Ideally, translation should convey as much of the effects dialects create as possible. As Bruti and Vignozzi (2017) point out, “from a pragmatic point of view, dialects, and also accents, have different conversational implications (e.g. creating humour, giving background information about characters, etc.); as a result, translating them accurately also implies the preservation of these functions” (p. 51). However, unfortunately, in many cases, translators cannot cope with the transposition of the intra- or extralinguistic information provided by different accents into another language, and have a tendency to neutralise language variations. “In her research, BJ Epstein examined seven passages of text in 15 Swedish translations of the novel. In 60 per cent of the cases, language standardisation was the preferred method employed by the author” (Language Insight, 2019). This tendency results in a substantial loss of information. “By simply wiping all accents out, and making all of the characters speak a standardised version of the target language, the translator significantly alters the way the character is perceived by the reader” (Language Insight, 2019). “[U]sing the standardised form of the target language in a translation can remove much of the texture of a character, and the story would lose all nuance” (Global Voices, n. d.).

If the translator decides against standardisation, i.e. basically the complete disregard of dialects, they can choose a creative way to solve the issue. “BJ Epstein identifies two types of dialect translation: socioeconomic and geographical. A geographic translation is where translators choose a roughly equivalent region in the target culture and pick one of its dialects. Socioeconomic translations involve working with [the] dialect of a certain class of people” (Global Voices, n. d.). Epstein suggests that using non-standard spelling and grammar, as well as errors can be a solution to the problem. However, one also has to consider the knowledge of the audience. If the viewer is aware of the foreign setting of the plot, it might be odd to use rural varieties of the target language (Language Insight, 2019).

Another approach to the translation of dialects is the “traditional”, Venutian distinction of methods: foreignisation and domestication, where the term ‘domestication’ is used differently from Bruti and Vignozzi’s interpretation.

[W]hen it comes to account for the translation of culturally embedded language, the choice of a foreignizing strategy, like for instance retention of a foreign word, might not be sufficient to avoid misinterpretations and to ensure visibility to the translator, but may contribute to reinforce common stereotypes. On the other hand, as the intentions and values conveyed by the use of dialect in translation resist categorical solutions, a domesticating strategy may provide more effective adaptation (De Meo, 2019).

It has to be noted that to a large extent due to the spread of social media, a rapid evolution in dialects can be observed, which blurs the line between standard language and slang or non-standard variations. Therefore, “it is sometimes hard to verify the actual use and the frequency of some dialectal expressions” (Bruti, Vignozzi, 2017: 50).