Page8
Multimodalityandintersemiotictranslation
Referringtothetranslationofadvertisingandpromotionalwebsites,Calzada
Pérez(2005)arguesthat‘imagesneedtranslatingasmuchaswordsand
cyberspaceisnothingifnotahugemeetingpointwhichprovidesinformation
thatisconstantlytranslatedbackandforth’.Thisstatementsummarizesanew
trendinthestudyofadvertisingtranslation,onethatattemptstotakeinto
accounttherangeofconstraintsimposeduponandopportunitiesofferedtothe
translatorofadvertisingmaterialbyvirtueofthemodesofexpressioninvolved
ineachadvertisingtext.
Ithasbeenarguedthatnotextisstrictlymonomodal(Baldry2000).For
instance,anovelortextbookwithoutillustrationsmayappeartohaveonlya
verbaldimension,buttypographicalchoices(Schopp2002,2005)andthe
physicalqualitiesofthepaperitisprintedongivethewordsaparticular
renderingorinscription(KressandVanLeeuwen1996:230–32)that
contributestotheconstructionoftextualmeaning.Atthesametime,advertising
textsonthewholedisplayahighlevelofmultimodalitywithrespecttoother
genres,becauseoftheirsimultaneousrelianceondifferentkindsofstimuli.For
instance,printadvertisementsusuallyhaveverbalandvisualcomponents,radio
commercialsrelyonverbalandaural(sound/music)effects,andstreet
advertisingmakesuseofverbaland/orvisualsignscombinedwithgeosemiotic
cuessuchaspositionrelativetotheviewer,proximitywithothertexts,and
spatialcontext(seeScollonandScollon2003ongeosemiotics).Thus,the
multimodalityofadvertisingtextsdoesnotdependonlyonthefactthat
campaignsforthesameproductsmayspanvariousmedia–inotherwords,that
thesamecampaignmayberuninidenticalorslightlydifferentformson
television,streetposters,radio,etc.Rather,multimodalityisachievedwithin
eachadvertisingtext,eveninthecaseoftextsthataretraditionallyexcluded
fromthedefinitionof‘multimedia’,suchasprintadvertisements.
Amultimodalapproachtothetranslationofadvertisementsandpromotional
materialtendstoprioritizethreeareas.First,itadvocatestrainingtranslatorsof
advertisingmaterialandtranslationstudentstoanalyserelationshipsamongthe
differentsemiotic(ratherthanmerelylinguistic)elementsofthetext(see,for
example,Laviosa2007;Torresi2007a).Second,intersemiotictranslationis
advocatedasameansofeffectivelylocalizingtheadvertisingmessageby
workingonthetextasawhole–forinstancereplacingavisualelementinthe
sourcetextwithanewonewhichcancompensateforanunavoidablelossof
meaningintheverbalcomponentofthetext,orbuildinganentirelynewverbal
textaroundthevisualonetoaccommodatemarketdifferences(Torresi
2007b).Third,onamoretheoreticallevel,scholarsoftranslationare
encouragedto‘movebeyondthewrittenword’toincorporate‘thevisual,and
multimodalingeneral’intheirresearch(Munday2004:216).
Examplesofmultimodal,intersemioticapproachestothestudyofadvertisingin
translationincludeChiaro’s(2004)contrastiveanalysisofintrasemioticand
intersemioticstrategiesininternationalwebsitesandprintadvertisementsfor
Italianfoodproducts,andSimõesLucasFreitas’s(2004)studyofthewayin
whichmeaningisconveyedacrossdifferentmodesofexpressioninmultimedia
campaigns.Whileotherscholarswhohavestudiedthetranslationofadvertising
donotexplicitlyusetheterm‘intersemiotictranslation’,theyimplicitlydrawon
thesameconcept.Forinstance,MillánVarela(2004)contrastsacorpusof
European,AsianandSouthAmericanTVcommercialsofCornettoicecream
withintheframeworkofKressandVanLeeuven’s(1996)visualgrammar.
BuenoGarcía(2000)highlightstheimportanceofelementssuchassoundand
imageinthetranslationofadvertising,whileGuidère(2000b:28)statesthat‘les
signeslinguistiquesdutextepublicitairesontenrelationd’étroitedépendance
aveclessignesiconiquesdel’image’(thelinguisticsignsofadvertisingtextsare
directlydependentontheiconicsignsoftheimage).Nomura(2000)similarly
emphasizestheimportanceofthevisualinconstructingtheadvertisingmessage,
anddiscussestheimplicationsfortranslators.Amoresubtleanalysisisprovided
byValdés(2000),whorevealstheimportanceofwhatmightappearasslight
changesintermsoftypographyandadjustmentofvisualstoaccommodate
nationalstereotypes.