Summary
#e 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 Joyce’s story ‘Eveline’ (Dubliners) is 
introduced, drawing on K. M. van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative and descriptive model. #e 
model, which has been expanded by three additional categories – narrative mode, narrative 
perspective, and focalisation –, brings to the forefront the cause-and-effect relationship between 
the micro- and macrostructural shifts on the one hand, and the shifts in narrative perspective 
and focalisation on the other. #e results obtained show that the model is empirically verifiable 
and repeatable. #is means that it can also be used with other integral translations, particularly 
if translation shifts are subtle enough and/or consistent with the translator’s dominant strategy 
and norm.   
 Povzetek
Razprava prinaša nekaj novih pogledov na problem glediščenja in žariščenja 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 razširili s tremi naratološkimi kategorijami, 
in sicer s pripovednim načinom, gledišč(enj)em in žarišč(enj)em. Na ta način smo skušali 
pojasniti vzročno in posledično 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 empirično 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 prevajalčevo prevladujočo strategijo in normo. 
DOI: 10.4312/elope.1.1-2.209-223

Among the many unresolved issues in the field 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. #e (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 configure in a way which is essentially different and also more productive 
since the aim of exploring literature should not simply be in terms of how literature can 
affect 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 reflection of  literature”). To this 
effect, I intend to go, firstly, into the original text of James Joyce’s 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 2

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 effects that take place on the macro-
structural level. I expect that the employment of the comparative-descriptive method for 
analysing shifts in narrative perspective and focalisation will provide adequate insight into 
those textual conditions that significantly govern the realisation of these two categories in 
the original as well as translated narrative. 
#e Levenston and Sonnenschein study appears to be more significant in its breaking new 
ground and drawing attention to transformations of specific narrative aspects which occur 
during a translation process than in its resolving the problems dealt with. #e conclusions 
drawn by the authors are to a large extent hindered by a failure in the methodology employed: 
first, the question of who speaks and who sees in a fictional 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., 53-4): the four categories - register-restricted vocabulary items, collocations 
and clichés, word order, and free indirect speech - do not in fact operate on the same level, in 
that the first 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. 
#e 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. #ey 
would not wish for worlds that any of Mary Jane’s pupils should see him under the 
influence.
 /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 exemplified above. 
What is at stake here, of course, concerns as much the teller as it does the observer. Whether 
these two can be identified as one person or two is the point under discussion. #e excerpt 
from "e Dead is presented entirely in the so-called free indirect speech, which is in itself so 
3


complicated a mode of narrative presentation, particularly in terms of narrative perspective 
and focalisation, that it needs to be dealt with at some length.
 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 different 
English denominations for it: independent form of indirect discourse (Curme 1905), free indirect 
style (Kalepky 1913), represented speech (Jespersen 1924), substitutionary narration (Fehr 1938), 
quasi−direct discourse (Vološinov 1973), represented discourse (Doležel 1973), and represented 
speech and thought (Banfield 1973). #e list may be updated by M. T oolan’s 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 specific 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, 318-51):
Notwithstanding some undeniable differences between the way(s) a certain speech or thought 
act(ivity)  is presented in a narrative text (most notably the difference in the so-called norm 
of presentation), I have chosen to replace Short’s modes of speech and thought presentation 
by the common term - discourse. Such economisation proves especially useful and efficient 
in exploring the shifting of narrative perspective and focalisation because neither of them 
is significantly affected by whether a given stretch of language is presented in, for instance, 
free indirect speech or free indirect thought. #e 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 definition, 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) 
    ­  
    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) 
  ­    
  NORM    
4


Although Short’s model is highly instrumental in setting formal criteria for pursuing discourse 
analysis of any fictional 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. 
#e many conflicting aspects and functions of free indirect discourse have, therefore, been 
on the agenda ever since its first 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 effectuality. 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 fiction) the stream of thought … Free 
direct speech is also used in fiction writing to represent a person’s stream of thought” (Quirk 
et al. 1994, 1020-33). 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 fictional 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 different 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, 127-46), 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. #ey are, after all, the effect of certain textual procedures, 
rather than their cause. Moreover, their psychological nature is manifested in their 
representing a concrete mental state/activity of a fictional character.  
#e 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 translator’s adequate rendering of the relationships between individual 
protagonists in the fictional world has to, first and foremost, take account of the medium 
of conveying narrative information. Here I am referring to the so-called filter, as defined 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


interest-focus.  #e latter, interestingly, resembles Halliday’s interpersonal function of language 
(1973) since in both cases the locutor/narrator’s interfering with the speech act is motivated 
by their endeavour to establish a link between the sender and the receiver of the message. #e 
interpersonal function, moreover, significantly ties in with the distance between the reader 
and the narrated characters, in which case it may still be justifiable 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 reader’s more active engagement in 
the mental activity of the character, the effect seems to be the opposite (cf. also note 3).  
Every translator of a fictional 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 significant deviations 
especially on the axis narrator - narratee. #is 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 different 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 character’s views 
without the direct judgement which an external perspective would produce” (Fowler 1989b, 
138). What ensues from the interplay of two or more different views might be called a 
kind of hybrid perspective, the realisation of which is left entirely to the reader. #e case of 
bringing together the author’s (objective) and the character’s (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.) #e concept of double voice seems 
to be a plausible suggestion as to who really speaks in free indirect discourse, even though 
it significantly 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 Genette’s 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). #e interaction 
between the voice of the author/narrator and that of the character can best be illustrated by 

quoting a passage from one of the Dubliners stories, ‘Clay’ (Joyce 1967, 112-3), in which 
Maria’s 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 
affection at the diminutive body which she had so often adorned. In spite of its years she 
found it a nice tidy little body. 
#e contrast between the part underlined (the exact words that Maria would use in the first-
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, 71-2).
#e problem which also ties in with the immanent features of free indirect discourse is double 
imagery. In his study of Joyce’s Ulysses, S. Benstock, in contrast to the traditional identification 
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, 266-7). #e critic’s 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 different 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 …
#e example is at the same time perfectly illustrative of M. Bakhtin’s notion of heteroglossia, 
that is “another’s speech in another’s language”.
6
 #is 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 another’s discourse, toward someone else’s 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 difficulty for a translator of any text structured according to the principle of 
the polyphony of voices and perspectives. 
6


#e 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 effect 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 fictional 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-Zwart’s 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 narrator’s and the character’s respective focalisation, when the latter’s does 
not involve narrating, actually occur on separate levels, and should therefore be understood 
in hierarchical order. As this calls for a more differentiated and precise denomination of their 
functions, it seems appropriate to define focalisation as the process in which the point of view 
of the character is realised on the level of story. #e term narrative perspective, however, ought 
to be reserved for that position on the level of discourse from which the narrator observes, 
comments on and qualifies the narrative. #e main purpose of such delineation of perspective 
and focalisation is to provide some clarification, 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 verifiable system for observing and measuring individual 
shifts in narrative perspective and focalisation in translation against the original propositional 
content, van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative and descriptive model (1989, 151-81; 1990, 69-95) 
7

has seemed particularly appropriate as it examines every translation on two levels: first on the 
microstructural and then on the macrostructural level. #e 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 sufficient 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, first 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 translator’s interpretive strategies and methods. 
#e 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). #e newly designed 
model has thus brought to the forefront the cause-and-effect 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 verifiable and repeatable. #is means 
that it can also be used with other integral translations. 
 A SOURCE TEXT 
B TARGET TEXT    
 
 MICROSTRUCTURAL 
 SHIFTS          MACROSTRUCTURAL 
SHIFTS 
  NM 
   
   NP     FO DISCOURSE                  STORY       

- - A SOURCE TEXT 
B TARGET TEXT    
 
 MICROSTRUCTURAL 
 SHIFTS          MACROSTRUCTURAL 
SHIFTS 
  NM 
   
   NP     FO DISCOURSE                  STORY       -

- A SOURCE TEXT 
B TARGET TEXT    
 
 MICROSTRUCTURAL 
 SHIFTS          MACROSTRUCTURAL 
SHIFTS 
  NM 
   
   NP     FO DISCOURSE                  STORY       

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. #e comparison between the English 
and the Slovene ‘Eveline’ has revealed some fairly crucial differences as regards narrative 
perspective and focalisation: #e greatest number of shifts on the microstructural level are 
of a stylistic nature, specifically shifts in register (23 segments), syntagmatics (8), and in the 
temporally-marked lexical items (7). Special emphasis has to be paid to the first 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. 
#e 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. #ese segments are thus, as a rule, rendered into Slovene either through 
narrative report of discourse act(ivity) or narrative report of act(ivity). #e 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. 
 A SOURCE TEXT 
B TARGET TEXT    
 
 MICROSTRUCTURAL 
 SHIFTS          MACROSTRUCTURAL 
SHIFTS 
  NM 
   
   NP     FO DISCOURSE                  STORY       

#e 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 affects all the three functions of 
language on the macrostructural level, most of all the interpersonal function. #erefore 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 difference 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. 
#e 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. #e translated text consistently ignores 
this figure 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 Eveline’s 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. 
#e 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 effect to that mentioned before. Changes in speech act on, account of 
the use of different illocution, have led to a reversed effect, as a result of the shifting 
from free indirect discourse to either indirect discourse or narrative report of act(ivity). 
#e syntactic standardisation of the non-standard word order, influenced 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, finally, on account of the introduction of 
different elements of cohesion, effected 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


Our study of narrative perspective and focalisation in translating fictional 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 translator’s 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. #e most problematic translation instances have proved to 
be those which display a conflicting tendency towards modulating the original structure on the 
microstructural level, thus failing to affect narrative perspective and/or focalisation where at least 
some alteration would be expected. For example, a translator may quite inadvertently subscribe 
the character’s 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 character’s overall linguistic competence, however, it 
is not likely to affect the given narrative mode, leaving as it does both narrative perspective 
and focalisation unaltered. #e main reason for this must be sought in the reader’s capacity to 
concurrently make amends for conspicuous mistranslation. 
 - - - ------- ------------ - ------

- ------ - - ü - - - -