Before approaching the study of idiolect from the perspective of translation, it is necessary to consider the idea of linguistic variation, which can be defined as “The use of language conditioned by geographical, sociocultural, contextual or historical factors”.
The way in which speakers use the language is not uniform, but varies according to their personal characteristics, the time and the type of communication in which they are involved. Depending on the factor that determines the different use of the same language, several types of variation are considered: functional or diaphasic variation, sociocultural or diastratic variation, geographic or diatopic variation, and historical or diachronic variation.
Unlike other forms of linguistic variation such as the geolect (diatopic variety) or the sociolect (diastratic variety), which have traditionally been the subject of analysis in linguistics and translation, the idiolect has received little attention due to its individual and asystematic essence.
The concept of ‘idiolect’ and its problematics
In general terms, we can conceive of idiolect as “the set of uses of a language characteristic of a specific individual”. In outlining the definition of this concept, the idea of ‘individuality’ stands out, understood as an element that characterizes one’s own identity. On the other hand, a second element to take into account in the considerations about idiolect focuses on the characterization of the idiolectal features as linguistic habits of the individual, as a user of a language.
To be more specific about which features or elements we can identify the level of language use we are referring to, in most cases we have tried to characterize idiolect from a linguistic point of view, distinguishing several levels of analysis. In the phonetic-phonological field, on the one hand, the features that constitute the dynamics of the voice have been described, and on the other hand, the term ‘idiophone’ has been coined for those sounds that are identifiable in the speech of a given person. From a morphosyntactic point of view, we usually talk about issues such as the constructions most frequently used by the user, the structure of the text (in terms of hypotaxis, parataxis, coordination and subordination, etc.), the way in which the information is distributed, the frequency of use of nominal and verbal forms, etc. Finally, at the lexical-semantic level, there is a tendency to point out the recurrent use of certain units by the speaker.
In summary, the notion of idiolect implies that there are variations not only from one region to another or from one social class to another, but also from one person to another. This inherent individuality of the concept of idiolect has meant that it has received less attention in research, since it has been considered that, being concrete elements, they are irrelevant in their contribution to the system that linguistic theory has set as its objective.
Idiolect vs. style
If we take as a starting point the definition of idiolect that we have provided, it is possible to identify it with the notion of style, that is, the individual style adopted by the speaker in a specific communicative situation. However, there are some nuances that make up the difference between the two concepts.
On the one hand, individual style is conceived as an imprint of the speaker’s linguistic competence; it is the result of a voluntary and reflexive act and consists of the deliberate choice by the speaker of certain linguistic resources to configure a form of expression that is specific to them. diolect, on the other hand, is the result of an unreflective choice; the speaker’s associations or choices are unconscious, or only partially so, and could therefore be considered as verbal automatisms or habits.
Thus, while the author has the power to modify their style in the course of their existence, the same is not true for idiolects, whose unconscious choice is somehow determined by their environment (i.e. by external factors).
The idiolect in the translation process
Based on the concept of idiolect as “a variety of the language linked to the personal identity of the sender and whose choice is the result of an unconscious act”, many authors have considered that it is an element that does not need to be taken into account in the translation process, since it does not necessarily have to be a relevant feature of the communicative situation.
However, the translator’s task in this regard lies precisely in their ability to discern the deliberate choice from the usual one, i.e. the style of the idiolect.
Once this stylistic distinction has been made, the translator would be obliged to respect the author’s idiolect only in those texts that are markedly idiolectal, i.e., where the constant presence of idiolect can provide us with some kind of relevant information, such as when characterizing a certain personage. This is especially visible in literary and audiovisual translations.
In this sense, there are four possible methods for the translation of structures that are part of an idiolect:
- Literal translation (not very recommendable, since it implies a correspondence of structures between the two languages that rarely occurs in reality).
- Translation by equivalence, which consists of resorting to a lexicalized structure in the target language that has a different form but the same meaning (although this may imply the disappearance of the idiolectal nuance itself).
- Translation by modification, consisting of a paraphrase of the original.
- Omission, which tends to be deliberately abused in the translation of idiolects.
The translator’s idiolect?
So far we have talked about how the translator should act when faced with possible idiolectal traits in the text they are translating. But what about the translator’s own idiolect?
The translator, as a human being, can also manifest certain linguistic varieties linked to their own identity, and in no case can they do without them, since their expression in the translation takes place unconsciously.
Therefore, according to this argument, there is no possibility for the translator’s idiolectal features to cease to manifest themselves, since their absence would imply the loss of the translator’s linguistic identity. On the contrary, it is the translator’s individual style that should not be evident, since their enunciative role is not that of author of the text (original author), but that of ‘re-enunciator’ of the text.
Carlos Sánchez Luis