NARRATIVE PERSPECTIVE AND FOCALISATION

IN TRANSLATING FICTIONAL NARRATIVES

URO MOZETI

STUDIES
IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
AND LITERATURE IN SLOVENIA
Editors: SMILJANA KOMAR and URO MOZETI
Slovensko drutvo za angleke tudije
Slovene Association For Te Study Of English
ISSN 1581-8918
nglish
anguage
verseas
erspectives and
nquiries
ii1
ELOPE
English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries:
STUDIES IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE IN SLOVENIA
Volume I/1-2
Editors
Smiljana Komar
Uro Mozeti
Editorial Board
Duan Gabrovek
Meta Grosman
Darja Hribar
Victor Kennedy
Milena Milojevi Sheppard
Janez Skela
Rastislav utari
Editorial Secretary
Gaper Ilc
Proofreading
Jason Blake
Editorial Policy
ELOPE. English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries is a journal devoted to the research and
academic discussion of linguistic and literary issues from theoretical and applied perspectives regardless
of school of thought or methodology. Its aim is to promote original enquiry into linguistics, literary and
translation studies, language and literature teaching with the main focus on English. ELOPE will publish
two issues per year.
Publishers address
Slovensko drutvo za angleke tudije, Akereva 2, SI-1000 Ljubljana
Design
Gaper Mrak
Cover
Marjan Poganik, Zimsko cvetje, 1994
7,6 x 10,0 cm; colour etching, deep relief
Owner: National gallery, Ljubljana
Photo: Bojan Salaj, National gallery, Ljubljana
Printed by
Birograka Bori, Ljubljana
Number of copies
300
Ljubljana, 2004
ISSN 1581-8918
il JHAN8|AJl0N 8JU0l|8
0re Mete||c
U.|.e.s||, c| |,.||,+.+
|+c.||, c| A.|s. |.||s| |e(+.|e.|
Na||al|ve le|specl|ve aaa |cca||sal|ca
|a J|aas|al|a ||cl|caa| Na||al|ves
Summary
Te main objective of this paper is to present the complex processes of the shifting of narrative
perspective (point-of-view) and focus in translating English prose texts into Slovene. For
that purpose, a narratological discourse analysis of James Joyces story Eveline (Dubliners) is
introduced, drawing on K. M. van Leuven-Zwarts comparative and descriptive model. Te
model, which has been expanded by three additional categories narrative mode, narrative
perspective, and focalisation , brings to the forefront the cause-and-eect relationship between
the micro- and macrostructural shifts on the one hand, and the shifts in narrative perspective
and focalisation on the other. Te results obtained show that the model is empirically veriable
and repeatable. Tis means that it can also be used with other integral translations, particularly
if translation shifts are subtle enough and/or consistent with the translators dominant strategy
and norm.
l||pcveaac |ea|sceaje |a a||sceaje
p|| p|evajaaja p|c/a|| cesea||
Povzetek
Razprava prinaa nekaj novih pogledov na problem gledienja in arienja pri prevajanju
proznih besedil. Za opisovanje in vrednotenje tovrstnih premikov smo se oprli na primerjalni
in opisni model K. M. van Leuven-Zwart, ki smo ga razirili s tremi naratolokimi kategorijami,
in sicer s pripovednim nainom, gledi(enj)em in ari(enj)em. Na ta nain smo skuali
pojasniti vzrono in posledino razmerje med mikro- in makrosktrukturnimi spremembami
ter premiki v raziskovanih kategorijah. Tako prirejen model, ki smo ga preizkusili na primeru
Joyceove zgodbe Evelina (Ljudje iz Dublina), se je izkazal kot empirino zanesljiv in preverljiv,
kar pomeni, da je uporaben tudi pri drugih celostnih (integralnih) prevodnih besedilih.
Njegova zanesljivost pa je odvisna od stopnje pretanjenosti in/ali doslednosti prevodnih
premikov v skladu s prevajalevo prevladujoo strategijo in normo.
iJ U.cs |ce||c I/e S/|/ .| /--/.e /e/e./.e -! /..-/-/. I-/-/ /./.-/ Ie\/
J|e 8||ll|a cl Na||al|ve le|specl|ve aaa |cca||sal|ca
|a J|aas|al|a ||cl|caa| Jexls
J. |a|rt1at||ta
Among the many unresolved issues in the eld of translation studies is also the one pertaining
to the question of who sees/speaks in the source and in the target text. Any tackling of the
problem of narrative perspective and voice in translation process inevitably brings into play a
long list of complementary disciplines such as narratology, literary stylistics, text linguistics, and
a few other, somewhat more circumstantially related critical practices like literary pragmatics,
to name but one. Ever since the publication of the pioneer research into narrative perspective
and voice in translation conducted by Levenston and Sonnenschein in 1986, translation
studies have seemed to be neglecting this problem, at the same time giving priority to (cross/
inter) cultural studies and literary comparative enquiry as well as various forms of political
discourse. Te (original) text per se has thus, at least in the eye of a translatologist, acquired
the status of an entity inseparable from its wider determining context, with its linguistic
and stylistic constituency pushed to the background of investigation. However irrefutable
such positioning of the text may be, the fact remains that without thorough examination
of individual textual components by themselves and in relation to each other within the
framework of the same text, it is virtually impossible to make the text play along with what
literary pragmatists pursue, namely the (in)communicability of the text with(in/out) proper
contextualization.
1

Our principal objective will be to prove that there is, after all, such a thing as immanent
communicability of the text, dependent solely on its internal structuration and vital drawing
on the given textual premises, but which, if observed from a distance and in relation to a
wider context, may congure in a way which is essentially dierent and also more productive
since the aim of exploring literature should not simply be in terms of how literature can
aect our lives but rather the other way round (somewhat along the lines of Wallace Stevens
dictum expressed in his Adagia, namely that life is a reection of literature). To this
eect, I intend to go, rstly, into the original text of James Joyces Dubliners
2
, in order
to extrapolate the prevailing narrative strategies with respect to narrative perspective and
focalisation and their rendering in the Slovene translation. Secondly, the results obtained
1
'|[||e.+., (.++||cs |+'es |c. .+.|ec ||+| .c +ccc..| c| cc..|c+||c. |. e.e.+| .||| |e cc(|e|e .|||c.| +.
+ccc..| c| |||e.+|..e +.c ||s cc.|e|.+||+||c.. +.c ||+| .c +ccc..| c| |||e.+|..e .||| |e cc(|e|e .|||c.| +. +c
cc..| c| ||s .se c| ||e cc..|c+||.e .esc..ces e.e.+||, +.+||+||e' Se|| 1991. |.,.
2
|e +|. .e+sc. |c. se|ec||. |||s |e| .+s c||.+|ec |, ||e |+c| ||+|. |. 0.//e. !c,ce cc||.es ||e c|+.+c
|e.|s||c |e+|..es c| |c|| |.+c|||c.+| .e+||s|, +.c cce..|s| cces c| ..|||.. .||c| +'es (css|||e ||e c|se..+.ce
c| ||e s|||||. c| .+..+||.e (e.s(ec||.e +.c |cc+||s+||c. +c.css + .|ce .+.e c| .+..+||.e |ec|.|c.es .sec |, ||e
+.||c. |c +.|(.|+|e ||e .+..+|c. +.c ||e c|+.+c|e.. |e |.|||. |e|s +.e c||e. .e+.cec +s + s(ec|+| |,(e c| .e+||s|
cce..|s| s|c.| s|c.,. |.e+'|. .||| - ,e| +| ||e s+e ||e es|+|||s||. - + cc(|e|e|, .e. .e|+||c.s||( .||| ||e
cc..e.||c.+| cce c| .+..+||. c|. |+..|.ce. 1990. 41,. U.||'e !c,ce's |+|e. ..|||.s. .c|+||, '/,e +.c /e-
w-/e. .|e.e ||e .+..+|c.'s/+.c|c.|+| .c|ce (.c(||, .|||c.+.s |. c.ce. |c |e+.e ||e s|+e c.e c. |ess e.||.e|, |c
iJJ JHAN8|AJl0N 8JU0l|8
from the comparative analysis of the selected segments from both the source and target texts
on the micro-structural level will be compared with the eects that take place on the macro-
structural level. I expect that the employment of the comparativedescriptive method for
analysing shifts in narrative perspective and focalisation will provide adequate insight into
those textual conditions that signicantly govern the realisation of these two categories in
the original as well as translated narrative.
Te Levenston and Sonnenschein study appears to be more signicant in its breaking new
ground and drawing attention to transformations of specic narrative aspects which occur
during a translation process than in its resolving the problems dealt with. Te conclusions
drawn by the authors are to a large extent hindered by a failure in the methodology employed:
rst, the question of who speaks and who sees in a ctional narrative is too easily dismissed
by a general attribution of speech activity to the narrator except in the case of direct speech,
where the speaking is performed by the character (1986, 49). Second, there is a bit of
confusion in the taxonomy for observation of shifts in narrative perspective as proposed by
the authors (ibid., 534): the four categories register-restricted vocabulary items, collocations
and clichs, word order, and free indirect speech do not in fact operate on the same level, in
that the rst three fall within the domain of the fourth one, which in turn cannot possibly
serve as a criterion for studying narrative perspective and focalisation because it is the
product rather than the source of special linguistic and stylistic devices dictated by a given
perceptive, psychological, or ideological activity on the part of the narrator/character.
Te fact that the identity of the speaker/seer in a stretch of narrative is an intriguingly
complex matter is supported by the long history of narratological endeavours
3
to adequately
explain what, or better still, who is behind it all when we come across, for instance, the
following situation (Joyce 1967, 200):
(1) Besides they were dreadfully afraid that Freddie Malins might turn up screwed. Tey
would not wish for worlds that any of Mary Janes pupils should see him under the
inuence.
/Underlined by U. M., as in all subsequent quotes./
because it seems virtually impossible to determine the exact proportion of auctorial/character
presence in a text which resorts to such unpredictable shifts in register as exemplied above.
What is at stake here, of course, concerns as much the teller as it does the observer. Whether
these two can be identied as one person or two is the point under discussion. Te excerpt
from Te Dead is presented entirely in the so-called free indirect speech, which is in itself so
3
|s(ec|+||, s|.ce ||e (.|||c+||c. c| 0. 0e.e||e's se|.+| .c.'. /--/.e 0...e 1980. .||c| |c.+||, |.|.cc.cec
||e c|||e.e.||+||c. |e|.ee. ||e |e||e. +.c ||e c|se..e. +s .e|| +s |e|.ee. (c|.| c| .|e. +.c |cc+||s+||c.. sc|c|+.s
|+.e (e.(e|.+||, cc.ce..ec ||ese|.es .||| |e|.+| c|.c.s|+.ces .||c| e.e.+|e .+.|c.s ce.ees c. |e.e|s c|
s(eec|/.|e. (.ese.|+||c. |. + .+..+||.e |e| c|.. |c. e+(|e. S. ||+|+.'s c|c|c|cc.s .+..+||.e cce| cc(.|s
|. (e.ce(|.+| .s. cc.ce(|.+| (c|.| c| .|e. 198. |. b+|'s cc.ce(| c| ||.s|. secc.c e|c. ce.ee c| |cc+||s+||c. 1983.
iJi U.cs |ce||c I/e S/|/ .| /--/.e /e/e./.e -! /..-/-/. I-/-/ /./.-/ Ie\/
complicated a mode of narrative presentation, particularly in terms of narrative perspective
and focalisation, that it needs to be dealt with at some length.
i. (ttt| ta1 ||ta|| (rttta|t||ta tt ttat|||a||tt t|tmta|t
t| atrrt||tt (trt(tt||tt ta1 |ttt||tt||ta
Free indirect speech has its own remarkable terminological history, which is but another proof
of its complexity. L. Brinton (1980, 363), for example, enumerates no less than eight dierent
English denominations for it: independent form of indirect discourse (Curme 1905), free indirect
style (Kalepky 1913), represented speech (Jespersen 1924), substitutionary narration (Fehr 1938),
quasidirect discourse (Voloinov 1973), represented discourse (Doleel 1973), and represented
speech and thought (Baneld 1973). Te list may be updated by M. Toolans combined discourse
and the more and more widely used free indirect discourse (McHale 1978; Fludernik 1993;
Hawthorn 1994; Quirk et al. 1994, etc.). Since narrative perspective is brought about by the
use of a specic narrative speech/thought mode, it would be worthwhile to rely on the cline of
speech and thought presentation as proposed by M. Short (Leech and Short 1992, 31851):
Notwithstanding some undeniable dierences between the way(s) a certain speech or thought
act(ivity) is presented in a narrative text (most notably the dierence in the so-called norm
of presentation), I have chosen to replace Shorts modes of speech and thought presentation
by the common term discourse. Such economisation proves especially useful and ecient
in exploring the shifting of narrative perspective and focalisation because neither of them
is signicantly aected by whether a given stretch of language is presented in, for instance,
free indirect speech or free indirect thought. Te distinction between speech and thought
presentation may further be seen as irrelevant, given the fact that any literary discourse is a
closed communication system, and thus, by denition, cannot create the same conditions for
interlocution as an ordinary open communication system does.
4

Narrator apparently in
total control of report
Narrator apparently in
partial control of report
Narrator apparently
not in control of report at all


NRA
(Narrative report
of action)
NRSA
(Narrative report
of speech acts)
IS
(Indirect speech)
FIS
(Free indirect
speech)
DS
(Direct speech)
FDS
(Free direct speech)
n
NORM

NRA
(Narrative report
of action)
NRTA
(Narrative report
of thought acts)
IT
(Indirect thought)
FIT
(Free indirect
thought)
DT
(Direct thought)
FDT
(Free direct thought)
n
NORM
4
J.. ||e.c|. c| ||e c|s||.c||c. |e|.ee. s(eec| +.c ||c.|| cc.|e|s +,. +c|||ec|,. |e +| .+.|+.ce .||| ||e
ccc. +((.c|+||c. c| ||e S|c.| cce|. (+.||c.|+.|, .||| ||e c.e +c.cc+|ec |, |. ||.ce..|'. .|c ||.cs ||e |c.
+| sc+|e +s ce||.ec |, ||e +.||c. +|| ||e c.e .+|.+||e (.ec|se|, |c. ||e c|s||.c||c. e.||c.ec. '|eec|/S|c.| +.e
|c |e (+.||c.|+.|, .ecce.cec |c. ||e|. c..c|+| c|scc.e., +.||c|(+|ec |. |||e.+., c.|||c|s |, |c|. 198, ||+| ||e
|.-/ sc+|e. +|||c.| ec.+||, +((||c+||e |c s(eec| +.c ||c.|| cc.|e|s. cc..e|+|es .||| e.||.e|, c|||e.e.| (.c(c.
||c.s. .+|es c| ccc...e.ce +.c +.'|. c|s|.||.||c.s |. ||e .e+| c| cc.sc|c.s.ess +s cc(+.ec |c ||e c|s|.||.||c.
iJl JHAN8|AJl0N 8JU0l|8
Although Shorts model is highly instrumental in setting formal criteria for pursuing discourse
analysis of any ctional narrative, it does not answer all the questions related to narrative
perspective and focalisation, especially the one concerning the function of teller/observer in
the case of free indirect discourse.
Te many conicting aspects and functions of free indirect discourse have, therefore, been
on the agenda ever since its rst occurrence as a separate issue in theoretical discourse.
Even today, one would sooner fall into the intricate web of inadequate or disparate theories
about free indirect discourse than come across a simple, albeit simplifying and lucid
extrapolation of its concrete eectuality. One only has to refer to the most comprehensive
English grammar, the chapter on Reporting the language of others: Free indirect speech is
used extensively to report speech or (particularly in ction) the stream of thought Free
direct speech is also used in ction writing to represent a persons stream of thought (Quirk
et al. 1994, 102033). However, there have been a few attempts in the past decade at
clarifying the terminological confusion regarding various forms of representing the mental
processing of characters taking place in the ctional narrative, notably the one made by K.
Wales: ... and I shall therefore here take interior monologue as the blanket term for what
is essentially free direct thought and for dierent kinds of thought processes. Stream of
consciousness, as with Humphrey (1954) is therefore reserved for the general representation
of thought-processes by a variety of means, including (free) direct thought, (free) indirect
thought, narrative report, etc (Wales 1992, 75). An overlapping of stream of consciousness
and interior monologue can thus be found with Fowler (1989b, 12746), where both
categories are treated as techniques of realising the same point of view. Such treatment may
be disputed on the grounds that stream of consciousness and interior monologue should,
strictly speaking, be seen more as psychological categories, literarily contextualised, than
as linguistic-stylistic techniques. Tey are, after all, the eect of certain textual procedures,
rather than their cause. Moreover, their psychological nature is manifested in their
representing a concrete mental state/activity of a ctional character.
Te representation of the psychological dynamics within characters is no doubt crucially
dependent on the way(s) of representing the characters speech/thought activity. However,
I believe that a translators adequate rendering of the relationships between individual
protagonists in the ctional world has to, rst and foremost, take account of the medium
of conveying narrative information. Here I am referring to the so-called lter, as dened by
S. Chatman (1990) and extensively commented upon by T. Sasaki
5
, along with the other
two central categories replacing the traditional concept of narrative perspective, i.e. slant and
5
''S|+.|' .e|e.s |c ||e .+..+|c.'s +||||.ces +.c c||e. e.|+| ..+.ces +((.c(.|+|e |c ||e .e(c.| |..c||c. c| c|scc..se
e.. ||e.e |s +. |.c.|c 's|+.|' |e.e,. '||||e.' ce.c|es ||e e.|+| +c||.||, e(e.|e.cec |, c|+.+c|e.s |. ||e s|c., .c.|c.
|+..+||.e |.|c.+||c. +, |e '||||e.ec' ||.c.| c. +.c .|e. ||e |..e. .c.|c c| ||s |.c |s cesc.||ec |e |e
cces ||e '||||e.'. c. |e |s '|.||||.+|ec'., '|.|e.es||cc.s' |s .e|+|ec |c ||e c|+.+c|e. |. .|cse |.|e.es| ||e .e+ce. |s |..||ec
|c .e+c ||e .+..+||.e...' S+s+'| 1994. 1?o,. |e +.||c. ||.cs + ..|e. c| ||ec.|es e.. 0. 0e.e||e's cc.ce(| c| |..-/
-/.. 1983. |. b+|'s ce.e|c(e.| c| ||e .c||c.s |..-/e +.c |..-/e! 1983. |. |c.|e.'s |.|(+.|||e cce| c| (c|.|
c| .|e. 1989. ce.|.ec |.c b. Us(e.s', 193, |.+cec.+|e |. |e.s c| |+|||. |c |.cc.(c.+|e ||e /ee/|... +s ||e
iJ1 U.cs |ce||c I/e S/|/ .| /--/.e /e/e./.e -! /..-/-/. I-/-/ /./.-/ Ie\/
interest-focus. Te latter, interestingly, resembles Hallidays interpersonal function of language
(1973) since in both cases the locutor/narrators interfering with the speech act is motivated
by their endeavour to establish a link between the sender and the receiver of the message. Te
interpersonal function, moreover, signicantly ties in with the distance between the reader
and the narrated characters, in which case it may still be justiable to maintain the distinction
between free indirect speech and free indirect thought, which is in accordance with the Short
model discussed above: with the former, the distance between the reader and the character
tends to shorten, whereas with the latter, insisting on the readers more active engagement in
the mental activity of the character, the eect seems to be the opposite (cf. also note 3).
Every translator of a ctional text, before embarking on the translation of their text, has to
consider all the relevant discourse parameters, i.e. general linguistic and stylistic features
as well as idiosyncratic peculiarities which make possible the realisation of the textual
potentiality as to who sees and who speaks in the narrative. Our research, drawn on the
theoretical and practical results of the contrastive analysis of the selected English prose
texts and their corresponding Slovene translations, has revealed signicant deviations
especially on the axis narrator narratee. Tis is largely due to the translators inaccurate
determination of the narrative mode(s) used, resulting in the displacement of the roles
of the seer/speaker designated by the author of the original text. We can observe the
greatest number of shifts in translation in those instances where the text either develops
simultaneously on dierent narrative levels or where there is a comparatively weak signalling
of shifting from one level to another, sometimes even within a single sentence or clause.
Such narrative manipulation enables the author to introduce a variety of perspectives on
the same issue and juxtapose two sets of values, to imply a critique of the characters views
without the direct judgement which an external perspective would produce (Fowler 1989b,
138). What ensues from the interplay of two or more dierent views might be called a
kind of hybrid perspective, the realisation of which is left entirely to the reader. Te case of
bringing together the authors (objective) and the characters (subjective) perspective, which
happens to be the most frequent situation produced by free indirect discourse, gives rise to
the emergence of the so-called double voice, within which one set of values, beliefs, etc. is
involved in implicit dialogue with another (ibid., 140.) Te concept of double voice seems
to be a plausible suggestion as to who really speaks in free indirect discourse, even though
it signicantly departs from the traditional notion, conceived already by Genette (1972),
according to which the narrator is always the speaker, except in direct speech, where the
speaking is performed by the characters. What Genettes theory fails to take into account is
that, particularly in free indirect discourse, the author attempts to imitate the speech of the
character by using the kind of lexis, grammar, and other structural and stylistic peculiarities
pertaining to the typical speech and emotive behaviour of that character, but presented in
the auctorial past tense and third person singular (cf. Brinton 1980, 363). Te interaction
between the voice of the author/narrator and that of the character can best be illustrated by
iJ JHAN8|AJl0N 8JU0l|8
quoting a passage from one of the Dubliners stories, Clay (Joyce 1967, 1123), in which
Marias own description of her self-perception in the mirror is juxtaposed with that of the
author/narrator:
(2) She changed her blouse too and, as she stood before the mirror, she thought of how she
used to dress on Sunday morning when she was a young girl; and she looked with quaint
aection at the diminutive body which she had so often adorned. In spite of its years she
found it a nice tidy little body.
Te contrast between the part underlined (the exact words that Maria would use in the rst-
person singular discourse) and the preceding description is striking enough to create the so-
called narrative irony and thus maintain the distance between the author/narrator and the
character (cf. Short 1991, 712).
Te problem which also ties in with the immanent features of free indirect discourse is double
imagery. In his study of Joyces Ulysses, S. Benstock, in contrast to the traditional identication
of narrative participants in terms of speakers, chooses to juxtapose contextual subjects and
their idiosyncratic mental patterning, personal tone, attitude, modulation, etc. which he sees
as concomitant with their respective verbal manifestations (1980, 2667). Te critics attempt
to go behind the working of free indirect discourse ultimately brings him to the correlation
between double voice and double perspective, when, on the basis of his close analysis of the
opening sentence in the novel, he realises that there have to be two dierent observers of Buck
Mulligan since the adjectives stately and plump are not only incompatible in the denotative and
connotative sense, but also mutually exclusive (Joyce 1987, 3):
(3) Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead
Te example is at the same time perfectly illustrative of M. Bakhtins notion of heteroglossia,
that is anothers speech in anothers language.
6
Tis can be said of any discourse which has
a twofold direction it is directed both toward the referential object of speech, as in ordinary
discourse, and toward anothers discourse, toward someone elses speech (Bakhtin in Fludernik
1993, 325).
What is of particular interest here is that it is possible to come across double-voiced discourse in a
very limited stretch of language, sometimes even within a single phrase, which must inevitably
present a special diculty for a translator of any text structured according to the principle of
the polyphony of voices and perspectives.
6
b+'|||. +|.|+|.s ||+| !..//e...e! !...e 'se..es |.c s(e+'e.s +| ||e s+e ||e +.c e(.esses s|.||+.e
c.s|, |.c c|||e.e.| |.|e.||c.s. ||e c|.ec| |.|e.||c. c| ||e c|+.+c|e. .|c |s s(e+'|.. +.c ||e .e|.+c|ec |.|e.||c. c|
||e +.||c.. |. s.c| c|scc..se ||e.e +.e |.c .c|ces. |.c e+.|.s +.c |.c e(.ess|c.s. A.c +|| ||e .|||e ||ese |.c
.c|ces +.e c|+|c|c+||, |.|e..e|+|ec. ||e, - +s || .e.e - '.c. +|c.| e+c| c||e. ,.s| +s |.c ec|+.es |. + c|+|c.e
'.c. c| e+c| c||e. +.c +.e s|..c|..ec |. |||s .|.+| '.c.|ece c| e+c| c||e.,. || |s +s || ||e, +c|.+||, |c|c + cc.
iJ U.cs |ce||c I/e S/|/ .| /--/.e /e/e./.e -! /..-/-/. I-/-/ /./.-/ Ie\/
Te postulation of double-voiced discourse logically entails the existence of something which
I would like to term double-viewed discourse. As the excerpt (2) demonstrates, the free indirect
discourse mode depends for its eect on the simultaneous speaking as well as seeing on the part
of the narrator and character involved. Consequently, two distinctive perspectives and their
verbal manifestations can be emphasised to the point of presenting the reader with a set of
values, beliefs, and worldviews, which are contrasting enough to motivate him/her to form an
idiosyncratic opinion of the ctional world. Notwithstanding the seemingly even polarisation
of the control of the speech/view activity between the narrator and character in the case of free
indirect discourse, as suggested by the Short cline and many other exponents, there is reason to
believe that the narrator, in spite of all, has a decisive advantage over the character in that s/he
not only sees what the character sees, but s/he also sees the character himself. On this score,
I tend to side with van Leuven-Zwarts contention that the narrator is always a focalizor, i.e.
telling a story implies seeing the events, actions and characters which are its constituent parts
Although it is not possible to tell a story without focalizing, it is possible to focalize without
telling a story: a character may very well focalize without reporting what he sees (1989, 176).
Accordingly, the narrators and the characters respective focalisation, when the latters does
not involve narrating, actually occur on separate levels, and should therefore be understood
in hierarchical order. As this calls for a more dierentiated and precise denomination of their
functions, it seems appropriate to dene focalisation as the process in which the point of view
of the character is realised on the level of story. Te term narrative perspective, however, ought
to be reserved for that position on the level of discourse from which the narrator observes,
comments on and qualies the narrative. Te main purpose of such delineation of perspective
and focalisation is to provide some clarication, however arbitrary or even simplifying, of the
perpetual issue concerning free indirect discourse, especially in terms of its perplexing nature
of double-voicedness and double-viewedness, as discussed above.
In the following narratological discourse analysis of a selected segment of the Dublin story
Eveline the function of narrative perspective and focalisation have been attributed with respect
to a given narrative mode: in the case of narrative report of action (NRA), narrative perspective
(NP) and focalisation (FO) have been granted entirely to the narrator (NR). In narrative report
of discourse act (NRDA)
7
and indirect discourse (ID), NP goes to NR, whereas FO remains
in the domain of the character (CH). In the case of free indirect discourse (FID), NP becomes
shared by NR and CH indicated as (:), with FO being entirely on the part of CH. In direct
discourse (DD) and free direct discourse (FDD), both NP and FO have been allocated to CH.
In the attempt to create a solid and veriable system for observing and measuring individual
shifts in narrative perspective and focalisation in translation against the original propositional
content, van Leuven-Zwarts comparative and descriptive model (1989, 15181; 1990, 6995)
7
J.. cc.ce(| c| |||A cc.e.s .c| c.|, ||e .+..+||.e .e(c.| c| s(eec| +c|s +s ce||.ec |, |eec| +.c S|c.| 199?.
3?3-33, +.c ||e .+..+||.e .e(c.| c| ||c.|| +c|s |||c.. 33-41,. |.| +|sc .+.|c.s |c.s c| ||e .e(.ese.|+||c. c|
(e.ce(||c. b.|.|c. 1980. 3o3,. |e(.ese.|ec (e.ce(||c.. |c.e.e.. c.e |c ||s (.c|||, |c ||e .++||c+| +.c
|e||c (cs|||c. |e|.ee. |.c|.ec| +.c c|.ec| c|scc..se. cces |. ||e cc+|. c| |.ee |.c|.ec| c|scc..se.
iJI JHAN8|AJl0N 8JU0l|8
has seemed particularly appropriate as it examines every translation on two levels: rst on the
microstructural and then on the macrostructural level. Te microstructural level comprises
shifts within the realm of sentence, clause, and phrase. Consequently, this type of shift has been
assigned to one of the following categories: semantic (SEM), stylistic (STY), syntactic-semantic
(SYN-SEM), syntactic-stylistic (SYN-STY), and syntactic-pragmatic (SYN-PRAG). All those
segments which do not display a sucient amount of comparability with the original on the
basis of any of the above categories have been assigned to a special category called mutation
(MUT). As the term itself suggests, mutation comprises shifts resulting from deletion, addition
or radical changes of meaning of the source-text items. All the relevant microstructural shifts
have further been analysed and described on the macrostructural level in view of the three
functions of language: ideational (IDEAT), textual (TEXT), and interpersonal (INTERP)
(Halliday 1973). Every change on the macrostructural level, caused by a certain microstructural
shift, has been observed both, rst on the story and then on the discourse level, whereby the
latter has been regarded as superior to the former. However, it has to be pointed out that those
microstructural shifts which have little or absolutely no bearing on the macrostructural level
have not been taken into consideration since they do not contribute to the understanding of
the translators interpretive strategies and methods.
Te overall taxonomy of the pertinent shifts in translation have been achieved with the
appropriation of the van Leuven-Zwart model, expanded by three additional categories:
narrative mode (NM), narrative perspective (NP), and focalisation (FO). Te newly designed
model has thus brought to the forefront the cause-and-eect relationship between the micro-
and macrostructural changes on the one hand, and the changes in narrative perspective and
focalisation on the other. Its application to the narratological discourse analysis of the Dublin
story Eveline has shown that the model is empirically veriable and repeatable. Tis means
that it can also be used with other integral translations.
l. trrt|t|t|tt| 1|tttartt tat|t|t t| '|tt||at' |ttttr(|, 1ttt JlI, lI-|.
A SOURCE TEXT
B TARGET TEXT

MICROSTRUCTURAL
SHIFTS
MACROSTRUCTURAL
SHIFTS
NM


NP FO
DISCOURSE STORY
1A 8|e sal al l|e W|aacW f Walc||a l|e evea|a |avaae
l|e aveaae (1).

10 8eae|a je ca c|aa f |a cpa/cva|a vece|, || je va||a|
v a||cc (1).



(1) 8|M (eae|a||sal|ca)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A


NRA f NR0A
NR


NR
NRf0H


NRf0H
2A He| |eaa Was |eaaea (1) aa|asl l|e W|aacW ca|la|as f
aaa |a |e| acsl|||s Was (2) l|e caca| (3) cl aasl,
c|elcaae.

20 0|avc je p||s|ca||a (1) | /avesa f |a v acsa|ca|
j| je a|| (2) vcaj (3) p|asaea ||elcaa.





(1) 8YNJ8|M (acl|ve vc|ce)
(2) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)
(3) 8JY (|e|sle|)




(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(3) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A



|l0
NR



NR . 0H
NRf0H



0H
3A 8|e Was l||ea.


30 0||a je al|ajeaa.



f



f f
NR0A
(|l0')

NR0A
(|l0')
NR
(NR . 0H')

NR
(NR . 0H')
0H


0H
4A |eW pecp|e passea (1).

40 Ma|c |jaa| je |ca||c (1) |c.


(1)8YNJ8|M (ve|a cl
aa|al|ca)


(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0

NR0A
NR . 0H

NR
0H

0H
5A J|e aa cal cl l|e |asl |case (1) passea (2) ca
||s Wa, |ce,

50 0ccv |eae je p||se| |c (2) c |/ ||se aa vca|a
(1),



(1) 8YNlRA0 (l|eal|sal|ca)
(2) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


NR0A
NR . 0H


NR
0H


0H




1A 8|e sal al l|e W|aacW f Walc||a l|e evea|a |avaae
l|e aveaae (1).

10 8eae|a je ca c|aa f |a cpa/cva|a vece|, || je va||a|
v a||cc (1).



(1) 8|M (eae|a||sal|ca)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A


NRA f NR0A
NR


NR
NRf0H


NRf0H
2A He| |eaa Was |eaaea (1) aa|asl l|e W|aacW ca|la|as f
aaa |a |e| acsl|||s Was (2) l|e caca| (3) cl aasl,
c|elcaae.

20 0|avc je p||s|ca||a (1) | /avesa f |a v acsa|ca|
j| je a|| (2) vcaj (3) p|asaea ||elcaa.





(1) 8YNJ8|M (acl|ve vc|ce)
(2) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)
(3) 8JY (|e|sle|)




(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(3) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A



|l0
NR



NR . 0H
NRf0H



0H
3A 8|e Was l||ea.


30 0||a je al|ajeaa.



f



f f
NR0A
(|l0')

NR0A
(|l0')
NR
(NR . 0H')

NR
(NR . 0H')
0H


0H
4A |eW pecp|e passea (1).

40 Ma|c |jaa| je |ca||c (1) |c.


(1)8YNJ8|M (ve|a cl
aa|al|ca)


(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0

NR0A
NR . 0H

NR
0H

0H
5A J|e aa cal cl l|e |asl |case (1) passea (2) ca
||s Wa, |ce,

50 0ccv |eae je p||se| |c (2) c |/ ||se aa vca|a
(1),



(1) 8YNlRA0 (l|eal|sal|ca)
(2) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


NR0A
NR . 0H


NR
0H


0H
iJ U.cs |ce||c I/e S/|/ .| /--/.e /e/e./.e -! /..-/-/. I-/-/ /./.-/ Ie\/
9A J|e c|||a|ea cl l|e aveaae (1) asea lc (2) p|a, lcel|e|
|a l|al l|e|a l|e 0ev|aes, l|e wale|s, l|e 0aaas,
||ll|e Kec| l|e c||pp|e, s|e aaa |e| a|cl|e|s aaa
s|sle|s (3).

90 0l|cc| |/ a||ce (1) sc se pc aavaa| (2) s|apaj ||a|| aa
le pc|ja 0ev|acv|, wale|jev|, 0aaacv|, a|| pc|aa
|jea| Kec|, caa |a ajeaa a|ala |a sesl|e (3).





(1) 8|M (eae|a||sal|ca)
(2) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)
(3) 8YN8|M (aaae|)





(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
(3) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl

|l0




NRA
NR . 0H




NR
0H




NR
10A ||aesl, |cWeve|, aeve| p|a,ea. |e Was lcc |cWa ap.

100 ||aesl se |ajpaaa a||c|| a| ||a|, a|| je e p|evec
ca|ase|.


f


f f
|l0

|l0
NR . 0H

NR . 0H
0H

0H
11A He| lal|e| asea cllea lc (1) |aal l|e |a cal cl
l|e l|e|a (2) W|l| ||s a|ac|l|c|a sl|c|,

110 0ce j|| je acsl|||al (1)p|eaaja| s pc|ja (2), |c/ec j|
/ |ccvc pa||cc,




(1) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)
(2) 8|M (p||asec|c|ca| e|e.)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0


NRA
NR . 0H


NR
0H


NR
12A aal asaa||, ||ll|e Kec| asea lc (1) |eep a|x (2) aaa
ca|| cal W|ea |e saW |e| lal|e| cc|a.

120 a pc aavaa| (1) je sla| a|| Kec| aa sl|a| (2) |a je
/avp||, ce je v|ae|, aa se a||a ajea cce.




(1) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)
(2) 8JY (a|a|ecla| e|e.)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl

(2) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


NRA
NR . 0H


NR
0H


NR
13A 8l||| l|e, seeea lc |ave aeea |al|e| |app, l|ea.

130 veaaa| sc a||| l|sl| cas eaaa /e|c s|eca|.


f


f f
|l0

|l0
NR . 0H

NR . 0H
0H

0H
14A He| lal|e| Was acl sc aaa l|ea (1), aaa aes|aes (2),
|e| cl|e| Was a||ve.

140 Njea cce aavse/aaaje (1) a| a|| la|c aapa|, |a v||a
vsea (2) je se |ve|a al|.




(1) MUJ (|aa|ca| c|aae cl
eaa|a)
(2) 8JY (a|c|a|c e|e.)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl

(2) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


|l0
NR . 0H


NR . 0H
0H


0H
15A J|al Was a |ca l|e ac, s|e aaa |e| a|cl|e|s aaa
s|sle|s (1) We|e a|| |cWa ap,

150 Jea je a||c e ac|c, caa |a a|ala |a sesl|e (1) sc vs|
e ca|as||,



(1) 8YN8|M (aaae|)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0


|l0
NR . 0H


NR . 0H
0H


0H
1A |e| cl|e| (1) Was (2) aeaa.

10 al| (1) je (2) |lva.



(1) MUJ (ae|el|ca)
(2) 8YN8|M (lease)


(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0

|00
NR . 0H

0H

0H

0H
11A J|//|e 0aaa Was aeaa, lcc, aaa l|e wale|s
|aa cae aac| (1) lc |a|aaa (2).

110 J|//|e 0aaa je laa| a||a, |a wale|jev| sc se v|a||| (1)
aa Aa|es|c (2).



(1) 8YN8|M (lease)
(2) 8JY (a|c|a|c e|e.)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


|00
NR . 0H


0H
0H


0H
18A |ve|,l||a c|aaes.

180 vse se sp|e|aja.


f


f f
|00

|00
0H

0H
0H

0H
19A NcW s|e Was c|a lc c aWa, (1) |||e l|e cl|e|s,
lc |eave |e| |ce (2).

190 /aaj je caa aa le, aa pcjae p|cc (1) |a|c| csla||,
aa /apasl| ac (2).



(1) 8YN8|M (lease)
(2) MUJ (ae|el|ca)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ,lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ,lNJ|Rl
|l0


|l0
NR .0H


NR .0H
0H


0H
A SOURCE TEXT
B TARGET TEXT

MICROSTRUCTURAL
SHIFTS
MACROSTRUCTURAL
SHIFTS
NM


NP FO
DISCOURSE STORY
1A 8|e sal al l|e W|aacW f Walc||a l|e evea|a |avaae
l|e aveaae (1).

10 8eae|a je ca c|aa f |a cpa/cva|a vece|, || je va||a|
v a||cc (1).



(1) 8|M (eae|a||sal|ca)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A


NRA f NR0A
NR


NR
NRf0H


NRf0H
2A He| |eaa Was |eaaea (1) aa|asl l|e W|aacW ca|la|as f
aaa |a |e| acsl|||s Was (2) l|e caca| (3) cl aasl,
c|elcaae.

20 0|avc je p||s|ca||a (1) | /avesa f |a v acsa|ca|
j| je a|| (2) vcaj (3) p|asaea ||elcaa.





(1) 8YNJ8|M (acl|ve vc|ce)
(2) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)
(3) 8JY (|e|sle|)




(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(3) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A



|l0
NR



NR . 0H
NRf0H



0H
3A 8|e Was l||ea.


30 0||a je al|ajeaa.



f



f f
NR0A
(|l0')

NR0A
(|l0')
NR
(NR . 0H')

NR
(NR . 0H')
0H


0H
4A |eW pecp|e passea (1).

40 Ma|c |jaa| je |ca||c (1) |c.


(1)8YNJ8|M (ve|a cl
aa|al|ca)


(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0

NR0A
NR . 0H

NR
0H

0H
5A J|e aa cal cl l|e |asl |case (1) passea (2) ca
||s Wa, |ce,

50 0ccv |eae je p||se| |c (2) c |/ ||se aa vca|a
(1),



(1) 8YNlRA0 (l|eal|sal|ca)
(2) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


NR0A
NR . 0H


NR
0H


0H




1A 8|e sal al l|e W|aacW f Walc||a l|e evea|a |avaae
l|e aveaae (1).

10 8eae|a je ca c|aa f |a cpa/cva|a vece|, || je va||a|
v a||cc (1).



(1) 8|M (eae|a||sal|ca)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A


NRA f NR0A
NR


NR
NRf0H


NRf0H
2A He| |eaa Was |eaaea (1) aa|asl l|e W|aacW ca|la|as f
aaa |a |e| acsl|||s Was (2) l|e caca| (3) cl aasl,
c|elcaae.

20 0|avc je p||s|ca||a (1) | /avesa f |a v acsa|ca|
j| je a|| (2) vcaj (3) p|asaea ||elcaa.





(1) 8YNJ8|M (acl|ve vc|ce)
(2) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)
(3) 8JY (|e|sle|)




(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(3) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A



|l0
NR



NR . 0H
NRf0H



0H
3A 8|e Was l||ea.


30 0||a je al|ajeaa.



f



f f
NR0A
(|l0')

NR0A
(|l0')
NR
(NR . 0H')

NR
(NR . 0H')
0H


0H
4A |eW pecp|e passea (1).

40 Ma|c |jaa| je |ca||c (1) |c.


(1)8YNJ8|M (ve|a cl
aa|al|ca)


(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0

NR0A
NR . 0H

NR
0H

0H
5A J|e aa cal cl l|e |asl |case (1) passea (2) ca
||s Wa, |ce,

50 0ccv |eae je p||se| |c (2) c |/ ||se aa vca|a
(1),



(1) 8YNlRA0 (l|eal|sal|ca)
(2) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


NR0A
NR . 0H


NR
0H


0H
A s|e |ea|a ||s lcclsleps c|ac||a a|ca l|e ccac|ele
paveeal aaa alle|Wa|as c|aac||a ca l|e c|aae| pal|
aelc|e l|e aeW |ea |cases.

0 s||sa|a je, |a|c a ||cpccejc slcp|aje pc l|ae l|a|a,
|a pcl|ej, |a|c a s|||p|jejc pc aas||| aa sle/| p|ea
acv|| |aec|| ||sa|.




f




f f
NR0A



NR0A
NR



NR
0H



0H
1A 0ae l|e (1) l|e|e asea lc ae (2) a l|e|a l|e|e |a W||c|
l|e, asea lc p|a, eve|, evea|a (3) W|l| cl|e| pecp|e's
c|||a|ea.

10 8vcje aa| (1) je a||c (2) la pc|je |a s|eaaj| vece| (3)
sc se ||a|| / cl|c|| a|a|| |jaa|.






(1) 8JY (a||c|a|c e|e.)
(2) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)
(3) 8JY (|e|sle|)




(1) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
(3) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0



NRA
NR . 0H



NR
0H



NR
8A J|ea (1) a aa l|c 0e|lasl aca|l l|e l|e|a aaa aa||l
|cases |a |l acl |||e l|e|| ||ll|e a|cWa |cases (2) aal
a|||l a||c| |cases W|l| s||a|a |ccls.

80 Kasaeje (1) je |ap|| lc pc|je ae|ac |/ 0e|lasla |a se/|aa|
aa aje ||se - ae aj|a|| |jav|| ||s (2), |a|c| sc
aj||cve, levec svel|e cpecae ||se / |es|elav||
sl|e|a|.




(1) 8|M (aspeclaa||l,)
(2) 8|M (exp|es|veaess)




(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0



NRA
NR . 0H



NR
0H



NR
iJl JHAN8|AJl0N 8JU0l|8
14A He| lal|e| Was acl sc aaa l|ea (1), aaa aes|aes (2),
|e| cl|e| Was a||ve.

140 Njea cce aavse/aaaje (1) a| a|| la|c aapa|, |a v||a
vsea (2) je se |ve|a al|.




(1) MUJ (|aa|ca| c|aae cl
eaa|a)
(2) 8JY (a|c|a|c e|e.)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl

(2) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


|l0
NR . 0H


NR . 0H
0H


0H
15A J|al Was a |ca l|e ac, s|e aaa |e| a|cl|e|s aaa
s|sle|s (1) We|e a|| |cWa ap,

150 Jea je a||c e ac|c, caa |a a|ala |a sesl|e (1) sc vs|
e ca|as||,



(1) 8YN8|M (aaae|)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0


|l0
NR . 0H


NR . 0H
0H


0H
1A |e| cl|e| (1) Was (2) aeaa.

10 al| (1) je (2) |lva.



(1) MUJ (ae|el|ca)
(2) 8YN8|M (lease)


(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0

|00
NR . 0H

0H

0H

0H
11A J|//|e 0aaa Was aeaa, lcc, aaa l|e wale|s
|aa cae aac| (1) lc |a|aaa (2).

110 J|//|e 0aaa je laa| a||a, |a wale|jev| sc se v|a||| (1)
aa Aa|es|c (2).



(1) 8YN8|M (lease)
(2) 8JY (a|c|a|c e|e.)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


|00
NR . 0H


0H
0H


0H
18A |ve|,l||a c|aaes.

180 vse se sp|e|aja.


f


f f
|00

|00
0H

0H
0H

0H
19A NcW s|e Was c|a lc c aWa, (1) |||e l|e cl|e|s,
lc |eave |e| |ce (2).

190 /aaj je caa aa le, aa pcjae p|cc (1) |a|c| csla||,
aa /apasl| ac (2).



(1) 8YN8|M (lease)
(2) MUJ (ae|el|ca)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ,lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ,lNJ|Rl
|l0


|l0
NR .0H


NR .0H
0H


0H
20A Hce|

200 0c|



f


f f

|00

|00
(|l0')
0H

0H
(NR.0H')
0H

0H
(0H')
21A 8|e |cc|ea a|caaa l|e |cc, |ev|eW|a a|| |ls (1)
la|||a| cajecls W||c| s|e |aa aaslea (2) cace a
Wee| (3) lc| sc aa, ,ea|s,

210 0/||a se je pc sca|, /acva p|e|eaa|a vse le (1)
/aaae p|eaele, s |ale||| je lc|||c |el vsa| leaea (3)
cela|a (2) p|a|,





(1) 8YNlRA0 (ae|cl|c e|e.)
(2) 8YN8|M (lease)
(3) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)




(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl

(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(3) l0|AJ,lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NR0A



|l0
NR



NR.0H
0H



0H
22A Wcaae||a (1) W|e|e ca ea|l| a|| l|e aasl cae
l|c.

220 |a p|| le vse|aa| p|e|s|jeva|a (1), ca |ca se ae||
je|je ves la p|a|



(1) MUJ (aaa|l|ca)



(1)l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl, l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0


|l0



NR. 0H



0H

23A le||aps (1) s|e Wca|a aeve| see (2) aa|a l|cse
la|||a| cajecls f l|c W||c| s|e |aa aeve|
a|eaea (3) cl ae|a a|v|aea.

230 Mc|ea|l| (1) a||aa| vec ae ac v|ae|a (2) le| /aaa||
|ec|, ca |ale||| se v saaja| a| |s|||a (3), aa a| se
|aaj |cc||a.





(1) 8JY (|e|sle|)
(2) 8YN8|M (lease)
(3) 8YN8|M (lease)




(1) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(3) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0fNR0A



|l0
NR



NR . 0H

0H



0H
24A Aaa ,el aa||a a|| l|cse (1) ,ea|s s|e |aa aeve|
lcaaa cal (2) l|e aae cl l|e p||esl W|cse
,e||cW|a (3) p|clc|ap| |aa ca l|e Wa|| aacve l|e
a|c|ea |a|ca|a aes|ae l|e cc|ca|ea p||als cl l|e
p|c|ses aae lc 0|essea Ma|a|el Ma|, A|accae.

240 la veaaa| v vse| le| (1) |el|| a||aa| a| |/veae|a (2),
|a|c se p|se aa|cva||, c|a| pc|aeae|a (3) lclc
|al|ja je v|se|a aa slea| aaa pc|c|jea| |a|ca|
je /|avea aa|vaea l|s|a / cael|, aaa|| a|aea|
Ma|a|el| Ma||j| A|a|c|.






(1)8YNlRA0 (ae|cl|c e|e.)
(2) 8YN8|M (lease)
(3) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)






(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(3)l0|AJ,lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NR0A





|l0
NR





NR. 0H
0H





0H
25A He |aa aeea a sc|cc| l||eaa cl |e| (1) lal|e| (2).

250 0|| je ccelcv (1) scsc|ec (2).



(1) MUJ (ae|el|ca)
(2)8YNlRA0 (l|eal|sal|ca)


(1)l0|AJ,lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(2)J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NRA

|l0

NR

NR. 0H

NR

0H

21A He |s |a Me|aca|ae acW.

210 /aaj je v Me|aca|aa.'


f


f f
l0

l0
0H

0H
0H

0H
28A 8|e |aa ccasealea lc c aWa,, f lc |eave
|e| |ce (1).

280 l||vc|||a je, aa pcjae p|cc, aa /apasl| ac (1)



(1) MUJ (ae|el|ca)



(1)l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
00f|l0


00
NRf
NR. 0H

NR. 0H

NRf0H

0H
29A was l|al W|se'

290 !e a||c lc paelac'


f


f f
|l0

|l0
NR. 0H

NR. 0H
0H

0H
A SOURCE TEXT
B TARGET TEXT

MICROSTRUCTURAL
SHIFTS
MACROSTRUCTURAL
SHIFTS
NM


NP FO
DISCOURSE STORY
1A 8|e sal al l|e W|aacW f Walc||a l|e evea|a |avaae
l|e aveaae (1).

10 8eae|a je ca c|aa f |a cpa/cva|a vece|, || je va||a|
v a||cc (1).



(1) 8|M (eae|a||sal|ca)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A


NRA f NR0A
NR


NR
NRf0H


NRf0H
2A He| |eaa Was |eaaea (1) aa|asl l|e W|aacW ca|la|as f
aaa |a |e| acsl|||s Was (2) l|e caca| (3) cl aasl,
c|elcaae.

20 0|avc je p||s|ca||a (1) | /avesa f |a v acsa|ca|
j| je a|| (2) vcaj (3) p|asaea ||elcaa.





(1) 8YNJ8|M (acl|ve vc|ce)
(2) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)
(3) 8JY (|e|sle|)




(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(3) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A



|l0
NR



NR . 0H
NRf0H



0H
3A 8|e Was l||ea.


30 0||a je al|ajeaa.



f



f f
NR0A
(|l0')

NR0A
(|l0')
NR
(NR . 0H')

NR
(NR . 0H')
0H


0H
4A |eW pecp|e passea (1).

40 Ma|c |jaa| je |ca||c (1) |c.


(1)8YNJ8|M (ve|a cl
aa|al|ca)


(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0

NR0A
NR . 0H

NR
0H

0H
5A J|e aa cal cl l|e |asl |case (1) passea (2) ca
||s Wa, |ce,

50 0ccv |eae je p||se| |c (2) c |/ ||se aa vca|a
(1),



(1) 8YNlRA0 (l|eal|sal|ca)
(2) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


NR0A
NR . 0H


NR
0H


0H
ii U.cs |ce||c I/e S/|/ .| /--/.e /e/e./.e -! /..-/-/. I-/-/ /./.-/ Ie\/
3.1 0|scass|ca.
For reasons of economy, the above presents only a short segment of the analysis of the whole
of the Eveline story which has been carried out. Te comparison between the English
and the Slovene Eveline has revealed some fairly crucial dierences as regards narrative
perspective and focalisation: Te greatest number of shifts on the microstructural level are
of a stylistic nature, specically shifts in register (23 segments), syntagmatics (8), and in the
temporally-marked lexical items (7). Special emphasis has to be paid to the rst and the third
type of shifts since they have a direct bearing on the interpersonal function of language on
the macrostructural level in the sense of conveying information on the social and temporal
distance between the narrator and reader on the discourse level, and between the characters
on the story level. Needless to say, the presence of these register and temporal markers
manifests itself also in the manner and type of narrative perspective and focalisation.
Te translation also demonstrates a growing tendency towards the neutralisation of the
informal or colloquial diction of the original, which is a clear marker of the use of free
indirect discourse. Tese segments are thus, as a rule, rendered into Slovene either through
narrative report of discourse act(ivity) or narrative report of act(ivity). Te consequence
of such improper rendering is a greater objectivisation of narrative report and the shifting
of perspective and focalisation away from the character towards the (omniscient) narrator.
Unlike the reader of the original who is inclined to assume a somewhat distant and sceptical
position regarding the narrative information which s/he receives from the (unreliable)
character, the reader of the Slovene text is more likely to trust the seemingly objective
report of the author/narrator. In this respect, the former reader is confronted with a far less
traditional text in that s/he cannot rely any longer on whatever information s/he gets from
the character(s) but has instead to realise the interpretive potential of the text entirely on
his/her own.
24A Aaa ,el aa||a a|| l|cse (1) ,ea|s s|e |aa aeve|
lcaaa cal (2) l|e aae cl l|e p||esl W|cse
,e||cW|a (3) p|clc|ap| |aa ca l|e Wa|| aacve l|e
a|c|ea |a|ca|a aes|ae l|e cc|ca|ea p||als cl l|e
p|c|ses aae lc 0|essea Ma|a|el Ma|, A|accae.

240 la veaaa| v vse| le| (1) |el|| a||aa| a| |/veae|a (2),
|a|c se p|se aa|cva||, c|a| pc|aeae|a (3) lclc
|al|ja je v|se|a aa slea| aaa pc|c|jea| |a|ca|
je /|avea aa|vaea l|s|a / cael|, aaa|| a|aea|
Ma|a|el| Ma||j| A|a|c|.






(1)8YNlRA0 (ae|cl|c e|e.)
(2) 8YN8|M (lease)
(3) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)






(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(3)l0|AJ,lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NR0A





|l0
NR





NR. 0H
0H





0H
25A He |aa aeea a sc|cc| l||eaa cl |e| (1) lal|e| (2).

250 0|| je ccelcv (1) scsc|ec (2).



(1) MUJ (ae|el|ca)
(2)8YNlRA0 (l|eal|sal|ca)


(1)l0|AJ,lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(2)J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NRA

|l0

NR

NR. 0H

NR

0H

21A He |s |a Me|aca|ae acW.

210 /aaj je v Me|aca|aa.'


f


f f
l0

l0
0H

0H
0H

0H
28A 8|e |aa ccasealea lc c aWa,, f lc |eave
|e| |ce (1).

280 l||vc|||a je, aa pcjae p|cc, aa /apasl| ac (1)



(1) MUJ (ae|el|ca)



(1)l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
00f|l0


00
NRf
NR. 0H

NR. 0H

NRf0H

0H
29A was l|al W|se'

290 !e a||c lc paelac'


f


f f
|l0

|l0
NR. 0H

NR. 0H
0H

0H
30A 8|e l||ea lc We|| eac| s|ae cl l|e (1) aesl|ca.

300 8|asa|a je p|ele|lal| lc (1) vp|asaaje / cae| p|al|.


(1) 8YNlRA0 (ae|cl|c e|e.)


(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NR0A

|l0
NR

NR. 0H
0H

0H
31A la |e| |ce aa,Wa, (1) s|e |aa s|e|le| aaa lcca,

310 Ka|c| e aca| (1), aca je |e|a sl|e|c aaa |avc |a
p|es||ac,


(1) 8JY (|e|sle|)


(1) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0

NR0A
NR. 0H

NR
0H

0H
32A s|e |aa l|cse W|c (1) s|e |aa |acWa (2) a|| |e|
||le aacal |e|.

320 ||c aje sc a||| |jaaje, || (1) j|| je pc/aa|a (2) vse
|v|jeaje.



(1) 8JY (|e|sle|)
(2) 8YN8|M (lease)



(1) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
(2) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
NR0A


|l0
NR


NR. 0H
0H


0H

A SOURCE TEXT
B TARGET TEXT

MICROSTRUCTURAL
SHIFTS
MACROSTRUCTURAL
SHIFTS
NM


NP FO
DISCOURSE STORY
1A 8|e sal al l|e W|aacW f Walc||a l|e evea|a |avaae
l|e aveaae (1).

10 8eae|a je ca c|aa f |a cpa/cva|a vece|, || je va||a|
v a||cc (1).



(1) 8|M (eae|a||sal|ca)



(1) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A


NRA f NR0A
NR


NR
NRf0H


NRf0H
2A He| |eaa Was |eaaea (1) aa|asl l|e W|aacW ca|la|as f
aaa |a |e| acsl|||s Was (2) l|e caca| (3) cl aasl,
c|elcaae.

20 0|avc je p||s|ca||a (1) | /avesa f |a v acsa|ca|
j| je a|| (2) vcaj (3) p|asaea ||elcaa.





(1) 8YNJ8|M (acl|ve vc|ce)
(2) 8|M (|aleas|ve e|e.)
(3) 8JY (|e|sle|)




(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
(2) l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl l0|AJ, lNJ|Rl
(3) lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
NRA f NR0A



|l0
NR



NR . 0H
NRf0H



0H
3A 8|e Was l||ea.


30 0||a je al|ajeaa.



f



f f
NR0A
(|l0')

NR0A
(|l0')
NR
(NR . 0H')

NR
(NR . 0H')
0H


0H
4A |eW pecp|e passea (1).

40 Ma|c |jaa| je |ca||c (1) |c.


(1)8YNJ8|M (ve|a cl
aa|al|ca)


(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl J|XJ, lNJ|Rl
|l0

NR0A
NR . 0H

NR
0H

0H
5A J|e aa cal cl l|e |asl |case (1) passea (2) ca
||s Wa, |ce,

50 0ccv |eae je p||se| |c (2) c |/ ||se aa vca|a
(1),



(1) 8YNlRA0 (l|eal|sal|ca)
(2) 8JY (s,alaal|c e|e.
|le|al|ca)



(1) J|XJ, lNJ|Rl lNJ|Rl
|l0


NR0A
NR . 0H


NR
0H


0H
iiJ JHAN8|AJl0N 8JU0l|8
Te archaisation of the target language causes a reversed process, which means that now
it is the character who has taken control of narrative report. It has to be pointed out that
such shifting on the microstructural level always gravely aects all the three functions of
language on the macrostructural level, most of all the interpersonal function. Terefore the
reader of the translation is encouraged to attribute to the character Eveline features such as
conventionalism, rigidity, sentimentality, and the like, contributing to the overall cultural
and emotional paralysis which dominates the Dublin story.
8
Although such attribution is
not contrary to the truth, the crucial dierence between the original and the translation
resides in the fact that the former relativises it whereas the latter tends to make it altogether
objective or absolute.
Te third important shifting on the macrostructural level is of a syntagmatic nature,
and concerns the use of iteration. By and large, lexical iteration happens to be a highly
characteristic rhetorical device in all the Dublin stories. Its pragmatic function is directly
associated with the problem of narrative perspective and focalisation in the sense that every
occurrence of iteration in a short stretch of text may be seen as a marker of the minimum
control of report on the part of the author/narrator. Te translated text consistently ignores
this gure of speech, preferring as it does to replace it with synonyms, thus relocating the
focus from the character to the author/narrator. Since most of the textual segments which
contain iteration apply to past time (from the point of view of the time at which the story
is told), the shifting in focus is all the more crucial in that the reader does not receive
information directly from the character reliving her past, but rather from the author/
narrator. In this way the reader is deprived of the insight into Evelines fatally sentimental
attachment to her past, her transcription of the past into the present, which is bound to
determine her imminent decision to give up the prospects of a new life.
A good deal of transformation has also been observed on the syntactic-pragmatic level.
Te inadequate choice of a deictic element has caused the shifting from the auctorial
and objective to the more subjective report. Changes in thematisation have brought
about a similar eect to that mentioned before. Changes in speech act on, account of
the use of dierent illocution, have led to a reversed eect, as a result of the shifting
from free indirect discourse to either indirect discourse or narrative report of act(ivity).
Te syntactic standardisation of the non-standard word order, inuenced by Gaelic (cf.
Hedberg 1981) in the original, realised by the substitution of indirect discourse for free
indirect discourse, has contributed to a greater objectivisation of the narrative, whereby
narrative perspective has been brought under the control of the author/narrator, and
focalisation under that of the character. And, nally, on account of the introduction of
dierent elements of cohesion, eected by the substitution of narrative report of act(ivity)
for free indirect discourse, both narrative perspective and focalisation have been moved to
the realm of author/narrator.
8
w|||e cesc.|||. ||e c.e.+|| +|cs(|e.e c| ||e |.|||. s|c.|es. ||e c.|||cs |e.c |c .e|e. |c ||e .c.c /--/, +.c
||e s,.|+ 0.//. //e /--/,e! ./, c|. |.c+|| 19b9. ?1. b..ess 193. ?30. Sc|c|es 198/9. 8. |+c|+|e 198.
iii U.cs |ce||c I/e S/|/ .| /--/.e /e/e./.e -! /..-/-/. I-/-/ /./.-/ Ie\/
1. |tat|at|ta
Our study of narrative perspective and focalisation in translating ctional texts, based on the
appropriation of the van Leuven-Zwart comparative and descriptive model, shows that the
results thus obtained depend for their reliability largely on the degree of the subtlety of the shifts
observed. In other words, the more subtle and consistent with the translators strategy a certain
shift in narrative mode the better the results, in the sense of complying with the parameters which
have a direct bearing on the model. Te most problematic translation instances have proved to
be those which display a conicting tendency towards modulating the original structure on the
microstructural level, thus failing to aect narrative perspective and/or focalisation where at least
some alteration would be expected. For example, a translator may quite inadvertently subscribe
the characters discourse to unwarranted archaisation and simultaneously introduce linguistic
markers typical of informal style in accordance with the original. Such incongruity may indeed
be detrimental to the impression of the characters overall linguistic competence, however, it
is not likely to aect the given narrative mode, leaving as it does both narrative perspective
and focalisation unaltered. Te main reason for this must be sought in the readers capacity to
concurrently make amends for conspicuous mistranslation.
||||trt(|
0a||l|a, M. M. 198. !|e 0|+|c|c |m+|/+||c/ |co/ /ss+,s. |a. M. Hc|a|sl. J|aas. 0. |e|sca aaa M. Hc|a|sl. Aasl|a.
Ua|ve|s|l, cl Jexas l|ess.
0a|, M. 1983. J|e Na||al|a aaa l|e |cca||/|a. A J|ec|, cl l|e Aeals |a Na||al|ve. S|,|e 11. 2349.
0easlcc|, 8. 1980. w|c K|||ea 0cc| Hcc|a' J|e 8ca|ces cl ||ee laa||ecl 8l,|e |a J|,sses. S|,|e 14. 25913.
0||alca, |. 1980. 'Hep|esealea le|cepl|ca'. A 8laa, |a Na||al|ve 8l,|e. /ce||cs 9. 3381.
0a|ess, A. 1911. A la|a|,sea 0|l,. la J+mes Jc,ce 0o|||/e/s +/c 4 /c/|/+|| c| ||e 4/||s| +s + co/ V+/, ea. M. 0eja,
2440. |caaca aaa 0as|aslc|e. Mac|||aa.
0|alaa, 8 . 1918. S|c/, +/c 0|scco/se. ll|aca. 0c|ae|| Ua|ve|s|l, l|ess.
. 1990. 0cm|/ |c !e/ms !|e 8|e|c/|c c| /+//+||ie |/ ||c||c/ +/c |||m. ll|aca aaa |caaca. 0c|ae|| Ua|ve|s|l, l|ess.
||aae|a||, M. 1993. !|e ||c||c/s c| /+/o+e +/c ||e /+/o+es c| ||c||c/. !|e ||/o|s||c /e(/ese/|+||c/ c| s(eec|
+/c cc/sc|cos/ess. |caaca aaa NeW Yc||. Hcal|eae.
|cW|e|, H. 1989a. /|/o|s||cs 8 ||e /cie|. NeW Acceals. |caaca aaa NeW Yc||. Hcal|eae.
. 1989c. /|/o|s||c 0/|||c|sm. 0xlc|a aaa NeW Yc||. 0xlc|a Ua|ve|s|l, l|ess.
0eaelle, 0. 1912. ||o/es |||. 0|scca|s aa Hec|l. la||s. |a|l|cas aa 8ea||.
. 1980. /+//+||ie 0|scco/se 4/ /ss+, |/ Ve||cc. ll|aca, NY. 0c|ae|| Ua|ve|s|l, l|ess.
Ha|||aa,, M. A. K. 1913. /\(|c/+||c/s |/ ||e |o/c||c/s c| /+/o+e. |xp|c|al|cas |a |aaaae 8laa,. |caaca. |aWa|a A|ac|a.
HaWl|c|a, !. 1994. 4 0c/c|se 6|css+/, c| 0c/|em(c/+/, /||e/+/, !|ec/,. |caaca, NeW Yc||, Me|cca|ae, Aac||aaa.
|aWa|a A|ac|a.
Heace|, !. 1981. 8ce Ncles ca |aaaae aaa Alcsp|e|e |a 0o|||/e/s. Vcce//+ S(/+| |XXv, 2. 11332.
!c,ce, !. 1981. J|,sses. J|e cc||eclea lexl (slaaeal's ea|l|ca). |caaca. leaa|a.
. 191. 0o|||/e/s. J|e 0c||eclea Jexl W|l| aa |xp|aaalc|, Ncle c, H. 8c|c|es. |caaca. 0|allca 0cc|s.
|eec|, 0. N., aaa M. H. 8|c|l. 1992. S|,|e |/ ||c||c/ 4 ||/o|s||c |/|/ccoc||c/ |c //||s| ||c||c/+| (/cse. |a||s| |aaaae
8e||es. |caaca aaa NeW Yc||. |caaa.
iil JHAN8|AJl0N 8JU0l|8
|eavea/Wa|l, K. M. vaa. 1989. J|aas|al|ca aaa 0|||aa|. 8|||a||l|es aaa 0|ss|||a||l|es, l. !+/e| 1. 15181.
. 1990. J|aas|al|ca aaa 0|||aa|. 8|||a||l|es aaa 0|ss|||a||l|es, ll. !+/e| 2. 995.
|eveaslca, |. A., aaa 0. 8caaeasc|e|a. 198. J|e J|aas|al|ca cl lc|alclv|eW |a ||cl|caa| Na||al|ve. la |/|e/||/o+| +/c |/|e/co||o/+|
0cmmo/|c+||c/ 0|scco/se +/c 0c/|||c/ |/ !/+/s|+||c/ +/c Secc/c /+/o+e 4co|s|||c/ S|oc|es, eas. !. Hcase
aaa 8. 0|aKa||a, 4959. Jc|aea. Na||.
Mac0ace, 0. 1918. J+mes Jc,ce 8 !|e 8eic|o||c/ c| ||e wc/c. |aaaae, 0|scca|se, 8cc|el,. |caaca aaa 0as|aslc|e.
J|e Mac|||aa l|ess.
McHa|e, 0. 1918. ||ee laa||ecl 0|scca|se. A 8a|ve, cl Heceal Acccaal. /ce||cs +/c !|ec/, c| /||e/+|o/e 3. 24981.
Mc/el|c, U. 2000. //c||em (/|(ciec/e+ |ec|sc+ |/ I+/|sce//+ (/| (/ei+/+//o (/cc/|| |esec||. |jac|jaaa. /aaaslvea| |asl|lal
|||c/cls|e la|a|lele.
la|||aae|, l. 1990. J+mes Jc,ce. 0ac||ae. 0Ul.
0a|||, H., 8. 0|eeacaa, 0. |eec|, aaa !. 8va|lv||. 1994. 4 0cm(/e|e/s|ie 6/+mm+/ c| ||e //||s| /+/o+e. |caaca
aaa NeW Yc||. |caaa.
8asa||, J. 1994. JcWa|as a s,sleal|c aesc||pl|ca cl aa||al|ve 'pc|al cl v|eW'. aa exa|aal|ca cl 0|alaa's l|ec|,
W|l| aa aaa|,s|s cl 'J|e c||aa aa' c, 0. H. |aW|eace. /+/o+e +/c /||e/+|o/e 3. 12538.
8c|c|es, H. 1918f19. 8e|cl|c App|cac|es lc a ||cl|caa| Jexl. !c,ce's |ve||ae'. J+mes Jc,ce 0o+/|e/|, 1. 580.
8e||, Hce| 0., ea. 1991. /||e/+/, //+m+||cs. |caaca. Hcal|eae.
8|c|l, M. 1991. 8peec| p|esealal|ca, l|e acve| aaa l|e p|ess. la !|e !+m|/ c| ||e !e\| /\(|c/+||c/s |/ /+/o+e, /||e/+|o/e
+/c 0o||o/e, ea. w. v. lee|, 181. |caaca aaa NeW Yc||. Hcal|eae.
J|aaa||, w. Y. 191. 4 8e+ce/'s 6o|ce |c J+mes Jc,ce. NeW Yc||. J|e Nccaaa, l|ess.
wa|es, K. 1992. !|e /+/o+e c| J+mes Jc,ce. J|e |aaaae cl ||le|ala|e. Hcaaa|||s, 0as|aslc|e, Haps|||e, aaa |caaca.
J|e Mac|||aa l|ess |la.
w|||l, 0. 0. 1983. 0|+/+c|e/s c| Jc,ce. 0ac||a. 0||| aaa Mac|||aa.