Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page14

1965;DíazCintas2003),althoughtheseentertainersoftensoughttoenhance

theviewer’sexperiencebyspreadinggossipaboutthefilmstarsoreven

explaininghowtheprojectorworked(Cazdyn2004).Thenationalindustriesof

theUSAandanumberofEuropeancountriesthrivedonthisabsenceof

linguisticbarrierstofilmexportsuntiltheaftermathofWorldWarItookitstoll

onthefinancialcapabilityofEuropeanindustrytofundnewprojects.Bythe

early1920s,Americanfilmshadcometosecureadominantmarketshare

throughoutEurope,pushingsomenationalfilmindustries(e.g.BritishandItalian)

closetothebrinkofcollapse(NowellSmithandRicci1998).

AccordingtoForbesandStreet(2000),theadventofsoundinthelate1920s

putatemporaryendtotheAmericandominationofEuropeanfilmindustries,as

thebigstudiosbecamesuddenlyunabletosatisfythedemandofEuropean

audiencesforfilmsspokenintheirnativelanguages.Experimentalattemptsto

appealtolocalEuropeansensibilities–e.g.the‘multilingualfilmingmethod’and

the‘dunningprocess’(Ballester1995)–failedtoearntheAmericanindustryits

lostmarketshareback,anditsoonbecameobviousthatnewformsof

audiovisualtranslationwererequiredtoreassertitsformerdominance.During

thesecondhalfofthe1920s,technologicaldevelopmentsmadeitpossibleto

‘revoice’certainfragmentsofdialogueoreditthesoundofscenesthathadbeen

shotinnoisyenvironmentsthroughaprocessknownas‘post

synchronization’(WhitmanLinsen1992;Chaves2000).Despitebeing

conceivedasameansofimprovingthequalityofanoriginalrecording,post

synchronizedrevoicingwassoonusedtoreplacethesourcedialoguewitha

translatedversion,andisthereforeacknowledgedastheimmediateforerunner

ofdubbingasweknowittoday.Concurrentadvancesinthemanipulationof

celluloidfilmsduringthe1920salloweddistributorstosuperimposetitles

straightontothefilmstripimagesthroughopticalandmechanicalmeans

(Ivarsson2002).Bythelate1920sithadbecomecustomarytousethis

evolvedversionoftheprimitiveintertitlestoprovideatranslationofthesource

dialogueinsynchronywiththerelevantfragmentofspeech,thuspavingtheway

forthedevelopmentofmodernsubtitling.

TheperfectionofthesenewtechniquesandtheiracceptancebyEuropean

audiencesendedthemoratoriumonAmericancontrolofEuropeanmarkets

(ForbesandStreet2000),withAmericanfilmsregainingamarketshareof70

percentinEuropeandLatinAmericaby1937(Chaves2000).Thissecond

waveofdominationwasregardedasathreatnotonlytothesustainabilityof

Europe’snationalfilmindustries,butalsototheirrespectivelanguages,cultures

andpoliticalregimes–inthemid1930s,thelatterrangedfromdemocratic

systemstofascistdictatorships.ThemultiplicityofEuropeaninterestsand

ideologieswouldsoonleadeachcountrytoadoptitsownprotectionist

measuresand/orCENSORSHIPmechanisms(NowellSmithandRicci1998),

whichwere,inmanycases,enforcedthroughthechoiceofspecificpoliciesand

formsofaudiovisualtranslation.Despitetheseefforts,andexceptforbrief

exceptionalperiodslikeWorldWarII,thesedynamicsofdominationwereto

remainunchanged.

Subtitling

Atypologyofsubtitlingprocedures

Subtitlingconsistsoftheproductionofsnippetsofwrittentext(subtitles,or

captionsinAmericanEnglish)tobesuperimposedonvisualfootage–normally

nearthebottomoftheframe–whileanaudiovisualtextisprojected,playedor

broadcast.Insofarasitinvolvesashiftfromaspokentoawrittenmedium,

subtitlinghasbeendefinedasa‘diasemiotic’or‘intermodal’formofaudiovisual

translation(Gottlieb1997).Interlingualsubtitlesprovideviewerswitha

writtenrenditionofthesourcetextspeech,whetherdialogueornarration,in

theirownlanguage.Incommunitieswhereatleasttwolanguagescoexist,

bilingualsubtitlesdelivertwolanguageversionsofthesamesourcefragment,

oneineachofthetwoconstitutivelinesofthesubtitle(Gambier2003a).

Eachofthefragmentsintowhichsubtitlersdividethespeechforthepurposesof

translationmustbedeliveredconcurrentlywithitswrittenrenditioninthetarget

languageviathesubtitle.Andgiventhat‘peoplegenerallyspeakmuchfaster

thantheyread,subtitlinginevitablyinvolves…technicalconstraintsofshortage

ofscreenspaceandlackoftime’(O’Connell

Page15

1998:67).Subtitlescomposedaccordingtowidelyacceptedspatialparameters

containamaximumoftwolinesoftext,eachaccommodatingupto35

characters(Karamitrouglou1998).Theactualnumberofcharactersthatcanbe

usedineachsubtitlethendependsonthedurationofthecorrespondingspeech

unit(Titford1982).

Sincethe1970s,wehavewitnessedtheproliferationofintralingualsubtitles,

whicharecomposedinthesamelanguageasthesourcetextspeech.Intralingual

subtitlesweretraditionallyaddressedatMINORITYaudiences,suchas

immigrantswishingtodeveloptheirproficiencyinthelanguageofthehost

communityorviewersrequiringwrittensupporttofullyunderstandcertain

audiovisualtextsshotinnonstandarddialectsoftheirnativelanguage(Díaz

Cintas2003).However,intralingualsubtitlinghasnowbecomealmost

synonymouswithsubtitlingforthedeafandhardofhearinginthe

audiovisualmarketplace,whereaccessibilityfriendlyinitiativesarereceiving

increasingattention.Subtitlesforthehardofhearingprovideatextdisplayof

thespeechbutalsoincorporatedescriptionsofsoundfeatureswhicharenot

accessibletothisaudience.Tocompensatefortheirhigherdensity(Wurm

2007),thistypeofsubtitlecomplieswithspecificconventionsintermsoftiming,

textpositioninganduseofcolours(Neves2005).Althoughsubtitlesforthedeaf

wereforalongtimerestrictedtofilmsandprogrammesrecordedinadvance,

thedevelopmentofrealtimeorlivesubtitlingtechnologies,rangingfromthe

stenographandstenotypingmethodstospeechrecognitionsystems(Lambourne

2006),hasincreasedtheaccessibilityoflivenews,livechatshowsandreality

TVtothedeafcommunity(seealsoSIGNEDLANGUAGE

INTERPRETING).

Historically,theterms‘interlingual’and‘intralingualsubtitles’correlatedwith

openandclosedsubtitles,respectively.Interlingualsubtitleshavetendedtobe

printedontheactualfilm,thusbecomingpartoftheaudiovisualtextitself.Given

thattheyarevisuallypresentthroughoutthescreeninganduniversallyaccessible

toallviewers(exceptforthevisuallyimpaired),interlingualsubtitlesaresaidto

beopen.Intralingualsubtitles,however,havetendedtobeencodedinthe

broadcastsignalusinganumberoftechnologies,mainlyteletext(Neves2007).

Theyareknownas‘closedsubtitles’becausetheyareaccessibleonlyto

viewerswhosetelevisionsetsareequippedwiththerelevantdecoderandwho

choosetodisplaythemonthescreenwhilewatchingtheprogramme.The

adventofDVDanddigitaltelevisionrepresentsadeparturefromthistradition

asbothmediaprovideviewerswithclosedintralingualandinterlingualsubtitles,

normallyinmorethanonelanguage.

Thesubtitlingprocess

Thesubtitler’sbasicworkingmaterialshavetraditionallyincludedatimecoded

VHScopyofthesourcefilmorprogrammeanda‘dialoguelist’;i.e.an

enhancedpostproductionscriptcontainingatranscriptionofthedialogue,a

descriptionofrelevantvisualinformationandsometimesnotesforthetranslator

(DíazCintas2001).Thetextistypicallysubjectedtoa‘spotting’process,

duringwhichthedialogueisdividedintosegmentsthataretimecued

individually.Eachdialoguesegmentisthentranslatedortranscribedin

compliancewithcertainsegmentationandeditingconventions(Karamitrouglou

1998),includingtime–spacecorrelationstandards.Theoutputofthisprocess,

normallyanelectroniclistofspottedsubtitles,isthenreturnedtothe

commissionerofthetranslation.Inrecentyears,increasedcirculationof

audiovisualtextsindigitalformatandthedevelopmentofdedicatedsoftware

applicationshavebroughtaboutimportantchangesinthesubtitlingprocess.

Althoughthesenewtechnologiesarenotnecessarilyavailabletoallfreelance

professionals,theynowallowsubtitlerstocompleteaproject–includingthe

actualtransferenceofsubtitlesontothetext–usingastandardcomputer.

Advantagesandlimitationsofsubtitling

Empiricalevidencesuggeststhatsubtitlescandeliver43percentlesstextthan

thespokendialoguetheyderivefrom(deLindeandKay1999).Giventhe

constraintsarisingfromthesynchronousalignmentbetweenspokensoundand

writtensubtitlesthattheindustryrequires(Naficy2001),subtitlersareexpected

toprioritizetheoverallcommunicativeintentionofan