Language variation has always been a tricky field for both scholars and practitioners. What constitutes a language and hence a culture to some, is merely a variety or hardly a dominant dialect to others, or the other way around. The role and position of varieties in animated features form a widely accessed example that could easily play a role – albeit light – in the entire discussion. When major film studios release an animated feature with characters speaking varieties of the language of the target market, is this then a form of localised dubbing and can this form of localisation contribute to the descriptive framework of the concepts involved?
Back in the ‘stone age’ of the 20th century, when computers did not play a part in the production process of animated feature films and Disney movies were all we knew, more often than not animated features were brought to a local audience in two ways: as a subtitled version with the original voices or as a version dubbed in the local language, on the whole utilising the standard variety. As such the dubbed versions of many Disney hit movies in Dutch cover both the Netherlands and Flemish-speaking Belgium. Although it can be argued that the English language of these features has less of a geographical variety than a social one, regional variation becomes a standard approach while localising 21st-century animated movies for the Dutch market, with ample differences between Dutch for Flanders and Dutch for the Netherlands.
This paper looks into the differences between the source language as spoken by the characters of various Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks movies in their original version and in the localised version for the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium on the one hand and for the Netherlands on the other hand: What are the differences between them and why would they even be there in the first place? Which language varieties are chosen for which characters? Is stereotypical dubbing in place in that idiosyncratic mannerisms of characters are transposed to varieties generally perceived to share similar characteristics as well (local varieties where one tends to have a more pronounced intonation for instance)? Or is the entire analysis only a frontispiece for what in fact is merely a business model where characters for dubbing are attributed to the preference for or bankability of voice over artists and actors concerned?

Christophe DECLERCQ graduated as a translator at Lessius Hogeschool (Antwerp, Belgium). After positions at Lessius, Blondé Printing Business, Decathlon and Yamagata Europe, he became a lecturer in localisation at Imperial College London first and later at the department of Translators and Interpreters, Artesis University College Antwerp, becoming a true European / frequent traveller on the Eurostar. He has been a visiting lecturer at Lille LEAIII, Lessius, Middlesex, Metropolitan University and has spoken at EAFT, NL-Term, TAMA, LISA, ‘Translation&Meaning’ and EST. He has published in Language International, Language and Documentation and Translation Ireland and is a contributing editor of the literary magazine De Brakke Hond. At Artesis University College Antwerp, he teaches contrastive exercises Dutch-English and lectures British studies as well as leading students into the intriguing world of localisation. At Imperial College London, he lectures on a variety of applied translation theory topics and he is in charge of the translation technology and localisation module. At Imperial College London, he is currently working on a PhD about Belgian refugees in Britain during WWI. Besides being an expert for the EU (CIP ICT-PSP call 3) and working closely with SDL and ITR, he works as a freelance translator as well, mainly for Golazo.be.