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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page19

Researchinthefieldofaudiovisualtranslation

Althoughtheavailablebodyofresearchonaudiovisualtranslationhasgrown

exponentiallyinthelasttwodecades,scholarshavetendedtogravitatetoa

smallrangeofissues,includingtheeffectsofmediumrelatedconstraintsonthe

translator’sdiscretion,transfererrorsarisingfromthesearchforsynchronization

andthefailureoftranslateddialoguetorecreatesocialandgeographicvariation.

Luykenetal.’sconcernsoverthelackofsystematictheorization(1991:165)

andFawcett’swarningsagainsttheexcessivedegreeofanecdotalismand

prescriptivisminaudiovisualtranslationscholarship(1996:65–9)continuedto

resonateinsubsequentwork(e.g.Chaume2002).

Onthebasisofarelativelysmallnumberofexperimentalstudiesonviewers’

processinghabits,readingstrategiesorreceptionpatterns(e.g.d’Ydewalleet

al.1987;Gottlieb1995;deLindeandKay1999;Fuentes2001),some

researchershavesoughttoarticulateframeworksofrules,timespace

correlationsandmediationprioritiesforsubtitlinganddubbingpractitioners.

Suchframeworksofseeminglyundisputedassumptionsonviewers’needs

requiresystematicvalidationandupdating,particularlyinviewoftheincreasing

ubiquityofscreenbasedtextsineverydaylifeandtheongoingfragmentationof

audiencesintospecializedniches(PérezGonzález2008).Theneedforrobust

insightsintotheperceptualandcognitivedimensionofaudiovisualtranslation,

however,hasbeenovershadowedintheearlypartofthetwentyfirstcenturyby

technologicaldevelopmentsinthefield,includingspeechrecognitiontechniques

(Eugeni2007)aswellastheuseofCORPORAandtranslationmemorytools

(Armstrongetal.2006;seeCOMPUTERAIDEDTRANSLATION);these

developmentsseektorespondtotheindustry’sdemandforfastdeliveryof

automatedoutput.

Audiovisualtranslationscholarshavereliedheavilyondescriptivetranslation

studies,bothundertheumbrellaofPOLYSYSTEMandNORMtheories.In

theirattempttounderstandwhatguidesthechoiceoftranslation

STRATEGIES,specialistshaveexaminedthestatusofthesourceandtarget

culturesvisàvisoneanotherwithintheglobalaudiovisualarena(Delabastita

1990);exploredhowtheinteractionofpower,prestigeandothermarket

factorswithinagivencountryhasledtothedominanceofaspecificformof

audiovisualtransfer(LambertandDelabastita1996;Karamitrouglou2000);

andlookedintotheuniversalityofcertainfilmicrhetoricaldevices(Cattrysse

2004).Aplethoraofstudieshasdrawnonthesesametheoriestoidentifythe

operationalnormsthatguidetheactualtransferoftextualmaterialinthemain

formsofaudiovisualtransfer.Someofthesestudieshaveresultedin

descriptionsofwidelyacceptedtranslationstandards(Karamitrouglou1998),

techniquesandstrategies(DíazCintasandRemael2007).Adescriptiveagenda

alsoinformsaseriesofnewcorpusbasedstudiesofdubbedlanguage,which

seektodemonstratethelimitedinfluenceofthesourcetextontheconfiguration

ofemergingtargettextnorms(Pavesi2005).

Againstthebackdropofincreasedattentiontoprocessesofcontextualization,

recentpublicationsonaudiovisualtranslationhavedrawnontheoriesfrom

neighbouringdisciplines,includingpragmatics(HatimandMason1997;

Kovačič1994)andGENDERstudies(Baumgarten2005).Asinotherfieldsof

translationstudies,researchershavealsoinvestigatedtheimpactofclashesof

IDEOLOGYandpowerdifferentialsondubbedorsubtitleddialogue(Ballester

1995,2001;Remael2003)andlookedatthetranslator’smediationintermsof

domesticatingandforeignizingstrategies(Ulrych2000;Fawcett2003).

Amateursubtitlingculturessuchasfansubbing(PérezGonzález2006b)–which

emergedasaresultoftheincreasingcompartmentalizationofsubtitling

audiences–representanextremeexampleofforeignization,knownas‘abusive

subtitling’(Nornes1999).Amateurtranslatorsexploittraditionalmeaning

makingcodesinacreativemannerandcrisscrossthetraditionalboundaries

betweenlinguisticandvisualsemioticsininnovativeways,thuspavingtheway

fornewresearchinformedbymultimediatheory(PérezGonzález2008).

Seealso:

ADAPTATION;ADVERTISING;COMICS;GLOBALIZATION;

LOCALIZATION;NEWSGATHERINGANDDISSEMINATION;

RELAY.

Page20

Furtherreading

Delabastita1989;Luykenetal.1991;WhitmanLinsen1992;Dries1995;

Herbst1997;Agost1999;deLindeandKay1999;Chaves2000;

Karamitrouglou2000;DíazCintas2003;Fawcett2003;Gambier2003b;

Remael2003;Chaume2004;Neves2005;Pavesi2005;PérezGonzález

2007,2008.

LUISPÉREZGONZÁLEZ

Page21

Bible,JewishandChristian

TheBible,fromtheGreekbiblia,meaning‘books’,isthesacredtextofboth

JewsandChristians.TheJewishScripturesarecomposedoftheOldTestament

(OT),acollectionof39bookswrittenforthemostpartinHebrew,withafew

passagesinAramaic.TheChristianBiblecontainstheseScripturesplusthe

NewTestament(NT),andinsometraditions,theDeuterocanon.TheNew

Testamentcomprises27books,writteninkoinéGreekbetween50and100

CE.TheDeuterocanonorApocrypha,alsowritteninGreek,isrecognizedas

‘canonical’,i.e.authoritativeinmattersofreligiousdoctrine,bytheRoman

CatholicandOrthodoxtraditions,butnotbytheAnglicanoranyother

Protestantdenominations.

Bibletranslation(meaningthetranslationofbothOldandNewTestaments)has

beenamajorpreoccupationoftheChristianchurchforthepasttwomillennia.

Asof2006(UBSWorldReport),thewholeBible(OTandNT)hasbeen

translatedinto426languages,theNewTestamentinto1100,withpartsofthe

Biblenowavailablein2,403languages.

HistoryofBibletranslation

ThebeginningsofBibletranslationcanbetracedbacktoanincidentrecounted

inthebookofNehemiah(8:5–8)manycenturiesbeforethebirthofChrist.

AfterlivingforseveraldecadesinexileinBabylon,manyJewsnolongerspoke

orevenunderstoodHebrew.Thus,whentheexilesreturnedtoJerusalem,and

EzracalledthepeopletogethertolistentothereadingoftheLawofMoses,the

LevitepriestshadtotranslatethemeaningofthesacredtextsintoAramaicso

thatpeoplecouldunderstand.Sincethattime,JewsandChristianshave

continuedtoemphasizetheimportanceoftheScripturesbeingunderstoodbyall

believers.

TheearliestknownwrittentranslationoftheBibleistheSeptuagint,atranslation

fromHebrewintoGreekoftheOldTestamenttexts,carriedoutprimarilyfor

GreekspeakingJewslivingintheGraecoRomandiaspora.Accordingto

tradition,thisversion,whichincludestheDeuterocanonicalbooks,wasthejoint

workof72Jewishscholarswhocompletedthetaskin72days,leadingtoits

nameandabbreviation(Latinseptuaginta=70,LXX).Thetranslationwas

startedunderPtolemyIIofEgyptandcarriedoutinoraroundAlexandria

duringthethirdandsecondcenturiesBCE.Althoughthistranslationandits

interpretationsoftheHebrewtexthavebeencriticizedsinceitsinception,the

Septuaginthasneverthelessservedasastandardreferencesincethattime.Itis

thesourceofmostoftheOTquotesintheNT.Tothisday,theSeptuagint

retainsconsiderableinfluenceonquestionsofinterpretationandtextualmatters,

anditsstudycontinuestoshedlightontheprinciplesoftranslationusedinthe

ancientworld.However,inthesecondcenturyCE,Jewishscholars–Aquila,

Theodotion,andSymmachus–producednewtranslationsand/orrevised

versionsoftheSeptuagint,whichwerepreservedbyOrigen(c.185–c.245

CE).TheTargum,literally‘translation’,isakindofrunningparaphraseofand

commentaryontheHebrewtextinAramaic,originatingfrombeforethetimeof

Christbutstillreadpubliclyinsynagoguesaroundtheworldtoday.

AstheNewTestamentwascompiledanditscontentfixedby367CEunder

Athanasius,thebishopofAlexandria,translationswereundertakeninvarious

EuropeanandMiddleEasternlanguages.TheNTwastranslatedintoLatin,the

languageoftheformerRoman