Eye dialect: translating the untranslatable

Abstract

The term ‘eye dialect’ was first coined in 1925 by George P. Krapp in <i>The
\nEnglish Language in America</i> (McArthur 1998). The term was used to describe
\nthe phenomenon of unconventional spelling used to reproduce colloquial
\nusage. When one encounters such spellings “the convention violated is one
\nof the eyes, and not of the ear”. Furthermore, eye dialect would be used by
\nwriters “not to indicate a genuine difference in pronunciation, but the
\nspelling is a friendly nudge to the reader, a knowing look which establishes a
\nsympathetic sense of superiority between the author and reader as
\ncontrasted with the humble speaker of dialect”. While the phrase “the
\nhumble speaker of dialect” may smack of prescriptivism to the modern
\nreader, this passage is important, as it finally gives a term for a device that
\nhas been used in literature for centuries. Krapp was referring to spellings
\nlike <i>enuff</i> for ‘enough’, <i>wimmin</i> for ‘women’, <i>animulz</i> for ‘animals’ and
\nnumerous other examples in which the standard spelling of the word belies
\nin some way its pronunciation. One may envisage these spellings as a sort of
\ninsinuation on the part of the author that the character whose speech is
\ndepicted so would spell these words in this way, hence demonstrating a
\nlevel of education and literacy substantially lower than the average.