Translation
Italian
Professor in charge: Gian Luigi de Rosa (Roma 3/IFALA)
Interlinguistic subtitling is the written transposition of an audiovisual text into a different language and allows us to propose – by displaying a written text in the lower and central part of the screen – a condensed translation of the original dialogues. Nevertheless, as with other types of Audiovisual Translation, subtitling is subject to different verbal and non-verbal, acoustic and visual semiotic systems. Additionally, moving from an oral code to a written code, a transposition is carried out in diamesic terms that determines the definition of subtitling as a diagonal translation modality (GOTTLIEB, 1994).
The translation choices for subtitling are limited by the presence of non-verbal elements, as well as by spatial-temporal links, such as: a) placement of subtitles on the screen (usually at the bottom and in the center); b) space to be used (2/3 in length); c) length of lines (33-40 characters; better not to produce subtitles with less than 4-5 characters); d) exposure time (from one and a half seconds for shorter subtitles to 6-7 seconds for longer subtitles); e) legibility (related to the choice of character and the part of the screen where the subtitles appear); f) spotting/segmentation (text distribution: maximum two lines) and g) timing subtitles appear and disappear (not a rigid synchronization as in the case of dubbing).
The diamesic transformation forces the subtitler to adapt the original speech to the conventions of the written language and this operation very often implies an elevation in diaphasic terms. Therefore, we can state that the translational dimension of subtitling has a composition that we could define as three-dimensional, in which, practice of the translation process encompasses the translation itself, the reduction of the lexical tissue and the diamesic transformation (from speech to writing).
As to translation strategies, it is important to distinguish between macro- and micro-strategies: macro-strategies focus on the translation process in its complexity (Source-text-oriented macrostrategy and Target-text-oriented macrostrategy), while micro-strategies deal with specific translation problems at the word and phrase levels (SCHJOLDAGER ET AL., 2008, p. 89). Once the macro-strategy is settled, one or more translation micro-strategies can be adopted, depending on the genre, the textual typology, the addressee, the status and the structure of the languages involved in the translation process and, finally, the degree of (in) translatability related to the distance/proximity between the source text language and the target text language. There are several models of translation micro-strategies adopted by audiovisual translation professionals. Gottlieb (1992, p.166) distinguishes ten typologies:
Type of strategy | Character of translation | Media Specific Type |
1. Expansion | Expanded expression, adequate rendering (culture-specific references etc.) | No! |
2. Paraphrase | Altered expression, adequate content (non-visualized language-specific phenomena) | No! |
3. Transfer | Full expression, adequate rendering (‘neutral’ discourse – slow tempo) | No! |
4. Imitation | Identical expression, equivalent rendering (proper nouns, international greetings etc.) | No! |
5. Transcription | Anomalous expression, adequate rendering (non-standard speech etc.) | Yes! |
6. Dislocation | Differing expression, adjusted content (musical or visualized language-specific phenomena) | Yes! |
7. Condensation | Condensed expression, concise rendering (normal speech) | Yes! |
8. Decimation | Abridged expression, reduced content (fast speech of some importance) | Yes! |
9. Deletion | Omitted expression, no verbal content (fast speech of less importance) | Yes! |
10. Resignation | Differing expression, distorted content (‘untranslatable’ elements) | No! |
Even if it is extremely detailed, Gottlieb’s model is difficult to apply – as it has already been demonstrated by other researchers (PEREGO, 2005 p. 119). The reason for that difficulty is that, sometimes, the differences between the various strategies are almost imperceptible. The need to simplify this model was felt by several authors, among them Gambier (2007), who proposed three micro-strategies:
1) réduction (redução);
2) simplification de la syntaxe (syntax simplification); and
3) expansion (expansion)
and Lomheim (1999, p. 202), who summarized Gottlieb’s model and formulated six micro-strategies:
1) Omission (omitting elements);
2) Compression (transmitting the message in a more compact form);
3) Expansion (adding information);
4) Generalisation (or Hypernymy; replace a word by a hypernym);
5) Specification (or Hyponymy; replace a word by a hyponym); and
6) Neutralisation (replace a connotative meaning word by a neutral word).
In addition to some differences and points of contact between the Gottlieb and Lomheim models (PEREGO 2005; GEORGAKOPOULOU 2010), Bianchi (2015, p. 10) demonstrates how these two models can be restricted to three strategic macro-areas: “reducing text length (text reduction); clarifying meaning (explicitness); and reformulating (reformulation)”. Finally, the subtitler, guided by the chosen translation macro strategy (Source-text oriented and Target-text oriented), can translate and subtitle by applying more micro-strategies or converge in one or more strategic macro areas.