Due to the various differences in British and American English, a “localized” edition is often required when publishing a book of British origin in the American market, and vice versa. Differences in spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary, as well as cultural references, must be taken into consideration when trying to make the text function in the target language and culture as intended in the original. These differences between the two varieties of English have been studied by many, and general categories of their nature have been established, for example in Neea Paatero’s 2002 paper on Differences Between British and American English in Two Versions of The Great Gatsby.

But what if the original text was not from either American or British English, but another language altogether, with the text requiring translation into American or British English as the target language(s)? Similar categories of differences between the American and British versions would likely also occur in translations, but would other differences of a more subtle nature arise as well?

While a person localizing a British book into the American context, or the other way around, mostly needs only to eliminate possible problems – modify the punctuation and spelling, and change the terms and structures that would likely cause confusion or misunderstanding, or that simply would not fit into the cultural context – for a translator there is no English text on which to work until he or she creates it.¹ Compared to the localizer, the translator faces the source text on “open ground”, free to use all his/her artistic creativity within the boundaries of his/her own perception of a “good translation.”

Could this relative freedom in terms of choosing vocabulary, formulating sentences (constructing the order of linguistic elements, dividing long sentences into several shorter ones, etc.), using idioms, or deciding other such details, result in different preferences between the two forms of English — not only in the “established” categories of differences between the American and British variants, but also regarding forms of expression that would be equally acceptable and commonly recognized as meaning the same thing in both variants?

Four Readings of Candide

This paper explores whether such differences can be distinguished, by analysing four different translations, two American and two British, of Voltaire’s 18^th century French classic, Candide. Three chapters of each of the editions were compared with each other, and with the original. The chapters studied from each edition were chapters VIII, Histoire de Cunégonde, XXVII, Voyage de Candide à Constantinople, and XXX, Conclusion – named here according to the original French titles.

As expected, the study confirmed the existence of the aforementioned, established differences between the two variants of English. The existence of “preference differences” – differences that could not be placed in any of the existing, established categories, that is, because they pertain to expressions that would be equally admissible in both variants – was also implied. But while there was relative consistency in the favoring of some expressions in one variant of English and of others in the other, it turned out to be impossible to determine, with such a limited corpus, whether this really suggests that such differences might exist also outside the corpus, in the actual language of the two variants of English, or if it was just mere coincidence, bound to the corpus used, and possibly caused by the influence that the translations/translators might have had on each other’s work.

Another, somewhat unexpected result of the study was the finding of a clear distinction also within a variant of English; between both the American translations, as well as between the two British translations. This distinction, considered from the opposite point of view, could equally well be referred to as a consistent similarity between two representants of different variants of English. A possible reason for this unexpected, “culture-crossing” closeness could be the use of similar translation methods, imposed by similar objectives behind the publishing of the translations, by the translators’ similar views on translation, or by similar supposed target audiences.

One could have composed a whole paper solely on this aspect of the translations, but as the aim of this paper is to concentrate on the differences between the two variants of English, and not on the unifying effect that similar translation methods may have on translated texts of a different English background, this aspect shall be treated only briefly, and mainly as a means to underline the importance of the elements that distinguish the American and British translations from each other.

The following sections, beginning with a short presentation of the editions that were used, will cover in more detail the three main categories of relation that could be distinguished between the editions; the established distinction between the customs of American and British English, the possible preference differences between the two variants, and the close likeness between two editions of a different English background. A full list of the differences recorded can be found at the end of the paper.²

The Four Editions Comprising the Study Corpus

The corpus of this study was rather heterogeneous. The editions that were used were a Bantam Books Edition, published in New York, 1962; a Norton Critical Edition, published in New York, 1966; a Heron Books Edition, published in Geneva , 1969; and a Penguin Books Edition, published in Middlesex, England, 1947.

Since the different objectives behind the publishing of each translation have resulted in the use of different translation methods, which, in their turn, were clearly visible in the different translation solutions made, a brief description of each of the editions is appropriate:

Bantam Books Edition, New York, 1962

The Bantam Books edition, translated by Lowell Bair, was published in New York in 1962. It is substantially different from the other editions due to the fact that it is a “dual-language” book; the translation is printed on the right-hand pages of the volume, while the corresponding original text can be found on each left page. The edition claims to give the reader “Voltaire’s brilliant satiric tale in the original French language, with a vivid, accurate translation” (back-cover). In addition to the story itself, the edition contains an introduction, background notes, language notes, a questionnaire for self-study, and a French-English vocabulary. This is all very useful to anyone who wishes to read a good story and practise his/her French while doing it. However, for any critical analysis reaching beyond simple language study, this edition would not be the one to consult.

The close co-existence of an original text and its translation always makes the translation subject to a particularly rigorous examination. Add to this the function of a language-study aid, and it becomes obvious that there is little, if any, room for stylistic freedom. One might therefore justly assume that a translation put in such a position would be particularly faithful to its source text. However, this was not the case with the Bantam edition – or at least not compared to two of the other editions studied, the Norton and the Heron editions, which proved much more faithful. The reasons for this incoherence can only be speculated, one possible explanation being different “supposed target audiences” for the two more “academic” editions, compared to the Bantam edition, supposedly more levelled at a general American public, interested in French language and culture.

Norton Critical Edition, New York, 1966

The Norton Critical edition was also published in New York, only four years after the Bantam edition. It has a clearly academic background; the translator, Robert M. Adams, works in the University of California, and more than half of the pages of the volume are dedicated to articles from different authors discussing Voltaire, the possible interpretations of Candide, and its 18^th century context. For a scholarly reading of Candide, this edition would be highly preferable to the previous Bantam edition.

In the preface Adams notes that in his translation he “has aimed to be neither literal nor loose, but to preserve a decent respect for English idiom while rendering a French intent”(viii). As will be established later in this paper, Adams’ translation was, in fact, one of the editions that remained most faithful to the original text.

Heron Books Edition, London, 1761-65 / 1969

The Heron Books edition is a particular case altogether; it was published in Genova , Italy, in 1969, by Edito-Service S.A, in arrangement with J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd³, situated in London. It has been revised by James Thornton, but the original translation, carried out by Tobias George Smollett, a Scottish satirical novelist, translator and periodicals editor⁴, goes back to mid-18^th century London , making it simultaneously the oldest original translation and the most recent revised publication of the book in the corpus studied. This poses many problems when considering whether the translation can be regarded as a valid representant of older or more recent conventions of British English. Unfortunately, this problem was not perceived until it was too late to obtain another British translation of Candide. (May it be noted that the providing of the ones that were used was already difficult enough.)

The Heron edition contains four other stories by Voltaire in addition to Candide; Zadig, Micromegas, Master Simple and Princess of Babylon. Similarly to the Norton edition, a rich supply of additional information is included; at the beginning is an editor’s foreword and an introduction; at the end, a long appreciation; and fascinating drawings by different artists, illustrating Voltaire’s person and the scenes of the stories, are scattered here and there throughout the volume.

Penguin Books Edition, Middlesex, England, 1947

The Penguin Classics edition, translated by John Butt, was published in Hammondsworth, Middlesex, in 1947. It is a short and light paperback. In addition to the novel itself, the edition contains a rather scant introduction of Voltaire, an even shorter introduction of the translator, and a brief treatise of the novel and its historical context, written by the translator, John Butt.

As noted above, a clear similarity was perceived between one American and one British edition; the Norton and the Heron editions. This similarity took place on many levels (cf. “Cross-Cultural Similarities”), and could be summed up as a greater faithfulness to the original text compared to the other two translations, the American Bantam and the British Penguin, which were clearly more liberal.

Established Differences Between American and British English

Following are examples of common differences between British and American English that appeared in the corpus studied, based on the categories established in Neea Paatero’s paper:

Differences in Spelling:

The table below illustrates examples of words that have different spelling in American and British usage:

Table 1. US / UK Spelling Differences in Different Editions:

Chapter:	Original	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK	Type of difference:
VIII	honneur	honor	honor	honour	honour	-or in AE,5 -our in BE
XXVII	le port	the harbor6	the port	the port	the port
XXX	piqué	flavored	flavored	heightened	flavoured
XXX	un berceau d’orangers	an arbor of orange trees	a grove of orange trees	an alcove formed of orange-trees	an arbour of orange-trees
VIII	mitre	miter	mitre7	mitre	mitre	-er in AE, -re in BE
XXX	continuait son métier	continued to ply her trade	continued to ply her trade	continued to follow her trade	continued to practise 8 her profession	-ce in AE -se in BE

There were also some differences in the American and British usages of the spelling of some proper names. An example of this can be found in chapter XXVII of Candide, in the localizing of the French proper name Buenos-Ayres; both the American translations give Buenos Aires, while the two British editions use Buenos Ayres, replacing the –i used in the American spelling with –y.

However, at least according to some sources, the name Buenos Ayres in English doesn’t actually refer to the capital city of Argentine Republic, as it is supposedly meant in the French text, but to a small town in Trinidad and Tobago, an archipelagic state in the southern Caribbean, lying northeast of the South American nation of Venezuela . This spelling that might be thought of as an error on the part of the British translations might also be seen as an attempt to translate the obsoleteness of the French spelling used in the original; what is written as Buenos-Ayres by Voltaire, is actually Buenos Aires in the current French (“Buenos-Ayres”).

Differences in Punctuation:

One of the most distinctive differences between American and British English is the opposite use of quotation marks. As the following table shows, this was also visible in the translations studied:

Table 2. Quotation Marks:

	Original	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
Direct quotation	« »  /  –   9	“ ”	–	‘ ’	‘ ’
Quotation within quotation	« »	‘ ’	‘ ’	“ ”	“ ”

A particular style of quotation was displayed in the Norton edition, where direct quotations were introduced by a quotation dash, and no other way of direct quotation was used.

One example of the differing use of hyphens in compound nouns was found in chapter XXX, where the French word orangers was translated in both American editions as orange trees, and in both British editions as orange-trees, placing a hyphen where American English uses none. Although this single example does not have much value when considered alone, it goes with the remarks of Neea Paatero that there might be a tendency in British English to use hyphens more often than in American English.

Culture-Related Differences in Vocabulary:

A few words specifically related to the British cultural context could be spotted in the Penguin Edition. An example of this can be found in chapter XXVII, in the translations of the monetary sum of trois écus: while the Norton (US) and Heron (UK) editions translate it as three crowns and the Bantam (US) edition shuns it entirely by using the expression a small allowance, the Penguin (UK) edition resorts to a somewhat obsolete but particularly British expression – seven and sixpence.¹⁰

“Preference Differences” Between American and British English?

There were other visible differences too, between the American and British translations, which could not, nevertheless, be placed in any of the previously established categories. In most of these cases the two representants of the same variant of English preferred a certain form of expression, while the two representants of the opposing variant preferred another, even if both of the solutions used would have been just as well known and acceptable, and meant the same thing in both variants of English.

Bearing in mind the constant similarity between the Norton (US) and Heron (UK) editions (see Culture-Crossing Similarities), one might have expected more congruence between them in these translational choices too, where the words or expressions used are not specifically bound to one variety of English. This division between the American and British translations in choosing from equally acceptable possibilities is even more astonishing if one considers the great time lapse between the original versions of the two British translations. Some words that were still in current use in the 18^th century, and at the time of the original translation of the Heron edition, would surely have fallen into obsolescense by the time of the translation of the Penguin edition, in 1947.

Here begins the more subtle, speculative ground of possible “preference differences” between American and British English; if two representants of a British translation – relatively different to each other in terms of age and possible translation objectives/methods – have chosen identical expressions, whereas the two American translations – also relatively different compared with each other – have chosen other ones, also identical, the question rises whether these choices could be evidence of some inclination towards certain forms of expression in British English and others in American English? Or is this just mere coincidence? Or, a mark of the influence that prior translations might have had on the translators? Tobias Smollett’s translation of Candide had existed for centuries before John Butt began his version, so it would scarcely be surprising if Butt had been familiar with it before constructing his own. Conversely, the case is less likely to be similar with the two American translations, which were published within four years of each other, in very different contexts and for very different markets.

Differences in Preferred Vocabulary:

The following table presents some expressions that were identical in the translations of the same English variant, and consistently different with the expression used in the opposite variant, while both the alternatives would have been equally known in both variants:

Table 3. Different Expressions for the Same Idea:

Chapter:	Original	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
VIII	violer / être violée	raping / raped	raping / raped	ravishing / ravished	ravishing / ravished
VIII	Dépoillé tout nu	stripped naked	Stripped naked	stark naked	Stark naked
XXVII	Quoi ! c’est Candide?	What! It’s Candide!	What, can it be Candide?	Good heavens! it is Candide,	Good Heavens! It’s Candide!
XXVII	Chien de chrétien	Dog of a Christian	Dog of a Christian	Christian cur	Christian cur

Another interesting form of consistent difference between the two variants of English is illustrated in the table below, presenting some cases where the American editions have maintained the word used in the French original, or a word closely related to it, while both British versions have replaced it with something utterly different:

Table 4. A Word Closer to the Original Preferred by the American Translations:

Chapter	Original	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
VIII	abominable Inquisiteur	abominable Inquisitor	abominable Inquisitor	cruel Inquisitor	hateful Inquisitor
XXVII	Après s’être prosternés	After prostrating	After prostrating	After paying their obeisance	After paying their humble respects
XXX	dans la plus extrême misère	in abject misery	in the last stages of misery	in the utmost distress	in the utmost distress

With these examples it is particularly interesting to keep in mind that, in general, the two translations that remained most clearly faithful to the original text in punctuation (Table 5), word-order (Table 8), style (Table 9), and lexical choices (Table 6), were the Norton (US) and the Heron (UK) editions. Here, however, the Heron edition has resorted to a very different choice of words, although an English word that was just as appropriate and more similar to the French original would also have been available. One can only speculate whether the reason for this might be an intuitive knowledge of a more “British flavor” of some word compared to another that could have been used.

Bearing in mind that the Heron edition is a Revised Edition, this refusal of “French” words could just as well be the result of “modernising.” But why, then, have both the American translations, which date to the 60’s just like the Heron Revised Edition, preferred the French word, while the slightly older, British, Penguin Edition (published in 1947) has not? Could it be that the use of some French words (like abominable or prostrating) have become common only more recently, or rather more in American English than in British English? In the case of misery vs. utmost distress one could also speculate on possible differences in nuance and in context of usage of the words in British and American English.

Syntactic Differences:

Some differences in the placing of linguistic elements could also be spotted between the two variations of English. An example of this is found in chapter XXX, where the French phrase que la vieille osa un jour leur dire is translated in the following ways:

• that one day the old woman was driven to say (Bantam US);
• that one day the old woman ventured to say (Norton US);
• that the old woman ventured one day to say to them (Heron UK);
• that the old woman was provoked one day to remark (Penguin UK).

A consistency within a variant of English can be seen in the placing of the adverb of time one day. While both the British versions place it after the verb and before the infinitive, as it is in the French original, both the American versions place it before the subject. If the placing of the adverb of time after the verb, similarly to the original text, is just as English as it is to place it before the subject, why then has the generally more faithful Norton (US) edition placed it differently? Could this be an example of the tendency to “simplify” things in American English?

“Cross-Cultural” Similarities:  Results of Similar Translation Methods?

While it could be expected that a certain coherence between the representants of the same variant of English would occur, another kind of close relation, this time between two representants of different variants of English, also became undeniably clear. This affinity could be observed between the American Norton and the British Heron editions, which remained altogether more faithful to the original text in many translational choices where the other two translations had been far more liberal. The following tables present examples of the different forms in which this similarity expressed itself.

Sentence Structure:

The sentence-structure in the French original text was fairly complex. The sentences were long and winding, and semi-colons were used often. There is a definite variation in the way the different translations have handled this complexity. The Bantam (US) and Penguin (UK) editions have consistently divided long sentences into several shorter ones, while the Norton (US) and Heron (UK) editions have remained more faithful to the French text, somewhat at the expense of easy readability.

The following table illustrates this difference by showing the number of different types of punctuation marks in each of the chapters studied. The punctuation marks referred to as “ending a sentence” are the period ( . ), exclamation mark ( ! ) and question mark ( ? ); the punctuation marks referred to as being “inside a sentence” are the comma ( , ), colon ( : ), semi-colon ( ; ), and hyphen ( - ).

The number of sentences in a chapter can thus be seen from the number of punctuation marks referred to as “ending a sentence.”  To facilitate the comparison, the numbers that are closest to the number of marks of the same category in the French text, are presented in red, and the numbers that were second closest to those of the French text, in blue.

Table 5. Punctuation:

Punctuation	Original French	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
Chapter VIII Ending a sentence	43	56	44	42	57
Inside a sentence	116	84	121	118	80
Total amount	159	140	165	160	137
Chapter XXVII Ending a sentence	87	91	83	83	95
Inside a sentence	129	90	114	146	107
Total amount	216	181	197	229	202
Chapter XXX Ending a sentence	65	83	67	72	80
Inside a sentence	199	165	202	207	179
Total amount	264	247	269	279	259

Choice of Words

In the following table are words from the French text that were kept as such in the American Norton and British Heron translations, but replaced with other words in the American Bantam and British Penguin editions:

Table 6. Preferring Words that are Similar to Those in the Original:

Chapter:	Original	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
XXX	l’impertinence	arrogance	impertinence	impertinence	intransigence
XXX	Insupportable	unbearable	insupportable	insupportable	insufferable

Interestingly, while words such as abominable or prostrating  (see Table 4) – both acceptedly English, and used in both of the American translations as well as in the original text – did not make it to either of the British editions, words such as impertinence and insupportable were kept as such in the Norton (US) and Heron (UK) editions. What these words have in common is that they are all commonly used in French. Any standard dictionary can confirm that they are also used in English, both American and British. It is understandable that the Penguin (UK) and Bantam (US) editions, which seemed more oriented towards a “reader-friendly” (easily comprehensible but less faithful) translation¹¹, have replaced some of these words with other, more frequently used synonyms (or what the translators have considered as such); but why have the translators of the seemingly faithful Heron edition rejected words like abominable and prostrating, and kept the words impertinence and insupportable? Were these preferences within a variant of English? Or simply the personal preferences of the translators?

Proper Names

Another noteworthy congruence between the Norton and Heron editions was their closely similar spelling of proper names, as illustrated in the table below:

Table 7. Names of Places and People:

Chapter:	Original	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
XXVII	Petra	Patras	Petra	Petra	Patras
XXX	Erzeroum	Erzerum	Erzeroum	Erzeroum	Erzerum
XXX	Ochosias	Joram	Ahaziah	Ahaziah	Joram
XXX	Jéchonias	Jehoiachin	Jeconiah	Jechoniah	Jehoiachin

Here the Norton and Heron editions have, again, resorted to spellings that are closer to the ones in the original text, compared to the solutions used in the other two translations, which were clearly different from the original spellings.

Word Order

Yet another example of the obedience to the original text complied with in the Norton and Heron editions was the way they maintained the original order of elements in the text, even though a different order, as illustrated in the solutions applied in the Bantam and Penguin editions, would have been more “English sounding.” Consider the following table:

Table 8. Faithfulness to the Original Text in Word Order

Chapter	Original	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
XXX	vous m’avez coûté le bout du nez, un œil et une oreille ?	you cost me an eye, an ear and the tip of my nose?	you cost me the end of my nose, one eye, and an ear?	you have cost me the tip of my nose, one eye, and one ear?	you cost me an eye, an ear and the end of my nose?

A typical feature of English, American or British, is that in a sequence of similar linguistic elements the longest, or “heaviest,” element is often placed last. In the preceding example the American Norton and British Heron editions have broken this rule in the placing of the noun phrase the tip/end of my nose in order to maintain the order used in the original text. This translational solution is not in any way related to differences between American and British English, but is rather a stylistical choice.

Style

As a curiosity, here is one final example presenting the stylistic affinity between the Norton (US) and Heron (UK) editions, as well as their stronger faithfulness to the original text. In this sentence of the original text, Voltaire uses repetition as a means to express in a humorously dull, monotonous fashion a series of actually quite drastic events. There are two main clauses, united by one correlative conjunction, and consequently, only two subjects in the French sentence. The translators of the Bantam and Penguin editions have lost the humorous effect of repetition by the use of more conjuctions and subjects. The Penguin edition goes even further by dividing the sentence into separate independent clauses, separated by a comma.

In the following table, the subjects of the clauses are written in red, and the conjunctions in blue. The subjects and conjunctions that have equivalents in the original French text, are expressed in bold, in order to facilitate the comparison.

Table 9. Translating Repetition as a Stylistical Device

Chapter	Original	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
XXX	Ils avaient bien vite mangé leurs trois milles piastres, s’étaient quittés, s’étaient raccommodés, s’étaient brouillés, avaient été mis en prison, s’étaient enfuis, et enfin frère Giroflée s’était fait Turc.	They had quickly squandered their three thousand piasters, parted company with each other, became reconciled, and quarreled again; they had been put in prison, but they had managed to escape, and Brother Giroflée had finally turned Turk.	They had quickly run through their three thousand piasters, had split up, made up, quarreled, been jailed, escaped, and finally Brother Giroflée had turned Turk.	They had very speedily made away with their three thousand piasters; they had parted, been reconciled; quarreled again, been thrown into prison; had made their escape, and at last Brother Giroflée turned Turk.	They had soon got through their three thousand piasters, and had parted company only to be reconciled and to quarrel once again. They had been in prison and had escaped, and Brother Giroflée had at last turned Turk.

The Yield of the Study?

Establishing the tendencies of a language cannot be based on the study of individuals, but on that of multitudes. In order to gain solid evidence of any preferences, a deeper assessment of a far more extensive corpus would have been required. Although the preliminary hypothesis (that there are some words, word orders, etc. which are differently preferred according to the English variant used) of the study can therefore not be regarded as having been fully proved, it can neither be regarded as groundless: overall, the study clearly suggests that such preferences exist.

Although unintendedly, the study also gave valuable evidence of how much a translation method, the choice of a supposed target audience, and other such translational functions, that are not always regarded as being part of the actual “translational pursuit,” can influence the result of a translation.

---

Notes

1. This is not always true with many classics that have been translated by different translators; the translator might have a variety of English versions to consult. But these quite different problems cannot be included in this paper.

2. The number of differences that are recorded here is nowhere near the actual number of differences that exist in the different editions. If studying translations on a purely superficial level, it is almost easier to find differences than it is to find similarities. The differences that are recorded here simply caught the curiosity of the author of this paper due to some particularity in them. Another scholar might have left certain things out, because they seemed irrelevant, or included in other things that did not catch this author’s attention.

3. J.M. Dent & Sons Limited is a publishing firm founded in London, England, by Joseph Malaby Dent, in 1888 (J.M. Dent & Sons records). It was originally founded under the name of J.M. Dent & Company; the name was changed in 1909 (J.M. Dent & Sons: Publishing). It was sold in 1988 to the publishing company Weidenfeld and Nicholson, and forms now an imprint of the Orion Publishing Group, situated in London (“J.M. Dent”).

4. Tobias George Smollett was born in Dumbartonshire, Scotland, in March 1721, and died in Tuscany on 17 September, 1771. His translation of Candide dates between the years 1761-65, during which he worked as joint editor of a complete English translation of Voltaire’s Works, along with Thomas Francklin (Joliat).

5. For convenience and practicality, the abbreviations AE (American English) and BE (British English) will be used throughout the paper. As for references to nationality other than considering the language, the abbreviations US for United States, and UK for United Kingdom are used.

6. There was no BE equivalent for harbor in either of the British translations, but the spelling harbour being commonly known as chiefly British, and fairly easily attainable with the help of any standard dictionary, it was decided to include its American equivalent in the study as an example of this sort of difference.

7. The American Norton Critical Edition uses the BE version of the word miter. The different spellings of the word in American and British English are, however, established in many dictionaries, and this discrepancy could also be considered as a ‘typo’ or misspelling caused by the similar spelling of mitre in British English and in French.

8. In this example, too, no AE version of the word practise was to be found in either of the American editions. However, similarly to the examples mentioned previously, the different spellings of the word being established in many dictionaries, it would seem justifiable to mention the word as an example of differing spellings even without the immediate presence of the AE equivalent.

9. Depending on the edition, the French text illustrates different ways of introducing direct quotations; in the edition I have consulted (Bordas, Paris 1984), the “French quotation marks” (« ») are used to introduce longer passages of quotation, within which there can be speech of different characters, introduced with a quotation dash, and short introductive clauses that aren’t really part of the actual quotation. Quotation dashes are used uniquely to introduce intervening quotations of other characters within a longer quotation of one character. In the Bantam edition French text, most quotations are introduced with a quotation dash, and the French quotation marks are used only with longer, narrative quotations, such as can be found in chapter VIII, Histoire de Cunégonde.

10. Sixpence is a coin that was formerly used in Britain, but hasn’t been minted since the 1970’s.

11. This is the purely subjective opinion of the author of the paper, based on the reported observations, and cannot be regarded as an established fact.

Works Cited

• Adams, Robert M., trans. Candide or Optimism. Voltaire. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc., 1966.

• Bair, Lowell, trans. Candide, or Optimism. Voltaire. New York: Bantam Books, 1962.

• “Buenos-Ayres” Les Chants de Maldoror. Chant I, Strophe 14. Centre de recherches Hubert de Phalèse, Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris III. Last viewed: 14 May 2007

• Butt, John, trans. Candide or optimism. Voltaire. Hammondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd. First published 1947.

• J.M. Dent & Sons: Publishing for Everyman. Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. January 1999 Update.

• J.M. Dent & Sons records. General and Literary Manuscripts. Manuscripts Department Library, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. Last viewed 14 May 2007.

• “J. M. Dent”. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 27 Jan 2007, 08:49 UTC. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Last viewed 14 May 2007.

• Joliat, Eugène. Smollett, Editor of Voltaire. Modern Language Notes, Vol. 54, No. 6. (Jun., 1939), pp. 429-436. Last viewed 12 May 2007.

• Paatero, Neea. Differences Between British and American English in Two Versions of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. A FAST-US-1 Introduction to American English Long Paper. The FAST Area Studies Program, Department of Translation Studies, University of Tampere December 2002.

• Smollett, Tobias George, trans. Candide and other tales. Voltaire. Revised by James Thornton. Geneva: Edito-Service S.A., by arrangement with J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., 1969. Distributed by Heron Books.

• “Tobias Smollett”. Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World. The Gale Group, Inc, 2004. Answers.com. Last viewed 21 May 2007.

---

Appendix: Full List of Observations

Differences between American and British English Translations

Vocabulary:	Original French	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
Chapter VIII	coupèrent ma mère en morceaux violer / être violée honneur dépouillé tout nu abominable Inquisiteur expliquer son tendre amour après le souper	cut my mother to pieces raping/ raped honor stripped naked abominable Inquisitor express his tender love after supper	hacked my mother to bits raping / raped honor stripped naked abominable Inquisitor express his tender passion after dinner	cut my mother in pieces ravishing / ravished honour stark naked cruel Inquisitor sigh forth his tender passion after having supped	made mincemeat of my mother ravishing / ravished honour stark naked hateful Inquisitor unfold the tenderness of his love after supper
Chapter XXVII	Après s’être prosternés Buenos-Ayres nerf de boeuf Quoi! c’est Candide? Chien de chrétien le port Je revois donc mon cher Candide,	After prostrating Buenos Aires -- What! It’s Candide! Dog of a Christian the harbor I’ve found my dear Candide again!	After prostrating Buenos Aires bullwhip What, can it be Candide? Dog of a Christian the port do I really see again my dear Candide?	After paying their obeisance Buenos Ayres oxhide Good heavens! it is Candide, Christian cur the port do I once again behold my dear Candide?	After paying their humble respects Buenos Ayres -- Good Heavens! It’s Candide! Christian cur the port I behold my dear Candide once more !
Chapter XXX	un beau mémoire lequel est le pire dans la plus extrême misère continuait son métier un berceau d’orangers kaïmak piqué	a fine dissertation which is worse in abject misery continued to ply her trade an arbor of orange  trees boiled cream flavored	a fine treatise which is worse in the last stages of misery continued to ply her trade a grove of orange trees Turkish cream flavored	a fine memorial which is worst in the utmost distress continued to follow her trade an alcove formed of orange-trees caymac heightened	a beautiful memorandum which is the worst in the utmost distress continued to practise her profession an arbour of orange-trees drinks flavoured

Other:	Original French	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
The use of small caps to begin a chapter: Chapter VIII Chapter XXVII Chapter XXX	J’étais dans mon lit Le fidèle Cacambo Candide, dans le fond de son cœur	I was in my bed The faithful Cacambo At the bottom of his heart, Candide	I was in my bed Faithful Cacambo At heart, Candide	I was in bed The trusty Cacambo Candide had, in truth	One night when I was Thanks to the faithful Cacambo At the bottom of his heart, Candide
Quotation marks: - direct quotation - quotation within a quotation	– / « » « »	“ ” ‘ ’	– ‘ ’	‘ ’ “ ”	‘ ’ “ ”
Word order: Chapter VIII - Placement of qualifier Chapter XXX -Adverb of time	le jour du sabbath que la vieille osa un jour leur dire	the day of the Sabbath that one day the old woman was driven to say	the day of the Sabbath that one day the old woman ventured to say	the Sabbath day that the old woman ventured one day to say to them	the Sabbath day that the old woman was provoked one day to remark

Notable Differences Between Translations, Inconsistent with Used English Variant

Vocabulary:	Original French	Bantam US	Norton US	Heron UK	Penguin UK
Chpt VIII Chpt XXVII Chpt XXX	Mlle Cunégonde Bulgare le flanc gauche monseigneur la Propontide trois écus Milo Nicarie Petra le canal de la mer Noire l’impertinence insupportable disputaient fermement persuadé d’effendis, de bachas, de cadis convulsions de l’inquiétude acarîatre Erzeroum deux vizirs du banc et le mufti Ochosias Jéchonias Marie Stuart Eldorado	Lady Cunegonde Bulgar left side His Eminence the Sea of  Marmora a small allowance Melos Ikaria Patras the Bosporus arrogance unbearable discussed convinced effendis, pashas and cadis convulsions of distress shrewish Erzerum two viziers and the mufti Joram Jehoiachin Mary Stuart Eldorado	Miss Cunégonde Bulgar left thigh My Lord the Inquisitor the Propontis three crowns Melos Nicaria Petra the Black Sea canal impertinence insupportable argued over firmly persuaded effendis, pashas, and cadis convulsions of misery sour-tempered Erzeroum two viziers of the divan as well as the mufti Ahaziah Jeconiah Mary Stuart Eldorado	Miss Cunegund Bulgarian left groin his lordship the Propontis three crowns Milo Nicaria Petra the Bosphorus impertinence insupportable disputed firmly persuaded effendis, pashas, and cadis convulsions of disquiet ill-tempered Erzeroum two viziers of the bench and the mufti Ahaziah Jechoniah Mary Stuart El Dorado	Lady Cunégonde Bulgar left thigh His Eminence the sea of Marmora seven and sixpence Melos Nicaria Patras the Bosporus intransigence insufferable discussed firmly persuaded Turkish statesmen, military governors, and judges restlessness of anxiety cantankerous Erzerum two cabinet ministers and a judge Joram Jehoiachin Mary Queen of Scots Eldorado
Style: Chapter VIII Chapter XXVII Chapter XXX	Je repris mes sens, je criai, je me débattis, je mordis, j’égratinais, je voulais arracher les yeux à ce grand Bulgare Mon cher Martin, encore une fois, tu m’en donneras embrassa cent fois celui-ci --l’autre Ils avaient bien vite mangé leurs trois milles piastres, s’étaient quittés, s’étaient raccommodés, s’étaient brouillés, avaient été mis en prison, s’étaient enfuis, et enfin frère Giroflée s’était fait Turc. Maître, nous venons vous prier de nous dire Parfumèrent les barbes de Candide, de Pangloss et de Martin Ut operatur eum pour qu’il travaillât	I screamed, struggled, bit, clawed and tried to scratch his eyes out Once again, my dear Martin, you’ll have to give me embraced -- again and again Pangloss -- the baron They had quickly squandered their three thousand piasters, parted company with each other, became reconciled, and quarreled again; they had been put in prison, but they had managed to escape, and Brother Giroflée had finally turned Turk. Sir, we have come to ask you Perfumed his three visitors’ beards ‘to dress it and to keep it’	I screamed and scratched, bit and fought, I tried to tear the eyes out of that big Bulgar My dear Martin, once again you will give me a hundred times -- embraced the latter -- the former They had quickly run through their three thousand piasters, had split up, made up, quarreled, been jailed, escaped, and finally Brother Giroflée had turned Turk. Master, we have come to ask you to tell us Perfumed the beards of Candide, Pangloss, and Martin Ut operatur eum, so that he should work it	I cried, I struggled, I bit, I scratched, I would have torn the tall Bulgarian’s eyes out My dear Martin, I must insist on it, thou shalt give me bestowed a thousand embraces the latter -- the former They had very speedily made away with their three thousand piasters; they had parted, been reconciled; quarreled again, been thrown into prison; had made their escape, and at last Brother Giroflée turned Turk. Master, we come to intreat you to tell us Perfumed the beards of Candide, Pangloss, and Martin With an intent to dress it	I -- cried for help, struggling, biting, and scratching as hard as I could. I wanted to tear the fellow’s eyes out. I have been thinking it over again, my dear Martin, you shall give me embraced --again and again Pangloss -- the Baron They had soon got through their three thousand piasters, and had parted company only to be reconciled and to quarrel once again. They had been in prison and had escaped, and Brother Giroflée had at last turned Turk. Master, -- we have come to ask a favour. Will you kindly tell us Perfumed the beards of the three visitors “to dress it and to keep it”
Word order: Chapter VIII Chapter XXX	Quand je vis dans un san-benito, et sous une mitre, une figure qui ressemblait à celle de Pangloss ! vous m’avez coûté le bout du nez, un œil et une oreille ?	When I saw a man who looked like Pangloss, wearing a sanbenito and a miter! you cost me an eye, an ear and the tip of my nose?	When I saw, huddled in a san-benito and wearing a mitre, someone who looked like Pangloss! you cost me the end of my nose, one eye, and an ear?	When I beheld a figure so like Pangloss, dressed in a sanbenito and a mitre! you have cost me the tip of my nose, one eye, and one ear?	Seeing a figure that looked like Pangloss, dressed in the sacrificial cassock and paper mitre! you cost me an eye, an ear and the end of my nose?
Use of minuscules after an exclamation mark: Chapter XXX	Comme vous voilà faite ! eh ! qu’est-ce que ce monde ?	Just look at me now! What a world we live in!	And look at you now! eh! what a world it is, after all!	What a handsome shape is here! and what is this world!	What a state you are in! What a world this is!
Verb tense: Chapter VIII	J’ai été detrompée	I saw that I was wrong	I was now undeceived	I found I was mistaken	I see that I was wrong