Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume 1 (2010)
© 2010–2012 John Benjamins Publishing Company. Not to be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher.
© 2010–2012 John Benjamins Publishing Company. Not to be reproduced in any form without written permission from the publisher.
Audiovisual Translation (AVT), although a relative newcomer within the
field of Translation Studies (TS), has moved from the field’s periphery to its
centre over the past two decades. The earliest form of AVT may have been
translation of intertitles in silent films, but far greater needs for
translation arose with the advent of ‘talking movies’ in the 1920s and the
necessity of providing films with translations (so as to secure exports,
especially for the US film industry). Various forms of translation were tried,
even multiple language versions of one film, with subtitling and dubbing soon
becoming the preferred modes. Selection between the two was determined by
economic, ideological and pragmatic factors in the respective target countries.
Initial research publications on AVT date from the mid-fifties and sixties, but
a true research and publication boom did not occur until the early 1990s.
Subtitling and dubbing are still commonly regarded as the two main AVT modes, with
voiceover being the third (see Voiceover and dubbing). However, the boom and proliferation of AV texts at the close of the 20th
century led to a corresponding boom in AVT modes and eventually to increasingly
interdisciplinary research. Developments that majorly impacted the AV landscape
include the globalisation of AV distribution and production systems, the
financial integration of TV broadcasting companies and the film industry,
digitization (e.g., the advent of DVD technology, which allows for various
translation modes on one disc), and related technological developments such as
expansion of the Internet and proliferation of on-the-go gadgets like mobile
phones, iPods and the like. Some of these developments and their theoretical
capacities for supplying tailor-made products have led to the diversification
of target audiences (and ‘narrowcasting’) and, most recently, to the capacity
for users to actively participate in the translation of certain AV products (Gambier 2003). These
newer forms of AVT are variants of older forms and/or new developments that
share features with other, related types of translation. Newer variants include
surtitling for the stage (Mateo 2007),
subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing (SDH) (Neves 2009) and its subcategory of live subtitling with speech recognition, as well
as intralingual subtitling that confronts linguistic variation within a language
(Remael et al. 2008). Fansubbing and fandubbing are a form of User-Generated Translation (UGT)
in which Internet users subtitle or dub their favourite productions, thereby
challenging commercial production modes (Nornes 2007). In fact, since 2009 YouTube has offered subtitling options to its users.
Related to dubbing is audio description (AD) for the blind (Braun 2008), which
translates essential visual information from an AV production into verbal
narration between film dialogues, sometimes in combination with
audio-subtitling (AST), an adapted aural version of subtitling. Video game localisation, which mixes AV forms like dubbing or subtitling with features of
localisation, could be considered a completely new genre. Needless to say, the
proliferation of AV modes and technical developments is linked to the growing
number of new environments (museums, opera houses, trains stations, etc.) where
AVT is used.
Many forms of AVT, as other forms of translation or interpretation, still
share the challenges of transposing text in one language into text in another
language. However, audiovisual texts, unlike ‘traditional’ printed texts,
typically use two types of signs and two different channels of communication.
They are composed of audio-verbal signs (the words uttered), audio-nonverbal
signs (all other sounds), visual-verbal signs (writing), and visual nonverbal
signs (all other visual signs) (see Zabalbeascoa 2008: 24; and
also e.g., Delabastita 1989). The
different sign systems interact and together constitute the audiovisual text, a
structure that is more complex than the simple summation of its parts. First,
the relative importance of each system can vary. Second, even the verbal
component of an AV text is never purely ‘verbal’: its shape is determined by
the sign systems that surround it. Indeed, integration of the verbal component
in a complex sign system meant to be watched, heard and sometimes read, often
results in this component taking a hybrid form, i.e., one that is neither
purely written nor purely spoken language. Moreover, as language varies
according to use and genre, the language of AVT is never a monolithic entity (Freddi & Pavesi 2009:
32).
Both the expansion and increased specialization of AVT practice and research
have led to various re-namings of the field and to different definitions of the
practice and/or research topic(s). Film translation and cinema
translation were among the first terms in use, but such terms soon failed
to cover every mode of translation, especially as modes expanded to television
and DVD, including different types of programmes (e.g., talkshows) that were
not ‘films’ in the strict sense. Screen translation is more
encompassing, and includes translations done for the plethora of screens being
produced by today’s audiovisual market. Yet this term encompasses localization, which is not necessarily a form of AVT. Moreover, Screen Translation
does not include surtitling for the stage, even though surtitling (or
supertitling, the American term) forms part of a text that is composed of the
aforementioned sign systems and communication channels. Another term, (Multi)Media
Translation (Gambier & Gottlieb 2001), can include translations for the stage as well as different forms of
screen translation, and refers explicitly to the multitude of media and
channels now used in global and local communication. The term Multimedia
Localisation is a newcomer that appears occasionally today. The addition of
SDH and AD to the research arena has led some researchers to define AVT as a
form of Media Accessibility, thus stretching the concept of
‘translation’ to include ‘translation’ from sounds or images into words (Díaz Cintas et al. 2007). At the time of this writing, Audiovisual Translation is the most
commonly used term in the field. This term refers to the different components
involved in the type of text under scrutiny, and though it does not explicitly
point to the interactive component of multimedia, it does not exclude it
either.
The main challenge posed by this expansion is the increasing difficulty in
delineating the AVT domain. Starting from the four constitutive features of
AV(T) texts (cf. supra), Zabalbeascoa (2008: 29) proposes a
way of mapping the object of study of AVT, placing
AV texts, types of AV texts and parts of them […] on a plane defined by the
following coordinates: a cline that indicates the presence (amount and
importance) of verbal communication in proportion to other semiotic forms of
expression; [and] another cline for measuring the relative importance of sound
in the audio channel weighed against visual signs.
The area closest to the centre of the two clines is where the most
prototypical instances of the AV text must be situated (i.e., texts in which
both audio channels and visual channels as well as verbal and non-verbal codes
are active in producing meaning). As one moves away from the centre (in either
direction), one communication channel and/or sign system gains prominence. This
flexible schematic allows for all existing and future AV texts and their
translations to be classified as more or less prototypical, and precludes
omission of potentially interesting newcomers. Likewise, the schematic can
incorporate or provide links to texts (e.g., cartoons) that have verbal and
visual components but lack an audio channel (Kaindl & Oittinen
2008).
The multimodal or semiotic nature of AVT once led scholars to question if
AVT was indeed a form of translation. The view of AVT as a form of
‘constrained’ translation, in which the other sign systems over-determine the
translator’s contribution, stimulated such considerations. Constraints include,
in dubbing, the need for various forms of synchrony between text and
image/sound; and, in subtitling, the need to compress, paraphrase and adapt
speech to a hybrid form of writing. Today, however, the discussion may need to
be revisited. The 21st century may well see the advent of the “audiovisual
turn” in TS. Initially, TS limited itself to bible translation and literary
translation. Only later did TL research extend to translation of other text
types, although it remained focused on translation of verbal texts in one
language into verbal texts in another language, or, in Jakobson’s terms,
interlingual translation or translation proper (Jakobson 1959/2000). Jakobson also coined intralingual translation (or rewording) and
intersemiotic translation (or transmutation) to refer to related fields,
but his very terminology relegated the terms to translation’s periphery. The
current inundation of text production modes and the ubiquity of image and/or
sound in texts have made it virtually impossible to adhere to such a limited
concept of translation. This also brings translation and other forms of text
production closer together, as well as propelling aspects of AVT into other
translation types or leading to incorporation of AVT modes (subtitling,
subbing, AD, SDH, etc.) into other communication settings, such as website
localisation.
It is difficult to predict if the trend towards expanding the concept of
translation to encompass this diversification will prevail over the opposite
trend, that of introducing new terms (such as localization, technical
communication and multimedia localisation (cf. supra)) that aim to
reduce translation to one link within a larger communication chain. This will
depend not only on the decisions of scholars and university policies, but also
on politico-economic developments that determine the translation market. Most
forms of AVT have always involved some form of collaboration, rendering AV
translators and their work dependent on other agents in the production process.
New technical and socio-economic developments are enhancing that process,
sometimes to the detriment of translators’ status and working conditions, and a
focus on quantity rather than quality.
The developments described in the previous sections pose interesting
challenges for researchers and have produced a wealth of material. Numerous
collections of articles offer good overviews of current research topics (see
e.g., Díaz Cintas 2009; Gambier 2003, 2008; Lavaur & Serban 2008; Orero 2004; Remael & Neves 2007), and, as a
quick Internet search will demonstrate, academic programs throughout Europe
offer training and research in AVT.
Some scholars deplore the lack of an encompassing theory of AVT, yet one
cannot help wondering if such a theory would even be useful. Although
interdisciplinarity increasingly characterizes AVT research today, the
frameworks within which much AVT research has been and is being conducted are
those of Descriptive Translation Studies, Polysystem Theory, and, more
recently, Functionalist Translation Studies (the last is particularly apt for
the study of video game localization (O’Hagan 2009). Such
studies stimulate partial descriptive theories (e.g., Zabalbeascoa 2008; Chaume 2004).
Researchers continue to use (or re-use) research methods and concepts from
various linguistic disciplines (including pragmatics, text linguistics, and
cognitive linguistics), but combine them, depending on the particular research,
with methods from literary studies, (experimental) psychology, film studies,
statistics, reception studies, anthropology, history, didactics, etc. This is a
result of the realisation that studying only the verbal component of AVT does
not suffice and that AV media have inestimable social and ideological impact
(witness e.g., the study of censorship in AVT) that merits further in-depth
study. Research has gradually begun moving away from case studies and towards
corpus-based approaches, thus facilitating more extensive research of the sign
systems of the (digitized) AV text. Moreover, logging systems and eye-tracking
offer new perspectives for quantitative research. More generally, digitization
and Internet access facilitate research by increasing the availability of AV
products and their components (e.g., scripts) and furthering the circulation of
affordable AV(T) software for education, production, analysis and publishing.
AVT is definitely here to stay and will, even by any other name, remain an
interesting field for exploration.
Braun, Sabine. 2008.
“Audiodescription research: State of the art and beyond.” Translation
Studies in the New Millenium. An International Journal of Translation and
Interpreting 6: 14–30. TSB
Delabastita, Dirk. 1989. “Translation
and mass-communication: Film and TV translation as evidence of cultural
dynamics.” Babel 35 (4): 193–218. TSB
Díaz Cintas, Jorge &
Anderman, Gunilla. 2009. Audiovisual Translation. Language Transfer on
Screen. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Díaz Cintas, Jorge, Orero, Pilar & Remael, Aline. 2007. Media for All. Subtitling for the Deaf, Audio Description, and
Sign Language. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. TSB
Freddi, Maria & Pavesi, Maria. 2009. Analysing Audiovisual Dialogue.
Linguistic and Translational Insights. Bologna:
CLUEB. TSB
Gambier, Yves. 2003.
“Introduction: Screen transadaptation: Perception and reception. Special issue
on screen translation.” The Translator 9 (2): 171–190.
Gambier, Yves. 2008. “Recent
developments and challenges in audiovisual translation research”. In Between
Text and Image. Updating Research in Screen Translation, D. Chiaro, Ch.
Heiss & C. Buccaria (eds), 11–35. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. TSB
Gambier, Yves & Gottlieb,
Henrik. 2001. (Multi)Media Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:
Benjamins. TSB
Jakobson, Roman. 1959/2000.
“On linguistic aspects of translation”. In The Translation Studies Reader.
L. Venuti (ed.), 113–118. London & New York: Routledge. TSB
Kaindl, Klaus & Oittinen,
Riita (eds). 2008. Le verbal, le visuel, le traducteur/The Verbal, the
visual, the translator. Special issue of Meta LIII (1). TSB
Mateo, Marta. 2007.
“Surtitling today: New uses, attitudes and developments.” In Linguistica
Antverpiensia New Series 6: 135–154. TSB
Neves, Josélia. 2009.
“Interlingual Subtitling for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing.” In Audiovisual
Translation. Language Transfer on Screen. J. Díaz Cintas & G. Anderman
(eds), 151–169. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Nornes, Abe Mark. 2007. Cinema
Babel. Translating Global Cinema. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
press. TSB
Orero, Pilar. 2004. Topics
in Audiovisual Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
BoP TSB
O’Hagan, Minako. 2009.
“Towards a cross-cultural game design: An explorative study in understanding
the player experience of a localised Japanese video game.” Journal of
Specialised Translation 11: 211–233. http://www.jostrans.org/issue11/art_ohagan.php [Accessed 18 January 2010] TSB
Remael, Aline, De Houwer,
Annick & Vandekerckhove, Reinhild. 2008. “Intralingual open subtitling in
Flanders: Audiovisual translation, linguistic variation and audience needs.” Journal
of Specialized Translation 10: 76–105. http://www.jostrans.org/issue10/art_houwer.php [Accessed 18 January 2010] TSB
Remael, Aline & Neves,
Josélia. 2007. A Tool for Social Integration? Audiovisual Translation from
Different Angles. Theme issue of Linguistica Antverpiensia New Series.
TSB
Zabalbeascoa, Patrick. 2008.
“The nature of the audiovisual text and its parameters.” In The Didactics of
Audiovisual Translation, J. Díaz Cintas (ed.), 21–38. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John
Benjamins. TSB
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário