Translation of dialect in Kipling's Stalky & Co.
Ivana Tomešová, 1998

[...] Stalky and Co. was first published in 1899, when Rudyard Kipling was at the top of his fame. His previous works were highly appreciated by the British readership. The situation changed when Stalky and Co. appeared. As Kipling later reported, he had not intended to write a novel. The original idea was to write several essays pointing at the antiquated and malfunctioning system of education in contemporary Britain. But later he changed his mind and decided to write several short stories (or chapters) that may be seen as a novel rather than just a collection of short stories. He concentrated mainly on the everyday life in a typical British public school and depicted it without any exaggeration. That is why it was refused by the critics who considered it false and cruel. Because it attacked the ideals of the contemporary Victorian society, the book was not received positively by the readers for whom it was intended. Kipling's witty and rich style was appreciated much more later.1
As the book was written almost one hundred years ago, it is of a great importance to say a few words about the readership for which it was written. At the time Stalky and Co. was written the book was intended for an adult reader from upper social classes. Nowadays the situation is somehow different, because the book is read by the young (or children in some cases). When translating this book, the translator should be aware of the possible shift within the readership and reflect this situation in his/her translation. In this case the intention of the book is changed slightly to make it comprehensible for the potential reader. This holds true especially with the culture background with which the reder need not be familiar.
Kipling's book - Stalky and Co. - gives evidence of brilliantly mastered language (not only English in this case). Well thought-up dialogues and the use of slang and some dialects make up a book that is beloved by many readers, young and old. Though, for the translator there are many translation problems to be solved to preserve Kipling's individual style and open it up for the target language reader.
Stalky and Co. was first translated into Czech in 1910 by Pavla Moudrá. In 1934 and 1936 other editions were published. The third edition (1936) can be considered an adapted version of previous translations.2 Moudrá tried to follow the original text very closely to produce an equivalent text that could have been comprehensible for the Czech reader. She stuck to the meaning, forgetting about the function of the form (viz the translation of dialect). And what is more, she changed the layout of the book dividing the second chapter into two. The newly created chapter was called 'Kterak Krákorka kamenoval Krále'. Why she did it cannot be explained rationally as she divided the text without any serious reason. The title of the new chapter also does not correspond with Kipling's specific style.
In 1971 another Czech translation of Stalky and Co. appeared.3 This time it was translated by Jaroslav Tafel who concentrated on the effort to preserve Kipling's original style at least approximately. It seems that Tafel was aware of the mistakes Pavla Moudrá made in her translation and tried to avoid them. From her translation he borrowed just the names of the main characters (Stopka, Turek, Brouk). He tried to produce a translation that would fully respect the specific qualities of Kipling's text. As Tafel states4, some passages could be translated only approximately, because it was impossible to find a Czech equivalent to some language patterns (dialect, school slang...) introduced by Kipling. Unlike Pavla Moudrá, Jaroslav Tafel succeeded in preserving dialectal speech in the Czech translation. His translation gives evidence that even much complicated passages can be successfully transformed into Czech without affecting the intention of the text. Questions linked with the translation of dialect are discussed further in the text. Czech translations of some problematic passages are also provided to support the argument.
Sometimes dialect is set up as the ultimate impossibility in the translation (Hatim & Mason 1994). It is sometimes very hard to preserve dialectal speech in the translation. Many translators try to avoid this translation problem by transferring the dialect into neutral language irrespective of the function the dialect has in the text. The unwillingness to cope with the problem of translation of dialect is very often explained by the danger of creating an artificial language equivalent, which could spoil the effect of the whole text. Dialectal speech is very rarely rendered in translations into many European languages (Hatim & Mason 1994). On the other hand, replacing it by a standard speech may have the same damaging impact on the quality of the translation as as artificial equivalent, as the effect the dialect has is inescapably lost. Because it is essential to preserve the effect of the text, problems associated with the translation of dialect should not be avoided. Yet, the problem is much more complicated, as it is impossible to transform the dialect without any change. Every language, or every language variety, is closely connected with the culture background in which it is used. Dialect as language variety carries cultural signs that cannot be translated (or better transformed) into any other language. And what is more, the form of the dialect is often a source of problems, because it is too closely linked with the structure of the source language that differs considerably from language to language.
To preserve cultural specificity of the text, the translator has to react to cultural features of the translated text and reflect them in his/her translation. Thus the translation is given a special value that tells the reader about the culture represented in the text and gives the translation specific local colour (Levý 1963).
As was mentioned in the previous passage, problems connected with the translation of dialect can be very complicated. A lot of aspects influencing the function of the dialect in a particular text must be taken into consideration. To preserve the value of the original text, all the specialties of the original, although they may seem untranslatable, must be kept in the translation. As the function of the dialect is prior to its form, it is possible to find corresponding equivalent in the target language. Nevertheless, thorough analysis of both the form and function is necessary in the process of translation. This enables the translator to replace the source language dialect with an appropriate target language equivalent.
Before we start to discuss different aspects of the translation of dialect, it is essential to say a few words about what it is a dialect and what are its functions in the spoken or written language. What it is a dialect? Monolingual dictionary provides us with this definition:
	dialect, n., form of language spoken in a particular region or by a social class5
Mona Baker, a renowned translator, suggests slightly different definition:
	dialect is a variety of language which has currency within a specific community or a group of 	speakers (Baker 1992)
Both the definitions may seem somehow vague for the needs of the translator, though, they provide us with some basic idea what possible functions a dialect may have. The word ¡variety' is of vital importance, as it suggests that dialect is a self-contained unit of language, not a deviation from its standard form (Newmark 1988).
Language as a whole can be further segmented into smaller units that are more suitable for the linguistic and translation analyses of the text. According to Hatim and Mason two basic dimensions of language varieties can be identified.

LANGUAGE VARIETY
user related 					use related
(dialect) 					(discourse)
									(Hatim & Mason 1990)
User related varieties of language carry the information about who or what the speaker is and what is his/her status within the community. Dialect as a user related variety of language can be further segmented according to following dimensions - geographical and regional. These are the two basic types of dialect that analysed in the passege dealing with the dialect used by Kipling in Stalky and Co. Sometimes another dimension - temporal - is added, because it reflects language change through time (Baker 1992, Hatim & Mason 1990). Hatim and Mason identify two more dimensions - standard and idiolectal.6 Thus five different dimensions can be distinguished in the cathegory of dialect. see following figure.
USER RELATED VARIETY 			- geogrephic
(dialect) 						- social
							- temporal
							- standard
							- idiolectal
								(Hatim & Mason 1990)
Any dialect can be easilly analysed following this classification. In practice, the boundaries between those dimensions merge. As all the five dimensions are always present in one dialect, the translator has to decide which dimension plays the most important role in the function of the dialect in the text. That is why Peter Newmark's classification, focused on the function of the dialect, seems to be more convenient for the needs of the translator.
Function of a dialect:
- to show slang use of language
- to stress social contrast
- to indicate local cultural features
(Newmark 1988)

It is obvious that Newmark's classification more or less corresponds with the classification mentioned earlier. It helps the translator to identify the function of the dialect. It is important to stress here that while all the dimensions can be identified in the dialect, just one of them is of the greatest importance for the function of the dialect in the text.
e. g. Language used by a speaker who lives in the country can be marked both geographically and regionally, because the speech of country people is often associated with lower classesd. As it is in most cases impossible to keep both the dimensions in the translation, it is impotrant to find out which dimension influences the function of the dialect more.
Because translation of dialect may seem as impossible at first, thorough analysis of the form and function of this dialect may help the translator to find appropriate target language equivalent.
Now let us concentrate on problems associated with the translation of dialect. As the function of the dialect differs from text to text, those problems are not always the same. On one hand, it is quite easy to render temporal dimension of the dialect in another language; on the other hand, geographical dialect cannot be sometimes expressed in the target language at all.
When we analyse geographical dialect into detail, we come to the conclusion that it is impossible to transfer local language features into another language.7 Why it is so? The most recognisable feature of a geographical dialect is accent. It can be easily 'visualized' in spoken language. As it is mostly the domain of phonetics, in written language it can be outlined only indirectly by faulty spelling and bad grammar. Peter Newmark considers these features irrelevant in a dialect (Newmark 1988). Unfortunately he does not suggest any other way of expressing dialect in written language. When having Czech in mind, faulty spelling, that is common in expressing an english dialect, cannot be transferred into Czech, as this phenomenon is practically irrelevant for a czech dialect. And this holds good in the case of dropped letters too. As the accent is clossely connected with the form, it cannot, in fact, be transferred into another language. Imitation of the sound pattern may affect the quality of the translation, because creating something that does not exist it a given language may seem, at least, unnatural and artificial. What is more, regional dialect is too closely connected with the region where it is spoken. That is why it is impoosible to replace it by an existing target language dialect that also carries culture specific features and is therefore highly regionally marked. Dialectal equivalence cannot be achieved,because unintended effects may spoil the intention of the text. It is easy to imagine the effect of the text where ah Irishman speaks Moravian dialect.
Now we come back to the question whether it is possible to render the function of the regional dialect in the translation. When the regional and social dimensions are ballanced in the dialect in question, an appropriate substitution is possible. Yet, what can the translator do, if the speaker is an Irishman who belongs to upper social classes and whose speech differs only little from the speech of other characters? In this case, the only thing the translator can do is to replace the dialectal speech by a standard language, which changes the intention of the text a little. Allusions to the characteristic features of the dialect must be left out, as they may seem illogical in the translation. Allusions to the origin of the speaker can be translated on the condition they does not affect the logic of the text. JIří Levý suggests another possible way of treating regional dialect - to use such fonetic, lexical and syntactic features that are shared by several dialects and are therefore not regionally marked (Levý 1963). This attitude to the translation of dialect seems to be most suitable, because it allows the translator to preserve the function of the dialect in the text. On the other hand, when there are more than one dialects in the tanslated text, the differences between them are blurred.
As was mentioned above, it is much more easy to render social dialect in the translation. Differentiate the speech of distinct social classes from the standard language is not as much complicated. It is obviously easier to express that the speaker belongs to the working class than to express that he is living in a particular region.
Because it is impossible to answer all the questions connected with the translation of different kinds of dialects, no rule that could be used generally can be formulated. Translator's attitude to the translation of dialect depends on his/he 'sense of language'.
In the preceding paragraphs the impossibility to preserve the form of the dialect was stressed. Differences between languages do not allow the translator to preserve all the specific features of the dialect. This can be demonstrated on the differences between Czech and English (synthetic versus analytic language). While in English dialectal speech can be expressed phonetically, in Czech this phenomenon is practically unknown.8 In Czech the shift from the standard language is mostly expressed by wrong inflectional suffixes of the verbs and adjectives (e. g. dělaj, nosej, mladej. hezkej...). According to Newmark faulty spelling and bad grammar are irrelevant for the a dialect, as dialect is not a deviation from the standard language (Newmark 1988). In this definition the status of dialect within the language system is taken into consideration. We can only agree with the idea that any dialect is a self-contained variety of language, not a deviation. But when we try to express dialect in a written form, this deviation cannot be avoided.
In connection with the written form of a dialect we come back to the uestion how to transfer certain dialect into another language. As this paper deals with the translation of Stalky and Co., we focus on particular problems connected with the translation of the dialects used in this book by Rudyard Kipling - Irish English and Devon dialect.
As was mentioned above, there is often no equivalent in the target language for a particular form in the source text (Baker 1992). Dialectal speech commonly does not have direct equivalent in another language., because different languages express dialect in many different ways. When meaning of the dialect is taken into consideration, it is quite easy to paraphrase the propositional meaning , but other meanings cannot be preserved in the translation. Translating dialect by neutral language affects the overall meaning of the text - the effect is lost. That is why it is important to find appropriate paraphrase in the target language. By adapting parts of the translated text the function of the dialect can be partly preserved.
Until now we have discussed problems of the translation of dialect in general. As this paper tries to show how dialect can be treated in a particular piece of text, let us move to some problems connected with the translation of Irish English and the Devon dialect in Kipling's book Stalky and Co.

IRISH ENGLISH

Before we start to analyse the function of this dialect, it is convenient to classify it according to the dimensions discussed earlier in the text.
Dimension: 	geographical - Irish English
		social - upper social classes
		temporal - contemporary
In Stalky and Co. we can find two characters who speak Irish English - Colonel Dabney and M'Turk (who speaks Irish only ocassionally). When we look closely to the form and function of this dialect we find out that it is almost impossible to render it in the Czech translation. Why it is so? The basic function of Irish English in Stalky and Co. is to indicate local cultural features9 or, in other words, to stress the origin of the speakers. As both of them belong to upper social clas and their speech differs only slightly from Standard English, the Czech translator finds himself/herself in a difficult situation. Irish English cannot be replaced by any target language dialect, as no Czech dialect can preserve the function of the source language dialect - Irish English. What is more, Irish English often has political implications that cannot ba preserved in the Czech translation at all.10
if we examine the the form of Irish English, as it was expressed by Kipling, we can see that it cannot be the same in Czech. In English it is expressed phonetically mainly e.g. by wrong spelling and dropped letters.
sour = Sir 		F' what = for what
ye = you 		dam' = damned
As in Czech there is no equivalent form that would, more or less, correspond to the function of the dialect in the source text, the translator has to look for different ways of transferring this dialect into Czech. it seems that the only way of transferring this dialect into Czech is the translation by neutral language. Yet another problem connected with the Irish English has to be solved. Let us consider this sentence:
»F'what?« Colonel Dabney was growing more and more Irish.11
If the sentence 'F'what' is translated into Czech by neutral language, it cannot , in any way, express characteristic features that are mentioned in the following expression. Thus we have to face the problem of what to do with the allusions to the Irish English. As the sentence seems to be illogical in the Czech translation, it can be left out without afeecting the meaning of the text. The C zech translations presented below reflect different attitudes to this translation problem
Tafel »Cožé?!« 12
Moudrá » Cože?« Plukovník Dabney se stával více a více Irčanem. 13
Tafel's translation shows that the expression alluding to Irish English can be left out. On the other hand, Pavla Moudrá decided to stick to the original text. As the expression 'Cože?'does not point at the origin of the speaker, the following sentence seems to be redundant in the text. And what is more, we can polemise with the word 'Irčan' that may have negative connotations in Czech. Following sentence can be treated in the same way.
And years before Stalky and Beetle had carefully kicked M'Turk out of his irish dialect.
This sentence was left out in both the Czech translations, because it might be seen as illogical by the readers. In Cech we cannot express that Colonel dabney is an english speaking irishman. as Jaroslav Tafel admits, it is sometimes impossible to find functional equivalent to all the forms of the source language (Tafel 1971). In some cases there ir even no equivalent at all. Sometimes regional dialect can be replaced by a regionally unmarked target language dialect. But in the case of Irish English this is not possible. Let us analyse following sentence.
»Do ye shoot foxes?«
Both Tafel and Moudrá translate this sentence in the same way.
»Střílíte lišky nebo ne?«
The Irish form of you (ye) does not have any equivalent in Czech, as Czech pronouns are not expressed in such a sentence. The word 'střílíte' does not offer any possibility to indicate dialectal speech. This example shows that sometimes the translator has to put up with the fact that it is impossible to render dialectal speech in the translation.
Yet, example taken from Tafel's translation of Stalky and Co. proves the fact that law admits exceptions, it depend on the ability of the translator, whether s/he is able to render, at least, some specific features of the dialect.
»No, sorr, nor do I if ye belonged to the castle itself.«
While Pavla Moudrá used formal style in her translation, Jaroslav Tafel tried to differentiate this sentence from the rest of the text. Compare:
Moudrá »Ne, pane, a je mi lhostejno, třeba jste i patřil k zámku.«
Tafel »Ne, a je mi to jedno, i kdybyste byl třeba z královský krve.«
Tafel's translation is more natural in the given context, when M'Turk and Colonel Dabney are arguing. we can hardly imagine an argument where the participants use grammatically perfectly correct language. Thus Moudrá's translation seems to be unnatural and out of context.
The above examles show that in some case it is possible to find functional equivalent to the regional dialect. The translation corresponds with the intention of the original text and keeps some of the specific features of the original text.

DEVON DIALECT
The second dialect we come across in Stalky and Co. is the Devon dialect. Problems connected with the translation of this dialect are slightly different from those we discussed in the previous paragraphs. The analysis of The Devon dialect shows that it is easier to preserve its function in the translation into Czech.
Dimension: geographical - Devon
social - working class
temporal - contemporary
Although geographical and social dimensions are balanced in this dialect, the social dimension is more important for the function of the dialect. As was mentioned above, it is easier to render the speech of country people than to distinguish the region where they live in their speech. The Devon dilect tells us about the social status of people who speak it. The main function of this dialect is to stress sociall differences between the charecters. Social status of the characters helps the translator to find an equivalent in the target language and to preserve its function in the text.
The way Colonel Dabney's servants speak distinguishes them from other characters. Their speech is in sharp contrast with the language of schoolboys and their teachers.12 Devonshire dialect deviates considerably from Standard English. It is again expressed mainly by faulty spelling.
yeou = you 			yeou'm = you are
forgit = forget 		they'm = they are
yiss = yes us knows
tu = too etc.
In the original text the dialect is described as'broud'. For an English reader it is quite easy to imagine the 'broadness' of the dialect, though, in the Czech translation this feature cannot be preserved. The notion of broadness is in a close connection with a particular dialect (Devon) and cannot be therefore transferred into Czech. Rarely there is a dialect in the target language thet that have the same features (and function, of course) as the source language dialect. That is why the expressions pointing at the features of the Devon dialect should be left out from the translation.
»Poachers, simly «, Stalky replied in broad Devon that was the boy's langue de guerre.
 It is clear that this sentence cannot be translated into Czech without any change. The allusion to the brouadness of the dialect does not make sense in the Czech translation, as the features of the Czech dialect used in the translation are different. The first part of the sentence - poachers, simly - does not in the Czech translation reflect dialectal speech. Following translations show how this particular problem was treated by Moudrá and Tafel. Jaroslav Tafel adapted the text and decided to use the aluusion to the dialect in another dialogue where the dialectal speech was rendered.
»My si ho vemem, až pudem vocaď«, odpověděl Stopka místním nářečím, které kluci používali jako svůj langue de guerre.
The expression 'broad Devon' was left out, because it would sound unnatural in the Czech translation, as this feature could not be rendered in the text. Regionally unmarked dialect does not carry any feature of the original dialect. On the other hand, the target language reader is most probably not familiar with the regional varieties of English. The way Pavla Moudrá treated this sentence illustrates how the effect of the text may be influenced negatively.
»Pytláci jsou tam, kdo jiný«, odpověděl Stopka svým širokým devonským dialektem, který byl jeho válečným nářečím.
As an average Czech reader does not know what are the features of the Devon dialect, this remark sounds unnatural and illogical in the Czech translation. Besides, the content of the text was changed slightly, as it refers to the dialect as Stalky's. Function of the dialect in the text is of vital importance in the process of translation. Because it is impossible to keep the form of the dialect, the need to preserve its function stands in the focus of the translator's work. Although the equivalent in the target language is sometimes only approximate, the function of the dialect remains the same.
If the devon dialect is analysed according to Newmark's scale of formality, graddation from colloquial to slang language can be traced. While the language used by the keeper's family is rather colloquial, Rabbit Eggs' speech tends to shift to slang level of language. Compare:
»Aie! Yeou little rascal! I see yeou!« (Keeper)
» I zee 'um! I zee 'um!« (Rabbit Eggs)
It is apparent that it is important to render the differences between the speech of Rabbit Eggs and the keeper's family. Rabbit Eggs monologue should reflect the status of the speaker - drunked coachman.
»Yiss, yeou, yeou long-nosed fower-eyed gingy-whiskered beggar. Yeou'm tu old for such goin's on. Aie! Poultice yeour nose I tall 'ee! Poultice yeour long nose!«
Tafel: »Jó,ty, ty s tim raťafákem, ty žebráku čtyrvoká, zrzatá! Ty seš mi móc starej na takový špásy. Hej,dej si flastr na svůj klofák, povídám, Ten frňák si zaflastruj!«
Translation of this monologue shows , what possibilities the translator has when translating such a text. Slang words such as frňák and klofák are both synonyms of the word ns (nose).
Yet, they are more appropriate in this context. When we compare this text with Pavla Moudrá's translation, we can see how carefully chosen words contribute to the overall effect of the text.
Moudrá: »Jó, to jsi ty, ty dlouhonosej, ty darebáku se čtyřma očima a zrzavou bradou! A heleď, ty jsi mi moc starej na takovou švandu! Hej, ty! Nechceš vobkladek na nos, povídám. Jářku, chceš flastr na svůj nos?«
In this case Pavla Moudrá tried to preserve stylistic features of the text. Nevertheless, when compared with the Tafel's translation, her translation seems to be cumbersome, mostly because it copies the structure of the English text. In Moudrá's translation Rabbit Eggs' speech corresponds with the way country people speak, yet, we would expect more expressive terms in the speech of a drunkard. It is interesting that Moudrá tried to preserve diaùectal speech in this case only. The rest of the dialogues between the keeper and his wife neutral or informal language were used.
As i mentioned above the Czech translator has to search for such language means that would preserve the effect of the Devon dialect in the translation. Because it cannot be
replaced by an existing Czech dialect, the translator has to use regionally unmarked expressions. Stressed social status of the speakers enables the translator to use various slang words that correspond with the intention of the text.
When we analzse Tafel's translation of the devon dialect, we find out that it is easy to rendersocial dialect in the Czech translation. Colloquial spech can be expressed in Czech not only by slang words, but also by certain inflectional patterns.
»Whom are yeou to give arders here, gingy whiskers. Yeou come up to the master. Come o'that wuzzy. Yiss, I rekon us knows the boys yeou'm after. They've tu long ears and wuzzy bellies, an' yeou nippies they in yeour pockets, when they'm dead..... Hell boy yeou all youm a mind to. Yeour other folk, bide yeou side fence.«
Tafel: »Komu tady chcete rozkazovat, zrzouni? Pudete se mnou k jemnostpánovi! A ven z toho trní! Ále jo, však my , počítám, známe ty chlapce, co honíte. Sou jak blejskoty, uši jim vodstávají, břicho maj vyškoudlý, vodnesete je v kapse, až je umoříte hladem..... Jó, chlapcí! Ten tě dá, ten tě je vyžene z hlavy. Vy dvá, vy ostaňte hezky za plotem.«14
Expressions such as vyškoudlý contribute to the quality of the translation, yet, it is questionable wheteher they are comprehensible for the contemporary reader (young reader especially). it is true that those expressions correspond with the time the story takes place. Still the translator should be aware of possible antiquity of some words and treat them very carefully. As most the slang words are limited in their use, they become obsolete uite uickly. On the other hand, it is not possible to predict how long those words will be used by an average speaker. In Pavla Moudrá's translation the dialect is again replaced by informal language. The meaning of some expressions was changed considerably without any purpose.
wuzzy bellies - bystré nohy etc.

Notes:
1 Stříbrný, Z. Dějiny anglické literatury II
2 Jaroslav Tafel suggests that it was not probably revised by Pavla Moudrá
3 Kipling, R. Stopka a spol. Praha 1971, transl. by Jaroslav Tafel
4 see afterword in Stopka & spol. Praha 1971
5 Oxford Minireference Dictionary and Thesaurus oxford 1996
6 these are not discussed in this paper
7 words such as translate and translation are not relevant here
8 we encounter expressions such as 'on řek' in Czech, but they are limited in use
9 to stress where the speaker comes from
10 Irish accent might be associated with low status
11 from Kipling, R. Stalky & Co. London 1921
12 from Kipling, R. Stopka a spol. Praha 1934, transl. by Pavla Moudrá
13 from Kipling, R. Stopka & Spol. Praha 1971, transl. by Jaroslav Tafel
14 Pavla Moudrá's translation
»Komu zde chcete rozkazovat, vy zatr... vousáči, řval hlídač. Půjdete se mnou k pánovi. Vylezte z toho křoví, chlape. Známe ty chlapce, po kterých slídíte! Mají dlouhé uši a bystré nohy, co? Ty jen tak nedostanete. Tak jen pěkně se mnou k pánovi! A vy druzí zůstaňte za plotem.«

Literature:
Kipling, Rudyard: Stalky & Co. London 1921
Kipling, Rudyard: Stopka a spol. Praha 1934, translation Pavla Moudrá
Kipling, Rudyard: Stopka & Spol. Praha 1971, translation Jaroslav Tafel
Levý, Jiří: Umění překladu, Praha 1963
Newmark, Peter: A Textbook of Translation Prentice Hall International (UK) 1988
Newmark, Peter: The Aspects of Translation London 1981
Baker, Mona: In other Words London 1992
Hatim, Basil, Mason, Ian : Discourse and the Translator, New York 1990
Nida, E., Taber, Ch.: A New Concept of Translation, New York 1969
Stříbrný, Z.: Dějiny anglické literatury II