Article published in:
Babel
Vol. 65:1 (2019) ► pp. 81–95

How should culture be rendered in subtitling and dubbing?

A reception study on preferences and attitudes of end-users

| University of Montenegro
Empirical reception research in audiovisual translation (AVT) has long been neglected as most previous studies focused primarily on features of AVT as a product and the producers of AVT, but not on end-users. The importance of these studies is emphasized by the fact that AV content is designed for target audiences. Knowing their preferences, expectations and needs can inform the industry and, thus, increase positive reception, placement and usability of the product. The present contribution aims at answering the question of whether there is a difference in preferences when it comes to translation strategies used for rendering the elements of culture (EC) in two different AVT modalities (subtitling and dubbing) and what could be the underlying reasons for it. For this purpose, we conducted an experiment with 136 participants among the undergraduate students at two universities in Montenegro. Results indicate that end-users have different general preferences and expectations for these modalities. We hypothesize that the observed differences are related to the “vulnerability” of subtitling. Furthermore, fluctuations from the general preference in subtitling have been noted in monocultural ECs in connection with encodedness of the EC in source text humor. This shows that industry’s translation guidelines should be modality-specific and that an over-simplistic approach to the treatment of such a complex issue as rendering culture within certain modalities should be avoided.
Keywords: reception studies, subtitling, dubbing, elements of culture
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Recent AVT reception research
  • 3.Study design
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Stimuli
    • 3.3Procedure
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1H1: The majority of the participants will prefer the foreignization approach in subtitling and the domestication approach in dubbing
    • 4.2H2: Specifically in cases of mono or microcultural ECs, the general preferred approach will be a domesticated one
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 04 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.00082.boz
References
Antonini, Rachele
2005 “The Perception of Subtitled Humor in Italy”. International Journal of Humor Research 18 (2): 209–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffrey, Colm
2009 Relevant Abuse? Investigating the Effects of an Abusive Procedure on the Perception of TV Anime Using Eye-Tracker and Questionnaire. PhD Thesis. Dublin: Dublin City University.Google Scholar
Denton, John; and Debora Ciampi
2012 “New Development in Audiovisual Translation Studies: Focus on Target Audience Perception”. LEA – Lingue e Letterature d’Oriente e d’Occidente 1 (1): 399–422.Google Scholar
Di Giovanni, Elena
2016 “Closing the Circle of AVT: Analyzing Audiences, Evaluating Reception”. Nitra: Paper presented at Audiovisual Translation: Dubbing and Subtitling in the Central European Context (June 15–17).
Diaz Cintas, Jorge; and Aline Remael
2007 Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Fuentes Luque, Adrian
2003 “An Empirical Approach to the Reception of AV Translated Humour”. The Translator 9 (2): 293–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves
2006 “Multimodality and Audiovisual Translation”. Copenhagen: Paper presented at Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra (May 1–5).
2008 “Recent Developments and Challenges in Audiovisual Translation Research”. In Between Text and Image: Updating Research in Screen Translation, ed. by Delia Chiaro; Christine Heiss; and Chiara Bucaria, 11–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hlavac, Jim
2015 “Pre- and post-conflict language designations and language policy: Re-configuration of language norms amongs translators of Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian languages”. Target 27 (2): 238–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kovačić, Irena
1995 “Reception of Subtitles: The Non-Existent Ideal Viewer”. Translation 14 (3–4): 376–383.Google Scholar
Leppihalme, Rita
1996 “Caught in the Frame: A Target Culture Viewpoint on Allusive Wordplays”. The Translator 2 (2): 199–218. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McAuley, E. Thomas
2015 “Audience Attitude and Translation Reception”. Babel 61 (2): 219–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orrego-Carmona, David
2016 “A Reception Study on Non-Professional Subtitling: Do Audiences Notice Any Difference”. Across Languages and Cultures 17 (2): 163–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 “Where is the Audience? Testing the Audience Reception of Non-Professional Subtitles”. Translation Research Projects 51: 77–92.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, Carol
2016 “Imagined Spectators: The Importance of Policy for Audiovisual Translation Research”. Target 28 (2): 261–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, Jan
2011 Subtitling Norms for Television: An Exploration Focusing on Extralinguistic Cultural References. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perego, Elisa
2016 “History, Development, Challenges, and Opportunities of Empirical Research in Audiovisual Translation”. Across Languages and Cultures 17 (2): 155–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Požgaj Hadži, Vesna
(ed.) 2013 Jezik između lingvistike i politike [Language Between Linguistics and Politics]. Belgrade: Biblioteka XX vek.Google Scholar
Schauffler, Svea
2012 Investigating Subtitling Strategies for the Translation of Wordplay in Wallace and Gromit – An Audience Reception Study. PhD Thesis. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Schutze, Carson T.; and Jon Sprouse
2013 “Chapter 3: Judgment Data”. In Research Methods in Linguistics, ed. by Robert J. Podesva; and Devyani Sharma, 27–50. New York: CUP.Google Scholar
Touminen, Tiina
2012 The Art of Accidental Reading and Incidental Listening: An Empirical Study of the Viewing of Subtitled Films. PhD Thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Božović, Petar
2021. Anglophone culture through the Western Balkan lens: a corpus-based study on the strategies used for rendering extralinguistic elements of culture in Montenegrin subtitling. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 85 ► pp. 9 ff. Crossref logo
Pinheiro, Rui, João Barroso & Tânia Rocha
2020.  In 9th International Conference on Software Development and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility and Fighting Info-exclusion, ► pp. 47 ff. Crossref logo
Wu, Zhiwei & Zhuojia Chen
2021. A systematic review of experimental research in audiovisual translation 1992–2020. Translation, Cognition & Behavior 4:2 ► pp. 281 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 07 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.