuses on matching the expressiveness of the ST with the TT based on the functions of the linguistic elements present in the texts.

To Pym (2014, p. 7, emphasis in original), equivalence means that “a translation will have the same value” as the ST pointing out further that this value can be “on the level of form (two words translated by two words); […] reference (Friday is always the day before Saturday); [or] function (the function ‘bad luck on 13’ corresponds to Friday in English, to Tuesday in Spanish)”. This does not mean, however, that a translation must be the same on a particular value but rather that “equal value can be achieved on one level or another” (PYM, 2014, p. 8). Comparing Pym’s classification to the two outlined above, it becomes clear, once again, that Pym’s functional and Popovič’s stylistic equivalence are very similar and could be placed within Nida’s broader category of dynamic equivalence. It is this concept of dynamic or functional equivalence, where the stylistic effect of the linguistic elements chosen in the target text carry the same function for the TT receivers, that I am working with in this study.

Functional equivalence as defined above, however, is a criterion that considers both meaning and style (or form) which, according to Levý (cited in BASSNETT, 2014) means adopting a functional approach to translation “as a means to finding criteria for decision-making” (KUSSMAUL, 1997, p. 29) when translating different types of texts with varying functions. Having adopted the criterion of skopos as the underlying concept of my study, I next discuss Reiss and Vermeer’s Skopos Theory (2014), one of the most well-known models within the functional approach to translation, followed by Nord’s (2005) text analysis model which I used to analyze the textual features of the ST.

1.2.2 Skopos Theory

Regarding the decisions involved in the act of translating, the 1980s witnessed a paradigm shift away from a focus on structural equivalence between the source and target texts towards a consideration of the purpose of the target text (PYM, 2014). At the core of this shift were two considerations: first, translation is seen by Vermeer (cited in LÓPEZ NORIEGA, 2006) as a form of communication and, as such, is never uniquely exact. Second, Reiss (cited in KUSSMAUL, 1997) argued that texts have different functions based on the type of text they constitute. Basing her proposal of text types on Bühler’s (cited in MUNDAY, 2016) three functions of language - informative, expressive, and appellative - Reiss (cited in KUSSMAUL, 1997, p. 30) suggests the following typology of texts:

• (1) content-focused texts (informative; e.g., newspaper articles),

• (2) form-focused texts (expressive; e.g., literary texts such as novels),

• (3) appeal-focused texts (appellative; e.g., advertisements).

Arguing that each of these text types carries a different function, Reiss and Vermeer (cited in MUNDAY, 2016, p. 127, emphasis in original) maintain that a translation “must be fit for purpose; that is, it must be ‘functionally adequate’”.

At the core of Skopos Theory lies the argument that “translational decisions are based on a fundamental rule which not only determines whether something is transferred and what is transferred, but also how it is transferred” (REISS and VERMEER, 2014, p. 85). This theory was formulated by Reiss and Vermeer (2014, p. 107, emphasis in original) as the skopos rule: “A translatum is determined by its skopos” where translatum refers to the TT and skopos to the purpose of the TT within the target context. Thus, determining the skopos of an ST can help us align our translational decisions to evoke that same skopos in the TT receivers, hence achieving functional equivalence. After all, as Vermeer (cited in LÓPEZ NORIEGA, 2006) argues, a translatum constitutes a tentative piece of communication, an offer, that the receiver can accept or reject. It is therefore the translator’s task to first determine the skopos of the ST and second to establish the skopos of the TT. This is the point where the translator decides what to focus on and which linguistic elements he/she uses to render the skopos of the TT in the target language. As Vermeer (2006, p. 193) proposes, the possibilities are many:

One legitimate skopos might be an exact imitation of the source text syntax, perhaps to provide target culture readers with information about this syntax.Or an exact imitation of the source text structure, in a literary translation, mightserve to create a literary text in the target culture. Why not? The point is that onemust know what one is doing, and what the consequences of such action are, e.g. what the effect of a text created in this way will be in the target culture and how much the effect will differ from that of the source text in the source culture.

The appeal of Skopos Theory is thus that we are no longer confined to the ST oriented views of translation that often considered the degree of accurate match between ST and TT linguistic structures as the sole criterion for determining the quality of a translation. Rather, translation is seen as a purposeful action to which such rigid concepts as correct or incorrect, faithful or unfaithful, or accurate or inaccurate no longer apply. In the words of Du (2012, p. 2190), “skopos theory focuses above all on the purpose of the translation, which determines the translation methods and strategies that are to be employed in order to produce a functionally adequate result”.

However, Skopos Theory has also been subjected to various criticisms, among them that it does not provide any concrete direction as to the linguistic analysis of both the source and target texts (MUNDAY, 2016) to evaluate whether a given TT does, in fact, satisfy the skopos rule discussed above. It is because of this limitation that I discuss Nord’s (2005) text analysis model next and propose a linguistic model to analyze the intra-textual features of both the ST and the two TTs in section 2.3 below.

1.2.3 Textual features

Since the text type is related to a text’s skopos and the translation method used (NORD, 1997), a better understanding of the texts involved in any translation project is important. Furthermore, if it is true that the quality of the translation depends on how it is received by the target audience within its particular context, as argued by Nord (2005), it appears futile to suggest “any criteria for an optimum translation” (NORD, 2005, p. 19). Nord (2005, p. 19) therefore suggests that the only way to solve this apparent problem is to first “control ST reception by a strict model of analysis which covers all the relevant text features […], and second, to control TT production by stringent ‘translating instructions’ which clearly define the (prospective) function of the target text”, also known as the translation brief or commission.

Since the present study’s TTs are existing translations, there is no translation brief which would specify their function. Thus, analyzing the ST’s extraand intra-textual features to determine the skopos of the ST will also help evaluate whether the skopos rule was met in the TTs in order to be able to assess whether these achieved functional equivalence. The results of the textual analysis of the ST are presented in section four. In what follows, I provide an overview of Nord’s (2005) text analysis model which I used to gain insight into the textual features of the ST.

The extratextual features include sender, intention, audience, medium, place, time, motive, and function. Table 2 below lists each feature with a brief definition (NORD, 2005, pp. 43-87):

Table 2
Extratextual features

Feature	Definition
Sender Text producer	The person who creates the text to send a particular message or to produce a particular effect The person who produces the text in compliance with the sender’s instructions and the target language and cultural norms
Intention	The purpose the sender wants to achieve with his text
Audience	The addresses of the text
Medium	The channel through which the text is delivered to the audience
Place	The location of text production and text reception
Time	The time the text was produced and received
Motive	The reason the text was sent or produced
Function	The communicative function of the text within the context it was received in

As seen in Table 2 above, the extratextual features allow us to gain insight into the local social context into which the original text was placed, essentially helping us to determine the text’s register, while also establishing the text’s skopos.

Nord’s (2005, p. 87-139) intratextual features, listed and briefly defined in Table 3 below, are: subject matter, content, presuppositions, composition, non-verbal elements, and style (lexis, sentence structure, and suprasegmental features):

Table 3
Intratextual features

Feature	Definition
Subject matter	What the text is about
Content	The objects or phenomena the text refers to
Presuppositions	The world knowledge that the text producer/sender expects the text receiver to possess
Composition	Refers to the organization of the information
Non-verbal elements	Refers to non-verbal signs such as gestures, photos, and logos
Style	Lexis (register, word choice) Sentence structure (particular syntactic features typical for a certain register) Suprasegmental features (e.g., punctuation, capitalization, or italicization)

The intratextual elements consider the internal world of the text and by examining not only the content of the text but also its stylistic elements, we gain a better understanding of the text’s metafunctions as they relate to genre (see the following section).

However, I do consider the intratextual features not detailed enough in order to fully understand a text’s register and genre features. Yet, these features need to be taken into account if we hope to determine the skopos of any ST in order to make deliberate translation decisions that would result in a functionally equivalent translatum that satisfactorily meets the skopos rule. I therefore propose Register and Genre Theory, within functional grammar, as a detailed framework to analyze the linguistic elements present in the ST. The next section briefly explains the theory.

1.3 Register and Genre Theory

Since translation is a “a communicative process which takes place within a social context” (HATIM and MASON, 1990, p. 3, emphasis in original), it is of little use to describe the linguistic elements present in the source and target texts from a structural perspective to assess the functional equivalence of both texts. That is so simply because rather than being interested in the functions of linguistic structures, linguists working with the structural paradigm “view language as a system of interdependent elements” (HATIM and MASON, 1990, p. 25), independent of the context in which they are used (SIEWIERSKA, 1991). Language in structural linguistics “is interpreted as a system of forms, to which meanings are then attached. […] In a functional grammar, on the other hand, the direction is reversed. A language is interpreted as a system of meanings, accompanied by forms through which the meanings can be realized” (HALLIDAY, 1994, p. xiv). Functional grammar is thus “a social theory of language” (HATIM and MASON, 1990, p. 36), “essentially equate[ing] meaning with function” (THOMPSON, 2014, p. 28).

As shown in Figure 2 below, our social context determines what we try to accomplish through language, which influences the linguistic structures we choose (THOMPSON, 2014, p. 39).

Figure 2
The relationship between social context and language (EGGINS and MARTIN, 1997, p. 235)

One way to analyze the relationship between social context and language is Register and Genre Theory, a specific model for text analysis within functional grammar. According to Halliday (1994, p. xiii), functional grammar is a functional rather than a formal approach to the study of language accounting for “how the language is used”. Since in this study I am concerned with the function of dialect in a literary text, I considered the functional approach to text analysis more suitable than the formal one since the former explains the linguistic choices present in the text in relation to the text’s social context whereas the latter is a decontextualized description of the linguistic features present in a text irrespective of its social context.

According to Halliday and Hasan (cited in THOMPSON, 2014, p. 40) register is a “variation according to use”, meaning that the social context affects language in a way that “certain meanings, and their linguistic expressions, [occur] more likely than others” (EGGINS and MARTIN, 1997, p. 234). Eggins and Martin (1997, p. 235, emphasis in original) further argue that “texts are in fact the realization of a finite and very limited number of critical contextual dimensions” which give rise to different genres which, in turn, achieve a particular social purpose in a given society (EGGINS and MARTIN, 1997, p. 236). Both, the contextual dimensions of a given text and how they are realized linguistically in the text, are represented in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3
Social context and language organized by metafunction (EGGINS and MARTIN, 1997, p. 242).

As can be seen in Figure 3 above, the social context, or register, is characterized by three dimensions of variation. These dimensions are listed and defined in Table 4 below:

Table 4
The dimensions of social context (based on THOMPSON, 2014, p. 40)

Social context/Register
Field	The topic of conversation and the role language plays in the activity
Tenor	The relationship between the interlocutors
Mode	The characteristics of the language used in the interaction

Furthermore, each of these contextual dimensions corresponds to a particular metafunction of language, the genre of the text. The relationship between social context (register) and linguistic metafunction (genre) is represented in Table 5 below:

Table 5
Register and its corresponding metafunctions of language (based on THOMPSON, 2014, p. 40)

Register	determines and is construed by (↔)	Metafunction/Genre
Field	↔	Experiential meanings
Tenor	↔	Interpersonal meanings
Mode	↔	Textual meanings

As Table 5 above indicates, the dimension of field of the social context determines and is construed by the experiential meanings expressed in the text, the dimension of tenor of the social context determines and is construed by the interpersonal meanings expressed in the text, and the dimension of mode of the social context determines and is construed by the textual meanings expressed in the text. Any given text’s contextual dimension (i.e., register) and its textual representation (i.e., genre) can thus be analyzed using the model shown in Table 6 below:

Table 6
The functional organization of language in relation to context (based on EGGINS and MARTIN, 1997, p. 239)

Social context/Register (organization of context)	Metafunction/Genre (organization of language)
Tenor (role structure; i.e., the nature of the participants)	Interpersonal meaning (resources for interacting; e.g., turn-taking behavior, forms of address)
Field (social action; i.e., the activity the participants are engaged in)	Ideational meaning (resources for building content; e.g., lexical features present in the text)
Mode (symbolic organization; i.e., the role language plays in the given situation)	Textual meaning (resources for organizing texts; e.g., morpho-syntactic structure of the text)

The tenor present a particular text can thus be analyzed by studying how the interpersonal meanings are expressed in the text. For example, a researcher may investigate the participants’ turn-taking behavior or use of address forms in a conversation. By the same token, a researcher who analyzes the particular interpersonal meanings present in a text gains insight into the text’s tenor and thus the social context within which the text operates. The same dialectical relationship applies to field - ideational meaning and mode - textual meaning. I used this model to analyze the linguistic structure of the ST in order to gain insight into the function of the dialect present in the ST. The results of my analysis are discussed in greater detail in section four below.

2. METHODOLOGY

For the present study, I followed the steps below:

• 1. Analysis of the ST’s textual features

• 2. Analysis of the ST using register and genre theory

• 3. Analysis of the linguistic features of AAVE present in the ST

• 4. Analysis and comparison of how the phonological, morpho-syntactic, and lexical features of AAVE were translated in both TTs

• 5.Analysis of the translation strategies used and comparison of the TTs’ functional equivalence

Since the main objective of my study is to determine whether and to which degree the two analyzed German translations of Twain’s ‘A true story’ are functionally equivalent to the ST, I first need to gain a deeper understanding of the characteristics of the ST, its dialect, and the role the dialect plays in the text. Steps 1 to 3 accomplish that. The second part of my study, steps 4 and 5, focuses on the two translations to find out how the translators dealt with the dialect in the ST. By analyzing and comparing each TT’s translation of the dialect’s linguistic features and the translation strategies employed, I will be able to assess not only the usefulness of these strategies but also each TT’s functional equivalence to the ST. The analysis of the micro-strategies of translation is based on the translation strategies suggested by Vinay and Darbelnet (2000). The macro-strategies of translation refer to Ramos Pinto’s (2009) distinction between normalization and dialectization. In section 4 below, the results of my analyses are discussed in greater detail.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 ST analysis

To determine the general purpose of the ST, I began with an analysis of the texts’ textual features, based on Nord (2005) and summarized in Table 7 below:

Table 7
ST textual features

Textual features
Extra-textual features
Author	Mark Twain
Audience	Readers of the Atlantic Monthly (a prestigious magazine at the time)
Medium	Written
Place	Boston, MA, USA
Time	1874
Function	To address racial issues and to raise the readers’ awareness about the reality of slavery as well as the readers’ own assumptions about African Americans
Intra-textual features
Genre	Expressive text (narrative)
Subject matter	A first-person account of a personal experience regarding slavery
Style	Social dialect (AAVE)

Mark Twain is the author of the ST, published in the Atlantic Monthly in 1874 in Boston, USA. The genre of the expressive text is a first-person narrative by a former slave, framed by the white story-teller’s introduction to the main character’s ‘true story’, which she tells in AAVE.

Considering that the readership of the magazine consisted of affluent white readers less than a decade after the abolishment of slavery, Twain’s story aims to address the issue of race and to “expose ‘the horrors of slavery’ and ‘his own (and the reader’s) ignorant assumptions about the happy conditions of black folk’” (EWELL and MENKE, cited in PIACENTINO, 2011, p. 34f).

However, to better understand the function of the dialect evidenced in the ST, a more in-depth analysis of its non-standard linguistic features is in order, an analysis, I believe, Nord’s framework above does not support because it does not go deep enough into the linguistic features present in the text. To analyze the stylistic intra-textual features in greater depth, I used register and genre theory introduced above as a second step in my study. The results of my analysis are summarized in Table 8 below:

Table 8
Register and genre analysis of the ST

Social context/Register (organization of context)	Metafunction/Genre (organization of language)
Tenor (role structure; i.e., the nature of the participants)	Interpersonal meaning (resources for interacting)
Narrator (white man, “superior race”, presumably Twain himself), story teller (black woman, former slave, “inferior race”), audience (white, affluent, “superior race”)	Reported speech (told in first person); other than the introduction to the story, the narrator does not interfere with the unfolding story giving the black woman the floor
Field (social action; i.e., the activity the participants are engaged in)	Ideational meaning (resources for building content)
First-person narrative of a very painful, personal experience (a mother being forcefully separated from her children)	Present tense is used to express the timelessness of the story making it relevant to the readers
Mode (symbolic organization; i.e., the role language plays in the given situation)	Textual meaning (resources for organizing texts)
Social dialect is used to give authenticity to the story	AAVE

Table 9a
ST phonological dialect features

Phonological features (AAVE → Standard American English)
Non-rhotic accent	bawn → born dah → there waw → war
Consonant cluster simplification	chil’en → children myse’f → myself gemmen → gentlemen
Deletion of final stop consonants	ole → old an’ → and fas’ → fast
Replacement inter- dental fricatives with stops (voiced) or fricatives (voiceless)	den → then (word-initial) dat → that froo → through Norf → North (non-initial) nuffin’ → nothing

Table 9b
ST morpho-syntactic dialect features

Morpho-syntactic features (AAVE → Standard American English)
Absence of copula be	he always so good → he is/was always so good
Verb morphology Omission of -s in third person singular: Use of -s in first and second person singular/ or using ‘is’ instead of am/are, ‘has’ instead of have: Ungrammatical irregular verb forms:	my ole mistis say → my old Missis says what dat mean → what that means de man say → the man says is you in ‘earnest? → are you serious? Has I had any trouble? → Have I had any trouble? I knows → I know as you is → as you are you loves → you love I is → I am dey’s proud → they’re proud dey was black → they were black as if I was → as if I were I knowed → I knew
Multiple negation	He wouldn’t be little no mo’ → He wouldn’t be little anymore (‘no’ for any) dey couldn’t do nothin’ → they couldn’t do anything (‘nothing’ for anything) I didn’t know nuffin’ → I don’t know anything
Perfective done to indicate the completion of an action	I’s done barberin’ → I’m done barbering

Table 9c
ST lexical dialect features

Lexical features
Idiolect	I wa’n’t bawn in the mash to be fool’ by trash!
	I’s one o’ de ole Blue Hen’s Chickens, I is!
Idiomatic expressions	she’d make the fur fly!
Dialect (pronunciation)	gwyne
Dialect (lexical)	bymeby

As summarized in Table 8 above, the narrator of the story is a white man who belongs to the ‘superior race’, similar to the indented audience of the text, whereas the story teller, and main character, is a black woman who belongs to the ‘inferior race’. The story is reported in first person by the main character who is not interrupted by the narrator suggesting that the black woman and former slave is the most important person in the story. It is also crucial to note here that the labels ‘superior race’ and ‘inferior race’ refer to the “attitudes […] typical of the majority of people” (FISHKIN, 1998, p. 74) at the time Twain’s story was originally published. Fishkin (1998, p. 74) points out that “white superiority [was] part of the natural order of things” and this attitude towards black people needs to be taken into consideration when determining the function of the dialect present in the source text.

Considering the social action represented in the story, it is a first person account of a very painful experience, told in present tense, giving the narration both timelessness and closeness to the reader. Fishkin (1998) further argues that in the social context of the time when Twain’s story was first published, African Americans were considered immune to pain and Twain’s story is thus an attempt at showing that this sentiment was simply wrong. Twain’s painful first person narrative of a black former slave woman thus brought the issue of the suffering the black race endured during slavery to the fore of his readers’ consciousness, an issue the white readership would rather avoid.

More significantly, the main narrative is told in AAVE, a novelty at the time Twain’s text was published. By relinquishing his own, white, voice to that of a former slave and by using a “black dialect, presented not to be condescended to or ridiculed […] but to be received respectfully as a vehicle for communicating raw pain, strong emotion, [and] harsh truth” (FISHKIN, 1998, p. 88), Twain managed to deal with the unspeakable cruelty of slavery and its aftermath. I believe that it is Twain’s use of AAVE which lends his story authenticity and credibility.

It is therefore clear to me that the primary function of the dialect in the ST is to paint the main character as a human being rather than an object to be possessed and disposed of at will. The social dialect used in the story gives the black woman, and her race, a voice to claim compassion and demand respect as a fellow human being. Any translation that aims to achieve functional equivalence will have to attempt to recreate this stylistic effect in the target language reader.

As a third step, I analyzed the ST’s dialect in greater detail to discover the linguistic features Twain used to create the text’s stylistic effect which ultimately gave rise to the ST’s function discussed above. My rationale for this step was to see whether there were any patterns present in the ST’s dialect features and to what degree these represented authentic AAVE linguistic features that could be transferred to or recreated in a German translation to achieve a similar stylistic effect. The most prominent dialect features are listed in Tables 9a-c below:

The stylistic effect of the ST is caused by the numerous non-standard features on the phonological, morpho-syntactic, and lexical levels. While the analysis showed that the most common AAVE features present in the text are the deletion of word-final stop consonants and non-standard verb morphology, I suggest it is the overall authenticity and consistency of the linguistic features reproduced in the ST that render the story authentic and credible.

Next, I discuss how the translators dealt with the dialect in the ST and whether the dialect’s stylistic effect was recreated for the German readers.

3.2 TT analysis

As a fourth step, I studied how the ST dialect was translated. Table 10 below exemplifies the translation of the phonological features.

Table 10
Translation of phonological dialect features

Ex. #	Source text	Target text 1 (Translation version Lutz, 1892)	Target text 2 (Translation version Anaconda, 2018)
1	I was bawn down ‘mongst de slaves; I knows all ‘bout slavery, ‘case I ben one of ‘em my own se’f. (sentence 18)	Ich bin geboren unter Sklaven, ganz da unten und weiß alle Dinge von die Sklaverei, weil ich selbst gewesen eine.	Ich bin geboren unter Sklaven, ganz da unten und weiß alle Dinge von die Sklaverei, weil ich selbst gewesen eine.
2	She’d straighten herse’f up an’ put her fists in her hips an’ say, ‘I want you to understan’ (sentence 25)	Sie reckte sich hoch in die Höhe, stemmte die Fäuste in die Seiten und sagte: ›Na wartet, ich werd’s euch lehren!	Sie reckte hoch sich in der Höhe, stemmte die Fäuste in die Seite und sagte: ›Na, wartet, ich das werd euch lehren!
3	Dey was black, but de Lord can’t make chil’en so black but what dey mother loves ‘em an’ wouldn’t give ‘em up, no, not for anything dat’s in dis whole world. (sentence 21)	Sie schwarz gewesen, aber uns’ Herrgott können nicht machen Kinder so schwarz, daß ihre eigne Mutter sie nicht liebt und für nichts in der ganzen Welt hergeben will.	Sie schwarz gewesen, aber uns’ Herrgott können nicht machen Kinder so schwarz, daß ihre eigene Mutter sie nicht liebt und für nichts in der ganzen Welt hergeben will.
4	dat I wa’n’t bawn in de mash be fool’ by trash!	Ihr denkt wohl, ich stamm’ aus ‘nem Bettelsack und wollt mich narren, ihr Lumpenpack?	Ihr denkt wohl, ich stamm aus ‘nem Bettelsack und wollt mich narren, ihr Lumpenpack?

In examples 1 and 2, the non-rhotic accent (bawn), the replacement of word-initial voiced interdental fricative with a voiced stop (de), the deletion of word-initial interdental voiced fricative (‘em), the consonant cluster simplicafication (se’f), and the deletion of word-final voiced stop (an’; understan’) were not recreated in either of the target texts. In general, there was no attempt by either of the translators to recreate the ST’s non-standard phonological features.

The only non-standard pronunciation evidenced in the translations are occasional omissions of vowels. For example, ‘eigne’ [own] in version 1 (example 3) is non-standard whereas in version 2,‘eigene’, is considered standard pronunciation. In example 4, both versions shortened ‘einem’ [a] to ‘‘nem’ and in the same sentence, the word-final ‘e’ is omitted in ‘stamm’’ [come from]. The deletion of vowels is a common non-standard pronunciation feature in current German that could have been consistently recreated but, as sentence 39 exemplifies, both versions translated ‘I begin to cry’ as ‘ich […] heule’, not omitting the ‘e’.

Next, I studied the morpho-syntactic features, summarized in Table 11 below:

Table 11
Translation of morpho-syntactic dialect features

Ex. #	Source text	Target text 1 (Translation version Lutz, 1892)	Target text 2 (Translation version Anaconda, 2018)
5	Oh, bless de chile, he always so good! (sentence 42)	Gott segne das Kind, es war immer so gut	Gott segne die Kind, es war immer so gut
6	‘Lord bless you,’ says I, ‘dat what I’s for.’ (sentence 50)	›Na Herrje, freilich‹ sage ich ›zu was wär’ ich sonst da?‹	›Na Herrje, freilich‹, sage ich, ›zu was wär ich sonst da?‹
7	an’ I begin to cry; an’ de man say, ‘Shet up yo’ damn blubberin’,’ an’ hit me on de mouf wid his han’. (sentence 39)	Ich heule laut, aber der Mann sagt: Laß dein verdammtes Gewinsel und schlägt mich mit sein Hand auf den Mund.	Ich laut heule, aber die Mann sagt: Lass deine verdammte Gewinsel, und schlägt mich mit sein Hand auf meine Mund.
8	None o’ de gemmen had run acrost him, so dey couldn’t do nothin’ for me. (sentence 61)	Keiner von den Offiziers war ihm begegnet und sie konnten mir nicht helfen.	Keiner von den Offiziers war ihm begegnet und sie konnten mir nicht helfen.

In example 5, the habitual be was omitted in the ST but both translations standardize this feature using the auxiliary ‘war’ [was]. Example 6 is representative of Twain’s replacing the auxiliary verbs ‘be’ and ‘have’ with ‘s’ in first and second person singular but rather than using present tense, as in the original, both translations opted for the past subjunctive with the omission of ‘e’ as discussed above. In example 7, the ‘s’ in ‘de man say’ is omitted in the third person singular present tense and again these forms were normalized in German with using the correct third person present tense inflectional morpheme ‘t’. Example 8 is a case of multiple negation, which was not recreated in either of the translations even though it would have been a feasible solution since the double negative is often used in German literary texts for emphasis.

What becomes evident, though, is a dialectization attempt in the second version using grammatically incorrect morpho-syntactic features. In example 7, for instance, version 1 uses correct syntax (‘Ich heule laut’ [I cry loudly]) whereas in version two, the word order of verb and adverb is inverted (‘Ich laut heule’ [I loudly cry]) resulting in a structure that is ungrammatical in German and not an option among the non-standard spoken varieties of German. In the same example, version 1 uses the correct male article ‘der’ [the] before ‘Mann’ [man] whereas version 2 uses the incorrect female article ‘die’ [the], the phrase ‘dein verdammtes’ [your damn] is correctly marked with the neutral accusative case in version 1 but incorrectly with the female accusative case marker in version 2, ‘deine verdammte’, and version 1 correctly uses the male accusative case article ‘den’ [the] before ‘Mund’ [mouth] while version 2 uses the incorrect female accusative case marker with the pronoun ‘meine’ [my]. However, as the detailed analysis revealed, the dialectization approach to version 2 was not implemented consistently, as evidenced in example 8, where the morpho-syntactic structure is correct causing, in my opinion, noticeable and distracting internal incoherence.

Next, I analyzed the texts’ lexical features, exemplified in Table 12 below:

Table 12
Translation of lexical dialect features

Ex. #	Source Text	Target text 1 (Translation version Lutz, 1892)	Target text 2 (Translation version Anaconda, 2018)
9	Misto C - - -, I’s gwyne to tell you, den I leave it to you. (sentence 17)	Hören Sie Mista Charles, ich will alles erzählen und dann sagen Sie sich’s selber.	Hören Sie Mista Charles, ich erzählen will alles und dann sagen Sie sich’s selber.
10	My lan! but she’d make de fur fly! (sentence 23)	sie konnte den Leuten den Pelz waschen, daß die Haare flogen	sie konnte den Leuten die Pelz waschen, dass die Haare flogen.
11	I wa’n’t bawn in the mash to be fool’ by trash! I’s one o’ de ole Blue Hen’s Chickens, I is!’ (sentences 25 - 26)	Ihr denkt wohl, ich stamm’ aus ‘nem Bettelsack und wollt mich narren, ihr Lumpenpack? Ich bin von der ollen blauen Henne ihren Hühnchen, daß ihr’s wißt!‹ -	Ihr denkt wohl, ich stamm aus ‘nem Bettelsack und wollt mich narren, ihr Lumpenpack? Ich bin von die alte blaue Henne ihren Hühnchen, dass ihr’s wisst!‹ -
12	Well, bymeby my ole mistis say she’s broke, an’ she got to sell all de niggers on de place. (sentence 33)	Nu also, mit der Zeit, meine alte Missis sagt einmal, mit ihr wär’ alles aus, sie muß verkaufen ihr Platz und alle Nigger.	Nu also, mit der Zeit, meine alte Missis sagt einmal, mit ihr wär alles aus, sie muss verkaufen ihre Platz und alle Nigger.

As far as the lexical features are concerned, the dialect form ‘gwyne’ in example 9 was translated as ‘will’ in both versions. Example 10, ‘she’d make the fur fly!’, is an idiomatic expression that can be translated with an equivalent idiomatic expression in German. But while the translation seems adequate, it is interesting to observe that both versions opted for the same solution. The same is true for example 11, which is an idiolectal expression that has no equivalent in German and could therefore have been translated in various ways. Finally, the expression ‘bymeby’ in example 12 was translated in both versions as ‘mit der Zeit’ [with time] and, although appropriate, again I believe that different solutions do exist to express this meaning. As a result of the lexical similarity of both versions, I assume that the second translation is an adapted version of the first one rather than a new translation.

As a fifth and final step in my analysis, I studied the micro-strategies of translation used to create both TTs. As it turns out, for both versions, the least common strategies used were borrowing, transposition, adaptation, and modulation whereas the most common ones were literal translation and equivalence. However, the detailed analysis of the translators’ micro-strategies did not prove very useful to assess the functional equivalence of the TTs because, on the one hand and as Vinay and Darbelnet (2000) suggest, it is possible that more than one strategy was employed in each sentence, which does not help to determine which strategy is more effective when translating dialect, and on the other, if it is in fact true that the second version is an adaptation of the first translation, an analysis of the micro-strategies of translation is inappropriate in the case of the second TT.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the importance of dialect as a marker of style in a literary text, my objective in this study was to investigate how the translators of Mark Twain’s ‘A true story’ dealt with the dialect present in the ST and whether the two German translations achieved functional equivalence. Specifically, I asked the following question: How were the ST’s non-standard linguistic features of African American Vernacular English translated into German?

To answer this first question, I analyzed the strategies used by the translators. The results indicated that the most common strategies employed in both translations were literal translation and equivalence whereas borrowing, transposition, adaptation, and modulation were less frequently used. Studying the translators’ micro-strategies in greater detail also revealed that neither translation attempted to recreate the ST’s phonological dialect features, which could have been easily done in German given the many different dialects available in the target language, and that the lexical choices present in both translations are too similar to be accidental. It therefore appears plausible to suggest that the more recent translation is actually an adaptation of the earlier version. In my opinion, the second TT is an unsuccessful attempt to distinguish it from the former one by introducing a number of invented non-standard and inconsistent morphological features not present in the earlier translation.

In terms of the overall translation strategies used in both translations and which of the translation solutions appears to be more functionally equivalent to the ST, my second research question, the detailed analysis of the ST’s textual and linguistic features revealed that the main function of the ST’s dialect is to humanize African Americans. Studying the linguistic features of both TTs and the translation strategies used established that the ST’s dialect was mostly normalized in the first translation and dialectized, mostly by using invented grammatically incorrect morphological features, in the second one. As a result, the dialect function as “an important style marker” (DI BIASE, 2015, p. 43) was largely lost in the first translation whereas the dialectization strategy used in the second translation did create a stylistic effect of non-standardness on the German reader. However, because of the inconsistent use of dialectization and the kinds of ungrammatical features created, I believe that the second translation actually ridicules the main character, and by extension all African Americans, which is opposite to the function Twain had intended. In a study examining the translation of AAVE into German of Jim’s character in ‘Huckleberry Finn’, Berthele (2000, p. 588) drew a similar conclusion in that translations of the novel before the 1960s depicted his speech as a “grammatically simplified pidgin” carrying the sociolinguistic stigma of a person linguistically and cognitively limited explainable, perhaps, by Bonaffini’s (1997, p. 279) observation that historically all literature containing dialect, frequently considered a sub-standard, even ‘plebeian’, form of the language, was subject to a “heavy legacy of prejudices and misunderstandings”. It is therefore surprising that the second translation analyzed in the present study followed the stigmatizing translation strategies opted for by earlier translators, unless, of course, it is an unedited copy of an earlier translation that is not readily available on the market now. In sum, given that a translation is considered functionally equivalent if it meets the skopos rule, I conclude that neither translation met the skopos criterion and therefore neither target text achieved functional equivalence with the original.

My take-away from this study is the importance for a translator to first understand the function of non-standard language in the ST and second to carefully consider which macro-strategy to use to translate the dialect. Since the translator’s decision ultimately determines the translation’s stylistic effect and hence the function the TT accomplishes in the target context, it is the translator’s responsibility, I believe, to “find a [target language] system that will adequately render that function” (BASSNETT, 2014, p. 119) in the TT.

¹

The two translations analyzed are the only existing translations into German I am aware of.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The article does not include public data.

REFERENCES

• ALBALADEJO MARTÍNEZ, JUAN A. (2012). La estética como factor determinante en la traducción del texto literario dialectal y sociolectalmente marcado. Hermēneus, v. 14, p. 29-61.
• BASSNETT, SUSAN. (2014). Translation Studies (4th ed.). London, England: Routledge.
• BERTHELE, RAPHAEL. (2000). Translating African-American Vernacular English into German: The problem of ‘Jim’ in Mark Twain’s ‘Huckleberry Finn’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, v. 4, n. 4, p. 588-613.
• BOASE-BEIER, JEAN. (2004a). Translation and style: A brief introduction. Language and Literature, v. 13, n. 1, p. 9-11. doi: 10.1177/0963947004039483
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947004039483
• BOASE-BEIER, JEAN. (2004b). Knowing and not knowing: Style, intention and the translation of a Holocaust poem. Language and Literature, v. 13, n. 1, p. 25-35. doi: 10.1177/0963947004039485
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947004039485
• BONAFFINI, LUIGI. (1997). Translating dialect literature. World Literature Today, v. 71, n. 2, p. 279-288. https://doi.org/10.2307/40153045
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/40153045
• CONRAD, HEINRICH; JACOBI, MARGARETE, and OTTMANN, LOUIS (trans.).(2018). Mark Twain: Die besten Geschichten [Mark Twain: The Best Stories]. Köln, Germany: Anaconda.
• DI BIASE, ADRIANA. (2015). The representation of Central-Southern Italian Dialects and African-American Vernacular English in translation: Issues of cultural transfer and national identity.” Doctoral dissertation. Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=kent1437053857&disposition=inline (last accessed February 17, 2022)
  » https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=kent1437053857&disposition=inline
• DU, XIAOYAN. (2012). A brief introduction to Skopos theory. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, v. 2, n. 10, p. 2189-2193. doi: 0.4304/tpls.2.10.2189-2193
  » https://doi.org/0.4304/tpls.2.10.2189-2193
• ECO, UMBERTO. (2001). Experiences in translation Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Kindle.
• EGGINS, SUZANNE, and MARTIN, JAMES, R. (1997). Genres and registers of discourse. In: van Dijk, T. A. (ed.). Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 230-256.
• FISHKIN, SHELLEY F. (1998). Lighting out for the territory: Reflections on Mark Twain and American culture. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
• FROMKIN, VICTORIA; RODMAN, ROBERT, and HYAMS, NINA. (2011). AnIntroduction to language (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
• HALLIDAY, MICHAEL A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London, England: Arnold.
• HATIM, BASIL, and MASON, IAN. (1990). Discourse and the translator. London, England: Longman.
• KUSSMAUL, PAUL. (1997). Functional approaches in translation studies in Germany. Ilha do Desterro, v. 33, p. 27-40.
• LÓPEZ NORIEGA. MAURICIO. (2006). Teoría Vermeeriana del Skopos: Una oferta de traducción. Intersticios, v. 11, n. 24, p. 119-128.
• MUNDAY, JEREMY. (2016). Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. New York, NY: Routledge.
• NEWMARK, PAUL. (1988). A textbook of translation. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
• NIDA, EUGENE. (2006). Principles of correspondence. In: Venuti, L. (ed.). Translation Studies Reader (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. P. 141-155.
• NORD, CHRISTIANE. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester, England: St. Jerome Publishing.
• NORD, CHRISTIANE. (2005). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis (2nd ed.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
• PIACENTINO, ED. (2011). Recontextualizing Mark Twain’s ‘A True Story’. The Mark Twain Annual, v. 9, p. 31-43.
• PYM, ANTHONY. (2014). Exploring translation theories (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
• RAMOS PINTO, SARA. (2009). How important is the way you say it? A discussion on the translation of linguistic varieties. Target, v. 21, n. 2, p. 289-307. doi: 10.1075/target.21.2.04pin
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21.2.04pin
• REISS, KATHARINA, and Hans J. VERMEER, HANS J. (2014). Towards a generaltheory of translational action: Skopos theory explained (C. Nord, trans.). London, England: Routledge.
• SIEWIERSKA, ANNA. (1991). Functional grammar. London, England: Routledge.
• THOMPSON, GEOFF. (2014). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
• TWAIN, MARK. (1892). Skizzenbuch: Mark Twains ausgewählte humoristische Schriften [Sketchbook: Mark Twain‘s Selected Humorous Writings] (trans.). Stuttgart, Germany: Verlag von Robert Lutz. (Original work published 1874). Retrieved from https://www.projekt-gutenberg.org/twain/skizbuch/chap019.html (last accessed February 17, 2022) https://www.projekt-gutenberg.org/twain/skizbuch/chap019.html
  » https://www.projekt-gutenberg.org/twain/skizbuch/chap019.html» https://www.projekt-gutenberg.org/twain/skizbuch/chap019.html
• TWAIN, MARK. (2014). The complete short stories of Mark Twain: 169 Short Stories. Prague, Czech Republic: e-artnow. Kindle.
• VENUTI, LAWRENCE. (2006). Genealogies of translation theory: Jerome. In: Venuti; L. (ed.). Translation Studies Reader (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, p. 483-502.
• VERMEER, HANS. (2006). Skopos and commission in translational action. In: Venuti, L. (ed.), Translation Studies Reader (3rd. ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, p. 191-202.
• VINAY, JEAN-PAUL, and DARBELNET, JEAN. (2000). A methodology for translation. In: Venuti, L. (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader London, England: Routledge, p. 84-93.
• YU, JING. (2017). Translating ‘others’ as ‘us’ in Huckleberry Finn: Dialect, register and the heterogeneity of standard language. Language and Literature, v. 26, n. 1, p. 54-65. doi: 10.1177/0963947016674131
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947016674131

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author has no conflict of interest to disclose.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  09 May 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  07 Feb 2023
• Accepted
  05 Oct 2023
• Published
  22 July 2024