Translated drama – or any drama
that is set in a country with a different language from the language of the
play – requires an additional suspension of disbelief, if we are not to ask:
“Why are all these Frenchmen
speaking English?”
Our unquestioning acceptance of
this situation is partly to do with ‘transparent’ language. When people speak
the same way we do, we don’t tend to analyse their forms of speech. When they
speak differently, we notice. When characters in a Shakespeare play speak in
Elizabethan English, we accept it because it conforms to what we know about
when the play was written and when it is set. If characters in a David Hare play
started throwing I-do-beseech-thees into conversation, we’d be puzzled (and if
they talked about ‘maidenhead’, we’d assume the play was set in Berkshire).
This leaves the translator with
two potential problems: time and place. If s/he is translating a 17th-century
play, what kind of language should s/he use? Shakespeare’s? Difficult to
master, and would sound like pastiche. Today’s? Probably easier for the
audience to accept, but they might get upset if there are knights and ladies
going round saying “OK” and “awesome”. Most theatre translators end up opting
for as neutral an idiom as they can manage (modern-ish but avoiding any
expressions that too obviously come from the last twenty years or so), which
makes the play more acceptable to the audience’s ears, but does run the risk of
losing some of the colour of the original.
Translators of contemporary drama
are not saved from these dilemmas. If I am translating a play set in northern
France, and it is an important fact about the play that one of the characters
comes from Marseille, how do I translate her/his accent? I can’t just
arbitrarily make her/him a Scot. The introduction of dialect is the point at
which an English audience might well start thinking, not “Why is this Frenchman
speaking English?” but
“Why is this Frenchman
speaking with a Scottish accent?”
Bill Findlay (2006) has written,
referring to his experiences translating a Goldoni play into Scots dialect,
that the translator runs the risk of using a kind of invented “Costume Scots”.
Since Scots as a full language was dying out by the 18th century,
when Goldoni was writing (in Venetian), a ‘matching’ contemporary idiom is hard
to find. For Findlay, this was made easier by choosing a play with a “narrow
social and linguistic focus” (2006: 53) – a broader range of social
classes would have been harder to render in Scots.
Findlay’s translation retained
the original setting, whereas other modern Scots translations have tended to
translocate the play to Scotland. (Findlay 2006: 54) Translocation makes
the language consistent with the setting, but creates a whole new set of
problems: can one milieu really be equivalent to another? Is the play’s message
the same if it is set in Northern Ireland rather than the Spanish Civil War?
And is this still a translation?
The question of translocation
arises during almost any drama translation process, since there will invariably
be elements that suggest a certain location. Should names be translated?
English names will be easier to say on stage. But if my characters are now
called Peter and Millie rather than Pierre and Amélie, what are they doing in
Paris? Wholesale translocation requires a great deal of thought, about the
setting but also the events of the play and the characters – are they all
compatible with the new location? Partial translocation, where, for example,
names are translated and cultural markers such as food removed or changed,
without explicitly moving the action elsewhere, requires a further extension of
the audience’s suspension of disbelief.
Part of the difficulty comes from
the tendency to ‘domesticate’ in English translation – that is, to force the
text to fit into the English language and context, rather than extending the
English language to meet the demands of the text. We have grown used to a very
English Chekhov, for instance, and tend to think of him almost as one of our
own. Translocation is therefore tempting, as a way of making the play seem more
relevant and immediately acceptable to an English audience; but it is only by
maintaining the ‘foreignness’ of a play that translation can really extend and
enrich the English drama.
References
Findlay, B. (2006) ‘Motivation in a Surrogate Translation of
Goldoni’, in Bassnett, S. and Bush, P., The
Translator as Writer. London: Continuum, 46-57.
Livvy Hanks translates from French to English. She is
currently translating a poem every day, and blogging about the experience, at http://www.napotramo.blogspot.co.uk/
She can be contacted at om.hanksATgmail.com